[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17039.msg195345#msg195345 date=1499364098]
I think your points are absolutely key.  We can have a "deep threat" that doesn't involve our guy beating the defensive back in a footrace.  In fact, I would argue that most of the successful long completions will involve either a mismatch, catching the defensive back napping, or because our guys are stronger or taller than their defenders.

BC

Respectfully disagree.  The point of a deep threat is to have enough speed to take the top off the defense.  In other words, make the defense respect the threat of a receiver blowing by a CB such that the defense cannot have safeties creep down toward the line of scrimmage and sell out against the run.  No matter how talented the OL, you simply cannot be as successful running the ball against 8 and 9 in the box.  The deep threat has to have speed, otherwise the defense is not forced to commit extra players.  JJAW and Irwin do not have that type of speed.  Brandt-Sims certainly does, but the jury is out on whether he can actually run under a ball and make a catch (let alone whether our QB's can make those throws).

I see what you are saying with respect to long completions, but I think that is a different point than the threat of going deep on every play and how that softens the defense for the run game and short and intermediate throws..
[/quote]

You make a strong argument, but in our offense, we will never be using the pass to open up the run game.  We've always used the power run to open up the pass.  As a result, we need our receivers to be "good enough" to make the defenses pay when they do creep up, rather than so blindingly fast (John Ross fast) that the defenses don't dare to even think of creeping up.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17039.msg195345#msg195345 date=1499364098]
I think your points are absolutely key.  We can have a "deep threat" that doesn't involve our guy beating the defensive back in a footrace.  In fact, I would argue that most of the successful long completions will involve either a mismatch, catching the defensive back napping, or because our guys are stronger or taller than their defenders.

BC

Respectfully disagree.  The point of a deep threat is to have enough speed to take the top off the defense.  In other words, make the defense respect the threat of a receiver blowing by a CB such that the defense cannot have safeties creep down toward the line of scrimmage and sell out against the run.  No matter how talented the OL, you simply cannot be as successful running the ball against 8 and 9 in the box.  The deep threat has to have speed, otherwise the defense is not forced to commit extra players.  JJAW and Irwin do not have that type of speed.  Brandt-Sims certainly does, but the jury is out on whether he can actually run under a ball and make a catch (let alone whether our QB's can make those throws).

I see what you are saying with respect to long completions, but I think that is a different point than the threat of going deep on every play and how that softens the defense for the run game and short and intermediate throws..
[/quote]

You make a strong argument, but in our offense, we will never be using the pass to open up the run game.  We've always used the power run to open up the pass.  As a result, we need our receivers to be "good enough" to make the defenses pay when they do creep up, rather than so blindingly fast (John Ross fast) that the defenses don't dare to even think of creeping up.

BC

[fullmetal]

I remember Jay Tyler as a spot replacement at punt returner...is he practicing with both special teams and the WRs?

[fullmetal]

I remember Jay Tyler as a spot replacement at punt returner...is he practicing with both special teams and the WRs?

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=17039.msg195349#msg195349 date=1499369511]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17039.msg195345#msg195345 date=1499364098]
I think your points are absolutely key.  We can have a "deep threat" that doesn't involve our guy beating the defensive back in a footrace.  In fact, I would argue that most of the successful long completions will involve either a mismatch, catching the defensive back napping, or because our guys are stronger or taller than their defenders.

BC

Respectfully disagree.  The point of a deep threat is to have enough speed to take the top off the defense.  In other words, make the defense respect the threat of a receiver blowing by a CB such that the defense cannot have safeties creep down toward the line of scrimmage and sell out against the run.  No matter how talented the OL, you simply cannot be as successful running the ball against 8 and 9 in the box.  The deep threat has to have speed, otherwise the defense is not forced to commit extra players.  JJAW and Irwin do not have that type of speed.  Brandt-Sims certainly does, but the jury is out on whether he can actually run under a ball and make a catch (let alone whether our QB's can make those throws).

I see what you are saying with respect to long completions, but I think that is a different point than the threat of going deep on every play and how that softens the defense for the run game and short and intermediate throws..
[/quote]

You make a strong argument, but in our offense, we will never be using the pass to open up the run game.  We've always used the power run to open up the pass.  As a result, we need our receivers to be "good enough" to make the defenses pay when they do creep up, rather than so blindingly fast (John Ross fast) that the defenses don't dare to even think of creeping up.

BC
[/quote]

Respectfully disagree.  I don't intend for what I'm saying to be controversial.  There is no chicken and egg problem.  The threat of the run sets up the pass, and the threat of the pass sets up the run.  Pretend that instead of "deep threat" I said "QB with a strong arm".  Could you get by with a good run game and a QB with a good enough arm?  Sure, to some extent.  If the rest of his game was very good, then absolutely.  You'd have Jake Browning and Cody Kessler.  Very good college QB's with less than ideal size and arm strength.  But as good as it is, your offense would be better if your QB had a strong enough arm to make the defense cover the whole field.  Even if you ran the ball 9 times out of 10, the threat of being able to throw sideline to sideline will stretch out the defense and open holes in the run game.  Another analogy, this time to basketball.  You can be a predominantly interior scoring team, but just having a capable three point shooter hang out in the corner, even if he never touches the ball, opens floor space for the rest of the offense.

In the past we've had deep threats: Chris Owusu, Fleener, Rector, Montgomery.  Some were very productive in terms of actual receptions and yardage.  Others had issues running routes and catching the ball.  But in each case, the defense had to at least pay attention.  The issue this season, which I think is a real question, is who is the guy defenses are going to say "he can hurt me deep if I leave him alone with my corner (or the case of a TE, LB)?"

As for the John Ross example, that's obviously extreme.  Literally, as extreme as it gets in terms of measuring speed by 40 time.  Forget 4.22, I'm not sure Stanford has a returning WR with any meaningful stats from 2016 that can run a 4.62.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=17039.msg195349#msg195349 date=1499369511]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17039.msg195345#msg195345 date=1499364098]
I think your points are absolutely key.  We can have a "deep threat" that doesn't involve our guy beating the defensive back in a footrace.  In fact, I would argue that most of the successful long completions will involve either a mismatch, catching the defensive back napping, or because our guys are stronger or taller than their defenders.

BC

Respectfully disagree.  The point of a deep threat is to have enough speed to take the top off the defense.  In other words, make the defense respect the threat of a receiver blowing by a CB such that the defense cannot have safeties creep down toward the line of scrimmage and sell out against the run.  No matter how talented the OL, you simply cannot be as successful running the ball against 8 and 9 in the box.  The deep threat has to have speed, otherwise the defense is not forced to commit extra players.  JJAW and Irwin do not have that type of speed.  Brandt-Sims certainly does, but the jury is out on whether he can actually run under a ball and make a catch (let alone whether our QB's can make those throws).

I see what you are saying with respect to long completions, but I think that is a different point than the threat of going deep on every play and how that softens the defense for the run game and short and intermediate throws..
[/quote]

You make a strong argument, but in our offense, we will never be using the pass to open up the run game.  We've always used the power run to open up the pass.  As a result, we need our receivers to be "good enough" to make the defenses pay when they do creep up, rather than so blindingly fast (John Ross fast) that the defenses don't dare to even think of creeping up.

BC
[/quote]

Respectfully disagree.  I don't intend for what I'm saying to be controversial.  There is no chicken and egg problem.  The threat of the run sets up the pass, and the threat of the pass sets up the run.  Pretend that instead of "deep threat" I said "QB with a strong arm".  Could you get by with a good run game and a QB with a good enough arm?  Sure, to some extent.  If the rest of his game was very good, then absolutely.  You'd have Jake Browning and Cody Kessler.  Very good college QB's with less than ideal size and arm strength.  But as good as it is, your offense would be better if your QB had a strong enough arm to make the defense cover the whole field.  Even if you ran the ball 9 times out of 10, the threat of being able to throw sideline to sideline will stretch out the defense and open holes in the run game.  Another analogy, this time to basketball.  You can be a predominantly interior scoring team, but just having a capable three point shooter hang out in the corner, even if he never touches the ball, opens floor space for the rest of the offense.

In the past we've had deep threats: Chris Owusu, Fleener, Rector, Montgomery.  Some were very productive in terms of actual receptions and yardage.  Others had issues running routes and catching the ball.  But in each case, the defense had to at least pay attention.  The issue this season, which I think is a real question, is who is the guy defenses are going to say "he can hurt me deep if I leave him alone with my corner (or the case of a TE, LB)?"

As for the John Ross example, that's obviously extreme.  Literally, as extreme as it gets in terms of measuring speed by 40 time.  Forget 4.22, I'm not sure Stanford has a returning WR with any meaningful stats from 2016 that can run a 4.62.

[OutsiderFan]

Considering both Rector and Owusu ran sub 4.5 40s for the NFL, and that Stanford was one of the least explosive offenses in the country with them, I think some assumptions are being made about the correlation of 40 times and WRs as deep threats that may not be true.

[OutsiderFan]

Considering both Rector and Owusu ran sub 4.5 40s for the NFL, and that Stanford was one of the least explosive offenses in the country with them, I think some assumptions are being made about the correlation of 40 times and WRs as deep threats that may not be true.

[Hulk01]

Along with our coaches, I strongly support Mustard here.  Ideally, your offense has a take-the-top-off receiver.
The more of the field you can attack horizontally and vertically, the more space you create between defenders.

[Hulk01]

Along with our coaches, I strongly support Mustard here.  Ideally, your offense has a take-the-top-off receiver.
The more of the field you can attack horizontally and vertically, the more space you create between defenders.

[CTcard]

... Ideally, your offense has a take-the-top-off receiver.
The more of the field you can attack horizontally and vertically, the more space you create between defenders.

Not only is this true, I think it is rather obviously true.

However, the point of my posts was essentially that we do not appear to have that player on the roster for 2017 - at least not at the WR position.
So, what are we going to do about it? Presumably not just give up.

One thing we are going to do is still throw deep balls anyway when our WRs have single coverage and/or the safeties are preoccupied with run support. I made the case that it looks to me that JJAW is the most capable guy we have to do that given the deep catches he did make in his frosh season. I haven't seen an argument made for anyone else.
[I guess another sub-point of my posts is that I think JJAW has somewhat more speed that Mustard is crediting him with, but he's not a burner and this is only an issue of degree.]

Another thing I expect we'll see is an effort to expand Love's role in the passing game. He only caught eight passes last year, and my memory is that he was rarely lined up wide the way we often did with McCaffrey. What I don't know is how much that is because McCaffrey was already filling that role and how much is because Love's not so good at it.
The wild card here is the true frosh Wedington. He seems to be legitimately fast and his highlight reel includes plays where he lines up wide and runs routes. Of course it's been very rare to see a true frosh at Stanford carry a significant offensive-skill role [even McCaffrey didn't until the last few games of the year], so counting on Wedington seems a long shot.

I also expect we'll see an effort to exploit at least relative speed advantages. I am hoping that someone at the TE position can run by linebackers. Unfortunately, while several seem reasonably athletic, none seem to have Fleener kind of speed from anything I have seen or heard.

[CTcard]

... Ideally, your offense has a take-the-top-off receiver.
The more of the field you can attack horizontally and vertically, the more space you create between defenders.

Not only is this true, I think it is rather obviously true.

However, the point of my posts was essentially that we do not appear to have that player on the roster for 2017 - at least not at the WR position.
So, what are we going to do about it? Presumably not just give up.

One thing we are going to do is still throw deep balls anyway when our WRs have single coverage and/or the safeties are preoccupied with run support. I made the case that it looks to me that JJAW is the most capable guy we have to do that given the deep catches he did make in his frosh season. I haven't seen an argument made for anyone else.
[I guess another sub-point of my posts is that I think JJAW has somewhat more speed that Mustard is crediting him with, but he's not a burner and this is only an issue of degree.]

Another thing I expect we'll see is an effort to expand Love's role in the passing game. He only caught eight passes last year, and my memory is that he was rarely lined up wide the way we often did with McCaffrey. What I don't know is how much that is because McCaffrey was already filling that role and how much is because Love's not so good at it.
The wild card here is the true frosh Wedington. He seems to be legitimately fast and his highlight reel includes plays where he lines up wide and runs routes. Of course it's been very rare to see a true frosh at Stanford carry a significant offensive-skill role [even McCaffrey didn't until the last few games of the year], so counting on Wedington seems a long shot.

I also expect we'll see an effort to exploit at least relative speed advantages. I am hoping that someone at the TE position can run by linebackers. Unfortunately, while several seem reasonably athletic, none seem to have Fleener kind of speed from anything I have seen or heard.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

100% with you CT.  We have to throw deep every once in a while regardless of personnel just to keep the defense honest, and unless someone new emerges, JJAW is probably the guy.  I just don't think that's going to scare defenses from crowding the box. 

I expect we will look for ways to get Love more involved in the pass game, but two issues there.  First, McCaffrey was a generational talent, particularly when it came to catching passes as a RB.  Like the best I've ever seen as a route running RB in my time watching CFB and NFL talent evaluators saw the same thing in his versatility.  Love could be very good and still nowhere near McCaffrey's level.  Second, when Love is out of the backfield, that shows the defense we are in a passing formation and the threat of the run disappears as a means to hold defenders for an extra beat or two.

There's a positive way to spin this.  Last year (at least the portion of the year when we were playing competent defenses), our O-line play was so poor and QB's so jumpy in the pocket and inconsistent, that we could have had Usain Bolt running fades and it wouldn't have mattered.  The deep threat only matters if you can pass block and QB's have time, poise and the mechanics to complete the pass.  If it turns out that the lack of a deep threat becomes a real issue, it probably means the passing game is ahead of where it was last year.  Said differently, I'd rank the lack of a deep threat way down the list of offensive issues to sort out.  Maybe something like this: 1.  LT, 2.  RT, 3.  GnNH (Guard not Nate Herbig), 4.  QB, 5.  Secondary offensive weapon after Bryce Love, 6.  Re-emergence of the TE in the passing game, 7.  Backup RB, 8.  Something else, 9.  Need to get to ten for dramatic effect, 10.  Lack of deep threat.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

100% with you CT.  We have to throw deep every once in a while regardless of personnel just to keep the defense honest, and unless someone new emerges, JJAW is probably the guy.  I just don't think that's going to scare defenses from crowding the box. 

I expect we will look for ways to get Love more involved in the pass game, but two issues there.  First, McCaffrey was a generational talent, particularly when it came to catching passes as a RB.  Like the best I've ever seen as a route running RB in my time watching CFB and NFL talent evaluators saw the same thing in his versatility.  Love could be very good and still nowhere near McCaffrey's level.  Second, when Love is out of the backfield, that shows the defense we are in a passing formation and the threat of the run disappears as a means to hold defenders for an extra beat or two.

