[82lsju]

Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

[82lsju]

Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

[OutsiderFan]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against USC.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

More specifically, please convince me how this was a better decision than:

Start Walker Little at LT against Rice.
Start him at LT against USC.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

[OutsiderFan]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against USC.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

More specifically, please convince me how this was a better decision than:

Start Walker Little at LT against Rice.
Start him at LT against USC.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

[CornFed]

Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

I suspect that the news that Perez will be getting increased PT will give martyup a bit of agita!!  :P

[CornFed]

Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

I suspect that the news that Perez will be getting increased PT will give martyup a bit of agita!!  :P

[fullmetal]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

More specifically, please convince me how this was a better decision than:

Start Walker Little at LT against Rice.
Start him at LT against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

It's very possible that Shaw didn't think Little had "earned it in practice."  I do think Little and Sarell are destined for greatness, but that doesn't necessarily mean Shaw has to throw them into the fire right away.  (I personally agree with you; the kids should have been seasoned against Rice and given meaningful reps against the toejamz.)

[fullmetal]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

More specifically, please convince me how this was a better decision than:

Start Walker Little at LT against Rice.
Start him at LT against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

It's very possible that Shaw didn't think Little had "earned it in practice."  I do think Little and Sarell are destined for greatness, but that doesn't necessarily mean Shaw has to throw them into the fire right away.  (I personally agree with you; the kids should have been seasoned against Rice and given meaningful reps against the toejamz.)

[martyup]

[quote author=eric link=topic=17453.msg201774#msg201774 date=1506017507]
Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

I suspect that the news that Perez will be getting increased PT will give martyup a bit of agita!!  :P
[/quote]

[martyup]

[quote author=eric link=topic=17453.msg201774#msg201774 date=1506017507]
Assessing his play, he said, “I definitely had some mistakes that I’d call rookie mistakes, but they really aren’t acceptable. I can’t really hide that. Whenever I step on the field, I’m accountable. But I thought there were some good moments and bad moments to learn from.”

and  on Barton's replacement

With starter Sean Barton out indefinitely with an injury, Jordan Perez and converted outside backer Joey Alfieri will receive more playing time at inside linebacker Saturday against UCLA, head coach David Shaw said.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...216194.php

I suspect that the news that Perez will be getting increased PT will give martyup a bit of agita!!  :P
[/quote]

[CTcard]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

Well, nobody other than the coaches can tell you exactly what they were thinking, and they won't do so unless you are actually a drinking buddy of theirs. But, it's not too hard to guess the likely thought process.

The choices aren't specifically about where to put Little so much as who will be in our starting OL. And there was only one change, between $C and SDSU. Little played a single series with the starters vs Rice, the fifth of the game (and the only one that didn't end with points, though I don't think that had anything to do with Little). By that point, the outcome was not in doubt, and the coaches were clearly experimenting to see how Little would do under fire. Against $C the game was always in doubt (well, at least marginally, until $C scored their final TD), so there was no experimenting.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised). 

[CTcard]

Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

Well, nobody other than the coaches can tell you exactly what they were thinking, and they won't do so unless you are actually a drinking buddy of theirs. But, it's not too hard to guess the likely thought process.

The choices aren't specifically about where to put Little so much as who will be in our starting OL. And there was only one change, between $C and SDSU. Little played a single series with the starters vs Rice, the fifth of the game (and the only one that didn't end with points, though I don't think that had anything to do with Little). By that point, the outcome was not in doubt, and the coaches were clearly experimenting to see how Little would do under fire. Against $C the game was always in doubt (well, at least marginally, until $C scored their final TD), so there was no experimenting.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised). 

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201776#msg201776 date=1506019043]
Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

Well, nobody other than the coaches can tell you exactly what they were thinking, and they won't do so unless you are actually a drinking buddy of theirs. But, it's not too hard to guess the likely thought process.

The choices aren't specifically about where to put Little so much as who will be in our starting OL. And there was only one change, between $C and SDSU. Little played a single series with the starters vs Rice, the fifth of the game (and the only one that didn't end with points, though I don't think that had anything to do with Little). By that point, the outcome was not in doubt, and the coaches were clearly experimenting to see how Little would do under fire. Against $C the game was always in doubt (well, at least marginally, until $C scored their final TD), so there was no experimenting.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised).
[/quote]

I think that analysis makes the most sense out of what seemed to be a somewhat chaotic change.  The problem was at guard, and unfortunately our solutions all play tackle.  I am somewhat hopeful that over the long run, this will work out.  I'm not sure Little is better at LT than Bright at this time, but he's the first true freshman left tackle since Kirk Chambers (something that eventual NFL players Kyle Murphy, Andrus Peat, and Jonathan Martin, and David Yankey never accomplished), and was called on to step into the role ahead of the more experienced Hamilton, so Shaw definitely believes in him.  Bright reminds me a bit of Yankey, who played both guard and tackle at Stanford (I think Bright is about 1 inch shorter and 10 lbs lighter, though), and I think he can succeed on the inside.

I wonder if the move of Bright from L tackle to L guard instead of R guard was meant to prevent too many things from switching at once.  I'm not sure if it is better to switch a lot of things for one player, or switch fewer things to more players.  Also, with Bright on the left side, I think he can help mentor Little and give some quick pointers if he gets in trouble.

One thing worth noting; the coaches did a lot of positional gymnastics when in theory they could have tried Tucker in at R guard in place of Fanaika.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201776#msg201776 date=1506019043]
Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

Well, nobody other than the coaches can tell you exactly what they were thinking, and they won't do so unless you are actually a drinking buddy of theirs. But, it's not too hard to guess the likely thought process.

The choices aren't specifically about where to put Little so much as who will be in our starting OL. And there was only one change, between $C and SDSU. Little played a single series with the starters vs Rice, the fifth of the game (and the only one that didn't end with points, though I don't think that had anything to do with Little). By that point, the outcome was not in doubt, and the coaches were clearly experimenting to see how Little would do under fire. Against $C the game was always in doubt (well, at least marginally, until $C scored their final TD), so there was no experimenting.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised).
[/quote]

I think that analysis makes the most sense out of what seemed to be a somewhat chaotic change.  The problem was at guard, and unfortunately our solutions all play tackle.  I am somewhat hopeful that over the long run, this will work out.  I'm not sure Little is better at LT than Bright at this time, but he's the first true freshman left tackle since Kirk Chambers (something that eventual NFL players Kyle Murphy, Andrus Peat, and Jonathan Martin, and David Yankey never accomplished), and was called on to step into the role ahead of the more experienced Hamilton, so Shaw definitely believes in him.  Bright reminds me a bit of Yankey, who played both guard and tackle at Stanford (I think Bright is about 1 inch shorter and 10 lbs lighter, though), and I think he can succeed on the inside.

I wonder if the move of Bright from L tackle to L guard instead of R guard was meant to prevent too many things from switching at once.  I'm not sure if it is better to switch a lot of things for one player, or switch fewer things to more players.  Also, with Bright on the left side, I think he can help mentor Little and give some quick pointers if he gets in trouble.

One thing worth noting; the coaches did a lot of positional gymnastics when in theory they could have tried Tucker in at R guard in place of Fanaika.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe some of you have seen it, but I've never in all my years paying attention been aware of a team that changed its starting OL three weeks in a row without being forced to do so because of injuries.

Many people on this board talk about the OL needing to jell.  How can this happen when so many guys are being shuffled in and out and from position to position, from game to game?

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe some of you have seen it, but I've never in all my years paying attention been aware of a team that changed its starting OL three weeks in a row without being forced to do so because of injuries.

Many people on this board talk about the OL needing to jell.  How can this happen when so many guys are being shuffled in and out and from position to position, from game to game?

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

[Goose]

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

Nope, they couldn't. While one can blame whoever was coaching, I almost wonder if it isn't the players, namely, no matter how you stack them, they aren't getting the job done. Is that the coach? Maybe, or maybe the OL needs to sort it out themselves. I can't explain it, and I suspect that right now nobody else can either.

[Goose]

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

Nope, they couldn't. While one can blame whoever was coaching, I almost wonder if it isn't the players, namely, no matter how you stack them, they aren't getting the job done. Is that the coach? Maybe, or maybe the OL needs to sort it out themselves. I can't explain it, and I suspect that right now nobody else can either.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17453.msg201807#msg201807 date=1506027677]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201776#msg201776 date=1506019043]
Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised).
[/quote]

I think that analysis makes the most sense out of what seemed to be a somewhat chaotic change.  The problem was at guard, and unfortunately our solutions all play tackle. 

One thing worth noting; the coaches did a lot of positional gymnastics when in theory they could have tried Tucker in at R guard in place of Fanaika.

BC
[/quote]

I seem to remember that Herbig's ascendance came at the expense of both Tucker and Fanaika.  And Bright has proven to be better than both of them as well.  So I don't think moving Nate to RG was as much gymnastics as simply ensuring your best 5 were out there -- which is what a lot of folks here have been advocating all along.

I think Sarell supplants Hall before long.  Hall does not appear quick enough to cover a speed rusher.  There's no guarantee Sarell will be, but I expect we'll know one way or another by November.  And Hamilton may still be a viable option at RT.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17453.msg201807#msg201807 date=1506027677]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201776#msg201776 date=1506019043]
Someone please convince me why this makes sense...

Play Walker Little at RT against Rice with first unit.
Play him as an extra OL against U$C.
Start him at LT against SDSU.

It seems obvious that in reviewing the $C game tapes, the coaches were not happy with Fanaika. Presumably, between what they had seen in practice and the first two games, they thought Little was ready to step in - or at least was a better option than keeping Fanaika. Since they were replacing a guard with a tackle, a lot of shuffling had to take place. However, there are really only two interesting decisions after the primary one to do the swap. Those were that they apparently think Herbig is more comfortable than Bright switching over to the right side, and that they didn't want to swap sides with Hall so that Little went to the left side.
The only one of those two side switches that kind of surprises me is Herbig to RG to accommodate Bright at LG (not necessarily concerned, but surprised).
[/quote]

I think that analysis makes the most sense out of what seemed to be a somewhat chaotic change.  The problem was at guard, and unfortunately our solutions all play tackle. 

One thing worth noting; the coaches did a lot of positional gymnastics when in theory they could have tried Tucker in at R guard in place of Fanaika.

BC
[/quote]

I seem to remember that Herbig's ascendance came at the expense of both Tucker and Fanaika.  And Bright has proven to be better than both of them as well.  So I don't think moving Nate to RG was as much gymnastics as simply ensuring your best 5 were out there -- which is what a lot of folks here have been advocating all along.

I think Sarell supplants Hall before long.  Hall does not appear quick enough to cover a speed rusher.  There's no guarantee Sarell will be, but I expect we'll know one way or another by November.  And Hamilton may still be a viable option at RT.

[BostonCard]

Maybe some of you have seen it, but I've never in all my years paying attention been aware of a team that changed its starting OL three weeks in a row without being forced to do so because of injuries.

Many people on this board talk about the OL needing to jell.  How can this happen when so many guys are being shuffled in and out and from position to position, from game to game?

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

It's unclear whether the coaches were forced to not start Hall in the Rice game.  He did not travel to Sydney and it has not been answered whether that was because of injury or disciplinary reasons, but it is clear that the USC line-up was the one the coaches would have used against Rice had they been able to.

I agree that switching the offensive line around is not conducive to the line as a whole being effective.  At the same time, if you have a player who is not performing, that is also not conducive to being effective.  At some point you have to pull the trigger.

As for whose "fault" this is... I mean, eventually the buck has to stop somewhere.

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe some of you have seen it, but I've never in all my years paying attention been aware of a team that changed its starting OL three weeks in a row without being forced to do so because of injuries.

Many people on this board talk about the OL needing to jell.  How can this happen when so many guys are being shuffled in and out and from position to position, from game to game?

This "musical OL" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in whoever is coaching that position.  They had 22 practices to figure out who the best 5-7 guys were, and couldn't do it?

It's unclear whether the coaches were forced to not start Hall in the Rice game.  He did not travel to Sydney and it has not been answered whether that was because of injury or disciplinary reasons, but it is clear that the USC line-up was the one the coaches would have used against Rice had they been able to.

I agree that switching the offensive line around is not conducive to the line as a whole being effective.  At the same time, if you have a player who is not performing, that is also not conducive to being effective.  At some point you have to pull the trigger.

As for whose "fault" this is... I mean, eventually the buck has to stop somewhere.

BC

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17453.msg201817#msg201817 date=1506030027
As for whose "fault" this is... I mean, eventually the buck has to stop somewhere.
[/quote]

Any fan is free to worry about whatever they wish, but for me - I don't have a lot of interest in whose fault this is. It's everybody-involved's fault.

A more interesting question to me is what in particular is the problem, and what my be prospects for improvement.

One of my concerns going into this season is that the OL troubles in 2016 didn't really seem all that similar to the problems in 2014. In 2014 there were significant cohesion issues - missed assignments on run plays, two guys blocking one while another goes free on pass blocking, that sort of thing. In 2016 there were a lot more players simply being beat one on one - and a lot worse pass blocking (2016 allows sacks on 10% of attempts vs 5.5% in 2014).
Losing one on one means individual players have to get better rather than line cohesion improving.

Maybe part of the problem was recruiting. (247 composite rankings)
The 2015 line had guys who out of high school were rated #3T, #2T, #4G, #35G, #16G.
The 2016 line (Sun Bowl edition) had guys who were rated  #46T, (not rated)T, #35G, #21G, #50G
Now we're looking to work into the lineup guys who were rated #2T, maybe soon #1T. It's pretty obvious why there's hope that might help. Less obvious when they actually become the best options.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17453.msg201817#msg201817 date=1506030027
As for whose "fault" this is... I mean, eventually the buck has to stop somewhere.
[/quote]

Any fan is free to worry about whatever they wish, but for me - I don't have a lot of interest in whose fault this is. It's everybody-involved's fault.

A more interesting question to me is what in particular is the problem, and what my be prospects for improvement.

One of my concerns going into this season is that the OL troubles in 2016 didn't really seem all that similar to the problems in 2014. In 2014 there were significant cohesion issues - missed assignments on run plays, two guys blocking one while another goes free on pass blocking, that sort of thing. In 2016 there were a lot more players simply being beat one on one - and a lot worse pass blocking (2016 allows sacks on 10% of attempts vs 5.5% in 2014).
Losing one on one means individual players have to get better rather than line cohesion improving.

Maybe part of the problem was recruiting. (247 composite rankings)
The 2015 line had guys who out of high school were rated #3T, #2T, #4G, #35G, #16G.
The 2016 line (Sun Bowl edition) had guys who were rated  #46T, (not rated)T, #35G, #21G, #50G
Now we're looking to work into the lineup guys who were rated #2T, maybe soon #1T. It's pretty obvious why there's hope that might help. Less obvious when they actually become the best options.

[OutsiderFan]

The latest depth chart is still more musical OL.  Now it's:

RT:  Hall - Sarell
RG: Herbig - Wilson
C:  Burkett - Chaffin
LG: Bright - Fanaika
LT: Little - Hamilton

Now Hamilton is the backup LT, after being the starting RT and backup RT already this season.  Given how limited we know Hall is, the writing on the wall is that this is going to end up exactly how many of us predicted before the season:  Little will start at LT and Sarell at RT by mid-season.

I just don't know how it made any sense to:

- Play Sarell at LT and Hall at RT against Rice, when now they are flip-flopped.
- Do anything other than start Little and Sarell from the jump.

Yes, starting two True Frosh OTs is basically unheard of in college football, but if they have the talent - and more importantly - the other options just aren't that good, why the hell not?  We all know Hall struggled mightily in 2016.  And Dave Bright was always a Guard masquerading as a Tackle.  Hamilton is also a young guy, who hasn't had any more PT than Hall or Sarell, so the three best OT options are all True or RS Frosh.  That maybe isn't ideal, but it's the reality, so if Little and Sarell can be better than all of them, that's who who'll play.

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love, all this OL shuffling could be having an impact on Chryst, and the passing game.

[OutsiderFan]

The latest depth chart is still more musical OL.  Now it's:

RT:  Hall - Sarell
RG: Herbig - Wilson
C:  Burkett - Chaffin
LG: Bright - Fanaika
LT: Little - Hamilton

Now Hamilton is the backup LT, after being the starting RT and backup RT already this season.  Given how limited we know Hall is, the writing on the wall is that this is going to end up exactly how many of us predicted before the season:  Little will start at LT and Sarell at RT by mid-season.

I just don't know how it made any sense to:

- Play Sarell at LT and Hall at RT against Rice, when now they are flip-flopped.
- Do anything other than start Little and Sarell from the jump.

Yes, starting two True Frosh OTs is basically unheard of in college football, but if they have the talent - and more importantly - the other options just aren't that good, why the hell not?  We all know Hall struggled mightily in 2016.  And Dave Bright was always a Guard masquerading as a Tackle.  Hamilton is also a young guy, who hasn't had any more PT than Hall or Sarell, so the three best OT options are all True or RS Frosh.  That maybe isn't ideal, but it's the reality, so if Little and Sarell can be better than all of them, that's who who'll play.

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love, all this OL shuffling could be having an impact on Chryst, and the passing game.

[Goose]

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love,

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time. Our defense will collapse.  We get in third and 3, run Love, and he gets stuffed. Worse, we get in 3rd and long and can't run Love. It is pretty clear that all this shuffling is a (desperate) attempt to find a combination that works. After fall camp, the coaches apparently thought they had one, or at least were keeping the issue quiet. Now it is pretty clear that all options are on the table, as nothing has yet really worked.
It may be that Stanford doesn't have a defensive line that can challenge our OL adequately to evaluate players against "real" competition, so the coaches can't tell what will actually work(?). Last year, it appeared that Thomas just shredded the OL in practice so much that it was hard to tell if anything worked. As it turned out, while Thomas was good, the OL was also bad. This year, it looked better, but maybe because the DL wasn't as good. I can't tell if it is missed assignments or just getting physically beat, but is sure seems it is just getting physically beat (speed/power) a lot of the time. Supposedly U$C was stunting a lot in the second half, and that gave us problems, but even before that, we didn't look good. Comments welcomed!

[Goose]

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love,

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time. Our defense will collapse.  We get in third and 3, run Love, and he gets stuffed. Worse, we get in 3rd and long and can't run Love. It is pretty clear that all this shuffling is a (desperate) attempt to find a combination that works. After fall camp, the coaches apparently thought they had one, or at least were keeping the issue quiet. Now it is pretty clear that all options are on the table, as nothing has yet really worked.
It may be that Stanford doesn't have a defensive line that can challenge our OL adequately to evaluate players against "real" competition, so the coaches can't tell what will actually work(?). Last year, it appeared that Thomas just shredded the OL in practice so much that it was hard to tell if anything worked. As it turned out, while Thomas was good, the OL was also bad. This year, it looked better, but maybe because the DL wasn't as good. I can't tell if it is missed assignments or just getting physically beat, but is sure seems it is just getting physically beat (speed/power) a lot of the time. Supposedly U$C was stunting a lot in the second half, and that gave us problems, but even before that, we didn't look good. Comments welcomed!

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201849#msg201849 date=1506081397]

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love,

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time. Our defense will collapse.

Was trying to be charitable, as Love has the most impressive RB stats in the NCAA, IMO.  But I agree with the all or nothing not being conducive to good offense.

It may be that Stanford doesn't have a defensive line that can challenge our OL adequately to evaluate players against "real" competition, so the coaches can't tell what will actually work(?).

This really could be an issue, but I think when there is this much uncertainty and fluctuation, the OL coach has to take the brunt of the responsibility.  I just really hope that Bloomgren didn't want to start Little at LT and Sarell at RT from game 1, and that he was overruled by Shaw.  My hope is it was Bloomgren's idea to shuffle the OL so much, and Shaw has that to hold over his head, not the other way around.  Either way, someone has screwed up, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17453.msg201849#msg201849 date=1506081397]

I'm as down on Chryst and want to see Costello as much as anyone, but it must be acknowledged that though it sure doesn't seem to be impacting Bryce Love,

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time. Our defense will collapse.

Was trying to be charitable, as Love has the most impressive RB stats in the NCAA, IMO.  But I agree with the all or nothing not being conducive to good offense.

It may be that Stanford doesn't have a defensive line that can challenge our OL adequately to evaluate players against "real" competition, so the coaches can't tell what will actually work(?).

This really could be an issue, but I think when there is this much uncertainty and fluctuation, the OL coach has to take the brunt of the responsibility.  I just really hope that Bloomgren didn't want to start Little at LT and Sarell at RT from game 1, and that he was overruled by Shaw.  My hope is it was Bloomgren's idea to shuffle the OL so much, and Shaw has that to hold over his head, not the other way around.  Either way, someone has screwed up, IMO.

[CTcard]

The latest depth chart is still more musical OL.  Now it's:

RT:  Hall - Sarell
RG: Herbig - Wilson
C:  Burkett - Chaffin
LG: Bright - Fanaika
LT: Little - Hamilton

Well, first off I don't see this as significant musical chairs vs SDSU. All the starters remain the same. The listed backups are as much internal messages to the team as any meaningful comment on who will see what playing time.
Mostly, the starters will play.
Backups will come in as extra linemen, a position not on the depth chart.
Backups will come in if somebody gets hurt. But I expect the backup to be the next best OL available (in the coaches' eyes) rather than a strict position rotation as spelled out on this list.

In addition, it is quite clear that the coaches do not see left side/right side as as big a change as you do. It looks to me as if they are trying to put their best tackles and best guards on the field, with lesser concern about which side.

Now Hamilton is the backup LT, after being the starting RT and backup RT already this season. 

,
My guess is that this move signals that Hamilton is losing out relative to Sarell, and that Hall is the tackle with the most precarious hold on his spot. This seems to roughly be your interpretation, though it is not clear to me that Sarell will take over at RT by mid-season. Not that I think he won't either, mostly there just isn't much for me to go on at the moment to rate Hall vs. Sarell - or more importantly to guess at how the coaches are viewing Hall vs. Sarell.

I just don't know how it made any sense to:

- Play Sarell at LT and Hall at RT against Rice, when now they are flip-flopped.
- Do anything other than start Little and Sarell from the jump.

Hall did not play against Rice. I am guessing you mean Hamilton.
Vs. Rice the OT rankings were (in order): Bright, Hamilton, Little, Sarell. Sarell played LT because Little was at RT as the position he was most likely to get subbed in for (and in fact he got subbed in for a single series with the first team).
When Hall came back he moved into the #2 slot, and my guess is Little passed Hamilton, but that's just a guess.
However, it seems clear that Little has now passed all others, except probably Bright (who was deemed to be more useful at guard), or at least the coaches didn't think Hall could handle the best past rusher on the left side.
Now it looks to me as if Sarell has moved up to the #3 tackle slot, with Bright out of the running as a guard for now.

I am not sure if any of these are the correct decisions, but it doesn't seem that what is going on is particularly mysterious.

Whether Little and Sarell should have started vs Rice is impossible to answer.
I can certainly see the case for Little. He has looked relatively solild from the get-go so perhaps the coaches should have seen him as able to handle the position from what they saw in practice.
Sarell I don't really see, partly because I have only barely seen him Against Rice, he had some notable issues in pass protection and balance. He definitely did not look like he was one of the top two (or three considering Bright to G) tackles on the team. And in general, no coach will start players he doesn't consider the best right now.

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time.
... Comments welcomed!

Well, one comment is that I am not certain whether Love's rushing stats have really been excessively boom and bust as we are thinking. That tends to be something everybody notices when things are going poorly, but doesn't see when things are going well. I also kind of think that has been the case this year, but I haven't seen any numbers that show it.


Against SDSU, Love had several stuffs in the first half and one long run. In the second half, he gained good yardage every carry, with two long runs. (rushes:9,6,47,4,53,4,5)
I haven't tracked $C and Rice, but Rice wasn't stopping anything. Vs. $C we actually had a pretty good third down conversion rate of 50%, so I am guessing it wasn't always third and long.
At any rate, like last year the run blocking is at least better than the pass blocking.

And I do think that the OL has simply been physically beat (this year and last) relatively often, at least versus the last time we had OL struggles (2014). That might indicate solutions won't come until personnel changes.

[CTcard]

The latest depth chart is still more musical OL.  Now it's:

RT:  Hall - Sarell
RG: Herbig - Wilson
C:  Burkett - Chaffin
LG: Bright - Fanaika
LT: Little - Hamilton

Well, first off I don't see this as significant musical chairs vs SDSU. All the starters remain the same. The listed backups are as much internal messages to the team as any meaningful comment on who will see what playing time.
Mostly, the starters will play.
Backups will come in as extra linemen, a position not on the depth chart.
Backups will come in if somebody gets hurt. But I expect the backup to be the next best OL available (in the coaches' eyes) rather than a strict position rotation as spelled out on this list.

In addition, it is quite clear that the coaches do not see left side/right side as as big a change as you do. It looks to me as if they are trying to put their best tackles and best guards on the field, with lesser concern about which side.

Now Hamilton is the backup LT, after being the starting RT and backup RT already this season. 

,
My guess is that this move signals that Hamilton is losing out relative to Sarell, and that Hall is the tackle with the most precarious hold on his spot. This seems to roughly be your interpretation, though it is not clear to me that Sarell will take over at RT by mid-season. Not that I think he won't either, mostly there just isn't much for me to go on at the moment to rate Hall vs. Sarell - or more importantly to guess at how the coaches are viewing Hall vs. Sarell.

I just don't know how it made any sense to:

- Play Sarell at LT and Hall at RT against Rice, when now they are flip-flopped.
- Do anything other than start Little and Sarell from the jump.

Hall did not play against Rice. I am guessing you mean Hamilton.
Vs. Rice the OT rankings were (in order): Bright, Hamilton, Little, Sarell. Sarell played LT because Little was at RT as the position he was most likely to get subbed in for (and in fact he got subbed in for a single series with the first team).
When Hall came back he moved into the #2 slot, and my guess is Little passed Hamilton, but that's just a guess.
However, it seems clear that Little has now passed all others, except probably Bright (who was deemed to be more useful at guard), or at least the coaches didn't think Hall could handle the best past rusher on the left side.
Now it looks to me as if Sarell has moved up to the #3 tackle slot, with Bright out of the running as a guard for now.

I am not sure if any of these are the correct decisions, but it doesn't seem that what is going on is particularly mysterious.

Whether Little and Sarell should have started vs Rice is impossible to answer.
I can certainly see the case for Little. He has looked relatively solild from the get-go so perhaps the coaches should have seen him as able to handle the position from what they saw in practice.
Sarell I don't really see, partly because I have only barely seen him Against Rice, he had some notable issues in pass protection and balance. He definitely did not look like he was one of the top two (or three considering Bright to G) tackles on the team. And in general, no coach will start players he doesn't consider the best right now.

I can't agree here. Love isn't getting the consistent, chain moving runs that Stanford needs. Home run or punt won't work if you only get the home run 20% of the time.
... Comments welcomed!

Well, one comment is that I am not certain whether Love's rushing stats have really been excessively boom and bust as we are thinking. That tends to be something everybody notices when things are going poorly, but doesn't see when things are going well. I also kind of think that has been the case this year, but I haven't seen any numbers that show it.


Against SDSU, Love had several stuffs in the first half and one long run. In the second half, he gained good yardage every carry, with two long runs. (rushes:9,6,47,4,53,4,5)
I haven't tracked $C and Rice, but Rice wasn't stopping anything. Vs. $C we actually had a pretty good third down conversion rate of 50%, so I am guessing it wasn't always third and long.
At any rate, like last year the run blocking is at least better than the pass blocking.

And I do think that the OL has simply been physically beat (this year and last) relatively often, at least versus the last time we had OL struggles (2014). That might indicate solutions won't come until personnel changes.