12-21-2022, 08:24 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Stanford Film Study: The Troy Taylor offense
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
12-22-2022, 05:07 AM
i don't know how many games this offense will win for us next season, but it just might bring some fans to the stadium.
and if the offense gets going.......who knows?
and if the offense gets going.......who knows?
Cal delenda est
12-22-2022, 08:45 AM
(12-22-2022, 05:07 AM)newguy Wrote: i don't know how many games this offense will win for us next season, but it just might bring some fans to the stadium.
and if the offense gets going.......who knows?
Can't get any worse. I like Taylor's chances, but it's gonna be some time before Stanford returns to relevance. My guess is 3-5 years. Hey, Shaw gaveth and Shaw tooketh away. A dreary exit after a bright entry a decade ago. Nothing remotely like it in school history.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(12-22-2022, 05:07 AM)newguy Wrote: i don't know how many games this offense will win for us next season, but it just might bring some fans to the stadium.
and if the offense gets going.......who knows?
Can't get any worse. I like Taylor's chances, but it's gonna be some time before Stanford returns to relevance. My guess is 3-5 years. Hey, Shaw gaveth and Shaw tooketh away. A dreary exit after a bright entry a decade ago. Nothing remotely like it in school history.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
12-22-2022, 09:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2022, 09:28 AM by BostonCard.)
Arguably it only took Harbaugh one year to return us to relevance, and he started from a lower base (the team went 1-11 the year before), though if you define “relevance” as a winning season, Harbaugh did it in three. Still, it did not take three to five years to know we were headed in the right direction.
Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
BCc
Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
BCc
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2022, 09:28 AM by BostonCard.)
Arguably it only took Harbaugh one year to return us to relevance, and he started from a lower base (the team went 1-11 the year before), though if you define “relevance” as a winning season, Harbaugh did it in three. Still, it did not take three to five years to know we were headed in the right direction.
Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
BCc
Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
BCc
12-22-2022, 09:50 AM
Perhaps a semantic point, or at least eye of the beholder kind of thing, but I define relevance as being ranked in the AP top 25. You really don't matter in college football if you can't at least achieve that at some point in your season. I think that could be a multi-year process, if it ever occurs, and certainly wouldn't expect it before 2024.
What I'd like to see next year is just energy and optimism in the program and signs that a healthier culture is sprouting roots. If we start to see more joy from players and fans, key contributors deciding not to go to the NFL or transfer out, blue chip recruits buying what Taylor is selling, etc., that will give me cause for some optimism. It's not really about results that first year. Harbaugh's first team was frankly terrible and his second team merely got us to pre-2006 Teevens/Harris levels. But he was building and we had evidence it was taking root. That's what I want to see. Progress.
On the Haase point, the thing to keep an eye on is trajectory. Dispassionate analysis should have made it clear long ago that Haase wasn't improving the program. If Taylor takes the football program from #85 to #80 to #60 to #40 and it's still not "relevant" by my standards heading into 2026, I'll probably be fine giving him more time because there's evidence he's building. But if we hit any of those levels and plateau for several years, danger.
What I'd like to see next year is just energy and optimism in the program and signs that a healthier culture is sprouting roots. If we start to see more joy from players and fans, key contributors deciding not to go to the NFL or transfer out, blue chip recruits buying what Taylor is selling, etc., that will give me cause for some optimism. It's not really about results that first year. Harbaugh's first team was frankly terrible and his second team merely got us to pre-2006 Teevens/Harris levels. But he was building and we had evidence it was taking root. That's what I want to see. Progress.
On the Haase point, the thing to keep an eye on is trajectory. Dispassionate analysis should have made it clear long ago that Haase wasn't improving the program. If Taylor takes the football program from #85 to #80 to #60 to #40 and it's still not "relevant" by my standards heading into 2026, I'll probably be fine giving him more time because there's evidence he's building. But if we hit any of those levels and plateau for several years, danger.
Perhaps a semantic point, or at least eye of the beholder kind of thing, but I define relevance as being ranked in the AP top 25. You really don't matter in college football if you can't at least achieve that at some point in your season. I think that could be a multi-year process, if it ever occurs, and certainly wouldn't expect it before 2024.