There's a positive way to spin this.  Last year (at least the portion of the year when we were playing competent defenses), our O-line play was so poor and QB's so jumpy in the pocket and inconsistent, that we could have had Usain Bolt running fades and it wouldn't have mattered.  The deep threat only matters if you can pass block and QB's have time, poise and the mechanics to complete the pass.  If it turns out that the lack of a deep threat becomes a real issue, it probably means the passing game is ahead of where it was last year.  Said differently, I'd rank the lack of a deep threat way down the list of offensive issues to sort out.  Maybe something like this: 1.  LT, 2.  RT, 3.  GnNH (Guard not Nate Herbig), 4.  QB, 5.  Secondary offensive weapon after Bryce Love, 6.  Re-emergence of the TE in the passing game, 7.  Backup RB, 8.  Something else, 9.  Need to get to ten for dramatic effect, 10.  Lack of deep threat.

[Hulk01]

I failed to read your post accurately.  I thought you were wondering who might take the take-the-top-off role, rather than questioning if we had anyone with the necessary attribute--sheer speed--to do it.

Wedington clocked a Nike-validated and laser-timed 4.48 (Love's Opening time was a 4.47).
If anyone assumes that role. if only in spot duty, it's likely to be him. 

Regarding the younger TE's, Smith, Harrington, and Parkinson are not speedy.

[Hulk01]

I failed to read your post accurately.  I thought you were wondering who might take the take-the-top-off role, rather than questioning if we had anyone with the necessary attribute--sheer speed--to do it.

Wedington clocked a Nike-validated and laser-timed 4.48 (Love's Opening time was a 4.47).
If anyone assumes that role. if only in spot duty, it's likely to be him. 

Regarding the younger TE's, Smith, Harrington, and Parkinson are not speedy.

[fullmetal]

I'm with Mustard--OL run blocking, OL pass blocking, OL health, QB accuracy.  Everything falls into place after those.

[fullmetal]

I'm with Mustard--OL run blocking, OL pass blocking, OL health, QB accuracy.  Everything falls into place after those.

[winflop]

I'm with Mustard--OL run blocking, OL pass blocking, OL health, QB accuracy.  Everything falls into place after those.

Agreed and I have concerns about the first two especially at both tackle positions. That and the play of our ILBs+DL will be the difference between and 8-9 win season and 10+

[winflop]

I'm with Mustard--OL run blocking, OL pass blocking, OL health, QB accuracy.  Everything falls into place after those.

Agreed and I have concerns about the first two especially at both tackle positions. That and the play of our ILBs+DL will be the difference between and 8-9 win season and 10+

[CTcard]

There's a positive way to spin this.  Last year (at least the portion of the year when we were playing competent defenses), our O-line play was so poor and QB's so jumpy in the pocket and inconsistent, that we could have had Usain Bolt running fades and it wouldn't have mattered.  The deep threat only matters if you can pass block and QB's have time, poise and the mechanics to complete the pass.

With positive spin like that, who needs naysayers?

------------
If you want positive spin, I'll have a go at it.
[And yes, there is considerable spin here. Think of it like one of those Best Case Scenario articles that ESPN used to run preseason. ]

In 2014 the offense struggled a lot, particularly with respect to scoring points - which is rather the point of offense. Then, over the final three games a miracle occurred. The staff remembered we were a run-first team, realized that McCaffrey kid was pretty good, Hogan refound efficiency, and the offense awoke: scoring 38, 31, and 45 points (though the total yard numbers weren't awesome). Critics dismissed the run, that it was just against terrible defenses. But it did turn out to be a good preview of 2015, where Stanford had an historically good offense led by McCaffrey in the run game.


In 2016 the offense struggled a lot, and really cratered when a bunch of guys got hurt around midseason (see UW, WSU, und, Colorado stretch). The miracle turn around this time was slower. First the running game came back - which largely meant McCaffrey was healthy again but also the OL run blocking was cleaner. Then Chryst seemed to get comfortable and the pass game started to click. For the final three games of the regular season the offense was roaring, scoring 52, 45, and 41 points and gaining 540, 555, and 534 yards. Critics dismiss the run, that it was just against terrible defenses. But, if we are lucky it was more than that and it will preview an offense in 2017 led by a comfortable Chryst, a solid OL with two frosh contributors, and a blazing fast RB.

Said differently, I'd rank the lack of a deep threat way down the list of offensive issues to sort out.  Maybe something like this: 1.  LT, 2.  RT, 3.  GnNH (Guard not Nate Herbig), 4.  QB, 5.  Secondary offensive weapon after Bryce Love, 6.  Re-emergence of the TE in the passing game, 7.  Backup RB, 8.  Something else, 9.  Need to get to ten for dramatic effect, 10.  Lack of deep threat.

Basically agree, with a few changes in detail.

I'd rank the OL #1 overall, but not necessarily position by position (and not sparing the Center). Synchronization is a big issue with OL play, particularly pass blocking. While there were lots of one-on-one beatings last year, there were also plenty of times two guys happily blocked one rusher while somebody else came free to crush the QB.

The rest are all important, though with varying degrees of optimism as to whether they'll turn out well or not.

I am pining for Wedington to be a big answer, despite my skepticism he will be year one.

[CTcard]

There's a positive way to spin this.  Last year (at least the portion of the year when we were playing competent defenses), our O-line play was so poor and QB's so jumpy in the pocket and inconsistent, that we could have had Usain Bolt running fades and it wouldn't have mattered.  The deep threat only matters if you can pass block and QB's have time, poise and the mechanics to complete the pass.

With positive spin like that, who needs naysayers?

------------
If you want positive spin, I'll have a go at it.
[And yes, there is considerable spin here. Think of it like one of those Best Case Scenario articles that ESPN used to run preseason. ]

In 2014 the offense struggled a lot, particularly with respect to scoring points - which is rather the point of offense. Then, over the final three games a miracle occurred. The staff remembered we were a run-first team, realized that McCaffrey kid was pretty good, Hogan refound efficiency, and the offense awoke: scoring 38, 31, and 45 points (though the total yard numbers weren't awesome). Critics dismissed the run, that it was just against terrible defenses. But it did turn out to be a good preview of 2015, where Stanford had an historically good offense led by McCaffrey in the run game.


In 2016 the offense struggled a lot, and really cratered when a bunch of guys got hurt around midseason (see UW, WSU, und, Colorado stretch). The miracle turn around this time was slower. First the running game came back - which largely meant McCaffrey was healthy again but also the OL run blocking was cleaner. Then Chryst seemed to get comfortable and the pass game started to click. For the final three games of the regular season the offense was roaring, scoring 52, 45, and 41 points and gaining 540, 555, and 534 yards. Critics dismiss the run, that it was just against terrible defenses. But, if we are lucky it was more than that and it will preview an offense in 2017 led by a comfortable Chryst, a solid OL with two frosh contributors, and a blazing fast RB.

Said differently, I'd rank the lack of a deep threat way down the list of offensive issues to sort out.  Maybe something like this: 1.  LT, 2.  RT, 3.  GnNH (Guard not Nate Herbig), 4.  QB, 5.  Secondary offensive weapon after Bryce Love, 6.  Re-emergence of the TE in the passing game, 7.  Backup RB, 8.  Something else, 9.  Need to get to ten for dramatic effect, 10.  Lack of deep threat.

Basically agree, with a few changes in detail.

I'd rank the OL #1 overall, but not necessarily position by position (and not sparing the Center). Synchronization is a big issue with OL play, particularly pass blocking. While there were lots of one-on-one beatings last year, there were also plenty of times two guys happily blocked one rusher while somebody else came free to crush the QB.

The rest are all important, though with varying degrees of optimism as to whether they'll turn out well or not.

I am pining for Wedington to be a big answer, despite my skepticism he will be year one.

[Goose]

At the risk of taking all the fun out of it, I am with Mustard, Fullmetal, and Winflop on this subject. The OL is the key. Without better line play, it will be a long year. I worry less about the ILB and DL play, because the ILB play last year was "OK", if not great, and we have been able to navigate depth problems on the DL before. But, with our offensive philosophy, and the people we have recruited, we have to have at least good, and preferably great, OL play. We had that in 2015. We didn't in 2016.

[Goose]

At the risk of taking all the fun out of it, I am with Mustard, Fullmetal, and Winflop on this subject. The OL is the key. Without better line play, it will be a long year. I worry less about the ILB and DL play, because the ILB play last year was "OK", if not great, and we have been able to navigate depth problems on the DL before. But, with our offensive philosophy, and the people we have recruited, we have to have at least good, and preferably great, OL play. We had that in 2015. We didn't in 2016.

[Mick]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

[Mick]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

[CTcard]

At the risk of taking all the fun out of it, I am with Mustard, Fullmetal, and Winflop on this subject. The OL is the key.

I think you are with basically everybody who follows Stanford football on this one.
That doesn't mean we cannot discuss any other topic.

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

That's not really the point. The issue is that if somebody on the field can run past whichever DB you put on him, even if he doesn't catch a ton of passes overall, then the CB has to play soft and the defense has to provide some help - taking somebody away from clogging up another area of the field. That helps everybody else, including the guy who might end up making this list.

But more interesting to me from your list, I would like to send out kudos to career #2 on your list, DeRonnie Pitts. That guy was incredibly productive for us despite allegedly having a 40 time somewhat south of Nate Herbig's. I loved that guy. 

[CTcard]

At the risk of taking all the fun out of it, I am with Mustard, Fullmetal, and Winflop on this subject. The OL is the key.

I think you are with basically everybody who follows Stanford football on this one.
That doesn't mean we cannot discuss any other topic.

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

That's not really the point. The issue is that if somebody on the field can run past whichever DB you put on him, even if he doesn't catch a ton of passes overall, then the CB has to play soft and the defense has to provide some help - taking somebody away from clogging up another area of the field. That helps everybody else, including the guy who might end up making this list.

But more interesting to me from your list, I would like to send out kudos to career #2 on your list, DeRonnie Pitts. That guy was incredibly productive for us despite allegedly having a 40 time somewhat south of Nate Herbig's. I loved that guy. 

[Farm93]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

Not many in that list would be the fastest WR in the conference during their time on the team.  And that really is the level of speed required to stress a defense.  If someone is 4.5 fast, but several other Pac-12 WRs are 4.4 fast then that 4.5 player is not going to stress a defense because of their speed.  Their 4.5 speed will feel like a vacation to those DBs covering 4.4ers each week. 

How often has Stanford had WR speed beyond what other quality teams can simulate in their game prep?  If that is once or twice (but most likely never) then it would seem like a bad plan to create an offense that is predicated on speed burners using unique speed to stretch the defense and create space underneath.

FWIW - I have always thought Shaw's obsession with power, proper execution and play calling complexity more or less was an acknowledgement that Stanford can't just show up and out run defenses like Florida or Florida State of the 80s and 90s or that Pac-12 school from the southern part of the state ~15 years ago.  Success on the Farm requires a different path.  Those that insist on running a Stanford program like every other program in FBS are destined to become the equivalent of Ted's two buddies.

[Farm93]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

Not many in that list would be the fastest WR in the conference during their time on the team.  And that really is the level of speed required to stress a defense.  If someone is 4.5 fast, but several other Pac-12 WRs are 4.4 fast then that 4.5 player is not going to stress a defense because of their speed.  Their 4.5 speed will feel like a vacation to those DBs covering 4.4ers each week. 

How often has Stanford had WR speed beyond what other quality teams can simulate in their game prep?  If that is once or twice (but most likely never) then it would seem like a bad plan to create an offense that is predicated on speed burners using unique speed to stretch the defense and create space underneath.

FWIW - I have always thought Shaw's obsession with power, proper execution and play calling complexity more or less was an acknowledgement that Stanford can't just show up and out run defenses like Florida or Florida State of the 80s and 90s or that Pac-12 school from the southern part of the state ~15 years ago.  Success on the Farm requires a different path.  Those that insist on running a Stanford program like every other program in FBS are destined to become the equivalent of Ted's two buddies.

[DC 86]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

I don't think my friend Emile was really a burner. Manning, Milburn and Hill are probably the fastest from this group.

[DC 86]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

I don't think my friend Emile was really a burner. Manning, Milburn and Hill are probably the fastest from this group.

[82lsju]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

while not on the list, James Lofton was pretty fast

[82lsju]

Here are the career receptions of our top receivers.  Outside of Nelson, were any true burners?  Maybe Emile Harry?

248 Troy Walters 1996-99
228 DeRonnie Pitts 1997-00
223 Darrin Nelson 1977-78, 80-81
198 Brad Muster 1984-87
172 Ty Montgomery 2011-2014
169 Mark Bradford 2003-07
162 Vincent White 1979-82
158 Jeff James 1984-87
156 Justin Armour 1991-94
146 Ken Margerum 1977-80
146 Ed McCaffrey 1986-87, 89-90
146 Chris Walsh 1988-91
146 Glyn Milburn 1990-92
146 Brian Manning 1993-96 
140 Tony Hill 1973-76
140 Ryan Whalen 2007-10
133 Luke Powell  2000-03
124 Mike Tolliver 1979-83
123 Emile Harry  1981-84
122 Gene Washington 1966-68

while not on the list, James Lofton was pretty fast

[Hulk01]

What CT said. 

What you get most from a deep threat is the threat of a touchdown, or of a flip in field position. 

It's not a must-have, but a helluva-nice to have, and agreed: good QB play and game managing, LT, and a secondary big play threat after Love are bigger needs for Stanford football right now.

[Hulk01]

What CT said. 

What you get most from a deep threat is the threat of a touchdown, or of a flip in field position. 

It's not a must-have, but a helluva-nice to have, and agreed: good QB play and game managing, LT, and a secondary big play threat after Love are bigger needs for Stanford football right now.

[BostonCard]

Respectfully disagree.  I don't intend for what I'm saying to be controversial.  There is no chicken and egg problem.  The threat of the run sets up the pass, and the threat of the pass sets up the run.  Pretend that instead of "deep threat" I said "QB with a strong arm".  Could you get by with a good run game and a QB with a good enough arm?  Sure, to some extent.  If the rest of his game was very good, then absolutely.  You'd have Jake Browning and Cody Kessler.  Very good college QB's with less than ideal size and arm strength.  But as good as it is, your offense would be better if your QB had a strong enough arm to make the defense cover the whole field.  Even if you ran the ball 9 times out of 10, the threat of being able to throw sideline to sideline will stretch out the defense and open holes in the run game.  Another analogy, this time to basketball.  You can be a predominantly interior scoring team, but just having a capable three point shooter hang out in the corner, even if he never touches the ball, opens floor space for the rest of the offense.

In the past we've had deep threats: Chris Owusu, Fleener, Rector, Montgomery.  Some were very productive in terms of actual receptions and yardage.  Others had issues running routes and catching the ball.  But in each case, the defense had to at least pay attention.  The issue this season, which I think is a real question, is who is the guy defenses are going to say "he can hurt me deep if I leave him alone with my corner (or the case of a TE, LB)?"

As for the John Ross example, that's obviously extreme.  Literally, as extreme as it gets in terms of measuring speed by 40 time.  Forget 4.22, I'm not sure Stanford has a returning WR with any meaningful stats from 2016 that can run a 4.62.

All else being equal, it is better to have fast wide receivers than slow wide receivers.  And all else being equal, having fast wide receivers (if they are effective catching the ball over the top) does make the defense think twice about putting eight in the box, and makes running the ball easier than not having fast wide receivers.  So, to that extent, I agree with you, because what you say is a truism, which is why I've tried to explore the issue.

I would argue that speed alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a credible deep threat, because there is so much more to that type of offense.  For example (and this example would be better if I could remember the details... perhaps another Booty could), in the Buddy/Walt years (or maybe going back to Willingham) we had a wikedly fast wide receiver.  At one point, he got behind the defense and could have scored a game winning touchdown (against UCLA?), but... he... dropped... the ball.  Point is, he was fast but because he wasn't a good receiver, he wasn't a deep threat.

Your own example of Coby Fleener (or, later, Zach Ertz) shows the raw speed is not necessary to stretch the defense.  If you victimize someone repeatedly when they single cover you or cover you with a linebacker, then that will force the defense to not sell out to stop the run.

So yeah, I would love to have a John Ross on our team, but even without someone that fast, I think we can still have a deep threat receiver to take the pressure off the run.

BC

[BostonCard]

Respectfully disagree.  I don't intend for what I'm saying to be controversial.  There is no chicken and egg problem.  The threat of the run sets up the pass, and the threat of the pass sets up the run.  Pretend that instead of "deep threat" I said "QB with a strong arm".  Could you get by with a good run game and a QB with a good enough arm?  Sure, to some extent.  If the rest of his game was very good, then absolutely.  You'd have Jake Browning and Cody Kessler.  Very good college QB's with less than ideal size and arm strength.  But as good as it is, your offense would be better if your QB had a strong enough arm to make the defense cover the whole field.  Even if you ran the ball 9 times out of 10, the threat of being able to throw sideline to sideline will stretch out the defense and open holes in the run game.  Another analogy, this time to basketball.  You can be a predominantly interior scoring team, but just having a capable three point shooter hang out in the corner, even if he never touches the ball, opens floor space for the rest of the offense.

In the past we've had deep threats: Chris Owusu, Fleener, Rector, Montgomery.  Some were very productive in terms of actual receptions and yardage.  Others had issues running routes and catching the ball.  But in each case, the defense had to at least pay attention.  The issue this season, which I think is a real question, is who is the guy defenses are going to say "he can hurt me deep if I leave him alone with my corner (or the case of a TE, LB)?"

As for the John Ross example, that's obviously extreme.  Literally, as extreme as it gets in terms of measuring speed by 40 time.  Forget 4.22, I'm not sure Stanford has a returning WR with any meaningful stats from 2016 that can run a 4.62.

All else being equal, it is better to have fast wide receivers than slow wide receivers.  And all else being equal, having fast wide receivers (if they are effective catching the ball over the top) does make the defense think twice about putting eight in the box, and makes running the ball easier than not having fast wide receivers.  So, to that extent, I agree with you, because what you say is a truism, which is why I've tried to explore the issue.

I would argue that speed alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a credible deep threat, because there is so much more to that type of offense.  For example (and this example would be better if I could remember the details... perhaps another Booty could), in the Buddy/Walt years (or maybe going back to Willingham) we had a wikedly fast wide receiver.  At one point, he got behind the defense and could have scored a game winning touchdown (against UCLA?), but... he... dropped... the ball.  Point is, he was fast but because he wasn't a good receiver, he wasn't a deep threat.

Your own example of Coby Fleener (or, later, Zach Ertz) shows the raw speed is not necessary to stretch the defense.  If you victimize someone repeatedly when they single cover you or cover you with a linebacker, then that will force the defense to not sell out to stop the run.

So yeah, I would love to have a John Ross on our team, but even without someone that fast, I think we can still have a deep threat receiver to take the pressure off the run.

BC

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Not many in that list would be the fastest WR in the conference during their time on the team.  And that really is the level of speed required to stress a defense.  If someone is 4.5 fast, but several other Pac-12 WRs are 4.4 fast then that 4.5 player is not going to stress a defense because of their speed.  Their 4.5 speed will feel like a vacation to those DBs covering 4.4ers each week. 

That's not how I (and I suspect most) would think about it.  The issue isn't really how fast 4.5 is compared to 4.4 or getting used to speed.  The issue is having a level of speed such that, once the DB hesitates for a second, looks into the backfield, misplaces a hand at the line or a opens up his hips in less than perfect technique, the receiver has a step and the DB cannot recover.  Play action is designed to make the defense react to the run and give the receiver an advantage.  If the receiver cannot maintain (if not build) that advantage with speed, the defense will not worry about reacting too strongly to the run in play action, which in turn negatively affects actual run plays. 

I would argue that speed alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a credible deep threat, because there is so much more to that type of offense.  For example (and this example would be better if I could remember the details... perhaps another Booty could), in the Buddy/Walt years (or maybe going back to Willingham) we had a wikedly fast wide receiver.  At one point, he got behind the defense and could have scored a game winning touchdown (against UCLA?), but... he... dropped... the ball.  Point is, he was fast but because he wasn't a good receiver, he wasn't a deep threat.

Your own example of Coby Fleener (or, later, Zach Ertz) shows the raw speed is not necessary to stretch the defense.  If you victimize someone repeatedly when they single cover you or cover you with a linebacker, then that will force the defense to not sell out to stop the run.

I'm sorry, but if a receiver gets open on play action 50 yards down field and drops the ball, the defense is not going to say "don't worry about that...we'll give it to you."  It just doesn't work that way.  The defense will adjust because eventually the offense will hit one.  Montgomery and Rector were deep threats.  Neither one was average (perhaps being charitable) at actually playing the ball and bringing in throws.  The way you say "that type of offense" makes me think we're talking past one another actually.  I'm not saying you actually throw deep that often.  Just enough to make the threat credible and make the defense fear play action.  I'm also not suggesting you have to be successful a high percentage of the time (though obviously that helps).  If you have a QB that can't hit the pass to a wide open receiver on his best day, track stars who are not WR and don't know how to run the pattern and react to the ball, or a line that can't block long enough, then yes I agree speed is not enough. 

Your memory of Coby Fleener is different than mine.  He was absolutely a burner and a home run hitter on offense.  He ran 4.45 at 6'6" in the 40 at Stanford's pro day.  Other references I can find have him at 4.51 and 4.52.  For reference, only 3 TE have run under 4.5 at the combine in the last 10 years.  That's devastating size and speed against a LB.  Ertz ran 4.76.  Completely different players.

I think we'll agree to disagree on the threat posed by speed.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Not many in that list would be the fastest WR in the conference during their time on the team.  And that really is the level of speed required to stress a defense.  If someone is 4.5 fast, but several other Pac-12 WRs are 4.4 fast then that 4.5 player is not going to stress a defense because of their speed.  Their 4.5 speed will feel like a vacation to those DBs covering 4.4ers each week. 

That's not how I (and I suspect most) would think about it.  The issue isn't really how fast 4.5 is compared to 4.4 or getting used to speed.  The issue is having a level of speed such that, once the DB hesitates for a second, looks into the backfield, misplaces a hand at the line or a opens up his hips in less than perfect technique, the receiver has a step and the DB cannot recover.  Play action is designed to make the defense react to the run and give the receiver an advantage.  If the receiver cannot maintain (if not build) that advantage with speed, the defense will not worry about reacting too strongly to the run in play action, which in turn negatively affects actual run plays. 

I would argue that speed alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a credible deep threat, because there is so much more to that type of offense.  For example (and this example would be better if I could remember the details... perhaps another Booty could), in the Buddy/Walt years (or maybe going back to Willingham) we had a wikedly fast wide receiver.  At one point, he got behind the defense and could have scored a game winning touchdown (against UCLA?), but... he... dropped... the ball.  Point is, he was fast but because he wasn't a good receiver, he wasn't a deep threat.

Your own example of Coby Fleener (or, later, Zach Ertz) shows the raw speed is not necessary to stretch the defense.  If you victimize someone repeatedly when they single cover you or cover you with a linebacker, then that will force the defense to not sell out to stop the run.

I'm sorry, but if a receiver gets open on play action 50 yards down field and drops the ball, the defense is not going to say "don't worry about that...we'll give it to you."  It just doesn't work that way.  The defense will adjust because eventually the offense will hit one.  Montgomery and Rector were deep threats.  Neither one was average (perhaps being charitable) at actually playing the ball and bringing in throws.  The way you say "that type of offense" makes me think we're talking past one another actually.  I'm not saying you actually throw deep that often.  Just enough to make the threat credible and make the defense fear play action.  I'm also not suggesting you have to be successful a high percentage of the time (though obviously that helps).  If you have a QB that can't hit the pass to a wide open receiver on his best day, track stars who are not WR and don't know how to run the pattern and react to the ball, or a line that can't block long enough, then yes I agree speed is not enough. 

Your memory of Coby Fleener is different than mine.  He was absolutely a burner and a home run hitter on offense.  He ran 4.45 at 6'6" in the 40 at Stanford's pro day.  Other references I can find have him at 4.51 and 4.52.  For reference, only 3 TE have run under 4.5 at the combine in the last 10 years.  That's devastating size and speed against a LB.  Ertz ran 4.76.  Completely different players.

I think we'll agree to disagree on the threat posed by speed.