[FarmBoy]

Lombardi is predicting a best case of 10-2 and worst case of at least 6 losses.

Best-case scenario for 2015: The schedule sets up favorably for the Cardinal this season: Stanford misses Arizona State and Utah entirely and the toughest road game (at least on paper) comes at U.SC. So, the dream: Carve up a Trojans defense that's still adjusting to life post-Leonard Williams and grab a win in the Coliseum Sept. 19. If Stanford can manage that, the Cardinal will theoretically be favored in their next six, and that'll give the new-look defense time to jell before Oregon visits Nov. 14. At least some slippage seems inevitable -- it is the Pac-12, after all -- so even the biggest optimist here should count on a blemish or two. But the offense's finish to 2014 suggested a 10-2 record and a division title are possible.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...d-cardinal

[FarmBoy]

Lombardi is predicting a best case of 10-2 and worst case of at least 6 losses.

Best-case scenario for 2015: The schedule sets up favorably for the Cardinal this season: Stanford misses Arizona State and Utah entirely and the toughest road game (at least on paper) comes at U.SC. So, the dream: Carve up a Trojans defense that's still adjusting to life post-Leonard Williams and grab a win in the Coliseum Sept. 19. If Stanford can manage that, the Cardinal will theoretically be favored in their next six, and that'll give the new-look defense time to jell before Oregon visits Nov. 14. At least some slippage seems inevitable -- it is the Pac-12, after all -- so even the biggest optimist here should count on a blemish or two. But the offense's finish to 2014 suggested a 10-2 record and a division title are possible.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...d-cardinal

[washingtonismoney]

10-2 is a realistic best case scenario, but given:

1) I don't see any dominant teams on Stanford's schedule
2) the majority of best teams play in Palo Alto
3) Stanford had a point margin similar to 2012

A more unrealistic best case scenario is:
1) a return to 2013-quality play plus
2) better luck

Which, means -- unrealistically -- 11-1 or 12-0.

But again, it's unrealistic. I'd be very surprised if the team is outside 8-10 wins (and more likely at the lower end), barring force majeure.

[washingtonismoney]

10-2 is a realistic best case scenario, but given:

1) I don't see any dominant teams on Stanford's schedule
2) the majority of best teams play in Palo Alto
3) Stanford had a point margin similar to 2012

A more unrealistic best case scenario is:
1) a return to 2013-quality play plus
2) better luck

Which, means -- unrealistically -- 11-1 or 12-0.

But again, it's unrealistic. I'd be very surprised if the team is outside 8-10 wins (and more likely at the lower end), barring force majeure.

[JJJ]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

[JJJ]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

[StanfordIndians1]

I think our Defense is going to be just fine.  Like how it is shaping up.  Plus the O being more aggressive could make for a special year.  Cmon Playoff!

http://youtu.be/KbvQefBmtO8

Cardinal Report

[StanfordIndians1]

I think our Defense is going to be just fine.  Like how it is shaping up.  Plus the O being more aggressive could make for a special year.  Cmon Playoff!

http://youtu.be/KbvQefBmtO8

Cardinal Report

[BostonCard]

Wilner has us pegged as #17 in his pre-season poll:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...otre-dame/

Not going to complain about our spot, but Notre Dame at #2 (and considered #1)?  I mean I get that their defense will be good, but you are still talking about a new QB.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wilner has us pegged as #17 in his pre-season poll:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...otre-dame/

Not going to complain about our spot, but Notre Dame at #2 (and considered #1)?  I mean I get that their defense will be good, but you are still talking about a new QB.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Not going to complain about our spot, but the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends at #2 (and considered #1)?  I mean I get that their defense will be good, but you are still talking about a new QB.

Well, Wilner's methodology is always suspect,* but that's neither here nor there. I can't figure out *why* their defense is supposed to be so good. They gave up a pretty mediocre 5.6 yards-per-play last year. They're older and well-recruited, which is good, but it's highly speculative to assume they'll leap from mediocre (where they were) to championship-caliber (which Wilner is positing they'll be).

Is it the head coach? Brian Kelly has little history putting elite defenses on the field?

The coordinator? Brian vanGorder, the DC, has a fantastic mustache. A great record? The last time he coordinated a defense, in 2012 for Auburn, he was fired after one year. They ranked 13th in the conference in yards per play.

Before that he was a longterm DC for the Falcons (2008-11). Atlanta ranked #24, #22, #27, and #22 in the league in yards per play.

The last good defense he coordinated, in other words, was over a decade ago.

* I'll be nice and say that ranking teams based on schedule is not the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

[washingtonismoney]

Not going to complain about our spot, but the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends at #2 (and considered #1)?  I mean I get that their defense will be good, but you are still talking about a new QB.

