A view of the Stanford loss ... from the other side
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 8, 2009 8:40 PM PDT
in Cougar Football
5 comments
Remember Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News, the guy who helped us get a first look at Stanford? Yeah, he's considerably less impressed with the WSU effort than we were:
A 26-point road victory would warrant an A+ if it came against any other team. But the Cougars, abominable last year, will be considered not-quite-abominable this year on the Hotline until proven otherwise.
Other than having two decent tailbacks, they’re so devoid of talent, speed and experience — by my count, six defensive starters did not play last season — that they cannot expose any weaknesses in their opponent, can’t apply pressure on any particular unit.
Stanford must be extremely wary of gaining a false sense of security.
And then, this gem:
For WSU, with its second-rate talent and third-rate quarterback, to move the ball as well as it did (350 yards) does not bode well for Stanford against real teams.
So ... tell us how you really feel!
Truly, though, it's hard to argue with his assessment. It just sucks to hear it put so plainly, you know?
0 recs |
5 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Positive sign, though?
He has us ranked No. 9 in his weekly Pac-10 rankings.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 9, 2009 7:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I feel bad for Stanford
Nobody gives those guys credit for being a decent team. Wilner boasted that Stanford’s defense is strong in the podcast, and we moved the ball on them. Instead of looking at that as our offense drastically improving, Wilner sees all the negatives. Look, Stanford is a tough, shove-the-ball-down-your-throat kind of team. They have a chance to beat any team in the Pac-10—Cal and maybe USC might be long shot (although Harbaugh has beaten both with worse Stanford teams). I could see Stanford pulling an OSU either this year or the next and getting to the top of the Pac-10. It just must be depressing to be a Stanford fan because nobody believes in them. Besides that, it is just frustrating that lack of faith in Stanford makes us look even worse.
Wilner reminds me of that smooth talking sports writer/commentator that makes harsh comments and everyone is supposed to respect him for that. But I truly despise that type of writer/commentator because they make quick judgments and they usually end up eating their words. I value insight (i.e. CougCenter) over quick-jab sports journalism.
by JimtheCoug on Sep 9, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He's definitely a "show-me" kind of writer
Personally, I kind of like that — they tend not to overreact to anything after one week. The final margin of the game and the overall stats would suggest that the Cougs are marginally improved, but it’s all really just guesswork, anyways. One game is such an unbelievably small sample size.
These things always sort themselves out over a season. If Stanford really is that good — or, better yet, if the Cougs really are that much improved — it will show over the next few weeks. After three or four games, there generally aren’t any more mirages.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 9, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if you were a gambling man...
Would you pick Stanford over Wake this week?
by cfred on Sep 9, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since I'm not a gambling man, I have no idea
I think it’s a little silly to wager my hard-earned teacher’s salary on 19-22 year olds — I ’m still young enough to remember what I was like at that age, and the kinds of things that, um, influenced my performance in a number of areas.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 9, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
