Competition and Strategy. - Printable Version

Competition and Strategy. - 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: Competition and Strategy. (/thread-18140.html)

Pages: 1 2

Competition and Strategy. - cardcrimson - 09-14-2019

Not sure if it was planned or not, but a decade or so, Stanford seemed to put together a very viable competitive strategy.

Offensive linemen tend to be the smartest players on the field. Defensive linemen tend to be the smartest on D (per several studies--google it). Harbaugh built the program around really good linemen that could get into, and would be attracted to, a school like Stanford. We were line focused and line driven--what prospect wouldn't want to play in that scheme? After the line, he filled in the rest of the team with smart kids, with talent sure, but a lot of heart--kids that were incredibly driven (like Shayne Skov).

It worked then. And could still work now. Own the line of scrimmage. That's where the smart kids are.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 06:51 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Not sure if it was planned or not, but a decade or so, Stanford seemed to put together a very viable competitive strategy.

Offensive linemen tend to be the smartest players on the field. Defensive linemen tend to be the smartest on D (per several studies--google it). Harbaugh built the program around really good linemen that could get into, and would be attracted to, a school like Stanford. We were line focused and line driven--what prospect wouldn't want to play in that scheme? After the line, he filled in the rest of the team with smart kids, with talent sure, but a lot of heart--kids that were incredibly driven (like Shayne Skov).

It worked then. And could still work now. Own the line of scrimmage. That's where the smart kids are.

Absolutely OL play is most important to winning football. But effective OL play is very hard to achieve. I'm not sure how Harbaugh did it but he had the OL playing great at Stanford and then he did it again in his early years as 49ers coach.
Before Harbaugh did Stanford coaches such as Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham etc... produce good , effective OL play? It's very hard to do.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - Mick - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 06:51 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Not sure if it was planned or not, but a decade or so, Stanford seemed to put together a very viable competitive strategy.

Offensive linemen tend to be the smartest players on the field. Defensive linemen tend to be the smartest on D (per several studies--google it). Harbaugh built the program around really good linemen that could get into, and would be attracted to, a school like Stanford. We were line focused and line driven--what prospect wouldn't want to play in that scheme? After the line, he filled in the rest of the team with smart kids, with talent sure, but a lot of heart--kids that were incredibly driven (like Shayne Skov).

It worked then. And could still work now. Own the line of scrimmage. That's where the smart kids are.

I've been thinking about this as well. Why aren't we attracting the very best OLs? I don't quite understand it. The phenomenon is reasonably well documented:
https://benfry.com/writing/archives/147/

Here's the average Wunderlic score by position. OTs, 26; Centers, 25; QBs, 24; Guards 23:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_test#Average_score_in_the_NFL_by_position

Sports Illustrated wrote a great article on it:
https://www.si.com/vault/2003/08/11/347727/the-smartest-players-in-football-they-may-look-like-big-slow-brutes-to-the-casual-fan-but-offensive-linemen-are-proving-on-and-off-the-field-that-they-possess-uncommon-intellect

So why don't we get five Dave DeCastros a year and go ogre almost all the time? I don't get it.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - CowboyIndian - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 07:09 PM)Mick Wrote: So why don't we get five Dave DeCastros a year and go ogre almost all the time? I don't get it.

Because there aren't 5....and rarely one...DeCastros every year. We have two guys who had his HS status or better. They're injured. Not a recipe for success but it's hard to blame recruiting. Except, of course, for the NO DEPTH part. Sheesh!

RE: Competition and Strategy. - 82lsju - 09-14-2019

nfm and some more nfm to make the five character minimum.....

RE: Competition and Strategy. - BostonCard - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 07:32 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 07:09 PM)Mick Wrote: So why don't we get five Dave DeCastros a year and go ogre almost all the time? I don't get it.

Because there aren't 5....and rarely one...DeCastros every year. We have two guys who had his HS status or better. They're injured. Not a recipe for success but it's hard to blame recruiting. Except, of course, for the NO DEPTH part. Sheesh!

