The CardBoard
Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - 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: Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford (/thread-23694.html)

Pages: 1 2

Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - Maple Leaf - 11-09-2022

https://gostanford.com/documents/2022/11/8/2022_Stanford_Football_Notes_-_10_Utah_Depth_Chart.pdf

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - BostonCard - 11-09-2022

It’s just a chart. We have no depth.

BC

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - SamuelMcF - 11-09-2022

Some folks should probably reconsider whether we truly "have the talent" if the depth chart looks like this after a couple injuries.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - msqueri - 11-09-2022

The depth chart only looks disastrous at RB and ILB, which have had quite a bit more than a "couple" of injuries.

That being said, to only go one deep at RB on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - Row80Critic - 11-09-2022

I say they put Walter Rouse in at RB.  Start him 10 yards deep so he can get up a head of steam...

And let's remember to celebrate the micro-victories.  Leigber played an entire game as a Stanford running back and is not out for the season.  So that's good.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - BostonCard - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 12:09 PM)msqueri Wrote:  to only go one deep at RB with a converted safety on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

Fixed it for you.  And yes, injuries have hit the running back room, but that wouldn't have been an issue had our top two running backs not entered the portal after last year, and even then, we'd be looking at having a top freshman running back playing had he too not left the team midseason.  One event like that is understandable in this day and age; two and you think maybe you just have rotten luck, but at this point (and especially since these are not the first player to transfer away with eligibility remaining) this points to a severe systemic problem.

Last comment, which is that saying "but for running back and linebacker the depth chart doesn't look disastrous" is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln about the play.  You cannot point to great depth at wide receiver and say that it should make up for the fact that you only have one player, a converted safety, at running back (unless you can bring back Ty Montgomery).  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

BC

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - SamuelMcF - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 01:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

Having followed recruiting very closely for a number of years, this was something we could've seen coming miles away. I've been banging the drum about our staff's "reactive" approach to recruiting, which is what results in situations like this time and time again. We have been playing whack-a-mole at many positions instead of signing a full - or at least mostly full - complement of guys everywhere, every year.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - msqueri - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 01:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(11-09-2022, 12:09 PM)msqueri Wrote:  to only go one deep at RB with a converted safety on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

Fixed it for you.  And yes, injuries have hit the running back room, but that wouldn't have been an issue had our top two running backs not entered the portal after last year, and even then, we'd be looking at having a top freshman running back playing had he too not left the team midseason.  One event like that is understandable in this day and age; two and you think maybe you just have rotten luck, but at this point (and especially since these are not the first player to transfer away with eligibility remaining) this points to a severe systemic problem.

Last comment, which is that saying "but for running back and linebacker the depth chart doesn't look disastrous" is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln about the play.  You cannot point to great depth at wide receiver and say that it should make up for the fact that you only have one player, a converted safety, at running back (unless you can bring back Ty Montgomery).  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

BC

I wasn't trying to dispute any of the points in this post. I was responding to SamuelMcF's subtweet (sub-post?) of me. I don't think our RB and ILB situation can be used to make a sweeping claim about the talent on our roster. That's not to say they're not glaring deficiencies. I have railed loudly and often in recent years about the shortcomings in both position pipelines. SamuelMcF and I have long been in violent agreement about this. You can tell from following recruiting where vulnerabilities are going to arise down the line.

My view is that Stanford has at least top 40 talent nationally (objective metrics would say top 25). That is not mutually exclusive with there being massive holes on the roster. Fans often underestimate how many issues other teams have. A team with the 25th best talent in the nation is going to have some significant roster problems.

My sense is that where SamuelMcF thinks I'm off-base, though I don't want to speak for him, is in his sense that transfers have now allowed a broad swath of non-Stanford teams to fill those holes such that Stanford's roster problems are sui generis compared to other Power Five teams. I think this is an interesting hypothesis that, if the spirit moves me, I'd like to look into in more detail in the off-season. Absent that, though, I'm not persuaded merely by the numbers of incoming transfers at other schools. The way to really assess this is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis that looks across all position groups. I'd be shocked if there were 25+ teams in the country (and I GUARANTEE you there aren't 40+ such teams) that didn't have 1+ highly problematic position groups, but that's just a hypothesis on my end.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - pokey - 11-09-2022

Remember the years when we had Nick Frank, converted DL, to play RB (initially FB, but IIRC he was being given some modicum of carries)?

(11-09-2022, 01:50 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:  I say they put Walter Rouse in at RB.  Start him 10 yards deep so he can get up a head of steam...

And let's remember to celebrate the micro-victories.  Leigber played an entire game as a Stanford running back and is not out for the season.  So that's good.


RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - Giants - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 02:16 PM)msqueri Wrote:  
(11-09-2022, 01:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(11-09-2022, 12:09 PM)msqueri Wrote:  to only go one deep at RB with a converted safety on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

Fixed it for you.  And yes, injuries have hit the running back room, but that wouldn't have been an issue had our top two running backs not entered the portal after last year, and even then, we'd be looking at having a top freshman running back playing had he too not left the team midseason.  One event like that is understandable in this day and age; two and you think maybe you just have rotten luck, but at this point (and especially since these are not the first player to transfer away with eligibility remaining) this points to a severe systemic problem.

Last comment, which is that saying "but for running back and linebacker the depth chart doesn't look disastrous" is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln about the play.  You cannot point to great depth at wide receiver and say that it should make up for the fact that you only have one player, a converted safety, at running back (unless you can bring back Ty Montgomery).  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

BC

I wasn't trying to dispute any of the points in this post. I was responding to SamuelMcF's subtweet (sub-post?) of me. I don't think our RB and ILB situation can be used to make a sweeping claim about the talent on our roster. That's not to say they're not glaring deficiencies. I have railed loudly and often in recent years about the shortcomings in both position pipelines. SamuelMcF and I have long been in violent agreement about this. You can tell from following recruiting where vulnerabilities are going to arise down the line.

My view is that Stanford has at least top 40 talent nationally (objective metrics would say top 25). That is not mutually exclusive with there being massive holes on the roster. Fans often underestimate how many issues other teams have. A team with the 25th best talent in the nation is going to have some significant roster problems.

My sense is that where SamuelMcF thinks I'm off-base, though I don't want to speak for him, is in his sense that transfers have now allowed a broad swath of non-Stanford teams to fill those holes such that Stanford's roster problems are sui generis compared to other Power Five teams. I think this is an interesting hypothesis that, if the spirit moves me, I'd like to look into in more detail in the off-season. Absent that, though, I'm not persuaded merely by the numbers of incoming transfers at other schools. The way to really assess this is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis that looks across all position groups. I'd be shocked if there were 25+ teams in the country (and I GUARANTEE you there aren't 40+ such teams) that didn't have 1+ highly problematic position groups, but that's just a hypothesis on my end.

https://247sports.com/Season/2022-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

As noted, Stanford ranks 23rd in the “247 Team Talent Composite”.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - oldalum - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 08:58 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  It’s just a chart. We have no depth.
The title of this thread should be "Lack of Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford"

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - martyup - 11-09-2022

I was going to do a deep dive into our depth chart but . . .

[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fforgifs.com%2Fgallery%2F...ipo=images]

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - Madera86 - 11-09-2022

The depth chart for "what"? 

What is a Uath?

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - newguy - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 08:35 PM)Madera86 Wrote:  The depth chart for "what"? 

What is a Uath?

i believe it's the University of Utah......home of the Utes.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - Madera86 - 11-09-2022

(11-09-2022, 10:16 PM)newguy Wrote:  
(11-09-2022, 08:35 PM)Madera86 Wrote:  The depth chart for "what"? 

What is a Uath?

i believe it's the University of Utah......home of the Utes.

LOL. Thanks, but that was my attempt at humor by alluding to a scene from My Cousin Vinnie. Obviously, I will not be quitting my day job.

RE: Depth Chart for Uath - Stanford - BostonCard - 11-09-2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6qGwmXZtsE

BC

RE: Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - newguy - 11-09-2022

good one lol

RE: Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - Langdude - 11-10-2022

This does strike me as a culmination of years of unforced errors. Like SMF, I have been utterly befuddled at our recruiting pipelines, or lack thereof. We should always be at 84 or 85 scholarships, without needing to give one or three to walk-ons to make it seem like we have a fuller boat than we do. We should always be recruiting for all positions every year, especially the lines. We've seen in past years what happens when you don't recruit safeties or quarterbacks and defensive linemen, and now we're seeing it at RB and ILB. And coaches/recruiters should always have a personnel chart so that they can see years in advance where they need to be focusing.

We are simply too thin, and our margin for error on recruits is too narrow, for us to not get as many personnel options as we can. We seem to do this pretty well with PWOs, getting multiple guys who can contribute. We should do it more with, you know, actual recruits.

I guess that the team finally got the memo and recruited safeties ... so we use one of them to play RB (and moved another two years ago to ILB). (It is pretty crazy that a D-I starting running back was a safety like two weeks ago.)

-m.

RE: Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - SamuelMcF - 11-10-2022

(11-10-2022, 12:22 AM)Langdude Wrote:  This does strike me as a culmination of years of unforced errors. Like SMF, I have been utterly befuddled at our recruiting pipelines, or lack thereof. We should always be at 84 or 85 scholarships, without needing to give one or three to walk-ons to make it seem like we have a fuller boat than we do. We should always be recruiting for all positions every year, especially the lines. We've seen in past years what happens when you don't recruit safeties or quarterbacks and defensive linemen, and now we're seeing it at RB and ILB. And coaches/recruiters should always have a personnel chart so that they can see years in advance where they need to be focusing.
We were at a full 85 scholarships to begin the season before departures (Bragg med retirement, Manley off the team, Harris entering the portal). The real issue was the lopsided distribution of said scholarships, which you're of course correctly alluding to.

FWIW the RB recruiting/depth pipeline actually looked pretty good until the year-long catastrophe that has been transfers and injuries. ILB, as you mention, is a nightmare waiting to happen (and that is currently happening thanks to injuries), and DL is currently a nightmare again (though may actually be pretty solid in 2 years if guys stick around).

(11-10-2022, 12:22 AM)Langdude Wrote:  We are simply too thin, and our margin for error on recruits is too narrow, for us to not get as many personnel options as we can. We seem to do this pretty well with PWOs, getting multiple guys who can contribute. We should do it more with, you know, actual recruits.
The number of older "steak eaters" on the team - "bonafide P5-level," if not legitimately good, recruits that have not panned out - seems larger than it used to be. And of course there are 3*s almost everywhere now, especially on defense.

RE: Depth Chart for Utah - Stanford - BostonCard - 11-10-2022

(11-10-2022, 11:01 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  The number of older "steak eaters" on the team - "bonafide P5-level," if not legitimately good, recruits that have not panned out - seems larger than it used to be. And of course there are 3*s almost everywhere now, especially on defense.

Yes, this.  In fact, more broadly, we have done a terrible job developing players.  Players that look promising as freshmen stall in development, and while normally you would look for them to be stars as upperclassmen, they are nearly adequate or actually regress, while few players seem to "emerge" as juniors and seniors.  It has gotten to the point that if I don't see a player make substantial contributions as freshmen or sophomores, I assume they will turn out to be steak eaters.

BC