08-13-2013, 10:14 AM
Fun read
08-13-2013, 10:38 AM
Wow, that piece to Alabama fans will be like chum to sharks.
The thing is, it really does seem quite plausible.
The thing is, it really does seem quite plausible.
Wow, that piece to Alabama fans will be like chum to sharks.
The thing is, it really does seem quite plausible.
The thing is, it really does seem quite plausible.
08-13-2013, 11:09 AM
No doubt that any hint that Bama will not win the NC this year is appalling to the Tide's fan base. I would say though that in speaking with some Bama and other SEC teams fans during my summer vacation at the beach that they understand that Stanford does not run some sort of gimmiky, spread, hurry up offence. One fellow in particular acknowledged that the Cardinal "play the right way", which goes to the point in the article about Stanford's smash-mouth attitude.
No doubt that any hint that Bama will not win the NC this year is appalling to the Tide's fan base. I would say though that in speaking with some Bama and other SEC teams fans during my summer vacation at the beach that they understand that Stanford does not run some sort of gimmiky, spread, hurry up offence. One fellow in particular acknowledged that the Cardinal "play the right way", which goes to the point in the article about Stanford's smash-mouth attitude.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-13-2013, 12:23 PM
...don't think they actually respect Stanford or the Pac-12. The masses of Bama/SEC fans are like any "true" religion. Most think you're just dead wrong because it's important that what they believe continues to be right. Then there are the ones who don't get in your face about the truth ( =their team's superiority) but figure if you want to burn for all eternity in Hell, it's between you and God. Just more room for them in Heaven. And then there are some people who like football, know good football when they see it, and understand it won't always be played only in Bryant Denny Stadium or the Georgia Dome.  The SEC crowd I hang with are mostly the latter. And they have comped us some great seats for great Bama games over the years.Â
But just like all religious people, they grant you the right to be wrong while continuing to believe what they believe. If Stanford beat Alabama for the NC, the most generous thing they'd say is Stanford was smart enough to play "Bama football"... the only true way to salvation.
But just like all religious people, they grant you the right to be wrong while continuing to believe what they believe. If Stanford beat Alabama for the NC, the most generous thing they'd say is Stanford was smart enough to play "Bama football"... the only true way to salvation.
...don't think they actually respect Stanford or the Pac-12. The masses of Bama/SEC fans are like any "true" religion. Most think you're just dead wrong because it's important that what they believe continues to be right. Then there are the ones who don't get in your face about the truth ( =their team's superiority) but figure if you want to burn for all eternity in Hell, it's between you and God. Just more room for them in Heaven. And then there are some people who like football, know good football when they see it, and understand it won't always be played only in Bryant Denny Stadium or the Georgia Dome.  The SEC crowd I hang with are mostly the latter. And they have comped us some great seats for great Bama games over the years.Â
But just like all religious people, they grant you the right to be wrong while continuing to believe what they believe. If Stanford beat Alabama for the NC, the most generous thing they'd say is Stanford was smart enough to play "Bama football"... the only true way to salvation.
But just like all religious people, they grant you the right to be wrong while continuing to believe what they believe. If Stanford beat Alabama for the NC, the most generous thing they'd say is Stanford was smart enough to play "Bama football"... the only true way to salvation.
08-13-2013, 12:32 PM
I found this when trying to do a search on Brett Nottingham to find out what's up with our favorite transfer. It turns out (surprise!) there's very little news coverage on Columbia football (shocking!)
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/7/25/452...6-stanford
Among the many things I learned reading this article:
- apparently Gaffney "quit" football for a year (technically true, but the article makes it sound like he took a year off to sit on the beach)
- when you draw a line between two dots, it makes a very clear trend (e.g., comparing Stanford offense in 2012 vs. 2011 and using that to project Stanford will score negative points in 2013!)
- there are still people who believe in the "Harbaugh glow" and that this is the year that his powers over the Stanford team finally wane
- The OLine is going through a rebuilding despite returning 4 of the 5 starters. Hmmmm
- Drew Terrell is a "top wideout"
Not that I would encourage anyone to read the full article, but I found it interesting to find there are still people who refuse to believe that Stanford is THAT good these days.
The author does remind readers of a very valid point. The defense is built to win in 2013. We are going to have a lot of turnover on that side of the ball in 2014. Clearly, the implication is that we need to blow some teams out and get some reps for the back ups.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/7/25/452...6-stanford
Among the many things I learned reading this article:
- apparently Gaffney "quit" football for a year (technically true, but the article makes it sound like he took a year off to sit on the beach)
- when you draw a line between two dots, it makes a very clear trend (e.g., comparing Stanford offense in 2012 vs. 2011 and using that to project Stanford will score negative points in 2013!)
- there are still people who believe in the "Harbaugh glow" and that this is the year that his powers over the Stanford team finally wane
- The OLine is going through a rebuilding despite returning 4 of the 5 starters. Hmmmm
- Drew Terrell is a "top wideout"
Not that I would encourage anyone to read the full article, but I found it interesting to find there are still people who refuse to believe that Stanford is THAT good these days.
The author does remind readers of a very valid point. The defense is built to win in 2013. We are going to have a lot of turnover on that side of the ball in 2014. Clearly, the implication is that we need to blow some teams out and get some reps for the back ups.
I found this when trying to do a search on Brett Nottingham to find out what's up with our favorite transfer. It turns out (surprise!) there's very little news coverage on Columbia football (shocking!)
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/7/25/452...6-stanford
Among the many things I learned reading this article:
- apparently Gaffney "quit" football for a year (technically true, but the article makes it sound like he took a year off to sit on the beach)
- when you draw a line between two dots, it makes a very clear trend (e.g., comparing Stanford offense in 2012 vs. 2011 and using that to project Stanford will score negative points in 2013!)
- there are still people who believe in the "Harbaugh glow" and that this is the year that his powers over the Stanford team finally wane
- The OLine is going through a rebuilding despite returning 4 of the 5 starters. Hmmmm
- Drew Terrell is a "top wideout"
Not that I would encourage anyone to read the full article, but I found it interesting to find there are still people who refuse to believe that Stanford is THAT good these days.
The author does remind readers of a very valid point. The defense is built to win in 2013. We are going to have a lot of turnover on that side of the ball in 2014. Clearly, the implication is that we need to blow some teams out and get some reps for the back ups.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/7/25/452...6-stanford
Among the many things I learned reading this article:
- apparently Gaffney "quit" football for a year (technically true, but the article makes it sound like he took a year off to sit on the beach)
- when you draw a line between two dots, it makes a very clear trend (e.g., comparing Stanford offense in 2012 vs. 2011 and using that to project Stanford will score negative points in 2013!)
- there are still people who believe in the "Harbaugh glow" and that this is the year that his powers over the Stanford team finally wane
- The OLine is going through a rebuilding despite returning 4 of the 5 starters. Hmmmm
- Drew Terrell is a "top wideout"
Not that I would encourage anyone to read the full article, but I found it interesting to find there are still people who refuse to believe that Stanford is THAT good these days.
The author does remind readers of a very valid point. The defense is built to win in 2013. We are going to have a lot of turnover on that side of the ball in 2014. Clearly, the implication is that we need to blow some teams out and get some reps for the back ups.
Cardinal96
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-13-2013, 06:29 PM
Not sure if Shaw will subscribe to the style of football needed to generate blowout scores--he should realize, though, that such a style is attractive to recruits at some level. Play for a coach that likes to win games with points...and defense. More scores = more highlights = more plays = more recognition and ESPN time. Also, more NFL scout attention.
Not sure if Shaw will subscribe to the style of football needed to generate blowout scores--he should realize, though, that such a style is attractive to recruits at some level. Play for a coach that likes to win games with points...and defense. More scores = more highlights = more plays = more recognition and ESPN time. Also, more NFL scout attention.
08-13-2013, 06:35 PM
(08-13-2013, 06:29 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Not sure if Shaw will subscribe to the style of football needed to generate blowout scores...
Quote:The [2011 UW] win also was Stanford's 10th consecutive victory by at least 25 points, the first to do so since 1936, according to Sports Illustrated.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_...p?id=22986
(08-13-2013, 06:29 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Not sure if Shaw will subscribe to the style of football needed to generate blowout scores...
Quote:The [2011 UW] win also was Stanford's 10th consecutive victory by at least 25 points, the first to do so since 1936, according to Sports Illustrated.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_...p?id=22986
08-13-2013, 10:50 PM
Yeah, followed by the 2012 season. Against Colorado and Duke, sure, but there's the rest of the schedule.
08-13-2013, 11:10 PM
IIRC this is the Washington fan who predicted Stanford was going to go somewhere around 6-6 last year.
Despite his claims to the contrary, he just doesn't like Stanford very much (after all he is a Washington fan) so he factors in some "wishful thinking" for us to underperform what most think we will do.
Like a stopped clock, one of these years he might be right, although I don't think this is going to be one of them. The high side of his forecast (ten wins) is not horribly unrealistic, though.
Despite his claims to the contrary, he just doesn't like Stanford very much (after all he is a Washington fan) so he factors in some "wishful thinking" for us to underperform what most think we will do.
Like a stopped clock, one of these years he might be right, although I don't think this is going to be one of them. The high side of his forecast (ten wins) is not horribly unrealistic, though.
IIRC this is the Washington fan who predicted Stanford was going to go somewhere around 6-6 last year.
Despite his claims to the contrary, he just doesn't like Stanford very much (after all he is a Washington fan) so he factors in some "wishful thinking" for us to underperform what most think we will do.
Like a stopped clock, one of these years he might be right, although I don't think this is going to be one of them. The high side of his forecast (ten wins) is not horribly unrealistic, though.
Despite his claims to the contrary, he just doesn't like Stanford very much (after all he is a Washington fan) so he factors in some "wishful thinking" for us to underperform what most think we will do.
Like a stopped clock, one of these years he might be right, although I don't think this is going to be one of them. The high side of his forecast (ten wins) is not horribly unrealistic, though.
08-14-2013, 06:55 AM
(08-13-2013, 10:50 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Yeah, followed by the 2012 season. Against Colorado and Duke, sure, but there's the rest of the schedule.
Sure. But you don't have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of "David Shaw blows teams out as often as most coaches."
EDIT: I'd also note that if David Shaw did have a style that somehow discouraged blowouts, I'd consider that a fireable offense.
(08-13-2013, 10:50 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Yeah, followed by the 2012 season. Against Colorado and Duke, sure, but there's the rest of the schedule.
Sure. But you don't have enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of "David Shaw blows teams out as often as most coaches."
EDIT: I'd also note that if David Shaw did have a style that somehow discouraged blowouts, I'd consider that a fireable offense.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-14-2013, 07:18 AM
...over blowouts. It builds experienced depth, reduces chances for injuries to key players, builds team morale, improves recruiting.
...over blowouts. It builds experienced depth, reduces chances for injuries to key players, builds team morale, improves recruiting.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »