The CardBoard
Stanford in the NFL - 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: Stanford in the NFL (/thread-14262.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Hank 91 - 09-11-2017

(09-11-2017, 08:17 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Hank 91 link=topic=17367.msg200131#msg200131 date=1505104449]
Just saw this eye-popping stat on Twitter:

First 63 career games...
Zach Ertz: 255 receptions, 2933 yards
T. Gonzalez: 256 receptions, 2955 yards
Jason Witten: 248 receptions, 2776 yards

It's weird, the Eagles fans I see on /r/nfl seem to mostly dislike Ertz. Whenever I watch one of their games (admittedly not often) he seems like he's been their best receiver, and while those guys started in a less pass-happy era that's still an amazing statline for a TE. I wonder what the knock is, any Eagles fans on here have any idea?
[/quote]

The responses to the tweet on line support what you're saying. Lots of vitriol -- he can't block, he can't break tackles, he doesn't score touchdowns. At risk of overgeneralizing, I'll just point out that Philadelphia sports fans have a history of beating up their own.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Mick - 09-11-2017

(09-11-2017, 09:01 AM)BobK link Wrote:Certainly agree with Phogge on Belt.  "And it's a called strike three, Belt can't  believe it".

In Philly with the family in the 90's and we are in a horse drawn carriage with a young woman driver.  She says do you have any questions ?  I say yes why did you boo Del Ennis so much ?  Of course no one knew who I was talking about. 

For kids lol Del drove in 95 or more runs 9 times in the 50s and they booed him like crazy when he failed

Anyone notice the bootleg did away with the Giants board ?


It didn't help ol' Del that he led the league in grounding into double plays twice at the beginning of his career.  So he probably got the rep of being a rally killer.  And he hit .143 in their only World Series.  He was a better than average fielder.  But here's the weird stat...he finished in the Top 15 in MVP voting seven times (and #26 once) but he only made two all star teams in those eight seasons.  He had a career OPS of .812.  He was a very good, not great left fielder.

And Philly fans are terrible.  When the Giants played in Philadelphia, my son was going to school just an hour up the road.  We both decided it would be a bad idea to visit that ballpark.  The Philly office of my firm at the time was a shrine to the Phillies.  I made a joke about the Phillies vs. the Giants...stone faces all around.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BobK - 09-11-2017

I was fortunate to be at the old Phillis stadium in 1968. 

While I might have seen Ennis once in person I don't recall.  However I sure don't recall anyone thinking he was a good LFer.  Phogge? 

Re: Stanford in the NFL - JJJ - 09-11-2017

Solly after the game (video in the link, and just ignore the typos etc):

Quote:SANTA CLARA – Sunday afternoon the San Francisco 49ers suffered a 23 – 3 loss to the Carolina Panthers however defensive end Solomon Thomas was all smiles.

“It was pretty cool,” Thomas said about facing his old roommate at Stanford University and now running back for the Panthers Christian McCaffrey. Both Thomas and McCaffrey were drafted in the first round and today they both made their NFL debut in the same game.

“Old teammates both go in the first round, we play against eachother the first game, it’s a blessing to play in this leauge everyday.”

Thomas finished with 2 tackles his first NFL hit against McCaffrey himself.

“I didn’t really notice, I was just trying to do my job,” said Solomon.

However the thought didn’t totally leave his mind, “You know I’ve been anxious since we’ve been holding him out of practice at Stanford so it was good to finally get a hit on him.”

Thomas and McCaffrey even exchanged jerseys shortly after the game and Thomas said they’ve already even talked about it on the phone.

“I just said, ‘hey man I love you, let’s own this league, let’s keep getting better each day and let’s live our dream'”.

http://www.knbr.com/2017/09/10/solomon-thomas-describes-sharing-nfl-debut-with-old-roommate-christian-mccaffrey/

Re: Stanford in the NFL - ColoradoTree - 09-11-2017

FYI, Chuck Pagano said in his presser today that Luck is also OUT for the Colts' Week 2 game vs. Arizona.  Frankly, that's great news.  The OL, while improving, is still not great (and losing C Ryan Kelly for several weeks didn't help matters), and the Colts look primed to dig themselves yet another 0-2 hole. 

It looks like he might be out for at least a few more weeks, since it's not clear that he'll even practice this week, and they'll want to develop timing with receivers before he gets thrown back out there.  Apparently Ian Rapaport thinks it'll be more like October when they actually see him on the field.  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000841313/article/colts-qb-andrew-luck-could-be-out-until-october?campaign=tw-nf-sf112920357-sf112920357&sf112920357=1

Thus, the Colts could easily go into Week 5 with an 0-4 record, which would include losses to the Rams and Browns.  Week 4 (10/1) is on the road at Seattle, which would be a harsh way to start.  Better to come back Week 5 at home vs. San Francisco and get eased back into the league when expectations for the season are already shot. 

Frankly, I wish they'd just stash him on IR for the rest of the year, lock up the 1st overall pick, and then demand a king's ransom to trade down, given that there will be some good QB options in this year's draft, so there should be a market.  The roster is so bad that they need as many high picks as they can get, so it seems like it's in Indy's best long-term interests to be as conservative with Luck as possible.  A tanking season would fit right into Chris Ballard's plans, really.  He'd get to fire Pagano, hire whoever the hot new coaching candidate is, and stockpile high picks to build a more competitive roster.  The problem with Andrew is that he's good enough to drag that rotting carcass of a team to several more wins, so if Luck starts the last 12 games of the year, he could easily get them back to 7-9 or 8-8 and another middling draft slot.  Ballard needs to lock him up somewhere and not let him out until the end of the year!

Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 09-11-2017

(09-11-2017, 03:15 PM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:FYI, Chuck Pagano said in his presser today that Luck is also OUT for the Colts' Week 2 game vs. Arizona.  Frankly, that's great news.  The OL, while improving, is still not great (and losing C Ryan Kelly for several weeks didn't help matters), and the Colts look primed to dig themselves yet another 0-2 hole. 

It looks like he might be out for at least a few more weeks, since it's not clear that he'll even practice this week, and they'll want to develop timing with receivers before he gets thrown back out there.  Apparently Ian Rapaport thinks it'll be more like October when they actually see him on the field.  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000841313/article/colts-qb-andrew-luck-could-be-out-until-october?campaign=tw-nf-sf112920357-sf112920357&sf112920357=1

Thus, the Colts could easily go into Week 5 with an 0-4 record, which would include losses to the Rams and Browns.  Week 4 (10/1) is on the road at Seattle, which would be a harsh way to start.  Better to come back Week 5 at home vs. San Francisco and get eased back into the league when expectations for the season are already shot. 

Frankly, I wish they'd just stash him on IR for the rest of the year, lock up the 1st overall pick, and then demand a king's ransom to trade down, given that there will be some good QB options in this year's draft, so there should be a market.  The roster is so bad that they need as many high picks as they can get, so it seems like it's in Indy's best long-term interests to be as conservative with Luck as possible.  A tanking season would fit right into Chris Ballard's plans, really.  He'd get to fire Pagano, hire whoever the hot new coaching candidate is, and stockpile high picks to build a more competitive roster.  The problem with Andrew is that he's good enough to drag that rotting carcass of a team to several more wins, so if Luck starts the last 12 games of the year, he could easily get them back to 7-9 or 8-8 and another middling draft slot.  Ballard needs to lock him up somewhere and not let him out until the end of the year!

Not to turn negative on Luck or anything, but... if the Colts tank and they get the #1 pick, is it so certain that they would trade it down or would they take Darnold and trade Luck himself.  I mean, I'm a brobdingnagian Luck fan, but at some point they will start to worry about his injury history and whether he will be the same after he comes back.

BC

Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 09-11-2017

You hypothesize that the Colts could make a sane, long-term decision like that...what makes you think the Colts would ever be so sane or long-term?  ::)

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 09-12-2017

(09-11-2017, 12:24 PM)BobK link Wrote:I was fortunate to be at the old Phillis stadium in 1968. 

While I might have seen Ennis once in person I don't recall.  However I sure don't recall anyone thinking he was a good LFer.  Phogge?

Ennis was not mentioned in the conversation about good OF's in the 50's. He was a clutch hitter on a team that couldn't pitch except for Bunning. He also belonged to the club of aged hitters picked up during stretch runs. His case with the Chisox in '59 but he didn't make their WS roster.

Mick has stats in his blood and he's always ready. So... what did I hit for SFS in 1966?

Re: Stanford in the NFL - ColoradoTree - 09-12-2017

(09-11-2017, 06:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Not to turn negative on Luck or anything, but... if the Colts tank and they get the #1 pick, is it so certain that they would trade it down or would they take Darnold and trade Luck himself.  I mean, I'm a of exceedingly large proportions Luck fan, but at some point they will start to worry about his injury history and whether he will be the same after he comes back.

BC

We should be so lucky.  Andrew should be so lucky.  There are tons of teams where Luck would change from a decent (or even not very good) team to a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl.  Arizona, Jacksonville, Denver, and Houston come to mind in particular.  They'd have to give Indianapolis a truckload of draft capital to make it work, but I really doubt they ever go there.  I mean, Luck's presence is why Chris Ballard took this job.  There were other opportunities with better coaching staffs, more talented rosters, and more functional ownership situations.  But he knew that franchise QBs are the most important ingredient to winning a Super Bowl, that they're few and far between, and that Indy was the only place that had one but also needed a GM. 

Given how many teams would be interested in an upgrade at QB, and given how bad the rest of Indy's roster is, I have to think Ballard would take advantage of the opportunity to upgrade the roster around Luck and collect a few extra 1st/2nd/3rd round picks in exchange for moving down a few spots.  Viewing it another way, the QB they have is the best player on the team, meaning QB is the position least in need of an upgrade.  It would be colossally dumb to ignore those other roster problems and just replace a great QB with a QB that might be great, and Ballard doesn't strike me as that unwise. 

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Mick - 09-12-2017

(09-12-2017, 06:55 AM)Phogge link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=17367.msg200211#msg200211 date=1505157892]
I was fortunate to be at the old Phillis stadium in 1968. 

While I might have seen Ennis once in person I don't recall.  However I sure don't recall anyone thinking he was a good LFer.  Phogge?

Ennis was not mentioned in the conversation about good OF's in the 50's. He was a clutch hitter on a team that couldn't pitch except for Bunning. He also belonged to the club of aged hitters picked up during stretch runs. His case with the Chisox in '59 but he didn't make their WS roster.

Mick has stats in his blood and he's always ready. So... what did I hit for SFS in 1966?
[/quote]

Phogge, you hit .362 against LHP and 279 against LHP.  Off-speed stuff was your weakness, low-outside fastball could get you out.  Actually, I have no idea... :P

Here's how bad Philly fans were.  Del Ennis once hit three HRs in a game for Philly, with 7 RBIs, one short of the National League record at the time.  He popped up in his fourth at bat and they booed him.  Ennis was from North Philly, and the South Philly fans didn't like him at all.  A common complaint about Ennis was that he struck out too much.  His highest one-year strikeout total?  62.  Rob Deer would get that in two months.  Only Stan Musial had more RBIs than Ennis from 1948 to 1956, but they still kept booing him.

The White Sox didn't keep him for the '59 series, but they voted him a 1/4 share.  He had four game winning hits that 1959 season.  The Sox waived him (a) because Ennis had some personal issues that ended his career and (b) they wanted to bring up rookie Norm Cash who had an all-world rookie season for Detroit the next year, batting .360.

Ennis is well thought of by the Philly franchise.  In their list of champions, their Hall of Fame, he was the fifth one elected after Richie Ashburn, Robin Roberts, Chuck Klein and Grover Alexander.

[Image: File:Del_Ennis_plaque.jpg]

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 09-12-2017

I love those stats! Hope you noted the 2 for 2 off Messersmith.

Frankly I'm surprised that Jim Konstanty wasn't honored before Ennis. MVP in '50 and would have been Cy Young if the award existed.

So, without looking up what was the connection between that era Phils and The Natural?

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Mick - 09-12-2017

(09-12-2017, 12:55 PM)Phogge link Wrote:I love those stats! Hope you noted the 2 for 2 off Messersmith.

Frankly I'm surprised that Jim Konstanty wasn't honored before Ennis. MVP in '50 and would have been Cy Young if the award existed.

So, without looking up what was the connection between that era Phils and The Natural?

Totally WAGging it, but did Malamud write for the Philadelphia newspaper at the time?

Doesn't surprise me about Konstanty.  He only had the one good season, only season he was an all-star.  It was a bit like the Mike Marshall 1974 season for the Dodgers.  Konstanty won 16 games in relief and saved 22, pitching 152 innings.  His ERA was 2.66, not really world class for a reliever (he made 74 appearances that year, all in relief). Konstanty got a late start, thanks to WWII, he was 31 before he hit the big leagues for good.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Stymie - 09-12-2017

I remember the 1964 MLB season well.  It started in the spring with my receiving a thick envelope from Leland Stanford Junior University, an institution I had never heard of until then. In the late summer back in Connecticut, knowing baseball quite well, I invested in a 20-1 bet against the Phillies just before the Phold began.  That funded my cab fare from SFO to the Farm in late September, and more. The season ended with the disaster of a loss in the Series by my beloved Yankees, punctuated with a smile only when I dropped my transistor radio on the concrete in the middle of a Statistics 50 lecture.  Gibson was exquisite.  It was Mantle's last year.  Sic transit gloria Bob and Mickey.....

Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 09-12-2017

(09-12-2017, 09:13 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17367.msg200274#msg200274 date=1505178634]

Not to turn negative on Luck or anything, but... if the Colts tank and they get the #1 pick, is it so certain that they would trade it down or would they take Darnold and trade Luck himself.  I mean, I'm a of exceedingly large proportions Luck fan, but at some point they will start to worry about his injury history and whether he will be the same after he comes back.

BC

We should be so lucky.  Andrew should be so lucky.  There are tons of teams where Luck would change from a decent (or even not very good) team to a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl.  Arizona, Jacksonville, Denver, and Houston come to mind in particular.  They'd have to give Indianapolis a truckload of draft capital to make it work, but I really doubt they ever go there.  I mean, Luck's presence is why Chris Ballard took this job.  There were other opportunities with better coaching staffs, more talented rosters, and more functional ownership situations.  But he knew that franchise QBs are the most important ingredient to winning a Super Bowl, that they're few and far between, and that Indy was the only place that had one but also needed a GM. 

Given how many teams would be interested in an upgrade at QB, and given how bad the rest of Indy's roster is, I have to think Ballard would take advantage of the opportunity to upgrade the roster around Luck and collect a few extra 1st/2nd/3rd round picks in exchange for moving down a few spots.  Viewing it another way, the QB they have is the best player on the team, meaning QB is the position least in need of an upgrade.  It would be colossally dumb to ignore those other roster problems and just replace a great QB with a QB that might be great, and Ballard doesn't strike me as that unwise.
[/quote]

It feels like Luck is in a no win situation. With Irsay as the owner, I have a hard time seeing them turning into a winner barring a miracle. Maybe Ballard is that miracle but there's not proof to support that idea. On the other hand, he's a valued commodity on the open market and Indy would make any team pay through the nose to acquire him, probably gutting the roster of the team Luck would join.

The best case scenario may be for him to have another couple of bad seasons in Indy and create a narrative that he's peaked and injury prone, get traded at a much lower value, and then pull it together at the next stop. But I fear Luck will always show that potential to be a star and therefore never lose the trade value he has, at least not for a long time.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - ColoradoTree - 09-12-2017

(09-12-2017, 02:12 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:It feels like Luck is in a no win situation. With Irsay as the owner, I have a hard time seeing them turning into a winner barring a miracle. Maybe Ballard is that miracle but there's not proof to support that idea. On the other hand, he's a valued commodity on the open market and Indy would make any team pay through the nose to acquire him, probably gutting the roster of the team Luck would join.

The best case scenario may be for him to have another couple of bad seasons in Indy and create a narrative that he's peaked and injury prone, get traded at a much lower value, and then pull it together at the next stop. But I fear Luck will always show that potential to be a star and therefore never lose the trade value he has, at least not for a long time.

He's certainly in a rough situation, but I'm pretty bullish on Ballard turning that team around, though it'll take a couple of years before they're in a position to win the division and potentially challenge the other AFC powers.

As bad as the OL has been, the defense has been even worse, and I think Ballard was right to focus there in his first draft.  In particular, the pass defense was dreadful (aside from Vontae Davis), and Ballard got the best free safety in the draft in Malik Hooker in Round 1, what some had as the top CB in the draft (Florida's Quincy Wilson) in Round 2, and a talented project in CB Nate Hairston (who actually played pretty well on Sunday) in Round 5.  They have no pass rush, so he went with a highly-regarded EDGE guy in Tarell Basham in Round 3.  The run defense was soft, so they got a potential sleeper at DT in Round 4 (in addition to a couple of free agents that made David Parry surplus to requirements).  The middle linebackers couldn't stop the run or defend TEs in the passing game, so he got a good MLB in the 5th round (NW's Anthony Walker).  Frank Gore was still good last year, but he's like 50 now, so they got a complementary back in USF's Marlon Mack in the 4th.  The only misfire, I thought, was Zach Banner out of SC, and it looks like Ballard realized his mistake when he cut him to make room for a waiver-wire acquisition that could play C and G.  But that also shows a positive attribute: the willingness to move on from players you don't think can help you as much as a readily available alternative would.  I thought he did really well this offseason.  Of course, the defense was dreadful against the Rams, but some of that is a lot of young guys getting their feet wet, and even more was bad coaching (e.g., having TJ Green, a former safety who has been playing CB for about two weeks, start and mostly play on an island, where he was predictably abused all game, rather than throw your young CBs into the fire a bit more). 

It looks like the 2018 draft should have some good options at OT, DE/OLB, and in the secondary, in addition to QB, so with another strong draft, the Colts' roster could be in pretty solid shape for next season. 

Of course, this all presumes that Pagano and his assistants are fired and Ballard gets to pick the guy he wants.  It seems pretty clear that Irsay wanted to give Pagano this year to prove his worth (something Ballard might have been fine with, quite frankly, since a rebuilding year with a poor record allows him to fire Pagano and install his guy on an improved roster), but the end seems nigh. 

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Card Fan in OR - 09-12-2017

I was thinking of marking this "OT," but since we are so far away from Stanford in the NFL, I see no need.

Mick wrote:

Quote:The White Sox didn't keep him for the '59 series, but they voted him a 1/4 share.  He had four game winning hits that 1959 season.  The Sox waived him (a) because Ennis had some personal issues that ended his career and (b) they wanted to bring up rookie Norm Cash who had an all-world rookie season for Detroit the next year, batting .360.

Quibbling, perhaps, but as an old-time Tigers fan, I'd like to clarify that Norm Cash hit an absolutely phenomenal .361 in '61 but was overshadowed by some guy in New York who happened to hit 20 more HRs than Stormin' Norman. Still a remarkable season for a power hitter, certainly unrivaled in Detroit history until Miguel Cabrera's five-year run beginning in '09.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 09-12-2017

Malamud based the first part of his story on the shooting of Eddie Waitkus by an obsessed female fan. The Philly first baseman had come up with the Cubs and was called by some writers a natural. The woman fantasized about him and followed him to Philadelphia and checked into his hotel. She left an emergency message asking him to come to her room where she shot him with a .22. He was near death but was saved by quick medical work. Voted comeback player of the year he returned to the Phils in 1950 where as a leadoff hitter he was one of the leaders of the pennant winning team. The woman was confined to the cracker factory for a bit but was never charged in the shooting. One of the first instances of celebrity stalking.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Mick - 09-13-2017

(09-12-2017, 09:40 PM)Phogge link Wrote:Malamud based the first part of his story on the shooting of Eddie Waitkus by an obsessed female fan. The Philly first baseman had come up with the Cubs and was called by some writers a natural. The woman fantasized about him and followed him to Philadelphia and checked into his hotel. She left an emergency message asking him to come to her room where she shot him with a .22. He was near death but was saved by quick medical work. Voted comeback player of the year he returned to the Phils in 1950 where as a leadoff hitter he was one of the leaders of the pennant winning team. The woman was confined to the cracker factory for a bit but was never charged in the shooting. One of the first instances of celebrity stalking.


Right, I'd heard that story and it seemed like a natural fit (pun intended), but Malamud never admitted to Ruth Ann's shooting of Eddie Waitkus as the inspiration, in fact, Malamud specifically said it was not based on any Chicago, Philadelphia or New York event.  Apart from the fact that both were shot by women in a hotel, there are no other real similarities.  Waitkus was an intelligent, 29 year old WWII veteran who spoke four languages fluently when he was shot in Chicago's Beachwater Hotel, the fictional Roy Hobbs was a 17 year old phenom who was likely based on Bob Feller.  Waitkus had almost no power, just 24 HRs in his big league career, Hobbs was a home run hitting machine.  Whammer Wambold was obviously Babe Ruth.  In the book, Hobbs strikes out Wambold.  In real life, Feller struck out eight St. Louis Cardinals in an exhibition.  The older Hobbs in general was thought to be based on Shoeless Joe Jackson. 

https://www.si.com/mlb/strike-zone/2013/03/18/eddie-waitkus-robert-redford-the-natural-ruth-ann-steinhagen

What was perhaps a closer match was the shooting of Chicago Cubs shortstop Billy Juerges, who was romantically linked with Violet Valli, the showgirl who shot him -- with a handgun, same as in the book -- at the Vin a Chicago hotel.  Juerges had just turned 24 at that time.
http://sabr.org/research/show-girl-and-shortstop-strange-saga-violet-popovich-and-her-shooting-cub-billy-jurges

A lot of writers casually assumed that the inspiration of The Natural was the Waitkus shooting.  Malamud never spoke of it publicly and only rarely spoke of it privately.  When he did speak publicly of it, he stated that he was a Brooklyn Dodger fan, and the Brooklyn team was his inspiration.  The closest to public commentary was perhaps the Arthur Daley column in the New York Times in which Malamud said, "I wanted to explore what happens when a talented man sells out."

Pac-12 connection: Malamud moved from New York City to Corvallis and wrote the bulk of The Natural as a professor at Oregon State University.  He did end up publicly admitting to the Feller, Jackson and Ruth connections, and he also invoked Sal Maglie and Ted Williams.  Specifically, Feller's youthful innocence, Jackson's natural but corruptible talent, Williams' hostility and pride and Ruth's hungry prowess.  Hobbs wants to be the "best that ever was" and also like Williams, wears number nine.  Like Maglie, he was ostracized from professional American baseball for years, then returns in the twilight of his career.

The real Philadelphia connection is that the Phils were the competing team for a number of the important contests in the book.
https://sabr.org/research/eddie-waitkus-and-natural-what-assumption-what-fact

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Phogge - 09-13-2017

Which became thePirates in the movie. Cover of the ball scene, last game.

Stat Man Mick... without looking it up do you know the name of the Pirate manager in the picture.  I have his Topps '53 card.

Re: Stanford in the NFL - Mick - 09-15-2017

(09-13-2017, 08:02 PM)Phogge link Wrote:Which became thePirates in the movie. Cover of the ball scene, last game.

Stat Man Mick... without looking it up do you know the name of the Pirate manager in the picture.  I have his Topps '53 card.

No idea.

There were a number of inconsistencies between the book and the movie.  In the book, he strikes out at the end, and doesn't hit the climactic home run.