[CTcard]

The ESPN Pac 12 football blog is running down the outlook for each team and their expected position in the divisional races for next year.

Lombardi writes the blurb for Stanford, posted today.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...h-stanford


My responses:

- I think his summary comment on "what constitutes success" is a little odd and not correct.

Instead of applying an outcome-oriented approach, it's more fair to apply a process-oriented one here. If the Cardinal can establish consistently solid offensive play, even against the best defenses on their schedule -- something that escaped them last year -- 2017 should be deemed a success.

While of course the offense has to improve and be more consistent, I don't think a consistent offense that still leaves us with 8 or fewer wins is going to be viewed as success by much of anyone.

- I think that the dominant theme of the season roll-over from 2016 to 2017 is that Stanford is losing very few players, but among those lost were our clear best players on each side of the ball. Yet most previews I have seen seem to indicate that Stanford has a large number of personnel losses to plug. Lombardi doesn't quite do so, though I don't think you could read his article and get the implicit understanding that we are returning 8 starters on offense and 9 on defense.

[CTcard]

The ESPN Pac 12 football blog is running down the outlook for each team and their expected position in the divisional races for next year.

Lombardi writes the blurb for Stanford, posted today.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...h-stanford


My responses:

- I think his summary comment on "what constitutes success" is a little odd and not correct.

Instead of applying an outcome-oriented approach, it's more fair to apply a process-oriented one here. If the Cardinal can establish consistently solid offensive play, even against the best defenses on their schedule -- something that escaped them last year -- 2017 should be deemed a success.

While of course the offense has to improve and be more consistent, I don't think a consistent offense that still leaves us with 8 or fewer wins is going to be viewed as success by much of anyone.

- I think that the dominant theme of the season roll-over from 2016 to 2017 is that Stanford is losing very few players, but among those lost were our clear best players on each side of the ball. Yet most previews I have seen seem to indicate that Stanford has a large number of personnel losses to plug. Lombardi doesn't quite do so, though I don't think you could read his article and get the implicit understanding that we are returning 8 starters on offense and 9 on defense.

[Cap Heresy]

I think 2017 will be a little rough, better in 2018, and - don't think I'm crazy - the national championship is fully within our reach in 2019.

[Cap Heresy]

I think 2017 will be a little rough, better in 2018, and - don't think I'm crazy - the national championship is fully within our reach in 2019.

[AncientCityIndian]

Until last year, we were never picked to win the Pac 12 and yet have done it many times in recent years.  Last year, we imploded when we played a very good Washington team without our best cornerbacks, an inexperienced and mediocre QB and had an injured McCaffrey.  In my opinion, our team will be better on both sides of the ball and the Huskies will be in for a very tough game at Stanford.  Washington St loses a lot as does Colorado and UCLA is, well, still UCLA.  USC will be as good or better than the Huskies but I still see 10 or more wins as very realistic and a conference championship as not out of the question.

[AncientCityIndian]

Until last year, we were never picked to win the Pac 12 and yet have done it many times in recent years.  Last year, we imploded when we played a very good Washington team without our best cornerbacks, an inexperienced and mediocre QB and had an injured McCaffrey.  In my opinion, our team will be better on both sides of the ball and the Huskies will be in for a very tough game at Stanford.  Washington St loses a lot as does Colorado and UCLA is, well, still UCLA.  USC will be as good or better than the Huskies but I still see 10 or more wins as very realistic and a conference championship as not out of the question.

[CTcard]

I think 2017 will be a little rough, better in 2018, and - don't think I'm crazy - the national championship is fully within our reach in 2019.

2017 might be a little rough, I mean any year might be a little rough. However, I would say that the team is reasonably well set up for success. To actually achieve such success, some questions will have to be answered in a positive manner, but that is basically the case every year.

Plusses
Very high level of returning starters.
Very high level of returning contributors overall
[Note these two items are highly correlated to the fact that we had one of the smallest recruiting classes in the country.]
Most position groups feature somewhere between good proven performance returning to reasons for optimism on returning starters.
Much of a very good 2016 recruiting class coming on line, a few of an outstanding 2017 recruiting class possibly to come on line, at least one proven high caliber starter returning from injury (Holder).

Minuses - or at least big questions
Two of five starters lost were our best players on their side of the ball.
Uncertainty/no truly proven starter at QB.
OL needs to improve pass blocking.
DL quality depth.
--------------------------------------------

2018 also looks fairly promising, that is at least partly connected to the outlook that we'll probably take another small recruiting class. From what I can see with a quick glance at the roster, the following who have started for us will no longer be on the team:
Bright, Kalambayi, Palma, Tyler, Tucker, Marx, Burns.
[Not sure Tyler has started, but I think has good prospects to start in 2017.]

One might imagine we won't have the services of a couple of:
Meeks, Holder, Schultz, Reid, Alfieri, Phillips.

And of course projecting to 2018 gives us another year to sort out issues at QB, OL, DL.

Not bad.

