[washingtonismoney]

Stanford third at 8/1: https://twitter.com/tedmillerrk/status/8...9058752513

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford third at 8/1: https://twitter.com/tedmillerrk/status/8...9058752513

[AncientCityIndian]

The two best teams are in the north.  Whoever wins the north will defeat USC.  USC has to replace 11 starters and they are no Alabama when it comes to depth.  They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.  Darnold and Ronald Jones have to carry the load on O.  Washington does not play the Trojans during the regular season.  I think the odds reflect the fact USC will have an easier time winning the South while Stanford and Washington will have a battle royale.

http://reignoftroy.com/2017/01/17/how-wi...s-in-2017/

[AncientCityIndian]

The two best teams are in the north.  Whoever wins the north will defeat USC.  USC has to replace 11 starters and they are no Alabama when it comes to depth.  They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.  Darnold and Ronald Jones have to carry the load on O.  Washington does not play the Trojans during the regular season.  I think the odds reflect the fact USC will have an easier time winning the South while Stanford and Washington will have a battle royale.

http://reignoftroy.com/2017/01/17/how-wi...s-in-2017/

[stupac2]

The two best teams are in the north.  Whoever wins the north will defeat USC.  USC has to replace 11 starters and they are no Alabama when it comes to depth.  They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.  Darnold and Ronald Jones have to carry the load on O.  Washington does not play the Literature's Most Famous Losers during the regular season.  I think the odds reflect the fact USC will have an easier time winning the South while Stanford and Washington will have a battle royale.

http://reignoftroy.com/2017/01/17/how-wi...s-in-2017/

I'm not quite as sure about this as you are, but it's odd to me that you don't even mention Helton as a reason to be suspicious of USC. A lot of people see what happened last year and think it's to his credit, IMO it's to his detriment. I still don't think he's the long-term answer for them, but we'll see.

[stupac2]

The two best teams are in the north.  Whoever wins the north will defeat USC.  USC has to replace 11 starters and they are no Alabama when it comes to depth.  They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.  Darnold and Ronald Jones have to carry the load on O.  Washington does not play the Literature's Most Famous Losers during the regular season.  I think the odds reflect the fact USC will have an easier time winning the South while Stanford and Washington will have a battle royale.

http://reignoftroy.com/2017/01/17/how-wi...s-in-2017/

I'm not quite as sure about this as you are, but it's odd to me that you don't even mention Helton as a reason to be suspicious of USC. A lot of people see what happened last year and think it's to his credit, IMO it's to his detriment. I still don't think he's the long-term answer for them, but we'll see.

[CowboyIndian]

They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.

Book it!

[CowboyIndian]

They lost their best playmakers in Jackson and Simon-Schuster.

Book it!

[Hulk01]

I'd argue that their best playmaker was Darnold.  He'll miss Smith Schuster but has at least three highly-regarded receivers coming out of their red shirts. 

[Hulk01]

I'd argue that their best playmaker was Darnold.  He'll miss Smith Schuster but has at least three highly-regarded receivers coming out of their red shirts. 

[Goose]

I'd argue that their best playmaker was Darnold.  He'll miss Smith Schuster but has at least three highly-regarded receivers coming out of their red shirts.

I absolutely agree their best playmaker was Darnold. However, this year he may not have as much line protection (and therefore time) to do what he did last year. Lots of times last year Darnold would run around until somebody got open (or he decided to force it and hope for a play). This year, he may not have that luxury. Even a slight drop-off in protection can make a big difference, especially if the coaching staff doesn't know how to deal with it. Last year, it looked like a lot of "playground football" to me. This year, I think a different approach will be needed.

[Goose]

I'd argue that their best playmaker was Darnold.  He'll miss Smith Schuster but has at least three highly-regarded receivers coming out of their red shirts.

I absolutely agree their best playmaker was Darnold. However, this year he may not have as much line protection (and therefore time) to do what he did last year. Lots of times last year Darnold would run around until somebody got open (or he decided to force it and hope for a play). This year, he may not have that luxury. Even a slight drop-off in protection can make a big difference, especially if the coaching staff doesn't know how to deal with it. Last year, it looked like a lot of "playground football" to me. This year, I think a different approach will be needed.

[fullmetal]

Johnny Manziel didn't do so badly, and playground football will still beat a fundamentally unsound defense.  U$C will look good until they run into a stout, disciplined defense.  I hope Stanford has one of those ready to go.

[fullmetal]

Johnny Manziel didn't do so badly, and playground football will still beat a fundamentally unsound defense.  U$C will look good until they run into a stout, disciplined defense.  I hope Stanford has one of those ready to go.

[Goose]

Johnny Manziel didn't do so badly, and playground football will still beat a fundamentally unsound defense.  U$C will look good until they run into a stout, disciplined defense.  I hope Stanford has one of those ready to go.

I might modify your statement to say "playground football with superior personnel will often beat a fundamentally unsound defense", but I think we mostly agree on that. I am pretty sure that, baring injury, we will have a stout and disciplined defense, at least the "back 8". The front 3 may need some help on the stout, we shall see. If we can control the tempo, I think USC will have real problems on offense. However, if we give them lots of chances, it could become more of a challenge. I haven't seen any evidence that the USC coaching staff are fast learners and make good in-game adjustments. If we don't give them time to "figure it out", I think we will be in great shape. A shootout is not our preferred outcome.

[Goose]

Johnny Manziel didn't do so badly, and playground football will still beat a fundamentally unsound defense.  U$C will look good until they run into a stout, disciplined defense.  I hope Stanford has one of those ready to go.

I might modify your statement to say "playground football with superior personnel will often beat a fundamentally unsound defense", but I think we mostly agree on that. I am pretty sure that, baring injury, we will have a stout and disciplined defense, at least the "back 8". The front 3 may need some help on the stout, we shall see. If we can control the tempo, I think USC will have real problems on offense. However, if we give them lots of chances, it could become more of a challenge. I haven't seen any evidence that the USC coaching staff are fast learners and make good in-game adjustments. If we don't give them time to "figure it out", I think we will be in great shape. A shootout is not our preferred outcome.