Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.

1. Team A vs. Team B

It's time to play everybody's favorite game: Team A vs. Team B!

Team A Team B 2014 F/+ rank 18 5 Avg. F/+ rank (last 5 years) 8.4 43.4 2014 Off. S&P+ rank 45 35 Avg. Off. S&P+ rank (last 5 years) 21.6 45.0 2014 Def. S&P+ rank 5 1 Avg. Def. S&P+ rank (last 5 years) 16.0 41.2 Avg. yardage margin (last 4 FBS games, 2014) +0.7 -0.1 Avg. scoring margin (last 4 FBS games, 2014) +16 -15 Offensive starters returning in 2015 7 7 Three-year starting QB back? Yes No

TL;DR Richard Mackson-USA TODAY Sports



Projected S&P+ ranking: 11



5-year recruiting ranking: 15



Biggest strength: With quarterback Kevin Hogan healthy, the passing game should be as dangerous as it was in 2013.



Biggest question mark: Stanford's defense has been as good as anybody's over the last three years, but losing nine starters is still awfully scary.



Biggest 2015 game: Call it a tie between home games against UCLA (Oct. 15) and Oregon (Nov. 14). Win those two, and the Cardinal might become Pac-12 favorites.



In one sentence: It takes faith to call Stanford a contender despite losing so much on defense, but each of the Cardinal's primary concerns -- run offense, defensive line play, secondary play, special teams -- have been strengths in recent history. : 11: 15: With quarterback Kevin Hogan healthy, the passing game should be as dangerous as it was in 2013.: Stanford's defense has been as good as anybody's over the last three years, but losing nine starters is still awfully scary.: Call it a tie between home games against UCLA (Oct. 15) and Oregon (Nov. 14). Win those two, and the Cardinal might become Pac-12 favorites.It takes faith to call Stanford a contender despite losing so much on defense, but each of the Cardinal's primary concerns -- run offense, defensive line play, secondary play, special teams -- have been strengths in recent history.

Team B was better in 2014, while Team A has the long-term edge and looked quite a bit better down the stretch. Team B must replace its longtime starting quarterback, while Team A's is back after catching fire late in his junior year (last 5 games: 72 percent completion rate, six touchdowns, two interceptions).

Team B is Ole Miss.

Team A is Stanford.

Ole Miss seems to have established residence between about 10th and 14th in the preseason polls. Stanford is, in some cases, barely ranked.

Now, these types of comparisons are undergone with specific points of view in mind, and there's usually some spin involved. It's true that Ole Miss' offense fell into a late-season funk, then lost its starting QB, while Stanford picked up steam and returns a lot of key pieces. But the Rebels also return most of their defensive line and secondary; Stanford, to say the least, does not.

I actually think Ole Miss' top-15 status is pretty well warranted, but you could make a reasonable case that wherever the Rebels are, the Cardinal should be just as high.

Ole Miss is new to top-level football and faltered badly in 2014. Meanwhile, because of a midseason funk, Stanford produced its worst rating since 2009. But the Cardinal still ranked a healthy 18th.

And while we can debate how far Oregon might fall post-Mariota and wonder which of the loaded Pac-12 South squads can make the loudest noise, we probably shouldn't forget about David Shaw's squad on The Farm. It took a pretty significant midseason funk just to drop Stanford to 18th, and it took three three tight losses to drop the Cardinal to 8-5.

2014 Schedule & Results

Record: 8-5 | Adj. Record: 9-4 | Final F/+ Rk: 18 Date Opponent Opp. F/+ Rk Score W-L Percentile

Performance Adj. Scoring

Margin Win

Expectancy 30-Aug UC-Davis N/A 45-0 W 98% 47.6 100% 6-Sep USC 16 10-13 L 85% 24.5 90% 13-Sep Army 121 35-0 W 98% 50.0 100% 27-Sep at Washington 58 20-13 W 88% 27.6 98% 4-Oct at Notre Dame 34 14-17 L 45% -2.7 24% 10-Oct Washington State 77 34-17 W 91% 30.8 100% 18-Oct at Arizona State 27 10-26 L 28% -13.3 3% 25-Oct Oregon State 74 38-14 W 90% 30.6 100% 1-Nov at Oregon 3 16-45 L 29% -12.7 0% 15-Nov Utah 29 17-20 L 48% -1.0 31% 22-Nov at California 65 38-17 W 84% 23.6 98% 28-Nov at UCLA 12 31-10 W 94% 35.4 99% 30-Dec vs. Maryland 62 45-21 W 96% 40.2 100%

Category Offense Rk Defense Rk S&P+ 32.0 45 15.4 5 Points Per Game 27.2 80 16.4 2

2. Getting in, and out of, your own way

So, about that midseason funk:

Average Percentile Performance (first 4 games) : 92% (~top 10 | record: 3-1)

: 92% (~top 10 | record: 3-1) Average Percentile Performance (next 6 games) : 55% (~top 60 | record: 2-4)

: 55% (~top 60 | record: 2-4) Average Percentile Performance (last 3 games): 91% (~top 10 | record: 3-0)

Going by Win Expectancy (which looks at a given game's key stats and says "with these stats, you would have won this game X percent of the time"), only two 2014 games produced a less likely result than Stanford's 13-10 loss to USC: Bowling Green's 45-42 win over Indiana and Ball State's 32-29 win over CMU.

It was an incredible result, really. Stanford outgained USC by 122 total yards and 1.2 yards per play, held the ball for nearly 34 minutes of possession, committed fewer penalties, completely dominated the field position battle (average starting field position: Stanford 38, USC 20) and advanced inside USC's 40 on every single possession. To lose took an incredible, unlikely level of failure: two missed field goals, two lost fumbles, a turnover on downs, and, most memorable, two punts from inside the USC 35.

That loss established the tenor for the season as a whole. Stanford, which had previously struggled to close drives more than one would think for an effective, beefy offense, was absolutely horrendous in scoring opportunities. The Cardinal were never that bad again, but they were bad: they blew two more opportunities in an otherwise dominant performance against Washington, blown chances cost them in losses to Arizona State and Utah, and for the season, they averaged a paltry 3.9 points per scoring opportunity, 109th in the country and almost impossibly low for a team that was otherwise reasonably efficient.

That doesn't really explain the midseason funk, however. What happened that sent Stanford from the 90th percentile to the 55th for half the season?

Kevin Hogan got hurt against Notre Dame, for one thing. We don't know how seriously because it wasn't really disclosed, but while he did well against Washington State, he was horrendous against Notre Dame and Arizona State: 37-for-75, 370 yards, no touchdowns, two interceptions, six sacks.

Hogan is underrated as a mobile threat, and he struggled to adapt with limited mobility. This was a particular issue because, as strange as it feels to say, Stanford couldn't run the ball. Leading rusher Remound Wright only gained five-plus yards on 29 percent of his carries, and Stanford was forced to go with more of a pass-first approach than it had in previous years.

Stanford's ratings were dragged down by three specific games: Notre Dame, ASU, and Oregon. The defense was fine in the first two but got gouged by a Ducks squad looking for vengeance. For the most part, when the team struggled, it was because the O struggled.

Regardless, Hogan was awesome down the stretch. Against defenses good (UCLA), decent (Maryland), and bad (California), he completed 45 of 59 passes for 637 yards, four scores, and no picks, and he was sacked just once. Freshman Christian McCaffrey was also able to add some late spice to the run game. After rushing just 13 times all year to date, he carried 29 times for 217 yards in the final four games.

The defense remained sound, and Stanford looked like Stanford again down the stretch. The Cardinal destroyed both UCLA and UCLA's Pac-12 South hopes, then manhandled an overmatched Maryland squad to finish the season on a three-game win streak.

In 2015, the questions change. The offense is seasoned and, for now, healthy. But the defense has suffered serious attrition at the front and back.

Offense

FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 0.85 67 IsoPPP+ 108.8 48 EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 45.0% 36 Succ. Rt. + 101.6 65 FIELD POSITION Def. Avg. FP 27.8 25 Def. FP+ 103.0 33 FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Trip in 40 3.9 109 Redzone S&P+ 85.0 113 TURNOVERS EXPECTED 23.7 ACTUAL 21 -2.7

Category Yards/

Game Rk S&P+ Rk Success

Rt. Rk PPP+ Rk OVERALL 77 48 52 48 RUSHING 72 61 90 45 PASSING 66 39 26 52 Standard Downs 48 44 55 Passing Downs 52 73 42

Q1 Rk 36 1st Down Rk 51 Q2 Rk 34 2nd Down Rk 63 Q3 Rk 95 3rd Down Rk 67 Q4 Rk 107

3. Misplaced mojo

It definitely got better at the end of the year, and perhaps that's all that matters. But Stanford's full-season offensive numbers belie a team that just couldn't finish anything. The Cardinal ranked in the top 40 in Off. S&P+ in the first and second quarters, and in the bottom 40 in the third and fourth. Their success rate ranked 44th on standard downs but 73rd on passing downs. And as mentioned, they were simply mind-blowing (in a bad way) when it came to putting the ball in the end zone.

A lot of this indeed came from run struggles. Remound Wright never really found his footing as the new starter, but you can forgive him if he perhaps didn't feel his blocking was up to snuff. Stanford had to replace four line starters who had combined for 134 career starts, basically 10 combined seasons. Three of the departed were all-conference performers, and guard David Yankey was a consensus All-American. Stanford's line stats disintegrated: from 12th to 59th in Adj. Line Yards and from 67th to 103rd in opportunity rate. The Cardinal held steady when it came to keeping defenders out of the backfield (even the sack rates were fine when Hogan had two healthy legs), and they still got a push in short yardage, but there was a clear drop here.

Stanford must now replace another All-American: tackle Andrus Peat. But the rest of last year's two-deep is back, and in terms of star ratings, Stanford has recruited better on the offensive line than anywhere else. If Christian McCaffrey's late-season showing is any indication, they might have a pretty exciting back to block for, too.

Quarterback

Note: players in bold below are 2015 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.

Player Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Comp Att Yards TD INT Comp

Rate Sacks Sack Rate Yards/

Att. Kevin Hogan 6'4, 225 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8765 232 352 2792 19 8 65.9% 20 5.4% 7.1 Evan Crower

15 27 183 1 0 55.6% Ryan Burns 6'5, 227 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9272 Keller Chryst 6'5, 231 RSFr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9745

4. Hogan bounced back

Whatever Kevin Hogan hurt against Notre Dame, it clearly impacted his performance for a little while. Take out the ND, Wazzu, and ASU games, and here's his stat line from 2014: 71 percent completion rate, 12.4 yards per reception, 2.5 percent INT rate. This hints at improvement over 2013 (61 percent, 14.6 yards per completion, 3.4 percent INT rate) even if there wasn't as much explosiveness.

The biggest difference in explosiveness came from the way that Ty Montgomery was used. In 2013 he was a revelation, combining a decent 62 percent catch rate with a monstrous 15.7 yards per catch. He and Devon Cajuste (62 percent, 23.0 yards per catch) made for a devastating duo. But perhaps because of both a shoulder injury and the lack of play-action effectiveness (the run wasn't very good, so the play-action was far less likely to work), Montgomery just wasn't much of a deep threat. Cajuste still had his moments, but Montgomery became a possession receiver.

While Stanford misses 2013 Montgomery dearly, 2014 Montgomery is easier to replace. With Cajuste back and a trio of exciting sophomore tight ends -- Austin Hooper, Greg Taboada, and Eric Cotton combined to catch 56 of 77 passes (73 percent) for 797 yards (14.2 per catch) -- it appears Hogan could have the weapons he needs.

At least, he does if the run game brings anything to the table.

Running Back

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Rushes Yards TD Yards/

Carry Hlt Yds/

Opp. Opp.

Rate Fumbles Fum.

Lost Remound Wright RB 5'9, 204 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9056 135 601 11 4.5 4.6 28.9% 1 1 Kevin Hogan QB 6'4, 225 Sr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8765 71 438 5 6.2 5.1 45.1% 9 5 Kelsey Young RB

67 331 0 4.9 4.1 38.8% 2 0 Barry Sanders RB 5'10, 198 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9598 59 315 0 5.3 6.2 35.6% 0 0 Christian McCaffrey RB 6'0, 197 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9556 42 300 0 7.1 8.8 38.1% 1 1 Ty Montgomery WR

23 144 1 6.3 3.3 60.9% 3 2 Ricky Seale RB

23 57 1 2.5 1.5 8.7% 0 0 Patrick Skov FB

12 18 4 1.5 0.0% 1 1 Daniel Marx FB 6'2, 247 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8308 Bryce Love RB 5'10, 180 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9077 Cameron Scarlett RB 6'1, 215 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9037 Reagan Williams FB 6'3, 235 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8528 Houston Heimuli FB 5'11, 230 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8260

















Receiving Corps

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Targets Catches Yards Catch Rate Target

Rate %SD Yds/

Target NEY Real Yds/

Target RYPR Ty Montgomery WR

94 61 604 64.9% 25.4% 60.6% 6.4 -132 6.5 91.6 Austin Hooper TE 6'4, 249 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8778 56 40 499 71.4% 15.1% 62.5% 8.9 25 9.1 75.6 Devon Cajuste WR 6'4, 229 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8463 54 34 557 63.0% 14.6% 55.6% 10.3 144 10.3 84.4 Michael Rector WR 6'1, 185 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8242 47 24 324 51.1% 12.7% 55.3% 6.9 20 7.0 49.1 Francis Owusu WR 6'3, 215 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9085 21 11 138 52.4% 5.7% 47.6% 6.6 -1 6.6 20.9 Christian McCaffrey RB 6'0, 197 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9556 18 17 251 94.4% 4.9% 61.1% 13.9 58 14.2 38.0 Greg Taboada TE 6'5, 242 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8731 13 9 170 69.2% 3.5% 61.5% 13.1 63 12.5 25.8 Jordan Pratt WR

12 7 83 58.3% 3.2% 50.0% 6.9 -3 6.7 12.6 Jeff Trojan WR

12 12 77 100.0% 3.2% 41.7% 6.4 -58 6.1 11.7 Remound Wright RB 5'9, 204 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9056 10 8 67 80.0% 2.7% 80.0% 6.7 -26 5.9 10.2 Eric Cotton TE 6'6, 239 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8653 8 7 128 87.5% 2.2% 75.0% 16.0 48 15.7 19.4 Barry Sanders RB 5'10, 198 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9598 8 7 47 87.5% 2.2% 50.0% 5.9 -33 5.4 7.1 Kelsey Young RB

6 5 31 83.3% 1.6% 33.3% 5.2 -27 4.2 4.7 Dalton Schultz TE 6'6, 239 RSFr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9513 Isaiah Brandt-Sims WR 5'11, 175 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8613 Trent Irwin WR 6'2, 185 Fr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9629 JJ Arcega-Whiteside WR 6'3, 210 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8625 Jay Tyler WR 5'8, 165 Fr. 2 stars (5.4) 0.8141

5. No pressure, Christian

If the run works, the play-action works, and Hogan will have a few easier passes to make each game. Maybe to a tight end zipping up the seam or downfield to either Cajuste or Michael Rector, another weapon who was neutered in 2014 (from 30.8 yards per catch to 13.5) [Update: Rector has been suspended indefinitely for "disciplinary reasons"]. And maybe blue-chip signee Trent Irwin, one of the best high school deep threats, is able to rip the top off of defenses as a freshman.

