12-30-2020, 01:41 PM
[twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Foster Sarell is going pro
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
[twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
12-30-2020, 02:07 PM
(12-30-2020, 01:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: [twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
Wonder when we are going to hear from Mills and if his O-Line melting away on him will affect his decision at all.
Can't say I'm optimistic on him staying.
12-30-2020, 02:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2020, 02:14 PM by OutsiderFan.)
(12-30-2020, 01:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: [twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2020, 02:14 PM by OutsiderFan.)
(12-30-2020, 01:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: [twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
12-30-2020, 04:33 PM
[/quote]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
[/quote]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
12-30-2020, 05:47 PM
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's definitely too bad we didn't get to see the two of them together for three years. My guess is less than 50% of such pairs are injury free for three years. I like that Sarell stayed and played and our OL was better than previous two years. Yes, he probably played to increase his value in a crazy year.
What surprised me from day 1 was that Sarell was valued higher than Little coming in. But, it was obvious from the beginning that Little was much lighter on his feet than Sarell and it resulted in Little being Pac 1st team as a frosh, I think. Sarell has always been quite good (not great) in run blocking but the slower feet bit him in pass pro. I think he'll go in 3rd to 4th round and groomed for guard and rt backup.
Our OL will be great if we find an ok center. Miles Hinton is a man among boys out there, the guards are excellent and Rouse is pretty good and will get better. Imagine Rouse will stay at LT and Hinton will move in at RT.
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The Little-Sarell era was supposed to result in multiple years of untouchable O-line superiority for the Cardinal. And they arrived just after Big Island's torrid start, so this threesome should have been the best! That era was a puff of smoke.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's definitely too bad we didn't get to see the two of them together for three years. My guess is less than 50% of such pairs are injury free for three years. I like that Sarell stayed and played and our OL was better than previous two years. Yes, he probably played to increase his value in a crazy year.
What surprised me from day 1 was that Sarell was valued higher than Little coming in. But, it was obvious from the beginning that Little was much lighter on his feet than Sarell and it resulted in Little being Pac 1st team as a frosh, I think. Sarell has always been quite good (not great) in run blocking but the slower feet bit him in pass pro. I think he'll go in 3rd to 4th round and groomed for guard and rt backup.
Our OL will be great if we find an ok center. Miles Hinton is a man among boys out there, the guards are excellent and Rouse is pretty good and will get better. Imagine Rouse will stay at LT and Hinton will move in at RT.
12-30-2020, 08:00 PM
Only a matter of time now before Mills declares. Can't see him coming back without his top WR and his top two OL.
12-31-2020, 06:16 AM
(12-30-2020, 02:13 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-30-2020, 01:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: [twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
(12-30-2020, 02:13 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-30-2020, 01:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: [twitter]https://twitter.com/thebigfozbear/status/1344373729829142528/photo/1[/twitter]
Another elite recruit Stanford got very limited value from over his what, 17 starts after being a 5-star recruit.
Is it possible to have gotten less out of what was suppose to be a ballyhooed 1-2 of Little and Sarell? How many games did they start together? Three? And one that wasn't even finished?
We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
12-31-2020, 10:41 AM
Yes, there was a five star linebacker during the dark times who never cracked the starting lineup.
BC
BC
Yes, there was a five star linebacker during the dark times who never cracked the starting lineup.
BC
BC
12-31-2020, 11:53 AM
(12-31-2020, 06:16 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
Season-ending injuries for both, and Little opting out. (He would've declared last year anyways had he been healthy.) How does the coaching staff have anything to do with that?
(12-31-2020, 06:16 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
Season-ending injuries for both, and Little opting out. (He would've declared last year anyways had he been healthy.) How does the coaching staff have anything to do with that?
12-31-2020, 12:29 PM
(12-31-2020, 11:53 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-31-2020, 06:16 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
Season-ending injuries for both, and Little opting out. (He would've declared last year anyways had he been healthy.) How does the coaching staff have anything to do with that?
It doesn’t. Unless you buy the argument that injuries are on the staff. And the only way to truly analyze that is to catalogue the injuries to try to make a determination relating to strength and conditioning. Not sure how one would do that. I suppose there could be some category of injuries that are determinative of S and C success. Others just a manifestation of good or bad luck.
As for S and C The front the o-line was considerably bigger and stronger this year - as observable by the push they were getting in the running game. So if there was a deficiency after Turley left (quite possible) it seemed to close some.)
Take the Niners this year. More injuries then I’ve seen. Do you truly think the Niners lack a strong S and C program? Or that the players themselves aren’t highly conditioned.
Injuries, I believe, are primarily a function of luck, or lack thereof.
(12-31-2020, 11:53 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-31-2020, 06:16 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote: We definitely could have gotten less. There are plenty of examples of five star recruits never making a dent. Now why didn't we get more out of them? Let's talk about the coaching staff ...
Season-ending injuries for both, and Little opting out. (He would've declared last year anyways had he been healthy.) How does the coaching staff have anything to do with that?
It doesn’t. Unless you buy the argument that injuries are on the staff. And the only way to truly analyze that is to catalogue the injuries to try to make a determination relating to strength and conditioning. Not sure how one would do that. I suppose there could be some category of injuries that are determinative of S and C success. Others just a manifestation of good or bad luck.
As for S and C The front the o-line was considerably bigger and stronger this year - as observable by the push they were getting in the running game. So if there was a deficiency after Turley left (quite possible) it seemed to close some.)
Take the Niners this year. More injuries then I’ve seen. Do you truly think the Niners lack a strong S and C program? Or that the players themselves aren’t highly conditioned.
Injuries, I believe, are primarily a function of luck, or lack thereof.
12-31-2020, 12:45 PM
Some aspect of this is that Sarell may have been concerned about whether he was going to be the starter next year. As another poster pointed out, the O-line starters will be fine next year. Not sure about depth.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
Some aspect of this is that Sarell may have been concerned about whether he was going to be the starter next year. As another poster pointed out, the O-line starters will be fine next year. Not sure about depth.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
12-31-2020, 12:51 PM
(12-31-2020, 12:45 PM)bbm233 Wrote: Some aspect of this is that Sarell may have been concerned about whether he was going to be the starter next year. As another poster pointed out, the O-line starters will be fine next year. Not sure about depth.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
Come on. Let's show some respect to Mr. Sarell here. He came into Stanford as projected NFL 1st round draft pick and had that in his head since junior year of high school. He didn't crack the starting lineup as a true frosh like most OL, but he did after that and fought through some injuries the last couple of years and had a very productive senior year grading out well by PFF. He still views himself as a great NFL prospect. He isn't worried about losing his starting position. Only a handful of 5th years return for a 5th year at Stanford based on recent history. College football is a grind. He thinks he can play in the NFL an he may as well get paid. Good luck to him. We will miss him, but the cupboard isn't bare with a talented Hinton waiting in the wings.
(12-31-2020, 12:45 PM)bbm233 Wrote: Some aspect of this is that Sarell may have been concerned about whether he was going to be the starter next year. As another poster pointed out, the O-line starters will be fine next year. Not sure about depth.
Does any of this impact Mills' decision? Probably emotionally, but I don't think it should impact his assessment of whether there will be talent on the offensive side next year. Hinton is at least as good as Sarell. If Wedington comes back, the receivers will again be loaded. RB looks really good. Dalman's declaration is the only loss to fret, IMO.
Come on. Let's show some respect to Mr. Sarell here. He came into Stanford as projected NFL 1st round draft pick and had that in his head since junior year of high school. He didn't crack the starting lineup as a true frosh like most OL, but he did after that and fought through some injuries the last couple of years and had a very productive senior year grading out well by PFF. He still views himself as a great NFL prospect. He isn't worried about losing his starting position. Only a handful of 5th years return for a 5th year at Stanford based on recent history. College football is a grind. He thinks he can play in the NFL an he may as well get paid. Good luck to him. We will miss him, but the cupboard isn't bare with a talented Hinton waiting in the wings.
12-31-2020, 01:20 PM
There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
01-01-2021, 10:35 AM
Pl
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
Pl
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
01-01-2021, 11:14 AM
There is no doubt that players are bigger, stronger, and faster. There is also no doubt that they receive much better coaching from many more coaches than they did 50 years ago. The whole game at every level is much more "serious". As a result, very big men trained to hit hard are doing much more damage than a bunch of kids who basically played football because it was fun. The NFL as a career went from a lark to a way to make some big money. That attracts an entirely different level of effort and delivers many more injuries along the way.
There is no doubt that players are bigger, stronger, and faster. There is also no doubt that they receive much better coaching from many more coaches than they did 50 years ago. The whole game at every level is much more "serious". As a result, very big men trained to hit hard are doing much more damage than a bunch of kids who basically played football because it was fun. The NFL as a career went from a lark to a way to make some big money. That attracts an entirely different level of effort and delivers many more injuries along the way.
01-01-2021, 11:51 AM
(01-01-2021, 10:35 AM)Believer Wrote: Pl(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
I think your evolution of training has some merit. Heard yesterday the NFL PA is seeking to get rid of some off season camps. Saying they are not needed.
(01-01-2021, 10:35 AM)Believer Wrote: Pl(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
I think your evolution of training has some merit. Heard yesterday the NFL PA is seeking to get rid of some off season camps. Saying they are not needed.
01-01-2021, 02:50 PM
Audaces fortuna iuvat
01-01-2021, 03:56 PM
(01-01-2021, 10:35 AM)Believer Wrote: Pl(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
Another factor with kids is focusing solely on one sport. Increase injury risk as the strain on muscles etc is increased due to the repitive nature of the sport.
(01-01-2021, 10:35 AM)Believer Wrote: Pl(12-31-2020, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: There are ACL's and MCL's all over the NFL. Also lesser injuries are multiplying.
Maybe the lack of supervised training and lack of OTA's are the reason.
Surely somebody from Stanford can come up with an algorithm.
True at every level down to HS. Don’t recall injuries ever being as common. In the past, an ACL injury was an injury that everyone knew about because they were rare. A lot of things have changed over the years; the evolution of the player (bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic.) But it’s the evolution of the training that I worry/wonder about; less time on the field, softer approach to camp, burdensome regulations that are intended to protect players- all while seasons are getting longer and more demanding
Another factor with kids is focusing solely on one sport. Increase injury risk as the strain on muscles etc is increased due to the repitive nature of the sport.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »