[washingtonismoney]

There are also questions at receiver, where Stanford must replace starters Doug Baldwin and Ryan Whalen, who combined for 99 catches and 11 touchdowns last season.

"The only thing we know for sure is that Griff Whalen and Drew Terrell "... have given me a comfort level that we can be functional at the position," Shaw said.

Chris Owusu is a first-class playmaker -- if he's healthy. (Owusu missed six games last season with an assortment of injuries and is coming off knee surgery.)

Beyond those three, Shaw said, the pecking order is muddled.

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-card...ck_check=1

Sounds like Whalen and Terrell have seized the lead in the wide receiver race (but that Shaw doesn't expect much by way of production)? If the latter speculation is true, things might be tough on offense.

[washingtonismoney]

There are also questions at receiver, where Stanford must replace starters Doug Baldwin and Ryan Whalen, who combined for 99 catches and 11 touchdowns last season.

"The only thing we know for sure is that Griff Whalen and Drew Terrell "... have given me a comfort level that we can be functional at the position," Shaw said.

Chris Owusu is a first-class playmaker -- if he's healthy. (Owusu missed six games last season with an assortment of injuries and is coming off knee surgery.)

Beyond those three, Shaw said, the pecking order is muddled.

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-card...ck_check=1

Sounds like Whalen and Terrell have seized the lead in the wide receiver race (but that Shaw doesn't expect much by way of production)? If the latter speculation is true, things might be tough on offense.

[Redrum]

Immediately visions of  Troy Walters, James Lofton,  Ed McCaffrey and Tony Hill  are evoked.    Or,  not.

About the only thing I can think of,  before Fall camp opens and things sort themselves out,  it that the success of our offenses depended more on first downs and continued possession.  Without an identified deep threat that might get tougher,  but  Whalen has proven he's a more than capable short field receiver and if anyone can work an offense with timing and accuracy, it's Luck.    Ummm, so maybe the success of our passing game depends on our OLine.

[Redrum]

Immediately visions of  Troy Walters, James Lofton,  Ed McCaffrey and Tony Hill  are evoked.    Or,  not.

About the only thing I can think of,  before Fall camp opens and things sort themselves out,  it that the success of our offenses depended more on first downs and continued possession.  Without an identified deep threat that might get tougher,  but  Whalen has proven he's a more than capable short field receiver and if anyone can work an offense with timing and accuracy, it's Luck.    Ummm, so maybe the success of our passing game depends on our OLine.

[Griffins78]

It seems like Shaw maybe keeping his cards close to his vest like Harbaugh selectively crowing but often keeping things a mystery. Like Owusu's injury and potential role. Add Owusu to the mix and I have a lot of confidence in this group playing a major role.

[Griffins78]

It seems like Shaw maybe keeping his cards close to his vest like Harbaugh selectively crowing but often keeping things a mystery. Like Owusu's injury and potential role. Add Owusu to the mix and I have a lot of confidence in this group playing a major role.

[unclechuck]

I'm with Griffin78 on Shaw's underselling WR / pass options.

Nice article recently in San Diego paper Re Phillip Rivers boffo 2010 season passing performance in spite of injuries to the WR group that yielded a near constant turnover of journeymen and rookie players. The stated key elements to success were Rivers' skill & demeanor, plus a well conceived offensive system that coaches and QB were dialed into. See the 4-5 paragraph middle of the article for specifics:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/...arterback/

So:

Shaw = 6+ years in this system (2 @ USD), Luck = 4th.

Running game: we're just loaded here. Recall Gaffney looked great in the WF game prior to being injured. He was less than 100% the rest of the season. He's a starting outfielder and former CA-Hi POY, so I'm confident he can be good to devastating catching passes. Taylor, Wilkerson etc. If I go on the karma gods may strike.

TE's - best in college ball; happy to have someone attempt to convince me otherwise.

O-line - great foundation; promising replacements;

Schedule - early games set up well to tweak O-line plus harmonize WR, RB, TE roles & distribution.

If Owusu is healthy we'll be cruel. If he's only mostly healthy - in a Princess Bride kind of way - then we may only be scary.

[unclechuck]

I'm with Griffin78 on Shaw's underselling WR / pass options.

Nice article recently in San Diego paper Re Phillip Rivers boffo 2010 season passing performance in spite of injuries to the WR group that yielded a near constant turnover of journeymen and rookie players. The stated key elements to success were Rivers' skill & demeanor, plus a well conceived offensive system that coaches and QB were dialed into. See the 4-5 paragraph middle of the article for specifics:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/...arterback/

So:

Shaw = 6+ years in this system (2 @ USD), Luck = 4th.

Running game: we're just loaded here. Recall Gaffney looked great in the WF game prior to being injured. He was less than 100% the rest of the season. He's a starting outfielder and former CA-Hi POY, so I'm confident he can be good to devastating catching passes. Taylor, Wilkerson etc. If I go on the karma gods may strike.

TE's - best in college ball; happy to have someone attempt to convince me otherwise.

O-line - great foundation; promising replacements;

Schedule - early games set up well to tweak O-line plus harmonize WR, RB, TE roles & distribution.

If Owusu is healthy we'll be cruel. If he's only mostly healthy - in a Princess Bride kind of way - then we may only be scary.

[Farm93]

Those worried about the O need to remember this is college football.  Most teams in D1 do not even come close to having Stanford type talent.  The QB and TEs are certainly best in the game.  The RBs are probably top 10, and are certainly top 10 in NFL style running.  The OL is solid with future NFL talent at almost every position.  The WRs are the weak link, but this is relative.  Some group has to be weakest.

Shaw and the AD want to sell tickets and hype, but they also need to position their Voldemort candidate.  If everyone on the offense is great then even an average QB could get Luck-like numbers.  If the WRs are average and Luck still can get the ball to them, then he is awesome.

I suspect 2011 will feature an odd balance of ticket selling hype, coaching gamemanship & Voldemort voter appeals.

With a healthy Luck the offense will be great.  That group will affirm why Stanford was deemed the second most likely to win the Pac-12 and sports 16-1 odds in Vegas to win the BCS title.  Repeating 2010's stellar defensive performance seems to be the bigger uncertainty to me.

A healthy Luck and a top 20 defense could make 2010 seem like a down year.

[Farm93]

Those worried about the O need to remember this is college football.  Most teams in D1 do not even come close to having Stanford type talent.  The QB and TEs are certainly best in the game.  The RBs are probably top 10, and are certainly top 10 in NFL style running.  The OL is solid with future NFL talent at almost every position.  The WRs are the weak link, but this is relative.  Some group has to be weakest.

Shaw and the AD want to sell tickets and hype, but they also need to position their Voldemort candidate.  If everyone on the offense is great then even an average QB could get Luck-like numbers.  If the WRs are average and Luck still can get the ball to them, then he is awesome.

I suspect 2011 will feature an odd balance of ticket selling hype, coaching gamemanship & Voldemort voter appeals.

With a healthy Luck the offense will be great.  That group will affirm why Stanford was deemed the second most likely to win the Pac-12 and sports 16-1 odds in Vegas to win the BCS title.  Repeating 2010's stellar defensive performance seems to be the bigger uncertainty to me.

A healthy Luck and a top 20 defense could make 2010 seem like a down year.

[terry]

We have to replace three starting offensive linemen. That's a lot of new guys to integrate into the OL at the same time. I think those three OL positions are the key to Stanford's offense this year. We need three guys to step up the way Hall did last year, or the way Martin and DeCastro did the year before.

It appears that there are seven players in the running for those three spots -- Danser or Bentler at LG, Wilkes or Schwartzstein at center, and Mabry, Fleming, or Yankey at RT. Mabry and Bentler played last year in our 6-OL and 7-OL formations. None of the others has played any meaningful snaps. So we have some questions to answer. If we can get three of those guys to step up, our offense should be fine. I'll be curious to hear reports of the progress of these guys.

We also lost two other key blockers in the running game, Marecic and McGillicuddy. It looks like Marecic will be replaced by Hewitt. If we use a McGillicuddy-type player this year, it probably will be one of the guys who is in the mix at RT. Their effectiveness will be important to our ability to run the ball.

