[csfoster]

Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[csfoster]

Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[lex24]

Nonsense. Stanford is in the Top 5 in wins since 2010. The overreaction to getting beat by a terrific team is stunning, yet predictable.

Not sure what "course correction at the helm" the writer is suggesting. I'd be interested in hearing that.

He's also wrong on development. Stanford has been amongst the best in differential between recruiting class rank and on the field rank. 

As for the head scratching play calls Sat - name them. I remember one - a third and five sweep to Love. They had not been able to run outside.  I thought it was a poor play selection. But overall, no complaint on the play calling.

I realize that  whenever Stanford loses a game it's necessary to trot out conservative play calling as a culprit. Whether  justified or not. It was not justified Sat. They had about a 50/50 mix.

Problem was they didn't get many snaps. SC played keep away. Something Stanford has thrived on since 2010.

Finally - the DB's are mush?  Run that one by Akina. Who is possibly the best DB coach in the nation. SC has a little talent. And their QB is slightly above average. That may have been a factor. Yet they still had two picks. 

Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[lex24]

Nonsense. Stanford is in the Top 5 in wins since 2010. The overreaction to getting beat by a terrific team is stunning, yet predictable.

Not sure what "course correction at the helm" the writer is suggesting. I'd be interested in hearing that.

He's also wrong on development. Stanford has been amongst the best in differential between recruiting class rank and on the field rank. 

As for the head scratching play calls Sat - name them. I remember one - a third and five sweep to Love. They had not been able to run outside.  I thought it was a poor play selection. But overall, no complaint on the play calling.

I realize that  whenever Stanford loses a game it's necessary to trot out conservative play calling as a culprit. Whether  justified or not. It was not justified Sat. They had about a 50/50 mix.

Problem was they didn't get many snaps. SC played keep away. Something Stanford has thrived on since 2010.

Finally - the DB's are mush?  Run that one by Akina. Who is possibly the best DB coach in the nation. SC has a little talent. And their QB is slightly above average. That may have been a factor. Yet they still had two picks. 

Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[csfoster]

Nonsense. Stanford is in the Top 5 in wins since 2010. The overreaction to getting beat by a terrific team is stunning, yet predictable.

Not sure what "course correction at the helm" the writer is suggesting. I'd be interested in hearing that.

He's also wrong on development. Stanford has been amongst the best in differential between recruiting class rank and on the field rank. 

As for the head scratching play calls Sat - name them. I remember one - a third and five sweep to Love. They had not been SB,e yo run outside.

I realize test whenever Stanford loses a game it's necessary to trot out conservative play calling as a culprit. Wherever justified or not. It was not justified Sat. They had about a 50/50 mix.

Problem was they didn't get many snaps. SC played keep away. Something Stanford has thrived on since 2010.



[quote author=csfoster link=topic=17392.msg200428#msg200428 date=1505325063]
Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[/quote]

I agree, Stanford has been almost consistently great the last eight years but it is the Stanford Daily.

[csfoster]

Nonsense. Stanford is in the Top 5 in wins since 2010. The overreaction to getting beat by a terrific team is stunning, yet predictable.

Not sure what "course correction at the helm" the writer is suggesting. I'd be interested in hearing that.

He's also wrong on development. Stanford has been amongst the best in differential between recruiting class rank and on the field rank. 

As for the head scratching play calls Sat - name them. I remember one - a third and five sweep to Love. They had not been SB,e yo run outside.

I realize test whenever Stanford loses a game it's necessary to trot out conservative play calling as a culprit. Wherever justified or not. It was not justified Sat. They had about a 50/50 mix.

Problem was they didn't get many snaps. SC played keep away. Something Stanford has thrived on since 2010.



[quote author=csfoster link=topic=17392.msg200428#msg200428 date=1505325063]
Tough love may prove to be a major motivator:

.....Einstein once said that in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. The same is true with Stanford; in abstract, Stanford is solid. The parts should fit together, and make a fairly cohesive team. Yet in actuality, the secondary is rather a mush, pass protection is porous and the rushing defense could barely touch the opposing quarterback if it had a twelve-foot pole. To set the record straight, Stanford is a good team, it might even deserve to be ranked 14th in the country, but it is in no way, shape or form a great team. The Cardinal have too many questions, from a quarterback who may still be recovering from a major injury several months ago, to weak pass protection and pass rush. And the unabatingly conservative play call does not help the situation at all..........

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/09/11/...owerhouse/

[/quote]

I agree, Stanford has been almost consistently great the last eight years but it is the Stanford Daily.

[Hank 91]

Grain of salt. It's probably a good idea to remember that Daily writers have probably been following the team for two or three years. This particular one lost me when he said the secondary was mush. I'm guessing three of the four starters will play in the NFL; Clay Helton agreed, saying after the game, "That's an NFL secondary."

[Hank 91]

Grain of salt. It's probably a good idea to remember that Daily writers have probably been following the team for two or three years. This particular one lost me when he said the secondary was mush. I'm guessing three of the four starters will play in the NFL; Clay Helton agreed, saying after the game, "That's an NFL secondary."

[Hank 91]

So I made the mistake of clicking on the link. In a nutshell:
David Shaw should be fired because the team lacks consistency, has a pattern of losing big games, recruits well but doesn't develop, and has a terrible defense with a secondary filled with mush. Oh, and there's the "consistent inconsistencies at any given position," whatever that means.

[Hank 91]

So I made the mistake of clicking on the link. In a nutshell:
David Shaw should be fired because the team lacks consistency, has a pattern of losing big games, recruits well but doesn't develop, and has a terrible defense with a secondary filled with mush. Oh, and there's the "consistent inconsistencies at any given position," whatever that means.

[OutsiderFan]

So even the Stanford Daily has fallen into the "controversy for clicks" mindset? 

[OutsiderFan]

So even the Stanford Daily has fallen into the "controversy for clicks" mindset? 

[JohnR34231]

There aren't too many teams that don't have woulda, shoulda, coulda moments every season (maybe Alabama). That we have them doesn't make us merely a good team.
I guess it is a sign we have made it as a winner when everyone overreacts to a loss (especially against one of the top teams in the nation).

[JohnR34231]

There aren't too many teams that don't have woulda, shoulda, coulda moments every season (maybe Alabama). That we have them doesn't make us merely a good team.
I guess it is a sign we have made it as a winner when everyone overreacts to a loss (especially against one of the top teams in the nation).

[csfoster]

There aren't too many teams that don't have woulda, shoulda, coulda moments every season (maybe Alabama). That we have them doesn't make us merely a good team.
I guess it is a sign we have made it as a winner when everyone overreacts to a loss (especially against one of the top teams in the nation).

Unfortunately, Alabama has been both very good and lucky. Stanford has been Top 25 good for many years but not necessarily lucky.

We will have to wait to see how this year plays out.

[csfoster]

There aren't too many teams that don't have woulda, shoulda, coulda moments every season (maybe Alabama). That we have them doesn't make us merely a good team.
I guess it is a sign we have made it as a winner when everyone overreacts to a loss (especially against one of the top teams in the nation).

Unfortunately, Alabama has been both very good and lucky. Stanford has been Top 25 good for many years but not necessarily lucky.

We will have to wait to see how this year plays out.

[ColoradoTree]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit. 

[ColoradoTree]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit. 

[csfoster]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit.

Sorry to say, the entire article was more objectionable not less.  Stanford has been a "national" powerhouse for the last decade especially when compared to Southern Cal and still is. Despite, the lost to the Trojans, Stanford can still reach the playoffs and if not, will play on January 1st.  They are that good.

The writer let his emotional distress take hold.

[csfoster]

The specifics of the article are obviously objectionable, but depending on how one defines the term "powerhouse," calling Stanford a "regional powerhouse" in terms of the on-field product seems less objectionable. 

In recruiting, we certainly can't be called regional given our national reach, and I'd argue that we've been recruiting near the ceiling of what is possible at Stanford, so in that sense we're not merely a regional powerhouse.

But what does it mean to be a powerhouse?  I took the article to be arguing that Stanford is a very good team that hasn't broken through to the unquestioned top level for various reasons.  The arguments are Baylessian, the takes hotter than molten lava, but I guess I'm just not offended by the notion that some people think of us as a very good team that usually falls short of unquestioned national hegemony.  If we think of powerhouse as those programs that look at their roster each summer and think, "we should absolutely be in the mix for a national title, and I expect that," that's a pretty narrow definition that would seem to include Alabama and maybe Ohio State these days, perhaps with an Oklahoma or FSU or someone else like that mixed in.  I've usually seen Stanford football as a "maybe we could sneak into the playoff if things go perfectly and we catch a couple breaks" program, but that's not a bad thing!  We've unquestionably been the best team in the Pac-12 over the last several years.  We also haven't made either the playoff or the BCS championship game.  I think we're on a rung below the Alabamas and the Ohio States of the world in terms of on-field product, but really, so is the rest of college football.  When all of the stars align, we've got a shot; we just have more stars to align than other schools, given academic/admissions requirements and how our roster needs don't necessarily line up with the positions that qualified applicants play in a given class. 

Of course, if we define powerhouse more broadly, to include consistency of top-level performance, all of the 10-win seasons and the Rose Bowl wins make it pretty hard to consider us as anything other than a national powerhouse right now. 

Obviously, I love Stanford football or I wouldn't be spending so much darn time on this board talking about them to you folks.  But when I hear folks describe Stanford as merely a "regional powerhouse," I think to myself, "wait, that's supposed to be a bad thing?"  It seems like a pretty great place to be from where I sit.

Sorry to say, the entire article was more objectionable not less.  Stanford has been a "national" powerhouse for the last decade especially when compared to Southern Cal and still is. Despite, the lost to the Trojans, Stanford can still reach the playoffs and if not, will play on January 1st.  They are that good.

The writer let his emotional distress take hold.