But it really does depend on the run game. Stanford went from top-30 in Rushing S&P+ to just outside of the top 60, and the effects were noticeable, especially near the goal line.

McCaffrey in particular hinted at being able to break that up. Though not as stocky as the Stanford running backs we've grown accustomed to, he was able to make more of the creases he found and did serious damage in the open field, both as a runner and receiver. He averaged 7.1 yards per carry and also caught 17 of 18 passes at nearly 15 yards per catch. He is a speedy, aggressive threat for an offense that desperately needs one, and his versatility could open things up for both other runners and other pass catchers.

If McCaffrey is as good as he hinted late last year (which is obviously far from a given), this offense rebounds dramatically. It should improve regardless, but he holds the key to greater improvement.

Offensive Line

Player Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. Career Starts Honors/Notes Andrus Peat LT 26 All-American, 2014 1st All-Pac-12 Kyle Murphy RT 6'7, 298 Sr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9933 12 2014 2nd All-Pac-12 Joshua Garnett LG 6'5, 325 Sr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9817 13 Graham Shuler C 6'4, 287 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9057 12 Johnny Caspers RG 6'4, 297 Jr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8382 11 Brendon Austin LG 6'6, 296 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9156 2 Nick Davidson OT 6'7, 288 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8811 0 Casey Tucker OT 6'6, 305 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9617 0 David Bright OG 6'5, 295 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8432 0 Jesse Burkett C 6'4, 288 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8535

Brandon Fanaika OG 6'3, 321 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8953

A.T. Hall OT 6'5, 278 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8625

Nick Wilson OG 6'3, 286 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.8923

Brian Chaffin C 6'2, 285 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8691

Jack Dreyer OT 6'8, 296 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8600

Austin Maihen OG 6'5, 285 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8321





SIGN UP FOR OUR COLLEGE FOOTBALL NEWSLETTER Get all kinds of college football stories, rumors, game coverage, and Jim Harbaugh oddity in your inbox every day. Email:

Defense

FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE Raw Category Rk Opp. Adj. Category Rk EXPLOSIVENESS IsoPPP 0.69 2 IsoPPP+ 161.8 1 EFFICIENCY Succ. Rt. 35.1% 9 Succ. Rt. + 129.3 5 FIELD POSITION Off. Avg. FP 33.4 12 Off. FP+ 107.1 10 FINISHING DRIVES Pts. Per Trip in 40 3.7 15 Redzone S&P+ 120.9 15 TURNOVERS EXPECTED 17.5 ACTUAL 16.0 -1.5

Category Yards/

Game Rk S&P+ Rk Success

Rt. Rk PPP+ Rk OVERALL 3 2 5 1 RUSHING 7 3 4 7 PASSING 8 4 14 1 Standard Downs 5 14 3 Passing Downs 2 4 1

Q1 Rk 24 1st Down Rk 1 Q2 Rk 6 2nd Down Rk 3 Q3 Rk 1 3rd Down Rk 1 Q4 Rk 3

6. The Lance Anderson experiment worked pretty well

Stanford had to replace not only some key defensive play-makers -- linebackers Trent Murphy and Shayne Skov, ends Josh Mauro and Ben Gardner, safeties Ed Reynolds and Usua Amanam -- but the Cardinal were also breaking in new starters with a new coordinator. With former DC Derek Mason off to Vanderbilt, David Shaw promoted Lance Anderson to become the new Willie Shaw Director of Defense.

Stanford remained a top-5 defense according to Def. S&P+, combining extreme efficiency with the country's best big-play prevention. The Cardinal were solid in the first quarter and great thereafter, so good that "24th in Q1 S&P+" and "14th in standard downs success rate" seem like weaknesses.

Safe to say, Anderson knows what he's doing. At least, he knew what he was doing with last year's talent. This time around, he's got even more pieces to replace: last year's top three defensive linemen and top five defensive backs and two of four starting linebackers. Yikes.

Defenses that lose nine starters regress. Period.

Assuming another top-5 or top-10 performance from this defense is like betting on a single number in roulette. Sure, you might win, but it's not bloody likely. Still, it's not hard to talk yourself into a pretty gentle fall. Anderson is good, and at this point Stanford has a track record. If Alabama lost nine starters, you'd still expect a pretty good unit the next year; the same goes for the Cardinal, who have ranked fifth, third, and fifth in Def. S&P+ since 2012.

One other thing is encouraging: almost all of last year's second string returns. No unit will be going all in with freshmen; in fact, the Cardinal could end up starting as many as 10 juniors and seniors. Shaw has long made it a point to play as many guys as he can, and that could keep the bottom from dropping out too terribly much.

Defensive Line

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Henry Anderson DE

13 52.5 7.9% 14.5 8.0 0 2 0 0 David Parry NT

12 23.0 3.4% 8.0 5.0 0 0 0 0 Blake Lueders DE

13 19.0 2.8% 5.0 1.5 0 0 0 0 Brennan Scarlett

(California) DE 6'4, 260 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9325 5 8.5 1.2% 2.5 2.0 0 1 1 0 Aziz Shittu DE 6'3, 275 Sr. 5 stars (6.1) 0.9538 5 7.5 1.1% 1.5 1.0 0 1 0 0 Harrison Phillips NT 6'4, 270 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8594 6 6.5 1.0% 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 Torsten Rotto NT 6'2, 236 Sr. NR NR 5 2.0 0.3% 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 Nate Lohn NT 6'3, 265 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8769 Jordan Watkins DE 6'5, 262 Jr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9045 Solomon Thomas DE 6'3, 275 RSFr. 4 stars (6.0) 0.9881 Dylan Jackson DE 6'6, 250 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8615 Wesley Annan NT 6'4, 290 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8593



















7. Got the horses?

The scariest questions come up front. Shaw's playing-time policy might be pretty inclusive overall, but that wasn't really the case on the defensive line, where only three players played in more than six games and logged more than nine tackles. Backup Aziz Shittu got hurt, which led to sudden playing time for freshman Harrison Phillips and walk-on Torsten Rotto. As solid as recruiting has been overall, there wasn't much depth here thanks to the commitment to redshirting blue-chipper Solomon Thomas.

When you don't have depth and then lose all three starters, that's frightening. In theory, Stanford could be fine up front, but success will require players in new roles stepping up. Shittu will finally get a full opportunity to prove his blue-chip bona fides, and Phillips is your new starter at nose tackle. Cal graduate transfer Brennan Scarlett is a welcome addition, and Thomas could be a sturdy force from Week 1 on. But assuming someone gets hurt, who are the backups? Stanford was able to perform at an elite defensive level despite the most perilous of depth last year, but this year the Cardinal might be even thinner up front.

Linebackers

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Blake Martinez ILB 6'2, 247 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8564 13 77.0 11.5% 7.0 4.5 3 2 2 0 A.J. Tarpley ILB

13 62.5 9.4% 4.5 2.0 1 0 0 1 Kevin Anderson OLB 6'4, 245 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8560 13 41.5 6.2% 11.0 5.0 0 0 0 0 James Vaughters OLB

13 41.0 6.1% 11.0 6.5 0 3 2 0 Peter Kalambayi OLB 6'3, 245 So. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9315 13 25.5 3.8% 9.5 6.5 1 1 1 0 Noor Davis ILB 6'4, 243 Jr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9725 13 14.5 2.2% 0.0 0.0 1 1 0 0 Kevin Palma ILB 6'2, 253 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8910 11 13.5 2.0% 2.0 0.5 0 0 0 0 Luke Kaumatule OLB 6'7, 276 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9104 13 5.5 0.8% 1.5 1.5 0 0 0 0 Joe Hemschoot OLB

