OL Next year - Printable Version

OL Next year - 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: OL Next year (/thread-11313.html)

Pages: 1 2

OL Next year - BostonCard - 01-05-2016

I guess we might as well do this for all position groups...

Departed:
OG Joshua Garnett (Outland Trophy Winner)
OT Kyle Murphy (1st Team all-Pac12)
OT Brendon Austin

Returning starters:
C Graham Shuler
OG Johnny Caspers
OT Casey Tucker

Returning 2-deep
OT David Bright
OG Brandon Fanaika
OT Nick Davidson
C Jesse Burkett

Additions
OT Henry Hattis
OT Clark Yarbrough
OT Jack Dryer (redshirt)
OT Austin Maihen (redshirt)
OG Nick Wilson (redshirt)
C Brian Chaffin

The guys leaving are, of course bigtime players, highlighted by our Outland Trophy winner Josh Garnett.Â We do return 3/5 of our offensive line, so the right side is set.Â On the left side, we are all assuming that Bright (who came in as the Ogre tackle) and Fanaika will be the next guard, though with the wayÂ Wilson was described by Bloomgren, you'd want to see him in action (of course, Bloomgren was effusive about everyone, so I take it with a grain of salt).Â Still, I love guards who can pull.Â But the best guess as far as starters goes (L to R) is Bright, Fanaika, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker.

BC

Re: OL Next year - AthleticsDynasty - 01-05-2016

Wilson vs Fanaika will be the battle of the offseason

Re: OL Next year - needle - 01-05-2016

I'd like to see Burkett be given a real shot to win the LG spot.

Re: OL Next year - larkinforever - 01-05-2016

Would Tucker move from RT to LT, like Murphy?

Re: OL Next year - OutsiderFan - 01-06-2016

(01-05-2016, 09:09 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:Would Tucker move from RT to LT, like Murphy?

Tucker doesn't appear to have the foot quickness you want at LT.Â I'd leave him at RT.

Re: OL Next year - Bruce Wang - 01-06-2016

Besides QB, this is the position group where I think we will take a step back.Â Everywhere else I think we have a chance to be better or deeper.

This is a year where it would have been handy to have a more mobile QB.Â I'm a firm believer in taking a QB every year and I think Shaw dropped the ball in the 2015 class.Â The position is so hard to forecast that we should get a shot at a special one each year.

I think we should take at least one QB a year and maybe alternate between a pro-style and dual-threat or better yet take two (one of each kind) each year.Â The QB is often the best overall athlete of a high school (Kirk Herbstreit at mine) and can switch positions (e.g. Lynch).

Re: OL Next year - PrinceLightfoot - 01-06-2016

(01-05-2016, 05:36 PM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:Wilson vs Fanaika will be the battle of the offseason

Fanaika's body is three years more mature than Wilson's. Fanaika wins this one straight-up, and that is no slight on Wilson or anyone else competing against Fanaika. There was comments from the coaches that Wilson needed to work on his pass protection but was an absolute beast on run blocking. I figure he is our #1 ogre next year.

(01-06-2016, 06:28 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=14315.msg151422#msg151422 date=1452053360]
Would Tucker move from RT to LT, like Murphy?

Tucker doesn't appear to have the foot quickness you want at LT.Â I'd leave him at RT.
[/quote]

Agree with Outsider fan.

However it plays out, I am confident the line will be fine with no significant drop in production in 2016.

Re: OL Next year - AthleticsDynasty - 01-06-2016

What's going on with Oser?

Re: OL Next year - Durty Nelly - 01-06-2016

Medical retirement announced in August for Oser.

Re: OL Next year - CTcard - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 10:30 AM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:However it plays out, I am confident the line will be fine with no significant drop in production in 2016.

Re: OL Next year - OutsiderFan - 01-06-2016

Clemson is starting five guys who didn't start at OL in 2014, this year, including a True Frosh LT.Â Stanford has recruited, developed, and coached OL very well since 2009.Â Replacing 2/5 starters (especially when you have a guy like Fanaika ready to step in at LG) isn't that big of a deal, IMO.Â Stanford's OL will be fine.

When will this fan base (on the Cardboard) stop being so pessimistic about various positions on the team when new guys are playing for the first time, and start being optimistic?Â "Five BCS/New Years Six" bowl games in six seasons.Â That doesn't happen unless you re-load each year. It's one thing for outside observers to be skeptical about Stanford, but the most loyal and passionate members of its fan base?

Yes, Stanford has to replace a lot of key players.Â But A, so does everyone, and B, they have done it effectively for 5/6 years.Â Stanford has more talent on its roster now than ever before.Â I just don't understand why people aren't more sanguine about the program, because it's the program, not individual players that really are getting the job done.Â

Re: OL Next year - stupac2 - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 03:53 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Clemson is starting five guys who didn't start at OL in 2014, this year, including a True Frosh LT.Â Stanford has recruited, developed, and coached OL very well since 2009.Â Replacing 2/5 starters (especially when you have a guy like Fanaika ready to step in at LG) isn't that big of a deal, IMO.Â Stanford's OL will be fine.

When will this fan base (on the Cardboard) stop being so pessimistic about various positions on the team when new guys are playing for the first time, and start being optimistic?Â "Five BCS/New Years Six" bowl games in six seasons.Â That doesn't happen unless you re-load each year. It's one thing for outside observers to be skeptical about Stanford, but the most loyal and passionate members of its fan base?

Yes, Stanford has to replace a lot of key players.Â But A, so does everyone, and B, they have done it effectively for 5/6 years.Â Stanford has more talent on its roster now than ever before.Â I just don't understand why people aren't more sanguine about the program, because it's the program, not individual players that really are getting the job done.

I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

Re: OL Next year - CTcard - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 03:53 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Clemson is starting five guys who didn't start at OL in 2014, this year, including a True Frosh LT.Â Stanford has recruited, developed, and coached OL very well since 2009.Â Replacing 2/5 starters (especially when you have a guy like Fanaika ready to step in at LG) isn't that big of a deal, IMO.Â Stanford's OL will be fine.

When will this fan base (on the Cardboard) stop being so pessimistic about various positions on the team when new guys are playing for the first time, and start being optimistic?Â

With the previous post I was being neither optimistic nor pessimistic about prospects for the OL for next year. I merely was pointing out that it is hard to be confident that there will be no dropoff when the last time the same thing happened there was a brobdingnagian dropoff.

Personally, I am optimistic that the OL will be quite good in 2016, since there are obvious replacements for the departed folks and they have individually performed reasonably in game conditions. On the other hand, I was optimistic about the OL going into 2014 as well.

The fact that some team, somewhere has replaced many OL starters and still played well only shows it is a possibility, not that it is likely.

[Strictly speaking, Clemson is starting 4 OL who had a start in 2014 - though they weren't "the starters".]

Re: OL Next year - Rally - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 03:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=14315.msg151469#msg151469 date=1452101408]
However it plays out, I am confident the line will be fine with no significant drop in production in 2016.

I don't know how you can be confident that there will be no significant drop in production when we lose our two best linemen. Last time that happened we went from contender for best offense of the modern era (2011) to ... well 2012.

Of course that year we also lost our three-year starting QB ...
[/quote]

Yeah, 2012 stunk.Â Got stuck in the darn Rose Bowl.Â Boring.Â Face it, you can't replace great linemen like Garnett and Murphy.Â And DeCastro.Â And Martin.Â And Yankey.Â And Peat. And ?

Re: OL Next year - CrazedZooChimp - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 04:25 PM)CTcard link Wrote:With the previous post I was being neither optimistic nor pessimistic about prospects for the OL for next year. I merely was pointing out that it is hard to be confident that there will be no dropoff when the last time the same thing happened there was a of exceedingly large proportions dropoff.

Personally, I am optimistic that the OL will be quite good in 2016, since there are obvious replacements for the departed folks and they have individually performed reasonably in game conditions. On the other hand, I was optimistic about the OL going into 2014 as well.

The fact that some team, somewhere has replaced many OL starters and still played well only shows it is a possibility, not that it is likely.

I must have blacked it out, but I don't remember any giant dropoff in OL play in 2012.Â Yes our offense was not as good, but, uhh, we lost the best quarterback to play football in the past decade or two.Â After that season we had three all conference OL (Yankey 1st team, Schwartzstein and Danser second team), plus an OL honorable mention (Fleming), so the rest of the conference thought they were pretty good.Â We were 4th in the conference in sacks allowed (20), middle of the Pac in yd/passing attemps and yards per rush.Â At no point do I recall thinking the line was an issue.Â Actually, the only season I can recall recently thinking line play was not good enough was last year when we replaced 4/5.

Re: OL Next year - CTcard - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 04:37 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Yeah, 2012 stunk.Â Got stuck in the darn Rose Bowl.Â Boring.Â Face it, you can't replace great linemen like Garnett and Murphy.Â And DeCastro.Â And Martin.Â And Yankey.Â And Peat. And ?

2012 didn't stink. It was one of my favorite seasons as we won far more games than our overall ability would seem to have warranted. Went 8-2 in one score games - which is rather amazing in both the number of close games and the winning percentage.

However, our 2012 OL struggled, and our 2012 offense struggled a lot - in both cases particularly with respect to the previous year.
Yds per game / Yds per play
2015 = 436 / 6.57
2014 = 389 / 5.89
2013 = 406 / 6.35
2012 = 374 / 5.53
2011 = 489 / 6.80
2010 = 472 / 6.71
2009 = 428 / 6.54

Re: OL Next year - BostonCard - 01-06-2016

Probably worth dividing 2012 into Nunes and Hogan.Â The offensive line was miraculously more effective with an effective QB back there; our ypc went from 3.92 in August/September to 4.6 from November on (Hogan took over in the Colorado game, 11/3).

BC

Re: OL Next year - Rally - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 04:52 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14315.msg151575#msg151575 date=1452123439]
Yeah, 2012 stunk.Â Got stuck in the darn Rose Bowl.Â Boring.Â Face it, you can't replace great linemen like Garnett and Murphy.Â And DeCastro.Â And Martin.Â And Yankey.Â And Peat. And ?

Re: OL Next year - Extra Point - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 03:59 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:I don't think expecting a step down from a high level of play is being pessimistic, it's being realistic. The wild-eyed optimism of most sports fans regarding their own team is, to be frank, stupid. It's a great way to set yourself up for disappointment and ignores the realities of how hard it is to maintain success (and how important luck is to overall success). After every year you should expect regression to the mean, if it doesn't happen, well then that's great. But most of the time it does.

I think the mean for Stanford has risen significantly from what it was 10 years ago. With the way recruiting and coaching have been for the last seven years, I think expecting a regression to the 55% wins of the previous 40 years is pessimistic. I agree that most fans have a clear view of everything they want to see. But, to ignore positive indications of future success isn't wise either. Walt, Buddy, and Tyrone are ancient history now.

Re: OL Next year - CrazedZooChimp - 01-06-2016

(01-06-2016, 04:52 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14315.msg151575#msg151575 date=1452123439]
Yeah, 2012 stunk.Â Got stuck in the darn Rose Bowl.Â Boring.Â Face it, you can't replace great linemen like Garnett and Murphy.Â And DeCastro.Â And Martin.Â And Yankey.Â And Peat. And ?