[needle]

I worry about this game because my eyes tell me that Stanford turnovers very well could be highly variable with Hogan at QB.

Yes, there is upside to having a more wideout-oriented offense. But could these types of throws/routes also lead to more interceptions than a TE-oriented passing game? I honestly don't know.

Fortunately, Shaw has generally shown that he's wise enough to make sure the RBs get plenty of carries, which is where I think it's a safe bet that the offense will eventually shine against SJState.

[needle]

I worry about this game because my eyes tell me that Stanford turnovers very well could be highly variable with Hogan at QB.

Yes, there is upside to having a more wideout-oriented offense. But could these types of throws/routes also lead to more interceptions than a TE-oriented passing game? I honestly don't know.

Fortunately, Shaw has generally shown that he's wise enough to make sure the RBs get plenty of carries, which is where I think it's a safe bet that the offense will eventually shine against SJState.

[stupac2]

Yes, there is upside to having a more wideout-oriented offense. But could these types of throws/routes also lead to more interceptions than a TE-oriented passing game? I honestly don't know.

I don't know either, and I'm certainly no expert, but my intuition is that it's a lot easier to throw INTs on those short routes into crowded parts of the field than it is on the deep ball. Unless you drastically underthrow it and your receiver doesn't react and start playing DB, the only thing is making sure the safety doesn't come across. Whereas in the middle there are all kinds of defenders around the ball who could make a move, and it seems somewhat more likely to get tipped (though I'm not sure about that).

Again, just guessing, figures for this probably exist somewhere, but I have no idea where to look.

[stupac2]

Yes, there is upside to having a more wideout-oriented offense. But could these types of throws/routes also lead to more interceptions than a TE-oriented passing game? I honestly don't know.

I don't know either, and I'm certainly no expert, but my intuition is that it's a lot easier to throw INTs on those short routes into crowded parts of the field than it is on the deep ball. Unless you drastically underthrow it and your receiver doesn't react and start playing DB, the only thing is making sure the safety doesn't come across. Whereas in the middle there are all kinds of defenders around the ball who could make a move, and it seems somewhat more likely to get tipped (though I'm not sure about that).

Again, just guessing, figures for this probably exist somewhere, but I have no idea where to look.

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many Stanford fans so unconfident in this team?  Can someone please explain to me why Cal fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be, and Stanford fans are so unconfident when they have every right to be?

It is just baffling to me. 

Cal fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

[OutsiderFan]

Why are so many Stanford fans so unconfident in this team?  Can someone please explain to me why Cal fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be, and Stanford fans are so unconfident when they have every right to be?

It is just baffling to me. 

Cal fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

[stupac2]

Why are so many Stanford fans so unconfident in this team?  Can someone please explain to me why Low APR U fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be, and Stanford fans are so unconfident when they have every right to be?

It is just baffling to me. 

Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

Maybe this is just me, but I think a lot of it is understanding that football is a probabilistic game. Do I think Stanford is going to win this weekend? Yeah, I do. Do I think this line is high? I dunno, it seems high, but that's probably anchoring to last year's close results, (we only blew out truly awful teams, and even then didn't do it consistently (WSU)). But I know that that's just playing the odds. Bigger upsets have happened. A Stanford fan surely knows this. I think that, to a large extent, the responses in this thread are just understanding this and explaining the downside risk, that nothing is guaranteed.

Why the focus on the downside instead of being confident? Well, my attitude doesn't really matter. I prefer to have my expectations exceeded than dashed, but that's just a preference. I distinctly remember before the Washington game last year, a friend (an Oregon fan) was saying that there was no way Stanford was going to lose and that he was considering better thousands of dollars on the win/lose line (I forget what that's called). We all know what happened that game.

Anyway, that's just me. I don't really ever believe in a sure thing, and I don't really see the point in being overly cocky.

[stupac2]

Why are so many Stanford fans so unconfident in this team?  Can someone please explain to me why Low APR U fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be, and Stanford fans are so unconfident when they have every right to be?

It is just baffling to me. 

Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

Maybe this is just me, but I think a lot of it is understanding that football is a probabilistic game. Do I think Stanford is going to win this weekend? Yeah, I do. Do I think this line is high? I dunno, it seems high, but that's probably anchoring to last year's close results, (we only blew out truly awful teams, and even then didn't do it consistently (WSU)). But I know that that's just playing the odds. Bigger upsets have happened. A Stanford fan surely knows this. I think that, to a large extent, the responses in this thread are just understanding this and explaining the downside risk, that nothing is guaranteed.

Why the focus on the downside instead of being confident? Well, my attitude doesn't really matter. I prefer to have my expectations exceeded than dashed, but that's just a preference. I distinctly remember before the Washington game last year, a friend (an Oregon fan) was saying that there was no way Stanford was going to lose and that he was considering better thousands of dollars on the win/lose line (I forget what that's called). We all know what happened that game.

Anyway, that's just me. I don't really ever believe in a sure thing, and I don't really see the point in being overly cocky.

[fullmetal]

Why are we so pessimistic?  Anti-woofing, I suppose.  With a compressed schedule thanks to the 1st week bye, I'm just hoping for very little wear and tear in these first couple of games.

[fullmetal]

Why are we so pessimistic?  Anti-woofing, I suppose.  With a compressed schedule thanks to the 1st week bye, I'm just hoping for very little wear and tear in these first couple of games.

[Leftcoast]

There's more than one type of fandom.

In my experience, Stanford fans prefer their fandom to be grounded in reality and do not want to appear to be homers or mindless cheerleaders.  Cardinal fans believe that someone can be a passionate fan and still hold realistic views on our odds to win a big game.   

Having said that I'm on record as saying we'll smoke those guys.

[Leftcoast]

There's more than one type of fandom.

In my experience, Stanford fans prefer their fandom to be grounded in reality and do not want to appear to be homers or mindless cheerleaders.  Cardinal fans believe that someone can be a passionate fan and still hold realistic views on our odds to win a big game.   

Having said that I'm on record as saying we'll smoke those guys.

[pefloresjr]

I think the line is too high for two reasons.  First, as mentioned by some already, this is SJSU's biggest game of the year.  Not just in the "Stanford is the best team we'll face this year" sense but also in the "local, unappreciated, hard-working common man vs. those stuck-up, over-entitled, rich spoiled kids" sense.  My wife went to SJSU so I follow the team and their underdog motivation is very high.  The second reason is that Shaw seems to be a pretty conservative coach when it comes to preserving a lead.  If Stanford gets up by 10-14 points, I expect Shaw will play it very close to the vest and call very few passes other than short passes aimed at moving the chains.  I don't disagree with that strategy unless you are playing a team with the ability to score a lot of quick points.  I think Stanford will win more comfortably than last year, but 27 just seems too high.  I think something in the 14-17 range is more realistic. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I think the line is too high for two reasons.  First, as mentioned by some already, this is SJSU's biggest game of the year.  Not just in the "Stanford is the best team we'll face this year" sense but also in the "local, unappreciated, hard-working common man vs. those stuck-up, over-entitled, rich spoiled kids" sense.  My wife went to SJSU so I follow the team and their underdog motivation is very high.  The second reason is that Shaw seems to be a pretty conservative coach when it comes to preserving a lead.  If Stanford gets up by 10-14 points, I expect Shaw will play it very close to the vest and call very few passes other than short passes aimed at moving the chains.  I don't disagree with that strategy unless you are playing a team with the ability to score a lot of quick points.  I think Stanford will win more comfortably than last year, but 27 just seems too high.  I think something in the 14-17 range is more realistic. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Why the massive insecurity?

It is not pessimism or insecurity. We have few datapoints concerning our offense, so we are generally conservative in our enthusiasm. OTOH, we know our defense is stout but displayed weaknesses against passing spread teams. Perhaps we are looking at our team through the prism of a national championship instead of a team that loses one or two games, so we tend to focus on our weaknesses instead of a lauding our strengths.

The general feeling I receive when reading comments on this board is a  "show me how great you really are...don't tell me about how great you are".

That said, I would be shocked if SJSU scores more than twice this weekend and we score less that five times.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Why the massive insecurity?

It is not pessimism or insecurity. We have few datapoints concerning our offense, so we are generally conservative in our enthusiasm. OTOH, we know our defense is stout but displayed weaknesses against passing spread teams. Perhaps we are looking at our team through the prism of a national championship instead of a team that loses one or two games, so we tend to focus on our weaknesses instead of a lauding our strengths.

The general feeling I receive when reading comments on this board is a  "show me how great you really are...don't tell me about how great you are".

That said, I would be shocked if SJSU scores more than twice this weekend and we score less that five times.

[rudruff]

It's the horrible change in expectations. 4 years ago we would have welcomed a season that will be seen as a disaster today.

We played so many close games last year that until we can see some life from the offense we are going to worry.

If Stanford were to win 28-0, I think most of us would assume it would be harder for the offense to score 28, than the D to shut them out.

[rudruff]

It's the horrible change in expectations. 4 years ago we would have welcomed a season that will be seen as a disaster today.

We played so many close games last year that until we can see some life from the offense we are going to worry.

If Stanford were to win 28-0, I think most of us would assume it would be harder for the offense to score 28, than the D to shut them out.

[washingtonismoney]

The second reason is that Shaw seems to be a pretty conservative coach when it comes to preserving a lead.  If Stanford gets up by 10-14 points, I expect Shaw will play it very close to the vest and call very few passes other than short passes aimed at moving the chains. 

Evidence? Shaw spent 2011 blowing teams out relentlessly and 2012 playing them close. Not sure you can really conclude that Shaw has some propensity to win games closer than other coaches. (Of course, coaches who have lower margins of victory are coaches who win less, all things being equal...)

[washingtonismoney]

The second reason is that Shaw seems to be a pretty conservative coach when it comes to preserving a lead.  If Stanford gets up by 10-14 points, I expect Shaw will play it very close to the vest and call very few passes other than short passes aimed at moving the chains. 

Evidence? Shaw spent 2011 blowing teams out relentlessly and 2012 playing them close. Not sure you can really conclude that Shaw has some propensity to win games closer than other coaches. (Of course, coaches who have lower margins of victory are coaches who win less, all things being equal...)

[Kathy]

Can someone please explain to me why Low APR U fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be

Because weenies are delusional

[Kathy]

Can someone please explain to me why Low APR U fans are so much more confident when they have no right to be

Because weenies are delusional

[jayasena]

Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

Some of us are still undergoing therapy for PBSD
(B=Buddyball)

[jayasena]

Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

Why the massive insecurity?

Some of us are still undergoing therapy for PBSD
(B=Buddyball)

[JohnR34231]

Yep, some of us old time fans are still having a hard time getting used to this idea that Stanford is this juggernaut that is going to run everyone out of the stadium. Doesn't mean we don't hope it's going to happen, obviously.

So while I hope we beat the 27 point spread against SJS, I wouldn't bet the farm on it happening. 34-14 or something like that sounds realistic to me.

[JohnR34231]

Yep, some of us old time fans are still having a hard time getting used to this idea that Stanford is this juggernaut that is going to run everyone out of the stadium. Doesn't mean we don't hope it's going to happen, obviously.

So while I hope we beat the 27 point spread against SJS, I wouldn't bet the farm on it happening. 34-14 or something like that sounds realistic to me.

[OutsiderFan]

Good and reasoned responses. 

I'm seeing something like 42-10 or 41-3. 

[OutsiderFan]

Good and reasoned responses. 

I'm seeing something like 42-10 or 41-3. 

[sjsu1forever]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=8334.msg66983#msg66983 date=1378312327]
Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

low APR??  SJSU's APR is only ~5 points less than Stanfords.. JG

Why the massive insecurity?

Some of us are still undergoing therapy for PBSD
(B=Buddyball)
[/quote]

[sjsu1forever]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=8334.msg66983#msg66983 date=1378312327]
Low APR U fans see more dynamic passing offense and think more points will be scored.  Stanford fans see more dynamic passing offense and think potential for more turnovers?  WTF?

low APR??  SJSU's APR is only ~5 points less than Stanfords.. JG

Why the massive insecurity?

Some of us are still undergoing therapy for PBSD
(B=Buddyball)
[/quote]

[Leftcoast]

low APR??  SJSU's APR is only ~5 points less than Stanfords.  -  SJSU1Forever

The name "Low APR U" is the Cardboard's current system nickname for Berkeley not for San Jose State. 

They've variously been known as Bezerkly, College near a Bart Station, UCB, The 59ers (a reference to their last Rose Bowl appearance) and several other terms of not-so-loving endearment on these pages. 

We haven't come up with a good, system enforced name for the Spartans - But we're open to suggestions!!!

[Leftcoast]

low APR??  SJSU's APR is only ~5 points less than Stanfords.  -  SJSU1Forever

The name "Low APR U" is the Cardboard's current system nickname for Berkeley not for San Jose State. 

They've variously been known as Bezerkly, College near a Bart Station, UCB, The 59ers (a reference to their last Rose Bowl appearance) and several other terms of not-so-loving endearment on these pages. 

We haven't come up with a good, system enforced name for the Spartans - But we're open to suggestions!!!

[oman]

"System Enforced" is never good. 

[oman]

"System Enforced" is never good. 

[stupac2]

College near a Bart Station

I fail to see how this one is a pejorative. I very sincerely wish I could BART to Stanford games. The fact that Memorial Stadium is a short BART ride and walk from my apartment is pretty much the only good thing about playing Big Game there.

[stupac2]

College near a Bart Station

I fail to see how this one is a pejorative. I very sincerely wish I could BART to Stanford games. The fact that Memorial Stadium is a short BART ride and walk from my apartment is pretty much the only good thing about playing Big Game there.

[godfire]

Personally, I would much rather overachieve than underperform. The last few years, the former is what we've done, whereas this year, at best, we can only match the expecations some have (NCG). It's not really a complaint because working to be nationally respected has always been a goal and now we have it - but games we "should" win just make me extra nervous because the baseline is already at the top.

[godfire]

Personally, I would much rather overachieve than underperform. The last few years, the former is what we've done, whereas this year, at best, we can only match the expecations some have (NCG). It's not really a complaint because working to be nationally respected has always been a goal and now we have it - but games we "should" win just make me extra nervous because the baseline is already at the top.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Leftcoast link=topic=8334.msg67010#msg67010 date=1378327828]College near a Bart Station

I fail to see how this one is a pejorative. I very sincerely wish I could BART to Stanford games. The fact that Memorial Stadium is a short BART ride and walk from my apartment is pretty much the only good thing about playing Big Game there.
[/quote]

I think that's the point: the conceit is that being near a BART station is the only good thing you can say about Kal.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Leftcoast link=topic=8334.msg67010#msg67010 date=1378327828]College near a Bart Station

I fail to see how this one is a pejorative. I very sincerely wish I could BART to Stanford games. The fact that Memorial Stadium is a short BART ride and walk from my apartment is pretty much the only good thing about playing Big Game there.
[/quote]

I think that's the point: the conceit is that being near a BART station is the only good thing you can say about Kal.