[fullmetal]

The other thing about Little and Sarell both being #2 on the depth chart is that it certainly leaves open the possibility that Stanford could have two True Frosh starting OTs at some point this season.  The heat is on Bright, Hamilton and Hall to stay healthy and stave them off.

Iron sharpens iron.  If the OL improves in this way as a unit, this could be a really special season.

[fullmetal]

The other thing about Little and Sarell both being #2 on the depth chart is that it certainly leaves open the possibility that Stanford could have two True Frosh starting OTs at some point this season.  The heat is on Bright, Hamilton and Hall to stay healthy and stave them off.

Iron sharpens iron.  If the OL improves in this way as a unit, this could be a really special season.

[Goose]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17218.msg197725#msg197725 date=1503600681]
The other thing about Little and Sarell both being #2 on the depth chart is that it certainly leaves open the possibility that Stanford could have two True Frosh starting OTs at some point this season.  The heat is on Bright, Hamilton and Hall to stay healthy and stave them off.

Iron sharpens iron.  If the OL improves in this way as a unit, this could be a really special season.
[/quote]
For sure. And there is no such thing as too many good players.

[Goose]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17218.msg197725#msg197725 date=1503600681]
The other thing about Little and Sarell both being #2 on the depth chart is that it certainly leaves open the possibility that Stanford could have two True Frosh starting OTs at some point this season.  The heat is on Bright, Hamilton and Hall to stay healthy and stave them off.

Iron sharpens iron.  If the OL improves in this way as a unit, this could be a really special season.
[/quote]
For sure. And there is no such thing as too many good players.

[ColoradoTree]

For sure. And there is no such thing as too many good players.

Indeed. 

Question, though: we hear so much about how important it is for an OL to jell, and how much better overall OL performance can become once the 5 starters begin to trust each other and come together as a unit, moving in harmony, etc.  Is our journey to that goal hampered by uncertainty in the minds of the starters as to whether they'll be replaced if they make a few mistakes? 

Please don't misunderstand me here--I don't mean to suggest that they should fear competition, or that they do.  I just bring it up because I tend to think of OL cohesion as something relatively unique on a football team, with a collective quality that can be greater or lesser than the sum total of the individual quality.  It's not the same thing, but it reminds me a little of the phenomenon where a quarterback's level of performance somehow improves once the threat of losing his job quickly is removed--i.e., after winning a competition and being assured he's "the guy."  That may be because QB is unique, and requires an unusual level of self-confidence as well as gaining the confidence of his team to be truly effective, and gaining that confidence is a process that might require a certain clarity about who's in the role before the process can be complete.  I just wonder whether the "jelling" process similarly benefits from having clarity of who's in each role. 

Of course, if a particular offensive lineman is playing poorly, then that obviously hampers the process of jelling into an effective, cohesive unit.  Replacing a bad player with a good player would then speed up that process.  (The same goes for quarterbacks; winning the job in camp shouldn't mean the job is yours for good.  See, e.g., Nunes & Burns.)  But those scenarios should hopefully be relatively infrequent, given all the work put in during spring football and training camp. 

FYI, I raise this more out of a detached academic curiosity than a specific concern that Bright, Hamilton, and Hall might not play to their best level out of a fear that Sarell and Little will outplay them.  I would hope that the entire OL room would be close enough that if a player earns a starting position, they're close enough as teammates that the jelling process wouldn't be affected too much. 

My question, really, is this: does the unique nature of the offensive line and the need for development of a collective identity mean that, at a certain point, continued individual competition hampers, rather than aids, collective improvement?  I'd say that's mostly true of quarterbacks; a competition at that position can absolutely go on too long, and there is some truth in the adage, "if you have two quarterbacks, you don't have one."  Anyway, I'm curious about the board's thoughts on that. 

[ColoradoTree]

For sure. And there is no such thing as too many good players.

Indeed. 

Question, though: we hear so much about how important it is for an OL to jell, and how much better overall OL performance can become once the 5 starters begin to trust each other and come together as a unit, moving in harmony, etc.  Is our journey to that goal hampered by uncertainty in the minds of the starters as to whether they'll be replaced if they make a few mistakes? 

Please don't misunderstand me here--I don't mean to suggest that they should fear competition, or that they do.  I just bring it up because I tend to think of OL cohesion as something relatively unique on a football team, with a collective quality that can be greater or lesser than the sum total of the individual quality.  It's not the same thing, but it reminds me a little of the phenomenon where a quarterback's level of performance somehow improves once the threat of losing his job quickly is removed--i.e., after winning a competition and being assured he's "the guy."  That may be because QB is unique, and requires an unusual level of self-confidence as well as gaining the confidence of his team to be truly effective, and gaining that confidence is a process that might require a certain clarity about who's in the role before the process can be complete.  I just wonder whether the "jelling" process similarly benefits from having clarity of who's in each role. 

Of course, if a particular offensive lineman is playing poorly, then that obviously hampers the process of jelling into an effective, cohesive unit.  Replacing a bad player with a good player would then speed up that process.  (The same goes for quarterbacks; winning the job in camp shouldn't mean the job is yours for good.  See, e.g., Nunes & Burns.)  But those scenarios should hopefully be relatively infrequent, given all the work put in during spring football and training camp. 

FYI, I raise this more out of a detached academic curiosity than a specific concern that Bright, Hamilton, and Hall might not play to their best level out of a fear that Sarell and Little will outplay them.  I would hope that the entire OL room would be close enough that if a player earns a starting position, they're close enough as teammates that the jelling process wouldn't be affected too much. 

My question, really, is this: does the unique nature of the offensive line and the need for development of a collective identity mean that, at a certain point, continued individual competition hampers, rather than aids, collective improvement?  I'd say that's mostly true of quarterbacks; a competition at that position can absolutely go on too long, and there is some truth in the adage, "if you have two quarterbacks, you don't have one."  Anyway, I'm curious about the board's thoughts on that. 

[OutsiderFan]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.  While there is certainly some level of comfort gained from playing with the same guys next to you, the best teams are able to plug new players in and not miss a beat, or at least can overcome having new players in a unit.

If you buy this analysis, the "playing together" aspect may not be as important as the "ready to play" aspect.  We all assumed Josh Garnett and Kyle Murphy would be great in 2014.  When the OL struggled, people couldn't accept the fact they weren't good enough because they were both 5 star recruits, so the fallback was "they just haven't played together enough yet."  Remember, Garnett and Murphy were not tremendously experienced starters in 2014 either.  This "waiting to gel" concept allows fault to be placed on nobody other than out of control circumstances.  Why is it so hard to just say "they weren't good enough at their positions yet?" 

Nate Herbig is expected to be good in 2017 because he proved himself as a starter in 2016.  If say Bright and Hamilton are better than Hall and Tucker in 2016, the OL will be better against Rice than against Kansas State in 2016.  No gelling needed.

On a slightly tangential note... Until better data was available, returning OL starts were always thought of as a good leading indicator of a team's performance.  Turns out there might be better ones, at least in one person's data set. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-tcu-texas

[OutsiderFan]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.  While there is certainly some level of comfort gained from playing with the same guys next to you, the best teams are able to plug new players in and not miss a beat, or at least can overcome having new players in a unit.

If you buy this analysis, the "playing together" aspect may not be as important as the "ready to play" aspect.  We all assumed Josh Garnett and Kyle Murphy would be great in 2014.  When the OL struggled, people couldn't accept the fact they weren't good enough because they were both 5 star recruits, so the fallback was "they just haven't played together enough yet."  Remember, Garnett and Murphy were not tremendously experienced starters in 2014 either.  This "waiting to gel" concept allows fault to be placed on nobody other than out of control circumstances.  Why is it so hard to just say "they weren't good enough at their positions yet?" 

Nate Herbig is expected to be good in 2017 because he proved himself as a starter in 2016.  If say Bright and Hamilton are better than Hall and Tucker in 2016, the OL will be better against Rice than against Kansas State in 2016.  No gelling needed.

On a slightly tangential note... Until better data was available, returning OL starts were always thought of as a good leading indicator of a team's performance.  Turns out there might be better ones, at least in one person's data set. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-tcu-texas

[BobK]

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

[BobK]

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

[CrazedZooChimp]

My main question is, is Hattis dinged up, or has he been passed by the Frosh. Sucks for him if he's been passed, but I feel like that also speaks to how good Foster and Little might be.

That really is remarkable, especially when combined with only losing three starters from last year to graduation (Lloyd, Caspers, Rector).
[There were two other guys who were starters at least part time - Owusu and Hoffpaiur.]

This is the reason that some of the more detailed analysts out there have been suggesting 2018 might be Stanford's year (e.g. Bill Connelly).

This has been my thinking as well (although our consistent even year downturn makes me worry). Of course, we could have a lot of guys leave early (especially from the DBs). But man, if guys like Meeks, Holder, Reid, and Phillips all come back for another year, look out.

[CrazedZooChimp]

My main question is, is Hattis dinged up, or has he been passed by the Frosh. Sucks for him if he's been passed, but I feel like that also speaks to how good Foster and Little might be.

That really is remarkable, especially when combined with only losing three starters from last year to graduation (Lloyd, Caspers, Rector).
[There were two other guys who were starters at least part time - Owusu and Hoffpaiur.]

This is the reason that some of the more detailed analysts out there have been suggesting 2018 might be Stanford's year (e.g. Bill Connelly).

This has been my thinking as well (although our consistent even year downturn makes me worry). Of course, we could have a lot of guys leave early (especially from the DBs). But man, if guys like Meeks, Holder, Reid, and Phillips all come back for another year, look out.

[Goose]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

I think you are both correct. It depends on the situation. Some OLs are just physically so good that the members are "plug and play". If somebody gets hurt, there is an equivalent player who can come in and they don't miss a beat. Other OLs are a case of "the whole is better than the sum of the parts". This second case may have good players, but they play so well as a team there is a synergistic effect. In this second case, they may need some time to reach that synergy. It is also true in those cases that if somebody gets hurt, the line doesn't play nearly as well with the substitute.
In very, very few cases (that I know of anyway), you get both. Right now, Stanford has athletes that are good enough, at least by reputation, that they probably shouldn't need much "jelling". However, experience can matter a lot in terms of individual performance. At the very least, technique should improve with more playing time.  Last year, we had several linemen with little experience. Herbig's trajectory may be instructive. We may see a similar situation with our freshman tackles, if we are lucky.

[Goose]

After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

I think you are both correct. It depends on the situation. Some OLs are just physically so good that the members are "plug and play". If somebody gets hurt, there is an equivalent player who can come in and they don't miss a beat. Other OLs are a case of "the whole is better than the sum of the parts". This second case may have good players, but they play so well as a team there is a synergistic effect. In this second case, they may need some time to reach that synergy. It is also true in those cases that if somebody gets hurt, the line doesn't play nearly as well with the substitute.
In very, very few cases (that I know of anyway), you get both. Right now, Stanford has athletes that are good enough, at least by reputation, that they probably shouldn't need much "jelling". However, experience can matter a lot in terms of individual performance. At the very least, technique should improve with more playing time.  Last year, we had several linemen with little experience. Herbig's trajectory may be instructive. We may see a similar situation with our freshman tackles, if we are lucky.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17218.msg197823#msg197823 date=1503682438]
After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

I think you are both correct. It depends on the situation. ...
[/quote]

One thing to remember that "jelling" isn't just some mystical feat of oneness. There are some very specific issues here.

Go watch a bad offensive line pass block. There are roughly two ways they get beat. Sometimes, one on one, the offensive guy gets beat.
But perhaps more often, it's more complicated. You often see two OL easily holding off one pass rusher at the same time another guy goes unimpeded at the QB. This is more common after a stunt of some sort, but happens on straight rushes as well.

In the former case, one way or the other, the individual OL guy simply wasn't good enough. In the latter, the OL as a unit fails even if each individual is much better than the opponent across the line. It's a bigger effect in pass blocking, but occurs in run blocking as well - particularly in zone schemes where somebody doesn't get to the proper zone.

A good example from Stanford is 2014. That OL was: Peat, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Murphy. No problem with talent there, but four of the five were first year starters. That OL struggled - sacks were up, our run game yds/play was down, etc.
At the end of the season, the OL performance picked up. The next year, four of the five were back. The one guy gone was Peat - so that definitely didn't indicate an increase in talent in 2015. Yet the line was much better. yds/carry great, sacks down (but still a bit high vs glory years).
It's not a perfect illustration, because individuals got better over the year as well, but I think about as good a case as you can find.

My fear for this year is that compared to 2014, more of the problems in pass blocking in 2016 looked like individual failings. Whoever was at either OT position got run around repeatedly. The center got bull rushed often. The guards were individually the best players, but one of those is gone.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17218.msg197823#msg197823 date=1503682438]
After observing football for nearly 40 years, it is my opinion that the whole "offensive line gelling" thing is an excuse for poor performance more than a meaningful reality.  The best players play the best.

Given the options the QB has at the line I believe jelling like in the NFL is very important

Of course agree so is skill

I think you are both correct. It depends on the situation. ...
[/quote]

One thing to remember that "jelling" isn't just some mystical feat of oneness. There are some very specific issues here.

Go watch a bad offensive line pass block. There are roughly two ways they get beat. Sometimes, one on one, the offensive guy gets beat.
But perhaps more often, it's more complicated. You often see two OL easily holding off one pass rusher at the same time another guy goes unimpeded at the QB. This is more common after a stunt of some sort, but happens on straight rushes as well.

In the former case, one way or the other, the individual OL guy simply wasn't good enough. In the latter, the OL as a unit fails even if each individual is much better than the opponent across the line. It's a bigger effect in pass blocking, but occurs in run blocking as well - particularly in zone schemes where somebody doesn't get to the proper zone.

A good example from Stanford is 2014. That OL was: Peat, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Murphy. No problem with talent there, but four of the five were first year starters. That OL struggled - sacks were up, our run game yds/play was down, etc.
At the end of the season, the OL performance picked up. The next year, four of the five were back. The one guy gone was Peat - so that definitely didn't indicate an increase in talent in 2015. Yet the line was much better. yds/carry great, sacks down (but still a bit high vs glory years).
It's not a perfect illustration, because individuals got better over the year as well, but I think about as good a case as you can find.

My fear for this year is that compared to 2014, more of the problems in pass blocking in 2016 looked like individual failings. Whoever was at either OT position got run around repeatedly. The center got bull rushed often. The guards were individually the best players, but one of those is gone.

[BostonCard]

Great points CTCard.  The question is (to channel OutsiderFan) is whether the problem you described in pass blocking was due to lack of experience or lack of experience playing as a unit. You can imagine both ways.  A line that picks up the stunt may have done so because (from experience) the individual lineman recognized the stunt and didn't move towards double-teaming the player his fellow-lineman picked up.  Alternatively, because the line played has played together a lot, lineman A picked up the stunt because, from playing next to lineman B, lineman A knew that lineman B would be able to handle the opposite defending player without a double team, freeing lineman A to pick up a stunt.

The problem in teasing them out is that in college football, because of the lack of trades and free agency, the two are going to be highly correlated so it is hard to tease them apart.  Was the 2015 line better than the 2014 line because 4/5 of the linemen in 2015 had an additional year of experience under their belt or because 4/5 of the line had an added year playing together.  I don't think you can tease that out.  I would say that both individual experience and experience playing together are important, but that a group of experienced linemen would probably "jell" faster than a group of inexperienced ones.  If you trust the guy next to you execute the play right, it's a lot easier to do your own job right.

BC

[BostonCard]

Great points CTCard.  The question is (to channel OutsiderFan) is whether the problem you described in pass blocking was due to lack of experience or lack of experience playing as a unit. You can imagine both ways.  A line that picks up the stunt may have done so because (from experience) the individual lineman recognized the stunt and didn't move towards double-teaming the player his fellow-lineman picked up.  Alternatively, because the line played has played together a lot, lineman A picked up the stunt because, from playing next to lineman B, lineman A knew that lineman B would be able to handle the opposite defending player without a double team, freeing lineman A to pick up a stunt.

The problem in teasing them out is that in college football, because of the lack of trades and free agency, the two are going to be highly correlated so it is hard to tease them apart.  Was the 2015 line better than the 2014 line because 4/5 of the linemen in 2015 had an additional year of experience under their belt or because 4/5 of the line had an added year playing together.  I don't think you can tease that out.  I would say that both individual experience and experience playing together are important, but that a group of experienced linemen would probably "jell" faster than a group of inexperienced ones.  If you trust the guy next to you execute the play right, it's a lot easier to do your own job right.

BC

[fullmetal]

My untrained mind thinks of three factors here:

1. Was the OL protection scheme the right one for the defensive action?
2. Did the particular lineman get himself into the right place to make the play he was expected to make?
3. Did that lineman win the physicality battle?

I would say the QB and center are responsible for #1.  Crowd noise could be a factor. 

#2 and #3 are up to the individual lineman.  #2 rests on how well the lineman knows his playbook/responsibilities.  #3 depends on how thoroughly Turley-trained he is.  (Injuries depending...)

It would be tough to differentiate between #1 and #2 at times.  #3 would be an easy one.

[fullmetal]

My untrained mind thinks of three factors here:

1. Was the OL protection scheme the right one for the defensive action?
2. Did the particular lineman get himself into the right place to make the play he was expected to make?
3. Did that lineman win the physicality battle?

I would say the QB and center are responsible for #1.  Crowd noise could be a factor. 

#2 and #3 are up to the individual lineman.  #2 rests on how well the lineman knows his playbook/responsibilities.  #3 depends on how thoroughly Turley-trained he is.  (Injuries depending...)

It would be tough to differentiate between #1 and #2 at times.  #3 would be an easy one.

[Hurlburt88]

FYI, Chron reporting that AT Hall has an injury

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...962808.php

[Hurlburt88]

FYI, Chron reporting that AT Hall has an injury

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...962808.php

[fullmetal]

Had to have been an injury that a plane flight would have exacerbated, otherwise he should have made the trip.  I feel bad for him...but hopefully he'll get well soon and contribute this season.

[fullmetal]

Had to have been an injury that a plane flight would have exacerbated, otherwise he should have made the trip.  I feel bad for him...but hopefully he'll get well soon and contribute this season.

[Hurlburt88]

I don't believe I ever saw Tucker in the game.  Did see him standing in the sideline once.  Did anyone see him get into he game?

[Hurlburt88]

I don't believe I ever saw Tucker in the game.  Did see him standing in the sideline once.  Did anyone see him get into he game?

[BostonCard]

Rumor has it that Tucker will redshirt this year and grad transfer next year.  Quite the turnaround for a player who was a starter two years ago.

BC

[BostonCard]

Rumor has it that Tucker will redshirt this year and grad transfer next year.  Quite the turnaround for a player who was a starter two years ago.

BC

[terry]

Tucker did not play. In the post-game press conference, Shaw said:

"We're deciding what to do with Casey, whether or not he'll get in the game for us. He's healthy, he's ready to go whenever he's called upon, but it's a big position change for him, going from tackle to guard. He's got all the tools to be really, really good there, and we'll see how that goes for the season."

[terry]

Tucker did not play. In the post-game press conference, Shaw said:

"We're deciding what to do with Casey, whether or not he'll get in the game for us. He's healthy, he's ready to go whenever he's called upon, but it's a big position change for him, going from tackle to guard. He's got all the tools to be really, really good there, and we'll see how that goes for the season."

[Hurlburt88]

I feel like he can contribute either to us or to any grad transfer destination.  And of course there is always the benefit of the 40-year/lifetime decision

[Hurlburt88]

I feel like he can contribute either to us or to any grad transfer destination.  And of course there is always the benefit of the 40-year/lifetime decision

[OutsiderFan]

Feel for Tucker a bit.  There's no way he's an OT in the NFL, but he was the starting RT on one of the great Stanford teams ever in 2015, and now even Stanford has better OT options.  My expectation was to see Tucker getting some reps with the first unit, not Wilson.  But Wilson being the best Ogre who plays with a mean streak Bloomgren has to love, and Tucker not having much Guard experience, probably works against Tucker.

Not many teams have think about trying to get more than two guys reps at Right Guard.

[OutsiderFan]

Feel for Tucker a bit.  There's no way he's an OT in the NFL, but he was the starting RT on one of the great Stanford teams ever in 2015, and now even Stanford has better OT options.  My expectation was to see Tucker getting some reps with the first unit, not Wilson.  But Wilson being the best Ogre who plays with a mean streak Bloomgren has to love, and Tucker not having much Guard experience, probably works against Tucker.

Not many teams have think about trying to get more than two guys reps at Right Guard.

[Hurlburt88]

Depth chart showed Tucker backing up HeBig and Wilson backing up Fanaika. 

[Hurlburt88]

Depth chart showed Tucker backing up HeBig and Wilson backing up Fanaika. 

[Mick]

Feel for Tucker a bit.  There's no way he's an OT in the NFL, but he was the starting RT on one of the great Stanford teams ever in 2015, and now even Stanford has better OT options.  My expectation was to see Tucker getting some reps with the first unit, not Wilson.  But Wilson being the best Ogre who plays with a mean streak Bloomgren has to love, and Tucker not having much Guard experience, probably works against Tucker.

Not many teams have think about trying to get more than two guys reps at Right Guard.

I would think that for non-NFL bound players like Tucker, a grad transfer year in the Ivies would be ideal.  Superb education, less pressure, likely to start and star, great jump on master's degree, etc.  I would have thought that Barry Sanders would have gone that route.  Instead, he went to Oklahoma State where he gained 93 yards in 28 carries.  Now he works in marketing for Electronic Arts.  Wonder how his life would have changed had he transferred to an Ivy?

[Mick]

Feel for Tucker a bit.  There's no way he's an OT in the NFL, but he was the starting RT on one of the great Stanford teams ever in 2015, and now even Stanford has better OT options.  My expectation was to see Tucker getting some reps with the first unit, not Wilson.  But Wilson being the best Ogre who plays with a mean streak Bloomgren has to love, and Tucker not having much Guard experience, probably works against Tucker.

Not many teams have think about trying to get more than two guys reps at Right Guard.

I would think that for non-NFL bound players like Tucker, a grad transfer year in the Ivies would be ideal.  Superb education, less pressure, likely to start and star, great jump on master's degree, etc.  I would have thought that Barry Sanders would have gone that route.  Instead, he went to Oklahoma State where he gained 93 yards in 28 carries.  Now he works in marketing for Electronic Arts.  Wonder how his life would have changed had he transferred to an Ivy?

[Stymie]

Depth chart showed Tucker backing up HeBig and Wilson backing up Fanaika.

+1 for "HeBig!"

[Stymie]

Depth chart showed Tucker backing up HeBig and Wilson backing up Fanaika.

+1 for "HeBig!"