[washingtonismoney]

I think the big barrier to Sanders picking up more touches is that he isn't very good.

Here's Wilner's dispatch on the OL: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/c...source=rss

[washingtonismoney]

I think the big barrier to Sanders picking up more touches is that he isn't very good.

Here's Wilner's dispatch on the OL: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/c...source=rss

[CTcard]

Bloomgren gives more detail on the offense: https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1795777

"in its essence we're a West Coast football team, a West Coast passing game that's going to try to be the most physical group they can be up front when they run the ball"

I've heard Shaw say this as well. It seems that, other than geography, they have a different idea of what a west coast offense is than I do (which probably means I am wrong).

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Stanford under Shaw seems aimed at being something closer to the 1970s Raiders: a power-run game with a big line complemented by deep strike passes over the heads of the defense. I guess the Raiders were located on the west coast, but ...

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?

[CTcard]

Bloomgren gives more detail on the offense: https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1795777

"in its essence we're a West Coast football team, a West Coast passing game that's going to try to be the most physical group they can be up front when they run the ball"

I've heard Shaw say this as well. It seems that, other than geography, they have a different idea of what a west coast offense is than I do (which probably means I am wrong).

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Stanford under Shaw seems aimed at being something closer to the 1970s Raiders: a power-run game with a big line complemented by deep strike passes over the heads of the defense. I guess the Raiders were located on the west coast, but ...

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?

[Extra Point]

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?

Walsh was a master of getting a receiver or running back wide open for a short low risk pass. This was often done by tricking two defensive backs into covering one wide receiver. Sometimes he would fake a run, and then throw to the running back 5 or 10 yards down field. The open person was often standing still so the quarterback could easily see him. Walsh was also a master of creating mismatches in the pass defense, such as linebacker having to cover Darin Nelson.

Many (if not most) pass plays involved a man in motion, sometimes two in motion. Doing this often exposed the coverage scheme. When the corners were in man coverage and Lofton was on the field, the result was often a long pass completion. If the corners were too deep, someone was wide open underneath the coverage.

The first 15 to 25 plays were scripted and designed to take advantage of tendencies in the opponent's defense. Trickeration was sometimes involved. But, the scripted plays generally set up the defense for a big play.

And, the only time you saw power running was when the first down marker was less than a half yard away.

When coaches say they run the west coast offense now days, they are simply being buzzword compliant.

[Extra Point]

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?

Walsh was a master of getting a receiver or running back wide open for a short low risk pass. This was often done by tricking two defensive backs into covering one wide receiver. Sometimes he would fake a run, and then throw to the running back 5 or 10 yards down field. The open person was often standing still so the quarterback could easily see him. Walsh was also a master of creating mismatches in the pass defense, such as linebacker having to cover Darin Nelson.

Many (if not most) pass plays involved a man in motion, sometimes two in motion. Doing this often exposed the coverage scheme. When the corners were in man coverage and Lofton was on the field, the result was often a long pass completion. If the corners were too deep, someone was wide open underneath the coverage.

The first 15 to 25 plays were scripted and designed to take advantage of tendencies in the opponent's defense. Trickeration was sometimes involved. But, the scripted plays generally set up the defense for a big play.

And, the only time you saw power running was when the first down marker was less than a half yard away.

When coaches say they run the west coast offense now days, they are simply being buzzword compliant.

[CornFed]

I think the big barrier to Sanders picking up more touches is that he isn't very good.

Here's Wilner's dispatch on the OL: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/c...source=rss

I should not have used a specific player as a reference point.  Of all the public commentary I have ever read about Barry Sanders, not one said that the reason he was not being used more was because he is not very good.  I have, however, read frequently that the reason has been that Shaw is insistent on the ability of the running back to be an effective blocker.  I have read that Sanders was not proficient in that area.  Therefore, I was hoping to learn to what degree this might apply to Bryce Love.  I guess I'll find out if I get a chance to see him play.

[CornFed]

I think the big barrier to Sanders picking up more touches is that he isn't very good.

Here's Wilner's dispatch on the OL: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/c...source=rss

I should not have used a specific player as a reference point.  Of all the public commentary I have ever read about Barry Sanders, not one said that the reason he was not being used more was because he is not very good.  I have, however, read frequently that the reason has been that Shaw is insistent on the ability of the running back to be an effective blocker.  I have read that Sanders was not proficient in that area.  Therefore, I was hoping to learn to what degree this might apply to Bryce Love.  I guess I'll find out if I get a chance to see him play.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12423.msg125566#msg125566 date=1440557211]
Bloomgren gives more detail on the offense: https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1795777

"in its essence we're a West Coast football team, a West Coast passing game that's going to try to be the most physical group they can be up front when they run the ball"

I've heard Shaw say this as well. It seems that, other than geography, they have a different idea of what a west coast offense is than I do (which probably means I am wrong).

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Stanford under Shaw seems aimed at being something closer to the 1970s Raiders: a power-run game with a big line complemented by deep strike passes over the heads of the defense. I guess the Raiders were located on the west coast, but ...

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?
[/quote]

My understanding is that Stanford's offensive scheme has technical elements that come from the Bill Walsh version of the west coast offense and its descendants, such as the structure of the play calls and key elements of the blocking schemes (e.g., heavy use of pulling guards).  But the run-first approach is obviously different from the classic west coast offense emphasis on short passes. 

[Roberton3]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12423.msg125566#msg125566 date=1440557211]
Bloomgren gives more detail on the offense: https://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1795777

"in its essence we're a West Coast football team, a West Coast passing game that's going to try to be the most physical group they can be up front when they run the ball"

I've heard Shaw say this as well. It seems that, other than geography, they have a different idea of what a west coast offense is than I do (which probably means I am wrong).

I think of Joe Montana's 49ers as the epitome of the west coast offense - lots of short passing to the backs and TEs, slants to the receivers looking for yards after catch, smaller quick linemen, a running game focused on swing passes and sweeps.

Stanford under Shaw seems aimed at being something closer to the 1970s Raiders: a power-run game with a big line complemented by deep strike passes over the heads of the defense. I guess the Raiders were located on the west coast, but ...

Any other comments on the definition of a "west coast offense"?
Is there even such a definition any more?
[/quote]

My understanding is that Stanford's offensive scheme has technical elements that come from the Bill Walsh version of the west coast offense and its descendants, such as the structure of the play calls and key elements of the blocking schemes (e.g., heavy use of pulling guards).  But the run-first approach is obviously different from the classic west coast offense emphasis on short passes. 

[terry]

Bill Walsh ran the best known version of the west coast offense, but as I understand it, the concepts behind the west coast offense go back to Sid Gillman. There are other versions of the west coast offense, such as the Don Coryell version, which Coryell based on Gillman's principles.

Steve Young has said that the distinguishing characteristic of the west coast offense is that the receivers' routes are tied to the quarterback's feet so that there is a sense of timing. The pass routes and the QB's drop are timed so that each receiver comes open in succession, and the QB must deliver the ball precisely on time. This puts a premium on precise pass routes, sharp breaks, the QB's footwork, and the QB's ability to make the right reads on time. The west coast offense also incorporates multiple looks, option routes, and route trees.

The Walsh version of the west coast offense stretches the field horizontally, using lots of quick slants, swing passes, flooded zones, etc. The Sid Gillman version employed the same timing principles, but was more of a vertical passing offense. Walsh learned the Gillman offense from Al Davis, who coached under Gillman. Walsh ran a version of the Gillman offense when he had Greg Cook as his QB at Cincinnati. Then Cook was injured, and his replacement, Virgil Carter, didn't have the same arm strength as Cook. So Walsh adjusted the offense to rely more on short passes and to stretch the field horizontally. That worked for Walsh with Carter and later Ken Anderson, and became the basis for Walsh's Stanford and 49ers offenses.

To me, the Stanford version of the west coast offense seems somewhat similar to the Joe Gibbs version, which Gibbs developed after working under Coryell. But I'm sure Stanford incorporates a lot of Bill Walsh principles, given that Shaw played for Walsh and worked for Jon Gruden, who learned from a Walsh disciple, Mike Holmgren.

[terry]

Bill Walsh ran the best known version of the west coast offense, but as I understand it, the concepts behind the west coast offense go back to Sid Gillman. There are other versions of the west coast offense, such as the Don Coryell version, which Coryell based on Gillman's principles.

