[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13023.msg132336#msg132336 date=1443922794]
The key thing Utah has that Low APR U doesn't is offensive balance.

BC

Well there's that - and that thing called DEFENSE
[/quote]

While Utah has a better defense than c.a.l., some of the comments on Utah's defense seem to be more from last year than this.

Currently, Utah ranks #8 in the Pac 12 in total defense yds/play, #5 in yds/game, #11 in tackles for loss/game (their signature last year), #4 in S&P+ (Football Outsiders).

Utah's development is a little like Stanford's - a defense that doesn't seem quite as good as last year and an offense that seems better. However, it's not THAT much better (#9 in conference in yds/play, #10 yds/game, #7 in S&P+). This combination is a reason I'm not totally sold on the Utes yet despite their impressive wins over Oregon and Michigan.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13023.msg132336#msg132336 date=1443922794]
The key thing Utah has that Low APR U doesn't is offensive balance.

BC

Well there's that - and that thing called DEFENSE
[/quote]

While Utah has a better defense than c.a.l., some of the comments on Utah's defense seem to be more from last year than this.

Currently, Utah ranks #8 in the Pac 12 in total defense yds/play, #5 in yds/game, #11 in tackles for loss/game (their signature last year), #4 in S&P+ (Football Outsiders).

Utah's development is a little like Stanford's - a defense that doesn't seem quite as good as last year and an offense that seems better. However, it's not THAT much better (#9 in conference in yds/play, #10 yds/game, #7 in S&P+). This combination is a reason I'm not totally sold on the Utes yet despite their impressive wins over Oregon and Michigan.

[FarmBoy]

Well, in case you're wondering what the weenies think of us, there's a brief discussion at BI: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-about-the school I wish I had gotten into

They appear to be split as to whether Stanford is a real contender or not. Even those begrudgingly admitting that Stanford may be a good team this year are loathe to admit that Shaw is a good coach or that Hogan is a good QB. Three themes that most amuse me:
* Stanford has a favorable schedule. Yes, this is the year we get the tough teams at home, but we still played NW and 'SC on the road and have games against UCLA, ND, Oregon and C'al coming up. I don't think anyone would say that we had a light schedule. Sure, we miss UT and ASU, but we have both UCLA and 'SC. If we win the Pac12 North, we will clearly have earned it
* Our awesome OLine is covering up deficiencies in our skill position players. As though Goff's WR's aren't making some exceptional catches that improve his numbers (and vice versa). Last I checked it's a team game and being exceptional in one area doesn't denigrate the others. But anyone watching our team who hasn't been impressed by the QB, WR and RB play the past 3.5 games doesn't know football.
* Shaw is not a good coach and his players, especially his offensive line, are covering up for that. It's as though he has no responsibility for identifying, recruiting, hiring coaches to coach them up, and providing his own instruction to make them into the unit they are. As if stellar OLine play just fell into his lap and he's just serendipitously enjoying the rewards.

Anyway, there's clearly a long history between both fan bases of downplaying (or is that down playing, ;-) ) any progress or achievements.

They're clearly improved, but I'll be interested to see as they go through the meat of their schedule.

[FarmBoy]

Well, in case you're wondering what the weenies think of us, there's a brief discussion at BI: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-about-the school I wish I had gotten into

They appear to be split as to whether Stanford is a real contender or not. Even those begrudgingly admitting that Stanford may be a good team this year are loathe to admit that Shaw is a good coach or that Hogan is a good QB. Three themes that most amuse me:
* Stanford has a favorable schedule. Yes, this is the year we get the tough teams at home, but we still played NW and 'SC on the road and have games against UCLA, ND, Oregon and C'al coming up. I don't think anyone would say that we had a light schedule. Sure, we miss UT and ASU, but we have both UCLA and 'SC. If we win the Pac12 North, we will clearly have earned it
* Our awesome OLine is covering up deficiencies in our skill position players. As though Goff's WR's aren't making some exceptional catches that improve his numbers (and vice versa). Last I checked it's a team game and being exceptional in one area doesn't denigrate the others. But anyone watching our team who hasn't been impressed by the QB, WR and RB play the past 3.5 games doesn't know football.
* Shaw is not a good coach and his players, especially his offensive line, are covering up for that. It's as though he has no responsibility for identifying, recruiting, hiring coaches to coach them up, and providing his own instruction to make them into the unit they are. As if stellar OLine play just fell into his lap and he's just serendipitously enjoying the rewards.

Anyway, there's clearly a long history between both fan bases of downplaying (or is that down playing, ;-) ) any progress or achievements.

They're clearly improved, but I'll be interested to see as they go through the meat of their schedule.

[Mick]

Well, in case you're wondering what the weenies think of us, there's a brief discussion at BI: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-about-the school I wish I had attended

They appear to be split as to whether Stanford is a real contender or not. Even those begrudgingly admitting that Stanford may be a good team this year are loathe to admit that Shaw is a good coach or that Hogan is a good QB. Three themes that most amuse me:
* Stanford has a favorable schedule. Yes, this is the year we get the tough teams at home, but we still played NW and 'SC on the road and have games against UCLA, ND, Oregon and C'al coming up. I don't think anyone would say that we had a light schedule. Sure, we miss UT and ASU, but we have both UCLA and 'SC. If we win the Pac12 North, we will clearly have earned it
* Our awesome OLine is covering up deficiencies in our skill position players. As though Goff's WR's aren't making some exceptional catches that improve his numbers (and vice versa). Last I checked it's a team game and being exceptional in one area doesn't denigrate the others. But anyone watching our team who hasn't been impressed by the QB, WR and RB play the past 3.5 games doesn't know football.
* Shaw is not a good coach and his players, especially his offensive line, are covering up for that. It's as though he has no responsibility for identifying, recruiting, hiring coaches to coach them up, and providing his own instruction to make them into the unit they are. As if stellar OLine play just fell into his lap and he's just serendipitously enjoying the rewards.

Anyway, there's clearly a long history between both fan bases of downplaying (or is that down playing, ;-) ) any progress or achievements.

They're clearly improved, but I'll be interested to see as they go through the meat of their schedule.

Sonny Dykes.

I'm hoping we can swim a little upstream on this.  He went 1-11 his first year when the cupboard was bare, 5-7 his second year, and is now 5-0.  While we're talking about B.ears fans ragging on our coach, do we have to stick with the Sorry Yikes business?

[Mick]

Well, in case you're wondering what the weenies think of us, there's a brief discussion at BI: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-about-the school I wish I had attended

They appear to be split as to whether Stanford is a real contender or not. Even those begrudgingly admitting that Stanford may be a good team this year are loathe to admit that Shaw is a good coach or that Hogan is a good QB. Three themes that most amuse me:
* Stanford has a favorable schedule. Yes, this is the year we get the tough teams at home, but we still played NW and 'SC on the road and have games against UCLA, ND, Oregon and C'al coming up. I don't think anyone would say that we had a light schedule. Sure, we miss UT and ASU, but we have both UCLA and 'SC. If we win the Pac12 North, we will clearly have earned it
* Our awesome OLine is covering up deficiencies in our skill position players. As though Goff's WR's aren't making some exceptional catches that improve his numbers (and vice versa). Last I checked it's a team game and being exceptional in one area doesn't denigrate the others. But anyone watching our team who hasn't been impressed by the QB, WR and RB play the past 3.5 games doesn't know football.
* Shaw is not a good coach and his players, especially his offensive line, are covering up for that. It's as though he has no responsibility for identifying, recruiting, hiring coaches to coach them up, and providing his own instruction to make them into the unit they are. As if stellar OLine play just fell into his lap and he's just serendipitously enjoying the rewards.

Anyway, there's clearly a long history between both fan bases of downplaying (or is that down playing, ;-) ) any progress or achievements.

They're clearly improved, but I'll be interested to see as they go through the meat of their schedule.

Sonny Dykes.

I'm hoping we can swim a little upstream on this.  He went 1-11 his first year when the cupboard was bare, 5-7 his second year, and is now 5-0.  While we're talking about B.ears fans ragging on our coach, do we have to stick with the Sorry Yikes business?

[OutsiderFan]

The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

4. Defense is average - Lost so many starters, so they can't be that good!

5. Play a real defense and we'll see if the offense has improved.

To me, they were positively convinced this was going to be the year for Stanford to fall.  No more Harbaugh recruits to rely on, Shaw sucks, Hogan sucks, and such a young defense means back to 6-6.  IOW, they were convinced (hoping) Stanford would be back down to their level.  This explains the visceral inability to give Stanford credit this year.  If Stanford isn't back to "normal" this year, then they might be a long-term power after all. 

Most Cal fans can't accept the possibility that there is a new higher win normal for Stanford, when there is no real evidence there is a new higher win normal for Cal.

[OutsiderFan]

The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

4. Defense is average - Lost so many starters, so they can't be that good!

5. Play a real defense and we'll see if the offense has improved.

To me, they were positively convinced this was going to be the year for Stanford to fall.  No more Harbaugh recruits to rely on, Shaw sucks, Hogan sucks, and such a young defense means back to 6-6.  IOW, they were convinced (hoping) Stanford would be back down to their level.  This explains the visceral inability to give Stanford credit this year.  If Stanford isn't back to "normal" this year, then they might be a long-term power after all. 

Most Cal fans can't accept the possibility that there is a new higher win normal for Stanford, when there is no real evidence there is a new higher win normal for Cal.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=13023.msg132570#msg132570 date=1443968786]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13023.msg132336#msg132336 date=1443922794]
The key thing Utah has that Low APR U doesn't is offensive balance.

BC

Well there's that - and that thing called DEFENSE
[/quote]

While Utah has a better defense than c.a.l., some of the comments on Utah's defense seem to be more from last year than this.

Currently, Utah ranks #8 in the Pac 12 in total defense yds/play, #5 in yds/game, #11 in tackles for loss/game (their signature last year), #4 in S&P+ (Football Outsiders).

Utah's development is a little like Stanford's - a defense that doesn't seem quite as good as last year and an offense that seems better. However, it's not THAT much better (#9 in conference in yds/play, #10 yds/game, #7 in S&P+. This combination is a reason I'm not totally sold on the Utes yet despite their impressive wins over Oregon and Michigan.
[/quote]

I actually think Utah is ripe for Ca.l to beat them.  Their defense and offense aren't as great as people are giving them credit for being.  They are going to be so full of themselves this week, totally distracted, and think they have this one in the bag.  Ca.l played pretty poorly the last two weeks, put some bad stuff on video, but they did play very well at Texas.  Before you dismiss the Texas win because it was 45-44 to a bad Texas team, consider this...

1. Ca.l lost Safety Demariay Drew in the first half of that game.  He is the best play making Safety they have; fast, physical, and made the two big interceptions that allowed them to beat UW and WSU.  His replacement was small, slow, and a terrible tackler. Heard ran by him multiple times in the second half.

2. Ca.l was the first team to play Heard as a starting QB.  They weren't ready for what he can do.  Oklahoma State and TCU benefitted from seeing

3. When Ca.l goes fast, they are tough to stop. They tried to run the ball when Texas was ready for it when up 21.  Went into "protect the lead" mode.  Had they not done this, they beat Texas by 2 TDs+. 

Utah hasn't faced a QB and passing attack like Ca.l has.  Michigan and Oregon are not very sophisticated passing teams and their QBs are mediocre.  Yes, Utah has a strong DL and can create pressure, but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen.  Ca.l's ability to pressure QBs (leads Pac-12 with 18 sacks), and force turnovers makes their defense dangerous.

The one area Utah has a clear advantage over Ca.l is Special Teams, specifically kicking and punting.  I have a bad feeling Ca.l will lose this game by missing a 42 yard FG at the final gun or something like that.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=13023.msg132570#msg132570 date=1443968786]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13023.msg132336#msg132336 date=1443922794]
The key thing Utah has that Low APR U doesn't is offensive balance.

BC

Well there's that - and that thing called DEFENSE
[/quote]

While Utah has a better defense than c.a.l., some of the comments on Utah's defense seem to be more from last year than this.

Currently, Utah ranks #8 in the Pac 12 in total defense yds/play, #5 in yds/game, #11 in tackles for loss/game (their signature last year), #4 in S&P+ (Football Outsiders).

Utah's development is a little like Stanford's - a defense that doesn't seem quite as good as last year and an offense that seems better. However, it's not THAT much better (#9 in conference in yds/play, #10 yds/game, #7 in S&P+. This combination is a reason I'm not totally sold on the Utes yet despite their impressive wins over Oregon and Michigan.
[/quote]

I actually think Utah is ripe for Ca.l to beat them.  Their defense and offense aren't as great as people are giving them credit for being.  They are going to be so full of themselves this week, totally distracted, and think they have this one in the bag.  Ca.l played pretty poorly the last two weeks, put some bad stuff on video, but they did play very well at Texas.  Before you dismiss the Texas win because it was 45-44 to a bad Texas team, consider this...

1. Ca.l lost Safety Demariay Drew in the first half of that game.  He is the best play making Safety they have; fast, physical, and made the two big interceptions that allowed them to beat UW and WSU.  His replacement was small, slow, and a terrible tackler. Heard ran by him multiple times in the second half.

