Apathy - Printable Version

Apathy - 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: Apathy (/thread-22493.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Apathy - PersonalLegend - 11-01-2021

You guys have nailed the problem… it’s that Stanford football is boring.

When you go to a party you can be ugly but interesting and people will love you. Stanford is that utterly boring guy who comes to the party and wonders why nobody wants to talk.

The Harris era aside, which drove me away from the program, this is the most boring we have been.

And, like it or not, boring lost the Heismann for Luck as well. But he was Luck and we won a lot of games. The picture of our quarterbacks calling fifteen different plays from their wristbands while the opposing team gets a move on just says it all. We are boring. Methodical. Uninteresting. We were boring when we were winning and it was tolerable. Losing? Boring absolutely sucks.

I say that and we actually have one of the better QBs in Stanford history under center. No excuse to be boring.

RE: Apathy - Phogge - 11-01-2021

I wouldn't anoint McKee just yet. He does some good things but he essentially is a freshman out there although as a Mission kid he may be 25 years old. He does not have a line and his weapons are depleted and he isn't a runner. Who WERE those guys protecting Mills last year? The players who returned in the summer must be surrogates.

RE: Apathy - Jamesy - 11-01-2021

(11-01-2021, 06:03 PM)Phogge Wrote: I wouldn't anoint McKee just yet. He does some good things but he essentially is a freshman out there although as a Mission kid he may be 25 years old. He does not have a line and his weapons are depleted and he isn't a runner. Who WERE those guys protecting Mills last year? The players who returned in the summer must be surrogates.

Two of them are in the NFL.

RE: Apathy - Phogge - 11-02-2021

And one has been cut a number of times. The three returning must have forgotten how to block.

RE: Apathy - lex24 - 11-02-2021

(11-01-2021, 05:52 PM)PersonalLegend Wrote: You guys have nailed the problem… it’s that Stanford football is boring.

When you go to a party you can be ugly but interesting and people will love you. Stanford is that utterly boring guy who comes to the party and wonders why nobody wants to talk.

The Harris era aside, which drove me away from the program, this is the most boring we have been.

And, like it or not, boring lost the Heismann for Luck as well. But he was Luck and we won a lot of games. The picture of our quarterbacks calling fifteen different plays from their wristbands while the opposing team gets a move on just says it all. We are boring. Methodical. Uninteresting. We were boring when we were winning and it was tolerable. Losing? Boring absolutely sucks.

I say that and we actually have one of the better QBs in Stanford history under center. No excuse to be boring.

They certainly weren’t boring with Luck. They are now.

RE: Apathy - Papa John - 11-02-2021

This year has been frustrating, not boring. The team that embarrassed USC and defeated a more-talented Oregon team is not boring. But while watching the final minutes of the WSU and UW games, I expected Stanford to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and that frustrates the h*ll out of me.

I had hopes after the way the team handled 2020 that 2021 would be the beginning of a second wave of success. Not Harbaugh-induced success, but 8 or 9 wins a year success. It's not happening, at least not yet, and I don't buy the injury excuse that was valid in 2019.

Having said that, I will never be apathetic about Stanford sports.

RE: Apathy - Phogge - 11-02-2021

It’s boring when you can’t create turnovers that win games. Boring when you can count bone jarring, knock the snot out of a receiver, pancake the DE on the fingers of one hand. Boring when time after time your tiny RB’s get stoned at the LOS. Boring when the QB has no escape ability and goes down like Frazier. Boring with a team going nowhere punts anytime inside the 50. Boring when a decent punt puts the opponent deep in their own territory and the punter shanks like a beginner golfer.

Yep Sir, boring.

RE: Apathy - OutsiderFan - 11-02-2021

Talked with a Cal buddy today about the sad state of affairs for both programs (though Cal is a way better team than Stanford). We started out talking about how great the Michigan-Michigan State game was, until he wondered if Cal and Stanford would ever play each other undefeated that late in the season.

I said that's been my lifelong wish since the 1980s, to have the (not) Big Game decide the Rose Bowl participant, or at least actually be a big game in terms of national implications. Then I said the only time I can ever remember both teams being good was in 1991. So I went to wikipedia and learned #6 Cal went down 38-21 to #21 Stanford in 1991, in front of 86,000+ at Stanford Stadium! I said I don't know if those two will ever meet again with such a "low" combined ranking.

Think about this. In the span of 30 years, Stanford will go from having 86,000+ fans in its stadium to see a football game against Cal, to I would be shocked if even 30,000 come to see it this year.

This is what happens when schools care and when they don't.

RE: Apathy - 76lsjumb - 11-02-2021

(11-02-2021, 10:46 AM)Phogge Wrote: It’s boring when you can’t create turnovers that win games. Boring when you can count bone jarring, knock the snot out of a receiver, pancake the DE on the fingers of one hand. Boring when time after time your tiny RB’s get stoned at the LOS. Boring when the QB has no escape ability and goes down like Frazier. Boring with a team going nowhere punts anytime inside the 50. Boring when a decent punt puts the opponent deep in their own territory and the punter shanks like a beginner golfer.

Yep Sir, boring.

Almost as boring as reading The CardBoard these days...

RE: Apathy - Phogge - 11-02-2021

Thunderdome was cooking when the house was burning. At least it was tons of fun for a bunch of seven year olds. This place is adult.

RE: Apathy - gailtate - 11-02-2021

(11-02-2021, 12:11 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(11-02-2021, 10:46 AM)Phogge Wrote: It’s boring when you can’t create turnovers that win games. Boring when you can count bone jarring, knock the snot out of a receiver, pancake the DE on the fingers of one hand. Boring when time after time your tiny RB’s get stoned at the LOS. Boring when the QB has no escape ability and goes down like Frazier. Boring with a team going nowhere punts anytime inside the 50. Boring when a decent punt puts the opponent deep in their own territory and the punter shanks like a beginner golfer.

Yep Sir, boring.

Almost as boring as reading The CardBoard these days...

It was boring as **** until qwerti's magnus opus.

RE: Apathy - OutsiderFan - 11-14-2021

It seems the players might be accepting losing as much as the fans and university, maybe even more?

RE: Apathy - gailtate - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 09:17 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: It seems the players might be accepting losing as much as the fans and university, maybe even more?

This seems valid to some extent (Harbaugh was said to have "changed the (losing) culture" when he arrived). But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team, dwindling attendance (and revenue) and irrelevance are NOT sustainable. This is screaming for repair. The program needs to be remade. At this moment it's in, shall we say, disrepair. Put bluntly, the Ferrari is now a golf cart with a dead battery.

RE: Apathy - martyup - 11-14-2021

I don't think the Kansas players were accepting losing.

RE: Apathy - 81alum - 11-14-2021

If we were truly apathetic, this thread would have ended with one post.

RE: Apathy - Brickcity - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 10:34 AM)81alum Wrote: If we were truly apathetic, this thread would have ended with one post.

I, for one, am losing interest. Though I'll always care, I won't always watch. For instance, I skipped most of the game yesterday, the first time I had done so in many years. If the ship continues to sink, I will watch less and less.

RE: Apathy - M T - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 09:42 AM)gailtate Wrote: But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team,

Can you give me the facts on that larger truth?
When was our Stanford's last winning season? How many losing seasons has it had in the last decade?

RE: Apathy - gailtate - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 11:08 AM)M T Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 09:42 AM)gailtate Wrote: But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team,

Can you give me the facts on that larger truth?
When was our Stanford's last winning season? How many losing seasons has it had in the last decade?

OK I will take the bait and say this:
1. Stanford's "losing-season" era began in 2019 and will likely continue as long as Shaw is HC. BTW, to my way of thinking, focus on the rear-view mirror is not the way to drive into the future.
2. As for the present, I see: Poor playcalling, poor game strategy, poor game management, predictability, poor adjustments, poor player development, poor injury prevention, boring style of play, no innovation and creativity, lack of team leadership development, underwhelming recruiting after fighting so hard to become the "IT" school, players leaving, poor attendance, fan frustration, fan indifference, media indifference, social media indifference, high prices, unjustifiable donation requirements, no ticket demand and national irrelevance. I try to see Stanford position itself competitively to use the transfer portal extensively, grad transfers, and be hyper-aggressive on pushing NIL programs. Problem? There's no there there, either.

RE: Apathy - M T - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 03:18 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 11:08 AM)M T Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 09:42 AM)gailtate Wrote: But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team,

Can you give me the facts on that larger truth?

When was our Stanford's last winning season? How many losing seasons has it had in the last decade?
OK I will take the bait and say this:
1. Stanford's "losing-season" era began in 2019 and will likely continue as long as Shaw is HC.

You got that wrong. Stanford had a winning season last year. True, it was 4-2 in a COVID year.

You also didn't answer the other question. Stanford football has had one losing season in the last decade. The current season will be the second.

If you want to misrepresent the facts and say Stanford football is a perennial losing team, I think Cal's got a place you can be very negative about Stanford.

It's sorta interesting. I was an undergrad at a school that truly had a perennial losing football team. Nobody bitched & complained about the coaches or players. Not everyone paid attention, but those that did truly cheered them on and celebrated each little victory.

Stanford wins far more of its sporting events than any other school, but this board is festering with negativity, feeding on itself. Coaches at Stanford are highly respected by their peers but not by a subset of the members here. But, I guess that subset believes they know better. Maybe they should quit their day job and apply as a coach for Stanford. Maybe you can recruit better?

RE: Apathy - teejers1 - 11-14-2021

(11-14-2021, 07:49 PM)M T Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 03:18 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 11:08 AM)M T Wrote:
(11-14-2021, 09:42 AM)gailtate Wrote: But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team,

Can you give me the facts on that larger truth?

When was our Stanford's last winning season? How many losing seasons has it had in the last decade?
OK I will take the bait and say this:
1. Stanford's "losing-season" era began in 2019 and will likely continue as long as Shaw is HC.
You got that wrong. Stanford had a winning season last year. True, it was 4-2 in a COVID year.

You also didn't answer the other question. Stanford football has had one losing season in the last decade. The current season will be the second.

If you want to misrepresent the facts and say Stanford football is a perennial losing team, I think Cal's got a place you can be very negative about Stanford.

It's sorta interesting. I was an undergrad at a school that truly had a perennial losing football team. Nobody bitched & complained about the coaches or players. Not everyone paid attention, but those that did truly cheered them on and celebrated each little victory.

Stanford wins far more of its sporting events than any other school, but this board is festering with negativity, feeding on itself. Coaches at Stanford are highly respected by their peers but not by a subset of the members here. But, I guess that subset believes they know better. Maybe they should quit their day job and apply as a coach for Stanford. Maybe you can recruit better?

MT, Sam Leopold and others defending Shaw, I'm curious if:

1. You've actually watched the games over the years (or just one of those check-the-scores-the-next-day kind of fans)?

2. You've actually attended the games in-person and seen the vibe in the stands?

3. Have any sense where the program was when Shaw took over and where it stands right now?

In a previous post I laid out the rationale why what we're seeing now is Shaw at his sea level. This is his team, his program, without any lingering benefits (including recruiting benefits from monster roster he inherited that won in 2011 and 2012). And make no mistake, this is as BAD as Stanford football has ever been, including the Dark Times. Why anyone think Shaw "deserves" any kind of long leash from the fan base is a mystery. He has been ridiculously compensated for his services. Time to thank him and move on. Otherwise, the program is Neidermeyer.