[Spiny_Norman]

Analysis of several of the UW sacks.  You'll see examples of good scheme, great execution and physical superiority.  Right now, Stanford's OL looks as leaky as the one the Colts had last year that disabled Andrew Luck.

http://insidethepylon.com/pylon-u/teams-...pass-rush/

[Spiny_Norman]

Analysis of several of the UW sacks.  You'll see examples of good scheme, great execution and physical superiority.  Right now, Stanford's OL looks as leaky as the one the Colts had last year that disabled Andrew Luck.

http://insidethepylon.com/pylon-u/teams-...pass-rush/

[Hank 91]

Thanks for posting this. Incredibly informative. I made the mistake of getting into a "discussion" on Twitter with someone who was arguing that Burns was the problem, and KJ Costello, of all people, was the solution. He wouldn't listen when I suggested the performance of the offensive line was probably the biggest problem, so I finally stopped responding. This morning he pinged me again and included this link as proof that Burns should be replaced. That wasn't my takeaway from the article, but I guess you see what you want.

[Hank 91]

Thanks for posting this. Incredibly informative. I made the mistake of getting into a "discussion" on Twitter with someone who was arguing that Burns was the problem, and KJ Costello, of all people, was the solution. He wouldn't listen when I suggested the performance of the offensive line was probably the biggest problem, so I finally stopped responding. This morning he pinged me again and included this link as proof that Burns should be replaced. That wasn't my takeaway from the article, but I guess you see what you want.

[BostonCard]

David Lombardi appears to have gotten into an eerily similar twitter "discussion" on the very same topic.

I think the reason that QB's get fingered so often as "the problem" is because then "the solution" (change QB's) is easy.  If the problem is that your offensive line is a sieve, then a fix is much more difficult, and may involve the admission that maybe we just don't have it in us offensively this year.

I'm really hoping that we can bounce back from the last three weeks in the second half of the year.  If the offense can get 25 points a game, I think we can win most of the rest of the games, provided our DB's heal up.  But if our offense keeps putting up one touchdown a game, all 7 of our remaining games (save maybe OSU and Rice), will be tough.

BC

[BostonCard]

David Lombardi appears to have gotten into an eerily similar twitter "discussion" on the very same topic.

I think the reason that QB's get fingered so often as "the problem" is because then "the solution" (change QB's) is easy.  If the problem is that your offensive line is a sieve, then a fix is much more difficult, and may involve the admission that maybe we just don't have it in us offensively this year.

I'm really hoping that we can bounce back from the last three weeks in the second half of the year.  If the offense can get 25 points a game, I think we can win most of the rest of the games, provided our DB's heal up.  But if our offense keeps putting up one touchdown a game, all 7 of our remaining games (save maybe OSU and Rice), will be tough.

BC

[Hank 91]

You're right -- the quarterback is the easy target, so I'm not surprised that so many fans are calling for Chryst. What got me about this was the call for Costello, a true freshman. He claimed that Costello was the only talented quarterback on the team, and that he had been "thriving" in practice. It was all kind of crazy.

[Hank 91]

You're right -- the quarterback is the easy target, so I'm not surprised that so many fans are calling for Chryst. What got me about this was the call for Costello, a true freshman. He claimed that Costello was the only talented quarterback on the team, and that he had been "thriving" in practice. It was all kind of crazy.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, as good as UW's D is, WSU actually leads the conference in YPP allowed in conference games.  Granted, it's a small sample size, but they have played Oregon and Stanford, two wildly different offenses, and stymied them both.  Given the Cougs play UCLA and Jim Mora's self described "putrid" offense this week, expect the trend to continue.

[OutsiderFan]

Well, as good as UW's D is, WSU actually leads the conference in YPP allowed in conference games.  Granted, it's a small sample size, but they have played Oregon and Stanford, two wildly different offenses, and stymied them both.  Given the Cougs play UCLA and Jim Mora's self described "putrid" offense this week, expect the trend to continue.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the idea that Costello is the best QB is that far fetched.  He played in a much more pass-happy offense in high school.  Chryst has the best arm, but his accuracy has been a question.  Burns clearly isn't seeing the whole field, and that has been the case even when not under immediate duress.

Anyone watching the games can see the OL is a hot mess, but that has nothing to do with who the best QB might be.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the idea that Costello is the best QB is that far fetched.  He played in a much more pass-happy offense in high school.  Chryst has the best arm, but his accuracy has been a question.  Burns clearly isn't seeing the whole field, and that has been the case even when not under immediate duress.

Anyone watching the games can see the OL is a hot mess, but that has nothing to do with who the best QB might be.

[washingtonismoney]

I could totally buy Costello being great. However I doubt it is much of a solution to the offense's current woes,* for the reasons BC identifies. Football isn't the NBA or baseball; it's even some distance away from soccer: changing single variables doesn't necessarily have a brobdingnagian effect on team play. No one thinks Christian McCaffrey is a bad player; as far as I can tell the commentariat hasn't soured on Josh Rosen, who's having a difficult year. Cam Newton and Andrew Luck are good players. And so on.

So even if Costello is better than Burns + Chryst right now, it's probable that doesn't make a big change for the offense overall. But that's conceding too much: as the Cardboard has discussed on several instances, true freshmen QBs nearly always stink. So I think Stanford fans need to take their medicine this year, sadly.

* (CAVEAT HERE: I also said the same thing about 2012's QB controversy, and was brilliantly proven wrong. It's very possible I'm overly conservative when it comes to QB controversies.)

[washingtonismoney]

I could totally buy Costello being great. However I doubt it is much of a solution to the offense's current woes,* for the reasons BC identifies. Football isn't the NBA or baseball; it's even some distance away from soccer: changing single variables doesn't necessarily have a brobdingnagian effect on team play. No one thinks Christian McCaffrey is a bad player; as far as I can tell the commentariat hasn't soured on Josh Rosen, who's having a difficult year. Cam Newton and Andrew Luck are good players. And so on.

So even if Costello is better than Burns + Chryst right now, it's probable that doesn't make a big change for the offense overall. But that's conceding too much: as the Cardboard has discussed on several instances, true freshmen QBs nearly always stink. So I think Stanford fans need to take their medicine this year, sadly.

* (CAVEAT HERE: I also said the same thing about 2012's QB controversy, and was brilliantly proven wrong. It's very possible I'm overly conservative when it comes to QB controversies.)

[Spiny_Norman]

Watching the past two games has caused me to flashback to Trent Edwards experience from 2003-2006 where he ran for his life much of the time behind a weak line.  Edwards may have been Stanford's highest rated QB out of high school since John Elway.  5 stars, #2 QB in the country in at least one service. But he never achieved what was expected, at least partly because of the OL.

[Spiny_Norman]

Watching the past two games has caused me to flashback to Trent Edwards experience from 2003-2006 where he ran for his life much of the time behind a weak line.  Edwards may have been Stanford's highest rated QB out of high school since John Elway.  5 stars, #2 QB in the country in at least one service. But he never achieved what was expected, at least partly because of the OL.

[yvonne]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

[yvonne]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

[SamuelMcF]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

Not a definitive answer, but the combined 14* worth of recruits that we lost on the line last year (Garnett 5*, Murphy 5*, Shuler 4*) were replaced with only 9* (Burkett, Bright, Hall all 3*). Not sure if/how Tucker has regressed this season (former 5*), and don't forget he was injured and didn't play Saturday - he was replaced by Jack Dreyer (I think?), another 3*.

So we went from last year's 23* line (Caspers was a 4*) to an 18* line - 16* last game.

I don't think this tells the whole story, but it looks pretty damning.

[SamuelMcF]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

Not a definitive answer, but the combined 14* worth of recruits that we lost on the line last year (Garnett 5*, Murphy 5*, Shuler 4*) were replaced with only 9* (Burkett, Bright, Hall all 3*). Not sure if/how Tucker has regressed this season (former 5*), and don't forget he was injured and didn't play Saturday - he was replaced by Jack Dreyer (I think?), another 3*.

So we went from last year's 23* line (Caspers was a 4*) to an 18* line - 16* last game.

I don't think this tells the whole story, but it looks pretty damning.

[BostonCard]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

Last year we had two NFL-caliber offensive linemen.  This year, zero.

BC

[BostonCard]

How did Stanford go from having the most intimidating lines in college football to having a group of rag dolls that anyone can throw around? Is it the lack of recruiting, poor conditioning, poor training, or multiple of the above?

Last year we had two NFL-caliber offensive linemen.  This year, zero.

BC

[yvonne]

OK, so it sounds like it's recruiting. Was the drop-off because there weren't Stanford-eligible guys available? I would think OL would be lining up to play for Stanford's offense.

[yvonne]

OK, so it sounds like it's recruiting. Was the drop-off because there weren't Stanford-eligible guys available? I would think OL would be lining up to play for Stanford's offense.

[Langdude]

Not sure if/how Tucker has regressed this season (former 5*), and don't forget he was injured and didn't play Saturday - he was replaced by Jack Dreyer (I think?), another 3*.

Dreyer did not start. Bright moved to OT, and Fanaika played LG. Fanaika was a 4*, IIRC. But it does seem perhaps that Tucker is not playing up to his recruiting ranking.

Judging by recruiting stars is helpful, but not everything. We had a great line with Danser, Fleming, Yankey, and Wilkes, all of whom were 3*. Brendon Austin was a 4*, and he started two games in his career.

-m.

[Langdude]

Not sure if/how Tucker has regressed this season (former 5*), and don't forget he was injured and didn't play Saturday - he was replaced by Jack Dreyer (I think?), another 3*.

Dreyer did not start. Bright moved to OT, and Fanaika played LG. Fanaika was a 4*, IIRC. But it does seem perhaps that Tucker is not playing up to his recruiting ranking.

Judging by recruiting stars is helpful, but not everything. We had a great line with Danser, Fleming, Yankey, and Wilkes, all of whom were 3*. Brendon Austin was a 4*, and he started two games in his career.

-m.

[BostonCard]

OK, so it sounds like it's recruiting. Was the drop-off because there weren't Stanford-eligible guys available? I would think OL would be lining up to play for Stanford's offense.

The 2012 recruiting class gave us Peat, Murphy, and Garnett (also Caspers and Shuler) as well as Fanaika, who went on a mission, and Davidson.
The 2013 class (which, remember was small) gave us Bright and Oser.
The 2014 class gave us Tucker, Burkett, and Hall.  They still have some time, but they need to get better quickly.
The 2015 class gave us  Maiyhen, Dreyer, Wilson and Chaffin
The 2016 class gave us Powell, Hamilton and Hattis

They were all 3 and 4 star guys, and Tucker was a 5* player (#2 ranked tackle).  It's hard to call a two year starter a bust, but he hasn't exactly excelled either.  I think the 2016 class may turn out quite good.

BC

[BostonCard]

OK, so it sounds like it's recruiting. Was the drop-off because there weren't Stanford-eligible guys available? I would think OL would be lining up to play for Stanford's offense.

The 2012 recruiting class gave us Peat, Murphy, and Garnett (also Caspers and Shuler) as well as Fanaika, who went on a mission, and Davidson.
The 2013 class (which, remember was small) gave us Bright and Oser.
The 2014 class gave us Tucker, Burkett, and Hall.  They still have some time, but they need to get better quickly.
The 2015 class gave us  Maiyhen, Dreyer, Wilson and Chaffin
The 2016 class gave us Powell, Hamilton and Hattis

They were all 3 and 4 star guys, and Tucker was a 5* player (#2 ranked tackle).  It's hard to call a two year starter a bust, but he hasn't exactly excelled either.  I think the 2016 class may turn out quite good.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

If you believe the chatter out of summer practice -- which, given the last two weeks, seems overly optimistic* -- Devery Hamilton is potentially excellent.

* (then again a full-strength team might be another matter altogether. Between 2013-2015 Stanford never had one game with as many injured players as it has now; let alone two.)

[washingtonismoney]

If you believe the chatter out of summer practice -- which, given the last two weeks, seems overly optimistic* -- Devery Hamilton is potentially excellent.

* (then again a full-strength team might be another matter altogether. Between 2013-2015 Stanford never had one game with as many injured players as it has now; let alone two.)

[stupac2]

* (then again a full-strength team might be another matter altogether. Between 2013-2015 Stanford never had one game with as many injured players as it has now; let alone two.)

I'm probably sounding like a broken record about this, but I have a really hard time being too upset about the outcomes we've had because of this. We're missing an absurd number of key contributors and that's just what we know about, it seems odd to me that we switched two linemen after a game where our line was great for no real reason.

Plus we've likely played 5 of our hardest 6 games already.

[stupac2]

* (then again a full-strength team might be another matter altogether. Between 2013-2015 Stanford never had one game with as many injured players as it has now; let alone two.)

I'm probably sounding like a broken record about this, but I have a really hard time being too upset about the outcomes we've had because of this. We're missing an absurd number of key contributors and that's just what we know about, it seems odd to me that we switched two linemen after a game where our line was great for no real reason.

Plus we've likely played 5 of our hardest 6 games already.

[washingtonismoney]

To piggyback off of your point, stupac, it strikes me that this is a new situation to which people are proposing old explanations -- primarily focused on the offense and/or punting-on-fourth-down whatever. But we've been arguing about these flaws, real or exaggerated, for ages; it's never gotten as bad as it is now. The most likely explanation for an unprecedented situation is an unprecedented factor -- which is to say, injuries.

(Injuries are also the most parsimonious explanation for why a seemingly-good team through the first three games of the season descended into sheer awfulness the next two.)

[washingtonismoney]

To piggyback off of your point, stupac, it strikes me that this is a new situation to which people are proposing old explanations -- primarily focused on the offense and/or punting-on-fourth-down whatever. But we've been arguing about these flaws, real or exaggerated, for ages; it's never gotten as bad as it is now. The most likely explanation for an unprecedented situation is an unprecedented factor -- which is to say, injuries.

(Injuries are also the most parsimonious explanation for why a seemingly-good team through the first three games of the season descended into sheer awfulness the next two.)

[Langdude]

I'm probably sounding like a broken record about this, but I have a really hard time being too upset about the outcomes we've had because of this. We're missing an absurd number of key contributors and that's just what we know about, it seems odd to me that we switched two linemen after a game where our line was great for no real reason.

As you are referencing, they exchanged Tucker and Hall (who was less touted) before UCLA. As you know, LT is where you have your most reliable pass-blocking tackle (QB's blind side). It seems to me that they moved Tucker to LT from RT at the beginning of this year hoping he'd take the next step from last year (like they did with Murphy). But he did not do as well as they'd hoped, saying he was a more "natural" RT.

You are right that we are missing some key players at nearly every position, but I don't think that obviates what clearly seems to be sub-standard play by the OL. Stanford's effectiveness begins and ends with an effective OL, I think. Even with the Ogre Package in there, we struggled, which was hard to see. I'm hoping they continue to develop, but it may soon be time to try Devery Hamilton.

-m.

[Langdude]

I'm probably sounding like a broken record about this, but I have a really hard time being too upset about the outcomes we've had because of this. We're missing an absurd number of key contributors and that's just what we know about, it seems odd to me that we switched two linemen after a game where our line was great for no real reason.

As you are referencing, they exchanged Tucker and Hall (who was less touted) before UCLA. As you know, LT is where you have your most reliable pass-blocking tackle (QB's blind side). It seems to me that they moved Tucker to LT from RT at the beginning of this year hoping he'd take the next step from last year (like they did with Murphy). But he did not do as well as they'd hoped, saying he was a more "natural" RT.

You are right that we are missing some key players at nearly every position, but I don't think that obviates what clearly seems to be sub-standard play by the OL. Stanford's effectiveness begins and ends with an effective OL, I think. Even with the Ogre Package in there, we struggled, which was hard to see. I'm hoping they continue to develop, but it may soon be time to try Devery Hamilton.

-m.

[stupac2]

To piggyback off of your point, stupac, it strikes me that this is a new situation to which people are proposing old explanations -- primarily focused on the offense and/or punting-on-fourth-down whatever. But we've been arguing about these flaws, real or exaggerated, for ages; it's never gotten as bad as it is now. The most likely explanation for an unprecedented situation is an unprecedented factor -- which is to say, injuries.

(Injuries are also the most parsimonious explanation for why a seemingly-good team through the first three games of the season descended into sheer awfulness the next two.)

Exactly, we know this system can work fine, and we've been doing the things people lament for forever. The combination of a weaker-than-average OL (which could be a coaching issue, could be a recruiting issue, or could just be bad luck) and injuries (definitely just bad luck) have lowered our ceiling considerably. It's possible that a different scheme would be more effective, but when the OL can't block anyone in the run or pass game I'm not sure what that scheme would be. When we're losing TOP to an air raid team, there are too many problems to really name them in a meaningful way.

[stupac2]

To piggyback off of your point, stupac, it strikes me that this is a new situation to which people are proposing old explanations -- primarily focused on the offense and/or punting-on-fourth-down whatever. But we've been arguing about these flaws, real or exaggerated, for ages; it's never gotten as bad as it is now. The most likely explanation for an unprecedented situation is an unprecedented factor -- which is to say, injuries.

(Injuries are also the most parsimonious explanation for why a seemingly-good team through the first three games of the season descended into sheer awfulness the next two.)

Exactly, we know this system can work fine, and we've been doing the things people lament for forever. The combination of a weaker-than-average OL (which could be a coaching issue, could be a recruiting issue, or could just be bad luck) and injuries (definitely just bad luck) have lowered our ceiling considerably. It's possible that a different scheme would be more effective, but when the OL can't block anyone in the run or pass game I'm not sure what that scheme would be. When we're losing TOP to an air raid team, there are too many problems to really name them in a meaningful way.

[fullmetal]

There are couple of ways you can change up the blocking technique or scheme to better suit your personnel.  I don't know enough here to say what the changes should be.  But Bloomgren is presumably being paid more than I am to figure it out, and I do expect results from him vs. a weak South Bend team that only put up three points against NC State.

[fullmetal]

There are couple of ways you can change up the blocking technique or scheme to better suit your personnel.  I don't know enough here to say what the changes should be.  But Bloomgren is presumably being paid more than I am to figure it out, and I do expect results from him vs. a weak South Bend team that only put up three points against NC State.