08-29-2022, 09:02 AM
(08-29-2022, 07:59 AM)CTcard Wrote:(08-29-2022, 05:36 AM)VB Card Wrote: Stanford Daily offense preview
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/08/28/sta...e-preview/
Not a bad summary for a student article, all in all.
He does seem awfully confident in a running back with 26 career carries.
And, it seems obligatory to try to reconcile the following two statements:
"McKee’s top tier arm strength and accuracy will make him one of the top quarterbacks in the conference, if not the country, this upcoming season."
versus
"Pro Football Focus had him in the bottom five of Power Five quarterbacks last season"
It's a very good article, as far as these things go. Reactions to the article/your comments:
* Smith is a very intriguing, mysterious player for 2022. Based on his career trajectory thus far, it would be shocking if he were great. On the other hand, the buzz is really significant and he has everything one could wish for in terms of supporting cast. I don't think he has to be very good to have a 1000 yard season and, as far as casual observers are concerned, that would essentially be prima facie evidence he's good, as most people are quick to credit/blame running backs for their stats regardless of how good/bad the situation is. I'm finding myself thinking Smith will have a significant year even despite his piddling 26 career games.
* The reference could have been more clearly written in the article but you're somewhat mischaracterizing the PFF reference. It's not bottom five of Power Five QBs last season, it's bottom five of Power Five QBs last season when under pressure. Nonetheless, it's true PFF didn't like McKee last season - they had him 51st of 63 Power Five QBs. Personally, I agree with the article's characterization of McKee as being very good when healthy. The only games that were significantly worse than what the opposing pass defense typically allowed were Kansas State (Jack West!), Utah (no McKee or any receivers other than Yurosek and Wilson), Oregon State (no McKee, WR corps still banged up), and Cal (McKee coming off injury and played crappy). In the other eight games (read: when McKee was healthy/playing/not coming back from injury), our passing game consistently put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses relative to what they typically allowed. I think it's reasonable for us to expect a lot out of McKee. But certainly the PFF skepticism last year is interesting.
* It will be interesting to see the early season lineup at OL, whether it's gelled, and how quick the hook is for any under-performing player as we'll have a proven starter ready to go off the bench. Like the article, I anticipate Hornibrook will leap-frog Miller based on what we're hearing from practices, which is an interesting development as Miller has tended to be the 1A option at guard during their careers and PFF, at least, does not think Hornibrook has been better than Miller. Something interesting happened this off-season if Hornibrook leap-frogged. It will also be interesting, of course, whether Hinton has massively improved and, if not, how quick the hook is given Miller waiting in the wings. By the way, the article talked about Hinton having the worst PFF grade in Shaw's history, but it's actually the worst PFF grade by a starting lineman in Pac-12 history.
* One can always quibble/have one's own views on grades. I'd probably say QB is a B+, running back is a B- (closer to C+ than B for me given depth/health history), wide receiver is an A, tight end is an A-, and offensive line is a B+.
* I agree with the article that that layout of the offensive roster has no excuse but to be one of the best in the conference. USC has better talent but aside from that there's no more than one or two teams in the conference who'd get grades as good as the above from me.