[Spiny_Norman]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

[Spiny_Norman]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

[SamuelMcF]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

Ya know, I genuinely thought having 4 "solid" ILBs (this was before I saw them play) would be deep enough. I didn't take into account that our entire team would be dead halfway through the season.

[SamuelMcF]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

Ya know, I genuinely thought having 4 "solid" ILBs (this was before I saw them play) would be deep enough. I didn't take into account that our entire team would be dead halfway through the season.

[martyup]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

Ya know, I genuinely thought having 4 "solid" ILBs (this was before I saw them play) would be deep enough. I didn't take into account that our entire team would be dead halfway through the season.

Hey, it could be worse.  My HS football coach was the QB for Cal Poly in 1960.  Their plane went down on the flight home from Toledo and killed 22.  Cal Poly had to cancel the final 3 games of that season.

[martyup]

From the presser - Costello is good to go. Mills may suit up (which sounds like he won't play). Curtis Robinson is doubtful (late week final decision) which would leave Pryts and Beecher to play most of the game at ILB.

Ya know, I genuinely thought having 4 "solid" ILBs (this was before I saw them play) would be deep enough. I didn't take into account that our entire team would be dead halfway through the season.

Hey, it could be worse.  My HS football coach was the QB for Cal Poly in 1960.  Their plane went down on the flight home from Toledo and killed 22.  Cal Poly had to cancel the final 3 games of that season.

[BostonCard]

You win the award for most morbid take of the week.

BC

[BostonCard]

You win the award for most morbid take of the week.

BC

[CTcard]

I don't know, the fact that we are only 3 point favorites (albeit on the road) against the last place team in the South kind of tells us a bit about what the public thinks of Stanford.  A good team should be able to be at least a touchdown favorite against the Buffs. 

I don't think much of the public is paying much attention to either Stanford or Colorado. Certainly not enough to know the sources of each teams inconsistencies. And whatever Stanford is at the moment, they certainly they don't qualify as a good team - certainly by Stanford's own recent past as comparison - so that part isn't in play.

My impression is that Stanford has been much more inconsistent this year than usual. The good parts make me wonder if a healthy version of Stanford 2019 could have been a good team, but the bad parts have been rather horrendous.

As to the source ...

Home/Road:
Stanford has played three road games, stunk in two and played mostly well until the fourth quarter collapse at Corvalis.
Stanford has played five home games, one was their worst performance of the year (imo), one terrible offense but good defense, and the other three were at least pretty good.

QB play/health:
On the other hand, Stanford's four losses were their four worst QB performances of the year and four wins were their four best QB performances. Three of the bad and three of the good were far from the mean. One of the poorer performances ($C) and one of the better (Northwestern) were more middling.

While it is hard to assign cause and effect, my own take is that most of Stanford's inconsistency leading to wins vs losses has been due to QB play.

Defense:
That doesn't really address the inconsistent defense, but those haven't been quite as closely tied to win/loss. Stanford's defense played well in the loss to Oregon and not terrible for most of the UCLA game. On the other hand the defense was quite poor vs OSU (particularly the fourth quarter) and UA (with some redemption in the fourth quarter).

Colorado
Colorado on the other hand seems to have their good/bad much more closely tied to home/away. They don't seem to have put up any stinkers in their four home and one pseudo-neutral site games. Their offense has been poor in three of four road games, but never atrocious at home (their worst home game offense was in an OT loss to Air Force, which is a decent team with a pretty good defense).

It's tough to be sure what either team will bring in one particular game. My guess would be lots of offense and scoring - much more like our Arizona game than Northwestern. But I have been consistently horrible in the pick'em game.

[CTcard]

I don't know, the fact that we are only 3 point favorites (albeit on the road) against the last place team in the South kind of tells us a bit about what the public thinks of Stanford.  A good team should be able to be at least a touchdown favorite against the Buffs. 

I don't think much of the public is paying much attention to either Stanford or Colorado. Certainly not enough to know the sources of each teams inconsistencies. And whatever Stanford is at the moment, they certainly they don't qualify as a good team - certainly by Stanford's own recent past as comparison - so that part isn't in play.

My impression is that Stanford has been much more inconsistent this year than usual. The good parts make me wonder if a healthy version of Stanford 2019 could have been a good team, but the bad parts have been rather horrendous.

As to the source ...

Home/Road:
Stanford has played three road games, stunk in two and played mostly well until the fourth quarter collapse at Corvalis.
Stanford has played five home games, one was their worst performance of the year (imo), one terrible offense but good defense, and the other three were at least pretty good.

QB play/health:
On the other hand, Stanford's four losses were their four worst QB performances of the year and four wins were their four best QB performances. Three of the bad and three of the good were far from the mean. One of the poorer performances ($C) and one of the better (Northwestern) were more middling.

While it is hard to assign cause and effect, my own take is that most of Stanford's inconsistency leading to wins vs losses has been due to QB play.

Defense:
That doesn't really address the inconsistent defense, but those haven't been quite as closely tied to win/loss. Stanford's defense played well in the loss to Oregon and not terrible for most of the UCLA game. On the other hand the defense was quite poor vs OSU (particularly the fourth quarter) and UA (with some redemption in the fourth quarter).

Colorado
Colorado on the other hand seems to have their good/bad much more closely tied to home/away. They don't seem to have put up any stinkers in their four home and one pseudo-neutral site games. Their offense has been poor in three of four road games, but never atrocious at home (their worst home game offense was in an OT loss to Air Force, which is a decent team with a pretty good defense).

It's tough to be sure what either team will bring in one particular game. My guess would be lots of offense and scoring - much more like our Arizona game than Northwestern. But I have been consistently horrible in the pick'em game.

[Papa John]

Depth chart is out. See page 14 of the game notes - https://admin.gostanford.com/documents/2...lorado.pdf
<snip>

Here's a comparison of the projected starters on offense for CU versus the starters for NW in week 1:
QB = Costello, Costello
RB = Scarlett, Scarlett
FB = Heimuli, Heimuli
WR = Wedington, Wedington
WR = Wilson, Wilson
TE = Parkinson, Parkinson
LT = Rouse, Little (Rouse was backup on NW depth chart)
LG = Miller, Hattis (Miller was nowhere to be found on NW depth chart)
C = Dalman, Dalman
RG = Hornibrook, Hamilton (Hornibrook was nowhere to be found on NW depth chart)
RT = Sarell, Sarell

I think it's all about the OL, and we've seen the freshmen make big strides in the past few weeks. If this offensive unit can somehow stay intact and Costello can play to his abilities, we beat CU, WSU and Cal and have a puncher's chance against ND, who won't have much to play for.

[Papa John]

Depth chart is out. See page 14 of the game notes - https://admin.gostanford.com/documents/2...lorado.pdf
<snip>

Here's a comparison of the projected starters on offense for CU versus the starters for NW in week 1:
QB = Costello, Costello
RB = Scarlett, Scarlett
FB = Heimuli, Heimuli
WR = Wedington, Wedington
WR = Wilson, Wilson
TE = Parkinson, Parkinson
LT = Rouse, Little (Rouse was backup on NW depth chart)
LG = Miller, Hattis (Miller was nowhere to be found on NW depth chart)
C = Dalman, Dalman
RG = Hornibrook, Hamilton (Hornibrook was nowhere to be found on NW depth chart)
RT = Sarell, Sarell

I think it's all about the OL, and we've seen the freshmen make big strides in the past few weeks. If this offensive unit can somehow stay intact and Costello can play to his abilities, we beat CU, WSU and Cal and have a puncher's chance against ND, who won't have much to play for.

[Goose]

I think it's all about the OL, and we've seen the freshmen make big strides in the past few weeks. If this offensive unit can somehow stay intact and Costello can play to his abilities, we beat CU, WSU and Cal and have a puncher's chance against ND, who won't have much to play for.

+1. I think this is exactly correct. The defense has to at least show up, particularly against WSU, but if the OL plays up to par, we should score quite a few points and burn lots of clock doing it.

[Goose]

I think it's all about the OL, and we've seen the freshmen make big strides in the past few weeks. If this offensive unit can somehow stay intact and Costello can play to his abilities, we beat CU, WSU and Cal and have a puncher's chance against ND, who won't have much to play for.

+1. I think this is exactly correct. The defense has to at least show up, particularly against WSU, but if the OL plays up to par, we should score quite a few points and burn lots of clock doing it.

[gailtate]

Stanford is eminently capable of losing this game. Same can be said of the following three. I don't think they'll go 0-4, but as of right now I say the odds are even that they will. The string of 10 consecutive bowl games, '09-'18, is in serious jeopardy. No depth, less-than-stellar recruiting, questionable coaching and inconsistent preparation. This disappointing season just didn't happen. It's been years in the making.

[gailtate]

Stanford is eminently capable of losing this game. Same can be said of the following three. I don't think they'll go 0-4, but as of right now I say the odds are even that they will. The string of 10 consecutive bowl games, '09-'18, is in serious jeopardy. No depth, less-than-stellar recruiting, questionable coaching and inconsistent preparation. This disappointing season just didn't happen. It's been years in the making.

[Papa John]

I disagree, at least in part. This year is an anomaly. Shaw didn't all of a sudden forget how to coach, although it remains to be seen if he can adapt to the early signing day. I've been following Stanford football since 1980, and I can't remember a year with more games missed by so many top players.

I have no idea what the odds are of Stanford finishing the season 0-4, but ESPN's FPI has the following probabilities for a Stanford win:
Colorado 60.5%
WSU 21.9%
Cal 60.7%
ND 26.2%

So the probability is 2.1% that Stanford will go 4-0 and 8.9% for 0-4. I'll leave it to the stats whizzes to figure out the probabilities for 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1, but I'm going to take a wild guess that 2-2 is the most likely outcome.

[Papa John]

I disagree, at least in part. This year is an anomaly. Shaw didn't all of a sudden forget how to coach, although it remains to be seen if he can adapt to the early signing day. I've been following Stanford football since 1980, and I can't remember a year with more games missed by so many top players.

I have no idea what the odds are of Stanford finishing the season 0-4, but ESPN's FPI has the following probabilities for a Stanford win:
Colorado 60.5%
WSU 21.9%
Cal 60.7%
ND 26.2%

So the probability is 2.1% that Stanford will go 4-0 and 8.9% for 0-4. I'll leave it to the stats whizzes to figure out the probabilities for 1-3, 2-2 and 3-1, but I'm going to take a wild guess that 2-2 is the most likely outcome.

[JohnR34231]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

[JohnR34231]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

[gailtate]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

[gailtate]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

[JohnR34231]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

Don't worry. I won't be.

[JohnR34231]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

Don't worry. I won't be.

[lex24]

“It’s been years in the making.”  Yes, good years at that. As for “inconsistent preparation”; you know that how?  Be specific. 

Stanford is eminently capable of losing this game. Same can be said of the following three. I don't think they'll go 0-4, but as of right now I say the odds are even that they will. The string of 10 consecutive bowl games, '09-'18, is in serious jeopardy. No depth, less-than-stellar recruiting, questionable coaching and inconsistent preparation. This disappointing season just didn't happen. It's been years in the making.

---

Interesting thread. Essentially started as a preemptive strike.....

[lex24]

“It’s been years in the making.”  Yes, good years at that. As for “inconsistent preparation”; you know that how?  Be specific. 

Stanford is eminently capable of losing this game. Same can be said of the following three. I don't think they'll go 0-4, but as of right now I say the odds are even that they will. The string of 10 consecutive bowl games, '09-'18, is in serious jeopardy. No depth, less-than-stellar recruiting, questionable coaching and inconsistent preparation. This disappointing season just didn't happen. It's been years in the making.

---

Interesting thread. Essentially started as a preemptive strike.....

[martyup]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

[martyup]

gailtate is just another Bootleg veteran who loves to come to this board and give all us "Pollyannas" a good dose of negative, cynical comments about Stanford football.
Not the greatest, just the latest.

I thrive on recognition. Keep it up, Polly.  :)

[Papa John]

I'm very old school, so I prefer Pangloss to Pollyanna.

[Papa John]

I'm very old school, so I prefer Pangloss to Pollyanna.

[SamuelMcF]

Cool, back to Colorado sucking. They're going through plenty of player churn as well, and their secondary is decimated.

From BuffStampede's Adam Munsterteiger: Receiver Laviska Shenault, Colorado’s most talented player, has either been out or limited the last month-and-a-half due to an abdominal strain. His reps were limited last Saturday when the Buffs played UCLA. He will likely be suited up against the Cardinal, but it is hard to predict exactly how much he will play. Starting running back Alex Fontenot and right guard Colby Pursell are both listed as day-to-day, so their status won’t be known until pregame. Fontenot missed the UCLA game with a concussion, while Pursell has been out in recent weeks after having his gallbladder removed. The Buffaloes will definitely be without two of their top three cornerbacks, and could potentially be without three of their top four players at the position. Chris Miller and Mekhi Blackmon have both undergone season-ending surgery and K.J. Trujillo was out last week with an undisclosed lower body injury. Per Colorado, the Buffs' rash of injuries have led to the Buffaloes being 13th in the nation for the number of different players who have started this season. Through nine games, CU has seen 38 different players start on offense (17) and defense (21).

[SamuelMcF]

Cool, back to Colorado sucking. They're going through plenty of player churn as well, and their secondary is decimated.

From BuffStampede's Adam Munsterteiger: Receiver Laviska Shenault, Colorado’s most talented player, has either been out or limited the last month-and-a-half due to an abdominal strain. His reps were limited last Saturday when the Buffs played UCLA. He will likely be suited up against the Cardinal, but it is hard to predict exactly how much he will play. Starting running back Alex Fontenot and right guard Colby Pursell are both listed as day-to-day, so their status won’t be known until pregame. Fontenot missed the UCLA game with a concussion, while Pursell has been out in recent weeks after having his gallbladder removed. The Buffaloes will definitely be without two of their top three cornerbacks, and could potentially be without three of their top four players at the position. Chris Miller and Mekhi Blackmon have both undergone season-ending surgery and K.J. Trujillo was out last week with an undisclosed lower body injury. Per Colorado, the Buffs' rash of injuries have led to the Buffaloes being 13th in the nation for the number of different players who have started this season. Through nine games, CU has seen 38 different players start on offense (17) and defense (21).

[BostonCard]

HA!  We may have started 38 different players just on the offensive line.

BC

[BostonCard]

HA!  We may have started 38 different players just on the offensive line.

BC

[Phogge]

Haley Mills had an ugly nose, Funicello had only two good points and Brenda Lee was way too short. I went for MILFs back then only they were not called MILFs at the time.

As for Bootleg vets, at least we had a sense of humor even though we were a lot dumber than Rivals icons.

[Phogge]

Haley Mills had an ugly nose, Funicello had only two good points and Brenda Lee was way too short. I went for MILFs back then only they were not called MILFs at the time.

As for Bootleg vets, at least we had a sense of humor even though we were a lot dumber than Rivals icons.

[JohnR34231]

Haley Mills had an ugly nose, Funicello had only two good points and Brenda Lee was way too short. I went for MILFs back then only they were not called MILFs at the time.

As for Bootleg vets, at least we had a sense of humor even though we were a lot dumber than Rivals icons.

How about Shelly Fabares. Did you have a problem with her? Or Connie Stevens?
I always thought they were pretty foxy.
Bootleg vets are Bootleg vets. If they get their jollies by being all negative and cynical about Stanford football, so be it.

[JohnR34231]

Haley Mills had an ugly nose, Funicello had only two good points and Brenda Lee was way too short. I went for MILFs back then only they were not called MILFs at the time.

As for Bootleg vets, at least we had a sense of humor even though we were a lot dumber than Rivals icons.

How about Shelly Fabares. Did you have a problem with her? Or Connie Stevens?
I always thought they were pretty foxy.
Bootleg vets are Bootleg vets. If they get their jollies by being all negative and cynical about Stanford football, so be it.

[BobK]

As a youngster pickup basketball would stop so all could go watch Annette.

As a 20 year bootie I resent that comment. Lol

[BobK]

As a youngster pickup basketball would stop so all could go watch Annette.

As a 20 year bootie I resent that comment. Lol