01-22-2015, 07:54 PM
An early look at the defense
01-22-2015, 08:34 PM
(01-22-2015, 07:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:One of Lombardi's better articles...
Agree, but ...
He seems to have missed the fact that Harris clearly passed up Lyons over the latter half of the season.
It's probably correct to project both as starting corners for 2015, but perhaps there is something to Hulk's thought that Lyons might take over Richards safety spot - maybe a more natural position for him.
I would be interested in any insight into the apparent battle between Davis and Palma for the other inside linebacker spot. From memory, Davis started out 2014 getting the more time of the two - Palma passed him up towards the latter part of the season - but perhaps Davis reversed the trend in the FF Bowl.
Anybody here with an opinion?
(01-22-2015, 07:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:One of Lombardi's better articles...
Agree, but ...
He seems to have missed the fact that Harris clearly passed up Lyons over the latter half of the season.
It's probably correct to project both as starting corners for 2015, but perhaps there is something to Hulk's thought that Lyons might take over Richards safety spot - maybe a more natural position for him.
I would be interested in any insight into the apparent battle between Davis and Palma for the other inside linebacker spot. From memory, Davis started out 2014 getting the more time of the two - Palma passed him up towards the latter part of the season - but perhaps Davis reversed the trend in the FF Bowl.
Anybody here with an opinion?
01-23-2015, 01:30 PM
And here is the early look at the offense:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
Shaw was quoted as saying that whoever the back-up is next year, he would be getting his feet wet in package situations. Also, Lombardi is falling prey to the recruit star phenomenon; touting a highly rated recruit as likely to take over in the absence of any evidence one way or another that he is capable. Burns might have made large strides this past year. Chryst may turn out to be overrated. Let's see how Chryst looks in the spring and summer before we speculate on whether he will be the next to take over.
BC
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
Quote:The coach has frequently praised Crower, last season's second-stringer, for his command of the playbook, but one would expect Chryst, a highly regarded redshirt freshman, to emerge as the primary backup. One interesting question here: Will Shaw insert Chryst into the lineup in an occasional package role? That's how Hogan got his feet wet in 2012.
Shaw was quoted as saying that whoever the back-up is next year, he would be getting his feet wet in package situations. Also, Lombardi is falling prey to the recruit star phenomenon; touting a highly rated recruit as likely to take over in the absence of any evidence one way or another that he is capable. Burns might have made large strides this past year. Chryst may turn out to be overrated. Let's see how Chryst looks in the spring and summer before we speculate on whether he will be the next to take over.
BC
And here is the early look at the offense:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
Shaw was quoted as saying that whoever the back-up is next year, he would be getting his feet wet in package situations. Also, Lombardi is falling prey to the recruit star phenomenon; touting a highly rated recruit as likely to take over in the absence of any evidence one way or another that he is capable. Burns might have made large strides this past year. Chryst may turn out to be overrated. Let's see how Chryst looks in the spring and summer before we speculate on whether he will be the next to take over.
BC
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
Quote:The coach has frequently praised Crower, last season's second-stringer, for his command of the playbook, but one would expect Chryst, a highly regarded redshirt freshman, to emerge as the primary backup. One interesting question here: Will Shaw insert Chryst into the lineup in an occasional package role? That's how Hogan got his feet wet in 2012.
Shaw was quoted as saying that whoever the back-up is next year, he would be getting his feet wet in package situations. Also, Lombardi is falling prey to the recruit star phenomenon; touting a highly rated recruit as likely to take over in the absence of any evidence one way or another that he is capable. Burns might have made large strides this past year. Chryst may turn out to be overrated. Let's see how Chryst looks in the spring and summer before we speculate on whether he will be the next to take over.
BC
01-23-2015, 01:40 PM
I agree. Nottingham and Nunes were both highly rated coming out of high school, but it is Hogan who has led the team to three bowls, two conference championships, and two bowl victories.
01-23-2015, 01:56 PM
Also, I think it's a near certainty that Crower will transfer. Last summer Shaw speculated about the possibility and said that he'd actively look for a spot for Crower by calling other coaches and helping him find a good transfer school if he were to choose that route.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Also, I think it's a near certainty that Crower will transfer. Last summer Shaw speculated about the possibility and said that he'd actively look for a spot for Crower by calling other coaches and helping him find a good transfer school if he were to choose that route.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
01-23-2015, 02:21 PM
I don't buy the "system re-loads" theory to justify why our defense may not fall-off dramatically. 2015 is very different situation from 2014. We lost some key guys to the NFL coming into 2014, but we had very experienced back-ups. Losing Mauro and Gardner from DL weren't a big deal when you still had Henry Anderson and Parry. Losing Reynolds wasn't as big of a deal when you still had Richards. Losing Skov when you still had Tarpley, Martinez et al wasn't devastating. In 2013, we played two strings of defense with little drop-off. With the exception of one of the safety positions, coming into 2014 we had very experienced and proven players starting at every position on defense. However the big difference in our defense in 2013 and 2014 is in 2014 we did not rotate players on defense like we did in 2013 especially on DL. Thus, we may be losing similar levels of talent this season as compared to last, but the drop-off to next man up in 2015 is going to be much greater. The drop-off on DL is going to be massive. Losing Vaughters and Tarpley hurt but that is the one part of defense that had some depth and played two strings. Losing Carter and Richards is very big in my opinion. Both of those guys are very good. I think we will appreciate that even more next year.
I don't buy the "system re-loads" theory to justify why our defense may not fall-off dramatically. 2015 is very different situation from 2014. We lost some key guys to the NFL coming into 2014, but we had very experienced back-ups. Losing Mauro and Gardner from DL weren't a big deal when you still had Henry Anderson and Parry. Losing Reynolds wasn't as big of a deal when you still had Richards. Losing Skov when you still had Tarpley, Martinez et al wasn't devastating. In 2013, we played two strings of defense with little drop-off. With the exception of one of the safety positions, coming into 2014 we had very experienced and proven players starting at every position on defense. However the big difference in our defense in 2013 and 2014 is in 2014 we did not rotate players on defense like we did in 2013 especially on DL. Thus, we may be losing similar levels of talent this season as compared to last, but the drop-off to next man up in 2015 is going to be much greater. The drop-off on DL is going to be massive. Losing Vaughters and Tarpley hurt but that is the one part of defense that had some depth and played two strings. Losing Carter and Richards is very big in my opinion. Both of those guys are very good. I think we will appreciate that even more next year.
01-23-2015, 02:25 PM
That defensive line does not look like a championship-caliber defensive line to me. It doesn't even really look like a league-average line to me either. Happy to be proven wrong.
That defensive line does not look like a championship-caliber defensive line to me. It doesn't even really look like a league-average line to me either. Happy to be proven wrong.
01-23-2015, 03:25 PM
(01-23-2015, 01:56 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Also, I think it's a near certainty that Crower will transfer. Last summer Shaw speculated about the possibility and said that he'd actively look for a spot for Crower by calling other coaches and helping him find a good transfer school if he were to choose that route.It's not impossible that he stays for a 5th year at Stanford. He doesn't have an NFL arm, so he's hardly going to transfer and light it up somewhere else in order to get into the NFL. Better off getting a Masters degree at Stanford (unless he wants to do a Nottingham and get a degree at an Ivy).
(01-23-2015, 01:56 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Also, I think it's a near certainty that Crower will transfer. Last summer Shaw speculated about the possibility and said that he'd actively look for a spot for Crower by calling other coaches and helping him find a good transfer school if he were to choose that route.It's not impossible that he stays for a 5th year at Stanford. He doesn't have an NFL arm, so he's hardly going to transfer and light it up somewhere else in order to get into the NFL. Better off getting a Masters degree at Stanford (unless he wants to do a Nottingham and get a degree at an Ivy).
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
01-23-2015, 07:33 PM
Next year's defense will only go as far as the DL. Richards and Carter are big losses but there is more depth on the back line than the front line
Next year's defense will only go as far as the DL. Richards and Carter are big losses but there is more depth on the back line than the front line
(01-23-2015, 01:30 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:And here is the early look at the offense:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
I am not sure it's exactly lazy, but he starts his kind of odd twisting of stats from the first line.Â
Quote:This past season, Stanford's offensive productivity tumbled to its lowest levels since the pre-Andrew Luck era,
yds/game:Â 2012 = 374, 2014 = 387
yds/play:Â Â 2012 = 5.53, 2014 - 5.89
Points/gm:Â 2012 = 27.9, 2014 = 27.2
Points/poss: 2012 = 2.08, 2014 = 2.30
But I guess 2012 was too long ago to remember - or at least he prefers to remember it as only the games Hogan played.
On first reading, I had thought there was some kind of technical definition of field-stretching-play, as in "In the closing run, true freshman Christian McCaffrey enjoyed at least five field-stretching plays per game (12 against UCLA)"Â But given that he had 12 touches against UCLA in total, I am guessing it just means he got the ball that man times.
(01-23-2015, 01:30 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:And here is the early look at the offense:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...consistent
One bit of lazy reporting:
I am not sure it's exactly lazy, but he starts his kind of odd twisting of stats from the first line.Â
Quote:This past season, Stanford's offensive productivity tumbled to its lowest levels since the pre-Andrew Luck era,
yds/game:Â 2012 = 374, 2014 = 387
yds/play:Â Â 2012 = 5.53, 2014 - 5.89
Points/gm:Â 2012 = 27.9, 2014 = 27.2
Points/poss: 2012 = 2.08, 2014 = 2.30
But I guess 2012 was too long ago to remember - or at least he prefers to remember it as only the games Hogan played.
On first reading, I had thought there was some kind of technical definition of field-stretching-play, as in "In the closing run, true freshman Christian McCaffrey enjoyed at least five field-stretching plays per game (12 against UCLA)"Â But given that he had 12 touches against UCLA in total, I am guessing it just means he got the ball that man times.
01-23-2015, 10:35 PM
Am I the only one who considers "field stretching play" to mean a play that forces the defense to cover a lot of the field (whether the play nets positive yards or not). So an off tackle run that goes for 25 yards would not be a "field stretcher" but a deep incompletion to Michael Rector would be, since it forces the D to consider keeping its safeties deep. Isn't this the general concept?
I do find it interesting that last year Lombardi beat the drum about the lack of intermediate passing game (probably had a valid point) and this year he wanted more deep passes. But of course deep routes develop more slowly and require the OL to hold their blocks longer. It's entirely possible the OL this year was not ready for that responsibility until the end of the season when they played better as a unit. (Meaning that the sacks surrendered stat also depends on play calling, and by itself cannot indicate the quality of OL play)
I do find it interesting that last year Lombardi beat the drum about the lack of intermediate passing game (probably had a valid point) and this year he wanted more deep passes. But of course deep routes develop more slowly and require the OL to hold their blocks longer. It's entirely possible the OL this year was not ready for that responsibility until the end of the season when they played better as a unit. (Meaning that the sacks surrendered stat also depends on play calling, and by itself cannot indicate the quality of OL play)
Am I the only one who considers "field stretching play" to mean a play that forces the defense to cover a lot of the field (whether the play nets positive yards or not). So an off tackle run that goes for 25 yards would not be a "field stretcher" but a deep incompletion to Michael Rector would be, since it forces the D to consider keeping its safeties deep. Isn't this the general concept?
I do find it interesting that last year Lombardi beat the drum about the lack of intermediate passing game (probably had a valid point) and this year he wanted more deep passes. But of course deep routes develop more slowly and require the OL to hold their blocks longer. It's entirely possible the OL this year was not ready for that responsibility until the end of the season when they played better as a unit. (Meaning that the sacks surrendered stat also depends on play calling, and by itself cannot indicate the quality of OL play)
I do find it interesting that last year Lombardi beat the drum about the lack of intermediate passing game (probably had a valid point) and this year he wanted more deep passes. But of course deep routes develop more slowly and require the OL to hold their blocks longer. It's entirely possible the OL this year was not ready for that responsibility until the end of the season when they played better as a unit. (Meaning that the sacks surrendered stat also depends on play calling, and by itself cannot indicate the quality of OL play)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »