[msqueri]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.

[msqueri]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.