2. Ca.l was the first team to play Heard as a starting QB.  They weren't ready for what he can do.  Oklahoma State and TCU benefitted from seeing

3. When Ca.l goes fast, they are tough to stop. They tried to run the ball when Texas was ready for it when up 21.  Went into "protect the lead" mode.  Had they not done this, they beat Texas by 2 TDs+. 

Utah hasn't faced a QB and passing attack like Ca.l has.  Michigan and Oregon are not very sophisticated passing teams and their QBs are mediocre.  Yes, Utah has a strong DL and can create pressure, but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen.  Ca.l's ability to pressure QBs (leads Pac-12 with 18 sacks), and force turnovers makes their defense dangerous.

The one area Utah has a clear advantage over Ca.l is Special Teams, specifically kicking and punting.  I have a bad feeling Ca.l will lose this game by missing a 42 yard FG at the final gun or something like that.

[slide]

Sagarin has Utah at #10, C.al at #30 including its big marquee win over #72 Texas.  not sure if I see the upset coming. 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

[slide]

Sagarin has Utah at #10, C.al at #30 including its big marquee win over #72 Texas.  not sure if I see the upset coming. 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

[CornFed]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

[CornFed]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

[OutsiderFan]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

Who does?  Remember, I said throwing under pressure. Though he is good at avoiding pressure (not the best I've seen, but good at it), Goff routinely has guys in his face immediately after getting the snap.  Ca.l fans are apoplectic at how bad the OL is to date.  It's pretty tough to take having a terrible OL when you have a great QB and receiving corps.

[OutsiderFan]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

Who does?  Remember, I said throwing under pressure. Though he is good at avoiding pressure (not the best I've seen, but good at it), Goff routinely has guys in his face immediately after getting the snap.  Ca.l fans are apoplectic at how bad the OL is to date.  It's pretty tough to take having a terrible OL when you have a great QB and receiving corps.

[stupac2]

Who does?  Remember, I said throwing under pressure. Though he is good at avoiding pressure (not the best I've seen, but good at it), Goff routinely has guys in his face immediately after getting the snap.  Ca.l fans are apoplectic at how bad the OL is to date.  It's pretty tough to take having a terrible OL when you have a great QB and receiving corps.

I assume you must mean "of current college QBs", or perhaps "of QBs while they played in college". Because I don't think anyone could possibly argue that Goff is better under pressure than, say, Aaron Rodgers is right now. (He's probably worse than Andy Dalton, who is actually quite bad at this, just because your average NFL starter >>> the best college QB at that sort of thing.)

[stupac2]

Who does?  Remember, I said throwing under pressure. Though he is good at avoiding pressure (not the best I've seen, but good at it), Goff routinely has guys in his face immediately after getting the snap.  Ca.l fans are apoplectic at how bad the OL is to date.  It's pretty tough to take having a terrible OL when you have a great QB and receiving corps.

I assume you must mean "of current college QBs", or perhaps "of QBs while they played in college". Because I don't think anyone could possibly argue that Goff is better under pressure than, say, Aaron Rodgers is right now. (He's probably worse than Andy Dalton, who is actually quite bad at this, just because your average NFL starter >>> the best college QB at that sort of thing.)

[Roberton3]

The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Those first three sound very much like comments you've made on this board...

[Roberton3]

The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Those first three sound very much like comments you've made on this board...

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13023.msg132779#msg132779 date=1444050697]
The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Those first three sound very much like comments you've made on this board...
[/quote]

I've agreed with #2 more than anything else.  The difference between me and Ca.l fan is my belief that Stanford actually does have the talent to be a dynamic offense.  Ca.l fan believes there is no such talent on hand.

Kind of the similar with Shaw.  I know he has the ability to win at a high level. He's proven it.  And he definitely knows how to run a program.  I've questioned his judgment in games like many others, but also acknowledged the possibility that he will grow and get better as a head coach too.  Ca.l fan has no belief in Shaw because they are convinced his success was just riding Harbaugh's recruiting and whatever.

Hogan does have a slow release, but he too has shown he can do a lot of good things.  His size, durability, understanding of NFL concepts, and potentially a special season this year could make him a Top 5 prospect in 2016.  But Ca.l fans will never see Hogan as an NFL prospect until he shreds UCLA again next week. 

Trust me, if Stanford rolls UCLA, they are going to start accepting Stanford might be a conference title contender.  Then again, if Ca.l beats Utah, it might make my life-long dream come true, sort of...  The Big Game can't be to decide who goes to the Rose Bowl, but can decide the Pac-12 North.  Isn't that how it SHOULD be????

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13023.msg132779#msg132779 date=1444050697]
The Ca.l Rivals board posters on Stanford:

1. Shaw sucks - Same criticisms about conservative Shaw decisions seen from Stanford fans (rooted in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah punt decisions too), and he's just riding Harbaugh's coattails.  This is the year Stanford reverts to the mean. 

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Those first three sound very much like comments you've made on this board...
[/quote]

I've agreed with #2 more than anything else.  The difference between me and Ca.l fan is my belief that Stanford actually does have the talent to be a dynamic offense.  Ca.l fan believes there is no such talent on hand.

Kind of the similar with Shaw.  I know he has the ability to win at a high level. He's proven it.  And he definitely knows how to run a program.  I've questioned his judgment in games like many others, but also acknowledged the possibility that he will grow and get better as a head coach too.  Ca.l fan has no belief in Shaw because they are convinced his success was just riding Harbaugh's recruiting and whatever.

Hogan does have a slow release, but he too has shown he can do a lot of good things.  His size, durability, understanding of NFL concepts, and potentially a special season this year could make him a Top 5 prospect in 2016.  But Ca.l fans will never see Hogan as an NFL prospect until he shreds UCLA again next week. 

Trust me, if Stanford rolls UCLA, they are going to start accepting Stanford might be a conference title contender.  Then again, if Ca.l beats Utah, it might make my life-long dream come true, sort of...  The Big Game can't be to decide who goes to the Rose Bowl, but can decide the Pac-12 North.  Isn't that how it SHOULD be????

[yvonne]

Kind of the similar with Shaw.  I know he has the ability to win at a high level. He's proven it.  And he definitely knows how to run a program.  I've questioned his judgment in games like many others, but also acknowledged the possibility that he will grow and get better as a head coach too.  Ca.l fan has no belief in Shaw because they are convinced his success was just riding Harbaugh's recruiting and whatever.

Please. You have compared Shaw to the later stage version of Tedfurd.

[yvonne]

Kind of the similar with Shaw.  I know he has the ability to win at a high level. He's proven it.  And he definitely knows how to run a program.  I've questioned his judgment in games like many others, but also acknowledged the possibility that he will grow and get better as a head coach too.  Ca.l fan has no belief in Shaw because they are convinced his success was just riding Harbaugh's recruiting and whatever.

Please. You have compared Shaw to the later stage version of Tedfurd.

[FarmBoy]

Trust me, if Stanford rolls UCLA, they are going to start accepting Stanford might be a conference title contender.

I doubt it. They'll use that as further evidence that UCLA isn't as good as their early performance (they're already trashing the quality of beating BYU and other UCLA wins). They'll also point to the fact that UCLA has lost some key defenders. Hatters gonna hat. Some of the Barebackers will undoubtedly start respecting Stanford, but most will minimize the quality of Stanford's performance. At least most who post on internet chat boards.

[FarmBoy]

Trust me, if Stanford rolls UCLA, they are going to start accepting Stanford might be a conference title contender.

I doubt it. They'll use that as further evidence that UCLA isn't as good as their early performance (they're already trashing the quality of beating BYU and other UCLA wins). They'll also point to the fact that UCLA has lost some key defenders. Hatters gonna hat. Some of the Barebackers will undoubtedly start respecting Stanford, but most will minimize the quality of Stanford's performance. At least most who post on internet chat boards.

[BostonCard]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

Well, Goff has had a LOT of practice.

BC

[BostonCard]

"but Goff throws better under pressure than any QB I've ever seen"

This has GOT to be hyperbole.  I acknowledge and emphasize his impressive poise, but he does not impress me as the best ever.

Well, Goff has had a LOT of practice.

BC

[BostonCard]

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Don't let them see these:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...rankings-3

1. Kevin Hogan, Stanford: He delivered a virtually flawless performance on a bad ankle in the Cardinal's 55-17 romp over Arizona. Hogan's 89.4 completion percentage (17-of-19) was the best of his career, and several of his throws popped on film. One dart down the seam to Devon Cajuste really stood out: Hogan evaded pressure by moving forward in the pocket and rifled a precise laser downfield while shuffling.

After a career-worst performance to open the season in Stanford's 16-6 loss to Northwestern, Hogan has become the only quarterback in the country to average over 11 yards per attempt in four consecutive games. He's playing the most efficient football of his career while not even having his usual running threat available. If Hogan's ankle heals during this bye week, he can reintroduce another dimension to his game.

Yup, sucky Hogan was put at the top of the ESPN Pac-12 QB power rankings.  Cal can enjoy Goff's #2 ranking. [I will freely admit that Goff is a talent.]

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...turnaround

BC

[BostonCard]

2. Offense is pedestrian - They see Stanford as a slow, plodding team (looked slow and plodding much of last season and against Northwestern).

3. Hogan sucks - His slow release and lousy performances in 2014 make the idea of him being an NFL prospect laughable.

Don't let them see these:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...rankings-3

1. Kevin Hogan, Stanford: He delivered a virtually flawless performance on a bad ankle in the Cardinal's 55-17 romp over Arizona. Hogan's 89.4 completion percentage (17-of-19) was the best of his career, and several of his throws popped on film. One dart down the seam to Devon Cajuste really stood out: Hogan evaded pressure by moving forward in the pocket and rifled a precise laser downfield while shuffling.

After a career-worst performance to open the season in Stanford's 16-6 loss to Northwestern, Hogan has become the only quarterback in the country to average over 11 yards per attempt in four consecutive games. He's playing the most efficient football of his career while not even having his usual running threat available. If Hogan's ankle heals during this bye week, he can reintroduce another dimension to his game.

Yup, sucky Hogan was put at the top of the ESPN Pac-12 QB power rankings.  Cal can enjoy Goff's #2 ranking. [I will freely admit that Goff is a talent.]

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...turnaround

BC

[oman]

Eh, I don't think that MSU is underrated.

[oman]

Eh, I don't think that MSU is underrated.

[BostonCard]

Well, they are 5-0, but they've played:

1-3 Western Michigan (and it was moderately close at 37-24)
3-2 Oregon (who at the time we thought was good, but after Utah, probably isn't quite as good as we thought), and won 31-28
2-2 Air Force (another 2 touchdown but non-dominant game)
2-3 Central Michigan
1-4 Purdue

Oregon is clearly their best win, but Oregon isn't the team we thought they were when they played Michigan State. Their other games would give Cal a run for its money.  We should have a better sense how good they are in a couple weeks when they play Michigan.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, they are 5-0, but they've played:

1-3 Western Michigan (and it was moderately close at 37-24)
3-2 Oregon (who at the time we thought was good, but after Utah, probably isn't quite as good as we thought), and won 31-28
2-2 Air Force (another 2 touchdown but non-dominant game)
2-3 Central Michigan
1-4 Purdue

Oregon is clearly their best win, but Oregon isn't the team we thought they were when they played Michigan State. Their other games would give Cal a run for its money.  We should have a better sense how good they are in a couple weeks when they play Michigan.

BC

[fullmetal]

And I honestly think Michigan has no shot because the Wolverines have no offense right now.  They probably have a decent defense, but no offense.

Utah should beat kal.  It won't be a blowout, I don't think, but they should leave no question as to which team is better.  (I love these inconsequential prognostications!)

[fullmetal]

And I honestly think Michigan has no shot because the Wolverines have no offense right now.  They probably have a decent defense, but no offense.

Utah should beat kal.  It won't be a blowout, I don't think, but they should leave no question as to which team is better.  (I love these inconsequential prognostications!)

[Mick]

Well, they are 5-0, but they've played:

1-3 Western Michigan (and it was moderately close at 37-24)
3-2 Oregon (who at the time we thought was good, but after Utah, probably isn't quite as good as we thought), and won 31-28
2-2 Air Force (another 2 touchdown but non-dominant game)
2-3 Central Michigan
1-4 Purdue

Oregon is clearly their best win, but Oregon isn't the team we thought they were when they played Michigan State. Their other games would give Low APR U a run for its money.  We should have a better sense how good they are in a couple weeks when they play Michigan.

BC

The C.al and MSU games were by identical scores over Oregon, right?  That seems pretty positive.

[Mick]

Well, they are 5-0, but they've played:

1-3 Western Michigan (and it was moderately close at 37-24)
3-2 Oregon (who at the time we thought was good, but after Utah, probably isn't quite as good as we thought), and won 31-28
2-2 Air Force (another 2 touchdown but non-dominant game)
2-3 Central Michigan
1-4 Purdue

Oregon is clearly their best win, but Oregon isn't the team we thought they were when they played Michigan State. Their other games would give Low APR U a run for its money.  We should have a better sense how good they are in a couple weeks when they play Michigan.

BC

The C.al and MSU games were by identical scores over Oregon, right?  That seems pretty positive.