[washingtonismoney]

Shaw in Seattle: "We have a chance to have the best defense Stanford has seen in a long time [in 2012]"

http://twitter.com/#!/jkarlgaard/status/...1952212992

I'd put that on the optimistic side of our expectations, but not out of line. If our defense is as good as 2010 (or better), we're in very good shape next year.

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw in Seattle: "We have a chance to have the best defense Stanford has seen in a long time [in 2012]"

http://twitter.com/#!/jkarlgaard/status/...1952212992

I'd put that on the optimistic side of our expectations, but not out of line. If our defense is as good as 2010 (or better), we're in very good shape next year.

[yvonne]

Shaw played on the Blockbuster Bowl team. That team returned 10 starters from the previous class, and pretty much dominated on defense. The offense had Chris Dalman and the Northwest Road Warriors, Glyn Milburn, and Steve Stenstrom. The offense scored more than 30 points on five occasions, but it was the defense that led the way for that team. This 2012 team could be like that team.

[yvonne]

Shaw played on the Blockbuster Bowl team. That team returned 10 starters from the previous class, and pretty much dominated on defense. The offense had Chris Dalman and the Northwest Road Warriors, Glyn Milburn, and Steve Stenstrom. The offense scored more than 30 points on five occasions, but it was the defense that led the way for that team. This 2012 team could be like that team.

[81alum]

Shaw played on the Blockbuster Bowl team. That team returned 10 starters from the previous class, and pretty much dominated on defense. The offense had Chris Dalman and the Northwest Road Warriors, Glyn Milburn, and Steve Stenstrom. The offense scored more than 30 points on five occasions, but it was the defense that led the way for that team. This 2012 team could be like that team.

Provided we wind up with someone the equivalent of Steve Stenstrom, one of the best quarterbacks in Stanford history.  I'd be ecstatic if someone developed that fast.  How long had Stenstrom been starting before the Blockbuster Bowl?

Our defense next year does look to me to be shaping up to be as good as any of our great defenses of the past.  Our front seven  may approach Thunderchicken status if they live up to their potential.

[81alum]

Shaw played on the Blockbuster Bowl team. That team returned 10 starters from the previous class, and pretty much dominated on defense. The offense had Chris Dalman and the Northwest Road Warriors, Glyn Milburn, and Steve Stenstrom. The offense scored more than 30 points on five occasions, but it was the defense that led the way for that team. This 2012 team could be like that team.

Provided we wind up with someone the equivalent of Steve Stenstrom, one of the best quarterbacks in Stanford history.  I'd be ecstatic if someone developed that fast.  How long had Stenstrom been starting before the Blockbuster Bowl?

Our defense next year does look to me to be shaping up to be as good as any of our great defenses of the past.  Our front seven  may approach Thunderchicken status if they live up to their potential.

[yvonne]

On the other hand, that team lacked a power back. Tommy Vardell graduated, and Mike Mitchell had not arrived on campus yet (and wouldn't develop for two years after he arrived). This offense could be different, but still effective. I think more than likely, this team will be like the one with Toby Gerhart, on the verge of something special but not there yet.

[yvonne]

On the other hand, that team lacked a power back. Tommy Vardell graduated, and Mike Mitchell had not arrived on campus yet (and wouldn't develop for two years after he arrived). This offense could be different, but still effective. I think more than likely, this team will be like the one with Toby Gerhart, on the verge of something special but not there yet.

[Hurlburt88]

92 secondary had 2 future pro bowlers.  Living up to that for this year is pretty lofty

[Hurlburt88]

92 secondary had 2 future pro bowlers.  Living up to that for this year is pretty lofty

[yvonne]

The linebackers, G-men, were good, but I don't recall that the defensive line was anything special. If Shaw says the defense has the chance to be great, I'm apt to believe him.

[yvonne]

The linebackers, G-men, were good, but I don't recall that the defensive line was anything special. If Shaw says the defense has the chance to be great, I'm apt to believe him.

[yvonne]

Stenstrom started during the 1991 season under Green. The was the Aloha Bowl year. The Blockbuster Bowl year, he actually was less productive, with fewer yards per attempt and fewer touchdowns per game. Stenstrom's senior year, he returned to the productiveness of his senior year, but without a strong defense and run game, the team had a losing season.

Ellery Roberts was hardly a power back. He ran for 725 yards with an average of 4.9 yards per carry and scored six touchdowns. The real back was Milburn, who was more of a fast scat back. The prior year, Milburn ran for 1121 yards and 6.1 yards per carry and six touchdowns; Vardell led the team with 22 touchdowns and 1188 total yards, but only 5.2 yards per carry. So, just as this year's team will fall back in the passing game, that team suffered in the run game following Vardell's departure.

The Blockbuster Bowl team had an excellent secondary and two really good linebackers, but the defensive line was not nearly as good as this year's line.

[yvonne]

Stenstrom started during the 1991 season under Green. The was the Aloha Bowl year. The Blockbuster Bowl year, he actually was less productive, with fewer yards per attempt and fewer touchdowns per game. Stenstrom's senior year, he returned to the productiveness of his senior year, but without a strong defense and run game, the team had a losing season.

Ellery Roberts was hardly a power back. He ran for 725 yards with an average of 4.9 yards per carry and scored six touchdowns. The real back was Milburn, who was more of a fast scat back. The prior year, Milburn ran for 1121 yards and 6.1 yards per carry and six touchdowns; Vardell led the team with 22 touchdowns and 1188 total yards, but only 5.2 yards per carry. So, just as this year's team will fall back in the passing game, that team suffered in the run game following Vardell's departure.

The Blockbuster Bowl team had an excellent secondary and two really good linebackers, but the defensive line was not nearly as good as this year's line.

[yvonne]

Not impressed.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play...rts-1.html

We've got at least three backs who are better than Roberts this year.

[yvonne]

Not impressed.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play...rts-1.html

We've got at least three backs who are better than Roberts this year.

[doubledub]

Ellery Roberts was 6'1", 215 pounds.  I don't know if I would call someone that size a power back.  Ron Dayne, at 5'10" and 250 was a power back.  Interesting article on Roberts:  http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-12...or-society

[doubledub]

Ellery Roberts was 6'1", 215 pounds.  I don't know if I would call someone that size a power back.  Ron Dayne, at 5'10" and 250 was a power back.  Interesting article on Roberts:  http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-12...or-society

[socalstanfan1]

we don't have a receiving threat comparable to Milburn (who caught close to 40 passes out of the backfield)

I think it is never too good to evaluate the ability of a current day RB's ability to catch the ball by comparing them to a RB in a Bill Walsh-style offense.  Nobody used the RB more as a receiver out of the backfield than Walsh and his immediate disciples, who often used it as a substitute for a regular running play.  The chances are that Milburn probably had a lot more opportunities to catch balls than any of the current crop of backs. 

On the other hand, one could argue that the coaches last year ran a variation on the West Coast offense.  And, lo and behold: Ryan Hewitt, 34 receptions out of the FB spot, while Stepfan Taylor added 25.  Those numbers don't seem so bad considering more than half the plays from scrimmage were run plays, and a sizeable chunk of the passing plays went to the Tree Amigos, who combined for 86 receptions.

I recall Milburn, and loved watching him play.  But I'm not convinced that he was any better than the RBs we have now, as a runner or receiver. 

[socalstanfan1]

we don't have a receiving threat comparable to Milburn (who caught close to 40 passes out of the backfield)

I think it is never too good to evaluate the ability of a current day RB's ability to catch the ball by comparing them to a RB in a Bill Walsh-style offense.  Nobody used the RB more as a receiver out of the backfield than Walsh and his immediate disciples, who often used it as a substitute for a regular running play.  The chances are that Milburn probably had a lot more opportunities to catch balls than any of the current crop of backs. 

On the other hand, one could argue that the coaches last year ran a variation on the West Coast offense.  And, lo and behold: Ryan Hewitt, 34 receptions out of the FB spot, while Stepfan Taylor added 25.  Those numbers don't seem so bad considering more than half the plays from scrimmage were run plays, and a sizeable chunk of the passing plays went to the Tree Amigos, who combined for 86 receptions.

I recall Milburn, and loved watching him play.  But I'm not convinced that he was any better than the RBs we have now, as a runner or receiver. 

[Redrum]

Ellery Roberts ran like a power back regardless of his size.  Didn't have a lot of shiftiness, needed a good initial block that gave him the extra step to really get up to speed.  If he got that step and cut upfield he was a load.    Once there, he was harder to bring down.  The contrast to Milburn just increased the perception that Roberts was a power runner,  but compared to Milburn on the same field and backfield,  Stepfan Taylor would probably look like a power runner.

[Redrum]

Ellery Roberts ran like a power back regardless of his size.  Didn't have a lot of shiftiness, needed a good initial block that gave him the extra step to really get up to speed.  If he got that step and cut upfield he was a load.    Once there, he was harder to bring down.  The contrast to Milburn just increased the perception that Roberts was a power runner,  but compared to Milburn on the same field and backfield,  Stepfan Taylor would probably look like a power runner.

[terry]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=5883.msg43396#msg43396 date=1335909006]
we don't have a receiving threat comparable to Milburn (who caught close to 40 passes out of the backfield)

I recall Milburn, and loved watching him play.  But I'm not convinced that he was any better than the RBs we have now, as a runner or receiver.
[/quote]

Milburn was faster than any of our current RBs, and Milburn had better moves than any of our current RBs. (I'm talking about Taylor, Gaffney, Wilkerson, and Seale; I haven't seen enough of Young or any of Sanders.) But Milburn was less physical than our current RBs. Milburn could run away from tacklers or elude them. Milburn was a home-run threat when he got the ball in the open field. He wasn't the guy to run between the tackles and move the pile. In the current Stanford offense, we try to be more physical than the defense and to get more and bigger blockers at the point of attack. Then we give the ball to a tough, physical back and tell him to go between the tackles, run downhill, and break a few tackles. Gerhart was great at that. Taylor does that very well. That wasn't Milburn's game. He brought a different dimension. I would love to have Milburn on this team. He was a truly special player -- not just a good back, but a special back. Milburn would give us something we've been lacking on offense.

Milburn's stats:

Year    Rush Yds.    Avg.        Rec.    Rec. Yds.  All-Purp. Yds.    TDs
1990        729          4.8        64          632          2,222            5
1991        598          4.6        40          454          1,514            6
1992        851          4.8        37          405          2,121          13
Total      2,178        4.7      141        1,491        5,857          24

Milburn's all-purpose yards in 1990 and 1992 are the top two single-season all-purpose yardage totals in Stanford history. Officially, Milburn is the only Pac-10 / Pac-12 player to gain over 2,000 all-purpose yards in a season twice. (Reggie Bush did it twice, but his stats for one of those seasons were vacated.) Milburn led the NCAA in all-purpose yards in 1990, and led the Pac-10 in all-purpose yards in 1990 and 1992. He ranks 2nd in Stanford history in career all-purpose yards, 7th in career rushing yards, 10th in career receptions, and 10th in career TDs, even though he played only three years at Stanford.

Note: Bowl games were not included in the stats at that time.

[terry]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=5883.msg43396#msg43396 date=1335909006]
we don't have a receiving threat comparable to Milburn (who caught close to 40 passes out of the backfield)

I recall Milburn, and loved watching him play.  But I'm not convinced that he was any better than the RBs we have now, as a runner or receiver.
[/quote]

Milburn was faster than any of our current RBs, and Milburn had better moves than any of our current RBs. (I'm talking about Taylor, Gaffney, Wilkerson, and Seale; I haven't seen enough of Young or any of Sanders.) But Milburn was less physical than our current RBs. Milburn could run away from tacklers or elude them. Milburn was a home-run threat when he got the ball in the open field. He wasn't the guy to run between the tackles and move the pile. In the current Stanford offense, we try to be more physical than the defense and to get more and bigger blockers at the point of attack. Then we give the ball to a tough, physical back and tell him to go between the tackles, run downhill, and break a few tackles. Gerhart was great at that. Taylor does that very well. That wasn't Milburn's game. He brought a different dimension. I would love to have Milburn on this team. He was a truly special player -- not just a good back, but a special back. Milburn would give us something we've been lacking on offense.

Milburn's stats:

Year    Rush Yds.    Avg.        Rec.    Rec. Yds.  All-Purp. Yds.    TDs
1990        729          4.8        64          632          2,222            5
1991        598          4.6        40          454          1,514            6
1992        851          4.8        37          405          2,121          13
Total      2,178        4.7      141        1,491        5,857          24

Milburn's all-purpose yards in 1990 and 1992 are the top two single-season all-purpose yardage totals in Stanford history. Officially, Milburn is the only Pac-10 / Pac-12 player to gain over 2,000 all-purpose yards in a season twice. (Reggie Bush did it twice, but his stats for one of those seasons were vacated.) Milburn led the NCAA in all-purpose yards in 1990, and led the Pac-10 in all-purpose yards in 1990 and 1992. He ranks 2nd in Stanford history in career all-purpose yards, 7th in career rushing yards, 10th in career receptions, and 10th in career TDs, even though he played only three years at Stanford.

Note: Bowl games were not included in the stats at that time.

[socalstanfan1]

My point was only about Milburn as a runner and receiver, and I agree with your evaluation about the different styles of Milburn and the back currently on the roster.  Obviously, Stanford has not used their current backs to any great degree as return men on either punts or kickoffs, where Milburn racked up a lot of his all-purpose yardage.  I'm not challenging the idea that Milburn was a great player in Stanford football history. 

[socalstanfan1]

My point was only about Milburn as a runner and receiver, and I agree with your evaluation about the different styles of Milburn and the back currently on the roster.  Obviously, Stanford has not used their current backs to any great degree as return men on either punts or kickoffs, where Milburn racked up a lot of his all-purpose yardage.  I'm not challenging the idea that Milburn was a great player in Stanford football history. 

[oman]

Would like to point out that I believe it is spelled "Glyn".

[oman]

Would like to point out that I believe it is spelled "Glyn".

[yvonne]

It's been spelled "Glyn" throughout the thread.

[yvonne]

It's been spelled "Glyn" throughout the thread.

[oman]

That was a very inside joke, Yvonne...

[oman]

That was a very inside joke, Yvonne...

[terry]

My point was only about Milburn as a runner and receiver, and I agree with your evaluation about the different styles of Milburn and the back currently on the roster.  Obviously, Stanford has not used their current backs to any great degree as return men on either punts or kickoffs, where Milburn racked up a lot of his all-purpose yardage.  I'm not challenging the idea that Milburn was a great player in Stanford football history.

You're right, Milburn got a lot of yards on punt returns and kickoff returns. I believe he still holds the Pac-12 record for most punt return yards in a season. In his career, Milburn had 1,026 punt return yards (# 1 in Stanford history) and 1,162 kickoff return yards (# 7).

If we want to look at Milburn only as a runner and receiver, we can look at yards from scrimmage (rushing and receiving). Milburn had over 1,000 yards from scrimmage in each of his three seasons:

              Rush    Rec.  Total
1990        729    632  1,361
1991        598    454  1,052
1992        851    405  1,256
Total    2,178  1,491  3,669

Milburn ranks 5th in Stanford history in yards from scrimmage:

                        Rush        Rec.        Total
Darrin Nelson  4,033      2,368        6,401
Brad Muster    2,940      1,669        4,609
Troy Walters         5      3,986        3,991
Toby Gerhart    3,522        395        3,917
Glyn Milburn    2,178      1,491        3,669

[terry]

My point was only about Milburn as a runner and receiver, and I agree with your evaluation about the different styles of Milburn and the back currently on the roster.  Obviously, Stanford has not used their current backs to any great degree as return men on either punts or kickoffs, where Milburn racked up a lot of his all-purpose yardage.  I'm not challenging the idea that Milburn was a great player in Stanford football history.

You're right, Milburn got a lot of yards on punt returns and kickoff returns. I believe he still holds the Pac-12 record for most punt return yards in a season. In his career, Milburn had 1,026 punt return yards (# 1 in Stanford history) and 1,162 kickoff return yards (# 7).

If we want to look at Milburn only as a runner and receiver, we can look at yards from scrimmage (rushing and receiving). Milburn had over 1,000 yards from scrimmage in each of his three seasons:

              Rush    Rec.  Total
1990        729    632  1,361
1991        598    454  1,052
1992        851    405  1,256
Total    2,178  1,491  3,669

Milburn ranks 5th in Stanford history in yards from scrimmage:

                        Rush        Rec.        Total
Darrin Nelson  4,033      2,368        6,401
Brad Muster    2,940      1,669        4,609
Troy Walters         5      3,986        3,991
Toby Gerhart    3,522        395        3,917
Glyn Milburn    2,178      1,491        3,669

[FarmBoy]

Terry, thanks for posting the stats. What jumps out at me is that 3 of the top 5 used a balance of rushing and receiving to make their mark, but Toby and Troy were just exceptional at their specialty. It's interesting that Troy didn't have more reverses during his career to get more than those 5 rushing yards. On the other hand, it makes sense that Toby doesn't have a lot more receiving yards, considering the passing offense his first two years, but surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

[FarmBoy]

Terry, thanks for posting the stats. What jumps out at me is that 3 of the top 5 used a balance of rushing and receiving to make their mark, but Toby and Troy were just exceptional at their specialty. It's interesting that Troy didn't have more reverses during his career to get more than those 5 rushing yards. On the other hand, it makes sense that Toby doesn't have a lot more receiving yards, considering the passing offense his first two years, but surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

[washingtonismoney]

... surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

Our offense wasn't structured for short passes out of the backfield; Harbaugh liked vertical, downfield routes as option #1 (which is why Luck had a 55 completion percentage...but a 8.9 YPA) and Luck running for first downs as option #2 when passing.

[washingtonismoney]

... surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

Our offense wasn't structured for short passes out of the backfield; Harbaugh liked vertical, downfield routes as option #1 (which is why Luck had a 55 completion percentage...but a 8.9 YPA) and Luck running for first downs as option #2 when passing.

[yvonne]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5883.msg43414#msg43414 date=1336002336]
... surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

Our offense wasn't structured for short passes out of the backfield[/quote]

Spider 3 Y Banana; fullback is the primary target.
;D

[yvonne]

[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5883.msg43414#msg43414 date=1336002336]
... surprisingly, having Luck At QB didn't increase his receiving yards significantly.

Our offense wasn't structured for short passes out of the backfield[/quote]

Spider 3 Y Banana; fullback is the primary target.
;D