Husak - 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: Husak (/thread-18348.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: Husak (/thread-18348.html)
RE: Husak - cardcrimson - 10-19-2019
As you and Lex posit, Alabama recruits extremely well every year, with one or two Solomon Thomas quality players every year on the front seven, so wouldn't that make it much harder for five true freshman to start? It's not like basketball and every good player is one and done.
Our recruiting has been relatively deficient over the last few years, right? One would think it'd be easier to find four freshmen to play, especially as our line recruiting has be woeful.
And as Mick pointed out, there are smart kids that play for Alabama too. Not every straight A football player dreams of playing for the Cardinal. Probably even fewer these days.
So no, I still don't understand the point.
(10-19-2019, 01:17 PM)CornFed Wrote:(10-19-2019, 12:54 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: And what exactly is your point?
(10-19-2019, 12:00 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(10-19-2019, 11:43 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-19-2019, 08:14 AM)GK3 Wrote: Not sure they were resting on their press clippings, more playing the level one would expect where 3 or 4 players on your offensive line were playing high school ball last year. Their strength and technique is a long ways from where it will be in the future ( I hope). We saw what we should have seen the week before. For whatever reason, Washington didn't sell out on every play to rush the passer. UCLA did and basically West seldom had any real time to find his receivers and throw the ball. My guess is that we saw what we will see every game from here on out and teams will stick with it until we show we can make them play for doing it.
I am not sure there is any system we could have run that would have enabled us to fare better.
Alabama has 4 frosh starting on the front 7. They're not getting pushed around.
And how many of them were admitted to Stanford?
I find it hard to believe you don't understand the point. A Solomon Thomas comes around to Stanford about once every five or ten years. Alabama recruits two of him every year.
RE: lex24 - Spiny_Norman - 10-19-2019
(10-19-2019, 04:53 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-19-2019, 02:06 PM)lex24 Wrote: Oh, and then there’s the “he doesn’t take responsibility” bit. Hear it after damn near every loss. I guess Sepuku is in order.
I didn't hear it until this season, and it's happened in three of the four losses.
Shaw has been a great coach, but I'm not convinced he still is one. He needs to adapt to changes in the game, and he desperately needs some fresh ideas injected into the program that won't come if he keeps promoting from within.
Win - are you referring specifically to Pritchard? Or Pritchard and Anderson?
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 10-19-2019
(10-19-2019, 02:06 PM)lex24 Wrote: The lack of respect for a guy that has only been the most successful coach in Stanford history is amazing. Hell even the good comments about Shaw are usually damning with faint praise. You know the bit: “I like Shaw, he’s a great representative of the University”.
If only he could coach....
Lex, respectfully, you, D4Cohn, Goose and the other Shawpologists are officially part of the problem. Shaw is a decent head coach for Stanford - recruits pretty well, represents very well. And if he would act more as a CEO and make good hires and delegate, he could even become good. But he is an AWFUL, AWFUL offensive mind - one of the worst I've ever seen. Everyone sees this . . . except Shaw himself, as he insists on holding the Denny's Menu and calling the plays. Shaw thinks he is good, which is the most depressing thing.
Thursday night was only the most recent example of a putrid offensive game plan and output, which we have seen time and time again over his entire tenure. Yes, the OL is depleted (whose fault is that?); yes, it was a third-string QB - but he still had 10 days to get everyone ready . . . and THAT's what we saw. You will rationalize due to injuries - but Shaw has presided over so many offensive dog games, with much more available talent, that last night was almost a foregone conclusion.
Shaw was handed the keys to a Ferrari and has driven/transformed it into a Yugo. One indicator of that - and a pretty important one imo - is the number of empties we are seeing at every home game. And this is the supposed good, odd-year home schedule - can you imagine what things will look like next season? Shaw has literally sucked the fun/life out of this program, and a BIG part of that is an awful, boring, unimaginative and wholly ineffective offense (which he insists on running).
Why you (and others) continue to defend the indefensible is beyond me.
David Shaw: winningest coach in Stanford history . . . and the man who is running this program into the ground.
Sad. Really sad.
RE: Husak - CardinalSagehen - 10-19-2019
(10-19-2019, 06:43 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: As you and Lex posit, Alabama recruits extremely well every year, with one or two Solomon Thomas quality players every year on the front seven, so wouldn't that make it much harder for five true freshman to start? It's not like basketball and every good player is one and done.
Our recruiting has been relatively deficient over the last few years, right? One would think it'd be easier to find four freshmen to play, especially as our line recruiting has be woeful.
And as Mick pointed out, there are smart kids that play for Alabama too. Not every straight A football player dreams of playing for the Cardinal. Probably even fewer these days.
So no, I still don't understand the point.
(10-19-2019, 01:17 PM)CornFed Wrote:(10-19-2019, 12:54 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: And what exactly is your point?
(10-19-2019, 12:00 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(10-19-2019, 11:43 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Alabama has 4 frosh starting on the front 7. They're not getting pushed around.
And how many of them were admitted to Stanford?
I find it hard to believe you don't understand the point. A Solomon Thomas comes around to Stanford about once every five or ten years. Alabama recruits two of him every year.
If you’re saying or implying that Stanford is on an even playing field with Alabama when it comes to recruiting or football in general, you can’t be serious.
My wife’s much younger cousin hangs around with NFL players as his business - he helps organize signing events, gets them into shows and events (using their fame), plays designated driver for them, etc. Our cousin was hanging out regularly with a player from Alabama that was quite literally illiterate, and somehow he made it through three years of college. I’m not trying to pick on this guy - maybe he’s dyslexic, I don’t know - but the point is that the vast majority of elite HS football players don’t have a chance at admission to Stanford. There’s no way this guy was taking AP courses when he couldn’t read a book, a short sentence or even his own name (according to my wife’s cousin).
It isn’t just the academic standards. It’s also Stanford’s tiny fan base, the lack of local interest in college football, and the rigors of actually being a student vs. simply focusing on football. As the physical dangers of football become increasingly alarming, the opportunity cost also becomes a bigger factor - our kind of player always has a safer plan B outside of football. Stanford as an institution is ambivalent about football in a way that you’d never see at places like Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Clemson, ND, Penn State or Michigan.
So there’s no point in comparing Alabama’s players or their freshmen to ours. That’s not to say we can never compete with them, but it would take a perfect storm of recruiting, coaching and luck.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-20-2019
Been awhile Teejers. Part of the problem? I’m posting on a board. Not sure how that translates to “part of the problem”. As for “sad”? Spare me. To elaborate a bit: if there is one thing that I’m certain of is that nothing I do or can say or do has the least bit of impact. So I don’t quite get the “part of the problem” bit.
(10-19-2019, 09:43 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-19-2019, 02:06 PM)lex24 Wrote: The lack of respect for a guy that has only been the most successful coach in Stanford history is amazing. Hell even the good comments about Shaw are usually damning with faint praise. You know the bit: “I like Shaw, he’s a great representative of the University”.
If only he could coach....
Lex, respectfully, you, D4Cohn, Goose and the other Shawpologists are officially part of the problem. Shaw is a decent head coach for Stanford - recruits pretty well, represents very well. And if he would act more as a CEO and make good hires and delegate, he could even become good. But he is an AWFUL, AWFUL offensive mind - one of the worst I've ever seen. Everyone sees this . . . except Shaw himself, as he insists on holding the Denny's Menu and calling the plays. Shaw thinks he is good, which is the most depressing thing.
Thursday night was only the most recent example of a putrid offensive game plan and output, which we have seen time and time again over his entire tenure. Yes, the OL is depleted (whose fault is that?); yes, it was a third-string QB - but he still had 10 days to get everyone ready . . . and THAT's what we saw. You will rationalize due to injuries - but Shaw has presided over so many offensive dog games, with much more available talent, that last night was almost a foregone conclusion.
Shaw was handed the keys to a Ferrari and has driven/transformed it into a Yugo. One indicator of that - and a pretty important one imo - is the number of empties we are seeing at every home game. And this is the supposed good, odd-year home schedule - can you imagine what things will look like next season? Shaw has literally sucked the fun/life out of this program, and a BIG part of that is an awful, boring, unimaginative and wholly ineffective offense (which he insists on running).
Why you (and others) continue to defend the indefensible is beyond me.
David Shaw: winningest coach in Stanford history . . . and the man who is running this program into the ground.
Sad. Really sad.
RE: lex24 - winflop - 10-20-2019
(10-19-2019, 07:28 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(10-19-2019, 04:53 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-19-2019, 02:06 PM)lex24 Wrote: Oh, and then there’s the “he doesn’t take responsibility” bit. Hear it after damn near every loss. I guess Sepuku is in order.
I didn't hear it until this season, and it's happened in three of the four losses.
Shaw has been a great coach, but I'm not convinced he still is one. He needs to adapt to changes in the game, and he desperately needs some fresh ideas injected into the program that won't come if he keeps promoting from within.
Win - are you referring specifically to Pritchard? Or Pritchard and Anderson?
I'd say Pritchard first and foremost. Offense is the bigger problem. I also think there needs to be someone new leading recruiting - but that doesn't mean Anderson has to go, just that someone else needs to take that role. There are too many depth issues on the roster that were there before the season started.
RE: Husak - GK3 - 10-20-2019
(10-19-2019, 12:00 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(10-19-2019, 11:43 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-19-2019, 08:14 AM)GK3 Wrote:(10-18-2019, 06:11 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Did Stanford quit. No. They rested on the press clippings after the "monumental" win over the Huskies. Shaw was reaffirmed as brilliant, as was the staff. The O'Line was amazing, especially as they were so young. The D was once again stellar. Mills development was confirmed. Wrong-O Mary Lou.
Based on this depth chart dated 3 days ago, they have 1 Frosh starting. https://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/alabama/89923
Not sure they were resting on their press clippings, more playing the level one would expect where 3 or 4 players on your offensive line were playing high school ball last year. Their strength and technique is a long ways from where it will be in the future ( I hope). We saw what we should have seen the week before. For whatever reason, Washington didn't sell out on every play to rush the passer. UCLA did and basically West seldom had any real time to find his receivers and throw the ball. My guess is that we saw what we will see every game from here on out and teams will stick with it until we show we can make them play for doing it.
I am not sure there is any system we could have run that would have enabled us to fare better.
Alabama has 4 frosh starting on the front 7. They're not getting pushed around.
And how many of them were admitted to Stanford?
RE: lex24 - Spiny_Norman - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 06:57 AM)winflop Wrote: I also think there needs to be someone new leading recruiting - but that doesn't mean Anderson has to go, just that someone else needs to take that role. There are too many depth issues on the roster that were there before the season started.
Anderson does not lead recruiting. Mike Eubanks does. According to his bio, Anderson has not been the recruiting coordinator since 2011.
RE: Husak - GK3 - 10-20-2019
(10-19-2019, 10:48 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(10-19-2019, 06:43 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: As you and Lex posit, Alabama recruits extremely well every year, with one or two Solomon Thomas quality players every year on the front seven, so wouldn't that make it much harder for five true freshman to start? It's not like basketball and every good player is one and done.
Our recruiting has been relatively deficient over the last few years, right? One would think it'd be easier to find four freshmen to play, especially as our line recruiting has be woeful.
And as Mick pointed out, there are smart kids that play for Alabama too. Not every straight A football player dreams of playing for the Cardinal. Probably even fewer these days.
So no, I still don't understand the point.
(10-19-2019, 01:17 PM)CornFed Wrote:(10-19-2019, 12:54 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: And what exactly is your point?
(10-19-2019, 12:00 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: And how many of them were admitted to Stanford?
I find it hard to believe you don't understand the point. A Solomon Thomas comes around to Stanford about once every five or ten years. Alabama recruits two of him every year.
If you’re saying or implying that Stanford is on an even playing field with Alabama when it comes to recruiting or football in general, you can’t be serious.
My wife’s much younger cousin hangs around with NFL players as his business - he helps organize signing events, gets them into shows and events (using their fame), plays designated driver for them, etc. Our cousin was hanging out regularly with a player from Alabama that was quite literally illiterate, and somehow he made it through three years of college. I’m not trying to pick on this guy - maybe he’s dyslexic, I don’t know - but the point is that the vast majority of elite HS football players don’t have a chance at admission to Stanford. There’s no way this guy was taking AP courses when he couldn’t read a book, a short sentence or even his own name (according to my wife’s cousin).
It isn’t just the academic standards. It’s also Stanford’s tiny fan base, the lack of local interest in college football, and the rigors of actually being a student vs. simply focusing on football. As the physical dangers of football become increasingly alarming, the opportunity cost also becomes a bigger factor - our kind of player always has a safer plan B outside of football. Stanford as an institution is ambivalent about football in a way that you’d never see at places like Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Clemson, ND, Penn State or Michigan.
So there’s no point in comparing Alabama’s players or their freshmen to ours. That’s not to say we can never compete with them, but it would take a perfect storm of recruiting, coaching and luck.
Agree 100%
That is the reality of the program. We appeal to kids to whom academics are probably equally important as athletics. Their vision of life after college most likely includes things not directly related to sports. I have no idea what percentage of 4 or 5 star high school players could get into Stanford, but it is certain to be a very small number. Further, no matter what we think, not all of those players will want to go to Stanford, so the number gets even smaller. Then comes a year like this, where most of our best recruits are no longer playing due to injury. This is the negative form of a perfect storm and leaves us in the position we now find ourselves.
Our situation is further complicated by the fact players hurt this year and on track to graduate next June could well transfer, or sign up for the draft. Our top juniors could also opt for the draft. It becomes increasingly unlikely that you will see our best players play out their college career at Stanford.
RE: Husak - Phogge - 10-20-2019
Who will come out?
Adebo.... draft stock lower than in August
Little.... injured, will drop in draft
Costello... only a desperate team would draft him
Going to be the worst Stanford draft in years.
RE: Husak - BostonCard - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 08:34 AM)Phogge Wrote: Who will come out?
Adebo.... draft stock lower than in August
Little.... injured, will drop in draft
Costello... only a desperate team would draft him
Going to be the worst Stanford draft in years.
You forgot Párkinson, whose draft stock has also plummeted as he’s shown himself to be easily covered.
And yet they may all come out anyways if they don’t think another year at Stanford will help their prospects.
BC
RE: Husak - JohnR34231 - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 08:45 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-20-2019, 08:34 AM)Phogge Wrote: Who will come out?
Adebo.... draft stock lower than in August
Little.... injured, will drop in draft
Costello... only a desperate team would draft him
Going to be the worst Stanford draft in years.
You forgot Párkinson, whose draft stock has also plummeted as he’s shown himself to be easily covered.
And yet they may all come out anyways if they don’t think another year at Stanford will help their prospects.
BC
I would assume Sarell might come out too if he also doesn't feel another year will help him.
RE: Husak - CardinalSagehen - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 09:22 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-20-2019, 08:45 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-20-2019, 08:34 AM)Phogge Wrote: Who will come out?
Adebo.... draft stock lower than in August
Little.... injured, will drop in draft
Costello... only a desperate team would draft him
Going to be the worst Stanford draft in years.
You forgot Párkinson, whose draft stock has also plummeted as he’s shown himself to be easily covered.
And yet they may all come out anyways if they don’t think another year at Stanford will help their prospects.
BC
I would assume Sarell might come out too if he also doesn't feel another year will help him.
Of that set, the only one graduating is Costello. He should either stay or grad transfer, but I agree it’s a bad time for him to go pro.
Of the rest, Little seems like the only one that might be taken in the top 3 rounds, injured or not. It’s a toss-up for him.
If I were Adebo, Parkinson or Sarell, I’d stay and get my degree. They only need one more year. A Stanford degree is definitely more valuable than being an undrafted free agent, and there’s a decent chance to improve their stock.
Obviously, it’s a personal decision, but the trade-offs seem fairly clear in their cases.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-20-2019
I’m not sure Adebo has dropped that much. I suspect he goes. Parkinson will be drafted I suspect. Little also. I saw before the season KJ projected around 3d to 5th round. That shipped sailed with the injuries. Wouldn’t be surprised to see him in the transfer portal. I think Little is certainly gone. I have seen nothing from Sarrell to suggest he can play in the NFL. But I’m no offensive line guru.
(10-20-2019, 09:53 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:(10-20-2019, 09:22 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-20-2019, 08:45 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-20-2019, 08:34 AM)Phogge Wrote: Who will come out?
Adebo.... draft stock lower than in August
Little.... injured, will drop in draft
Costello... only a desperate team would draft him
Going to be the worst Stanford draft in years.
You forgot Párkinson, whose draft stock has also plummeted as he’s shown himself to be easily covered.
And yet they may all come out anyways if they don’t think another year at Stanford will help their prospects.
BC
I would assume Sarell might come out too if he also doesn't feel another year will help him.
Of that set, the only one graduating is Costello. He should either stay or grad transfer, but I agree it’s a bad time for him to go pro.
Of the rest, Little seems like the only one that might be taken in the top 3 rounds, injured or not. It’s a toss-up for him.
If I were Adebo, Parkinson or Sarell, I’d stay and get my degree. They only need one more year. A Stanford degree is definitely more valuable than being an undrafted free agent, and there’s a decent chance to improve their stock.
Obviously, it’s a personal decision, but the trade-offs seem fairly clear in their cases.
RE: Husak - Phogge - 10-20-2019
Parkinson needs to reinvent himself to be drafted in rounds 3-4. How? Hire Zach Ertz to teach him route running. The staff obviously can't.
RE: Husak - cardcrimson - 10-20-2019
My post related to the comment below that I interpreted as lamenting that we're seeing a brobdingnagian drop off on offense because of playing 4 freshmen on the OL:
"more playing the level one would expect where 3 or 4 players on your offensive line were playing high school ball last year. Their strength and technique is a long ways from where it will be in the future ( I hope)."
I simply noted that Alabama hasn't seen a similar drop off on their D playing 4 true frosh. Apparently, the consensus here is that there is a brobdingnagian difference between OUR freshmen and OUR older players, while there isn't the same difference between ALABAMA's freshmen and ALABAMA's older players. Seems counter intuitive that our player development is THAT much better than Alabama's.
As for the differing academic requirements between the schools, I completely understand it. That said, I tire of the "well they're players couldn't get into Stanford" trope that someone else inferred (oddly, completely irrelevant to my post). As Mick pointed out, Alabama has at least one, if not two, of their freshman defensive starters that had the grades to get in to Stanford. On another note, when was the last time Stanford had a finalist for a Rhodes Scholarship who also won a national championship? Alabama's had one this decade.
RE: Husak - BobK - 10-20-2019
Grades to get into Stanford ? I know a 4.25 great athlete who couldn’t get into Stanford. There are more factors than seft reported grades.
RE: Husak - oldalum - 10-20-2019
right and it's not just being able to get in, you have to WANT to go to Stanford. Not every player with NFL potential and a 4.0 wants Stanford. Keep in mind that Stanford's academics/etc. >>>>> Alabama's, but Alabama's football program is >>>>> than Stanford's.
RE: Husak - Goose - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 12:45 PM)oldalum Wrote: right and it's not just being able to get in, you have to WANT to go to Stanford. Not every player with NFL potential and a 4.0 wants Stanford. Keep in mind that Stanford's academics/etc. >>>>> Alabama's, but Alabama's football program is >>>>> than Stanford's.Not only that, but being a student-athlete at Stanford is hard. It requires lots of academic effort that many players with NFL potential may regard as a distraction/impediment to their goal of going to the NFL. That is not a totally crazy position to take. A degree from Alabama is not without value, especially if your post-football plans are in the SEC footprint.
RE: Husak - cardcrimson - 10-20-2019
(10-20-2019, 12:31 PM)BobK Wrote: Grades to get into Stanford ? I know a 4.25 great athlete who couldn’t get into Stanford. There are more factors than seft reported grades.
Really?!?
Did you read Mick's post? He only mentioned grades and school rankings; no test scores, no class load, no extra-curriculars. I stated only that a couple appeared to have the GRADES to get in (especially considering they are starting for Alabama on defense). Yes, there is always more to the application process, and I thought that was self evident for anybody on this board.