08-18-2025, 09:10 PM
New Season, New Coach, New Chance for Fame & Glory in the Predictions Game
Stanford
28
20
20
vs.
21
23
23
Hawaii
Red hot:
GoodGrief (42 - 3)
Shame!:
triangle2 (13 - 23)
Clever Nicknames
Loading…
2025 Stanford at Hawaii Predictions Thread
08-18-2025, 10:16 PM
I've put on my cardinal colored glasses and jumped on the Andrew Luck bandwagon - and will be hanging out with him Friday at the Game Day Eve event in Honolulu. Stanford wins 30-24 on the strength of edges at Head Coach (Frank Reich vs. Timmy Chang), QB (redshirt senior Ben Gulbranson vs. redshirt freshman Alejado), & PK (Emmet Kenney - career long FG of 52 yards vs. Kensei Matsuzawa - career long FG of 41 yards).
I've put on my cardinal colored glasses and jumped on the Andrew Luck bandwagon - and will be hanging out with him Friday at the Game Day Eve event in Honolulu. Stanford wins 30-24 on the strength of edges at Head Coach (Frank Reich vs. Timmy Chang), QB (redshirt senior Ben Gulbranson vs. redshirt freshman Alejado), & PK (Emmet Kenney - career long FG of 52 yards vs. Kensei Matsuzawa - career long FG of 41 yards).
With a new season, also a brand new chance to fall flat on face again.
But nothing ventured, nothing stupendously misjudged.
That being said, I may be either a non-housebroken puppy, or an aging old geezer, as I'm about to pee my pants with palpable excitement for this new season first game.
So I'll not resist, and quickly succumb, to my unbridled and wild-eyed enthusiasm, and pick the Cards 35-30 over the Pesky Polynesians.
Expecting a bit on high scoring side.
But I can't rationally discuss with my daughter who graduated from UH, not without getting eye rolls and distracted yawns, which I may get regardless the topic of discussion.
But nothing ventured, nothing stupendously misjudged.
That being said, I may be either a non-housebroken puppy, or an aging old geezer, as I'm about to pee my pants with palpable excitement for this new season first game.
So I'll not resist, and quickly succumb, to my unbridled and wild-eyed enthusiasm, and pick the Cards 35-30 over the Pesky Polynesians.
Expecting a bit on high scoring side.
But I can't rationally discuss with my daughter who graduated from UH, not without getting eye rolls and distracted yawns, which I may get regardless the topic of discussion.
With a new season, also a brand new chance to fall flat on face again.
But nothing ventured, nothing stupendously misjudged.
That being said, I may be either a non-housebroken puppy, or an aging old geezer, as I'm about to pee my pants with palpable excitement for this new season first game.
So I'll not resist, and quickly succumb, to my unbridled and wild-eyed enthusiasm, and pick the Cards 35-30 over the Pesky Polynesians.
Expecting a bit on high scoring side.
But I can't rationally discuss with my daughter who graduated from UH, not without getting eye rolls and distracted yawns, which I may get regardless the topic of discussion.
But nothing ventured, nothing stupendously misjudged.
That being said, I may be either a non-housebroken puppy, or an aging old geezer, as I'm about to pee my pants with palpable excitement for this new season first game.
So I'll not resist, and quickly succumb, to my unbridled and wild-eyed enthusiasm, and pick the Cards 35-30 over the Pesky Polynesians.
Expecting a bit on high scoring side.
But I can't rationally discuss with my daughter who graduated from UH, not without getting eye rolls and distracted yawns, which I may get regardless the topic of discussion.
08-19-2025, 07:44 AM
Stanford 28, Hawai'i 21. Undefeated, 1-0 in the first game of the Reich era.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-19-2025, 08:12 AM
I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
08-19-2025, 08:28 AM
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
I agree with the statement that under Taylor the offense was running the wrong scheme which impacted BOTH the run game and the pass game.
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
I agree with the statement that under Taylor the offense was running the wrong scheme which impacted BOTH the run game and the pass game.
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
The truth is that we were a relatively lucky team in terms of close game outcomes, relatively lucky in terms of turnovers as well, and relatively unlucky in terms of injuries (there is SP+ data for all of this if you’re interested), meaning that on balance our actual results were pretty fairly reflective of our quality. The leading algorithms, which account for close games as best as possible, pegged us as #102, #103, and #85. We were horrendous and it’s not a good take to think we were at all close to being decent.
It is possible Taylor had the wrong scheme. My problem with that argument is that from the posts it seems the assumption is that he did not establish the run but could have. Our run game has flailed for years because our offensive line has been garbage. If the line is still garbage, scheme, running, and intellectual brutality can’t save us.
The hope has to be that a combination of things - more NFL style run blocking schemes, a camp focus on physicality, hitting big on a couple transfers who haven’t proved anything yet, better year to year strength development than we’ve seen the last two years under the same staff, firing Viane Talamaivao, Reich being generally a better motivator…all that adds up to the ability to move the ball. I really hope so and don’t rule it out. It is pretty wishful though, and any analysis of why we’ve flailed and how we’ll do this year has to start with the offensive line.
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
The truth is that we were a relatively lucky team in terms of close game outcomes, relatively lucky in terms of turnovers as well, and relatively unlucky in terms of injuries (there is SP+ data for all of this if you’re interested), meaning that on balance our actual results were pretty fairly reflective of our quality. The leading algorithms, which account for close games as best as possible, pegged us as #102, #103, and #85. We were horrendous and it’s not a good take to think we were at all close to being decent.
It is possible Taylor had the wrong scheme. My problem with that argument is that from the posts it seems the assumption is that he did not establish the run but could have. Our run game has flailed for years because our offensive line has been garbage. If the line is still garbage, scheme, running, and intellectual brutality can’t save us.
The hope has to be that a combination of things - more NFL style run blocking schemes, a camp focus on physicality, hitting big on a couple transfers who haven’t proved anything yet, better year to year strength development than we’ve seen the last two years under the same staff, firing Viane Talamaivao, Reich being generally a better motivator…all that adds up to the ability to move the ball. I really hope so and don’t rule it out. It is pretty wishful though, and any analysis of why we’ve flailed and how we’ll do this year has to start with the offensive line.
TREES 27, RAINBOWS 21.
The Cardinal Defense might be the big surprise improvement. Especially at Safety: Leigber, Edwards and Jay Green from Huskies.
I say we get three turnovers because HW will throw 50 times, and face third and long. Blitz often. Get on Alejado from the first snap.
Watch Tafiti on the Edge, the Punahou grad wants to put on a show for his Homies. We need to FORCE miscues by Warriors.
Special Teams needs to take a turnover.
We win the field position game. And, I would let Gulbranson crank a few bombs in Q1, see if we can torch them early. Open it up.
Reich is going to pound the rock and let Gulbranson audible passes to TEs and slants to WRs.
Reich wants the OLine to run first.
I think we make yardage on the ground against a 3-3-5 defense, and Micah Ford could go over 100 yards.
This is a good way to open.
The Cardinal Defense might be the big surprise improvement. Especially at Safety: Leigber, Edwards and Jay Green from Huskies.
I say we get three turnovers because HW will throw 50 times, and face third and long. Blitz often. Get on Alejado from the first snap.
Watch Tafiti on the Edge, the Punahou grad wants to put on a show for his Homies. We need to FORCE miscues by Warriors.
Special Teams needs to take a turnover.
We win the field position game. And, I would let Gulbranson crank a few bombs in Q1, see if we can torch them early. Open it up.
Reich is going to pound the rock and let Gulbranson audible passes to TEs and slants to WRs.
Reich wants the OLine to run first.
I think we make yardage on the ground against a 3-3-5 defense, and Micah Ford could go over 100 yards.
This is a good way to open.
TREES 27, RAINBOWS 21.
The Cardinal Defense might be the big surprise improvement. Especially at Safety: Leigber, Edwards and Jay Green from Huskies.
I say we get three turnovers because HW will throw 50 times, and face third and long. Blitz often. Get on Alejado from the first snap.
Watch Tafiti on the Edge, the Punahou grad wants to put on a show for his Homies. We need to FORCE miscues by Warriors.
Special Teams needs to take a turnover.
We win the field position game. And, I would let Gulbranson crank a few bombs in Q1, see if we can torch them early. Open it up.
Reich is going to pound the rock and let Gulbranson audible passes to TEs and slants to WRs.
Reich wants the OLine to run first.
I think we make yardage on the ground against a 3-3-5 defense, and Micah Ford could go over 100 yards.
This is a good way to open.
The Cardinal Defense might be the big surprise improvement. Especially at Safety: Leigber, Edwards and Jay Green from Huskies.
I say we get three turnovers because HW will throw 50 times, and face third and long. Blitz often. Get on Alejado from the first snap.
Watch Tafiti on the Edge, the Punahou grad wants to put on a show for his Homies. We need to FORCE miscues by Warriors.
Special Teams needs to take a turnover.
We win the field position game. And, I would let Gulbranson crank a few bombs in Q1, see if we can torch them early. Open it up.
Reich is going to pound the rock and let Gulbranson audible passes to TEs and slants to WRs.
Reich wants the OLine to run first.
I think we make yardage on the ground against a 3-3-5 defense, and Micah Ford could go over 100 yards.
This is a good way to open.
08-19-2025, 03:05 PM
Stanford 38 Hawaii 21 from a fan who knows absolutely nothing about either team.
08-19-2025, 07:14 PM
(08-19-2025, 07:44 AM)Mick Wrote: Stanford 28, Hawai'i 21. Undefeated, 1-0 in the first game of the Reich era.
you might want to check what you actually entered as the rolling predictions at the top of the page shows you with LSJU 24 and UH 27......
Quote:Shame!: Mick (24 - 27)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-19-2025, 07:44 AM)Mick Wrote: Stanford 28, Hawai'i 21. Undefeated, 1-0 in the first game of the Reich era.
you might want to check what you actually entered as the rolling predictions at the top of the page shows you with LSJU 24 and UH 27......
Quote:Shame!: Mick (24 - 27)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
They were also within one score of winning only one game so winning three seems to be splitting the difference
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
They were also within one score of winning only one game so winning three seems to be splitting the difference
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
08-19-2025, 08:58 PM
(08-19-2025, 09:01 AM)msqueri Wrote: Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
Aside from the three games we actually won, we lost four by one score or less:
TCU (27-34 loss)
Wake Forest (24-27 loss)
Cal (21-24 loss)
SJSU (31-34 loss)
The framing might have been inartful, but it wasn’t so obtuse that might reasonably have no idea what marchballer meant; often times people lament what could have been by noting the number of “close” games, frequently defined as those were the final score differential is within a score. Of course, two of our wins were also within one score, so we also could have been looking at a 1-11 season more easily than a 7-5 season. But, if you want to tell yourself a story of why our 3-9 record was maybe not as bad as it seemed, pointing out the relatively close losses is a time-tested way of doing so, and just because it is not advanced analytics does not make it “extraordinarily misleading”.
BC
(08-19-2025, 09:01 AM)msqueri Wrote: Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
Aside from the three games we actually won, we lost four by one score or less:
TCU (27-34 loss)
Wake Forest (24-27 loss)
Cal (21-24 loss)
SJSU (31-34 loss)
The framing might have been inartful, but it wasn’t so obtuse that might reasonably have no idea what marchballer meant; often times people lament what could have been by noting the number of “close” games, frequently defined as those were the final score differential is within a score. Of course, two of our wins were also within one score, so we also could have been looking at a 1-11 season more easily than a 7-5 season. But, if you want to tell yourself a story of why our 3-9 record was maybe not as bad as it seemed, pointing out the relatively close losses is a time-tested way of doing so, and just because it is not advanced analytics does not make it “extraordinarily misleading”.
BC
08-20-2025, 11:57 AM
(08-19-2025, 09:01 AM)msqueri Wrote:(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
The truth is that we were a relatively lucky team in terms of close game outcomes, relatively lucky in terms of turnovers as well, and relatively unlucky in terms of injuries (there is SP+ data for all of this if you’re interested), meaning that on balance our actual results were pretty fairly reflective of our quality. The leading algorithms, which account for close games as best as possible, pegged us as #102, #103, and #85. We were horrendous and it’s not a good take to think we were at all close to being decent.
It is possible Taylor had the wrong scheme. My problem with that argument is that from the posts it seems the assumption is that he did not establish the run but could have. Our run game has flailed for years because our offensive line has been garbage. If the line is still garbage, scheme, running, and intellectual brutality can’t save us.
The hope has to be that a combination of things - more NFL style run blocking schemes, a camp focus on physicality, hitting big on a couple transfers who haven’t proved anything yet, better year to year strength development than we’ve seen the last two years under the same staff, firing Viane Talamaivao, Reich being generally a better motivator…all that adds up to the ability to move the ball. I really hope so and don’t rule it out. It is pretty wishful though, and any analysis of why we’ve flailed and how we’ll do this year has to start with the offensive line.
I assume he simply meant we lost four games by a touchdown or less: TCU, Wake, Cal, and SJSU. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(08-19-2025, 09:01 AM)msqueri Wrote:(08-19-2025, 08:12 AM)marchballer Wrote: I like this team and I’m excited to see a potential return to intellectual brutality this year.
Let’s go 41-14 Stanford.
I think this team has been significantly underrated. As someone mentioned. This team was within 1 score of winning 7 games last year. I think the scheme was completely wrong under Taylor and we correct the ship with running the ball and using our TEs more this year.
Within one score of winning seven games last year is an extraordinarily misleading way to look at it. For one, I have no idea what you mean. We won three games and the four closest losses had a combined margin of 16 points. In most football games that’s at least three scores, though if you get touchdowns and convert on both two point conversions it can be two. In no way is it one and in no way were we remotely close to bowl eligibility, much less seven wins. In fact, by your strained logic we were more than three times closer to one win (five combined points from that) than to seven wins.
The truth is that we were a relatively lucky team in terms of close game outcomes, relatively lucky in terms of turnovers as well, and relatively unlucky in terms of injuries (there is SP+ data for all of this if you’re interested), meaning that on balance our actual results were pretty fairly reflective of our quality. The leading algorithms, which account for close games as best as possible, pegged us as #102, #103, and #85. We were horrendous and it’s not a good take to think we were at all close to being decent.
It is possible Taylor had the wrong scheme. My problem with that argument is that from the posts it seems the assumption is that he did not establish the run but could have. Our run game has flailed for years because our offensive line has been garbage. If the line is still garbage, scheme, running, and intellectual brutality can’t save us.
The hope has to be that a combination of things - more NFL style run blocking schemes, a camp focus on physicality, hitting big on a couple transfers who haven’t proved anything yet, better year to year strength development than we’ve seen the last two years under the same staff, firing Viane Talamaivao, Reich being generally a better motivator…all that adds up to the ability to move the ball. I really hope so and don’t rule it out. It is pretty wishful though, and any analysis of why we’ve flailed and how we’ll do this year has to start with the offensive line.
I assume he simply meant we lost four games by a touchdown or less: TCU, Wake, Cal, and SJSU. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Preview of game on Fubo:
https://www.fubo.tv/p/watch?id%3Dteam__2...5629780221
If you can't watch this short video, good riddance. It's garbage.
https://www.fubo.tv/p/watch?id%3Dteam__2...5629780221
If you can't watch this short video, good riddance. It's garbage.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Preview of game on Fubo:
https://www.fubo.tv/p/watch?id%3Dteam__2...5629780221
If you can't watch this short video, good riddance. It's garbage.
https://www.fubo.tv/p/watch?id%3Dteam__2...5629780221
If you can't watch this short video, good riddance. It's garbage.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
08-20-2025, 08:13 PM
Ben Gulbranson happily proves to be a solid upgrade, competent and confident. However, loss of WRs such as Ayomanor and still suspect OL limits offensive effectiveness. Defense is a work in progress. Good guys 24-21.
Ben Gulbranson happily proves to be a solid upgrade, competent and confident. However, loss of WRs such as Ayomanor and still suspect OL limits offensive effectiveness. Defense is a work in progress. Good guys 24-21.
08-21-2025, 08:27 PM
By somewhat extraordinary happenstance I will be able to attend this game, I arrived in Kauai last Wednesday and in Oahu this morning. And I will have company in tow.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
By somewhat extraordinary happenstance I will be able to attend this game, I arrived in Kauai last Wednesday and in Oahu this morning. And I will have company in tow.
"When you compare the sorrows of real life to the pleasures of the imaginary one, you will never want to live again, only dream forever." -- Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo (1846)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »