The CardBoard
The other front line (long) - 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: The other front line (long) (/thread-16729.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: The other front line (long) - BostonCard - 11-06-2018

Kennedy has been WR coach at Iowa and Colorado.  And Gould as you mention.

Beyond that most of the offensive coaches are either internal promotions or fairly green.

BC

RE: The other front line (long) - slide - 11-06-2018

(11-06-2018, 01:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Kennedy has been WR coach at Iowa and Colorado.  And Gould as you mention.

Beyond that most of the offensive coaches are either internal promotions or fairly green.

BC

good catch.  I'd forgotten Kennedy.  thank you.

RE: The other front line (long) - Hulk01 - 11-06-2018

(11-06-2018, 12:31 PM)ChicagoCard Wrote:  Can't wait to see the defensive line next year. If current verbally committed recruits stick, any prospects for one or two true freshmen to get snaps next yr? Altho maybe that isn't something to hope for.

If you mean this year's true freshmen. Booker started Saturday and probably keeps the job over Swann.  Booker's on a steeper trajectory from a better start.  He's a physical freak.  A visitor spotted him earlier this year asked who the visting NFL guy was.

Fox, this year's other true freshman, might push Jackson.  But the coaches like Jackson and the idea of a 5th year leader for the group. 

Williams seems a lock for the nose role.  He could be very good.

That's a player rotation:  Booker, Jackson/Fox, Williams, Swann in relief.  Ryan Johnson, one of our most offered DLs ever, is a puzzle.

I don't see Pakola pushing any of these guys, or Jovan Swann, for snaps.

RE: The other front line (long) - slide - 11-06-2018

(11-06-2018, 12:10 PM)Hulk01 Wrote:  Use CFB, but you have to do a lot of your own math.

For each game, you have to take the opponent's listed runs and yards per run and then deduct sacks from the number of runs and add the lost sack yardage..  So you end up with fewer run attempts and more yards gained.

Then you have to do something similar with the opponents' season stats.  Take the total number of runs and yards gained, then go to sacks, look under opponent sacks, deduct the sacks from total runs and add the lost sack yardage into the running yardage.  And then, of course, divide the new yards gained by the new runs actually attempted.

Note that two of our three games before the last three weren't too bad.  We held Oregon and Utah below their season averages (by 0.15 and 0.22 yards per play), but got rolled by Notre Dame.  They averaged 5.30 against us but just 4.67 on the season.

thanks hulk.  

sacks still an issue for me.  you discount them as a run but count a successful QB scramble (i.e. avoiding a sack) as a positive run.  right?

RE: The other front line (long) - Hulk01 - 11-06-2018

No way to track successful scrambles in the stats.  If a team doesn't use designated quarterback runs, yiou can assume the QBs rushing yards are not from planned runs.

In an ideal world, stats would separate QB scrambles.  And they certainly would not treat sacks as running attempts. 
And they'd junk average punting yards.  And. . .lots that could be improved.

RE: The other front line (long) - CTcard - 11-06-2018

(11-05-2018, 08:25 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

I have been away from the board for a few days. Seems to have been a bit of a meltdown.

I think Hulk's threads on each line gets the focus on the heart of current issues. Stanford's resurgence as a football program was largely based upon strength along both lines. That created a pile of positively reinforcing conditions and a ton of wins. Both lines are currently down, which makes winning difficult no matter the scheme. Though both lines are suffering, they seem to be in strongly different circumstances


The fact that the DL ever became great is at least a minor miracle, maybe even major.
In the key years of Stanford defense dominance, particularly run dominance (2010-2014), we had the following starters on the DL (more or less, injuries changed things up from time to time. The recruiting rankings from 247sports):

2010 - Masifilo (#25 SDE, #323 overall), Fua (#42 DT, #507), Bulcke (not listed)
2011 - Masifilo, Stephens (#24 DT, #270), Gardner (#110 SDE, unranked)
2012 - Gardner, Stephens, Anderson (#37 WDE, #623)
2013 - Gardner, Anderson, Mauro (#61 SDE, not ranked)
2014 - Anderson, Parry (not listed, walkon OL), Leuders (#10 SDE, #114)

There's a lot of contribution there from a lot of guys who were not highly ranked.
I am not sure if this indicates bad rankings, fantastic development, finding diamonds in the rough, or pure dumb luck. I sense a lot of the latter.

The decline along the DL almost looks expected from recruiting - which suffered in numbers as well as quality for awhile.
Though mostly young, the guys currently on the DL are generally much more highly recruited out of HS. More so than we've seen in awhile. Broadly speaking, I think that the first and second year players look promising, but they are first and second year players.


OL recruiting has always been a little easier for Stanford. The current set of OL were generally highly recruited and are generally experienced. The complete collapse of run blocking is a mystery, though covered aplenty in the OL thread.
(11-06-2018, 04:11 PM)Hulk01 Wrote:  And. . .lots that could be improved.

That's for sure.

One of my least favourite is kickoff return yards. To have any meaning this should be measured versus the 25 yard line, which now is almost always an option as you can fair catch the KO.

[Has anyone tried to figure out whether Stanford has averaged better or worse than the 25 yard line after kickoffs by almost always trying to return them?
I guess I would give up a few yards on average for the chance for a big play - but not too many.]

RE: The other front line (long) - winflop - 11-06-2018

(11-06-2018, 04:41 PM)CTcard Wrote:  I guess I would give up a few yards on average for the chance for a big play - but not too many.]

When Cam Scarlett is returning kicks, the chance for a big play is a big fat ZERO, unless you define our 40 as a big play. His outer limit is midfield. Surrender monkey kick returner.

RE: The other front line (long) - Goose - 11-06-2018

(11-06-2018, 12:58 PM)slide Wrote:  other than Gould, very limited offensive exposure to any other D-1 program, starting with Shaw.  same is true for recruiting as well.
Don't forget, Shaw started at Western Washington before spending time with spent time with at four different Pro teams before he came  to college coaching. He has seen the Elephant, and has plenty of coaching experience. FWIW, I think Pro coaching experience is probably more valuable as far as learning football goes, because that is all you do. There is no recruiting, etc. Shaw's experience is fine.
Pritchard's experience may be fine too. While one could question the situation with Burns and Chryst, it is hard to say that he is responsible for those issues. Chryst didn't exactly light it up in his new school, although there are mitigating problems there as well. For sure, if you blame Pritchard for Chryst, you have to credit him for KJ. Not sure the signal to noise ratio is high enough to know anything at this point. I don't so much worry about Pritchard as OC hurting Stanford, because if Shaw doesn't think he is cutting it, he will take action. He understands this is a business for the coaches. He is a coach's son. It is more for Pritchard's sake that I worry about his resume.

RE: The other front line (long) - slide - 11-07-2018

Goose -- Western Washington and USan Diego aren't proving grounds for D-1 recruiting.  far from it.  and Stanford, by choice, doesn't devote the resources or emphasis (starting from the top) to recruiting that our competitive peers do.  I wish it were not so, but again this is by choice.  the good news is Stanford's cache and the 40 year decision.  it means we don't have to be the 1st to offer a kid, but we can't be last either (like Hilinski or NPF the prior year).  and given how small (by choice to some extent) our recruiting boards are per coach, we should not be out recruited in terms of contacts or attention to detail.  coaches at an Alabama or a UGA or Notre Dame will have boards with 3, 4 or 5x the names our coaches do.  

not the solution but a few thought starters on improving recruiting:

RE: The other front line (long) - Goose - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 06:13 AM)slide Wrote:  Goose -- Western Washington and USan Diego aren't proving grounds for D-1 recruiting.

True. However, I was addressing what I thought was your main point, namely

Quote:very limited offensive exposure to any other D-1 program, starting with Shaw.

I wanted to make the point that Shaw had considerable exposure to other offenses a the NFL level, which I think is actually "better" than exposure at the D1 college level. I didn't think your post was mostly directed toward recruiting.

RE: The other front line (long) - Hulk01 - 11-07-2018

I'm optimistic.  If Stanford decides something needs fixing, there is always the money to fix it.

And if Stanford doesn't decide that, a generous donor will.

If you want compelling evidence, on your next visit head up to Stanford golf course and visit the Siebel Golf Training Complex.  Ten years after its opening, it is still the most complete--and remarkable--training facility in the world. 

It came about as these things do.  Thomas Siebel (Siebel Systems) stopped by Conrad Ray's office one day in 2005 and asked "What do you need?"  The result, two years later, was far more than Conrad could have described.  There are five green complexes, each of the five in the style of one of the game's most prominent golf course architects.  There are  bunkers filled with each of the three different types of sand our varsity golfers will encounter, and greens seeded in fescue, Bermuda, and bent grass, so the golfers can prepare for the different grains they will encounter.

And on and on--every piece of technology that can help make a good golfer a better one, for example,

And Thomas Siebel isn't even a Stanford grad.  He's just a Silicon Valley billionaire with a love of golf. 

If an alum with money thinks we have a problem, he or she can help us solve it.

And in relative terms, our endowment is bottomless.  As a comparison, we played TCU in a bowl game last year. TCU's total endowment is $1.6 billion.  Last year, Stanford's return on its endowment was almost twice that: $2.9 billion.  Stanford's endowment earns almost $8 million a day.  A day.

Problems at Stanford don't stay problems for long.  All that money, and all those Thomas Siebels, are the reasons.

And Stanford's advantage, like its endowment, is going to grow.  State schools aren't going to get richer.  They are going to get squeezed. Private schools might get richer than they are, but in 2025, Stanford's endowment should exceed $50 billion.  It will literally have more money than it knows what to do with.  

I'm not worried.  I've got worries in my life, to be, but Stanford's success in whatever it wishes to succeed in is not one of them.  And Stanford and its alums, or merely its fans like Tom Siebel, want to succeed at football.

RE: The other front line (long) - stupac2 - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 09:24 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  And in relative terms, our endowment is bottomless.  As a comparison, we played TCU in a bowl game last year. TCU's total endowment is $1.6 billion.  Last year, Stanford's return on its endowment was almost twice that: $2.9 billion.  Stanford's endowment earns almost $8 million a day.  A day.

This is why I don't understand regular Joe Schmoe alums donating to Stanford. It's a completely meaningless amount of money to the institution. If you're going to get your name on a building? Fine, whatever, you could help humanity far more somewhere else but everyone's got their own things. For people who are comfortable-but-not-wealthy? It seems insane.

RE: The other front line (long) - slide - 11-07-2018

and yet Bernie and Shaw balk at piddling sums to hire a head trainer for football.

I know Conrad well and know the range facility story well (although I'd point out that the facilities race has caught up here too and the range makes up for the comparative decline in the course.  technology and land use loss have really hurt it.)

based on your outline, then may be the problem is our head coach doesn't ask?


(11-07-2018, 09:24 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  I'm optimistic.  If Stanford decides something needs fixing, there is always the money to fix it.

And if Stanford doesn't decide that, a generous donor will.

If you want compelling evidence, on your next visit head up to Stanford golf course and visit the Siebel Golf Training Complex.  Ten years after its opening, it is still the most complete--and remarkable--training facility in the world. 

It came about as these things do.  Thomas Siebel (Siebel Systems) stopped by Conrad Ray's office one day in 2005 and asked "What do you need?"  The result, two years later, was far more than Conrad could have described.  There are five green complexes, each of the five in the style of one of the game's most prominent golf course architects.  There are  bunkers filled with each of the three different types of sand our varsity golfers will encounter, and greens seeded in fescue, Bermuda, and bent grass, so the golfers can prepare for the different grains they will encounter.

And on and on--every piece of technology that can help make a good golfer a better one, for example,

And Thomas Siebel isn't even a Stanford grad.  He's just  a Silicon Valley billionaire with a love of golf. 

If an alum with money thinks we have a problem, he or she can help us solve it.

And in relative terms, our endowment is bottomless.  As a comparison, we played TCU in a bowl game last year. TCU's total endowment is $1.6 billion.  Last year, Stanford's return on its endowment was almost twice that: $2.9 billion.  Stanford's endowment earns almost $8 million a day.  A day.

Problems at Stanford don't stay problems for long.  All that money, and all those Thomas Siebels, are the reasons.

And Stanford's advantage, like its endowment, is going to grow.  State schools aren't going to get richer.  They are going to get squeezed. Private schools might get richer than they are, but in 2025, Stanford's endowment should exceed $50 billion.  It will literally have more money than it knows what to do with.  

I'm not worried.  I've got worries in my life, to be, but Stanford's success in whatever it wishes to succeed in is not one of them.  And Stanford and its alums, or merely its fans like Tom Siebel, want to succeed at football.


RE: The other front line (long) - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 09:24 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:   Stanford and its alums, or merely its fans like Tom Siebel, want to succeed at football.

OK, let's get into this a bit.  

The popular narrative here seems to be that as long as Shaw wants to be at Stanford, he can be at Stanford. I don't know what win percentage Shaw must be carrying in the long and near term for this to be a reality, but there are two different types of scenarios for improvement:

1. Shaw on his own decides changes must be made, he makes them, and gets back to winning the Pac-12.

2. Shaw is reluctant to make changes, doesn't get back to winning the Pac-12, and stalls out at 7-5/8-4 type seasons.

Obviously in the first case, everything takes care of itself. Shaw is self-motivated, knows what to do, and does it.  The second case is a bit dicier. 

Who is going to apply the pressure and demand more?  You say Hulk there should be no concerns because Stanford has the money to address whatever problem, and there are people who want Stanford to win in football. In my experience following this stuff, the AD is OK with 7-5 or 8-4 seasons, but the donors most certainly are not, and they force the AD to make changes.

I've never thought of Stanford as the kind of place that would ever have these dynamics at work, a Tom Siebel who would throw around cash to pressure the AD to pressure the coach to make changes, or even replace the coach, if not performing at a championship level. Are you saying these forces now do exist with Stanford? 

It's always been my belief that you can't sustain a winning program without outside pressure that demands it.  Stanford has never really put a high priority on championship football to my knowledge. It's been more if it happens, great, but we're not churning coaches until we win the Pac-12.  Are you Hulk, suggesting that given Stanford's last decade of football success, there are now higher expectations and a higher standard for acceptable football performance?

I get the need to have that high performing program at schools with 100K stadiums to fill, but it seems a little dubious to me that a a school that struggles to fill a 50k seat stadium could ever have great pressure on it to win championships.

RE: The other front line (long) - Hulk01 - 11-07-2018

I don't blame Scarlett for this year's kickoff returns.  He has a knack that too many fans fail to recognize.

Blame the five guys immediately in front of him.
It doesn't take much outside pressure. 
A billionaire who likes football is all it takes.

(Agree that Stanford''s course is an issue, but lots of colleges face that issue.  The back tees at Eugene CC, as one example, have no more room to go back.  The much newer courses, like SMU's, don't have that issue, but--and you can tell me, Slide, I played a year of small college golf only--does the length of a team's home course have a major effect on recruiting?  Do you play many true rounds on the course, or do you basically practice on it?)

The things that need fixing will get fixed.

RE: The other front line (long) - cctop - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 06:13 AM)slide Wrote:  not the solution but a few thought starters on improving recruiting:
  • name a recruiting coordinator (and add compensation for the job)
  • add 2 or 3 support staff devoted to recruiting and pulling transcripts (a coach does this now)
  • more early offers, especially to 4 and 5-star recruits
  • utilize Spring Official Visits
  • use all (or nearly all) 56 Official Visits allowed every year (we probably run 50 to 60% utilization rate)
  • leverage available opportunities for in-home visits, use them with recruits and as program marketing initiatives (and go to kids' homes who have not already committed)
  • develop better relationships with head coaches, Athletic Directors and counselors at feeder schools (particularly needed at head coach level)
  • institute at least weekly staff routines of reviewing recruits and making offers 
  • don't leave unused scholarships on the table
  • no gap years at QB recruiting (evaluations are already spotty so numbers matter)

Is this what Mike Eubanks does/did when he left The Bootleg to become Associate AD?

I'm no insider so maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that some part of our ascendance under Harbaugh was due to the program recognizing that we needed to do these things and hiring Mike to fill the role.

RE: The other front line (long) - PalmTree - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 11:15 AM)cctop Wrote:  
(11-07-2018, 06:13 AM)slide Wrote:  not the solution but a few thought starters on improving recruiting:
  • name a recruiting coordinator (and add compensation for the job)
  • add 2 or 3 support staff devoted to recruiting and pulling transcripts (a coach does this now)
  • more early offers, especially to 4 and 5-star recruits
  • utilize Spring Official Visits
  • use all (or nearly all) 56 Official Visits allowed every year (we probably run 50 to 60% utilization rate)
  • leverage available opportunities for in-home visits, use them with recruits and as program marketing initiatives (and go to kids' homes who have not already committed)
  • develop better relationships with head coaches, Athletic Directors and counselors at feeder schools (particularly needed at head coach level)
  • institute at least weekly staff routines of reviewing recruits and making offers 
  • don't leave unused scholarships on the table
  • no gap years at QB recruiting (evaluations are already spotty so numbers matter)

Is this what Mike Eubanks does/did when he left The Bootleg to become Associate AD?

I'm no insider so maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that some part of our ascendance under Harbaugh was due to the program recognizing that we needed to do these things and hiring Mike to fill the role.

Per the DAPER directory, ME's title is Director of Recruiting and Football Operations, and has at least 2 staff reporting to him.

RE: The other front line (long) - SamuelMcF - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 10:43 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  I don't blame Scarlett for this year's kickoff returns.  He has a knack that too many fans fail to recognize.

Blame the five guys immediately in front of him.

10000% agree.

KR blocking has been atrocious. Not sure what's caused this. Brandon Simmons being out certainly can't help; I could see him etching out a niche in the NFL as a special teams demon like Johnson Bademosi or Michael Thomas.

The only thing I've noticed is Andrew Pryts routinely gets steamrolled.

RE: The other front line (long) - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2018

(11-07-2018, 10:43 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  It doesn't take much outside pressure.  
A billionaire who likes football is all it takes.

Are you saying Tom Siebel is this billionaire who likes Stanford football?  Or that someone who fits the description will step up?

RE: The other front line (long) - Hulk01 - 11-07-2018

I don't think Siebel is an active football fan. 
But he wasn't a devoted Stanford golf fan either.
He just liked the idea of a facility for himself and any of his friends
who agreed to help pay for it.
All those donors---not sure the total number--have full practice privileges there.

But among the sources we can hit,
Luck, Sherman, Ertz and Decastro earn a combined $53 million a year.
And Tiger, a brobdingnagian fan, does well.

All it takes a convincing case. 
If someone can make that case, the money is there, all but growing on the Tree.