The CardBoard
Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - 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: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 (/thread-23987.html)


Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - msqueri - 01-21-2023

Because it's been awhile since I've done a research project, I indulged a question in my mind: what are the most talented Stanford teams of all time? Using NFL performance as a heuristic for how talented players are, I present to you Stanford football teams 1968-2015 (I figure the more recent we get the more to-be-written the NFL accomplishments of those teams are) as ranked by total Weighted Career Approximate Value among players who played that season (parentheticals: total wCAV/number of wCAV-registering players after each team, individual wCAV for each player):

  1.  2010 (495/23): Sherman (97), Luck (72), DeCastro (69), Baldwin (54), Ertz (49), Murphy (33), Fleener (25), Mauro (20), M. Thomas (16), Martin (14), Bademosi (8), Toilolo (8), Fua (5), Keiser (4), Reynolds (4), G. Whalen (4), Taylor (3), Owusu (3), Skov (2), Hewitt (2), Howell (1), Stewart (1), Reuland (1)
  2. 2011 (423/23): Luck (72), DeCastro (69), Ertz (49), Murphy (33), Fleming (30), Fleener (25), H. Anderson (21), Mauro (20), Montgomery (17), M. Thomas (16), Martin (14), Parry (13), Richards (10), Bademosi (8), Toilolo (8), G. Whalen (4), Taylor (3), Owusu (3), Tarpley (2), Hewitt (2), Vaughters (2), Howell (1), Stewart (1)
  3.  2009 (400/20): Sherman (97), Luck (72), DeCastro (69), Baldwin (54), Fleener (25), Gerhart (16), M. Thomas (16), Martin (14), Bademosi (8), Fua (5), Keiser (4), G. Whalen (4), Taylor (3), Dray (3), Owusu (3), Skov (2), Lorig (2), Howell (1), Stewart (1), Reuland (1)
  4. 1990 (379/13): Lynch (88), Whitfield (71), McCaffrey (67), Gordon (42), Dalman (36), Vardell (19), Milburn (19), George (14), Scott (8), Walsh (7), Garnett (5), Cline (2), Hoyem (1)
  5. 1991 (375/15): Lynch (88), Whitfield (71), Fisk (47), Gordon (42), Dalman (36), Vardell (19), Milburn (19), George (14), Wetnight (11), Walsh (7), Armour (7),  Stenstrom (6), Garnett (5), Cline (2), Hoyem (1)
  6. 1989 (351/11): Lynch (88), Whitfield (71), McCaffrey (67), Archambeau (36), Dalman (36), Vardell (19), Grant (8), Scott (8), Walsh (7), Price (6), Garnett (5)
  7. 2012 (322/20): Ertz (49), Peat (49), Martinez (38), Murphy (33), Fleming (30), H. Anderson (21), Mauro (20), Montgomery (17), Parry (13), Richards (10). Toilolo (8), Garnett (5), Reynolds (4), Taylor (3), Skov (2), Tarpley (2), Murphy (2), Hewitt (2), Vaughters (2), Hogan (2)
  8. 1970 (306/11): Plunkett (85), Siemon (64), Barnes (40), Vataha (34), Sampson (30), Moore (14), Lazetich (13), Tipton (12), Simone (8), Freitas (5), Kadziel (1)
  9. 1992 (290/13): Lynch (88), Fisk (47), Gordon (42), Dalman (36), Milburn (19), George (14), Buckey (12), Wetnight (11), Armour (7), Stenstrom (6), Garnett (5), Cline (2), Hoyem (1)
  10. 1980 (287/11): Elway (140), Nelson (48), Holloway (45), McColl (24), Margerum (11), Dressel (8), Gervais (4), Rogers (4), Tyler (1), Williams (1), Mullins (1)
  11. 1969 (266/10): Plunkett (85), Siemon (64), Vataha (34), Sampson (30), Moore (14), Lazetich (13), Tipton (12), Parish (9), Freitas (5), Kadziel (1)
  12. 1968 (261/7): Plunkett (85), Washington (71), Buehler (52), Snider (29), Moore (14), Parish (9), Kadziel (1)
  13. 1977 (258/14): Lofton (102), Nelson (48), King (28), McColl (24), Dils (16), Schonert (12), Margerum (11), Banks (4), Gervais (4), Francis (3), Evans (2), Ceresino (2), Benjamin (1), Rennaker (1)
  14. 1979 (253/13): Elway (140), Holloway (45), McColl (24), Schonert (12), Margerum (11), Banks (4), Gervais (4), Rogers (4), Laufenberg (4), Evans (2), Hines (1), Rennaker (1), Tyler (1) 
  15. 2013 (252/17): Peat (49), Martinez (38), Murphy (33), Fleming (30), H. Anderson (21), Mauro (20), Montgomery (17), Parry (13), Richards (10), Garnett (5), Reynolds (4), Skov (2), Tarpley (2), Murphy (2), Hewitt (2), Vaughters (2), Hogan (2)
  16. 2014 (251/15): Peat (49), McCaffrey (44), Martinez (38), Hooper (27), H. Anderson (21), Montgomery (17), Phillips (16), Parry (13), Richards (10), Garnett (5), Kalambayi (3), Tarpley (2), Murphy (2), Vaughters (2), Hogan (2)
  17. 1981 (247/9): Elway (140), Nelson (48), Veris (26), Harry (18), Dressel (8), Rogers (4), Tyler (1), Williams (1), Mullins (1)
  18. 1982 (242/10): Elway (140), Wyman (37), Veris (26), Harry (18), Dressel (8), Baty (8), Briehl (2), Williams (1), Mullins (1), Noble (1)
  19. 2015 (240/16): McCaffrey (44), Martinez (38), Hooper (27), Okereke (22), Reid (21), Schultz (18), S. Thomas (17), Phillips (16), B. Scarlett (15), Bailey (7), Garnett (5), Kalambayi (3), Murphy (2), Hogan (2), Irwin (2), Meeks (1)
  20. 2008 (239/14): Sherman (97), Baldwin (54), Fleener (25), Gerhart (16), M. Thomas (16), Bademosi (8), Fua (5), Keiser (4), G. Whalen (4), Dray (3), Owusu (3), Lorig (2), Howell (1), Stewart (1)
  21. 1986 (225/10): McCaffrey (67), Wyman (37), Cook (37), Archambeau (36), Muster (31), Grant (8), Price (6), Noble (1), Leiker (1), Harris (1)
  22. 2001 (211/15): Heitmann (40), Atogwe (34), Wire (22), Harris (22), Williams (20), Svitek (14), Camarillo (14), Smith (11), Chambers (9), Branch (8), Torrence (5), Wilson (5), Gordon (4), T. Johnson (2) Fasani (1)
  23. 1976 (209/9): Lofton (102), Hill (68), King (28), Francis (3), Anderson (3), Evans (2), Ceresino (2), Michel (2), Benjamin (1), Olenchalk (1)
  24. 1975 (207/8): Lofton (102), Hill (68), King (28), Anderson (3), Ceresino (2), Michel (2), Benjamin (1), Olenchalk (1)


RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - msqueri - 01-21-2023

25. 1971 (206/10): Siemon (64), Barnes (40), Sampson (30), Merlo (30), Lazetich (13), Poltl (10), Simone (8), Boryla (8), Askea (2), Bragonier (1)
26. 1984 (198/10): Wyman (37), Cook (37), Cain (37), Muster (31), Veris (26), Harry (18), Baty (8), Briehl (2), Noble (1), Harris (1)
27. 1974 (194/8): Hill (68), Donovan (64), King (28), Laidlaw (15), Stillwell (14), Anderson (3), Benjamin (1), Olenchalk (1)
28. 1994 (188/11): Fisk (47), Draft (38), Wong (37), Badger (30), Buckey (12), Armour (7), Stenstrom (6), Frost (5), Harris (3), Cline (2), Manning (1)
28. 1973 (188/8): Hill (68), Donovan (64), Laidlaw (15), Stillwell (14), Poltl (10), Boryla (8), Reid (6), Anderson (3)
30. 1978 (178/15): Nelson (48), Holloway (45), McColl (24), Dils (16), Schonert (12), Margerum (11), Banks (4), Gervais (4), Rogers (4), Francis (3), Evans (2), Ceresino (2), Hines (1), Rennaker (1), Tyler (1)
30. 2007 (178/7): Sherman (97), Baldwin (54), Gerhart (16), Moore (5), Dray (3), Lorig (2), Stewart (1)
32. 1996 (171/10): Draft (38), Wong (37), Badger (30), Spragan (23), Walters (12), Ritchie (11), Clark (9), Comella (6), Hutchinson (4), Manning (1)
33. 1987 (156/6): McCaffrey (67), Archambeau (36), Muster (31), Grant (8), Scott (8), Price (6)
34. 1972 (149/8): Donovan (64), Merlo (30), Laidlaw (15), Stillwell (14), Poltl (10), Boryla (8), Reid (6), Askea (2)
35. 2006 (146/8): Sherman (97), Edwards (16), Gerhart (16), Moore (5), Fua (5), Dray (3), Harrison (2), Lorig (2)
36. 2002 (137/14): Atogwe (34), Harris (22), Svitek (14), Camarillo (14), Smith (11), Chambers (9), Branch (8), Torrence (5), Wilson (5), Alston (5), Gordon (4), Rushing (3), T. Johnson (2), Jenkins (1)
37. 1995 (136/8): Draft (38), Wong (37), Badger (30), Buckey (12), Clark (9), Comella (6), Harris (3), Manning (1)
38. 1997 (135/10): Draft (38), Wong (37), Spragan (23), Walters (12), Ritchie (11), Comella (6), Hutchinson (4), Johnson (2), Merrill (1), Howard (1)
39. 1983 (131/9): Wyman (37), Cain (37), Veris (26), Harry (18), Baty (8), Briehl (2), Williams (1), Mullins (1), Noble (1)
40. 2003 (128/14): Atogwe (34), Edwards (16), Svitek (14), Camarillo (14), Smith (11), Chambers (9), Torrence (5), Wilson (5), Alston (5), Moore (5), Gordon (4), Rushing (3), Harrison (2), Jenkins (1)
41. 2000 (125/9): Heitmann (40), Wire (22), Harris (22), Williams (20), Chambers (9), Branch (8), R. Johnson (2), Howard (1), Fasani (1)
42. 1998 (121/8): Heitmann (40), Spragan (23), Wire (22), Williams (20), Walters (12), Johnson (2), Howard (1), Fasani (1)
43. 2004 (115/12): Atogwe (34), Edwards (16), Svitek (14), Camarillo (14), Smith (11), Torrence (5), Wilson (5), Alston (5), Moore (5), Rushing (3), Harrison (2), Jenkins (1)
44. 1999 (106/8): Heitmann (40), Wire (22), Williams (20), Walters (12), Branch (8), R. Johnson (2), Howard (1), Fasani (1)
45. 1993 (90/10): Fisk (47), Buckey (12), Armour (7), Stenstrom (6), Comella (6), Frost (5), Harris (3), Cline (2), Hoyem (1), Manning (1)
46. 1988 (84/6): Archambeau (36), Vardell (19), Grant (8), Scott (8), Walsh (7), Price (6)
47. 1985 (78/5): Cook (37), Muster (31), Baty (8), Leiker (1), Harris (1)
48. 2005 (32/6): Edwards (16), Alston (5), Moore (5), Rushing (3), Harrison (2), Jenkins (1)



2014 and 2015 will rise but won't reach the top tier.

Observations:

Would love to hear others' thoughts on this data and/or other impressions of Stanford's most/least talented teams.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - Jamesy - 01-21-2023

It's interesting that the 2014 team that finished 8-5 and unranked is considered more talented than the 2015 team that finished #3 in the nation. I suspect that's partially due to the 2015 team still having players active in the NFL.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - msqueri - 01-21-2023

2015 may pass 2014 on the strength of future NFL contributions by guys who played in 2015 but not 2014 but fundamentally those two teams had very similar talent levels. I could write a book about why 2015 was more successful. Some of the factors included dramatically more usage of McCaffrey, Garnett and Murphy finally being fourth year bullies, Kevin Hogan’s bereavement being a year later, and luck/variance. But the two teams were comparably talented. 2014 mainly had bad luck of Hogan’s dad dying and Cameron Fleming and David Yankey being so good they didn’t stick around a fifth year.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - Langdude - 01-21-2023

Interesting. I only note that this does not take into account player development. Freshman John Lynch was not in the same universe as senior John Lynch, yet they receive the same scoring weight.

-m.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - baymeadows3408 - 01-22-2023

(01-21-2023, 11:22 PM)Langdude Wrote:  Interesting. I only note that this does not take into account player development. Freshman John Lynch was not in the same universe as senior John Lynch, yet they receive the same scoring weight.

-m.

I see Richard Sherman as the same way. He was an inconsistent wide receiver and then a raw cornerback before finally becoming a solid cornerback in 2010. I remember him getting torched at times in 2009 before he became a shutdown type in 2010.

This methodology is going to understate the contributions of players who were productive in college but whose skills did not translate to the NFL. Todd Husak, Troy Walters, DeRonnie Pitts, Toby Gerhart, Kevin Hogan, Bryce Love, and Quenton Meeks are a few players who come to my mind. The 1999 Pac-10 team is near the bottom of the list. While it is clear the 1999 team benefited from the rest of the conference being weak, it had enough players who were good enough in college for the team to finish #28 in the Sagarin ratings.

Still, it's interesting to see what teams were loaded with NFL talent and which ones were not. I'll go to my grave thinking we would have beaten Auburn for the national title if a few plays had gone differently in Autzen...

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - msqueri - 01-22-2023

(01-22-2023, 07:02 AM)baymeadows3408 Wrote:  
(01-21-2023, 11:22 PM)Langdude Wrote:  Interesting. I only note that this does not take into account player development. Freshman John Lynch was not in the same universe as senior John Lynch, yet they receive the same scoring weight.

-m.

I see Richard Sherman as the same way. He was an inconsistent wide receiver and then a raw cornerback before finally becoming a solid cornerback in 2010. I remember him getting torched at times in 2009 before he became a shutdown type in 2010.

This methodology is going to understate the contributions of players who were productive in college but whose skills did not translate to the NFL. Todd Husak, Troy Walters, DeRonnie Pitts, Toby Gerhart, Kevin Hogan, Bryce Love, and Quenton Meeks are a few players who come to my mind. The 1999 Pac-10 team is near the bottom of the list. While it is clear the 1999 team benefited from the rest of the conference being weak, it had enough players who were good enough in college for the team to finish #28 in the Sagarin ratings.

Still, it's interesting to see what teams were loaded with NFL talent and which ones were not. I'll go to my grave thinking we would have beaten Auburn for the national title if a few plays had gone differently in Autzen...

Sherman was an incredible WR held back by his team and coaches. He had 29 percent of the receiving yards his true freshman year. Dominant.

The NFL gives us great insights on who actually is most talented. Gerhart was not as talented as McCaffrey and Nelson. Husak and Hogan were not as talented as Elway and Luck.

The fact is context and supporting cast have a lot to do with how players do. This works at all levels, including the NFL, but that's the best indication of how good somebody is. I love what Gerhart did at Stanford but many of our fans humongously overrate him. Getting to be surrounded by Roman, DeCastro, Martin, Luck, Sherman, Baldwin, and Fleener is something very few college running backs ever (and zero in the history of Stanford football) got to benefit from. I found it hilarious when Stanford fans would compare Mark Ingram's supporting cast at Alabama to Gerhart's as if Gerhart's weren't vastly superior. Look at what Roman, DeCastro, Luck et al did in the NFL.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - gailtate - 01-22-2023

This coach will require time and patience, admittedly something I lack, to get the program out of the ditch that Shaw/Muir created. I believe he can do it, but only time will tell. Tall order given the circumstances. But Taylor knows full well what it's going to take.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - BostonCard - 01-22-2023

Gerhart played with true freshman Luck, but had two productive seasons with Tavita Pritchard as his QB.  It’s not that I disagree that Gerhart was a good fit for our system in a way that hid his weaknesses, but I think this analysis is too facile.  It would suggest that the 2009 underachieved in terms of its talent, but the truth is that the top players that year were freshmen (Luck, DeCastro) or new to his position (Sherman).

BC

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - msqueri - 01-22-2023

(01-22-2023, 11:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Gerhart played with true freshman Luck, but had two productive seasons with Tavita Pritchard as his QB.  It’s not that I disagree that Gerhart was a good fit for our system in a way that hid his weaknesses, but I think this analysis is too facile.  It would suggest that the 2009 underachieved in terms of its talent, but the truth is that the top players that year were freshmen (Luck, DeCastro) or new to his position (Sherman).

BC

Gerhart played with redshirt freshman Luck, not true freshman Luck, and Luck was really freaking good. According to Total QBR, Luck was the #2 QB in America that year behind only Colin Kaepernick. That season was by far Gerhart's best. 2008 - without Luck, Roman's innovation, or one of the most dominant lines in the sport - is a much more accurate representation of Gerhart's ability. Gerhart was quite good that year - #29 in the nation in rushing and #84 in all-purpose yards - but not elite. The NFL corroborated that was a more accurate reflection of his ability. It's just unfair to have Luck, DeCastro, Martin, Roman, Fleener, Baldwin, etc. as your supporting cast.

I fully agree with the point that my above analysis of most/least talented teams is flawed in how it represents talented teams where the talent was concentrated in the lower classes. 2009 is one of those that wasn't quite as talented as the analysis suggests since those same players amounted to significantly more talent, accounting for seniority, in 2011. A similar dynamic would be at play with the 1989 team.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - 81alum - 01-22-2023

Gordy Ceresino was a truly great linebacker in college but only played one season in the pros.  I can't remember if injury cut that short?  In any case, I see he warranted only a couple of points in this scheme on the 1977 team.  Nevertheless, I love these kinds of metrics and they are fun to play with, acknowledging their limits.

Perhaps the thread should be titled "Most/least NFL talent on Stanford teams" since college talent is not exactly the same thing as NFL talent.  Not every great college football player even wants to play in the NFL--and those with Stanford degrees have more options than players on certain other college teams.  But it is interesting to see which Stanford teams fed the NFL most effectively, and it does say something about talent levels.  Thanks for doing this experiment!

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - murky - 01-22-2023

I enjoyed the post, thankyou Msqueri.  I wouldn't have been able to get close to that order from my head.

It makes me feel fortunate to have been at Stanford in the early 90s.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - lex24 - 01-22-2023

Don’t care what NFL careers show, there is no way there are 7 teams that were more talented than ‘70. And certainly not 7 that were better.  Although I realize those are not the same.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - qwerty49 - 01-22-2023

Interesting perspective, and thanks for the hard work, Matt.

I realize it’s not entirely symmetrical, but one way of looking at the list is that the first 12 were by definition the relatively more “productive” half of the program through the years. And that the first 6 were the “top-performing” quartile in terms of future NFL talent.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - JJJ - 01-22-2023

Thanks for sharing this. In addition to the analysis, it was a great stroll down memory lane to see some of those names.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - Leftcoast - 01-23-2023

Having a stellar NFL talent swings these ratings hugely.  For instance, the Stanford Rose Bowl winning team of 1971 (the one without Plunkett) is absurdly lower than than the struggling Elway led teams of 81 and 82.  Also the earlier years seem uniformly under ranked perhaps due to the smaller NFL squads affording fewer post-college opportunities.  

This doesn't make the rankings any less interesting but is a factor to consider when weighing the overall comparative talent of cross-era squads.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - BostonCard - 01-23-2023

An interesting exercise might be to "draft" a team of alums within a certain CAV envelope.  I wonder if that team would be lopsided (one Elway with a bunch of 5-10 CAV players) or well-rounded (a bunch of 20 CAV players).  To give but one example, is Elway worth two Lucks (Luck, of course, is penalized in CAV by virtue of his injuries and early retirement; Elway benefitted from his longevity), or 20 Stenstroms?

I'd have to see the players CAV by position.

More broadly, I think there are some issues with selecting CAV as a measure of talent, but, of course, all measures have some degree of issues.


BC

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - Spiny_Norman - 01-23-2023

I see one-time Cardboarder Johnny O contributing to the ranking for 1974, 1975 and 1976.

RE: Most/least talented Stanford teams since 1968 - gocard14 - 01-24-2023

(01-22-2023, 12:20 PM)msqueri Wrote:  
(01-22-2023, 11:31 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Gerhart played with true freshman Luck, but had two productive seasons with Tavita Pritchard as his QB.  It’s not that I disagree that Gerhart was a good fit for our system in a way that hid his weaknesses, but I think this analysis is too facile.  It would suggest that the 2009 underachieved in terms of its talent, but the truth is that the top players that year were freshmen (Luck, DeCastro) or new to his position (Sherman).

BC

Gerhart played with redshirt freshman Luck, not true freshman Luck, and Luck was really freaking good. According to Total QBR, Luck was the #2 QB in America that year behind only Colin Kaepernick. That season was by far Gerhart's best. 2008 - without Luck, Roman's innovation, or one of the most dominant lines in the sport - is a much more accurate representation of Gerhart's ability. Gerhart was quite good that year - #29 in the nation in rushing and #84 in all-purpose yards - but not elite. The NFL corroborated that was a more accurate reflection of his ability. It's just unfair to have Luck, DeCastro, Martin, Roman, Fleener, Baldwin, etc. as your supporting cast.

I fully agree with the point that my above analysis of most/least talented teams is flawed in how it represents talented teams where the talent was concentrated in the lower classes. 2009 is one of those that wasn't quite as talented as the analysis suggests since those same players amounted to significantly more talent, accounting for seniority, in 2011. A similar dynamic would be at play with the 1989 team.

Gerhart is a perfect example of college talent not necessarily translating to NFL talent. Gerhart was an amazing college running back. The fact that his game didn’t translate well to the NFL level where all defenders are bigger/faster/stronger doesn’t negate that fact. A list like this would discount players like Tebow, Darnold, Leaf, etc just because they couldn’t make the leap to the next level well. It also doesn’t factor in injury, for those like Bryce Love. 

No system is perfect, but that is why things that look more at college success like number of all-PAC team selections may be a better metric.