[CTcard]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010. 

This is the key issue here. 2010 was (likely) our best team of recent vintage, but not particularly because we expected it to be so. Quite to the contrary, expectations were still rather limited going into 2010; partly because we'd never been there before and largely because the defense had never been decent yet under the current regime.

The key to the season is how much everyone improves, how well the new guys step up, how those same questions are answered for our opponents, and good ole luck. 

There's enough reason to be optimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up in one of the major bowls this year it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Hulk articulates many of these upside possibilities.

There's enough reason to be pessimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up somewhat down (say 8-4 to 7-5 regular season) then it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Articulating that view is pretty easy to find, particularly so on the other sites.

[Though it seems to me that many of the more pessimistic posters miss the real issues.  If Stanford has a lesser season it seems to me the causes will be a too-green O-line, lack of a full-level passing game (possibly due to pass pro), no fully reliable RB, weakness in the secondary (particularly depth), and similar on the d-line. I suspect it won't be because of too much predictability, smaller RBs running between the tackles, Hogan sucking, lack of understanding defense sans Mason. Play calling is trickier - on the one hand I think worrying about individual play-calling is way over-rated, on the other if there's close games they'll be some bad plays that will be agonized over.]

[CTcard]

I think this is sort of an odd way to analyze it, comparing our expectations of players in 2010 to our expectations of how guys will perform this season just tells me that we'd better hope that our team exceeds our expectations like they did in 2010. 

This is the key issue here. 2010 was (likely) our best team of recent vintage, but not particularly because we expected it to be so. Quite to the contrary, expectations were still rather limited going into 2010; partly because we'd never been there before and largely because the defense had never been decent yet under the current regime.

The key to the season is how much everyone improves, how well the new guys step up, how those same questions are answered for our opponents, and good ole luck. 

There's enough reason to be optimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up in one of the major bowls this year it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Hulk articulates many of these upside possibilities.

There's enough reason to be pessimistic about 2014 that IF it ends up somewhat down (say 8-4 to 7-5 regular season) then it will be obvious enough in hind sight. Articulating that view is pretty easy to find, particularly so on the other sites.

[Though it seems to me that many of the more pessimistic posters miss the real issues.  If Stanford has a lesser season it seems to me the causes will be a too-green O-line, lack of a full-level passing game (possibly due to pass pro), no fully reliable RB, weakness in the secondary (particularly depth), and similar on the d-line. I suspect it won't be because of too much predictability, smaller RBs running between the tackles, Hogan sucking, lack of understanding defense sans Mason. Play calling is trickier - on the one hand I think worrying about individual play-calling is way over-rated, on the other if there's close games they'll be some bad plays that will be agonized over.]