[OutsiderFan]

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL. 

[OutsiderFan]

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL. 

[donkey687]

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.

[donkey687]

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17081.msg196898#msg196898 date=1502396918]
I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.
[/quote]

Anyone paid money to win football games knows RBs are one of the least valuable positions on a football team.  This doesn't mean you don't want as great a RB as you can have, or that the position offers no value at all.  What it means is a dominant DL is far more valuable than a dominant RB.  Moreover, you'd also happily trade a pass rushing demon who could get Stanford 15 sacks this season for Love in a nano.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17081.msg196898#msg196898 date=1502396918]
I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.
[/quote]

Anyone paid money to win football games knows RBs are one of the least valuable positions on a football team.  This doesn't mean you don't want as great a RB as you can have, or that the position offers no value at all.  What it means is a dominant DL is far more valuable than a dominant RB.  Moreover, you'd also happily trade a pass rushing demon who could get Stanford 15 sacks this season for Love in a nano.

[ChicagoCard]

I disagree with your disagreement.

This reminds me of a funny Frasier episode :D. Frasier beginning to bicker with Niles: "And I refuse your refusal".

[ChicagoCard]

I disagree with your disagreement.

This reminds me of a funny Frasier episode :D. Frasier beginning to bicker with Niles: "And I refuse your refusal".

[donkey687]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=17081.msg196900#msg196900 date=1502397358]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17081.msg196898#msg196898 date=1502396918]
I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.
[/quote]

Anyone paid money to win football games knows RBs are one of the least valuable positions on a football team.  This doesn't mean you don't want as great a RB as you can have, or that the position offers no value at all.  What it means is a dominant DL is far more valuable than a dominant RB.  Moreover, you'd also happily trade a pass rushing demon who could get Stanford 15 sacks this season for Love in a nano.
[/quote]

I think your logic better applies to the NFL than to Stanford.  We need a stud RB. Our offense depends on a RB who can either break or avoid tackles. The difference between an elite and mediocre RB in college is easily 1-2 yards per carry and running plays are 50% of the time so the expected per play yardage would be 0.5-1.0 yards less. That is a lot. I don't think the difference between an elite single DL and mediocre one effects the game by that much per play on average.  An elite front 7 would impact the game by that much, but not one player.

[donkey687]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=17081.msg196900#msg196900 date=1502397358]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17081.msg196898#msg196898 date=1502396918]
I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

What percent of an offense's yardage comes from the hands of the RB?  What percent of defensive yards given up or not given up are due to a single DL? Impossible to tell but I think you get where I am headed. It is harder for a single DL or single OL to influence the game as much as an elite RB in my opinion.
[/quote]

Anyone paid money to win football games knows RBs are one of the least valuable positions on a football team.  This doesn't mean you don't want as great a RB as you can have, or that the position offers no value at all.  What it means is a dominant DL is far more valuable than a dominant RB.  Moreover, you'd also happily trade a pass rushing demon who could get Stanford 15 sacks this season for Love in a nano.
[/quote]

I think your logic better applies to the NFL than to Stanford.  We need a stud RB. Our offense depends on a RB who can either break or avoid tackles. The difference between an elite and mediocre RB in college is easily 1-2 yards per carry and running plays are 50% of the time so the expected per play yardage would be 0.5-1.0 yards less. That is a lot. I don't think the difference between an elite single DL and mediocre one effects the game by that much per play on average.  An elite front 7 would impact the game by that much, but not one player.

[Phogge]

OF, did you watch Bo Scarbrough play for Bama last year? They are a machine, with him they approach Transformer status. Just sayin...

[Phogge]

OF, did you watch Bo Scarbrough play for Bama last year? They are a machine, with him they approach Transformer status. Just sayin...

[OutsiderFan]

Don't remember Alabama winning the National Championship last year.  But to compare Love to Scarborough is stretching credulity.  Love needs the OL to open holes for him much more than Scarborough does, to be effective.  Moreover, if the OL consistently opens holes, any RB will have running success, and that team will win most games it plays.

For those who can't accept Phillips is a more valuable member of the Stanford football team than Love, do you not think Phillips is a very good player?  Because the only possible way any RB is more important than a DL is if the DL isn't nearly as good a player as the RB is at their respective positions.

[OutsiderFan]

Don't remember Alabama winning the National Championship last year.  But to compare Love to Scarborough is stretching credulity.  Love needs the OL to open holes for him much more than Scarborough does, to be effective.  Moreover, if the OL consistently opens holes, any RB will have running success, and that team will win most games it plays.

For those who can't accept Phillips is a more valuable member of the Stanford football team than Love, do you not think Phillips is a very good player?  Because the only possible way any RB is more important than a DL is if the DL isn't nearly as good a player as the RB is at their respective positions.

[donkey687]

This tangential thread is probably ready to wrap up soon so this will be my last post on the topic, but I think they are both equally important and the most important on the team. It is comparing apples and oranges when trying to differentiate between the two. Outsider Fan- No one is denying that Phillips is very important. Others of us just think Love is of similar importance. It would be near catastrophic to lose either of them in my opinion.

[donkey687]

This tangential thread is probably ready to wrap up soon so this will be my last post on the topic, but I think they are both equally important and the most important on the team. It is comparing apples and oranges when trying to differentiate between the two. Outsider Fan- No one is denying that Phillips is very important. Others of us just think Love is of similar importance. It would be near catastrophic to lose either of them in my opinion.

[Phogge]

NC or not Bo probably means a TD a game to the Wave. He is that good. We don't know how good Love is yet. Can he be a horse? He better be because none of the other backs have done anything yet, albeit a couple with promise. The star rankings mean squat now. See Craven, Michael.

The best Stanford teams of the past 50 years have had plus RB's. The Browns, Francis, Nelson, Milburn, Toby, Taylor, Gaffney, Mac. The Sheriff's '99 team was the exception.

[Phogge]

NC or not Bo probably means a TD a game to the Wave. He is that good. We don't know how good Love is yet. Can he be a horse? He better be because none of the other backs have done anything yet, albeit a couple with promise. The star rankings mean squat now. See Craven, Michael.

The best Stanford teams of the past 50 years have had plus RB's. The Browns, Francis, Nelson, Milburn, Toby, Taylor, Gaffney, Mac. The Sheriff's '99 team was the exception.

[OutsiderFan]

Some OL stuff from CDS and more here: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/2017/08...australia/

[OutsiderFan]

Some OL stuff from CDS and more here: https://cardreider.wordpress.com/2017/08...australia/

[Remy74]

Don't remember Alabama winning the National Championship last year.  But to compare Love to Scarborough is stretching credulity.  Love needs the OL to open holes for him much more than Scarborough does, to be effective.  Moreover, if the OL consistently opens holes, any RB will have running success, and that team will win most games it plays.

For those who can't accept Phillips is a more valuable member of the Stanford football team than Love, do you not think Phillips is a very good player?  Because the only possible way any RB is more important than a DL is if the DL isn't nearly as good a player as the RB is at their respective positions.

I probably follow Alabama more than anyone on this board, being that I grew up in the state (currently residing in the SF Bay area but somewhat regretting that I moved from Atlanta about 1 year ago) and have 5 relatives that graduated from UA [including a younger brother].  I happen to have followed Bryce Love since he was an 11-12 year old track & field phenom (I lived in the Raleigh-Durham area around this time and Bryce was a local hero due to his track exploits) and I completely disagree with your assessment. 

Alabama is typically successful running the ball due to a massive, ultra-talented offensive line and not due to the sheer talent (perhaps size and power but not agility) of their RBs.  See Trent Richardson, TJ Yeldon, and even to a lesser extent Derrick Henry in the NFL for reference.  Richardson looked so great in college due to yards before contact.  Like Richardson, Scarbrough needs a lane to run.  He is not dynamic/agile enough to create yards if the DLine gets great penetration. In contrast, Love is shifty and quick enough to elude defenders without the elite blocking that the Alabama RBs typically have. 

Also, your theory of DLinemen being more important than RBs may apply to the NFL but not remotely to Stanford.

I will be attending the Alabama vs Florida State game in the new "greatest stadium in the world" in Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend.  Likewise, I'll be attending the Stanford vs USC game in LA the following weekend.  Perhaps my perspective on Love vs Scarbrough will change after that time. 

[Remy74]

Don't remember Alabama winning the National Championship last year.  But to compare Love to Scarborough is stretching credulity.  Love needs the OL to open holes for him much more than Scarborough does, to be effective.  Moreover, if the OL consistently opens holes, any RB will have running success, and that team will win most games it plays.

For those who can't accept Phillips is a more valuable member of the Stanford football team than Love, do you not think Phillips is a very good player?  Because the only possible way any RB is more important than a DL is if the DL isn't nearly as good a player as the RB is at their respective positions.

I probably follow Alabama more than anyone on this board, being that I grew up in the state (currently residing in the SF Bay area but somewhat regretting that I moved from Atlanta about 1 year ago) and have 5 relatives that graduated from UA [including a younger brother].  I happen to have followed Bryce Love since he was an 11-12 year old track & field phenom (I lived in the Raleigh-Durham area around this time and Bryce was a local hero due to his track exploits) and I completely disagree with your assessment. 

Alabama is typically successful running the ball due to a massive, ultra-talented offensive line and not due to the sheer talent (perhaps size and power but not agility) of their RBs.  See Trent Richardson, TJ Yeldon, and even to a lesser extent Derrick Henry in the NFL for reference.  Richardson looked so great in college due to yards before contact.  Like Richardson, Scarbrough needs a lane to run.  He is not dynamic/agile enough to create yards if the DLine gets great penetration. In contrast, Love is shifty and quick enough to elude defenders without the elite blocking that the Alabama RBs typically have. 

Also, your theory of DLinemen being more important than RBs may apply to the NFL but not remotely to Stanford.

I will be attending the Alabama vs Florida State game in the new "greatest stadium in the world" in Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend.  Likewise, I'll be attending the Stanford vs USC game in LA the following weekend.  Perhaps my perspective on Love vs Scarbrough will change after that time. 

[Remy74]

NC or not Bo probably means a TD a game to the Wave. He is that good. We don't know how good Love is yet. Can he be a horse? He better be because none of the other backs have done anything yet, albeit a couple with promise. The star rankings mean squat now. See Craven, Michael.

The best Stanford teams of the past 50 years have had plus RB's. The Browns, Francis, Nelson, Milburn, Toby, Taylor, Gaffney, Mac. The Sheriff's '99 team was the exception.

Bo probably won't lead Alabama in rushing this year.  He didn't last year either.  RB is a position where injuries happen frequently.  Bo Scarbrough has not had a completely healthy season probably since his freshmen year of high school. 

Bo Scarbrough college stats
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...ugh-1.html

Bryce Love college stats
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...ove-1.html

[Remy74]

NC or not Bo probably means a TD a game to the Wave. He is that good. We don't know how good Love is yet. Can he be a horse? He better be because none of the other backs have done anything yet, albeit a couple with promise. The star rankings mean squat now. See Craven, Michael.

The best Stanford teams of the past 50 years have had plus RB's. The Browns, Francis, Nelson, Milburn, Toby, Taylor, Gaffney, Mac. The Sheriff's '99 team was the exception.

Bo probably won't lead Alabama in rushing this year.  He didn't last year either.  RB is a position where injuries happen frequently.  Bo Scarbrough has not had a completely healthy season probably since his freshmen year of high school. 

Bo Scarbrough college stats
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...ugh-1.html

Bryce Love college stats
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...ove-1.html

[washingtonismoney]

couple of SF Chronicle stories:

On the TEs: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/...749684.php

and Jet Toner: http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...o-13686108

Incidentally I just watched Zodiac a week back. Feels like a loving existential put-down of journalism itself* by David Fincher.

*(Well, and police officers as well. And a bunch of other stuff.)

[washingtonismoney]

couple of SF Chronicle stories:

On the TEs: http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/...749684.php

and Jet Toner: http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports...o-13686108

Incidentally I just watched Zodiac a week back. Feels like a loving existential put-down of journalism itself* by David Fincher.

*(Well, and police officers as well. And a bunch of other stuff.)

[Chupacabra]

Both guys are critical. Without either guy Stanford doesn't win a championship–conference OR national. Championship teams have playmakers in multiple spots.

The argument between the two guys is silly. They are both possible All American candidates and the entire schemes of their units depend on them.

Separately, if you're a running team (like Stanford) you need an elite back. NFL teams have adjusted their value of the position because it's become a passing league. That is relatively true in college as well but there are far more outliers (Stanford, Alabama, Wisconsin, among others) than in the pros. When you have an elite guy who's just better than everyone else you give him the ball as often as possible. This happens more often in college and this is easiest with a running back. Just look at C-Mac as an incredibly recent example.

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.

[Chupacabra]

Both guys are critical. Without either guy Stanford doesn't win a championship–conference OR national. Championship teams have playmakers in multiple spots.

The argument between the two guys is silly. They are both possible All American candidates and the entire schemes of their units depend on them.

Separately, if you're a running team (like Stanford) you need an elite back. NFL teams have adjusted their value of the position because it's become a passing league. That is relatively true in college as well but there are far more outliers (Stanford, Alabama, Wisconsin, among others) than in the pros. When you have an elite guy who's just better than everyone else you give him the ball as often as possible. This happens more often in college and this is easiest with a running back. Just look at C-Mac as an incredibly recent example.

I don't mean to attack you, man, but Love is far less instrumental than Phillips to Stanford winning football games in 2017.  Stanford loses Phillips and there is no way they can contend for a championship, unless someone behind him comes in and plays at his level.

Lose Love and there are lots of other ways to score points, provided the OL and QB play is good.  See, here's the thing, RBs just aren't the most valuable positions on a football team.  You can win without elite talent at the RB position. You can't win without top talent on the DL and OL.