Exactly. It's not like we can't recruit great OLs. Not just DeCastro, but the great 2012 haul (Kyle Murphy, Andrus Peat, Josh Garnett, Graham Shuler, Brandon Fanaika, Johny Caspers) and then some great recruiting in 2017 (Sarrell, Little, and Dalman), and some good recruiting last year (Bragg, Rouse, Miller, Hornibook, and Nugent). I mean, three of those guys are playing as true frosh and did well enough.

The problem is when we whiff on linemen in between those great classes. It's like we get a bunch of OL in 2012 and we decide we don't need any more linemen. We have 85 scholarships. We should be averaging at least 8 offensive linemen in every two-year period, and we should probably have 15-18 offensive linemen an the team at a time; we currently have 12 scholarship linemen at a time, and only six who had played at least a snap before this year (3 are injured).

BC

RE: Competition and Strategy. - Mick - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 07:32 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 07:09 PM)Mick Wrote: So why don't we get five Dave DeCastros a year and go ogre almost all the time? I don't get it.

Because there aren't 5....and rarely one...DeCastros every year. We have two guys who had his HS status or better. They're injured. Not a recipe for success but it's hard to blame recruiting. Except, of course, for the NO DEPTH part. Sheesh!

All right, let me rephrase. There were 15 All-American linemen last year. Several prominent free agents as well. Listed all of them below. NONE went to Stanford. Wonderlic scores attached, when I could find them.

Nick Alligretti (KC Chiefs, 7th round pick), 42
Jonah Williams, Alabama (AFCA, AP, FWAA, TSN, WCFF, SI, USAT, CFN, ESPN, CBS, Athlon), 39 and from Folsom California.
Dru Samia, Oklahoma (SI), 35
Garrett Bradbury, NC State (AFCA, AP, FWAA, WCFF, USAT, Athlon), 35
Chuma Edoga, USC, OT, 34 Wunderlic
Max Scharping, Northern Illinois, 31 Wunderlic,
Chris Lindsrom, Boston College, 29 Wunderlic, fastest guard in class
Nate Trewyn (FA, Tampa Bay), 28
Beau Benzschawel, Wisconsin (AFCA, AP, WCFF, SI, USAT, CFN, ESPN, CBS, Athlon), 28
Oli Udoh, 27
Erik McCoy, 26
Ross Pierschbacher, Alabama (TSN), 26
Sepesitiano Pupungatoa, 26
Michael Deiter, Wisconsin (FWAA), 24

Lamont Gaillard, Georgia (CFN)
Mitch Hyatt, Clemson (AFCA, AP, FWAA, WCFF, CFN, Athlon)
Michael Jordan, Ohio State (SI, CBS)
Sam Mustipher, Notre Dame (ESPN)
Ben Powers, Oklahoma (AFCA, FWAA, TSN, WCFF, USAT, CFN)
Terrone Prescod, NC State (TSN, ESPN)
Dalton Risner, Kansas State (TSN, USAT, ESPN, CBS, Athlon)
Bunchy Stallings, Kentucky (AP)
Andrew Thomas, Georgia (SI, CBS)

Here's a list of (some) current NFL players and their Wonderlic scores, sortable by position. Lots of high scores on the OL. Few at Stanford. Why?

https://footballiqscore.com/wonderlic-score-database

RE: Competition and Strategy. - cardcrimson - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 08:20 PM)Mick Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 07:32 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 07:09 PM)Mick Wrote: So why don't we get five Dave DeCastros a year and go ogre almost all the time? I don't get it.

Because there aren't 5....and rarely one...DeCastros every year. We have two guys who had his HS status or better. They're injured. Not a recipe for success but it's hard to blame recruiting. Except, of course, for the NO DEPTH part. Sheesh!

All right, let me rephrase. There were 15 All-American linemen last year. Several prominent free agents as well. Listed all of them below. NONE went to Stanford. Wonderlic scores attached, when I could find them.

Nick Alligretti (KC Chiefs, 7th round pick), 42
Jonah Williams, Alabama (AFCA, AP, FWAA, TSN, WCFF, SI, USAT, CFN, ESPN, CBS, Athlon), 39 and from Folsom California.
Dru Samia, Oklahoma (SI), 35
Garrett Bradbury, NC State (AFCA, AP, FWAA, WCFF, USAT, Athlon), 35
Chuma Edoga, USC, OT, 34 Wunderlic
Max Scharping, Northern Illinois, 31 Wunderlic,
Chris Lindsrom, Boston College, 29 Wunderlic, fastest guard in class
Nate Trewyn (FA, Tampa Bay), 28
Beau Benzschawel, Wisconsin (AFCA, AP, WCFF, SI, USAT, CFN, ESPN, CBS, Athlon), 28
Oli Udoh, 27
Erik McCoy, 26
Ross Pierschbacher, Alabama (TSN), 26
Sepesitiano Pupungatoa, 26
Michael Deiter, Wisconsin (FWAA), 24

Lamont Gaillard, Georgia (CFN)
Mitch Hyatt, Clemson (AFCA, AP, FWAA, WCFF, CFN, Athlon)
Michael Jordan, Ohio State (SI, CBS)
Sam Mustipher, Notre Dame (ESPN)
Ben Powers, Oklahoma (AFCA, FWAA, TSN, WCFF, USAT, CFN)
Terrone Prescod, NC State (TSN, ESPN)
Dalton Risner, Kansas State (TSN, USAT, ESPN, CBS, Athlon)
Bunchy Stallings, Kentucky (AP)
Andrew Thomas, Georgia (SI, CBS)

Here's a list of (some) current NFL players and their Wonderlic scores, sortable by position. Lots of high scores on the OL. Few at Stanford. Why?

https://footballiqscore.com/wonderlic-score-database

Remember though, the Wonderlic isn't quite the same as the SAT, ACT or a high GPA. Colin Kaepernick's 37 equaled Andrew Luck's score. . . .

RE: Competition and Strategy. - CowboyIndian - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 08:20 PM)Mick Wrote: Here's a list of (some) current NFL players and their Wonderlic scores, sortable by position. Lots of high scores on the OL. Few at Stanford. Why?

https://footballiqscore.com/wonderlic-score-database

I'm sure there's not a single reason that applies to all but, as I'm sure you're aware, we require a lot more academically from our recruits and my guess is that most of these guys weren't willing to meet those requirements. At the same time I also think we can recruit harder and better.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - Mick - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 08:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Remember though, the Wonderlic isn't quite the same as the SAT, ACT or a high GPA. Colin Kaepernick's 37 equaled Andrew Luck's score. . . .

Yes, I'm aware of that, although I don't really understand your point. Kaepernick had a 4.0 in high school, though I don't know his SAT scores. Stanford didn't recruit him for football because he had a marginal junior year at QB. UNR was the only school to recruit him for football. He actually had more offers for baseball.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - cardcrimson - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 08:46 PM)Mick Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 08:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Remember though, the Wonderlic isn't quite the same as the SAT, ACT or a high GPA. Colin Kaepernick's 37 equaled Andrew Luck's score. . . .

Yes, I'm aware of that, although I don't really understand your point. Kaepernick had a 4.0 in high school, though I don't know his SAT scores. Stanford didn't recruit him for football because he had a marginal junior year at QB. UNR was the only school to recruit him for football. He actually had more offers for baseball.

Interviews. Love hearing Luck speak. Colin, not so much. Granted, not a lot to base judgements on, but Kaep never came across as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

One of the great things about Stanford football is the post game interview. Win or lose, almost all are coherent, cogent, and grammatically correct.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - yvonne - 09-14-2019

(09-14-2019, 07:00 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote:
(09-14-2019, 06:51 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Not sure if it was planned or not, but a decade or so, Stanford seemed to put together a very viable competitive strategy.

Offensive linemen tend to be the smartest players on the field. Defensive linemen tend to be the smartest on D (per several studies--google it). Harbaugh built the program around really good linemen that could get into, and would be attracted to, a school like Stanford. We were line focused and line driven--what prospect wouldn't want to play in that scheme? After the line, he filled in the rest of the team with smart kids, with talent sure, but a lot of heart--kids that were incredibly driven (like Shayne Skov).

It worked then. And could still work now. Own the line of scrimmage. That's where the smart kids are.

Absolutely OL play is most important to winning football. But effective OL play is very hard to achieve. I'm not sure how Harbaugh did it but he had the OL playing great at Stanford and then he did it again in his early years as 49ers coach.
Before Harbaugh did Stanford coaches such as Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham etc... produce good , effective OL play? It's very hard to do.

Green had the Northwest Road Warriors
Walsh had good linemen from Green, but needed a different kind of line for his offense. He had them slim down and they did well the first year.

On an unrelated note, have we had a good recruiting class since the one Solly and McCaffrey were in?

RE: Competition and Strategy. - BostonCard - 09-15-2019

Here are the recruiting rankings starting in year 2000. The average rating seems to have changed in 2002, so I wouldn't compare the Willingham years. Obviously during coaching transitions, the class make-up reflects mostly effort from the departing coach and some from the new coach, but for simplicity I listed the coach when they arrived on campus. The ratings represent signings, so folks who go on a mission count for their original class (McKee counts for 2018), and players who never came back from their mission (Taysom Hill) still count.

Year	Coach	National rank	Pac-12 (or Pac-10)	Average recruit rank	Number signed
2000	Willingham	11	1	0.761	14
2001	Willingham	14	2	0.750	17
2002	Teevens	32	6	0.838	16
2003	Teevens	26	6	0.826	21
2004	Teevens	60	11	0.827	11
2005	Harris	24	5	0.849	17
2006	Harris	63	12	0.809	16
2007	Harbaugh	51	8	0.822	19
2008	Harbaugh	47	9	0.837	16
2009	Harbaugh	21	3	0.875	23
2010	Harbaugh	25	6	0.874	24
2011	Shaw	22	4	0.878	19
2012	Shaw	7	1	0.905	22
2013	Shaw	52	11	0.878	13
2014	Shaw	13	2	0.894	19
2015	Shaw	24	5	0.870	22
2016	Shaw	16	3	0.873	23
2017	Shaw	14	2	0.926	14
2018	Shaw	40	7	0.880	15
2019	Shaw	21	4	0.882	23
2020 (to date)	Shaw	27	3	0.892	14

Conclusions?
Based on 24/7 rankings, Shaw is... not a bad recruiter. Excluding the 2011 class that was largely recruited by Harbaugh, he's had 8 full classes. He's recruited the only class since 2000 to be in the top 10 in the country, half his classes have been in the top 20. The academic juniors and seniors this year were recruited in classes ranked 16th and 14th in the country. And though 2018 was a bad year, I think what we are seeing is not the result of quality, but rather of quantity. We recruited 14 players in 2017 and 15 in 2018, which is why aside from the seniors/redshirt juniors, we don't have that many younger players.

Looking at the data, I don't see much sign that Shaw is "slowing down", but there is a lot of variability in the data. His best class, ranked #7, was his first full year (that was the 2012 class that brought us Peat, Murphy, Garnett, and co), but it was followed by the small and weak 2013 class, which was followed by another very good class. In fact, the stretch between 2014 and 2017 was all top-25 classes. 2018 was another small and poor class, and in my opinion was due to a poor response to the early signing period, but last year's class was big enough and of high enough quality (23 signees whose average recruit rank would have ranked 4th in his eight seasons). This year's class, to date, looks reasonably good, but a lot of it will depend on how it closes. It is very lopsided towards the offense, but if we close with ~6 more signees as folks who know better than I have intimated, and they are reasonable quality, the class should again rank around the middle of the Shaw tenure.

BC

(09-14-2019, 11:06 PM)yvonne Wrote: On an unrelated note, have we had a good recruiting class since the one Solly and McCaffrey were in?

By national ranking, the 2017 class with Sarrell (#2 OL; #5 overall), Little (#3 OL, #9 overall), Mills (#1 QB, #15 overall), Parkinson (#1 TE, #36 overall), Adebo (#14 CB, #110 overall) was every bit as good as the 2014 class with McCaffrey and Thomas. By average recruit ranking, in fact, it was the best class we've had since 2002, but it was a small class, so the 2014 class was ranked 1 spot higher.

BC

RE: Competition and Strategy. - slide - 09-15-2019

BC -- thanks for the 247 data (and I'd note the Rivals data is less favorable like the 2018 class being ranked 57th in the country). the composition of the classes also makes a difference too. in general, we've had too few OL, too few ILBs, too few true S and too few signees overall (again the on-going self-sanctioning bit -- 72 non walk-on scholarship players).

then you have to look at player development. I'm just not seeing the same positive player development now that we witnessed in the Harbs years

RE: Competition and Strategy. - cardcrimson - 09-15-2019

It's the total number of recruits. The last five years, we've had 93 commits (that includes PWOs, as someone pointed out in another thread). Over the same time frame, Notre Dame has had 116 commits and Alabama 125. That's 25% and 34% more than we've had, respectively. Tough to win if we don't have enough horses in the stables. And we're supposed to the Farm. . . .

RE: Competition and Strategy. - BostonCard - 09-15-2019

(09-15-2019, 07:37 AM)slide Wrote: BC -- thanks for the 247 data (and I'd note the Rivals data is less favorable like the 2018 class being ranked 57th in the country). the composition of the classes also makes a difference too. in general, we've had too few OL, too few ILBs, too few true S and too few signees overall (again the on-going self-sanctioning bit -- 72 non walk-on scholarship players).

then you have to look at player development. I'm just not seeing the same positive player development now that we witnessed in the Harbs years

Yes, that is the logical conclusion. If the quality of the players coming in hasn’t declined, but the quality of their output on the field has, then it follows that we are not developing them as well as we used to. I don’t want to call anyone out, but we have a safety who has been with the program for four years. He has been a starter for two. And yet he’s playing like a true freshman.

Compare that to, say, a guy Zach Hoffpauir. Probably not the fastest safety we’ve had (I think he was a converted linebacker). But the guy had a high motor, made smart plays, never missed a tackle, and took good lines to the ball.

BC

RE: Competition and Strategy. - winflop - 09-16-2019

(09-15-2019, 01:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 07:37 AM)slide Wrote: BC -- thanks for the 247 data (and I'd note the Rivals data is less favorable like the 2018 class being ranked 57th in the country). the composition of the classes also makes a difference too. in general, we've had too few OL, too few ILBs, too few true S and too few signees overall (again the on-going self-sanctioning bit -- 72 non walk-on scholarship players).

then you have to look at player development. I'm just not seeing the same positive player development now that we witnessed in the Harbs years

Yes, that is the logical conclusion. If the quality of the players coming in hasn’t declined, but the quality of their output on the field has, then it follows that we are not developing them as well as we used to. I don’t want to call anyone out, but we have a safety who has been with the program for four years. He has been a starter for two. And yet he’s playing like a true freshman.

Compare that to, say, a guy Zach Hoffpauir. Probably not the fastest safety we’ve had (I think he was a converted linebacker). But the guy had a high motor, made smart plays, never missed a tackle, and took good lines to the ball.

BC

Both of our safeties are undersized, converted cornerbacks. When you're undersized - whether it's safety or LB or elsewhere, you have to be in great position. Our safeties are not, either in run or pass coverage. Our best safeties have been 200+ FS and 210+ SS

RE: Competition and Strategy. - Phogge - 09-16-2019

Michael Thomas has played in the NFL for years. At Stanford he was 5 11 and 180. You don’t have to be 200-210 you just have to be football smart and aggressive.

RE: Competition and Strategy. - BostonCard - 09-16-2019

(09-16-2019, 08:13 AM)Phogge Wrote: Michael Thomas has played in the NFL for years. At Stanford he was 5 11 and 180. You don’t have to be 200-210 you just have to be football smart and aggressive.

Exactly. Plus the game generally has gotten smaller and faster. With teams moving away from power running to spread and air raid offensive schemes, there's a premium on safeties that can cover. The problem with our safeties is not that they are undersized; it's that they are slow (or play slow). They are consistently behind the receiver.

BC

RE: Competition and Strategy. - Mick - 09-16-2019

(09-16-2019, 08:13 AM)Phogge Wrote: Michael Thomas has played in the NFL for years. At Stanford he was 5 11 and 180. You don’t have to be 200-210 you just have to be football smart and aggressive.

John Lynch was 6'2" 220 lbs in the NFL. What did he weigh at Stanford?