[old spanish trail]

Thanks, Square. Really appreciate the fulsome discussion. Sounds to me like your analysis of Jones' discussion with 247 provides the most probable answers. Too bad about Gould, really.

[old spanish trail]

Thanks, Square. Really appreciate the fulsome discussion. Sounds to me like your analysis of Jones' discussion with 247 provides the most probable answers. Too bad about Gould, really.

[winflop]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

[winflop]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

[SamuelMcF]

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

Completely checking out on 2018 recruiting while halfway out the door to Rice was completely unrelated to "being OC and OL coach at the same time." It's not that he was too busy/had too many responsibilities, it's that he landed a new gig and stopped caring about his current one. Enforcement of that is on the head man.

If I was the judge, I'd rule in the other guy's favor.

[SamuelMcF]

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

Completely checking out on 2018 recruiting while halfway out the door to Rice was completely unrelated to "being OC and OL coach at the same time." It's not that he was too busy/had too many responsibilities, it's that he landed a new gig and stopped caring about his current one. Enforcement of that is on the head man.

If I was the judge, I'd rule in the other guy's favor.

[winflop]

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

Completely checking out on 2018 recruiting while bolting for Rice was completely unrelated to "being OC and OL coach at the same time."

His recruiting dropped off before that, and the player development failures started to build as well.

[winflop]

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently

I rest my case, your honor.

Completely checking out on 2018 recruiting while bolting for Rice was completely unrelated to "being OC and OL coach at the same time."

His recruiting dropped off before that, and the player development failures started to build as well.

[SamuelMcF]

His recruiting dropped off before that, and the player development failures started to build as well.

Be honest: what year do you think Bloomgren was promoted to OC? When exactly did "his recruiting drop off?"

I'll give you some developmental failures, sure, but recruiting-wise his '14, '16, and '17 OL recruiting hauls were great. The complete utter embarrassment of being left high and dry while he skipped out the door in '18 (and thus '19 wasn't great either) was what screwed us all the way up to this coming season.

[SamuelMcF]

His recruiting dropped off before that, and the player development failures started to build as well.

Be honest: what year do you think Bloomgren was promoted to OC? When exactly did "his recruiting drop off?"

I'll give you some developmental failures, sure, but recruiting-wise his '14, '16, and '17 OL recruiting hauls were great. The complete utter embarrassment of being left high and dry while he skipped out the door in '18 (and thus '19 wasn't great either) was what screwed us all the way up to this coming season.

[Goose]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

No argument there. Two teams are present.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

The definition of an OL playing "good" is the successful execution of their assignments against the defense, such as opening a hole in the DL or protecting the QB. As you point out the defense gets a vote and their goal is to stop the offense. In so doing they will generally prevent the OL from succeeding in their assignments. You are arguing that since Stanford gained more yards on the ground than Oklahoma did that Stanford must have played "good". Your argument asserts that since the Oklahoma OL had a "great" player and that Oklahoma had a great running back they must have played "good". That is obviously not the case. The defense can prevent the OL from playing "good" and in the run game they did exactly that. Against TCU, the OL of neither Stanford nor Oklahoma was able to successfully execute their assignments in the run offense. Both teams got stuffed.  So even if one believes that the Stanford OL played better than Oklahoma's OL in the run game, that does not "prove" either team played well. In the run game, neither did.

The argument Stanford's OL played better than Oklahoma's in the run game is also very weak. Of Stanfords's 71 yards, 38 yards were on an end-around by Baldwin and 30 of them were on a single play by Gerhart on the second series of the game. The OL's contribution to the end-around was getting out of the way so that the defense could rush to Gerhart as fast as possible. I can't find a video, but my recollection of Gerhart's run was that the TCU defenders basically took themselves out of the play. Gerhart ran around them. It wasn't a great blocking job. Gerhart did it by himself. Obviously most of the 30 was beyond the LOS so the OL would have limited impact on that anyway. Take out those two plays and we gained 3 total yards rushing. 27 plays, 3 yards, or 0.11 ypc, very unlike the picture you present.

As you point out game circumstances (blowouts) do play a role in the statistics. Stanford lost to TCU 31-14. Stanford scored on the 38 yard end around and a blocked punt. The QB carried the ball 9 times, fumbled twice when hit and threw an interception. He never had a "clean" pocket. Running the QB was not our plan. Oklahoma defeated TCU 35-10. Bradford carried the ball 4 times. He threw for 411 yards. I don't think the lack of yards rushing figured in that result. Obviously Oklahoma's pass blocking was far superior to Stanford's. Our QB was under siege all day. In two instances I recall the defense hitting him while he was still trying to catch the snap.

I vaguely remember the TCU-Oklahoma game on TV. My recollection was that the TCU defense got at least a stalemate at the LOS when Oklahoma tried to run the ball. That pretty much stonewalled their running. Unfortunately for TCU, that is mostly what happened on passing attempts as well. Bradford had a much less stressful experience than Pritchard. Stanford's OL OTOH was pretty much a sieve on both types of plays. They didn't even get stalemates.

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote.

Indeed they do. Sometimes they are a landslide.

When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.



No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

The idea that TCU "learned" our OL was a formidable opponent is simply silly. Our OL got wiped out that day both in the run game and pass protection. All the other parts of the team, even the defense, had their "moments" in that game. Harbaugh himself said the special teams played great, the defense (which was assumed to be the weakest unit) played well enough to get a win, and the offense failed. He was correct, and the biggest "failure" was the OL. We needed to run the ball to have any shot at winning. We couldn't, and their (admittedly very good) defensive line basically went right through us all game long. Gerhart seldom got TFLs. He had 5 in this game. The OL got 3 holding penalties. TCU had a great defense. They dominated the LOS. It doesn't mean our OL was composed of "bad" football players, but on that day in Fort Worth they were uniformly unsuccessful. They did not play "good". If this game had been played later in the year I fully expect Stanford would have lost, but not nearly this badly. The OL still had a way to go to reach the place they did by the end of the year. This game may have been a necessary part of that growth. I do agree that Stanford generally had a "good" OL in 2008. They were at least "respectable" or better even in the games we lost subsequently. It was a long time before I saw a Stanford OL has that much trouble against anybody subsequently.

Interestingly enough, there was a rumor that the TCU game was the one that convinced Luck not to burn his shirt. Up to then, he was supposedly considering it. After seeing what happened to the QB against SMU, he decided against it. No way of knowing if this was true, but the rumor was out there.

[Goose]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

No argument there. Two teams are present.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

The definition of an OL playing "good" is the successful execution of their assignments against the defense, such as opening a hole in the DL or protecting the QB. As you point out the defense gets a vote and their goal is to stop the offense. In so doing they will generally prevent the OL from succeeding in their assignments. You are arguing that since Stanford gained more yards on the ground than Oklahoma did that Stanford must have played "good". Your argument asserts that since the Oklahoma OL had a "great" player and that Oklahoma had a great running back they must have played "good". That is obviously not the case. The defense can prevent the OL from playing "good" and in the run game they did exactly that. Against TCU, the OL of neither Stanford nor Oklahoma was able to successfully execute their assignments in the run offense. Both teams got stuffed.  So even if one believes that the Stanford OL played better than Oklahoma's OL in the run game, that does not "prove" either team played well. In the run game, neither did.

The argument Stanford's OL played better than Oklahoma's in the run game is also very weak. Of Stanfords's 71 yards, 38 yards were on an end-around by Baldwin and 30 of them were on a single play by Gerhart on the second series of the game. The OL's contribution to the end-around was getting out of the way so that the defense could rush to Gerhart as fast as possible. I can't find a video, but my recollection of Gerhart's run was that the TCU defenders basically took themselves out of the play. Gerhart ran around them. It wasn't a great blocking job. Gerhart did it by himself. Obviously most of the 30 was beyond the LOS so the OL would have limited impact on that anyway. Take out those two plays and we gained 3 total yards rushing. 27 plays, 3 yards, or 0.11 ypc, very unlike the picture you present.

As you point out game circumstances (blowouts) do play a role in the statistics. Stanford lost to TCU 31-14. Stanford scored on the 38 yard end around and a blocked punt. The QB carried the ball 9 times, fumbled twice when hit and threw an interception. He never had a "clean" pocket. Running the QB was not our plan. Oklahoma defeated TCU 35-10. Bradford carried the ball 4 times. He threw for 411 yards. I don't think the lack of yards rushing figured in that result. Obviously Oklahoma's pass blocking was far superior to Stanford's. Our QB was under siege all day. In two instances I recall the defense hitting him while he was still trying to catch the snap.

I vaguely remember the TCU-Oklahoma game on TV. My recollection was that the TCU defense got at least a stalemate at the LOS when Oklahoma tried to run the ball. That pretty much stonewalled their running. Unfortunately for TCU, that is mostly what happened on passing attempts as well. Bradford had a much less stressful experience than Pritchard. Stanford's OL OTOH was pretty much a sieve on both types of plays. They didn't even get stalemates.

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote.

Indeed they do. Sometimes they are a landslide.

When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.



No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

The idea that TCU "learned" our OL was a formidable opponent is simply silly. Our OL got wiped out that day both in the run game and pass protection. All the other parts of the team, even the defense, had their "moments" in that game. Harbaugh himself said the special teams played great, the defense (which was assumed to be the weakest unit) played well enough to get a win, and the offense failed. He was correct, and the biggest "failure" was the OL. We needed to run the ball to have any shot at winning. We couldn't, and their (admittedly very good) defensive line basically went right through us all game long. Gerhart seldom got TFLs. He had 5 in this game. The OL got 3 holding penalties. TCU had a great defense. They dominated the LOS. It doesn't mean our OL was composed of "bad" football players, but on that day in Fort Worth they were uniformly unsuccessful. They did not play "good". If this game had been played later in the year I fully expect Stanford would have lost, but not nearly this badly. The OL still had a way to go to reach the place they did by the end of the year. This game may have been a necessary part of that growth. I do agree that Stanford generally had a "good" OL in 2008. They were at least "respectable" or better even in the games we lost subsequently. It was a long time before I saw a Stanford OL has that much trouble against anybody subsequently.

Interestingly enough, there was a rumor that the TCU game was the one that convinced Luck not to burn his shirt. Up to then, he was supposedly considering it. After seeing what happened to the QB against SMU, he decided against it. No way of knowing if this was true, but the rumor was out there.

[Phogge]

Whatever. Jones may not have had the holes but he couldn't break tackles regardless. Peat is a speed back without the athleticism of Love and McCaffrey. I have no idea or do I care how the new Sc coach uses his tailbacks but I do know that Travis Dye is a tough runner and at least a cut above Jones.

Anyway doesn't matter. They left and good luck to them. Sooner or later either the curtain goes down on Stanford D1 football or Shaw departs. Either will not happen quickly. I just hope that they are interesting to watch. If not then I won't much care how it ends.

[Phogge]

Whatever. Jones may not have had the holes but he couldn't break tackles regardless. Peat is a speed back without the athleticism of Love and McCaffrey. I have no idea or do I care how the new Sc coach uses his tailbacks but I do know that Travis Dye is a tough runner and at least a cut above Jones.

Anyway doesn't matter. They left and good luck to them. Sooner or later either the curtain goes down on Stanford D1 football or Shaw departs. Either will not happen quickly. I just hope that they are interesting to watch. If not then I won't much care how it ends.

[Softball Fan]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage. For a program and long-tenured coaching staff that felt like they reached rock-bottom last year, there have not been many changes to expect a 180-degree turnaround."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."


I'd like to see Stanford football successful this season but I keep reading projections that are not encouraging.  I'm hoping for magic from a healthy McKee to counter the liabilities.    Olympic sports need football to do well.

[Softball Fan]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage. For a program and long-tenured coaching staff that felt like they reached rock-bottom last year, there have not been many changes to expect a 180-degree turnaround."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."


I'd like to see Stanford football successful this season but I keep reading projections that are not encouraging.  I'm hoping for magic from a healthy McKee to counter the liabilities.    Olympic sports need football to do well.

[JohnR34231]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage. For a program and long-tenured coaching staff that felt like they reached rock-bottom last year, there have not been many changes to expect a 180-degree turnaround."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."


I'd like to see Stanford football successful this season but I keep reading projections that are not encouraging.  I'm hoping for magic from a healthy McKee to counter the liabilities.    Olympic sports need football to do well.

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

[JohnR34231]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage. For a program and long-tenured coaching staff that felt like they reached rock-bottom last year, there have not been many changes to expect a 180-degree turnaround."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."


I'd like to see Stanford football successful this season but I keep reading projections that are not encouraging.  I'm hoping for magic from a healthy McKee to counter the liabilities.    Olympic sports need football to do well.

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

[CTcard]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

Indeed, there were positive and negative quotations. Most were rather ... ill considered. 

The quotations above:
- Stanford's offense no longer relies upon schemes where the dominance of the OL is particularly important. It's not absolute, there are no schemes that don't require a good OL, but the Stanford offense is a far cry from the strong up the middle run game of 2008-2017. 
Among other things, Stanford has more or less given up trying to run the ball the past four years. In 2021 Stanford had the fewest percent of plays as runs in the entire conference last year, for 2018-19 they had the second fewest run attempts to pass-only WSU.  

- Is 10 returning starters on offense a positive? Well, msqueri has presented a compelling case (that has been made on this board by various posters repeatedly over the years) that experience and old-man strength on the OL is vital; and strongly coupled to Stanford's better OLs and offenses. The returners at receiving positions appear able. And does anyone think that Stanford would be in a better position had McKee headed off somewhere else? 
The fear on so many returning starters is connected to what exactly happened last year as the team appeared to give up. To the extent that resignation has spread throughout these returning starters then their high numbers could be a problem - but that is a big logical leap with no actual evidence as far as I know. 

- The pass defense being "even better" is a silly statement, it was bad last year. It is true that in total yards given up per game, the pass defense was 4th in the conference, but that is almost entirely because our opponents found it so easy to run that they simply didn't bother to pass; coupled to our opponents having big leads so they chose to sit on the ball and run out the games. 
By efficiency, Stanford was 10th in the conference last year. By yds/att Stanford was 10th in the conference (though those are similar stats). Stanford was 11th in interceptions. Stanford was 11th in sacks. It's true that is better than being 12th across the board in run defense, but still bad.

[CTcard]

https://247sports.com/college/notre-dame...190402087/

"The lines on both sides remain serious concerns for Stanford, and the Cardinal continue to run schemes that rely on physicality and winning on the line of scrimmage."

"One also has to ask, is 10 returning starters on offense a good thing for a team that spiraled with seven straight losses?"

"While Stanford’s pass defense has potential to get even better in 2022, the rush defense could be even worse."

You have just quoted the negative things the article says about Stanford football. Anyone who reads it will find it says some positive things also.

Indeed, there were positive and negative quotations. Most were rather ... ill considered. 

The quotations above:
- Stanford's offense no longer relies upon schemes where the dominance of the OL is particularly important. It's not absolute, there are no schemes that don't require a good OL, but the Stanford offense is a far cry from the strong up the middle run game of 2008-2017. 
Among other things, Stanford has more or less given up trying to run the ball the past four years. In 2021 Stanford had the fewest percent of plays as runs in the entire conference last year, for 2018-19 they had the second fewest run attempts to pass-only WSU.  

- Is 10 returning starters on offense a positive? Well, msqueri has presented a compelling case (that has been made on this board by various posters repeatedly over the years) that experience and old-man strength on the OL is vital; and strongly coupled to Stanford's better OLs and offenses. The returners at receiving positions appear able. And does anyone think that Stanford would be in a better position had McKee headed off somewhere else? 
The fear on so many returning starters is connected to what exactly happened last year as the team appeared to give up. To the extent that resignation has spread throughout these returning starters then their high numbers could be a problem - but that is a big logical leap with no actual evidence as far as I know. 

- The pass defense being "even better" is a silly statement, it was bad last year. It is true that in total yards given up per game, the pass defense was 4th in the conference, but that is almost entirely because our opponents found it so easy to run that they simply didn't bother to pass; coupled to our opponents having big leads so they chose to sit on the ball and run out the games. 
By efficiency, Stanford was 10th in the conference last year. By yds/att Stanford was 10th in the conference (though those are similar stats). Stanford was 11th in interceptions. Stanford was 11th in sacks. It's true that is better than being 12th across the board in run defense, but still bad.

[msqueri]

Good post, CTcard, but I'm a bit more charitable about the 2021 pass defense. The wheels fell off the last three games but the vast majority of the season the pass defense was playing better, albeit against mediocre pass offenses. Here's how I think about it:

We only played two good pass offenses all year, Notre Dame and UCLA. Both of those passing games roasted us. Oregon State, Utah, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington State, and USC were mediocre passing attacks and among that group we played very tough pass defense against Utah (run defense was the problem that game to put it very, very, very mildly), Arizona State, Oregon, and USC. Overall, among our 12 games we had five games when we defended the pass objectively well compared to the opponent's norm, five games in which the pass defense fell apart (and HEAVILY concentrated at the end of the schedule), and two games in which we basically defended the passing opponent like others typically did (Kansas State and Washington). It also bears mentioning that Kyu Blu Kelly and Zahran Manley, probably the most underrated player on the Stanford roster for my money, didn't play against Oregon State. To me the story of the pass defense was that it was a bit above-average for the majority of the year and then the Utah calamity was so dispiriting for the team generally that the pass defenders joined everybody else in losing all morale/motivation/cohesion, and the wheels fell off like they did for every unit.

 Not a glowing picture by any means, but if the season ended November 5 we would have comfortably had an above-average pass defense. Considering the season as a whole and thinking contextually, I would call pass defense the biggest unit-wide bright spot of the 2021 season.

[msqueri]

Good post, CTcard, but I'm a bit more charitable about the 2021 pass defense. The wheels fell off the last three games but the vast majority of the season the pass defense was playing better, albeit against mediocre pass offenses. Here's how I think about it:

We only played two good pass offenses all year, Notre Dame and UCLA. Both of those passing games roasted us. Oregon State, Utah, Arizona State, Oregon, Washington State, and USC were mediocre passing attacks and among that group we played very tough pass defense against Utah (run defense was the problem that game to put it very, very, very mildly), Arizona State, Oregon, and USC. Overall, among our 12 games we had five games when we defended the pass objectively well compared to the opponent's norm, five games in which the pass defense fell apart (and HEAVILY concentrated at the end of the schedule), and two games in which we basically defended the passing opponent like others typically did (Kansas State and Washington). It also bears mentioning that Kyu Blu Kelly and Zahran Manley, probably the most underrated player on the Stanford roster for my money, didn't play against Oregon State. To me the story of the pass defense was that it was a bit above-average for the majority of the year and then the Utah calamity was so dispiriting for the team generally that the pass defenders joined everybody else in losing all morale/motivation/cohesion, and the wheels fell off like they did for every unit.

 Not a glowing picture by any means, but if the season ended November 5 we would have comfortably had an above-average pass defense. Considering the season as a whole and thinking contextually, I would call pass defense the biggest unit-wide bright spot of the 2021 season.

[mutoo1]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

[mutoo1]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

[msqueri]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

[msqueri]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

[CowboyIndian]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

If he asked for a guarantee (which is questionable), I can see the rationale for refusing that.

[CowboyIndian]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

If he asked for a guarantee (which is questionable), I can see the rationale for refusing that.

[msqueri]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

If he asked for a guarantee (which is questionable), I can see the rationale for refusing that.

Me too, and having met David Shaw and Ron Gould Jones would have known what the answer would be. If this scuttlebutt resembles anything close to the truth, all it really tells me is Jones wanted out and this was a way to justify it to himself.

P.S. I tend to refer to Jones in these discussions rather than Jones and Peat because they were different situations/impacts for us and we arguably needed Peat to transfer out to make room on the roster given roster limits. Aside from Jones and Gabe Reid it's hard to think any of the transfers are anything we'd lose sleep over.

[msqueri]

on the transfers of jones & peat, i have it on pretty good authority that it came down to one or both wanting starting and/or playing time guaranties which coaches were not willing to give, especially in light of existing and/or incoming talent.

"Existing and/or incoming talent" is extremely rich given how weak the RB room is without them. I don't deny your source and that people are saying this but it's all so silly to think that backs who weren't good in high school and weren't played much in their first two years at Stanford (all of Shaw's future NFL backs played substantially within their first two years) and/or incoming guys lesser regarded than Jones would block his path to playing time.

The way I read this scuttlebutt: Jones didn't feel appreciated by the coaches, asked for assurances that he'd be the man to assuage concerns that a lesser back like Smith would take Jones' job, and decided to look for a better fit when he didn't like the answer. Sometimes coaches play lesser guys and Jones knows that. That he transferred to USC, however, suggests this is about respect/appreciation rather than playing time.

If he asked for a guarantee (which is questionable), I can see the rationale for refusing that.

Me too, and having met David Shaw and Ron Gould Jones would have known what the answer would be. If this scuttlebutt resembles anything close to the truth, all it really tells me is Jones wanted out and this was a way to justify it to himself.

P.S. I tend to refer to Jones in these discussions rather than Jones and Peat because they were different situations/impacts for us and we arguably needed Peat to transfer out to make room on the roster given roster limits. Aside from Jones and Gabe Reid it's hard to think any of the transfers are anything we'd lose sleep over.

[BostonCard]

Defensive line transfers? I know that they were a weakness on the team last year, but as with the Oline, old man strength matters, and while the career trajectory of the younger guys will hopefully be better than the underwhelming career of the guys who left, I doubt a bunch of freshmen and sophomores would have been better than a bunch of fifth years.

BC

[BostonCard]

Defensive line transfers? I know that they were a weakness on the team last year, but as with the Oline, old man strength matters, and while the career trajectory of the younger guys will hopefully be better than the underwhelming career of the guys who left, I doubt a bunch of freshmen and sophomores would have been better than a bunch of fifth years.

BC

[msqueri]

Defensive line transfers? I know that they were a weakness on the team last year, but as with the Oline, old man strength matters, and while the career trajectory of the younger guys will hopefully be better than the underwhelming career of the guys who left, I doubt a bunch of freshmen and sophomores would have been better than a bunch of fifth years.

BC

Are you referring to Johnson and Pakola or also to Andres Fox? I very much agree with your general point but also think it's a matter of counting to 85. I think we arguably could have used one of them given the bleakness of our DL situation, but none was a particularly promising player and we needed to get within the 85 scholarship limit. Who do you kick off the team? For me it would be Ethan Bonner but to be honest Johnson/Pakola/Fox are probably lame players just like Bonner is.

What we really needed wasn't any of the DL transfers but the DL who went on to try their wares in the NFL. I believe strongly any one, two, or three of Booker, Wade-Perry, and Fisk would have made our 2022 team better. But again you have to decide who to kick off the team. Say we had Wade-Perry and Fisk back, who's gone? For me it would be Bonner and Colby Bowman but Bowman may have been more ruthless/less practical as 2022 is his academic senior year. Most choices would be cutting into muscle though.

Given these kind of considerations, the players who would have merited making ruthless fifth year decisions would have been Booker, Wade-Perry, Fisk, Jones, and Reid. Others don't really move the needle for me. We're better off without most of the outgoing transfers.

[msqueri]

Defensive line transfers? I know that they were a weakness on the team last year, but as with the Oline, old man strength matters, and while the career trajectory of the younger guys will hopefully be better than the underwhelming career of the guys who left, I doubt a bunch of freshmen and sophomores would have been better than a bunch of fifth years.

BC

Are you referring to Johnson and Pakola or also to Andres Fox? I very much agree with your general point but also think it's a matter of counting to 85. I think we arguably could have used one of them given the bleakness of our DL situation, but none was a particularly promising player and we needed to get within the 85 scholarship limit. Who do you kick off the team? For me it would be Ethan Bonner but to be honest Johnson/Pakola/Fox are probably lame players just like Bonner is.

What we really needed wasn't any of the DL transfers but the DL who went on to try their wares in the NFL. I believe strongly any one, two, or three of Booker, Wade-Perry, and Fisk would have made our 2022 team better. But again you have to decide who to kick off the team. Say we had Wade-Perry and Fisk back, who's gone? For me it would be Bonner and Colby Bowman but Bowman may have been more ruthless/less practical as 2022 is his academic senior year. Most choices would be cutting into muscle though.

Given these kind of considerations, the players who would have merited making ruthless fifth year decisions would have been Booker, Wade-Perry, Fisk, Jones, and Reid. Others don't really move the needle for me. We're better off without most of the outgoing transfers.

[BostonCard]

I viewed Fisk and DWP akin to some of the grad transfers, in that they had eligibility left and weren’t really draft prospects (Booker is a bit different, because he actually got drafted). Fisk, especially, might have made sense to stick around because he had only played one year on the defensive line in college, and a second year might have given him an opportunity to show that he might be serviceable at the next level.

Your broader point is correct.  Given the size of the incoming freshmen class and the sheer number of players who had an opportunity for an extra year of eligibility, we were going to have to not offer a fifth year to some players who could have helped us.

Agree with your list, but would add Peat, once Jones left.

BC

[BostonCard]

I viewed Fisk and DWP akin to some of the grad transfers, in that they had eligibility left and weren’t really draft prospects (Booker is a bit different, because he actually got drafted). Fisk, especially, might have made sense to stick around because he had only played one year on the defensive line in college, and a second year might have given him an opportunity to show that he might be serviceable at the next level.

Your broader point is correct.  Given the size of the incoming freshmen class and the sheer number of players who had an opportunity for an extra year of eligibility, we were going to have to not offer a fifth year to some players who could have helped us.

Agree with your list, but would add Peat, once Jones left.

BC

[msqueri]

I think Booker, Fisk, and Wade-Perry were all in the same general category of plausibility for coming back. Yes Booker had better draft prospects but he also had been at Stanford a year less, has classmates running it back on the Farm this upcoming season, and had as plausible a case for improving his draft stock with another year as Fisk could have had, given that Booker had a disappointing last year. Fisk or Wade-Perry would have been sixth year players. I don't think any of those three leaving should have been a foregone conclusion and to lose all three stings.

Stepping back, the foregone Stanford eligibility for these three, Mike Williams, Jovan Swann, Dylan Jackson, and Harrison Phillips has been a big story for us in recent years. We used to have 70 percent of our DL get to a fifth year like Johnson and Wade-Perry did but it's become much rarer. At this point we probably have to prepare like only one among Moi, Rowell, and Caughey will be around in 2026 whereas in all previous decades we could have assumed two.

[msqueri]

I think Booker, Fisk, and Wade-Perry were all in the same general category of plausibility for coming back. Yes Booker had better draft prospects but he also had been at Stanford a year less, has classmates running it back on the Farm this upcoming season, and had as plausible a case for improving his draft stock with another year as Fisk could have had, given that Booker had a disappointing last year. Fisk or Wade-Perry would have been sixth year players. I don't think any of those three leaving should have been a foregone conclusion and to lose all three stings.

Stepping back, the foregone Stanford eligibility for these three, Mike Williams, Jovan Swann, Dylan Jackson, and Harrison Phillips has been a big story for us in recent years. We used to have 70 percent of our DL get to a fifth year like Johnson and Wade-Perry did but it's become much rarer. At this point we probably have to prepare like only one among Moi, Rowell, and Caughey will be around in 2026 whereas in all previous decades we could have assumed two.

[Goose]

Fisk, especially, might have made sense to stick around because he had only played one year on the defensive line in college, and a second year might have given him an opportunity to show that he might be serviceable at the next level.

True, but he didn't want to play defense. He is in the NFL as a TE, which is what he wanted to be. I guess that could change, but that was clearly his preference.

[Goose]

Fisk, especially, might have made sense to stick around because he had only played one year on the defensive line in college, and a second year might have given him an opportunity to show that he might be serviceable at the next level.

True, but he didn't want to play defense. He is in the NFL as a TE, which is what he wanted to be. I guess that could change, but that was clearly his preference.