[terry]

We have to replace three starting offensive linemen. That's a lot of new guys to integrate into the OL at the same time. I think those three OL positions are the key to Stanford's offense this year. We need three guys to step up the way Hall did last year, or the way Martin and DeCastro did the year before.

It appears that there are seven players in the running for those three spots -- Danser or Bentler at LG, Wilkes or Schwartzstein at center, and Mabry, Fleming, or Yankey at RT. Mabry and Bentler played last year in our 6-OL and 7-OL formations. None of the others has played any meaningful snaps. So we have some questions to answer. If we can get three of those guys to step up, our offense should be fine. I'll be curious to hear reports of the progress of these guys.

We also lost two other key blockers in the running game, Marecic and McGillicuddy. It looks like Marecic will be replaced by Hewitt. If we use a McGillicuddy-type player this year, it probably will be one of the guys who is in the mix at RT. Their effectiveness will be important to our ability to run the ball.

[oman]

I agree with the poster above who indicated that the defense is the bigger worry.  I think we still are going to put big points on the board.

I think our defensse is going to get scored upon a lot more than last year.

[oman]

I agree with the poster above who indicated that the defense is the bigger worry.  I think we still are going to put big points on the board.

I think our defensse is going to get scored upon a lot more than last year.

[unclechuck]

I'm not as worried as others about the defense. I think that we've gained as much in players and experience in the linebackers & DBs as we've lost in the front line.

The wild card for me would be game day coaching where Fangio's deep NFL experience may have been of particular value.

[unclechuck]

I'm not as worried as others about the defense. I think that we've gained as much in players and experience in the linebackers & DBs as we've lost in the front line.

The wild card for me would be game day coaching where Fangio's deep NFL experience may have been of particular value.

[washingtonismoney]

I do worry about the offense, actually. We didn't get many big plays last season, and our long bombs in terms of passes decreased markedly--Owusu, our leading receiver in 2009 averaged something like 18 ypc; our leading receiver in 2010 was around 15. So we really had to be precise in finishing off drives, which were often long, drawn-out affairs.

Will we have the same ability to be precise over a marathon drive? It depends on the offensive line, doesn't it? Otherwise, we might be forced to go long and explosive more often. Which is why "functional" is not exactly an exciting thing to hear. Overall, our wideout play last year was basically average--Luck elevated them. Can he elevate a worse crew?

The backdrop to this is that we'd like to go to the national championship, and to do that we need to be better than last year. And it'll be tougher with worse wide receivers.

(The upside possibility is Owusu. Is Owusu injury-prone or were his injuries freak ones? If the latter, and we get 2009 Owusu I feel fairly confident about a trip to New Orleans. People forget just how good Owusu was in 2009 for us.)

[washingtonismoney]

I do worry about the offense, actually. We didn't get many big plays last season, and our long bombs in terms of passes decreased markedly--Owusu, our leading receiver in 2009 averaged something like 18 ypc; our leading receiver in 2010 was around 15. So we really had to be precise in finishing off drives, which were often long, drawn-out affairs.

Will we have the same ability to be precise over a marathon drive? It depends on the offensive line, doesn't it? Otherwise, we might be forced to go long and explosive more often. Which is why "functional" is not exactly an exciting thing to hear. Overall, our wideout play last year was basically average--Luck elevated them. Can he elevate a worse crew?

The backdrop to this is that we'd like to go to the national championship, and to do that we need to be better than last year. And it'll be tougher with worse wide receivers.

(The upside possibility is Owusu. Is Owusu injury-prone or were his injuries freak ones? If the latter, and we get 2009 Owusu I feel fairly confident about a trip to New Orleans. People forget just how good Owusu was in 2009 for us.)

[82lsju]

On Owusu, is he going to return kicks this year?

[82lsju]

On Owusu, is he going to return kicks this year?

[terry]

I do worry about the offense, actually. We didn't get many big plays last season, and our long bombs in terms of passes decreased markedly--Owusu, our leading receiver in 2009 averaged something like 18 ypc; our leading receiver in 2010 was around 15. So we really had to be precise in finishing off drives, which were often long, drawn-out affairs.

Will we have the same ability to be precise over a marathon drive? It depends on the offensive line, doesn't it? Otherwise, we might be forced to go long and explosive more often. Which is why "functional" is not exactly an exciting thing to hear. Overall, our wideout play last year was basically average--Luck elevated them. Can he elevate a worse crew?

The backdrop to this is that we'd like to go to the national championship, and to do that we need to be better than last year. And it'll be tougher with worse wide receivers.

(The upside possibility is Owusu. Is Owusu injury-prone or were his injuries freak ones? If the latter, and we get 2009 Owusu I feel fairly confident about a trip to New Orleans. People forget just how good Owusu was in 2009 for us.)

Stanford's offense definitely had a ball control, "grind it out" feel last year. We led the nation in time of possession and in 3rd down conversion rate, which are signs of long, time-consuming drives.

But at the same time, somewhat surprisingly, Stanford's offense had its share of big gainers. Out of 120 teams, Stanford's offense ranked 14th in the number of plays gaining 20+ yards, 17th in gains of 30+ yards, 16th in gains of 40+ yards, and 19th in gains of 50+ yards. It was really a pretty extraordinary offense last year.

With a healthy Owusu, I think the receivers will be good this year. Out of Terrell, Whalen, Patterson, Montgomery, and the others, I think a couple of good receivers will emerge.

If we can adequately replace the three graduated offensive linemen, I think we will be fine on offense. But the OL is still a question in my mind. That's why I'm focussed on the OL situation.

[terry]

I do worry about the offense, actually. We didn't get many big plays last season, and our long bombs in terms of passes decreased markedly--Owusu, our leading receiver in 2009 averaged something like 18 ypc; our leading receiver in 2010 was around 15. So we really had to be precise in finishing off drives, which were often long, drawn-out affairs.

Will we have the same ability to be precise over a marathon drive? It depends on the offensive line, doesn't it? Otherwise, we might be forced to go long and explosive more often. Which is why "functional" is not exactly an exciting thing to hear. Overall, our wideout play last year was basically average--Luck elevated them. Can he elevate a worse crew?

The backdrop to this is that we'd like to go to the national championship, and to do that we need to be better than last year. And it'll be tougher with worse wide receivers.

(The upside possibility is Owusu. Is Owusu injury-prone or were his injuries freak ones? If the latter, and we get 2009 Owusu I feel fairly confident about a trip to New Orleans. People forget just how good Owusu was in 2009 for us.)

Stanford's offense definitely had a ball control, "grind it out" feel last year. We led the nation in time of possession and in 3rd down conversion rate, which are signs of long, time-consuming drives.

But at the same time, somewhat surprisingly, Stanford's offense had its share of big gainers. Out of 120 teams, Stanford's offense ranked 14th in the number of plays gaining 20+ yards, 17th in gains of 30+ yards, 16th in gains of 40+ yards, and 19th in gains of 50+ yards. It was really a pretty extraordinary offense last year.

With a healthy Owusu, I think the receivers will be good this year. Out of Terrell, Whalen, Patterson, Montgomery, and the others, I think a couple of good receivers will emerge.

If we can adequately replace the three graduated offensive linemen, I think we will be fine on offense. But the OL is still a question in my mind. That's why I'm focussed on the OL situation.

[washingtonismoney]

Hamilton has some more optimistic comments:

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...11aaa.html

[washingtonismoney]

Hamilton has some more optimistic comments:

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...11aaa.html

[fullmetal]

"The best thing we have over their heads is the tight end group," said Shaw. "If the receivers don't step up, we'll throw the ball to the tight ends."

If Shaw is aiming to keep his cards close to his chest, you know he's succeeded when his comments worry the faithful.  ("functional," eh?)

[fullmetal]

"The best thing we have over their heads is the tight end group," said Shaw. "If the receivers don't step up, we'll throw the ball to the tight ends."

If Shaw is aiming to keep his cards close to his chest, you know he's succeeded when his comments worry the faithful.  ("functional," eh?)