Assistant Coaches - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
lex24 - lex24 - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 08:08 PM)CTcard Wrote:(12-30-2022, 10:45 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: We do know. It was all the time. TP's only "play calls" were our scripted first drives. Shaw had final say on every single play call after that.
I for one think we'll be shocked at how much better our QBs look in an offensive system that doesn't actively suck and doesn't take 3 years to "master."
Final say on a play call is one thing, influence on the offense overall is another.
It appears to me that TP as OC had a tremendous effect on the nature of what the Stanford offense tried to do. At any rate, there is no question that the nature (and quality) of Stanford's offense changed drastically once TP became the oc. The question is only whether that was actually due to TP or merely coincidence.
TP came in talking about how he wanted to open up the offense, throw the ball around the field, etc. And things definitely changed.
While the nature of Stanford's run game changed a lot over the years, Stanford remained a run-first, run downhill team from 2008-2017. TP became OC for 2018. Stanford rather abruptly quit trying to run the ball, became bad at running the ball, started passing a lot, and was occasionally okay at that - but inconsistently and never great.
Year % Run Plays yds/carry % Run Yards
2015 65.7% 5.13 51.3%
2016 63.1% 5.20 56.9%
2017 56.9% 5.90 52.1%
TP becomes OC
2018 47.5% 3.65 28.3%
2019 43.8% 3.66 28.7%
2020 47.1% 4.02 31.6%
2021 46.6% 3.22 28.8%
2022 45.6% 3.43 29.7%
There's more, but that's the most obvious.
Ah the good old days. (Go back to ‘12-15, I always leave out ‘19 and ‘11 cause I could have been the OC when AL was QB.) When we’d argue over the “style” of offense on teams that would go 10-2 to 8-4. All the while a simple equation- the higher the run ratio the better. Stanford lost its way when it stopped being a physical run oriented team.
RE: Assistant Coaches - 82lsju - 01-04-2023
Duane Akina farewell
https://twitter.com/CoachAkina/status/1610433439626559488?cxt=HHwWgIDQ9cmrtNksAAAA
Quote:I’d like to Thank Stanford PLAYERS,COACHES and SUPPORT STAFF for the past 9 seasons. It’s been a BLESSING! To ALL the DB’s I’ve worked with you know we will always be tied together. So many have been added to the TEACH and GOLD REELS! “One way to go”
Coach Akina
RE: Assistant Coaches - winflop - 01-04-2023
(01-03-2023, 08:08 PM)CTcard Wrote:(12-30-2022, 10:45 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: We do know. It was all the time. TP's only "play calls" were our scripted first drives. Shaw had final say on every single play call after that.
I for one think we'll be shocked at how much better our QBs look in an offensive system that doesn't actively suck and doesn't take 3 years to "master."
Final say on a play call is one thing, influence on the offense overall is another.
It appears to me that TP as OC had a tremendous effect on the nature of what the Stanford offense tried to do. At any rate, there is no question that the nature (and quality) of Stanford's offense changed drastically once TP became the oc. The question is only whether that was actually due to TP or merely coincidence.
TP came in talking about how he wanted to open up the offense, throw the ball around the field, etc. And things definitely changed.
While the nature of Stanford's run game changed a lot over the years, Stanford remained a run-first, run downhill team from 2008-2017. TP became OC for 2018. Stanford rather abruptly quit trying to run the ball, became bad at running the ball, started passing a lot, and was occasionally okay at that - but inconsistently and never great.
Year % Run Plays yds/carry % Run Yards
2015 65.7% 5.13 51.3%
2016 63.1% 5.20 56.9%
2017 56.9% 5.90 52.1%
TP becomes OC
2018 47.5% 3.65 28.3%
2019 43.8% 3.66 28.7%
2020 47.1% 4.02 31.6%
2021 46.6% 3.22 28.8%
2022 45.6% 3.43 29.7%
There's more, but that's the most obvious.
I don't believe in coincidences when the delta is this clear. Won't blame TP for all of it but he certainly bears some responsibility. Another contributor to this was the loss of Bloomgren as OL coach, although I'd argue that the OL started slipping when he added OC to his responsibilities and was no longer solely focused on the OL.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
I don't think it's a coincidence the offense became more pass-centric as Bloomgren departed and Pritchard rose. It's long been obvious that with Bloomgren gone, Pritchard relatively ascendant, and Kennedy on staff, the center of gravity on the offense tilted toward the passing game. No coincidence there.
It's much more debatable to tie this evolution to the decline of the offense. There's a real correlation is not causation problem with a lot of the analysis on this board. I don't rule out some causal relationship there, but it's not clear. A Jessies and Joes explanation carries just as much stock - Stanford's offensive line recruiting and running back recruiting fell off as wide receiver recruiting took off. There's an argument we were adjusting to personnel. Those who pined for smash mouth football identical to earlier years were not really acknowledging that David Yankey, Cameron Fleming, and Tyler Gaffney were not walking through that door. In thinking about the causal arrows, I gravitate much more toward explanations blaming a disastrous 2015 OL class, mediocre 2016 OL class, small 2017 OL class, catastrophic on galactic scales 2018 OL class, and loss of both Bloomgren and Turley amidst all of that.
Looking at the sweep of the data, Shaw/Pritchard/Kennedy/et al may have been making chicken salad out of chicken feathers in orchestrating the change to the offensive personality so many of you lament. The fact is our recruiting left them holding the bag without good options from 2018 and on. We had extremely poor OL recruiting from 2015-2018, lost the position coach for that group starting in 2018, and lost the strength and conditioning honcho starting in 2019. Very misguided in my view to blame Pritchard for this. If you need to blame anybody, blame Bloomgren and what he was doing his last several years before then leaving others to clean up the mess.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 10:32 AM)msqueri Wrote: Looking at the sweep of the data, Shaw/Pritchard/Kennedy/et al may have been making chicken salad out of chicken feathers in orchestrating the change to the offensive personality so many of you lament. The fact is our recruiting left them holding the bag without good options from 2018 and on. We had extremely poor OL recruiting from 2015-2018, lost the position coach for that group starting in 2018, and lost the strength and conditioning honcho starting in 2019. Very misguided in my view to blame Pritchard for this. If you need to blame anybody, blame Bloomgren and what he was doing his last several years before then leaving others to clean up the mess.I agree with the idea the "staff" was making the best of what they had. I am also convinced the "poor recruiting" on the OL was and is connected to a change in demographic. Bloomgren and the rest didn't suddenly forget how to recruit. If it was just him, replacing him should have "fixed" the problem. However, the OL coaches that followed him have not generated notably better OLs. It is possible that the new "tunnel workers" are out there and the recruiting methods Stanford used were the wrong ones. It also may be that Stanford should have taken more 3 star guys that fit the model than 4 star guys who didn't.
However, I think the very strong trend in high school football toward more "spread" offenses has led to a much shallower pool of OL that want to/can play power football. Since Stanford was already recruiting from a shallower pool academically, we have been disproportionately affected by this change. This has also affected our ability to recruit "power" running backs. CMac was a "freak of nature" in that he can run inside much better than one would expect. However, he isn't a prototype power runner and he wasn't exactly hard to recruit. Obviously ditto BL, even more so not a power back. Scarlett was more in the mold of a power runner but after he got hurt, he had inadequate speed. We haven't had a "real" power back for quite a while. Some would say Gaffney, but he spent a lot of time running outside. This is not to say we haven't had some guys with lots of talent, but they have not been in the Toby school of power backs.
Obviously Stanford needs a better OL than we have had recently, and hopefully TT can make it happen. I think it is pretty clear that while he values the run game he too expects to run a more spread offense possibly not so theoretically different from what we were already trying to do than many would expect.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Mick - 01-04-2023
I'm still mystified as to how our OL recruiting is so poor. I was always given to understand that, collectively speaking, OLs were the most intellectually gifted of all of the position groups.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
Regarding Bloomgren and the rest forgetting how to recruit OL, well, yeah, that's exactly what happened. Undeniably. Between February 3, 2016, and November 21, 2018, we had four offensive line commits. Four OL in 2.8 calendar years. That's not an inability to recruit good OL, it's a refusal to recruit OL. Over 2.8 years we recruited 1.4 linemen per year, probably a third of what one would recommend. I know I'm just saying the same facts in different ways but people need this to sink in. Stanford wasn't recruiting OL. When you account for the fact that two of the four we did recruit were mega whales and thus practical impossibilities to complete their eligibility (and in fact only combined to play less than 2,000 snaps in their career....yikes) and a third was a medical retirement almost immediately upon stepping on campus, you simply cannot say Stanford recruited OL. And when you judge the performance of the OL coaches following Bloomgren you can't act like they had the cards Bloomgren had to play with.....he dealt himself a couple of aces and then burned the deck right before he left for another table to play at.
As for OL being the most intellectually gifted of all the position groups, that may or may not be true but what I know to be a fact based on extensive research is that the trope popular among Stanford fans that OL is the easiest position for us to recruit is demonstrably false. Quarterback, running back, and tight end are all far easier for Stanford to recruit, and that's been true going back decades. OL simply needs too much volume. It's a lot easier to find a good running back than it is to find five good offensive linemen. OL recruiting is unforgiving for numerous reasons: it requires a lot of volume, individual weak links can be devastating, and OL requires old man strength and savvy and therefore cannot overcome gap years in the way almost every other position can. When you neglect OL recruiting like Willingham did in the early 2000s or like Shaw did in the late 2010s, you cannot recover. You are guaranteeing that you will throw the babes to the wolves, like our 2002 and 2019 OL classes were forced to deal with. Program killer.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-04-2023
Minor nit: 4 OL/2.8 years = 1.4 OL/yr
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
Thanks, sorry for the brain fart/childish division error.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 01:03 PM)msqueri Wrote: Regarding Bloomgren and the rest forgetting how to recruit OL, well, yeah, that's exactly what happened. Undeniably. Between February 3, 2016, and November 21, 2018, we had four offensive line commits. Four OL in 2.8 calendar years. That's not an inability to recruit good OL, it's a refusal to recruit OL. Over 2.8 years we recruited 1.4 linemen per year, probably a third of what one would recommend. I know I'm just saying the same facts in different ways but people need this to sink in. Stanford wasn't recruiting OL.I think we have a bit of a semantic problem here. Recruiting in my world is the process of identifying, communicating with, proselytizing and facilitating players to attend Stanford and play football. You can recruit like mad and still have few players who commit. This can be caused by the group doing the recruiting not doing the "right things", whatever those things are, or it could be due to the feasible population not being as amenable to attending Stanford to play football. When I say the staff didn't "forget how to recruit", I mean the staff presumably used the same processes and level of effort that they used previously. In the past, that recruiting effort returned good results. Stating in 2016, it didn't work any more, based on the number of recruits that committed.
You may have access to information (that I do not) that Bloomgren simply quit recruiting. AFAIK, that wasn't the issue. It also may be that the staff decided it couldn't make do with anything less than 5 star players and made bad choices about recruiting targets. I don't know that is true but it may be. In any case, the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line. Since the new OL coaches were free to recruit "differently" than Bloomgren, it seems improbable that a bad choice of targets would persist. The number of commitments improved but the play of the OL has not tracked that improvement.
Quote:When you account for the fact that two of the four we did recruit were mega whales and thus practical impossibilities to complete their eligibility (and in fact only combined to play less than 2,000 snaps in their career....yikes) and a third was a medical retirement almost immediately upon stepping on campus, you simply cannot say Stanford recruited OL. And when you judge the performance of the OL coaches following Bloomgren you can't act like they had the cards Bloomgren had to play with.....he dealt himself a couple of aces and then burned the deck right before he left for another table to play at.I suggest you might consider that the less than stellar performance of the "aces" may be due to 1) their injuries and 2) the fact that one of them was certainly overt-rated. It is also true that the following coaches also "dealt" their players, so they don't get a pass based on what Bloomgren left them. If the 2022 line had been very successful, that might support your argument. Obviously, that didn't happen.
Quote:As for OL being the most intellectually gifted of all the position groups, that may or may not be true but what I know to be a fact based on extensive research is that the trope popular among Stanford fans that OL is the easiest position for us to recruit is demonstrably false. Quarterback, running back, and tight end are all far easier for Stanford to recruit, and that's been true going back decades. OL simply needs too much volume. It's a lot easier to find a good running back than it is to find five good offensive linemen. OL recruiting is unforgiving for numerous reasons: it requires a lot of volume, individual weak links can be devastating, and OL requires old man strength and savvy and therefore cannot overcome gap years in the way almost every other position can. When you neglect OL recruiting like Willingham did in the early 2000s or like Shaw did in the late 2010s, you cannot recover.Again, not getting commitments doesn't of itself prove Stanford "neglected" to recruit. You may have other data that indicates the effort was reduced, but I am not aware of such. It may just indicate Stanford sucked at it. It also may mean that the guys Stanford needed who were willing to come to Stanford just weren't out there. It is convenient to assume there are always the guys and we just have to find them. That is a "fact" not in evidence however.
I agree that building a good OL at Stanford can be tough because you do need more than one or two a year. You are totally correct there. All your points regarding that have merit, particularly for a power running team. FWIW, one of the reasons lots of teams like an OL with wider line splits and a "spread" offense is that it reduces the need for "old man strength" and can compensate for having to use young guys. That said, in 2021 Michigan started two sophomores on their OL. It can be done, if you have the horses. It will be interesting to see how the two Stanford transfers do next year. My guess is that Nugent does well. I am not so sure about Hinton.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
Where you're off is thinking the staff used the same processes and level of effort and just experienced less success. That's not the case. We recruited OL dramatically less often, less vigorously, and in less volume for a nearly three year stretch. The Trey Stratford OL class was not a class in which we had a plan for five OL but could only get one but rather a class in which we recruited all year like we were going after one OL. We whiffed on a couple swinging for the fences longshot mega whale possibilities (Nicholas Petit-Frere, Jamaree Salyer) and when we missed settled late for Stratford. [It's actually even worse than that as we offered offensively and negligently late] We had the insane idea of only offering low single digit OL in an entire year one year after we brought in only three OL, two of whom were mega whales unlikely to complete eligibility. This is not the processes and level of effort that built the Tunnel Workers Union. It's dereliction. We were not recruiting. Whoever was responsible for OL recruiting was not doing their job. Period. As it happens, we now know in retrospect that Shaw was dealing with his brother's health during much of this period and that Bloomgren had a foot out the door for his next job. Whatever the reason, four OL in 2.8 years is not normal processes and level of effort. It's much more accurately described as not working.
By the way, finding three or more OL in a class is not difficult. It's not like we have a handful of admissible OL recruits in a year and if luck doesn't go our way we might whiff. There are 150+ OL among the top 1000 players in the country, which would conservatively mean dozens who can get into Stanford and help the football program. Many of those would be recruits along the lines of the OL we got this year - plausibly Power Five but not exactly having their doors knocked down by top programs - and thus pretty low hanging fruit. It takes either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year.
I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
* 2018 (first year without Bloomgren) was dependent on the recruits of the 2014 (Fanaika, Hall, Burkett the players Bloomgren bequest Carberry) and 2015 (Wilson, Chaffin.....YIKES!) classes.....Tunnel Workers Union of old this was not.
* 2019 was dependent on 2015 (so crappy it was all gone by then) and 2016 (Hamilton, Hattis, and Powell).....even worse than the previous year.
* 2020 was dependent on 2016 (so eager to hit the transfer portal that none remained) and 2017 (Little, Sarell, and Dalman)....thanks to FINALLY being able to get NFL linemen in the fourth year, especially Dalman, this line actually performed well.
* 2021 was dependent on 2017 (literally all gone, which wasn't a shock after recruiting a very small class with two mega whales, although I also blame our culture for guys leaving to be mid-round picks or worse) and 2018 (nobody in this class because Stratford was already retired)......the true coming home to roost for our period of neglect of OL recruiting.
* 2022 was dependent on 2018 (nobody at home) and 2019 (Rouse, Miller, Hornibrook, Bragg, Nugent)......a legitimate data point for your argument that post-Bloomgren coaches deserve blame for inefficacy.
This past season was the one year in which on-paper talent should have been able to lead to really good OL performance. Something happened with evaluation, strength and conditioning, and/or coaching of these players for the 2022 OL to not be good. But literally every other line you're talking about was a result of Stanford just not recruiting this position.
I don't know if I'll be able to convince you, but my time leading football recruiting coverage for TOS and my many years obsessively following recruiting leads me to believe that indeed you are wrong that there aren't facts in evidence that "there are always the guys and we just have to find them." Some years are much harder sledding than others, but in any 2.8 year span there are certainly double digit guys who can help our OL, rather than four.
P.S. For what it's worth, I think every national award in sight is on the table potentially for Nugent at Michigan. I would be surprised if he's not an All-American according to one of the main deciders of such things. Hinton strikes me as somebody who may or may not be good enough to start at Michigan and, if he stayed at Stanford, I would have expected him to finally be an average Pac-12 OL in 2023.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 01:51 PM)msqueri Wrote: Thanks, sorry for the brain fart/childish division error.
It doesn't change the fundamental point, which is that we massively under recruited offensive line. WE should have been getting four to five offensive linemen a year (or about 14 over the three year period where we only recruited 4).
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - winflop - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 10:32 AM)msqueri Wrote: I don't think it's a coincidence the offense became more pass-centric as Bloomgren departed and Pritchard rose. It's long been obvious that with Bloomgren gone, Pritchard relatively ascendant, and Kennedy on staff, the center of gravity on the offense tilted toward the passing game. No coincidence there.
It's much more debatable to tie this evolution to the decline of the offense. There's a real correlation is not causation problem with a lot of the analysis on this board. I don't rule out some causal relationship there, but it's not clear. A Jessies and Joes explanation carries just as much stock - Stanford's offensive line recruiting and running back recruiting fell off as wide receiver recruiting took off. There's an argument we were adjusting to personnel. Those who pined for smash mouth football identical to earlier years were not really acknowledging that David Yankey, Cameron Fleming, and Tyler Gaffney were not walking through that door. In thinking about the causal arrows, I gravitate much more toward explanations blaming a disastrous 2015 OL class, mediocre 2016 OL class, small 2017 OL class, catastrophic on galactic scales 2018 OL class, and loss of both Bloomgren and Turley amidst all of that.
Looking at the sweep of the data, Shaw/Pritchard/Kennedy/et al may have been making chicken salad out of chicken feathers in orchestrating the change to the offensive personality so many of you lament. The fact is our recruiting left them holding the bag without good options from 2018 and on. We had extremely poor OL recruiting from 2015-2018, lost the position coach for that group starting in 2018, and lost the strength and conditioning honcho starting in 2019. Very misguided in my view to blame Pritchard for this. If you need to blame anybody, blame Bloomgren and what he was doing his last several years before then leaving others to clean up the mess.
I refuse to accept that <6 wins is what this program was capable of the last three full seasons. Do the assistant coaches have no responsibility for the decline in recruiting? Player development? Won't blame them entirely but they must be held accountable for these failures even if that isn't the whole picture. And if you can't succeed at those to the extent you want, you make lemonade not excuses.
This isn't a black & white where one coach gets all the blame and others skate free. Pritchard bears SOME responsibility for the offensive failures of the last several years.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 04:32 PM)winflop Wrote:(01-04-2023, 10:32 AM)msqueri Wrote: I don't think it's a coincidence the offense became more pass-centric as Bloomgren departed and Pritchard rose. It's long been obvious that with Bloomgren gone, Pritchard relatively ascendant, and Kennedy on staff, the center of gravity on the offense tilted toward the passing game. No coincidence there.
It's much more debatable to tie this evolution to the decline of the offense. There's a real correlation is not causation problem with a lot of the analysis on this board. I don't rule out some causal relationship there, but it's not clear. A Jessies and Joes explanation carries just as much stock - Stanford's offensive line recruiting and running back recruiting fell off as wide receiver recruiting took off. There's an argument we were adjusting to personnel. Those who pined for smash mouth football identical to earlier years were not really acknowledging that David Yankey, Cameron Fleming, and Tyler Gaffney were not walking through that door. In thinking about the causal arrows, I gravitate much more toward explanations blaming a disastrous 2015 OL class, mediocre 2016 OL class, small 2017 OL class, catastrophic on galactic scales 2018 OL class, and loss of both Bloomgren and Turley amidst all of that.
Looking at the sweep of the data, Shaw/Pritchard/Kennedy/et al may have been making chicken salad out of chicken feathers in orchestrating the change to the offensive personality so many of you lament. The fact is our recruiting left them holding the bag without good options from 2018 and on. We had extremely poor OL recruiting from 2015-2018, lost the position coach for that group starting in 2018, and lost the strength and conditioning honcho starting in 2019. Very misguided in my view to blame Pritchard for this. If you need to blame anybody, blame Bloomgren and what he was doing his last several years before then leaving others to clean up the mess.
I refuse to accept that <6 wins is what this program was capable of the last three full seasons. Do the assistant coaches have no responsibility for the decline in recruiting? Player development? Won't blame them entirely but they must be held accountable for these failures even if that isn't the whole picture. And if you can't succeed at those to the extent you want, you make lemonade not excuses.
This isn't a black & white where one coach gets all the blame and others skate free. Pritchard bears SOME responsibility for the offensive failures of the last several years.
Ok sure. Don’t know how to respond to this forest of straw men other than to say this:
Me arguing that the causal line between Pritchard’s influence on the offense and the decline of the team is not as strong as some suggest is not to absolve him of any responsibilities for the decline. I of course think he was an important part of a failed staff, and I would have been happy to see a clean sweep of our assistants. But if people want to say Pritchard = pass happy offense = decline of Stanford football, I think that’s barking up the wrong tree.
I could not agree more that Stanford should have been winning 6+ games these recent years. To the extent we didn’t it was mostly because of a head coach who presided over a stultified and enervated culture, a hopeless defensive coordinator, and aforementioned recruiting failures that made it impossible to maintain the offensive identity many here wanted (and more difficult to succeed no matter what identity we went for). That’s not to say Pritchard doesn’t shoulder some blame.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 04:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
While it is generally true, it is worth noting that guys like David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin, Cameron Fleming, David Yankey, Andrew Peat, and Joshua Garnett (and others) were multi-year starters well before their fourth years in the program. If I had the time and the data sources available, I would be interested in what distribution of the starts between 2007 and 2017 were between true freshmen, redshirt freshmen/sophomores, redshirt sophomore/juniors, redshirt junior/seniors, and redshirt seniors, and then how that changed once we hit 2018 and beyond. Because of the larger number of transfers/early NFL entries, we know that there were many fewer starts that went to redshirt seniors, and I think the data would show there was a marked shift to earlier years, but how big of a shift has it been.
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - 82lsju - 01-04-2023
summary article on the hires from the Daily
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/03/troy-taylor-completes-first-coaching-staff/
RE: Assistant Coaches - winflop - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 04:55 PM)msqueri Wrote: That’s not to say Pritchard doesn’t shoulder some blame.
That's all I've been saying. Pritchard bears some responsibility for the offensive failures, and on that basis I think Taylor's decision to keep him was a bad one.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Mick - 01-04-2023
(01-04-2023, 04:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-04-2023, 01:51 PM)msqueri Wrote: Thanks, sorry for the brain fart/childish division error.
It doesn't change the fundamental point, which is that we massively under recruited offensive line. WE should have been getting four to five offensive linemen a year (or about 14 over the three year period where we only recruited 4).
BC
You would think that you'd get 1-2 OLs a year just from those who have heard of Dalton, Fleming, Sarell, Foster, Little, Peat and Herbig; and really want to attend Stanford to the point that they would recruit themselves...
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
BC, I've got an analysis that looks more or less at this. Unfortunately this board's software is screwing it up via copy and paste but I'll see if I can get it to come through:
2009 (Drevno and Roman)
Rough metrics: 6th in yards per carry, 2nd in sacks allowed per game, 1st in tackles for loss allowed per game
Sixth year senior: #140 Allen Smith
Redshirt seniors: #613 Chris Marinelli, #252 Matt Kopa, #277 James McGillicuddy
Redshirt juniors: #414 Chase Beeler, #752 Andrew Phillips, #783 Bert McBride, #654 Derek Hall, NR Joe Dembesky
Redshirt sophomores: #569 Brad Hallick, #698 Tyler Mabry, #895 George Halamandaris, #1153 Matt Bentler
Redshirt freshmen: #299 David DeCastro, #445 Jonathan Martin, #907 Sam Schwartzstein
True freshmen: #490 Khalil Wilkes, #524 Kevin Danser
2010 (Drevno and Roman)
Rough metrics: 16th in yards per carry, 2nd in sacks allowed per game, 13th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Sixth year senior: #277 James McGillicuddy
Redshirt seniors: #414 Chase Beeler, #752 Andrew Phillips, #654 [b]Derek Hall[/b]
Redshirt juniors: #569 Brad Hallick, #698 Tyler Mabry, #895 George Halamandaris, #1153 Matt Bentler
Redshirt sophomores: #299 David DeCastro, #445[b] Jonathan Martin, [/b]#907 Sam Schwartzstein
Redshirt freshmen: #490 Khalil Wilkes, #524 Kevin Danser
True freshmen: #382 Cole Underwood, #419 Dillon Bonnell, #535 David Yankey, #546 Cameron Fleming
2011 (Bloomgren and Crook)
Rough metrics: 13th in yards per carry, 7th in sacks allowed per game, and 1st in tackles for loss allowed per game
Redshirt seniors: #698 Tyler Mabry, #1153 Matt Bentler
Redshirt juniors: #299 David DeCastro, #445[b] Jonathan Martin, [/b]#907[b] Sam Schwartzstein[/b]
Redshirt sophomores: #490 Khalil Wilkes, #524 Kevin Danser
Redshirt freshmen: #382 Cole Underwood, #419 Dillon Bonnell, #535 David Yankey, #546 Cameron Fleming
True freshmen: #187 Brendon Austin, #472 Kevin Reihner
2012 (Bloomgren and Crook)
Rough metrics: 53rd in yards per carry, 34th in sacks allowed per game, and 24th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Redshirt seniors: #907 Sam Schwartzstein
Redshirt juniors: #490 Khalil Wilkes, #524 [b]Kevin Danser[/b]
Redshirt sophomores: #382 Cole Underwood, #419 Dillon Bonnell, #535[b] David Yankey, [/b]#546 [b]Cameron Fleming[/b]
Redshirt freshmen: #187 Brendon Austin, #472 Kevin Reihner
True freshmen: #11 Kyle Murphy, #30 Andrus Peat, #38 Joshua Garnett, #268 Graham Shuler, #423 Nick Davidson, #1066 Johnny Caspers
2013 (Bloomgren)
Rough metrics: 29th in yards per carry, 11th in sacks allowed per game, and 7th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Redshirt seniors: #490 Khalil Wilkes, #524 [b]Kevin Danser[/b]
Redshirt juniors: #382 Cole Underwood, #419 Dillon Bonnell, #535 David Yankey, #546 Cameron Fleming
Redshirt sophomores: #187 Brendon Austin, #472 Kevin Reihner
True sophomores: #11 Kyle Murphy, #30 Andrus Peat, #38 Joshua Garnett
Redshirt freshmen: #268 Graham Shuler, #423 Nick Davidson, #1066 Johnny Caspers
True freshmen: #628 Thomas Oser, #897 David Bright
2014 (Bloomgren)
Rough metrics: 61st in yards per carry, 42nd in sacks allowed per game, and 13th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 59th in Adjusted Line Yards, 59th in Adjusted Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: None
Redshirt juniors: #187 Brendon Austin, #472 Kevin Reihner
True juniors: #11 Kyle Murphy, #30 Andrus Peat, #38 Joshua Garnett
Redshirt sophomores: #268 Graham Shuler, #423 Nick Davidson, #1066 Johnny Caspers
Redshirt freshman: #628 Thomas Oser, #897 David Bright
True freshmen: #82 Casey Tucker, #326 Brandon Fanaika, #571 AT Hall, #726 Jesse Burkett
2015 (Bloomgren)
Rough metrics: 20th in yards per carry, 31st in sacks allowed per game, and 9th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 41st in Adjusted Line Yards, 62nd in Adjusted Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: #187 Brendon Austin
True seniors: #11 Kyle Murphy, #38 Joshua Garnett
Redshirt juniors: #268 Graham Shuler, #423 Nick Davidson, #1066 Johnny Caspers
Redshirt sophomore: #897 David Bright
True sophomore: #82 Casey Tucker
Redshirt freshmen: #326 Brandon Fanaika, #571 AT Hall, #726 Jesse Burkett
True freshmen: #310 Nick Wilson, #515 Brian Chaffin, #651 Jack Dreyer, #917 Austin Maihen
2016 (Bloomgren)
Rough metrics: 28th in yards per carry, 100th in sacks allowed per game, and 53rd in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 48th in Adjusted Line Yards, 125th in Adjusted Sack Rate
Redshirt senior: #1066 Johnny Caspers
Redshirt junior: #897 David Bright
True junior: #82 Casey Tucker
Redshirt sophomores: #326 Brandon Fanaika, #571 AT Hall, #726 Jesse Burkett
Redshirt freshmen: #310 Nick Wilson, #515 Brian Chaffin, #651 Jack Dreyer, #917 Austin Maihen
True freshmen: #193 Clark Yarbrough, #252 Devery Hamilton, #488 Henry Hattis, #921 Nate Herbig, #1147 Dylan Powell
2017 (Bloomgren)
Rough metrics: 6th in yards per carry, 15th in sacks allowed per game, 35th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 74th in Adjusted Line Yards, 17th in Adjusted Sack Rate
Redshirt senior: #897 David Bright
True senior: #82 Casey Tucker
Redshirt juniors: #326 Brandon Fanaika, #571 AT Hall, #726 Jesse Burkett
Redshirt sophomores: #310 Nick Wilson, #515 Brian Chaffin, #651 Jack Dreyer, #917 Austin Maihen
True sophomore: #921 Nate Herbig
Redshirt freshmen: #252 Devery Hamilton, #488 Henry Hattis, #1147 Dylan Powell
True freshmen: #5 Foster Sarell, #9 Walker Little, #651 Drew Dalman
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-04-2023
2018 (Carberry)
Rough metrics: 112th in yards per carry, 44th in sacks allowed per game, 56th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 114th in Line Yards, 32nd in Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: #326 Brandon Fanaika, #571 AT Hall, #726 Jesse Burkett
Redshirt juniors: #310 Nick Wilson, #515 Brian Chaffin
True junior: #921 Nate Herbig
Redshirt sophomores: #252 Devery Hamilton, #488 Henry Hattis, #1147 Dylan Powell
True sophomores: #5 Foster Sarell, #9 Walker Little
Redshirt freshman: #651 Drew Dalman
True freshman: #528 Trey Stratford
2019 (Carberry)
Rough metrics: 108th in yards per carry, 94th in sacks allowed per game, 63rd in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 58th in Line Yards, 71st in Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: None
Redshirt juniors: #252 Devery Hamilton, #488 Henry Hattis, #1147 Dylan Powell
True junior: #9 Walker Little
Redshirt sophomore (if he would have applied for a medical redshirt): #5 Foster Sarell, #651 Drew Dalman
Redshirt freshman: #528 Trey Stratford
True freshmen: #125 Branson Bragg, #470 Walter Rouse, #559 Barrett Miller, #697 Jake Hornibrook, #1141 Drake Nugent
2020 (Carberry)
Rough metrics: 77th in yards per carry, 32nd in sacks allowed per game, 7th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 23rd in Line Yards, 28th in Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: None
Redshirt juniors: #5 Foster Sarell, #651 Drew Dalman
True sophomores: #470 Walter Rouse, #559 Barrett Miller, #697 Jake Hornibrook
Redshirt freshmen: #125 Branson Bragg, #1141 Drake Nugent
True freshmen: #74 Myles Hinton, #284 Levi Rogers, #318 Connor McLaughlin, #387 James Pogorelc, #399 Drake Metcalf
2021 (Heffernan)
Rough metrics: 117th in yards per carry, 96th in sacks allowed per game, 87th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 126th in Average Line Yards, 108th in Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: None
Redshirt juniors: None
True juniors: #470 Walter Rouse, #559 Barrett Miller, #697 Jake Hornibrook [Sophomores with COVID-19 mulligan]
Redshirt sophomores: #125 Branson Bragg, #1141 Drake Nugent [Freshmen with COVID-19 mulligan]
True sophomores: #74 Myles Hinton, #284 Levi Rogers, #318 Connor McLaughlin, #387 James Pogorelc, #399 Drake Metcalf [Freshmen with COVID-19 mulligan]
True freshmen: #476 Austin Uke, #755 Jack Leyrer
2022 (Heffernan)
Rough metrics: 107th in yards per carry, 122nd in sacks allowed per game, 70th in tackles for loss allowed per game
Advanced metrics: 110th in Average Line Yards, 98th in Sack Rate
Redshirt seniors: None
True seniors: #470 Walter Rouse, #559 Barrett Miller, #697 Jake Hornibrook [Juniors with COVID-19 mulligan]
Redshirt juniors: #1141 Drake Nugent [Sophomores with COVID-19 mulligan]
True juniors: #74 Myles Hinton, #284 Levi Rogers, #318 Connor McLaughlin, #387 James Pogorelc, #399 Drake Metcalf [Sophomores with COVID-19 mulligan]
Redshirt freshmen: #755 Jack Leyrer
True freshmen: #268 Fisher Anderson, #305 Lucas Heyer, #721 Kenji Swanson, #854 Jake Maikkula
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the track record I refer to when I talk about old man strength being important at OL. You can see the role seniority plays both in terms of who starts and which years have relatively better line play. 2022 was a disturbing outlier in terms of a very experienced line struggling. Would be interested in others' thoughts.