[ChicagoCard]

http://www.presnapread.com/no-23-stanford/

Lengthy article. Obligatory stuff on Luck, is critical of Shaw's end-of-regulation Fiesta Bowl move, says Stephens is not an every-down lineman (whether true or not, is accurate I think in what he says about defensive line), seems to give no chance of beating U.SC this year... and includes a link back to the Cardboard in the fans' section at the end.

[ChicagoCard]

http://www.presnapread.com/no-23-stanford/

Lengthy article. Obligatory stuff on Luck, is critical of Shaw's end-of-regulation Fiesta Bowl move, says Stephens is not an every-down lineman (whether true or not, is accurate I think in what he says about defensive line), seems to give no chance of beating U.SC this year... and includes a link back to the Cardboard in the fans' section at the end.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't see why it's clear at all that Stanford isn't a BCS contender. I have them winning 8 or 9 games, but if you preclude the upside scenario of 10 or 11 wins, you're being an irresponsible forecaster.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't see why it's clear at all that Stanford isn't a BCS contender. I have them winning 8 or 9 games, but if you preclude the upside scenario of 10 or 11 wins, you're being an irresponsible forecaster.

[CompSci87]

all QBs seem to be wearing a left-knee brace.

I understand they wear that to help prevent injury, not because any of them have had knee injuries. Luck wore one at Stanford too. Not sure if the pros do that.

[CompSci87]

all QBs seem to be wearing a left-knee brace.

I understand they wear that to help prevent injury, not because any of them have had knee injuries. Luck wore one at Stanford too. Not sure if the pros do that.

[Hank 91]

I heard Shaw say once that Luck's knee was completely healthy. They just made him wear that knee brace as a precaution.

[Hank 91]

I heard Shaw say once that Luck's knee was completely healthy. They just made him wear that knee brace as a precaution.

[fullmetal]

Good insurance given Luck's predicted draft status.

[fullmetal]

Good insurance given Luck's predicted draft status.

[OutsiderFan]

Terrence Stephens is absolutely good enough to be an every down NT.  If he wasn't, Stanford wouldn't have had the #3 Rush Defense in the country in 2011.  He more than adequately replaced Sione Fua.  No, Stephens may not be a first or second round draft pick, but he does what he needs to do for Stanford's defense.

And, I would guess the four headed ILB monster Stanford is going to have in 2012, is going to make Stephens' job easier in 2012 than 2011, and that doesn't consider how much Stephens might have improved from last season to this.

It could be argued Stephens was the MVP of the Stanford defense in 2011 that was #3 in FBS against the run, but he isn't an every down guy? 

[OutsiderFan]

Terrence Stephens is absolutely good enough to be an every down NT.  If he wasn't, Stanford wouldn't have had the #3 Rush Defense in the country in 2011.  He more than adequately replaced Sione Fua.  No, Stephens may not be a first or second round draft pick, but he does what he needs to do for Stanford's defense.

And, I would guess the four headed ILB monster Stanford is going to have in 2012, is going to make Stephens' job easier in 2012 than 2011, and that doesn't consider how much Stephens might have improved from last season to this.

It could be argued Stephens was the MVP of the Stanford defense in 2011 that was #3 in FBS against the run, but he isn't an every down guy? 

[terry]

Terrence Stephens doesn't need to be an every down player. When we go to the nickel defense, we don't use a nose tackle. The nose tackle comes out of the game, the DEs move inside, and the OLBs line up as DEs. Given the number of spread offenses on our schedule, we're in the nickel a lot. So our nose tackle isn't going to be an every down player, no matter what.

[terry]

Terrence Stephens doesn't need to be an every down player. When we go to the nickel defense, we don't use a nose tackle. The nose tackle comes out of the game, the DEs move inside, and the OLBs line up as DEs. Given the number of spread offenses on our schedule, we're in the nickel a lot. So our nose tackle isn't going to be an every down player, no matter what.

[OutsiderFan]

Good points, but why take a shot at Stephens? Just because he didn't have a lot of sacks last year?  Stephens plays Nose Tackle.  His job is to occupy blockers.  If he doesn't make a tackle all year and Stanford wins all its games, nobody is going to care.

[OutsiderFan]

Good points, but why take a shot at Stephens? Just because he didn't have a lot of sacks last year?  Stephens plays Nose Tackle.  His job is to occupy blockers.  If he doesn't make a tackle all year and Stanford wins all its games, nobody is going to care.

[81alum]

I'm not as knowledgeable as most of you, but that article (overall) seemed reasonably well written and balanced.  What else can you do before the season begins?  Neither we, the coaches, nor the players themselves really know how our talented but inexperienced players (especially at quarterback and in the secondary) will perform--that is why they play the game.

I love these kind of prognoticating articles--they become a kind of game unto themselves.  They entertain us while we wait for the season.  But imagine how disappointed we would be if they could predict a season with complete certainty. 

[81alum]

I'm not as knowledgeable as most of you, but that article (overall) seemed reasonably well written and balanced.  What else can you do before the season begins?  Neither we, the coaches, nor the players themselves really know how our talented but inexperienced players (especially at quarterback and in the secondary) will perform--that is why they play the game.

I love these kind of prognoticating articles--they become a kind of game unto themselves.  They entertain us while we wait for the season.  But imagine how disappointed we would be if they could predict a season with complete certainty. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

Terrence Stephens is absolutely good enough to be an every down NT.  If he wasn't, Stanford wouldn't have had the #3 Rush Defense in the country in 2011.  He more than adequately replaced Sione Fua.  No, Stephens may not be a first or second round draft pick, but he does what he needs to do for Stanford's defense.

And, I would guess the four headed ILB monster Stanford is going to have in 2012, is going to make Stephens' job easier in 2012 than 2011, and that doesn't consider how much Stephens might have improved from last season to this.

It could be argued Stephens was the MVP of the Stanford defense in 2011 that was #3 in FBS against the run, but he isn't an every down guy?

Based on everything he wrote last year, Kevin Gemmell certainly agrees with you.  I think he raved about Stephens being underrated (or under the radar) more often than any other Stanford player on the blog last year. 

It does seem a little odd to take a shot at Stephens of all players (even though he won't play every snap, he is definitely an excellent anchor on that 3-4 base defense, and there's not much more you could want from him).  NT is not an area I have any concern.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Terrence Stephens is absolutely good enough to be an every down NT.  If he wasn't, Stanford wouldn't have had the #3 Rush Defense in the country in 2011.  He more than adequately replaced Sione Fua.  No, Stephens may not be a first or second round draft pick, but he does what he needs to do for Stanford's defense.

And, I would guess the four headed ILB monster Stanford is going to have in 2012, is going to make Stephens' job easier in 2012 than 2011, and that doesn't consider how much Stephens might have improved from last season to this.

It could be argued Stephens was the MVP of the Stanford defense in 2011 that was #3 in FBS against the run, but he isn't an every down guy?

Based on everything he wrote last year, Kevin Gemmell certainly agrees with you.  I think he raved about Stephens being underrated (or under the radar) more often than any other Stanford player on the blog last year. 

It does seem a little odd to take a shot at Stephens of all players (even though he won't play every snap, he is definitely an excellent anchor on that 3-4 base defense, and there's not much more you could want from him).  NT is not an area I have any concern.

[washingtonismoney]

Just guessing, but maybe he dinged the entire defensive line for not accumulating enough stats? "Steady if not particularly dynamic" is what he says of them. That's a misdiagnosis of what defensive linemen are supposed to do in a 3-4: the point of a 3-4, generally, is that your linebackers make the plays and get the glory. The linemen more often eat blocks and control space. I suppose his broad point, that more depth and quality along the line would be appreciated, is correct, but with the quality recruiting and the coaching of Randy Hart, I'm not worried. In fact, if this qualifies as one of the top worries of the team, it's in excellent shape.

To get onto another point, he takes a few dings at Shaw for the Fiesta thing--which, fair enough, I agree with him absolutely--and mentions "other coaching errors." It's weird, because he cites no examples of what he thinks those errors are, or whether they were especially egregious or numerous in comparison to other coaches. Shaw was outcoached by Chip Kelly, sure, but, sadly, Chip does that to just about everybody. And criticize him if you must for the Fiesta Bowl thing, but you absolutely have to give the staff recognition for getting in that position in the first place. Both in the game, and to the game. The Pac-12 coaches didn't vote him coach of the year arbitrarily.

In general, I think the author confuses detail for nuance and insight. One of the commenters chides him for not including James Vaughters at all, and the writer replies that, hey, he'll have a tough time getting playing time. That might be fair, but then why did you include the name Rollins Stallworth? I have to confess I've never heard of him in my life. So, yeah. A decent enough resource if you know nothing of the team, but lacking if you do. (I still think the most egregious error is declaring the team has no chance at the BCS. This is deeply silly.) 

[washingtonismoney]

Just guessing, but maybe he dinged the entire defensive line for not accumulating enough stats? "Steady if not particularly dynamic" is what he says of them. That's a misdiagnosis of what defensive linemen are supposed to do in a 3-4: the point of a 3-4, generally, is that your linebackers make the plays and get the glory. The linemen more often eat blocks and control space. I suppose his broad point, that more depth and quality along the line would be appreciated, is correct, but with the quality recruiting and the coaching of Randy Hart, I'm not worried. In fact, if this qualifies as one of the top worries of the team, it's in excellent shape.

To get onto another point, he takes a few dings at Shaw for the Fiesta thing--which, fair enough, I agree with him absolutely--and mentions "other coaching errors." It's weird, because he cites no examples of what he thinks those errors are, or whether they were especially egregious or numerous in comparison to other coaches. Shaw was outcoached by Chip Kelly, sure, but, sadly, Chip does that to just about everybody. And criticize him if you must for the Fiesta Bowl thing, but you absolutely have to give the staff recognition for getting in that position in the first place. Both in the game, and to the game. The Pac-12 coaches didn't vote him coach of the year arbitrarily.

In general, I think the author confuses detail for nuance and insight. One of the commenters chides him for not including James Vaughters at all, and the writer replies that, hey, he'll have a tough time getting playing time. That might be fair, but then why did you include the name Rollins Stallworth? I have to confess I've never heard of him in my life. So, yeah. A decent enough resource if you know nothing of the team, but lacking if you do. (I still think the most egregious error is declaring the team has no chance at the BCS. This is deeply silly.) 

[washingtonismoney]

One more point about the nose tackles. Stephens was not as good as Fua, in my opinion, but he and David Parry were more than good enough to get the job done, obviously. And he'll forever get credit for the SC forced fumbles--in all seriousness, up there with Tavita for SC heroes for me.

I don't think people realized then, and we certainly don't realize now, what a hairy situation we were in at nose tackle last year. Stephens was a guy who had maybe underachieved at bit, and his primary back-up was an unknown walk-on. Beyond that, the only nose tackles were converted ends, or true freshmen. That we had no injuries at that position rescued us from what could've been a very uncomfortable situation (due to some recruiting problems. This is why you always recruit a pipeline. If there's an area Harbaugh struggled with, it was pipelines.)

[washingtonismoney]

One more point about the nose tackles. Stephens was not as good as Fua, in my opinion, but he and David Parry were more than good enough to get the job done, obviously. And he'll forever get credit for the SC forced fumbles--in all seriousness, up there with Tavita for SC heroes for me.

I don't think people realized then, and we certainly don't realize now, what a hairy situation we were in at nose tackle last year. Stephens was a guy who had maybe underachieved at bit, and his primary back-up was an unknown walk-on. Beyond that, the only nose tackles were converted ends, or true freshmen. That we had no injuries at that position rescued us from what could've been a very uncomfortable situation (due to some recruiting problems. This is why you always recruit a pipeline. If there's an area Harbaugh struggled with, it was pipelines.)

[pcgoode]

Last season during camp I know I was feeling uneasy about the d-line - would they be able to make plays etc. Chase Thomas noted that the job of the d-line in Stanford's 3-4 wasn't necessarily to make plays per se - it is to keep the LBs clean to make the plays. Stephens himself tweeted as much if I recall correctly - something to the effect of he didn't care if was double teamed etc. as long as it let the LBs run free.  I think Stephens and the rest of the d-line did a good job given their role in the scheme.

[pcgoode]

Last season during camp I know I was feeling uneasy about the d-line - would they be able to make plays etc. Chase Thomas noted that the job of the d-line in Stanford's 3-4 wasn't necessarily to make plays per se - it is to keep the LBs clean to make the plays. Stephens himself tweeted as much if I recall correctly - something to the effect of he didn't care if was double teamed etc. as long as it let the LBs run free.  I think Stephens and the rest of the d-line did a good job given their role in the scheme.

[OutsiderFan]

Stephens was the biggest question mark on defense going into 2011.  He ended up with six tackles in 13 games, three for loss, and one sack.  Stanford gave up 3 YPC in 2011.  By comparison, Fua had 13 tackles, four for loss, and four sacks in 2010.  Stanford gave up 3.8 YPC in 2010.  Fua added a little more than occupying blockers, but Stanford's defense was practically as good with Stephens as Fua.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to look at is what Fua and Stephens did in their first year as starters at NT:

                    Games  Solo Tackles    Sacks
        Fua:        13            6                1.5
Stephens:        13            6                1

I don't put a lot of stock in asst. tackles because that's a very misleading statistic.  FWIW Fua had 18 and Stephens 5.


As WIM said, if the DL is Stanford's biggest weakness, the team is pretty damn strong.  I happen to believe the Safety position is the biggest weakness and think that position will be the one that costs Stanford losses more than any other one on the field.

[OutsiderFan]

Stephens was the biggest question mark on defense going into 2011.  He ended up with six tackles in 13 games, three for loss, and one sack.  Stanford gave up 3 YPC in 2011.  By comparison, Fua had 13 tackles, four for loss, and four sacks in 2010.  Stanford gave up 3.8 YPC in 2010.  Fua added a little more than occupying blockers, but Stanford's defense was practically as good with Stephens as Fua.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to look at is what Fua and Stephens did in their first year as starters at NT:

                    Games  Solo Tackles    Sacks
        Fua:        13            6                1.5
Stephens:        13            6                1

I don't put a lot of stock in asst. tackles because that's a very misleading statistic.  FWIW Fua had 18 and Stephens 5.


As WIM said, if the DL is Stanford's biggest weakness, the team is pretty damn strong.  I happen to believe the Safety position is the biggest weakness and think that position will be the one that costs Stanford losses more than any other one on the field.