10 4.5 0.7% 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Mike Tyler OLB 6'5, 230 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8381 Joey Alfieri OLB 6'3, 228 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9149 Bobby Okereke ILB 6'3, 217 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9268 Jordan Perez ILB 6'2, 207 RSFr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8547 Lane Veach OLB 6'6, 233 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8538 Jordan Fox OLB 6'2, 218 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8594 Gabe Reid OLB 6'2, 235 Fr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8504 Mustafa Branch ILB 5'11, 220 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8478 Casey Toohill OLB 6'4, 235 Fr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8478

Secondary

Name Pos Ht, Wt 2015

Year Rivals 247 Comp. GP Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR Jordan Richards SS

13 66.0 9.9% 2.5 0 3 5 3 0 Alex Carter CB

13 37.0 5.5% 0 0 1 9 1 0 Zach Hoffpauir FS

12 34.5 5.2% 4 0 0 5 0 0 Kyle Olugbode FS

12 29.0 4.3% 1.5 0 1 5 0 0 Wayne Lyons CB

13 24.0 3.6% 0 0 0 3 1 0 Ronnie Harris CB 5'10, 173 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8535 13 23.0 3.4% 5 0 0 0 1 0 Terrence Alexander CB 5'10, 178 So. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8668 13 10.5 1.6% 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dallas Lloyd SS 6'3, 213 Jr. 3 stars (5.7) 0.8843 9 8.0 1.2% 1 0 0 0 0 0 John Flacco FS

13 5.5 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ra'Chard Pippens CB 6'2, 195 Sr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8469 10 5.0 0.7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kodi Whitfield SS 6'2, 204 Sr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8759 12 4.5 0.7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taijuan Thomas CB 5'10, 174 So. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8268 Calvin Chandler FS 6'2, 196 So. 2 stars (5.2) 0.7667 Brandon Simmons FS 6'0, 182 RSFr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.9106 Alijah Holder CB 6'2, 174 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8685 Alameen Murphy CB 5'11, 185 RSFr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8507 Denzel Franklin SS 6'0, 198 RSFr. 3 stars (5.5) 0.8423 Frank Buncom IV CB 6'2, 188 Fr. 4 stars (5.9) 0.9428 Ben Edwards S 6'0, 200 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8892 Quenton Meeks CB 6'2, 190 Fr. 4 stars (5.8) 0.8831 Justin Reid S 6'1, 196 Fr. 3 stars (5.6) 0.8857

8. Roster Management 101

If the line holds up, it's harder for me to worry about the back eight. Linebackers Blake Martinez and Kevin Anderson are proven disruptive forces, and Peter Kalamayi very much passed his freshman audition. Between Noor Davis, Kevin Palma, and some exciting redshirt freshmen, a pretty good fourth starter will emerge. And if the line is occupying blockers, these linebackers will do everything we've come to expect from Stanford LBs.

Of course, that's kind of burying the lede. The big questions are in the secondary, where Stanford is double dipping -- after losing four of their top eight heading into last year, the Cardinal must now replace six of their top nine.

Senior corner Ronnie Harris is a keeper, and some rotation time should pay off for both sophomore Terrence Alexander and junior Dallas Lloyd. But as important as the line and Christian McCaffrey might be to this team's success, the Cardinal's recent recruiting efforts in the secondary could make the single biggest impact on Stanford's success.

You usually know in advance when you're about to suffer some pretty significant graduation losses, and Stanford loaded up on DBs in the 2014 class, then did so again in February. The result is a batch of exciting former four-star recruits -- safety Brandon Simmons and three true freshmen -- and a few athletic three-stars. If a couple of them can be trusted in 2015, then a secondary of Harris, Alexander, Lloyd, seniors Ra'Chard Pippens and Kodi Whitfield, and a couple of youngsters could be alright. Not great, but pretty good.

Special Teams

Punter Ht, Wt 2015

Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20

Ratio Ben Rhyne 56 39.8 5 10 14 42.9%

Kicker Ht, Wt 2015

Year Kickoffs Avg TB OOB TB% Jordan Williamson 69 64.0 41 2 59.4%

Place-Kicker Ht, Wt 2015

Year PAT FG

(0-39) Pct FG

(40+) Pct Jordan Williamson 43-43 11-16 68.8% 4-6 66.7% Conrad Ukropina 6'1, 189 Sr. 1-1 0-0 N/A 0-0 N/A

Returner Pos. Ht, Wt 2015

Year Returns Avg. TD Ty Montgomery KR 17 25.2 0 Christian McCaffrey KR 6'0, 197 So. 5 18.2 0 Ty Montgomery PR 12 19.8 2 Christian McCaffrey PR 6'0, 197 So. 9 17.1 0

Category Rk Special Teams F/+ 79 Field Goal Efficiency 81 Punt Return Efficiency 65 Kick Return Efficiency 70 Punt Efficiency 106 Kickoff Efficiency 18 Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency 110

9. Misplaced mojo, part 2

As confusing as it may have been to see a meaty, powerful offense like Stanford's struggling to get a push in the red zone (but not elsewhere), it was almost as disorienting to see Stanford playing mediocre special teams. The Cardinal ranked second in special teams efficiency in 2013 and 12th in 2012 but fell to 79th. Montgomery was still a dangerous return man, but he was far less consistent in his returns; plus, Ben Rhyne lost nearly three yards in his punting average, and Jordan Williams, great on longer kicks, missed five field goals under 40 yards. This was just a sloppy unit.

Stanford could return to form in this regard, but it will be with new players. Rhyne, Williamson, and Montgomery are all gone; McCaffrey could be dangerous here, but you almost worry about overuse if he ends up counted on to become the new Montgomery AND the new star running back. And either way, Stanford's got mostly new legs.

2015 Schedule & Projection Factors

2015 Schedule Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk 5-Sep at Northwestern 62 12-Sep Central Florida 60 19-Sep at USC 13 25-Sep at Oregon State 70 3-Oct Arizona 34 15-Oct UCLA 7 24-Oct Washington 55 31-Oct at Washington State 66 7-Nov at Colorado 75 14-Nov Oregon 4 21-Nov California 51 28-Nov Notre Dame 16

Five-Year F/+ Rk 45.2% (3) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 17 / 15 2014 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -5 / -6.1 2014 TO Luck/Game +0.4 Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.) 11 (9, 2) 2014 Second-order wins (difference) 9.4 (-1.4)

10. Faith and recent history

It's not hard to like Stanford in 2015, but it takes a little bit of faith. You have to assume that new linemen and defensive backs will be somewhere between solid and good, and you have to figure that, after a 2014 stumble, the run game and special teams units become relative strengths.

Since we've seen plenty of success in all of these areas in either 2013, 2014, or both, I find myself giving the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, this is a Count The Ifs team.

If the run game moves back to a top-40 level, the offense will be quite good again.

If the run defense maintains a top-20 level (which would represent a pretty big drop from last year's No. 3 ranking in Rushing S&P+), Stanford will still be a top-20 team.

If the pass defense also maintains a top-20 level, Stanford is a Pac-12 North contender.

If the special teams unit is again a strength, this is a top-10 team and potential Playoff contender.

Stanford isn't getting the preseason benefit of the doubt that I expected, and with the defensive turnover, maybe that's smart. But it doesn't take many ifs to make the Cardinal an elite or nearly elite team again. And with Oregon, UCLA, and Notre Dame all coming to Palo Alto, a "nearly elite" team might produce elite results.