[mutoo1]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory. the dl is just getting pushed around. so perhaps a strength issue as well.

[mutoo1]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory. the dl is just getting pushed around. so perhaps a strength issue as well.

[msqueri]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

[msqueri]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

[cardcrimson]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

I'm not so sure on the talent. Throughout many of those years we had some great players: Plunkett, Vataha, Lofton, Elway, Nelson, Margerum, Vardell. And some good ones: Benjamin, Schoenert, Dils, Edwards, Husak, Stenstrom, Muster, Milbyrn, Hill, McCaffery, Walters, Johnson. And those are just O skill position players. 

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

[cardcrimson]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

I'm not so sure on the talent. Throughout many of those years we had some great players: Plunkett, Vataha, Lofton, Elway, Nelson, Margerum, Vardell. And some good ones: Benjamin, Schoenert, Dils, Edwards, Husak, Stenstrom, Muster, Milbyrn, Hill, McCaffery, Walters, Johnson. And those are just O skill position players. 

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

[SamuelMcF]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

[SamuelMcF]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

[msqueri]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

I'm not so sure on the talent. Throughout many of those years we had some great players: Plunkett, Vataha, Lofton, Elway, Nelson, Margerum, Vardell. And some good ones: Benjamin, Schoenert, Dils, Edwards, Husak, Stenstrom, Muster, Milbyrn, Hill, McCaffery, Walters, Johnson. And those are just O skill position players. 

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

You are picking standout players from a 40-50 year window, hardly a systematic way of looking at talent on a given year's roster.

My comment was made in an impressionistic way as well, reflecting on the general talent level on rosters. I think comparing the starters from the current team to many past teams would be a judgment call. I think comparing depth is a pretty open and shut case. Stanford backups of yesteryear almost never were Power Five level players save at a couple of positions. Now most positions at least have plausible backups. This is a function of the depth of our recruiting, enabled by several factors (e.g., Harbaugh's ambition and how it transformed recruiting at Stanford, a more sophisticated recruiting operation/ability to use 21st century tools to scour the country better these days, etc.). We used to get something like 6-12 top 1000 recruits a year (you can approximate top 1000 for pre-recruting service classes in the 70s, 80s, and 90s by asking whether a recruit had numerous Power Five offers). We now routinely get many more than that.

If one wanted to be more systematic about comparing the elite players on rosters aside from the depth question, one way to do it would be to look at NFL draft picks. That's a lagging indicator of talent but a useful gauge. Over the last four drafts we've had 13 picks (3.25 per year), over the last three it's been eight (2.67 per year), and over the last two it's been six (3.00 per year). This seems generally in the ballpark for Stanford talent. Excluding guys drafted after the 259th pick (to try to make it apples-to-apples), in the 40 drafts between 1971-2010 Stanford had 115 guys drafted (2.88 per year). I don't see any evidence our elite talent is terribly different from our norm.

I take your point on generating excitement and being mildly interesting but think, especially since you're talking about offensive skill position talent, that you're conflating Shawfense with individual talent. These guys are boring because our offense is boring, not because the individuals lack talent. Put Mike Wilson on USC or Elijah Higgins on TCU or Tanner McKee at Ole Miss and they'd be a lot more fun to watch.

[msqueri]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

I'm not so sure on the talent. Throughout many of those years we had some great players: Plunkett, Vataha, Lofton, Elway, Nelson, Margerum, Vardell. And some good ones: Benjamin, Schoenert, Dils, Edwards, Husak, Stenstrom, Muster, Milbyrn, Hill, McCaffery, Walters, Johnson. And those are just O skill position players. 

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

You are picking standout players from a 40-50 year window, hardly a systematic way of looking at talent on a given year's roster.

My comment was made in an impressionistic way as well, reflecting on the general talent level on rosters. I think comparing the starters from the current team to many past teams would be a judgment call. I think comparing depth is a pretty open and shut case. Stanford backups of yesteryear almost never were Power Five level players save at a couple of positions. Now most positions at least have plausible backups. This is a function of the depth of our recruiting, enabled by several factors (e.g., Harbaugh's ambition and how it transformed recruiting at Stanford, a more sophisticated recruiting operation/ability to use 21st century tools to scour the country better these days, etc.). We used to get something like 6-12 top 1000 recruits a year (you can approximate top 1000 for pre-recruting service classes in the 70s, 80s, and 90s by asking whether a recruit had numerous Power Five offers). We now routinely get many more than that.

