[CardinalSagehen]

I went to most of today's practice. It's easy to be excited about the new season this time of year, despite all our presumed challenges.  

There was quite a bit of live scrimmaging but without tackling to the ground until the last 10-15 minutes, when they did a goal-line drill and the losing side, the defense, had to do push-ups. (I was reminded of the Harbaugh era when the offense would have won the "right" to do the push-ups!)

I really couldn't tell you who looks good in these light scrimmages.  Ashton Daniels is getting a lot of reps and seems athletic.  I spoke with a man in his early 60s (maybe one of you?) who watched Daniels' high school games and is really high on him.  It's been a while since we've had an athletic dual-threat QB, and our last one helped us make three Rose Bowls.  That kind of QB covers up a multitude of evils at the college level in particular.

Apparently, we may be running the Wildcat with Junior Beau Nelson #10 this season.  He was running the Isaiah Sanders package.  (Edit: as I thought about this more, it might just be EJ or Filkins running the Wildcat, and we don't want those guys taking the extra hits in practice. The point is that we ran the Wildcat a bunch, and I'd continue to expect us to use it in short-yardage situations. Clearly, there is a desire to keep honing it down.)

Notable non-participants included Filkins, Tremayne, and Ungar.  Symonds participated in most activities but was wearing a "don't-hit-me" pinny.  They all seemed generally okay.  

During the practice, a couple of guys went down with potentially serious lower leg injuries. In the post-practice interview, Shaw suggested that, thankfully, neither injury seems as serious as initially feared, but they will have to be checked out. 
- C Drake Metcalf (hopefully just an ankle; he was on his back on the trainer's table for 20-30 mins)
- WR Elic Ayomanor (knee?)

For those asking about the energy level, it was high... but I would have said the same thing at last year's practice! The offense and the defense took the goal-line competition seriously and there was a big celebration when the offense "won". As Shaw stated, the defense acquitted itself well, considering the offense should be expected to score almost always at the goal line and the competition was tied until the last play.

Below is Shaw's post-practice interview.  It strikes me that he is extremely focused on keeping the team healthy this year, as he's stated consistently in each of these interviews.  He described today's practice as our most "intense," but I really only saw complete tackling for 10-15 minutes. It's great that the team is relatively very healthy, but I hope they'll have enough live tackling against Colgate to prepare them for U$C.

I was busy talking to people, so I didn't really pay super close attention to all the action on the field. Maybe others were there and have some observations?

You can click on the YouTube link below for the full 9-minute post-practice interview.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1560803447313952768?s=20&t=Zg4DHCyngu5wu4CD0YBVbg[/tweet]

[CardinalSagehen]

I went to most of today's practice. It's easy to be excited about the new season this time of year, despite all our presumed challenges.  

There was quite a bit of live scrimmaging but without tackling to the ground until the last 10-15 minutes, when they did a goal-line drill and the losing side, the defense, had to do push-ups. (I was reminded of the Harbaugh era when the offense would have won the "right" to do the push-ups!)

I really couldn't tell you who looks good in these light scrimmages.  Ashton Daniels is getting a lot of reps and seems athletic.  I spoke with a man in his early 60s (maybe one of you?) who watched Daniels' high school games and is really high on him.  It's been a while since we've had an athletic dual-threat QB, and our last one helped us make three Rose Bowls.  That kind of QB covers up a multitude of evils at the college level in particular.

Apparently, we may be running the Wildcat with Junior Beau Nelson #10 this season.  He was running the Isaiah Sanders package.  (Edit: as I thought about this more, it might just be EJ or Filkins running the Wildcat, and we don't want those guys taking the extra hits in practice. The point is that we ran the Wildcat a bunch, and I'd continue to expect us to use it in short-yardage situations. Clearly, there is a desire to keep honing it down.)

Notable non-participants included Filkins, Tremayne, and Ungar.  Symonds participated in most activities but was wearing a "don't-hit-me" pinny.  They all seemed generally okay.  

During the practice, a couple of guys went down with potentially serious lower leg injuries. In the post-practice interview, Shaw suggested that, thankfully, neither injury seems as serious as initially feared, but they will have to be checked out. 
- C Drake Metcalf (hopefully just an ankle; he was on his back on the trainer's table for 20-30 mins)
- WR Elic Ayomanor (knee?)

