[Mick]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

Walsh used, both at Stanford and then in the first years with the 49ers, lots of passes behind the line of scrimmage out on the flat to running backs like Phil Francis (and later Roger Craig.)  It was like a long handoff.  Francis was drafted by the 49ers and Walsh used him in the same capacity again as a pro, although not so successfully.   At the time it was thought to be highly innovative to be throwing so many passes to running backs, and commentators marveled that it was serving the same purpose as a ground-control run game. 

Nelson also got in on the pass receptions, but he was always a threat to sidestep a tackle or three.  Francis would catch the ball in stride five years behind the LOS, often would have contact at the LOS, but he had enough momentum and strength to always fall forward for about a five yard gain.  In those early years it was the signature play of the Walsh playbook and seemed to be used at least once on every set of downs.

Walsh's designs really took hold in 1980.  FB Earl Cooper had 83 receptions, second in the league. Lenvil Elliott had 27 and Paul Hofer had 41.  RB Don Woods had 20.  The receivers were strong.  Clark had 82 receptions, but the flat pass was king in 1980.

In 1981, the WRs moved to the fore.  Clark had 85 receptions, Freddie Solomon had 59, TE Charlie Young had 37.  RBs Patton, Hofer and Cooper had 27, 27 and 51 respectively.  The total number of receptions shrank from 363 to 328 from 1980 to 1981.

[Mick]

Agree...If I remember my 49er history during Bill Walsh's tenure correctly the Niners were unable to run the ball very well his first years there.  They threw the ball early in the game to be able to set up running the ball in the second half.

Walsh used, both at Stanford and then in the first years with the 49ers, lots of passes behind the line of scrimmage out on the flat to running backs like Phil Francis (and later Roger Craig.)  It was like a long handoff.  Francis was drafted by the 49ers and Walsh used him in the same capacity again as a pro, although not so successfully.   At the time it was thought to be highly innovative to be throwing so many passes to running backs, and commentators marveled that it was serving the same purpose as a ground-control run game. 

Nelson also got in on the pass receptions, but he was always a threat to sidestep a tackle or three.  Francis would catch the ball in stride five years behind the LOS, often would have contact at the LOS, but he had enough momentum and strength to always fall forward for about a five yard gain.  In those early years it was the signature play of the Walsh playbook and seemed to be used at least once on every set of downs.

Walsh's designs really took hold in 1980.  FB Earl Cooper had 83 receptions, second in the league. Lenvil Elliott had 27 and Paul Hofer had 41.  RB Don Woods had 20.  The receivers were strong.  Clark had 82 receptions, but the flat pass was king in 1980.

In 1981, the WRs moved to the fore.  Clark had 85 receptions, Freddie Solomon had 59, TE Charlie Young had 37.  RBs Patton, Hofer and Cooper had 27, 27 and 51 respectively.  The total number of receptions shrank from 363 to 328 from 1980 to 1981.

[oman]

I have slept on Stanford since last year.  Have no expectations (in truth, I'm all wound up in the possibly very fraudulent Texas hype machine).

Here's to everyone underestimating us.

[oman]

I have slept on Stanford since last year.  Have no expectations (in truth, I'm all wound up in the possibly very fraudulent Texas hype machine).

Here's to everyone underestimating us.

[fullmetal]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

[fullmetal]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

[CrazedZooChimp]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

[BostonCard]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

That seems outsized to me.  The betting markets have us winning 6.5 games.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-fbs-team/

BC

[BostonCard]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

That seems outsized to me.  The betting markets have us winning 6.5 games.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-fbs-team/

BC

[Mick]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

That seems outsized to me.  The betting markets have us winning 6.5 games.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-fbs-team/

BC

I think we'll be around 6-6.  I really hope not.

[Mick]

Both Stanford and Texas seem to have outsized expectations.  I need to see evidence of meaningful OL improvement (not that we have meaningful RB speed).  KJ needs to show improved accuracy and touch (hitting receivers in stride rather than floating up a rebound).  If the offense can maintain possession, I think the defense will get enough rest to do what they need to do.

Won't believe it til I see it.  Here's to the OL.

What in your mind is outsized? I've mostly seen 8-4 predictions, which seems pretty reasonable (if not cautious).

That seems outsized to me.  The betting markets have us winning 6.5 games.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-fbs-team/

BC

I think we'll be around 6-6.  I really hope not.