The CardBoard
Assessing our assessments - 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: Assessing our assessments (/thread-16936.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-03-2018

(12-03-2018, 10:50 PM)lex24 Wrote:  BC has the right take. Stanford has defended well when its had a strong front seven. It had at best a below average front seven this year.   Even in ‘17 with Phillips, it was at best average.
Yes, he does. The problem is, it is a tautology. When you have a strong front seven, you have seven out of eleven players that are above average (strong). Unless the other four are way below average, you have an above-average defense. The "strong" front seven can be the result of good recruiting and/or good coaching. Unlike the OL, we haven't recruited as many defensive players that are consensus "great" prospects. However, as the OL has proven recently, sometimes even that doesn't "work".
Basically, I agree that on the defensive line side of things, we need to recruit better. However, over the years Stanford has had problems doing that. We need more emphasis in this area. We have had better luck at linebacker, and there is no reason that can't continue or even improve. That said, our injuries this year at both safety and linebacker certainly didn't help. Similarly, we had serious injuries at corner in 2016. There is no free lunch.

RE: Assessing our assessments - OutsiderFan - 12-04-2018

First of all, the examples used to claim changing coaches makes no difference, were all head coaches from what I could gather.

Second, what part of falling from #1 to #9 in conference defensive rankings doesn't show failure? And furthermore, don't tell me a coordinator can't be held responsible for his team's failings because of recruiting, when the guy in charge is responsible for the performance on defense, and recruiting is part of it.

To see some of the responses questioning the questioning of Anderson, you are left to think Stanford has the best Defensive Coordinator it could possibly have.  Like, there is no way Stanford's defense could perform better under the guidance of another DC. That infers Lance Anderson is the most talented DC there is in the country.  Do you really believe Stanford couldn't possibly have a more effective DC than Anderson?

Now, I will be the first to admit Stanford may not have the wherewithal to hire a better DC. But that's not really the point here.  Stanford is suppose to be all about excellence, setting high standards of performance, and holding people accountable for that performance. At what point do you stop making excuses for the drop in performance and start holding the guy responsible for it accountable?  And more importantly, how bad does the performance have to be before you make a change?

It seems the excuses are all ready to go for next year. The ILBs are going to be inexperienced and/or the DBs are young. Every program has turnover from year to year, but Stanford has declined steadily on defense for four years straight.  Just of comparison, here is Stanfords YPP rankings over the seasons Anderson has been DC:

2014: O #7 D #1
2015: O #3 D #4
2016: O #8 D #4
2017: O #3 D #7
2018: O #1 D #9

What's funny is everyone complains about the offense, but the reality is the defense has actually been worse, and like I said, is trending in a bad direction. Given Costello's ability, hard to imagine the offense slipping down to #7 or #8 in 2019. The defense must get up to a top 4 in conference level to win a championship.  Do you all have confidence Anderson can reverse the trend and improve, when he has done nothing but oversee decline since his first season?

lex24 - lex24 - 12-04-2018

There is no way to know how Stanford or anyone else performs under a different coordinator. Which makes it all guesswork. But I asked you , on your list 1-8, where does Anderson fall short? And please tell us, who is your pick for DC?

As I said, going into the year the defense was the much bigger issue and question. Because of the players, not the coaches.

I didn’t say a coach cannot be responsible for failings because of recruiting. That’s a big part of the job. What I said is I don’t know Anderson’s (or any other Stanford coaches) recruiting ability. I am critical of the failure to fill all the scholarships. But to me, that’s on Shaw.

(12-04-2018, 07:15 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  First of all, the examples used to claim changing coaches makes no difference, were all head coaches from what I could gather.

Second, what part of falling from #1 to #9 in conference defensive rankings doesn't show failure? And furthermore, don't tell me a coordinator can't be held responsible for his team's failings because of recruiting, when the guy in charge is responsible for the performance on defense, and recruiting is part of it.

To see some of the responses questioning the questioning of Anderson, you are left to think Stanford has the best Defensive Coordinator it could possibly have.  Like, there is no way Stanford's defense could perform better under the guidance of another DC. That infers Lance Anderson is the most talented DC there is in the country.  Do you really believe Stanford couldn't possibly have a more effective DC than Anderson?

Now, I will be the first to admit Stanford may not have the wherewithal to hire a better DC. But that's not really the point here.  Stanford is suppose to be all about excellence, setting high standards of performance, and holding people accountable for that performance. At what point do you stop making excuses for the drop in performance and start holding the guy responsible for it accountable?  And more importantly, how bad does the performance have to be before you make a change?

It seems the excuses are all ready to go for next year. The ILBs are going to be inexperienced and/or the DBs are young. Every program has turnover from year to year, but Stanford has declined steadily on defense for four years straight.  Just of comparison, here is Stanfords YPP rankings over the seasons Anderson has been DC:

2014: O #7 D #1
2015: O #3 D #4
2016: O #8 D #4
2017: O #3 D #7
2018: O #1 D #9

What's funny is everyone complains about the offense, but the reality is the defense has actually been worse, and like I said, is trending in a bad direction. Given Costello's ability, hard to imagine the offense slipping down to #7 or #8 in 2019. The defense must get up to a top 4 in conference level to win a championship.  Do you all have confidence Anderson can reverse the trend and improve, when he has done nothing but oversee decline since his first season?


RE: Assessing our assessments - stupac2 - 12-04-2018

Another thing to keep in mind is that there's often an adjustment period when bringing in totally new coordinators. I'm sure any niners fan can tell you how many different regimes Alex Smith played under, and how that stifled his development. Other than the hilariously difficult schedule (@UCF! @KSU! ND!), Stanford looks to be pretty well set up for next year, do we really want to switch coordinators and have to basically start over on that side of the ball?

I think the case for coaching change is strongest when you can look at the scheme they're running and say that it's clearly out of date or bad for the players. That was the main criticism of McCarthy, he was running an old-school scheme that required his receivers to be able to get separation, and other than Adams they couldn't. He wasn't looking at what the Rams and Chiefs (or, hell, the Patriots a decade ago!) were doing to create natural rubs and beat coverages with scheme. He also hilariously misjudged the talent on his roster multiple times. I don't think he's the sole problem in GB, but at this point he's clearly part of it and I get wanting to move on.

But what of that is true of Anderson? As far as I can tell we're not being killed on scheme, we just don't have enough talented, healthy players. Perhaps you can fault development/recruiting for that, but development falls more on position coaches and it's not at all obvious to me that our recruiting could be much better (at least in ways that Anderson could fix, the fact that we're routinely under 85 seems more like Shaw's fault and should definitely be fixed).

So I don't really buy the argument that changes are needed, on either side of the ball. I think the whole system is too opaque to outsiders and there are too many variables to assign blame with confidence.

RE: Assessing our assessments - ChicagoCard - 12-04-2018

I'm interested to see where Mike MacIntyre lands because based on how good SJSU was in 2012 -- he also made Colorado a much improved team from their previous regime -- it just seems pretty obvious he's a really good coach. He's been both defensive coordinator and defensive backs coach in a few different places. Not saying I want it to happen but if Lance Anderson were to get hired away to Utah St, then I think MacIntyre would be a compelling choice for DC. But Lance Anderson is also the outside linebackers coach so there would be a void there.

RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-04-2018

(12-04-2018, 09:31 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  Another thing to keep in mind is that there's often an adjustment period when bringing in totally new coordinators. I'm sure any niners fan can tell you how many different regimes Alex Smith played under, and how that stifled his development. Other than the hilariously difficult schedule (@UCF! @KSU! ND!), Stanford looks to be pretty well set up for next year, do we really want to switch coordinators and have to basically start over on that side of the ball?

Quick correction... our schedule next year is @UCF, home against Northwestern and home against Notre Dame, which may actually be harder.  We play the return game at KSU in 2021.

BC

RE: Assessing our assessments - stupac2 - 12-04-2018

(12-04-2018, 10:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(12-04-2018, 09:31 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  Another thing to keep in mind is that there's often an adjustment period when bringing in totally new coordinators. I'm sure any niners fan can tell you how many different regimes Alex Smith played under, and how that stifled his development. Other than the hilariously difficult schedule (@UCF! @KSU! ND!), Stanford looks to be pretty well set up for next year, do we really want to switch coordinators and have to basically start over on that side of the ball?

Quick correction... our schedule next year is @UCF, home against Northwestern and home against Notre Dame, which may actually be harder.  We play the return game at KSU in 2021.

BC

Yeah, the FBS Schedule website was wrong, now that our full schedule is out I see that. I think I'd rather play @KSU the year after Snyder retires instead of vs Northwestern the year after they win the B1G West, but 7 home games is nice.

RE: Assessing our assessments - BostonCard - 12-04-2018

(12-04-2018, 10:21 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  
(12-04-2018, 10:16 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(12-04-2018, 09:31 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  Another thing to keep in mind is that there's often an adjustment period when bringing in totally new coordinators. I'm sure any niners fan can tell you how many different regimes Alex Smith played under, and how that stifled his development. Other than the hilariously difficult schedule (@UCF! @KSU! ND!), Stanford looks to be pretty well set up for next year, do we really want to switch coordinators and have to basically start over on that side of the ball?

Quick correction... our schedule next year is @UCF, home against Northwestern and home against Notre Dame, which may actually be harder.  We play the return game at KSU in 2021.

BC

Yeah, the FBS Schedule website was wrong, now that our full schedule is out I see that. I think I'd rather play @KSU the year after Snyder retires instead of vs Northwestern the year after they win the B1G West, but 7 home games is nice.

Also, not sure when students get back, but I think they will be around for six of the games (all but Northwestern).

BC

RE: Assessing our assessments - stupac2 - 12-04-2018

That's a good point and will hopefully make our attendance slightly less terrible!

RE: Assessing our assessments - Langdude - 12-04-2018

(12-02-2018, 07:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  4. The pass rush would be better as a result of Gabe Reid
My favorite post of this year was when Toohill went down and I said this would give Gabe Reid a chance to step up, only to have several peeps take issue that I didn't have enough fait in Jordan Fox. Gabe Reid's highlight videos showed an explosive first step and ability to play low that no other Stanford pass rusher had IMO. Lo and behold, even though he didn't get as many snaps as Fox, Reid led Stanford in sacks, was #4 in the Pac-12 with 5.5 and Stanford finished one sack behind WSU to lead the conference. Another future All Conference performer.

As one of the "peeps" who said that Jordan Fox was better suited to start than Gabe Reid when Casey Toohill went down, I stand by that assessment. Fox had more experience, had a great tape himself, and had already acquitted himself well in his limited PT. I will happily confess that Reid did better this year than I thought he would, and for that I am thankful. However, I think that Fox did great, too. He did have two fewer sacks than Reid. (By the by, it is interesting that 5.5 finished as fourth in the conference, because it isn't a stellar number. That would have finished 15th last year.) But if you want to get pedantic, Fox had one more TFL, one more PBU, and one more quarterback hit, so maybe we call it even at that point. However, Fox had waaaay more tackles (55 to 34), fourth on the team, in fact (behind the ILBs, natch, and Paulson Adebo), and therefore, I think, a more all-around solid season than Reid. I suspect that the biggest reason that Fox had so many tackles and Reid finished slightly ahead in sacks is the positions they tended to play. When they were both in, Fox played the Sam and Reid played the Will; as anyone who has played in a 3-4 knows, the Will gets the glory, the Sam is the anchor.

But, arguing who had the better season has no answer. They both did great and exceeded expectation. If Toohill comes back next year, OLB will be a strength.

-m.

RE: Assessing our assessments - OutsiderFan - 12-05-2018

Reid is a better pass rusher and Fox a better player in space would be my conclusion.

The OLB position will be crowded in 2019.

- Fox
- Reid
- Toohill
- Robinson
- Kaufusi
- Umerah
- Kelly
- Keck
- Herron Jr.

RE: Assessing our assessments - winflop - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Reid is a better pass rusher and Fox a better player in space would be my conclusion.

The OLB position will be crowded in 2019.

- Fox
- Reid
- Toohill
- Robinson
- Kaufusi
- Umerah
- Kelly
- Keck
- Herron Jr.

And ILB will be rough. I think Barton & Pryts are the only potential returning players who saw the field at the position outside of garbage time (Beecher was out there on special teams). Although Barton may be graduating.

RE: Assessing our assessments - ChicagoCard - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  The OLB position will be crowded in 2019.

- Fox
- Reid
- Toohill
- Robinson
- Kaufusi
- Umerah
- Kelly
- Keck
- Herron Jr.

For what it's worth the current roster also lists Caleb Phillps (soph), Anthony Trinh (jr) and Jake Lynch (freshm) at OLB.

RE: Assessing our assessments - CTcard - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 06:49 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(12-05-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Reid is a better pass rusher and Fox a better player in space would be my conclusion.

The OLB position will be crowded in 2019.

- Fox
- Reid
- Toohill
- Robinson
- Kaufusi
- Umerah
- Kelly
- Keck
- Herron Jr.

And ILB will be rough. I think Barton & Pryts are the only potential returning players who saw the field at the position outside of garbage time (Beecher was out there on special teams). Although Barton may be graduating.

It seems that the coaches are likely to be closely perusing the roster looking for another ILB candidate ... or two.
OLB seems the likely source for such a move. There are other ways to go, but it's not like we have safeties to shift forward.

Much depends upon the development of kids like Mangum-Farrar and Miezan. I think they have appeared in 2 and 3 games, respectively, at this point, though I haven't really noticed them and don't think they have recorded a statistic.

RE: Assessing our assessments - donkey687 - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 06:49 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(12-05-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Reid is a better pass rusher and Fox a better player in space would be my conclusion.

The OLB position will be crowded in 2019.

- Fox
- Reid
- Toohill
- Robinson
- Kaufusi
- Umerah
- Kelly
- Keck
- Herron Jr.

And ILB will be rough. I think Barton & Pryts are the only potential returning players who saw the field at the position outside of garbage time (Beecher was out there on special teams). Although Barton may be graduating.

Time to switch to a 4-3? It seems like our personnel may be better suited to a 4-3 defense next year.

RE: Assessing our assessments - stupac2 - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 09:34 AM)donkey687 Wrote:  Time to switch to a 4-3? It seems like our personnel may be better suited to a 4-3 defense next year.

In a 4-3 aren't you essentially just switching a pass-rushing OLB to be a DE? So you still have two middle-linerbacker types, they're just not in the middle?

RE: Assessing our assessments - winflop - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 08:53 AM)CTcard Wrote:  It seems that the coaches are likely to be closely perusing the roster looking for another ILB candidate ... or two. 
OLB seems the likely source for such a move. There are other ways to go, but it's not like we have safeties to shift forward.

Yeah because that experiment worked so well with Alfieri. There is a major recruiting gap here and to a certain extent a development gap as well, and it's not going to be fixed in one season. ILB is going to be this team's greatest weakness next year but not its only one.

RE: Assessing our assessments - CTcard - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 09:57 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(12-05-2018, 08:53 AM)CTcard Wrote:  It seems that the coaches are likely to be closely perusing the roster looking for another ILB candidate ... or two. 
OLB seems the likely source for such a move. There are other ways to go, but it's not like we have safeties to shift forward.

Yeah because that experiment worked so well with Alfieri. There is a major recruiting gap here and to a certain extent a development gap as well, and it's not going to be fixed in one season. ILB is going to be this team's greatest weakness next year but not its only one.

I am confused as to what point you are making. 

Are you suggesting no player should ever switch positions because it did not work out well for Alfieri? 
Or that they should look elsewhere than OLB? 
Or that the staff shouldn't be trying to see if they can shore up depth at ILB? 

It s abundantly clear there is a recruiting hole at ILB that will hurt us next year and probably after that. I would expect our coaching staff to take multiple steps to attempt to address the situation as best as possible.

RE: Assessing our assessments - OutsiderFan - 12-05-2018

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the ILBs for 2019 stand to be:

- Barton
- Pryts
- Miezan
- JMF
- Beecher
- Sinclair

That's not a lot of depth compared to the OLBs, but it's hardly a catastrophe as long as Barton returns. I really don't see anyone at OLB being really capable of moving inside, maybe convert a FB to ILB?

RE: Assessing our assessments - Langdude - 12-05-2018

(12-05-2018, 06:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Reid is a better pass rusher and Fox a better player in space would be my conclusion.

Yes, I think that's probably right.

-m.