[FarmBoy]

The ESPN Pac12 blog has run some stats on returning offensive yards and it's pretty eye opening to see exactly how little is coming back next year for Stanford:

Receiving:
Percentage of yards returning: 17 percent
Percentage of catches returning: 23 percent
Percentage of touchdowns returning: 5 percent

Rushing:
Percentage of yards returning: 33 percent
Percentage of attempts returning: 31 percent
Percentage of touchdowns returning: 30 percent

Most teams appear to be returning in the 50s to 80s on those areas. I wonder how correlative returning rush and receiving yards is to success vs. returning OLine starts or defensive starts.

[FarmBoy]

The ESPN Pac12 blog has run some stats on returning offensive yards and it's pretty eye opening to see exactly how little is coming back next year for Stanford:

Receiving:
Percentage of yards returning: 17 percent
Percentage of catches returning: 23 percent
Percentage of touchdowns returning: 5 percent

Rushing:
Percentage of yards returning: 33 percent
Percentage of attempts returning: 31 percent
Percentage of touchdowns returning: 30 percent

Most teams appear to be returning in the 50s to 80s on those areas. I wonder how correlative returning rush and receiving yards is to success vs. returning OLine starts or defensive starts.

[Hurlburt88]

probably speaking for many:  not worried about the rushing, but receiving remains the one area of the entire team I worry about.  Assume coaches putting considerable energy & attention here . . .

[Hurlburt88]

probably speaking for many:  not worried about the rushing, but receiving remains the one area of the entire team I worry about.  Assume coaches putting considerable energy & attention here . . .

[stupac2]

probably speaking for many:  not worried about the rushing, but receiving remains the one area of the entire team I worry about.  Assume coaches putting considerable energy & attention here . . .

Did you see the spring game? I think it was something like 70-30 in favor of passing playcalls. They're definitely interested in improving that part of the game. I'm pretty sanguine that we'll figure something out, but if we don't it could be a loooong season...

[stupac2]

probably speaking for many:  not worried about the rushing, but receiving remains the one area of the entire team I worry about.  Assume coaches putting considerable energy & attention here . . .

Did you see the spring game? I think it was something like 70-30 in favor of passing playcalls. They're definitely interested in improving that part of the game. I'm pretty sanguine that we'll figure something out, but if we don't it could be a loooong season...

[OutsiderFan]

How many teams are returning as many sacks and TFLs as Stanford?  The defense promises to be even better in 2013 than 2012.  That mitigates a lot of the returning yards from other teams.

The OL is returning 4/5 starters.  Peat and Yankey could form the best left side of any OL in the land.  Fleming is no slouch at RT, and whether it's Danser and Garnett or Wilkes and Danser at C & RG, Hogan will improve simply by being in his second year as a starter.  That OL will open holes for runners to improve the play action game, and the added time Hogan gets will allow the fleetest WRs (Montgomery, Rector, Young, and Owusu) Stanford has been able to put on the field at once in a while to stretch the field vertically and horizontally.  It would obviously have been incredible to have Ertz still, but there is plenty of talent in the TE ranks for them to be effective enough.

Yes, it would be nice to have a bunch of experienced ball carriers and receivers, but being dominant on the LOS is what enables the skill guys to produce.  Most objective observers would choose this Stanford team over the 2010 or 2011 version.  Even though those teams had an amazing Luck at QB, the 2013 team is much more talented across the board and has more depth.  If Hogan completes 70% of his passes as he did in 2012, the 2013 Stanford team will be very difficult to beat.  Keep in mind, the 2012 team was suppose to be a rebuilding team and it won the freaking Rose Bowl.

[OutsiderFan]

How many teams are returning as many sacks and TFLs as Stanford?  The defense promises to be even better in 2013 than 2012.  That mitigates a lot of the returning yards from other teams.

The OL is returning 4/5 starters.  Peat and Yankey could form the best left side of any OL in the land.  Fleming is no slouch at RT, and whether it's Danser and Garnett or Wilkes and Danser at C & RG, Hogan will improve simply by being in his second year as a starter.  That OL will open holes for runners to improve the play action game, and the added time Hogan gets will allow the fleetest WRs (Montgomery, Rector, Young, and Owusu) Stanford has been able to put on the field at once in a while to stretch the field vertically and horizontally.  It would obviously have been incredible to have Ertz still, but there is plenty of talent in the TE ranks for them to be effective enough.

Yes, it would be nice to have a bunch of experienced ball carriers and receivers, but being dominant on the LOS is what enables the skill guys to produce.  Most objective observers would choose this Stanford team over the 2010 or 2011 version.  Even though those teams had an amazing Luck at QB, the 2013 team is much more talented across the board and has more depth.  If Hogan completes 70% of his passes as he did in 2012, the 2013 Stanford team will be very difficult to beat.  Keep in mind, the 2012 team was suppose to be a rebuilding team and it won the freaking Rose Bowl.

[Hank 91]

I bet lots of analysts will fall into that trap. If we're evaluating the potential of a team's running game -- particularly a team with a running scheme like Stanford's -- the first thing to look at is the offensive line. Our line will be better this year than last year, and it could be the best offensive line in the conference if not the entire nation. Considering the way Stanford tends to run the ball -- between the tackles looking for consistent production rather than to the outside looking for the occasional home run -- this bodes well. Stepfan Taylor was amazing, and he certainly deserves to be listed alongside Toby Gerhart and Darrin Nelson as the three greatest running backs in school history, but I believe the running backs currently on the roster will be able to replace his production.

The tight ends and wide receivers are obvious question marks, but I'm genuinely excited to watch Ty Montgomery, Michael Rector, and Kodi Whitfield, probably the fastest trio of receivers Stanford has ever had.

We all know the defense will be dominant, but the offense will be pretty good, too.

[Hank 91]

I bet lots of analysts will fall into that trap. If we're evaluating the potential of a team's running game -- particularly a team with a running scheme like Stanford's -- the first thing to look at is the offensive line. Our line will be better this year than last year, and it could be the best offensive line in the conference if not the entire nation. Considering the way Stanford tends to run the ball -- between the tackles looking for consistent production rather than to the outside looking for the occasional home run -- this bodes well. Stepfan Taylor was amazing, and he certainly deserves to be listed alongside Toby Gerhart and Darrin Nelson as the three greatest running backs in school history, but I believe the running backs currently on the roster will be able to replace his production.

The tight ends and wide receivers are obvious question marks, but I'm genuinely excited to watch Ty Montgomery, Michael Rector, and Kodi Whitfield, probably the fastest trio of receivers Stanford has ever had.

We all know the defense will be dominant, but the offense will be pretty good, too.

[81alum]

While I am much more concerned about receiving than rushing, I do not think all the questions have been answered about our rushing game.  Taylor's greatest asset was his patience in waiting for and finding the right holes to run through.  That patience came from four years of experience.  While some of our other backs last year had good moments, none of them really showed that degree of patience.  The question for me is, how much experience will it take for one of our current backs to learn how to make effective use of our blocking?  And will a "revolving door" of back by committee interfere with the ability to get one of them into a Taylor-type rhythm?  These are not insurmountable issues, but they will need to be addressed.

[81alum]

While I am much more concerned about receiving than rushing, I do not think all the questions have been answered about our rushing game.  Taylor's greatest asset was his patience in waiting for and finding the right holes to run through.  That patience came from four years of experience.  While some of our other backs last year had good moments, none of them really showed that degree of patience.  The question for me is, how much experience will it take for one of our current backs to learn how to make effective use of our blocking?  And will a "revolving door" of back by committee interfere with the ability to get one of them into a Taylor-type rhythm?  These are not insurmountable issues, but they will need to be addressed.

[oman]

Ha.  I think the running game is the only thing I am worrying about.  Just so much a part of our schtick that its almost as if nothing good will happen unless we get that going consistently. 

[oman]

Ha.  I think the running game is the only thing I am worrying about.  Just so much a part of our schtick that its almost as if nothing good will happen unless we get that going consistently. 

[CowboyIndian]

  The question for me is, how much experience will it take for one of our current backs to learn how to make effective use of our blocking?  .

I think Mr. Gaffney has an answer for you.

[CowboyIndian]

  The question for me is, how much experience will it take for one of our current backs to learn how to make effective use of our blocking?  .

I think Mr. Gaffney has an answer for you.

[terry]

Our running backs are not complete unknowns. Our top two RBs have run for over 1,700 yards between them during their careers --

Wilkerson -- 195 attempts, 914 yards, 4.7 avg., 7 TDs
Gaffney -- 156 attempts, 791 yards, 5.1 avg., 12 TDs

I think we will be fine at RB. I think there are greater question marks at WR and TE. Montgomery is the only returning receiver who has produced much (50 receptions, 563 yards, 11.3 avg., 2 TDs). I'll be interested to see who steps up at WR and TE.

[terry]

Our running backs are not complete unknowns. Our top two RBs have run for over 1,700 yards between them during their careers --

Wilkerson -- 195 attempts, 914 yards, 4.7 avg., 7 TDs
Gaffney -- 156 attempts, 791 yards, 5.1 avg., 12 TDs

I think we will be fine at RB. I think there are greater question marks at WR and TE. Montgomery is the only returning receiver who has produced much (50 receptions, 563 yards, 11.3 avg., 2 TDs). I'll be interested to see who steps up at WR and TE.