[CTcard]

Ok, so there are a bunch of hypotheses for our OL problems:

1) Bad talent. Seems unlikely.
2) Bad development. Given that we'd seen most of them before, that seems unlikely.
3) Bad scheme. The scheme hasn't really changed, see above.
4) Bad coaching. This makes the most sense for a widespread regression, but doesn't really explain guys going from pushing people around to failing to.
5) Everyone's injured. What are the odds?

So nothing really makes sense. I guess that's why this is so puzzling.

I hope I am not just being cantankerous, but I would say a lot of those are at least possible, several are likely active, but I don't have a good feel for the relative weights of each. 

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Herbig '16 #921, Little '17 #9] 
EDIT to include Herbig.

2. Bad Development.
Mostly, I see no reason this couldn't be a primary problem. 
I am not sure that I have seen fantastic development the past few years, and whatever was happening might be very different now with a different guy in charge. 
As discussed several times here, the OL has been trending downward since 2015. 

3. Scheme. 
The scheme has changed quite a lot, though much of that has been gradual over a few years. I am not sure how critical this is, but I wonder about several things. 
I wonder if zone blocking is a bad match for the group. I wonder if pass blocking so often - and having more obvious pass downs - is too much. 
I wonder if whole-sale substitution for short yardage is a very bad idea. 

4. Bad Coaching. 
I am not sure just what you mean by this item. Isn't good or bad coaching just all the other line items here? 

5. Everyone's injured. 
I think there is substantial likliehood that a good fraction of the line is either more injured than normal or at least has had less practice/prep time than normal. I think that everyone but maybe Herbig has missed some time, or at least been reported as likely missing some time - which almost certainly means they missed some practice time. 


I am really hoping that the most important problems are some combination of adjusting to Carberry and troubles with injury. Those would indicate items that would naturally improve with time. I am not necessarily convinced that is true.

[CTcard]

Ok, so there are a bunch of hypotheses for our OL problems:

1) Bad talent. Seems unlikely.
2) Bad development. Given that we'd seen most of them before, that seems unlikely.
3) Bad scheme. The scheme hasn't really changed, see above.
4) Bad coaching. This makes the most sense for a widespread regression, but doesn't really explain guys going from pushing people around to failing to.
5) Everyone's injured. What are the odds?

So nothing really makes sense. I guess that's why this is so puzzling.

I hope I am not just being cantankerous, but I would say a lot of those are at least possible, several are likely active, but I don't have a good feel for the relative weights of each. 

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Herbig '16 #921, Little '17 #9] 
EDIT to include Herbig.

2. Bad Development.
Mostly, I see no reason this couldn't be a primary problem. 
I am not sure that I have seen fantastic development the past few years, and whatever was happening might be very different now with a different guy in charge. 
As discussed several times here, the OL has been trending downward since 2015. 

3. Scheme. 
The scheme has changed quite a lot, though much of that has been gradual over a few years. I am not sure how critical this is, but I wonder about several things. 
I wonder if zone blocking is a bad match for the group. I wonder if pass blocking so often - and having more obvious pass downs - is too much. 
I wonder if whole-sale substitution for short yardage is a very bad idea. 

4. Bad Coaching. 
I am not sure just what you mean by this item. Isn't good or bad coaching just all the other line items here? 

5. Everyone's injured. 
I think there is substantial likliehood that a good fraction of the line is either more injured than normal or at least has had less practice/prep time than normal. I think that everyone but maybe Herbig has missed some time, or at least been reported as likely missing some time - which almost certainly means they missed some practice time. 


I am really hoping that the most important problems are some combination of adjusting to Carberry and troubles with injury. Those would indicate items that would naturally improve with time. I am not necessarily convinced that is true.

[stupac2]

By bad coaching I mean technique. 2 vs 4 is basically Turley vs Carberry. 3 is more Shaw/Prichard. They're all coaches, but with different responsibilities.

[stupac2]

By bad coaching I mean technique. 2 vs 4 is basically Turley vs Carberry. 3 is more Shaw/Prichard. They're all coaches, but with different responsibilities.

[martyup]

In my personal experience in sports, including football, wrestling, and rodeo, under-achieving is primarily mental.  The injuries are a factor, physically and mentally.  IMO, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was the result of changing the mentality of the team.  For some reason, our guys are not harnessing their mental power to maximize their potential.  This has to be a team cultural thing.  How do the coaches and/or captains rally the team to play up to their potential?  That's the multi-million dollar question that only a handful of coaches can answer.  So far in his career, David Shaw has found the answer.  Let's hope he can find the answer this season . . . soon.

[martyup]

In my personal experience in sports, including football, wrestling, and rodeo, under-achieving is primarily mental.  The injuries are a factor, physically and mentally.  IMO, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was the result of changing the mentality of the team.  For some reason, our guys are not harnessing their mental power to maximize their potential.  This has to be a team cultural thing.  How do the coaches and/or captains rally the team to play up to their potential?  That's the multi-million dollar question that only a handful of coaches can answer.  So far in his career, David Shaw has found the answer.  Let's hope he can find the answer this season . . . soon.

[Goose]

In my personal experience in sports, including football, wrestling, and rodeo, under-achieving is primarily mental.  The injuries are a factor, physically and mentally.  IMO, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was the result of changing the mentality of the team.  For some reason, our guys are not harnessing their mental power to maximize their potential.  This has to be a team cultural thing.  How do the coaches and/or captains rally the team to play up to their potential?  That's the multi-million dollar question that only a handful of coaches can answer.  So far in his career, David Shaw has found the answer.  Let's hope he can find the answer this season . . . soon.

I don't have your level of experience, but FWIW, I agree with your position. I think both JH and Shaw would tell you that they were fortunate to have team leaders that made it easier to find the answer. In fact, the coaches possibly never did find the answer. It was the team that did. So, this year, on the OL, who is that going to be? I don't think a coach can, at this point, lead the guys to success. Somebody, maybe more than one "somebody", needs to step up with the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." (or equivalent) approach.

[Goose]

In my personal experience in sports, including football, wrestling, and rodeo, under-achieving is primarily mental.  The injuries are a factor, physically and mentally.  IMO, Harbaugh's success at Stanford was the result of changing the mentality of the team.  For some reason, our guys are not harnessing their mental power to maximize their potential.  This has to be a team cultural thing.  How do the coaches and/or captains rally the team to play up to their potential?  That's the multi-million dollar question that only a handful of coaches can answer.  So far in his career, David Shaw has found the answer.  Let's hope he can find the answer this season . . . soon.

I don't have your level of experience, but FWIW, I agree with your position. I think both JH and Shaw would tell you that they were fortunate to have team leaders that made it easier to find the answer. In fact, the coaches possibly never did find the answer. It was the team that did. So, this year, on the OL, who is that going to be? I don't think a coach can, at this point, lead the guys to success. Somebody, maybe more than one "somebody", needs to step up with the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." (or equivalent) approach.

[Austroturf]

The big nerds are just not angry enough.  They need some Harbaughesque motivation.

Agree.  It appears as if "intellectual brutality" has lost some of the brutality in recent years.  Fanaika was quoted in the article as appreciating the "wisdom" provided by Carberry.  OK, that's the intellectual side.  But does that O-line coach also give instructions on pushing your opponent back to his own goal line?  I haven't seen it yet.

[Austroturf]

The big nerds are just not angry enough.  They need some Harbaughesque motivation.

Agree.  It appears as if "intellectual brutality" has lost some of the brutality in recent years.  Fanaika was quoted in the article as appreciating the "wisdom" provided by Carberry.  OK, that's the intellectual side.  But does that O-line coach also give instructions on pushing your opponent back to his own goal line?  I haven't seen it yet.

[donkey687]

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]


Other than Little who has been in college for 13 months that isn't a highly rated list.  We went 3 out 4 years without a OL recruit in the top 250. That is an issue. It seems like OL is the position that should be the easiest for us to recruit and we should have a couple top 250 recruits every year who are OL.

[donkey687]

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]


Other than Little who has been in college for 13 months that isn't a highly rated list.  We went 3 out 4 years without a OL recruit in the top 250. That is an issue. It seems like OL is the position that should be the easiest for us to recruit and we should have a couple top 250 recruits every year who are OL.

[Goose]

 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]

Where did Herbig rank? I do agree about rankings in this position not meaning as much, as we had some three stars turn out real well for us on the OL in the past.

[Goose]

 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]

Where did Herbig rank? I do agree about rankings in this position not meaning as much, as we had some three stars turn out real well for us on the OL in the past.

[BostonCard]

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]


Other than Little who has been in college for 13 months that isn't a highly rated list.  We went 3 out 4 years without a OL recruit in the top 250. That is an issue. It seems like OL is the position that should be the easiest for us to recruit and we should have a couple top 250 recruits every year who are OL.

The TWU lines didn't have a ton of highly rated players either.  In terms of the 24/7 composite, David DeCastro ranked 360, Jonathan Martin ranked 459, Andrew Phillips was #934, Marinelli was #735, Chase Beeler was #391.  On average the guys this year are no worse, and somewhat better than the guys back in 2009.

BC

[BostonCard]

1. Talent - Certainly a lot of the guys were fairly highly recruited. But in this kind of individual way, such rankings don't mean that much. Still, I don't see guys who look like they cannot put on weight, or cannot move, etc. So, while I would leave at possible, I think a lesser issue.
[Recap recruiting rankings from 247 composite, using their overall ranking (I think about 1000 players are ranked). I include six guys because both Fanaika and Hamilton have seen extensive time at LG.
 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]


Other than Little who has been in college for 13 months that isn't a highly rated list.  We went 3 out 4 years without a OL recruit in the top 250. That is an issue. It seems like OL is the position that should be the easiest for us to recruit and we should have a couple top 250 recruits every year who are OL.

The TWU lines didn't have a ton of highly rated players either.  In terms of the 24/7 composite, David DeCastro ranked 360, Jonathan Martin ranked 459, Andrew Phillips was #934, Marinelli was #735, Chase Beeler was #391.  On average the guys this year are no worse, and somewhat better than the guys back in 2009.

BC

[CardinalSagehen]

Just out of curiosity, what is the hierarchy, organizationally?  Does Carberry report to Tavita, or do they both report to Shaw? 

Isn't Tavita responsible for the whole offense?  I just find it strange that he seems to escape criticism with respect to the OL.  He's been around and might have been counted on to preserve good habits, techniques and tactics during the switch to Carberry, even though nobody thinks of him as an OL specialist.

[CardinalSagehen]

Just out of curiosity, what is the hierarchy, organizationally?  Does Carberry report to Tavita, or do they both report to Shaw? 

Isn't Tavita responsible for the whole offense?  I just find it strange that he seems to escape criticism with respect to the OL.  He's been around and might have been counted on to preserve good habits, techniques and tactics during the switch to Carberry, even though nobody thinks of him as an OL specialist.

[CTcard]

 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]

Where did Herbig rank? I do agree about rankings in this position not meaning as much, as we had some three stars turn out real well for us on the OL in the past.

Herbig seems awfully big to have overlooked. Yet I did. 


He was not very highly rated, 247 composite had him at #921 overall. Rivals didn't have him on their overall national list, but I don't know how deep that list goes. 
It was clear from day one that the Stanford coaches rated him more highly than that - and at least in this case seem to have been correct.

[CTcard]

 Fanaika '12 #328 Burkett '14 #742, Hall '14 #574, Hamilton '16 #252, Little '17 #9]

Where did Herbig rank? I do agree about rankings in this position not meaning as much, as we had some three stars turn out real well for us on the OL in the past.

Herbig seems awfully big to have overlooked. Yet I did. 


He was not very highly rated, 247 composite had him at #921 overall. Rivals didn't have him on their overall national list, but I don't know how deep that list goes. 
It was clear from day one that the Stanford coaches rated him more highly than that - and at least in this case seem to have been correct.