The CardBoard
Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - 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: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL (/thread-11074.html)


Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - OutsiderFan - 12-14-2015

Those of us who postulated that Brandon Fanaika should be moved to NT to plug DL depth issues, can now see it wasn't necessary.  Amazingly, Shittu, Scarlett, and Thomas were good enough to get the job done.  Moreover, it's looking like a very good thing he stayed on the OL because not only was he effective in the jumbo sets he played in, he's now got some valuable experience that should make the transition from Garnett much smoother than it might have been otherwise, no matter if Fanaika or Bright end up there.

It appears the only real 2016 OL hole to fill is the LT spot.  Stanford has had a solid LT for many years in a row now.  Martin - Yankey - Peat - Murphy.  Who might be the most likely to win the job?  Candidates:

Nick Davidson - 5th year Senior who may be ready?
Dave Bright - He's thought of as more of a Guard, but perhaps he's more athletic than I'm thinking?
A.T. Hall - Don't know if he played as a RS Frosh so probably a long shot?
Jack Dreyer - Big frame at 6-8, but will he have the size and strength needed as a RS Frosh?

Am I missing someone who might be the guy?

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - terry - 12-14-2015

I think our next LT probably will be Bright. I think the next most likely possibility is switching Tucker over from RT, but I'm inclined to think it will be Bright.

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - OutsiderFan - 12-14-2015

Tucker is not athletic enough to play LT, IMO.

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - rudruff - 12-14-2015

Seems like the position goes to an existing member of the line. Even a physical marvel like Peat didn't jump straight into the job. He played it in spot situations while Yankey held the position. Once he was ready, Yankey moved back inside.

I think one of the great things about the Ogre packages is how it prepares so many lineman to play in the future years. It would be hard to believe that next year's LT isn't among this year's short yardage players.

I think Tucker has a shot simply because if there is a better athlete among the alternatives, they would have been pushing him for playing time at RT this year.



Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - CTcard - 12-14-2015

(12-14-2015, 10:01 AM)terry link Wrote:I think our next LT probably will be Bright. I think the next most likely possibility is switching Tucker over from RT, but I'm inclined to think it will be Bright.

I think these are the most likely possibilities.

Bright filled in for Murphy when Murphy was injured vs OSU and played at least pretty well. I think Bright was also the LT when the bench came in during our blowouts - though I don't remember that as well. That would seem to indicate he's above anyone else on the roster who wasn't redshirting.

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - socalstanfan1 - 12-14-2015

I think Bright will be given first shot at it, and he certainly seems capable in the run game.  I guess the question is whether he is athletic enough to handle elite pass rushers.  Flipping Tucker to get your most experienced OT on that side is also possible.  Dark horse candidate I would think to be Dreyer.  6-8 and I'm assuming a commensurate reach, and the coaches raved about his overall ability to bend and his athleticism when he came in. 

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - TrumpCard - 12-14-2015

I was among the group stating that a position switch to DL seemed wise. Duly noted that the DL held up this year without a position switch. Shaw did, however, take some measures to increase depth next year. Kaumatule redshirted and Cotton will be a DL next year. You are right that Fanaika now looks too valuable to move.

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - Rally - 12-14-2015

(12-14-2015, 04:32 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:I was among the group stating that a position switch to DL seemed wise. Duly noted that the DL held up this year without a position switch. Shaw did, however, take some measures to increase depth next year. Kaumatule redshirted and Cotton will be a DL next year. You are right that Fanaika now looks too valuable to move.

Interesting.  Cotton was our only tight end mentioned by the NFL guy (linked on another thread, I think.)

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - TrumpCard - 12-14-2015

(12-14-2015, 05:04 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=14057.msg148195#msg148195 date=1450135944]
I was among the group stating that a position switch to DL seemed wise. Duly noted that the DL held up this year without a position switch. Shaw did, however, take some measures to increase depth next year. Kaumatule redshirted and Cotton will be a DL next year. You are right that Fanaika now looks too valuable to move.

Interesting.  Cotton was our only tight end mentioned by the NFL guy (linked on another thread, I think.)
[/quote]

Didn't we conclude that that NFL guy is ignorant?

Re: Wrong on Fanaika and 2016 OL - Rally - 12-14-2015

(12-14-2015, 07:18 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14057.msg148207#msg148207 date=1450137884]
[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=14057.msg148195#msg148195 date=1450135944]
I was among the group stating that a position switch to DL seemed wise. Duly noted that the DL held up this year without a position switch. Shaw did, however, take some measures to increase depth next year. Kaumatule redshirted and Cotton will be a DL next year. You are right that Fanaika now looks too valuable to move.

Interesting.  Cotton was our only tight end mentioned by the NFL guy (linked on another thread, I think.)
[/quote]

Didn't we conclude that that NFL guy is ignorant?
[/quote]

Yes, we did.