[CTcard]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

Indeed, there were positive and negative quotations. Most were rather ... ill considered. 

The quotations above:
- Stanford's offense no longer relies upon schemes where the dominance of the OL is particularly important. It's not absolute, there are no schemes that don't require a good OL, but the Stanford offense is a far cry from the strong up the middle run game of 2008-2017. 
Among other things, Stanford has more or less given up trying to run the ball the past four years. In 2021 Stanford had the fewest percent of plays as runs in the entire conference last year, for 2018-19 they had the second fewest run attempts to pass-only WSU.  

- Is 10 returning starters on offense a positive? Well, msqueri has presented a compelling case (that has been made on this board by various posters repeatedly over the years) that experience and old-man strength on the OL is vital; and strongly coupled to Stanford's better OLs and offenses. The returners at receiving positions appear able. And does anyone think that Stanford would be in a better position had McKee headed off somewhere else? 
The fear on so many returning starters is connected to what exactly happened last year as the team appeared to give up. To the extent that resignation has spread throughout these returning starters then their high numbers could be a problem - but that is a big logical leap with no actual evidence as far as I know. 

- The pass defense being "even better" is a silly statement, it was bad last year. It is true that in total yards given up per game, the pass defense was 4th in the conference, but that is almost entirely because our opponents found it so easy to run that they simply didn't bother to pass; coupled to our opponents having big leads so they chose to sit on the ball and run out the games. 
By efficiency, Stanford was 10th in the conference last year. By yds/att Stanford was 10th in the conference (though those are similar stats). Stanford was 11th in interceptions. Stanford was 11th in sacks. It's true that is better than being 12th across the board in run defense, but still bad.

[CTcard]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

Indeed, there were positive and negative quotations. Most were rather ... ill considered. 

The quotations above:
- Stanford's offense no longer relies upon schemes where the dominance of the OL is particularly important. It's not absolute, there are no schemes that don't require a good OL, but the Stanford offense is a far cry from the strong up the middle run game of 2008-2017. 
Among other things, Stanford has more or less given up trying to run the ball the past four years. In 2021 Stanford had the fewest percent of plays as runs in the entire conference last year, for 2018-19 they had the second fewest run attempts to pass-only WSU.  

- Is 10 returning starters on offense a positive? Well, msqueri has presented a compelling case (that has been made on this board by various posters repeatedly over the years) that experience and old-man strength on the OL is vital; and strongly coupled to Stanford's better OLs and offenses. The returners at receiving positions appear able. And does anyone think that Stanford would be in a better position had McKee headed off somewhere else? 
The fear on so many returning starters is connected to what exactly happened last year as the team appeared to give up. To the extent that resignation has spread throughout these returning starters then their high numbers could be a problem - but that is a big logical leap with no actual evidence as far as I know. 

- The pass defense being "even better" is a silly statement, it was bad last year. It is true that in total yards given up per game, the pass defense was 4th in the conference, but that is almost entirely because our opponents found it so easy to run that they simply didn't bother to pass; coupled to our opponents having big leads so they chose to sit on the ball and run out the games. 
By efficiency, Stanford was 10th in the conference last year. By yds/att Stanford was 10th in the conference (though those are similar stats). Stanford was 11th in interceptions. Stanford was 11th in sacks. It's true that is better than being 12th across the board in run defense, but still bad.