The CardBoard
Future at Running back - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Future at Running back (/thread-15170.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Future at Running back - winflop - 12-05-2017

(12-05-2017, 02:46 PM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:[quote author=Red State link=topic=18294.msg217182#msg217182 date=1512509483]
Weddington isn't made to carry the rock 20+ time p/g.

Would anyone on this board have said Bryce Love WAS made to carry the rock 20+ times per game?
[/quote]

College yes. NFL no.

Re: Future at Running back - lex24 - 12-05-2017

This. He was significantly better this year.  One area where he didn’t get the credit he deserves is returning kicks. He never broke one, but he consistently  had a good returns. He should get a little stronger and maybe a little quicker.

(12-05-2017, 02:05 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Scarlett is a couple of years removed from a serious knee injury and he’s improved each year. Don’t know where his ceiling might be but it would surprise me if we’ve seen it already.


Re: Future at Running back - lex24 - 12-05-2017

Not sure where you saw all that.  I kept waiting for him to show something.  Obviously he’s a true frosh. The fact that he played as much as he did suggests he’s shown the staff something. And he came in with a lot of fan fare. So I hope you are right. But he didn’t show much this year.



(12-05-2017, 01:55 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Wedington looks like the heir apparent.  He's faster than Scarlett or Speights, has better vision, low pad level, and very good speed out of his cuts. 

Scarlett should be farther along in his third year; what we have seen is likely all we are going to get.

An X factor her might be a late get in this recruiting class--speaking of vision and speed out of his cuts.  As a true freshman, this fellow might get only five carries a game, but five good carries in relief of Wedington and Speights could give us a very good running game behind what should be one of our great OLs.


Re: Future at Running back - qwerty49 - 12-05-2017

I agree with Lex. I saw a good slot WR with average speed, decent YAC due mainly to running tough than to nifty moves. I’m not sure if he’s big enough to take the workload at RB. But the fact that he played as a true frosh should tell us how highly staff regards him.

OTOH CMac and Bryce weren’t exactly behemoths. Maybe Wedington could be another Anthony Bookman, who was a WR in HS and left Stanford as our #3 all-time rusher.
(12-05-2017, 10:43 PM)lex24 link Wrote:Not sure where you saw all that.  I kept waiting for him to show something.  Obviously he’s a true frosh. The fact that he played as much as he did suggests he’s shown the staff something. And he came in with a lot of fan fare. So I hope you are right. But he didn’t show much this year.



[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18294.msg217167#msg217167 date=1512507304]
Wedington looks like the heir apparent.  He's faster than Scarlett or Speights, has better vision, low pad level, and very good speed out of his cuts. 

Scarlett should be farther along in his third year; what we have seen is likely all we are going to get.

An X factor her might be a late get in this recruiting class--speaking of vision and speed out of his cuts.  As a true freshman, this fellow might get only five carries a game, but five good carries in relief of Wedington and Speights could give us a very good running game behind what should be one of our great OLs.
[/quote]

Re: Future at Running back - Mick - 12-06-2017

(12-05-2017, 10:37 PM)lex24 link Wrote:This. He was significantly better this year.  One area where he didn’t get the credit he deserves is returning kicks. He never broke one, but he consistently  had a good returns. He should get a little stronger and maybe a little quicker.

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=18294.msg217174#msg217174 date=1512507909]
Scarlett is a couple of years removed from a serious knee injury and he’s improved each year. Don’t know where his ceiling might be but it would surprise me if we’ve seen it already.
[/quote]

Cam Scarlett has 552 yards in 21 KO Returns, good for a 26.3 ypkr average, which would be #13 in the NCAA, except the NCAA has him for a 26.0 average, placing him at #18:

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/16

Incidentally, Dorian maddox has three KO Returns for 96 yards.  That 32 yard average would place him at #6 in the NCAA.

Re: Future at Running back - fullmetal - 12-06-2017

Can Wedington pass block?  If not, then all this is speculative.  Turley's probably working with Conor on that blocking strength.

Re: Future at Running back - Treebound - 12-06-2017

Put me in the camp that believes the Bryce will return next year with more muscle and weight.  I think the injury is going to require more effort and rehab than we currently understand. 

Bryce is a warrior and I'm thrilled for him to be invited back to NY for the Bridesman - well deserved.  I think next year will be a very special one for Stanford and he clearly enjoys all the Stanford offers.  Hat's off to him for his grit, determination and talent this year and I'll be thrilled for him no matter his decision regarding the draft.  We've been spoiled with RB talent the past 3-4 years.  He, like CMAC, Andrew and Toby are a tribute to the student/athlete ethos that the Bridesman is supposed to be about.    More importantly, they are testaments to the character of the people in and around the program.   

Re: Future at Running back -- Love "likely" comes back - ADPATERSON - 12-06-2017

Agree with Treebound that Love comes back.  Lamar Alexander came back. 
Two alums at the team Awards banquet this week say "Love likely returns". 
-- Yes, yes he could jump like Solly did, after the Bowl. 

FACTORS FOR STAYING
1) The word is that his Parents want him to finish, and he is serious about Med school.  No really; this is important. 
After an NFL career, he goes into Sports Medicine.  Big time.  Like the McCalls did.
2) A lot of Pac12 competition lose their star QBs, except Duckies.  We could well be favored to win it all with Love back.
3) The OLine, as profiled in this thread, as good as it gets if you are an RB -- in a RUN FIRST Offense. 
4) Returning maybe garners a $5M signing bonus (speculation) if he wins the bronze stiff-arm next year.  That's not peanuts.
-- Yes, yes he risks injury.  Got it.  And we have seen he is willing to do that.  He does not need to go to NFL for the money now.
5) I think his strong relationship with Shaw may be unique.  He knows he won't get that in the NFL. 
6) The table (schedule, OLine, pre-season promos) sets up REAL WELL for him. 
-- Sure, the road schedule is tough in 2018... but if you are a Voldemort candidate you WANT to play in South Bend (!)

Love returns, and that changes everything. 



Re: Future at Running back - Langdude - 12-06-2017

(12-05-2017, 02:06 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18294.msg217152#msg217152 date=1512505915]
2018: Walker Little-Foster Sarell-Jesse Burkett-Nate HeBIG-A.T. Hall (with Nick Wilson, Brian Chaffin, and Devery Hamilton returning, as well possibly Brandon Fanaika). Reagan Williams at FB. I have more concerns with our blocking at TE.

Interesting OL.
Are you specifically predicting that Sarell moves to guard, or just guessing at our top 5 OL.
Generically, I would guess that the most likely replacement for Bright would be either Wilson or Fanaika (if he returns). But, I don't know what the coaches are thinking.
[/quote]

It's my own prognostication, nothing more.

Given that our entire line won honors this year - including the much-maligned-around-here A.T. Hall - I think it would be hard to take any of them out. OLs, as I am sure you know, need to gel; they work as a unit. So minimize distortion by only replacing the graduating Bright (who should have been 1T APAC12). So I think there are two options. Replace him with Nick Wilson, or replace him with Foster Sarell. (I think both of them are superior to Brandon Fanaika, who may or may not come back since he is, I think, around 47 years old.) Wilson, a guard, would be an easy switch; plug and play, and find a new Ogre. Foster less so. Either convert him to guard, or convert Hall to guard, if either are able and amenable.

Any way you look at it, our OL next year is going to be one of the great ones at Stanford. And we all know that our offense is predicated first of all (before even having a great QB) on having a great OL.

Now, about that defense...

-m.

Re: Future at Running back - Hank 91 - 12-06-2017

(12-05-2017, 01:55 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:An X factor her might be a late get in this recruiting class--speaking of vision and speed out of his cuts.  As a true freshman, this fellow might get only five carries a game, but five good carries in relief of Wedington and Speights could give us a very good running game behind what should be one of our great OLs.

You had me at stealth recruit. Even if you didn't actually say stealth recruit, you still had me.

Re: Future at Running back - BostonCard - 12-06-2017

I'm waiting for news of our stealth defensive linemen and stealth linebackers.

BC

Re: Future at Running back - SamuelMcF - 12-06-2017

(12-06-2017, 01:36 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I'm waiting for news of our stealth defensive linemen and stealth linebackers.

BC

What about a stealth SECOND SCHOLARSHIP FULLBACK?

Re: Future at Running back - CompSci87 - 12-06-2017

(12-06-2017, 01:57 PM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18294.msg217316#msg217316 date=1512592611]
I'm waiting for news of our stealth defensive linemen and stealth linebackers.

BC

What about a stealth SECOND SCHOLARSHIP FULLBACK?
[/quote]

How about a stealth offensive coordinator?  ;)

Re: Future at Running back - qwerty49 - 12-06-2017

Hall’s problems seemed more in pass protection than in run blocking. I noticed a couple of times when we went heavy he shifted over to the left side just outside Fanaika and did a pretty good job bulldozing his man. Maybe his straight-ahead strength doesn’t translate well to lateral quickness and footwork on the edge of the pocket.

