[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/patsmithradio/status...1574920192

Here are the gamblers' thoughts:

FSU 11/2
'bama 13/2
Stanford 9/1
tOSU 10/1
Oregon 12/1
Auburn 14/1

Well if the moneymen think so....

(note that there aren't exactly a great gibbering horde of Stanford fans willing to lay down money on the Cardinal at any price, so that doesn't explain this.)

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/patsmithradio/status...1574920192

Here are the gamblers' thoughts:

FSU 11/2
'bama 13/2
Stanford 9/1
tOSU 10/1
Oregon 12/1
Auburn 14/1

Well if the moneymen think so....

(note that there aren't exactly a great gibbering horde of Stanford fans willing to lay down money on the Cardinal at any price, so that doesn't explain this.)

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/patsmithradio/status...1574920192

Here are the gamblers' thoughts:

FSU 11/2
'bama 13/2
Stanford 9/1
tOSU 10/1
Oregon 12/1
Auburn 14/1

Well if the moneymen think so....

(note that there aren't exactly a great gibbering horde of Stanford fans willing to lay down money on the Cardinal at any price, so that doesn't explain this.)

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/patsmithradio/status...1574920192

Here are the gamblers' thoughts:

FSU 11/2
'bama 13/2
Stanford 9/1
tOSU 10/1
Oregon 12/1
Auburn 14/1

Well if the moneymen think so....

(note that there aren't exactly a great gibbering horde of Stanford fans willing to lay down money on the Cardinal at any price, so that doesn't explain this.)

[stupac2]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

[stupac2]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

[stupac2]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

[stupac2]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

[washingtonismoney]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

No, I think their national title odds are always overpriced relative to value -- especially these way-too-early ones. I remember Alabama was something insane going into this year, like 10/2 or something.

[washingtonismoney]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

No, I think their national title odds are always overpriced relative to value -- especially these way-too-early ones. I remember Alabama was something insane going into this year, like 10/2 or something.

[washingtonismoney]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

No, I think their national title odds are always overpriced relative to value -- especially these way-too-early ones. I remember Alabama was something insane going into this year, like 10/2 or something.

[washingtonismoney]

That seems high to me. Does anyone really think there's a >10% chance we win it all? I'm not sure I'd say there's a 10% chance of us even getting in, let alone winning twice once we're in. Maybe they haven't looked at our away schedule...

No, I think their national title odds are always overpriced relative to value -- especially these way-too-early ones. I remember Alabama was something insane going into this year, like 10/2 or something.

[76lsjumb]

I've got no problem being highly ranked in pre-season...just as long as the players and coaches pay no attention to that whatsoever. 

[76lsjumb]

I've got no problem being highly ranked in pre-season...just as long as the players and coaches pay no attention to that whatsoever. 

[76lsjumb]

I've got no problem being highly ranked in pre-season...just as long as the players and coaches pay no attention to that whatsoever. 

[76lsjumb]

I've got no problem being highly ranked in pre-season...just as long as the players and coaches pay no attention to that whatsoever. 

[martyup]

How about Washington being ranked 19?  That is pretty generous IMO considering all the players they have lost to the NFL, the loss of their entire coaching staff, and the likelihood of their loss of recruits.

[martyup]

How about Washington being ranked 19?  That is pretty generous IMO considering all the players they have lost to the NFL, the loss of their entire coaching staff, and the likelihood of their loss of recruits.

[martyup]

How about Washington being ranked 19?  That is pretty generous IMO considering all the players they have lost to the NFL, the loss of their entire coaching staff, and the likelihood of their loss of recruits.

[martyup]

How about Washington being ranked 19?  That is pretty generous IMO considering all the players they have lost to the NFL, the loss of their entire coaching staff, and the likelihood of their loss of recruits.

[czaja]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=9357.msg80990#msg80990 date=1389128215]
[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.
[/quote]

I agree we have a lot of depth coming back, and the team's performance won't fall off of a cliff.  I do worry that losing the combo of Skov, Murphy, and Gardner on D is something akin to losing a player like Luck from the offense.  Even with talented backups, that's a lot of production that has to be replaced by either the current backups or the other returning starters. 

I feel more comfortable about the offense.  Gaffney and Yankey were both great this year, but I feel like OLine is the one area where the backups can probably step right in and not miss a beat.  Regarding Gaffney, I hope that either one of the current backups like Seale or Sanders can step it up or that our passing game is sufficiently improved that it takes a bit of the production requirement off of the RB.

Ultimately, I guess that when Toby left, I had full confidence in Luck to pick up the slack.  And when Luck left, I felt the D was ready to take it up a notch to makeup for any drop in offense.  For this coming year, I don't have quite the same confidence that one particular player or collection of players from our team is ready to fill in the void for the special players that are leaving.  I suspect our O will be improved and our D will regress; I don't know whether that adds up to something greater than what we've seen in the recent past.

It's a fair point that all teams lose good talent every year - sometimes it's special players leaving, other times it's large pieces of experienced units.  I haven't looked at other teams closely enough (especially non PAC-12 teams) to say whether our relative losses are better or worse.

[czaja]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=9357.msg80990#msg80990 date=1389128215]
[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.
[/quote]

I agree we have a lot of depth coming back, and the team's performance won't fall off of a cliff.  I do worry that losing the combo of Skov, Murphy, and Gardner on D is something akin to losing a player like Luck from the offense.  Even with talented backups, that's a lot of production that has to be replaced by either the current backups or the other returning starters. 

I feel more comfortable about the offense.  Gaffney and Yankey were both great this year, but I feel like OLine is the one area where the backups can probably step right in and not miss a beat.  Regarding Gaffney, I hope that either one of the current backups like Seale or Sanders can step it up or that our passing game is sufficiently improved that it takes a bit of the production requirement off of the RB.

Ultimately, I guess that when Toby left, I had full confidence in Luck to pick up the slack.  And when Luck left, I felt the D was ready to take it up a notch to makeup for any drop in offense.  For this coming year, I don't have quite the same confidence that one particular player or collection of players from our team is ready to fill in the void for the special players that are leaving.  I suspect our O will be improved and our D will regress; I don't know whether that adds up to something greater than what we've seen in the recent past.

It's a fair point that all teams lose good talent every year - sometimes it's special players leaving, other times it's large pieces of experienced units.  I haven't looked at other teams closely enough (especially non PAC-12 teams) to say whether our relative losses are better or worse.

[czaja]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=9357.msg80990#msg80990 date=1389128215]
[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.
[/quote]

I agree we have a lot of depth coming back, and the team's performance won't fall off of a cliff.  I do worry that losing the combo of Skov, Murphy, and Gardner on D is something akin to losing a player like Luck from the offense.  Even with talented backups, that's a lot of production that has to be replaced by either the current backups or the other returning starters. 

I feel more comfortable about the offense.  Gaffney and Yankey were both great this year, but I feel like OLine is the one area where the backups can probably step right in and not miss a beat.  Regarding Gaffney, I hope that either one of the current backups like Seale or Sanders can step it up or that our passing game is sufficiently improved that it takes a bit of the production requirement off of the RB.

Ultimately, I guess that when Toby left, I had full confidence in Luck to pick up the slack.  And when Luck left, I felt the D was ready to take it up a notch to makeup for any drop in offense.  For this coming year, I don't have quite the same confidence that one particular player or collection of players from our team is ready to fill in the void for the special players that are leaving.  I suspect our O will be improved and our D will regress; I don't know whether that adds up to something greater than what we've seen in the recent past.

It's a fair point that all teams lose good talent every year - sometimes it's special players leaving, other times it's large pieces of experienced units.  I haven't looked at other teams closely enough (especially non PAC-12 teams) to say whether our relative losses are better or worse.

[czaja]

[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=9357.msg80990#msg80990 date=1389128215]
[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.
[/quote]

I agree we have a lot of depth coming back, and the team's performance won't fall off of a cliff.  I do worry that losing the combo of Skov, Murphy, and Gardner on D is something akin to losing a player like Luck from the offense.  Even with talented backups, that's a lot of production that has to be replaced by either the current backups or the other returning starters. 

I feel more comfortable about the offense.  Gaffney and Yankey were both great this year, but I feel like OLine is the one area where the backups can probably step right in and not miss a beat.  Regarding Gaffney, I hope that either one of the current backups like Seale or Sanders can step it up or that our passing game is sufficiently improved that it takes a bit of the production requirement off of the RB.

Ultimately, I guess that when Toby left, I had full confidence in Luck to pick up the slack.  And when Luck left, I felt the D was ready to take it up a notch to makeup for any drop in offense.  For this coming year, I don't have quite the same confidence that one particular player or collection of players from our team is ready to fill in the void for the special players that are leaving.  I suspect our O will be improved and our D will regress; I don't know whether that adds up to something greater than what we've seen in the recent past.

It's a fair point that all teams lose good talent every year - sometimes it's special players leaving, other times it's large pieces of experienced units.  I haven't looked at other teams closely enough (especially non PAC-12 teams) to say whether our relative losses are better or worse.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford is generally speaking replacing the key departures with players that were either as highly ranked or more highly ranked recruits than those they are replacing, and there is more depth of talented athletes with the potential to become real (good) players from which to choose than at any time in program history.

The corollary is that you need to look at upside as much as immediate perceived value.  That means it's likely the case that some new players could struggle a bit early on, but over the course of a season, better athletes have higher upsides to ultimately make the team better.  Even with the losses of Murphy, Gardner, Mauro, and Skov, Stanford has the raw material to be very good in 2014, and the coaching in the program is held in high regard.  This is what the analysts know, and why Stanford is being projected as a pre-season Top 5 team once again.

The other thing to keep in mind is other teams have to replace key guys every year too.  Everyone here seems to expect a more dynamic Stanford offense in 2014, but even if the offense were about the same in 2014, I don't think there is a whole lot of reason to think the defense will slip very much.  In fact, it may even be a bit more dynamic (create more turnovers), with the addition of explosive defenders like Kalambayi, Shittu, and Watkins, plus maybe some more quickness at CB if Lyons is moved to FS as seems to make a lot of sense.

I may be wrong, but I see Kalambayi, Shittu, and Palma as being potentially monster players for Stanford, and think Watkins will make an impact too.  And of course, the offense will be more explosive in 2014 as well, so why shouldn't Stanford be given the benefit of the doubt after four 11+ win seasons  in a row?

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford is generally speaking replacing the key departures with players that were either as highly ranked or more highly ranked recruits than those they are replacing, and there is more depth of talented athletes with the potential to become real (good) players from which to choose than at any time in program history.

The corollary is that you need to look at upside as much as immediate perceived value.  That means it's likely the case that some new players could struggle a bit early on, but over the course of a season, better athletes have higher upsides to ultimately make the team better.  Even with the losses of Murphy, Gardner, Mauro, and Skov, Stanford has the raw material to be very good in 2014, and the coaching in the program is held in high regard.  This is what the analysts know, and why Stanford is being projected as a pre-season Top 5 team once again.

The other thing to keep in mind is other teams have to replace key guys every year too.  Everyone here seems to expect a more dynamic Stanford offense in 2014, but even if the offense were about the same in 2014, I don't think there is a whole lot of reason to think the defense will slip very much.  In fact, it may even be a bit more dynamic (create more turnovers), with the addition of explosive defenders like Kalambayi, Shittu, and Watkins, plus maybe some more quickness at CB if Lyons is moved to FS as seems to make a lot of sense.

I may be wrong, but I see Kalambayi, Shittu, and Palma as being potentially monster players for Stanford, and think Watkins will make an impact too.  And of course, the offense will be more explosive in 2014 as well, so why shouldn't Stanford be given the benefit of the doubt after four 11+ win seasons  in a row?

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford is generally speaking replacing the key departures with players that were either as highly ranked or more highly ranked recruits than those they are replacing, and there is more depth of talented athletes with the potential to become real (good) players from which to choose than at any time in program history.

The corollary is that you need to look at upside as much as immediate perceived value.  That means it's likely the case that some new players could struggle a bit early on, but over the course of a season, better athletes have higher upsides to ultimately make the team better.  Even with the losses of Murphy, Gardner, Mauro, and Skov, Stanford has the raw material to be very good in 2014, and the coaching in the program is held in high regard.  This is what the analysts know, and why Stanford is being projected as a pre-season Top 5 team once again.

The other thing to keep in mind is other teams have to replace key guys every year too.  Everyone here seems to expect a more dynamic Stanford offense in 2014, but even if the offense were about the same in 2014, I don't think there is a whole lot of reason to think the defense will slip very much.  In fact, it may even be a bit more dynamic (create more turnovers), with the addition of explosive defenders like Kalambayi, Shittu, and Watkins, plus maybe some more quickness at CB if Lyons is moved to FS as seems to make a lot of sense.

I may be wrong, but I see Kalambayi, Shittu, and Palma as being potentially monster players for Stanford, and think Watkins will make an impact too.  And of course, the offense will be more explosive in 2014 as well, so why shouldn't Stanford be given the benefit of the doubt after four 11+ win seasons  in a row?

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford is generally speaking replacing the key departures with players that were either as highly ranked or more highly ranked recruits than those they are replacing, and there is more depth of talented athletes with the potential to become real (good) players from which to choose than at any time in program history.

The corollary is that you need to look at upside as much as immediate perceived value.  That means it's likely the case that some new players could struggle a bit early on, but over the course of a season, better athletes have higher upsides to ultimately make the team better.  Even with the losses of Murphy, Gardner, Mauro, and Skov, Stanford has the raw material to be very good in 2014, and the coaching in the program is held in high regard.  This is what the analysts know, and why Stanford is being projected as a pre-season Top 5 team once again.

The other thing to keep in mind is other teams have to replace key guys every year too.  Everyone here seems to expect a more dynamic Stanford offense in 2014, but even if the offense were about the same in 2014, I don't think there is a whole lot of reason to think the defense will slip very much.  In fact, it may even be a bit more dynamic (create more turnovers), with the addition of explosive defenders like Kalambayi, Shittu, and Watkins, plus maybe some more quickness at CB if Lyons is moved to FS as seems to make a lot of sense.

I may be wrong, but I see Kalambayi, Shittu, and Palma as being potentially monster players for Stanford, and think Watkins will make an impact too.  And of course, the offense will be more explosive in 2014 as well, so why shouldn't Stanford be given the benefit of the doubt after four 11+ win seasons  in a row?

[Bruce Wang]

Stanford 9/1

Interesting.  IIRC Stanford was 16/1 going into this past season.

[Bruce Wang]

Stanford 9/1

Interesting.  IIRC Stanford was 16/1 going into this past season.

[Bruce Wang]

Stanford 9/1

Interesting.  IIRC Stanford was 16/1 going into this past season.

[Bruce Wang]

Stanford 9/1

Interesting.  IIRC Stanford was 16/1 going into this past season.

[Stymie]

One of the fascinating things about following college football is the fact that young athletes (particularly men, who mature much later than women) change dramatically and differently between the ages of 18-23.  5* players slip and slide into oblivion, while 2-3* ones shift into 5th gear and become NFL stars.  We at Stanford have a lot of players on our roster and on our recruit lists who have brobdingnagian potential, but may or may not reach that perceived potential (or even exceed it) depending on circumstances and time.

I can't wait for next year, and hope that the coaching staff feels the same.

[Stymie]

One of the fascinating things about following college football is the fact that young athletes (particularly men, who mature much later than women) change dramatically and differently between the ages of 18-23.  5* players slip and slide into oblivion, while 2-3* ones shift into 5th gear and become NFL stars.  We at Stanford have a lot of players on our roster and on our recruit lists who have brobdingnagian potential, but may or may not reach that perceived potential (or even exceed it) depending on circumstances and time.

I can't wait for next year, and hope that the coaching staff feels the same.

[Stymie]

One of the fascinating things about following college football is the fact that young athletes (particularly men, who mature much later than women) change dramatically and differently between the ages of 18-23.  5* players slip and slide into oblivion, while 2-3* ones shift into 5th gear and become NFL stars.  We at Stanford have a lot of players on our roster and on our recruit lists who have brobdingnagian potential, but may or may not reach that perceived potential (or even exceed it) depending on circumstances and time.

I can't wait for next year, and hope that the coaching staff feels the same.

[Stymie]

One of the fascinating things about following college football is the fact that young athletes (particularly men, who mature much later than women) change dramatically and differently between the ages of 18-23.  5* players slip and slide into oblivion, while 2-3* ones shift into 5th gear and become NFL stars.  We at Stanford have a lot of players on our roster and on our recruit lists who have brobdingnagian potential, but may or may not reach that perceived potential (or even exceed it) depending on circumstances and time.

I can't wait for next year, and hope that the coaching staff feels the same.