01-22-2019, 12:01 PM
Wilner has us 4th in North in 2019
01-22-2019, 12:48 PM
(01-22-2019, 12:01 PM)TreesAndBirds Wrote: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/22/order/
Wilner is generous with his prediction.
(01-22-2019, 12:01 PM)TreesAndBirds Wrote: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/22/order/
Wilner is generous with his prediction.
01-22-2019, 03:01 PM
(01-22-2019, 02:50 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I agree, pending the quality of Wazzu's next QB. Rebuilding year.
I believe in Shaw. He doesn't finish 4th in the division. We have one of the best returning QBs in college football, a potential All American left tackle, a potential All American at CB. A burgeoing DL, very good OLBs, and if healthy a stronger OL than we had this year. We have less depth than ever, but I am hoping for less injuries than 2018.
(01-22-2019, 02:50 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I agree, pending the quality of Wazzu's next QB. Rebuilding year.
I believe in Shaw. He doesn't finish 4th in the division. We have one of the best returning QBs in college football, a potential All American left tackle, a potential All American at CB. A burgeoing DL, very good OLBs, and if healthy a stronger OL than we had this year. We have less depth than ever, but I am hoping for less injuries than 2018.
01-22-2019, 03:36 PM
Obviously, there are lots of unknowns involved in any projection into 2019. However, I think Wilner is wrong on two important issues. First, Oregon and Herbert haven't proven anything yet, and the idea that they will is speculation at best. I will believe it when I see it. Yes, they got a great recruiting class, but I doubt that that class will make a difference next year. Second, Wilner seems to think WSU will be good next year almost independent of their QB, who will be a new guy in any case. The air raid lives and dies by the QB. This is Wilner setting the mass of the elephant to zero. Stanford and Washington have questions, but far fewer that the QB of WSU entails.
Obviously, there are lots of unknowns involved in any projection into 2019. However, I think Wilner is wrong on two important issues. First, Oregon and Herbert haven't proven anything yet, and the idea that they will is speculation at best. I will believe it when I see it. Yes, they got a great recruiting class, but I doubt that that class will make a difference next year. Second, Wilner seems to think WSU will be good next year almost independent of their QB, who will be a new guy in any case. The air raid lives and dies by the QB. This is Wilner setting the mass of the elephant to zero. Stanford and Washington have questions, but far fewer that the QB of WSU entails.
Agree that 4th should be quite pessimistic.
As others have pointed out, what should have been a rebuilding year at wazoo was saved by a miracle find qb. I don’t think wazoo finds a guy like that again each year.
Wilner hinges a lot of Stanford’s prediction based on last year’s ol play. I would agree that If Stanford’s run blocking is like 2018’s, Stanford could come in fourth or worse. But, like many others here, I don’t expect that to be the case. Stanford has had so many years of dominant run blocking, and has so much talent, it’s reasonable to hope that 2018 proves an aberration rather than the new normal.
Also I don’t think Wilner recognizes enough that the challenge of Stanford’s schedule is its out-of-conference lineup. Stanford could go 8-4 or even 7-5 during the regular season and, with home games against UW, Oregon, and Cal(!), still conceivably go for Roses.
I also think Wilner is overoptimistic about Utah. Willingham is more of a “get some upsets” coach than a “conference champion” coach, and his reliance on a dual threat qb just compounds that tendency — a running qb can score some upsets, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they go 1-3 when their running qb inevitably gets injured.
As others have pointed out, what should have been a rebuilding year at wazoo was saved by a miracle find qb. I don’t think wazoo finds a guy like that again each year.
Wilner hinges a lot of Stanford’s prediction based on last year’s ol play. I would agree that If Stanford’s run blocking is like 2018’s, Stanford could come in fourth or worse. But, like many others here, I don’t expect that to be the case. Stanford has had so many years of dominant run blocking, and has so much talent, it’s reasonable to hope that 2018 proves an aberration rather than the new normal.
Also I don’t think Wilner recognizes enough that the challenge of Stanford’s schedule is its out-of-conference lineup. Stanford could go 8-4 or even 7-5 during the regular season and, with home games against UW, Oregon, and Cal(!), still conceivably go for Roses.
I also think Wilner is overoptimistic about Utah. Willingham is more of a “get some upsets” coach than a “conference champion” coach, and his reliance on a dual threat qb just compounds that tendency — a running qb can score some upsets, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they go 1-3 when their running qb inevitably gets injured.
Agree that 4th should be quite pessimistic.
As others have pointed out, what should have been a rebuilding year at wazoo was saved by a miracle find qb. I don’t think wazoo finds a guy like that again each year.
Wilner hinges a lot of Stanford’s prediction based on last year’s ol play. I would agree that If Stanford’s run blocking is like 2018’s, Stanford could come in fourth or worse. But, like many others here, I don’t expect that to be the case. Stanford has had so many years of dominant run blocking, and has so much talent, it’s reasonable to hope that 2018 proves an aberration rather than the new normal.
Also I don’t think Wilner recognizes enough that the challenge of Stanford’s schedule is its out-of-conference lineup. Stanford could go 8-4 or even 7-5 during the regular season and, with home games against UW, Oregon, and Cal(!), still conceivably go for Roses.
I also think Wilner is overoptimistic about Utah. Willingham is more of a “get some upsets” coach than a “conference champion” coach, and his reliance on a dual threat qb just compounds that tendency — a running qb can score some upsets, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they go 1-3 when their running qb inevitably gets injured.
As others have pointed out, what should have been a rebuilding year at wazoo was saved by a miracle find qb. I don’t think wazoo finds a guy like that again each year.
Wilner hinges a lot of Stanford’s prediction based on last year’s ol play. I would agree that If Stanford’s run blocking is like 2018’s, Stanford could come in fourth or worse. But, like many others here, I don’t expect that to be the case. Stanford has had so many years of dominant run blocking, and has so much talent, it’s reasonable to hope that 2018 proves an aberration rather than the new normal.
Also I don’t think Wilner recognizes enough that the challenge of Stanford’s schedule is its out-of-conference lineup. Stanford could go 8-4 or even 7-5 during the regular season and, with home games against UW, Oregon, and Cal(!), still conceivably go for Roses.
I also think Wilner is overoptimistic about Utah. Willingham is more of a “get some upsets” coach than a “conference champion” coach, and his reliance on a dual threat qb just compounds that tendency — a running qb can score some upsets, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they go 1-3 when their running qb inevitably gets injured.
01-22-2019, 04:42 PM
I think fourth is within the range of expectations. We could wind up fifth if Cal finds an offense (and all other teams hold); we could wind up better than fourth if we answer our big question marks at ILB and S, and younger players step up at positions where we have some depth but highly regarded starters departing (WR, RB). All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.
BC
BC
I think fourth is within the range of expectations. We could wind up fifth if Cal finds an offense (and all other teams hold); we could wind up better than fourth if we answer our big question marks at ILB and S, and younger players step up at positions where we have some depth but highly regarded starters departing (WR, RB). All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.
BC
BC
01-22-2019, 05:04 PM
(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
01-22-2019, 06:40 PM
(01-22-2019, 05:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
What about one of Oregon/WSU plus Cal finds some semblance of an offense.
BC
(01-22-2019, 05:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
What about one of Oregon/WSU plus Cal finds some semblance of an offense.
BC
01-22-2019, 08:18 PM
(01-22-2019, 06:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:I considered putting in a comment about Cal finding some semblance of an offenses. I feared the risk of offending the woofing Gods and physicists by asserting that some quantum mechanics would be required for that impossible event to occur, so I didn't include it. Seriously, I think Cal will undoubtedly be better on offense next year, but probably only marginally so. The QB, Modster or whoever, will not be a turnover machine. However, I also think the defense will not be as good as everybody is anticipating, because they played over their heads last year. I could go into detail, but right now, I don't see Cal being a better football team next year than they were this year. They had some good luck this year. Regression to the mean can be a problem.(01-22-2019, 05:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
What about one of Oregon/WSU plus Cal finds some semblance of an offense.
BC
(01-22-2019, 06:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:I considered putting in a comment about Cal finding some semblance of an offenses. I feared the risk of offending the woofing Gods and physicists by asserting that some quantum mechanics would be required for that impossible event to occur, so I didn't include it. Seriously, I think Cal will undoubtedly be better on offense next year, but probably only marginally so. The QB, Modster or whoever, will not be a turnover machine. However, I also think the defense will not be as good as everybody is anticipating, because they played over their heads last year. I could go into detail, but right now, I don't see Cal being a better football team next year than they were this year. They had some good luck this year. Regression to the mean can be a problem.(01-22-2019, 05:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(01-22-2019, 04:42 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All teams have questions, but I think fourth place in the Pac-12 N with a 4-5 conference record seems within the space of probable outcomes.I totally agree that fourth is within the range of probability. So is fifth. However, I think third or above is the most probable range. While there are lots of unknowns, I just don't think it probable that both Oregon and WSU will be better than Stanford. One or the other is not that improbable (although I hope not). Both is hard to imagine.
BC
What about one of Oregon/WSU plus Cal finds some semblance of an offense.
BC
01-22-2019, 08:40 PM
Fair point about Cal, and I (and Wilner) still think that we will wind up ahead of them, but there is a non-zero chance that their offense will improve more than their defense will falter and that our production will decline enough that we wind up behind them.
And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
BC
And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
BC
Fair point about Cal, and I (and Wilner) still think that we will wind up ahead of them, but there is a non-zero chance that their offense will improve more than their defense will falter and that our production will decline enough that we wind up behind them.
And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
BC
And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
BC
(01-22-2019, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: but there is a non-zero chance that their offense will improve more than their defense will falterThis is, I believe, a zero probability event. Cal played defense these last two years with Dykes recruits. Wilcox got more out of them than most coaches could, I will give him that. However, lots of their success was centered around the teams they played expecting to just roll over Cal. When that didn't happen, people panicked. Teams then did stupid things and gave the game to Cal. Shaw showed the way to play them. Don't give away the game, just play sound football and eventually the basically out-manned Cal defense will falter. Catch them blitzing (because they have to) with a screen and go to the house. Not exciting, perhaps boring, but it beats Cal. Granted, it helps that the Cal offense probably can't score enough to beat you if you don't beat yourself. They get a new QB next year, but lose Laird. Laird was their run offense. In 2017, he was a major contributor. In 2018, he was hurt and did not play as well when not hurt. AFAIK, the have no replacement. The Cal OL was predicted to be much better in 2018 based on 2017. They weren't. They were worse. Cal's 2019 recruiting class was a disappointment, so not much help there. The Cal fans blame the loss of all their receivers, Wilcox, BB, Tui, and Global Warming. The probability of them being much better offensively is, IMHO, zero. Thus the required quantum event.
Quote:and that our production will decline enough that we wind up behind them.Unfortunately, the probability of this event is not zero. It is probably higher than we all would prefer it to be. If our OL plays the way it did in 2018 (or worse), we are in very deep water in 2019.
(01-22-2019, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: but there is a non-zero chance that their offense will improve more than their defense will falterThis is, I believe, a zero probability event. Cal played defense these last two years with Dykes recruits. Wilcox got more out of them than most coaches could, I will give him that. However, lots of their success was centered around the teams they played expecting to just roll over Cal. When that didn't happen, people panicked. Teams then did stupid things and gave the game to Cal. Shaw showed the way to play them. Don't give away the game, just play sound football and eventually the basically out-manned Cal defense will falter. Catch them blitzing (because they have to) with a screen and go to the house. Not exciting, perhaps boring, but it beats Cal. Granted, it helps that the Cal offense probably can't score enough to beat you if you don't beat yourself. They get a new QB next year, but lose Laird. Laird was their run offense. In 2017, he was a major contributor. In 2018, he was hurt and did not play as well when not hurt. AFAIK, the have no replacement. The Cal OL was predicted to be much better in 2018 based on 2017. They weren't. They were worse. Cal's 2019 recruiting class was a disappointment, so not much help there. The Cal fans blame the loss of all their receivers, Wilcox, BB, Tui, and Global Warming. The probability of them being much better offensively is, IMHO, zero. Thus the required quantum event.
Quote:and that our production will decline enough that we wind up behind them.Unfortunately, the probability of this event is not zero. It is probably higher than we all would prefer it to be. If our OL plays the way it did in 2018 (or worse), we are in very deep water in 2019.
01-22-2019, 10:00 PM
(01-22-2019, 09:25 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-22-2019, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
"Who was supposed to guard McCaffrey?"
"I don't know."
McCaffrey plays basketball too? I hope the quote was "Who was supposed to cover McCaffrey?" or Cal has even bigger problems than I imagined.
BC
(01-22-2019, 09:25 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-22-2019, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And of course, there is one poster here who thinks Wilcox has already proven himself a better coach than Shaw.
"Who was supposed to guard McCaffrey?"
"I don't know."
McCaffrey plays basketball too? I hope the quote was "Who was supposed to cover McCaffrey?" or Cal has even bigger problems than I imagined.
BC
01-24-2019, 10:00 AM
I'll be happy next season if we keep the Axe and make a bowl game - any bowl game. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I have low expectations for next season. 4th seems a very reasonable expectation. Only 9 returning starters now with Barton & Buncom retiring - 10 if you include Toner. Yes, lots of talent at the skill positions on offense but they have very big shoes to fill. brobdingnagian question marks in the middle of the defense and the OL remains a concern until proven otherwise. I know many of us have been optimistic in the past couple of years about guys stepping up into starting roles, but it hasn't worked out very well - albeit with a couple of exceptions.
I'll be happy next season if we keep the Axe and make a bowl game - any bowl game. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I have low expectations for next season. 4th seems a very reasonable expectation. Only 9 returning starters now with Barton & Buncom retiring - 10 if you include Toner. Yes, lots of talent at the skill positions on offense but they have very big shoes to fill. brobdingnagian question marks in the middle of the defense and the OL remains a concern until proven otherwise. I know many of us have been optimistic in the past couple of years about guys stepping up into starting roles, but it hasn't worked out very well - albeit with a couple of exceptions.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »