The CardBoard
Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns (/thread-14213.html)


Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - Langdude - 09-05-2017

The last two years, I have posted my thoughts – and invited yours – on playing true freshmen. I have called the post “Burnt Shirts;” I realize this is an imperfect title given that it is usually reserved for playing true freshmen, usually somewhat into the season, who initially had been reserved for a redshirt year. Here I am using “Burnt Shirts” to refer to any true freshmen played: Stanford, I believe, for reasons I have documented before, has a greater interest in redshirting freshmen relative to other elite programs. My rationale is here if you want to look, but it can be summarized as (1) playbook, (2) Turley, (3) five years (viz., players will stay longer since very few contributing Stanford players transfer or flunk out, and I think there are fewer NFL early entries than other elite programs, though I know that the tide could be changing), and (4) recruiting (having smaller classes fits our smaller pool, enabling us to concentrate on fewer recruits).

I already know some of you disagree, which is great. To be clear, I am not suggesting that true freshmen should not play; I am merely suggesting that there should be a significant burden of evidence for the benefit of playing a true freshman at all. For instance, perhaps if a freshman will be a starter or second string contributor, burn the shirt. Other arguments could be made that a true frosh should play if they are a ST performer or to give experience for the future; I am less sanguine about those reasons, but understand the rationale. Remember that there are lots of Stanford players than have spoken of the benefit of redshirting, including early entries Solomon Thomas, Andrew Luck, and Joshua Garnett, who did not redshirt. It seems the coaching staff agrees with this rationale more or less, as each year we see a small number of true freshmen play.

Anyway, I want to look at those that played last year, and then take a stab at guessing the true freshmen that will play this year. Obligatory disclaimer: In suggesting how good last year’s burns were, I am only guessing. Coaches are smarter than me and notice things I did not. I am often wrong, and probably am here. So there.

2016 Burns
Last year, only five four true freshmen played, fewer than I anticipated.

Donald Stewart
10 games played; 2 catches for 17 yards (only Taijuan Thomas with fewer). It seems that Stanford quite often likes to play one true frosh each at receiver, linebacker, and DB, so it made sense Stewart would play, especially since he was such a heralded recruit. He was not productive in terms of catches and yards, but I am guessing that he was also on special teams, and of course he got some game experience. Yet it seemed to me that Stanford already had plenty of receivers last year with more PT and productivity (Irwin, JJAW, Rector, Owusu; CMac, Bryce, and Schultz, and Taboada also had more catches, IBS the same number; I believe Jay Tyler lined up at receiver but had no catches); the fact that Stewart did not play every game could suggest that he was not indispensable, so I don’t think this was a clear-cut great burn unless his contributions on ST in 10 games were truly special, which they could have been.

Curtis Robinson
Played in all 13 games with 13 tackles (11th among LBs, 5th and last among OLBs, but more tackles than Terrence Alexander, Jordan Watkins, or Luke Kaumatule); one sack. Again, seems like Stanford likes to play one frosh linebacker. When I watched Robinson play last year, he did not strike me as outstanding, but perhaps they were grooming him. And perhaps he was a contributor on special teams, like Mustafa Branch his frosh year; I did predict that they might play Robinson or Jordan Fox on STs. But given how little he played on defense (never on the two-deep), I wonder how useful his burn was.

Nate Herbig
Played in all 13 games with 6 starts (all wins). I think it is clear how much we benefitted from HeBIG playing last year. (For the record, I did predict it!) Perhaps the most productive true frosh lineman to play since … I don’t know … Jeff Buckey? Maybe more; he made the ESPN true freshman AA team. Excellent burn. I wish he would have started sooner, but perhaps he was not yet ready.

Richard McNitzky
13 games played as the “starting long snapper”; C.J. Keller was the “starting short snapper.” I am going to guess this was very much helpful if they decided McNitzky was better than Keller for long snaps. We all know how important snaps are to the punter, especially deep in our own territory. Great burn.

Jack Richardson
He played in one game; can’t remember if it was on ST, but likely it was to snap the ball in garbage time in an early contest because he preserved his redshirt, so no burn.

Last Year’s Predictions
Not sure about you, but there were only a few very mild surprises for me regarding frosh who were not played. I thought they’d play one true frosh DB; I thought Treyjohn Butler would play, and that Andrew Pryts might be a ST contributor if Butler was not, but I was wrong on that. I thought that coaches would groom at least one frosh DL to deepen the shallow pool that has plagued that position in recent years (I figured Mike Williams), but they must not have been ready. Given the poor play of our o-line, I was surprised they never played Devery Hamilton. I thought maybe they’d play Trevor Speights to get ready for the post CMac era, but they didn’t. Finally, since we obviously like the three TE sets, I thought that if Kaden Smith was healthy enough go at some point in the season that he would play and that, if not, it was possible that Scooter Harrington would see some snaps; neither came true.

2016 Frosh No Longer on Roster
That’s it for now; would love to hear your thoughts on last year’s burnt shirts. I’ll post next on this year’s redshirts, maybe tomorrow or the next day.

