System-wide failure - 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: System-wide failure (/thread-16567.html)
+- 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: System-wide failure (/thread-16567.html)
RE: System-wide failure - doubledub - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 05:06 PM)Ronnietrader Wrote: KJ has been heroic at times, but his lack of mobility to get 2 to 3 first downs a game with his legs has been a problem. He also seems slow to recognize coverage or a blitz to get the ball out early or check into a better play.
Is it somewhat an unspoken secret that KJ won't run the ball? They sort of talk about it on the radio broadcast, but not really. If you are really telling someone "don't run" you are guaranteeing to miss at least one or two first downs per game and as a result, kill drives and lose games. I have trouble imagining the coaches giving such a directive because it seems so short-sighted, but it really does look that is what is happening.
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 08:05 PM)ewhitlock Wrote:I have no way of knowing about a directive, but what I do know is the following: In his first two games against Arizona State and UCLA, KJ ran the ball. After that, when he became the starter, he did not. The "reason" for that is presumed to be his hip injury, although I know of no official source that has said that. It also may be because Chryst was the only backup and nobody wanted to go there. This year, he has not run the ball, despite some silly read option plays where the whole defense is running right at Love and KJ gives him the ball anyway, instead of running. So, unless KJ is now afraid to run (which I seriously doubt, give how he stands in the pocket), either he is still not 100% from his surgery and/or he has been instructed not to run no matter what.(10-07-2018, 05:06 PM)Ronnietrader Wrote: KJ has been heroic at times, but his lack of mobility to get 2 to 3 first downs a game with his legs has been a problem. He also seems slow to recognize coverage or a blitz to get the ball out early or check into a better play.
Is it somewhat an unspoken secret that KJ won't run the ball? They sort of talk about it on the radio broadcast, but not really. If you are really telling someone "don't run" you are guaranteeing to miss at least one or two first downs per game and as a result, kill drives and lose games. I have trouble imagining the coaches giving such a directive because it seems so short-sighted, but it really does look that is what is happening.
I don't buy caution about Mills as the issue. KJ is taking hits as it is out there. Football isn't a safe sport to begin with. Taking a short run to get a first down as the pocket is falling apart is no more risky than standing there and getting blasted. That can't be the reason, IMHO. No zone read plays, fine, but no running makes no sense unless he is still hurt.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-07-2018
(10-07-2018, 07:50 PM)Phogge Wrote: Agree and am puzzled by how much the OL has regressed. More concerned about the lack of viable guys in the DL and at safety. Should be priority A in 2020 recruiting since they don’t look like they are getting any studs at those positions this cycle. No pressure and soft in the middle plus a safety who whiffs more than Dave Kingman.
We miss this guy...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1049122467325734912?s=21[/tweet]
RE: System-wide failure - fullmetal - 10-08-2018
The offense would have been fine without the turnovers. Crazy how ~80 yards of offense can be negated by a single turnover...and doubly so if you give up a 100 yd pick six. How often do you see a pick six go 100 yds? Sigh.
Given what I presume are debilitating injuries to the OL, I think you have to heavily feature misdirection as an offensive coordinator. I'm not sure that's in David Shaw's DNA, and I'm not sure Tav Pritchard is up to the job. I do appreciate the newfound passing game, but KJ often throws the ball into double- or triple-coverage, banking on accuracy and the hands of JJAW + tight ends. When it doesn't happen...you can give up INTs. I did see some check down throws this time, which was heartening, but Utah made better use of intermediate routes -- Stanford could use a game manager approach and take those 6 yd crossing routes instead of the 20 yd JJAW/tight end routes.
The announcers were talking about how we should expect KJ to keep the ball anytime now given how the defense was flowing to the RB...haha, what do the announcers know...
Our front seven were getting caved in regularly. This is a problem, and I'm guessing it has to do with them staying on the field longer and more often. The alternative explanation is that we're just not good at defending a man-blocking rushing attack. Utah certainly showed that they were good at defending a zone-blocking rush--a LB would find an unblocked gap, or the backside edge rusher would get the RB. Sigh.
KJ has to make quicker decisions and be more decisive. The double-clutching and long reads are not helping the OL or the sack numbers. It means more shorter routes for the receivers and maybe cleverer route combinations. Clever hasn't been an evident quality of the offense lately. In fact, it's been notably missing.
Did Buncom get victimized twice? No help on the 4th and 2 resulting in a 35 yd TD, and couldn't stay with the receiver on the almost-sack that put the game really out of reach. Sigh. Fewer defensive snaps and less time on the field might help, but those were two single points of failure for 14 pts.
Check out this recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP4zG_Mb2Qw
One more thing: I'm starting to doubt the ability of certain coaches to actually coach. I don't think that recruiting is the issue, as others have begun to posit. We have talent, and we have smarter talent at that. We need coaches to actually elevate their game. IMO, Duane Akina is the king of coaches for his ability to turn talent into production on the field. I've not really seen that at the QB position since Harbs/Luck. I feel like Hogan was a completely self-made talent who coached himself into the NFL (where he was coached to throw better pretty much immediately, ahem). We're doing pretty well with the tight ends and linebackers right now. Ron Gould and Diron Reynolds at RB and DL seem to be doing ok, but I can't really tell cause they're recent-ish hires. If you lack QB/OL coaching, you're kind of sunk. Raw talent gets you almost nowhere there. Raw talent at WR/DB can mask a lot of issues...not so at QB/OL. We need some good coaches there.
RE: System-wide failure - Hulk01 - 10-08-2018
The OL is continuing last year's regression. It also was very poor in the first half of 2014.
These are Bloomgren's guys.
RE: System-wide failure - OutsiderFan - 10-08-2018
The notion the OL is dealing with injuries as a rationale to explain its lousy performance, is a bridge too far for me. Stanford has a pretty clear track record of being what I would call overly cautious with injured players. It seems highly unlikely anyone would be playing if they were battered and bruised any more than anyone else playing football. IOW, "the OL is banged up" is just an excuse for poor performance, IMO.
RE: System-wide failure - ADPinWDC - 10-08-2018
After the UTAH game in the presser, Shaw defended "OUR [HIS] Philosophy" (Run First) for the track record it has delivered over the last 8 years. But, Generals are famous for fighting the last war until they are defeated. Other coaches watch film. The response by opposing defenses seems obvious: Stack the box and rush 5-7, go man on the outside and dare Stanford to throw. SDSU did this to open the season; in the second half we threw and killed them. USC was a defensive gem against a green rookie QB. UC Davis does not count, though they played a lot like SDSU -- so they watched film also. NDAM has the best defense we have faced and a superior DLine (sacked us 5 times). Once the Irish set a lead, they knew we had to pass so they defended that. UTAH came in with a tailored defensive scheme to double team JJAW in the red zone and it paid off big; we did not adapt, and had little run game without Love. We got back in it 21-27, but then turnovers killed us. ADAPT or DIE. Where is fresh thinking (Stanford Innovation, see Bill Walsh) going to come from?
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 06:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The notion the OL is dealing with injuries as a rationale to explain its lousy performance, is a bridge too far for me. Stanford has a pretty clear track record of being what I would call overly cautious with injured players. It seems highly unlikely anyone would be playing if they were battered and bruised any more than anyone else playing football. IOW, "the OL is banged up" is just an excuse for poor performance, IMO.+1. It can't be that they are all so injured that we can't win the battle at the LOS somewhere. We basically never so.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 09:10 AM)Goose Wrote:(10-08-2018, 06:13 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The notion the OL is dealing with injuries as a rationale to explain its lousy performance, is a bridge too far for me. Stanford has a pretty clear track record of being what I would call overly cautious with injured players. It seems highly unlikely anyone would be playing if they were battered and bruised any more than anyone else playing football. IOW, "the OL is banged up" is just an excuse for poor performance, IMO.+1. It can't be that they are all so injured that we can't win the battle at the LOS somewhere. We basically never so.
I too am skeptical about injuries being the only problem, though I am not sure it can't be helping.
The one thing I wanted to push back on is the idea that you only have to win one battle on the LOS to be successful. In pass plays, one breakdown by the line is all it takes to generate a sack or QB pressure; thus, you have to "win" all the battles to be successful. For running plays it is more complicated, but you at least need to win all the battles at the point of attack to be successful. While way too often we have seen a complete line failure (where three guys are in the backfield before the play gets off), in truth the majority of failed plays have a single point of failure. One guy whiffing on his block is all it takes for a hole to close and an otherwise promising running play to go be stopped for 2 yards.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 09:38 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The one thing I wanted to push back on is the idea that you only have to win one battle on the LOS to be successful. In pass plays, one breakdown by the line is all it takes to generate a sack or QB pressure; thus, you have to "win" all the battles to be successful. For running plays it is more complicated, but you at least need to win all the battles at the point of attack to be successful. While way too often we have seen a complete line failure (where three guys are in the backfield before the play gets off), in truth the majority of failed plays have a single point of failure. One guy whiffing on his block is all it takes for a hole to close and an otherwise promising running play to go be stopped for 2 yards.You are absolutely correct. One player missing a block is all it takes for quick pressure on the QB or to blow up a running play. If it was always the same player, we could say that may be caused by injury. Unfortunately, it is more widespread than that right now. They can't all be hurt (can they?).
BC
What I haven't seen, however, is our OL pushing the defense back, or reliably making big holes. In previous years, even in games we did not win, we saw that happen. Maybe not all the time, but pretty often. It isn't happening with this line. We haven't dominated anybody at the LOS, even UCD.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 09:54 AM)Goose Wrote: You are absolutely correct. One player missing a block is all it takes for quick pressure on the QB or to blow up a running play. If it was always the same player, we could say that may be caused by injury. Unfortunately, it is more widespread than that right now. They can't all be hurt (can they?).
What I haven't seen, however, is our OL pushing the defense back, or reliably making big holes. In previous years, even in games we did not win, we saw that happen. Maybe not all the time, but pretty often. It isn't happening with this line. We haven't dominated anybody at the LOS, even UCD.
You are quite correct; I didn't read your argument properly. It is not one guy consistently missing his assignment, but rather the failures are occurring across the line, which as you point out argues against injury.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - martyup - 10-08-2018
Over the past several years I have noticed that there is a correlation of activity/enthusiasm on the Cardboard with our football team's performance. I know that it makes no logical sense, but it is there. Last week this board was crickets and I worried that there was a palpable lack of interest in the Utah game. Our team came out flat and got smoked in the first half by a fired up Utah squad. Any plausible explanations?
RE: System-wide failure - OutsiderFan - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 11:26 AM)martyup Wrote: Over the past several years I have noticed that there is a correlation of activity/enthusiasm on the Cardboard with our football team's performance. I know that it makes no logical sense, but it is there. Last week this board was crickets and I worried that there was a palpable lack of interest in the Utah game. Our team came out flat and got smoked in the first half by a fired up Utah squad. Any plausible explanations?
This is why I made the post on Saturday morning saying the game had all the earmarks of something ugly. I've seen this dynamic play out following Cal for many years too.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-07-2018, 04:45 PM)Goose Wrote: We were. The problem is, we were so ineffective running that Utah could drop back more pass defenders on most downs. That leads to double coverage (and an interception). The second defender being there is not part of the plan. This is a problem since when we rely on our receivers to make plays when they are well covered. KJ makes a living throwing passes that most coaches would bench a QB for throwing. He throws to covered receivers as a matter of course. With us, it's normal offense. The fact we got as many yards as we did is a tribute to the receivers and KJ. However, since Utah could get pressure (often when rushing only 4), it also led to sacks, hurries, an interception and a fumble. This pressure also contributed to some under-thrown balls and not reading who was double covered at times. This same scenario let to an interception against ND (except the receiver was actually triple covered).
A receiver covered by a single DB is a match-up you will take every time, especially when you have receivers with a height advantage over their DB's. An uncovered receiver means there was a breakdown in the defense, and is not something you can count on in your scheme. What you want is to throw to a receiver in single coverage.
On Saturday, our typical pass formation featured three wide receivers (sometimes a tight end line up wide), in a 12 formation (one on one side, two on the other), a tight end, and a single running back, defended by a Utah team that spent most of their time in their base D with one safety covering the slot defender and one safety deep who usually rotated on the snap to cover the deep route on the two wide receiver side. Our TE and running back usually stayed in to pass protect.
The result is we usually had the slot receiver running a shallow/intermediate route and covered by the safety and a linebacker, the deep route on that side covered by the DB and the rotating safety, and the opposite receiver in one-on-one coverage. The result was 381 yards of passing offense (the most since 2013 if I saw that correctly) and 14.6 yards per catch. We also drew three pass interference penalties and one defensive holding, plus several uncalled penalties (including on the play before the pick-6).
BC
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 12:50 AM)fullmetal Wrote: The offense would have been fine without the turnovers. Crazy how ~80 yards of offense can be negated by a single turnover...and doubly so if you give up a 100 yd pick six. How often do you see a pick six go 100 yds? Sigh.
Given what I presume are debilitating injuries to the OL, I think you have to heavily feature misdirection as an offensive coordinator. I'm not sure that's in David Shaw's DNA, and I'm not sure Tav Pritchard is up to the job. I do appreciate the newfound passing game, but KJ often throws the ball into double- or triple-coverage, banking on accuracy and the hands of JJAW + tight ends. When it doesn't happen...you can give up INTs. I did see some check down throws this time, which was heartening, but Utah made better use of intermediate routes -- Stanford could use a game manager approach and take those 6 yd crossing routes instead of the 20 yd JJAW/tight end routes.
The announcers were talking about how we should expect KJ to keep the ball anytime now given how the defense was flowing to the RB...haha, what do the announcers know...
Our front seven were getting caved in regularly. This is a problem, and I'm guessing it has to do with them staying on the field longer and more often. The alternative explanation is that we're just not good at defending a man-blocking rushing attack. Utah certainly showed that they were good at defending a zone-blocking rush--a LB would find an unblocked gap, or the backside edge rusher would get the RB. Sigh.
KJ has to make quicker decisions and be more decisive. The double-clutching and long reads are not helping the OL or the sack numbers. It means more shorter routes for the receivers and maybe cleverer route combinations. Clever hasn't been an evident quality of the offense lately. In fact, it's been notably missing.
Did Buncom get victimized twice? No help on the 4th and 2 resulting in a 35 yd TD, and couldn't stay with the receiver on the almost-sack that put the game really out of reach. Sigh. Fewer defensive snaps and less time on the field might help, but those were two single points of failure for 14 pts.
Check out this recap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP4zG_Mb2Qw
One more thing: I'm starting to doubt the ability of certain coaches to actually coach. I don't think that recruiting is the issue, as others have begun to posit. We have talent, and we have smarter talent at that. We need coaches to actually elevate their game. IMO, Duane Akina is the king of coaches for his ability to turn talent into production on the field. I've not really seen that at the QB position since Harbs/Luck. I feel like Hogan was a completely self-made talent who coached himself into the NFL (where he was coached to throw better pretty much immediately, ahem). We're doing pretty well with the tight ends and linebackers right now. Ron Gould and Diron Reynolds at RB and DL seem to be doing ok, but I can't really tell cause they're recent-ish hires. If you lack QB/OL coaching, you're kind of sunk. Raw talent gets you almost nowhere there. Raw talent at WR/DB can mask a lot of issues...not so at QB/OL. We need some good coaches there.
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 11:41 AM)BostonCard Wrote: A receiver covered by a single DB is a match-up you will take every time, especially when you have receivers with a height advantage over their DB's.For sure, that is true of Stanford right now.
Quote: An uncovered receiver means there was a breakdown in the defense, and is not something you can count on in your scheme. What you want is to throw to a receiver in single coverage.I can't totally agree here. It partly depends on what you mean by covered. In fact, most teams do try to get a receiver "open". They don't always succeed, and have to settle for loosely single covered. For instance, that really great play we ran against Oregon where we forced the defender to choose which of the two receivers he was going to cover on the "in" route. That produced an open receiver. "Pick" plays produce open receivers, at least for an instant. Slants with the defender playing behind and outside contain produces a receiver that is functionally open because the DB can't get to the ball without going through the receiver. WSU produces open, in fact uncovered, receivers as a matter of course. Sometimes these patterns are real short, but they are going for YAC. Against a zone, you can get guys open by overloading an area of the field. So, teams really do try to get an "open" receiver.
For Stanford, having a tall, strong receiver with the DB playing behind is functionally "open", especially because of our receivers size. However, it is more of a judgement call if the DB is even with or fronting the receiver. If the receiver is being fronted, the QB has to make a good throw or it may be an INT. KJ is good at this, but it isn't real safe.
Quote:On Saturday, our typical pass formation featured three wide receivers (sometimes a tight end line up wide), in a 12 formation (one on one side, two on the other), a tight end, and a single running back, defended by a Utah team that spent most of their time in their base D with one safety covering the slot defender and one safety deep who usually rotated on the snap to cover the deep route on the two wide receiver side. Our TE and running back usually stayed in to pass protect.All true, but we also have to own the picks, one for six. One may say that was just a mistake by KJ that had unfortunate consequences, which is true. However, it is a mistake caused at least partially by our willingness to throw to guys with defenders nearby, at times in pretty good position. Same thing happened at ND, although not a pick six. So it isn't a free lunch.
The result is we usually had the slot receiver running a shallow/intermediate route and covered by the safety and a linebacker, the deep route on that side covered by the DB and the rotating safety, and the opposite receiver in one-on-one coverage. The result was 381 yards of passing offense (the most since 2013 if I saw that correctly) and 14.6 yards per catch. We also drew three pass interference penalties and one defensive holding, plus several uncalled penalties (including on the play before the pick-6).
BC
IMHO, this kind of passing offense is designed to work best with the pass being a bit of a surprise. I don't think you can base your entire offense on this approach. If the other team expects it, they can defend it. They may end up holding and grabbing, but the can also turn mistakes into turnovers. You either need to be able to run the ball pretty well or have some plays that really get people "open". OTOH, we may have no other option. Not a good place to be.
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 03:52 PM)Goose Wrote:Quote: An uncovered receiver means there was a breakdown in the defense, and is not something you can count on in your scheme. What you want is to throw to a receiver in single coverage.I can't totally agree here. It partly depends on what you mean by covered. In fact, most teams do try to get a receiver "open". They don't always succeed, and have to settle for loosely single covered. For instance, that really great play we ran against Oregon where we forced the defender to choose which of the two receivers he was going to cover on the "in" route. That produced an open receiver. "Pick" plays produce open receivers, at least for an instant. Slants with the defender playing behind and outside contain produces a receiver that is functionally open because the DB can't get to the ball without going through the receiver. WSU produces open, in fact uncovered, receivers as a matter of course. Sometimes these patterns are real short, but they are going for YAC. Against a zone, you can get guys open by overloading an area of the field. So, teams really do try to get an "open" receiver.
I could be mis-remembering, but I thought the play we ran against Oregon forced the safety to pick which receiver he was going to cover. Costello's job there was to determine which receiver was in 1-on-1 coverage, not which receiver was uncovered.
Your other examples are really examples of where the receiver tries to get separation from the DB (it can also be accomplished with a really fast receiver or with a play-action pass that catches the safeties cheating in on the run), but being able to get a bit of separation is not the same as being uncovered.
BC
RE: System-wide failure - Goose - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 06:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I could be mis-remembering, but I thought the play we ran against Oregon forced the safety to pick which receiver he was going to cover. Costello's job there was to determine which receiver was in 1-on-1 coverage, not which receiver was uncovered.
In this case, it was really uncovered. It was one defender, two receivers. Pick your poison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ILmr9p-bpc
Look at about 1:48 in. They "optioned" the Mike linebacker.
Quote:Your other examples are really examples of where the receiver tries to get separation from the DB (it can also be accomplished with a really fast receiver or with a play-action pass that catches the safeties cheating in on the run), but being able to get a bit of separation is not the same as being uncovered.
BC
Yes, uncovered is a "special case" of open. That is why I said most teams try to get a receiver "open". There are many different ways to do this, but it is a goal of most teams. The QB is instructed to "find the open man", not "find the single-covered man". We often throw to receivers that have no or almost no separation, i.e. are not "open". That really puts the onus on KJ to throw a perfect ball ball. He often does, particularly when he has time. However, that is a lot to ask, and in any game, there will be mistakes or hurried throws. If the receiver is "open", a bad throw probably leads to an incomplete pass. If the receiver is covered, a bad throw can be a 50/50 ball or worse. Our receivers can go get a ball that is well placed, but if it isn't well placed, it can cost us. Underthrows can kill you if the DB jumps the route.
We do get guys "open" occasionally, but not often enough to base the offense on it. Running precise routes can get our guys open, but it requires great timing on the play in most instances, which is not our specialty. We also don't have the speed some other teams use to get separation. OSB maybe does. Our tight ends don't. Play action only works if the defense believes you actually will run. So, the "new" pass first offense has it's own issues. (Not the least of which is sacks, but we are back to the OL issue there.)
RE: System-wide failure - BostonCard - 10-08-2018
(10-08-2018, 07:29 PM)Goose Wrote: Yes, uncovered is a "special case" of open. That is why I said most teams try to get a receiver "open". There are many different ways to do this, but it is a goal of most teams. The QB is instructed to "find the open man", not "find the single-covered man". We often throw to receivers that have no or almost no separation, i.e. are not "open". That really puts the onus on KJ to throw a perfect ball ball. He often does, particularly when he has time. However, that is a lot to ask, and in any game, there will be mistakes or hurried throws. If the receiver is "open", a bad throw probably leads to an incomplete pass. If the receiver is covered, a bad throw can be a 50/50 ball or worse. Our receivers can go get a ball that is well placed, but if it isn't well placed, it can cost us. Underthrows can kill you if the DB jumps the route.
We do get guys "open" occasionally, but not often enough to base the offense on it. Running precise routes can get our guys open, but it requires great timing on the play in most instances, which is not our specialty. We also don't have the speed some other teams use to get separation. OSB maybe does. Our tight ends don't. Play action only works if the defense believes you actually will run. So, the "new" pass first offense has it's own issues. (Not the least of which is sacks, but we are back to the OL issue there.)
I'm thinking we are probably converging on agreement, if we replace "uncovered" with "open". I'm happy to concede that an offense would rather find the man who is open because he's gotten a step on his DB, or found the seam in coverage, or is the outlet receiver underneath, and it is better to throw it to "that guy" than the receiver who is tightly covered. But if that is the definition, then I disagree that we are particularly bad at it. Look at the six Kaden Smith receptions Stanford highlighted (not sure about the other two):
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1049480064407093250[/tweet]
The first he was open underneath. The second was tight one-on-one coverage (the only tight coverage I found). The third catch he had clear separation from his coverage. The fourth catch he had a step on his coverage (maybe only a half-step, but the DB was not in position to make a play). The fifth catch he found a soft spot in the zone. The sixth is tough to tell if it was a man or zone, but it looks like he found the soft spot again; the mike linebacker is close-ish but Costello easily threw it out of reach.
So, out of six passes to Smith that they showed, one was into tight coverage, two were into loose coverage (an advantage you generally would take), and in three Smith was open either underneath, in a seam in the zone, or because he clearly had a step on his DB.
BC
lex24 - lex24 - 10-08-2018
In today’s game Kingman would be considered a contact hitter
(10-07-2018, 07:50 PM)Phogge Wrote: Agree and am puzzled by how much the OL has regressed. More concerned about the lack of viable guys in the DL and at safety. Should be priority A in 2020 recruiting since they don’t look like they are getting any studs at those positions this cycle. No pressure and soft in the middle plus a safety who whiffs more than Dave Kingman.