[Papa John]

It seemed to me that Kevin Hogan played a lot better the last three games in 2014, which makes me wonder if his father's illness affected in him in any way. I'm not sure that, in similar circumstances, I would have been able to focus on academics, much less engage in an activity like football, which requires so much physically, mentally and emotionally.

[Papa John]

It seemed to me that Kevin Hogan played a lot better the last three games in 2014, which makes me wonder if his father's illness affected in him in any way. I'm not sure that, in similar circumstances, I would have been able to focus on academics, much less engage in an activity like football, which requires so much physically, mentally and emotionally.

[OutsiderFan]

Guys, the improved offense coincided with the use of the virtual reality system.  I'm pretty sure there is strong evidence to support this.

I know I felt the offense would be really good in 2014, but I'm feeling even more sanguine about it now.  Every position group has experience and decent depth.  And each one gets a young and talented player infused into the mix.  At OL it's Casey Tucker.  At TE it's Dalton Schultz.  At WR it's Trent Irwin.  At RB it's Bryce Love.

Shaw likes to run, but IMO, this Stanford team seems suited to employ the Bill Walsh "short passing as substitute for running" approach because it has so many capable receivers at the TE and RB positions, and a receiver (Irwin) who can get open underneath.  My guess is Rector is going to once again have a big year as defenses pay attention to the TEs, Cajuste, McCaffrey, and Irwin, and he gets behind the Safeties worrying about these other guys.

[OutsiderFan]

Guys, the improved offense coincided with the use of the virtual reality system.  I'm pretty sure there is strong evidence to support this.

I know I felt the offense would be really good in 2014, but I'm feeling even more sanguine about it now.  Every position group has experience and decent depth.  And each one gets a young and talented player infused into the mix.  At OL it's Casey Tucker.  At TE it's Dalton Schultz.  At WR it's Trent Irwin.  At RB it's Bryce Love.

Shaw likes to run, but IMO, this Stanford team seems suited to employ the Bill Walsh "short passing as substitute for running" approach because it has so many capable receivers at the TE and RB positions, and a receiver (Irwin) who can get open underneath.  My guess is Rector is going to once again have a big year as defenses pay attention to the TEs, Cajuste, McCaffrey, and Irwin, and he gets behind the Safeties worrying about these other guys.

[Hulk01]

Agreed: Very different players this year.

McCaffrey can be used twice as often and in more ways. (We're going to see something that resembles the veer option pitch, as well as combination pass plays off the fake option.)  And he's visibly bigger and running well between the tackles.

Irwin will play immediately and work underneath, where we haven't been effective since Luck.

Love is too freakishly quick and fast not to be deployed, if only as a diversion to frighten the defenses. At a minimum, he is the jet swee/fake jet sweep guy.  And trust me: We've never seen anything like him at Stanford.  The closest parallel is Deanthony Thomas, but Love is quicker.  (Smarter goes without saying.)

Schultz will push Hooper--he's already a better blocker, and Hooper is good--and Hopper is the heir apparent to the #1 TE in the Pac 12 title.  We're likely to have two of three best TEs in the conference and, with Taboada, three of the top eight.

Marx could give us a bona fide short yardage back, as well as a receiver out of the backfield.

Hogan should be more focused, confident, and composed. 

Arrows look up. 

[Hulk01]

Agreed: Very different players this year.

McCaffrey can be used twice as often and in more ways. (We're going to see something that resembles the veer option pitch, as well as combination pass plays off the fake option.)  And he's visibly bigger and running well between the tackles.

Irwin will play immediately and work underneath, where we haven't been effective since Luck.

Love is too freakishly quick and fast not to be deployed, if only as a diversion to frighten the defenses. At a minimum, he is the jet swee/fake jet sweep guy.  And trust me: We've never seen anything like him at Stanford.  The closest parallel is Deanthony Thomas, but Love is quicker.  (Smarter goes without saying.)

Schultz will push Hooper--he's already a better blocker, and Hooper is good--and Hopper is the heir apparent to the #1 TE in the Pac 12 title.  We're likely to have two of three best TEs in the conference and, with Taboada, three of the top eight.

Marx could give us a bona fide short yardage back, as well as a receiver out of the backfield.

Hogan should be more focused, confident, and composed. 

Arrows look up. 

[JohnR34231]

Love is too freakishly quick and fast not to be deployed, if only as a diversion to frighten the defenses. At a minimum, he is the jet swee/fake jet sweep guy.  And trust me: We've never seen anything like him at Stanford.  The closest parallel is Deanthony Thomas, but Love is quicker.  (Smarter goes without saying.)

Knew Love was good, but I had no idea he was that good.

Very promising.

[JohnR34231]

Love is too freakishly quick and fast not to be deployed, if only as a diversion to frighten the defenses. At a minimum, he is the jet swee/fake jet sweep guy.  And trust me: We've never seen anything like him at Stanford.  The closest parallel is Deanthony Thomas, but Love is quicker.  (Smarter goes without saying.)

Knew Love was good, but I had no idea he was that good.

Very promising.

[CTcard]

A few replies to the recent threads about what to expect from the offense this year.

My guess is that the answer to "will the offense be substantially different" depends upon how you interpret that phrase.
I believe that the Stanford offense changed a lot from 2011 to 2012, again mid-2012, again in 2013, and again in 2014. Some of those changes I liked, some I really despised - but it didn't look static to me.
On the other hand, the offense remained a mostly man-blocking, power-ish, run-first offense through all of that (well most of that, mid-2014 was weird and a mess).

Our personnel won't change much in 2015 versus end of season 2014. We'll have four good TE options instead of three and we will have less strength blocking from the FB position - with just maybe a little more possibility of handling the ball from there. The line will be reshuffled a bit - despite four starters back I am somewhat concerned about early returns from the right side of the line. I would guess we'll be running left a lot. And whomever wins the RG spot will probably be the best puller of the group.

The similarity in personnel, plus the success at the end of 2014, plus what I interpret Coach Shaw-speak to mean makes me think we will see:
A) Still an attempt to be a run first, man-blocking, power or power-ish team. At least until it doesn't work. If the RG cannot pull there will probably be plenty of simple one-on-one runs to the left.
B) A fair amount of medium-range passing game to big receiving targets, but if we see up to 50% passing plays (which is less than most teams) then something has gone wrong with A. The slant pattern may make a comeback - after having lots of struggles with that play, Hogan hit some nice ones towards the end last year.
C) A fairly regular look for a home-run ball to TEs slipping down the field, McCaffrey doing whatever, and occasionally Rector (or other) on a fly pattern. This also depends upon the success of A - as that is how you get the safeties looking in instead of covering.

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

One wildcard is exactly how Shaw intends to get McCaffrey the ball more. I get the sense he will be running inside a fair amount. However, I think McCaffrey is particularly effective catching the ball, so I hope there will be plenty of misdirection - get McCaffrey a pass with a chance to make a move kind of plays. That we haven't seen a ton of from Stanford lately, particularly from backs.

[CTcard]

A few replies to the recent threads about what to expect from the offense this year.

My guess is that the answer to "will the offense be substantially different" depends upon how you interpret that phrase.
I believe that the Stanford offense changed a lot from 2011 to 2012, again mid-2012, again in 2013, and again in 2014. Some of those changes I liked, some I really despised - but it didn't look static to me.
On the other hand, the offense remained a mostly man-blocking, power-ish, run-first offense through all of that (well most of that, mid-2014 was weird and a mess).

Our personnel won't change much in 2015 versus end of season 2014. We'll have four good TE options instead of three and we will have less strength blocking from the FB position - with just maybe a little more possibility of handling the ball from there. The line will be reshuffled a bit - despite four starters back I am somewhat concerned about early returns from the right side of the line. I would guess we'll be running left a lot. And whomever wins the RG spot will probably be the best puller of the group.

The similarity in personnel, plus the success at the end of 2014, plus what I interpret Coach Shaw-speak to mean makes me think we will see:
A) Still an attempt to be a run first, man-blocking, power or power-ish team. At least until it doesn't work. If the RG cannot pull there will probably be plenty of simple one-on-one runs to the left.
B) A fair amount of medium-range passing game to big receiving targets, but if we see up to 50% passing plays (which is less than most teams) then something has gone wrong with A. The slant pattern may make a comeback - after having lots of struggles with that play, Hogan hit some nice ones towards the end last year.
C) A fairly regular look for a home-run ball to TEs slipping down the field, McCaffrey doing whatever, and occasionally Rector (or other) on a fly pattern. This also depends upon the success of A - as that is how you get the safeties looking in instead of covering.

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

One wildcard is exactly how Shaw intends to get McCaffrey the ball more. I get the sense he will be running inside a fair amount. However, I think McCaffrey is particularly effective catching the ball, so I hope there will be plenty of misdirection - get McCaffrey a pass with a chance to make a move kind of plays. That we haven't seen a ton of from Stanford lately, particularly from backs.

[Hulk01]

No one on our roster moves like Love.  He's a much faster and quicker Kelsey Young, who had a good role. 

Once more: We've never seen anyone with Love's of of combination speed and quickness.  Not Walters, not Nelson, not Milburn, not Bookman. Not no one.

[Hulk01]

No one on our roster moves like Love.  He's a much faster and quicker Kelsey Young, who had a good role. 

Once more: We've never seen anyone with Love's of of combination speed and quickness.  Not Walters, not Nelson, not Milburn, not Bookman. Not no one.

[Durty Nelly]

It will also be interesting to see if they are able to utilize Brandt-Sims speed as well.  His role and ability to contribute is a real unknown since he did not play spring ball.  Love may be a red shirt candidate.

[Durty Nelly]

It will also be interesting to see if they are able to utilize Brandt-Sims speed as well.  His role and ability to contribute is a real unknown since he did not play spring ball.  Love may be a red shirt candidate.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

From what I've read it seems like it's almost a given Irwin will play, and very likely he contributes a noticeable amount.  It sounds like he could be one of the best route runners in the country.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

From what I've read it seems like it's almost a given Irwin will play, and very likely he contributes a noticeable amount.  It sounds like he could be one of the best route runners in the country.

[dabigv13]

I'll believe it when I see it. As far as I can tell, only Montgomery has had any appreciable impact as a freshman WR under Shaw, with 24 catches for 350 yards.

[dabigv13]

I'll believe it when I see it. As far as I can tell, only Montgomery has had any appreciable impact as a freshman WR under Shaw, with 24 catches for 350 yards.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12063.msg117330#msg117330 date=1430164202]

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

From what I've read it seems like it's almost a given Irwin will play, and very likely he contributes a noticeable amount.  It sounds like he could be one of the best route runners in the country.
[/quote]

Yes, will be very interesting to see how much Irwin plays.
As receiving targets go, we have three established (to moderately established) WR coming back, look to have four TEs fighting for catches and at least 1 RB should see lots of throws. So, there is opportunity at WR, but not exactly a gaping hole.

Last year McCaffrey had 73 touches by my count (42 rushes, 17 catches, 9 PR, 5 KOR). Almost certain a frosh WR won't see that many, but WRs just don't see the ball as much so Irwin's impact should be graded on a somewhat different scale. I doubt he'll begin as a starter, but I could certainly see him becoming one. I guess I could also see him ending up with around a dozen catches and spot duty - so many variables in play.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12063.msg117330#msg117330 date=1430164202]

I don't expect to see too much impact from any frosh on offense. If Love, or any frosh, has as many touches as McCaffrey did in 2014 I will be surprised.

From what I've read it seems like it's almost a given Irwin will play, and very likely he contributes a noticeable amount.  It sounds like he could be one of the best route runners in the country.
[/quote]

Yes, will be very interesting to see how much Irwin plays.
As receiving targets go, we have three established (to moderately established) WR coming back, look to have four TEs fighting for catches and at least 1 RB should see lots of throws. So, there is opportunity at WR, but not exactly a gaping hole.

Last year McCaffrey had 73 touches by my count (42 rushes, 17 catches, 9 PR, 5 KOR). Almost certain a frosh WR won't see that many, but WRs just don't see the ball as much so Irwin's impact should be graded on a somewhat different scale. I doubt he'll begin as a starter, but I could certainly see him becoming one. I guess I could also see him ending up with around a dozen catches and spot duty - so many variables in play.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Here's the thing about WRs.  They usually get all hyped because they are big and fast.  In High School they basically run by kids who aren't the kinds of athletes they are.  But when they get to college they have to be better route runners, and most of them simply aren't because that wasn't needed to excel at the High School level. 

Irwin is a good athlete yes, but more than that, he knows how to run precise routes and get open.  He went up against the best CBs in the country of his class at camps and couldn't be covered by any of them.  He'll probably be the best route runner on the roster for Stanford as soon as he steps on campus.  The only limitation with Irwin will be the amount of the playbook he can master, but I'm sure the coaching staff is going to make sure he has a small package of plays that he can quickly learn so he can contribute quickly.  My hope is he gets heavily used in the Red Zone, because we know Stanford does not struggle to move the ball between the 30s.  It's inside the 30 where the help of a precise route running WR is needed.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Here's the thing about WRs.  They usually get all hyped because they are big and fast.  In High School they basically run by kids who aren't the kinds of athletes they are.  But when they get to college they have to be better route runners, and most of them simply aren't because that wasn't needed to excel at the High School level. 

Irwin is a good athlete yes, but more than that, he knows how to run precise routes and get open.  He went up against the best CBs in the country of his class at camps and couldn't be covered by any of them.  He'll probably be the best route runner on the roster for Stanford as soon as he steps on campus.  The only limitation with Irwin will be the amount of the playbook he can master, but I'm sure the coaching staff is going to make sure he has a small package of plays that he can quickly learn so he can contribute quickly.  My hope is he gets heavily used in the Red Zone, because we know Stanford does not struggle to move the ball between the 30s.  It's inside the 30 where the help of a precise route running WR is needed.

[winflop]

Schultz will push Hooper--he's already a better blocker, and Hooper is good--and Hopper is the heir apparent to the #1 TE in the Pac 12 title.  We're likely to have two of three best TEs in the conference and, with Taboada, three of the top eight.

Thoughts on whether Schultz could be an H-Back type?  Not suggesting he replaces Marx but could spell him.  That would get him more snaps.  Sounds like he's a guy who Shaw needs to find more ways to get him on the field

[winflop]

Schultz will push Hooper--he's already a better blocker, and Hooper is good--and Hopper is the heir apparent to the #1 TE in the Pac 12 title.  We're likely to have two of three best TEs in the conference and, with Taboada, three of the top eight.

Thoughts on whether Schultz could be an H-Back type?  Not suggesting he replaces Marx but could spell him.  That would get him more snaps.  Sounds like he's a guy who Shaw needs to find more ways to get him on the field

[Hulk01]

No comparison between Montgomery and Irwin as receivers.  Montgomery still isn't a good route runner and doesn't have excellent hands.  He's just very gifted athletically.

Irwin is a phenomenal technician with terrific hands.  The best hs corners in the country simply could not cover him. 

And we don't have anyone to compete against him for his role, as a slot receiver.  The job is his.

[Hulk01]

No comparison between Montgomery and Irwin as receivers.  Montgomery still isn't a good route runner and doesn't have excellent hands.  He's just very gifted athletically.

Irwin is a phenomenal technician with terrific hands.  The best hs corners in the country simply could not cover him. 

And we don't have anyone to compete against him for his role, as a slot receiver.  The job is his.

[ChicagoCard]

Was Pratt a slot receiver?

[ChicagoCard]

Was Pratt a slot receiver?

[Hulk01]

Pratt was the closest thing we had to a slot receiver, and usually deployed as one.  Excellent hands, big target.

But for perspective on Irwin, who I've followed since he was in eighth grade, many of you will love this:

“A dozen of the best high school 7-on-7 travel teams competed for the New Level/BadgerSport national championship tournament last weekend at SMU, but there was one particular matchup everyone wanted to see: Southern California squads Team 1925 and Team B2G, and the two dozen Division I prospects between them.

"But part of that game's starting lineup did not quite look as if he belonged among the future college talent. Lining up alongside these seemingly grown men was a baby-faced, a 6-foot, 155-pound 14-year-oldnamed Trenton Irwin.


[more]

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/co...ID=1237738

[Hulk01]

Pratt was the closest thing we had to a slot receiver, and usually deployed as one.  Excellent hands, big target.

But for perspective on Irwin, who I've followed since he was in eighth grade, many of you will love this:

“A dozen of the best high school 7-on-7 travel teams competed for the New Level/BadgerSport national championship tournament last weekend at SMU, but there was one particular matchup everyone wanted to see: Southern California squads Team 1925 and Team B2G, and the two dozen Division I prospects between them.

"But part of that game's starting lineup did not quite look as if he belonged among the future college talent. Lining up alongside these seemingly grown men was a baby-faced, a 6-foot, 155-pound 14-year-oldnamed Trenton Irwin.


[more]

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/co...ID=1237738

[terry]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Ken Margerum did very little as a freshman -- 3 receptions for 64 yards. He backed up James Lofton and Bill Kellar.

The top true freshman wide receivers in Stanford history are:

Mark Bradford, 2003        37 receptions, 587 yards
Richard Sherman, 2006  34 receptions, 581 yards
Ty Montgomery, 2011    24 receptions, 350 yards
Doug Baldwin, 2008        23 receptions, 332 yards

[terry]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Ken Margerum did very little as a freshman -- 3 receptions for 64 yards. He backed up James Lofton and Bill Kellar.

The top true freshman wide receivers in Stanford history are:

Mark Bradford, 2003        37 receptions, 587 yards
Richard Sherman, 2006  34 receptions, 581 yards
Ty Montgomery, 2011    24 receptions, 350 yards
Doug Baldwin, 2008        23 receptions, 332 yards

[Langdude]

If you are measuring by yardage, Brian Manning would place third on that list. In 1993 as a true frosh, he caught 17 balls for 382 yards.

-m.

[Langdude]

If you are measuring by yardage, Brian Manning would place third on that list. In 1993 as a true frosh, he caught 17 balls for 382 yards.

-m.

[Rally]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Here's the thing about WRs.  They usually get all hyped because they are big and fast.  In High School they basically run by kids who aren't the kinds of athletes they are.  But when they get to college they have to be better route runners, and most of them simply aren't because that wasn't needed to excel at the High School level. 

Irwin is a good athlete yes, but more than that, he knows how to run precise routes and get open.  He went up against the best CBs in the country of his class at camps and couldn't be covered by any of them.  He'll probably be the best route runner on the roster for Stanford as soon as he steps on campus.  The only limitation with Irwin will be the amount of the playbook he can master, but I'm sure the coaching staff is going to make sure he has a small package of plays that he can quickly learn so he can contribute quickly.  My hope is he gets heavily used in the Red Zone, because we know Stanford does not struggle to move the ball between the 30s.  It's inside the 30 where the help of a precise route running WR is needed.

I hope you're right, but we sure end up disappointed a lot whenever the greatest thing since sliced bread is about to arrive.

[Rally]

I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

Here's the thing about WRs.  They usually get all hyped because they are big and fast.  In High School they basically run by kids who aren't the kinds of athletes they are.  But when they get to college they have to be better route runners, and most of them simply aren't because that wasn't needed to excel at the High School level. 

Irwin is a good athlete yes, but more than that, he knows how to run precise routes and get open.  He went up against the best CBs in the country of his class at camps and couldn't be covered by any of them.  He'll probably be the best route runner on the roster for Stanford as soon as he steps on campus.  The only limitation with Irwin will be the amount of the playbook he can master, but I'm sure the coaching staff is going to make sure he has a small package of plays that he can quickly learn so he can contribute quickly.  My hope is he gets heavily used in the Red Zone, because we know Stanford does not struggle to move the ball between the 30s.  It's inside the 30 where the help of a precise route running WR is needed.

I hope you're right, but we sure end up disappointed a lot whenever the greatest thing since sliced bread is about to arrive.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12063.msg117358#msg117358 date=1430221790]
I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

I hope you're right, but we sure end up disappointed a lot whenever the greatest thing since sliced bread is about to arrive.
[/quote]

Two quick notes.

For the most part, I don't think that I noticed anybody here doubting Irwin in any meaningful sense. I do think there has been some skepticism as to the degree of contribution to be expected from any true frosh. Actually, for some I think the skepticism was more particularly directed at the head coach and his use of freshmen.

Similarly, I don't think over the past few years Stanford fans should have been overly disappointed with most of the highly heralded players that have come into the program - as long as they didn't expect them to be the backbone of the team as true frosh.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=12063.msg117358#msg117358 date=1430221790]
I don't think you guys doubting Irwin really understand how good he is.  Stanford hasn't had a true Frosh WR as polished as him since, what, Ken Margerum?

I hope you're right, but we sure end up disappointed a lot whenever the greatest thing since sliced bread is about to arrive.
[/quote]

Two quick notes.

For the most part, I don't think that I noticed anybody here doubting Irwin in any meaningful sense. I do think there has been some skepticism as to the degree of contribution to be expected from any true frosh. Actually, for some I think the skepticism was more particularly directed at the head coach and his use of freshmen.

Similarly, I don't think over the past few years Stanford fans should have been overly disappointed with most of the highly heralded players that have come into the program - as long as they didn't expect them to be the backbone of the team as true frosh.

[terry]

If you are measuring by yardage, Brian Manning would place third on that list. In 1993 as a true frosh, he caught 17 balls for 382 yards.

-m.

I was measuring by receptions. By yardage, you are correct.

[terry]

If you are measuring by yardage, Brian Manning would place third on that list. In 1993 as a true frosh, he caught 17 balls for 382 yards.

-m.

I was measuring by receptions. By yardage, you are correct.