[BostonCard]

Following a tweet about poor planning on Oregon's part in relying on an FCS graduate transfer to be the heir to Mariota, he tweets:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...6839934976

First of all, it is odd to say "other than Kevin Hogan..." because, you know, we've had Kevin Hogan, and he's been great, and because he's been excellent, we haven't had to find out how good (or bad) Crower, Burns, or Chryst would have been, had Hogan not panned out.  It'd be like saying that Oregon had poor planning after Darron Thomas because "other than Mariota..."

The implication, though is that Stanford has nobody for after Hogan.  This may, of course, turn out to be true.  If Chryst (or Burns) really struggle next year, and Costello isn't ready and struggles after that, he will have a point.  But I think it's a bit early to say one way or another.  I expect that next year we will rely heavily on McCaffrey to lead us with a run first attack, and to rely on (I assume Chryst, but maybe Burns) to deliver the occasional timely pass and big play on play-action to punish a defense that stacks too many in the box, and if he does so competently, then we will have navigated the post-Luck transition about as well as can be expected, with only the first few games of 2012 being problematic.

BC

[BostonCard]

Following a tweet about poor planning on Oregon's part in relying on an FCS graduate transfer to be the heir to Mariota, he tweets:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...6839934976

First of all, it is odd to say "other than Kevin Hogan..." because, you know, we've had Kevin Hogan, and he's been great, and because he's been excellent, we haven't had to find out how good (or bad) Crower, Burns, or Chryst would have been, had Hogan not panned out.  It'd be like saying that Oregon had poor planning after Darron Thomas because "other than Mariota..."

The implication, though is that Stanford has nobody for after Hogan.  This may, of course, turn out to be true.  If Chryst (or Burns) really struggle next year, and Costello isn't ready and struggles after that, he will have a point.  But I think it's a bit early to say one way or another.  I expect that next year we will rely heavily on McCaffrey to lead us with a run first attack, and to rely on (I assume Chryst, but maybe Burns) to deliver the occasional timely pass and big play on play-action to punish a defense that stacks too many in the box, and if he does so competently, then we will have navigated the post-Luck transition about as well as can be expected, with only the first few games of 2012 being problematic.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner isn't very smart.

[washingtonismoney]

Wilner isn't very smart.

[Hulk01]

Washingtonmoney is being generous.  Wilner is that guy in grade school that had to have everything explained to him twice.

I have never seen any evidence he has more than a fan's understanding of football.  I picture him in the stands and think of a twist on that wonderful line, "Football games are like church.  Many attend, but few understand."

[Hulk01]

Washingtonmoney is being generous.  Wilner is that guy in grade school that had to have everything explained to him twice.

I have never seen any evidence he has more than a fan's understanding of football.  I picture him in the stands and think of a twist on that wonderful line, "Football games are like church.  Many attend, but few understand."

[winflop]

This has to be one of Wilner's dumbest comments ever - and that's saying something.  Other than garbage time, you have Nunes & Hogan taking snaps and nobody else.  So he is basing his judgment on less than 10% of the snaps taken in competitive situations since Luck left.

Moronic is the nicest thing I can say.

[winflop]

This has to be one of Wilner's dumbest comments ever - and that's saying something.  Other than garbage time, you have Nunes & Hogan taking snaps and nobody else.  So he is basing his judgment on less than 10% of the snaps taken in competitive situations since Luck left.

Moronic is the nicest thing I can say.

[CTcard]

Following a tweet about poor planning on Oregon's part in relying on an FCS graduate transfer to be the heir to Mariota,

...

First of all, it is odd to say "other than Kevin Hogan..." because, you know, we've had Kevin Hogan,

And second of all, it's very weird to call it lack of planning.
They signed Mariota in 2011.
They signed 2 QBs in 2012 (Jeff Lockie and Jake Rodriguez)
They signed 1 QB in 2013 (Damion Hobbs)
They signed 1 QB in 2014 (Morgan Mahalak)
They signed 1 QB in 2015 (Travis Waller)
And they had at least one prominent walk on in 2013 (Taylor Alie)

Three of those guys were Scout top 300 guys, and presumably all the best guys they could get at the time. I certainly don't see that they should have taken more guys.

Now clearly they had some troubles evaluating, developing, and keeping these guys.
Three of them don't seem to be on the team anymore (Rodrigues, Hobbs, Waller - what happened to Waller? ... oh I see, he changed his name to Jonsen.)

So they've had troubles, but planning doesn't seem to be the right word.

------
Thirdly, he seems to be criticizing exactly what every team dreams of having: a three (or four) year starter at QB. That's almost an ultimate goal, but by definition it comes along with not having a contributor at QB for several years running.

[CTcard]

Following a tweet about poor planning on Oregon's part in relying on an FCS graduate transfer to be the heir to Mariota,

...

First of all, it is odd to say "other than Kevin Hogan..." because, you know, we've had Kevin Hogan,

And second of all, it's very weird to call it lack of planning.
They signed Mariota in 2011.
They signed 2 QBs in 2012 (Jeff Lockie and Jake Rodriguez)
They signed 1 QB in 2013 (Damion Hobbs)
They signed 1 QB in 2014 (Morgan Mahalak)
They signed 1 QB in 2015 (Travis Waller)
And they had at least one prominent walk on in 2013 (Taylor Alie)

Three of those guys were Scout top 300 guys, and presumably all the best guys they could get at the time. I certainly don't see that they should have taken more guys.

Now clearly they had some troubles evaluating, developing, and keeping these guys.
Three of them don't seem to be on the team anymore (Rodrigues, Hobbs, Waller - what happened to Waller? ... oh I see, he changed his name to Jonsen.)

So they've had troubles, but planning doesn't seem to be the right word.

------
Thirdly, he seems to be criticizing exactly what every team dreams of having: a three (or four) year starter at QB. That's almost an ultimate goal, but by definition it comes along with not having a contributor at QB for several years running.

[CTcard]

Washingtonmoney is being generous.  Wilner is that guy in grade school that had to have everything explained to him twice.

I have never seen any evidence he has more than a fan's understanding of football.  I picture him in the stands and think of a twist on that wonderful line, "Football games are like church.  Many attend, but few understand."

You're a bit harsh on Wilner. He has his quirks, and he's no Rhodes Scholar, but he's a sports writer.

I do think that since so much of his career is writing about football he might want to learn a little more about it - it's not exactly rocket science but it does have it's own lingo, lore, and body of knowledge as does any enterprise practice by so many people with such passion. Wilner seems rather light in this area - but so do many writers.

On the other hand, he does write about college sports regularly, can craft a coherent sentence, and makes an effort to tell his readers why he comes to the conclusions he does. That's something.

For a comparison, the Chronicle has Tom Fitzgerald nominally writing a Stanford sports blog. I have never seen it referenced here and few seem to know he does it. And he barely does it - seems to be about an article per week all sports. [I assume the guy has another job and this was just thrown on top for "when you have time".]

[CTcard]

Washingtonmoney is being generous.  Wilner is that guy in grade school that had to have everything explained to him twice.

I have never seen any evidence he has more than a fan's understanding of football.  I picture him in the stands and think of a twist on that wonderful line, "Football games are like church.  Many attend, but few understand."

You're a bit harsh on Wilner. He has his quirks, and he's no Rhodes Scholar, but he's a sports writer.

I do think that since so much of his career is writing about football he might want to learn a little more about it - it's not exactly rocket science but it does have it's own lingo, lore, and body of knowledge as does any enterprise practice by so many people with such passion. Wilner seems rather light in this area - but so do many writers.

On the other hand, he does write about college sports regularly, can craft a coherent sentence, and makes an effort to tell his readers why he comes to the conclusions he does. That's something.

For a comparison, the Chronicle has Tom Fitzgerald nominally writing a Stanford sports blog. I have never seen it referenced here and few seem to know he does it. And he barely does it - seems to be about an article per week all sports. [I assume the guy has another job and this was just thrown on top for "when you have time".]

[oldalum]

Wilner to me is a case of someone who wasn't an athlete but is fascinated with sports so he became a sportswriter. His analysis of the sports he covers is uninformed by a personal understanding of what it's like to be a high-level competitive athlete, to be on a high-level team, to be competing under high pressure and for high stakes. His reasoning for making his picks against the spread is telling, often citing stupid reasons unrelated to an insightful understanding of how the two teams are likely to do against each other. He's good at the "business" side of sports (conference alignment and revenue, contracts, coaches' salaries, hiring and firing, stadium financing, etc.) but not with the intangibles, the things that make sports capture our attention and imagination and emotions and hearts. I read most of what he writes (because he writes more about Stanford than anyone), but I can't remember a single sentence he's written, let alone paragraph or column, that conveys even a hint about what's great about sports, that is moving, that hits home and sticks with you, that crystallizes a game or a moment in a game, that rekindles the feeling of what it's like to be an athlete. A sportswriter can't do that most of the time, but once in a few years one would hope for one elevating or insightful piece of prose. It's all just analytical, and usually fairly mundane analysis. By comparison, in the past, after attending a concert in SF, I couldn't wait to read the review by the longtime SF music critic, Robert Commanday (who just passed away), because I would learn so much from it about what I had experienced. I never eagerly await what Wilner has to say about a game I just saw.

[oldalum]

Wilner to me is a case of someone who wasn't an athlete but is fascinated with sports so he became a sportswriter. His analysis of the sports he covers is uninformed by a personal understanding of what it's like to be a high-level competitive athlete, to be on a high-level team, to be competing under high pressure and for high stakes. His reasoning for making his picks against the spread is telling, often citing stupid reasons unrelated to an insightful understanding of how the two teams are likely to do against each other. He's good at the "business" side of sports (conference alignment and revenue, contracts, coaches' salaries, hiring and firing, stadium financing, etc.) but not with the intangibles, the things that make sports capture our attention and imagination and emotions and hearts. I read most of what he writes (because he writes more about Stanford than anyone), but I can't remember a single sentence he's written, let alone paragraph or column, that conveys even a hint about what's great about sports, that is moving, that hits home and sticks with you, that crystallizes a game or a moment in a game, that rekindles the feeling of what it's like to be an athlete. A sportswriter can't do that most of the time, but once in a few years one would hope for one elevating or insightful piece of prose. It's all just analytical, and usually fairly mundane analysis. By comparison, in the past, after attending a concert in SF, I couldn't wait to read the review by the longtime SF music critic, Robert Commanday (who just passed away), because I would learn so much from it about what I had experienced. I never eagerly await what Wilner has to say about a game I just saw.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I have to plead ignorance, because I have no idea what point he's trying to make.  Luck became the starter in '09, and remained so until he graduated following the '11 season.  Hogan took over eight games into the '12 season, and has remained so.  So far this season, he's made a reasonable case to be the first team Pac-12 quarterback.  So, Wilner's beef is that over the past seven seasons, Stanford has had three starting quarterbacks: one of which was the first overall pick in the '12 draft, and another that is a potential first team all-conference selection?  Assuming he's talking about doing "much better" at the quarterback position.  Surely he's not talking about as a program, since Luck signed on the heels of a 4-8 campaign.  It's probably fair to say the program has improved since then.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I have to plead ignorance, because I have no idea what point he's trying to make.  Luck became the starter in '09, and remained so until he graduated following the '11 season.  Hogan took over eight games into the '12 season, and has remained so.  So far this season, he's made a reasonable case to be the first team Pac-12 quarterback.  So, Wilner's beef is that over the past seven seasons, Stanford has had three starting quarterbacks: one of which was the first overall pick in the '12 draft, and another that is a potential first team all-conference selection?  Assuming he's talking about doing "much better" at the quarterback position.  Surely he's not talking about as a program, since Luck signed on the heels of a 4-8 campaign.  It's probably fair to say the program has improved since then.

[stupac2]

For a comparison, the Chronicle has Tom Fitzgerald nominally writing a Stanford sports blog. I have never seen it referenced here and few seem to know he does it. And he barely does it - seems to be about an article per week all sports. [I assume the guy has another job and this was just thrown on top for "when you have time".]

I threw that blog into my RSS reader some number of years ago, and he used to post in it pretty frequently and it would sometimes be novel stuff (at least to me) but for the past year or so it's been a ghost town. I assume something at the Chronicle changed.

[stupac2]

For a comparison, the Chronicle has Tom Fitzgerald nominally writing a Stanford sports blog. I have never seen it referenced here and few seem to know he does it. And he barely does it - seems to be about an article per week all sports. [I assume the guy has another job and this was just thrown on top for "when you have time".]

I threw that blog into my RSS reader some number of years ago, and he used to post in it pretty frequently and it would sometimes be novel stuff (at least to me) but for the past year or so it's been a ghost town. I assume something at the Chronicle changed.

[CTcard]

I have to plead ignorance, because I have no idea what point he's trying to make. 

The point appears to be that since Luck was signed in 2007, the only other QB Stanford signed that we know for sure is a quality Pac-12 level starter is Hogan. So that is only one over 8 years.

The flaw in that argument is rather obvious - as everybody is pointing out here.

[CTcard]

I have to plead ignorance, because I have no idea what point he's trying to make. 

The point appears to be that since Luck was signed in 2007, the only other QB Stanford signed that we know for sure is a quality Pac-12 level starter is Hogan. So that is only one over 8 years.

The flaw in that argument is rather obvious - as everybody is pointing out here.

[ColoradoTree]

I'm not defending his "aside from Hogan" tweet, but I will say that Wilner is one of my favorite AP poll voters, and has generally been ahead of the curve on voting based on resume rather than preseason expectations.  That means his ballot is often an outlier, but it has the useful purpose of moving the AP poll's needle in favor of recognizing results over reputation.  Too many AP voters vote just like the coaches' poll and keep a team at a certain spot until it loses, whereas Wilner tries to reevaluate the landscape each week, often resulting in brobdingnagian swings that you don't see from other voters.  I don't always agree with his analysis on where to rank teams (for many of the same reasons pointed out on this Board in their judgment of Wilner's football acumen), but it's a different perspective than most voters--one I appreciate and wish more voters would adopt.

That said, the playoff selection committee has had a terrific influence on rankings in general.  With all of the focus on quality of wins and resume instead of just defaulting to reputation, that's starting to change how various pundits and AP voters are putting their lists together.  (Example: Ohio State started the season with all of the first-place votes in the AP poll, and they've steadily lost many of them since then as they have failed to impress.  Sure, they're still up there, but it's a more tenuous hold on the top spot than we usually see from undefeated defending national champions.)  This is a very welcome change.  I'm not saying Wilner is the brains behind that change by any stretch, but he was always mocked for his big ranking swings week-to-week, and now that is much more commonplace (and appropriate, in my view). 

[ColoradoTree]

I'm not defending his "aside from Hogan" tweet, but I will say that Wilner is one of my favorite AP poll voters, and has generally been ahead of the curve on voting based on resume rather than preseason expectations.  That means his ballot is often an outlier, but it has the useful purpose of moving the AP poll's needle in favor of recognizing results over reputation.  Too many AP voters vote just like the coaches' poll and keep a team at a certain spot until it loses, whereas Wilner tries to reevaluate the landscape each week, often resulting in brobdingnagian swings that you don't see from other voters.  I don't always agree with his analysis on where to rank teams (for many of the same reasons pointed out on this Board in their judgment of Wilner's football acumen), but it's a different perspective than most voters--one I appreciate and wish more voters would adopt.

That said, the playoff selection committee has had a terrific influence on rankings in general.  With all of the focus on quality of wins and resume instead of just defaulting to reputation, that's starting to change how various pundits and AP voters are putting their lists together.  (Example: Ohio State started the season with all of the first-place votes in the AP poll, and they've steadily lost many of them since then as they have failed to impress.  Sure, they're still up there, but it's a more tenuous hold on the top spot than we usually see from undefeated defending national champions.)  This is a very welcome change.  I'm not saying Wilner is the brains behind that change by any stretch, but he was always mocked for his big ranking swings week-to-week, and now that is much more commonplace (and appropriate, in my view). 

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm not defending his "aside from Hogan" tweet, but I will say that Wilner is one of my favorite AP poll voters, and has generally been ahead of the curve on voting based on resume rather than preseason expectations.  That means his ballot is often an outlier, but it has the useful purpose of moving the AP poll's needle in favor of recognizing results over reputation.  Too many AP voters vote just like the coaches' poll and keep a team at a certain spot until it loses, whereas Wilner tries to reevaluate the landscape each week, often resulting in of exceedingly large proportions swings that you don't see from other voters.  I don't always agree with his analysis on where to rank teams (for many of the same reasons pointed out on this Board in their judgment of Wilner's football acumen), but it's a different perspective than most voters--one I appreciate and wish more voters would adopt.

Agree completely.  I also appreciate that unlike most AP voters he's completely transparent and at least offers some explanation (even if I don't always agree).  Better than some beat writer in the middle of nowhere who keeps the same team first no matter what and knocks a team down even when they lose to a top 5 team in a close game.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I'm not defending his "aside from Hogan" tweet, but I will say that Wilner is one of my favorite AP poll voters, and has generally been ahead of the curve on voting based on resume rather than preseason expectations.  That means his ballot is often an outlier, but it has the useful purpose of moving the AP poll's needle in favor of recognizing results over reputation.  Too many AP voters vote just like the coaches' poll and keep a team at a certain spot until it loses, whereas Wilner tries to reevaluate the landscape each week, often resulting in of exceedingly large proportions swings that you don't see from other voters.  I don't always agree with his analysis on where to rank teams (for many of the same reasons pointed out on this Board in their judgment of Wilner's football acumen), but it's a different perspective than most voters--one I appreciate and wish more voters would adopt.

Agree completely.  I also appreciate that unlike most AP voters he's completely transparent and at least offers some explanation (even if I don't always agree).  Better than some beat writer in the middle of nowhere who keeps the same team first no matter what and knocks a team down even when they lose to a top 5 team in a close game.

[Hulk01]

I agree wholeheartedly with old alum; I've had the same reactions.  Wilner has a fan's appreciation of the game, and the typical fan's understanding.  His lack of insight, honestly, is startling, and suggests he has made no attempt to understand football.  He is like I would be writing about soccer--until i had a year of experience.

[Hulk01]

I agree wholeheartedly with old alum; I've had the same reactions.  Wilner has a fan's appreciation of the game, and the typical fan's understanding.  His lack of insight, honestly, is startling, and suggests he has made no attempt to understand football.  He is like I would be writing about soccer--until i had a year of experience.

[cardcoug]

You're attacking a straw man Garvin. Nobody said a writer must have played football to write about it, but rather that he hasn't made a serious effort to understand football beyond a typical fan's level. I haven't played enough football or read enough Wilner to speak to that question, but I can say that nobody has shown themselves to be a "dumb ass" in this thread.

[cardcoug]

You're attacking a straw man Garvin. Nobody said a writer must have played football to write about it, but rather that he hasn't made a serious effort to understand football beyond a typical fan's level. I haven't played enough football or read enough Wilner to speak to that question, but I can say that nobody has shown themselves to be a "dumb ass" in this thread.

[Kathy]

It's not the job of a journalist to be a fan, and certainly not to report events as a fan. Our job is to observe and report our observations, adding explanation where necessary ... who, what, where, when, why & how. No need for a "yay team" at the end of the story.

I'm not a Wilner fan, but I don't believe his journalistic failures are because he's not a Stanford fan.

[Kathy]

It's not the job of a journalist to be a fan, and certainly not to report events as a fan. Our job is to observe and report our observations, adding explanation where necessary ... who, what, where, when, why & how. No need for a "yay team" at the end of the story.

I'm not a Wilner fan, but I don't believe his journalistic failures are because he's not a Stanford fan.

[stupac2]

Is anyone claiming that Wilner is bad at his job because he's not a Stanford fan? I think the claim is that he just doesn't understand football very well.

I've never really understood the Wilner hate. He's no Bill Barnwell, but few are. If you want that, read Football Outsiders (or whatever).

[stupac2]

Is anyone claiming that Wilner is bad at his job because he's not a Stanford fan? I think the claim is that he just doesn't understand football very well.

I've never really understood the Wilner hate. He's no Bill Barnwell, but few are. If you want that, read Football Outsiders (or whatever).

[Rally]

Most off the greatest sports writers of all time never played big time sports.  Probably none of them did.  Who do you think they were?

[Rally]

Most off the greatest sports writers of all time never played big time sports.  Probably none of them did.  Who do you think they were?