[ADPATERSON]

Way early, but so what: 
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...redictions

SC is picked to nip Huskies in Pac12 Champ and get Playoff spot vs perrennial OHST or BAMA.
WASH settles for Fiesta vs SEC -- a famous bowl for Coach Peterson (vs OKLA in 2006).
  Loser of Pac12 champ game drops here or Cotton.
Stanford to Alamo vs TEX or OKST, if we finish second in North; beating the Domers helps. Rematch of 2011 loss in OT?
Oregano takes Holiday vs WISC, a second best bowl to Rose for cold weather schools. 
COLO gets FFarms Freeze yur Keester bowl vs MINN -- perfect, people with parkas.
UCLA travels to Sun vs ACC like we did last year.  Maybe GATech. 
ORST happy to hang in Hawaii for Hula vs BOIS. Surf's up for Beavers.
WAST faces SDST in Vegas.  This is a basketball game -- over 100 pts. Bring extra balls.
Problem:  If Pac12 is odd man out of Playoff (Champ has 2 losses) in a year Rose is occupied, then Conf loses big. 

Other Play-in games -- We already have a de facto 8 team playoff via conferences.
FLST vs CLEM in ACC
OHST vs PNST in B1G
BIG12 Champ Game
SEC Champ Game

[ADPATERSON]

Way early, but so what: 
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...redictions

SC is picked to nip Huskies in Pac12 Champ and get Playoff spot vs perrennial OHST or BAMA.
WASH settles for Fiesta vs SEC -- a famous bowl for Coach Peterson (vs OKLA in 2006).
  Loser of Pac12 champ game drops here or Cotton.
Stanford to Alamo vs TEX or OKST, if we finish second in North; beating the Domers helps. Rematch of 2011 loss in OT?
Oregano takes Holiday vs WISC, a second best bowl to Rose for cold weather schools. 
COLO gets FFarms Freeze yur Keester bowl vs MINN -- perfect, people with parkas.
UCLA travels to Sun vs ACC like we did last year.  Maybe GATech. 
ORST happy to hang in Hawaii for Hula vs BOIS. Surf's up for Beavers.
WAST faces SDST in Vegas.  This is a basketball game -- over 100 pts. Bring extra balls.
Problem:  If Pac12 is odd man out of Playoff (Champ has 2 losses) in a year Rose is occupied, then Conf loses big. 

Other Play-in games -- We already have a de facto 8 team playoff via conferences.
FLST vs CLEM in ACC
OHST vs PNST in B1G
BIG12 Champ Game
SEC Champ Game

[winflop]

SC is picked to nip Huskies in Pac12 Champ and get Playoff spot vs perrennial OHST or BAMA.

I feel like a broken record when I say "keep sleeping on Stanford"

Fewer if's in my mind than in most of the last half-dozen years (OT, DL, ILB). If they nail one of these cold and do OK at the other two I think this team goes 10-2 at worst.

[winflop]

SC is picked to nip Huskies in Pac12 Champ and get Playoff spot vs perrennial OHST or BAMA.

I feel like a broken record when I say "keep sleeping on Stanford"

Fewer if's in my mind than in most of the last half-dozen years (OT, DL, ILB). If they nail one of these cold and do OK at the other two I think this team goes 10-2 at worst.

[CTcard]

Fewer if's in my mind than in most of the last half-dozen years (OT, DL, ILB). If they nail one of these cold and do OK at the other two I think this team goes 10-2 at worst.

Well, I'd replace OT with OL, and ILB with QB.
[I'm also not yet thrilled about the WR situation, but for Stanford it's probably good enough.]

I am cautiously optimistic on Stanford's prospects this season, but with a healthy dose of caution.

I don't believe that anybody really knows if the OL can actually coordinate their pass blocking, how well whomever ends up at QB will play, and whether our DL will hold up.

On the other hand, I did think that Chryst was looking much better at the end of last season - above and beyond the quality of defense thing, that the extra experience (and perhaps talent infusion) should greatly help the OL, and I am bearish enough on the LBers that I think they'll help out a lot with deficiencies on the DL.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195522

WAST faces SDST in Vegas.  This is a basketball game -- over 100 pts. Bring extra balls.

Since we are about to play them, it's worth noting that SDST has been a defensively-oriented team for some time now. While they lose a fair amount on both sides of the ball, much more on offense so it is likely to remain true.

So, I think it may be more likely that our game vs SDST has a baseball score than WSU vs SDST has a basketball score.

[CTcard]

Fewer if's in my mind than in most of the last half-dozen years (OT, DL, ILB). If they nail one of these cold and do OK at the other two I think this team goes 10-2 at worst.

Well, I'd replace OT with OL, and ILB with QB.
[I'm also not yet thrilled about the WR situation, but for Stanford it's probably good enough.]

I am cautiously optimistic on Stanford's prospects this season, but with a healthy dose of caution.

I don't believe that anybody really knows if the OL can actually coordinate their pass blocking, how well whomever ends up at QB will play, and whether our DL will hold up.

On the other hand, I did think that Chryst was looking much better at the end of last season - above and beyond the quality of defense thing, that the extra experience (and perhaps talent infusion) should greatly help the OL, and I am bearish enough on the LBers that I think they'll help out a lot with deficiencies on the DL.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195522

WAST faces SDST in Vegas.  This is a basketball game -- over 100 pts. Bring extra balls.

Since we are about to play them, it's worth noting that SDST has been a defensively-oriented team for some time now. While they lose a fair amount on both sides of the ball, much more on offense so it is likely to remain true.

So, I think it may be more likely that our game vs SDST has a baseball score than WSU vs SDST has a basketball score.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm usually pretty optimistic about Stanford, but not this year.  Here's why:

First, I'll start with the positives.  Stanford will have an extremely deep and talented back seven on defense, maybe the best its ever had in one single season, and kicking game should be good.  But everywhere else, I see big question marks.

1. The DL is young and small.  Harrison Phillips is OK, but he really gets pushed around by bigger OL.  Nobody else other than Dalyn Wade-Perry has the physical presence to anchor the middle, and he is a True Frosh.  Nobody to replace Solomon Thomas even a little bit.  Dylan Jackson averaged not even a tackle/gm and had 0 sacks and 1 TFL in 13 2016 games. Cotton was even worse in 11 games, with 4 tackles all season, and 1 sack.  The durability is nice, but Stanford needs production. Sure these guys could step up, and maybe Michael Williams too, but I'm not a believer until I see it with my own eyes.

2. The OL is young.  Interior is solid, but the Tackles in 2016 were below mediocre.  Were it me, I'd start Little and Sarrel, take my lumps as they learn, and be fine with it.  But this doesn't seem to be Shaw's MO.  So they will play lesser players with more experience who will be beaten by better defensive athletes the better teams employ.

3. I'm not sold on Chryst.  He's better than Burns, but he hasn't really beat a really good team (though he was on track to beat UNC, but even Burns did that, so was UNC that good?), and I'm not sure he can.  I'm not sure he can't, but he's got to beat teams with better QBs than he is for Stanford to win 10 games.  It's a tall order with the OL issues, IMO.

I do think Stanford has more than enough talent at WR/TE/RB skill positions to be an effective offense, but the three areas I point out leave me more skeptical than is typically the case for me entering a Stanford football season.

I'm feeling an 8-4 season coming on.  Losses to USC, UW, Oregon, and WSU or ND.  Not rooting against Chryst or Costello, but man do I want Davis Mills to impress like Luck on scout team as a True Frosh, and win the starting job in 2018, because to me, he has that championship "it" factor.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm usually pretty optimistic about Stanford, but not this year.  Here's why:

First, I'll start with the positives.  Stanford will have an extremely deep and talented back seven on defense, maybe the best its ever had in one single season, and kicking game should be good.  But everywhere else, I see big question marks.

1. The DL is young and small.  Harrison Phillips is OK, but he really gets pushed around by bigger OL.  Nobody else other than Dalyn Wade-Perry has the physical presence to anchor the middle, and he is a True Frosh.  Nobody to replace Solomon Thomas even a little bit.  Dylan Jackson averaged not even a tackle/gm and had 0 sacks and 1 TFL in 13 2016 games. Cotton was even worse in 11 games, with 4 tackles all season, and 1 sack.  The durability is nice, but Stanford needs production. Sure these guys could step up, and maybe Michael Williams too, but I'm not a believer until I see it with my own eyes.

2. The OL is young.  Interior is solid, but the Tackles in 2016 were below mediocre.  Were it me, I'd start Little and Sarrel, take my lumps as they learn, and be fine with it.  But this doesn't seem to be Shaw's MO.  So they will play lesser players with more experience who will be beaten by better defensive athletes the better teams employ.

3. I'm not sold on Chryst.  He's better than Burns, but he hasn't really beat a really good team (though he was on track to beat UNC, but even Burns did that, so was UNC that good?), and I'm not sure he can.  I'm not sure he can't, but he's got to beat teams with better QBs than he is for Stanford to win 10 games.  It's a tall order with the OL issues, IMO.

I do think Stanford has more than enough talent at WR/TE/RB skill positions to be an effective offense, but the three areas I point out leave me more skeptical than is typically the case for me entering a Stanford football season.

I'm feeling an 8-4 season coming on.  Losses to USC, UW, Oregon, and WSU or ND.  Not rooting against Chryst or Costello, but man do I want Davis Mills to impress like Luck on scout team as a True Frosh, and win the starting job in 2018, because to me, he has that championship "it" factor.

[fullmetal]

I agree with OutsiderFan, but as an exercise, let me rebut (though I may not necessarily believe):

1. DL coach Diron Reynolds knows what he's doing.  All those guys who underperformed last season will have had one more season under their belts plus a full off-season.  Diron + Turley + another year + established starting rotations = production.  Plus, last season was Diron's first with Stanford as the full-time DL coach (he spent time here as a defensive assistant previously).

2. I'm not usually optimistic about the OL until they prove themselves, but we have the physical talent at tackles and one more season + off-season under everyone's belt.  Maybe Sarell and Little rotate in at Ogre early on before graduating to full-time starting OTs in the OL106X course variant.  At the very least, Shaw should threaten to start the frosh so that the upperclassmen feel pushed...!  Earn that job.  Iron sharpens iron.

3. Chryst was marginally better than Burns last year, but he wasn't the solid presence that Hogan was.  Having said that, Chryst will be a year older, and Shaw knows that Chryst needs to save the program from another season of Burns Notice.  Shaw and co. (and maybe Geep Chryst too) will have had a good amount of time to work on Keller's mechanics, playbook grasp, and confidence.  With Mills and Costello in the pipeline, Chryst will use this season to audition for the rest of his Stanford career as a starter.  A QB who throws blocks will step it up.

Stanford might not be perfect, but they'll be better than 8-4.  U$C and UW will be tough.  WSU, ND, and UO are eminently beatable.  Go Stanford.

[fullmetal]

I agree with OutsiderFan, but as an exercise, let me rebut (though I may not necessarily believe):

1. DL coach Diron Reynolds knows what he's doing.  All those guys who underperformed last season will have had one more season under their belts plus a full off-season.  Diron + Turley + another year + established starting rotations = production.  Plus, last season was Diron's first with Stanford as the full-time DL coach (he spent time here as a defensive assistant previously).

2. I'm not usually optimistic about the OL until they prove themselves, but we have the physical talent at tackles and one more season + off-season under everyone's belt.  Maybe Sarell and Little rotate in at Ogre early on before graduating to full-time starting OTs in the OL106X course variant.  At the very least, Shaw should threaten to start the frosh so that the upperclassmen feel pushed...!  Earn that job.  Iron sharpens iron.

3. Chryst was marginally better than Burns last year, but he wasn't the solid presence that Hogan was.  Having said that, Chryst will be a year older, and Shaw knows that Chryst needs to save the program from another season of Burns Notice.  Shaw and co. (and maybe Geep Chryst too) will have had a good amount of time to work on Keller's mechanics, playbook grasp, and confidence.  With Mills and Costello in the pipeline, Chryst will use this season to audition for the rest of his Stanford career as a starter.  A QB who throws blocks will step it up.

Stanford might not be perfect, but they'll be better than 8-4.  U$C and UW will be tough.  WSU, ND, and UO are eminently beatable.  Go Stanford.

[Goose]

I am somewhat optimistic that we can be better than 8-4, but with a wider standard deviation than most years.
1) The DL will be fine against everybody that doesn't just try to pound the ball. We may have to do a bit of ILB blitzing to get pressure, but that is OK. What would not be OK is if UW, Utah, and possibly SDSU just run right at us with success. If SDSU does, USC will try, and things could get ugly fast. IOW, we could get beat by teams that play Stanford Football. That is the "worst case" scenario. If the DL can basically just keep the linebackers clean, we should be able to survive this. I think the coaches are fully aware of the risk here and are game-planning how to handle it, but at the end of the day, we can't get pushed off the LOS all the time and survive against a power attack. Our "back 8" will do a great job. We just need to avoid getting run over by the power game.
2) The OL is really the key. If we can run reliably, even problems on the DL will be less important because we can shorten the game. I also think having a healthy OL may make more difference than we expect. In theory, we had the athletes last year. It just didn't happen, possibly because of injuries moving people around and delaying the synergy needed. If the OL is of 2015 proportions, look out, because with a healthy fullback and a wider array of very skilled backs we could be offensively better than 2015. Not as dynamic, not as exciting, but just better. This is IMHO the "best case" scenario. The spring game I think showed that we have a chance to wear people out with fresh good backs, any one of which can kill you, but only if the OL can run block reliably. Pass blocking is also a lot easier if the other team is forced to defend the run on every down.
3) The QB situation is an unknown ATM. Until Chryst is back, he isn't. However, the QB isn't going to be our primary weapon. He does need to be able to execute the offense, which does mean throw to the "right" receiver with basic accuracy. A  "game manager" will be OK. Yes, it would be great to get more, and we very well may, but right now, I think a realistic hope is "adequate". If we get "good", 10-2, 11-1 is a real possibility! I would really prefer to beat Washington 13-9 rather than 45-42, because 45-42 isn't our sweet spot, but I will gladly take either!

[Goose]

I am somewhat optimistic that we can be better than 8-4, but with a wider standard deviation than most years.
1) The DL will be fine against everybody that doesn't just try to pound the ball. We may have to do a bit of ILB blitzing to get pressure, but that is OK. What would not be OK is if UW, Utah, and possibly SDSU just run right at us with success. If SDSU does, USC will try, and things could get ugly fast. IOW, we could get beat by teams that play Stanford Football. That is the "worst case" scenario. If the DL can basically just keep the linebackers clean, we should be able to survive this. I think the coaches are fully aware of the risk here and are game-planning how to handle it, but at the end of the day, we can't get pushed off the LOS all the time and survive against a power attack. Our "back 8" will do a great job. We just need to avoid getting run over by the power game.
2) The OL is really the key. If we can run reliably, even problems on the DL will be less important because we can shorten the game. I also think having a healthy OL may make more difference than we expect. In theory, we had the athletes last year. It just didn't happen, possibly because of injuries moving people around and delaying the synergy needed. If the OL is of 2015 proportions, look out, because with a healthy fullback and a wider array of very skilled backs we could be offensively better than 2015. Not as dynamic, not as exciting, but just better. This is IMHO the "best case" scenario. The spring game I think showed that we have a chance to wear people out with fresh good backs, any one of which can kill you, but only if the OL can run block reliably. Pass blocking is also a lot easier if the other team is forced to defend the run on every down.
3) The QB situation is an unknown ATM. Until Chryst is back, he isn't. However, the QB isn't going to be our primary weapon. He does need to be able to execute the offense, which does mean throw to the "right" receiver with basic accuracy. A  "game manager" will be OK. Yes, it would be great to get more, and we very well may, but right now, I think a realistic hope is "adequate". If we get "good", 10-2, 11-1 is a real possibility! I would really prefer to beat Washington 13-9 rather than 45-42, because 45-42 isn't our sweet spot, but I will gladly take either!

[winflop]

Well, I'd replace OT with OL.

I think C and OGs are pretty set and once Herbig got in there last year that group was pretty solid. I'm thankful that so far it appears that we will have two new OTs which means that last year's guys will not be starting this year, but it remains to be seen how good the replacements are.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.

[winflop]

Well, I'd replace OT with OL.

I think C and OGs are pretty set and once Herbig got in there last year that group was pretty solid. I'm thankful that so far it appears that we will have two new OTs which means that last year's guys will not be starting this year, but it remains to be seen how good the replacements are.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.

[CowboyIndian]

If SDSU does, Under Stanford Control (again) will try, and things could get ugly fast.

Whatever the Toejams do, they will have already done it when we play SDSU.

[CowboyIndian]

If SDSU does, Under Stanford Control (again) will try, and things could get ugly fast.

Whatever the Toejams do, they will have already done it when we play SDSU.

[Goose]

Yes, for some reason I seem to get the order backwards here. Maybe wishful thinking that we would get two games experience before USC.  ::)

[Goose]

Yes, for some reason I seem to get the order backwards here. Maybe wishful thinking that we would get two games experience before USC.  ::)

[Goose]

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.

While I would agree that the Huskies lost a lot on both sides of the ball, what worries me is that the sill have Gaskin and five big linemen, all with some experience. If we can't contain that, it is all over. Wazzu is good as well, but their strength plays into our strength in the DBs. So that is why I worry about Washington more. Their passing game took a hit due to graduation, but their ground game not so much. We do get them at home, which does help a lot. However, Petersen is no dummy. He will make us prove we can stop the run, and he won't give up on it easily.

[Goose]

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.

While I would agree that the Huskies lost a lot on both sides of the ball, what worries me is that the sill have Gaskin and five big linemen, all with some experience. If we can't contain that, it is all over. Wazzu is good as well, but their strength plays into our strength in the DBs. So that is why I worry about Washington more. Their passing game took a hit due to graduation, but their ground game not so much. We do get them at home, which does help a lot. However, Petersen is no dummy. He will make us prove we can stop the run, and he won't give up on it easily.

[DenverCard]

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.
[/quote]

In reading the website devoted to University of Colorado football, which has been doing a preview of upcoming opponents of CU, I came across the following:

"Take it for what it's worth, but last month, Sports Illustrated listed six Huskies (Browning, Gaskin, Pettis, Rapp, Vea and Victor) among its top 100 players in college football this season. All six were listed among the top 70, with five of them among the top 45..."

Yikes!!

[DenverCard]

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.
[/quote]

In reading the website devoted to University of Colorado football, which has been doing a preview of upcoming opponents of CU, I came across the following:

"Take it for what it's worth, but last month, Sports Illustrated listed six Huskies (Browning, Gaskin, Pettis, Rapp, Vea and Victor) among its top 100 players in college football this season. All six were listed among the top 70, with five of them among the top 45..."

Yikes!!

[ADPATERSON]

Sure, all the cautions are well-grounded.  Astute analysis given prior shortcomings.
Here's another idea: since 2009, Stanford has largely EXCEEDED expectations. Some downticks, but more up.
WHAT IF:
1) Chryst is back; and Burns has had enough snaps to play backup while Costello matures.  Good enough.
2) We are not a WR school like WAST, Cal, U$C.  We create LB matchup problems using our 5star TEs + Irwin, JJAW, Stewart.
Shaw prefers a short ball control pass game to Spider 2-Y Banana Bomb.  Add Love circling out like McCaff:  Potent.
3) Presence of Sarell & Little motivates EVERYBODY.  Coaches were drooling about those two at HS All-Am game.  OLINE gels.
4) DL:  Phillips is ready and DW Perry and Mike Wiliams answer the bell.  Backups just keep folks fresh for Q4. Watch Ryan Johnson.
5) RB:  Speights runs like Royce Freeman.  Maybe Lund from Utah (6'1", 230) gets some reps.  Love runs outside the tackles.
Do a Czonka + Mercury Morris type backfield (1972 Dolphins) -- Thunderbolt and Lightning. 
6) Uber-pundit Phil Steele has our back-8 (LBs + DBs) as #3 in USA.  Add 5star Soph Curtis Robinson as a quick Nickel.
7) Kickers and STs step up, no dropoff. 

Concerns above noted.  What about upside surprises? 
My undergrad years were late 70s (Walsh One, Darrin Nelson), before Elway.  We have NEVER had a pipeline like this.
I submit that despite the grousing about conservative play calls, this is best coaching staff we have ever had, top to bottom.

[ADPATERSON]

Sure, all the cautions are well-grounded.  Astute analysis given prior shortcomings.
Here's another idea: since 2009, Stanford has largely EXCEEDED expectations. Some downticks, but more up.
WHAT IF:
1) Chryst is back; and Burns has had enough snaps to play backup while Costello matures.  Good enough.
2) We are not a WR school like WAST, Cal, U$C.  We create LB matchup problems using our 5star TEs + Irwin, JJAW, Stewart.
Shaw prefers a short ball control pass game to Spider 2-Y Banana Bomb.  Add Love circling out like McCaff:  Potent.
3) Presence of Sarell & Little motivates EVERYBODY.  Coaches were drooling about those two at HS All-Am game.  OLINE gels.
4) DL:  Phillips is ready and DW Perry and Mike Wiliams answer the bell.  Backups just keep folks fresh for Q4. Watch Ryan Johnson.
5) RB:  Speights runs like Royce Freeman.  Maybe Lund from Utah (6'1", 230) gets some reps.  Love runs outside the tackles.
Do a Czonka + Mercury Morris type backfield (1972 Dolphins) -- Thunderbolt and Lightning. 
6) Uber-pundit Phil Steele has our back-8 (LBs + DBs) as #3 in USA.  Add 5star Soph Curtis Robinson as a quick Nickel.
7) Kickers and STs step up, no dropoff. 

Concerns above noted.  What about upside surprises? 
My undergrad years were late 70s (Walsh One, Darrin Nelson), before Elway.  We have NEVER had a pipeline like this.
I submit that despite the grousing about conservative play calls, this is best coaching staff we have ever had, top to bottom.

[OutsiderFan]

More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

[OutsiderFan]

More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

[Goose]

More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

OF, you may be correct. However, it seems to me that you are saying that the guys we had last year didn't perform well enough, but that the new guys will. I am more of the belief that the guys from last year can/will perform better this year. In either case, it is a hope based really on no data. Fortunately, the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. However, I feel compelled to point out that the degree to which a player is skilled isn't really known until he plays. It is certainly true we will need to get "more" from several positions to win 10 games or better.

[Goose]

More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

OF, you may be correct. However, it seems to me that you are saying that the guys we had last year didn't perform well enough, but that the new guys will. I am more of the belief that the guys from last year can/will perform better this year. In either case, it is a hope based really on no data. Fortunately, the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. However, I feel compelled to point out that the degree to which a player is skilled isn't really known until he plays. It is certainly true we will need to get "more" from several positions to win 10 games or better.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17063.msg195596#msg195596 date=1500399695]
Well, I'd replace OT with OL.

I think C and OGs are pretty set and once Herbig got in there last year that group was pretty solid. I'm thankful that so far it appears that we will have two new OTs which means that last year's guys will not be starting this year, but it remains to be seen how good the replacements are.
[/quote]

There are two reasons I wrote that about the OL.

One is that there are individual player issues along the interior. Burkett got individually man-handled as much as anyone on the line. There were too many plays like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVr43oMhfTI#t=16m20s
In addition, Caspers is gone and it is not entirely clear who will be his replacement.

But the bigger reason is that being individually good is not enough for an OL. Playing well together is essential. An interesting example is 2014. That was the year all the starters came from the great 2012 recruiting class. Individually they were all good to great, as a unit not so much (at least until late). But with four returning starters they were able to be great in 2015.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.
[/quote]

Stanford is an interesting case in terms of personnel losses. Stanford lost very few players overall, but did lose the best player on each side of the ball in the conference. It's an issue of quality vs quantity.

UW also didn't lose that many players. It looks to me like their losses were:
Offense - WR Ross, TE Daniels, OG Eldrenkamp.
Defense - LB Wooching, LB/DE Mathis, S Baker, CB King, CB Jones

That's a big hit to the UW secondary, but otherwise very light. The UW folks claim that it is in the secondary that they have the most depth, but I am not in a position to independently evaluate that claim.

2. The OL is young.  Interior is solid, but the Tackles in 2016 were below mediocre.  Were it me, I'd start Little and Sarrel, take my lumps as they learn, and be fine with it.  But this doesn't seem to be Shaw's MO.  So they will play lesser players with more experience who will be beaten by better defensive athletes the better teams employ.

The OL is not young, or at least it has not-young options.
If the OL proceeds on a simple progression from last year, then from left to right we'll be:
Senior - Sophomore - Senior - Senior* - 5th Year.
Obviously, if somebody younger beats out one of those players, the line will be younger but presumably better.

I don't know how anyone could make a decision as to whether any true frosh should start or not without seeing them play in camp. Of course it would be great if both take starting jobs. My own guy instinct is that eventually one will, but that is nothing but a guess - maybe a hope.

People keep saying that it is not Shaw's MO to play frosh much. WIM keeps posting examples where he does. In a comparative sense, I am not sure how much Shaw plays true frosh versus the Power 5 team average, but I don't see a broad aversion to it (despite a few notable examples (McCaffrey)). On the OL Shaw has had Herbig, Garnett, and Murphy start as true frosh.


*We don't have an incumbent at RG. The natural progression of things would probably be for senior Fanaika to take the spot - as I think he has more snaps as a guard than any other alternative. Another option much discussed earlier is Tucker becoming a guard and taking the spot. [Don't know if it means anything, but the official 2017 roster just lists Tucker as a Tackle.] Both of those guys are seniors, with Fanaika having another year of eligibility.

3. I'm not sold on Chryst.  He's better than Burns, but he hasn't really beat a really good team (though he was on track to beat UNC, but even Burns did that, so was UNC that good?), and I'm not sure he can.  I'm not sure he can't, but he's got to beat teams with better QBs than he is for Stanford to win 10 games.  It's a tall order with the OL issues, IMO.

I am not sure I am sold on Chryst yet either, and even if I were it won't be clear how well he comes back from injury until it happens. However, "he hasn't really beat a really good team" is neither fair nor instructive.
Stanford has beaten every single team they played when Chryst started as QB. Pretty hard to have him win the games he didn't play.

It's worth going back to watch Chryst's good stretch of games. They weren't perfect, but Chryst makes some good decisions and plays that don't directly depend upon having bad opposition.
It is quite clear that he was better then than over his first two games - and disastrous relief appearance vs. WSU.
Oregon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvcZNBy3mss
Cal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqMrSxmaDGA
Rice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNtKpZ1LajA
[This is a compilation of the plays McCaffrey is in, but that's a good fraction of our offense on the day.]
UNC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnU6FEPBxg

Chryst's stats over his final four games (though only about 1/4 of the fourth):
46 of 71, 65%, 678 yds, 9.6 yds/att, 10 TDs, 0 INTs, PER = 191.5
Those are really excellent numbers, though indeed against mostly bad defenses.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17063.msg195596#msg195596 date=1500399695]
Well, I'd replace OT with OL.

I think C and OGs are pretty set and once Herbig got in there last year that group was pretty solid. I'm thankful that so far it appears that we will have two new OTs which means that last year's guys will not be starting this year, but it remains to be seen how good the replacements are.
[/quote]

There are two reasons I wrote that about the OL.

One is that there are individual player issues along the interior. Burkett got individually man-handled as much as anyone on the line. There were too many plays like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVr43oMhfTI#t=16m20s
In addition, Caspers is gone and it is not entirely clear who will be his replacement.

But the bigger reason is that being individually good is not enough for an OL. Playing well together is essential. An interesting example is 2014. That was the year all the starters came from the great 2012 recruiting class. Individually they were all good to great, as a unit not so much (at least until late). But with four returning starters they were able to be great in 2015.

The other looming problem is that I agree with Mr. Ancient City in the other thread that the likely best (other?) team in the Pac 12 is UW, so we could be quite good and still not win our division.

UW lost more talent to graduation/draft than we did, and I don't think Petersen has yet developed the same "next man up" depth that Shaw has, but only because he hasn't been there long enough.  I'm more worried about Wazzu than the Huskies.
[/quote]

Stanford is an interesting case in terms of personnel losses. Stanford lost very few players overall, but did lose the best player on each side of the ball in the conference. It's an issue of quality vs quantity.

UW also didn't lose that many players. It looks to me like their losses were:
Offense - WR Ross, TE Daniels, OG Eldrenkamp.
Defense - LB Wooching, LB/DE Mathis, S Baker, CB King, CB Jones

That's a big hit to the UW secondary, but otherwise very light. The UW folks claim that it is in the secondary that they have the most depth, but I am not in a position to independently evaluate that claim.

2. The OL is young.  Interior is solid, but the Tackles in 2016 were below mediocre.  Were it me, I'd start Little and Sarrel, take my lumps as they learn, and be fine with it.  But this doesn't seem to be Shaw's MO.  So they will play lesser players with more experience who will be beaten by better defensive athletes the better teams employ.

The OL is not young, or at least it has not-young options.
If the OL proceeds on a simple progression from last year, then from left to right we'll be:
Senior - Sophomore - Senior - Senior* - 5th Year.
Obviously, if somebody younger beats out one of those players, the line will be younger but presumably better.

I don't know how anyone could make a decision as to whether any true frosh should start or not without seeing them play in camp. Of course it would be great if both take starting jobs. My own guy instinct is that eventually one will, but that is nothing but a guess - maybe a hope.

People keep saying that it is not Shaw's MO to play frosh much. WIM keeps posting examples where he does. In a comparative sense, I am not sure how much Shaw plays true frosh versus the Power 5 team average, but I don't see a broad aversion to it (despite a few notable examples (McCaffrey)). On the OL Shaw has had Herbig, Garnett, and Murphy start as true frosh.


*We don't have an incumbent at RG. The natural progression of things would probably be for senior Fanaika to take the spot - as I think he has more snaps as a guard than any other alternative. Another option much discussed earlier is Tucker becoming a guard and taking the spot. [Don't know if it means anything, but the official 2017 roster just lists Tucker as a Tackle.] Both of those guys are seniors, with Fanaika having another year of eligibility.

3. I'm not sold on Chryst.  He's better than Burns, but he hasn't really beat a really good team (though he was on track to beat UNC, but even Burns did that, so was UNC that good?), and I'm not sure he can.  I'm not sure he can't, but he's got to beat teams with better QBs than he is for Stanford to win 10 games.  It's a tall order with the OL issues, IMO.

I am not sure I am sold on Chryst yet either, and even if I were it won't be clear how well he comes back from injury until it happens. However, "he hasn't really beat a really good team" is neither fair nor instructive.
Stanford has beaten every single team they played when Chryst started as QB. Pretty hard to have him win the games he didn't play.

It's worth going back to watch Chryst's good stretch of games. They weren't perfect, but Chryst makes some good decisions and plays that don't directly depend upon having bad opposition.
It is quite clear that he was better then than over his first two games - and disastrous relief appearance vs. WSU.
Oregon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvcZNBy3mss
Cal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqMrSxmaDGA
Rice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNtKpZ1LajA
[This is a compilation of the plays McCaffrey is in, but that's a good fraction of our offense on the day.]
UNC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnU6FEPBxg

Chryst's stats over his final four games (though only about 1/4 of the fourth):
46 of 71, 65%, 678 yds, 9.6 yds/att, 10 TDs, 0 INTs, PER = 191.5
Those are really excellent numbers, though indeed against mostly bad defenses.

[Goose]

One is that there are individual player issues along the interior. Burkett got individually man-handled as much as anyone on the line. There were too many plays like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVr43oMhfTI#t=16m20s

Amen. And he was also manhandled in the next game (Colorado). Supposedly, that got cleaned up, but it is something that really messes with the QB's head. Pressure right up the middle is real hard to deal with. Let's hope it was fixed.

But the bigger reason is that being individually good is not enough for an OL. Playing well together is essential. An interesting example is 2014. That was the year all the starters came from the great 2012 recruiting class. Individually they were all good to great, as a unit not so much (at least until late). But with four returning starters they were able to be great in 2015.

Let's hope for a replay of that degree of improvement. If we have to rely on the Freshmen to "fix" the OL problems, it will probably not happen soon enough to give us any shot at the North title.

[Goose]

One is that there are individual player issues along the interior. Burkett got individually man-handled as much as anyone on the line. There were too many plays like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVr43oMhfTI#t=16m20s

Amen. And he was also manhandled in the next game (Colorado). Supposedly, that got cleaned up, but it is something that really messes with the QB's head. Pressure right up the middle is real hard to deal with. Let's hope it was fixed.

But the bigger reason is that being individually good is not enough for an OL. Playing well together is essential. An interesting example is 2014. That was the year all the starters came from the great 2012 recruiting class. Individually they were all good to great, as a unit not so much (at least until late). But with four returning starters they were able to be great in 2015.

Let's hope for a replay of that degree of improvement. If we have to rely on the Freshmen to "fix" the OL problems, it will probably not happen soon enough to give us any shot at the North title.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17063.msg195647#msg195647 date=1500489082]
More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

OF, you may be correct. However, it seems to me that you are saying that the guys we had last year didn't perform well enough, but that the new guys will. I am more of the belief that the guys from last year can/will perform better this year. In either case, it is a hope based really on no data. Fortunately, the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. However, I feel compelled to point out that the degree to which a player is skilled isn't really known until he plays. It is certainly true we will need to get "more" from several positions to win 10 games or better.
[/quote]

Let's cut to the chase here.  Little and Sarell are gigantic and powerful athletes.  They were the #1 and #2 OT recruits in the country according to most analysts.  Some observers watching Little at the Army game practices said he might be the best OT prospect they've ever seen at that point.  Sarell went into that game being #1.  Put away the cardinal-colored glasses.  Hall and Bright are just not even in the same conversation as Little and Sarell as athletes at the OT position, and Tucker is a Guard all day long on a contending team.  I thought Hamilton might step up, but apparently he did not in the Spring session.  Doesn't mean he won't over time, but he isn't going to be starting over Little or Sarell at OT for Stanford ever, barring something unforeseen.

Wade-Perry isn't nearly the slam dunk athletic monster Little and Sarell are, but he is a big body who is a very good athlete for his size, a size Stanford totally lacks without him at NT.  People want to pin the mediocre run defense in 2016 on the ILBs, but I firmly believe its more a function of not having a big body to anchor the middle.  Sans such a body, it's hard to imagine the 2017 rush defense improving over 2016.  You can't be a championship contender allowing over 4YPC unless you have a prolific offense.  Does anyone see a prolific offense?

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17063.msg195647#msg195647 date=1500489082]
More so than any year in recent memory, this Stanford team needs meaningful contributions from True Frosh to legitimately contend for a championship, IMO.  If you look at the trenches, Stanford is outclassed by the better teams without guys like Little, Sarell, and Wade-Perry.  But I also think Wedington, St. Brown and maybe Parkinson, will need to play and make meaningful contributions, because they are all tremendously offensively skilled.  If these kids are ready to play, I will up my prediction for wins from 8 to 9 or 10.

Hey, given Foster Sarell plays for Stanford, shouldn't the board software recognize his name?

OF, you may be correct. However, it seems to me that you are saying that the guys we had last year didn't perform well enough, but that the new guys will. I am more of the belief that the guys from last year can/will perform better this year. In either case, it is a hope based really on no data. Fortunately, the two conditions are not mutually exclusive. However, I feel compelled to point out that the degree to which a player is skilled isn't really known until he plays. It is certainly true we will need to get "more" from several positions to win 10 games or better.
[/quote]

Let's cut to the chase here.  Little and Sarell are gigantic and powerful athletes.  They were the #1 and #2 OT recruits in the country according to most analysts.  Some observers watching Little at the Army game practices said he might be the best OT prospect they've ever seen at that point.  Sarell went into that game being #1.  Put away the cardinal-colored glasses.  Hall and Bright are just not even in the same conversation as Little and Sarell as athletes at the OT position, and Tucker is a Guard all day long on a contending team.  I thought Hamilton might step up, but apparently he did not in the Spring session.  Doesn't mean he won't over time, but he isn't going to be starting over Little or Sarell at OT for Stanford ever, barring something unforeseen.

Wade-Perry isn't nearly the slam dunk athletic monster Little and Sarell are, but he is a big body who is a very good athlete for his size, a size Stanford totally lacks without him at NT.  People want to pin the mediocre run defense in 2016 on the ILBs, but I firmly believe its more a function of not having a big body to anchor the middle.  Sans such a body, it's hard to imagine the 2017 rush defense improving over 2016.  You can't be a championship contender allowing over 4YPC unless you have a prolific offense.  Does anyone see a prolific offense?

[Goose]

Let's cut to the chase here.  Little and Sarell are gigantic and powerful athletes.  They were the #1 and #2 OT recruits in the country according to most analysts.  Some observers watching Little at the Army game practices said he might be the best OT prospect they've ever seen at that point.  Sarell went into that game being #1.  Put away the cardinal-colored glasses.

First, I hope you are right and both contribute a lot this year. But, I think you are looking through equally Cardinal-colored glasses.  Lots of guys come in as "can't miss" prospects and then, God forbid, miss. Others come in and do great, but it takes a bit of time. A very few hit it from day one. I just don't accept the concept that we are doomed to be an 8-4 (or worse) team if Little and Sarell are not big contributors.

Hall and Bright are just not even in the same conversation as Little and Sarell as athletes at the OT position

Right now, it is reasonable to say that Little and Sarell have the potential to be more athletic at the tackle position. Will they be better football players? We shall see. I hope so, but I am not going to count on it for 2017. They haven't played a down of college ball yet.

and Tucker is a Guard all day long on a contending team.

Well, somehow Tucker made it through a year at tackle on the 2015 team, which I would imagine could be classified as a "contending" team. Now, it certainly appeared he regressed in 2016, but all that proves is that it is real hard to predict what any given player will do, even highly touted ones.  Tucker was a four star recruit, not chopped liver.

but he isn't going to be starting over Little or Sarell at OT for Stanford ever, barring something unforeseen.

Something unforeseen, like, for example,  that he plays better than they do?  ;D Nobody thought Hogan would ever play either.

Wade-Perry isn't nearly the slam dunk athletic monster Little and Sarell are, but he is a big body who is a very good athlete for his size, a size Stanford totally lacks without him at NT.  People want to pin the mediocre run defense in 2016 on the ILBs, but I firmly believe its more a function of not having a big body to anchor the middle.

I agree with you here. You can try to defend the run with fast, strong, smaller guys, but it is a lot better, especially in the 3 man line, if there is somebody they just can't move. It eats up the blocks and allows the faster, smaller guys to be effective. In this case, Wade-Perry is really our only choice, AFIK. The question is, is he strong enough to do it? We may not needs tons of quick, but as a "plug" at NT, he will need to be real strong. Conventional wisdom says Freshmen usually aren't. I hope he is.

[Goose]

Let's cut to the chase here.  Little and Sarell are gigantic and powerful athletes.  They were the #1 and #2 OT recruits in the country according to most analysts.  Some observers watching Little at the Army game practices said he might be the best OT prospect they've ever seen at that point.  Sarell went into that game being #1.  Put away the cardinal-colored glasses.

First, I hope you are right and both contribute a lot this year. But, I think you are looking through equally Cardinal-colored glasses.  Lots of guys come in as "can't miss" prospects and then, God forbid, miss. Others come in and do great, but it takes a bit of time. A very few hit it from day one. I just don't accept the concept that we are doomed to be an 8-4 (or worse) team if Little and Sarell are not big contributors.

Hall and Bright are just not even in the same conversation as Little and Sarell as athletes at the OT position

Right now, it is reasonable to say that Little and Sarell have the potential to be more athletic at the tackle position. Will they be better football players? We shall see. I hope so, but I am not going to count on it for 2017. They haven't played a down of college ball yet.

and Tucker is a Guard all day long on a contending team.

Well, somehow Tucker made it through a year at tackle on the 2015 team, which I would imagine could be classified as a "contending" team. Now, it certainly appeared he regressed in 2016, but all that proves is that it is real hard to predict what any given player will do, even highly touted ones.  Tucker was a four star recruit, not chopped liver.

but he isn't going to be starting over Little or Sarell at OT for Stanford ever, barring something unforeseen.

Something unforeseen, like, for example,  that he plays better than they do?  ;D Nobody thought Hogan would ever play either.

Wade-Perry isn't nearly the slam dunk athletic monster Little and Sarell are, but he is a big body who is a very good athlete for his size, a size Stanford totally lacks without him at NT.  People want to pin the mediocre run defense in 2016 on the ILBs, but I firmly believe its more a function of not having a big body to anchor the middle.

I agree with you here. You can try to defend the run with fast, strong, smaller guys, but it is a lot better, especially in the 3 man line, if there is somebody they just can't move. It eats up the blocks and allows the faster, smaller guys to be effective. In this case, Wade-Perry is really our only choice, AFIK. The question is, is he strong enough to do it? We may not needs tons of quick, but as a "plug" at NT, he will need to be real strong. Conventional wisdom says Freshmen usually aren't. I hope he is.