07-28-2016, 12:44 PM
Looks like it's Bay Area football media day
07-29-2016, 11:50 AM
"Scary" depth, says David Shaw: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/...tay-on-top
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-29-2016, 12:31 PM
"Scary" is as Scary does" Scary because several analysts have picked us to be toppled from the PAC North, much less the conference championship? Scary because maybe we will actually have to test that depth in search of key people to get the job done? Scary because maybe none of them can, at least to the promise of the Hogan Years?
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
"Scary" is as Scary does" Scary because several analysts have picked us to be toppled from the PAC North, much less the conference championship? Scary because maybe we will actually have to test that depth in search of key people to get the job done? Scary because maybe none of them can, at least to the promise of the Hogan Years?
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
07-29-2016, 01:05 PM
(07-29-2016, 12:31 PM)Redrum link Wrote:"Scary" is as Scary does" Scary because several analysts have picked us to be toppled from the PAC North, much less the conference championship? Scary because maybe we will actually have to test that depth in search of key people to get the job done? Scary because maybe none of them can, at least to the promise of the Hogan Years?
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
Just to clarify, Shaw used that word in a positive sense for Stanford, as in "The depth we have is scary ... It's young and the whole group is so fun to coach.''
Of course we can think of all sorts of other scary aspects concerning the depth on our team and across the Pac 12.
-----------
And on another matter, the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
(07-29-2016, 12:31 PM)Redrum link Wrote:"Scary" is as Scary does" Scary because several analysts have picked us to be toppled from the PAC North, much less the conference championship? Scary because maybe we will actually have to test that depth in search of key people to get the job done? Scary because maybe none of them can, at least to the promise of the Hogan Years?
I remain Your Little Ray of Sunshine, Redrum
Just to clarify, Shaw used that word in a positive sense for Stanford, as in "The depth we have is scary ... It's young and the whole group is so fun to coach.''
Of course we can think of all sorts of other scary aspects concerning the depth on our team and across the Pac 12.
-----------
And on another matter, the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
07-29-2016, 04:40 PM
(07-29-2016, 01:05 PM)CTcard link Wrote:the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
Stanford is listing Reed Miller, long snapper, as a lost starter. He makes 13.
(07-29-2016, 01:05 PM)CTcard link Wrote:the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
Stanford is listing Reed Miller, long snapper, as a lost starter. He makes 13.
07-29-2016, 04:59 PM
I always thought that long-snappers weren't counted as lost starters until the new guy sails one over the punters head. At that point they immediately get promoted to key losses.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-29-2016, 05:43 PM
(07-29-2016, 04:59 PM)rudruff link Wrote:I always thought that long-snappers weren't counted as lost starters until the new guy sails one over the punters head. At that point they immediately get promoted to key losses.
Nice! Well played, sir!
(07-29-2016, 04:59 PM)rudruff link Wrote:I always thought that long-snappers weren't counted as lost starters until the new guy sails one over the punters head. At that point they immediately get promoted to key losses.
Nice! Well played, sir!
07-31-2016, 09:39 PM
(07-29-2016, 04:40 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15365.msg166880#msg166880 date=1469822749]
the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
Stanford is listing Reed Miller, long snapper, as a lost starter. He makes 13.
[/quote]
Interesting.
Not only is that a curious choice as a "starter", but I had no idea Stanford make any official designations of lost starters.
(07-29-2016, 04:40 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15365.msg166880#msg166880 date=1469822749]
the preseason articles about Stanford have all seemed to settle on, "Thirteen starters have moved on".
I count
offense = Hogan, Hooper, Cajuste, Murphy, Garnett, Shuler
defense = Scarlett, Shittu, Anderson, Martinez, Harris, Whitfield
That's 12.
Who am I missing?
Stanford is listing Reed Miller, long snapper, as a lost starter. He makes 13.
[/quote]
Interesting.
Not only is that a curious choice as a "starter", but I had no idea Stanford make any official designations of lost starters.
08-01-2016, 01:01 PM
Long-snappers are crucial cogs in the machine. Scholarships and recruitment time are specifically reserved for this skill position.
(08-01-2016, 01:01 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Long-snappers are crucial cogs in the machine. Scholarships and recruitment time are specifically reserved for this skill position.
That's not very relevant as to whether it is interesting/unique in designating a long snapper as a starter.
As far as I know, Richard McNitzky is the first specifically long snapper Stanford has ever offered a scholarship out of high school. Anyone know another?
(08-01-2016, 01:01 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Long-snappers are crucial cogs in the machine. Scholarships and recruitment time are specifically reserved for this skill position.
That's not very relevant as to whether it is interesting/unique in designating a long snapper as a starter.
As far as I know, Richard McNitzky is the first specifically long snapper Stanford has ever offered a scholarship out of high school. Anyone know another?
08-02-2016, 09:04 AM
Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
08-02-2016, 09:31 AM
(08-02-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
I think it's worth some in points, more for the punts. A punter once told me that a perfectly delivered snap adds five yards to his punts relative to an average snap, and a bad snap takes off ten or more yards. So in the field battle position, it's pretty crucial to have a good one.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-02-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
I think it's worth some in points, more for the punts. A punter once told me that a perfectly delivered snap adds five yards to his punts relative to an average snap, and a bad snap takes off ten or more yards. So in the field battle position, it's pretty crucial to have a good one.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-02-2016, 11:24 AM
(08-02-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
I would think that there is potentially a pretty big difference between a bad long snapper and a good one (the whole screw up thing). However, it is not clear to me how much difference there is between a good long snapper and a great long snapper.
... can you be a great long snapper?
(08-02-2016, 09:04 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Are long-snappers really *that* crucial? Yes in the sense that if they screw up it's bad, but what's the difference between a bad long-snapper and a good one? How many points per season is it worth?
I would think that there is potentially a pretty big difference between a bad long snapper and a good one (the whole screw up thing). However, it is not clear to me how much difference there is between a good long snapper and a great long snapper.
... can you be a great long snapper?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »