[Goose]

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a of exceedingly large proportions percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.

OK, we just don't agree. I think how a player performs in an actual game is critically important. Sometimes they don't perform nearly as well as one would expect from their practice play, or even their history. Now, you can say that the coach should have known that before game one and made a different decision, but I reply that there is no way to know that until it happens. Tucker played OK at RT as a sophomore, even in real games, but couldn't do so as a junior. You are saying the coaches should have known that was going to happen without actually playing a game, and not start him? This kind of thing happens too often to support the idea that the initial decision was bad and could/should have been avoided. Chryst and Burns? Browne and Darnold?  All avoidable mistakes and screwed up initial decisions? It happens too frequently to support that hypothesis. NFL draft picks should never be busts, either. "Good Decision, Bad Outcome" is a real possibility, especially in personnel evaluation.

[Goose]

Right. But what I'm saying is that in a of exceedingly large proportions percentage of scenarios, the level of evidence is insufficient to convince you of the switch. If the level of evidence was sufficient, chances are more likely that you screwed up the initial decision rather than becoming better informed. Now, better to correct an error than persist in it -- but it's still an error. If Little was the right guy for game 3 he was, in all probability, the right guy in game 1.

OK, we just don't agree. I think how a player performs in an actual game is critically important. Sometimes they don't perform nearly as well as one would expect from their practice play, or even their history. Now, you can say that the coach should have known that before game one and made a different decision, but I reply that there is no way to know that until it happens. Tucker played OK at RT as a sophomore, even in real games, but couldn't do so as a junior. You are saying the coaches should have known that was going to happen without actually playing a game, and not start him? This kind of thing happens too often to support the idea that the initial decision was bad and could/should have been avoided. Chryst and Burns? Browne and Darnold?  All avoidable mistakes and screwed up initial decisions? It happens too frequently to support that hypothesis. NFL draft picks should never be busts, either. "Good Decision, Bad Outcome" is a real possibility, especially in personnel evaluation.

[OutsiderFan]

Quarterbacks are the only position that you really don't know until they play games.  The fact they can't be hit in practice is a very big deal.  Some guys play great when they can't get hit and stink when they can.  Others don't play well until in real games, and some are just great in practice and games.

Both Andrew Luck and Sam Darnold received rave reviews about what they did in practices during their redshirt years.  So nothing they did in games as RS Frosh really was all that surprising to anyone.

[OutsiderFan]

Quarterbacks are the only position that you really don't know until they play games.  The fact they can't be hit in practice is a very big deal.  Some guys play great when they can't get hit and stink when they can.  Others don't play well until in real games, and some are just great in practice and games.

Both Andrew Luck and Sam Darnold received rave reviews about what they did in practices during their redshirt years.  So nothing they did in games as RS Frosh really was all that surprising to anyone.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17393.msg201349#msg201349 date=1505757281]

Tucker played OK at RT as a sophomore, even in real games, but couldn't do so as a junior.
[/quote]

Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior. 

[qwerty49]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17393.msg201349#msg201349 date=1505757281]

Tucker played OK at RT as a sophomore, even in real games, but couldn't do so as a junior.
[/quote]

Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior. 

[Goose]

Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior.

I have wondered about that myself. Was he "objectively worse" (whatever that means) in 2016, or was it just hidden in 2015? I would tend to argue that on a line where he was the "weak link" (2015) he would have been identified as such and mercilessly exploited. That didn't happen. If you can't pass protect, you would think that would show up even more if there were four other guys who could. I wonder to what degree the performance difference is psychological. The 2015 line thought it was good, so it was. The 2016 line wasn't sure, so it wasn't. Hard to attribute Tucker's situations to his companions though.

[Goose]

Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior.

I have wondered about that myself. Was he "objectively worse" (whatever that means) in 2016, or was it just hidden in 2015? I would tend to argue that on a line where he was the "weak link" (2015) he would have been identified as such and mercilessly exploited. That didn't happen. If you can't pass protect, you would think that would show up even more if there were four other guys who could. I wonder to what degree the performance difference is psychological. The 2015 line thought it was good, so it was. The 2016 line wasn't sure, so it wasn't. Hard to attribute Tucker's situations to his companions though.

[Goose]

Quarterbacks are the only position that you really don't know until they play games.  The fact they can't be hit in practice is a very big deal.  Some guys play great when they can't get hit and stink when they can.  Others don't play well until in real games, and some are just great in practice and games.

Both Andrew Luck and Sam Darnold received rave reviews about what they did in practices during their redshirt years.  So nothing they did in games as RS Frosh really was all that surprising to anyone.

I do agree that quarterback evaluation is even more difficult based only on practices than it is for other positions, not just because of no contact (although that is a factor). However, I do not at all agree it is the only position where game performance often differs from practice performance. We have all heard of examples of receivers who catch the ball well in practice and do not in games. Similarly, some running backs fumble a lot in games and don't in practice.
One big problem with evaluation of the OL in practice is that you are playing against your scout team, or, at best, your defense. Stanford doesn't have the personnel to simulate U$C's defensive line. What works in practice may not work in a game. It can also be that the trade-offs matter. There may be a lineman that wins the physical battle against Stanford's DL 100% of the time, but against U$C, he never does. There may be another guy that is high risk, high reward. Against Stanford's DL, he only wins the battle 80% of the time, but against U$C he wins it 50% of the time. In practice, the first guy would be a better choice, but in the game, he is a disaster. The second guy would get a better result, but you don't know that until you play the game. You would have to rely on experience and intuition to make such a choice given only the practice data. Tucker may be an example of a lineman who looked good in practice but didn't get good results in games.

Nobody is saying that Darnold didn't look good in practice. However, the U$C coach decided to start Browne. Was it a bad decision? I don't know, but it could be that Browne looked better in practice but froze up in games. It may have been a good decision that had to be revised in light of the outcome (new data).

[Goose]

Quarterbacks are the only position that you really don't know until they play games.  The fact they can't be hit in practice is a very big deal.  Some guys play great when they can't get hit and stink when they can.  Others don't play well until in real games, and some are just great in practice and games.

Both Andrew Luck and Sam Darnold received rave reviews about what they did in practices during their redshirt years.  So nothing they did in games as RS Frosh really was all that surprising to anyone.

I do agree that quarterback evaluation is even more difficult based only on practices than it is for other positions, not just because of no contact (although that is a factor). However, I do not at all agree it is the only position where game performance often differs from practice performance. We have all heard of examples of receivers who catch the ball well in practice and do not in games. Similarly, some running backs fumble a lot in games and don't in practice.
One big problem with evaluation of the OL in practice is that you are playing against your scout team, or, at best, your defense. Stanford doesn't have the personnel to simulate U$C's defensive line. What works in practice may not work in a game. It can also be that the trade-offs matter. There may be a lineman that wins the physical battle against Stanford's DL 100% of the time, but against U$C, he never does. There may be another guy that is high risk, high reward. Against Stanford's DL, he only wins the battle 80% of the time, but against U$C he wins it 50% of the time. In practice, the first guy would be a better choice, but in the game, he is a disaster. The second guy would get a better result, but you don't know that until you play the game. You would have to rely on experience and intuition to make such a choice given only the practice data. Tucker may be an example of a lineman who looked good in practice but didn't get good results in games.

Nobody is saying that Darnold didn't look good in practice. However, the U$C coach decided to start Browne. Was it a bad decision? I don't know, but it could be that Browne looked better in practice but froze up in games. It may have been a good decision that had to be revised in light of the outcome (new data).

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=17393.msg201387#msg201387 date=1505765469]
Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior.

I have wondered about that myself. Was he "objectively worse" (whatever that means) in 2016, or was it just hidden in 2015? I would tend to argue that on a line where he was the "weak link" (2015) he would have been identified as such and mercilessly exploited. That didn't happen. If you can't pass protect, you would think that would show up even more if there were four other guys who could. I wonder to what degree the performance difference is psychological. The 2015 line thought it was good, so it was. The 2016 line wasn't sure, so it wasn't. Hard to attribute Tucker's situations to his companions though.
[/quote]

And Hogan in 2015 was much more mobile in the pocket than either Burns or Chryst last year, so that probably helped the OL as a whole and maybe Tucker in particular. 

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=17393.msg201387#msg201387 date=1505765469]
Everything is relative, right?  In Tucker's sophomore year he started next to Caspers, Shuler, Garnett, and Murphy, all of whom were returning starters, albeit Murphy switching sides.  The next year I think only Caspers came back.  I'd say Tucker had a far easier time his sophomore year with four proven guys next to him.  One could argue his contribution (positive or negative) was less noticeable as a soph, but much more evident as a junior.

I have wondered about that myself. Was he "objectively worse" (whatever that means) in 2016, or was it just hidden in 2015? I would tend to argue that on a line where he was the "weak link" (2015) he would have been identified as such and mercilessly exploited. That didn't happen. If you can't pass protect, you would think that would show up even more if there were four other guys who could. I wonder to what degree the performance difference is psychological. The 2015 line thought it was good, so it was. The 2016 line wasn't sure, so it wasn't. Hard to attribute Tucker's situations to his companions though.
[/quote]

And Hogan in 2015 was much more mobile in the pocket than either Burns or Chryst last year, so that probably helped the OL as a whole and maybe Tucker in particular. 

[OutsiderFan]

Max Browne stinks.  He proved it again against Oklahoma State this last weekend.  My belief is Browne only won the job initially over Darnold because he was a 5 star recruit (#1 at his position in his class), and because he had more experience in the program.

But anyone who paid attention at USC knew Darnold was much better.  It took going 1-2 for Helton to realize he had to make a change. 

[OutsiderFan]

Max Browne stinks.  He proved it again against Oklahoma State this last weekend.  My belief is Browne only won the job initially over Darnold because he was a 5 star recruit (#1 at his position in his class), and because he had more experience in the program.

But anyone who paid attention at USC knew Darnold was much better.  It took going 1-2 for Helton to realize he had to make a change. 

[Goose]

Max Browne stinks.  He proved it again against Oklahoma State this last weekend.  My belief is Browne only won the job initially over Darnold because he was a 5 star recruit (#1 at his position in his class), and because he had more experience in the program.

But anyone who paid attention at U$C knew Darnold was much better.  It took going 1-2 for Helton to realize he had to make a change.

Well, what it seems to be saying is that 1 )Helton wasn't paying attention, and 2) Browne wasn't getting results on the practice field. If so, shame on them, but I just don't think so. I don't put Helton and his staff in the hall of fame yet, but they don't seem to be idiots. You believe that they made the decision for insubstantial reasons. If so, they are idiots. I don't believe that. I guess neither of us know, so good decision/bad decision can't be judged.

[Goose]

Max Browne stinks.  He proved it again against Oklahoma State this last weekend.  My belief is Browne only won the job initially over Darnold because he was a 5 star recruit (#1 at his position in his class), and because he had more experience in the program.

But anyone who paid attention at U$C knew Darnold was much better.  It took going 1-2 for Helton to realize he had to make a change.

Well, what it seems to be saying is that 1 )Helton wasn't paying attention, and 2) Browne wasn't getting results on the practice field. If so, shame on them, but I just don't think so. I don't put Helton and his staff in the hall of fame yet, but they don't seem to be idiots. You believe that they made the decision for insubstantial reasons. If so, they are idiots. I don't believe that. I guess neither of us know, so good decision/bad decision can't be judged.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, what it seems to be saying is that 1 )Helton wasn't paying attention, and 2) Browne wasn't getting results on the practice field. If so, shame on them, but I just don't think so. I don't put Helton and his staff in the hall of fame yet, but they don't seem to be idiots. You believe that they made the decision for insubstantial reasons. If so, they are idiots. I don't believe that. I guess neither of us know, so good decision/bad decision can't be judged.

Actually, no, this was distinctively odd -- numerous fan and reporter reports said Sam Darnold looked way better throughout the summer (and SC generally has lots of open practices, so plenty of sample size) and basically all went to bromides on justifying Browne. So it was pretty obvious the whole time Darnold was better.

Of course, SC under Helton has been very mediocre when not quarterbacked by Darnold -- if we're being honest, SC has been pretty mediocre so far in 2017 -- so "they're idiots" can't exactly be dismissed.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, what it seems to be saying is that 1 )Helton wasn't paying attention, and 2) Browne wasn't getting results on the practice field. If so, shame on them, but I just don't think so. I don't put Helton and his staff in the hall of fame yet, but they don't seem to be idiots. You believe that they made the decision for insubstantial reasons. If so, they are idiots. I don't believe that. I guess neither of us know, so good decision/bad decision can't be judged.

Actually, no, this was distinctively odd -- numerous fan and reporter reports said Sam Darnold looked way better throughout the summer (and SC generally has lots of open practices, so plenty of sample size) and basically all went to bromides on justifying Browne. So it was pretty obvious the whole time Darnold was better.

Of course, SC under Helton has been very mediocre when not quarterbacked by Darnold -- if we're being honest, SC has been pretty mediocre so far in 2017 -- so "they're idiots" can't exactly be dismissed.

[OutsiderFan]

Coaches usually are more concerned about mitigating risk and operating in the known, than a player's upside and ability to improvise. This is why they usually error on the side of playing a guy who "knows the system" more than someone who can make plays when the structure breaks down.  The plays always look great when they are drawn up.

Darnold didn't know the system as well as Browne, but he could make things out of nothing, or otherwise make plays Browne couldn't.  Stanford beat USC 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  USC hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

[OutsiderFan]

Coaches usually are more concerned about mitigating risk and operating in the known, than a player's upside and ability to improvise. This is why they usually error on the side of playing a guy who "knows the system" more than someone who can make plays when the structure breaks down.  The plays always look great when they are drawn up.

Darnold didn't know the system as well as Browne, but he could make things out of nothing, or otherwise make plays Browne couldn't.  Stanford beat USC 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  USC hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

[CTcard]

With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.

[CTcard]

With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.

[Goose]

Coaches usually are more concerned about mitigating risk and operating in the known, than a player's upside and ability to improvise. This is why they usually error on the side of playing a guy who "knows the system" more than someone who can make plays when the structure breaks down.  The plays always look great when they are drawn up.

Darnold didn't know the system as well as Browne, but he could make things out of nothing, or otherwise make plays Browne couldn't.  Stanford beat U$C 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  U$C hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

Pretty much I would agree, except to add the very important point that neither Browne nor Darnold were really "known quantities". It could be that Browne was the "safe" choice, because he had been there longer, but he hadn't really done anything yet. Darnold makes some throws that possibly a coach would suggest he shouldn't make, the No! No! Yes! effect. Darnold can make those throws, but possibly the coaches were not willing to risk it until they had to. That improvised jump pass 30 yards down the field near the end of the Texas game was just begging to be intercepted. But it wasn't a duck and it was caught. Lucky or good? Probably both.

[Goose]

Coaches usually are more concerned about mitigating risk and operating in the known, than a player's upside and ability to improvise. This is why they usually error on the side of playing a guy who "knows the system" more than someone who can make plays when the structure breaks down.  The plays always look great when they are drawn up.

Darnold didn't know the system as well as Browne, but he could make things out of nothing, or otherwise make plays Browne couldn't.  Stanford beat U$C 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  U$C hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

Pretty much I would agree, except to add the very important point that neither Browne nor Darnold were really "known quantities". It could be that Browne was the "safe" choice, because he had been there longer, but he hadn't really done anything yet. Darnold makes some throws that possibly a coach would suggest he shouldn't make, the No! No! Yes! effect. Darnold can make those throws, but possibly the coaches were not willing to risk it until they had to. That improvised jump pass 30 yards down the field near the end of the Texas game was just begging to be intercepted. But it wasn't a duck and it was caught. Lucky or good? Probably both.

[CTcard]

Stanford beat U$C 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  U$C hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

Well, actually U$C lost the very next game with Darnold as a starter - but they've been rolling since.

What would have happened in the alternative universe where Darnold starts vs Stanford in 2016 is anybody's guess.
Darnold is unlikely to have stopped our OL from running their DL. (308 yds rushing)
And probably wouldn't have stopped our DL from starting to take control after the first drive of the second half.
He probably would have completed a few more passes, though his PER for the game was well below Browne's.

[CTcard]

Stanford beat U$C 27-10 with Browne.  Had Darnold started, I doubt Stanford wins that game.  U$C hasn't lost another game since Darnold became the starter the following week.

Well, actually U$C lost the very next game with Darnold as a starter - but they've been rolling since.

What would have happened in the alternative universe where Darnold starts vs Stanford in 2016 is anybody's guess.
Darnold is unlikely to have stopped our OL from running their DL. (308 yds rushing)
And probably wouldn't have stopped our DL from starting to take control after the first drive of the second half.
He probably would have completed a few more passes, though his PER for the game was well below Browne's.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17393.msg201306#msg201306 date=1505739812]
With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.
[/quote]

From watching high school, college, and MFL play, my observation is that an effective OL coach can make a tremendous positive impact.
More than any component of the game, an OL needs to work together as a cohesive unit, one which complements each others skills.
I think a first rate OL coach probably spends a lot of practice time working on footwork and blocking skills. Yes, lineman begin learning these fundamentals during youth and high school football. But for each higher level, such as college and the NFL,  it seems necessary for lineman to learn again effective footwork and blocking techniques.
Does Stanford have a dedicated OL coach ?

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17393.msg201306#msg201306 date=1505739812]
With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.
[/quote]

From watching high school, college, and MFL play, my observation is that an effective OL coach can make a tremendous positive impact.
More than any component of the game, an OL needs to work together as a cohesive unit, one which complements each others skills.
I think a first rate OL coach probably spends a lot of practice time working on footwork and blocking skills. Yes, lineman begin learning these fundamentals during youth and high school football. But for each higher level, such as college and the NFL,  it seems necessary for lineman to learn again effective footwork and blocking techniques.
Does Stanford have a dedicated OL coach ?

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17393.msg201414#msg201414 date=1505774208]
[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17393.msg201306#msg201306 date=1505739812]
With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.
[/quote]

From watching high school, college, and MFL play, my observation is that an effective OL coach can make a tremendous positive impact.
More than any component of the game, an OL needs to work together as a cohesive unit, one which complements each others skills.
I think a first rate OL coach probably spends a lot of practice time working on footwork and blocking skills. Yes, lineman begin learning these fundamentals during youth and high school football. But for each higher level, such as college and the NFL,  it seems necessary for lineman to learn again effective footwork and blocking techniques.
Does Stanford have a dedicated OL coach ?
[/quote]

No.  Bloomgren is the OL Coach and nominally the OC.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17393.msg201414#msg201414 date=1505774208]
[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=17393.msg201306#msg201306 date=1505739812]
With two uniquely gifted freshman offensive linemen, "choosing your best five OLs and sticking with them" isn't a good strategy.  In August, Little was our best pass blocker, on a team where pass blocking had been a fatal weakness.  He had to be worked into the starting offensive line.  But Bright was the only fairly reliable alternative at left tackle, so he had to play there until Little was ready. 

Tucker is not an alternative this season, at any position, at last notice.  Hall isn't either. We've seen that.

Sarell is Walker Little without the same preparation.  Little spent over a year going against the nation's number of DL recruit, Marvin Wilson, in practice every day; they played on the same Texas hs team.  Sarell never faced a real match up playing in Washington state.  But he's going to be truly special.

I thank everyone for the OL discussion in this thread. It's the best I can do to understand what happened until I can find a game tape somewhere.  And I think OL is the #2 problem for the team (behind DL, but maybe moving up fast).

Interesting comment from Hulk that Hall isn't an answer, as he is the tackle who kept his position.

As to the comments about best 5, I am not sure that Burkett is top 5 OL, but he seems to be the only viable center.
I think the top line in terms of potential would be Little, Bright, Burkett, Herbig, Sarell, though I don't know which side Bright/Herbig should occupy. That linup is only a Hall/Sarrell switch from the starting OL vs SDSU. Of course "most potential" doesn't mean the same thing as best performance right now.

I am not particularly worked up as to whether the coaches messed up in setting the OL for game #1. I do think that going forward figuring out the OL is job #1. While I might think the DL would be job one, there may not be anything available to figure out. The OL appears to have hope, but I fear that realizing the hope may take an offseason training regimen - which of course would also involve finding a Bright replacement.
[/quote]

From watching high school, college, and MFL play, my observation is that an effective OL coach can make a tremendous positive impact.
More than any component of the game, an OL needs to work together as a cohesive unit, one which complements each others skills.
I think a first rate OL coach probably spends a lot of practice time working on footwork and blocking skills. Yes, lineman begin learning these fundamentals during youth and high school football. But for each higher level, such as college and the NFL,  it seems necessary for lineman to learn again effective footwork and blocking techniques.
Does Stanford have a dedicated OL coach ?
[/quote]

No.  Bloomgren is the OL Coach and nominally the OC.