The CardBoard
Offensive line - 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: Offensive line (/thread-13591.html)


Offensive line - BostonCard - 03-15-2017

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2017/3/15/14920376/stanford-football-offensive-line-spring-2017

Not much earth shattering reporting, but still nice to see that things are looking up.

BC

Re: Offensive line - fullmetal - 03-15-2017

I'm just not sure how much credibility we should ascribe to an article that puts Hall in contention for a tackle spot.  Maybe he's gotten better, but how many OTs make a massive improvement from Jr to Sr seasons?

Re: Offensive line - donkey687 - 03-15-2017

Hall is in the mix for tackle. The mistake is Tucker isn't. Tucker has been moved to guard.

Re: Offensive line - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 03-15-2017

(03-15-2017, 08:30 PM)donkey687 link Wrote:Hall is in the mix for tackle. The mistake is Tucker isn't. Tucker has been moved to guard.

I believe fullmetal's point was that Hall shouldn't be in contention for a tackle spot based on what we saw from him last season, not that he isn't.

Re: Offensive line - MustardtheBallCarrier - 03-15-2017

I'd submit that if Tucker or Hall are starting at OT week 1, it's a sign that we are in for another rough year offensively.  I know it's not kosher to be too negative on here about individual players (and I support that and don't mean to be cruel), but really, really not good last year.  Sack numbers in that article are inflated a fair amount by poor QB pocket presence, but still. 

Re: Offensive line - CowboyIndian - 03-15-2017

I think a bunch of our poor OL play last year was due to injury and inexperience. With any luck, both will be behind us and things will improve. How can they not?

Re: Offensive line - fullmetal - 03-16-2017

Again, I'd like to hope that massive performance increases are in store across the board for everyone over the offseason, but from last season's performance and given where players are in their collegiate career, I'm going to have to see some players prove themselves.

Other than that, I'm with CI.

Re: Offensive line - OutsiderFan - 03-16-2017

I read that article and thought about posting about it here.  But after reading how inaccurate it seemed to be, I decided it wasn't worth it.

To me, the most curious thing was the fact it stated Tucker will nail down one of the starting Tackle jobs. First of all, we know Tucker doesn't dominate in pass protection at RT.  There is no way he is going to be starting at LT for Stanford, particularly when the priority is improving pass protection, so if he were to "nail down one of the starting tackle jobs," it would be at RT, so the article would have said "watch for Tucker to be the starting RT."  But then, he has also been moved to Guard.  This doesn't mean he has no chance of playing RT again (he could in the event of injury), but if he was the unquestioned starting RT, why would Tucker be being moved to Guard.  It's one thing to "get a few reps at Guard," but another to be moved there.  Finally, Bright was getting first team reps at RT in the scrimmage, according to what I could gather.

The next most curious thing in that story was that it said Devery Hamilton is competing at Guard.  This is the first time I've heard of Hamilton at Guard.  It also makes no sense because Bloomgren said they now have more Tackles than Guards, and the only way this is possible is if Hamilton is a Tackle.

We obviously don't know what the OL is going to look like against Rice or anyone else in 2017 at this point, but based on all available evidence, the notion that Hall and Tucker will be the starting Tackles seems to be one detached from reality.

Re: Offensive line - washingtonismoney - 03-16-2017

I'm not sure why everyone is so negative on Tucker. He played reasonably well at RT in 2015, and we've heard he was injured in 2016. If he can return to his 2015 level -- or even improve off of that -- he'd be a Pac-12-average, if not above-average, lineman. That would be a helpful piece to have. (Of course, if there's an alternative that's better than average, that's great too.)

Hall, on the other hand, had a disastrous 2016. It's possible we'll see improvement; not to be overly negative, but I recall being quite negative on Khalil Wilkes in 2012, and he turned into a solid center in 2013. So we'll see.

Re: Offensive line - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 03-16-2017

Tucker has never stood out to me one way or the other. That's all you can ask from a collegiate offensive lineman. Hall, on the other hand... I echo the others' reticence, but let's just say he has stood out to me.