09-19-2026, 02:11 PM
well this is no fun.
Cal delenda est
Stanford Duke Game Thread
Now imagine if Duke had scored on their opening drive from the 3 yard line... 21 - zippo.
How can you NOT cover Sheppard on a flare route?!! Guys. Cover Sheppard CLOSELY on every play.
STOP ONE GUY.
Duke staging a nice Homecoming... BDEVS 14, CARD 0. with 6m to go Q2.
Any signs of life for STAN?
Warren has to spread it out; throw the ball. Sooner. He is 4 for 12 for 40 yards with bad pass blocking, and dropped balls.
How can you NOT cover Sheppard on a flare route?!! Guys. Cover Sheppard CLOSELY on every play.
STOP ONE GUY.
Duke staging a nice Homecoming... BDEVS 14, CARD 0. with 6m to go Q2.
Any signs of life for STAN?
Warren has to spread it out; throw the ball. Sooner. He is 4 for 12 for 40 yards with bad pass blocking, and dropped balls.
Now imagine if Duke had scored on their opening drive from the 3 yard line... 21 - zippo.
How can you NOT cover Sheppard on a flare route?!! Guys. Cover Sheppard CLOSELY on every play.
STOP ONE GUY.
Duke staging a nice Homecoming... BDEVS 14, CARD 0. with 6m to go Q2.
Any signs of life for STAN?
Warren has to spread it out; throw the ball. Sooner. He is 4 for 12 for 40 yards with bad pass blocking, and dropped balls.
How can you NOT cover Sheppard on a flare route?!! Guys. Cover Sheppard CLOSELY on every play.
STOP ONE GUY.
Duke staging a nice Homecoming... BDEVS 14, CARD 0. with 6m to go Q2.
Any signs of life for STAN?
Warren has to spread it out; throw the ball. Sooner. He is 4 for 12 for 40 yards with bad pass blocking, and dropped balls.
09-19-2026, 02:32 PM
!!!!!!!NICE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!DRIVE!!!!!!!!!
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
!!!!!!!NICE!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!DRIVE!!!!!!!!!
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
09-19-2026, 02:48 PM
We need the injured linemen back. However Lex that was a classic line with Herbel
09-19-2026, 03:03 PM
(09-19-2026, 02:55 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-19-2026, 02:39 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(09-19-2026, 02:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: Worst offensive line Ive seen. Tackles whiff more than Ron Herbel
lol
Herbel... MLB (1963-71), a pitcher at four teams. Worst BA in MLB history. .029
Walking Herbel was considered a felony.
in 227 plate appearances he struck out 125 times.....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(09-19-2026, 02:55 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-19-2026, 02:39 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(09-19-2026, 02:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: Worst offensive line Ive seen. Tackles whiff more than Ron Herbel
lol
Herbel... MLB (1963-71), a pitcher at four teams. Worst BA in MLB history. .029
Walking Herbel was considered a felony.
in 227 plate appearances he struck out 125 times.....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Before that last futile series, CW interviews A.Luck on sidelines, "How do you guys get back in this, down 21-7."
A.Luck: "One play at a time"... (?!?) OK, which plays? What is the strategy? I hate cliches. [Hedley Lamarr]
I keep saying, "ONE GUY to stop". 143 yds on 21 carries for Sheppard
Ugggh... DUKE 28, STAN 7 near end of Q3.
"Jello jigglin', and butter is hard". Chick Hearn
A.Luck: "One play at a time"... (?!?) OK, which plays? What is the strategy? I hate cliches. [Hedley Lamarr]
I keep saying, "ONE GUY to stop". 143 yds on 21 carries for Sheppard
Ugggh... DUKE 28, STAN 7 near end of Q3.
"Jello jigglin', and butter is hard". Chick Hearn
Before that last futile series, CW interviews A.Luck on sidelines, "How do you guys get back in this, down 21-7."
A.Luck: "One play at a time"... (?!?) OK, which plays? What is the strategy? I hate cliches. [Hedley Lamarr]
I keep saying, "ONE GUY to stop". 143 yds on 21 carries for Sheppard
Ugggh... DUKE 28, STAN 7 near end of Q3.
"Jello jigglin', and butter is hard". Chick Hearn
A.Luck: "One play at a time"... (?!?) OK, which plays? What is the strategy? I hate cliches. [Hedley Lamarr]
I keep saying, "ONE GUY to stop". 143 yds on 21 carries for Sheppard
Ugggh... DUKE 28, STAN 7 near end of Q3.
"Jello jigglin', and butter is hard". Chick Hearn
09-19-2026, 03:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2026, 03:49 PM by old spanish trail.)
Wasn't Altahir used successfully to block last year when we had to pass to have a chance? Is he hurt?
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2026, 03:49 PM by old spanish trail.)
Wasn't Altahir used successfully to block last year when we had to pass to have a chance? Is he hurt?
09-19-2026, 04:31 PM
Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
Re your "I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond", why would you do a silly thing like that?
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
Re your "I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond", why would you do a silly thing like that?
09-19-2026, 04:39 PM
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
It’s not the coaching. It’s the lack of athleticism. Get better athletes. You will then have “better” coaches. Duke is a mid-level ACC team. The difference in athleticism was obvious
(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
It’s not the coaching. It’s the lack of athleticism. Get better athletes. You will then have “better” coaches. Duke is a mid-level ACC team. The difference in athleticism was obvious
09-19-2026, 04:57 PM
First, the lack of traffic on this thread demonstrates that the interest in this game was pretty low. This surprises me a bit, because many on this board expressed the belief that the Duke game was at least possibly winnable. It wasn't, but that is hindsight.
The long and short of the situation is IMO Stanford's defense couldn't stop the run and Stanford's offense couldn't run. Given that, we are pretty much always going to lose. It doesn't matter what the gameplan is under these circumstances. We know our receivers aren't exactly world class. We also know our OL lacks tackles that can reliably pass block. It is really hard to move the pocket or roll out if the opposing DL can just go straight up the field against your tackles. You will run right into them.
Can Stanford play better than they did today? IMO yes, they can. Can they play "lots" better than they did today? I doubt it. We can probably steal a game in the rest of the year and make 3-8 a reality. We still lack both the OL and the DL we need to rise much above that. Are we improving year-over-year? That remains to be seen. IMO the team seems to have a better understanding of what they are trying to do and where they need to be in order to do it than we had in the previous two years. However, we still lack the talent on the lines to reliably execute what we are trying to do. The line play probably has improved assignment-wise. However, we still lose the physicality battle far too often. That is the area where we need to see improvement. So far, IMO we have not.
The long and short of the situation is IMO Stanford's defense couldn't stop the run and Stanford's offense couldn't run. Given that, we are pretty much always going to lose. It doesn't matter what the gameplan is under these circumstances. We know our receivers aren't exactly world class. We also know our OL lacks tackles that can reliably pass block. It is really hard to move the pocket or roll out if the opposing DL can just go straight up the field against your tackles. You will run right into them.
Can Stanford play better than they did today? IMO yes, they can. Can they play "lots" better than they did today? I doubt it. We can probably steal a game in the rest of the year and make 3-8 a reality. We still lack both the OL and the DL we need to rise much above that. Are we improving year-over-year? That remains to be seen. IMO the team seems to have a better understanding of what they are trying to do and where they need to be in order to do it than we had in the previous two years. However, we still lack the talent on the lines to reliably execute what we are trying to do. The line play probably has improved assignment-wise. However, we still lose the physicality battle far too often. That is the area where we need to see improvement. So far, IMO we have not.
First, the lack of traffic on this thread demonstrates that the interest in this game was pretty low. This surprises me a bit, because many on this board expressed the belief that the Duke game was at least possibly winnable. It wasn't, but that is hindsight.
The long and short of the situation is IMO Stanford's defense couldn't stop the run and Stanford's offense couldn't run. Given that, we are pretty much always going to lose. It doesn't matter what the gameplan is under these circumstances. We know our receivers aren't exactly world class. We also know our OL lacks tackles that can reliably pass block. It is really hard to move the pocket or roll out if the opposing DL can just go straight up the field against your tackles. You will run right into them.
Can Stanford play better than they did today? IMO yes, they can. Can they play "lots" better than they did today? I doubt it. We can probably steal a game in the rest of the year and make 3-8 a reality. We still lack both the OL and the DL we need to rise much above that. Are we improving year-over-year? That remains to be seen. IMO the team seems to have a better understanding of what they are trying to do and where they need to be in order to do it than we had in the previous two years. However, we still lack the talent on the lines to reliably execute what we are trying to do. The line play probably has improved assignment-wise. However, we still lose the physicality battle far too often. That is the area where we need to see improvement. So far, IMO we have not.
The long and short of the situation is IMO Stanford's defense couldn't stop the run and Stanford's offense couldn't run. Given that, we are pretty much always going to lose. It doesn't matter what the gameplan is under these circumstances. We know our receivers aren't exactly world class. We also know our OL lacks tackles that can reliably pass block. It is really hard to move the pocket or roll out if the opposing DL can just go straight up the field against your tackles. You will run right into them.
Can Stanford play better than they did today? IMO yes, they can. Can they play "lots" better than they did today? I doubt it. We can probably steal a game in the rest of the year and make 3-8 a reality. We still lack both the OL and the DL we need to rise much above that. Are we improving year-over-year? That remains to be seen. IMO the team seems to have a better understanding of what they are trying to do and where they need to be in order to do it than we had in the previous two years. However, we still lack the talent on the lines to reliably execute what we are trying to do. The line play probably has improved assignment-wise. However, we still lose the physicality battle far too often. That is the area where we need to see improvement. So far, IMO we have not.
09-19-2026, 05:25 PM
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
I mean is anyone surprised with his track record? the fact that he insists on calling plays is yikes.
(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: Well, as dispiriting a loss as any in the "3-9" era of Stanford football, which we may all still be living in, unfortunately.
Inexplicable to me is how Blackburn only got, I think, two targets the whole game.
Very easy to see that the Stanford defense is simply physically unable to slow down a committed, talented run-first ofense. Maybe having Galvan and Kaminsky would have helped a significant amount, but that's a stretch, for sure.
Coach Pritchard failed his first test as an offensive playcaller with extra time to prepare against a good defense. It was most disturbing to see the offense actually play worse after halftime. True, the tackles for Stanford got whipped consistently, which makes everyhing very difficult. But I believe there are some things that Stanford could have done more of (roll outs, sliding pocket protection, executing screens). Honestly felt like the offensive braintrust got whipped as well, as they clearly prepared a gameplan with the expectation the line would hold up much better than it did.
I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance. At the end of the day, Duke is in it's "prime" under Manny Diaz, an experienced coach who has been able to now create a team that fits what he wants to do as a coach. It's still only three games in for the Pritchard era, so I'm not giving up hope that he's the guy who can lead Stanford to improvement this year and beyond.
I mean is anyone surprised with his track record? the fact that he insists on calling plays is yikes.
09-19-2026, 05:33 PM
(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
My mistake, as I had forgotten that Richard does have defensive coordinator experience (just not in college). I don't know enough about the Seahawks to say how much autonomy he truly had under Carroll.
While Pritchard did hold the title of offensive coordinator, I think it's pretty clear he was not an offensive playcaller at Stanford, so I'm (probably) justified in calling him new at the job of calling plays, at least.
Anyway, your points are good ones. But--it's just one game, as horrible as it was. So, I'm choosing to hold on to hope.
(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
My mistake, as I had forgotten that Richard does have defensive coordinator experience (just not in college). I don't know enough about the Seahawks to say how much autonomy he truly had under Carroll.
While Pritchard did hold the title of offensive coordinator, I think it's pretty clear he was not an offensive playcaller at Stanford, so I'm (probably) justified in calling him new at the job of calling plays, at least.
Anyway, your points are good ones. But--it's just one game, as horrible as it was. So, I'm choosing to hold on to hope.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »