[Maple Leaf]

I propose yet another irrelevant fact for the minutiae-minded here: No D = No W's.   Ask John Elway about his post-seasons at Stanford.

It is a very relevant fact. John Elway may be a poster boy for it but there are several other Stanford QBs who could attest to the fact that winning a lot of games with a below-average (or even average) defense can be real difficult. In the more distant past Stanford often had a few really good defensive players and a lot of inadequate to bad defensive players. Some years there weren't a few really good defensive players. This next year we undoubtedly have a few defensive guys (DBs mostly) who are considered really good. We also have a lot of young unknowns in many positions. Without doubt, there is cause for concern IMHO.

With Stanford Football there is always cause for concern!

[Maple Leaf]

I propose yet another irrelevant fact for the minutiae-minded here: No D = No W's.   Ask John Elway about his post-seasons at Stanford.

It is a very relevant fact. John Elway may be a poster boy for it but there are several other Stanford QBs who could attest to the fact that winning a lot of games with a below-average (or even average) defense can be real difficult. In the more distant past Stanford often had a few really good defensive players and a lot of inadequate to bad defensive players. Some years there weren't a few really good defensive players. This next year we undoubtedly have a few defensive guys (DBs mostly) who are considered really good. We also have a lot of young unknowns in many positions. Without doubt, there is cause for concern IMHO.

With Stanford Football there is always cause for concern!