[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny that the national media is giving more respect to Stanford than its own fans (generally): http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...5-rankings

Like last year, I think this overranks Stanford to start out. But would rather be overranked than underranked, really.

[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny that the national media is giving more respect to Stanford than its own fans (generally): http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...5-rankings

Like last year, I think this overranks Stanford to start out. But would rather be overranked than underranked, really.

[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny that the national media is giving more respect to Stanford than its own fans (generally): http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...5-rankings

Like last year, I think this overranks Stanford to start out. But would rather be overranked than underranked, really.

[washingtonismoney]

Kind of funny that the national media is giving more respect to Stanford than its own fans (generally): http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...5-rankings

Like last year, I think this overranks Stanford to start out. But would rather be overranked than underranked, really.

[czaja]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

[czaja]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

[czaja]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

[czaja]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

[Farm93]

This is where that boring, conservative play style pays the biggest dividends.  It really does not matter what individual pieces are lost, the system enables the team to win a lot of games.  Most teams in the Pac-12 will lose more talent than Stanford, so Stanford is getting that way too early respect.

The reality will be that Stanford's even year schedule is brutal.  Even if Stanford is the 3rd to 5th best team it might ultimately finish the season in that #10-#15 range.  For voters that vote pre-preseason on talent then top 5 seems appropriate really.  Not many teams more worthy really.

[Farm93]

This is where that boring, conservative play style pays the biggest dividends.  It really does not matter what individual pieces are lost, the system enables the team to win a lot of games.  Most teams in the Pac-12 will lose more talent than Stanford, so Stanford is getting that way too early respect.

The reality will be that Stanford's even year schedule is brutal.  Even if Stanford is the 3rd to 5th best team it might ultimately finish the season in that #10-#15 range.  For voters that vote pre-preseason on talent then top 5 seems appropriate really.  Not many teams more worthy really.

[Farm93]

This is where that boring, conservative play style pays the biggest dividends.  It really does not matter what individual pieces are lost, the system enables the team to win a lot of games.  Most teams in the Pac-12 will lose more talent than Stanford, so Stanford is getting that way too early respect.

The reality will be that Stanford's even year schedule is brutal.  Even if Stanford is the 3rd to 5th best team it might ultimately finish the season in that #10-#15 range.  For voters that vote pre-preseason on talent then top 5 seems appropriate really.  Not many teams more worthy really.

[Farm93]

This is where that boring, conservative play style pays the biggest dividends.  It really does not matter what individual pieces are lost, the system enables the team to win a lot of games.  Most teams in the Pac-12 will lose more talent than Stanford, so Stanford is getting that way too early respect.

The reality will be that Stanford's even year schedule is brutal.  Even if Stanford is the 3rd to 5th best team it might ultimately finish the season in that #10-#15 range.  For voters that vote pre-preseason on talent then top 5 seems appropriate really.  Not many teams more worthy really.

[Redrum]

Murphy would probably be a starter on a lot of Pac12 teams.  The only reason he was behind Cam Fleming was his weight, which is about 20 lbs below what Stanford said they'd like his weight to be.  His weight also seems to yo-yo, so maybe he's just at his optimum natural max development.  Bummer if so.  Hate to see him have to take a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.  Coaches and some line gurus say his technique and athleticism are way ahead of most lineman on the team.  But he has blocking time and experience at the jumbo position, so it's not like he's languishing.  OTOH,  NFL teams want bigger guys and that might put a cap on his NFL potential.

Garnett seems to have the opposite problem,  he is pretty big, but I read something in the early season that he needs to get his technique and ability to move in line with his size advantage.  Don't know if a season of play changed that assessment.  Not a knock, just not up on where the coaches think he is.  The fact that he started might say it all. 

Johnny Caspers had some Stanford ex-player and line gurus commenting on his development.  Very positive, maybe even excessive.  Kevin Danser's development (along w/ Garnett) kept Caspers from seeing a lot of time at the guard position.  Danser's done, so maybe this is Caspers' moment.  NFL?  Let's get him playing college ball first.

[Redrum]

Murphy would probably be a starter on a lot of Pac12 teams.  The only reason he was behind Cam Fleming was his weight, which is about 20 lbs below what Stanford said they'd like his weight to be.  His weight also seems to yo-yo, so maybe he's just at his optimum natural max development.  Bummer if so.  Hate to see him have to take a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.  Coaches and some line gurus say his technique and athleticism are way ahead of most lineman on the team.  But he has blocking time and experience at the jumbo position, so it's not like he's languishing.  OTOH,  NFL teams want bigger guys and that might put a cap on his NFL potential.

Garnett seems to have the opposite problem,  he is pretty big, but I read something in the early season that he needs to get his technique and ability to move in line with his size advantage.  Don't know if a season of play changed that assessment.  Not a knock, just not up on where the coaches think he is.  The fact that he started might say it all. 

Johnny Caspers had some Stanford ex-player and line gurus commenting on his development.  Very positive, maybe even excessive.  Kevin Danser's development (along w/ Garnett) kept Caspers from seeing a lot of time at the guard position.  Danser's done, so maybe this is Caspers' moment.  NFL?  Let's get him playing college ball first.

[Redrum]

Murphy would probably be a starter on a lot of Pac12 teams.  The only reason he was behind Cam Fleming was his weight, which is about 20 lbs below what Stanford said they'd like his weight to be.  His weight also seems to yo-yo, so maybe he's just at his optimum natural max development.  Bummer if so.  Hate to see him have to take a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.  Coaches and some line gurus say his technique and athleticism are way ahead of most lineman on the team.  But he has blocking time and experience at the jumbo position, so it's not like he's languishing.  OTOH,  NFL teams want bigger guys and that might put a cap on his NFL potential.

Garnett seems to have the opposite problem,  he is pretty big, but I read something in the early season that he needs to get his technique and ability to move in line with his size advantage.  Don't know if a season of play changed that assessment.  Not a knock, just not up on where the coaches think he is.  The fact that he started might say it all. 

Johnny Caspers had some Stanford ex-player and line gurus commenting on his development.  Very positive, maybe even excessive.  Kevin Danser's development (along w/ Garnett) kept Caspers from seeing a lot of time at the guard position.  Danser's done, so maybe this is Caspers' moment.  NFL?  Let's get him playing college ball first.

[Redrum]

Murphy would probably be a starter on a lot of Pac12 teams.  The only reason he was behind Cam Fleming was his weight, which is about 20 lbs below what Stanford said they'd like his weight to be.  His weight also seems to yo-yo, so maybe he's just at his optimum natural max development.  Bummer if so.  Hate to see him have to take a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.  Coaches and some line gurus say his technique and athleticism are way ahead of most lineman on the team.  But he has blocking time and experience at the jumbo position, so it's not like he's languishing.  OTOH,  NFL teams want bigger guys and that might put a cap on his NFL potential.

Garnett seems to have the opposite problem,  he is pretty big, but I read something in the early season that he needs to get his technique and ability to move in line with his size advantage.  Don't know if a season of play changed that assessment.  Not a knock, just not up on where the coaches think he is.  The fact that he started might say it all. 

Johnny Caspers had some Stanford ex-player and line gurus commenting on his development.  Very positive, maybe even excessive.  Kevin Danser's development (along w/ Garnett) kept Caspers from seeing a lot of time at the guard position.  Danser's done, so maybe this is Caspers' moment.  NFL?  Let's get him playing college ball first.

[FarmBoy]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

[FarmBoy]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

[FarmBoy]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

[FarmBoy]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford can once again compete for a Pac 12 championship and a top 10 national ranking in a season in which it plays only 6 home games and has to travel to Tempe, Pasadena, Eugene and Seattle, then it deserves all of the national respect sent its way.  2014 will be a big challenge.

Some matchups that already have me interested in next season - Sept 13 - Michigan State at Oregon; Sept 13 - UCLA at Texas.  For UCLA, that game will be HUUUUUGE.

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford can once again compete for a Pac 12 championship and a top 10 national ranking in a season in which it plays only 6 home games and has to travel to Tempe, Pasadena, Eugene and Seattle, then it deserves all of the national respect sent its way.  2014 will be a big challenge.

Some matchups that already have me interested in next season - Sept 13 - Michigan State at Oregon; Sept 13 - UCLA at Texas.  For UCLA, that game will be HUUUUUGE.

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford can once again compete for a Pac 12 championship and a top 10 national ranking in a season in which it plays only 6 home games and has to travel to Tempe, Pasadena, Eugene and Seattle, then it deserves all of the national respect sent its way.  2014 will be a big challenge.

Some matchups that already have me interested in next season - Sept 13 - Michigan State at Oregon; Sept 13 - UCLA at Texas.  For UCLA, that game will be HUUUUUGE.

[Spiny_Norman]

If Stanford can once again compete for a Pac 12 championship and a top 10 national ranking in a season in which it plays only 6 home games and has to travel to Tempe, Pasadena, Eugene and Seattle, then it deserves all of the national respect sent its way.  2014 will be a big challenge.

Some matchups that already have me interested in next season - Sept 13 - Michigan State at Oregon; Sept 13 - UCLA at Texas.  For UCLA, that game will be HUUUUUGE.

[yvonne]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20

[yvonne]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20

[yvonne]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20

[yvonne]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20

[Gauss]

Yeah, I agree with the others that top 5, even top 10 is too much, unless we get one or two pleasant surprises on D. The offense, on the other hand, should improve some.

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9357.msg80979#msg80979 date=1389116454]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20
[/quote]

Thank you Yvonne. At first I thought he was throwing around the same baseless accusations UCB's do, but your explanation makes more sense.

[Gauss]

Yeah, I agree with the others that top 5, even top 10 is too much, unless we get one or two pleasant surprises on D. The offense, on the other hand, should improve some.

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9357.msg80979#msg80979 date=1389116454]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20
[/quote]

Thank you Yvonne. At first I thought he was throwing around the same baseless accusations UCB's do, but your explanation makes more sense.

[Gauss]

Yeah, I agree with the others that top 5, even top 10 is too much, unless we get one or two pleasant surprises on D. The offense, on the other hand, should improve some.

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9357.msg80979#msg80979 date=1389116454]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20
[/quote]

Thank you Yvonne. At first I thought he was throwing around the same baseless accusations UCB's do, but your explanation makes more sense.

[Gauss]

Yeah, I agree with the others that top 5, even top 10 is too much, unless we get one or two pleasant surprises on D. The offense, on the other hand, should improve some.

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=9357.msg80979#msg80979 date=1389116454]

a Kal-endorsed 'roid path.

Care to elaborate?

I think he meant "Kal insinuated." Basically, a bunch of fans on the 59er Insider have insinuated that Stanford's success has come because the players are using performance-enhancing drugs. This insinuation is based on um, um, we're winning? and maybe the fact that players are much more developed as

Interestingly, Stanford's players are injured far less frequently than those of any other team, and injury often correlates with PED use. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/p...2009-02-20
[/quote]

Thank you Yvonne. At first I thought he was throwing around the same baseless accusations UCB's do, but your explanation makes more sense.

[CrazedZooChimp]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.

[CrazedZooChimp]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.

[CrazedZooChimp]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.

[CrazedZooChimp]

CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.

[slide]

[quote author=el mono link=topic=9357.msg80972#msg80972 date=1389113290]
CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.
[/quote]

34 of 44 from the depth chart coming back.  so, as you point out, the talent/experience should be there.  bigger question to me is team leadership.  losing Skov, Murphy, Gardner, Gaffney and Yankey will be very difficult.

[slide]

[quote author=el mono link=topic=9357.msg80972#msg80972 date=1389113290]
CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.
[/quote]

34 of 44 from the depth chart coming back.  so, as you point out, the talent/experience should be there.  bigger question to me is team leadership.  losing Skov, Murphy, Gardner, Gaffney and Yankey will be very difficult.

[slide]

[quote author=el mono link=topic=9357.msg80972#msg80972 date=1389113290]
CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.
[/quote]

34 of 44 from the depth chart coming back.  so, as you point out, the talent/experience should be there.  bigger question to me is team leadership.  losing Skov, Murphy, Gardner, Gaffney and Yankey will be very difficult.

[slide]

[quote author=el mono link=topic=9357.msg80972#msg80972 date=1389113290]
CBS goes beyond Schlabach's ranking and slots <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24401168/2014-preseason-top-25-a-first-guess">Stanford pre-season#3</a>.  I thought last year's ranking was pretty fair given the proven defensive talent we had returning.  However, putting Stanford in the early top 5 next year seems a bit too high.  Just losing Skov, Murphy, and Gardner is brobdingnagian (not to mention the other losses on both sides of the ball).  We do have a good amount of talent left, but something in the #12-15 range feels more appropriate. 

In any event, I'll take it.  A higher early ranking leads to more attention in the pre-season and early season, and if we can pull through, hopefully it helps our playoff chances.

I like to think of what we have coming back rather than what we have leaving.  We are returning all of our top receivers, our all american returner, our QB, our Left and Right tackles (probably), our cornerbacks, possibly both of our safeties (likely at least one), probably 2/3 of our starting DL, possibly 2/4 of our LBs (and most of the 2nd team).  The only big questionable position I would see is RB (and I'm pretty confident that between Sanders and Wright we should be OK).  We could be worried about TE, but it can't get worse than it was this year.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect us to be as good next year as we were this year, maybe even better (at least on offense).  We're also not the only team losing top talent, that's usually what happens.
[/quote]

34 of 44 from the depth chart coming back.  so, as you point out, the talent/experience should be there.  bigger question to me is team leadership.  losing Skov, Murphy, Gardner, Gaffney and Yankey will be very difficult.