(12-06-2017, 12:21 PM)Langdude link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18294.msg217175#msg217175 date=1512507990]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18294.msg217152#msg217152 date=1512505915]
2018: Walker Little-Foster Sarell-Jesse Burkett-Nate HeBIG-A.T. Hall (with Nick Wilson, Brian Chaffin, and Devery Hamilton returning, as well possibly Brandon Fanaika). Reagan Williams at FB. I have more concerns with our blocking at TE.

Interesting OL.
Are you specifically predicting that Sarell moves to guard, or just guessing at our top 5 OL.
Generically, I would guess that the most likely replacement for Bright would be either Wilson or Fanaika (if he returns). But, I don't know what the coaches are thinking.
[/quote]

It's my own prognostication, nothing more.

Given that our entire line won honors this year - including the much-maligned-around-here A.T. Hall - I think it would be hard to take any of them out. OLs, as I am sure you know, need to gel; they work as a unit. So minimize distortion by only replacing the graduating Bright (who should have been 1T APAC12). So I think there are two options. Replace him with Nick Wilson, or replace him with Foster Sarell. (I think both of them are superior to Brandon Fanaika, who may or may not come back since he is, I think, around 47 years old.) Wilson, a guard, would be an easy switch; plug and play, and find a new Ogre. Foster less so. Either convert him to guard, or convert Hall to guard, if either are able and amenable.

Any way you look at it, our OL next year is going to be one of the great ones at Stanford. And we all know that our offense is predicated first of all (before even having a great QB) on having a great OL.

Now, about that defense...

-m.
[/quote]

Re: Future at Running back - Langdude - 12-06-2017

(12-06-2017, 05:47 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Hall’s problems seemed more in pass protection than in run blocking. I noticed a couple of times when we went heavy he shifted over to the left side just outside Fanaika and did a pretty good job bulldozing his man. Maybe his straight-ahead strength doesn’t translate well to lateral quickness and footwork on the edge of the pocket.

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18294.msg217307#msg217307 date=1512588074]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=18294.msg217175#msg217175 date=1512507990]
[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18294.msg217152#msg217152 date=1512505915]
2018: Walker Little-Foster Sarell-Jesse Burkett-Nate HeBIG-A.T. Hall (with Nick Wilson, Brian Chaffin, and Devery Hamilton returning, as well possibly Brandon Fanaika). Reagan Williams at FB. I have more concerns with our blocking at TE.

Interesting OL.
Are you specifically predicting that Sarell moves to guard, or just guessing at our top 5 OL.
Generically, I would guess that the most likely replacement for Bright would be either Wilson or Fanaika (if he returns). But, I don't know what the coaches are thinking.
[/quote]

It's my own prognostication, nothing more.

Given that our entire line won honors this year - including the much-maligned-around-here A.T. Hall - I think it would be hard to take any of them out. OLs, as I am sure you know, need to gel; they work as a unit. So minimize distortion by only replacing the graduating Bright (who should have been 1T APAC12). So I think there are two options. Replace him with Nick Wilson, or replace him with Foster Sarell. (I think both of them are superior to Brandon Fanaika, who may or may not come back since he is, I think, around 47 years old.) Wilson, a guard, would be an easy switch; plug and play, and find a new Ogre. Foster less so. Either convert him to guard, or convert Hall to guard, if either are able and amenable.

Any way you look at it, our OL next year is going to be one of the great ones at Stanford. And we all know that our offense is predicated first of all (before even having a great QB) on having a great OL.

Now, about that defense...

-m.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Hm. Interesting. That would suggest he might be a good guard. But the LG has to pull A LOT because of our base power. But if so, it would make a lot of sense to put him there and Sarell at RT. (Or move HeBIG to LG and Hall to RG, which might make even more sense. But three new positions players might be a bit much. We'll see.)

-m.

Re: Future at Running back - CTcard - 12-07-2017

(12-06-2017, 12:21 PM)Langdude link Wrote:... So minimize distortion by only replacing the graduating Bright (who should have been 1T APAC12). So I think there are two options. Replace him with Nick Wilson, or replace him with Foster Sarell. (I think both of them are superior to Brandon Fanaika, who may or may not come back since he is, I think, around 47 years old.) Wilson, a guard, would be an easy switch; plug and play, and find a new Ogre. Foster less so. Either convert him to guard, or convert Hall to guard, if either are able and amenable.

I understand that Fanaika may not come back. However, the coaches appear to think he is our third best guard right now. We have been running some rotations with Fanaika at guard and Bright shifted over to LT, and when Hamilton went down for awhile that was how he was replaced.

Position switches need to be done with care. They don't always work and often take substantial time even if they will eventually work out. A tale of caution would be Alfieri this past year. I haven't seen either Hall of Sarell described as a potential guards, or as someone to plug in anywhere along the line in the mode of Bright - but I may have merely missed it. In Sarell's case, I wouldn't switch him to guard this year if it is going to set back his progress as an eventual tackle (presumably starting at least in 2019).

Re: Future at Running back - needle - 12-07-2017

Quote: Position switches need to be done with care. 

Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

Exhibit B: An anecdote from the NFL that includes Andrus Peat:

Quote: Three players have started at two different positions -- Kelemete at left guard and right guard, Peat and left guard and left tackle and rookie Ryan Ramczyk at left and right tackle. Kelemete also played right tackle in Week 1, and all three players have seamlessly switched positions in at least one game.

...

Coach Sean Payton, who's been coaching in the NFL for 20 years, said he "can't recall" seeing an offensive line display so much versatility.

...

And the Saints' offensive numbers show just how well the line has done. New Orleans is one of just two teams to rank in the top 10 in the NFL in passing and rushing yards per game, ranking second through the air and seventh on the ground. The Saints are averaging 4.3 yards per carry and have allowed just eight sacks, the fewest in the league. 

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2017/11/saints_offensive_line_versatil.html

Re: Future at Running back - CTcard - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 07:06 AM)needle link Wrote:Someone who actually played O-line at a level beyond HS should chime in, but my woefully limited experience is that switching O-line positions, especially between guard and tackle, is just not on the same level of disruption as most other position switches.

Exhibit A: David Bright

While I think generally speaking that may be true, David Bright is a case in point in both directions.

He has played effectively at both guard and tackle.

However, the coaches have publicly marveled at the fact that he has been able to do so. We certainly haven't seen many players do so.

A recent counter-example might be Casey Tucker. He was switched to guard last spring to shore up that position and it appeared we had better options at tackle. But, we didn't see him play guard in a game.

If Sarell can be Bright, that would be great.

Re: Future at Running back - Remy74 - 12-07-2017

(12-05-2017, 10:09 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=SamuelMcF link=topic=18294.msg217187#msg217187 date=1512510414]
[quote author=Red State link=topic=18294.msg217182#msg217182 date=1512509483]
Weddington isn't made to carry the rock 20+ time p/g.

Would anyone on this board have said Bryce Love WAS made to carry the rock 20+ times per game?
[/quote]

College yes. NFL no.
[/quote]

Chris Johnson (5’11”, 191 pounds during the first half of his NFL career including his 2,000 rushing yards season) and Jamaal Charles (5’11”, 199 pounds) had no issues with performing at a high level in the NFL while under 200 pounds. Bryce is probably closer to 5’9”, which implies that he is more compact/higher BMI and likely better suited for NFL punishment than guys 2 inches taller but of comparable weight.

A RB is better playing at a comfortable weight as opposed to bulking up to a point where they lose the traits that make them great.

If Bryce is actually 196 pounds as per the Stanford roster, if he really wants to play in the NFL, he can easily be 200 pounds by the NFL Combine and 205 pounds by the start of the 2018 NFL season.  It really depends on whether he really wants to go to Medical School [which can be achieved after an NFL career] or if his dream is really to play in the NFL.  The potential marginal improvement in his draft stock [which is currently 1st-2nd round] is not worth the risk of returning to college if his primary goal is the NFL.

Many project him to be the 2nd-3rd RB drafted in 2018 [in the 1st or 2nd round].  If he runs 4.3x, this will likely be solidified. There is not major improvement to be gained by returning to college.  If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

Re: Future at Running back - stupac2 - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 08:54 AM)Remy74 link Wrote:If anything, as a RB, his draft stock will drop due to an additional year of punishment in college as a RB only has so many carries in his body.

...That is not how it works. RBs might have shorter NFL careers than many positions, but it's still significantly longer than a rookie contract, which is what teams would care about when you draft someone. I've never heard potential longevity cited as a concern with a rookie.