08-27-2012, 09:29 AM
Stanford's 2012 season: Wilner sez...
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-27-2012, 11:30 AM
08-27-2012, 11:51 AM
Put Wilner firmly down on the Nunes-skepticism camp. Combined with his assertion earlier that there's no way Nunes makes it through September (or was it October?) healthy and unchallenged as the starter, and you begin to wonder who pissed in his Cheerios over the QB decision. A fine, evidence-based approach he's utilizing...
EDIT: not that I think the particular overall prediction is implausible, or even that Nunes will be (if I can infer from his article) a below-average QB. That might very well happen! Since I'm down for an 8/9 win season, I'm only slightly more optimistic than Wilner. Nevertheless the assumptions that Wilner makes--without evidence--are more than a bit grating.
EDIT2: It's also goofy that he talks about kal's speed. Come on: their speed? Get outta here.
EDIT: not that I think the particular overall prediction is implausible, or even that Nunes will be (if I can infer from his article) a below-average QB. That might very well happen! Since I'm down for an 8/9 win season, I'm only slightly more optimistic than Wilner. Nevertheless the assumptions that Wilner makes--without evidence--are more than a bit grating.
EDIT2: It's also goofy that he talks about kal's speed. Come on: their speed? Get outta here.
Put Wilner firmly down on the Nunes-skepticism camp. Combined with his assertion earlier that there's no way Nunes makes it through September (or was it October?) healthy and unchallenged as the starter, and you begin to wonder who pissed in his Cheerios over the QB decision. A fine, evidence-based approach he's utilizing...
EDIT: not that I think the particular overall prediction is implausible, or even that Nunes will be (if I can infer from his article) a below-average QB. That might very well happen! Since I'm down for an 8/9 win season, I'm only slightly more optimistic than Wilner. Nevertheless the assumptions that Wilner makes--without evidence--are more than a bit grating.
EDIT2: It's also goofy that he talks about kal's speed. Come on: their speed? Get outta here.
EDIT: not that I think the particular overall prediction is implausible, or even that Nunes will be (if I can infer from his article) a below-average QB. That might very well happen! Since I'm down for an 8/9 win season, I'm only slightly more optimistic than Wilner. Nevertheless the assumptions that Wilner makes--without evidence--are more than a bit grating.
EDIT2: It's also goofy that he talks about kal's speed. Come on: their speed? Get outta here.
08-27-2012, 12:08 PM
It seems fair to say Wilner is still skeptical about Shaw. He, like others, saw the open practices, and concluded Nottingham was better, so he believes Shaw is out to lunch with the Nunes selection.Â
The reality is Wilner is also in the "it was mostly Luck" camp. I don't think he can get his head around the fact Stanford could have an elite defense either. He's entitled to his opinion. Stanford has to prove itself now. If they do have a great team in 2012, Stanford will have firmly established itself as an elite program, not just a good program that had a great QB and great coach (Harbaugh).
The reality is Wilner is also in the "it was mostly Luck" camp. I don't think he can get his head around the fact Stanford could have an elite defense either. He's entitled to his opinion. Stanford has to prove itself now. If they do have a great team in 2012, Stanford will have firmly established itself as an elite program, not just a good program that had a great QB and great coach (Harbaugh).
It seems fair to say Wilner is still skeptical about Shaw. He, like others, saw the open practices, and concluded Nottingham was better, so he believes Shaw is out to lunch with the Nunes selection.Â
The reality is Wilner is also in the "it was mostly Luck" camp. I don't think he can get his head around the fact Stanford could have an elite defense either. He's entitled to his opinion. Stanford has to prove itself now. If they do have a great team in 2012, Stanford will have firmly established itself as an elite program, not just a good program that had a great QB and great coach (Harbaugh).
The reality is Wilner is also in the "it was mostly Luck" camp. I don't think he can get his head around the fact Stanford could have an elite defense either. He's entitled to his opinion. Stanford has to prove itself now. If they do have a great team in 2012, Stanford will have firmly established itself as an elite program, not just a good program that had a great QB and great coach (Harbaugh).
08-27-2012, 01:24 PM
I especially like the claim of C.al's purported home-field advantage. Yes, they've clearly dominated Stanford in Memorial Stadium to the tune of a 24-21-6 record in Stanford's favor.
08-27-2012, 01:44 PM
One last note: you could view this as, possibly, a good projection on the season. Wilner projects us to have a relatively successful season at 8-4 despite assuming nearly every important question of the offseason to have a bittersweet if not sour answer. (And, conversely, assumes most opponents to have sweet answers to their own offseason questions--it's certainly possible the Huskies might have addressed our dominance on the line of scrimmage, or much better defense, but it seems odd to assign it a higher level of probability than our unresolved questions. In addition, Stanford's beaten the Huskies by 30+ points over the past two years. The Huskies could be much better and still lose by, like, 9 or something.)
One last note: you could view this as, possibly, a good projection on the season. Wilner projects us to have a relatively successful season at 8-4 despite assuming nearly every important question of the offseason to have a bittersweet if not sour answer. (And, conversely, assumes most opponents to have sweet answers to their own offseason questions--it's certainly possible the Huskies might have addressed our dominance on the line of scrimmage, or much better defense, but it seems odd to assign it a higher level of probability than our unresolved questions. In addition, Stanford's beaten the Huskies by 30+ points over the past two years. The Huskies could be much better and still lose by, like, 9 or something.)
08-27-2012, 01:53 PM
Let's see how the Huskies fare in Baton Rouge before assessing them too much. LSU and Stanford are comparable in the trenches. If the Huskies hold their own in that game, then maybe they can trip up Stanford. If they get dominated, I don't think it is realistic to think they can beat Stanford, no matter how good Keith Price is.
Let's see how the Huskies fare in Baton Rouge before assessing them too much. LSU and Stanford are comparable in the trenches. If the Huskies hold their own in that game, then maybe they can trip up Stanford. If they get dominated, I don't think it is realistic to think they can beat Stanford, no matter how good Keith Price is.
08-27-2012, 03:36 PM
Wilner's piece is interesting. I did the same thing about six weeks ago over on my site. Here's the link:
http://www.gomightycard.com/2012/07/fore...-time.html
If you click over, be sure to read the comments as well. Either Kevin Gemmell or Ted Miller included a link, so a lot of C.al fans came over and made a mess of the place with lots of snarky comments. Not surprisingly, the Stanford folks put them in their place.
http://www.gomightycard.com/2012/07/fore...-time.html
If you click over, be sure to read the comments as well. Either Kevin Gemmell or Ted Miller included a link, so a lot of C.al fans came over and made a mess of the place with lots of snarky comments. Not surprisingly, the Stanford folks put them in their place.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Wilner's piece is interesting. I did the same thing about six weeks ago over on my site. Here's the link:
http://www.gomightycard.com/2012/07/fore...-time.html
If you click over, be sure to read the comments as well. Either Kevin Gemmell or Ted Miller included a link, so a lot of C.al fans came over and made a mess of the place with lots of snarky comments. Not surprisingly, the Stanford folks put them in their place.
http://www.gomightycard.com/2012/07/fore...-time.html
If you click over, be sure to read the comments as well. Either Kevin Gemmell or Ted Miller included a link, so a lot of C.al fans came over and made a mess of the place with lots of snarky comments. Not surprisingly, the Stanford folks put them in their place.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-27-2012, 04:15 PM
Kind of takes the whole "suspicious similarity of predictions" hypothesis right out of the picture.
Kind of takes the whole "suspicious similarity of predictions" hypothesis right out of the picture.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »