We're number 31? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're number 31? (/thread-19655.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're number 31? (/thread-19655.html)
We're number 31? - stupac2 - 05-07-2020
Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
RE: We're number 31? - newguy - 05-09-2020
this surprised me every bit as much as it did you. but then if the pandemic situation continues to worsen, there's a good chance we'll go undefeated this year.
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-09-2020
(05-07-2020, 12:30 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
RE: We're number 31? - winflop - 05-09-2020
7-5 sounds about right, but not sure how this get you to #31
RE: We're number 31? - CTcard - 05-09-2020
(05-09-2020, 03:57 AM)winflop Wrote: 7-5 sounds about right, but not sure how this get you to #31
7-5 sounds about right for a Power 5 team at #31, certainly if coupled to a bowl win.
Last year's #31 in FPI was WSU at 6-7.
If you count by "others receiving votes" last year's #31 in the Coaches' Poll was $C at 8-5, in the AP #31 was Group of 5 SDSU but #30 was $C and #32 was 8-5 ASU.
RE: We're number 31? - BostonCard - 05-09-2020
(05-09-2020, 03:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-07-2020, 12:30 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
The irony is Rosen never beat STanford. Hell, Stanford beat UCLA and Rosen with Ryan Burns at QB.
BC
RE: We're number 31? - Farm93 - 05-09-2020
I am pretty confident Stanford will have fewer than 5 losses (on the field). They may not get 7 wins, but am very confident about fewer than 5 losses (on the field).
My guess is this season starts late and ends early across the Pac-12. With at least a few Pac-12 games cancelled during the season because of COVID cases on one of the teams. I would not be shocked to see teams forfeit games, and Stanford might be quicker to forfeit than other schools. So maybe Stanford gets more than 5 losses if the forfeits are counted as losses.
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-09-2020
(05-09-2020, 09:59 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2020, 03:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-07-2020, 12:30 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
The irony is Rosen never beat STanford. Hell, Stanford beat UCLA and Rosen with Ryan Burns at QB
BC
Does Stanford score zero offensive touchdowns out of garbage time against Washington, Wazzu, and Colorado with Rosen at QB? Doubtful.
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-09-2020
(05-09-2020, 12:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-09-2020, 09:59 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2020, 03:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-07-2020, 12:30 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
The irony is Rosen never beat STanford. Hell, Stanford beat UCLA and Rosen with Ryan Burns at QB
BC
Does Stanford score zero offensive touchdowns out of garbage time against Washington, Wazzu, and Colorado with Rosen at QB? Doubtful.
Knowing Shaw, Burns would've still started over Rosen anyway, so that question is meaningless.
RE: We're number 31? - French Rage - 05-09-2020
(05-09-2020, 10:22 AM)Farm93 Wrote: I am pretty confident Stanford will have fewer than 5 losses (on the field). They may not get 7 wins, but am very confident about fewer than 5 losses (on the field).
My guess is this season starts late and ends early across the Pac-12. With at least a few Pac-12 games cancelled during the season because of COVID cases on one of the teams. I would not be shocked to see teams forfeit games, and Stanford might be quicker to forfeit than other schools. So maybe Stanford gets more than 5 losses if the forfeits are counted as losses.
Any chance we could just do a round-robin among the CA schools and give an award for that? Less travel == safer. It would piss off the other schools, but for some reason I don't mind that.
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-10-2020
(05-09-2020, 01:18 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-09-2020, 12:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-09-2020, 09:59 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2020, 03:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-07-2020, 12:30 PM)stupac2 Wrote: Apparently FPI has Stanford as the 31st ranked team going into the 2020 season:https://www.ruleoftree.com/2020/5/7/21248083/stanford-cardinal-football-power-index-espn-david-shaw-davis-mills
That's higher than I would've guessed, although it still has us pegged as 7-5, which seems about where most fans have us.
If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
The irony is Rosen never beat STanford. Hell, Stanford beat UCLA and Rosen with Ryan Burns at QB
BC
Does Stanford score zero offensive touchdowns out of garbage time against Washington, Wazzu, and Colorado with Rosen at QB? Doubtful.
Knowing Shaw, Burns would've still started over Rosen anyway, so that question is meaningless.
If you want to look at it that way, since Rosen didn't come to Stanford, all speculation about what would have happened if he did is meaningless.
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-10-2020
(05-10-2020, 02:49 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-09-2020, 01:18 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-09-2020, 12:53 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(05-09-2020, 09:59 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-09-2020, 03:56 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: If we don't get devastated with injuries this year (particularly to Mills) that strikes me as reasonable.
Had we played William and Mary instead of UCF, and won two very winnable games against Colorado and Kal, we would have gone 7-5 last year.
P.S. If you can stand another article about Josh Rosen and Stanford, here you go.
https://247sports.com/Article/Josh-Rosen-recruitment-Stanford-what-if-146875851/
The irony is Rosen never beat STanford. Hell, Stanford beat UCLA and Rosen with Ryan Burns at QB
BC
Does Stanford score zero offensive touchdowns out of garbage time against Washington, Wazzu, and Colorado with Rosen at QB? Doubtful.
Knowing Shaw, Burns would've still started over Rosen anyway, so that question is meaningless.
If you want to look at it that way, since Rosen didn't come to Stanford, all speculation about what would have happened if he did is meaningless.
Well, much of what one discusses on a message board is hypothetical. But, it can still be fun. That said, the poster makes what I think is a good guess. As Ryan Burns arrived to Stanford before Rosen...and Shaw has shown an uncanny preference for playing more experienced quarterbacks even when they are floundering horribly (see: Chryst over Costello circa 2017, especially against Oregon State), it's reasonable to assume that Shaw might have played Burns over Rosen for some time. Sad, but likely true.
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-10-2020
(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Brickcity Wrote: Well, much of what one discusses on a message board is hypothetical. But, it can still be fun. That said, the poster makes what I think is a good guess. As Ryan Burns arrived to Stanford before Rosen...and Shaw has shown an uncanny preference for playing more experienced quarterbacks even when they are floundering horribly (see: Chryst over Costello circa 2017, especially against Oregon State), it's reasonable to assume that Shaw might have played Burns over Rosen for some time. Sad, but likely true.
Hell, see Burns over Chryst circa 2016 too, especially in the home embarrassment against Colorado. Eerily similar. Shaw did it two years in a row.
RE: We're number 31? - JohnR34231 - 05-11-2020
(05-10-2020, 03:01 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Brickcity Wrote: Well, much of what one discusses on a message board is hypothetical. But, it can still be fun. That said, the poster makes what I think is a good guess. As Ryan Burns arrived to Stanford before Rosen...and Shaw has shown an uncanny preference for playing more experienced quarterbacks even when they are floundering horribly (see: Chryst over Costello circa 2017, especially against Oregon State), it's reasonable to assume that Shaw might have played Burns over Rosen for some time. Sad, but likely true.
Hell, see Burns over Chryst circa 2016 too, especially in the home embarrassment against Colorado. Eerily similar. Shaw did it two years in a row.
I have wondered if that was one of the reasons that Shaw felt Rosen was not a good fit.
He would have wanted to play right away and would have been discontented if he didn't. Since he is not the shy, retiring type, he might have let it be known that he felt the best QB was sitting on the bench, and this would have disturbed the locker room solidarity that Shaw feels is so important.
RE: We're number 31? - Goose - 05-11-2020
(05-11-2020, 03:57 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: I have wondered if that was one of the reasons that Shaw felt Rosen was not a good fit.
He would have wanted to play right away and would have been discontented if he didn't. Since he is not the shy, retiring type, he might have let it be known that he felt the best QB was sitting on the bench, and this would have disturbed the locker room solidarity that Shaw feels is so important.
Rosen wanted to (enroll early and) play right away. I think he made it clear to Shaw that if he wasn't guaranteed that he would play as a freshman, he wasn't coming. Shaw wouldn't write the blank check. End of story, no offer needed/desired.
RE: We're number 31? - CTcard - 05-11-2020
(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Brickcity Wrote: ...and Shaw has shown an uncanny preference for playing more experienced quarterbacks even when they are floundering horribly (see: Chryst over Costello circa 2017, especially against Oregon State), it's reasonable to assume that Shaw might have played Burns over Rosen for some time. Sad, but likely true.
I think this story is oversold.
Another way to look at the same events is that Shaw is willing to switch to younger QBs when appropriate.
2012 Nunes wins the starting job, Shaw reaches over upperclassman Nottingham to replace him with unheralded (RS) frosh Hogan.
2016 Burns wins the starting job, Shaw replaces him with (RS) soph Chryst.
2017 Chryst the obvious starter after 2016, Shaw replaces him with Costello.
2020 Shaw ... allows Mills to take over from Costello.
Obviously the complaint is he should have done so sooner.
Would other coaches? Some would have, but not most it seems to me.
None of these cases were remotely equivalent to Rosen walking into a QB room of Jerry Neuheisel, Jake Hall, Mike Fafaul and Craig Myers.
The only time Stanford might have had a similar situation would have been if Mills had shown up completely healthy in 2017, though a QB room of Chryst, Burns, Costello and Richardson was miles away from what Rosen saw.
[And if Rosen had come to Stanford, Shaw would have played Hogan over Rosen when Rosen was a frosh - at least he damn well better have.]
Still, there are cases.
In 2014 not realizing that McCaffrey was the best player on the offense until the last few games is the one that sticks in my craw the most.
RE: We're number 31? - Brickcity - 05-12-2020
(05-11-2020, 10:48 PM)CTcard Wrote:(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Brickcity Wrote: ...and Shaw has shown an uncanny preference for playing more experienced quarterbacks even when they are floundering horribly (see: Chryst over Costello circa 2017, especially against Oregon State), it's reasonable to assume that Shaw might have played Burns over Rosen for some time. Sad, but likely true.
I think this story is oversold.
Another way to look at the same events is that Shaw is willing to switch to younger QBs when appropriate.
2012 Nunes wins the starting job, Shaw reaches over upperclassman Nottingham to replace him with unheralded (RS) frosh Hogan.
2016 Burns wins the starting job, Shaw replaces him with (RS) soph Chryst.
2017 Chryst the obvious starter after 2016, Shaw replaces him with Costello.
2020 Shaw ... allows Mills to take over from Costello.
Obviously the complaint is he should have done so sooner.
Would other coaches? Some would have, but not most it seems to me.
None of these cases were remotely equivalent to Rosen walking into a QB room of Jerry Neuheisel, Jake Hall, Mike Fafaul and Craig Myers.
The only time Stanford might have had a similar situation would have been if Mills had shown up completely healthy in 2017, though a QB room of Chryst, Burns, Costello and Richardson was miles away from what Rosen saw.
[And if Rosen had come to Stanford, Shaw would have played Hogan over Rosen when Rosen was a frosh - at least he damn well better have.]
Still, there are cases.
In 2014 not realizing that McCaffrey was the best player on the offense until the last few games is the one that sticks in my craw the most.
I'll answer your question for you. ;-) For the love of God, YES, Shaw should have made those QB switches much earlier than he did. Let's take a look at each of them, shall we?
2012 Nunes was God awful. Other than one quarter against USC and the Arizona game, he didn't play like a D1 QB. How does Shaw not give Nottingham a shot? I have no inside info but have to wonder if there was a personality clash between him and Notthingam. You can also argue that Shaw should have started Hogan a game or two earlier. Either way, having your starting QB repeatedly throw passes at the feat of his receivers is no bueno.
2016 Burns wins the starting job, Shaw replaces him with (RS) soph Chryst.
Beginning with the UW game, Burns did not play like a Pac-12 level QB. It's true that he played against the much easier part of the schedule so it's possible that Chryst might have been no better. So, I'll give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on this one.
2017 Chryst the obvious starter after 2016, Shaw replaces him with Costello.
Chryst deserved to start the 2017 as the starting QB. But, he crapped the bed big time against SDSU (I was at that game and it was truly a pathetic performance.) Then, he follows up that masterpiece with arguably an even worse performance against UCLA. A game we would have lost by multiple TDs had he not gotten hurt. Costello comes in and we end up blowing out them. I'd argue that a good coach - that is, one who prioritizes winning (and really, isn't that one of the main criteria of a "good coach") would have kept Costello the starter for the remainder of the year. Once Chryst returns from injury, Shaw holds a sham of a "QB competition" where I think we all knew who would win out, though undeservedly. After Chryst "wins" the competition, he has his true masterpiece of a season in which he makes Josh Nunes look like the second-coming of Andrew Luck: against OSU, I saw one of the worst QB performances I'd ever seen in my life...among any QB at any level. At halftime, Shaw STILL refuses to make the QB change. Even the announcers were perplexed. Had Harrison Phillips not made the play of a lifetime by getting the strip and fumble recovery, Stanford loses that game. This was the moment that I realized that Shaw cares less about winning than he does preserving some weird, artificial pecking order among his QBs.
2020 Shaw ... allows Mills to take over from Costello.
I don't know what Shaw said (or didn't say) to Costello after the season concluded, so I don't have a strong opinion on this one.
Bottom line: Shaw just is not that competitive. Sorry, but true.
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: I'll answer your question for you. ;-) For the love of God, YES, Shaw should have made those QB switches much earlier than he did. Let's take a look at each of them, shall we?However bad Nunes was, Nottingham was that much worse. Dude couldn't even hold the starting job at Columbia. He was thus BY DEFINITION not an FBS-caliber QB. Nunes clearly did beat him in the QB competition.
2012 Nunes was God awful. Other than one quarter against USC and the Arizona game, he didn't play like a D1 QB. How does Shaw not give Nottingham a shot? I have no inside info but have to wonder if there was a personality clash between him and Notthingam. You can also argue that Shaw should have started Hogan a game or two earlier. Either way, having your starting QB repeatedly throw passes at the feat of his receivers is no bueno.
Funny story, in the Arizona game Nunes scored a pair of rushing touchdowns on the same sort of QB option run play. According to a player on that offense, he went rogue and called his own number both times out of an offensive package not suited for that play. The Zona defense was simply that bad. Shaw was furious.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2016 Burns wins the starting job, Shaw replaces him with (RS) soph Chryst.Chryst should've at the very least come in against the abject disaster that was the home Colorado loss.
Beginning with the UW game, Burns did not play like a Pac-12 level QB. It's true that he played against the much easier part of the schedule so it's possible that Chryst might have been no better. So, I'll give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on this one.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2017 Chryst the obvious starter after 2016, Shaw replaces him with Costello.I was at the SDSU game too. Chryst didn't just play poorly, he looked like he accidentally turned up his video game's difficulty from rookie to all-star and gave the controller to a toddler. All 3 of his interceptions were lame ducks into triple coverage. Do you know what someone being triple-covered means? SOMEONE ELSE IS OPEN.
Chryst deserved to start the 2017 as the starting QB. But, he crapped the bed big time against SDSU (I was at that game and it was truly a pathetic performance.) Then, he follows up that masterpiece with arguably an even worse performance against UCLA. A game we would have lost by multiple TDs had he not gotten hurt. Costello comes in and we end up blowing out them. I'd argue that a good coach - that is, one who prioritizes winning (and really, isn't that one of the main criteria of a "good coach") would have kept Costello the starter for the remainder of the year. Once Chryst returns from injury, Shaw holds a sham of a "QB competition" where I think we all knew who would win out, though undeservedly. After Chryst "wins" the competition, he has his true masterpiece of a season in which he makes Josh Nunes look like the second-coming of Andrew Luck: against OSU, I saw one of the worst QB performances I'd ever seen in my life...among any QB at any level. At halftime, Shaw STILL refuses to make the QB change. Even the announcers were perplexed. Had Harrison Phillips not made the play of a lifetime by getting the strip and fumble recovery, Stanford loses that game. This was the moment that I realized that Shaw cares less about winning than he does preserving some weird, artificial pecking order among his QBs.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: 2020 Shaw ... allows Mills to take over from Costello.Remember KJ played multiple games (Oregon and Colorado) last season hurt. Against Oregon he dinged his hand against a Duck helmet, and after that he couldn't throw a pass longer than like 10 yards. Wish I knew what went on there - whether they tried pulling him and he refused, or what.
I don't know what Shaw said (or didn't say) to Costello after the season concluded, so I don't have a strong opinion on this one.
(05-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Brickcity Wrote: Bottom line: Shaw just is not that competitive. Sorry, but true.In a recent interview Shaw did state he was excited for a "healthy" competition for QB2. He LOVES Tanner McKee. And after Jack West's...uh...can we even call it a "performance?" against UCLA, I love Tanner McKee too.
Part of me thinks Shaw is scared of a true QB1 competition because of his consistent record of picking the wrong one. But I have to disagree with the "bottom line" of Shaw "not being competitive." He is. You can't be a P5 coach and not be. He fetishizes "seniority" and "familiarity with the playbook" as more important criteria for winning his competition.
Interestingly, I believe we tried to simplify the offense somewhat this year, and added changes. Many more swing passes, screens, and RPO looks. Throwing on first down...a LOT. Pritchard's influence is seeping in. I believe many people just see 4-8 and think we didn't change anything.
RE: We're number 31? - BostonCard - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 10:16 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: However bad Nunes was, Nottingham was that much worse. Dude couldn't even hold the starting job at Columbia. He was thus BY DEFINITION not an FBS-caliber QB. Nunes clearly did beat him in the QB competition.
BY DEFINITION, isn't he not an FCS-caliber QB? I mean, he lost out the starting job at a DIAA school.
BC
RE: We're number 31? - SamuelMcF - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 10:33 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(05-12-2020, 10:16 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: However bad Nunes was, Nottingham was that much worse. Dude couldn't even hold the starting job at Columbia. He was thus BY DEFINITION not an FBS-caliber QB. Nunes clearly did beat him in the QB competition.
BY DEFINITION, isn't he not an FCS-caliber QB? I mean, he lost out the starting job at a DIAA school.
BC
Touche, and it really hammers the point home a little more, huh?