Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - 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: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record (/thread-16678.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: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record (/thread-16678.html)
Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - OutsiderFan - 10-28-2018
Stop the bellyaching. Stanford would have had a very big win knocking off WSU. It would have put Stanford in the driver's seat for the Pac-12 North. Though a win would hav been awesome, looking at the stats and what I could gather, Stanford and WSU played as close a game as you can play, and Stanford is the team with injury issues.
Yes, WSU, Utah and Notre Dame are a combined 21-3. It's not like Stanford has lost to bad teams. They just haven't beaten the best. They played ND close for a half. It was a tie game with WSU with a minute and change to go.
That all said, I think it's time for Shaw to replace both coordinators. Stanford simply needs new ideas and new concepts breathed into the program on both sides of the ball. Continuity is great, but you get stronger by breaking down and building back up.
Go get the DC from San Diego State. Or maybe the one at UAB (Stanford hired a hoops coach form there, why not a DC from there too?).
On offense, get a Kyle Shanahan disciple, someone comfortable with 12 personnel and wants to run a pro-style offense. I LOVE his offense, please bring it to Stanford!
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - d4cohn - 10-28-2018
(10-28-2018, 08:14 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stop the bellyaching. Stanford would have had a very big win knocking off WSU. It would have put Stanford in the driver's seat for the Pac-12 North. Though a win would hav been awesome, looking at the stats and what I could gather, Stanford and WSU played as close a game as you can play, and Stanford is the team with injury issues.
Yes, WSU, Utah and Notre Dame are a combined 21-3. It's not like Stanford has lost to bad teams. They just haven't beaten the best. They played ND close for a half. It was a tie game with WSU with a minute and change to go.
That all said, I think it's time for Shaw to replace both coordinators. Stanford simply needs new ideas and new concepts breathed into the program on both sides of the ball. Continuity is great, but you get stronger by breaking down and building back up.
Go get the DC from San Diego State. Or maybe the one at UAB (Stanford hired a hoops coach form there, why not a DC from there too?).
On offense, get a Kyle Shanahan disciple, someone comfortable with 12 personnel and wants to run a pro-style offense. I LOVE his offense, please bring it to Stanford!
So on one hand, you say stop the bellyaching, but then you want us to replace both coordinators? I think Minshew, Leach et al capitalized on Okereke's injury by attacking his back-up, and #27, in the middle of the field. That is why you saw vacated space on crossers that went for a lot of yards. The throw on 3rd and 2 down the field to put WSU in position to kick the winning FG was just an amazing throw. #27 was providing solid coverage. The throw had to be perfect to be completed, and it was.
I am particularly confused why we would be firing an OC after the offense looked fantastic yesterday, the OL looked much improved, we ran for 120 yards on 5+ yards a carry, 3 different receivers had 9+ receptions and 80+ yards etc. The offense was innovative and exciting, and consistently moved the ball on a pressure defense that gave us fits last year in Pullman.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - OutsiderFan - 10-28-2018
College football is a hyper-competitive enterprise that requires new thinking to be infused, and teams to evolve.
In Shaw's first five seasons he lost 3+ games in a season one time and went to New Years Day Bowls 4/5 seasons. The last three seasons he has lost at least 3 games. I don't know about others, but I'm not OK with this slippage, and want to do something to get back to a team that can compete for a Playoff berth. The last Stanford team to do that was 2015, and based on what I have seen, I'm not convinced the coaching staff as constructed can take Stanford back to that level.
So yes, I am ready to change coordinators after a game the team played good enough to lose in, to drop it to 5-3. This is what top-level, championship programs do. They make changes when they don't win. This isn't a one year blip. It's three straight seasons.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - d4cohn - 10-28-2018
Copying my post from another thread, as I believe it addresses the three-year slippage that we all have seen:
"I really think the regression in defensive performance [can substitute overall team performance in as well] has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group.
We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking."
My point is if we want to win like a Top 10 program again (consistently and sustainably), we probably have to recruit at a Top 10 level (or very close to it). And recruiting at a Top 10 level with our strenous academic requirements is a herculean effort. If anything, our recruiting classes have become higher ranked, so it is possible that the fruits of that improved recruiting will materialize as the team continues to develop.
I am not saying we cannot quibble about certain offensive and defensive scheme aspects. However, if people feel we are not performing up to the standard from 2011-2015, I would say look at recruiting (and our recruiting rankings relative to the CFP teams) and go from there. Looking at scheme only, without looking at recruiting, is like describing the weather based on day-to-day measurements/inferences, without examining the overall climate.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - OutsiderFan - 10-28-2018
(10-28-2018, 10:40 AM)d4cohn Wrote: Copying my post from another thread, as I believe it addresses the three-year slippage that we all have seen:
"I really think the regression in defensive performance [can substitute overall team performance in as well] has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group.
We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking."
My point is if we want to win like a Top 10 program again (consistently and sustainably), we probably have to recruit at a Top 10 level (or very close to it). And recruiting at a Top 10 level with our strenous academic requirements is a herculean effort. If anything, our recruiting classes have become higher ranked, so it is possible that the fruits of that improved recruiting will materialize as the team continues to develop.
I am not saying we cannot quibble about certain offensive and defensive scheme aspects. However, if people feel we are not performing up to the standard from 2011-2015, I would say look at recruiting (and our recruiting rankings relative to the CFP teams) and go from there. Looking at scheme only, without looking at recruiting, is like describing the weather based on day-to-day measurements/inferences, without examining the overall climate.
When you lose to WSU three straight seasons, the recruiting rankings arguments seem a little over blown. Stanford has at least averaged a 20 spot higher ranking than that program for the last many seasons. Stanford also has recruited better than Utah, if you go with the rankings, and Shaw is what, 1-4 against them?
I've believed for a couple years that 2019 would be Stanford's best year to make a run back to the top of the Pac-12, but I'm just not convinced Anderson and Pritchard (Shaw) are going to make it happen, because aside form the record, the stats are worse than Stanford's recruiting rankings, suggesting the team is underperforming its talent now, if you want to use recruiting rankings as a measure.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - oldalum - 10-28-2018
(10-28-2018, 10:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: When you lose to WSU three straight seasons, the recruiting rankings arguments seem a little over blown. Stanford has at least averaged a 20 spot higher ranking than that program for the last many seasons. Stanford also has recruited better than Utah, if you go with the rankings, and Shaw is what, 1-4 against them?If you are talking about under-performance on a program level, I don't think you can single out our record against one or two teams as convincing evidence, it's a small numbers problem. For example, I believe UCLA and USC have outrecruited us in the past few years and we have a good record against them; if you just single out those two teams, you could make the case that we've clearly outperformed our talent level.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - d4cohn - 10-28-2018
(10-28-2018, 10:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(10-28-2018, 10:40 AM)d4cohn Wrote: Copying my post from another thread, as I believe it addresses the three-year slippage that we all have seen:
"I really think the regression in defensive performance [can substitute overall team performance in as well] has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group.
We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking."
My point is if we want to win like a Top 10 program again (consistently and sustainably), we probably have to recruit at a Top 10 level (or very close to it). And recruiting at a Top 10 level with our strenous academic requirements is a herculean effort. If anything, our recruiting classes have become higher ranked, so it is possible that the fruits of that improved recruiting will materialize as the team continues to develop.
I am not saying we cannot quibble about certain offensive and defensive scheme aspects. However, if people feel we are not performing up to the standard from 2011-2015, I would say look at recruiting (and our recruiting rankings relative to the CFP teams) and go from there. Looking at scheme only, without looking at recruiting, is like describing the weather based on day-to-day measurements/inferences, without examining the overall climate.
When you lose to WSU three straight seasons, the recruiting rankings arguments seem a little over blown. Stanford has at least averaged a 20 spot higher ranking than that program for the last many seasons. Stanford also has recruited better than Utah, if you go with the rankings, and Shaw is what, 1-4 against them?
I've believed for a couple years that 2019 would be Stanford's best year to make a run back to the top of the Pac-12, but I'm just not convinced Anderson and Pritchard (Shaw) are going to make it happen, because aside form the record, the stats are worse than Stanford's recruiting rankings, suggesting the team is underperforming its talent now, if you want to use recruiting rankings as a measure.
I think our struggles against WSU and Utah are very reasonable points to raise. For WSU, I think those matchups (particularly the home games in 2016 and this year) boiled down to DL play, and not consistently getting enough pressure on QB. For Utah, with their imposing DL, I think those games (particularly in 2014 and this year), boiled down to the OL not dealing with their pressure well enough, combined with some really silly mistakes from Costello and #51 on special teams by running into the punter.
Regarding a possible underperformance of our recruiting ranking, I would say the strongest argument for this would be the previous development (or insufficient development) of our OL recruits. We have two consensus 5 * who are sophomores, and both have been either banged up, or simply ok to mediocre when they have played this year.
However, with a new OL coach this year, let's see if he can get the most out of these players, and the unit as a whole. Yesterday's game was pretty promising with regards to improved OL play.
RE: Losses are to teams with 21-3 combined record - martyup - 10-28-2018
I'm pretty excited about the Stanford offense we saw last night. Looking forward to watching them finish the season strong.