A hypothetical case for optimism - 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: A hypothetical case for optimism (/thread-25722.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: A hypothetical case for optimism (/thread-25722.html)
A hypothetical case for optimism - Snorlax94 - 09-05-2025
So I’m an optimist, and have been on this board for many years. I argued for keeping Shaw for many years (though to my recollection eventually I was flabbergasted in 2021 when the AD didn’t force him to make personal changes, and agreed in 2022 it was time to go).
But, as incredibly disappointed as I was by the loss to Hawaii, I do see signs to be optimistic about.
1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team.
The team in 2023 was a mess. Some of the stuff didn’t make the broadcast, but from the stands, I saw that at times, players were running around and they didn’t know who was supposed to be on the field. I’d never seen *that* in a Stanford team, or at least not in a very, very long time. Aside from the incredibly stupid tik-tok dance penalty — which I think should have been punished much more severely — this team acts more like a team should.
2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.
3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.
I love how professional Coach Reich is about fixing things. He knew he had to get better blocking and a running game, and they are way better. He knew he had to be competitive on the line, and so far they have been. Now he knows he needs to eliminate blown coverages, keep improving the secondary, eliminate mistakes, and improve the passing game.
I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him.
Obviously it’s much harder to get to a bowl game when you have to play Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami and SMU and have already lost to Hawaii, but I think it can still happen. I think Stanford is going to improve a lot. I also think UNC is going to improve a lot. College is a very different game, but I think pros from the nfl can figure it it out.
I’m not saying Stanford *will* go to bowl game, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - JeebsOak - 09-05-2025
Appreciate the optimism but this team is going to be awful in all facets. Nothing passes the eye test besides maybe the offensive line being a bit more experienced.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - gailtate - 09-05-2025
More likely Stanford's on the threshold of an o-fer season. That's zero and 12. Meditate on that little factoid.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - rogpodge - 09-05-2025
In my view, the penalties were bad and at the worst times. More so than last year, which showed a bit of an improvement, but not as good as the early Shaw years in terms of discipline.
I felt like play calling was improved, as in, I didn't think what the heck was that, until later in the game. Execution was a different issue. Very few yac, etc. Running game looked decent.
That being said, once Stanford was running the ball well and got a lead, that should have been a clock management / run out the clock situation, especially in field goal range. So the coaching did not improve here. I posted some parallels with the SJSU game last season. Just horrific gaffes.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - SkiBum80 - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: So I’m an optimist, and have been on this board for many years. I argued for keeping Shaw for many years (though to my recollection eventually I was flabbergasted in 2021 when the AD didn’t force him to make personal changes, and agreed in 2022 it was time to go).I share some of your optimism.
But, as incredibly disappointed as I was by the loss to Hawaii, I do see signs to be optimistic about.
1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team.
The team in 2023 was a mess. Some of the stuff didn’t make the broadcast, but from the stands, I saw that at times, players were running around and they didn’t know who was supposed to be on the field. I’d never seen *that* in a Stanford team, or at least not in a very, very long time. Aside from the incredibly stupid tik-tok dance penalty — which I think should have been punished much more severely — this team acts more like a team should.
2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.
3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.
I love how professional Coach Reich is about fixing things. He knew he had to get better blocking and a running game, and they are way better. He knew he had to be competitive on the line, and so far they have been. Now he knows he needs to eliminate blown coverages, keep improving the secondary, eliminate mistakes, and improve the passing game.
I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him.
Obviously it’s much harder to get to a bowl game when you have to play Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami and SMU and have already lost to Hawaii, but I think it can still happen. I think Stanford is going to improve a lot. I also think UNC is going to improve a lot. College is a very different game, but I think pros from the nfl can figure it it out.
I’m not saying Stanford *will* go to bowl game, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did.
In that the OLine especially, but DLine too, looked improved from last year.
Run game much improved, and Micah Ford was looking very strong, and when he wasn't in, the other RB's looked good too.
And to be fair to our blown coverage, we had two key secondary guys out that game.
On the otherhand, our QB play was just so poor and I don't know if that is fixable or not.
And our receivers continue to not look very good, not getting open really great or quickly very much.
Considering our tough schedule, I still think 3 or 4 wins might be a ceiling for this team, and even getting 2 or 3 is not assured.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - fullmetal - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team.Is the takeaway that the 2023 team who beat Hawai'i was also badly coached and not very complete? The sideline behavior feels a bit of an "eye-test" that is more vibes-based than results-oriented. At this point, I'll take a team that wins despite looking lost on the sidelines but looking like winners on the field...
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.I'll say the obvious: best overall/balanced blocking...and yet Stanford still lost. You are right that winning the line of scrimmage does not guarantee a win. Personally, I think the defensive line had moments of brilliance and then were stymied whenever they rushed three or four and failed to get pressure. You'll note that Alejado was 27/39 for 210 yds and 2 TDs. Doesn't sound like he was pressured consistently. And he played a good chunk of the game on a bum ankle. A competent DL would punish an immobile QB. Arizona exposed his lack of mobility last weekend and delivered a 40-6 victory where Alejado was 18/31 for 157 yds, 0 TDs, and 1 INT.
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.I don't know if that was the biggest broken part, but we can proceed with that. Blown coverages are either players out of position (outmatched potentially) or coverages that were well-exploited by the offense. One is the players making poor decisions (or not at all!), and the other is coaches choosing bad coverages. Fixable? Maybe. I don't know how you teach players to react and anticipate more quickly (instinctively) in a short amount of time (i.e. first half of this season).
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him."Wasn't the greatest passer" -- what, no. Kevin Hogan was an amazing passer. Second in career completion percentage, third in career passing yards, third in career pass completions, second in career passing efficiency, third in career touchdowns...we could surely use him yesterday, today, and forever.
I'm going to judge Reich on his merits, and maybe this game was his benchmark for later improvement. But even that is an indictment of my expectation of him as a head coach. I expected him to show up, evaluate his staff, and implement changes at whatever level necessary to field a competitive team on day 1. I expect that of a head coach with NFL/Superbowl-winning experience. Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?
An optimist says that maybe we can focus on the run game and stomp all over opponents this season in the second half. When we get players back from injury, our defensive backfield will clamp down and JA Hall will be revelation in the passing game. Gulbranson will loosen up, play reflexively, and become an aerial surgeon. Maybe we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by not relying on our strengths. Maybe the special teams unit won't allow a blocked kick on a 34-yd attempt by one of the best kickers in the nation (Emmet Kenney, you deserve much better). Maybe they'll get a special teams coach! Stanford don't have a special teams coach! (I don't think an analyst counts.)
I want to believe, but I need to see some data somewhere in the neighborhood of promise. Week 0 provided plenty of data to the contrary.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - Jamesy - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 01:11 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team.Is the takeaway that the 2023 team who beat Hawai'i was also badly coached and not very complete? The sideline behavior feels a bit of an "eye-test" that is more vibes-based than results-oriented. At this point, I'll take a team that wins despite looking lost on the sidelines but looking like winners on the field...
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.I'll say the obvious: best overall/balanced blocking...and yet Stanford still lost. You are right that winning the line of scrimmage does not guarantee a win. Personally, I think the defensive line had moments of brilliance and then were stymied whenever they rushed three or four and failed to get pressure. You'll note that Alejado was 27/39 for 210 yds and 2 TDs. Doesn't sound like he was pressured consistently. And he played a good chunk of the game on a bum ankle. A competent DL would punish an immobile QB. Arizona exposed his lack of mobility last weekend and delivered a 40-6 victory where Alejado was 18/31 for 157 yds, 0 TDs, and 1 INT.
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: 3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.I don't know if that was the biggest broken part, but we can proceed with that. Blown coverages are either players out of position (outmatched potentially) or coverages that were well-exploited by the offense. One is the players making poor decisions (or not at all!), and the other is coaches choosing bad coverages. Fixable? Maybe. I don't know how you teach players to react and anticipate more quickly (instinctively) in a short amount of time (i.e. first half of this season).
(09-05-2025, 12:48 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him."Wasn't the greatest passer" -- what, no. Kevin Hogan was an amazing passer. Second in career completion percentage, third in career passing yards, third in career pass completions, second in career passing efficiency, third in career touchdowns...we could surely use him yesterday, today, and forever.
I'm going to judge Reich on his merits, and maybe this game was his benchmark for later improvement. But even that is an indictment of my expectation of him as a head coach. I expected him to show up, evaluate his staff, and implement changes at whatever level necessary to field a competitive team on day 1. I expect that of a head coach with NFL/Superbowl-winning experience. Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?
An optimist says that maybe we can focus on the run game and stomp all over opponents this season in the second half. When we get players back from injury, our defensive backfield will clamp down and JA Hall will be revelation in the passing game. Gulbranson will loosen up, play reflexively, and become an aerial surgeon. Maybe we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by not relying on our strengths. Maybe the special teams unit won't allow a blocked kick on a 34-yd attempt by one of the best kickers in the nation (Emmet Kenney, you deserve much better). Maybe they'll get a special teams coach! Stanford don't have a special teams coach! (I don't think an analyst counts.)
I want to believe, but I need to see some data somewhere in the neighborhood of promise. Week 0 provided plenty of data to the contrary.
I think Reich didn't have a choice in keeping the existing coaching staff.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - old spanish trail - 09-05-2025
Wasn't the reason that there had been enuf disruption already?
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - MV72018 - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 02:30 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Wasn't the reason that there had been enuf disruption already?
Wasn't the excuse proffered that there had been enough disruption already?
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - 82lsju - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 02:37 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(09-05-2025, 02:30 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Wasn't the reason that there had been enuf disruption already?
Wasn't the excuse proffered that there had been enough disruption already?
Given Reich was hired on Mar 31, 2025 I doubt he really would have been to assemble a stellar staff from the available coaching pool at the time as well as for any coach employed then, who would want to join his staff knowing he'd likely be gone in December 2025 and any of his hires would likely be looking for work again
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - ADPinWDC - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 03:01 PM)82lsju Wrote:(09-05-2025, 02:37 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(09-05-2025, 02:30 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Wasn't the reason that there had been enuf disruption already?
Wasn't the excuse proffered that there had been enough disruption already?
Given Reich was hired on Mar 31, 2025 I doubt he really would have been to assemble a stellar staff from the available coaching pool at the time as well as for any coach employed then, who would want to join his staff knowing he'd likely be gone in December 2025 and any of his hires would likely be looking for work again
CORRECT -- you cannot recruit staff if your name is "Interim Coach".
Levin: "Hey, Andrew... why don't you do Football?"
How much salary (Shaw was >$9 million) does Luck have to recruit with?
Riley at USC, Sweeney at CLEM make $11M+
Belichik is taking $10M at NCAR, plus child care allowance.
Ditto Cristobal at MIAM, Norville at FLST.
GATech coach Brent Key only gets about $3M.
Manny Diaz at Duke = $4M
VATC runs about $4M+
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2025/05/15/lincoln-riley-usc-compensation-salary/83655049007/
At a STATE School -- Univ of GEORGIA, Kirby Smart gets $13M+ in Athens, GA ... not Palo Alto.
Asked if he wants to run for Governor...?
Smart said, "Why step down?". Smart guy.
"Optimism" or MONEY?
And NIL deals (Arch Manning at $6M; Beck at MIAM is $4M)
now top $80M in aggregate for 8300 Players.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/46154733/more-8300-nil-deals-worth-80m-approved-new-commission
If Stanford wants to exist in the NIL Era, then Trustees will have to dip into the Endowment Bag.
Instead of "Optimism"... Could we experiment, simulate NIL deals for Offensive Linemen that meet our Admissions criteria and model who / what talent level we could get?
"Hey, Andrew... Why don't you do Football NIL?"
How about $1 million base NIL for starting members of O-Line Tunnel Workers Union (and D-Line?).
How many 5-star O-Line (include TE) could we land?
How many?
Other schools won't match us on O-Line.
Then we get QBs, RBs, WRs... That is the formula.
Then we could find "Optimism". Playoffs.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - jacket3ree - 09-05-2025
It really is about money. Stanford has a lot of money. They can't dip into the $37.6 billion endowment to have a $10million offensive line and $15million defensive line (I'd pay more for the DL) because rules or something (like common sense) but someone on one of the Tech sites posited that if Stanford or Northwestern decided they want to do it, they could bury us all alive. There are rules about endowments but schools that have $37.6 billion endowments have donors willing to give big dollars and if enough want to do it, Stanford could buy an incredible team. Certainly one that could stay eligible without destroying the very fabric of society.
It isn't all about money. The $3 million Brent Key took $10 million Cristobal's lunch two years in a row and $13 million Kirby to 8 OTs and Kirbs needed some calls and luck to break his way in Athens. (Mercer is in Macon.) But it is about money. After Week 1 Tech sites are talking about the grit to overcome three TOs on the first three drives and beat Prime, uniforms of course, and oh no, Bama will pay $60 million plus to make DeBoer go away and grab Key. Bill Curry all over again. But that means we win a natty within five years.....
It's not Reich. Andy Reed could be coaching this team and we'd get the same result. Right. The running game was working and/or Hawaii just sucks at run defense (lots of evidence for the latter), and Stanford is executing a nice four-minute drive with a field goal lead. In the alternate universe we are bemoaning how they knew this, stacked the box, held us to a field goal and had time for the game winning touchdown. So, they called a safe pass on first down. Reich gave the guy credit for an 'incredible play' but it was right to him and unlike the earlier missed interceptions including a pick six, he made the play. Gulbranson needs to not throw that (slide or chuck it out of bounds or make the play - it was first down) and he is in his sixth year of college football. I get it. If you throw an interception you should have kept running. If you get stoned running, you should have passed. Nothing wrong with the play calling. That's a player issue.
There will be a true and complete reset next year, so let's play out the long string and salvage something. Reich did his friend a favor by stepping into an untenable situation. That's better than pulling a Stanford Rugby. Reich will get saddled with a bunch of losses while Luck is hopefully out there talking to another Lance Leipold. Or shoot. The Lance Leipold.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - ADPinWDC - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 05:38 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: It really is about money. Stanford has a lot of money. They can't dip into the $37.6 billion endowment to have a $10million offensive line and $15million defensive line (I'd pay more for the DL) because rules or something (like common sense) but someone on one of the Tech sites posited that if Stanford or Northwestern decided they want to do it, they could bury us all alive. There are rules about endowments but schools that have $37.6 billion endowments have donors willing to give big dollars and if enough want to do it, Stanford could buy an incredible team. Certainly one that could stay eligible without destroying the very fabric of society.
It isn't all about money. The $3 million Brent Key took $10 million Cristobal's lunch two years in a row and $13 million Kirby to 8 OTs and Kirbs needed some calls and luck to break his way in Athens. (Mercer is in Macon.) But it is about money. After Week 1 Tech sites are talking about the grit to overcome three TOs on the first three drives and beat Prime, uniforms of course, and oh no, Bama will pay $60 million plus to make DeBoer go away and grab Key. Bill Curry all over again. But that means we win a natty within five years.....
It's not Reich. Andy Reed could be coaching this team and we'd get the same result. Right. The running game was working and/or Hawaii just sucks at run defense (lots of evidence for the latter), and Stanford is executing a nice four-minute drive with a field goal lead. In the alternate universe we are bemoaning how they knew this, stacked the box, held us to a field goal and had time for the game winning touchdown. So, they called a safe pass on first down. Reich gave the guy credit for an 'incredible play' but it was right to him and unlike the earlier missed interceptions including a pick six, he made the play. Gulbranson needs to not throw that (slide or chuck it out of bounds or make the play - it was first down) and he is in his sixth year of college football. I get it. If you throw an interception you should have kept running. If you get stoned running, you should have passed. Nothing wrong with the play calling. That's a player issue.
There will be a true and complete reset next year, so let's play out the long string and salvage something. Reich did his friend a favor by stepping into an untenable situation. That's better than pulling a Stanford Rugby. Reich will get saddled with a bunch of losses while Luck is hopefully out there talking to another Lance Leipold. Or shoot. The Lance Leipold.
Good rundown. Cannot disagree with any of it.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - fullmetal - 09-05-2025
Ask Texas A&M how much they're spending on paying head coaches (plural)...it's definitely not all about money. But you can't win without it.
It not be *all* Reich. But as head coach, Reich bears responsibility for the screw-ups of his coaching staff. I think the offensive playcalling and clock management are details that fall under the responsibilities of the coaches under his purview.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - marchballer - 09-05-2025
I think the issues at QB are overblown at this point. There are 3 guys behind Gulbranson who can step in. Gotta believe at least one of the three will be better than that if he doesn’t improve Saturday.
Overall this looked like a better football team and I thought Hawaii played like a better team than 2 years ago. Not sure why they didn’t show up vs. UofA but that’s another story.
Crossing fingers things improve this season.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - 82lsju - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 03:25 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-05-2025, 03:01 PM)82lsju Wrote:(09-05-2025, 02:37 PM)MV72018 Wrote:(09-05-2025, 02:30 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Wasn't the reason that there had been enuf disruption already?
Wasn't the excuse proffered that there had been enough disruption already?
Given Reich was hired on Mar 31, 2025 I doubt he really would have been to assemble a stellar staff from the available coaching pool at the time as well as for any coach employed then, who would want to join his staff knowing he'd likely be gone in December 2025 and any of his hires would likely be looking for work again
CORRECT -- you cannot recruit staff if your name is "Interim Coach".
Levin: "Hey, Andrew... why don't you do Football?"
How much salary (Shaw was >$9 million) does Luck have to recruit with?
Riley at USC, Sweeney at CLEM make $11M+
Belichik is taking $10M at NCAR, plus child care allowance.
Ditto Cristobal at MIAM, Norville at FLST.
GATech coach Brent Key only gets about $3M.
Manny Diaz at Duke = $4M
VATC runs about $4M+
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2025/05/15/lincoln-riley-usc-compensation-salary/83655049007/
At a STATE School -- Univ of GEORGIA, Kirby Smart gets $13M+ in Athens, GA ... not Palo Alto.
Asked if he wants to run for Governor...?
Smart said, "Why step down?". Smart guy.
"Optimism" or MONEY?
And NIL deals (Arch Manning at $6M; Beck at MIAM is $4M)
now top $80M in aggregate for 8300 Players.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/46154733/more-8300-nil-deals-worth-80m-approved-new-commission
If Stanford wants to exist in the NIL Era, then Trustees will have to dip into the Endowment Bag.
Instead of "Optimism"... Could we experiment, simulate NIL deals for Offensive Linemen that meet our Admissions criteria and model who / what talent level we could get?
"Hey, Andrew... Why don't you do Football NIL?"
How about $1 million base NIL for starting members of O-Line Tunnel Workers Union (and D-Line?).
How many 5-star O-Line (include TE) could we land?
How many?
Other schools won't match us on O-Line.
Then we get QBs, RBs, WRs... That is the formula.
Then we could find "Optimism". Playoffs.
Shaw was +/-$6m in his last few years with one year higher
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - KartyFan - 09-05-2025
(09-05-2025, 05:38 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: It's not Reich. Andy Reed could be coaching this team and we'd get the same result. Right. The running game was working and/or Hawaii just sucks at run defense (lots of evidence for the latter), and Stanford is executing a nice four-minute drive with a field goal lead. In the alternate universe we are bemoaning how they knew this, stacked the box, held us to a field goal and had time for the game winning touchdown. So, they called a safe pass on first down. Reich gave the guy credit for an 'incredible play' but it was right to him and unlike the earlier missed interceptions including a pick six, he made the play. Gulbranson needs to not throw that (slide or chuck it out of bounds or make the play - it was first down) and he is in his sixth year of college football. I get it. If you throw an interception you should have kept running. If you get stoned running, you should have passed. Nothing wrong with the play calling. That's a player issue.
There will be a true and complete reset next year, so let's play out the long string and salvage something. Reich did his friend a favor by stepping into an untenable situation. That's better than pulling a Stanford Rugby. Reich will get saddled with a bunch of losses while Luck is hopefully out there talking to another Lance Leipold. Or shoot. The Lance Leipold.
Well said. It's fine to look at playcalling, but giving Reich any blame for where we are as a team, or even the loss last week, is silly given the position he is in. Like you, I'm thankful that he came in to do this for us and give this year some kind of legitimacy.
I tend to agree we should have continued running the ball on our last drive, but the criticism I have seen here from some is overblown. It is far from the worst playcalling decision I have seen. Our decision to pass on 3rd down on the prior drive as Hawaii sold out against the run nearly won us the game, and probably should have. On the final drive, if the pass had been completed instead of the receiver falling down, nobody would have given the play a second thought. We might even be celebrating that we didn't "turtle" like Shaw used to.
I agree with the OP that it's all about the lines. Terrible line play is how recent talented Stanford quarterbacks couldn't get us to better than 3-9. I'd rather have a bad year with encouraging line play and terrible quarterback play than vice versa. We just need to find one quarterback, and we will eventually. Finding and developing an entire OL is much harder. That said, I'm not celebrating our OL and DL quality yet - jury is still out.
Unfortunately, I have a really hard time seeing 6 wins. But to those convinced our ceiling is 1 win, I am open for bets and will happily take the over a 1.5-win season.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - OCcardinal - 09-06-2025
(09-05-2025, 01:11 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?
This may be a dumb question, but with a pro-style offense isn't the QB given a lot of decisionmaking ability in terms of whether to pass or run? Could the problem be that Reich gave too much authority to Gulbranson (and that Gulbranson just didn't exercise that authority well)? If so, that seems like something that can be fixed. This was a 0 week game, the first ever college game coached by Reich, and it was Gubranson's first game ever running a pro-style offense. Both seem more like new dogs to me. Lot of tricks to learn.
RE: A hypothetical case for optimism - fullmetal - 09-06-2025
(09-06-2025, 08:52 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:(09-05-2025, 01:11 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?
This may be a dumb question, but with a pro-style offense isn't the QB given a lot of decisionmaking ability in terms of whether to pass or run? Could the problem be that Reich gave too much authority to Gulbranson (and that Gulbranson just didn't exercise that authority well)? If so, that seems like something that can be fixed. This was a 0 week game, the first ever college game coached by Reich, and it was Gubranson's first game ever running a pro-style offense. Both seem more like new dogs to me. Lot of tricks to learn.
I don't know if decision-making authority depends on the offensive style. But if you're right, then I definitely think BG should not be the starter this week. Wouldn't trust a doctor with poor situational awareness. But on the other hand, I don't trust an OC who doesn't see the situation at two minutes. And the HC should be catching on to this and talking to the OC immediately, or taking charge. The goal is to win games as a team.