For those asking about the energy level, it was high... but I would have said the same thing at last year's practice! The offense and the defense took the goal-line competition seriously and there was a big celebration when the offense "won". As Shaw stated, the defense acquitted itself well, considering the offense should be expected to score almost always at the goal line and the competition was tied until the last play.

Below is Shaw's post-practice interview.  It strikes me that he is extremely focused on keeping the team healthy this year, as he's stated consistently in each of these interviews.  He described today's practice as our most "intense," but I really only saw complete tackling for 10-15 minutes. It's great that the team is relatively very healthy, but I hope they'll have enough live tackling against Colgate to prepare them for U$C.

I was busy talking to people, so I didn't really pay super close attention to all the action on the field. Maybe others were there and have some observations?

You can click on the YouTube link below for the full 9-minute post-practice interview.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1560803447313952768?s=20&t=Zg4DHCyngu5wu4CD0YBVbg[/tweet]

[msqueri]

Reactions to the interview (dividing into two posts given board word count limits): 

* Yep, crystal clear at this point that the overriding focus is on staying healthy. An open practice a few observations I've seen didn't think was particularly physical is the "pinnacle" of our training camp. We're doing a "mock game" week to get the players in the rhythm of that.....the week right before we do a real game week before the Colgate game. Three days on and one day off to the point that Shaw volunteered we're taking more days off than the NCAA requires. An obsession with minimizing the number of soft tissue injuries and using sport science to track practice reps. This camp is all about minimizing injuries.

* The question, of course, is how close we are to the optimal balance of preserving health and preparing for the intensity of a season where there will be contact and there will be injuries. It's impossible to know where that balance lies and when you've reached it. All of us, including Shaw, are guessing what's optimal. But I do fear that a defense that lamented horrible tackling last year isn't doing much fully live practicing and, more generally, that we treat our players too much like NFL professionals rather than the much less finished products they are who need live football to get better and to see who's suited for real action rather than just a standout in shorts.

* Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history and I'm not so what do I know but a mock game week right before a game week against a team that our scout team could roll out of bed and beat strikes me as somewhat silly. It really does seem like we're trying to minimize camp and get to the season healthy rather than use the NCAA-allowed practices to full effect. But that's a choice and it may be the right one. I've commented many times in the past that fans overrate practices at the risk of missing the reality, which is that game days reveal who the real players are and that changes much less season-to-season than many assume. Shaw is probably calculating that the vast majority of players we'll rely on (notable exception of DL) have been there and done that and keeping them healthy matters much more than getting them practice time.

* Bummer that amidst all this focus on staying healthy Metcalf and Ayomanor went down yesterday. Really good to hear Shaw say they don't seem as bad as originally feared but we'll see. If we go into the season without Aybar, Pogorelc, Metcalf, and Ayomanor I'd gladly take that. That would be tremendous luck to not be missing any starters. Metcalf being out, and hopefully it's not serious, is somewhat nerve-wracking because it leaves us vulnerable to an injury to Nugent, but in the grand scheme this would be extremely fortuitous injury luck.

* As we all know, the classic mystery and inscrutability of any practice is never being able to know whether something in practice constitutes success or failure since you're going up against yourself. My main reaction to that is to just not read very much into it. Nonetheless, it kind of raises alarm bells in my mind to hear about the defense holding its own in run defense against the offense. That shouldn't even be a close call given what each side has to offer. Another reason not to take this too seriously, though, is that the competition appears to have been a short yardage situational kind of thing. That takes out the element of surprise, allows personnel packages tailored to that situation, and, if I understand some railbird observations correctly, may have involved some Beau Nelson and/or Ashton Daniels wildcat, which is NOT 2022 Stanford football (or so we can hope).

* Shaw's list of the obvious things to improve on from last season is unobjectionable and certainly things we need to get better. I would note that they're all goals (improving run offense and run defense, being more consistent at OL, giving up fewer big plays on defense) and having the right goals is not the same thing as knowing how to address them/effectively addressing them. But as I've said previously, I'm past cynicism and am heading into the season at least relieved we know what the problems are. Just wait and see time to see what the result looks like when it matters.

[msqueri]

Reactions to the interview (dividing into two posts given board word count limits): 

* Yep, crystal clear at this point that the overriding focus is on staying healthy. An open practice a few observations I've seen didn't think was particularly physical is the "pinnacle" of our training camp. We're doing a "mock game" week to get the players in the rhythm of that.....the week right before we do a real game week before the Colgate game. Three days on and one day off to the point that Shaw volunteered we're taking more days off than the NCAA requires. An obsession with minimizing the number of soft tissue injuries and using sport science to track practice reps. This camp is all about minimizing injuries.

* The question, of course, is how close we are to the optimal balance of preserving health and preparing for the intensity of a season where there will be contact and there will be injuries. It's impossible to know where that balance lies and when you've reached it. All of us, including Shaw, are guessing what's optimal. But I do fear that a defense that lamented horrible tackling last year isn't doing much fully live practicing and, more generally, that we treat our players too much like NFL professionals rather than the much less finished products they are who need live football to get better and to see who's suited for real action rather than just a standout in shorts.

* Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history and I'm not so what do I know but a mock game week right before a game week against a team that our scout team could roll out of bed and beat strikes me as somewhat silly. It really does seem like we're trying to minimize camp and get to the season healthy rather than use the NCAA-allowed practices to full effect. But that's a choice and it may be the right one. I've commented many times in the past that fans overrate practices at the risk of missing the reality, which is that game days reveal who the real players are and that changes much less season-to-season than many assume. Shaw is probably calculating that the vast majority of players we'll rely on (notable exception of DL) have been there and done that and keeping them healthy matters much more than getting them practice time.

* Bummer that amidst all this focus on staying healthy Metcalf and Ayomanor went down yesterday. Really good to hear Shaw say they don't seem as bad as originally feared but we'll see. If we go into the season without Aybar, Pogorelc, Metcalf, and Ayomanor I'd gladly take that. That would be tremendous luck to not be missing any starters. Metcalf being out, and hopefully it's not serious, is somewhat nerve-wracking because it leaves us vulnerable to an injury to Nugent, but in the grand scheme this would be extremely fortuitous injury luck.

* As we all know, the classic mystery and inscrutability of any practice is never being able to know whether something in practice constitutes success or failure since you're going up against yourself. My main reaction to that is to just not read very much into it. Nonetheless, it kind of raises alarm bells in my mind to hear about the defense holding its own in run defense against the offense. That shouldn't even be a close call given what each side has to offer. Another reason not to take this too seriously, though, is that the competition appears to have been a short yardage situational kind of thing. That takes out the element of surprise, allows personnel packages tailored to that situation, and, if I understand some railbird observations correctly, may have involved some Beau Nelson and/or Ashton Daniels wildcat, which is NOT 2022 Stanford football (or so we can hope).

* Shaw's list of the obvious things to improve on from last season is unobjectionable and certainly things we need to get better. I would note that they're all goals (improving run offense and run defense, being more consistent at OL, giving up fewer big plays on defense) and having the right goals is not the same thing as knowing how to address them/effectively addressing them. But as I've said previously, I'm past cynicism and am heading into the season at least relieved we know what the problems are. Just wait and see time to see what the result looks like when it matters.

[msqueri]

* I wish I could believe Shaw about Smith and Filkins as a really good 1-2 punch but note the discrepancy between Shaw talking about Filkins as "full speed" yet the player being Mr. Yellow Jersey. Based on this interview, it seems Filkins is one of our three soft tissue issues where the player will come back sometime next week. Availability is a skill and we know from Filkins' history that he has trouble staying healthy. I hope past is not prologue, but it's nerve-wracking to be counting on Filkins as RB2. It would give me more confidence to hear evidence of Harris emerging but it seems clear Smith and Filkins are the main guys right now.

* Shaw dutifully answered the Symonds question and I do expect to see Symonds this year but it didn't sound to me like any indication fullback will be a particularly big part of the offense ("we will still continue to employ the fullback"). It's a question of how much we use 21 (two backs, a tight end, two receivers) and 22 (two backs, two tight ends, one receiver) personnel. Given our stellar WR group, the answer would seem to be "not much." I am envisioning something closer to 2021 Heimuli (9.25 snaps per game) than 2017 Marx (23 snaps per game). Talking about Symonds being one of the best fullbacks in America is a bit of a tallest little person competition. This is nothing against Symonds, it's just that the game has evolved away from this position. By the way, Symonds is my favorite player to spot in videos and photos of the team. His hair, extremely short/tight shorts, and general demeanor evoke Stranger Things' Billy Hargrove. A+ fullback look.

* I generally liked Shaw's front seven answer. Being two deep (and not deeper than that) seems like an obvious, honest assessment of the front seven. There does seem to be competition about how much individuals play. Shaw observing that who "starts" will depend on what the opposing offense puts out there is a fair point; one can imagine numerous configurations depending on whether our base in a given game is 4-3, 4-2, 3-3, etc., and what the opposing offense's strengths are. Very interesting that Shaw continues to highlight Bailey very prominently by name but nobody else. It wouldn't be hard to highlight Herron or one of the three experienced inside linebackers, but he doesn't. Shaw essentially explained why he isn't praising individuals (other than Bailey): we need to make a huuuuuuge (emphasis in his voice) improvement in the front seven and "being good right now is ok but we need to be great by the time we start playing games." Translation: the front seven has sucked donkey balls in recent years and we can't be content that guys look good when it doesn't count because the huuuuuuge improvement we need when it does count is so big. It may also be fair to translate as "we need to see more from the veterans to compensate for how bad the DL will be."

* Fear: we're going to take Bailey's playmaking and Anderson-ify him. I've loved to hear this off-season about how much we're simplifying the defense, letting players react instinctively, minimizing play calls and reads, and so forth. Yet here we are again with Shaw talking about the learning curve for Bailey to know "when he can go inside and when he can't go inside" and "when he's in conjunction with somebody else and when he's free to do whatever he wants." I realize a good chunk of this is just football and players do need to know their responsibilities but I just always get the sense we're asking players to think too much, which is why I've loved what we've heard this off-season. I just hope we don't smooth out too many of Bailey's edges or cram his brain with too much to act decisively and violently. At bare minimum, I think these insights from Shaw corroborate at least somewhat of a learning curve and fans might want to somewhat measure their expectations of what Bailey can do as a true freshman. But our coaches aren't managing those expectations so I guess why should we?

* The Bonner answer is big news to so unequivocally declare Bonner a starter. Many of us suspected as much but this is an un-caveated coronation, which Shaw was unwilling to do for anybody in the front seven. Is Bonner that good? I think most have read enough of me to know I don't think so. Shaw's answer is also revealing in saying Bonner has been good the last few years but has battled injuries. Well, playing football is kind of the whole point of playing football. This is a Filkins-like situation. I would LOVE for each player to finally find consistent health and to really break through. That would be great. Shaw saying he doesn't know how many teams have better starting corners than us.....again, I hope so. Seems quite aggressive. I don't see why we should be any more optimistic about corner than safety, and neither strikes me as anywhere close to nationally elite (but maybe Shaw is talking about Pac-12 elite?).

* Always interesting when Shaw damns somebody with faint praise, which he did with Patu. In essence, the opposite of a compliment sandwich - was just ok in spring and beginning of summer camp, has really come on, still a sophomore with lots of room to grow. My read is that Shaw tends to have highest standards for his QBs and becoming QB1-quality under Shaw is a multi-year process, so this is all just part of the process for Patu. No reason to read anything into these comments either direction.

* I don't know one way or the other where Shaw is right that other programs don't have alums come back as much as we do, but I do get the sense our alumni connectivity is pretty good. Fun to see Shaw's heartfelt answer on that. I do think he molds men, takes pride in seeing them come back, and is generally very respected among the alumni.

[msqueri]

* I wish I could believe Shaw about Smith and Filkins as a really good 1-2 punch but note the discrepancy between Shaw talking about Filkins as "full speed" yet the player being Mr. Yellow Jersey. Based on this interview, it seems Filkins is one of our three soft tissue issues where the player will come back sometime next week. Availability is a skill and we know from Filkins' history that he has trouble staying healthy. I hope past is not prologue, but it's nerve-wracking to be counting on Filkins as RB2. It would give me more confidence to hear evidence of Harris emerging but it seems clear Smith and Filkins are the main guys right now.

* Shaw dutifully answered the Symonds question and I do expect to see Symonds this year but it didn't sound to me like any indication fullback will be a particularly big part of the offense ("we will still continue to employ the fullback"). It's a question of how much we use 21 (two backs, a tight end, two receivers) and 22 (two backs, two tight ends, one receiver) personnel. Given our stellar WR group, the answer would seem to be "not much." I am envisioning something closer to 2021 Heimuli (9.25 snaps per game) than 2017 Marx (23 snaps per game). Talking about Symonds being one of the best fullbacks in America is a bit of a tallest little person competition. This is nothing against Symonds, it's just that the game has evolved away from this position. By the way, Symonds is my favorite player to spot in videos and photos of the team. His hair, extremely short/tight shorts, and general demeanor evoke Stranger Things' Billy Hargrove. A+ fullback look.

* I generally liked Shaw's front seven answer. Being two deep (and not deeper than that) seems like an obvious, honest assessment of the front seven. There does seem to be competition about how much individuals play. Shaw observing that who "starts" will depend on what the opposing offense puts out there is a fair point; one can imagine numerous configurations depending on whether our base in a given game is 4-3, 4-2, 3-3, etc., and what the opposing offense's strengths are. Very interesting that Shaw continues to highlight Bailey very prominently by name but nobody else. It wouldn't be hard to highlight Herron or one of the three experienced inside linebackers, but he doesn't. Shaw essentially explained why he isn't praising individuals (other than Bailey): we need to make a huuuuuuge (emphasis in his voice) improvement in the front seven and "being good right now is ok but we need to be great by the time we start playing games." Translation: the front seven has sucked donkey balls in recent years and we can't be content that guys look good when it doesn't count because the huuuuuuge improvement we need when it does count is so big. It may also be fair to translate as "we need to see more from the veterans to compensate for how bad the DL will be."

* Fear: we're going to take Bailey's playmaking and Anderson-ify him. I've loved to hear this off-season about how much we're simplifying the defense, letting players react instinctively, minimizing play calls and reads, and so forth. Yet here we are again with Shaw talking about the learning curve for Bailey to know "when he can go inside and when he can't go inside" and "when he's in conjunction with somebody else and when he's free to do whatever he wants." I realize a good chunk of this is just football and players do need to know their responsibilities but I just always get the sense we're asking players to think too much, which is why I've loved what we've heard this off-season. I just hope we don't smooth out too many of Bailey's edges or cram his brain with too much to act decisively and violently. At bare minimum, I think these insights from Shaw corroborate at least somewhat of a learning curve and fans might want to somewhat measure their expectations of what Bailey can do as a true freshman. But our coaches aren't managing those expectations so I guess why should we?

* The Bonner answer is big news to so unequivocally declare Bonner a starter. Many of us suspected as much but this is an un-caveated coronation, which Shaw was unwilling to do for anybody in the front seven. Is Bonner that good? I think most have read enough of me to know I don't think so. Shaw's answer is also revealing in saying Bonner has been good the last few years but has battled injuries. Well, playing football is kind of the whole point of playing football. This is a Filkins-like situation. I would LOVE for each player to finally find consistent health and to really break through. That would be great. Shaw saying he doesn't know how many teams have better starting corners than us.....again, I hope so. Seems quite aggressive. I don't see why we should be any more optimistic about corner than safety, and neither strikes me as anywhere close to nationally elite (but maybe Shaw is talking about Pac-12 elite?).

* Always interesting when Shaw damns somebody with faint praise, which he did with Patu. In essence, the opposite of a compliment sandwich - was just ok in spring and beginning of summer camp, has really come on, still a sophomore with lots of room to grow. My read is that Shaw tends to have highest standards for his QBs and becoming QB1-quality under Shaw is a multi-year process, so this is all just part of the process for Patu. No reason to read anything into these comments either direction.

* I don't know one way or the other where Shaw is right that other programs don't have alums come back as much as we do, but I do get the sense our alumni connectivity is pretty good. Fun to see Shaw's heartfelt answer on that. I do think he molds men, takes pride in seeing them come back, and is generally very respected among the alumni.

[TrumpCard]

Thanks to both of you for these insights. Is it time to shut up and play ball yet? :-p

[TrumpCard]

Thanks to both of you for these insights. Is it time to shut up and play ball yet? :-p

[CardinalSagehen]

… if I understand some railbird observations correctly, may have involved some Beau Nelson and/or Ashton Daniels wildcat, which is NOT 2022 Stanford football (or so we can hope). 

Thanks for the insights.

Daniels was the one that scored on the final play. It was a designed run from the shotgun, but with a halfback and an H-back, so not really the Wildcat. I guess he’s another candidate for the running QB role, but I’d guess that he probably won’t see the field this year as a true freshman.  

Stepping back, it is easy to take for granted the most obvious reason for optimism this season - Tanner McKee. In general, there wasn’t much to see in his performance at the scrimmage, but he did throw a 15-yard out to the long side of the field on an absolute frozen rope, hitting the receiver in stride.  I’m not an expert, but I think that’s what people call an “NFL throw.”  I wonder whether a more athletic QB might be more helpful for us, but we cannot take that kind of arm talent and accuracy for granted. He’s also calm in the pocket and willing to take a hit.  

Restating the obvious, for anyone choosing to be optimistic about the season, McKee is the #1 reason.

[CardinalSagehen]

… if I understand some railbird observations correctly, may have involved some Beau Nelson and/or Ashton Daniels wildcat, which is NOT 2022 Stanford football (or so we can hope). 

Thanks for the insights.

Daniels was the one that scored on the final play. It was a designed run from the shotgun, but with a halfback and an H-back, so not really the Wildcat. I guess he’s another candidate for the running QB role, but I’d guess that he probably won’t see the field this year as a true freshman.  

Stepping back, it is easy to take for granted the most obvious reason for optimism this season - Tanner McKee. In general, there wasn’t much to see in his performance at the scrimmage, but he did throw a 15-yard out to the long side of the field on an absolute frozen rope, hitting the receiver in stride.  I’m not an expert, but I think that’s what people call an “NFL throw.”  I wonder whether a more athletic QB might be more helpful for us, but we cannot take that kind of arm talent and accuracy for granted. He’s also calm in the pocket and willing to take a hit.  

Restating the obvious, for anyone choosing to be optimistic about the season, McKee is the #1 reason.

[msqueri]

I always wonder what people mean by more athletic QBs. Tanner McKee ran for a lot more yardage in high school than Ashton Daniels did.

[msqueri]

I always wonder what people mean by more athletic QBs. Tanner McKee ran for a lot more yardage in high school than Ashton Daniels did.

[CardinalSagehen]

I always wonder what people mean by more athletic QBs. Tanner McKee ran for a lot more yardage in high school than Ashton Daniels did.

Your note implies a racial bias. McKee does not look fast to me. Maybe it's because he's so big. On several plays last season, I did not think he wanted the "tough yards" or had a good sense where the first down marker was.  He might have been injured or under strict orders to keep his jersey clean.  

I consider Kevin Hogan to be our last great athletic QB and on par with Luck in that regard.  He had a knack for finding holes and grinding out tough yards with defenders on his back.  I alluded to Hogan in my first note above when I said our last athletic QB got us to three Rose Bowls.  I think the highest form of an athletic QB is one that makes things happen when the play is broken.  Designed runs are fine, and Hogan had many successful ones, but scrambling for first downs and touchdowns is a really big deal in college football.

[CardinalSagehen]

I always wonder what people mean by more athletic QBs. Tanner McKee ran for a lot more yardage in high school than Ashton Daniels did.

Your note implies a racial bias. McKee does not look fast to me. Maybe it's because he's so big. On several plays last season, I did not think he wanted the "tough yards" or had a good sense where the first down marker was.  He might have been injured or under strict orders to keep his jersey clean.  

I consider Kevin Hogan to be our last great athletic QB and on par with Luck in that regard.  He had a knack for finding holes and grinding out tough yards with defenders on his back.  I alluded to Hogan in my first note above when I said our last athletic QB got us to three Rose Bowls.  I think the highest form of an athletic QB is one that makes things happen when the play is broken.  Designed runs are fine, and Hogan had many successful ones, but scrambling for first downs and touchdowns is a really big deal in college football.

[BobK]

Sorry I missed you sage hen
I don’t have much to add. Did love CJ Hawkins catch and run
Interesting manny many more people at the WVB scrimmage shortly after the football plus more at the WVB bbq than the football Practice
Lots of enthusiasm by players and coaches
brobdingnagian hit by Bailey was a standout play

[BobK]

Sorry I missed you sage hen
I don’t have much to add. Did love CJ Hawkins catch and run
Interesting manny many more people at the WVB scrimmage shortly after the football plus more at the WVB bbq than the football Practice
Lots of enthusiasm by players and coaches
brobdingnagian hit by Bailey was a standout play

[old spanish trail]

At the beginning of last year, I think Shaw said they were simplifying everything to eliminate alot of thinking. I sure didn't see anything to confirm that approach.  Miezan and JMF were still waiting and reading, and then using their legitimate speed to be late on the tackle. There must be absolutely no complexity if we did it again. Should be interesting.

[old spanish trail]

At the beginning of last year, I think Shaw said they were simplifying everything to eliminate alot of thinking. I sure didn't see anything to confirm that approach.  Miezan and JMF were still waiting and reading, and then using their legitimate speed to be late on the tackle. There must be absolutely no complexity if we did it again. Should be interesting.