[OutsiderFan]

That article is pretty bad. Skov was coming off the injury, Hogan doesn't have the best mechanics, Anderson isn't the best 3-4 DE prospect of all time, Gardner isn't going in the 2nd round, and he bashes Carter for no reason. Basically a writer who knows Stanford is a top 5 team heading into the season but doesn't know much about the team.

If Skov isn't overrated, he certainly experienced a real dip in performance from where he was pre-injury and/or hasn't yet proven he can perform at that level again.  The Oregon game was probably Skov's only great game in 2012.  It's tough to judge a guy's overall ability on one game.

There isn't much to say about Hogan other than the fact he was pretty darn good as a RS Frosh, and it would seem logical to assume he will be better as a Soph.

It's great to see Anderson getting the love.  He, Gardner, and Mauro were really good at DE in 2012.  I was skeptical they could be so good, but after seeing those guys make the plays they did, who could doubt them? Mauro wasn't even a starter, and he played fantastic in the Rose Bowl.  The analysis about the responsibility of a 3-4 DE, was spot on.  I had never considered Murphy's success was in large part due to Henry Anderson doing his job so well, but it make a lot of sense.

Alex Carter wasn't great right off the bat, but he certainly improved considerably.  The guy writing that analysis wasn't dissing Carter.  To me, the writer basically said Carter is going to be much improved as a Soph.

All in all, I thought it was a well-written piece with the exception that Rector and potentially Owusu could add a lot to the receiving corps.  Remember, the point of the article was to point out Stanford is a legit National Championship contender.  Pretty hard to be too bothered by any article like that I would have thought...

[OutsiderFan]

That article is pretty bad. Skov was coming off the injury, Hogan doesn't have the best mechanics, Anderson isn't the best 3-4 DE prospect of all time, Gardner isn't going in the 2nd round, and he bashes Carter for no reason. Basically a writer who knows Stanford is a top 5 team heading into the season but doesn't know much about the team.

If Skov isn't overrated, he certainly experienced a real dip in performance from where he was pre-injury and/or hasn't yet proven he can perform at that level again.  The Oregon game was probably Skov's only great game in 2012.  It's tough to judge a guy's overall ability on one game.

There isn't much to say about Hogan other than the fact he was pretty darn good as a RS Frosh, and it would seem logical to assume he will be better as a Soph.

It's great to see Anderson getting the love.  He, Gardner, and Mauro were really good at DE in 2012.  I was skeptical they could be so good, but after seeing those guys make the plays they did, who could doubt them? Mauro wasn't even a starter, and he played fantastic in the Rose Bowl.  The analysis about the responsibility of a 3-4 DE, was spot on.  I had never considered Murphy's success was in large part due to Henry Anderson doing his job so well, but it make a lot of sense.

Alex Carter wasn't great right off the bat, but he certainly improved considerably.  The guy writing that analysis wasn't dissing Carter.  To me, the writer basically said Carter is going to be much improved as a Soph.

All in all, I thought it was a well-written piece with the exception that Rector and potentially Owusu could add a lot to the receiving corps.  Remember, the point of the article was to point out Stanford is a legit National Championship contender.  Pretty hard to be too bothered by any article like that I would have thought...