The CardBoard
Could D be undervalued? - 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: Could D be undervalued? (/thread-16258.html)

Pages: 1 2

Could D be undervalued? - OutsiderFan - 08-12-2018

I'm not about to claim Stanford will have an elite defense in 2018, but it does seem like it is going to be better than most people assume. 

A very lazy analysis is to say Stanford wasn't good in 2017, lost Harrison Phillips and some other guys now on NFL rosters, so that means they will again struggle. I've suspected this could be the case before, but I am now going to stake my reputation on it.  Stanford's DL will be better in 2018 than 2017, and this will make the whole defense better.

First, let's start with Phillips. He's getting pretty rave reviews in Buffalo. His first pre-season game netted him a sack and two tackles. The absurd tackle numbers Phillips had as a NT at Stanford is an indication he was miscast. He really should have played a 5 technique DE, but he was the only NT option Stanford had. Ideally Phillips is a 3 technique DT, which is what he is playing at Buffalo. This gives him responsibility for one gap, perfect for his ability to attack with strength and explosiveness. It's not so ideal for a NT who is responsible for two gaps. You guess wrong, and go fast, you leave a gaping hole. Though he racked up a ton of tackles at Stanford, you really don't want that from your NT, because his real job is to occupy blockers.  In effect, Phillips' physical ability worked against Stanford's ability to stop the run consistently, because his role didn't suit what he does best.

Enter Michael Williams and DWP.  Neither of these guys are going to be as strong and explosive as Phillips. But they can be more stationary, won't penetrate into the wrong gap as fast, and can be better at occupying blockers to free up the ILBs to make tackles. Plus, Stanford now has two guys who can play NT instead of just one, and maybe even three with Peek.  Now people are going to say "but there was a brobdingnagian drop-off from Phillips to Williams last year."  Yes, there was.  But we now know Williams had and is fully recovered from heart surgery that limited his conditioning and strength.  The few images I've seen of him from this camp, he looks really physically impressive, and the coaches have been saying good things about him. DWP has dropped weight and seems ready to play a key role too.

Turning to DE, Jovan Swann has consistently received acclaim since Summer started, and he really came on in 2017. He's bigger and stronger and ready to be a starter. Dylan Jackson's seeming dropping of weight is puzzling, but he's a 5th year Senior who has played a ton of snaps. Ryan Johnson is now ready to get into the rotation as a former highly touted guy with offers from Alabama and Auburn. I mentioned Peek as a possible NT, but he can probably play some DE, and allow Stanford to put out a short yardage DL of Williams, DWP, and Peek potentially.  Not sure what Schaffer can bring, but he is bigger now, so may be he can get in the rotation.  Then of course there is Thomas Booker, a True Frosh who is turning heads, and Andres Fox is lurking as someone who might be able to make an impact as sort of a pass rushing specialist DE.  

I'm not going to spend near as much time on the LBs and DBs, because I don't think there is as much intrigue and potentially wrong assumptions being made there. Okereke and Holder have All Conference potential, and there is a lot of experience on the depth chart, plus certainly some guys who will step up and make an impact for the first time.

Again, not the most elite unit in the world, but I would be really quite surprised if the 2018 defense isn't better than the 2017 version because the DL will be better at stopping the run than it has been lately. Pretty hard not to improve on giving up 4.6 YPC (good for #80 in FBS) when there are 65 Power 5 schools. Improvement in run defense will also create longer 3rd down situations to help improve Stanford's also dismal #102-ranked, 43.4% yielding 2017 3rd down defense.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - martyup - 08-12-2018

[Image: 1262.gif]

RE: Could D be undervalued? - lex24 - 08-12-2018

I hope you are right. One big concern I have is depth. Or lack thereof.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - OutsiderFan - 08-12-2018

(08-12-2018, 09:19 AM)lex24 Wrote:  I hope you are right. One big concern I have is depth. Or lack thereof.

Where?  I don't see a lack of depth really anywhere on defense.

NT: Williams, DWP, Peek
DE: Swann, Jackson, Williams, Johnson, Peek, Booker, Schaffer

OLB: Alfieri, Robinson, Toohill, Fox, Kaufusi, Reid
ILB: Okerke, Barton, Branch, Perez, Pryts

CB: Holder, Murphy, Adebo, Eboh, Butler, Parson (apparently standing out)
S: Edwards, Buncom, Antoine, Simmons 

Left out some Frosh who could play even if not out of desperation, and didn't factor in any walk-ons possibly stepping up beyond Parson. Maybe you're not seeing Alabama's defense, but how could anyone characterize this defense as lacking depth, especially by Stanford historical standards?

I remember when Stanford could barely put four competent DBs on the field.  I remember when Fua and Masifilo basically played the entire season on the DL without hardly any substitution in 2010. Not many teams go more than two-deep with a lot of quality.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - lex24 - 08-12-2018

D line and d backs. I bet it’s late I’m comparing them to recent teams  and certainly not the bad old days.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - winflop - 08-12-2018

I'm hopeful that the defense is good. But for it to be great too many guys have to step up at least one level from where they have been to date. I think it's too much to ask, but I hope I'm surprised.

I love our LBs, but DL and DB look very suspect - and thin.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - Goose - 08-12-2018

(08-12-2018, 07:03 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Again, not the most elite unit in the world, but I would be really quite surprised if the 2018 defense isn't better than the 2017 version because the DL will be better at stopping the run than it has been lately. Pretty hard not to improve on giving up 4.6 YPC (good for #80 in FBS) when there are 65 Power 5 schools. Improvement in run defense will also create longer 3rd down situations to help improve Stanford's also dismal #102-ranked, 43.4% yielding 2017 3rd down defense.
I am of the same opinion. This years defense probably won't be a world-beater, but is should be steadier against the run than last year's defense. The upside for more  is there, but at least the DL will be more "in system" as you point out, which will help the LBs do their job. That is what the 3-4 is supposed to be, but it is hard to play when the DL can't keep the LBs "clean", at least most of the time.
I am also expecting that a more efficient offense will keep the defense off the field longer. Last year, we often needed just "one more stop" to win, and we didn't get it. It may well be that the defense wasn't completely gassed, but often they needed time to regroup and instead the O handed them  a 3 and out. Hopefully, not this year.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - OutsiderFan - 08-13-2018

Well if Miezan is the beast he looks like, according to reports, add him to the list of "depth" on defense.

Nobody has made a case for why Stanford is thin on defense.  A couple have said they think certain positions are, but nobody has said why or presented any evidence as to why this is the case.  If you believe your eyes and the coaches, Stanford has at least 7 DL who can play and at least 10 DBs who can.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - donkey687 - 08-13-2018

(08-13-2018, 06:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Well if Miezan is the beast he looks like, according to reports, add him to the list of "depth" on defense.

Nobody has made a case for why Stanford is thin on defense.  A couple have said they think certain positions are, but nobody has said why or presented any evidence as to why this is the case.  If you believe your eyes and the coaches, Stanford has at least 7 DL who can play and at least 10 DBs who can.

We may have 7 people who can play DL but none of them are expected to be any sort of All Pac 12 or honorable mention level talent.  In every other position group on the team, we have players who are at least in the discussion for All Pac 12. Hopefully, some of the DL talent breaks through and gets into that discussion by year end, but on paper it is clearly the weakest position group on the team. However, people forget that we play nickel majority of snaps and often have just 2 DL in the game.  The OLBs which are strong and deep for Stanford play as additional DE in nickel. Thus, we can still have a really good defense without an All Pac 12 DL.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - lex24 - 08-13-2018

I’m pulling for outsider fan to be right. My concerns. D line - one returner that contributed much last year. Swann. Rest are fairly green. Talent may be there. But questions abound. D backs. Corner is my concern. Holder is terrific. But he’s had injury issues. Adebo and Murphy should be fine. Then it gets inexperienced. Safeties should be a strength. Along with the linebackers.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - SamuelMcF - 08-13-2018

(08-13-2018, 07:49 AM)lex24 Wrote:  My concerns. D line - one returner that contributed much last year. Swann. Rest are fairly green.

I hope Dylan Jackson, who started the entirety of last year at DE and contributed 36 tackles, uses your oversight as fuel.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - CTcard - 08-13-2018

(08-13-2018, 06:41 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Nobody has made a case for why Stanford is thin on defense.  …  If you believe your eyes and the coaches, Stanford has at least 7 DL who can play and at least 10 DBs who can.

OutsiderFan Wrote:
NT: Williams, DWP, Peek
DE: Swann, Jackson, Williams, Johnson, Peek, Booker, Schaffer

OLB: Alfieri, Robinson, Toohill, Fox, Kaufusi, Reid
ILB: Okerke, Barton, Branch, Perez, Pryts

CB: Holder, Murphy, Adebo, Eboh, Butler, Parson (apparently standing out)
S: Edwards, Buncom, Antoine, Simmons



I don't really believe that being thin is the biggest issue for this year's defense, but it is not particularly hard to see why some might be worried about the issue, especially if you desire quality depth and not merely a list of names at each position. 

In fact, you mostly wrote down the argument in the first quotation above. To feel comfortable that this defense will exhibit quality depth you must believe in coach-speak, camp rumors, and/or that looking good in high school football portends early success in college football. None of these particular forms of evidence have proven particularly reliable in the past. 

It feels a little harsh commenting upon your list position by position, but I would say that there's at most two units that don't have depth concerns based upon lack of experience, lack of promising performance, or injury. Those would be ILB and Safeties - and it's not as if there are zero issues there either.  

Another way to note the situation is that the list includes zero all-Pac 12 first or second team members from last year and one, single HM.  [Simmons also HM, but for special teams.]


Now that is not really my argument. I have a fair amount of hope that the defense will be at least respectable and better than last year. However, I am putting credence on coach-speak, camp rumors, and high school tape.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - Spiny_Norman - 08-13-2018

(08-13-2018, 10:54 AM)CTcard Wrote:  However, I am putting credence on coach-speak, camp rumors, and high school tape.

The USC fans are definitely excited by coach-speak and camp rumors about JT Daniels and Amon Ra St. Brown. From reports of the first scrimmage, Daniels is the 2nd coming of Carson Palmer and St. Brown is the next Keyshawn. Helton has not named a starting QB yet, but everyone expects it to be true-frosh Daniels. http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-report-20180811-story.html

RE: Could D be undervalued? - Hank 91 - 08-14-2018

Two things.
  1. The best thing this defense has going for it is that the offense should be so good that opposing offenses will become one-dimensional as they attempt to keep up. In fact, it's possible that the defense will really only need two or three stops a game. This defense won't remind us of 2012, but it won't have to.
  2. People complain about having the Stanford-SC game so early in the season every year, but it couldn't be more well-placed for us this year. I'm sure J.T. Daniels is going to be great eventually, but I simply can't imagine that a kid who should still be in high school is going to be that effective in his second college game.


RE: Could D be undervalued? - Goose - 08-14-2018

(08-14-2018, 01:44 AM)Hank 91 Wrote:  Two things.
  1. The best thing this defense has going for it is that the offense should be so good that opposing offenses will become one-dimensional as they attempt to keep up. In fact, it's possible that the defense will really only need two or three stops a game. This defense won't remind us of 2012, but it won't have to.
  2. People complain about having the Stanford-SC game so early in the season every year, but it couldn't be more well-placed for us this year. I'm sure J.T. Daniels is going to be great eventually, but I simply can't imagine that a kid who should still be in high school is going to be that effective in his second college game.
Both very true. The games may not be high scoring contests, but the dynamic can be the same. It can be that the opposing offense sees the ball so infrequently that they have to be ultra-efficient to compete. Two or three stops may be enough, if we are efficient on offense.
With all the hype surrounding J.T. Daniels, it is hard to imagine the SC coaching staff starting anybody else. If they lose a game and he didn't start, the coaches would be lynched. Getting them way early is for sure a great advantage to Stanford. Assuming we want to play them twice this year, it could be different the second time. Let's hope we get to see it!

RE: Could D be undervalued? - OutsiderFan - 08-15-2018

If there was one position on the defense where you would want to hear rave reviews, what would it be?

For me, it would be a pass rushing demon at OLB.  Well, what do you know, after reviewing the scrimmage on Sunday, David Shaw has declared OLB Gabe Reid to have been the most standout player of the scrimmage.

I'm not ready to anoint him the next Ron George or Trent Murphy, but guys do step up that you don't necessarily expect sometimes, particularly redshirt Frosh. If that wasn't enough, overall, the reports from the scrimmage are that the front seven was very solid.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - CTcard - 08-16-2018

(08-15-2018, 05:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  If there was one position on the defense where you would want to hear rave reviews, what would it be?
... If that wasn't enough, overall, the reports from the scrimmage are that the front seven was very solid.


I can see a personality difference here in reactions to the first scrimmage and news out of camp.
 
I see the reports from training camp and get worried about where things are going. Half the team seems to be injured, with uncertain prospects as to when players will be back, much less up to speed. Particularly worrisome is the OL, which already had issues in run blocking last year and now is missing 2/3 of the expected interior along with the coach commenting that that the replacement guys at center are doing "as well as two inexperienced guys can do" (even though one of those guys is a senior) and now our entire OL is having trouble with our iffy defensive front seven. 

But it's only a Rorschach test.

RE: Could D be undervalued? - OutsiderFan - 08-16-2018

Every team has some kind of issues, and many have injuries pile up at a particular position. Fan bases around the country are gnashing their teeth about how this guy or that position are worrying right now. 

As for Stanford, there have been no injuries reported at OT. As an OLB, Reid is going up against them for the most part. This means he's making an impression against the likes of Little, Hall, and Sarell, some good to great players at the position.  If Reid is making a big impact other OLBs aren't making. Shaw didn't mention Alfieri, Toohill, or Fox, guys who have played in games already. He mentioned Gabe Reid, a RS Frosh who has yet to play in one. This says quite a lot about how good he is.

When you look at this highlight video, you can probably understand why Reid might be getting rave reviews. Pay particular attention to the clip at 1:15. His quickness and explosive power is quite evident. https://www.hudl.com/video/3/661543/5721c0bbdfe23b2d68a28d77

RE: Could D be undervalued? - BostonCard - 08-16-2018

(08-16-2018, 12:09 AM)CTcard Wrote:  
(08-15-2018, 05:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  If there was one position on the defense where you would want to hear rave reviews, what would it be?
... If that wasn't enough, overall, the reports from the scrimmage are that the front seven was very solid.


I can see a personality difference here in reactions to the first scrimmage and news out of camp.
 
I see the reports from training camp and get worried about where things are going. Half the team seems to be injured, with uncertain prospects as to when players will be back, much less up to speed. Particularly worrisome is the OL, which already had issues in run blocking last year and now is missing 2/3 of the expected interior along with the coach commenting that that the replacement guys at center are doing "as well as two inexperienced guys can do" (even though one of those guys is a senior) and now our entire OL is having trouble with our iffy defensive front seven. 

But it's only a Rorschach test.

I'm old enough to remember Longwinded's reviews of the preseason practices.  If the offense had the upper hand against the defense, he would say "What does it say about our defense that our pathetic offense (with list of perceived offensive deficiencies) could push them around so easily?"  Conversely, if the defense looked better against the offense, he would write, "What does it say about our offense that they couldn't move the ball against our pathetic defense (with list of perceived defensive liabilities"

BC

RE: Could D be undervalued? - fullmetal - 08-20-2018

Wasn't it said earlier that defenses ought to win spring practices more often than not?  Tis easier to disrupt than to execute an offense, all things considered, went the logic.  We won't get a real test until $C.