10-22-2019, 08:32 PM
![[Image: 85ad1deeb44b51a788e6fb85305f040a]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/RDfmdl1La2NJhg7RF2OWyA--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjEyO2g9Mzgw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/entertainment_weekly_785/85ad1deeb44b51a788e6fb85305f040a)
"And then, depression set in" -- Peter Venkman
Clever Nicknames
Loading…
Week 9 Predictions Thread
"And then, depression set in" -- Peter Venkman
We are 1 point home dogs to Arizona, and I'm not even offended.
BC
BC
10-23-2019, 10:22 AM
<hope>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
<hope>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-24-2019, 02:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2019, 02:55 PM by Austroturf.)
(10-23-2019, 10:22 AM)martyup Wrote: <hope>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
Nice... Very nice.
I will refrain from making my prediction until I know who is starting at QB. If it's West, we lose by 10. If it's Costello, we might eke out a 3-point victory.
A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2019, 02:55 PM by Austroturf.)
(10-23-2019, 10:22 AM)martyup Wrote: <hope>
The ESPN power index matchup predictor gives us the edge at 65.9% to 34.1%.
</hope>
<rant>
We have less reason to believe we can beat Arizona than we had that we could beat UCLA. Will the team that beat a ranked UW show up on Saturday, or will the team that lost to a 1-5 team take the field? Our four losses have been bad ones, not even close. Two of our three wins have been ugly. So, we have stunk up the field in 6 of our 7 games so far. That is a lot of stink to wash off to be presentable to a home crowd, especially when QBs 1 and 2 are not likely to play and QB 3 is still cleaning the poo from his pants after getting it knocked out of him by the Bruins.
BTW, can we just throw those black unis in a big pile and have a bonfire? Please?
</rant>
Nice... Very nice.
I will refrain from making my prediction until I know who is starting at QB. If it's West, we lose by 10. If it's Costello, we might eke out a 3-point victory.
A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.
(10-24-2019, 02:50 PM)Austroturf Wrote: A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.Sumlin said on Monday that Tate will start. It is also probably true that he will be on a short leash. I think that nobody, including Sumlin, knows what to expect from Tate in this game.
(10-24-2019, 02:50 PM)Austroturf Wrote: A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.Sumlin said on Monday that Tate will start. It is also probably true that he will be on a short leash. I think that nobody, including Sumlin, knows what to expect from Tate in this game.
10-24-2019, 10:27 PM
I have a bad feeling about what Tate might do to our defense, given what Dorian Thompson-Robinson did.
BC
BC
I have a bad feeling about what Tate might do to our defense, given what Dorian Thompson-Robinson did.
BC
BC
10-25-2019, 02:14 AM
(10-24-2019, 03:07 PM)Goose Wrote:OK, thanks for the info. As BC says, this might be a very bad thing for our defense.(10-24-2019, 02:50 PM)Austroturf Wrote: A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.Sumlin said on Monday that Tate will start. It is also probably true that he will be on a short leash. I think that nobody, including Sumlin, knows what to expect from Tate in this game.
(10-24-2019, 03:07 PM)Goose Wrote:OK, thanks for the info. As BC says, this might be a very bad thing for our defense.(10-24-2019, 02:50 PM)Austroturf Wrote: A lot also depends on who starts for Arizona at QB. Tate has fallen from grace, but he might be the more dangerous for the current iteration of our defense. His back-up is a more standard QB (read: pocket-passer with limited running game); and that might actually be better for us. Let's see. I don't suppose Sumlin will reveal anything prior to the game.Sumlin said on Monday that Tate will start. It is also probably true that he will be on a short leash. I think that nobody, including Sumlin, knows what to expect from Tate in this game.
10-25-2019, 05:21 AM
Yeah, given how we did against UCLA. it's hard to be optimistic about this one. But just as we didn't play as well against UCLA as we did against Washington (understatement of the year), we probably won't play as poorly against Arizona as we did against the Bruins.
Whether that means victory or not, who knows?
Whether that means victory or not, who knows?
Yeah, given how we did against UCLA. it's hard to be optimistic about this one. But just as we didn't play as well against UCLA as we did against Washington (understatement of the year), we probably won't play as poorly against Arizona as we did against the Bruins.
Whether that means victory or not, who knows?
Whether that means victory or not, who knows?
10-25-2019, 07:26 AM
You can throw Thursday night games on that bonfire with the black uniforms.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-26-2019, 02:24 AM
My problem in trying to predict this game is this: I am not sure which defense will show up.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
My problem in trying to predict this game is this: I am not sure which defense will show up.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
10-26-2019, 05:36 AM
(10-26-2019, 02:24 AM)Austroturf Wrote: My problem in trying to predict this game is this: I am not sure which defense will show up.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
I wouldn't call our offense highly unproductive against Oregon State and Washington. Unfortunately those were the games with Davis Mills at QB and he ain't playing against the Wildcats.
(10-26-2019, 02:24 AM)Austroturf Wrote: My problem in trying to predict this game is this: I am not sure which defense will show up.
While our offense has been largely predictable (i.e., highly unproductive, with a high total of 31 vs. the Beavers and a low of 6 vs. the Ducks and 5 games between 16 and 27), the defense has been all over the map, allowing 45 twice (USC and UCF) and 7 once (Northwestern), with quite some variation in between (21, 28, 13, 34). Obviously, our defense does better when the offense is efficient with high TOP (UW game) and fares worse when the offense is misfiring (UCLA game).
Nonetheless, if we assume that the offense under Costello is good for, say, 27 points, and under West around 17 points, then the big question is whether our defense can keep Tate & Co. under either of those numbers. We have held two teams to under 17 points (UW, Northwestern) and three teams to under 27 points (UW, Northwestern and Oregon). In Arizona's last two games, Washington held them to 27; USC held them to 14.
Which Stanford defense will show up? Right now, I fear it will be the one we saw against UCLA, especially if Tate gets going.
I wouldn't call our offense highly unproductive against Oregon State and Washington. Unfortunately those were the games with Davis Mills at QB and he ain't playing against the Wildcats.
10-26-2019, 10:10 AM
New game, here we go:
The Greatest University In The World 35
A University That I Will Allow To Exist 10
The Greatest University In The World 35
A University That I Will Allow To Exist 10
10-26-2019, 11:05 AM
Apologies everyone, apparently the database time zone was moved from PDT to EDT causing the predictions widget to close early. I've adjusted the game start time accordingly and the widget is back up and running.
Durty Nelly and GoodGrief, if you could input your predictions now, great. Otherwise, I have several corrections that I need to go and back fill from previous games and I can include yours.
Futher apologies about the overall quality of what is obviously and alpha version of this predictions widget. The true Stanford fan in me can't help but observe the correlation of the roll out of this new mechanism and the complete collapse of our beloved team. Maybe this bit of php code is meant for the scrap heap of history?
Durty Nelly and GoodGrief, if you could input your predictions now, great. Otherwise, I have several corrections that I need to go and back fill from previous games and I can include yours.
Futher apologies about the overall quality of what is obviously and alpha version of this predictions widget. The true Stanford fan in me can't help but observe the correlation of the roll out of this new mechanism and the complete collapse of our beloved team. Maybe this bit of php code is meant for the scrap heap of history?
Apologies everyone, apparently the database time zone was moved from PDT to EDT causing the predictions widget to close early. I've adjusted the game start time accordingly and the widget is back up and running.
Durty Nelly and GoodGrief, if you could input your predictions now, great. Otherwise, I have several corrections that I need to go and back fill from previous games and I can include yours.
Futher apologies about the overall quality of what is obviously and alpha version of this predictions widget. The true Stanford fan in me can't help but observe the correlation of the roll out of this new mechanism and the complete collapse of our beloved team. Maybe this bit of php code is meant for the scrap heap of history?
Durty Nelly and GoodGrief, if you could input your predictions now, great. Otherwise, I have several corrections that I need to go and back fill from previous games and I can include yours.
Futher apologies about the overall quality of what is obviously and alpha version of this predictions widget. The true Stanford fan in me can't help but observe the correlation of the roll out of this new mechanism and the complete collapse of our beloved team. Maybe this bit of php code is meant for the scrap heap of history?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »