08-20-2022, 08:47 AM
* I wish I could believe Shaw about Smith and Filkins as a really good 1-2 punch but note the discrepancy between Shaw talking about Filkins as "full speed" yet the player being Mr. Yellow Jersey. Based on this interview, it seems Filkins is one of our three soft tissue issues where the player will come back sometime next week. Availability is a skill and we know from Filkins' history that he has trouble staying healthy. I hope past is not prologue, but it's nerve-wracking to be counting on Filkins as RB2. It would give me more confidence to hear evidence of Harris emerging but it seems clear Smith and Filkins are the main guys right now.
* Shaw dutifully answered the Symonds question and I do expect to see Symonds this year but it didn't sound to me like any indication fullback will be a particularly big part of the offense ("we will still continue to employ the fullback"). It's a question of how much we use 21 (two backs, a tight end, two receivers) and 22 (two backs, two tight ends, one receiver) personnel. Given our stellar WR group, the answer would seem to be "not much." I am envisioning something closer to 2021 Heimuli (9.25 snaps per game) than 2017 Marx (23 snaps per game). Talking about Symonds being one of the best fullbacks in America is a bit of a tallest little person competition. This is nothing against Symonds, it's just that the game has evolved away from this position. By the way, Symonds is my favorite player to spot in videos and photos of the team. His hair, extremely short/tight shorts, and general demeanor evoke Stranger Things' Billy Hargrove. A+ fullback look.
* I generally liked Shaw's front seven answer. Being two deep (and not deeper than that) seems like an obvious, honest assessment of the front seven. There does seem to be competition about how much individuals play. Shaw observing that who "starts" will depend on what the opposing offense puts out there is a fair point; one can imagine numerous configurations depending on whether our base in a given game is 4-3, 4-2, 3-3, etc., and what the opposing offense's strengths are. Very interesting that Shaw continues to highlight Bailey very prominently by name but nobody else. It wouldn't be hard to highlight Herron or one of the three experienced inside linebackers, but he doesn't. Shaw essentially explained why he isn't praising individuals (other than Bailey): we need to make a huuuuuuge (emphasis in his voice) improvement in the front seven and "being good right now is ok but we need to be great by the time we start playing games." Translation: the front seven has sucked donkey balls in recent years and we can't be content that guys look good when it doesn't count because the huuuuuuge improvement we need when it does count is so big. It may also be fair to translate as "we need to see more from the veterans to compensate for how bad the DL will be."
* Fear: we're going to take Bailey's playmaking and Anderson-ify him. I've loved to hear this off-season about how much we're simplifying the defense, letting players react instinctively, minimizing play calls and reads, and so forth. Yet here we are again with Shaw talking about the learning curve for Bailey to know "when he can go inside and when he can't go inside" and "when he's in conjunction with somebody else and when he's free to do whatever he wants." I realize a good chunk of this is just football and players do need to know their responsibilities but I just always get the sense we're asking players to think too much, which is why I've loved what we've heard this off-season. I just hope we don't smooth out too many of Bailey's edges or cram his brain with too much to act decisively and violently. At bare minimum, I think these insights from Shaw corroborate at least somewhat of a learning curve and fans might want to somewhat measure their expectations of what Bailey can do as a true freshman. But our coaches aren't managing those expectations so I guess why should we?
* The Bonner answer is big news to so unequivocally declare Bonner a starter. Many of us suspected as much but this is an un-caveated coronation, which Shaw was unwilling to do for anybody in the front seven. Is Bonner that good? I think most have read enough of me to know I don't think so. Shaw's answer is also revealing in saying Bonner has been good the last few years but has battled injuries. Well, playing football is kind of the whole point of playing football. This is a Filkins-like situation. I would LOVE for each player to finally find consistent health and to really break through. That would be great. Shaw saying he doesn't know how many teams have better starting corners than us.....again, I hope so. Seems quite aggressive. I don't see why we should be any more optimistic about corner than safety, and neither strikes me as anywhere close to nationally elite (but maybe Shaw is talking about Pac-12 elite?).
* Always interesting when Shaw damns somebody with faint praise, which he did with Patu. In essence, the opposite of a compliment sandwich - was just ok in spring and beginning of summer camp, has really come on, still a sophomore with lots of room to grow. My read is that Shaw tends to have highest standards for his QBs and becoming QB1-quality under Shaw is a multi-year process, so this is all just part of the process for Patu. No reason to read anything into these comments either direction.
* I don't know one way or the other where Shaw is right that other programs don't have alums come back as much as we do, but I do get the sense our alumni connectivity is pretty good. Fun to see Shaw's heartfelt answer on that. I do think he molds men, takes pride in seeing them come back, and is generally very respected among the alumni.
* Shaw dutifully answered the Symonds question and I do expect to see Symonds this year but it didn't sound to me like any indication fullback will be a particularly big part of the offense ("we will still continue to employ the fullback"). It's a question of how much we use 21 (two backs, a tight end, two receivers) and 22 (two backs, two tight ends, one receiver) personnel. Given our stellar WR group, the answer would seem to be "not much." I am envisioning something closer to 2021 Heimuli (9.25 snaps per game) than 2017 Marx (23 snaps per game). Talking about Symonds being one of the best fullbacks in America is a bit of a tallest little person competition. This is nothing against Symonds, it's just that the game has evolved away from this position. By the way, Symonds is my favorite player to spot in videos and photos of the team. His hair, extremely short/tight shorts, and general demeanor evoke Stranger Things' Billy Hargrove. A+ fullback look.
* I generally liked Shaw's front seven answer. Being two deep (and not deeper than that) seems like an obvious, honest assessment of the front seven. There does seem to be competition about how much individuals play. Shaw observing that who "starts" will depend on what the opposing offense puts out there is a fair point; one can imagine numerous configurations depending on whether our base in a given game is 4-3, 4-2, 3-3, etc., and what the opposing offense's strengths are. Very interesting that Shaw continues to highlight Bailey very prominently by name but nobody else. It wouldn't be hard to highlight Herron or one of the three experienced inside linebackers, but he doesn't. Shaw essentially explained why he isn't praising individuals (other than Bailey): we need to make a huuuuuuge (emphasis in his voice) improvement in the front seven and "being good right now is ok but we need to be great by the time we start playing games." Translation: the front seven has sucked donkey balls in recent years and we can't be content that guys look good when it doesn't count because the huuuuuuge improvement we need when it does count is so big. It may also be fair to translate as "we need to see more from the veterans to compensate for how bad the DL will be."
* Fear: we're going to take Bailey's playmaking and Anderson-ify him. I've loved to hear this off-season about how much we're simplifying the defense, letting players react instinctively, minimizing play calls and reads, and so forth. Yet here we are again with Shaw talking about the learning curve for Bailey to know "when he can go inside and when he can't go inside" and "when he's in conjunction with somebody else and when he's free to do whatever he wants." I realize a good chunk of this is just football and players do need to know their responsibilities but I just always get the sense we're asking players to think too much, which is why I've loved what we've heard this off-season. I just hope we don't smooth out too many of Bailey's edges or cram his brain with too much to act decisively and violently. At bare minimum, I think these insights from Shaw corroborate at least somewhat of a learning curve and fans might want to somewhat measure their expectations of what Bailey can do as a true freshman. But our coaches aren't managing those expectations so I guess why should we?
* The Bonner answer is big news to so unequivocally declare Bonner a starter. Many of us suspected as much but this is an un-caveated coronation, which Shaw was unwilling to do for anybody in the front seven. Is Bonner that good? I think most have read enough of me to know I don't think so. Shaw's answer is also revealing in saying Bonner has been good the last few years but has battled injuries. Well, playing football is kind of the whole point of playing football. This is a Filkins-like situation. I would LOVE for each player to finally find consistent health and to really break through. That would be great. Shaw saying he doesn't know how many teams have better starting corners than us.....again, I hope so. Seems quite aggressive. I don't see why we should be any more optimistic about corner than safety, and neither strikes me as anywhere close to nationally elite (but maybe Shaw is talking about Pac-12 elite?).
* Always interesting when Shaw damns somebody with faint praise, which he did with Patu. In essence, the opposite of a compliment sandwich - was just ok in spring and beginning of summer camp, has really come on, still a sophomore with lots of room to grow. My read is that Shaw tends to have highest standards for his QBs and becoming QB1-quality under Shaw is a multi-year process, so this is all just part of the process for Patu. No reason to read anything into these comments either direction.
* I don't know one way or the other where Shaw is right that other programs don't have alums come back as much as we do, but I do get the sense our alumni connectivity is pretty good. Fun to see Shaw's heartfelt answer on that. I do think he molds men, takes pride in seeing them come back, and is generally very respected among the alumni.