[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=8334.msg67024#msg67024 date=1378332549]
[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.[/quote]

Ah, okay. That makes way more sense.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=8334.msg67024#msg67024 date=1378332549]
[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.[/quote]

Ah, okay. That makes way more sense.

[81alum]

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

SJSU's team is a constant drain on university finances, and it draws only 12k fans in attendance even after a 12-2 season.  How can we work with that? 

"The team that nobody sees."
"The team that draws better than Santa Clara"
"The team that draws better than rowing"
"The team that would like to charge for admission....but can't."
"The team that ESPN televised....once."

There is also the working class mantra, dating a number of years ago to when SJSU coach Fitz Hill (I think) drove the team around the Stanford campus so they could see how their opposition lived.  Harbaugh probably took a couple of pages from that book.  But I can't think of anything derogatory coming from that.  I'm just not enough of an elitist, I guess.

There is their mascot, the Spartan, a representative of a vicious, militaristic slave society.  But I can't see doing much with that.  Calling them slavers does not ring true.  And militarism is sort of admired in football.

There are the lower academic standards, but they have been coming up lately and the SJSU APR is  better than most Pac 12 teams.  So nothing there.

How about something about SJSU welching on its deals with Stanford...twice.

"The fool me twice team."

And then there is me.

"The team that inspires SJSU faculty to watch football--15 miles up the peninsula."

No, not really happy with any of them, but maybe this will inspire others.

[81alum]

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

SJSU's team is a constant drain on university finances, and it draws only 12k fans in attendance even after a 12-2 season.  How can we work with that? 

"The team that nobody sees."
"The team that draws better than Santa Clara"
"The team that draws better than rowing"
"The team that would like to charge for admission....but can't."
"The team that ESPN televised....once."

There is also the working class mantra, dating a number of years ago to when SJSU coach Fitz Hill (I think) drove the team around the Stanford campus so they could see how their opposition lived.  Harbaugh probably took a couple of pages from that book.  But I can't think of anything derogatory coming from that.  I'm just not enough of an elitist, I guess.

There is their mascot, the Spartan, a representative of a vicious, militaristic slave society.  But I can't see doing much with that.  Calling them slavers does not ring true.  And militarism is sort of admired in football.

There are the lower academic standards, but they have been coming up lately and the SJSU APR is  better than most Pac 12 teams.  So nothing there.

How about something about SJSU welching on its deals with Stanford...twice.

"The fool me twice team."

And then there is me.

"The team that inspires SJSU faculty to watch football--15 miles up the peninsula."

No, not really happy with any of them, but maybe this will inspire others.

[CompSci87]

"The team we feel too sorry for to make fun of"

[CompSci87]

"The team we feel too sorry for to make fun of"

[fullmetal]

"The team that draws better than rowing"

Zing...!

[fullmetal]

"The team that draws better than rowing"

Zing...!

[Cardinal96]

After seeing how bad Sacramento State was against Arizona State, I am starting to think we are going to cover the point spread against San Jose State.

[Cardinal96]

After seeing how bad Sacramento State was against Arizona State, I am starting to think we are going to cover the point spread against San Jose State.

[Treebound]

OF asked a fair question and Terry has answered nicely (as usual).    I will add a few other points that I think are valid:

1) Fales is a very good quarterback and will bring his A game.  I think they were right to play conservative last week and the improvement and risk taking against us will be a major step up.

2) Those of us that have been Stanford football fans for the long term are still adjusting to our new reality - We are a great team.  Five years ago, if we had a lead it was more like "let's see how WE will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."  Yes, I remember the Tuiosisopo UW game and many others of that ilk! 

That being said - Defense Wins Championships and this is the BEST defense we have ever had.  Barring injury I say we run the table this year.  The winner of the Stanford Oregon game will play for the national championship and I say it's Stanford!    We are still getting less respect than we deserve and I'm fine with that.  Let the games begin and let the defense party in the backfield!  CTG awaits!

[Treebound]

OF asked a fair question and Terry has answered nicely (as usual).    I will add a few other points that I think are valid:

1) Fales is a very good quarterback and will bring his A game.  I think they were right to play conservative last week and the improvement and risk taking against us will be a major step up.

2) Those of us that have been Stanford football fans for the long term are still adjusting to our new reality - We are a great team.  Five years ago, if we had a lead it was more like "let's see how WE will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."  Yes, I remember the Tuiosisopo UW game and many others of that ilk! 

That being said - Defense Wins Championships and this is the BEST defense we have ever had.  Barring injury I say we run the table this year.  The winner of the Stanford Oregon game will play for the national championship and I say it's Stanford!    We are still getting less respect than we deserve and I'm fine with that.  Let the games begin and let the defense party in the backfield!  CTG awaits!

[SamAtoms1980]

After seeing how bad Sacramento State was against Arizona State, I am starting to think we are going to cover the point spread against San Jose State.

As soon as Sacramento State got their field goal blocked on the opening drive, I knew that game was over.

[SamAtoms1980]

After seeing how bad Sacramento State was against Arizona State, I am starting to think we are going to cover the point spread against San Jose State.

As soon as Sacramento State got their field goal blocked on the opening drive, I knew that game was over.

[fullmetal]

I'm just hoping for a lockdown defensive effort.

(Also because I drafted the Stanford defense in my college fantasy league.)

[fullmetal]

I'm just hoping for a lockdown defensive effort.

(Also because I drafted the Stanford defense in my college fantasy league.)

[washingtonismoney]

I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

You raise some good points but it's hard to make cross-era comparisons -- the question is, relative to what? The trend has been more and better offense for a while now, thanks in large part to the Bill Walsh legacy. With all the crazy offenses out there, you could argue Stanford's performance is more impressive relative to its era than those other ones. (I don't know, of course -- I saw neither team and am not familiar with the offensive statistics of that era.)

[washingtonismoney]

I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

You raise some good points but it's hard to make cross-era comparisons -- the question is, relative to what? The trend has been more and better offense for a while now, thanks in large part to the Bill Walsh legacy. With all the crazy offenses out there, you could argue Stanford's performance is more impressive relative to its era than those other ones. (I don't know, of course -- I saw neither team and am not familiar with the offensive statistics of that era.)

[97fan]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=8334.msg67133#msg67133 date=1378505157]
I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

You raise some good points but it's hard to make cross-era comparisons -- the question is, relative to what? The trend has been more and better offense for a while now, thanks in large part to the Bill Walsh legacy. With all the crazy offenses out there, you could argue Stanford's performance is more impressive relative to its era than those other ones. (I don't know, of course -- I saw neither team and am not familiar with the offensive statistics of that era.)
[/quote]

To emphasize the point about the difficulty of making cross-era comparisons: Stanford only scored 13.4 points per game in the 1935 season.

In comparison to which, the 2012 team looks like an offensive juggernaut, at 27.8 points per game.

[97fan]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=8334.msg67133#msg67133 date=1378505157]
I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

You raise some good points but it's hard to make cross-era comparisons -- the question is, relative to what? The trend has been more and better offense for a while now, thanks in large part to the Bill Walsh legacy. With all the crazy offenses out there, you could argue Stanford's performance is more impressive relative to its era than those other ones. (I don't know, of course -- I saw neither team and am not familiar with the offensive statistics of that era.)
[/quote]

To emphasize the point about the difficulty of making cross-era comparisons: Stanford only scored 13.4 points per game in the 1935 season.

In comparison to which, the 2012 team looks like an offensive juggernaut, at 27.8 points per game.

[terry]

Defense Wins Championships and this is the BEST defense we have ever had.

I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

It's hard to do a statistical analysis of Stanford's defenses over the years. The first problem is that it's hard to find the data. The "Records" section of the media guide has almost nothing showing team defensive stats. Fortunately, I just finished a project in which I compiled Stanford's team defensive statistics for every season since 1953. So I now have the data. You can look for it in next year's media guide.

The second problem is the cross-era comparison problem. The best seasons for team defense are mostly in the 1950s and 1960s. I don't think that's because Stanford's defenses were so good back then. Rather, it was just a different game. Offenses simply weren't as productive.

I don't know of an easy way to make era-adjusted comparisons. But I think Stanford's defenses of the last three seasons were really good, relative to the video-game offenses we see these days. If I had to nominate the best Stanford defenses of the last 60 seasons, my top candidates would be 1971, 1986, 1992, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

[terry]

Defense Wins Championships and this is the BEST defense we have ever had.

I keep reading stuff like this around here. I frankly doubt that it is true. Our 1935 team recorded six shutouts and gave up only 13 points in a nine-game season. The second Thunderchicken defense, in 1971, held six teams to single-digit scoring and gave up only 220 yards a game. I'd have to dig out an old media guide to get statistics on Bill Walsh's 1992 Blockbuster Bowl team, but it had an excellent defense.

We've had some pretty bad defensive play at times in the past few years. But Stanford football is not defined by the Buddy/Idiotface teams.

It's hard to do a statistical analysis of Stanford's defenses over the years. The first problem is that it's hard to find the data. The "Records" section of the media guide has almost nothing showing team defensive stats. Fortunately, I just finished a project in which I compiled Stanford's team defensive statistics for every season since 1953. So I now have the data. You can look for it in next year's media guide.

The second problem is the cross-era comparison problem. The best seasons for team defense are mostly in the 1950s and 1960s. I don't think that's because Stanford's defenses were so good back then. Rather, it was just a different game. Offenses simply weren't as productive.

I don't know of an easy way to make era-adjusted comparisons. But I think Stanford's defenses of the last three seasons were really good, relative to the video-game offenses we see these days. If I had to nominate the best Stanford defenses of the last 60 seasons, my top candidates would be 1971, 1986, 1992, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

[Bruce Wang]

One way of comparing eras is how many players ended up in the NFL.  How did the Thunder Chickens do on that front?  Barring injury, I think every defensive starter and many of the reserves will play on Sundays.

[Bruce Wang]

One way of comparing eras is how many players ended up in the NFL.  How did the Thunder Chickens do on that front?  Barring injury, I think every defensive starter and many of the reserves will play on Sundays.

[Kathy]

Defense Wins Championships

Games -- and championships -- are won when the team scores more points than it allows. It takes a superior effort on both sides of the ball.

[Kathy]

Defense Wins Championships

Games -- and championships -- are won when the team scores more points than it allows. It takes a superior effort on both sides of the ball.

[Treebound]

As usual,  Terry has the stats and I won't make comparisons to the 1930's teams.    Let me qualify it to be the best Stanford D in the modern era.  I have watched Stanford since 1982, which means I can't include the ThunderChickens in terms of having watched them play.  I think last year's D and this year's D are more dominant than any Stanford team I have watched.  92 and 86 were good teams, but I don't think we were at the same level across all positions and depth was always an issue as was a challenged backfield.    We are clearly stronger, faster and more deep than any Stanford team I have seen.  I think this group is primed and ready to make a run.  The schedule sets up well for us and now it's about execution.  Can't wait for the kickoff tonight!

 

[Treebound]

As usual,  Terry has the stats and I won't make comparisons to the 1930's teams.    Let me qualify it to be the best Stanford D in the modern era.  I have watched Stanford since 1982, which means I can't include the ThunderChickens in terms of having watched them play.  I think last year's D and this year's D are more dominant than any Stanford team I have watched.  92 and 86 were good teams, but I don't think we were at the same level across all positions and depth was always an issue as was a challenged backfield.    We are clearly stronger, faster and more deep than any Stanford team I have seen.  I think this group is primed and ready to make a run.  The schedule sets up well for us and now it's about execution.  Can't wait for the kickoff tonight!

 

[81alum]

I see what Treebound is saying and he is probably right, I've been watching for just a few more years (1977).  I think the critical difference is in the secondary, where we almost never have been as strong as we seem to be now.  I would agree that our defense is the best I have seen.

All that said, it just feels plain wrong to me to talk about how good we are as a team this year before we have played a game.  It seems like hubris, tempting fate, disrespecting the football gods.  I am reminded that our defense last year was also the best we have had in decades, and yet it gave up 48 points to Arizona and looked like it could not stop UCLA at times. 

Seven of the games we won last year were in OT or by one score or less.  Only in four games were we solidly in control the whole time.  I would dearly love to see us be more dominant.  I can't see us giving up 3 turnovers to Oregon and winning regularly.  We let Oregon State, Oregon, Arizona, SJSU, Washington, Notre Dame,  and UCLA tie us or lead us in the 4th quarter.  We would have lost more than 2 of those games had our defense not been as good as it was.  However, given that we won a lot of close games, I suspect we will need a significantly better offense, and no drop off in defense if we are going to do as well as last year, let alone dream about national championships.   

[81alum]

I see what Treebound is saying and he is probably right, I've been watching for just a few more years (1977).  I think the critical difference is in the secondary, where we almost never have been as strong as we seem to be now.  I would agree that our defense is the best I have seen.

All that said, it just feels plain wrong to me to talk about how good we are as a team this year before we have played a game.  It seems like hubris, tempting fate, disrespecting the football gods.  I am reminded that our defense last year was also the best we have had in decades, and yet it gave up 48 points to Arizona and looked like it could not stop UCLA at times. 

Seven of the games we won last year were in OT or by one score or less.  Only in four games were we solidly in control the whole time.  I would dearly love to see us be more dominant.  I can't see us giving up 3 turnovers to Oregon and winning regularly.  We let Oregon State, Oregon, Arizona, SJSU, Washington, Notre Dame,  and UCLA tie us or lead us in the 4th quarter.  We would have lost more than 2 of those games had our defense not been as good as it was.  However, given that we won a lot of close games, I suspect we will need a significantly better offense, and no drop off in defense if we are going to do as well as last year, let alone dream about national championships.   

[Treebound]

Thanks 81Alum.  My point here is/was not to tempt fate or incur the wrath of the woofing gods, hubris, etc...  This is football and strange things can and will happen.  The ball bounces funny - it was made to do so.  As one of my coaches used to say "You need a little bit of luck sometimes to make that ball bounce your way, but you sure as hell are going to be in the best shape of your life so you can be in position when it does!"

Yes, there were tight games last season and there will be more this season.  We weren't dominant last night, but we were strong against a good team.  I like this team and I like that people/student athletes like Shayne, Gardner and Gaffney decided to come back to Stanford to make a run.    I believe in these guys and I'm proud of what they are doing, whether that's 9-4 or 13-0.    I like this team and I really like this defense (granted, I'm biased towards D and yes Garvin, Lynch was amazing).  I'll continue to hope the ball bounces our way and that we are ready when it does.  I like our chances.

[Treebound]

Thanks 81Alum.  My point here is/was not to tempt fate or incur the wrath of the woofing gods, hubris, etc...  This is football and strange things can and will happen.  The ball bounces funny - it was made to do so.  As one of my coaches used to say "You need a little bit of luck sometimes to make that ball bounce your way, but you sure as hell are going to be in the best shape of your life so you can be in position when it does!"

Yes, there were tight games last season and there will be more this season.  We weren't dominant last night, but we were strong against a good team.  I like this team and I like that people/student athletes like Shayne, Gardner and Gaffney decided to come back to Stanford to make a run.    I believe in these guys and I'm proud of what they are doing, whether that's 9-4 or 13-0.    I like this team and I really like this defense (granted, I'm biased towards D and yes Garvin, Lynch was amazing).  I'll continue to hope the ball bounces our way and that we are ready when it does.  I like our chances.