[JohnR34231]

Buchele and Eason are true freshmen; I believe the others are redshirts.

FWIW, I think KJ Costello looked more impressive than Eason in the all star game I saw them play in.

[JohnR34231]

Buchele and Eason are true freshmen; I believe the others are redshirts.

FWIW, I think KJ Costello looked more impressive than Eason in the all star game I saw them play in.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15566.msg170362#msg170362 date=1473260031]I will say with all the hype Trent Irwin gets I'm a little surprised we don't try to throw to him more.

Well, there's Irwin, McCaffrey, Rector, Owusu, the TEs, plenty of players to try to get targets. Irwin only had one reception though I know he was targeted at least once more.
[/quote]

I realize we have a lot of options as far as passing targets go. However, it seems to me that with the obvious exception of McCaffrey, no one gets the hype Irwin does.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=15566.msg170362#msg170362 date=1473260031]I will say with all the hype Trent Irwin gets I'm a little surprised we don't try to throw to him more.

Well, there's Irwin, McCaffrey, Rector, Owusu, the TEs, plenty of players to try to get targets. Irwin only had one reception though I know he was targeted at least once more.
[/quote]

I realize we have a lot of options as far as passing targets go. However, it seems to me that with the obvious exception of McCaffrey, no one gets the hype Irwin does.

[stupac2]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

And I agree, I'm kind of surprised he only had something like 3 targets. But it was pretty clear that the gameplan was to have it be the McCaffrey show, which I don't think is a terrible idea. Presumably later games will have different gameplans.

[stupac2]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

And I agree, I'm kind of surprised he only had something like 3 targets. But it was pretty clear that the gameplan was to have it be the McCaffrey show, which I don't think is a terrible idea. Presumably later games will have different gameplans.

[Bruce Wang]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

Irwin downing the punt near the goal line was one of the most impressive plays of the game.  He was running down that kick fast and just stopped on a dime.

[Bruce Wang]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

Irwin downing the punt near the goal line was one of the most impressive plays of the game.  He was running down that kick fast and just stopped on a dime.

[washingtonismoney]

The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

[washingtonismoney]

The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

[JohnR34231]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

And I agree, I'm kind of surprised he only had something like 3 targets. But it was pretty clear that the gameplan was to have it be the McCaffrey show, which I don't think is a terrible idea. Presumably later games will have different gameplans.

Yeah, I suspect that with the losses to graduation at WR, CMac quite possibly headed to the NFL, and with the QB's having a year's experience under their belts, next year will be Irwin's real year to shine.

[JohnR34231]

Well he certainly showed his reflexes/hands on those punts...

And I agree, I'm kind of surprised he only had something like 3 targets. But it was pretty clear that the gameplan was to have it be the McCaffrey show, which I don't think is a terrible idea. Presumably later games will have different gameplans.

Yeah, I suspect that with the losses to graduation at WR, CMac quite possibly headed to the NFL, and with the QB's having a year's experience under their belts, next year will be Irwin's real year to shine.

[stupac2]

The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

I have a really hard time believing that Scarlett can't at least approximate Wright's role last year. What was weird is that the coaches seemed like they wanted him to approximate Love's role, which, just, yeah didn't work at all. But I don't think Wright would've featured much in this gameplan anyway, most of our drives weren't terribly plodding so McCaffrey didn't need to spelled very often.

It's puzzling, though, certainly one of the mysteries about this game.

[stupac2]

The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

I have a really hard time believing that Scarlett can't at least approximate Wright's role last year. What was weird is that the coaches seemed like they wanted him to approximate Love's role, which, just, yeah didn't work at all. But I don't think Wright would've featured much in this gameplan anyway, most of our drives weren't terribly plodding so McCaffrey didn't need to spelled very often.

It's puzzling, though, certainly one of the mysteries about this game.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15566.msg170379#msg170379 date=1473263691]
The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

I have a really hard time believing that Scarlett can't at least approximate Wright's role last year. What was weird is that the coaches seemed like they wanted him to approximate Love's role, which, just, yeah didn't work at all. But I don't think Wright would've featured much in this gameplan anyway, most of our drives weren't terribly plodding so McCaffrey didn't need to spelled very often.

It's puzzling, though, certainly one of the mysteries about this game.
[/quote]

The Ducks were recruiting Scarlett as a WR (until they got someone else they apparently liked better) so the guy has to have at least some speed.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15566.msg170379#msg170379 date=1473263691]
The other thing to keep in mind when assessing the game plan: the utter lack of a #2 RB option. Last year the team had Wright and Love to spread the load out. Against K-State it appeared the coaches decided Scarlett wasn't getting the job done, and Burns/Chryst never took the ball on a read-option play. One assumes there'll be opportunities for the QBs to run in future weeks, and that Love will get his fair share of carries as well. The seeming lack of a #3 back is mildly disturbing, however.

I have a really hard time believing that Scarlett can't at least approximate Wright's role last year. What was weird is that the coaches seemed like they wanted him to approximate Love's role, which, just, yeah didn't work at all. But I don't think Wright would've featured much in this gameplan anyway, most of our drives weren't terribly plodding so McCaffrey didn't need to spelled very often.

It's puzzling, though, certainly one of the mysteries about this game.
[/quote]

The Ducks were recruiting Scarlett as a WR (until they got someone else they apparently liked better) so the guy has to have at least some speed.

[Hulk01]

I'd never characterize the descriptions of Irwin as hype.  He runs fabulous routes, has great hands and fundamentals, excellent speed, good length, a brobdingnagian catch radius, and works like hell to perfect his craft.  There's nothing hyperbolic in all that praise.  It's merely descriptive.

It sometimes seems here like it's 4 30 am and some fans are asking why the damn sun isn't up yet.

[Hulk01]

I'd never characterize the descriptions of Irwin as hype.  He runs fabulous routes, has great hands and fundamentals, excellent speed, good length, a brobdingnagian catch radius, and works like hell to perfect his craft.  There's nothing hyperbolic in all that praise.  It's merely descriptive.

It sometimes seems here like it's 4 30 am and some fans are asking why the damn sun isn't up yet.

[JohnR34231]

I'd never characterize the descriptions of Irwin as hype.  He runs fabulous routes, has great hands and fundamentals, excellent speed, good length, a of exceedingly large proportions catch radius, and works like hell to perfect his craft.  There's nothing hyperbolic in all that praise.  It's merely descriptive.

It sometimes seems here like it's 4 30 am and some fans are asking why the damn sun isn't up yet.

OK, fine, Hulk. How about if I say all the "deserved praise".
As far as your last comment is concerned, I'm a little confused. Do you mean we are expecting too much too soon from Irwin?

[JohnR34231]

I'd never characterize the descriptions of Irwin as hype.  He runs fabulous routes, has great hands and fundamentals, excellent speed, good length, a of exceedingly large proportions catch radius, and works like hell to perfect his craft.  There's nothing hyperbolic in all that praise.  It's merely descriptive.

It sometimes seems here like it's 4 30 am and some fans are asking why the damn sun isn't up yet.

OK, fine, Hulk. How about if I say all the "deserved praise".
As far as your last comment is concerned, I'm a little confused. Do you mean we are expecting too much too soon from Irwin?

[dabigv13]

Well we've been hearing you sing his praises for about two years, and he's been pretty good but not second coming status from what we've seen.

Even if he is Jerry Rice 2.0, I doubt our offense is really set up to feature a WR prominently. Don't think we'll have Biletnikoff winner while Shaw is here.

[dabigv13]

Well we've been hearing you sing his praises for about two years, and he's been pretty good but not second coming status from what we've seen.

Even if he is Jerry Rice 2.0, I doubt our offense is really set up to feature a WR prominently. Don't think we'll have Biletnikoff winner while Shaw is here.

[fullmetal]

I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience. 

[fullmetal]

I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience.

Well, right now it could be because we have the best player in the country and one of the best players of the last 20 years at running back, and before now I would say we've had a few good but not great WRs. I mean, it's not like we had any who are NFL regulars now or something that didn't get used.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience.

Well, right now it could be because we have the best player in the country and one of the best players of the last 20 years at running back, and before now I would say we've had a few good but not great WRs. I mean, it's not like we had any who are NFL regulars now or something that didn't get used.

[Durty Nelly]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=15566.msg170406#msg170406 date=1473275548]
I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience.

Well, right now it could be because we have the best player in the country and one of the best players of the last 20 years at running back, and before now I would say we've had a few good but not great WRs. I mean, it's not like we had any who are NFL regulars now or something that didn't get used.
[/quote]

Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

[Durty Nelly]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=15566.msg170406#msg170406 date=1473275548]
I sometimes wonder if that's because Shaw was a WR at Stanford--he might be harder on that position group because he knows how to play it, and maybe he doesn't think that anyone is good enough for his standards right now.  But if we did have a future Biletnikoff finalist on the roster, I would hope Shaw would be the first to recognize it because of that past experience.

Well, right now it could be because we have the best player in the country and one of the best players of the last 20 years at running back, and before now I would say we've had a few good but not great WRs. I mean, it's not like we had any who are NFL regulars now or something that didn't get used.
[/quote]

Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

[stupac2]

Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

I think he's saying that Baldwin caught plenty of balls in his time at Stanford. Montgomery too.

[stupac2]

Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

I think he's saying that Baldwin caught plenty of balls in his time at Stanford. Montgomery too.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Durty Nelly link=topic=15566.msg170409#msg170409 date=1473276346]Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

I think he's saying that Baldwin caught plenty of balls in his time at Stanford. Montgomery too.
[/quote]

Yep! Also, Baldwin wasn't here when Shaw was head coach, if I remember right.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Durty Nelly link=topic=15566.msg170409#msg170409 date=1473276346]Doug Baldwin doesn't count????

I think he's saying that Baldwin caught plenty of balls in his time at Stanford. Montgomery too.
[/quote]

Yep! Also, Baldwin wasn't here when Shaw was head coach, if I remember right.

[fullmetal]

Baldwin graduated in '11.  Blackmon won the Biletnikoff that year, and the statistics justified that.  Broyles (OU) and Woods (U$C) were the other two finalists.  While I'm not sure if Baldwin was given a chance to prove his Biletnikoff worthiness, I think it's safe to say that he was not in a position to win it that year.

Shaw was the OC under Harbs.  If there was a Biletnikoff winner on the roster, you bet Shaw would have gotten Harbaugh to make it happen--plus there was all-world QB Andrew Luck to throw the ball to said hypothetical Biletnikoff winner.  All the pieces would have been there.

Having said that, one one game of the season has been played this year, and most of us think Shaw used a fraction of the playbook.  (Those of you who think "the playbook is brobdingnagian, why save plays"--that's a different discussion, but suffice to say that yes, it does matter.)  Maybe we will be featuring Love, CMac, a tall pass-catching TE, and one or two legit WR threats.  It might happen.  Clear your schedules for these games.

(Oh wait, half of them are TBD based on network scheduling shenanigans...)

[fullmetal]

Baldwin graduated in '11.  Blackmon won the Biletnikoff that year, and the statistics justified that.  Broyles (OU) and Woods (U$C) were the other two finalists.  While I'm not sure if Baldwin was given a chance to prove his Biletnikoff worthiness, I think it's safe to say that he was not in a position to win it that year.

Shaw was the OC under Harbs.  If there was a Biletnikoff winner on the roster, you bet Shaw would have gotten Harbaugh to make it happen--plus there was all-world QB Andrew Luck to throw the ball to said hypothetical Biletnikoff winner.  All the pieces would have been there.

Having said that, one one game of the season has been played this year, and most of us think Shaw used a fraction of the playbook.  (Those of you who think "the playbook is brobdingnagian, why save plays"--that's a different discussion, but suffice to say that yes, it does matter.)  Maybe we will be featuring Love, CMac, a tall pass-catching TE, and one or two legit WR threats.  It might happen.  Clear your schedules for these games.

(Oh wait, half of them are TBD based on network scheduling shenanigans...)

[larkinforever]

Shaw said Solomon Thomas could have had a "five-sack night" - at least that's the quote from several stories. Will someone help me understand what that means?

[larkinforever]

Shaw said Solomon Thomas could have had a "five-sack night" - at least that's the quote from several stories. Will someone help me understand what that means?

[stupac2]

Shaw said Solomon Thomas could have had a "five-sack night" - at least that's the quote from several stories. Will someone help me understand what that means?

He could've gotten five sacks during the game, but for some unspecified reason didn't.

[stupac2]

Shaw said Solomon Thomas could have had a "five-sack night" - at least that's the quote from several stories. Will someone help me understand what that means?

He could've gotten five sacks during the game, but for some unspecified reason didn't.

[oldalum]

I'm pretty sure that comment came after discussing the defensive line rotation, so I think he meant if he had played more downs he would have had 5 sacks.

[oldalum]

I'm pretty sure that comment came after discussing the defensive line rotation, so I think he meant if he had played more downs he would have had 5 sacks.