The CardBoard
Whitfield to safety - 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: Whitfield to safety (/thread-6751.html)

Pages: 1 2

Whitfield to safety - washingtonismoney - 02-17-2014

Per Stanford's facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/photos/a.152272064794206.31920.121505091204237/699711990050208/?type=1&stream_ref=10

Re: Whitfield to safety - standfan - 02-17-2014

Some of the recruiting services liked KW more as a DB than a WR coming out of high school. This is a much higher percentage chance of filling the need than Lloyd's move to safety.

Re: Whitfield to safety - Bruce Wang - 02-17-2014

The second coming of John Lynch and Richard Sherman?  At the same time?

Re: Whitfield to safety - needle - 02-17-2014

I don't like this move at all.

First, just look at the personnel. KW is a fine receiver who, frankly, deserved more chances to actually catch the ball. Do we really expect Montgomery to be the same player, especially at the beginning of the year?  Cajuste and Rector are solid, but Whitfield was the much more consistent performer compared to Pratt. Yes, we all recognize that Owusu has some great athletic gifts, but he only caught two passes in one game ALL of last year.

Take Cajuste, Rector, Whitfield and Owusu and I'd say they have a chance to grow into an above average receiving corps; with a healthy Montgomery I would concede that Whitfield is probably the guy mostly on the bench.  But I just don't expect Montgomery to be able to shoulder a load similar to what he did this past year.

Perhaps more troubling, however, is that this move subtracts strength from the weakest area of the team. Wouldn't we say the teams' greatest weakness was failing to develop a short-to-intermediate passing game? And you're taking away a guy who it feels like--at least from this fan's perspective--he could be a part of the solution, a consistent pass catcher with presumably enough knowledge coming into his third year to run decent routes.

When Sherman moved over to defense, Andrew Luck was the quarterback. Hogan needs a little more help from his receiving corps to look good--for the team to look good--on 3rd and 8.

Re: Whitfield to safety - stupac2 - 02-17-2014

(02-17-2014, 09:36 PM)needle link Wrote:I don't like this move at all.

First, just look at the personnel. KW is a fine receiver who, frankly, deserved more chances to actually catch the ball. Do we really expect Montgomery to be the same player, especially at the beginning of the year?  Cajuste and Rector are solid, but Whitfield was the much more consistent performer compared to Pratt. Yes, we all recognize that Owusu has some great athletic gifts, but he only caught two passes in one game ALL of last year.

Take Cajuste, Rector, Whitfield and Owusu and I'd say they have a chance to grow into an above average receiving corps; with a healthy Montgomery I would concede that Whitfield is probably the guy mostly on the bench.  But I just don't expect Montgomery to be able to shoulder a load similar to what he did this past year.

Perhaps more troubling, however, is that this move subtracts strength from the weakest area of the team. Wouldn't we say the teams' greatest weakness was failing to develop a short-to-intermediate passing game? And you're taking away a guy who it feels like--at least from this fan's perspective--he could be a part of the solution, a consistent pass catcher with presumably enough knowledge coming into his third year to run decent routes.

When Sherman moved over to defense, Andrew Luck was the quarterback. Hogan needs a little more help from his receiving corps to look good--for the team to look good--on 3rd and 8.

I was definitely surprised to read this news, but I don't think I agree with you. I find it sort of hard to call WR the weakest area of the team, and if Whitfield could be the solution to the intermediate passing game, why wasn't he used there last year? Assuming that he'd be a big contributor there this year when he wasn't last year is kind of strange.

We need safety depth, and we need it badly. We have lots of WR production returning. If Whitfield and the coaches think this move makes sense, then it's probably for the best.

Re: Whitfield to safety...might be a good move, actually - FrankO - 02-17-2014

IIRC he went 2 ways, played DB as well as WR in HS...

with Carter rumored to be 'on sabbatical' next year we need another DB, badly...

we'll see how it works out this spring... which is the best time for such experimenting/testing...

no anxiety here

Re: Whitfield to safety - jeboody - 02-17-2014

(02-17-2014, 10:28 PM)FrankO link Wrote:with Carter rumored to be 'on sabbatical' next year we need another DB, badly...

whoa, this is the first i've read about this...what's the scoop here?? is this only a big deal to me?!?!

Re: Whitfield to safety - socalstanfan1 - 02-18-2014

(02-17-2014, 10:59 PM)jeboody link Wrote:[quote author=FrankO link=topic=9568.msg84013#msg84013 date=1392701329]
with Carter rumored to be 'on sabbatical' next year we need another DB, badly...

whoa, this is the first i've read about this...what's the scoop here?? is this only a big deal to me?!?!
[/quote]

First I've heard if this. What exactly do you mean, 'on sabbatical'?

I was surprised by the move of Whitfield, but until we see how things unfold in the Spring, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the coaching staff. Things we don't know: did Whitfield request this change? Is there someone among the receivers who has stepped up and is pushing Whitfield out of the spot? By far our thinnest area on the team is Safety, so I'm not going to bash this move right off the bat. Let's see how it looks as the offseason and then the season moves along.

Re: Whitfield to safety - stan01 - 02-18-2014

(02-17-2014, 09:36 PM)needle link Wrote:Do we really expect Montgomery to be the same player, especially at the beginning of the year?  Cajuste and Rector are solid, but Whitfield was the much more consistent performer compared to Pratt. Yes, we all recognize that Owusu has some great athletic gifts, but he only caught two passes in one game ALL of last year.

...with a healthy Montgomery I would concede that Whitfield is probably the guy mostly on the bench.  But I just don't expect Montgomery to be able to shoulder a load similar to what he did this past year.

Did I miss an update about Montgomery's health? 

Re: Whitfield to safety - StannyBoy - 02-18-2014

(02-17-2014, 10:59 PM)jeboody link Wrote:[quote author=FrankO link=topic=9568.msg84013#msg84013 date=1392701329]
with Carter rumored to be 'on sabbatical' next year we need another DB, badly...

whoa, this is the first i've read about this...what's the scoop here?? is this only a big deal to me?!?!
[/quote]

Someone recently posted on Scout saying Carter might be taking a year off. No more details were provided.

Re: Whitfield to safety - Hulk01 - 02-18-2014

All in.  My heart jumped when I read the headline.  We are months away from one of the most spectacular int's in Stanford history.  Kodi loved WR and studied it but that will only make him a much better safety. And he is a hammer.

All in.

Re: Whitfield to safety - Hey - 02-18-2014

Quote:Some of the recruiting services liked KW more as a DB than a WR coming out of high school. This is a much higher percentage chance of filling the need than Lloyd's move to safety.

Welcome Standfan! 

I am in the pool of those who love this switch.  On film, I assumed Whitfield would be playing safety for us coming out of high school.  There aren't any yards-after-catch when he goes goes for a tackle.

Re: Whitfield to safety - OutsiderFan - 02-18-2014

A WR corps of Montgomery, Cajuste, Rector, Owusu, Pratt, and Trojan is pretty damn good, plus there are a couple other young guys who might be ready to play.  But if you consider Stanford wants to re-introduce the TE as a receiving option, you can probably add in a couple TEs to that mix as receivers too.  So you're basically trading Whitfield for Pratt, plus the opportunity to get more TEs involved as receivers, and getting more depth at FS by moving Whitfield from WR to FS.  Moreover, I remain convinced Barry Sanders is a much better receiver than Kelsey Young, and will be a potent weapon in the passing game.

Frankly, when you look at it this way, it's almost a no-brainer to move Whitfield to FS.  The only question about this move is, would it be made irrespective of how the Lloyd switch seems to be working out?

   

Re: Whitfield to safety - needle - 02-18-2014

I don't know anything about Montgomery's health, just being pessimistic, I guess. I'm sure we'll find out something in a week or so when spring practices begin.

Re: Whitfield to safety - stupac2 - 02-18-2014

(02-18-2014, 06:36 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The only question about this move is, would it be made irrespective of how the Lloyd switch seems to be working out?

IIRC we had 0 FS on the depth chart for spring. Hoping that the class of '14 DBs can get on the field quickly is one thing, but we need some bodies there for the spring. Even if Lloyd is doing great there, we'd still need another body there.

I'm also with Garvin, I hope that was poor wording on the Stanford FB writer's part, and that Lloyd is not trying to do both positions. Though if he can handle it, more power to him, I guess.

Re: Whitfield to safety - Mick - 02-18-2014

(02-18-2014, 10:03 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9568.msg84023#msg84023 date=1392730614]The only question about this move is, would it be made irrespective of how the Lloyd switch seems to be working out?

IIRC we had 0 FS on the depth chart for spring. Hoping that the class of '14 DBs can get on the field quickly is one thing, but we need some bodies there for the spring. Even if Lloyd is doing great there, we'd still need another body there.

I'm also with Garvin, I hope that was poor wording on the Stanford FB writer's part, and that Lloyd is not trying to do both positions. Though if he can handle it, more power to him, I guess.
[/quote]

I thought Olugbode was a FS?

Olugbode - Redrum - 02-18-2014

Does nothing but impress with his athleticism.  Really makes onlookers and coaches take notice, if the reports are accurate.  But he has spent most of his time at Stanford injured and recovering.  I'm not sure he's robust enough to play at the bigger, faster college level.  He'll have to prove it and time is running short.

Re: Whitfield to safety - Spiny_Norman - 02-18-2014

(02-18-2014, 03:08 PM)Mick link Wrote:I thought Olugbode was a FS?

Olugbode is listed as a SS on gostanford.  Hoffpauir is a SS.  Without position moves, Stanford has no FSs on the roster heading into spring practice.

Re: Whitfield to safety - BobK - 02-18-2014

Yes but Olugbode has played FS for Stanford

Re: Whitfield to safety - terry - 02-18-2014

I remember hearing that safeties in Stanford's system are taught to play either position, SS or FS. I don't think it matters a whole lot whether a player's official position on the roster is listed as SS or FS.

We have three returning safeties who have received playing time at safety -- Richards, Hoffpauir, Olugbode. We have two players who are moving to safety from other positions -- Whitfield and Lloyd. We have several incoming players who can play safety -- Simmons, Franklin, and Murphy. I think we will do fine at safety.