[troyc]

The starting QB against K-State will not necessarily be the starting QB for the rest of the season.

Ding ding ding ding ding! (been saying this since before spring ball)

Whomever is taking snaps against K-State, it would certainly help if they had Mike Wilson to throw to, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. That, to me, was bigger news than Shaw's latest QB thoughts...

Troy C

[troyc]

The starting QB against K-State will not necessarily be the starting QB for the rest of the season.

Ding ding ding ding ding! (been saying this since before spring ball)

Whomever is taking snaps against K-State, it would certainly help if they had Mike Wilson to throw to, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. That, to me, was bigger news than Shaw's latest QB thoughts...

Troy C

[winflop]

The starting QB against K-State will not necessarily be the starting QB for the rest of the season.

Ding ding ding ding ding! (been saying this since before spring ball)



Whomever is taking snaps against K-State, it would certainly help if they had Mike Wilson to throw to, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. That, to me, was bigger news than Shaw's latest QB thoughts...



Troy C

OK Troy but we've been told how deep the receiving corps is. Next man up!

I'm more concerned about the lack of someone to throw the ball than who can catch the ball. And I'm far more concerned about the potential for a Limburger defense this year.

[winflop]

The starting QB against K-State will not necessarily be the starting QB for the rest of the season.

Ding ding ding ding ding! (been saying this since before spring ball)



Whomever is taking snaps against K-State, it would certainly help if they had Mike Wilson to throw to, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. That, to me, was bigger news than Shaw's latest QB thoughts...



Troy C

OK Troy but we've been told how deep the receiving corps is. Next man up!

I'm more concerned about the lack of someone to throw the ball than who can catch the ball. And I'm far more concerned about the potential for a Limburger defense this year.

[oman]

I actually don't remember ever eating casserole at the dining halls (or eating clubs).

[oman]

I actually don't remember ever eating casserole at the dining halls (or eating clubs).

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1431073060572909569?s=21[/tweet]

Captains.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1431073060572909569?s=21[/tweet]

Captains.

BC

[JohnR34231]

Here's a article that definitely agrees with the notion that Shaw is in no hurry to make a final QB decision.

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...169645993/

Hope the old saying when you can't decide between two QB's........... isn't true in this case.

[JohnR34231]

Here's a article that definitely agrees with the notion that Shaw is in no hurry to make a final QB decision.

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/A...169645993/

Hope the old saying when you can't decide between two QB's........... isn't true in this case.

[CTcard]

OK Troy but we've been told how deep the receiving corps is. Next man up!

"we've been told" seems to translate into "this fan board has convinced itself" that the receiving corps is deep.

As far as I can see, that doesn't connect well to reality.

Outside of Wilson, whose absence is the topic here, the career reception leaders in the receiving corps are at the following numbers:
#1 17 career receptions.
#2 15 career receptions.
#3  3 career receptions.
#4  0 career receptions (several tied at this mark)
That's not depth in proven production.

Presumably the optimism on depth is based upon recruiting rankings.
Four star or better WR recruits on the team, by class include:
2021: None
2020: 1 (Humphreys, 3 career catches)
2019: 2 (Higgins, 15 career catches; Bowman, 0 career catches)
2018: 1 (Wilson, not currently available)
2017: none still on team.

There are guys I see hope for, but a whole lot emerging is necessary before the word "deep" describes this unit.

However, it is true that QB is FAR more important than WR.
A good QB can find other options than the WRs. A good WR can't find an option that doesn't include the QB.

[CTcard]

OK Troy but we've been told how deep the receiving corps is. Next man up!

"we've been told" seems to translate into "this fan board has convinced itself" that the receiving corps is deep.

As far as I can see, that doesn't connect well to reality.

Outside of Wilson, whose absence is the topic here, the career reception leaders in the receiving corps are at the following numbers:
#1 17 career receptions.
#2 15 career receptions.
#3  3 career receptions.
#4  0 career receptions (several tied at this mark)
That's not depth in proven production.

Presumably the optimism on depth is based upon recruiting rankings.
Four star or better WR recruits on the team, by class include:
2021: None
2020: 1 (Humphreys, 3 career catches)
2019: 2 (Higgins, 15 career catches; Bowman, 0 career catches)
2018: 1 (Wilson, not currently available)
2017: none still on team.

There are guys I see hope for, but a whole lot emerging is necessary before the word "deep" describes this unit.

However, it is true that QB is FAR more important than WR.
A good QB can find other options than the WRs. A good WR can't find an option that doesn't include the QB.

[Papa John]

I think Austin Jones will continue to catch a decent number of passes out of the backfield, but your point is well-taken CTcard. There's also the lack of demonstrated production from the returning tight ends. Tucker Fisk had all of 5 receptions in 6 games last year, and I'm not sure what his offensive production will be this year.

[Papa John]

I think Austin Jones will continue to catch a decent number of passes out of the backfield, but your point is well-taken CTcard. There's also the lack of demonstrated production from the returning tight ends. Tucker Fisk had all of 5 receptions in 6 games last year, and I'm not sure what his offensive production will be this year.

[BostonCard]

Good then that we have a plethora of highly recruited and experienced pass-catching tight ends.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good then that we have a plethora of highly recruited and experienced pass-catching tight ends.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

I think Austin Jones will continue to catch a decent number of passes out of the backfield, but your point is well-taken CTcard. There's also the lack of demonstrated production from the returning tight ends. Tucker Fisk had all of 5 receptions in 6 games last year, and I'm not sure what his offensive production will be this year.

Ben Yurosek has been getting a lot of praise, and Elijah Higgins (6'3" 235) lined up in-line a fair bit last year.

[SamuelMcF]

I think Austin Jones will continue to catch a decent number of passes out of the backfield, but your point is well-taken CTcard. There's also the lack of demonstrated production from the returning tight ends. Tucker Fisk had all of 5 receptions in 6 games last year, and I'm not sure what his offensive production will be this year.

Ben Yurosek has been getting a lot of praise, and Elijah Higgins (6'3" 235) lined up in-line a fair bit last year.

[terry]

Regarding depth at WR, aside from Mike Wilson, we have two guys who have played a fair amount and can contribute IMO -- Brycen Tremayne (14 catches in half a season in 2020) and Elijah Higgins (15 catches in half a season).
 
We have one guy who has played some and looks capable -- John Humphreys.

Then, we would like to see one or two guys to emerge from this group -- Marcus Graham, Colby Bowman, Silas Starr, Bryce Farrell, Jayson Raines. I don't think we will go 0 for 5 in that group. Just my opinion.

I'd also like to see what Casey Filkins can do as a slot receiver. . .

[terry]

Regarding depth at WR, aside from Mike Wilson, we have two guys who have played a fair amount and can contribute IMO -- Brycen Tremayne (14 catches in half a season in 2020) and Elijah Higgins (15 catches in half a season).
 
We have one guy who has played some and looks capable -- John Humphreys.

Then, we would like to see one or two guys to emerge from this group -- Marcus Graham, Colby Bowman, Silas Starr, Bryce Farrell, Jayson Raines. I don't think we will go 0 for 5 in that group. Just my opinion.

I'd also like to see what Casey Filkins can do as a slot receiver. . .

[Papa John]

Sure, SamuelMcF, but when I think depth, I think demonstrated production like with the offensive line and running backs. Last year WR Higgins had 15 receptions in 4 games and averaged 11.7 yards/catch, which is a good showing considering his role. But TE Yurosek had more tackles (1 assist) than receptions (0) in 2020.

I do agree that the WRs and TEs have potential, though.

[Papa John]

Sure, SamuelMcF, but when I think depth, I think demonstrated production like with the offensive line and running backs. Last year WR Higgins had 15 receptions in 4 games and averaged 11.7 yards/catch, which is a good showing considering his role. But TE Yurosek had more tackles (1 assist) than receptions (0) in 2020.

I do agree that the WRs and TEs have potential, though.

[BostonCard]

I think it is the difference between "depth" and "proven depth".  Depth means you have a fair number of bodies who at least have the potential to play effectively at the position.  "Proven depth" means you have a fair number of bodies who have demonstrated that they are effective at the collegiate level.

We have a fair bit of depth at wide receiver, but very little proven depth.

Given that the evidence to date has shown that West is pretty ineffective at the D1 level (and, by the way, that isn't just based on his performance in the UCLA game; pretty much as soon as he got here, there was a realization that he hadn't developed, and may have regressed, from where he was when we committed to us early in his recruitment process).  Hopefully he has improved over his years in the program, but noises from within the program had been down on West his few years in the program.  The UCLA game merely confirmed it was as bad as we had been hearing.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think it is the difference between "depth" and "proven depth".  Depth means you have a fair number of bodies who at least have the potential to play effectively at the position.  "Proven depth" means you have a fair number of bodies who have demonstrated that they are effective at the collegiate level.

We have a fair bit of depth at wide receiver, but very little proven depth.

Given that the evidence to date has shown that West is pretty ineffective at the D1 level (and, by the way, that isn't just based on his performance in the UCLA game; pretty much as soon as he got here, there was a realization that he hadn't developed, and may have regressed, from where he was when we committed to us early in his recruitment process).  Hopefully he has improved over his years in the program, but noises from within the program had been down on West his few years in the program.  The UCLA game merely confirmed it was as bad as we had been hearing.

BC

[CTcard]

Sure, SamuelMcF, but when I think depth, I think demonstrated production like with the offensive line and running backs. Last year WR Higgins had 15 receptions in 4 games and averaged 11.7 yards/catch, which is a good showing considering his role. But TE Yurosek had more tackles (1 assist) than receptions (0) in 2020.

I do agree that the WRs and TEs have potential, though.

I also agree with the potential. Higgins looks like he could be a real star. Humphreys could run, though he had some trouble actually catching the ball during his truncated frosh season. There are also a few guys to choose from who might emerge.  Yurosek isn't a WR, but I thought he looked promising despite not managing to catch a pass last year. (Yes, that may be a leap)

Still, certainly based on career production, but also (to a lesser degree) on obvious potential, I think there is less depth at WR than at most key competitors and less than we have seen at Stanford before (though Stanford has often struggled recruiting WRs).

(This seems to be my parentheses post)

[CTcard]

Sure, SamuelMcF, but when I think depth, I think demonstrated production like with the offensive line and running backs. Last year WR Higgins had 15 receptions in 4 games and averaged 11.7 yards/catch, which is a good showing considering his role. But TE Yurosek had more tackles (1 assist) than receptions (0) in 2020.

I do agree that the WRs and TEs have potential, though.

I also agree with the potential. Higgins looks like he could be a real star. Humphreys could run, though he had some trouble actually catching the ball during his truncated frosh season. There are also a few guys to choose from who might emerge.  Yurosek isn't a WR, but I thought he looked promising despite not managing to catch a pass last year. (Yes, that may be a leap)

Still, certainly based on career production, but also (to a lesser degree) on obvious potential, I think there is less depth at WR than at most key competitors and less than we have seen at Stanford before (though Stanford has often struggled recruiting WRs).

(This seems to be my parentheses post)

[SamuelMcF]

Still, certainly based on career production, but also (to a lesser degree) on obvious potential, I think there is less depth at WR than at most key competitors and less than we have seen at Stanford before (though Stanford has often struggled recruiting WRs).

That's what happens when 3 guys leave and you only take 1 frosh (and can't take a transfer).

We're going for 3 in 2022, btw. And EJ Smith will be playing a Swiss army knife role.

[SamuelMcF]

Still, certainly based on career production, but also (to a lesser degree) on obvious potential, I think there is less depth at WR than at most key competitors and less than we have seen at Stanford before (though Stanford has often struggled recruiting WRs).

That's what happens when 3 guys leave and you only take 1 frosh (and can't take a transfer).

We're going for 3 in 2022, btw. And EJ Smith will be playing a Swiss army knife role.

[BostonCard]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JaredDLee/status/1431350505767194624?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JaredDLee/status/1431350505767194624?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[needle]

Need WRs and TEs who can block this year more than most years. Might surprise you who gets the playing time.

Maybe a back does catch 20 passes this year.

[needle]

Need WRs and TEs who can block this year more than most years. Might surprise you who gets the playing time.

Maybe a back does catch 20 passes this year.

[CTcard]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

[CTcard]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

[Jamesy]

I'd be curious to see what Shaw has actually done in every fourth down situation in a similar chart.

[Jamesy]

I'd be curious to see what Shaw has actually done in every fourth down situation in a similar chart.

[Phogge]

Higgins and Tremayne are about 6’3”. Humphreys 6’5”. Guess what we will see in the red zone.

[Phogge]

Higgins and Tremayne are about 6’3”. Humphreys 6’5”. Guess what we will see in the red zone.

[SamuelMcF]

Higgins and Tremayne are about 6’3”. Humphreys 6’5”. Guess what we will see in the red zone.

They were the same height last year and we rarely ran fades to them. Austin Jones, Nathaniel Peat, and Isaiah Sanders combined for 12 TD runs in the red zone in 6 games.

[SamuelMcF]

Higgins and Tremayne are about 6’3”. Humphreys 6’5”. Guess what we will see in the red zone.

They were the same height last year and we rarely ran fades to them. Austin Jones, Nathaniel Peat, and Isaiah Sanders combined for 12 TD runs in the red zone in 6 games.