[Goose]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

[Goose]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

[CornFed]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

Better coaching!!

[CornFed]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

Better coaching!!

[BostonCard]

In Shaw's pre-UCLA presser he said that recruiting was excellent and that he has sufficient depth. So if you're right then he's lying through his teeth - and BTW nobody in the press is calling him on it.

I brought up the same point, but thought about it some more.  Had we had the same number of injuries to the offensive line last year, I think (someone can pull the old depth chart) that we would be talking about converting tight ends and tackles and not playing true freshmen.  If (giatnt "if" tho) no one gets injured between now and when a couple players come back, we will have made it through the season with just enough depth.

Now, all that being said, had we not had a giant recruiting fail in 2018, we wouldn't be in the position we are now, having to play true freshmen and hoping that no one else gets injured.  But, I think in a few years, we will look back at the offensive linemen that we brought in this year and be pretty happy with that recruiting class.  Rouse, Bragg, Miller, and Hornibrook (and hopefully Nugent as well, though he has not been pressed for service yet) look like what we could reasonably hope - inconsistent players with a high ceiling (performance against UW).

Yeah you're crazy. The receiving corps - none of whom can consistently get separation - are all opening day starters. The safeties who can't stop a runner are opening day starters. The ILBs who can't get out to their respective sidelines are opening day starters. The gameplan doesn't change at halftime and multiple times this year has seemed to be the same as the previous week with no consideration given to the opponent's strengths & weaknesses. The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

I'm shocked that freshmen are inconsistent.  Also, between UW and UCLA, we lost Hattis, and while Hornibrook did great on the Scarlett touchdown, the plan was to redshirt him for a reason.

ILB and S was identified as a recruiting hole before the season started.  15% is probably too little emphasis on that, but it's not like Stupac didn't acknowledge that it contributed to the problem.  Also, many of us had penciled in JMF and Miezen as redshirt freshmen who might overtake more experienced players as the season wore on, so ILB has legitimately been hurt by injuries.

Obviously the whole exercise is subjective, but I think it is impossible to break down injuries versus recruiting.  Injuries are much more impactful if there have been holes in recruiting, as there have been at certain positions, and injuries can be mitigated if there has been great recruiting.  If we hadn't lost both Mills and Costello, the injury to Costello probably wouldn't have hurt us much because Mills is a great QB.  Losing both might have hurt us less if we had a true freshman phenom who might be better than West.  But the combination of losing both Mills and Costello, West being disappointing so far, and no 2019 (or for that matter 2015 QB) meant that the injuries were that much more devastating.

As for coaching... ultimately the buck stops somewhere.

BC

[BostonCard]

In Shaw's pre-UCLA presser he said that recruiting was excellent and that he has sufficient depth. So if you're right then he's lying through his teeth - and BTW nobody in the press is calling him on it.

I brought up the same point, but thought about it some more.  Had we had the same number of injuries to the offensive line last year, I think (someone can pull the old depth chart) that we would be talking about converting tight ends and tackles and not playing true freshmen.  If (giatnt "if" tho) no one gets injured between now and when a couple players come back, we will have made it through the season with just enough depth.

Now, all that being said, had we not had a giant recruiting fail in 2018, we wouldn't be in the position we are now, having to play true freshmen and hoping that no one else gets injured.  But, I think in a few years, we will look back at the offensive linemen that we brought in this year and be pretty happy with that recruiting class.  Rouse, Bragg, Miller, and Hornibrook (and hopefully Nugent as well, though he has not been pressed for service yet) look like what we could reasonably hope - inconsistent players with a high ceiling (performance against UW).

Yeah you're crazy. The receiving corps - none of whom can consistently get separation - are all opening day starters. The safeties who can't stop a runner are opening day starters. The ILBs who can't get out to their respective sidelines are opening day starters. The gameplan doesn't change at halftime and multiple times this year has seemed to be the same as the previous week with no consideration given to the opponent's strengths & weaknesses. The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

I'm shocked that freshmen are inconsistent.  Also, between UW and UCLA, we lost Hattis, and while Hornibrook did great on the Scarlett touchdown, the plan was to redshirt him for a reason.

ILB and S was identified as a recruiting hole before the season started.  15% is probably too little emphasis on that, but it's not like Stupac didn't acknowledge that it contributed to the problem.  Also, many of us had penciled in JMF and Miezen as redshirt freshmen who might overtake more experienced players as the season wore on, so ILB has legitimately been hurt by injuries.

Obviously the whole exercise is subjective, but I think it is impossible to break down injuries versus recruiting.  Injuries are much more impactful if there have been holes in recruiting, as there have been at certain positions, and injuries can be mitigated if there has been great recruiting.  If we hadn't lost both Mills and Costello, the injury to Costello probably wouldn't have hurt us much because Mills is a great QB.  Losing both might have hurt us less if we had a true freshman phenom who might be better than West.  But the combination of losing both Mills and Costello, West being disappointing so far, and no 2019 (or for that matter 2015 QB) meant that the injuries were that much more devastating.

As for coaching... ultimately the buck stops somewhere.

BC

[pefloresjr]

I hope that he stops injuring all our players, forcing us to play guys who clearly aren't ready.

I mean, sure, you can say that there are issues with recruiting and whatever, but does anyone really think Mills or Costello would take a sack on FIVE third downs in a row? Does anyone think that our starting five OL would be that porous? Sure, coaching wasn't perfect, but I don't know what the coaches are supposed to do when you're on 3rd stringers who were supposed to redshirt this year and are (surprise!) making mistakes of inexperience.

Maybe I'm crazy but I put results this year at, like, 75% injuries, 15% recruiting problems and 10% coaching problems.

I don't think you're crazy, I think you are very close to correct in your assessments.  

Even the injuries are blamed on Shaw's because they didn't replace a trainer last year.  However, we have a full staff this year and have suffered even more injuries.  I am told that the training staff is still implementing the same approach as Turley did so that can't be the difference.  I have yet to hear anyone show that there was an actual difference in training that led to the increased injuries.  I had the chance to speak with Toby Gerhart about injuries in the past and he was adamant that his process never changed but injuries still came at random times.  I think that is what is happening here and people are simply hoping that there is something concrete that can be done to make it stop.  If there were a true method that consistently resulted in fewer injuries over the long term, everybody would be doing it.  

It is just very difficult to continue over-achieving every year when you are operating on a very thin margin as Stanford is in recruiting great football players.  I think Shaw should be more flexible and aggressive in recruiting and that he should keep studying other offensive approaches (he does do this with his friends in the coaching world) to improve our chances of having winning seasons.  I don't think that his skill at coaching us to all those great seasons and games has suddenly disappeared because we are not over-achieving as we have in many prior years.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I hope that he stops injuring all our players, forcing us to play guys who clearly aren't ready.

I mean, sure, you can say that there are issues with recruiting and whatever, but does anyone really think Mills or Costello would take a sack on FIVE third downs in a row? Does anyone think that our starting five OL would be that porous? Sure, coaching wasn't perfect, but I don't know what the coaches are supposed to do when you're on 3rd stringers who were supposed to redshirt this year and are (surprise!) making mistakes of inexperience.

Maybe I'm crazy but I put results this year at, like, 75% injuries, 15% recruiting problems and 10% coaching problems.

I don't think you're crazy, I think you are very close to correct in your assessments.  

Even the injuries are blamed on Shaw's because they didn't replace a trainer last year.  However, we have a full staff this year and have suffered even more injuries.  I am told that the training staff is still implementing the same approach as Turley did so that can't be the difference.  I have yet to hear anyone show that there was an actual difference in training that led to the increased injuries.  I had the chance to speak with Toby Gerhart about injuries in the past and he was adamant that his process never changed but injuries still came at random times.  I think that is what is happening here and people are simply hoping that there is something concrete that can be done to make it stop.  If there were a true method that consistently resulted in fewer injuries over the long term, everybody would be doing it.  

It is just very difficult to continue over-achieving every year when you are operating on a very thin margin as Stanford is in recruiting great football players.  I think Shaw should be more flexible and aggressive in recruiting and that he should keep studying other offensive approaches (he does do this with his friends in the coaching world) to improve our chances of having winning seasons.  I don't think that his skill at coaching us to all those great seasons and games has suddenly disappeared because we are not over-achieving as we have in many prior years.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[donkey687]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

I think this is pretty obvious.  UCLA came aggressively after the QB and forced him into quick decisions because he was a nervous redshirt frosh in his first start.  I think Mills could have picked apart that defense and forced UCLA to respect the pass more and back off pressure. Mills or Costello would have made the OL look a lot better.

[donkey687]

The OL that was a sieve against UCLA did a fantastic job against UW.

OK, I give. Why did that happen?

I think this is pretty obvious.  UCLA came aggressively after the QB and forced him into quick decisions because he was a nervous redshirt frosh in his first start.  I think Mills could have picked apart that defense and forced UCLA to respect the pass more and back off pressure. Mills or Costello would have made the OL look a lot better.

[Goose]

I think this is pretty obvious.  UCLA came aggressively after the QB and forced him into quick decisions because he was a nervous redshirt frosh in his first start.  I think Mills could have picked apart that defense and forced UCLA to respect the pass more and back off pressure. Mills or Costello would have made the OL look a lot better.

You are correct that UCLA rushed the passer hard all game. They also utilized run blitzes regularly. Shaw said Stanford expected them to do that. I agree Mills would have played better than West, but in the game I saw the pass protection was so poor that the only way the QB could have had time to throw would have been if he abandoned the pocket real early. There were few decisions West could make sitting on the ground. He "carried" the ball 11 times. There were also no throwing lanes. Shaw pointed this out in his press conference (the large number of tipped passes). John Elway (when he was at Stanford and was healthy) would have picked UCLA apart by evading the rush. Neither Mills nor Costello have shown much elusiveness. Neither one would have been effective with the OL play we had.

UCLA got penetration on virtually every play, run or pass.  The running game was abysmal.  Scarlett got 2.6 yards per carry average. That is not on West. We simply couldn't block them effectively on anything all night, full stop.

[Goose]

I think this is pretty obvious.  UCLA came aggressively after the QB and forced him into quick decisions because he was a nervous redshirt frosh in his first start.  I think Mills could have picked apart that defense and forced UCLA to respect the pass more and back off pressure. Mills or Costello would have made the OL look a lot better.

You are correct that UCLA rushed the passer hard all game. They also utilized run blitzes regularly. Shaw said Stanford expected them to do that. I agree Mills would have played better than West, but in the game I saw the pass protection was so poor that the only way the QB could have had time to throw would have been if he abandoned the pocket real early. There were few decisions West could make sitting on the ground. He "carried" the ball 11 times. There were also no throwing lanes. Shaw pointed this out in his press conference (the large number of tipped passes). John Elway (when he was at Stanford and was healthy) would have picked UCLA apart by evading the rush. Neither Mills nor Costello have shown much elusiveness. Neither one would have been effective with the OL play we had.

UCLA got penetration on virtually every play, run or pass.  The running game was abysmal.  Scarlett got 2.6 yards per carry average. That is not on West. We simply couldn't block them effectively on anything all night, full stop.

[slide]

Now, all that being said, had we not had a giant recruiting fail in 2018...

the 2015 OL class was really a flop and its lack of production started the downslide.  Shawgren should have seen the weakness in that 4 OL class (0 starters; 2 medical retirees) and instead of offering more/recruiting harder they choose the opposite path.  I still cannot believe the coaching braintrust believed a 1 offer to an OL class in 2018 was defensible.

[slide]

Now, all that being said, had we not had a giant recruiting fail in 2018...

the 2015 OL class was really a flop and its lack of production started the downslide.  Shawgren should have seen the weakness in that 4 OL class (0 starters; 2 medical retirees) and instead of offering more/recruiting harder they choose the opposite path.  I still cannot believe the coaching braintrust believed a 1 offer to an OL class in 2018 was defensible.

[BostonCard]

The 2016 OL class included Hamilton, Hattis, Herbig, and Powell (+ Yarborough); I think four have been starters at one point or another, but when you strike out in one year, then you need to make up for it the next; we needed more like 5 or 6 OL's.  Add to that the fact that Herbig only stuck around for three years, and Hamilton and Powell have been oft injured.  Then the 2017 OL class had only 3 (high quality, but too few).

One number I would love to see is the number of games started by year.  That's the easiest way to see the impact of holes in the classes.


BC

[BostonCard]

The 2016 OL class included Hamilton, Hattis, Herbig, and Powell (+ Yarborough); I think four have been starters at one point or another, but when you strike out in one year, then you need to make up for it the next; we needed more like 5 or 6 OL's.  Add to that the fact that Herbig only stuck around for three years, and Hamilton and Powell have been oft injured.  Then the 2017 OL class had only 3 (high quality, but too few).

One number I would love to see is the number of games started by year.  That's the easiest way to see the impact of holes in the classes.


BC

[Mick]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

[Mick]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

[slide]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB RB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

that's about right.  if done well, may be half that number of K/P.  with our 3-4 D, may be one less DL and added to either LB or DB.

[slide]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB RB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

that's about right.  if done well, may be half that number of K/P.  with our 3-4 D, may be one less DL and added to either LB or DB.

[SamuelMcF]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB RB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

that's about right.  if done well, may be half that number of K/P.  with our 3-4 D, may be one less DL and added to either LB or DB.

Agreed - we're in nickel pretty often (plus need backups for special teams), so make one of the DL a DB. And if we're getting more into it, have a "thunder and lightning" type duo at RB, a la Scarlett/Love, Jones/Peat or what we thought Heimuli-Lund/Wedington were going to be. A true RB and an "all-purpose" back who can split out wide/in the slot, so it's more like 1.5 RBs and 2.5 WRs.

With K/P, alternate signing one every other year and fill out with walk-ons. In the "odd" years, replace that slot with a TE or LB. Or hell, take someone who could feasibly play both like Ben Yurosek and figure it out when he gets to campus. So something like K-TE-P-LB-K... that way you have a 5th year senior special teamer showing the ropes to a freshman special teamer while he ideally redshirts (much like Ukropina and Toner, and the apparent plan with Toner and Karty provided Toner returns for his 5th).

[SamuelMcF]

Is this the ideal recruiting class?

1 QB
4 OL
2 WR
2 DB RB
1 TE
4 DL
3 LB
3 DB
1 K/P

that's about right.  if done well, may be half that number of K/P.  with our 3-4 D, may be one less DL and added to either LB or DB.

Agreed - we're in nickel pretty often (plus need backups for special teams), so make one of the DL a DB. And if we're getting more into it, have a "thunder and lightning" type duo at RB, a la Scarlett/Love, Jones/Peat or what we thought Heimuli-Lund/Wedington were going to be. A true RB and an "all-purpose" back who can split out wide/in the slot, so it's more like 1.5 RBs and 2.5 WRs.

With K/P, alternate signing one every other year and fill out with walk-ons. In the "odd" years, replace that slot with a TE or LB. Or hell, take someone who could feasibly play both like Ben Yurosek and figure it out when he gets to campus. So something like K-TE-P-LB-K... that way you have a 5th year senior special teamer showing the ropes to a freshman special teamer while he ideally redshirts (much like Ukropina and Toner, and the apparent plan with Toner and Karty provided Toner returns for his 5th).

[BostonCard]

21 scholarship players a year basically means that the average tenure has to be exactly 4 years.  It is probably more realistic to get 20 a year (4.25 year average tenure) or 19 a year (4.5 year average tenure). Although with early departures and transfers the average number of years each player is on scholarship has been moving down, I don’t think it is down to 4.

So, on your list, remove a running back per year (most years) and 1/2 of the kicker/punter and three DL are probably enough in a 3-4 defense.

BC

[BostonCard]

21 scholarship players a year basically means that the average tenure has to be exactly 4 years.  It is probably more realistic to get 20 a year (4.25 year average tenure) or 19 a year (4.5 year average tenure). Although with early departures and transfers the average number of years each player is on scholarship has been moving down, I don’t think it is down to 4.

So, on your list, remove a running back per year (most years) and 1/2 of the kicker/punter and three DL are probably enough in a 3-4 defense.

BC