[terry]

Stanford is well represented in the annual Pac-12 awards --

Offensive Player of the Year:  Bryce Love, Stanford
Pat Tillman Defensive Player of the Year:  Vita Vea, Washington
Freshman Offensive Co-Players of the Year:  J.J. Taylor, Arizona and Walker Little, Stanford
Freshman Defensive Player of the Year: Colin Schooler, Arizona
Coach of the Year: David Shaw, Stanford

That's David Shaw's fourth Pac-12 Coach of the Year award in his seven seasons.

http://pac-12.com/article/2017/12/05/pac...-announced

[terry]

Stanford is well represented in the annual Pac-12 awards --

Offensive Player of the Year:  Bryce Love, Stanford
Pat Tillman Defensive Player of the Year:  Vita Vea, Washington
Freshman Offensive Co-Players of the Year:  J.J. Taylor, Arizona and Walker Little, Stanford
Freshman Defensive Player of the Year: Colin Schooler, Arizona
Coach of the Year: David Shaw, Stanford

That's David Shaw's fourth Pac-12 Coach of the Year award in his seven seasons.

http://pac-12.com/article/2017/12/05/pac...-announced

[stupac2]

I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

[stupac2]

I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

[qwerty49]

66 should have been DPOY. I went to gostanford.com to see the complete list but they only mentioned the Stanford honorees.

Thanks terry for providing the complete picture.

[qwerty49]

66 should have been DPOY. I went to gostanford.com to see the complete list but they only mentioned the Stanford honorees.

Thanks terry for providing the complete picture.

[SamuelMcF]

66 should have been DPOY. I went to gostanford.com to see the complete list but they only mentioned the Stanford honorees.

Thanks terry for providing the complete picture.

11 games 25 solo 12 asst 37 total 5.5 TFL 3.5 sacks 0 forced fumbles

13 games 40 solo 49 asst 89 total 14.5 TFL 7.5 sacks 2 forced fumbles


Guess which one is Vita Vea and which one is Harrison Phillips.

Are you f***ing kidding me?

[SamuelMcF]

66 should have been DPOY. I went to gostanford.com to see the complete list but they only mentioned the Stanford honorees.

Thanks terry for providing the complete picture.

11 games 25 solo 12 asst 37 total 5.5 TFL 3.5 sacks 0 forced fumbles

13 games 40 solo 49 asst 89 total 14.5 TFL 7.5 sacks 2 forced fumbles


Guess which one is Vita Vea and which one is Harrison Phillips.

Are you f***ing kidding me?

[Langdude]

Interesting.

I wonder if Shaw as COY and/or Little as Co-FOPOY were makeup calls to Horrible Harry not getting DPOY (or vice versa) as it seems clear who the best defensive player was...

-m.

[Langdude]

Interesting.

I wonder if Shaw as COY and/or Little as Co-FOPOY were makeup calls to Horrible Harry not getting DPOY (or vice versa) as it seems clear who the best defensive player was...

-m.

[CTcard]

I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

Our friend Jon Wilner picked Todd Graham, but said he also considered Helton, Rodriguez, and Taggart;  and earlier had written that he would consider Leach. Never a mention of the actual winner.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/05/th...d-winners/

[CTcard]

I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

Our friend Jon Wilner picked Todd Graham, but said he also considered Helton, Rodriguez, and Taggart;  and earlier had written that he would consider Leach. Never a mention of the actual winner.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/05/th...d-winners/

[BostonCard]

By the way, you have Horrible Harry's stats wrong:
35 solo tackles, 64 assisted; 99 total.  100 tackles is nearly unprecedented for a nose tackle.  Phillips leads the nation in tackles for a defensive lineman.  In fact, he would have led the nation in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008 (I don't feel like going back further).  You have to go back to 2013 to find a defensive lineman with more (Trevor Reilly from Utah, with 100 and Stanley Andrew from UMass with 111)

Also, don't forget that our guy has 1 very important field goal block (VV has one as well).

Hercules Ma'atafa might have also deserved mention: nowhere near as many tackles, but he had 9.5 sacks, 21.5 TFLs (both tops in the league), and 2 forced fumbles

My guess is that Vea got it as the best player on the best defense in the Pac-12.

BC

[BostonCard]

By the way, you have Horrible Harry's stats wrong:
35 solo tackles, 64 assisted; 99 total.  100 tackles is nearly unprecedented for a nose tackle.  Phillips leads the nation in tackles for a defensive lineman.  In fact, he would have led the nation in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008 (I don't feel like going back further).  You have to go back to 2013 to find a defensive lineman with more (Trevor Reilly from Utah, with 100 and Stanley Andrew from UMass with 111)

Also, don't forget that our guy has 1 very important field goal block (VV has one as well).

Hercules Ma'atafa might have also deserved mention: nowhere near as many tackles, but he had 9.5 sacks, 21.5 TFLs (both tops in the league), and 2 forced fumbles

My guess is that Vea got it as the best player on the best defense in the Pac-12.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18301.msg217207#msg217207 date=1512517461]
I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

Our friend Jon Wilner picked Todd Graham, but said he also considered Helton, Rodriguez, and Taggart;  and earlier had written that he would consider Leach. Never a mention of the actual winner.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/05/th...d-winners/
[/quote]

Sometimes I wonder if Wilner is just trolling.

I see Wilner picked Ma'atafa, whose case I argue above.  Still think Phillips was the most important, and Stanford, without Phillips has no defensive line.
His All-Pac-12 list is not bad.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=18301.msg217207#msg217207 date=1512517461]
I'm a bit surprised the voters went with Shaw over Helton, voter fatigue does seem to be real and it's pretty easy to vote for the guy who won the conference, even if he was expected to. Though I can't say I'm unhappy with the outcome. I wonder what the actual distribution of votes was.

It's kind of amazing that we have a coach who's been more likely than not to be named Coach of the Year through his tenure, I wonder how many other coaches that's true of.

Our friend Jon Wilner picked Todd Graham, but said he also considered Helton, Rodriguez, and Taggart;  and earlier had written that he would consider Leach. Never a mention of the actual winner.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/05/th...d-winners/
[/quote]

Sometimes I wonder if Wilner is just trolling.

I see Wilner picked Ma'atafa, whose case I argue above.  Still think Phillips was the most important, and Stanford, without Phillips has no defensive line.
His All-Pac-12 list is not bad.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Wait, didn't Wilner also say firing Todd Graham was a good idea?

[washingtonismoney]

Wait, didn't Wilner also say firing Todd Graham was a good idea?

[BostonCard]

Wait, didn't Wilner also say firing Todd Graham was a good idea?

He did, and in the article he explains the disparity.

As I said, sometimes I think he is trolling.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wait, didn't Wilner also say firing Todd Graham was a good idea?

He did, and in the article he explains the disparity.

As I said, sometimes I think he is trolling.

BC

[terry]

By the way, you have Horrible Harry's stats wrong:
35 solo tackles, 64 assisted; 99 total.  100 tackles is nearly unprecedented for a nose tackle.  Phillips leads the nation in tackles for a defensive lineman.  In fact, he would have led the nation in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008 (I don't feel like going back further).  You have to go back to 2013 to find a defensive lineman with more

Yes, great point.

Phillips' statistics are even more impressive because Phillips is a defensive tackle, not a DE. The conventional wisdom is defensive tackles, especially nose tackles in a 3-4 defense, don't get a lot of tackles because their job is to occupy offensive linemen, allowing the LBs to make the tackle. Phillips has blown that idea out of the water. It's unheard of for a DT to have 100 tackles.

Regarding Phillips' stats --

Both Stanford's stats and the NCAA's stats show Phillips with 100 tackles, 17.0 tackles for loss, 7.5 sacks.

http://www.gostanford.com/cumestats.aspx...&year=2017 (click on Individual and then Defense)

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...dual/34/p3 (tackles, #107)
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...ividual/39 (tackles for loss, #25)
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...dual/36/p2 (sacks, #54)

The Pac-12, for some reason, shows Phillips with only 97 tackles, 16.0 TFL, 7.0 sacks.

http://pac-12.com/content/football-statistics

In my experience, the Pac-12's stats are less reliable than Stanford's or the NCAA's stats. When there's a post-game adjustment to the box score, the Pac-12 sometimes doesn't pick it up right away.

Vita Vea's stats from the UW athletics site are:  38 tackles, 5.5 TFL, 3.5 sacks.

Phillips was absolutely dominant.

[terry]

By the way, you have Horrible Harry's stats wrong:
35 solo tackles, 64 assisted; 99 total.  100 tackles is nearly unprecedented for a nose tackle.  Phillips leads the nation in tackles for a defensive lineman.  In fact, he would have led the nation in 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008 (I don't feel like going back further).  You have to go back to 2013 to find a defensive lineman with more

Yes, great point.

Phillips' statistics are even more impressive because Phillips is a defensive tackle, not a DE. The conventional wisdom is defensive tackles, especially nose tackles in a 3-4 defense, don't get a lot of tackles because their job is to occupy offensive linemen, allowing the LBs to make the tackle. Phillips has blown that idea out of the water. It's unheard of for a DT to have 100 tackles.

Regarding Phillips' stats --

Both Stanford's stats and the NCAA's stats show Phillips with 100 tackles, 17.0 tackles for loss, 7.5 sacks.

http://www.gostanford.com/cumestats.aspx...&year=2017 (click on Individual and then Defense)

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...dual/34/p3 (tackles, #107)
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...ividual/39 (tackles for loss, #25)
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...dual/36/p2 (sacks, #54)

The Pac-12, for some reason, shows Phillips with only 97 tackles, 16.0 TFL, 7.0 sacks.

http://pac-12.com/content/football-statistics

In my experience, the Pac-12's stats are less reliable than Stanford's or the NCAA's stats. When there's a post-game adjustment to the box score, the Pac-12 sometimes doesn't pick it up right away.

Vita Vea's stats from the UW athletics site are:  38 tackles, 5.5 TFL, 3.5 sacks.

Phillips was absolutely dominant.

[BobK]

No Pac 12 or Pac 10 or Pac 8 coach has ever been Coach of the Year 4 Times  like David Shaw

[BobK]

No Pac 12 or Pac 10 or Pac 8 coach has ever been Coach of the Year 4 Times  like David Shaw

[Phogge]

I agree that 66 was the POY but Vea had a ton of pre season pub. Too bad there is not another Murph in the SID office.

[Phogge]

I agree that 66 was the POY but Vea had a ton of pre season pub. Too bad there is not another Murph in the SID office.

[BostonCard]

Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

[Langdude]

Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.

[Langdude]

Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18301.msg217230#msg217230 date=1512522059]
Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.
[/quote]

Sort of arguing the "vice versa", but not really a "make-up call" per se but rather more a "spread the wealth" argument.  Of course, if you are going to spread the wealth, then giving Shaw his 4th P12 COY is a little less "spreading" than giving Phillips his first, especially since Solomon Thomas was robbed of it last year (not that Adoree Jackson wasn't deserving).

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18301.msg217230#msg217230 date=1512522059]
Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.
[/quote]

Sort of arguing the "vice versa", but not really a "make-up call" per se but rather more a "spread the wealth" argument.  Of course, if you are going to spread the wealth, then giving Shaw his 4th P12 COY is a little less "spreading" than giving Phillips his first, especially since Solomon Thomas was robbed of it last year (not that Adoree Jackson wasn't deserving).

BC

[Langdude]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18301.msg217231#msg217231 date=1512522102]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18301.msg217230#msg217230 date=1512522059]
Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.
[/quote]

Sort of arguing the "vice versa", but not really a "make-up call" per se but rather more a "spread the wealth" argument.  Of course, if you are going to spread the wealth, then giving Shaw his 4th P12 COY is a little less "spreading" than giving Phillips his first, especially since Solomon Thomas was robbed of it last year (not that Adoree Jackson wasn't deserving).

BC
[/quote]

Ugh. Forgot about Solly missing it last year. Now I'm in a salty mood.

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18301.msg217231#msg217231 date=1512522102]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18301.msg217230#msg217230 date=1512522059]
Maybe it was simply that it would have been a bad look for Stanford to sweep OPOY, DPOY, FOY, and COY in the same season.

BC

What I suggested above...

-m.
[/quote]

Sort of arguing the "vice versa", but not really a "make-up call" per se but rather more a "spread the wealth" argument.  Of course, if you are going to spread the wealth, then giving Shaw his 4th P12 COY is a little less "spreading" than giving Phillips his first, especially since Solomon Thomas was robbed of it last year (not that Adoree Jackson wasn't deserving).

BC
[/quote]

Ugh. Forgot about Solly missing it last year. Now I'm in a salty mood.

-m.

[Hulk01]

After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

[Hulk01]

After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

[BostonCard]

After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

Isn’t that stanford’s Scheme as well?  I mean all those years of Martinez posting monster tackle numbers were at least partly because the plays were funneled to him.  Even this year, look at Perez’ tackle numbers.

BC

[BostonCard]

After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

Isn’t that stanford’s Scheme as well?  I mean all those years of Martinez posting monster tackle numbers were at least partly because the plays were funneled to him.  Even this year, look at Perez’ tackle numbers.

BC

[gocard14]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18301.msg217276#msg217276 date=1512569317]
After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

Isn’t that stanford’s Scheme as well?  I mean all those years of Martinez posting monster tackle numbers were at least partly because the plays were funneled to him.  Even this year, look at Perez’ tackle numbers.

BC
[/quote]

It generally is, though it seems to me that we're seeing more tackles by the D-line in the last few years and fewer by the ILBs. Part of that is likely due to playing more 4 man fronts in nickel packages rather then true 3-4. Part may be due to otherwordly play by Solomon Thomas and Harrison Phillips (but its not like Mauro, Gardner, Anderson et al. were slouches). Part may unfortunately be due to regression from many years of elite LB play.

[gocard14]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18301.msg217276#msg217276 date=1512569317]
After hearing Leach and Shaw rave about him, I expected Vea to win the award. 

Washington's scheme doesn't ask the two tackles to make plays, but to leave the inside linebackers free to make them.  As a result, Washington's ILBs always look brilliant and their DTs post modest numbers. 

The notable example  is Azeem Victor, who made first team all Pac-12 ILB last year--and wasn't even mentioned this year.  Instead, their new and also wildly overrated ILB, Burr-Kirven, made second team alongside the Huskies other overrated ILB, Kieshawn Bierria. 

Those guys owe Vea.

Harry would have won the award in many years.

Isn’t that stanford’s Scheme as well?  I mean all those years of Martinez posting monster tackle numbers were at least partly because the plays were funneled to him.  Even this year, look at Perez’ tackle numbers.

BC
[/quote]

It generally is, though it seems to me that we're seeing more tackles by the D-line in the last few years and fewer by the ILBs. Part of that is likely due to playing more 4 man fronts in nickel packages rather then true 3-4. Part may be due to otherwordly play by Solomon Thomas and Harrison Phillips (but its not like Mauro, Gardner, Anderson et al. were slouches). Part may unfortunately be due to regression from many years of elite LB play.