If one wanted to be more systematic about comparing the elite players on rosters aside from the depth question, one way to do it would be to look at NFL draft picks. That's a lagging indicator of talent but a useful gauge. Over the last four drafts we've had 13 picks (3.25 per year), over the last three it's been eight (2.67 per year), and over the last two it's been six (3.00 per year). This seems generally in the ballpark for Stanford talent. Excluding guys drafted after the 259th pick (to try to make it apples-to-apples), in the 40 drafts between 1971-2010 Stanford had 115 guys drafted (2.88 per year). I don't see any evidence our elite talent is terribly different from our norm.

I take your point on generating excitement and being mildly interesting but think, especially since you're talking about offensive skill position talent, that you're conflating Shawfense with individual talent. These guys are boring because our offense is boring, not because the individuals lack talent. Put Mike Wilson on USC or Elijah Higgins on TCU or Tanner McKee at Ole Miss and they'd be a lot more fun to watch.

[BostonCard]

Since 2016-17, Stanford has been led by Marc Tessier-Levigne and Persis Drell who have little interest in athletics. It's a bad combination and I think they have allowed the decline of football by their inattention.

I agree.  I wouldn't say that Rice was beloved amongst students as provost, but she was a strong counterbalance to Gerhardt Casper, who, as a German, did not understand, let alone support intercollegiate athletics.  The two Johns were also great, and I think were receptive to evidence presented to them of admissions creep in the athletics team, and were helpful in replacing Robin Mamlet with Richard Shaw (which was at least as important as hiring Bowlsby).  I don't think intercollegiate athletics has an ally within building 10, and that means that coach Shaw and the football program might continue to twist in the wind for some time.

BC

[BostonCard]

Since 2016-17, Stanford has been led by Marc Tessier-Levigne and Persis Drell who have little interest in athletics. It's a bad combination and I think they have allowed the decline of football by their inattention.

I agree.  I wouldn't say that Rice was beloved amongst students as provost, but she was a strong counterbalance to Gerhardt Casper, who, as a German, did not understand, let alone support intercollegiate athletics.  The two Johns were also great, and I think were receptive to evidence presented to them of admissions creep in the athletics team, and were helpful in replacing Robin Mamlet with Richard Shaw (which was at least as important as hiring Bowlsby).  I don't think intercollegiate athletics has an ally within building 10, and that means that coach Shaw and the football program might continue to twist in the wind for some time.

BC

[Phogge]

Disagree about McKee Matt. Six six QB who has too many passes batted down by DL. Lack of accuracy tossing outs to his right side. Monumental lack of evasiveness in the pocket.

Wonder about Higgins. Can he put on the poundage (strength) to play TE and can he run better routes at that position? More and more two TE sets in the NFL.

Didn’t get it about Wilson until this season. Can get open. A #3 receiver in the NFL and probably a good one.

Sam is correct about the Edge guys. With Karty the only guys I am excited about going forward. And think they should both transfer from this ship which is listing toward rollover.

[Phogge]

Disagree about McKee Matt. Six six QB who has too many passes batted down by DL. Lack of accuracy tossing outs to his right side. Monumental lack of evasiveness in the pocket.

Wonder about Higgins. Can he put on the poundage (strength) to play TE and can he run better routes at that position? More and more two TE sets in the NFL.

Didn’t get it about Wilson until this season. Can get open. A #3 receiver in the NFL and probably a good one.

Sam is correct about the Edge guys. With Karty the only guys I am excited about going forward. And think they should both transfer from this ship which is listing toward rollover.

[mutoo1]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

dl harrison phillips is a junior

[mutoo1]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

dl harrison phillips is a junior

[SamuelMcF]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

dl harrison phillips is a junior

TOBIN Phillips is the RS Sophomore I specified. We have ONE RS Sophomore in the room, and he's the oldest guy in the room.

[SamuelMcF]

One thing all those guys had was the ability to generate excitement. Do we have anyone on the roster who is at those levels? Do we have anyone who generates excitement at all? Who is even mildly interesting to watch at this moment?

David Bailey and Ernest Cooper.

---

(3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

They are a RS soph, RS frosh, and true frosh playing the position that benefits the most from old man strength.

dl harrison phillips is a junior

TOBIN Phillips is the RS Sophomore I specified. We have ONE RS Sophomore in the room, and he's the oldest guy in the room.

[mutoo1]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

i don't care about the historical stanford norm.  our overall talent has declined.  especially our team speed and quickness, which has dramatically declined from where it was 4-5 years ago, which means we are not recruiting as much for speed & quickness as was previously the case.  unless one thinks the pool of admissible recruits with speed has shrunk, which is possible.  

also missing is the "nastiness" factor on the ol.  which, to me, is both poor recruiting and ol coaching.  why did stanford turn away from its successful power running game?

[mutoo1]

I feel like people are jumping off a cliff here. It’s been 4 years of poor execution on the field. It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there. The coaching and talent progression has been poor. 

There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue to compete at the D1 level with improvement in the coaching staff.

"It’s clear and obvious the talent on the field is there."

with all due respect, it is clear and obvious the talent on the field is seriously lacking as compared with (1) many of our opponents, and (2) our successful teams from the recent past.

the most noticeable issues i see are (1) the overall lack of team speed & quickness as compared with, for example, u$c, oregon & ucla (and we will see it again against utah), (2) poor offensive line coaching, and (3) the worst defensive line play, and perhaps talent, in recent memory.  the dl is just getting pushed around.  so perhaps a strength issue as well.

Put me in the "clear and obvious we have talent" camp. I'm not saying it's USC level talent or Stanford glory years level talent, but it's very competitive Pac-12 talent. Free your mind from comparing to Shaw Rose Bowl teams and think about Stanford's 1960-2007 level teams. Do you not think our talent is noticeably lacking compared with that? To my mind, we are a bit more talented on defense than the historical Stanford norm, a mixed bag on offense, and clearly deeper almost everywhere except QB and RB than what Stanford had pre-Harbaugh (recall that almost half of our rosters for all of eternity were Group of Five level or worse recruits).

i don't care about the historical stanford norm.  our overall talent has declined.  especially our team speed and quickness, which has dramatically declined from where it was 4-5 years ago, which means we are not recruiting as much for speed & quickness as was previously the case.  unless one thinks the pool of admissible recruits with speed has shrunk, which is possible.  

also missing is the "nastiness" factor on the ol.  which, to me, is both poor recruiting and ol coaching.  why did stanford turn away from its successful power running game?

[Phogge]

As to the locked thread "Cardboard Comportment" I have this eye worm of Amazon boxes behaving badly. They are taking over the world. Somebody needs to make a Looney Tunes cartoon a la Mickey Mouse and the brooms.

However I am making a vow to be nicer. It's hard!

[Phogge]

As to the locked thread "Cardboard Comportment" I have this eye worm of Amazon boxes behaving badly. They are taking over the world. Somebody needs to make a Looney Tunes cartoon a la Mickey Mouse and the brooms.

However I am making a vow to be nicer. It's hard!

[cardcrimson]

I take your point on generating excitement and being mildly interesting but think, especially since you're talking about offensive skill position talent, that you're conflating Shawfense with individual talent. These guys are boring because our offense is boring, not because the individuals lack talent. Put Mike Wilson on USC or Elijah Higgins on TCU or Tanner McKee at Ole Miss and they'd be a lot more fun to watch.

True. KJ was very interesting for a game at Mississippi State. . . .

I'm not very close to it, and your point about the Shawfense, is valid. I just don't see a lot of guys that I have to watch. Says a lot that our most intriguing and only must watch player is Karty.

[cardcrimson]

I take your point on generating excitement and being mildly interesting but think, especially since you're talking about offensive skill position talent, that you're conflating Shawfense with individual talent. These guys are boring because our offense is boring, not because the individuals lack talent. Put Mike Wilson on USC or Elijah Higgins on TCU or Tanner McKee at Ole Miss and they'd be a lot more fun to watch.

True. KJ was very interesting for a game at Mississippi State. . . .

I'm not very close to it, and your point about the Shawfense, is valid. I just don't see a lot of guys that I have to watch. Says a lot that our most intriguing and only must watch player is Karty.