03-02-2021, 02:09 PM
According to Adam Rittenberg (ESPN) on Twitter this afternoon, Stanford is anticipated to hire Terry Heffernan, the assistant offensive line coach of the Buffalo Bills.
New Offensive Line Coach?
03-02-2021, 02:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2021, 06:06 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2021, 06:06 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
03-02-2021, 03:24 PM
I just hope he is passionate about recruiting. NFL experience (hopefully) shows that he can work well with an o-line.
03-02-2021, 06:20 PM
(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
At the bottom of the bio it says his first 2 jobs were at Louisville and Michigan.
(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
At the bottom of the bio it says his first 2 jobs were at Louisville and Michigan.
03-02-2021, 06:32 PM
(03-02-2021, 06:20 PM)Ohiocard Wrote:(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
At the bottom of the bio it says his first 2 jobs were at Louisville and Michigan.
Indeed, so he has FCS and FBS experience.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(03-02-2021, 06:20 PM)Ohiocard Wrote:(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
At the bottom of the bio it says his first 2 jobs were at Louisville and Michigan.
Indeed, so he has FCS and FBS experience.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
03-02-2021, 07:23 PM
(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
I have no doubt he did.
(03-02-2021, 02:22 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Here is his bio. Has coached FCS, D2 and NFL (5 years). No D1 experience yet. I wonder if DShaw consulted with Harrison Phillips and Trent Murphy for their observations watching Heffernan work from the other side of the line.
https://bufbills.com/player-bios/terry_heffernan.pdf
I have no doubt he did.
03-02-2021, 07:33 PM
Looks good to me. I've no doubt Shaw consulted all the right people. Agree with someone above that recruiting is important as heck. In the who knows category.
Looks good to me. I've no doubt Shaw consulted all the right people. Agree with someone above that recruiting is important as heck. In the who knows category.
03-03-2021, 11:41 AM
I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-03-2021, 12:11 PM
(03-03-2021, 11:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
100% on the mark!
(03-03-2021, 11:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
100% on the mark!
03-03-2021, 12:38 PM
Regardless who will be the new oline coach they will have the added challenge of finding a new center. Having strong center play is critical for a successful offense.
Regardless who will be the new oline coach they will have the added challenge of finding a new center. Having strong center play is critical for a successful offense.
03-03-2021, 03:51 PM
A third option could be move Bragg from guard to center (he was a center in high school) and move Hornibrook to the right guard spot. This would probably occur only if the Drakes’s couldn’t perform well enough.
03-03-2021, 05:13 PM
One interesting tid bit is that all three oline coaches that Shaw has hired have been assistant nfl coaches at one time, that is assuming the individual mentioned at the beginning of this tread is hired.
One interesting tid bit is that all three oline coaches that Shaw has hired have been assistant nfl coaches at one time, that is assuming the individual mentioned at the beginning of this tread is hired.
03-03-2021, 09:24 PM
(03-03-2021, 11:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
Well, in the last ten recruiting classes Stanford has signed five 5-star recruits and four of them were offensive lineman (Murphy, Peat, Sarell, Little). You can argue that we should have signed more, but four OL and one from all the other position groups (it was Mills) would indicate that Stanford is recruiting the position well (or that it's recruiting all the other positions poorly), but either way we are disproportionately far stronger in the OL area. We've also recruited eleven 4-stars in that period, including three in the class of 2020.
Going further back almost all of Stanford's 5-star recruits have been quarterbacks or offensive linemen (e.g. Mike Kohlmoos, Jeff Buckey, Kwame Harris).
DeCastro was actually a 3-star recruit, obviously was a great player but not in the category of major recruit as you defined it.
Foster and Sarell are the same person, perhaps you meant Little, who was in the same recruiting class.
Source for recruiting rankings: 247 composite.
(03-03-2021, 11:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
Well, in the last ten recruiting classes Stanford has signed five 5-star recruits and four of them were offensive lineman (Murphy, Peat, Sarell, Little). You can argue that we should have signed more, but four OL and one from all the other position groups (it was Mills) would indicate that Stanford is recruiting the position well (or that it's recruiting all the other positions poorly), but either way we are disproportionately far stronger in the OL area. We've also recruited eleven 4-stars in that period, including three in the class of 2020.
Going further back almost all of Stanford's 5-star recruits have been quarterbacks or offensive linemen (e.g. Mike Kohlmoos, Jeff Buckey, Kwame Harris).
DeCastro was actually a 3-star recruit, obviously was a great player but not in the category of major recruit as you defined it.
Foster and Sarell are the same person, perhaps you meant Little, who was in the same recruiting class.
Source for recruiting rankings: 247 composite.
(03-03-2021, 09:24 PM)DC 86 Wrote: [quote="Mick" pid='308985' dateline='1614796876']
I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
[/quote
Well, in the last ten recruiting classes Stanford has signed five 5-star recruits and four of them were offensive lineman (Murphy, Peat, Sarell, Little). You can argue that we should have signed more, but four OL and one from all the other position groups (it was Mills) would indicate that Stanford is recruiting the position well (or that it's recruiting all the other positions poorly), but either way we are disproportionately far stronger in the OL area.
We've also recruited eleven 4-stars in that period, including three in the class of 2020.
Going further back almost all of Stanford's 5-star recruits have been quarterbacks or offensive linemen (e.g. Mike Kohlmoos, Jeff Buckey, Kwame Harris).
DeCastro was actually a 3-star recruit, obviously was a great player but not in the category of major recruit as you defined it
Foster and Sarell are the same person, perhaps you meant Little, who was in the same recruiting class.
Source for recruiting rankings: 247 composite.
Stanford signed five 5-Star OL over the past ten years. In addition to Peat and Murphy they also signed Garnett in the 2012 class. Eight recruiting classes without a 5-Star OL is not cutting it. Neither is eleven 4-Stars over the span of ten seasons. I agree with Mick's position and that Stanford should be bringing in highly rated studs every year. Except that now Stanford has lost its reputation as a physical, power running team over the past three seasons. Shaw simply was out-recruited for three 5-Star OL that were on campus and ready-made for Stanford '17-'19. A couple of them were just maddening with how they got away.
(03-03-2021, 09:24 PM)DC 86 Wrote: [quote="Mick" pid='308985' dateline='1614796876']
I've often thought that OLs at Stanford were the most underrecruited group. Not that the football staff necessarily did a bad job, but the fact that OLs are typically among the smartest collective position groups on a college team, it seems to me that Stanford should have a marked advantage over other colleges. In other words, we should get more 4* and 5* OL recruits, more Fosters/Sarells/Whitfields/DeCastros than we normally do.
[/quote
Well, in the last ten recruiting classes Stanford has signed five 5-star recruits and four of them were offensive lineman (Murphy, Peat, Sarell, Little). You can argue that we should have signed more, but four OL and one from all the other position groups (it was Mills) would indicate that Stanford is recruiting the position well (or that it's recruiting all the other positions poorly), but either way we are disproportionately far stronger in the OL area.
We've also recruited eleven 4-stars in that period, including three in the class of 2020.
Going further back almost all of Stanford's 5-star recruits have been quarterbacks or offensive linemen (e.g. Mike Kohlmoos, Jeff Buckey, Kwame Harris).
DeCastro was actually a 3-star recruit, obviously was a great player but not in the category of major recruit as you defined it
Foster and Sarell are the same person, perhaps you meant Little, who was in the same recruiting class.
Source for recruiting rankings: 247 composite.
Stanford signed five 5-Star OL over the past ten years. In addition to Peat and Murphy they also signed Garnett in the 2012 class. Eight recruiting classes without a 5-Star OL is not cutting it. Neither is eleven 4-Stars over the span of ten seasons. I agree with Mick's position and that Stanford should be bringing in highly rated studs every year. Except that now Stanford has lost its reputation as a physical, power running team over the past three seasons. Shaw simply was out-recruited for three 5-Star OL that were on campus and ready-made for Stanford '17-'19. A couple of them were just maddening with how they got away.
03-03-2021, 11:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2021, 11:40 PM by BostonCard.)
In the current (class of 2022) scout rankings, there are three 5* offensive tackles and one 5* offensive guard. Last year (2021) there were six 5* offensive linemen total. In 2020 there were two 5* offensive tackles, and that's it for 5* linemen. The average of the last three years is 4 5* offensive linemen, which means that in the last decade, there have been about 40 total 5* offensive linemen, unless Scout has changed how it rates linemen or how many 5* players it gives out. For Stanford to have signed roughly one out of every eight 5* offensive linemen in the 2012 - 2021 period strikes me as pretty darned good.
To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2021, 11:40 PM by BostonCard.)
In the current (class of 2022) scout rankings, there are three 5* offensive tackles and one 5* offensive guard. Last year (2021) there were six 5* offensive linemen total. In 2020 there were two 5* offensive tackles, and that's it for 5* linemen. The average of the last three years is 4 5* offensive linemen, which means that in the last decade, there have been about 40 total 5* offensive linemen, unless Scout has changed how it rates linemen or how many 5* players it gives out. For Stanford to have signed roughly one out of every eight 5* offensive linemen in the 2012 - 2021 period strikes me as pretty darned good.
To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
03-04-2021, 08:57 AM
(03-03-2021, 11:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
Totally agree. We all get excited about a 5 star play arriving, but the results often don't match those expectations. It could be that the coaches don't get the most out of the players. It also could be the players don't fit the system, or that the players just were over hyped in the first place. I think that while each case is different the real problem is that the "rankings" on admission are pretty prone to error. If DeCastro was a three star somebody clearly missed.
Determining which Stanford students are going to accomplish the most in their chosen career paths based on their SAT test scores simply doesn't work. Similarly, recruiting rankings don't accurately predict success. These predictors are not useless, but they are still very inadequate to the task of predicting the trajectory of one's career.
(03-03-2021, 11:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
BC
Totally agree. We all get excited about a 5 star play arriving, but the results often don't match those expectations. It could be that the coaches don't get the most out of the players. It also could be the players don't fit the system, or that the players just were over hyped in the first place. I think that while each case is different the real problem is that the "rankings" on admission are pretty prone to error. If DeCastro was a three star somebody clearly missed.
Determining which Stanford students are going to accomplish the most in their chosen career paths based on their SAT test scores simply doesn't work. Similarly, recruiting rankings don't accurately predict success. These predictors are not useless, but they are still very inadequate to the task of predicting the trajectory of one's career.
Per 247 composite there have been 46 5-star OL in the last decade. Nine schools have multiple 5-star OL in that period:
Alabama 7
Georgia 7
Stanford 4
Ohio State 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 3
Florida 2
Mississippi 2
Wisconsin 2
LSU 2
So Stanford is the only Pac-12 team with multiple 5-star OL (and ND only had one 5-star OL during this period.) Josh Garnett was a high 4-star according to 247 so he is not included in this tally.
Stanford's ranking is even more impressive when considering how many of these 5-stars were recruitable from an admissions standpoint.
Another way to look at this is to determine what percentage of Stanford's OL recruits were 4/5 stars. Stanford has signed 39 OL in the last ten classes, and 15 have been 4/5 stars, which seems reasonable. There just aren't that many academically qualified 4/5 star OL and Stanford is getting more than its fair share.
Certainly there is no other position group (besides QB) where Stanford comes close to competing with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Clemson and the others in the above table.
Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
Meanwhile Stanford has had 3-star OL who have become excellent to exceptional players (DeCastro, Herbig, Dalman) and several others who have become multi-year starters, anecdotally it has been a position where both recruiting and development have been strong relative to other areas.
Alabama 7
Georgia 7
Stanford 4
Ohio State 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 3
Florida 2
Mississippi 2
Wisconsin 2
LSU 2
So Stanford is the only Pac-12 team with multiple 5-star OL (and ND only had one 5-star OL during this period.) Josh Garnett was a high 4-star according to 247 so he is not included in this tally.
Stanford's ranking is even more impressive when considering how many of these 5-stars were recruitable from an admissions standpoint.
Another way to look at this is to determine what percentage of Stanford's OL recruits were 4/5 stars. Stanford has signed 39 OL in the last ten classes, and 15 have been 4/5 stars, which seems reasonable. There just aren't that many academically qualified 4/5 star OL and Stanford is getting more than its fair share.
Certainly there is no other position group (besides QB) where Stanford comes close to competing with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Clemson and the others in the above table.
(03-03-2021, 11:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
Meanwhile Stanford has had 3-star OL who have become excellent to exceptional players (DeCastro, Herbig, Dalman) and several others who have become multi-year starters, anecdotally it has been a position where both recruiting and development have been strong relative to other areas.
Per 247 composite there have been 46 5-star OL in the last decade. Nine schools have multiple 5-star OL in that period:
Alabama 7
Georgia 7
Stanford 4
Ohio State 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 3
Florida 2
Mississippi 2
Wisconsin 2
LSU 2
So Stanford is the only Pac-12 team with multiple 5-star OL (and ND only had one 5-star OL during this period.) Josh Garnett was a high 4-star according to 247 so he is not included in this tally.
Stanford's ranking is even more impressive when considering how many of these 5-stars were recruitable from an admissions standpoint.
Another way to look at this is to determine what percentage of Stanford's OL recruits were 4/5 stars. Stanford has signed 39 OL in the last ten classes, and 15 have been 4/5 stars, which seems reasonable. There just aren't that many academically qualified 4/5 star OL and Stanford is getting more than its fair share.
Certainly there is no other position group (besides QB) where Stanford comes close to competing with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Clemson and the others in the above table.
Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
Meanwhile Stanford has had 3-star OL who have become excellent to exceptional players (DeCastro, Herbig, Dalman) and several others who have become multi-year starters, anecdotally it has been a position where both recruiting and development have been strong relative to other areas.
Alabama 7
Georgia 7
Stanford 4
Ohio State 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 3
Florida 2
Mississippi 2
Wisconsin 2
LSU 2
So Stanford is the only Pac-12 team with multiple 5-star OL (and ND only had one 5-star OL during this period.) Josh Garnett was a high 4-star according to 247 so he is not included in this tally.
Stanford's ranking is even more impressive when considering how many of these 5-stars were recruitable from an admissions standpoint.
Another way to look at this is to determine what percentage of Stanford's OL recruits were 4/5 stars. Stanford has signed 39 OL in the last ten classes, and 15 have been 4/5 stars, which seems reasonable. There just aren't that many academically qualified 4/5 star OL and Stanford is getting more than its fair share.
Certainly there is no other position group (besides QB) where Stanford comes close to competing with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Clemson and the others in the above table.
(03-03-2021, 11:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, the bigger problem is that the production from the two most recent 5* offensive linemen was more akin to 3* players.
Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
Meanwhile Stanford has had 3-star OL who have become excellent to exceptional players (DeCastro, Herbig, Dalman) and several others who have become multi-year starters, anecdotally it has been a position where both recruiting and development have been strong relative to other areas.
03-04-2021, 09:43 AM
(03-04-2021, 09:06 AM)DC 86 Wrote: Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
That wasn't meant as a barb against the coaches per se. As you note, there are 3* players who performed as 5* players. I made my comment as a counter to the people who implied that the problem is that we aren't getting enough 5* offensive linemen. If you figure teams recruit an average of 4 OL per year and that the average offensive lineman will start 2 years (a guess), that means that over the course of 10 years, a team will recruit 40 offensive linemen and start 25ish. That means that even if you are Alabama or Georgia, the majority of the line will be made up of non-5* linemen.
More 5* offensive linemen would be great, of course, but getting the most out of the 3* and 4* linemen who will almost always make up the majority of the line, is more important.
BC
(03-04-2021, 09:06 AM)DC 86 Wrote: Walker Little's production was at a 5-star level until he was injured and then elected to opt out. Disappointing, but not a recruiting miss or a developmental failure.
That wasn't meant as a barb against the coaches per se. As you note, there are 3* players who performed as 5* players. I made my comment as a counter to the people who implied that the problem is that we aren't getting enough 5* offensive linemen. If you figure teams recruit an average of 4 OL per year and that the average offensive lineman will start 2 years (a guess), that means that over the course of 10 years, a team will recruit 40 offensive linemen and start 25ish. That means that even if you are Alabama or Georgia, the majority of the line will be made up of non-5* linemen.
More 5* offensive linemen would be great, of course, but getting the most out of the 3* and 4* linemen who will almost always make up the majority of the line, is more important.
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »