Stanford Football 2014: We're Not Actually That Good

[Old Fart Tree]

This thread attracted a diverse array of four posters last year, so why not start it again?
 
I'll probably sound like I did last year - which is to say, like I've sounded every year since they got good - in saying "I have no idea how this team is ranked so high" but that's sort of my battered wife syndrome talking. Still, 11th in the country seems awful high for a team that lost significant talent on both sides of the ball. With Gaffney gone, they'll need a big year out of Hogan, and the thing that was so clear in the Rose Bowl was that they did not trust Hogan - not even a little bit - to make a play. Granted, the MSU pass rush was nasty, but their unwillingness to put the ball in Hogan's hands and let him sling it spoke volumes.
 
So, I'll put in my prediction of 8-4, with losses to U$C, ASU, OSU, and Oregon. My greater ambition is to get back on the field carrying a trombone at some point, because I'm old and my opportunities for fun are decreasing.

 

[cgori]

They'll probably let you play a traffic sign right now if you ask.
 
I think 8-4 is about right - however, I think people will step up that are not yet known (well) to me, and I'll be pleasantly surprised.  I don't trust Hogan much and this is his year, so with Hogan goes the team.
 
Of your losses, I agree with U$C, ASU and Oregon.  I think we lose to UW on the road, and beat OSU at home though.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

I have you guys losing to UCLA as well, but beating both ASU and OSU (and UW and ND) and going 9-3, with one of the toughest Pac-10/12 schedules in a while.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Larry on KNBR - big www.battersboxsf.com fan, btw - was talking about Hogan as a potential late first rounder yesterday. Huh? The guy they wouldn't trust to run a simple play action last year? Yikes.
 
I agree though; as goes Hogan, so goes the team this year. Fingers crossed.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I have you guys losing to UCLA as well, but beating both ASU and OSU (and UW and ND) and going 9-3, with one of the toughest Pac-10/12 schedules in a while.

 
This is where I'm at too. Pac 12 looks so good this season. Stan/Ore/UCLA are favorites but there's probably 7 teams that could win this conference and it not be a total shock. 

 

[sachmoney]

How does the offensive line look this year? I know it's funny because, in the Michigan thread, we just talk about how much our OL sucks, but it's a clear recipe of Stanford's success. I know you've lost several guys to the pros year after year, but I also know a guy like Josh Garnett is still there. How does the rest of the pack look? How are the running backs? 
 
Stanford is usually tough, physical, and well coached. David Shaw remains one of my favorite coaches in college football. I feel like I talked up your team last year, OFT, while you downplayed your chances. This season, I really haven't paid attention to how other teams are doing, but I think you're doing the glass is half empty thing again. I don't blame you because it's better for the team to exceed your expectations than come short. I'd say 9-3 is realistic, but I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford pulled off an "upset" against UCLA/ASU/Oregon. I expect them to beat USC. That team is going to fall apart again. Hopefully.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

They lost three starters on the O-Line and their two leading running backs plus a fullback, so the general consensus is that they'll have to throw more. However, I am skeptical that it'll resemble the (mediocre to terrible) Stanford teams of my youth, where they throw the ball all day in the Palo Alto sun but lack physical toughness. My fear is two-fold: first, that Hogan doesn't take the leap necessary to keep this offense on the field, and second, that Shaw is so stubborn that he'll try to run the same smash-mouth scheme even if he doesn't have the horses for it.
 
However, I would be lying if I said I knew whether the O-line replacements are good bad or otherwise; I just don't know enough about the personnel. (I am less worried about the RB rotation.) The strength of the team is definitely in its wideouts and its D-line.
 
It's definitely possible that I'm being overly pessimistic, but that is a product of watching Stanford mostly be a laughingstock for the first 30 years of my life. It's still hard for me to get my head around the idea of Stanford as a national power, so I look upon it with a certain amount of skepticism, facts be damned.

 

[coremiller]

The O-line will be fine. Their current junior class was an incredible recruiting class on the line. I'm more concerned about Hogan and the defense without Skove and Murphy.

Here's an article about Stanford's O-line succession planning: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2014/09/02/college-football-stanford-cardinal-offensive-line/14979515/

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Pretty good read about the U$C rivalry: http://www.ruleoftree.com/2014/9/4/6103197/the-absurdity-of-rivalry-a-history-of-stanford-and-uscs-insane-7-year

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Well, what an epic turd to lay on national TV. They dominated the game for all four quarters, made seven or eight trips inside the opponent's 25 yard line, and came away with 10 points.
 

1. Not Shaw's best game.
2. No fumble luck whatsoever; all three fumbles recovered by U$C. Change one of them and Stanford wins, albeit in a game they didn't deserve to win.
3. That phantom chop block call was absolutely devastating, and it was one of the worst calls I've ever seen in my life. But again, when you play that shitty, you don't deserve to blame the refs for losing.
4. Jordan Williamson is by all accounts a super nice guy, but holy fucking shit am I ready for him to be a consultant at fucking Bain or something because he has cost this team a handful of wins going all the way back to the OSU bowl game. I know coaches want to stick with their guy, and you don't want to waste scholarship spots on extra kickers but for fuck's sake, this guy - who by pure happenstance is apparently the all-time leading scorer at Stanford (!!!) - just needs to graduate and take a job that doesn't make me want to murder him 2-3 times per autumn.

 
The irony is that I am the Stanford pessimist and the way they pushed U$C all over the field for four quarters gave me cause for optimism. The bad playcalling, horrible turnovers, lack of discipline and stupid penalties just pissed it all away. That was a 31-13 win disguised as a 13-10 loss. Just ghastly.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

More on the dumpster fire that was the U$C loss:
 
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fei-ratings/2014/fei-week-2
 
Hey, if you're going to fuck up, you might as well fuck up *historically*. {sigh}

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Missed the second half entirely, just watched it on fast forward. A few thoughts:
 

1. Granted, they've played two cupcakes, but this defense is ferocious. Two shutouts (against cupcakes) and smothered U$C, held UW to 6 on the road in a really nasty place to play. If I was a defensive starter I would be so fucking furious at the offense and special teams; "LEARN YOUR TRADE!!!"
2. Jordan Williamson. What else is there to say? The kid is by all measures a "nice kid." And for FUCK'S SAKE I keep having to remind myself that wanting to murder a 21 year old is not "healthy." The amount that I just want him not to be on the team - let alone in a critically important scoring role - makes me really, really, very, incredibly sad.
3. Red Zone Offense. Why do I cross out the first two words? Because I want to tell the offense to do me a favor and not use those words. They are off limits to them. Only those who can score inside the 20 may use the words "Red" and "Zone," or any part of it. If they're in an Art History class, they should talk about Picasso's use of "the color darker than orange but not quite maroon." And, and, sometimes teams play "non-man" coverage. FOR FUCKING FUCK'S SAKE.
4. Bad decision by the UW QB at the end there to run it.
5. Washington is a very, very tough place to play so a 7 point win is a non-terrible outcome, but again, this team kicked Washington all over the field for four quarters and was still in a position to lose the game. I can't put this anywhere but on the coach. The red zone offensive disasters and the critical mistakes... He's gotten away with a lot of these over the years, but this is increasingly feeling like a team that has incredible talent and loses games it should win (a la U$C) because it pisses them away with penalties, red zone fuckups, and turnovers. That's one of the worst kinds of teams to root for in the world.

 

[Gdiguy]

I agree with all of those except for (partly) 5 - I'm starting to wonder whether some of the issue is just that Hogan isn't as good as we thought he was (which wasn't that high of a bar anyway).
 
I don't think he's bad by any means... but the more I watched today the more I was thinking that he doesn't really seem to be that accurate, and his decision-making can be pretty questionable (especially combined with his tendency to stare down and focus on his primary receiver). It's not really that surprising that that would lead to red zone problems - when there's plenty of space Stanford's run game is good enough to create relatively easy throws and open receivers, but when they're down in the red zone they just don't have the kind of short passing game that can succeed, and they don't have the WR/TE quality to throw bad fade routes and get bailed out by great catches. The commentators made a comment that Shaw & the offensive coaches were telling Hogan to run more, which I kind of think is the kiss of death - yeah, it could be that they think he's actually a good enough runner to make great plays with his feet, but I can't help but think is more that they're recognizing that after a few seconds in the pocket under pressure his odds of making a bad mistake skyrocket.
 
Some of it's definitely on the coaching (the penalties are getting really odd, though the PI that led to the TD today I thought was a pretty awful call), but I'm coming around to the reality that this team may be closer to the early Harbaugh teams with Pritchard at QB than the ones that actually had a great offense.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Interesting that you say that; I don't think you're wrong because I have started making fun of myself for the way I'm such a non-fan of a guy (Hogan) who is like 11-2 against ranked opponents. So I have never really thought Hogan was all that great, despite those stats (granted, a lot of that was with outstanding defenses and running attacks).
 
I think this resonates most with me: "when there's plenty of space Stanford's run game is good enough to create relatively easy throws and open receivers, but when they're down in the red zone they just don't have the kind of short passing game that can succeed." Yeah, that sounds about right, but... the horrible penalties in the red zone, those are on the coach. The turnovers, well, call it partially on the coach. And the ATROCIOUS frigging wildcat offense in the red zone, that's just inexcusably on the coach.

 

[Gdiguy]

Interesting that you say that; I don't think you're wrong because I have started making fun of myself for the way I'm such a non-fan of a guy (Hogan) who is like 11-2 against ranked opponents. So I have never really thought Hogan was all that great, despite those stats (granted, a lot of that was with outstanding defenses and running attacks).
 
I think this resonates most with me: "when there's plenty of space Stanford's run game is good enough to create relatively easy throws and open receivers, but when they're down in the red zone they just don't have the kind of short passing game that can succeed." Yeah, that sounds about right, but... the horrible penalties in the red zone, those are on the coach. The turnovers, well, call it partially on the coach. 

 
To me, a major part of the Hogan love was that Nunes was so bad that Hogan stepped in and seemed like a godsend. Maybe it's just his ceiling, but I just don't think he's improved since that point.
 
But I'm not going to give you any argument that Shaw is a great in-game coach. He's been a bit less infuriating this year that the past couple, but... yeah. However, he's kept the talent level pretty impressively, so on balance I've tempered my dislike of him to some degree. I think he's firmly in the range of "good but not great" - I'm not sure he could ever lead a national championship team all the way through, but I'm also not in a rush to go back to the mid 2000's, so if his ceiling is 11-2 and a top 10 finish, I think I'd take that.
 
 

 
 
And the ATROCIOUS frigging wildcat offense in the red zone, that's just inexcusably on the coach.

 
Good lord, those plays have caused me physical pain every single time they've happened over the past 4 years... I will absolutely not be shocked to learn someday that Shaw has made a small fortune betting the over on some bookie's "will Stanford run a wildcat play" wager under a fake identity.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

It's a good point that given the depths to which this program recently sunk, it seems a bit greedy to bitch about the coaching staff that helped bring them back to national prominence. That said... I am glad I'm not the only one who screams at the television when that stupid fucking wildcat would come out. God, it was even worse when Luck was on the team. You have the best player in college football; maybe he should touch the ball in the most important part of the field?

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Hm. Stanford line opened at Stanford -0.5 and is now Stanford -1.5.

 

[NickEsasky]

First round of Pliny's in December on the outcome Saturday?

 

[Senator Donut]

Hm. Stanford line opened at Stanford -0.5 and is now Stanford -1.5.

In a sport without ties, why would they open at -0.5?

 

[Old Fart Tree]

No idea. Maybe my friend was wrong, but he's usually pretty right on this stuff.
 
And sure, I guess I'll be a round of Pliny's. If the line got any higher I would be really tempted to bet ND, but I can't bring myself to bet on ND against Stanford, I just can't do it.
 
Edit: Bleacher Report said it opened as a pick'em, so maybe he was wrong.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

We are a badly coached team.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

The 100th best scoring defense just held Stanford to 0 points in the first half. I missed the game - goddammit, I'm a lucky guy in that sense - so it's hard for me to say whether the problem is a) Hogan just isn't that good, or b) we are not actually that well coached, but given what I've seen in weeks 1-5, I'm inclined to say c) both. I don't know how to change the title of an existing thread, but if I could, I would probably make this "Stanford Football 2014: We're Not Actually That Good."
 
Well, I was right on losing to U$C and ASU. Maybe we'll steal one against the Oregon schools, but with red zone problems like this, I could very easily see us losing both plus another game where we're favored, even Big Game, as well as UCLA. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that Stanford could end up 6-6. And someone had us ranked top ten preseason! Fucking Fuckity Fuck.
 
Oh well. It is Bizarro Stanford to have a killer defense and an inept offense, but here we are.

 

[cgori]

Use the full editor on your first post.  The thread title will be in a text box.
 
As far as your question - it's both.  I watched the game, it was just supremely frustrating - you were spared, in all honesty.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Yup.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Where do we think Williamson gets drafted? Afghanistan? (shakes head)

 

[Old Fart Tree]

I didn't really like Stanford +8.5, but I thought +300 was pretty juicy, so I took it. I figure Stanford wins this game maybe 35% of the time.
 
Here goes nothing!

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Well,
 
We're not that good a team. The red zone issues continue. Known whipping boy Jordan Williamson was actually a lone bright spot, but the much vaunted defense got its shit pushed in.
 
Oh well. I still think they can win Big Game and go to a shitty bowl, maybe end up top 20, but... nothing is guaranteed. I don't think they're well coached and their QB play is suspect. That's a shitty recipe.

 

[Dan to Theo to Ben]

Well,
 
We're not that good a team. The red zone issues continue. Known whipping boy Jordan Williamson was actually a lone bright spot, but the much vaunted defense got its shit pushed in.
 
Oh well. I still think they can win Big Game and go to a shitty bowl, maybe end up top 20, but... nothing is guaranteed. I don't think they're well coached and their QB play is suspect. That's a shitty recipe.

Really? This time last year Shaw was on a pedestal. I am not sure he's isn't their #1 strength right now, too, frankly.  They are B1G team at heart, out-talented it seems.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

The blame for horrible red zone playcalling, dumb penalties, and Hogan's failure to develop has to go somewhere. I think the head coach is the likely candidate.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Oh well. I still think they can win Big Game and go to a shitty bowl, maybe end up top 20, but...

You've got four losses. Recent history suggests you'd need to win out to crack the top 25. Top 20 seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

It goes without saying that it would require winning out plus a bowl game. Yeah, it's not very likely.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Put a fork in them; they're done.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

At least Cal gets the Big Gas Face.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

So, at least it's a quasi home game?

 

[cgori]

Claimed attendance 34,780 - no way in hell. Half that?

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Yeah not in that weather.

 

[Shelterdog]

Yeah who kept their S&C coach.  FUCK YOU MICHIGAN.