Well, Wilner's methodology is always suspect,* but that's neither here nor there. I can't figure out *why* their defense is supposed to be so good. They gave up a pretty mediocre 5.6 yards-per-play last year. They're older and well-recruited, which is good, but it's highly speculative to assume they'll leap from mediocre (where they were) to championship-caliber (which Wilner is positing they'll be).

Is it the head coach? Brian Kelly has little history putting elite defenses on the field?

The coordinator? Brian vanGorder, the DC, has a fantastic mustache. A great record? The last time he coordinated a defense, in 2012 for Auburn, he was fired after one year. They ranked 13th in the conference in yards per play.

Before that he was a longterm DC for the Falcons (2008-11). Atlanta ranked #24, #22, #27, and #22 in the league in yards per play.

The last good defense he coordinated, in other words, was over a decade ago.

* I'll be nice and say that ranking teams based on schedule is not the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

[Rally]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

I know it's the silly season but . . . I BELIEVE!

[Rally]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

I know it's the silly season but . . . I BELIEVE!

[JJJ]

Since I didn't notice this Soltau piece elsewhere, I will post it, knowing full well I'm probably too late again. I will delete it if necessary. (Non sequitir but Shittu's instagram handle is @shitrue7 which I find amusing.)

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=210263130

[JJJ]

Since I didn't notice this Soltau piece elsewhere, I will post it, knowing full well I'm probably too late again. I will delete it if necessary. (Non sequitir but Shittu's instagram handle is @shitrue7 which I find amusing.)

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=210263130

[washingtonismoney]

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1791900

[washingtonismoney]

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1791900

[CornFed]

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1791900

I am struck by the uniformly upbeat tone of all the quotes, but it reminds me that we're just going to hear what they want us to hear.  The drumbeat is so strong that it makes me think there is an element of "whistling through the graveyard" underlying their comments.  I suppose it is all to be expected at this stage and is, by and large, innocuous.  But last year it turned out that there had been a tinge of toxicity on the team and it took an impassioned speech by a walk-on player to straighten them out.  Prior to hearing about that recently here on the CardBoard, I had had no idea what the problem was that was leading to lackluster results.

Noor Davis is out until after mid-season.  Cajuste is going to be held back "as a precaution".  This piece mentions that Whitfield got dinged up somehow.  The list is fairly lengthy.  I imagine on our opponents' equivalents of the CardBoard there are pretty busy threads on "Today in Opponent Attrition: Snodfart".

I am deeply grateful to the contributors here who provide reality checks and I have been consistently amazed by the insights you all have provided.  But even you folks are ultimately dealing with limited access to information.  I have read here descriptions leading to the conclusion that Stanford has an outside chance to go undefeated; to mentions of the fact that they may lose six or seven games.  Obviously, there is some kind of bell curve of outcome probabilities and that will lead the quants among us to conclude that the most likely season outcome is 9.34 wins.  That, too, is arbitrarily exact.

The bottom line is we will just not know until we see the games; one by one, adjusting our perspectives each week as the season unfolds and more is revealed.  And even then we will not be sure that there aren't currents at play in the team chemistry that are dramatically affecting outcomes.

The real bottom line is that I am going nuts waiting for the season to start!  I feel like I'm trapped in a dentist's chair  and  time    is    going      slower      and        slower        and          slower . . . . . . . . .

Damn!  Let's get this party started!  Go Cardinal!

[CornFed]

https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1791900

I am struck by the uniformly upbeat tone of all the quotes, but it reminds me that we're just going to hear what they want us to hear.  The drumbeat is so strong that it makes me think there is an element of "whistling through the graveyard" underlying their comments.  I suppose it is all to be expected at this stage and is, by and large, innocuous.  But last year it turned out that there had been a tinge of toxicity on the team and it took an impassioned speech by a walk-on player to straighten them out.  Prior to hearing about that recently here on the CardBoard, I had had no idea what the problem was that was leading to lackluster results.

Noor Davis is out until after mid-season.  Cajuste is going to be held back "as a precaution".  This piece mentions that Whitfield got dinged up somehow.  The list is fairly lengthy.  I imagine on our opponents' equivalents of the CardBoard there are pretty busy threads on "Today in Opponent Attrition: Snodfart".

I am deeply grateful to the contributors here who provide reality checks and I have been consistently amazed by the insights you all have provided.  But even you folks are ultimately dealing with limited access to information.  I have read here descriptions leading to the conclusion that Stanford has an outside chance to go undefeated; to mentions of the fact that they may lose six or seven games.  Obviously, there is some kind of bell curve of outcome probabilities and that will lead the quants among us to conclude that the most likely season outcome is 9.34 wins.  That, too, is arbitrarily exact.

The bottom line is we will just not know until we see the games; one by one, adjusting our perspectives each week as the season unfolds and more is revealed.  And even then we will not be sure that there aren't currents at play in the team chemistry that are dramatically affecting outcomes.

The real bottom line is that I am going nuts waiting for the season to start!  I feel like I'm trapped in a dentist's chair  and  time    is    going      slower      and        slower        and          slower . . . . . . . . .

Damn!  Let's get this party started!  Go Cardinal!

[thunder_chik]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

Reality check:  The last time Stanford had an undefeated season of at least 10 games was... 1940 (10-0-0, under Shaughnessy).  Before that, 1926, 10-0-1 under Pop Warner.  Would love to believe it could happen, finally, this year, but with games vs the Toejams, B'ruins, Domers and Duckies, I just can't get my hopes up that high.  I will be happy with improving to 10 wins, which I think is realistic.  ;)

[thunder_chik]

Since it's the silly season and blatant homerism is sometimes fun: Sleep on Stanford and you will have nightmares.  8)

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2015/8/12/9130...nightmares

Reality check:  The last time Stanford had an undefeated season of at least 10 games was... 1940 (10-0-0, under Shaughnessy).  Before that, 1926, 10-0-1 under Pop Warner.  Would love to believe it could happen, finally, this year, but with games vs the Toejams, B'ruins, Domers and Duckies, I just can't get my hopes up that high.  I will be happy with improving to 10 wins, which I think is realistic.  ;)

[Mick]

The Ducks are going to implode.  You heard it here second....

[Mick]

The Ducks are going to implode.  You heard it here second....

[washingtonismoney]

Some interesting comments here from Ronnie Harris: http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula-spo...-secondary

[washingtonismoney]

Some interesting comments here from Ronnie Harris: http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula-spo...-secondary

[washingtonismoney]

This list, from ESPN's Travis Haney, of the top 10 hot seats is surprising: http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/in...t?id=89696

There's Derek Mason at #8 and Whittingham at #9. Perhaps Haney was just looking to fill out the list.

[washingtonismoney]

This list, from ESPN's Travis Haney, of the top 10 hot seats is surprising: http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/in...t?id=89696

There's Derek Mason at #8 and Whittingham at #9. Perhaps Haney was just looking to fill out the list.

[washingtonismoney]

I like the way Bloomgren describes how they'll use McCaffrey here: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...sive-boost

I've been a bit worried that they'll be a bit too Cro-Magnon in their outlook w/r/t McCaffrey.

[washingtonismoney]

I like the way Bloomgren describes how they'll use McCaffrey here: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...sive-boost

I've been a bit worried that they'll be a bit too Cro-Magnon in their outlook w/r/t McCaffrey.

[Stymie]

I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

[Stymie]

I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

[JJJ]

You may have all seen this already, but just to add to the appropriate thread, from today's Daily:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/08/05/...oundtable/

More from Stanford Daily round table--Defense today.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/08/12/...oundtable/

[JJJ]

You may have all seen this already, but just to add to the appropriate thread, from today's Daily:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/08/05/...oundtable/

More from Stanford Daily round table--Defense today.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/08/12/...oundtable/

[CornFed]

Do-Hyoung Park probably did not mean to "dis" David Parry in mourning the defense's loss of his impact:

"the importance of the nose tackle absolutely cannot be understated"

[CornFed]

Do-Hyoung Park probably did not mean to "dis" David Parry in mourning the defense's loss of his impact:

"the importance of the nose tackle absolutely cannot be understated"

[CompSci87]

I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

I hope they don't use McCaffrey like Ty was used last year. That is, force feed him the ball even though the defense is keying on him and there are other playmakers available who are more open.

[CompSci87]

I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

I hope they don't use McCaffrey like Ty was used last year. That is, force feed him the ball even though the defense is keying on him and there are other playmakers available who are more open.

[JJJ]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12423.msg124350#msg124350 date=1439567805]
I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

I hope they don't use McCaffrey like Ty was used last year. That is, force feed him the ball even though the defense is keying on him and there are other playmakers available who are more open.
[/quote]

This thought also crossed my mind. Use him well, but do not abuse him, please... (I have to trust the coaches on this one since I have no choice.)

[JJJ]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=12423.msg124350#msg124350 date=1439567805]
I loved this quote from Anderson:

"He's too freaking valuable. He's going to be all over the place."

My only concern now is the WRs.  If Cajuste is not 100%, all we have left with signfiicant experience are Rector and Owusu.  We may need a couple of successful redshirt burns (Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside) and/or an emergence from Brandt-Sims, and/or more activity from the classy class of young tight ends, and/or more Cowbell (oops, I meant McCaffrey).  As long as Sanders and Wright and Marx are there, Cowbell doesn't need to be in the backfield all of the time.

I'm getting excited, too, but I am working hard to suppress my good vibrations and good, good excitations......

I hope they don't use McCaffrey like Ty was used last year. That is, force feed him the ball even though the defense is keying on him and there are other playmakers available who are more open.
[/quote]

This thought also crossed my mind. Use him well, but do not abuse him, please... (I have to trust the coaches on this one since I have no choice.)