[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14315.msg151565#msg151565 date=1452121196]
I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

I think the mean for Stanford has risen significantly from what it was 10 years ago. With the way recruiting and coaching have been for the last seven years, I think expecting a regression to the 55% wins of the previous 40 years is pessimistic. I agree that most fans have a clear view of everything they want to see. But, to ignore positive indications of future success isn't wise either. Walt, Buddy, and Tyrone are ancient history now.
[/quote]

May I point you in the direction of Maples Pavilion?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14315.msg151565#msg151565 date=1452121196]
I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

I think the mean for Stanford has risen significantly from what it was 10 years ago. With the way recruiting and coaching have been for the last seven years, I think expecting a regression to the 55% wins of the previous 40 years is pessimistic. I agree that most fans have a clear view of everything they want to see. But, to ignore positive indications of future success isn't wise either. Walt, Buddy, and Tyrone are ancient history now.
[/quote]

May I point you in the direction of Maples Pavilion?

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14315.msg151565#msg151565 date=1452121196]
I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

I think the mean for Stanford has risen significantly from what it was 10 years ago. With the way recruiting and coaching have been for the last seven years, I think expecting a regression to the 55% wins of the previous 40 years is pessimistic. I agree that most fans have a clear view of everything they want to see. But, to ignore positive indications of future success isn't wise either. Walt, Buddy, and Tyrone are ancient history now.
[/quote]

Huh? I'm not saying that we should expect to go 5-7 next year, I'm saying that we should expect that the OL probably won't produce an Outland winner and probably won't be quite as dominant. Might they? Sure! They also might be terrible! There's lots of possibilities, but in general when you're talking about sports from one season to the next you should expect some regression to the mean.

OF can, if he wants to, only project the most optimistic scenarios, but I like to think that one thing that separates this board from most fan boards out there is that we don't do that, that we try to look at things reasonably and look at the downside as well as the upside. Because it can happen, or do we forget 2014 so easily? That year we surprised on the downside. This year we surprised on the upside. Most years you have to figure we'll be in the middle. And that goes for every component.

Now, the middle can still be relatively high for all programs. Our reasonable expectation is a lot higher than Oregon State's, and probably the highest in the Pac-12. That doesn't mean that much, though, since that's probably still something like 9 wins, for a good-not-great season. Winning is hard.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14315.msg151565#msg151565 date=1452121196]
I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

I think the mean for Stanford has risen significantly from what it was 10 years ago. With the way recruiting and coaching have been for the last seven years, I think expecting a regression to the 55% wins of the previous 40 years is pessimistic. I agree that most fans have a clear view of everything they want to see. But, to ignore positive indications of future success isn't wise either. Walt, Buddy, and Tyrone are ancient history now.
[/quote]

Huh? I'm not saying that we should expect to go 5-7 next year, I'm saying that we should expect that the OL probably won't produce an Outland winner and probably won't be quite as dominant. Might they? Sure! They also might be terrible! There's lots of possibilities, but in general when you're talking about sports from one season to the next you should expect some regression to the mean.

OF can, if he wants to, only project the most optimistic scenarios, but I like to think that one thing that separates this board from most fan boards out there is that we don't do that, that we try to look at things reasonably and look at the downside as well as the upside. Because it can happen, or do we forget 2014 so easily? That year we surprised on the downside. This year we surprised on the upside. Most years you have to figure we'll be in the middle. And that goes for every component.

Now, the middle can still be relatively high for all programs. Our reasonable expectation is a lot higher than Oregon State's, and probably the highest in the Pac-12. That doesn't mean that much, though, since that's probably still something like 9 wins, for a good-not-great season. Winning is hard.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm not being optimistic in my assessment for the sake of being optimistic.  Stanford has never had so much talent, such solid coaching and such a strong program.  The proof is in the pudding.

There may be some areas that are weaker than others, but no position on the 2016 team looks weak or lacking in talent.  Maybe TE and WR could have one more proven guy, but at least 8 teams in the Pac-12 would trade their roster for Stanford's.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm not being optimistic in my assessment for the sake of being optimistic.  Stanford has never had so much talent, such solid coaching and such a strong program.  The proof is in the pudding.

There may be some areas that are weaker than others, but no position on the 2016 team looks weak or lacking in talent.  Maybe TE and WR could have one more proven guy, but at least 8 teams in the Pac-12 would trade their roster for Stanford's.

[CTcard]

I must have blacked it out, but I don't remember any giant dropoff in OL play in 2012.  Yes our offense was not as good, but, uhh, we lost the best quarterback to play football in the past decade or two.  After that season we had three all conference OL (Yankey 1st team, Schwartzstein and Danser second team), plus an OL honorable mention (Fleming), so the rest of the conference thought they were pretty good.  We were 4th in the conference in sacks allowed (20), middle of the Pac in yd/passing attemps and yards per rush.  At no point do I recall thinking the line was an issue.  Actually, the only season I can recall recently thinking line play was not good enough was last year when we replaced 4/5.

Well, there are no particular stats for the OL. So, we primarily have to go on our memory of our own evaluations at the time.

My memory is that there were a lot of limitations to the offense in 2012. Obviously the biggest issue was QB play. But I believe the OL had issues as well - though things improved as the year went on and they learned to play together.


One thing to consider is yards per carry by our running backs. This would address our bread and butter run game, which I think the OL is more responsible for than QB scrambles, or end arounds, etc. I first looked at this when trying to understand what had happened in 2014 - just maybe it says a little about 2012.

[Or maybe not - plenty of nuance there. Clearly the QB is involved as well, as it affects the defense's plans. When I get a few more moments I'll add to this post some more info before and after the great 2012 QB switch - but that takes some time going through each game's box score.]

Running back yards per carry
2009 = 5.33
2010 = 4.78
2011 = 5.46
2012 = 4.57
2013 = 5.03
2014 = 4.95
2015 = 5.60


Perhaps the main thing this points out is how incredible our RB production was this year, a great 5.6 yds/carry even though we ran a ton. That may be why the offense seems to have been about as productive as 2010/2011 despite considerably lower yds/game and yds/play.

This is one thing that led me to believe we went overboard in abandoning the run game in 2014 (at least until the late surge).
[I'm also shocked to see 2010 that low. It made me go check it twice. Luck's running was a major factor that year, as our overall ypc weren't down far.]

But it also shows the low point of this time frame was 2012, a year where Taylor was a senior and presumably at his best.

[CTcard]

I must have blacked it out, but I don't remember any giant dropoff in OL play in 2012.  Yes our offense was not as good, but, uhh, we lost the best quarterback to play football in the past decade or two.  After that season we had three all conference OL (Yankey 1st team, Schwartzstein and Danser second team), plus an OL honorable mention (Fleming), so the rest of the conference thought they were pretty good.  We were 4th in the conference in sacks allowed (20), middle of the Pac in yd/passing attemps and yards per rush.  At no point do I recall thinking the line was an issue.  Actually, the only season I can recall recently thinking line play was not good enough was last year when we replaced 4/5.

Well, there are no particular stats for the OL. So, we primarily have to go on our memory of our own evaluations at the time.

My memory is that there were a lot of limitations to the offense in 2012. Obviously the biggest issue was QB play. But I believe the OL had issues as well - though things improved as the year went on and they learned to play together.


One thing to consider is yards per carry by our running backs. This would address our bread and butter run game, which I think the OL is more responsible for than QB scrambles, or end arounds, etc. I first looked at this when trying to understand what had happened in 2014 - just maybe it says a little about 2012.

[Or maybe not - plenty of nuance there. Clearly the QB is involved as well, as it affects the defense's plans. When I get a few more moments I'll add to this post some more info before and after the great 2012 QB switch - but that takes some time going through each game's box score.]

Running back yards per carry
2009 = 5.33
2010 = 4.78
2011 = 5.46
2012 = 4.57
2013 = 5.03
2014 = 4.95
2015 = 5.60


Perhaps the main thing this points out is how incredible our RB production was this year, a great 5.6 yds/carry even though we ran a ton. That may be why the offense seems to have been about as productive as 2010/2011 despite considerably lower yds/game and yds/play.

This is one thing that led me to believe we went overboard in abandoning the run game in 2014 (at least until the late surge).
[I'm also shocked to see 2010 that low. It made me go check it twice. Luck's running was a major factor that year, as our overall ypc weren't down far.]

But it also shows the low point of this time frame was 2012, a year where Taylor was a senior and presumably at his best.