Steve Young has said that the distinguishing characteristic of the west coast offense is that the receivers' routes are tied to the quarterback's feet so that there is a sense of timing. The pass routes and the QB's drop are timed so that each receiver comes open in succession, and the QB must deliver the ball precisely on time. This puts a premium on precise pass routes, sharp breaks, the QB's footwork, and the QB's ability to make the right reads on time. The west coast offense also incorporates multiple looks, option routes, and route trees.

The Walsh version of the west coast offense stretches the field horizontally, using lots of quick slants, swing passes, flooded zones, etc. The Sid Gillman version employed the same timing principles, but was more of a vertical passing offense. Walsh learned the Gillman offense from Al Davis, who coached under Gillman. Walsh ran a version of the Gillman offense when he had Greg Cook as his QB at Cincinnati. Then Cook was injured, and his replacement, Virgil Carter, didn't have the same arm strength as Cook. So Walsh adjusted the offense to rely more on short passes and to stretch the field horizontally. That worked for Walsh with Carter and later Ken Anderson, and became the basis for Walsh's Stanford and 49ers offenses.

To me, the Stanford version of the west coast offense seems somewhat similar to the Joe Gibbs version, which Gibbs developed after working under Coryell. But I'm sure Stanford incorporates a lot of Bill Walsh principles, given that Shaw played for Walsh and worked for Jon Gruden, who learned from a Walsh disciple, Mike Holmgren.

[yvonne]

Another Scarlett brothers story:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...d-transfer

It seems they got after it in practice.

[yvonne]

Another Scarlett brothers story:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...d-transfer

It seems they got after it in practice.

[Rally]

Bill Walsh ran the best known version of the west coast offense, but as I understand it, the concepts behind the west coast offense go back to Sid Gillman. There are other versions of the west coast offense, such as the Don Coryell version, which Coryell based on Gillman's principles.

Steve Young has said that the distinguishing characteristic of the west coast offense is that the receivers' routes are tied to the quarterback's feet so that there is a sense of timing. The pass routes and the QB's drop are timed so that each receiver comes open in succession, and the QB must deliver the ball precisely on time. This puts a premium on precise pass routes, sharp breaks, the QB's footwork, and the QB's ability to make the right reads on time. The west coast offense also incorporates multiple looks, option routes, and route trees.

The Walsh version of the west coast offense stretches the field horizontally, using lots of quick slants, swing passes, flooded zones, etc. The Sid Gillman version employed the same timing principles, but was more of a vertical passing offense. Walsh learned the Gillman offense from Al Davis, who coached under Gillman. Walsh ran a version of the Gillman offense when he had Greg Cook as his QB at Cincinnati. Then Cook was injured, and his replacement, Virgil Carter, didn't have the same arm strength as Cook. So Walsh adjusted the offense to rely more on short passes and to stretch the field horizontally. That worked for Walsh with Carter and later Ken Anderson, and became the basis for Walsh's Stanford and 49ers offenses.

To me, the Stanford version of the west coast offense seems somewhat similar to the Joe Gibbs version, which Gibbs developed after working under Coryell. But I'm sure Stanford incorporates a lot of Bill Walsh principles, given that Shaw played for Walsh and worked for Jon Gruden, who learned from a Walsh disciple, Mike Holmgren.

And Holmgren babysat Harbaugh, who taught it all to Shaw.  This coaching gig is more closed than the steveadores' Union.

[Rally]

Bill Walsh ran the best known version of the west coast offense, but as I understand it, the concepts behind the west coast offense go back to Sid Gillman. There are other versions of the west coast offense, such as the Don Coryell version, which Coryell based on Gillman's principles.

Steve Young has said that the distinguishing characteristic of the west coast offense is that the receivers' routes are tied to the quarterback's feet so that there is a sense of timing. The pass routes and the QB's drop are timed so that each receiver comes open in succession, and the QB must deliver the ball precisely on time. This puts a premium on precise pass routes, sharp breaks, the QB's footwork, and the QB's ability to make the right reads on time. The west coast offense also incorporates multiple looks, option routes, and route trees.

The Walsh version of the west coast offense stretches the field horizontally, using lots of quick slants, swing passes, flooded zones, etc. The Sid Gillman version employed the same timing principles, but was more of a vertical passing offense. Walsh learned the Gillman offense from Al Davis, who coached under Gillman. Walsh ran a version of the Gillman offense when he had Greg Cook as his QB at Cincinnati. Then Cook was injured, and his replacement, Virgil Carter, didn't have the same arm strength as Cook. So Walsh adjusted the offense to rely more on short passes and to stretch the field horizontally. That worked for Walsh with Carter and later Ken Anderson, and became the basis for Walsh's Stanford and 49ers offenses.

To me, the Stanford version of the west coast offense seems somewhat similar to the Joe Gibbs version, which Gibbs developed after working under Coryell. But I'm sure Stanford incorporates a lot of Bill Walsh principles, given that Shaw played for Walsh and worked for Jon Gruden, who learned from a Walsh disciple, Mike Holmgren.

And Holmgren babysat Harbaugh, who taught it all to Shaw.  This coaching gig is more closed than the steveadores' Union.

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/KirkHerbstreit/statu...3325059072

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/KirkHerbstreit/statu...3325059072

[CTcard]

Perhaps a candidate for most ridiculous preview of the year, by Pat Forde.

It's one of those annoying click-throughs, so I don't necessarily recommend heading over there, but here is the link:
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/2015-coll...ncaaf.html

Foolish comment #1

Coach on the Rise: Sonny Dykes, California. Golden Bears took a big step up last year, to 6-7, after a 1-11 debut debacle for Dykes in 2013. His offensive credentials are well established, but last year Dykes made the Golden Bears' defense more respectable with the hire of coordinator Art Kaufman.

I am not necessarily complaining about the coach on the rise part, but the "more respectable" defense that Art Kaufman brought in ranked last in the Pac 12 in just about every category imaginable, and fairly close to last nationally.

Foolish comment #2

Coach on the Decline: David Shaw, Stanford. Decline sounds like an overstatement, but the Cardinal did take a significant dip last year to 8-5. Stanford has become more error-prone, trending down from a plus-9 turnover margin in 2012 to even in '13 to minus-5 last year. That said, this team is capable of a major rebound season that puts Shaw back on a roll.

First of all, he can't do that to our pledges, only the other Stanford fan sites can do that to our coaches.

And, he has to decide - is Shaw on the decline or not. If yes, you can't weasel out with the "capable of a major rebound season" disclaimer.

Foolish comment #3

Best Fight Song: USC. Fight bleeping On, Trojans

Might have forgiven him had he removed any words between bleeping and t.r.o.j.a.n.s.

[CTcard]

Perhaps a candidate for most ridiculous preview of the year, by Pat Forde.

It's one of those annoying click-throughs, so I don't necessarily recommend heading over there, but here is the link:
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/2015-coll...ncaaf.html

Foolish comment #1

Coach on the Rise: Sonny Dykes, California. Golden Bears took a big step up last year, to 6-7, after a 1-11 debut debacle for Dykes in 2013. His offensive credentials are well established, but last year Dykes made the Golden Bears' defense more respectable with the hire of coordinator Art Kaufman.

I am not necessarily complaining about the coach on the rise part, but the "more respectable" defense that Art Kaufman brought in ranked last in the Pac 12 in just about every category imaginable, and fairly close to last nationally.

Foolish comment #2

Coach on the Decline: David Shaw, Stanford. Decline sounds like an overstatement, but the Cardinal did take a significant dip last year to 8-5. Stanford has become more error-prone, trending down from a plus-9 turnover margin in 2012 to even in '13 to minus-5 last year. That said, this team is capable of a major rebound season that puts Shaw back on a roll.

First of all, he can't do that to our pledges, only the other Stanford fan sites can do that to our coaches.

And, he has to decide - is Shaw on the decline or not. If yes, you can't weasel out with the "capable of a major rebound season" disclaimer.

Foolish comment #3

Best Fight Song: USC. Fight bleeping On, Trojans

Might have forgiven him had he removed any words between bleeping and t.r.o.j.a.n.s.

[washingtonismoney]

Fight On is great music only for the easily forgetful and fascists.

[washingtonismoney]

Fight On is great music only for the easily forgetful and fascists.

[BostonCard]

Cal did improve it's ppg allowed from dead last 45.9 to dead last 39.8.  That's an improvement of 13.2%.  Then again, we improved our ppg allowed from a league leading 19 ppg to a league leading 16.4 ppg, an improvement of 13.7%.

They also improved their total yards allowed from a dead last 529.6 to a dead last 511.8, though that's only an improvement of 3.4%, and probably not statistically significant (I didn't run the analysis).  We improved our ypg allowed from a second-place 343.5 ypg to a league leading 282.4 ypg.  That's an improvement of 17.8%, which I suspect is statistically significant.

Where Cal did show a substantial improvement is in yards per play.  They went from 7.08 ypp to 6.27, an improvement of 11.4%. Perhaps more importantly, Cal escaped the cellar in 2014.  Of course we went from 4.86 ypp (second) to 4.21 ypp (a 13.4% improvement).

Bottom line is that for all of the raves of Cal's defensive improvement last year, we actually improved more in a relative sense.  Just we gave up many fewer points, yards, and yards per play so we had a much lower base to improve over.

BC

[BostonCard]

Cal did improve it's ppg allowed from dead last 45.9 to dead last 39.8.  That's an improvement of 13.2%.  Then again, we improved our ppg allowed from a league leading 19 ppg to a league leading 16.4 ppg, an improvement of 13.7%.

They also improved their total yards allowed from a dead last 529.6 to a dead last 511.8, though that's only an improvement of 3.4%, and probably not statistically significant (I didn't run the analysis).  We improved our ypg allowed from a second-place 343.5 ypg to a league leading 282.4 ypg.  That's an improvement of 17.8%, which I suspect is statistically significant.

Where Cal did show a substantial improvement is in yards per play.  They went from 7.08 ypp to 6.27, an improvement of 11.4%. Perhaps more importantly, Cal escaped the cellar in 2014.  Of course we went from 4.86 ypp (second) to 4.21 ypp (a 13.4% improvement).

Bottom line is that for all of the raves of Cal's defensive improvement last year, we actually improved more in a relative sense.  Just we gave up many fewer points, yards, and yards per play so we had a much lower base to improve over.

BC

[BostonCard]

Perhaps a candidate for most ridiculous preview of the year, by Pat Forde.

It's one of those annoying click-throughs, so I don't necessarily recommend heading over there, but here is the link:

Foolish comment #4:

Best Offensive Player: Cody Kessler, USC. No returning FBS quarterback can match Kessler's nearly 8-to-1 touchdown-to-interception ratio of 2014. Operating behind a veteran offensive line that returns intact from last year, Kessler could be every bit as effective in '15. (AP)

Unfortunately, this is the problem with running statistics based on few observations... running a Fisher's exact test on Kessler's 39 to 5 TD/Int ratio compared to Goff's 35/7 ratio gives a p-value of 0.5.    Even compared to Hogan's 19/8 ratio the p-value is 0.07.  Kessler does have one of the highest Pass efficiency ratings among returning players, and certainly within the Pac-12, and he's on top of the Pac-12 returners in yards per attempt (though in neither case have I tested for statistical significance), so a case can be made for best returning QB, but TD/INT ratio is one of the weakest stats to make it on.

Foolish comment #5:

Best Coach: Chris Petersen, Washington. Didn't set the league on fire in his first season in Seattle, and probably won't this year, either. But it will happen. If Petersen can go undefeated at Boise State (twice), he can win a Pac-12 title at Washington. (AP)

I do think that Petersen is a good coach, but his first-year record at UW (with a ton of defensive draft picks on the roster) stunk.  Even if Washington's poor performance is justified, I think it was still a downside surprise last year, and you'd think that you'd want to pick a coach who had surprised on the upside as "best coach".  How about Helfrich, who led his team to the finals, or Shaw (three straight BCS bowls, four bowls in four years), either of the Arizona coaches, or even Mora who brought UCLA back to relevance, even if they are struggling to take the next step.  I think I would want to see Petersen exceed expectations in the Pac-12 a couple times before saying he was the best coach in the conference.  Best coach in the WAC (or wherever Boise State played)?  Sure.  But in the Pac-12... not yet.

BC

[BostonCard]

Perhaps a candidate for most ridiculous preview of the year, by Pat Forde.

It's one of those annoying click-throughs, so I don't necessarily recommend heading over there, but here is the link:

Foolish comment #4:

Best Offensive Player: Cody Kessler, USC. No returning FBS quarterback can match Kessler's nearly 8-to-1 touchdown-to-interception ratio of 2014. Operating behind a veteran offensive line that returns intact from last year, Kessler could be every bit as effective in '15. (AP)

Unfortunately, this is the problem with running statistics based on few observations... running a Fisher's exact test on Kessler's 39 to 5 TD/Int ratio compared to Goff's 35/7 ratio gives a p-value of 0.5.    Even compared to Hogan's 19/8 ratio the p-value is 0.07.  Kessler does have one of the highest Pass efficiency ratings among returning players, and certainly within the Pac-12, and he's on top of the Pac-12 returners in yards per attempt (though in neither case have I tested for statistical significance), so a case can be made for best returning QB, but TD/INT ratio is one of the weakest stats to make it on.

Foolish comment #5:

Best Coach: Chris Petersen, Washington. Didn't set the league on fire in his first season in Seattle, and probably won't this year, either. But it will happen. If Petersen can go undefeated at Boise State (twice), he can win a Pac-12 title at Washington. (AP)

I do think that Petersen is a good coach, but his first-year record at UW (with a ton of defensive draft picks on the roster) stunk.  Even if Washington's poor performance is justified, I think it was still a downside surprise last year, and you'd think that you'd want to pick a coach who had surprised on the upside as "best coach".  How about Helfrich, who led his team to the finals, or Shaw (three straight BCS bowls, four bowls in four years), either of the Arizona coaches, or even Mora who brought UCLA back to relevance, even if they are struggling to take the next step.  I think I would want to see Petersen exceed expectations in the Pac-12 a couple times before saying he was the best coach in the conference.  Best coach in the WAC (or wherever Boise State played)?  Sure.  But in the Pac-12... not yet.

BC

[Mick]

With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

[Mick]

With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

[Rally]

With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?

[Rally]

With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=12423.msg125804#msg125804 date=1440732352]
With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?
[/quote]

I'd say he achieved the darned near impossible.  Now we'll see if he can do it with formerly 5-7 Michigan.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=12423.msg125804#msg125804 date=1440732352]
With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?
[/quote]

I'd say he achieved the darned near impossible.  Now we'll see if he can do it with formerly 5-7 Michigan.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12423.msg125805#msg125805 date=1440732607]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=12423.msg125804#msg125804 date=1440732352]
With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?
[/quote]

I'd say he achieved the darned near impossible.  Now we'll see if he can do it with formerly 5-7 Michigan.
[/quote]

Well, didn't he do something similar with the 49ers?

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12423.msg125805#msg125805 date=1440732607]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=12423.msg125804#msg125804 date=1440732352]
With respect to both C.al's improvement from 1-11 to 6-7 and Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

What was Harbaugh's progression?
[/quote]

I'd say he achieved the darned near impossible.  Now we'll see if he can do it with formerly 5-7 Michigan.
[/quote]

Well, didn't he do something similar with the 49ers?

[pcgoode]

Kirk Herbstreit picks Stanford to win the PAC 12 North, but lose to Arizona State in the CG.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

[pcgoode]

Kirk Herbstreit picks Stanford to win the PAC 12 North, but lose to Arizona State in the CG.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

[CTcard]

With respect to ... Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

Of course Washington improved from 9-4 to 8-6. So, it might be reasonable to expect them to continue to improve to 0.500 ball this year.

[CTcard]

With respect to ... Washington's improvement, I am reminded of an NFL head coach (sorry, can't quite recall who it was) who spoke of the ease of going from terrible to mediocre and the difficulty of going from mediocre to pretty darned good.  He said something like "Going from 4-12 to 8-8 in a season is easy.  Going from 8-8 to 12-4 the next season is darned near impossible."

So I suppose I'm saying that I doubt that either Yikes or Washington will do much more than .500 ball this year.

Of course Washington improved from 9-4 to 8-6. So, it might be reasonable to expect them to continue to improve to 0.500 ball this year.

[Rally]

I like this one.

http://www.chatsports.com/stanford-cardi...-why-21759

[Rally]

I like this one.

http://www.chatsports.com/stanford-cardi...-why-21759