-m.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - BobK - 09-05-2017

From Richardson's Bio:

As a Freshman (2016)
• Did not see action

He is a walk on BTW.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

Also, in the case of limited action/early year playing time(something like <30% of games, all within the first half of the season), the redshirt is only preserved if the player becomes injured.  If they do not play in other games due to coaching decision, they lose one of their years.

BC

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - Langdude - 09-05-2017

BobK and BC:

Yes, Richardson and Peus were both preferred walk-on QBs in 2016. And though Richardson's bio says that he did not see any action, he did appear in one game according to game participation reports, so it must have been an early game and he must have become injured.

-m.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

Or the participation report was wrong.  It's been known to happen.

BC

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - DC 86 - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 06:37 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Or the participation report was wrong.  It's been known to happen.

BC

Especially when two players wear the same number, as Richardson and A-W did last year.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - Langdude - 09-05-2017

Ah, great point. That's probably it. Thanks, BC and DC.

I'm pretty geeky with participation reports after games, and I remember them being wrong sometimes last year (multiple errors after the UCLA game, for instance), so I probably should have thought of that. I corrected the post.

-m.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - CTcard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 06:58 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17318.msg199254#msg199254 date=1504661829]
Or the participation report was wrong.  It's been known to happen.

BC

Especially when two players wear the same number, as Richardson and A-W did last year.
[/quote]

This is just to agree and confirm.
The posted game participation reports are often wrong, with the most common error confusing players wearing the same number. Last year we apparently had three guys wearing #19: JJAW, Richardson, and Ryan Gaertner - a walk on senior CB.
It's rare to have three guys sharing a number and rare to have two guys who play on the same side of the ball. Since having two guys with the same number on the field at the same time is a penalty, having two guys from the offense with the same number pretty much means the staff knows one won't be playing.

EDIT - already corrected but I am leaving it up to comment on the oddity of three guys with one number on last year's roster.

-------------
Back to the substance of the post.

I am also surprised that only four frosh played last year. Despite the common wisdom that Shaw won't play frosh, that seems a very small number to me. And it was a big class.
25 signed - 2 going on mission + 1 from previous year (Fox) = 24 frosh?

Of the four, Herbig was obviously important, and McNitzky was discussed as going to play from the get-go - so I assume the staff thought his long snapping skills very necessary (as you noted).

That leaves Stewart and Robinson.

I think that Stanford often plays a frosh receiver because a) we use a surprising number of them for a team that doesn't pass much, and b) just lately that is among our toughest positions to recruit (along with DL).
Stewart wasn't particularly highly rated by the services, but we did beat out Michigan for him.
Going into last season we had three WR who had played significant downs: Rector, Irwin, Owusu. I can see why they were looking for a fourth, though it turns out that JJAW is the guy who came through. I don't think the coaches knew that is how things would shake out.

[By the way, going into this season the WR situation looked more dire from the outside. Only JJAW and Irwin had really done anything, and of course JJAW was(is?) injured. But with Stewart appearing to be ready, Weddington emerging, and Parkinson effectively playing as a WR, that situation has at least calmed down.]

Robinson is an interesting case. He was our second highest rated recruit (at least by some services, I didn't check them all), and our highest rated guy who came in healthy (the higher rated guy being Kaden Smith). The coaches also appeared set to play Robinson from the outset, which given the depth we had/have at LB made me wonder if that was a recruiting promise. I thought he looked athletic but a little lost out there. Thus this is the not-redshirting decision I most question, though if that is what it took to get him then by all means.



Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - washingtonismoney - 09-06-2017

Based on the Rice game, Robinson still looks to be way down the OLB pecking order. Which makes the 2016 redshirt burn more mysterious (purely from an on-the-field perspective).

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2017

My expectation was that Robinson would take a big leap from his Frosh to Soph year, based on the fact he was a 5 star recruit, and would be one of Stanford's best pass rushers.

Rice was not a typical offense to defend.  Stanford's OLBs couldn't really give their best pass rushing effort with all the jet sweep action, when they had outside contain responsibility. This week will provide more opportunities to see how Stanford's OLBs, and in particular, Robinson, rushes the QB.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - Langdude - 09-06-2017

CT:

Cogent analysis re: Robinson and Stewart.

As far as Robinson goes, it could be that they promised he'd play this year as a recruiting edge. Another possibility is that the staff felt some pressure (internally or externally) to play such a highly ranked recruit given that he was the only defensive freshman to play, and the highest rated after Kaden Smith and K.J. Costello.

As far as Stewart goes, I hear you that they may have been thinking they needed a fourth receiver, and may not have trusted JJAW would be it. The only problem is that Stewart didn't even play until after JJAW's coming-out party vs. UCLA. His first game was in the debacle against UW. Here's another theory. Given how stagnant our offense was early on, the coaches panicked against UW (or in the week after UCLA and leading up to UW) and played him, looking for some sort of spark. I dunno. But it didn't work. The other possibility, as I noted, for both Stewart and Robinson is that they killed on STs.

-m.

Re: Burnt Shirts, 2017 Edition. Part I: 2016 Burns - BostonCard - 09-06-2017

Most likely reason though is that they excelled in practice but underwhelmed in games.  It happens sometimes.

BC