[Goose]

I have been following Stanford football since 1967. Before JH, even when Stanford had a "good" team, there were often holes (71 and 72 probably the only exceptions, and the 72 team was a bit shaky at times). Our definition of "high expectations" were that we would be competitive and interesting. After JH, we now consider "high expectations" to be a conference championship or better. So it is apples and oranges. All that said, I had concerns about 2016 that were more a feeling than reasoned. Since CMAC didn't play in the spring, you couldn't tell what we had, but it just didn't pass the eye test. The defense was clearly better than the offense, and it stayed that way all spring. That is unusual for Stanford. We didn't know who the QB was going to be, which could be OK if they were both visibly great, but that wasn't the case. It just didn't "feel" right, although I couldn't really point out issues that would kill us.
That said, and despite having a few really bad losses, we had what most teams would consider to be a good year. How much of that was CMAC and how much was others improving is difficult to know.
This year, we should be better, but we still have some of the same issues as last year. We could be 10-3. Is that a disaster? No, but with this defense, particularly the back 4, I would hope for better. The OL is still the key. Others have talked about pass blocking, which is certainly important, but for a Shaw team, we need to be able to pound the ball. If we can't do that, 10-3 is the ceiling.This spring, I think the OL looked better at both pass blocking and run blocking, but it didn't look dominant. That worries me a bit. The statement that "it is because our defense is so good" or "Love didn't play" sounds too much like 2016. OTOH, the line did open up a few nice holes. We shall see.

[Goose]

I have been following Stanford football since 1967. Before JH, even when Stanford had a "good" team, there were often holes (71 and 72 probably the only exceptions, and the 72 team was a bit shaky at times). Our definition of "high expectations" were that we would be competitive and interesting. After JH, we now consider "high expectations" to be a conference championship or better. So it is apples and oranges. All that said, I had concerns about 2016 that were more a feeling than reasoned. Since CMAC didn't play in the spring, you couldn't tell what we had, but it just didn't pass the eye test. The defense was clearly better than the offense, and it stayed that way all spring. That is unusual for Stanford. We didn't know who the QB was going to be, which could be OK if they were both visibly great, but that wasn't the case. It just didn't "feel" right, although I couldn't really point out issues that would kill us.
That said, and despite having a few really bad losses, we had what most teams would consider to be a good year. How much of that was CMAC and how much was others improving is difficult to know.
This year, we should be better, but we still have some of the same issues as last year. We could be 10-3. Is that a disaster? No, but with this defense, particularly the back 4, I would hope for better. The OL is still the key. Others have talked about pass blocking, which is certainly important, but for a Shaw team, we need to be able to pound the ball. If we can't do that, 10-3 is the ceiling.This spring, I think the OL looked better at both pass blocking and run blocking, but it didn't look dominant. That worries me a bit. The statement that "it is because our defense is so good" or "Love didn't play" sounds too much like 2016. OTOH, the line did open up a few nice holes. We shall see.