[fullmetal]

1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team. 

Is the takeaway that the 2023 team who beat Hawai'i was also badly coached and not very complete?  The sideline behavior feels a bit of an "eye-test" that is more vibes-based than results-oriented.  At this point, I'll take a team that wins despite looking lost on the sidelines but looking like winners on the field...

2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.

I'll say the obvious: best overall/balanced blocking...and yet Stanford still lost.  You are right that winning the line of scrimmage does not guarantee a win.  Personally, I think the defensive line had moments of brilliance and then were stymied whenever they rushed three or four and failed to get pressure.  You'll note that Alejado was 27/39 for 210 yds and 2 TDs.  Doesn't sound like he was pressured consistently.  And he played a good chunk of the game on a bum ankle.  A competent DL would punish an immobile QB.  Arizona exposed his lack of mobility last weekend and delivered a 40-6 victory where Alejado was 18/31 for 157 yds, 0 TDs, and 1 INT.

3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.

I don't know if that was the biggest broken part, but we can proceed with that.  Blown coverages are either players out of position (outmatched potentially) or coverages that were well-exploited by the offense.  One is the players making poor decisions (or not at all!), and the other is coaches choosing bad coverages.  Fixable?  Maybe.  I don't know how you teach players to react and anticipate more quickly (instinctively) in a short amount of time (i.e. first half of this season). 

I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him.

"Wasn't the greatest passer" -- what, no.  Kevin Hogan was an amazing passer.  Second in career completion percentage, third in career passing yards, third in career pass completions, second in career passing efficiency, third in career touchdowns...we could surely use him yesterday, today, and forever.  

I'm going to judge Reich on his merits, and maybe this game was his benchmark for later improvement.  But even that is an indictment of my expectation of him as a head coach.  I expected him to show up, evaluate his staff, and implement changes at whatever level necessary to field a competitive team on day 1.  I expect that of a head coach with NFL/Superbowl-winning experience.  Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?

An optimist says that maybe we can focus on the run game and stomp all over opponents this season in the second half.  When we get players back from injury, our defensive backfield will clamp down and JA Hall will be revelation in the passing game.  Gulbranson will loosen up, play reflexively, and become an aerial surgeon.  Maybe we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by not relying on our strengths.  Maybe the special teams unit won't allow a blocked kick on a 34-yd attempt by one of the best kickers in the nation (Emmet Kenney, you deserve much better).  Maybe they'll get a special teams coach!  Stanford don't have a special teams coach!  (I don't think an analyst counts.)

I want to believe, but I need to see some data somewhere in the neighborhood of promise.  Week 0 provided plenty of data to the contrary.

[fullmetal]

1) I was at the Hawaii games in 2023 and 2025, and this is clearly a better-coached, more complete team. 

Is the takeaway that the 2023 team who beat Hawai'i was also badly coached and not very complete?  The sideline behavior feels a bit of an "eye-test" that is more vibes-based than results-oriented.  At this point, I'll take a team that wins despite looking lost on the sidelines but looking like winners on the field...

2) Football begins and ends at the line, and this team had the best overall/balanced blocking I’ve seen in the past 4 years. And obviously, the d line, when they are not dancing like a child, is capable of making plays. If you win the line of scrimmage, you can win games.

I'll say the obvious: best overall/balanced blocking...and yet Stanford still lost.  You are right that winning the line of scrimmage does not guarantee a win.  Personally, I think the defensive line had moments of brilliance and then were stymied whenever they rushed three or four and failed to get pressure.  You'll note that Alejado was 27/39 for 210 yds and 2 TDs.  Doesn't sound like he was pressured consistently.  And he played a good chunk of the game on a bum ankle.  A competent DL would punish an immobile QB.  Arizona exposed his lack of mobility last weekend and delivered a 40-6 victory where Alejado was 18/31 for 157 yds, 0 TDs, and 1 INT.

3) The biggest broken parts on defense were clearly blown coverages (no one spying the quarterback, etc), and that can be fixed.

I don't know if that was the biggest broken part, but we can proceed with that.  Blown coverages are either players out of position (outmatched potentially) or coverages that were well-exploited by the offense.  One is the players making poor decisions (or not at all!), and the other is coaches choosing bad coverages.  Fixable?  Maybe.  I don't know how you teach players to react and anticipate more quickly (instinctively) in a short amount of time (i.e. first half of this season). 

I think there are all doable to some extent, the last obviously being a tall order. But don’t forget Kevin Hogan wasn’t the greatest passer, and the team did some great things under him.

"Wasn't the greatest passer" -- what, no.  Kevin Hogan was an amazing passer.  Second in career completion percentage, third in career passing yards, third in career pass completions, second in career passing efficiency, third in career touchdowns...we could surely use him yesterday, today, and forever.  

I'm going to judge Reich on his merits, and maybe this game was his benchmark for later improvement.  But even that is an indictment of my expectation of him as a head coach.  I expected him to show up, evaluate his staff, and implement changes at whatever level necessary to field a competitive team on day 1.  I expect that of a head coach with NFL/Superbowl-winning experience.  Botching the endgame clock management, inexplicably shying away from a successful offensive strategy late game with the game pretty much still in question...a winning coaching staff does not make such poor decisions. A lot of priors are going to have to be changed to fix bad decision-making on the part of the coaches. Can old dogs learn new tricks?

An optimist says that maybe we can focus on the run game and stomp all over opponents this season in the second half.  When we get players back from injury, our defensive backfield will clamp down and JA Hall will be revelation in the passing game.  Gulbranson will loosen up, play reflexively, and become an aerial surgeon.  Maybe we won't shoot ourselves in the foot by not relying on our strengths.  Maybe the special teams unit won't allow a blocked kick on a 34-yd attempt by one of the best kickers in the nation (Emmet Kenney, you deserve much better).  Maybe they'll get a special teams coach!  Stanford don't have a special teams coach!  (I don't think an analyst counts.)

I want to believe, but I need to see some data somewhere in the neighborhood of promise.  Week 0 provided plenty of data to the contrary.