The Stanford Buzz Nation-Wide is Dumbfounding

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

Chalk it up to "Talking Heads" & Reporters just not watching Pac12 football.

They have replaced UCLA as the program that gets a ton of early buzz living off of a few years in the past.

Few others on that list would be in my view:

• Notre Dame Football
• Tennessee Football
• Indiana Hoops
• Memphis Hoops

 

[Fab5Coug]

10-3
12-2
8-5
11-3
12-2
11-2

Those are David Shaw's records at Stanford. At what point does their buzz go from being "dumbfounding" to "pretty reasonable" to you?

 

[BiggsCoug]

10-3
12-2
8-5
11-3
12-2
11-2

Those are David Shaw's records at Stanford. At what point does their buzz go from being "dumbfounding" to "pretty reasonable" to you?

Shaw may put it together one of these years and make a run in the playoffs. Physical line play, sound defense, strong QB's. A couple playmakers on the perimeter and they're in the mix if their cards fall right.

He's done a great job there running with the program after Harbaugh left. Stanford is closer then most think to winning a national title.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

10-3
12-2
8-5
11-3
12-2
11-2

Those are David Shaw's records at Stanford. At what point does their buzz go from being "dumbfounding" to "pretty reasonable" to you?

From a win/loss perspective under Shaw, Stanford is a no-brainer Top 20 team for anyone with a shred of objectivity. They've definitely earned the respect. As someone who watched UW and WSU obliterate Stanford last year, I can't help but think that they were a paper tiger and more likely to go 8-4 than the 10-2 that many people project for them this year. The last five teams on their regular season schedule went 19-41. Stanford whipped them, but they were 5-3 against teams with a heartbeat in the first half of the season and I would have bet against Stanford if they had played either KSU or USC later in the season.

The Cardinal is a team that may be lucky to be a fringe Top 25 team by the end of the year. I'll be surprised if they can beat USC and SDSU is one of those sneaky good MWC teams that can bite you on their turf, which is where Stanford plays them this year. The game at Utah will be tough and we haven't been afraid of the Cardinal for a couple years now. UW should be rolling along when they go to the Farm late in the season. Notre Dame is going to be playing for their coach's job and they had a lot of close calls last year. So, the Cardinal have six pretty tough games on the schedule without worrying about the bottom half of our conference. Stanford is too good to lose all of those games, but if they play anything like they did in the middle third of last season......it could be a rough season for the Furd.

Still, Shaw and Stanford have earned the respect that they are getting.

 

[Fab5Coug]

From a win/loss perspective under Shaw, Stanford is a no-brainer Top 20 team for anyone with a shred of objectivity. They've definitely earned the respect. As someone who watched UW and WSU obliterate Stanford last year, I can't help but think that they were a paper tiger and more likely to go 8-4 than the 10-2 that many people project for them this year. The last five teams on their regular season schedule went 19-41. Stanford whipped them, but they were 5-3 against teams with a heartbeat in the first half of the season and I would have bet against Stanford if they had played either KSU or USC later in the season.

The Cardinal is a team that may be lucky to be a fringe Top 25 team by the end of the year. I'll be surprised if they can beat USC and SDSU is one of those sneaky good MWC teams that can bite you on their turf, which is where Stanford plays them this year. The game at Utah will be tough and we haven't been afraid of the Cardinal for a couple years now. UW should be rolling along when they go to the Farm late in the season. Notre Dame is going to be playing for their coach's job and they had a lot of close calls last year. So, the Cardinal have six pretty tough games on the schedule without worrying about the bottom half of our conference. Stanford is too good to lose all of those games, but if they play anything like they did in the middle third of last season......it could be a rough season for the Furd.

Still, Shaw and Stanford have earned the respect that they are getting.

Ironically, after beating Stanford, WSU beat 5 teams with a combined record of 19-38.

We could make anyone look like a paper tiger by selectively looking at their schedule, because largely, NCAA football schedules are crap.

 

[random soul]

Ironically, after beating Stanford, WSU beat 5 teams with a combined record of 19-38.

We could make anyone look like a paper tiger by selectively looking at their schedule, because largely, NCAA football schedules are crap.

I think Stanford's in a bit of a transition year. Next year, I wouldn't be surprised if they were division favorites

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Ironically, after beating Stanford, WSU beat 5 teams with a combined record of 19-38.

We could make anyone look like a paper tiger by selectively looking at their schedule, because largely, NCAA football schedules are crap.

That's my one concern for this year. When you look at our five losses, we played well enough to win except against UW, but we looked very mediocre at times in those losses. It's impossible to know if it's talent, enthusiasm, or what at times. Minnesota made us look particularly bad but bowl games are always hard to judge. The last two seasons suggest that Leach (or Falk?) has gotten us over the mental hump where we subconsciously expect to lose. Overall, the team has shown that they have some fire in their belly and do just enough to win more often than not. At the same time, this team has shown a tendency to let up and not stay focused and that has cost us several games. So, yes, I agree that WSU might be as much of a paper tiger as Stanford. Letting Colorado hang around because of dropped TD's and than letting the game get completely out of hand in the fourth quarter has me concerned in particular.

The good news is that at some point, undeniable trends occur and it's obvious that Stanford is one of those teams that is probably going to win 10+ games every year and that the relatively rare down year for them is 8-5 (2014). For us, we look like a team that is going to win 8+ games every year. I'm betting that Stanford is due for an 8-5 type year and I won't be surprised if we don't end up with just another boring old, run of the mill, 8-4 regular season again.

 

[Fab5Coug]

That's my one concern for this year. When you look at our five losses, we played well enough to win except against UW, but we looked very mediocre at times in those losses. It's impossible to know if it's talent, enthusiasm, or what at times. Minnesota made us look particularly bad but bowl games are always hard to judge. The last two seasons suggest that Leach (or Falk?) has gotten us over the mental hump where we subconsciously expect to lose. Overall, the team has shown that they have some fire in their belly and do just enough to win more often than not. At the same time, this team has shown a tendency to let up and not stay focused and that has cost us several games. So, yes, I agree that WSU might be as much of a paper tiger as Stanford. Letting Colorado hang around because of dropped TD's and than letting the game get completely out of hand in the fourth quarter has me concerned in particular.

The good news is that at some point, undeniable trends occur and it's obvious that Stanford is one of those teams that is probably going to win 10+ games every year and that the relatively rare down year for them is 8-5 (2014). For us, we look like a team that is going to win 8+ games every year. I'm betting that Stanford is due for an 8-5 type year and I won't be surprised if we don't end up with just another boring old, run of the mill, 8-4 regular season again.

I'm not sold that we win 8 every year. We will need rebuilding years too. I think those seasons will be of the 4 to 5 win variety with the "up" years being of the 9 to 10 win variety.

Basically, the ceiling of a Price team with the floor of a Doba team.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I'm not sold that we win 8 every year. We will need rebuilding years too. I think those seasons will be of the 4 to 5 win variety with the "up" years being of the 9 to 10 win variety.

Basically, the ceiling of a Price team with the floor of a Doba team.

We might be an 8+ win team the same way that Stanford always wins at least 10 games. Sometimes they don't. In a different thread, I posted a hypothetical series for seasons from 2015-2023 with the following regular season records:

2015: 8-4
2016: 8-4
2017: 10-2
2018: 5-7
2019: 7-5
2020: 10-2
2021: 6-6
2022: 8-4
2023: 9-3

That averages out to just under 8-4. I'd like to believe that Leach has us to the point where we don't drop to 4 wins or less again, but I agree that a dropoff is likely every few years. I'd bet that the average Coug fan would be willing to keep Leach on for life if we could accomplish the above. I'd even say that most fans would be happier with that result than 8-4 every......single......year. A little up and down makes you more appreciative than constant success.

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

10-3
12-2
8-5
11-3
12-2
11-2

Those are David Shaw's records at Stanford. At what point does their buzz go from being "dumbfounding" to "pretty reasonable" to you?

Tell me something about Stanford in 2017?

 

[Fab5Coug]

Tell me something about Stanford in 2017?

Using that rationale, isn't pre season buzz for every program unfounded?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Stanford's best aspect over the past decade has been that they very, very seldom beat themselves. And if your talent is merely equal to the other guys and you make very few mistakes, you will probably win 2 out of 3. If your talent is just a bit better than the average for your opponents and you make very few mistakes, then you end up with the consistent 8-10 win seasons.

It really is no more complicated than that, from what I can see.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Stanford's best aspect over the past decade has been that they very, very seldom beat themselves. And if your talent is merely equal to the other guys and you make very few mistakes, you will probably win 2 out of 3. If your talent is just a bit better than the average for your opponents and you make very few mistakes, then you end up with the consistent 8-10 win seasons.

It really is no more complicated than that, from what I can see.

You just described K-State's recipe for success under Bill Snyder. Keep the other guy in front of you, limit big plays and don't make mistakes yourself. To some degree, it's part of what has made WSU a better team, although Leach hasn't been quite as successful at getting guys to carry through. One of his mantras is his three goals: 1) Be a team, 2) Be the most excited to play, and 3) Be the best at your job. It's a different twist on the same theme.

 

[Fab5Coug]

You just described K-State's recipe for success under Bill Snyder. Keep the other guy in front of you, limit big plays and don't make mistakes yourself. To some degree, it's part of what has made WSU a better team, although Leach hasn't been quite as successful at getting guys to carry through. One of his mantras is his three goals: 1) Be a team, 2) Be the most excited to play, and 3) Be the best at your job. It's a different twist on the same theme.

Relentless K State comparisons.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Relentless K State comparisons.

This place wouldn't be the same without them!