What I'd like to see next year is just energy and optimism in the program and signs that a healthier culture is sprouting roots. If we start to see more joy from players and fans, key contributors deciding not to go to the NFL or transfer out, blue chip recruits buying what Taylor is selling, etc., that will give me cause for some optimism. It's not really about results that first year. Harbaugh's first team was frankly terrible and his second team merely got us to pre-2006 Teevens/Harris levels. But he was building and we had evidence it was taking root. That's what I want to see. Progress.
On the Haase point, the thing to keep an eye on is trajectory. Dispassionate analysis should have made it clear long ago that Haase wasn't improving the program. If Taylor takes the football program from #85 to #80 to #60 to #40 and it's still not "relevant" by my standards heading into 2026, I'll probably be fine giving him more time because there's evidence he's building. But if we hit any of those levels and plateau for several years, danger.
What I'd like to see next year is just energy and optimism in the program and signs that a healthier culture is sprouting roots. If we start to see more joy from players and fans, key contributors deciding not to go to the NFL or transfer out, blue chip recruits buying what Taylor is selling, etc., that will give me cause for some optimism. It's not really about results that first year. Harbaugh's first team was frankly terrible and his second team merely got us to pre-2006 Teevens/Harris levels. But he was building and we had evidence it was taking root. That's what I want to see. Progress.
On the Haase point, the thing to keep an eye on is trajectory. Dispassionate analysis should have made it clear long ago that Haase wasn't improving the program. If Taylor takes the football program from #85 to #80 to #60 to #40 and it's still not "relevant" by my standards heading into 2026, I'll probably be fine giving him more time because there's evidence he's building. But if we hit any of those levels and plateau for several years, danger.
12-22-2022, 10:09 AM
I think another factor is how many games are we competitive in.
Let's be honest, 2007 is defined pretty much by the USC win. We look at that in retrospect as the turnaround point for the program. But what if Sherman was a yard short of the first down or Bradford didn't get the foot down and we lose that game. Would a 3-9 season where we lost convincingly in half of our games be viewed the anywhere near same as it is now?
2008, to me, was more the sign something was coming. Yes, the 5-7 that year is overshadowed by the 8-4 the next year, yes there is the question of redshirting Luck, but looking back there were a couple blowout wins, a couple big losses, and then a whole heap of games we were competitive in. A few things change and we maybe get 6 or 7 wins that year (of course, a couple things change and we maybe only get 3 wins too).
2009 then did a great job of building on 2008 with using Toby more and bringing Luck in and the rest is history. But 2007 always gets credit for the USC win and 2009 always gets credit for Toby and everything else, but 2008 is often overlooked as the important stepping stone.
This year we had one blowout wins, two razor-sharp wins, two close losses (OSU and Cal), and then 7 games where you pretty much knew we were done by halftime. You have to look back pretty far to find that. If we can look like we have life in, say, 7 games next year I'll consider that initial progress, even if not all 7 mean wins.
Let's be honest, 2007 is defined pretty much by the USC win. We look at that in retrospect as the turnaround point for the program. But what if Sherman was a yard short of the first down or Bradford didn't get the foot down and we lose that game. Would a 3-9 season where we lost convincingly in half of our games be viewed the anywhere near same as it is now?
2008, to me, was more the sign something was coming. Yes, the 5-7 that year is overshadowed by the 8-4 the next year, yes there is the question of redshirting Luck, but looking back there were a couple blowout wins, a couple big losses, and then a whole heap of games we were competitive in. A few things change and we maybe get 6 or 7 wins that year (of course, a couple things change and we maybe only get 3 wins too).
2009 then did a great job of building on 2008 with using Toby more and bringing Luck in and the rest is history. But 2007 always gets credit for the USC win and 2009 always gets credit for Toby and everything else, but 2008 is often overlooked as the important stepping stone.
This year we had one blowout wins, two razor-sharp wins, two close losses (OSU and Cal), and then 7 games where you pretty much knew we were done by halftime. You have to look back pretty far to find that. If we can look like we have life in, say, 7 games next year I'll consider that initial progress, even if not all 7 mean wins.
I think another factor is how many games are we competitive in.
Let's be honest, 2007 is defined pretty much by the USC win. We look at that in retrospect as the turnaround point for the program. But what if Sherman was a yard short of the first down or Bradford didn't get the foot down and we lose that game. Would a 3-9 season where we lost convincingly in half of our games be viewed the anywhere near same as it is now?
2008, to me, was more the sign something was coming. Yes, the 5-7 that year is overshadowed by the 8-4 the next year, yes there is the question of redshirting Luck, but looking back there were a couple blowout wins, a couple big losses, and then a whole heap of games we were competitive in. A few things change and we maybe get 6 or 7 wins that year (of course, a couple things change and we maybe only get 3 wins too).
2009 then did a great job of building on 2008 with using Toby more and bringing Luck in and the rest is history. But 2007 always gets credit for the USC win and 2009 always gets credit for Toby and everything else, but 2008 is often overlooked as the important stepping stone.
This year we had one blowout wins, two razor-sharp wins, two close losses (OSU and Cal), and then 7 games where you pretty much knew we were done by halftime. You have to look back pretty far to find that. If we can look like we have life in, say, 7 games next year I'll consider that initial progress, even if not all 7 mean wins.
Let's be honest, 2007 is defined pretty much by the USC win. We look at that in retrospect as the turnaround point for the program. But what if Sherman was a yard short of the first down or Bradford didn't get the foot down and we lose that game. Would a 3-9 season where we lost convincingly in half of our games be viewed the anywhere near same as it is now?
2008, to me, was more the sign something was coming. Yes, the 5-7 that year is overshadowed by the 8-4 the next year, yes there is the question of redshirting Luck, but looking back there were a couple blowout wins, a couple big losses, and then a whole heap of games we were competitive in. A few things change and we maybe get 6 or 7 wins that year (of course, a couple things change and we maybe only get 3 wins too).
2009 then did a great job of building on 2008 with using Toby more and bringing Luck in and the rest is history. But 2007 always gets credit for the USC win and 2009 always gets credit for Toby and everything else, but 2008 is often overlooked as the important stepping stone.
This year we had one blowout wins, two razor-sharp wins, two close losses (OSU and Cal), and then 7 games where you pretty much knew we were done by halftime. You have to look back pretty far to find that. If we can look like we have life in, say, 7 games next year I'll consider that initial progress, even if not all 7 mean wins.
12-22-2022, 01:58 PM
We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
BC
We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
BC
12-22-2022, 02:32 PM
I really like the QB power read option. So tired of Shaw telegraphing a QB run with a designated running QB that would run exactly where the defense expected him to run. So ready for some imaginative offensive concepts that actually create stress for a defense.
One thing not touched on in the Taylor offense analysis is the pace of play. Taylor specifically mentioned in his presser that Stanford will play with great pace during games at times.
Speaking of pace, one thing I really want to see an OC/HC do is switch up the pace during the games as another way to stress and keep the defense off balance. Maybe one drive, go at break neck speed all the way down the field. The next, go slow until crossing midfield, then then warp speed once inside the opponent's 40. Or the next drive, go warp speed to midfield, then slow it down and be deliberate once crossing. On some plays, hurry to the line and snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. On others, snap it at 1 second.
The more ways an offense can get a defense off balance, and the more things it has to defend, the easier it will be for the offense to defeat the defense. Shaw's answer to hiding a weak defense was to slow things down on offense to limit the amount of plays his defense had to be on the field. Taylor seems to view it more as the best defense is a good offense. I welcome this philosophy in college football where the athletes aren't all great on defense.
One thing not touched on in the Taylor offense analysis is the pace of play. Taylor specifically mentioned in his presser that Stanford will play with great pace during games at times.
Speaking of pace, one thing I really want to see an OC/HC do is switch up the pace during the games as another way to stress and keep the defense off balance. Maybe one drive, go at break neck speed all the way down the field. The next, go slow until crossing midfield, then then warp speed once inside the opponent's 40. Or the next drive, go warp speed to midfield, then slow it down and be deliberate once crossing. On some plays, hurry to the line and snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. On others, snap it at 1 second.
The more ways an offense can get a defense off balance, and the more things it has to defend, the easier it will be for the offense to defeat the defense. Shaw's answer to hiding a weak defense was to slow things down on offense to limit the amount of plays his defense had to be on the field. Taylor seems to view it more as the best defense is a good offense. I welcome this philosophy in college football where the athletes aren't all great on defense.
I really like the QB power read option. So tired of Shaw telegraphing a QB run with a designated running QB that would run exactly where the defense expected him to run. So ready for some imaginative offensive concepts that actually create stress for a defense.
One thing not touched on in the Taylor offense analysis is the pace of play. Taylor specifically mentioned in his presser that Stanford will play with great pace during games at times.
Speaking of pace, one thing I really want to see an OC/HC do is switch up the pace during the games as another way to stress and keep the defense off balance. Maybe one drive, go at break neck speed all the way down the field. The next, go slow until crossing midfield, then then warp speed once inside the opponent's 40. Or the next drive, go warp speed to midfield, then slow it down and be deliberate once crossing. On some plays, hurry to the line and snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. On others, snap it at 1 second.
The more ways an offense can get a defense off balance, and the more things it has to defend, the easier it will be for the offense to defeat the defense. Shaw's answer to hiding a weak defense was to slow things down on offense to limit the amount of plays his defense had to be on the field. Taylor seems to view it more as the best defense is a good offense. I welcome this philosophy in college football where the athletes aren't all great on defense.
One thing not touched on in the Taylor offense analysis is the pace of play. Taylor specifically mentioned in his presser that Stanford will play with great pace during games at times.
Speaking of pace, one thing I really want to see an OC/HC do is switch up the pace during the games as another way to stress and keep the defense off balance. Maybe one drive, go at break neck speed all the way down the field. The next, go slow until crossing midfield, then then warp speed once inside the opponent's 40. Or the next drive, go warp speed to midfield, then slow it down and be deliberate once crossing. On some plays, hurry to the line and snap the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. On others, snap it at 1 second.
The more ways an offense can get a defense off balance, and the more things it has to defend, the easier it will be for the offense to defeat the defense. Shaw's answer to hiding a weak defense was to slow things down on offense to limit the amount of plays his defense had to be on the field. Taylor seems to view it more as the best defense is a good offense. I welcome this philosophy in college football where the athletes aren't all great on defense.
12-22-2022, 02:56 PM
(12-22-2022, 09:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
Well, I'd define step one of improvement is that the team doesn't appear to quit mid-season.
Granted, that particular bit wasn't as bad in 2022 as 2021, but the effort/resilience was bad.
But I don't think Taylor is going to get us to the NCAA tournament in his first six years.
[Most of Stanford's football history has been pretty mediocre; hanging around the top 25 in good years and far away in bad. Given the direction that Div. 1 football is moving, I'd say Taylor has a difficult task getting Stanford to be much better than mediocre - far more likely than not he'll fail fan expectations.]
(12-22-2022, 09:25 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Next year, I’d like to see us improve on this year. Even if not reflected in the number of wins (though I think we ought to be able to win four games, since we trade BYU for Hawaii and Utah for Arizona). But I think we should be able to see progress in fundamentals regardless of number of wins: fewer missed tackles, better blocking, fewer blown coverages, more exciting play calling. Given how bad the consensus about Shaw was, it shouldn’t be that much of a bar to see some signs of improvement.
What I don’t want is for Taylor to be like Haase, where we scrape along mediocrity and before we know it, it has been six years and we still haven’t gone to an NCAA tournament.
Well, I'd define step one of improvement is that the team doesn't appear to quit mid-season.
Granted, that particular bit wasn't as bad in 2022 as 2021, but the effort/resilience was bad.
But I don't think Taylor is going to get us to the NCAA tournament in his first six years.
[Most of Stanford's football history has been pretty mediocre; hanging around the top 25 in good years and far away in bad. Given the direction that Div. 1 football is moving, I'd say Taylor has a difficult task getting Stanford to be much better than mediocre - far more likely than not he'll fail fan expectations.]
12-22-2022, 03:51 PM
(12-22-2022, 01:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
True, but "did better than 1 win" could be as much a dead cat bounce as a turnaround in the program.
(12-22-2022, 01:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
True, but "did better than 1 win" could be as much a dead cat bounce as a turnaround in the program.
12-22-2022, 04:20 PM
(12-22-2022, 03:51 PM)French Rage Wrote:(12-22-2022, 01:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
True, but "did better than 1 win" could be as much a dead cat bounce as a turnaround in the program.
I believe there is a similar expectation now. Doing better than a "lifeless, joyless" three wins could also be a dead cat bounce. I mean, Harris got five wins his first year, which was an improvement over Teevens 4-7 the year before.
BC
(12-22-2022, 03:51 PM)French Rage Wrote:(12-22-2022, 01:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We also won Big Game for the first time in a long time in 2007. And remember, the year before, our only win was against winless Washington. While the win against USC was the highlight, it would have been clear that we were trending in the right direction even if we had merely narrowly lost against USC.
BC
True, but "did better than 1 win" could be as much a dead cat bounce as a turnaround in the program.
I believe there is a similar expectation now. Doing better than a "lifeless, joyless" three wins could also be a dead cat bounce. I mean, Harris got five wins his first year, which was an improvement over Teevens 4-7 the year before.
BC
12-22-2022, 10:58 PM
I argue that for TT to get 3 wins next year would be an improvement because we really only got 2.5 wins this year, Colgate counting for only 0.5
More seriously, I agree with those looking for us to be more competitive in more games, and seeing that would count as going in right direction
Funny thing about being competitive though, after awhile, like a drug that wears off, then you really want outright wins.
More seriously, I agree with those looking for us to be more competitive in more games, and seeing that would count as going in right direction
Funny thing about being competitive though, after awhile, like a drug that wears off, then you really want outright wins.
I argue that for TT to get 3 wins next year would be an improvement because we really only got 2.5 wins this year, Colgate counting for only 0.5
More seriously, I agree with those looking for us to be more competitive in more games, and seeing that would count as going in right direction
Funny thing about being competitive though, after awhile, like a drug that wears off, then you really want outright wins.
More seriously, I agree with those looking for us to be more competitive in more games, and seeing that would count as going in right direction
Funny thing about being competitive though, after awhile, like a drug that wears off, then you really want outright wins.
12-23-2022, 12:10 AM
It was flippin’ awesome while it lasted though. We can now look back like David Crosby all sanguine and say: Yeah, it was a pretty good time.
(12-23-2022, 12:10 AM)vataha Wrote: It was flippin’ awesome while it lasted though. We can now look back like David Crosby all sanguine and say: Yeah, it was a pretty good time.
Yeah, it was fun meeting some of our players at Disneyland before our last Rose Bowl game appearance.
How about these days?
![[Image: nerd-nation-756x400.jpg]](http://fishduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nerd-nation-756x400.jpg)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(12-23-2022, 12:10 AM)vataha Wrote: It was flippin’ awesome while it lasted though. We can now look back like David Crosby all sanguine and say: Yeah, it was a pretty good time.
Yeah, it was fun meeting some of our players at Disneyland before our last Rose Bowl game appearance.
How about these days?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
12-23-2022, 11:32 AM
(12-23-2022, 09:26 AM)martyup Wrote:(12-23-2022, 12:10 AM)vataha Wrote: It was flippin’ awesome while it lasted though. We can now look back like David Crosby all sanguine and say: Yeah, it was a pretty good time.
Yeah, it was fun meeting some of our players at Disneyland before our last Rose Bowl game appearance.
How about these days?
Shayne Skov, AJ Tarpley, Tyler Gaffney.
There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
(12-23-2022, 09:26 AM)martyup Wrote:(12-23-2022, 12:10 AM)vataha Wrote: It was flippin’ awesome while it lasted though. We can now look back like David Crosby all sanguine and say: Yeah, it was a pretty good time.
Yeah, it was fun meeting some of our players at Disneyland before our last Rose Bowl game appearance.
How about these days?
Shayne Skov, AJ Tarpley, Tyler Gaffney.
There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
12-23-2022, 01:46 PM
(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
12-23-2022, 04:21 PM
And nobody should diminish Drake Nugent's level of play or belonging in a major program. Alas, apparently losing him to Michigan.
12-23-2022, 11:06 PM
(12-23-2022, 01:46 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
Yurosek?
(12-23-2022, 01:46 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
Yurosek?
12-24-2022, 01:34 AM
(12-23-2022, 11:06 PM)French Rage Wrote:Karty(12-23-2022, 01:46 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
Yurosek?
(12-23-2022, 11:06 PM)French Rage Wrote:Karty(12-23-2022, 01:46 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-23-2022, 11:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There isn't a single player on Stanford's current roster that has proven they can hold the jocks of those guys, and I don't think there has been since maybe JJAW and Davis Mills, though Paulson Adebo might be in that conversation too. Hopefully Troy Taylor can summon and inspire at least a few players on the current roster to attain the levels of production and value those three reached.
David Bailey and Ernest Cooper are gonna be monsters. Overall point stands though.
Yurosek?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »