[cardcrimson]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So. A great a promising talent. Temporarily screwed up by Stanford coaching. Resurrected by coaches who know what they are doing.

[cardcrimson]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So. A great a promising talent. Temporarily screwed up by Stanford coaching. Resurrected by coaches who know what they are doing.

[winflop]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

[winflop]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

[PalmTree]

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

[PalmTree]

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

[Deejaatee]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

I think Kelly will be fine once he gets to the NFL. He is that good. It was especially noticeable early this year when Ethan Bonner was still healthy and playing. Not many teams were throwing at Kelly, and he was able to remain on the left side, regardless of which receiver was in front of him. After Bonner's injury, two things changed. First, the defense changed so that Kelly was suddenly playing both sides of the field against the best receiver on each team. And now people were throwing at him in continuous one-on-one coverage. Any DB will get beat from time to time in that situation. He will probably be very happy to get to the NFL. And he will be drafted.

---

Even with the recent large deficit losses, I have been excited to watch the defense slug it out. Especially against the best teams in the conference (All ranked at some point in the year). Since they have started to play more aggressively, and the coaches have been playing the young talent, they have been able to put together some nice plays and series. And there finally is some talent there including Bailey, Cooper, Moi, Kelly, Bonner, McGill, Demuni. And with the injuries, the rest of the young defenders are getting experience now that will help them in the future. 

Unfortunately, the "strength" of the team, the offense has not shown up. And any defense, no matter how good, or not, will get beat if they are constantly on the field. 

With the talent coming back and the talent coming in, I look forward to seeing what they can do in the future. They have already passed the first test: effort & energy. I think the defense will be pretty good over the next couple of years. 

Though I would be happy to see them bring in a new DC to work with that talent.

[Deejaatee]

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

I think Kelly will be fine once he gets to the NFL. He is that good. It was especially noticeable early this year when Ethan Bonner was still healthy and playing. Not many teams were throwing at Kelly, and he was able to remain on the left side, regardless of which receiver was in front of him. After Bonner's injury, two things changed. First, the defense changed so that Kelly was suddenly playing both sides of the field against the best receiver on each team. And now people were throwing at him in continuous one-on-one coverage. Any DB will get beat from time to time in that situation. He will probably be very happy to get to the NFL. And he will be drafted.

---

Even with the recent large deficit losses, I have been excited to watch the defense slug it out. Especially against the best teams in the conference (All ranked at some point in the year). Since they have started to play more aggressively, and the coaches have been playing the young talent, they have been able to put together some nice plays and series. And there finally is some talent there including Bailey, Cooper, Moi, Kelly, Bonner, McGill, Demuni. And with the injuries, the rest of the young defenders are getting experience now that will help them in the future. 

Unfortunately, the "strength" of the team, the offense has not shown up. And any defense, no matter how good, or not, will get beat if they are constantly on the field. 

With the talent coming back and the talent coming in, I look forward to seeing what they can do in the future. They have already passed the first test: effort & energy. I think the defense will be pretty good over the next couple of years. 

Though I would be happy to see them bring in a new DC to work with that talent.

[gailtate]

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

I watched every play. Just for he hell of it. And most of the Washington-Oregon game, for comparison. Hard to recall a talent gap this wide between the superior teams and Stanford. 1983, maybe. CONFERENCE teams! Speed, strength, athleticism, depth. Most instructive: muscle definition. Since when has weight-training been off-limits for these guys? Battle of the titans in Berkeley this week. Identical records. Shades of 1983, '60 and '61. Just a lot fewer spectators.

[gailtate]

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

I watched every play. Just for he hell of it. And most of the Washington-Oregon game, for comparison. Hard to recall a talent gap this wide between the superior teams and Stanford. 1983, maybe. CONFERENCE teams! Speed, strength, athleticism, depth. Most instructive: muscle definition. Since when has weight-training been off-limits for these guys? Battle of the titans in Berkeley this week. Identical records. Shades of 1983, '60 and '61. Just a lot fewer spectators.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I too watched the UW-OR game and the end of the AZ-UCLA game, too. No question there's a talent gap at certain positions, but what stood out to me is the difference in morale, purpose, cohesion. Arizona came in to the Rose Bowl last night with the same record as ours, 3-6, but you wouldn't have known it by watching them play. Stanford, especially on offense, instead looked lackluster, disorganized, hesitant. I don't mean that as a knock against our players. Far from it. I tip my hat to McKee, who's a shell of the QB he was earlier, who still stands in there trying his level best, even as his coaches continue to scheme away from his strengths and toward his weaknesses. 

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

I watched every play. Just for he hell of it. And most of the Washington-Oregon game, for comparison. Hard to recall a talent gap this wide between the superior teams and Stanford. 1983, maybe. CONFERENCE teams! Speed, strength, athleticism, depth. Most instructive: muscle definition. Since when has weight-training been off-limits for these guys? Battle of the titans in Berkeley this week. Identical records. Shades of 1983, '60 and '61. Just a lot fewer spectators.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I too watched the UW-OR game and the end of the AZ-UCLA game, too. No question there's a talent gap at certain positions, but what stood out to me is the difference in morale, purpose, cohesion. Arizona came in to the Rose Bowl last night with the same record as ours, 3-6, but you wouldn't have known it by watching them play. Stanford, especially on offense, instead looked lackluster, disorganized, hesitant. I don't mean that as a knock against our players. Far from it. I tip my hat to McKee, who's a shell of the QB he was earlier, who still stands in there trying his level best, even as his coaches continue to scheme away from his strengths and toward his weaknesses. 

We gave up 9 TFL and 7 sacks out of 51 plays from scrimmage, not to mention 4-5 more scrambles ending with a toss out of bounds to avoid another sack - mind boggling & preaching to the choir, I know - but still, that's ~ 40% of our plays....

I watched every play. Just for he hell of it. And most of the Washington-Oregon game, for comparison. Hard to recall a talent gap this wide between the superior teams and Stanford. 1983, maybe. CONFERENCE teams! Speed, strength, athleticism, depth. Most instructive: muscle definition. Since when has weight-training been off-limits for these guys? Battle of the titans in Berkeley this week. Identical records. Shades of 1983, '60 and '61. Just a lot fewer spectators.

[msqueri]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:

Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)

Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

Adebo got beat a couple times in a game by a UCF receiver who turned out to be arguably one of the 30 best receivers on the planet (Gabe Davis). Kelly has given up 30+ yard plays about every other game his entire career. These are not the same thing. The comparison is ludicrous.

---

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

I think Kelly will be fine once he gets to the NFL. He is that good. It was especially noticeable early this year when Ethan Bonner was still healthy and playing. Not many teams were throwing at Kelly, and he was able to remain on the left side, regardless of which receiver was in front of him. After Bonner's injury, two things changed. First, the defense changed so that Kelly was suddenly playing both sides of the field against the best receiver on each team. And now people were throwing at him in continuous one-on-one coverage. Any DB will get beat from time to time in that situation. He will probably be very happy to get to the NFL. And he will be drafted.

---

Even with the recent large deficit losses, I have been excited to watch the defense slug it out. Especially against the best teams in the conference (All ranked at some point in the year). Since they have started to play more aggressively, and the coaches have been playing the young talent, they have been able to put together some nice plays and series. And there finally is some talent there including Bailey, Cooper, Moi, Kelly, Bonner, McGill, Demuni. And with the injuries, the rest of the young defenders are getting experience now that will help them in the future. 

Unfortunately, the "strength" of the team, the offense has not shown up. And any defense, no matter how good, or not, will get beat if they are constantly on the field. 

With the talent coming back and the talent coming in, I look forward to seeing what they can do in the future. They have already passed the first test: effort & energy. I think the defense will be pretty good over the next couple of years. 

Though I would be happy to see them bring in a new DC to work with that talent.

Having a lot of trouble with optimistic visions for the 2023 Stanford defense. Every Stanford defense for half a decade has been bad, so as long as Anderson is still the coordinator we essentially know with certainty it won't be a good defense. But even if we get new coaches, the personnel for 2023 is troubling. The defensive interior will STILL be young and since the performances by Phillips, Moi, and Franklin have been such a struggle this year even year-to-year improvement would be expected to be bad. The edge defenders should be great. Otherwise, we look to be rebuilding at inside linebacker, cornerback, safety, and nickel. Yikes.

I think a vision for a decent defense next year has to involve multiple returns among Damuni, Kelly, Bonner, and McGill. I hope that happens but it seems unlikely.

[msqueri]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:

Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)

Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

Adebo got beat a couple times in a game by a UCF receiver who turned out to be arguably one of the 30 best receivers on the planet (Gabe Davis). Kelly has given up 30+ yard plays about every other game his entire career. These are not the same thing. The comparison is ludicrous.

---

Many images of seeing the back of Kelly’s jersey trying to catch up with a receiver.

I recall similar comments about Adebo after his last season was a bit of a dropoff. He's been a starter for the Saints since his first game last year.

So?

So everyone who says Kelly isn't NFL ready because he's being beaten this year has a good chance of being dead wrong given the recent past with Adebo.

I was skeptical about Adebo after his last season. Not gonna make that mistake again with Kelly.

I think Kelly will be fine once he gets to the NFL. He is that good. It was especially noticeable early this year when Ethan Bonner was still healthy and playing. Not many teams were throwing at Kelly, and he was able to remain on the left side, regardless of which receiver was in front of him. After Bonner's injury, two things changed. First, the defense changed so that Kelly was suddenly playing both sides of the field against the best receiver on each team. And now people were throwing at him in continuous one-on-one coverage. Any DB will get beat from time to time in that situation. He will probably be very happy to get to the NFL. And he will be drafted.

---

Even with the recent large deficit losses, I have been excited to watch the defense slug it out. Especially against the best teams in the conference (All ranked at some point in the year). Since they have started to play more aggressively, and the coaches have been playing the young talent, they have been able to put together some nice plays and series. And there finally is some talent there including Bailey, Cooper, Moi, Kelly, Bonner, McGill, Demuni. And with the injuries, the rest of the young defenders are getting experience now that will help them in the future. 

Unfortunately, the "strength" of the team, the offense has not shown up. And any defense, no matter how good, or not, will get beat if they are constantly on the field. 

With the talent coming back and the talent coming in, I look forward to seeing what they can do in the future. They have already passed the first test: effort & energy. I think the defense will be pretty good over the next couple of years. 

Though I would be happy to see them bring in a new DC to work with that talent.

Having a lot of trouble with optimistic visions for the 2023 Stanford defense. Every Stanford defense for half a decade has been bad, so as long as Anderson is still the coordinator we essentially know with certainty it won't be a good defense. But even if we get new coaches, the personnel for 2023 is troubling. The defensive interior will STILL be young and since the performances by Phillips, Moi, and Franklin have been such a struggle this year even year-to-year improvement would be expected to be bad. The edge defenders should be great. Otherwise, we look to be rebuilding at inside linebacker, cornerback, safety, and nickel. Yikes.

I think a vision for a decent defense next year has to involve multiple returns among Damuni, Kelly, Bonner, and McGill. I hope that happens but it seems unlikely.

[winflop]

Having a lot of trouble with optimistic visions for the 2023 Stanford defense. Every Stanford defense for half a decade has been bad, so as long as Anderson is still the coordinator we essentially know with certainty it won't be a good defense. But even if we get new coaches, the personnel for 2023 is troubling. The defensive interior will STILL be young and since the performances by Phillips, Moi, and Franklin have been such a struggle this year even year-to-year improvement would be expected to be bad. The edge defenders should be great. Otherwise, we look to be rebuilding at inside linebacker, cornerback, safety, and nickel. Yikes.



I think a vision for a decent defense next year has to involve multiple returns among Damuni, Kelly, Bonner, and McGill. I hope that happens but it seems unlikely.

Next year's defense will depend greatly on how many players DON'T transfer out - and that may depend greatly on who the head coach is

[winflop]

Having a lot of trouble with optimistic visions for the 2023 Stanford defense. Every Stanford defense for half a decade has been bad, so as long as Anderson is still the coordinator we essentially know with certainty it won't be a good defense. But even if we get new coaches, the personnel for 2023 is troubling. The defensive interior will STILL be young and since the performances by Phillips, Moi, and Franklin have been such a struggle this year even year-to-year improvement would be expected to be bad. The edge defenders should be great. Otherwise, we look to be rebuilding at inside linebacker, cornerback, safety, and nickel. Yikes.



I think a vision for a decent defense next year has to involve multiple returns among Damuni, Kelly, Bonner, and McGill. I hope that happens but it seems unlikely.

Next year's defense will depend greatly on how many players DON'T transfer out - and that may depend greatly on who the head coach is

[81alum]

I have not been posting on football since it is so depressing.  But I am genuinely curious to know what happened to our offensive line? 

Pass blocking used to be considered much easier than run blocking, and so there have been seasons over the last 40 years I have watched in which the line could "only" be decent at pass blocking.  It took a special talent and line cohesion to do complex run-blocking schemes, but it took less raw talent, coordination, and practice to pass block. 

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  Granted we have a quarterback who has limited mobility, who tends to hold the ball too long, and who runs this slow-mesh scheme that keeps him too close to the line.  But those factors only add to the main problem.  It seems as if our line just can't pass block.  Why not?   We have had lines that pass block better even in bad years.

[81alum]

I have not been posting on football since it is so depressing.  But I am genuinely curious to know what happened to our offensive line? 

Pass blocking used to be considered much easier than run blocking, and so there have been seasons over the last 40 years I have watched in which the line could "only" be decent at pass blocking.  It took a special talent and line cohesion to do complex run-blocking schemes, but it took less raw talent, coordination, and practice to pass block. 

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  Granted we have a quarterback who has limited mobility, who tends to hold the ball too long, and who runs this slow-mesh scheme that keeps him too close to the line.  But those factors only add to the main problem.  It seems as if our line just can't pass block.  Why not?   We have had lines that pass block better even in bad years.

[newguy]

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  

to quote another poster.......Whaaat?

[newguy]

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  

to quote another poster.......Whaaat?

[msqueri]

I have not been posting on football since it is so depressing.  But I am genuinely curious to know what happened to our offensive line? 

Pass blocking used to be considered much easier than run blocking, and so there have been seasons over the last 40 years I have watched in which the line could "only" be decent at pass blocking.  It took a special talent and line cohesion to do complex run-blocking schemes, but it took less raw talent, coordination, and practice to pass block. 

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  Granted we have a quarterback who has limited mobility, who tends to hold the ball too long, and who runs this slow-mesh scheme that keeps him too close to the line.  But those factors only add to the main problem.  It seems as if our line just can't pass block.  Why not?   We have had lines that pass block better even in bad years.

For what it's worth, PFF thinks we can run block (#33 in the nation) and can't pass block (#112). Here are the Pac-12 lines rank based on the combination of running and passing grades:

1. USC - 81.1 + 85.8 = 83.45
2. Oregon - 85.8 + 74.1 = 79.95
3. Washington - 82.5 + 77.3 = 79.90
4. UCLA - 70.7 + 87.3 = 79.00
5. Oregon State - 74.0 + 79.0 = 76.50
6. Utah - 63.4 + 63.9 = 63.65
7. Stanford - 50 + 68.9 = 59.45
8. Colorado - 65.8 + 51.6 = 58.70
9. Washington State - 62.1 + 54.8 = 58.45
10. Arizona - 60.9 + 55.1 = 58.00
11. Arizona State 53.9 + 58.8 = 56.35
12. Cal - 42.9 + 44.0 = 43.45

On an individual level, among the 71 Pac-12 OL with 200+ snaps, PFF grades Nugent as the #8 OL in the conference, Rouse #30, Hornibrook #41, Rogers #47, and Hinton #61.

Some observations/hypotheses on all this:

* Stanford's OL play isn't actually bad. Our fans think it is bad because the things our naked eyes evaluate OL based on are miserable failures. To wit, we are #119 in sacks allowed, #89 in tackles for loss allowed, and #111 in yards per carry. The offense is miserable and bad stuff happens at or behind the line of scrimmage all the time, so it's easy to blame the OL. But when expert evaluators dissect the film the blame gets spread out more evenly across the offense than fans might assume. Our QB has horrendous pocket presence....sacks galore. Our running backs fumbled all the time when healthy and have limped through the whole second half of the schedule with non-standout high school running backs (literally). Our offensive coaching is horrible. And so on. So what fans think is line problems is more complex than that.

* Under Shawfense we have no margin for error. This has been clear for a decade. Before the season I thought we'd have about the fourth best OL in the conference and that might (but might not) enable a good offense. If you would have told me before the Colgate game that Stanford would have the seventh best OL in the conference I would have confidently told you our offense would suck. Easy money. But fourth versus seventh isn't that big of a difference, you might say. Well, I've seen enough Shawfense. No margin for error. This travesty of an offensive coach needs everything clicking for it to work.

* And, of course, not everything is clicking. That's true across the offense. Literally every part of it has had some serious problems. But even just within the OL, which PFF views as more mediocre than bad, a majority of the line have graded below average. Too many weak links to overcome, as when there's just one or two weak links on a given play that usually blows up the play.

* We also have the twin problem of not really having any DUDES and, for the second straight year, having an extreme weak link situation at right tackle. Nugent is a really good player, but this isn't Dalman/Garnett/Murphy/Peat/Yankey/Fleming. Moreover, empirically we've always had two future NFL OL when the offense really clicked. Hard to imagine who joins Nugent in the NFL from this group, if Nugent even makes it. And then there's the weak link situation. Hinton isn't the outright disaster he was last year, but he's still been really bad, and we've also cycled through a lot of guys at right tackle.

* The whole is always less than the sum of the parts with Shawfense. Always always always. That's why the seventh best OL in the conference is a serious problem.

[msqueri]

I have not been posting on football since it is so depressing.  But I am genuinely curious to know what happened to our offensive line? 

Pass blocking used to be considered much easier than run blocking, and so there have been seasons over the last 40 years I have watched in which the line could "only" be decent at pass blocking.  It took a special talent and line cohesion to do complex run-blocking schemes, but it took less raw talent, coordination, and practice to pass block. 

But it seems as if our line this year cannot pass block at all well.  Granted we have a quarterback who has limited mobility, who tends to hold the ball too long, and who runs this slow-mesh scheme that keeps him too close to the line.  But those factors only add to the main problem.  It seems as if our line just can't pass block.  Why not?   We have had lines that pass block better even in bad years.

For what it's worth, PFF thinks we can run block (#33 in the nation) and can't pass block (#112). Here are the Pac-12 lines rank based on the combination of running and passing grades:

1. USC - 81.1 + 85.8 = 83.45
2. Oregon - 85.8 + 74.1 = 79.95
3. Washington - 82.5 + 77.3 = 79.90
4. UCLA - 70.7 + 87.3 = 79.00
5. Oregon State - 74.0 + 79.0 = 76.50
6. Utah - 63.4 + 63.9 = 63.65
7. Stanford - 50 + 68.9 = 59.45
8. Colorado - 65.8 + 51.6 = 58.70
9. Washington State - 62.1 + 54.8 = 58.45
10. Arizona - 60.9 + 55.1 = 58.00
11. Arizona State 53.9 + 58.8 = 56.35
12. Cal - 42.9 + 44.0 = 43.45

On an individual level, among the 71 Pac-12 OL with 200+ snaps, PFF grades Nugent as the #8 OL in the conference, Rouse #30, Hornibrook #41, Rogers #47, and Hinton #61.

Some observations/hypotheses on all this:

* Stanford's OL play isn't actually bad. Our fans think it is bad because the things our naked eyes evaluate OL based on are miserable failures. To wit, we are #119 in sacks allowed, #89 in tackles for loss allowed, and #111 in yards per carry. The offense is miserable and bad stuff happens at or behind the line of scrimmage all the time, so it's easy to blame the OL. But when expert evaluators dissect the film the blame gets spread out more evenly across the offense than fans might assume. Our QB has horrendous pocket presence....sacks galore. Our running backs fumbled all the time when healthy and have limped through the whole second half of the schedule with non-standout high school running backs (literally). Our offensive coaching is horrible. And so on. So what fans think is line problems is more complex than that.

* Under Shawfense we have no margin for error. This has been clear for a decade. Before the season I thought we'd have about the fourth best OL in the conference and that might (but might not) enable a good offense. If you would have told me before the Colgate game that Stanford would have the seventh best OL in the conference I would have confidently told you our offense would suck. Easy money. But fourth versus seventh isn't that big of a difference, you might say. Well, I've seen enough Shawfense. No margin for error. This travesty of an offensive coach needs everything clicking for it to work.

* And, of course, not everything is clicking. That's true across the offense. Literally every part of it has had some serious problems. But even just within the OL, which PFF views as more mediocre than bad, a majority of the line have graded below average. Too many weak links to overcome, as when there's just one or two weak links on a given play that usually blows up the play.

* We also have the twin problem of not really having any DUDES and, for the second straight year, having an extreme weak link situation at right tackle. Nugent is a really good player, but this isn't Dalman/Garnett/Murphy/Peat/Yankey/Fleming. Moreover, empirically we've always had two future NFL OL when the offense really clicked. Hard to imagine who joins Nugent in the NFL from this group, if Nugent even makes it. And then there's the weak link situation. Hinton isn't the outright disaster he was last year, but he's still been really bad, and we've also cycled through a lot of guys at right tackle.

* The whole is always less than the sum of the parts with Shawfense. Always always always. That's why the seventh best OL in the conference is a serious problem.

[BostonCard]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:

Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)

Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

What I see here is a Adebo dropping his PFF score from RSFr to RSSo, and Kelly basically bouncing up and down from freshman to senior year and not showing any improvement over time.  And more broadly, I think the biggest thing that has haunted our team is lack of player development. Guys can be decent as freshmen, but they don’t get better with years in the program.

All of this makes me wonder if you have ever tried to quantify this.  Is my perception correct that players do not develop, or even regress?  How do we compare to other pac-12 teams?

BC

[BostonCard]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:

Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)

Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

What I see here is a Adebo dropping his PFF score from RSFr to RSSo, and Kelly basically bouncing up and down from freshman to senior year and not showing any improvement over time.  And more broadly, I think the biggest thing that has haunted our team is lack of player development. Guys can be decent as freshmen, but they don’t get better with years in the program.

All of this makes me wonder if you have ever tried to quantify this.  Is my perception correct that players do not develop, or even regress?  How do we compare to other pac-12 teams?

BC

[msqueri]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:



Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)



Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

What I see here is a Adebo dropping his PFF score from RSFr to RSSo, and Kelly basically bouncing up and down from freshman to senior year and not showing any improvement over time.  And more broadly, I think the biggest thing that has haunted our team is lack of player development. Guys can be decent as freshmen, but they don’t get better with years in the program.



All of this makes me wonder if you have ever tried to quantify this.  Is my perception correct that players do not develop, or even regress?  How do we compare to other pac-12 teams?



BC

The basic shape of this across the Pac-12/college football is that players close to the ball improve over time and those far away from the ball do not, at least not reliably. Fans who think DBs/WRs will be at their best at the end of their careers are operating mostly on faith rather than evidence. They might have their best years but it's not statistically significant. A third year or a second year could be the best year too. Conversely, for other teams, the trenches tend to improve a lot over time. For Stanford it's more mixed. Sometimes we see it at OL and sometimes we don't, but it's a sea change from the glory years when fourth and fifth year OL were one of the keys to our secret sauce. DL is a horror story. Stanford under the Anderson/Reynolds duo has not been able to realize the gains of maturation/experience at DL you would assume. It's so bad that I don't really have faith in Phillips/Franklin/Moi as long as they're coached by these clowns. Edge players have been very much a mixed bag. Hard to even know what to say about inside linebacker given the dysfunction of that pipeline going back many years, but I don't see good evidence for improvement.

In light of the shape of how this works generally and at Stanford specifically, I think we are highly dependent on being able to squeeze out development over time in QBs and OL. That our offense is what it is this year with a third year (but five years out of high school) QB and a line studded with fourth year guys is a very bad look.

Another way to think about this is to think about our most superstar players and how often we have guys like that emerge late (i.e., a sign of development over time). If you look at the all-conference guys since 2016, it feels like a lot of them (McCaffrey, Thomas, Love, Herbig, Meeks, Adebo, Little, Costello, Arcega-Whiteside, Smith, Booker, etc.) pretty much were who they were. We hit on them more as recruiting wins than developmental wins, in other words. Arguably the same could be said about Dalman, Parkinson, Toohill, Fehoko.

If any of this particularly interests you I can look for more detailed analyses I've done on specific parts.

[msqueri]

I love Kelly's athleticism and think he has a chance of sticking in the NFL, but the comparison to Adebo is absurd. Here are their PFF grades:



Adebo: 88.6 as a redshirt freshman (nationally dominant/All-American level), 78.6 as a redshirt sophomore (very good, all-conference level)



Kelly: 66.8 as a true freshman (maybe a tick above average), 58.0 as a true sophomore (below average), 66.9 as a true junior (maybe a tick above average), 63.1 as a true senior (average)

What I see here is a Adebo dropping his PFF score from RSFr to RSSo, and Kelly basically bouncing up and down from freshman to senior year and not showing any improvement over time.  And more broadly, I think the biggest thing that has haunted our team is lack of player development. Guys can be decent as freshmen, but they don’t get better with years in the program.



All of this makes me wonder if you have ever tried to quantify this.  Is my perception correct that players do not develop, or even regress?  How do we compare to other pac-12 teams?



BC

The basic shape of this across the Pac-12/college football is that players close to the ball improve over time and those far away from the ball do not, at least not reliably. Fans who think DBs/WRs will be at their best at the end of their careers are operating mostly on faith rather than evidence. They might have their best years but it's not statistically significant. A third year or a second year could be the best year too. Conversely, for other teams, the trenches tend to improve a lot over time. For Stanford it's more mixed. Sometimes we see it at OL and sometimes we don't, but it's a sea change from the glory years when fourth and fifth year OL were one of the keys to our secret sauce. DL is a horror story. Stanford under the Anderson/Reynolds duo has not been able to realize the gains of maturation/experience at DL you would assume. It's so bad that I don't really have faith in Phillips/Franklin/Moi as long as they're coached by these clowns. Edge players have been very much a mixed bag. Hard to even know what to say about inside linebacker given the dysfunction of that pipeline going back many years, but I don't see good evidence for improvement.

In light of the shape of how this works generally and at Stanford specifically, I think we are highly dependent on being able to squeeze out development over time in QBs and OL. That our offense is what it is this year with a third year (but five years out of high school) QB and a line studded with fourth year guys is a very bad look.

Another way to think about this is to think about our most superstar players and how often we have guys like that emerge late (i.e., a sign of development over time). If you look at the all-conference guys since 2016, it feels like a lot of them (McCaffrey, Thomas, Love, Herbig, Meeks, Adebo, Little, Costello, Arcega-Whiteside, Smith, Booker, etc.) pretty much were who they were. We hit on them more as recruiting wins than developmental wins, in other words. Arguably the same could be said about Dalman, Parkinson, Toohill, Fehoko.

If any of this particularly interests you I can look for more detailed analyses I've done on specific parts.

[BostonCard]

It is, of course, easy for me to sit back and ask someone else to do the analysis, but having done a few of these, I know it is not trivial.  That being said, if you did it, I would be interested in the results.  My pet theory that explains the disconnect between decent recruiting rankings and horrible play on the field is that while it is a multi factorial problem, one of the biggest issues is lack of development of players over time, such that, as you put it, the players we have as freshmen (or redshirt freshmen) are, essentially, the players we get. I hazard that if our players developed as would be expected, we’d have fewer really awful units and several better than average units.  But, I have no data to back it up, and I don’t subscribe to PFF.

BC

[BostonCard]

It is, of course, easy for me to sit back and ask someone else to do the analysis, but having done a few of these, I know it is not trivial.  That being said, if you did it, I would be interested in the results.  My pet theory that explains the disconnect between decent recruiting rankings and horrible play on the field is that while it is a multi factorial problem, one of the biggest issues is lack of development of players over time, such that, as you put it, the players we have as freshmen (or redshirt freshmen) are, essentially, the players we get. I hazard that if our players developed as would be expected, we’d have fewer really awful units and several better than average units.  But, I have no data to back it up, and I don’t subscribe to PFF.

BC