[CTcard]

I think 2017 will be a little rough, better in 2018, and - don't think I'm crazy - the national championship is fully within our reach in 2019.

2017 might be a little rough, I mean any year might be a little rough. However, I would say that the team is reasonably well set up for success. To actually achieve such success, some questions will have to be answered in a positive manner, but that is basically the case every year.

Plusses
Very high level of returning starters.
Very high level of returning contributors overall
[Note these two items are highly correlated to the fact that we had one of the smallest recruiting classes in the country.]
Most position groups feature somewhere between good proven performance returning to reasons for optimism on returning starters.
Much of a very good 2016 recruiting class coming on line, a few of an outstanding 2017 recruiting class possibly to come on line, at least one proven high caliber starter returning from injury (Holder).

Minuses - or at least big questions
Two of five starters lost were our best players on their side of the ball.
Uncertainty/no truly proven starter at QB.
OL needs to improve pass blocking.
DL quality depth.
--------------------------------------------

2018 also looks fairly promising, that is at least partly connected to the outlook that we'll probably take another small recruiting class. From what I can see with a quick glance at the roster, the following who have started for us will no longer be on the team:
Bright, Kalambayi, Palma, Tyler, Tucker, Marx, Burns.
[Not sure Tyler has started, but I think has good prospects to start in 2017.]

One might imagine we won't have the services of a couple of:
Meeks, Holder, Schultz, Reid, Alfieri, Phillips.

And of course projecting to 2018 gives us another year to sort out issues at QB, OL, DL.

Not bad.

[winflop]

My frustration with the article is the premise that all of a sudden UW is the program to beat.  Sorry it was one year, it was mainly because of their defense, and much of that talent is now entering the draft.  Can Peterson reload? Sure, but he hasn't done it as this level yet so why give him more credit than Shaw who has?

[winflop]

My frustration with the article is the premise that all of a sudden UW is the program to beat.  Sorry it was one year, it was mainly because of their defense, and much of that talent is now entering the draft.  Can Peterson reload? Sure, but he hasn't done it as this level yet so why give him more credit than Shaw who has?

[BostonCard]

Petersen' defense lost a lot after 2015, and seemed to reload last year.  I think he has earned the benefit of the doub, especially returning an all confer nice qb and RB on offense.

[BostonCard]

Petersen' defense lost a lot after 2015, and seemed to reload last year.  I think he has earned the benefit of the doub, especially returning an all confer nice qb and RB on offense.

[CTcard]

My frustration with the article is the premise that all of a sudden UW is the program to beat.  Sorry it was one year, it was mainly because of their defense, and much of that talent is now entering the draft.  Can Peterson reload? Sure, but he hasn't done it as this level yet so why give him more credit than Shaw who has?

I have no problem with the general premise that the defending champion is the team to beat until it has proven that it is not.

It is worth looking at UW a little more closely.

By my own count, UW loses the following starters from their CFP game:
Offense = Ross (WR), Elderenkamp (LG)
Defense = Baker (S), Qualls (DT), King (CB), Jones (CB).
I believe that they are also getting Azeem Victor back from injury.

That is somewhat similar to Stanford in being not a lot of quantity lost, but some very top quality. I don't know UW well enough to understand their prospects for replacing these guys. I would note that as far as the public scouting services rankings go, UW has recruited less well under Petersen than they did under Sarkisian. I suspect UW folks would say that is because Petersen has a better and more independent eye for talent.

[CTcard]

My frustration with the article is the premise that all of a sudden UW is the program to beat.  Sorry it was one year, it was mainly because of their defense, and much of that talent is now entering the draft.  Can Peterson reload? Sure, but he hasn't done it as this level yet so why give him more credit than Shaw who has?

I have no problem with the general premise that the defending champion is the team to beat until it has proven that it is not.

It is worth looking at UW a little more closely.

By my own count, UW loses the following starters from their CFP game:
Offense = Ross (WR), Elderenkamp (LG)
Defense = Baker (S), Qualls (DT), King (CB), Jones (CB).
I believe that they are also getting Azeem Victor back from injury.

That is somewhat similar to Stanford in being not a lot of quantity lost, but some very top quality. I don't know UW well enough to understand their prospects for replacing these guys. I would note that as far as the public scouting services rankings go, UW has recruited less well under Petersen than they did under Sarkisian. I suspect UW folks would say that is because Petersen has a better and more independent eye for talent.

[fullmetal]

I'm with Boston Card.  UW retains 80% of that OL and a pretty good QB...plus, that team knows success (and has a motivating defeat)--they'll work hard in the offseason to get back to where they feel they belong.  Until proven otherwise, I think the rest of the Pac-12 is playing catch-up.

[fullmetal]

I'm with Boston Card.  UW retains 80% of that OL and a pretty good QB...plus, that team knows success (and has a motivating defeat)--they'll work hard in the offseason to get back to where they feel they belong.  Until proven otherwise, I think the rest of the Pac-12 is playing catch-up.