[CTcard]

Generally, I think that Connelly is among the best at producing preseason previews with some real content, interesting analysis, and not too many "Uhhh-what"s. There's some good bits in this one, but a couple of questionable comments as well.

From my point of view:

Good Observations:

Stanford's 2016 season was split into good and bad parts, particularly for the offense. The good parts were the first three and last three games, the bad the middle six.

"Basically everybody not named McCaffrey or Solomon Thomas is back"
A central storyline for 2017 is that Stanford loses very few players but two of the losses were the most important player on each side of the ball.

"Either things work for the Stanford offense or they very much do not. In Shaw’s six years in charge, the Cardinal have ranked 15th or better in Off. S&P+ three times and have ranked 40th or worse three times."
I have always thought this was a major feature of our offense under Shaw. I find it interesting to see various fans' reactions; either seeing it as an item for criticism (they mostly note those bad years) or praise (noting the good years). I say it is both.

"If his late-season play is what we can expect moving forward, Chryst should carry Stanford’s offense back to the top 20."
That seems a bit optimistic to me, but certainly could be the case.


Bad/Missed Observations:

"Burns was solid out of the gates. ... Unfortunately, the run game wasn’t doing its job."
At the very least, that is over-simplified.
The run game was good to very good over the first three games. In games four and five it never got a chance to get started between having RBs and OL injured and falling behind UW and WSU quickly leading to an all pass offense, at least by Stanford standards. 

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. However, this particular year I know many are holding out hope for a big immediate impact from at least one OT, which seems at least possible.

"Burns had maxed out what he could do"
Not sure that maxed out is exactly right, but he seemed to be going backwards.

Connelly never notes that a primary problem was that the OL couldn't pass block, and we won't be able to tell if that is improved until the bullets are flying. While never addressed head on, the issue is lurking in statements he does make; and on the offense stat radar he gives it is very noticable that Stanford ranks approximately last in adjusted sack rate (and pretty close to last in 20 yd passes/gm).


Interesting Observation:

"This is one of the best linebacker units in the country, and the secondary might not be far behind."
I think most fans would reverse this. I could see it end up proving true.

I like the photo at the top.

[CTcard]

Generally, I think that Connelly is among the best at producing preseason previews with some real content, interesting analysis, and not too many "Uhhh-what"s. There's some good bits in this one, but a couple of questionable comments as well.

From my point of view:

Good Observations:

Stanford's 2016 season was split into good and bad parts, particularly for the offense. The good parts were the first three and last three games, the bad the middle six.

"Basically everybody not named McCaffrey or Solomon Thomas is back"
A central storyline for 2017 is that Stanford loses very few players but two of the losses were the most important player on each side of the ball.

"Either things work for the Stanford offense or they very much do not. In Shaw’s six years in charge, the Cardinal have ranked 15th or better in Off. S&P+ three times and have ranked 40th or worse three times."
I have always thought this was a major feature of our offense under Shaw. I find it interesting to see various fans' reactions; either seeing it as an item for criticism (they mostly note those bad years) or praise (noting the good years). I say it is both.

"If his late-season play is what we can expect moving forward, Chryst should carry Stanford’s offense back to the top 20."
That seems a bit optimistic to me, but certainly could be the case.


Bad/Missed Observations:

"Burns was solid out of the gates. ... Unfortunately, the run game wasn’t doing its job."
At the very least, that is over-simplified.
The run game was good to very good over the first three games. In games four and five it never got a chance to get started between having RBs and OL injured and falling behind UW and WSU quickly leading to an all pass offense, at least by Stanford standards. 

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. However, this particular year I know many are holding out hope for a big immediate impact from at least one OT, which seems at least possible.

"Burns had maxed out what he could do"
Not sure that maxed out is exactly right, but he seemed to be going backwards.

Connelly never notes that a primary problem was that the OL couldn't pass block, and we won't be able to tell if that is improved until the bullets are flying. While never addressed head on, the issue is lurking in statements he does make; and on the offense stat radar he gives it is very noticable that Stanford ranks approximately last in adjusted sack rate (and pretty close to last in 20 yd passes/gm).


Interesting Observation:

"This is one of the best linebacker units in the country, and the secondary might not be far behind."
I think most fans would reverse this. I could see it end up proving true.

I like the photo at the top.