07-11-2011, 01:41 PM
Stanford has the lowest number of returning starters of any Pac-12 team.
Pac 12 returning starters
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-11-2011, 04:54 PM
Barring injuries, our OL play should get better as the season goes on.  Not so sanguine about the DL, they might wear down as the season goes on. Also got to find two LBs to play alongside Thomas and Skov. Barring injuries those replacements should get better as the season goes along.Â
One good note, DE Eddie Plantaric is now listed at 293 lbs., a gain of 16 over his last roster weight. He came in as a DE, but that weight puts him in DT territory. I would think he'll get a lot of reps inside this season. Will take some of the sting out losing our other DT Bulcke. Stephens is expected to be the starting NT and at least (walk on) Parry and Plantaric are over 290lbs and can at least take reps at DT.
One good note, DE Eddie Plantaric is now listed at 293 lbs., a gain of 16 over his last roster weight. He came in as a DE, but that weight puts him in DT territory. I would think he'll get a lot of reps inside this season. Will take some of the sting out losing our other DT Bulcke. Stephens is expected to be the starting NT and at least (walk on) Parry and Plantaric are over 290lbs and can at least take reps at DT.
Barring injuries, our OL play should get better as the season goes on.  Not so sanguine about the DL, they might wear down as the season goes on. Also got to find two LBs to play alongside Thomas and Skov. Barring injuries those replacements should get better as the season goes along.Â
One good note, DE Eddie Plantaric is now listed at 293 lbs., a gain of 16 over his last roster weight. He came in as a DE, but that weight puts him in DT territory. I would think he'll get a lot of reps inside this season. Will take some of the sting out losing our other DT Bulcke. Stephens is expected to be the starting NT and at least (walk on) Parry and Plantaric are over 290lbs and can at least take reps at DT.
One good note, DE Eddie Plantaric is now listed at 293 lbs., a gain of 16 over his last roster weight. He came in as a DE, but that weight puts him in DT territory. I would think he'll get a lot of reps inside this season. Will take some of the sting out losing our other DT Bulcke. Stephens is expected to be the starting NT and at least (walk on) Parry and Plantaric are over 290lbs and can at least take reps at DT.
07-13-2011, 01:52 PM
The Pac 12's football prospectus lists the following numbers of returning starters --
19Â Arizona State (10 offense, 9 defense, 0 PK/P)
18Â Colorado (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
17Â Washington (7 offense, 8 defense 2 PK/P)
17Â Washington State (9 offense, 8 defense, 0 PK/P)
16Â UCLA (7 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
15Â California (7 offense, 6 defense 2 PK/P)
15Â Oregon (7 offense, 6 defense, 2 PK/P)
13Â Arizona (5 offense, 7 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Utah (7 offense, 5 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Southern California (6 offense, 7 defense 0 PK/P)
12Â Stanford (5 offense, 6 defense, 1 PK/P)
12Â Oregon State (7 offense, 4 defense, 1 PK/P)
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...g-starters
19Â Arizona State (10 offense, 9 defense, 0 PK/P)
18Â Colorado (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
17Â Washington (7 offense, 8 defense 2 PK/P)
17Â Washington State (9 offense, 8 defense, 0 PK/P)
16Â UCLA (7 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
15Â California (7 offense, 6 defense 2 PK/P)
15Â Oregon (7 offense, 6 defense, 2 PK/P)
13Â Arizona (5 offense, 7 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Utah (7 offense, 5 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Southern California (6 offense, 7 defense 0 PK/P)
12Â Stanford (5 offense, 6 defense, 1 PK/P)
12Â Oregon State (7 offense, 4 defense, 1 PK/P)
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...g-starters
The Pac 12's football prospectus lists the following numbers of returning starters --
19Â Arizona State (10 offense, 9 defense, 0 PK/P)
18Â Colorado (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
17Â Washington (7 offense, 8 defense 2 PK/P)
17Â Washington State (9 offense, 8 defense, 0 PK/P)
16Â UCLA (7 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
15Â California (7 offense, 6 defense 2 PK/P)
15Â Oregon (7 offense, 6 defense, 2 PK/P)
13Â Arizona (5 offense, 7 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Utah (7 offense, 5 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Southern California (6 offense, 7 defense 0 PK/P)
12Â Stanford (5 offense, 6 defense, 1 PK/P)
12Â Oregon State (7 offense, 4 defense, 1 PK/P)
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...g-starters
19Â Arizona State (10 offense, 9 defense, 0 PK/P)
18Â Colorado (9 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
17Â Washington (7 offense, 8 defense 2 PK/P)
17Â Washington State (9 offense, 8 defense, 0 PK/P)
16Â UCLA (7 offense, 8 defense, 1 PK/P)
15Â California (7 offense, 6 defense 2 PK/P)
15Â Oregon (7 offense, 6 defense, 2 PK/P)
13Â Arizona (5 offense, 7 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Utah (7 offense, 5 defense, 1 PK/P)
13Â Southern California (6 offense, 7 defense 0 PK/P)
12Â Stanford (5 offense, 6 defense, 1 PK/P)
12Â Oregon State (7 offense, 4 defense, 1 PK/P)
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...g-starters
07-14-2011, 12:22 AM
(07-11-2011, 04:54 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Also got to find two LBs to play alongside Thomas and Skov.
Sophomore Blake Leuders got a fair amount of playing time last year, so he could be ready, and I really think incoming freshman James Vaughters is talented enough to challenge for the job.
Stanford University = Linebacker U. We don't rebuild, we reload.
Oh, and we're also Tailback U. And Quarterback U. Just sayin'.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
(07-11-2011, 04:54 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Also got to find two LBs to play alongside Thomas and Skov.
Sophomore Blake Leuders got a fair amount of playing time last year, so he could be ready, and I really think incoming freshman James Vaughters is talented enough to challenge for the job.
Stanford University = Linebacker U. We don't rebuild, we reload.
Oh, and we're also Tailback U. And Quarterback U. Just sayin'.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
07-14-2011, 07:11 AM
Quarterback U?
Our first string is the best, but there's a steep drop-off. The second string needs plenty of experience. He was third string last year.
I'm more worried about the lines. If the line doesn't function well, it doesn't matter how good the quarterback is. (see Edwards, Trent). Similarly, if the defensive line can't stop the running game or get to the opposing QB, the defense is going to be on the field a long time, and the offense will have to score many points quickly just to stay in games. We've ridden this train before.
Our first string is the best, but there's a steep drop-off. The second string needs plenty of experience. He was third string last year.
I'm more worried about the lines. If the line doesn't function well, it doesn't matter how good the quarterback is. (see Edwards, Trent). Similarly, if the defensive line can't stop the running game or get to the opposing QB, the defense is going to be on the field a long time, and the offense will have to score many points quickly just to stay in games. We've ridden this train before.
Quarterback U?
Our first string is the best, but there's a steep drop-off. The second string needs plenty of experience. He was third string last year.
I'm more worried about the lines. If the line doesn't function well, it doesn't matter how good the quarterback is. (see Edwards, Trent). Similarly, if the defensive line can't stop the running game or get to the opposing QB, the defense is going to be on the field a long time, and the offense will have to score many points quickly just to stay in games. We've ridden this train before.
Our first string is the best, but there's a steep drop-off. The second string needs plenty of experience. He was third string last year.
I'm more worried about the lines. If the line doesn't function well, it doesn't matter how good the quarterback is. (see Edwards, Trent). Similarly, if the defensive line can't stop the running game or get to the opposing QB, the defense is going to be on the field a long time, and the offense will have to score many points quickly just to stay in games. We've ridden this train before.
07-14-2011, 09:00 AM
So long as we have Skov, Howell, Thomas^2, and Masifilo, I like to think we'll be at least adequate on defense. Coaching is certainly a question mark.
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
So long as we have Skov, Howell, Thomas^2, and Masifilo, I like to think we'll be at least adequate on defense. Coaching is certainly a question mark.
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
07-14-2011, 04:20 PM
(07-14-2011, 09:00 AM)cardfan09 link Wrote:So long as we have Skov, Howell, Thomas^2, and Masifilo, I like to think we'll be at least adequate on defense. Coaching is certainly a question mark.
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
Great point. Other than the coaching questions, I feel good about the defense.
We lose five defensive starters, but I think that we can replace the production we got from three of them. Does anyone here believe that trading Bulcke for Gardner will be a downgrade? Or that trading Marecic for the winner of the Bergen/Debniak/Tarpley fight at MLB will be a downgrade? Keiser was a very good pash-rushing DE in the 4-3, but he was an average OLB in the 3-4. In fact, between Murphy, Vaughters, and Lueders, we could have an upgrade at OLB by the end of the season.
That leaves two positions where I see a likely drop-off. Fua was not a dominant college DT, a la Nick Fairley, but we should expect a downgrade with Stephens. Sherman for Browning will probably be a downgrade as well.
But then you have to account for two other factors. One is that we will have much better defensive depth this year. I think a lot more guys will be in the rotation, which means that everyone will be fresher in the fourth quarter. In my view this is the biggest reason for optimism about the Oregon game this season. You need defensive depth against the Ducks. The other factor is that some of our returning starters may improve. In particular, I think Skov is still getting better. But we could see improvement from some of the other returning starters as well.
(07-14-2011, 09:00 AM)cardfan09 link Wrote:So long as we have Skov, Howell, Thomas^2, and Masifilo, I like to think we'll be at least adequate on defense. Coaching is certainly a question mark.
We don't have a lot of returning starters, but they're all rock-solid. I can only count one player (Bademosi) who didn't receive all-Pac 10 accolades:
Martin
DeCastro
Fleener
Taylor (+the stable)
Luck
Masifilo
Skov
Thomas
Thomas III
Howell
Bademosi
Great point. Other than the coaching questions, I feel good about the defense.
We lose five defensive starters, but I think that we can replace the production we got from three of them. Does anyone here believe that trading Bulcke for Gardner will be a downgrade? Or that trading Marecic for the winner of the Bergen/Debniak/Tarpley fight at MLB will be a downgrade? Keiser was a very good pash-rushing DE in the 4-3, but he was an average OLB in the 3-4. In fact, between Murphy, Vaughters, and Lueders, we could have an upgrade at OLB by the end of the season.
That leaves two positions where I see a likely drop-off. Fua was not a dominant college DT, a la Nick Fairley, but we should expect a downgrade with Stephens. Sherman for Browning will probably be a downgrade as well.
But then you have to account for two other factors. One is that we will have much better defensive depth this year. I think a lot more guys will be in the rotation, which means that everyone will be fresher in the fourth quarter. In my view this is the biggest reason for optimism about the Oregon game this season. You need defensive depth against the Ducks. The other factor is that some of our returning starters may improve. In particular, I think Skov is still getting better. But we could see improvement from some of the other returning starters as well.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-14-2011, 08:52 PM
So much of LB is a mental game. First, just getting used to the speed of the college game. Second, hardwiring in the reads Third, hardwiring in the reactions.  Fourth, learning the techniques and timing on rush schemes. Fifth, learning how your defensive teammates play as a unit. And then there's just the part where he won't be the strongest/fastest/baddest *** on the field anymore.   Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought. Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
So much of LB is a mental game. First, just getting used to the speed of the college game. Second, hardwiring in the reads Third, hardwiring in the reactions.  Fourth, learning the techniques and timing on rush schemes. Fifth, learning how your defensive teammates play as a unit. And then there's just the part where he won't be the strongest/fastest/baddest *** on the field anymore.   Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought. Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
07-14-2011, 09:26 PM
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:So much of LB is a mental game. First, just getting used to the speed of the college game. Second, hardwiring in the reads Third, hardwiring in the reactions.  Fourth, learning the techniques and timing on rush schemes. Fifth, learning how your defensive teammates play as a unit. And then there's just the part where he won't be the strongest/fastest/baddest *** on the field anymore.   Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought. Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
Even Shayne Skov needed an adjustment time (though he was kicking ass by the Oregon game). So I tend to discount the theory that Vaughters will be a starter. My best case scenario for him is they put him in in selected downs and just let him do his havoc-wreaking thing.
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:So much of LB is a mental game. First, just getting used to the speed of the college game. Second, hardwiring in the reads Third, hardwiring in the reactions.  Fourth, learning the techniques and timing on rush schemes. Fifth, learning how your defensive teammates play as a unit. And then there's just the part where he won't be the strongest/fastest/baddest *** on the field anymore.   Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought. Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
Even Shayne Skov needed an adjustment time (though he was kicking ass by the Oregon game). So I tend to discount the theory that Vaughters will be a starter. My best case scenario for him is they put him in in selected downs and just let him do his havoc-wreaking thing.
07-15-2011, 12:48 AM
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought.
Vaughters is playing OLB and not MLB so I wouldn't have him potentially starting there, maybe at OLB though but not likely. Now Pat Skov is playing MLB and as crazy as this sounds, I could see him starting over Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley/Lancaster/Hemschoot by mid season.
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Maybe he is good enough to start and beat out Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley. But if he can do that, maybe we are in worse trouble than we thought.
Vaughters is playing OLB and not MLB so I wouldn't have him potentially starting there, maybe at OLB though but not likely. Now Pat Skov is playing MLB and as crazy as this sounds, I could see him starting over Debniak/Bergen/Tarpley/Lancaster/Hemschoot by mid season.
07-18-2011, 03:07 PM
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
Are you saying that Davis is better than Vaughters right now? Just out of curiosity, why do you rank Davis ahead of him, either right now or as you project them into the future?
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
(07-14-2011, 08:52 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Now, that commit... Noor Davis. He's just a HS senior but I bet he could come in and beat out Vaughters.
Are you saying that Davis is better than Vaughters right now? Just out of curiosity, why do you rank Davis ahead of him, either right now or as you project them into the future?
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-18-2011, 03:16 PM
That was what passes for humor around here. Barely passing. Poking fun at myself in character as hopeful fan with near-delusional faith that almost every high school senior will be the immediate savior of Stanford football.
That was what passes for humor around here. Barely passing. Poking fun at myself in character as hopeful fan with near-delusional faith that almost every high school senior will be the immediate savior of Stanford football.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »