The CardBoard
Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - 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: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack (/thread-17821.html)


Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - hythloday1 - 07-03-2019

Howdy Stanford fans, I've written a roster preview of the Cardinal at Oregon's SB Nation site, including a podcast interview with Rule of Tree's Jack Blanchat. Last year y'all received my film study article pretty kindly so I thought I'd send this one along for your thoughts as well.

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - Spiny_Norman - 07-03-2019

(07-03-2019, 07:03 AM)hythloday1 Wrote:  Howdy Stanford fans, I've written a roster preview of the Cardinal at Oregon's SB Nation site, including a podcast interview with Rule of Tree's Jack Blanchat. Last year y'all received my film study article pretty kindly so I thought I'd send this one along for your thoughts as well.

hythloday1, you have seen #19 Noah Williams before. He caused CJ Verdell's fumble that gave Stanford a chance to tie the game late in the 4th quarter.

But I do think that all of your general observations are well-informed and reflect the views of many folks here. Hope springs eternal, but I am bracing for a difficult season.

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - SamuelMcF - 07-03-2019

Generally agree with Spiny, except for 1 point: the DTs/Reynolds. We're more bullish on Williams and Wade-Perry than your film study (of the first game of the season) would indicate.

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - hythloday1 - 07-03-2019

(07-03-2019, 10:37 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  Generally agree with Spiny, except for 1 point: the DTs/Reynolds. We're more bullish on Williams and Wade-Perry than your film study (of the first game of the season) would indicate.

What do you think of the notion that the d-line has gone downhill since Randy Hart retired?  Not true at all, just a meaningless blip soon to be remedied, or something else?

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - Snorlax94 - 07-03-2019

Thanks for sharing this, it’s very impressive to see people spending time really learning and analyzing opponents, especially when many sports writers and blogs make so many mistakes.

I’m really impressed with Oregon and I think they could be the pac 12 team with the best chance to make the playoffs.

I agree with the concerns generally, but am generally a bit more hopeful and I see a bit more possible upside. For one, I think Stanford is less likely to play young athletes until they’re ready, and sometimes when an unknown RS freshman or previously-unseen upperclassman starts for the first time, they do big things, like Paulsen Adebo last year. And, if a true Freshman is so talented he really can play his first year, the coaches have done a good job finding a way to get him touches, like with McCaffrey, Love, and Arcega-Whiteside their first years. So, even with a lot of new faces, sometimes there are some nice developments.

I agree that the loss of Randy Hart has been a great one. I remember watching him warm up his players in Pasadena... “This is the F***ing Rose Bowl!” he exhorted. As tor his replacement, I think Stanford has finally had a few good years recruiting for that position. If the dline struggles this year and next, that will not reflect well. So for me, the jury is not in yet.

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - CTcard - 07-03-2019

(07-03-2019, 11:26 AM)hythloday1 Wrote:  What do you think of the notion that the d-line has gone downhill since Randy Hart retired?  Not true at all, just a meaningless blip soon to be remedied, or something else?

MY initial thoughts, without thoroughly checking,

- The DL has roughly been going down hill since 2013. That includes the final two years of Randy Hart.
- A lot of the drop off in the DL was lack of players; to some extent lack of excellent players but even a lack of bodies at all. That's a recruiting problem. Since it takes some time for players to develop and play out their careers, that also partly reaches back into the Hart era.
- The DL was better last year, certainly versus 2017, even if not near the glory years of 2010-13. DL play is hard to quantify that in stats, but last year was our best in yds/rush allowed and sacks since 2014. [Which, yes - is not only a function of the DL, but these seem the most relevant stats that are easily available for a DL.]

That said, Randy Hart was around for the best Stanford DLs that I have seen in my fandom years and took a remarkable number of lightly to non-recruited guys and turned them into serviceable players and even stars. The DLs since he left have not been as good. Many Stanford fans have wondered about how Reynolds stacks up to Hart. But that isn't a static issue. It's not hard to think that Reynolds wasn't as good when both came to Stanford (after all, Reynolds was about 50 years behind in experience) but that he is gaining and learning as he goes.

At any rate, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about Stanford's DL for this season, but it has to actually happen.
Safeties and inside linebackers appear the biggest concerns on defense.

RE: Stanford football preview at Addicted to Quack - BostonCard - 07-03-2019

I agree with CTCard.  To add to it, we had several years between 2012 and 2016 where we were under-recruiting at DL, which, combined with a couple injury retirements and on-field disappointments left us generally undermanned at the position. The DL was generally able to hold up because of a couple of NFL-caliber players (Solomon Thomas and Harrison Phillips), but there was a profound lack of depth.  That started changing with the 2016 recruiting class, where we signed 5 defensive linemen, and was fortified by decent recruiting classes since then.  The result is that we have a viable, experienced two-deep at every DL position.

The bad news is that barring position changes, we struck out in 2019, and so far only have one defensive commit in 2020.  Especially if Thomas Booker goes pro after next year, we may again be looking at a big hole in the line-up in 2021.

BC