[CTcard]

Nobody has made a case for why Stanford is thin on defense.  …  If you believe your eyes and the coaches, Stanford has at least 7 DL who can play and at least 10 DBs who can.

NT: Williams, DWP, Peek
DE: Swann, Jackson, Williams, Johnson, Peek, Booker, Schaffer

OLB: Alfieri, Robinson, Toohill, Fox, Kaufusi, Reid
ILB: Okerke, Barton, Branch, Perez, Pryts

CB: Holder, Murphy, Adebo, Eboh, Butler, Parson (apparently standing out)
S: Edwards, Buncom, Antoine, Simmons

I don't really believe that being thin is the biggest issue for this year's defense, but it is not particularly hard to see why some might be worried about the issue, especially if you desire quality depth and not merely a list of names at each position. 

In fact, you mostly wrote down the argument in the first quotation above. To feel comfortable that this defense will exhibit quality depth you must believe in coach-speak, camp rumors, and/or that looking good in high school football portends early success in college football. None of these particular forms of evidence have proven particularly reliable in the past. 

It feels a little harsh commenting upon your list position by position, but I would say that there's at most two units that don't have depth concerns based upon lack of experience, lack of promising performance, or injury. Those would be ILB and Safeties - and it's not as if there are zero issues there either.  

Another way to note the situation is that the list includes zero all-Pac 12 first or second team members from last year and one, single HM.  [Simmons also HM, but for special teams.]


Now that is not really my argument. I have a fair amount of hope that the defense will be at least respectable and better than last year. However, I am putting credence on coach-speak, camp rumors, and high school tape.

[CTcard]

Nobody has made a case for why Stanford is thin on defense.  …  If you believe your eyes and the coaches, Stanford has at least 7 DL who can play and at least 10 DBs who can.

NT: Williams, DWP, Peek
DE: Swann, Jackson, Williams, Johnson, Peek, Booker, Schaffer

OLB: Alfieri, Robinson, Toohill, Fox, Kaufusi, Reid
ILB: Okerke, Barton, Branch, Perez, Pryts

CB: Holder, Murphy, Adebo, Eboh, Butler, Parson (apparently standing out)
S: Edwards, Buncom, Antoine, Simmons

I don't really believe that being thin is the biggest issue for this year's defense, but it is not particularly hard to see why some might be worried about the issue, especially if you desire quality depth and not merely a list of names at each position. 

In fact, you mostly wrote down the argument in the first quotation above. To feel comfortable that this defense will exhibit quality depth you must believe in coach-speak, camp rumors, and/or that looking good in high school football portends early success in college football. None of these particular forms of evidence have proven particularly reliable in the past. 

It feels a little harsh commenting upon your list position by position, but I would say that there's at most two units that don't have depth concerns based upon lack of experience, lack of promising performance, or injury. Those would be ILB and Safeties - and it's not as if there are zero issues there either.  

Another way to note the situation is that the list includes zero all-Pac 12 first or second team members from last year and one, single HM.  [Simmons also HM, but for special teams.]


Now that is not really my argument. I have a fair amount of hope that the defense will be at least respectable and better than last year. However, I am putting credence on coach-speak, camp rumors, and high school tape.