08-12-2013, 02:26 PM
There's been lots of discussion about the possibility of different receivers stepping up to replace Terrell and Patterson, but almost nothing about Jordan Pratt. How is he doing?Â
Jordan Pratt
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-12-2013, 03:04 PM
(08-12-2013, 02:26 PM)stanfan link Wrote:There's been lots of discussion about the possibility of different receivers stepping up to replace Terrell and Patterson, but almost nothing about Jordan Pratt. How is he doing?
Yeah, he gets little notice. He and Rector made probably the two most impressive catches of the spring game. He had two similar balls thrown to him vs Colorado and then Oregon St -- both quick throws to him at the line of scrimmage -- which seem to suggest he has some speed and/or athleticism to go with 6-3 and 215 pounds.
(08-12-2013, 02:26 PM)stanfan link Wrote:There's been lots of discussion about the possibility of different receivers stepping up to replace Terrell and Patterson, but almost nothing about Jordan Pratt. How is he doing?
Yeah, he gets little notice. He and Rector made probably the two most impressive catches of the spring game. He had two similar balls thrown to him vs Colorado and then Oregon St -- both quick throws to him at the line of scrimmage -- which seem to suggest he has some speed and/or athleticism to go with 6-3 and 215 pounds.
08-12-2013, 03:17 PM
We'll find out pretty quickly about Pratt.
As it relates the the WR position in general, here's one fan's breakdown:
On field production in college football games says he should be reliable as consistent play maker
Ty Montgomery - If he picked up where he left off as a Frosh, as a Junior, there is no reason to doubt his contribution in the making.
Kelsey Young - I know, but he's the only other returning WR who did anything in 2012, and should improve in his second year at WR.
Strong evidence outside college football games to believe he can be reliable as a consistent play maker
Michael Rector - Great speed, leaping ability, and hands, and seems poised to be a big play maker, based on Spring results.
Should be a factor and make a difference
Jeff Trojan - Seemed to always hear his name in Spring, even though he is a walk-on.
Devon Cajuste - A 6-4 230 WR? A least he'll be a great blocker, but should be ready to contribute in his third year in program, right?
Kodi Whitfield - Shaw raved about Whitfield last camp, but he caught what, one pass all year? Have to think he will be ready to contribute.
Potential to make biggest impact beyond top three on this list
Francis Owusu - A great athlete with superior strength and speed who brings a dimension no other Stanford WR can - Size and Speed.
Question marks
Jordan Pratt - I thought last year was when he would prove something. He's what, 27 now?Â
Connor Crane - Had a really impressive high school highlight reel, but hasn't been able to handle more physical play at next level to date.
Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.Â
As it relates the the WR position in general, here's one fan's breakdown:
On field production in college football games says he should be reliable as consistent play maker
Ty Montgomery - If he picked up where he left off as a Frosh, as a Junior, there is no reason to doubt his contribution in the making.
Kelsey Young - I know, but he's the only other returning WR who did anything in 2012, and should improve in his second year at WR.
Strong evidence outside college football games to believe he can be reliable as a consistent play maker
Michael Rector - Great speed, leaping ability, and hands, and seems poised to be a big play maker, based on Spring results.
Should be a factor and make a difference
Jeff Trojan - Seemed to always hear his name in Spring, even though he is a walk-on.
Devon Cajuste - A 6-4 230 WR? A least he'll be a great blocker, but should be ready to contribute in his third year in program, right?
Kodi Whitfield - Shaw raved about Whitfield last camp, but he caught what, one pass all year? Have to think he will be ready to contribute.
Potential to make biggest impact beyond top three on this list
Francis Owusu - A great athlete with superior strength and speed who brings a dimension no other Stanford WR can - Size and Speed.
Question marks
Jordan Pratt - I thought last year was when he would prove something. He's what, 27 now?Â
Connor Crane - Had a really impressive high school highlight reel, but hasn't been able to handle more physical play at next level to date.
Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.Â
We'll find out pretty quickly about Pratt.
As it relates the the WR position in general, here's one fan's breakdown:
On field production in college football games says he should be reliable as consistent play maker
Ty Montgomery - If he picked up where he left off as a Frosh, as a Junior, there is no reason to doubt his contribution in the making.
Kelsey Young - I know, but he's the only other returning WR who did anything in 2012, and should improve in his second year at WR.
Strong evidence outside college football games to believe he can be reliable as a consistent play maker
Michael Rector - Great speed, leaping ability, and hands, and seems poised to be a big play maker, based on Spring results.
Should be a factor and make a difference
Jeff Trojan - Seemed to always hear his name in Spring, even though he is a walk-on.
Devon Cajuste - A 6-4 230 WR? A least he'll be a great blocker, but should be ready to contribute in his third year in program, right?
Kodi Whitfield - Shaw raved about Whitfield last camp, but he caught what, one pass all year? Have to think he will be ready to contribute.
Potential to make biggest impact beyond top three on this list
Francis Owusu - A great athlete with superior strength and speed who brings a dimension no other Stanford WR can - Size and Speed.
Question marks
Jordan Pratt - I thought last year was when he would prove something. He's what, 27 now?Â
Connor Crane - Had a really impressive high school highlight reel, but hasn't been able to handle more physical play at next level to date.
Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.Â
As it relates the the WR position in general, here's one fan's breakdown:
On field production in college football games says he should be reliable as consistent play maker
Ty Montgomery - If he picked up where he left off as a Frosh, as a Junior, there is no reason to doubt his contribution in the making.
Kelsey Young - I know, but he's the only other returning WR who did anything in 2012, and should improve in his second year at WR.
Strong evidence outside college football games to believe he can be reliable as a consistent play maker
Michael Rector - Great speed, leaping ability, and hands, and seems poised to be a big play maker, based on Spring results.
Should be a factor and make a difference
Jeff Trojan - Seemed to always hear his name in Spring, even though he is a walk-on.
Devon Cajuste - A 6-4 230 WR? A least he'll be a great blocker, but should be ready to contribute in his third year in program, right?
Kodi Whitfield - Shaw raved about Whitfield last camp, but he caught what, one pass all year? Have to think he will be ready to contribute.
Potential to make biggest impact beyond top three on this list
Francis Owusu - A great athlete with superior strength and speed who brings a dimension no other Stanford WR can - Size and Speed.
Question marks
Jordan Pratt - I thought last year was when he would prove something. He's what, 27 now?Â
Connor Crane - Had a really impressive high school highlight reel, but hasn't been able to handle more physical play at next level to date.
Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.Â
08-12-2013, 03:39 PM
(08-12-2013, 03:17 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.
I think he got injured last year early on and ended up redshirting since there was no point in burning a year for a few plays. We should be hearing about him soon enough.
(08-12-2013, 03:17 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Dontonio Jordan - Have heard nothing about him at all, good or bad.
I think he got injured last year early on and ended up redshirting since there was no point in burning a year for a few plays. We should be hearing about him soon enough.
08-12-2013, 10:01 PM
From Andy Drukarev's article about receivers:
"Shaw also singled out redshirt freshman Conner Crane as a player trending in the right direction.
"I'm excited about Conner Crane," Shaw said. "Spring was the first time he had been healthy in a while, so he learned a lot. I'm fired up to see him come and compete in training camp.""
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1535333
"Shaw also singled out redshirt freshman Conner Crane as a player trending in the right direction.
"I'm excited about Conner Crane," Shaw said. "Spring was the first time he had been healthy in a while, so he learned a lot. I'm fired up to see him come and compete in training camp.""
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1535333
From Andy Drukarev's article about receivers:
"Shaw also singled out redshirt freshman Conner Crane as a player trending in the right direction.
"I'm excited about Conner Crane," Shaw said. "Spring was the first time he had been healthy in a while, so he learned a lot. I'm fired up to see him come and compete in training camp.""
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1535333
"Shaw also singled out redshirt freshman Conner Crane as a player trending in the right direction.
"I'm excited about Conner Crane," Shaw said. "Spring was the first time he had been healthy in a while, so he learned a lot. I'm fired up to see him come and compete in training camp.""
http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1535333
08-13-2013, 04:56 AM
We certainly don't lack in numbers. Hard to believe, given our success in developing players at other positions and the fact that Shaw was a WR in college, that we can't make a few effective, if not superstars.
We certainly don't lack in numbers. Hard to believe, given our success in developing players at other positions and the fact that Shaw was a WR in college, that we can't make a few effective, if not superstars.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-13-2013, 08:13 AM
He did make a pretty impressive catch during Spring game, but apart from his size and the novelty of his back story, he is not the main thing Stanford needs at the wideout spots...hence all the focus on and hope invested in Rector and a recovered Montgomery. Pratt has the hands and height to make plays, but making the catches in the patterns he's going to be running are not going to break games open nor will defenses adjust just because he comes into the game. If Rector proves out and Montgomery lives up to his early promise, the defenses will have to adjust.
He did make a pretty impressive catch during Spring game, but apart from his size and the novelty of his back story, he is not the main thing Stanford needs at the wideout spots...hence all the focus on and hope invested in Rector and a recovered Montgomery. Pratt has the hands and height to make plays, but making the catches in the patterns he's going to be running are not going to break games open nor will defenses adjust just because he comes into the game. If Rector proves out and Montgomery lives up to his early promise, the defenses will have to adjust.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-13-2013, 09:50 AM
Isn't whether, say, Cajuste at TE can become the next Coby Fleener, or whether Wilk > Gaffney or Gaffney > Wilk, or whether McFadden beats out Wilkes at center.
The real challenge is in the coaching staff. Pep Hamilton: Gone Ron Crook: Gone. So the weight of playcalling fall on Shaw and Mike Bloomgren in his first year as OC. Reports are he'll be on the sidelines rather than up in the booth.
So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
The real challenge is in the coaching staff. Pep Hamilton: Gone Ron Crook: Gone. So the weight of playcalling fall on Shaw and Mike Bloomgren in his first year as OC. Reports are he'll be on the sidelines rather than up in the booth.
So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
Isn't whether, say, Cajuste at TE can become the next Coby Fleener, or whether Wilk > Gaffney or Gaffney > Wilk, or whether McFadden beats out Wilkes at center.
The real challenge is in the coaching staff. Pep Hamilton: Gone Ron Crook: Gone. So the weight of playcalling fall on Shaw and Mike Bloomgren in his first year as OC. Reports are he'll be on the sidelines rather than up in the booth.
So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
The real challenge is in the coaching staff. Pep Hamilton: Gone Ron Crook: Gone. So the weight of playcalling fall on Shaw and Mike Bloomgren in his first year as OC. Reports are he'll be on the sidelines rather than up in the booth.
So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
08-13-2013, 10:01 AM
(08-13-2013, 09:50 AM)Redrum link Wrote:And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
I worry about Mason leaving for the NFL. Or maybe to a head coaching position. But I don't worry about him going to a higher-paying DC job. Stanford has really boosted salaries for the coordinator positions: they're still not paying what the highest-paying jobs are paying, but they're no longer massively underpaid the way they were. Palo Alto is a nice place to live, and being the DC at Stanford is a pretty good gig, and it seems like those factors could make up for what remains of the salary gap.
(08-13-2013, 09:50 AM)Redrum link Wrote:And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
I worry about Mason leaving for the NFL. Or maybe to a head coaching position. But I don't worry about him going to a higher-paying DC job. Stanford has really boosted salaries for the coordinator positions: they're still not paying what the highest-paying jobs are paying, but they're no longer massively underpaid the way they were. Palo Alto is a nice place to live, and being the DC at Stanford is a pretty good gig, and it seems like those factors could make up for what remains of the salary gap.
08-13-2013, 10:15 AM
I worry about Mason to the NFL as well
1) This defense could make me look like a good DC
2) His notoriety against the read-option may be a problem based on how much of a problem it is for NFL teams this year
1) This defense could make me look like a good DC
2) His notoriety against the read-option may be a problem based on how much of a problem it is for NFL teams this year
08-13-2013, 10:27 AM
(08-13-2013, 09:50 AM)Redrum link Wrote:So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
Do other schools not have this problem? I don't really follow anything down to that level, but I'd expect that few coaching staffs, even successful ones, stay together all that long. I recall reading last year that only two schools had had HC, OC, and DC stay together for some number of years, and it was Oregon and Navy (sorry for the vagueness, this was a while ago). I think that part of being a successful coach is the ability to identify talent and put it to good use on the coaching staff as well as on the field.
I'm also not really sold on losing Pep being a disadvantaged. Weren't fans constantly complaining about playcalling last year? The idea that Stanford only really got creative for the first two (scripted) series and in the 4th quarter when the game was on the line has been pretty pervasive. If a coaching change can shake that up I'd think it would be a good thing.
Finally, Mason's comments on Stanford vs other jobs seem very similar to Shaw's (working with special kids, it's a special place, etc etc). I fully expect him to leave at some point, since this is the highest post he'll have here for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if he stuck around for a few more years. Who knows, maybe he likes it here enough to stay for a long time. He's here for this year, so I'm not going to worry about it.
(08-13-2013, 09:50 AM)Redrum link Wrote:So, the larger picture, while we focus on players, is: How many components can one remove from a very high-functioning football staff before its functioning drops off? And, if we do well, anyone think Mason won't be gone, either to a higher-paying college DC gig or an NFL post after this season?
Do other schools not have this problem? I don't really follow anything down to that level, but I'd expect that few coaching staffs, even successful ones, stay together all that long. I recall reading last year that only two schools had had HC, OC, and DC stay together for some number of years, and it was Oregon and Navy (sorry for the vagueness, this was a while ago). I think that part of being a successful coach is the ability to identify talent and put it to good use on the coaching staff as well as on the field.
I'm also not really sold on losing Pep being a disadvantaged. Weren't fans constantly complaining about playcalling last year? The idea that Stanford only really got creative for the first two (scripted) series and in the 4th quarter when the game was on the line has been pretty pervasive. If a coaching change can shake that up I'd think it would be a good thing.
Finally, Mason's comments on Stanford vs other jobs seem very similar to Shaw's (working with special kids, it's a special place, etc etc). I fully expect him to leave at some point, since this is the highest post he'll have here for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if he stuck around for a few more years. Who knows, maybe he likes it here enough to stay for a long time. He's here for this year, so I'm not going to worry about it.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-13-2013, 11:36 AM
Mason. Yep. I typed DC but meant HC. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Â
On Pep's real value lost: Yes, we complained about play calling, but Pep's biggest contributions were developing the opening "script"( the 10-20 plays we were prepared to run at the beginning of the game) and the general game plan. But Shaw chose the plays that actually went in. It is a plausible thing to consider that if we didn't like the calls as the game went on last year, we are in for the same thing this season w/ Shaw being the main cog in that play calling machine. At any rate, I don't think we'll be better just because Pep went on to the Colts.
As for the viewpoint that all successful teams go through the losses of coaches, yes. That is true. And it is also true that most colleges fail to win championships or top bowl game bids. If a school has found the formula for success (plus is lucky) the odds are that taking away the coaching talent will tend to make the donor school regress towards the mean. But regardless of whether it is normal or to be expected, I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
On Pep's real value lost: Yes, we complained about play calling, but Pep's biggest contributions were developing the opening "script"( the 10-20 plays we were prepared to run at the beginning of the game) and the general game plan. But Shaw chose the plays that actually went in. It is a plausible thing to consider that if we didn't like the calls as the game went on last year, we are in for the same thing this season w/ Shaw being the main cog in that play calling machine. At any rate, I don't think we'll be better just because Pep went on to the Colts.
As for the viewpoint that all successful teams go through the losses of coaches, yes. That is true. And it is also true that most colleges fail to win championships or top bowl game bids. If a school has found the formula for success (plus is lucky) the odds are that taking away the coaching talent will tend to make the donor school regress towards the mean. But regardless of whether it is normal or to be expected, I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
Mason. Yep. I typed DC but meant HC. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Â
On Pep's real value lost: Yes, we complained about play calling, but Pep's biggest contributions were developing the opening "script"( the 10-20 plays we were prepared to run at the beginning of the game) and the general game plan. But Shaw chose the plays that actually went in. It is a plausible thing to consider that if we didn't like the calls as the game went on last year, we are in for the same thing this season w/ Shaw being the main cog in that play calling machine. At any rate, I don't think we'll be better just because Pep went on to the Colts.
As for the viewpoint that all successful teams go through the losses of coaches, yes. That is true. And it is also true that most colleges fail to win championships or top bowl game bids. If a school has found the formula for success (plus is lucky) the odds are that taking away the coaching talent will tend to make the donor school regress towards the mean. But regardless of whether it is normal or to be expected, I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
On Pep's real value lost: Yes, we complained about play calling, but Pep's biggest contributions were developing the opening "script"( the 10-20 plays we were prepared to run at the beginning of the game) and the general game plan. But Shaw chose the plays that actually went in. It is a plausible thing to consider that if we didn't like the calls as the game went on last year, we are in for the same thing this season w/ Shaw being the main cog in that play calling machine. At any rate, I don't think we'll be better just because Pep went on to the Colts.
As for the viewpoint that all successful teams go through the losses of coaches, yes. That is true. And it is also true that most colleges fail to win championships or top bowl game bids. If a school has found the formula for success (plus is lucky) the odds are that taking away the coaching talent will tend to make the donor school regress towards the mean. But regardless of whether it is normal or to be expected, I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
08-13-2013, 11:57 AM
We'll see what happens. I'm just glad we didn't lose Shaw, which would have typically happened in the past after two back-to-back years of BCS games.
We'll see what happens. I'm just glad we didn't lose Shaw, which would have typically happened in the past after two back-to-back years of BCS games.
08-13-2013, 12:06 PM
Coaching attrition is basically normal. Nothing weird with what we've been experiencing and Shaw should've anticipated it. By and large he has made solid-to-good hires, even when controversial (e.g. hiring Pete Alamar, who came in with an awful reputation in some quarters).
The really unorthodox move was promoting two grad assistants to position coaching roles this offseason. Might work, might not work -- who knows, but it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
The really unorthodox move was promoting two grad assistants to position coaching roles this offseason. Might work, might not work -- who knows, but it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
Coaching attrition is basically normal. Nothing weird with what we've been experiencing and Shaw should've anticipated it. By and large he has made solid-to-good hires, even when controversial (e.g. hiring Pete Alamar, who came in with an awful reputation in some quarters).
The really unorthodox move was promoting two grad assistants to position coaching roles this offseason. Might work, might not work -- who knows, but it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
The really unorthodox move was promoting two grad assistants to position coaching roles this offseason. Might work, might not work -- who knows, but it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
(08-13-2013, 12:06 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
Stanford is not like 99% of other schools. Why should our coaches be?
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
(08-13-2013, 12:06 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: it's definitely quite different than what 99% of coaches would do, for better or worse.
Stanford is not like 99% of other schools. Why should our coaches be?
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
08-13-2013, 01:54 PM
(08-13-2013, 11:36 AM)Redrum link Wrote:I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
Not at all...considering you live in Alabama.
(08-13-2013, 11:36 AM)Redrum link Wrote:I don't like it when it's my school and I want the good times to last forever. How unreasonable is that?
Not at all...considering you live in Alabama.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-15-2013, 06:19 AM
Pratt was called out as impressing Sanford in the first few days, during Lombardi interview.Â
Also mentioned were Montgomery and Cajuste, Rector, Young, and Trojan. No mention of Whitfield or Owusu, to my chagrin.
Also mentioned were Montgomery and Cajuste, Rector, Young, and Trojan. No mention of Whitfield or Owusu, to my chagrin.
Pratt was called out as impressing Sanford in the first few days, during Lombardi interview.Â
Also mentioned were Montgomery and Cajuste, Rector, Young, and Trojan. No mention of Whitfield or Owusu, to my chagrin.
Also mentioned were Montgomery and Cajuste, Rector, Young, and Trojan. No mention of Whitfield or Owusu, to my chagrin.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »