TreeCast post-Cal - 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: TreeCast post-Cal (/thread-22632.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: TreeCast post-Cal (/thread-22632.html)
Pages:
1
2
TreeCast post-Cal - troyc - 11-21-2021
Bears blow out the Card and take back The Axe. We break it down on The TreeCast.
- 3 Things you need to know from the game
- a close look at how four goal-to-go plays on Stanford's two squandered early scoring chances changed the course of the game. Cal had the right answer on one play, while Stanford had the wrong answer on another (yes, we're talking about the sneak)
- a defensive collapse for the Card...and the troubling trends that have been building all season
Thank you for downloading & listening!
Troy C
The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Lose Big Blowout (November 21, 2021)
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - Papa John - 11-22-2021
As painful as it was to hear you retell the horror story of Big Game, I appreciate your takes and straightforward approach, Troy.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - gailtate - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 11:46 AM)Papa John Wrote: As painful as it was to hear you retell the horror story of Big Game, I appreciate your takes and straightforward approach, Troy.
I am generally down with Papa John's take on the pain of the retelling and Troy's signature straight-ahead style. Where I went crosswise with TC was the insinuation that the game's outcome would be far different had Stanford cashed in on the early scoring chance when the weenies were practically handing them points. If Stanford had HAD the chops in the first place to capitalize then and there, this entire season would not be the smoking crater we're looking at today. The point is the program has produced a team athletically incapable of "cashing-in" in such circumstances. Thus, the outcome of Big Game. Thus, the outcome of 2021. The old computer programmers' term: GIGO.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - Papa John - 11-22-2021
Stanford versus USC: 4 red zone trips, 4 TDs
Stanford versus Oregon: 5 red zone trips, 4 TDs, 1 FG
So I respectfully disagree with your take, gailtate. The entire season has not been a "smoking crater" and, versus one not-very-good and another pretty good opponent, Stanford demonstrated plenty of capability to score TDs in the red zone. For me, Stanford improved, albeit with fits and starts, through the first five games, and then regressed in each of the last six games. That's what has been so frustrating about the 2021 season.
Back to the Treecast: The sense I got from Troy's analysis was that the two failed red zone opportunities versus Cal pretty much sealed Stanford's fate, especially after Cal's quick strike to take the lead. But if Stanford had gone up 14-0, Stanford still might have lost, but it wouldn't have been the complete annihilation that we witnessed. Seems reasonable to me.
But I'll leave it to Troy to correct the record if I misunderstood him.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - gailtate - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 01:51 PM)Papa John Wrote: Stanford versus USC: 4 red zone trips, 4 TDs
Stanford versus Oregon: 5 red zone trips, 4 TDs, 1 FG
So I respectfully disagree with your take, gailtate. The entire season has not been a "smoking crater" and, versus one not-very-good and another pretty good opponent, Stanford demonstrated plenty of capability to score TDs in the red zone. For me, Stanford improved, albeit with fits and starts, through the first five games, and then regressed in each of the last six games. That's what has been so frustrating about the 2021 season.
Back to the Treecast: The sense I got from Troy's analysis was that the two failed red zone opportunities versus Cal pretty much sealed Stanford's fate, especially after Cal's quick strike to take the lead. But if Stanford had gone up 14-0, Stanford still might have lost, but it wouldn't have been the complete annihilation that we witnessed. Seems reasonable to me.
But I'll leave it to Troy to correct the record if I misunderstood him.
Guess I have a different point of view.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - winflop - 11-22-2021
Troy - thanks as always for the information and insights. A number of thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the result (W/L) would have been different if we'd scored on either or both of those first two possessions. Avoiding a completely embarrassing blowout is about the only difference that would have resulted
- Big props to McGill for a) stepping up to the mic, and especially b) owning his mistake that resulted in the longed passing TD in Big Game History. I wish Coach Shaw could be half as accountable as this instead of giving us generic platitudes and coach-speak. Just once I want to hear him take specific accountability for a specific incident. He had a great opportunity to say "we shouldn't have gone for it on 4th & 5, and that's on me."
- The problems on the 4th down plays were as much about the play calls themselves as the decision to go for it. I think the first one was a good decision and the second one was about as stupid as it gets. But equally important were the two stupid play calls on 3rd down that put the team in that position. Naked WR screens in the red zone are just dumb. It's easy for the safety to roll up much more quickly because there's zero deep threat, and with no blocking help the WR is a sitting duck. That Humphries got to the 2 or 3 was about as much as could possibly be expected there.
- Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
- You seem to still think this team has a shot at winning on Saturday. The only question is what score Brian Kelly decides he wants to hang on Stanford. Unlike you, I'm glad the kickoff is at 5pm. Many fewer eyeballs to watch us be even more humiliated in our house.
- I share you hope that we get OUR AXE back next season, but absent significant changes in the program I'm not optimistic. This team is on a multi-year downward trajectory. I hope you will agree that changes are needed in the program in your postseason assessment. Change doesn't have to be "fire the coach" which I know you won't touch. It could be a change in philosophy, scheme, structure, etc. But something's gotta give. Whatever Shaw's trying to do, it's not working at all.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - MV72018 - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: Troy - thanks as always for the information and insights. A number of thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the result (W/L) would have been different if we'd scored on either or both of those first two possessions. Avoiding a completely embarrassing blowout is about the only difference that would have resulted
- Big props to McGill for a) stepping up to the mic, and especially b) owning his mistake that resulted in the longed passing TD in Big Game History. I wish Coach Shaw could be half as accountable as this instead of giving us generic platitudes and coach-speak. Just once I want to hear him take specific accountability for a specific incident. He had a great opportunity to say "we shouldn't have gone for it on 4th & 5, and that's on me."
- The problems on the 4th down plays were as much about the play calls themselves as the decision to go for it. I think the first one was a good decision and the second one was about as stupid as it gets. But equally important were the two stupid play calls on 3rd down that put the team in that position. Naked WR screens in the red zone are just dumb. It's easy for the safety to roll up much more quickly because there's zero deep threat, and with no blocking help the WR is a sitting duck. That Humphries got to the 2 or 3 was about as much as could possibly be expected there.
- Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
- You seem to still think this team has a shot at winning on Saturday. The only question is what score Brian Kelly decides he wants to hang on Stanford. Unlike you, I'm glad the kickoff is at 5pm. Many fewer eyeballs to watch us be even more humiliated in our house.
- I share you hope that we get OUR AXE back next season, but absent significant changes in the program I'm not optimistic. This team is on a multi-year downward trajectory. I hope you will agree that changes are needed in the program in your postseason assessment. Change doesn't have to be "fire the coach" which I know you won't touch. It could be a change in philosophy, scheme, structure, etc. But something's gotta give. Whatever Shaw's trying to do, it's not working at all.
Troy C is not the only one who won't "touch" the idea of firing Shaw. Nor wiil the radio announcers come anywhere close to broaching that topic. Nor will the press ask difficult questions of Shaw (assuming he doesn't walk out after two questions). And I doubt that either Muir -- who is culpable in the first place of giving Shaw an outrageously high salary and quasi-tenure -- or the President or the Provost will do any such thing. Can anyone seriously imagine Shaw being fired or having his salary docked while Stanford is trumpeting its commitment to "Diversity Equity and Inclusion"? In fact, it seems to me that to date serious criticism of Shaw by anybody employed by or affiliated with Stanford is de facto "streng verboten"!!!
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - winflop - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 04:18 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: Troy - thanks as always for the information and insights. A number of thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the result (W/L) would have been different if we'd scored on either or both of those first two possessions. Avoiding a completely embarrassing blowout is about the only difference that would have resulted
- Big props to McGill for a) stepping up to the mic, and especially b) owning his mistake that resulted in the longed passing TD in Big Game History. I wish Coach Shaw could be half as accountable as this instead of giving us generic platitudes and coach-speak. Just once I want to hear him take specific accountability for a specific incident. He had a great opportunity to say "we shouldn't have gone for it on 4th & 5, and that's on me."
- The problems on the 4th down plays were as much about the play calls themselves as the decision to go for it. I think the first one was a good decision and the second one was about as stupid as it gets. But equally important were the two stupid play calls on 3rd down that put the team in that position. Naked WR screens in the red zone are just dumb. It's easy for the safety to roll up much more quickly because there's zero deep threat, and with no blocking help the WR is a sitting duck. That Humphries got to the 2 or 3 was about as much as could possibly be expected there.
- Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
- You seem to still think this team has a shot at winning on Saturday. The only question is what score Brian Kelly decides he wants to hang on Stanford. Unlike you, I'm glad the kickoff is at 5pm. Many fewer eyeballs to watch us be even more humiliated in our house.
- I share you hope that we get OUR AXE back next season, but absent significant changes in the program I'm not optimistic. This team is on a multi-year downward trajectory. I hope you will agree that changes are needed in the program in your postseason assessment. Change doesn't have to be "fire the coach" which I know you won't touch. It could be a change in philosophy, scheme, structure, etc. But something's gotta give. Whatever Shaw's trying to do, it's not working at all.
Troy C is not the only one who won't "touch" the idea of firing Shaw. Nor wiil the radio announcers come anywhere close to broaching that topic. Nor will the press ask difficult questions of Shaw (assuming he doesn't walk out after two questions). And I doubt that either Muir -- who is culpable in the first place of giving Shaw an outrageously high salary and quasi-tenure -- or the President or the Provost will do any such thing. Can anyone seriously imagine Shaw being fired or having his salary docked while Stanford is trumpeting its commitment to "Diversity Equity and Inclusion"? In fact, it seems to me that to date serious criticism of Shaw by anybody employed by or affiliated with Stanford is de facto "streng verboten"!!!
I'm gonna give Troy's refusal to engage in "fire the coach" talk my full-throated support. Also, he has stated elsewhere that this doesn't mean he won't criticize Shaw or any other coach - something he's done many times. I wish he and his colleagues would be a LOT tougher on Shaw in his press conferences, and I continue to hold out hope that they will be this coming week. Shaw needs to be asked some very pointed questions about how he plans to fix this. He may get defensive and snappy and not answer them, but then at least the questions that need to be asked are being asked and his response is out in public.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - teejers1 - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 04:27 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-22-2021, 04:18 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: Troy - thanks as always for the information and insights. A number of thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the result (W/L) would have been different if we'd scored on either or both of those first two possessions. Avoiding a completely embarrassing blowout is about the only difference that would have resulted
- Big props to McGill for a) stepping up to the mic, and especially b) owning his mistake that resulted in the longed passing TD in Big Game History. I wish Coach Shaw could be half as accountable as this instead of giving us generic platitudes and coach-speak. Just once I want to hear him take specific accountability for a specific incident. He had a great opportunity to say "we shouldn't have gone for it on 4th & 5, and that's on me."
- The problems on the 4th down plays were as much about the play calls themselves as the decision to go for it. I think the first one was a good decision and the second one was about as stupid as it gets. But equally important were the two stupid play calls on 3rd down that put the team in that position. Naked WR screens in the red zone are just dumb. It's easy for the safety to roll up much more quickly because there's zero deep threat, and with no blocking help the WR is a sitting duck. That Humphries got to the 2 or 3 was about as much as could possibly be expected there.
- Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
- You seem to still think this team has a shot at winning on Saturday. The only question is what score Brian Kelly decides he wants to hang on Stanford. Unlike you, I'm glad the kickoff is at 5pm. Many fewer eyeballs to watch us be even more humiliated in our house.
- I share you hope that we get OUR AXE back next season, but absent significant changes in the program I'm not optimistic. This team is on a multi-year downward trajectory. I hope you will agree that changes are needed in the program in your postseason assessment. Change doesn't have to be "fire the coach" which I know you won't touch. It could be a change in philosophy, scheme, structure, etc. But something's gotta give. Whatever Shaw's trying to do, it's not working at all.
Troy C is not the only one who won't "touch" the idea of firing Shaw. Nor wiil the radio announcers come anywhere close to broaching that topic. Nor will the press ask difficult questions of Shaw (assuming he doesn't walk out after two questions). And I doubt that either Muir -- who is culpable in the first place of giving Shaw an outrageously high salary and quasi-tenure -- or the President or the Provost will do any such thing. Can anyone seriously imagine Shaw being fired or having his salary docked while Stanford is trumpeting its commitment to "Diversity Equity and Inclusion"? In fact, it seems to me that to date serious criticism of Shaw by anybody employed by or affiliated with Stanford is de facto "streng verboten"!!!
I'm gonna give Troy's refusal to engage in "fire the coach" talk my full-throated support. Also, he has stated elsewhere that this doesn't mean he won't criticize Shaw or any other coach - something he's done many times. I wish he and his colleagues would be a LOT tougher on Shaw in his press conferences, and I continue to hold out hope that they will be this coming week. Shaw needs to be asked some very pointed questions about how he plans to fix this. He may get defensive and snappy and not answer them, but then at least the questions that need to be asked are being asked and his response is out in public.
Yes, it's not in his job-description, and actually is antithetical to it.
The MSM covering Stanford football - to the extent there are any - is a different story. But the toughest questions I remember them asking a Stanford football coach was about the customized bathroom amidst a university-wide hiring freeze (or even a small RIF). [And our clueless then-coach, responded with "I love that bathroom."] Apathy reigns. Everywhere.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - 76lsjumb - 11-22-2021
If apathy is reigning everywhere, why are there so many encyclopedia-length posts?
Second question: how does whatever is said at a press conference in any way help us win the next game we play?
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - teejers1 - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 05:52 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: If apathy is reigning everywhere, why are there so many encyclopedia-length posts?
Second question: how does whatever is said at a press conference in any way help us win the next game we play?
I don't know . . . and I don't care.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - Phogge - 11-22-2021
Papa, I would respectfully disagree on a couple of points. Oregon was fortunate to beat Cal and got steamrolled by Utah. They were never deserving of a playoff bid. I think that Utah will roll over them again if they get into the championship game and I give the Beavers a decent chance to beat them. SC is a poorly coached team only a hair better than Stanford based solely on the WR's who can catch and scoot. THEY got steamrolled by UCLA. So that's one sloppy win over the worst team in D1, a victory over a bottom feeder and a win over an overrated Duck team.
Regardless of their lack of talent, speed and size on defense they should tackle better. Tackling itself is desire, commitment and technique. We're talking about routine stops not otherworldly physical and mental plays like we saw 2009-2015. Also if you closely watch end zone replays the Stanford safeties, principally Williams, are extremely slow to react and too careful in Anderson's read and react system. Williams makes up for lack of talent by not understanding where he should be as play enfolds.
Finally Stanford is hamstrung by the talent gap. Perhaps Yurosek could start for a majority of Pac 12 teams. Peat and Jones would be benchwarmers for everyone else. Tremayne was Stanford's best player, a kid who could make Arcega Whiteside impossible catches in traffic. His loss was catastrophic. Kelly is a top flight corner and Karty has the leg to be All American but why use a kicker when you're down three or four TD's. That's about it. There is some promise. McKee is still raw as organic sugar, McGill has some ability, Higgins can be a star and Farrell and Filkins need to be given a much better chance to play regularly. Both lines return a bunch of duds in 2022 and the LB's and DB's basically can't play.
I'm not going to talk about the coaches. There are two sides to the issue and the sides are as far apart as Dems and GOPers in D.C.
This team can lose to Colgate unless somebody can find some EUTM buried deeply into the stadium and practice field sod. Nobody any good will stay five years so if a freshman can actually block, can basically tackle, he should play. He'll make errors but they need to look to 2023. 2022 can be a truly historically bad season.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - 76lsjumb - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 06:07 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-22-2021, 05:52 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: If apathy is reigning everywhere, why are there so many encyclopedia-length posts?
Second question: how does whatever is said at a press conference in any way help us win the next game we play?
I don't know . . . and I don't care.
Well-played… :-)
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - troyc - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: - Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
My suspicion is that it's a practice issue. And a health issue. With both dovetailing together.
Stanford's banged up (and the more banged up the team has been, the worse the tackling has gotten), so that affects how physical practices can be for the players who can participate. Doesn't help that Stanford has stayed banged up during spring sessions and the preseason camp, so that affects how physical those practices can be, too. (which can be problematic because the offseason is probably the best time to work on those things) On top of that, the NCAA also limits how many full-contact periods teams can have during practice, and how long those periods can be.
Hard to practice tackling when you don't have enough players to do it. Even harder when the rules limit how often you can go live. And in-season, when you're just trying to keep enough guys healthy to be able to field a team on gameday, it's nearly impossible. All part of the by-product of players getting bigger, faster, and stronger and colliding at higher speeds and with more force? Yeah, probably.
Along those lines, it's also probably harder to tackle when your four ILBs have six healthy hands between them...
(11-22-2021, 01:51 PM)Papa John Wrote: Back to the Treecast: The sense I got from Troy's analysis was that the two failed red zone opportunities versus Cal pretty much sealed Stanford's fate, especially after Cal's quick strike to take the lead. But if Stanford had gone up 14-0, Stanford still might have lost, but it wouldn't have been the complete annihilation that we witnessed. Seems reasonable to me.
But I'll leave it to Troy to correct the record if I misunderstood him.
No, you pretty much got that right!
(11-22-2021, 05:52 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: If apathy is reigning everywhere, why are there so many encyclopedia-length posts?
Oh, you noticed that too?
(11-22-2021, 11:46 AM)Papa John Wrote: As painful as it was to hear you retell the horror story of Big Game, I appreciate your takes and straightforward approach, Troy.
Thank you! Appreciate you -- and everyone else on this thread! -- for checking out the show. Even when we're not talking about great stuff.
Troy C
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - BostonCard - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 06:11 PM)Phogge Wrote: Papa, I would respectfully disagree on a couple of points. Oregon was fortunate to beat Cal and got steamrolled by Utah. They were never deserving of a playoff bid. I think that Utah will roll over them again if they get into the championship game and I give the Beavers a decent chance to beat them. SC is a poorly coached team only a hair better than Stanford based solely on the WR's who can catch and scoot. THEY got steamrolled by UCLA. So that's one sloppy win over the worst team in D1, a victory over a bottom feeder and a win over an overrated Duck team.
The Ducks were overrated, but he merely called them “pretty good”. They are not a top-5 team, but Papa appears to be damning them with faint praise. Say what you want, they are 9-2 so far this year and are favored by a touchdown over the Beavers.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - winflop - 11-22-2021
Re tackling. NCAA rules apply to all teams so I can’t count that as a reason.
Having more injuries might be bad luck if it weren’t repeating itself every year since Turkey left. So I’m left to blame it on poor S&C/training, which is part of coaching
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - CowboyIndian - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 10:56 PM)winflop Wrote: Having more injuries might be bad luck if it weren’t repeating itself every year since Turkey left.
And we're left with tofu!
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - Phogge - 11-23-2021
Troy... I can imagine how tough it is to interview Shaw these days. Thankless job in many ways.
On tackling, some good points on live practice contact. But Cal is a bit banged up too and has played all year with one of their best defenders out. I can't remember many missed Bear tackles and they are under the same NCAA rules. Tackling is one area where an average athlete (and Stanford has its share) can be coached up. Overall that's not happening on the Farm and it's puzzling why it isn't.
One of Stanford's better athletes is Miezan. He doesn't have much experience and often overruns plays beyond the LOS. He needs to look at game footage all winter. I think good defensive coaches can help out a lot. Stanford needs guys who go back to fundamentals and they need them on staff this spring.
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - 76lsjumb - 11-23-2021
(11-23-2021, 11:08 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(11-22-2021, 10:56 PM)winflop Wrote: Having more injuries might be bad luck if it weren’t repeating itself every year since Turkey left.
And we're left with tofu!
True, but at least we made turducken out of Oregon this year…
RE: TreeCast post-Cal - gailtate - 11-23-2021
(11-22-2021, 07:04 PM)troyc Wrote:(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: - Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
My suspicion is that it's a practice issue. And a health issue. With both dovetailing together.
Stanford's banged up (and the more banged up the team has been, the worse the tackling has gotten), so that affects how physical practices can be for the players who can participate. Doesn't help that Stanford has stayed banged up during spring sessions and the preseason camp, so that affects how physical those practices can be, too. (which can be problematic because the offseason is probably the best time to work on those things) On top of that, the NCAA also limits how many full-contact periods teams can have during practice, and how long those periods can be.
Hard to practice tackling when you don't have enough players to do it. Even harder when the rules limit how often you can go live. And in-season, when you're just trying to keep enough guys healthy to be able to field a team on gameday, it's nearly impossible. All part of the by-product of players getting bigger, faster, and stronger and colliding at higher speeds and with more force? Yeah, probably.
Along those lines, it's also probably harder to tackle when your four ILBs have six healthy hands between them...
(11-22-2021, 01:51 PM)Papa John Wrote: Back to the Treecast: The sense I got from Troy's analysis was that the two failed red zone opportunities versus Cal pretty much sealed Stanford's fate, especially after Cal's quick strike to take the lead. But if Stanford had gone up 14-0, Stanford still might have lost, but it wouldn't have been the complete annihilation that we witnessed. Seems reasonable to me.
But I'll leave it to Troy to correct the record if I misunderstood him.
No, you pretty much got that right!
(11-22-2021, 05:52 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: If apathy is reigning everywhere, why are there so many encyclopedia-length posts?
Oh, you noticed that too?
(11-22-2021, 11:46 AM)Papa John Wrote: As painful as it was to hear you retell the horror story of Big Game, I appreciate your takes and straightforward approach, Troy.
Thank you! Appreciate you -- and everyone else on this thread! -- for checking out the show. Even when we're not talking about great stuff.
Troy C
Troy:
Being a simpleton, I like to simplify. To wit: Stanford used to be really, really good. Good football athletes. Defenders who were hunters, OL that was nasty, elite backs and receivers, on and on. Good coaching, impeccable game-planning (hey, when you have the horseflesh everybody's a genius) and TE's who were the gold standard. Injuries? Of course. But they were never immobilizing for the team. May have a lot to do with having a really, really good S&C whisperer. Not around anymore. Today, Stanford is really, really bad. Stats may mislead from time to time, but they don't lie. There are really, really good teams still out there, as usual. And, as usual, most of them are at least pretty good year after year after year. For a bunch of years beginning in 2009, I thought Stanford had finally cracked the code and had gained entry into that kind of status. Boy, was I wrong. Any comments as to what do you think happened to take Stanford football from the heights to the depths?