[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13853.msg151113#msg151113 date=1451948483]Who knew Iowa was a paper tiger of sorts?

Pretty much anyone who looked into it. Which isn't to say that I expected the epic beatdown that actually happened, but I was expecting us to win by at least one score.
[/quote]

I wasn't sure about a win given the quality of MSU two years ago and my expectation that they hadn't fallen off given their victories over tOSU and Iowa.  But I see now how massively the eye test can fail.  Also, I wasn't the only one worried about Iowa--far more knowledgeable people than I were worried about the game.  Glad to see the team attacked the game early and often.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13853.msg151113#msg151113 date=1451948483]Who knew Iowa was a paper tiger of sorts?

Pretty much anyone who looked into it. Which isn't to say that I expected the epic beatdown that actually happened, but I was expecting us to win by at least one score.
[/quote]

I wasn't sure about a win given the quality of MSU two years ago and my expectation that they hadn't fallen off given their victories over tOSU and Iowa.  But I see now how massively the eye test can fail.  Also, I wasn't the only one worried about Iowa--far more knowledgeable people than I were worried about the game.  Glad to see the team attacked the game early and often.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13853.msg145105#msg145105 date=1449020072]
Seems odd to have that much certainty that Shittu and Martinez would've left. Anderson and Parry stayed -- and each of them, I'd argue, were more accomplished than Shittu and Martinez. They might've left...but on the other hand, they might not. That we missed out on the option value for a combined 5 tackles in 2012 seems like a poor allocation of resources.

Weren't they both coming off injuries?  Or am I mixing up the years they were hurt?

The real question for Aziz is if he could have redshirted last year after the injury, would he have stayed.  An oft forgotten aspect of not redshirting a frosh who doesn't need it (ie. can contribute and might leave early) is that the redshirt can be used if there's an injury down the road, and sometimes injuries also cause guys to spend that extra year in school.  Brennan Scarlett is kind of an example of that.  Skov another obvious one.
[/quote]

Phillips.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13853.msg145105#msg145105 date=1449020072]
Seems odd to have that much certainty that Shittu and Martinez would've left. Anderson and Parry stayed -- and each of them, I'd argue, were more accomplished than Shittu and Martinez. They might've left...but on the other hand, they might not. That we missed out on the option value for a combined 5 tackles in 2012 seems like a poor allocation of resources.

Weren't they both coming off injuries?  Or am I mixing up the years they were hurt?

The real question for Aziz is if he could have redshirted last year after the injury, would he have stayed.  An oft forgotten aspect of not redshirting a frosh who doesn't need it (ie. can contribute and might leave early) is that the redshirt can be used if there's an injury down the road, and sometimes injuries also cause guys to spend that extra year in school.  Brennan Scarlett is kind of an example of that.  Skov another obvious one.
[/quote]

Phillips.

BC

[stupac2]

I wasn't sure about a win given the quality of MSU two years ago and my expectation that they hadn't fallen off given their victories over tOSU and Iowa.  But I see now how massively the eye test can fail.  Also, I wasn't the only one worried about Iowa--far more knowledgeable people than I were worried about the game.  Glad to see the team attacked the game early and often.

Well, sure, there's always some standard deviation about the mean. If Iowa had played out of their minds and we had a bunch of mistakes, then we could lose. It's like the Oregon, if you play that game 10 times I think Stanford wins 7 of the matchups, but we just happened to get the one where we had a bunch of unforced errors, Oregon played pretty well, and we lost. That can happen pretty much any time against team (does anyone think 2007 Stanford wins that game against USC more than 1/10 times it's played?), and so there's always some reason to worry about a game. But there's a big difference between worrying about a game when we're heavy favorites and worrying about a game when it's a tossup.

[stupac2]

I wasn't sure about a win given the quality of MSU two years ago and my expectation that they hadn't fallen off given their victories over tOSU and Iowa.  But I see now how massively the eye test can fail.  Also, I wasn't the only one worried about Iowa--far more knowledgeable people than I were worried about the game.  Glad to see the team attacked the game early and often.

Well, sure, there's always some standard deviation about the mean. If Iowa had played out of their minds and we had a bunch of mistakes, then we could lose. It's like the Oregon, if you play that game 10 times I think Stanford wins 7 of the matchups, but we just happened to get the one where we had a bunch of unforced errors, Oregon played pretty well, and we lost. That can happen pretty much any time against team (does anyone think 2007 Stanford wins that game against USC more than 1/10 times it's played?), and so there's always some reason to worry about a game. But there's a big difference between worrying about a game when we're heavy favorites and worrying about a game when it's a tossup.

[washingtonismoney]

I was much more worried about Oregon than Iowa. With a healthy Vernon Adams, I suspect Oregon beats Iowa more often than not.

As stupac says, the signs were all there if you bothered to look. They played...six or seven one possession games against the 60th (or so) hardest schedule. That's not the profile of a top 10 team.

[washingtonismoney]

I was much more worried about Oregon than Iowa. With a healthy Vernon Adams, I suspect Oregon beats Iowa more often than not.

As stupac says, the signs were all there if you bothered to look. They played...six or seven one possession games against the 60th (or so) hardest schedule. That's not the profile of a top 10 team.

[StannyBoy]

[quote author=StannyBoy link=topic=13853.msg151099#msg151099 date=1451945357]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13853.msg151084#msg151084 date=1451943236]
This is as good a place as any to bring this up, but I've noticed a trend in college football against 300 LB DL.  Alabama used to be synonymous wth of exceedingly large proportions DL.  Not this year.  No 325+ plus NTs on the Alabama team now.  All leaner, quicker guys.  And so it is with Stanford with Scarlett, Shittu, and Thomas.  Those guys all are much quicker than the OL they are going up against in general.  Shittu's quickness will be appreciated at the next level, IMO.

Completely false.

NT: Darren Lake 315 lbs
DE: A'Shawn Robinson 312 lbs
DE: Jarran Reed 313 lbs

They are so good that Jonathan Allen is a back up and he could go in the first round this year as a junior. The other back up Tomlinson is also very highly regarded and almost 300 lbs. Former 5 star recruit Da'Shawn Hand is stuck as a 3rd stringer. Most of our DL would not even play at Bama.
[/quote]

Your quoted weights are not incompatible with the statement that there are "No 325+ NTs on the Alabama team now."  The three starters you mentioned are all < 325 Lbs.

BC
[/quote]

I'm aware. But once you're that big an extra 10 lbs doesn't matter. Also at some point guys are just too big. Terrence Cody has had a rather mediocre NFL career and he was their biggest DL that I can recall.

My point is Bama is generally the only school who trots out 3 athletic guys over 300 lbs to start games. They don't grow on trees and they rarely come to Stanford.

[StannyBoy]

[quote author=StannyBoy link=topic=13853.msg151099#msg151099 date=1451945357]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13853.msg151084#msg151084 date=1451943236]
This is as good a place as any to bring this up, but I've noticed a trend in college football against 300 LB DL.  Alabama used to be synonymous wth of exceedingly large proportions DL.  Not this year.  No 325+ plus NTs on the Alabama team now.  All leaner, quicker guys.  And so it is with Stanford with Scarlett, Shittu, and Thomas.  Those guys all are much quicker than the OL they are going up against in general.  Shittu's quickness will be appreciated at the next level, IMO.

Completely false.

NT: Darren Lake 315 lbs
DE: A'Shawn Robinson 312 lbs
DE: Jarran Reed 313 lbs

They are so good that Jonathan Allen is a back up and he could go in the first round this year as a junior. The other back up Tomlinson is also very highly regarded and almost 300 lbs. Former 5 star recruit Da'Shawn Hand is stuck as a 3rd stringer. Most of our DL would not even play at Bama.
[/quote]

Your quoted weights are not incompatible with the statement that there are "No 325+ NTs on the Alabama team now."  The three starters you mentioned are all < 325 Lbs.

BC
[/quote]

I'm aware. But once you're that big an extra 10 lbs doesn't matter. Also at some point guys are just too big. Terrence Cody has had a rather mediocre NFL career and he was their biggest DL that I can recall.

My point is Bama is generally the only school who trots out 3 athletic guys over 300 lbs to start games. They don't grow on trees and they rarely come to Stanford.

[ChicagoCard]

I know this is a moot point but is this surprising to anybody? In other words is it a big deal that an appeal was made, or more just a formality?
[tweet]684499559871987712[/tweet]

[ChicagoCard]

I know this is a moot point but is this surprising to anybody? In other words is it a big deal that an appeal was made, or more just a formality?
[tweet]684499559871987712[/tweet]

[CTcard]

I know this is a moot point but is this surprising to anybody? In other words is it a big deal that an appeal was made, or more just a formality?

Interesting.

As I understand the limiting rule here, is that to get a medical hardship waiver (redshirt) you cannot have played in more than 30% of a team's games (rounded up).

Shittu played in 5 games in 2014.
In the regular season, there are 12 games. 0.30 * 12 = 3.6, which rounds up to 4.
That is typically taken as the limit.
Of course Stanford played 14 13 games in 2014. 0.30 * 13 = 3.9, which still rounds up to 4, but is closer.
But you can always appeal, so it seems worth asking.

EDIT - Thanks for the correction stupac. My mistake.

[CTcard]

I know this is a moot point but is this surprising to anybody? In other words is it a big deal that an appeal was made, or more just a formality?

Interesting.

As I understand the limiting rule here, is that to get a medical hardship waiver (redshirt) you cannot have played in more than 30% of a team's games (rounded up).

Shittu played in 5 games in 2014.
In the regular season, there are 12 games. 0.30 * 12 = 3.6, which rounds up to 4.
That is typically taken as the limit.
Of course Stanford played 14 13 games in 2014. 0.30 * 13 = 3.9, which still rounds up to 4, but is closer.
But you can always appeal, so it seems worth asking.

EDIT - Thanks for the correction stupac. My mistake.

[stupac2]

Of course Stanford played 14 games in 2014.

What? No we didn't, we played 13, unless you're counting the 2013-season Rose Bowl as a 2014 which certainly doesn't seem like it would fly.

[stupac2]

Of course Stanford played 14 games in 2014.

What? No we didn't, we played 13, unless you're counting the 2013-season Rose Bowl as a 2014 which certainly doesn't seem like it would fly.

[TrumpCard]

The fact that Shittu applied for an extra year suggests there was at least a chance he would have taken it.  That pretty much blows up my theory that burning redshirts didn't end up hurting.  Having Shittu back next year would have been very nice.

[TrumpCard]

The fact that Shittu applied for an extra year suggests there was at least a chance he would have taken it.  That pretty much blows up my theory that burning redshirts didn't end up hurting.  Having Shittu back next year would have been very nice.