[msqueri]

Mick, it's because the third year was the high point for Chryst and Lewis, the low point for Benjamin, and a relative low point for Edwards. So if you're thinking about this in terms of which QB was better rather than how good QBs were in your third year this list will look a bit off.

Here are how every QB1 of the last half century rank based on career QB rating:

1. Andrew Luck - 162.8
2. Turk Schonert - 160.7
3. Kevin Hogan - 154.6
4. KJ Costello - 143.8 at Stanford/137.7 overall
5. Davis Mills - 141.9
6. Steve Stenstrom - 141.4
7. John Elway - 139.3
8. Tanner McKee - 138.3 (and obviously still being written)
9. Steve Dils - 137.5
10. Randy Fasani - 135.0
11. Mark Butterfield - 130.7
12. Guy Benjamin - 129.9
13. Keller Chryst - 128.9 at Stanford/129.2 overall
14. Todd Husak - 126.6
15. Jason Palumbis - 124.5
16. Ryan Burns - 123.6
17. Chad Hutchinson - 120.7
18. Josh Nunes - 119.2
19. Steve Cottrell - 118.0
20. John Paye - 116.6
21. Brian Johnson - 115.4
22. Trent Edwards - 115.1
23. Mike Boryla - 113.1
24. TC Ostrander - 110.7
25. Chris Lewis - 106.9
26. Tavita Pritchard - 105.3
26. Kyle Matter - 105.3
28. Steve Smith - 102.7
29. Greg Ennis - 99.5
30. Mike Cordova - 96.2
31. Fred Buckley - 89.7

Ryan Burns is the all-time median Stanford QB1, which may be a surprise to folks. Burns and Chryst were not great but fans thought they were worse than they were because a) they weren't Hogan (the most underrated Stanford player of all time and the winningest player in program history) and b) some of the things that bolstered the program in the early Shaw years started faltering, putting more pressure on the QBs (in 2016 the OL and in 2017 the defense).

I see three possibilities for McKee that I will list in descending order of likelihood in my view (i.e., the first is the most likely I think):

* McKee will take his place alongside Mills - outside our Mount Rushmore but an NFL QB who played quite well in college

* McKee dominates in 2022 and becomes his generation's Schonert

* We can somehow get McKee to stay multiple more years and he reaches Costello status

P.S. When I speak of median I mean strictly statistically. Per the good discussion in this thread, adjusting for era/evolution in the game certainly one would put Burns below average.

[msqueri]

Mick, it's because the third year was the high point for Chryst and Lewis, the low point for Benjamin, and a relative low point for Edwards. So if you're thinking about this in terms of which QB was better rather than how good QBs were in your third year this list will look a bit off.

Here are how every QB1 of the last half century rank based on career QB rating:

1. Andrew Luck - 162.8
2. Turk Schonert - 160.7
3. Kevin Hogan - 154.6
4. KJ Costello - 143.8 at Stanford/137.7 overall
5. Davis Mills - 141.9
6. Steve Stenstrom - 141.4
7. John Elway - 139.3
8. Tanner McKee - 138.3 (and obviously still being written)
9. Steve Dils - 137.5
10. Randy Fasani - 135.0
11. Mark Butterfield - 130.7
12. Guy Benjamin - 129.9
13. Keller Chryst - 128.9 at Stanford/129.2 overall
14. Todd Husak - 126.6
15. Jason Palumbis - 124.5
16. Ryan Burns - 123.6
17. Chad Hutchinson - 120.7
18. Josh Nunes - 119.2
19. Steve Cottrell - 118.0
20. John Paye - 116.6
21. Brian Johnson - 115.4
22. Trent Edwards - 115.1
23. Mike Boryla - 113.1
24. TC Ostrander - 110.7
25. Chris Lewis - 106.9
26. Tavita Pritchard - 105.3
26. Kyle Matter - 105.3
28. Steve Smith - 102.7
29. Greg Ennis - 99.5
30. Mike Cordova - 96.2
31. Fred Buckley - 89.7

Ryan Burns is the all-time median Stanford QB1, which may be a surprise to folks. Burns and Chryst were not great but fans thought they were worse than they were because a) they weren't Hogan (the most underrated Stanford player of all time and the winningest player in program history) and b) some of the things that bolstered the program in the early Shaw years started faltering, putting more pressure on the QBs (in 2016 the OL and in 2017 the defense).

I see three possibilities for McKee that I will list in descending order of likelihood in my view (i.e., the first is the most likely I think):

* McKee will take his place alongside Mills - outside our Mount Rushmore but an NFL QB who played quite well in college

* McKee dominates in 2022 and becomes his generation's Schonert

* We can somehow get McKee to stay multiple more years and he reaches Costello status

P.S. When I speak of median I mean strictly statistically. Per the good discussion in this thread, adjusting for era/evolution in the game certainly one would put Burns below average.

[Goose]

Ryan Burns is the all-time median Stanford QB1, which may be a surprise to folks. Burns and Chryst were not great but fans thought they were worse than they were because a) they weren't Hogan (the most underrated Stanford player of all time and the winningest player in program history) and b) some of the things that bolstered the program in the early Shaw years started faltering, putting more pressure on the QBs (in 2016 the OL and in 2017 the defense).

I totally endorse and agree with this statement. IMHO Burns actually had even more potential than we saw. His OL just caved in on him and after Colorado he lost the confidence of the coaches. Nobody was prepared for that debacle, and Burns got almost all the blame. Yes, he did make some bad decisions but that was probably due to being unprepared for his line to collapse. He was actually knocked down once by the center being launched into the air by the defense and landing on him. You don't see that everyday and it was undoubtedly a bit unnerving to be on the receiving end of it. Burns was a project, so he had a lot to learn and it would have taken some time. Under the circumstances he didn't get that time.

[Goose]

Ryan Burns is the all-time median Stanford QB1, which may be a surprise to folks. Burns and Chryst were not great but fans thought they were worse than they were because a) they weren't Hogan (the most underrated Stanford player of all time and the winningest player in program history) and b) some of the things that bolstered the program in the early Shaw years started faltering, putting more pressure on the QBs (in 2016 the OL and in 2017 the defense).

I totally endorse and agree with this statement. IMHO Burns actually had even more potential than we saw. His OL just caved in on him and after Colorado he lost the confidence of the coaches. Nobody was prepared for that debacle, and Burns got almost all the blame. Yes, he did make some bad decisions but that was probably due to being unprepared for his line to collapse. He was actually knocked down once by the center being launched into the air by the defense and landing on him. You don't see that everyday and it was undoubtedly a bit unnerving to be on the receiving end of it. Burns was a project, so he had a lot to learn and it would have taken some time. Under the circumstances he didn't get that time.

[Phogge]

MS, correct that neither Dils nor Schonert were No 1 in their junior year. Benjamin and Cordova dialed all season in '76.

Benjamin was given a fifth year and was superb in '77. He was hurt late in the Oregon game and Dies entered and led a game clinching final drive. Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary.

Schonert played enough snaps (with Elway breathing down his neck) to qualify as the NCAA passing leader in 1979.

[Phogge]

MS, correct that neither Dils nor Schonert were No 1 in their junior year. Benjamin and Cordova dialed all season in '76.

Benjamin was given a fifth year and was superb in '77. He was hurt late in the Oregon game and Dies entered and led a game clinching final drive. Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary.

Schonert played enough snaps (with Elway breathing down his neck) to qualify as the NCAA passing leader in 1979.

[murky]

msqueri,

Thanks for posting the career list too.  That much better jibes with where my gut says they shake out.  Obviously my impressions weren't formed by each one's 3rd year alone.

[murky]

msqueri,

Thanks for posting the career list too.  That much better jibes with where my gut says they shake out.  Obviously my impressions weren't formed by each one's 3rd year alone.

[old spanish trail]

Back to McKee, an analysis posted here recently projected McKee for #10 in the Pac this year. I think he finishes in the top 3 if he isn't injured. That must mean I'm expecting the OL to be better, much better. Hmmmm.

[old spanish trail]

Back to McKee, an analysis posted here recently projected McKee for #10 in the Pac this year. I think he finishes in the top 3 if he isn't injured. That must mean I'm expecting the OL to be better, much better. Hmmmm.

[msqueri]

Back to McKee, an analysis posted here recently projected McKee or #10 in the Pac this year. I think he finishes in the top 3 if he isn't injured. That must mean I'm expecting the OL to be better, much better. Hmmmm.

#10 is an absurd place to put McKee. Wilner had us #8 in his QB depth chart rankings, which are always goofy because he insists on heavily weighing backup QBs, even though QBs rarely get hurt.

Jake Curtis had us #6 at QB. I think that's reasonable. McKee was #6 last year in Total QBR. Two of those who were ahead of him last year, Jayden Daniels and Anthony Brown, are gone, but two who were ahead of McKee, Caleb Williams and Bo Nix, transferred in, as did FCS super star Cameron Ward.

The top three in the Pac-12 seems fairly obvious - prohibitive favorite or conference player of the year Caleb Williams, outstanding college player Dorian Thompson-Robinson, and reigning Pac-12 first team QB Cameron Rising. It's bold to put anybody but those three at the top but I do think it's reasonable to think McKee has the talent and supporting cast to leapfrog somebody.

Curtis' list had the three obvious ones up top, followed by Ward (who really was dominant as a freshman at Incarnate Word and has lots of reason for optimism getting to plug and play with his coach who came with him), reigning Pac-12 freshman of the year Jayden de Laura, and McKee.

My view on McKee is that he's going to be honorable mention all-conference, somewhere in that top six most likely, but I would be surprised if he's first or second team all-conference. Williams, DTR, and Rising is just so much star power returning. But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third. I say competing with Ward and Oregon State's Chance Nolan for fourth. I'm less bullish on Nix and de Laura than some.

[msqueri]

Back to McKee, an analysis posted here recently projected McKee or #10 in the Pac this year. I think he finishes in the top 3 if he isn't injured. That must mean I'm expecting the OL to be better, much better. Hmmmm.

#10 is an absurd place to put McKee. Wilner had us #8 in his QB depth chart rankings, which are always goofy because he insists on heavily weighing backup QBs, even though QBs rarely get hurt.

Jake Curtis had us #6 at QB. I think that's reasonable. McKee was #6 last year in Total QBR. Two of those who were ahead of him last year, Jayden Daniels and Anthony Brown, are gone, but two who were ahead of McKee, Caleb Williams and Bo Nix, transferred in, as did FCS super star Cameron Ward.

The top three in the Pac-12 seems fairly obvious - prohibitive favorite or conference player of the year Caleb Williams, outstanding college player Dorian Thompson-Robinson, and reigning Pac-12 first team QB Cameron Rising. It's bold to put anybody but those three at the top but I do think it's reasonable to think McKee has the talent and supporting cast to leapfrog somebody.

Curtis' list had the three obvious ones up top, followed by Ward (who really was dominant as a freshman at Incarnate Word and has lots of reason for optimism getting to plug and play with his coach who came with him), reigning Pac-12 freshman of the year Jayden de Laura, and McKee.

My view on McKee is that he's going to be honorable mention all-conference, somewhere in that top six most likely, but I would be surprised if he's first or second team all-conference. Williams, DTR, and Rising is just so much star power returning. But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third. I say competing with Ward and Oregon State's Chance Nolan for fourth. I'm less bullish on Nix and de Laura than some.

[Goose]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

[Goose]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

[BostonCard]

One thing working against McKee is that he doesn't have the benefit of playing against the Stanford defense.

BC

[BostonCard]

One thing working against McKee is that he doesn't have the benefit of playing against the Stanford defense.

BC

[msqueri]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.

[msqueri]

But McKee has talent and arguably the best supporting cast in the conference outside Williams, so I won't laugh at those who put McKee second or third.

No disagreement about McKee's talent but the best supporting cast I am not so sure about. Obviously we have talent on the OL, but last year they certainly didn't deliver, at least IMHO. We are going to have some new running backs that certainly have potential but have yet to show it. Limited game reps, so one can't say they are not "good" but jury still out. We do undoubtedly have a great TE and quite a few "good" receivers. We can't know what #81 is going to deliver this year, but if he returns to form it will be a good to great WR group. However, that group does lack (IMHO) speed and that has been a problem. So it is clear we have some assets, but IMHO it is also clear we have some questions. Your thoughts?

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.

[Goose]

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.

Thanks! I do not share your belief that we have the 4th best OL n the conference. I get the argument that on paper one can argue that SHOULD be true. If it turns out that way, great, but so far IMHO they haven't performed that way. More like the #7 OL. Of course, I was at the Utah game and that can permanently skew ones view a bit.

[Goose]

I peg Stanford as having the fourth best OL in the Pac-12 after USC, Oregon State, and Oregon. I can expound on it if you'd like but in short we have tremendous experience, joining USC as the only programs with six linemen with significant starter-level experience. At OL that is enormous. Pegging us as fourth is itself a conservative acknowledgment of how crappy Hinton was and how much improvement overall is needed to be top of the conference, but the on-paper talent is there to be near the top of the conference.

I am not bullish about our running back group. I haven't looked rigorously at RB rooms across the conference like I have with OL but I think we're definitely bottom half of the conference and probably bottom three.

I put us #2 at TE after Utah. Seems pretty clear-cut.

I haven't crunched WR fully yet but suspect I'll put us as high as #2, of course waaaaaaaaaaay behind USC. It's a weak year at WR in the conference and we have excellent overall quality even if we don't have ideal speed. If you'd like you could conservatively forecast Washington or Oregon leapfrogging us, but that's hardly assured and I'd probably rather have our group.

At some point I'll probably try to look at all of this rigorously, but based on experience and common sense something like #4 OL, #10 RB, #2 TE, and #2 WR is a really good supporting cast. I do think it's arguably the best supporting cast outside USC though I'd have to look more deeply to parse between Stanford and others like Utah and Oregon State.

One way to think about it: if you compared all 11 starters to their competition in the Pac-12, Tanner McKee is one of the weaker links on our offense, probably our eighth or ninth strongest offensive starter relative to Pac-12 competition. That's an impressive indication of our overall offensive starting talent.

Thanks! I do not share your belief that we have the 4th best OL n the conference. I get the argument that on paper one can argue that SHOULD be true. If it turns out that way, great, but so far IMHO they haven't performed that way. More like the #7 OL. Of course, I was at the Utah game and that can permanently skew ones view a bit.

[msqueri]

It's not about how they've performed to date, it's about what returns and how old they are. Age and experience is most of the game at OL. Last year among the top 30 linemen in the Pac-12 a third of them were sixth year players and 77 percent of them were fourth, fifth, or sixth year players. Unlike many other positions, OL play isn't about past performance but rather about sheer longevity - old man strength.

In terms of what returns in the conference, an analysis I did a few months back:

Last year we had a high number of returning starters but when you dug into it our group of third year players were babes in the woods compared to the hordes of fourth, fifth, and even sixth year linemen availing themselves of a year after the 2020 COVID-19 mulligan. As a result, in a comparative/competitive sense Stanford's 2021 offensive line was problematic. I've been so curious to dig into how much of a difference a year will or won't make.

The way I'll look into this is to rank all the linemen in the Pac-12 who had 400+ snaps last year at a major college football school (i.e., returning starter-level players) based on their PFF grades (divided up visually into tiers based on my eyeball of where to slice and dice):

1. Andrew Vorhees (USC) - 90.2
2. Marco Brewer (Oregon State) - 88.6
3. Brett Neilon (USC) - 86.2
4. TJ Bass (Oregon) - 86.0
5. Justin Dedich (USC) - 85.7

6. Braeden Daniels (Utah) - 84.4
7. Brandon Kipper (Oregon State) - 80.1

8. Joshua Gray (Oregon State) - 77.5
8. Drake Nugent (Stanford) - 77.5
10. Ryan Walk (Oregon) - 77.3

11. Ben Scott (Arizona State) - 73.5
12. Ben Coleman (Cal) - 71.9
13. Walter Rouse (Stanford) - 71.4
14. Matthew Cindric (Cal) - 71.0
15. Jonah Monheim (USC) - 70.7
16. Ladarius Henderson (Arizona State) - 70.5

17. Alex Forsyth (Oregon) - 69.6
[Grant Stephens (Washington State) - 69.1 - including for completeness but not ranked because he was playing at Northern Colorado (FCS)]
18. Victor Curne (Washington) - 68.9
19. Raiqwon O'Neal (UCLA) - 68.7 (at Rutgers)
20. Chris Martinez (Arizona State) - 68.6 (at San Diego State)
21. Sataoa Laumea (Utah) - 68.2
22. Henry Bainivalu (Washington) - 67.8
23. Branson Bragg (Stanford) - 67.6

24. Bobby Haskins (USC) - 65.7 (at Virginia)
24. Barrett Miller (Stanford) - 65.7
26. Steven Jones (Oregon) - 64.6

27. Keaton Bills (Utah) - 62.3
28. Malaesala Aumavae-Laulu (Oregon) - 61.9
28. Paiton Fears (Arizona) - 61.9
30. Jake Hornibrook (Stanford) - 60.9
31. Jarrett Kingston (Washington State) - 60.5
32. Josh Baker (Arizona) - 60.3
33. Courtland Ford (USC) - 59.7
34. Duke Clemens (UCLA) - 59.6
[Ulumoo Ale (Washington) - 58.3 - included here for completeness but not ranked due to position switch to DL]
35. Josh Donovan (Arizona) - 57.8
36. Casey Roddick (Colorado) - 57.3

37. Jon Gaines II (UCLA) - 54.1
38. Jordan Morgan (Arizona) - 53.1
39. Konner Gomness (Washington State) - 52.3
40. Ma'ake Fifita (Washington State) - 48.5

41. Jake Wiley (Colorado) - 41.0
42. Frank Fillip (Colorado) - 40.1
43. Myles Hinton (Stanford) - 36.9

Observations:

* Stanford doesn't have any of the returning elite linemen. What we do have is tremendous depth of proven experience across the starting line. USC and Stanford are the only programs with six returning starter-level snap linemen. [It's funny that USC's fans are wringing their hands over OL depth.....the difference between a contending program and a non-contender is that the contender is genuinely talking about second and third string when it talks about depth and can be concerned even when it has one of the best starting groups in the conference.]

* On paper USC pretty clearly has the best line in the conference. Their offense should be fearsome. Oregon State has some question marks but to have three of the top eight on paper makes them a pretty clear #2 up front. Eyeballing the above one would likely slot Stanford in as the fourth best OL in the conference after USC and the Oregon schools.

* Normally I would say that there's a plausible chance Stanford could leap frog one or more of those teams on the logic competitors might have weak links who undermine the play of the proven guys. Alas, Stanford is at as big of a risk of that as anybody, as Hinton looks in line to start and is one of the worst "proven" players in America at any position (691 of 693 OL in America!).

* If I'm right Stanford should be expected to have the #4 line in the conference (closer to #3 than #5 on paper I'd say), that's not dominant but it's good. I think it's really notable that among all returning starter Pac-12 linemen every single one of our non-Hinton starters is middle of the road or better. There shouldn't be an excuse for this line to struggle....unless it really becomes Hinton torpedoing things, which shouldn't be allowed to fester with Hornibrook waiting in the wings.

What would be great, of course, is if we can somehow have one of the two best lines in the conference. That would unlock a lot. We'd most likely need multiple if not all three of Nugent, Rouse, and Bragg to be all-conference for that.

[msqueri]

It's not about how they've performed to date, it's about what returns and how old they are. Age and experience is most of the game at OL. Last year among the top 30 linemen in the Pac-12 a third of them were sixth year players and 77 percent of them were fourth, fifth, or sixth year players. Unlike many other positions, OL play isn't about past performance but rather about sheer longevity - old man strength.

In terms of what returns in the conference, an analysis I did a few months back:

Last year we had a high number of returning starters but when you dug into it our group of third year players were babes in the woods compared to the hordes of fourth, fifth, and even sixth year linemen availing themselves of a year after the 2020 COVID-19 mulligan. As a result, in a comparative/competitive sense Stanford's 2021 offensive line was problematic. I've been so curious to dig into how much of a difference a year will or won't make.

The way I'll look into this is to rank all the linemen in the Pac-12 who had 400+ snaps last year at a major college football school (i.e., returning starter-level players) based on their PFF grades (divided up visually into tiers based on my eyeball of where to slice and dice):

1. Andrew Vorhees (USC) - 90.2
2. Marco Brewer (Oregon State) - 88.6
3. Brett Neilon (USC) - 86.2
4. TJ Bass (Oregon) - 86.0
5. Justin Dedich (USC) - 85.7

6. Braeden Daniels (Utah) - 84.4
7. Brandon Kipper (Oregon State) - 80.1

8. Joshua Gray (Oregon State) - 77.5
8. Drake Nugent (Stanford) - 77.5
10. Ryan Walk (Oregon) - 77.3

11. Ben Scott (Arizona State) - 73.5
12. Ben Coleman (Cal) - 71.9
13. Walter Rouse (Stanford) - 71.4
14. Matthew Cindric (Cal) - 71.0
15. Jonah Monheim (USC) - 70.7
16. Ladarius Henderson (Arizona State) - 70.5

17. Alex Forsyth (Oregon) - 69.6
[Grant Stephens (Washington State) - 69.1 - including for completeness but not ranked because he was playing at Northern Colorado (FCS)]
18. Victor Curne (Washington) - 68.9
19. Raiqwon O'Neal (UCLA) - 68.7 (at Rutgers)
20. Chris Martinez (Arizona State) - 68.6 (at San Diego State)
21. Sataoa Laumea (Utah) - 68.2
22. Henry Bainivalu (Washington) - 67.8
23. Branson Bragg (Stanford) - 67.6

24. Bobby Haskins (USC) - 65.7 (at Virginia)
24. Barrett Miller (Stanford) - 65.7
26. Steven Jones (Oregon) - 64.6

27. Keaton Bills (Utah) - 62.3
28. Malaesala Aumavae-Laulu (Oregon) - 61.9
28. Paiton Fears (Arizona) - 61.9
30. Jake Hornibrook (Stanford) - 60.9
31. Jarrett Kingston (Washington State) - 60.5
32. Josh Baker (Arizona) - 60.3
33. Courtland Ford (USC) - 59.7
34. Duke Clemens (UCLA) - 59.6
[Ulumoo Ale (Washington) - 58.3 - included here for completeness but not ranked due to position switch to DL]
35. Josh Donovan (Arizona) - 57.8
36. Casey Roddick (Colorado) - 57.3

37. Jon Gaines II (UCLA) - 54.1
38. Jordan Morgan (Arizona) - 53.1
39. Konner Gomness (Washington State) - 52.3
40. Ma'ake Fifita (Washington State) - 48.5

41. Jake Wiley (Colorado) - 41.0
42. Frank Fillip (Colorado) - 40.1
43. Myles Hinton (Stanford) - 36.9

Observations:

* Stanford doesn't have any of the returning elite linemen. What we do have is tremendous depth of proven experience across the starting line. USC and Stanford are the only programs with six returning starter-level snap linemen. [It's funny that USC's fans are wringing their hands over OL depth.....the difference between a contending program and a non-contender is that the contender is genuinely talking about second and third string when it talks about depth and can be concerned even when it has one of the best starting groups in the conference.]

* On paper USC pretty clearly has the best line in the conference. Their offense should be fearsome. Oregon State has some question marks but to have three of the top eight on paper makes them a pretty clear #2 up front. Eyeballing the above one would likely slot Stanford in as the fourth best OL in the conference after USC and the Oregon schools.

* Normally I would say that there's a plausible chance Stanford could leap frog one or more of those teams on the logic competitors might have weak links who undermine the play of the proven guys. Alas, Stanford is at as big of a risk of that as anybody, as Hinton looks in line to start and is one of the worst "proven" players in America at any position (691 of 693 OL in America!).

* If I'm right Stanford should be expected to have the #4 line in the conference (closer to #3 than #5 on paper I'd say), that's not dominant but it's good. I think it's really notable that among all returning starter Pac-12 linemen every single one of our non-Hinton starters is middle of the road or better. There shouldn't be an excuse for this line to struggle....unless it really becomes Hinton torpedoing things, which shouldn't be allowed to fester with Hornibrook waiting in the wings.

What would be great, of course, is if we can somehow have one of the two best lines in the conference. That would unlock a lot. We'd most likely need multiple if not all three of Nugent, Rouse, and Bragg to be all-conference for that.

[81alum]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

[81alum]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

[Maple Leaf]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

[Maple Leaf]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

[JohnR34231]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

I remember getting all excited after that game and flying up to Seattle the next week to see us play Washington. Ended up wishing I hadn't. Nelson couldn't do diddly and the Washington running back had a career day.
That and the U$C game were the two downers in what otherwise was a very good season.

[JohnR34231]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

I remember getting all excited after that game and flying up to Seattle the next week to see us play Washington. Ended up wishing I hadn't. Nelson couldn't do diddly and the Washington running back had a career day.
That and the U$C game were the two downers in what otherwise was a very good season.

[lex24]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

Loft on had a big game as well.  Catching 2 big passes on winning drive, including the winning TD.  Hard to understand stand why Christensen used  Lofton so little.  He and Tony Hill as a tandem… Didn’t see that much.

[lex24]

Guy couldn't play the next week and Dils played well and Stanford  beat UCLA 32-28. If I remember correctly Walsh subbed in Lofton on the games final play and he intercepted a Hail Mary..

I was at that game, my first season watching Stanford football.  I remember that interception by Lofton.  Those two early Walsh years were exciting years, even though we did not reach the lofty heights that came decades later for the program.  Good years, lots of fun at those games.

Darin Nelson put on a real show in that game as a true freshman weighing something just a tad north of 150 pounds.

Loft on had a big game as well.  Catching 2 big passes on winning drive, including the winning TD.  Hard to understand stand why Christensen used  Lofton so little.  He and Tony Hill as a tandem… Didn’t see that much.

[gailtate]

Aside from who's ranked and who ain't, my general observation of Tanner McKee is that his destiny seems similar to Trent Edwards. Talented, NFL-caliber but doomed to futility as a collegian due to the paucity of talent around him (players and coaches). Might look forward to respectable Sundays, however -- IF he isn't massacred this season.

[gailtate]

Aside from who's ranked and who ain't, my general observation of Tanner McKee is that his destiny seems similar to Trent Edwards. Talented, NFL-caliber but doomed to futility as a collegian due to the paucity of talent around him (players and coaches). Might look forward to respectable Sundays, however -- IF he isn't massacred this season.

[Phogge]

All props to Mac and Bryce Love but Darrin Nelson was the most exciting Stanford player I ever saw.

[Phogge]

All props to Mac and Bryce Love but Darrin Nelson was the most exciting Stanford player I ever saw.

[SamuelMcF]

* Normally I would say that there's a plausible chance Stanford could leap frog one or more of those teams on the logic competitors might have weak links who undermine the play of the proven guys. Alas, Stanford is at as big of a risk of that as anybody, as Hinton looks in line to start and is one of the worst "proven" players in America at any position (691 of 693 OL in America!).

* If I'm right Stanford should be expected to have the #4 line in the conference (closer to #3 than #5 on paper I'd say), that's not dominant but it's good. I think it's really notable that among all returning starter Pac-12 linemen every single one of our non-Hinton starters is middle of the road or better. There shouldn't be an excuse for this line to struggle....unless it really becomes Hinton torpedoing things, which shouldn't be allowed to fester with Hornibrook waiting in the wings.

What would be great, of course, is if we can somehow have one of the two best lines in the conference. That would unlock a lot. We'd most likely need multiple if not all three of Nugent, Rouse, and Bragg to be all-conference for that.

Bragg took Hinton's starting spot last season before his injury. Seems plausible he'll be the day one starter at RT.

[SamuelMcF]

* Normally I would say that there's a plausible chance Stanford could leap frog one or more of those teams on the logic competitors might have weak links who undermine the play of the proven guys. Alas, Stanford is at as big of a risk of that as anybody, as Hinton looks in line to start and is one of the worst "proven" players in America at any position (691 of 693 OL in America!).

* If I'm right Stanford should be expected to have the #4 line in the conference (closer to #3 than #5 on paper I'd say), that's not dominant but it's good. I think it's really notable that among all returning starter Pac-12 linemen every single one of our non-Hinton starters is middle of the road or better. There shouldn't be an excuse for this line to struggle....unless it really becomes Hinton torpedoing things, which shouldn't be allowed to fester with Hornibrook waiting in the wings.

What would be great, of course, is if we can somehow have one of the two best lines in the conference. That would unlock a lot. We'd most likely need multiple if not all three of Nugent, Rouse, and Bragg to be all-conference for that.

Bragg took Hinton's starting spot last season before his injury. Seems plausible he'll be the day one starter at RT.

[msqueri]

Aside from who's ranked and who ain't, my general observation of Tanner McKee is that his destiny seems similar to Trent Edwards. Talented, NFL-caliber but doomed to futility as a collegian due to the paucity of talent around him (players and coaches). Might look forward to respectable Sundays, however -- IF he isn't massacred this season.

I don't see that comparison at all. Davis Mills is the much more obvious comparison.

Trent Edwards came in to a program with an empty cupboard at offensive line and a new head coach with no experience getting players to the NFL. He had some talent around him (Mark Bradford, Evan Moore, Brett Pierce, Alex Smith, JR Lemon) but not nearly enough to overcome the disastrous OL situation, and even if he had better skill position support that doesn't matter much if you're always on your back or in the hospital.

Tanner McKee has no reason to worry about his physical health or ability to stay vertical like Edwards did. Even with the struggles of our OL last year, we gave up 2.67 sacks per game. This year the OL returns everybody. Compare that to what Edwards faced: 3.0 sacks per game in 2003, 3.73 sacks per game in 2004, 3.82 sacks per game in 2005, and 4.17 sacks per game in 2006. McKee is coddled and supported like none other compared to what Edwards faced. Let me put those sack totals in perspective: in the last 13 years of college football there have been 14 Power Five teams that gave up 3.73 sacks per game or worse. In other words, that level of offensive line futility can be reasonably expected to be the worst in America in a given year. And Trent Edwards faced it three years in a row. There is no hyperbole in saying he is the most battered quarterback in the history of major college football. I don't even know how somebody else could be in the conversation. He played four years and in three of them he was getting hit as much as anybody in the country. Crazy.

So really, this is a keep Trent Edwards' name out of your mouth situation. Nobody should ever be compared to him, and certainly not somebody with one of the most experienced and highly-recruited offensive lines in the nation like what McKee gets to play behind this year. For all we know Edwards could have been Elway/Luck if he hadn't been battered to historic proportions. And even after all that battery, Edwards started 33 NFL games, managing to do more at the highest level than Hogan, Costello, Stenstrom, Schonert, Husak, Fasani, Benjamin, Boryla, Hutchinson, Freitas. Incredible.

And while I'm ranting - those who blamed Buddy Teevens for Stanford football's woes were misguided. Teevens had flaws but it was much more Tyrone Willingham's fault. To golf every day and just fail to recruit OL over a multi-year period is the biggest example of fiddling while Rome burned we've ever seen, much worse than anything Shaw has ever done. Over three years we recruited fewer linemen than you need to field a single practice offensive line!

Anyway, the obvious comparison for McKee is Mills. Highly-touted, talented recruits given a good complement of talent compared to most of their peers in the conference, had some good games but generally unspectacular time in college due to a coaching staff that like clockwork can be relied on to get less with more, moved on to an NFL career that will likely make people wonder why he wasn't a bigger deal nationally in college.

[msqueri]

Aside from who's ranked and who ain't, my general observation of Tanner McKee is that his destiny seems similar to Trent Edwards. Talented, NFL-caliber but doomed to futility as a collegian due to the paucity of talent around him (players and coaches). Might look forward to respectable Sundays, however -- IF he isn't massacred this season.

I don't see that comparison at all. Davis Mills is the much more obvious comparison.

Trent Edwards came in to a program with an empty cupboard at offensive line and a new head coach with no experience getting players to the NFL. He had some talent around him (Mark Bradford, Evan Moore, Brett Pierce, Alex Smith, JR Lemon) but not nearly enough to overcome the disastrous OL situation, and even if he had better skill position support that doesn't matter much if you're always on your back or in the hospital.

Tanner McKee has no reason to worry about his physical health or ability to stay vertical like Edwards did. Even with the struggles of our OL last year, we gave up 2.67 sacks per game. This year the OL returns everybody. Compare that to what Edwards faced: 3.0 sacks per game in 2003, 3.73 sacks per game in 2004, 3.82 sacks per game in 2005, and 4.17 sacks per game in 2006. McKee is coddled and supported like none other compared to what Edwards faced. Let me put those sack totals in perspective: in the last 13 years of college football there have been 14 Power Five teams that gave up 3.73 sacks per game or worse. In other words, that level of offensive line futility can be reasonably expected to be the worst in America in a given year. And Trent Edwards faced it three years in a row. There is no hyperbole in saying he is the most battered quarterback in the history of major college football. I don't even know how somebody else could be in the conversation. He played four years and in three of them he was getting hit as much as anybody in the country. Crazy.

So really, this is a keep Trent Edwards' name out of your mouth situation. Nobody should ever be compared to him, and certainly not somebody with one of the most experienced and highly-recruited offensive lines in the nation like what McKee gets to play behind this year. For all we know Edwards could have been Elway/Luck if he hadn't been battered to historic proportions. And even after all that battery, Edwards started 33 NFL games, managing to do more at the highest level than Hogan, Costello, Stenstrom, Schonert, Husak, Fasani, Benjamin, Boryla, Hutchinson, Freitas. Incredible.

And while I'm ranting - those who blamed Buddy Teevens for Stanford football's woes were misguided. Teevens had flaws but it was much more Tyrone Willingham's fault. To golf every day and just fail to recruit OL over a multi-year period is the biggest example of fiddling while Rome burned we've ever seen, much worse than anything Shaw has ever done. Over three years we recruited fewer linemen than you need to field a single practice offensive line!

Anyway, the obvious comparison for McKee is Mills. Highly-touted, talented recruits given a good complement of talent compared to most of their peers in the conference, had some good games but generally unspectacular time in college due to a coaching staff that like clockwork can be relied on to get less with more, moved on to an NFL career that will likely make people wonder why he wasn't a bigger deal nationally in college.

[JohnR34231]

One of the problems with Mills of course was that he spent so much time on the injury list. 2020, a season he could really have shone in, got interrupted by the pandemic. He also left with a year of eligibility to head to the NFL.

[JohnR34231]

One of the problems with Mills of course was that he spent so much time on the injury list. 2020, a season he could really have shone in, got interrupted by the pandemic. He also left with a year of eligibility to head to the NFL.