[washingtonismoney]

is here!: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ule-roster

Pretty optimistic tone throughout.

[washingtonismoney]

is here!: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ule-roster

Pretty optimistic tone throughout.

[fullmetal]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

[fullmetal]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

[stupac2]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

Why not? They also lost a lot and it's at home on a weird day. I'd say for a pre-season estimate that's not absurd.

[stupac2]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

Why not? They also lost a lot and it's at home on a weird day. I'd say for a pre-season estimate that's not absurd.

[BostonCard]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

This seems like an unrealistically precise number.  37% versus 35% versus 40%.  I think in these cases, the uncertainty associated with any model makes these models little better than a subjective evaluation; thus I might suggest bucketing these into a few subjective categories: “very likely” (95+%), “likely” (80 - 95%), “somewhat likely” (60 - 80%), “as likely as not” (40 - 60%),“somwhat unlikely” (20 - 40%), “unlikely” (5 - 20%) and “very unlikely” (< 5%)

Thus, I think calling a win against USC as "somewhat unlikley" and beating UW "as likely as not", and beating to UND to be "somewhat likely", with every one else in the somewhat likely or likely categories makes more sense than to give them hard probabilities.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wow, he's got us at a 37% chance to beat U$C and 57% chance to beat UW (64% vs. south bend).  Every other game is a 70%+ chance to win.  He's bullish, I guess, though I always feel bullish against U$C early in the season.  I don't know if I feel 57% good against UW, but it's possible.  The hype begins... ;)

This seems like an unrealistically precise number.  37% versus 35% versus 40%.  I think in these cases, the uncertainty associated with any model makes these models little better than a subjective evaluation; thus I might suggest bucketing these into a few subjective categories: “very likely” (95+%), “likely” (80 - 95%), “somewhat likely” (60 - 80%), “as likely as not” (40 - 60%),“somwhat unlikely” (20 - 40%), “unlikely” (5 - 20%) and “very unlikely” (< 5%)

Thus, I think calling a win against USC as "somewhat unlikley" and beating UW "as likely as not", and beating to UND to be "somewhat likely", with every one else in the somewhat likely or likely categories makes more sense than to give them hard probabilities.

BC

[Mick]

This seems like an unrealistically precise number.  37% versus 35% versus 40%.  I think in these cases, the uncertainty associated with any model makes these models little better than a subjective evaluation; thus I might suggest bucketing these into a few subjective categories: “very likely” (95+%), “likely” (80 - 95%), “somewhat likely” (60 - 80%), “as likely as not” (40 - 60%),“somwhat unlikely” (20 - 40%), “unlikely” (5 - 20%) and “very unlikely” (< 5%)

I love unrealistically precise numbers, particularly those in the professional services world.  The first client feedback program I implemented at Arthur Andersen generated "personal client service scores" on a 1-10 scale in 12 categories down to, I kid you not, the sixth decimal place.  I only had a handful of partners call BS on that one, the rest nodded gravely and accepted the goofiness.

[Mick]

This seems like an unrealistically precise number.  37% versus 35% versus 40%.  I think in these cases, the uncertainty associated with any model makes these models little better than a subjective evaluation; thus I might suggest bucketing these into a few subjective categories: “very likely” (95+%), “likely” (80 - 95%), “somewhat likely” (60 - 80%), “as likely as not” (40 - 60%),“somwhat unlikely” (20 - 40%), “unlikely” (5 - 20%) and “very unlikely” (< 5%)

I love unrealistically precise numbers, particularly those in the professional services world.  The first client feedback program I implemented at Arthur Andersen generated "personal client service scores" on a 1-10 scale in 12 categories down to, I kid you not, the sixth decimal place.  I only had a handful of partners call BS on that one, the rest nodded gravely and accepted the goofiness.

[Redrum]

... they were punched senseless by Alabama before we played them.  No doubt it helped.  Unless Western Michigan is the best kept secret powerhouse program in the country, we won't get that favor this time around. In the Coliseum, too.  PS. just watched the Stanford victory over USC in conference championship game.  Part of a 3-game DVD set put out by Stanford.  Great diversion.  Wish it were a preview of this year's game.

[Redrum]

... they were punched senseless by Alabama before we played them.  No doubt it helped.  Unless Western Michigan is the best kept secret powerhouse program in the country, we won't get that favor this time around. In the Coliseum, too.  PS. just watched the Stanford victory over USC in conference championship game.  Part of a 3-game DVD set put out by Stanford.  Great diversion.  Wish it were a preview of this year's game.

[CTcard]

Generally, I think that Connelly is among the best at producing preseason previews with some real content, interesting analysis, and not too many "Uhhh-what"s. There's some good bits in this one, but a couple of questionable comments as well.

From my point of view:

Good Observations:

Stanford's 2016 season was split into good and bad parts, particularly for the offense. The good parts were the first three and last three games, the bad the middle six.

"Basically everybody not named McCaffrey or Solomon Thomas is back"
A central storyline for 2017 is that Stanford loses very few players but two of the losses were the most important player on each side of the ball.

"Either things work for the Stanford offense or they very much do not. In Shaw’s six years in charge, the Cardinal have ranked 15th or better in Off. S&P+ three times and have ranked 40th or worse three times."
I have always thought this was a major feature of our offense under Shaw. I find it interesting to see various fans' reactions; either seeing it as an item for criticism (they mostly note those bad years) or praise (noting the good years). I say it is both.

"If his late-season play is what we can expect moving forward, Chryst should carry Stanford’s offense back to the top 20."
That seems a bit optimistic to me, but certainly could be the case.


Bad/Missed Observations:

"Burns was solid out of the gates. ... Unfortunately, the run game wasn’t doing its job."
At the very least, that is over-simplified.
The run game was good to very good over the first three games. In games four and five it never got a chance to get started between having RBs and OL injured and falling behind UW and WSU quickly leading to an all pass offense, at least by Stanford standards. 

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. However, this particular year I know many are holding out hope for a big immediate impact from at least one OT, which seems at least possible.

"Burns had maxed out what he could do"
Not sure that maxed out is exactly right, but he seemed to be going backwards.

Connelly never notes that a primary problem was that the OL couldn't pass block, and we won't be able to tell if that is improved until the bullets are flying. While never addressed head on, the issue is lurking in statements he does make; and on the offense stat radar he gives it is very noticable that Stanford ranks approximately last in adjusted sack rate (and pretty close to last in 20 yd passes/gm).


Interesting Observation:

"This is one of the best linebacker units in the country, and the secondary might not be far behind."
I think most fans would reverse this. I could see it end up proving true.

I like the photo at the top.

[CTcard]

Generally, I think that Connelly is among the best at producing preseason previews with some real content, interesting analysis, and not too many "Uhhh-what"s. There's some good bits in this one, but a couple of questionable comments as well.

From my point of view:

Good Observations:

Stanford's 2016 season was split into good and bad parts, particularly for the offense. The good parts were the first three and last three games, the bad the middle six.

"Basically everybody not named McCaffrey or Solomon Thomas is back"
A central storyline for 2017 is that Stanford loses very few players but two of the losses were the most important player on each side of the ball.

"Either things work for the Stanford offense or they very much do not. In Shaw’s six years in charge, the Cardinal have ranked 15th or better in Off. S&P+ three times and have ranked 40th or worse three times."
I have always thought this was a major feature of our offense under Shaw. I find it interesting to see various fans' reactions; either seeing it as an item for criticism (they mostly note those bad years) or praise (noting the good years). I say it is both.

"If his late-season play is what we can expect moving forward, Chryst should carry Stanford’s offense back to the top 20."
That seems a bit optimistic to me, but certainly could be the case.


Bad/Missed Observations:

"Burns was solid out of the gates. ... Unfortunately, the run game wasn’t doing its job."
At the very least, that is over-simplified.
The run game was good to very good over the first three games. In games four and five it never got a chance to get started between having RBs and OL injured and falling behind UW and WSU quickly leading to an all pass offense, at least by Stanford standards. 

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. However, this particular year I know many are holding out hope for a big immediate impact from at least one OT, which seems at least possible.

"Burns had maxed out what he could do"
Not sure that maxed out is exactly right, but he seemed to be going backwards.

Connelly never notes that a primary problem was that the OL couldn't pass block, and we won't be able to tell if that is improved until the bullets are flying. While never addressed head on, the issue is lurking in statements he does make; and on the offense stat radar he gives it is very noticable that Stanford ranks approximately last in adjusted sack rate (and pretty close to last in 20 yd passes/gm).


Interesting Observation:

"This is one of the best linebacker units in the country, and the secondary might not be far behind."
I think most fans would reverse this. I could see it end up proving true.

I like the photo at the top.

[Farm93]

... they were punched senseless by Alabama before we played them.  No doubt it helped.  Unless Western Michigan is the best kept secret powerhouse program in the country, we won't get that favor this time around. In the Coliseum, too.  PS. just watched the Stanford victory over Under Stanford Control (again) in conference championship game.  Part of a 3-game DVD set put out by Stanford.  Great diversion.  Wish it were a preview of this year's game.

FWIW - Over the last ~30 years Stanford has a solid record in the Coliseum.  I have not checked recently, but for a good stretch in there Stanford's record was better against USC in the Coliseum than it was against USC in Stanford Stadium.  Thankfully in neutral venues Stanford is a perfect 1-0.  :)

Now, admittedly that included a stretch of games in the old Stanford Stadium that often felt like an away game.  That "home" environment was likely demoralizing for the team.  At least with a road game you'd expect to have a hostile crowd.

[Farm93]

... they were punched senseless by Alabama before we played them.  No doubt it helped.  Unless Western Michigan is the best kept secret powerhouse program in the country, we won't get that favor this time around. In the Coliseum, too.  PS. just watched the Stanford victory over Under Stanford Control (again) in conference championship game.  Part of a 3-game DVD set put out by Stanford.  Great diversion.  Wish it were a preview of this year's game.

FWIW - Over the last ~30 years Stanford has a solid record in the Coliseum.  I have not checked recently, but for a good stretch in there Stanford's record was better against USC in the Coliseum than it was against USC in Stanford Stadium.  Thankfully in neutral venues Stanford is a perfect 1-0.  :)

Now, admittedly that included a stretch of games in the old Stanford Stadium that often felt like an away game.  That "home" environment was likely demoralizing for the team.  At least with a road game you'd expect to have a hostile crowd.

[washingtonismoney]

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. ...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

2011: Ty Montgomery is the most borderline member here
2012: Alex Carter was critical to the defense down the stretch; Peat, according to his gostanford bio, played about 25 snaps/game.
2013: No one. Small, low-rated class.
2014: McCaffrey and Phillips were both significant players.
2015: Quenton Meeks was highly significant. Jake Bailey handled kickoffs and some punts. Bryce Love was a borderline significant contributor, but played a big role in the UCF game.
2016: Nate Herbig was a significant contributor, but I suppose it's fair to have an asterisk given it was forced by injury. McNitzsky is also an asterisk given his role (long snapper).

Reviewing Shaw's history to me, it seems to me true freshmen contribute almost every year. 2013 is the exception. I attribute it to: 1) 2013 being the best Stanford team in the Shaw era; it was a deep, experienced team with few opportunities to contribute and 2) the incoming class being quite small and not-so-highly ranked.

If you squint 2017 looks kind of similar to 2013. It's experienced, though it doesn't look to be as loaded as the 2013 team. In particular, the offensive line appears to have an immediate opening at tackle. And while the incoming class is small, it's also highly rated. It's just a qualitative observation, but "skill" players tend to contribute quicker than linemen. One would think that weighs against quick contributions from the incoming frosh class, but, again, there's an obvious opportunity on the OL.

[washingtonismoney]

"Shaw just signed what was, on average, his best recruiting class. ... Stanford has fewer players than normal to replace and is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
Even if they play, true frosh rarely have a significant impact overall on a team. ...

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

2011: Ty Montgomery is the most borderline member here
2012: Alex Carter was critical to the defense down the stretch; Peat, according to his gostanford bio, played about 25 snaps/game.
2013: No one. Small, low-rated class.
2014: McCaffrey and Phillips were both significant players.
2015: Quenton Meeks was highly significant. Jake Bailey handled kickoffs and some punts. Bryce Love was a borderline significant contributor, but played a big role in the UCF game.
2016: Nate Herbig was a significant contributor, but I suppose it's fair to have an asterisk given it was forced by injury. McNitzsky is also an asterisk given his role (long snapper).

Reviewing Shaw's history to me, it seems to me true freshmen contribute almost every year. 2013 is the exception. I attribute it to: 1) 2013 being the best Stanford team in the Shaw era; it was a deep, experienced team with few opportunities to contribute and 2) the incoming class being quite small and not-so-highly ranked.

If you squint 2017 looks kind of similar to 2013. It's experienced, though it doesn't look to be as loaded as the 2013 team. In particular, the offensive line appears to have an immediate opening at tackle. And while the incoming class is small, it's also highly rated. It's just a qualitative observation, but "skill" players tend to contribute quicker than linemen. One would think that weighs against quick contributions from the incoming frosh class, but, again, there's an obvious opportunity on the OL.

[CTcard]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.

[CTcard]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.

[washingtonismoney]

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.

Hm, I'd say McCaffrey clearly affected the W-L column down the stretch in 2014. (10 touches against Utah; 5 against the 59ers; 12 against UCLA; 8 against Maryland). Love swung the UCF game. Phillips didn't accumulate a lot of stats but was an important cog for the 2014 defense for half the year (injury made him step up).

I'd bump it up to four or perhaps five possibilities over six years -- pretty close to one per year.

[washingtonismoney]

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.

Hm, I'd say McCaffrey clearly affected the W-L column down the stretch in 2014. (10 touches against Utah; 5 against the 59ers; 12 against UCLA; 8 against Maryland). Love swung the UCF game. Phillips didn't accumulate a lot of stats but was an important cog for the 2014 defense for half the year (injury made him step up).

I'd bump it up to four or perhaps five possibilities over six years -- pretty close to one per year.

[CTcard]

I'd bump it up to four or perhaps five possibilities over six years -- pretty close to one per year.

While I would quibble with your details, it doesn't matter. One notable frosh contributor per year does not justify Connelly's statement that for 2017 itself, the average quality of the 2017 recruiting class indicates that Stanford "is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
It may indicate that in the long term Stanford is doing just that - and we all hope so.

[CTcard]

I'd bump it up to four or perhaps five possibilities over six years -- pretty close to one per year.

While I would quibble with your details, it doesn't matter. One notable frosh contributor per year does not justify Connelly's statement that for 2017 itself, the average quality of the 2017 recruiting class indicates that Stanford "is bringing in an even higher caliber of replacement."
It may indicate that in the long term Stanford is doing just that - and we all hope so.

[pcgoode]

In its last ten games vs USC, Stanford has won seven and lost three, and has only lost once at the Coliseum.

[pcgoode]

In its last ten games vs USC, Stanford has won seven and lost three, and has only lost once at the Coliseum.

[Spiny_Norman]

In its last ten games vs Under Stanford Control (again), Stanford has won seven and lost three, and has only lost once at the Coliseum.

Please don't remind me of that 2013 game. The memory of being surrounded by ecstatic Trojan fans as the winning FG split the uprights is still a sore spot.

Stanford beat U.SC only 3 times from 1958 to 1990.  Since then, Stanford is 14-13 vs the Trojans. Stanford still has a long way to go to reach parity with those guys.

[Spiny_Norman]

In its last ten games vs Under Stanford Control (again), Stanford has won seven and lost three, and has only lost once at the Coliseum.

Please don't remind me of that 2013 game. The memory of being surrounded by ecstatic Trojan fans as the winning FG split the uprights is still a sore spot.

Stanford beat U.SC only 3 times from 1958 to 1990.  Since then, Stanford is 14-13 vs the Trojans. Stanford still has a long way to go to reach parity with those guys.

[Farm93]

Stanford beat U.SC only 3 times from 1958 to 1990.  Since then, Stanford is 14-13 vs the Literature's Most Famous Losers. Stanford still has a long way to go to reach parity with those guys.

One's point of view is clearly relevant here.  Why pick 1958?  Why pick any year?

In Orange County I have been coaching youth soccer.  Now coach U12 and U14ers.  When I mention I am going to see a Stanford vs. USC football game a few things happen that I have a tough time accepting.  The biggest?

Usually, the kids declare, "Oh, Stanford always wins," or "Stanford will win again, for sure!"

Sounds crazy right?  Yet from their point of view Stanford has been THE football power in the Pac-12 over their lifetime.

That U14 concept matters because kids just a touch older are now experiencing the craziness of college recruiting.  If Stanford Football was recruiting 60 year-olds they might not believe Stanford has achieved parity with USC.  Stanford is recruiting 16 year-olds, and I will submit they would give us a very different perspective on the relative power of programs in the Pac-12 than your average 60 year-old USC alum.

[Farm93]

Stanford beat U.SC only 3 times from 1958 to 1990.  Since then, Stanford is 14-13 vs the Literature's Most Famous Losers. Stanford still has a long way to go to reach parity with those guys.

One's point of view is clearly relevant here.  Why pick 1958?  Why pick any year?

In Orange County I have been coaching youth soccer.  Now coach U12 and U14ers.  When I mention I am going to see a Stanford vs. USC football game a few things happen that I have a tough time accepting.  The biggest?

Usually, the kids declare, "Oh, Stanford always wins," or "Stanford will win again, for sure!"

Sounds crazy right?  Yet from their point of view Stanford has been THE football power in the Pac-12 over their lifetime.

That U14 concept matters because kids just a touch older are now experiencing the craziness of college recruiting.  If Stanford Football was recruiting 60 year-olds they might not believe Stanford has achieved parity with USC.  Stanford is recruiting 16 year-olds, and I will submit they would give us a very different perspective on the relative power of programs in the Pac-12 than your average 60 year-old USC alum.