06-13-2018, 12:41 PM
According to @Westcoastcfb Phil Steele ranks Stanford's linebacker unit for 2018 #4 nationally. Pretty surprising isn't that?
Phil Steele ranks Stanford linebackers #4
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
According to @Westcoastcfb Phil Steele ranks Stanford's linebacker unit for 2018 #4 nationally. Pretty surprising isn't that?
06-13-2018, 01:02 PM
(06-13-2018, 12:41 PM)ChicagoCard Wrote: According to @Westcoastcfb Phil Steele ranks Stanford's linebacker unit for 2018 #4 nationally. Pretty surprising isn't that?
Alfieri-Okereke-Barton-Toohill ain't a bad lineup. Is it #4 nationally? I doubt it. Will it even BE the starting lineup? I also doubt it.
(06-13-2018, 12:41 PM)ChicagoCard Wrote: According to @Westcoastcfb Phil Steele ranks Stanford's linebacker unit for 2018 #4 nationally. Pretty surprising isn't that?
Alfieri-Okereke-Barton-Toohill ain't a bad lineup. Is it #4 nationally? I doubt it. Will it even BE the starting lineup? I also doubt it.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-13-2018, 02:17 PM
He apparently likes David Shaw a lot... Maybe Shaw convinced him the linebackers will be really good. But in order for that to happen, they need to have a decent DLine somehow.
He apparently likes David Shaw a lot... Maybe Shaw convinced him the linebackers will be really good. But in order for that to happen, they need to have a decent DLine somehow.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-13-2018, 02:41 PM
Oh back to outside eh. Seems the team is more loaded there than inside, especially if Fox and Robinson, even Reid, push forward. Branch and Perez will need to be improved.
Oh back to outside eh. Seems the team is more loaded there than inside, especially if Fox and Robinson, even Reid, push forward. Branch and Perez will need to be improved.
06-13-2018, 05:32 PM
Maybe Phil has realized that though Harrison Phillips was a disruptive force, his attacking style took away the block absorbing that the Linebackers need to be effective? Maybe he thinks Stanford's DL will be better able to occupy OL in 2018, which will make the LBs more productive?
I read somewhere that Stanford is purported to have the #5 OL in the country this year. That seems low to me. Who here would ever say Stanford's Linebackers are better nationally than its OL in 2018?
I read somewhere that Stanford is purported to have the #5 OL in the country this year. That seems low to me. Who here would ever say Stanford's Linebackers are better nationally than its OL in 2018?
Maybe Phil has realized that though Harrison Phillips was a disruptive force, his attacking style took away the block absorbing that the Linebackers need to be effective? Maybe he thinks Stanford's DL will be better able to occupy OL in 2018, which will make the LBs more productive?
I read somewhere that Stanford is purported to have the #5 OL in the country this year. That seems low to me. Who here would ever say Stanford's Linebackers are better nationally than its OL in 2018?
I read somewhere that Stanford is purported to have the #5 OL in the country this year. That seems low to me. Who here would ever say Stanford's Linebackers are better nationally than its OL in 2018?
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
06-13-2018, 06:03 PM
And Phil has Stanford's OLine at #4. DLine, #49. For what it's worth. Again, according to @WestcoastCfb
And Phil has Stanford's OLine at #4. DLine, #49. For what it's worth. Again, according to @WestcoastCfb
I am one of the more optimistic ones, but I think it’s possible the LB ranking will almost prove to be justified, possibly top 10. Stanford LBs are asked to do a lot and many make rosters in the NFL. They may not be the prototypical first round Alabma LBs but I could see a few of them being 2-5th rounders or UFAs, and collectively, I think that deserves recognition. Also, for that unit, this should be a peak year. I don’t know how we’ll field a 3-4 in future years, but this year should be very good. Some like Okereke will have a lot of experience, and some like Robinson have very good speed, and I am praying we have the speed for better pass pressure, which was apalling last year. Stanford consistently has one of the largest contingents on NFL rosters each year, why shouldn’t our position rankings reflect this?
The concern as we all know is the dline, and if they get beaten badly, that will affect the LBs’ situation and stats.
As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
As for the oline ranking, I’d love for them to get an opportunity against a dline like Clemson’s or Alabama’s to try to prove they deserve first round draft status.
The concern as we all know is the dline, and if they get beaten badly, that will affect the LBs’ situation and stats.
As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
As for the oline ranking, I’d love for them to get an opportunity against a dline like Clemson’s or Alabama’s to try to prove they deserve first round draft status.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2018, 10:06 AM by Snorlax94.)
I am one of the more optimistic ones, but I think it’s possible the LB ranking will almost prove to be justified, possibly top 10. Stanford LBs are asked to do a lot and many make rosters in the NFL. They may not be the prototypical first round Alabma LBs but I could see a few of them being 2-5th rounders or UFAs, and collectively, I think that deserves recognition. Also, for that unit, this should be a peak year. I don’t know how we’ll field a 3-4 in future years, but this year should be very good. Some like Okereke will have a lot of experience, and some like Robinson have very good speed, and I am praying we have the speed for better pass pressure, which was apalling last year. Stanford consistently has one of the largest contingents on NFL rosters each year, why shouldn’t our position rankings reflect this?
The concern as we all know is the dline, and if they get beaten badly, that will affect the LBs’ situation and stats.
As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
As for the oline ranking, I’d love for them to get an opportunity against a dline like Clemson’s or Alabama’s to try to prove they deserve first round draft status.
The concern as we all know is the dline, and if they get beaten badly, that will affect the LBs’ situation and stats.
As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
As for the oline ranking, I’d love for them to get an opportunity against a dline like Clemson’s or Alabama’s to try to prove they deserve first round draft status.
06-14-2018, 04:10 PM
(06-14-2018, 09:41 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
There are 65 power five teams (10 in the Big Twelve, 12 in the Pac-12, 14 each in the Big Ten and SEC, and 14 + Notre Dame in the ACC). Thus, 49th is not that great; we probably fall behind a few G5 teams, but keep in mind that some teams (say, Kansas) are complete messes and might as well be FCS teams.
The bottom line is that compared to most of the teams we will play, our DL will be matched up against a superior OL. Thankfully, I expect that our OL will be superior to most of the DL's they play.
BC
(06-14-2018, 09:41 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: As for the dline ranking of #49, it does feel generous, but how low can it go for a power 5 program? Even the bottom 2-3 teams in a Power 5 conference should make the top, say, 80, shouldn’t they? And I don’t think we’re that low in our conference.
There are 65 power five teams (10 in the Big Twelve, 12 in the Pac-12, 14 each in the Big Ten and SEC, and 14 + Notre Dame in the ACC). Thus, 49th is not that great; we probably fall behind a few G5 teams, but keep in mind that some teams (say, Kansas) are complete messes and might as well be FCS teams.
The bottom line is that compared to most of the teams we will play, our DL will be matched up against a superior OL. Thankfully, I expect that our OL will be superior to most of the DL's they play.
BC
06-14-2018, 08:04 PM
I hope Diron Reynolds uses all the lack of respect Stanford's Defensive Line is getting, to motivate his unit.
Jovan Swann, Michael Williams, Dylan Jackson, Bo Peek, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Ryan Johnson and Thomas Schaffer should all be challenged to step up their games. A great coach can get his players to do exactly this. But I think there is some hidden value here that people are discounting. Let me make the case for why...
Jovan Swann really played well for a RS Frosh in 2017, and did it pretty under the radar given all the acclaim Harrison Phillips received.
Michael Williams had heart surgery that resulted in him feeling better and having more stamina. He should make a pretty big jump from 2017 to 2018.
Bo Peek was a little bit of a surprise in the Spring Game. Nobody expected anything from him, and he actually raised some eyebrows while making the case he can be in the DL rotation in 2018.
Dylan Jackson simply must step up. He's now a RS Junior. This is when he's expected to make an impact.
Ryan Johnson was offered by Alabama and Auburn. He should be able to make some kind of a contribution for Stanford as a RS Frosh, but the reality is most guys who turn out to be very good players will make an impact as RS Frosh. See Solomon Thomas and Jovan Swann for examples.
Dalyn Wade-Perry is such a big body that he can't help but occupy some blockers.
Highly recruited Thomas Booker and Andres Fox can also be in the mix at some point, particularly with the new redshirt rule.
Basically, I'm not sure Stanford's DL will be as weak as most people are projecting.
Jovan Swann, Michael Williams, Dylan Jackson, Bo Peek, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Ryan Johnson and Thomas Schaffer should all be challenged to step up their games. A great coach can get his players to do exactly this. But I think there is some hidden value here that people are discounting. Let me make the case for why...
Jovan Swann really played well for a RS Frosh in 2017, and did it pretty under the radar given all the acclaim Harrison Phillips received.
Michael Williams had heart surgery that resulted in him feeling better and having more stamina. He should make a pretty big jump from 2017 to 2018.
Bo Peek was a little bit of a surprise in the Spring Game. Nobody expected anything from him, and he actually raised some eyebrows while making the case he can be in the DL rotation in 2018.
Dylan Jackson simply must step up. He's now a RS Junior. This is when he's expected to make an impact.
Ryan Johnson was offered by Alabama and Auburn. He should be able to make some kind of a contribution for Stanford as a RS Frosh, but the reality is most guys who turn out to be very good players will make an impact as RS Frosh. See Solomon Thomas and Jovan Swann for examples.
Dalyn Wade-Perry is such a big body that he can't help but occupy some blockers.
Highly recruited Thomas Booker and Andres Fox can also be in the mix at some point, particularly with the new redshirt rule.
Basically, I'm not sure Stanford's DL will be as weak as most people are projecting.
I hope Diron Reynolds uses all the lack of respect Stanford's Defensive Line is getting, to motivate his unit.
Jovan Swann, Michael Williams, Dylan Jackson, Bo Peek, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Ryan Johnson and Thomas Schaffer should all be challenged to step up their games. A great coach can get his players to do exactly this. But I think there is some hidden value here that people are discounting. Let me make the case for why...
Jovan Swann really played well for a RS Frosh in 2017, and did it pretty under the radar given all the acclaim Harrison Phillips received.
Michael Williams had heart surgery that resulted in him feeling better and having more stamina. He should make a pretty big jump from 2017 to 2018.
Bo Peek was a little bit of a surprise in the Spring Game. Nobody expected anything from him, and he actually raised some eyebrows while making the case he can be in the DL rotation in 2018.
Dylan Jackson simply must step up. He's now a RS Junior. This is when he's expected to make an impact.
Ryan Johnson was offered by Alabama and Auburn. He should be able to make some kind of a contribution for Stanford as a RS Frosh, but the reality is most guys who turn out to be very good players will make an impact as RS Frosh. See Solomon Thomas and Jovan Swann for examples.
Dalyn Wade-Perry is such a big body that he can't help but occupy some blockers.
Highly recruited Thomas Booker and Andres Fox can also be in the mix at some point, particularly with the new redshirt rule.
Basically, I'm not sure Stanford's DL will be as weak as most people are projecting.
Jovan Swann, Michael Williams, Dylan Jackson, Bo Peek, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Ryan Johnson and Thomas Schaffer should all be challenged to step up their games. A great coach can get his players to do exactly this. But I think there is some hidden value here that people are discounting. Let me make the case for why...
Jovan Swann really played well for a RS Frosh in 2017, and did it pretty under the radar given all the acclaim Harrison Phillips received.
Michael Williams had heart surgery that resulted in him feeling better and having more stamina. He should make a pretty big jump from 2017 to 2018.
Bo Peek was a little bit of a surprise in the Spring Game. Nobody expected anything from him, and he actually raised some eyebrows while making the case he can be in the DL rotation in 2018.
Dylan Jackson simply must step up. He's now a RS Junior. This is when he's expected to make an impact.
Ryan Johnson was offered by Alabama and Auburn. He should be able to make some kind of a contribution for Stanford as a RS Frosh, but the reality is most guys who turn out to be very good players will make an impact as RS Frosh. See Solomon Thomas and Jovan Swann for examples.
Dalyn Wade-Perry is such a big body that he can't help but occupy some blockers.
Highly recruited Thomas Booker and Andres Fox can also be in the mix at some point, particularly with the new redshirt rule.
Basically, I'm not sure Stanford's DL will be as weak as most people are projecting.
06-15-2018, 07:16 AM
Given that we have been playing only two DL plus an OLB with a hand in the dirt on a lot of snaps the last few years, I would find it amazing if we can’t find two pretty good linemen for the season. When we do use three DL, the real issue seems to me to be whether we have a NT.
Given that we have been playing only two DL plus an OLB with a hand in the dirt on a lot of snaps the last few years, I would find it amazing if we can’t find two pretty good linemen for the season. When we do use three DL, the real issue seems to me to be whether we have a NT.
06-15-2018, 07:36 AM
(06-15-2018, 07:16 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Given that we have been playing only two DL plus an OLB with a hand in the dirt on a lot of snaps the last few years, I would find it amazing if we can’t find two pretty good linemen for the season. When we do use three DL, the real issue seems to me to be whether we have a NT.
I think the big issue is that we have no idea what we will get on the DL. We're going to need production from guys who have never really produced a lot up to now.
Now, for every good player that happens at some point. But for all sorts of guys it never quite happens, innate talent or not.
I don't see any reason that the guys we have won't be able to do it. But I also haven't yet seen much evidence they will.
The DL certainly seems the biggest question mark going into the season.
(06-15-2018, 07:16 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Given that we have been playing only two DL plus an OLB with a hand in the dirt on a lot of snaps the last few years, I would find it amazing if we can’t find two pretty good linemen for the season. When we do use three DL, the real issue seems to me to be whether we have a NT.
I think the big issue is that we have no idea what we will get on the DL. We're going to need production from guys who have never really produced a lot up to now.
Now, for every good player that happens at some point. But for all sorts of guys it never quite happens, innate talent or not.
I don't see any reason that the guys we have won't be able to do it. But I also haven't yet seen much evidence they will.
The DL certainly seems the biggest question mark going into the season.
06-15-2018, 10:10 AM
I agree with all of the last 3 comments and I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.
OutsiderFan, I really agree with your reasons for hope, especially as it relates to Williams, Peek and Swann. Johnson sounds interesting (Thomas emerged especially at the end of his RS Fr year), but I don’t recall Johnson making an impact at the Spring Scrimmage. But after Spring, things did feel a little better, especially considering upsides for Williams and Peek.
The way I’d try to capture the uncertainty alluded to and the recent pains pcgoode refers to, I might rate Stanford’s best dline days (David Parry, Anderson) as a 9.0, and last year as a 5.5 (phillips was great stopping the run but he is just one man and it was the worst pass pressure I’d seen in the recent era).
In January I thought things could be as bad as a 3.5, some kind of Sonny
Dykes softness up front.
It’s not even summer yet, so there’s a lot of uncertainty, but I’d guess this year’s dline will be somewhere in the 4.5-8.0 range (i know, a ridiculously wide range).
It could be a little worse than last year, which is terrifying, and even in the best case, I’d be pleasantly surprised if it could be comprable to the best recent dline.
I’d give my current expected value as a 6.0 — slightly better than last year assuming the pass pressure improves.
But if Williams and Swann build forward, if Peek is for realz and if some newcomers start contributing, then maybe we could have a group ready to take the program into uncharted territory.
OutsiderFan, I really agree with your reasons for hope, especially as it relates to Williams, Peek and Swann. Johnson sounds interesting (Thomas emerged especially at the end of his RS Fr year), but I don’t recall Johnson making an impact at the Spring Scrimmage. But after Spring, things did feel a little better, especially considering upsides for Williams and Peek.
The way I’d try to capture the uncertainty alluded to and the recent pains pcgoode refers to, I might rate Stanford’s best dline days (David Parry, Anderson) as a 9.0, and last year as a 5.5 (phillips was great stopping the run but he is just one man and it was the worst pass pressure I’d seen in the recent era).
In January I thought things could be as bad as a 3.5, some kind of Sonny
Dykes softness up front.
It’s not even summer yet, so there’s a lot of uncertainty, but I’d guess this year’s dline will be somewhere in the 4.5-8.0 range (i know, a ridiculously wide range).
It could be a little worse than last year, which is terrifying, and even in the best case, I’d be pleasantly surprised if it could be comprable to the best recent dline.
I’d give my current expected value as a 6.0 — slightly better than last year assuming the pass pressure improves.
But if Williams and Swann build forward, if Peek is for realz and if some newcomers start contributing, then maybe we could have a group ready to take the program into uncharted territory.
I agree with all of the last 3 comments and I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.
OutsiderFan, I really agree with your reasons for hope, especially as it relates to Williams, Peek and Swann. Johnson sounds interesting (Thomas emerged especially at the end of his RS Fr year), but I don’t recall Johnson making an impact at the Spring Scrimmage. But after Spring, things did feel a little better, especially considering upsides for Williams and Peek.
The way I’d try to capture the uncertainty alluded to and the recent pains pcgoode refers to, I might rate Stanford’s best dline days (David Parry, Anderson) as a 9.0, and last year as a 5.5 (phillips was great stopping the run but he is just one man and it was the worst pass pressure I’d seen in the recent era).
In January I thought things could be as bad as a 3.5, some kind of Sonny
Dykes softness up front.
It’s not even summer yet, so there’s a lot of uncertainty, but I’d guess this year’s dline will be somewhere in the 4.5-8.0 range (i know, a ridiculously wide range).
It could be a little worse than last year, which is terrifying, and even in the best case, I’d be pleasantly surprised if it could be comprable to the best recent dline.
I’d give my current expected value as a 6.0 — slightly better than last year assuming the pass pressure improves.
But if Williams and Swann build forward, if Peek is for realz and if some newcomers start contributing, then maybe we could have a group ready to take the program into uncharted territory.
OutsiderFan, I really agree with your reasons for hope, especially as it relates to Williams, Peek and Swann. Johnson sounds interesting (Thomas emerged especially at the end of his RS Fr year), but I don’t recall Johnson making an impact at the Spring Scrimmage. But after Spring, things did feel a little better, especially considering upsides for Williams and Peek.
The way I’d try to capture the uncertainty alluded to and the recent pains pcgoode refers to, I might rate Stanford’s best dline days (David Parry, Anderson) as a 9.0, and last year as a 5.5 (phillips was great stopping the run but he is just one man and it was the worst pass pressure I’d seen in the recent era).
In January I thought things could be as bad as a 3.5, some kind of Sonny
Dykes softness up front.
It’s not even summer yet, so there’s a lot of uncertainty, but I’d guess this year’s dline will be somewhere in the 4.5-8.0 range (i know, a ridiculously wide range).
It could be a little worse than last year, which is terrifying, and even in the best case, I’d be pleasantly surprised if it could be comprable to the best recent dline.
I’d give my current expected value as a 6.0 — slightly better than last year assuming the pass pressure improves.
But if Williams and Swann build forward, if Peek is for realz and if some newcomers start contributing, then maybe we could have a group ready to take the program into uncharted territory.
06-15-2018, 10:46 AM
The 2017 DL was Jackson, Phillips, Cotton, a limited Williams, and a didn't play much until late Swann. Schaffer really wasn't a factor. That's effectively 4 DL that could play.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
The 2017 DL was Jackson, Phillips, Cotton, a limited Williams, and a didn't play much until late Swann. Schaffer really wasn't a factor. That's effectively 4 DL that could play.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
06-15-2018, 01:32 PM
(06-15-2018, 10:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The 2017 DL was Jackson, Phillips, Cotton, a limited Williams, and a didn't play much until late Swann. Schaffer really wasn't a factor. That's effectively 4 DL that could play.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
+1 to this. The unit actually has depth now; the question is whether enough guys can contribute to see effective rotation. (See DL of yore with Gardner, Parry, Anderson, Mauro, Stephens, and Thomas/Murphy/Vaughters as OLB with hands in the dirt. I don't think OLB will be a problem at all this year.) The Eagles are doing this to great effect in the pros; they rotate 6ish starter-caliber guys on the DL so 4th quarter fatigue is minimized significantly.
If the number truly is 6, that's already much better than last year - Phillips was an absolute warrior, but fatigue was brutal. So much respect for him holding down the fort while the cavalry was still being prepared.
(06-15-2018, 10:46 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The 2017 DL was Jackson, Phillips, Cotton, a limited Williams, and a didn't play much until late Swann. Schaffer really wasn't a factor. That's effectively 4 DL that could play.
The 2018 unit will have Jackson, Swann, Williams, Peek, DWP, Johnson, Shaffer (who may be able to contribute), Booker and Fox as Frosh who could play. That's 6 that can play minimum, and maybe as many as 9. I'm going to assume it ends up as 7, with Booker and/or Fox getting some PT. So there will be more depth than the last few years, which should help, even if overall talent level doesn't improve.
+1 to this. The unit actually has depth now; the question is whether enough guys can contribute to see effective rotation. (See DL of yore with Gardner, Parry, Anderson, Mauro, Stephens, and Thomas/Murphy/Vaughters as OLB with hands in the dirt. I don't think OLB will be a problem at all this year.) The Eagles are doing this to great effect in the pros; they rotate 6ish starter-caliber guys on the DL so 4th quarter fatigue is minimized significantly.
If the number truly is 6, that's already much better than last year - Phillips was an absolute warrior, but fatigue was brutal. So much respect for him holding down the fort while the cavalry was still being prepared.
06-15-2018, 02:42 PM
OutsiderFan says that a great coach challenge their players to step up their game. We had a great d line coach a few years ago who
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
OutsiderFan says that a great coach challenge their players to step up their game. We had a great d line coach a few years ago who
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
06-16-2018, 05:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2018, 05:24 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(06-15-2018, 02:42 PM)barrister7 Wrote: OutsiderFan says that a great coach challenge their players to step up their game. We had a great d line coach a few years ago who
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
This year is really the year to judge Reynolds for sure. He had Phillips and Thomas in 2016 to mask limitations, and then in 2017 Phillips and little depth, so not a lot to judge him on to date. Given how good the rest of the team can be in 2018, the onus is on Reynolds to really get the maximum he can out of his DL group. All eyes will be on him and his unit.
If he can get 10% more out of each guy than is being expected, this could be a great season for Stanford. An elite coach can do this, but I don't have any insight into if Reynolds can carry that label. Randy Hart absolutely could.
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2018, 05:24 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(06-15-2018, 02:42 PM)barrister7 Wrote: OutsiderFan says that a great coach challenge their players to step up their game. We had a great d line coach a few years ago who
could do exactly that in Randy Hart but I am not sure his replacement is able to do that.
This year is really the year to judge Reynolds for sure. He had Phillips and Thomas in 2016 to mask limitations, and then in 2017 Phillips and little depth, so not a lot to judge him on to date. Given how good the rest of the team can be in 2018, the onus is on Reynolds to really get the maximum he can out of his DL group. All eyes will be on him and his unit.
If he can get 10% more out of each guy than is being expected, this could be a great season for Stanford. An elite coach can do this, but I don't have any insight into if Reynolds can carry that label. Randy Hart absolutely could.
06-16-2018, 08:16 AM
Phil Steele closely watches recruiting rankings, and they seem to influence his annual choices of "best units."
By that measure, Stanford's LBs--a five-star (Robinson) and three four stars (Okereke, Alfieri, and Barton--look very good.
By that measure, Stanford's LBs--a five-star (Robinson) and three four stars (Okereke, Alfieri, and Barton--look very good.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »