09-24-2017, 02:21 PM
Five drives, five touchdowns. And from the 6:25 mark of the second quarter, our offense went: TD, TD, FG as time expired, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD.
BC
BC
Perfect second half
Five drives, five touchdowns. And from the 6:25 mark of the second quarter, our offense went: TD, TD, FG as time expired, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD.
BC
BC
09-24-2017, 02:42 PM
Wow.......Costello effect is synergistic.
Could Stanford 2017 be similar to USC 2016 when Sam Darnold replaced Max Browne?
Could Stanford 2017 be similar to USC 2016 when Sam Darnold replaced Max Browne?
09-24-2017, 02:48 PM
(09-24-2017, 02:42 PM)Remy74 link Wrote:Wow.......Costello effect is synergistic.
Could Stanford 2017 be similar to U$C 2016 when Sam Darnold replaced Max Browne?
If only . . .
![[Image: tumblr_mdgzbsX1Ov1rpot5r.gif]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/tumblr_mdgzbsX1Ov1rpot5r.gif)
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-24-2017, 02:50 PM
(09-24-2017, 02:42 PM)Remy74 link Wrote:Could Stanford 2017 be similar to U$C 2016 when Sam Darnold replaced Max Browne?
Yes ! :)
(09-24-2017, 02:42 PM)Remy74 link Wrote:Could Stanford 2017 be similar to U$C 2016 when Sam Darnold replaced Max Browne?
Yes ! :)
09-24-2017, 02:57 PM
The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
09-24-2017, 03:07 PM
(09-24-2017, 02:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
To me it as simple as the "eye-test" as it tells me the efficiency of the offense and ability to execute a forward pass is like "night" & "day" with Chryst under center versus Costello.
Will it continue? I don't know but there is no question the team looked better with Costello as I don't think Chryst is capable of making the throws that I saw from Costello.
I think Stanford loses last night by 14+ with Chryst as QB.
(09-24-2017, 02:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
To me it as simple as the "eye-test" as it tells me the efficiency of the offense and ability to execute a forward pass is like "night" & "day" with Chryst under center versus Costello.
Will it continue? I don't know but there is no question the team looked better with Costello as I don't think Chryst is capable of making the throws that I saw from Costello.
I think Stanford loses last night by 14+ with Chryst as QB.
09-24-2017, 05:34 PM
I watched the entire game on ESPN but no replay and have looked up no statistical summaries.
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
I watched the entire game on ESPN but no replay and have looked up no statistical summaries.
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
09-24-2017, 07:11 PM
(09-24-2017, 02:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
I am less certain that Costello was fantastic, but he was competent which is something the team needed - and against a defense like UCLA all the team needed.
I am less certain than others that Chryst couldn't have done something similar (he was okay in 2/3 games), but all I really no is that Costello did do it.
I am, however, significantly worried about the defense.
There are issues of productivity. The D basically never stopped $C - who punted once primarily caused by a penalty. UCLA punted twice (in 14 possessions). Turnovers were critical, but at least two of them were on fluky things (a weird bounce and pulling out the ball in scrum where the whistle probably should have blown).
There are issues of personnel.
- The DL seems to have 1.5 usable players where we need at least 3 and would like to have 6.
- We seem to have 1 usable ILB right now. Our best LBer last year seems to have disappeared (I presume injury). Palma was serviceable last year, now not playing much.
- Safety. Reid makes mistakes but is fine. We don't really have a second safety - looks like the individual weakest spot.
- Corners. Holder and Meeks may have been over-hyped, but they're fine. When I have seen him, Murphy looks okay, but he seems to have fallen a bit on the depth chart. As we saw some attrition vs UCLA, things were really falling apart.
The defense really should be better. We lost only 2.5 starters, and very little other contributors. From what I saw on the field vs UCLA, Lloyd looks as unreplaceable to us as Thomas. No new guys have really stepped up yet.
I fear all sorts of coming opponents vs our defense.
WSU, Oregon, ASU, and Utah (if they have Huntley) look like they can pass on us.
und perhaps can blow us off the LOS.
UW may be able to do both.
(09-24-2017, 02:57 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
I am less certain that Costello was fantastic, but he was competent which is something the team needed - and against a defense like UCLA all the team needed.
I am less certain than others that Chryst couldn't have done something similar (he was okay in 2/3 games), but all I really no is that Costello did do it.
I am, however, significantly worried about the defense.
There are issues of productivity. The D basically never stopped $C - who punted once primarily caused by a penalty. UCLA punted twice (in 14 possessions). Turnovers were critical, but at least two of them were on fluky things (a weird bounce and pulling out the ball in scrum where the whistle probably should have blown).
There are issues of personnel.
- The DL seems to have 1.5 usable players where we need at least 3 and would like to have 6.
- We seem to have 1 usable ILB right now. Our best LBer last year seems to have disappeared (I presume injury). Palma was serviceable last year, now not playing much.
- Safety. Reid makes mistakes but is fine. We don't really have a second safety - looks like the individual weakest spot.
- Corners. Holder and Meeks may have been over-hyped, but they're fine. When I have seen him, Murphy looks okay, but he seems to have fallen a bit on the depth chart. As we saw some attrition vs UCLA, things were really falling apart.
The defense really should be better. We lost only 2.5 starters, and very little other contributors. From what I saw on the field vs UCLA, Lloyd looks as unreplaceable to us as Thomas. No new guys have really stepped up yet.
I fear all sorts of coming opponents vs our defense.
WSU, Oregon, ASU, and Utah (if they have Huntley) look like they can pass on us.
und perhaps can blow us off the LOS.
UW may be able to do both.
09-24-2017, 07:25 PM
It gets lost amid all the sturm und drang over the offense, but the secondary has probably been the biggest disappointment of the season. We thought we'd be able to make up for the weak DL with a very strong secondary, and they just haven't been. Evaluating secondary play is pretty difficult, but IIRC we have a couple ex-DBs here, anyone know what's going on?
It gets lost amid all the sturm und drang over the offense, but the secondary has probably been the biggest disappointment of the season. We thought we'd be able to make up for the weak DL with a very strong secondary, and they just haven't been. Evaluating secondary play is pretty difficult, but IIRC we have a couple ex-DBs here, anyone know what's going on?
09-24-2017, 07:33 PM
Well for starters weve played 2 of the top 3 college QBs in the country. Meeks and Holder have been pretty great, getting beat only by great throws in small windows. Our LBs and safeties not named Justin Reid havent been great in coverage, and back up CBS/nickel have been decent, but not good enough to hide a poor pass rush with the QBs weve faced.
When we got a decent rush and had our starting CBs in they made life pretty rough for Rosen and a good set of WRs.
When we got a decent rush and had our starting CBs in they made life pretty rough for Rosen and a good set of WRs.
Well for starters weve played 2 of the top 3 college QBs in the country. Meeks and Holder have been pretty great, getting beat only by great throws in small windows. Our LBs and safeties not named Justin Reid havent been great in coverage, and back up CBS/nickel have been decent, but not good enough to hide a poor pass rush with the QBs weve faced.
When we got a decent rush and had our starting CBs in they made life pretty rough for Rosen and a good set of WRs.
When we got a decent rush and had our starting CBs in they made life pretty rough for Rosen and a good set of WRs.
09-24-2017, 07:43 PM
(09-24-2017, 07:25 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:It gets lost amid all the sturm und drang over the offense, but the secondary has probably been the biggest disappointment of the season. We thought we'd be able to make up for the weak DL with a very strong secondary, and they just haven't been. Evaluating secondary play is pretty difficult, but IIRC we have a couple ex-DBs here, anyone know what's going on?
My thoughts,
- Meeks and Holder have been fine, if perhaps somewhat over-hyped.
- Depth behind them is at the very least not well developed yet.
- Reid is pretty good, makes some very good plays, but makes his share of mistakes.
- Second safety position is ... not good.
- Nickel back situation is ... unsettled.
(09-24-2017, 07:25 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:It gets lost amid all the sturm und drang over the offense, but the secondary has probably been the biggest disappointment of the season. We thought we'd be able to make up for the weak DL with a very strong secondary, and they just haven't been. Evaluating secondary play is pretty difficult, but IIRC we have a couple ex-DBs here, anyone know what's going on?
My thoughts,
- Meeks and Holder have been fine, if perhaps somewhat over-hyped.
- Depth behind them is at the very least not well developed yet.
- Reid is pretty good, makes some very good plays, but makes his share of mistakes.
- Second safety position is ... not good.
- Nickel back situation is ... unsettled.
09-24-2017, 08:04 PM
(09-24-2017, 05:34 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:I watched the entire game on ESPN but no replay and have looked up no statistical summaries.
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
So. . . . Laser Toner?
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(09-24-2017, 05:34 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:I watched the entire game on ESPN but no replay and have looked up no statistical summaries.
 I recall a very nerve-jangling 1st Half. The win, I believe, was due to 1) the D and 2) the OL.
 Defense: Yes, UCLA scored lotsa points. But despite Rosen throwing for lebenty-leben yards and quick-strike TDs, the unrelenting pressure contributed to ill-advised back-foot heaves (which worked vs. TAM in that miracle comeback) and two INTs. By game's end, his jersey looked like Rickey Henderson's after a three-steal game.
 Tunnel Workers: The Cardinal dominated time of possession. Blasting an admittedly dinged-up Bruin DL was no great feat, but surging into Level 2 is what enabled Love and Scarlett to run wild. Repeatedly. And didn't Stanford have a 6 min.+ drive in the 2nd Half?
 Other thoughts: Costello throws a nice ball (of course Schultz bailed him out, but the TD pass -- into double coverage -- to Irwin was placed in a way that it could not be intercepted). Could Love & Scarlett develop into McCaffrey & Gaffney, in certain situations on the field at the same time? Finally, Jet Toner needs a nickname; I humbly suggest "Laser"
So. . . . Laser Toner?
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
09-24-2017, 11:36 PM
"Laser," as in [HP] Laserjet Toner? Since that flopped, for those old enough to remember the Dan Marino TV ads for wintertime gloves, how about "Iso"?
"Laser," as in [HP] Laserjet Toner? Since that flopped, for those old enough to remember the Dan Marino TV ads for wintertime gloves, how about "Iso"?
09-24-2017, 11:59 PM
Laser has been suggested before. It's okay, not thrilling. Note that "Jet" is already a nickname, short for John Edward Toner V.
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
Laser has been suggested before. It's okay, not thrilling. Note that "Jet" is already a nickname, short for John Edward Toner V.
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
09-25-2017, 04:48 AM
(09-24-2017, 11:59 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Laser has been suggested before. It's okay, not thrilling. Note that "Jet" is already a nickname, short for John Edward Toner V.
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
I liked Jet, initially. Let's keep it.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-24-2017, 11:59 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:Laser has been suggested before. It's okay, not thrilling. Note that "Jet" is already a nickname, short for John Edward Toner V.
http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=11713
I liked Jet, initially. Let's keep it.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »