[CowboyIndian]

Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at Bear Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros. This thread covers everything from systemic Stanford coddling and suburban vs. urban culture to the always-popular PEDs. Enjoy.

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...ure-In-NFL

[CowboyIndian]

Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at Bear Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros. This thread covers everything from systemic Stanford coddling and suburban vs. urban culture to the always-popular PEDs. Enjoy.

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...ure-In-NFL

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

So the premise of that thread is that Stanford players juice.  Yawn, how original.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

So the premise of that thread is that Stanford players juice.  Yawn, how original.

[stupac2]

Did he completely miss last year's draft and the resulting rookie years? Not that Peat was doing amazingly (I've heard that NO was disappointed, but growing pains for rookies aren't exactly uncommon), but he's clearly rosterable since he's on a roster. Same for Perry and Anderson, although it sounded like the Colts were pretty impressed with both of them.

Anyway, I think it's a pretty good result for a program to produce one of the best guards in the NFL, a promising young tackle, and a handful of guys who continue to make rosters while not being stars. Essentially no program continuously produces NFL stars at the same position, Alabama's really the only team doing it right now (and even they probably have more misses than hits). What a weird thing to even look at...

[stupac2]

Did he completely miss last year's draft and the resulting rookie years? Not that Peat was doing amazingly (I've heard that NO was disappointed, but growing pains for rookies aren't exactly uncommon), but he's clearly rosterable since he's on a roster. Same for Perry and Anderson, although it sounded like the Colts were pretty impressed with both of them.

Anyway, I think it's a pretty good result for a program to produce one of the best guards in the NFL, a promising young tackle, and a handful of guys who continue to make rosters while not being stars. Essentially no program continuously produces NFL stars at the same position, Alabama's really the only team doing it right now (and even they probably have more misses than hits). What a weird thing to even look at...

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think they're all missing the obvious: Stanford has a system in place that gets the absolute most out of its players.  The OP of that thread even noted that Stanford gets lots of 3* recruits and gets them to overachieve.  The obvious conclusion, then, is that the players Stanford recruits typically are good enough to succeed in college (with the right coaching) but perhaps aren't usually good enough to succeed in the NFL.  This isn't some sort of proof of PEDs, it's just proof that the Stanford staff is elite.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think they're all missing the obvious: Stanford has a system in place that gets the absolute most out of its players.  The OP of that thread even noted that Stanford gets lots of 3* recruits and gets them to overachieve.  The obvious conclusion, then, is that the players Stanford recruits typically are good enough to succeed in college (with the right coaching) but perhaps aren't usually good enough to succeed in the NFL.  This isn't some sort of proof of PEDs, it's just proof that the Stanford staff is elite.

[washingtonismoney]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

[washingtonismoney]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

Until recently, Stanford's recruiting classes weren't necessarily replete with stud athletes.  They are good enough football players to be coached and schemed into outstanding college players, but when they leave the Farm they haven't necessarily had the requisite raw athleticism to succeed in the NFL.  That's my read anyway.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

Until recently, Stanford's recruiting classes weren't necessarily replete with stud athletes.  They are good enough football players to be coached and schemed into outstanding college players, but when they leave the Farm they haven't necessarily had the requisite raw athleticism to succeed in the NFL.  That's my read anyway.

[terry]

Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at 59er Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros.

What about All Pro guard David DeCastro?

[terry]

Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at 59er Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros.

What about All Pro guard David DeCastro?

[stupac2]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

If someone has time they could look through the past N all-conference lists and compare the draft position of the players listed based on the school. Could be elucidating. I definitely don't know enough about other teams' rosters to have a solid idea of whether this is something unique to us or fairly common.

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=14621.msg156761#msg156761 date=1455822288]
Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at 59er Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros.

What about All Pro guard David DeCastro?
[/quote]

The article grants DeCastro as an "impact player", but claims he's our only one (of the "big men", because clearly there are more impact Stanford players than that).

[stupac2]

Also strange (well, assuming the author wanted to do an honest job) is that the author doesn't take into account draft position. Shayne Skov, for example, is "not rosterable" -- but then again, why would you expect an undrafted player to be rosterable?

The really interesting thing then, from my perspective, is why Stanford seems to have so many great players that the NFL is rather cool on. Maybe other teams have fewer great players who fit this description, but my casual impression is no.

If someone has time they could look through the past N all-conference lists and compare the draft position of the players listed based on the school. Could be elucidating. I definitely don't know enough about other teams' rosters to have a solid idea of whether this is something unique to us or fairly common.

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=14621.msg156761#msg156761 date=1455822288]
Amuse yourselves with the ongoing envious and insecure wing-flapping over at 59er Insider regarding our big men...and how they mysteriously are never able to continue their dominance in the pros.

What about All Pro guard David DeCastro?
[/quote]

The article grants DeCastro as an "impact player", but claims he's our only one (of the "big men", because clearly there are more impact Stanford players than that).

[stupac2]

An ESPN article today about Garnett has a bit of a different take:

[Garnett] sounds a lot like David DeCastro did a few years back. And David Yankey. And Cameron Fleming. And Jonathan Martin and Andrus Peat. Stanford’s O-line pipeline to the NFL has been flourishing. Garnett and teammate Kyle Murphy are the latest to go pro.

Obviously, talent has a lot to do with that (take Garnett, whose father, Scott Garnett, played four seasons in the NFL). But so does Stanford’s scheme. NFL coaches and general managers appreciate offensive linemen who don’t have to be retrained. A lot of spread linemen will spend the majority of their careers with their hand off the ground. But Stanford’s pro-style has been a selling point.

[stupac2]

An ESPN article today about Garnett has a bit of a different take:

[Garnett] sounds a lot like David DeCastro did a few years back. And David Yankey. And Cameron Fleming. And Jonathan Martin and Andrus Peat. Stanford’s O-line pipeline to the NFL has been flourishing. Garnett and teammate Kyle Murphy are the latest to go pro.

Obviously, talent has a lot to do with that (take Garnett, whose father, Scott Garnett, played four seasons in the NFL). But so does Stanford’s scheme. NFL coaches and general managers appreciate offensive linemen who don’t have to be retrained. A lot of spread linemen will spend the majority of their careers with their hand off the ground. But Stanford’s pro-style has been a selling point.

[CTcard]

Some thoughts during slow football time.

First of all, I give congrats to dajo9 who came up with the analysis that got this thread moving. 
A big part of college sports fandom is ridiculing your rival. It's tough times to be a weenie.
Stanford just bounced back from a localized downturn of an 8-5 (5-4) season (six year low) to win their third conference title in four years and fifth BCS/CFP bowl game in six (all 11+ win seasons). All the while Stanford has been getting excellent press for a GSR rate of 99%, several almost-Heistman Trophy winners, promising recruiting, and coaches who want to stay.
c.a.l. meanwhile just finished what looks to be a localized high point of an 8-5 (4-5) season (a six year high), lots of bad press for hideous academic performance of the football team, a coach trying to get out but can't get another job, are staring at a dismal 2016 season with all their offense departed, and an even murkier future as the football team apparently now has to try to recruit players who got at least a 3.0 in HS (and face the fact that this is actually a new bar).
Keeping up pretenses under those conditions takes fortitude.


That said, the particular analysis is ... not brilliant.

The primary thing you see here is random variation in small-size samples. The numbers simply aren't enough to be indicative of anything. If the numbers were reliable, there is still no evaluation of what ought to be expected: across the Power Five conferences, what percentage of all-conference linemen (or linemen overall) become NFL starters, stick around on rosters, etc.

Next his counting of Stanford players is highly selective, but I chalk that up to the general idea of trying to ridicule your rival. So, counting linebackers as big guys but not tight ends isn't necessarily sticking to any meaningful definition of "big" - but clearly this sort of analysis wants no part of Stanford TEs. Restricting the list to all-conference players and ending in 2013 leaves out several guys who are at least on rosters: Matt Masifilo, Josh Mauro, AJ Tarpley, James Vaughters, Andrus Peat, Henry Anderson, David Parry ... and anyone I am forgetting.

The assumption that all-conference is a meaningful evaluation of linemen is clearly bogus. All-conference teams can have reasonable evaluations of skill position players, but your average writer neither watches the line enough nor has the ability to judge individual linemen performances. The all-conference linemen (particularly OL) are typically the more well known players on the better teams - particularly with better run games. If they want to complain (and clearly they do) then they could focus on the fact that it tends to be much tougher for a c.a.l. OL to make all-conference than a Stanford OL. However, that also would mean the c.a.l. all-conference linemen are likely individually better than some of those from Stanford. 

-------------EDIT------------
I messed up. Coaches vote for the Pac-12 all conference team. That clearly negates much of the paragraph above. However, I have wondered about some all-conference selections. It will take further reflection to determine if I need to dump those questions or not.
---------------------------------

To their credit, the general c.a.l.-fan response cannot quite figure out if this result is something to ridicule (the rivalry response) or laud (the more logical response). I didn't see that any of them have questioned whether it is meaningful (the most logical response).

[CTcard]

Some thoughts during slow football time.

First of all, I give congrats to dajo9 who came up with the analysis that got this thread moving. 
A big part of college sports fandom is ridiculing your rival. It's tough times to be a weenie.
Stanford just bounced back from a localized downturn of an 8-5 (5-4) season (six year low) to win their third conference title in four years and fifth BCS/CFP bowl game in six (all 11+ win seasons). All the while Stanford has been getting excellent press for a GSR rate of 99%, several almost-Heistman Trophy winners, promising recruiting, and coaches who want to stay.
c.a.l. meanwhile just finished what looks to be a localized high point of an 8-5 (4-5) season (a six year high), lots of bad press for hideous academic performance of the football team, a coach trying to get out but can't get another job, are staring at a dismal 2016 season with all their offense departed, and an even murkier future as the football team apparently now has to try to recruit players who got at least a 3.0 in HS (and face the fact that this is actually a new bar).
Keeping up pretenses under those conditions takes fortitude.


That said, the particular analysis is ... not brilliant.

The primary thing you see here is random variation in small-size samples. The numbers simply aren't enough to be indicative of anything. If the numbers were reliable, there is still no evaluation of what ought to be expected: across the Power Five conferences, what percentage of all-conference linemen (or linemen overall) become NFL starters, stick around on rosters, etc.

Next his counting of Stanford players is highly selective, but I chalk that up to the general idea of trying to ridicule your rival. So, counting linebackers as big guys but not tight ends isn't necessarily sticking to any meaningful definition of "big" - but clearly this sort of analysis wants no part of Stanford TEs. Restricting the list to all-conference players and ending in 2013 leaves out several guys who are at least on rosters: Matt Masifilo, Josh Mauro, AJ Tarpley, James Vaughters, Andrus Peat, Henry Anderson, David Parry ... and anyone I am forgetting.

The assumption that all-conference is a meaningful evaluation of linemen is clearly bogus. All-conference teams can have reasonable evaluations of skill position players, but your average writer neither watches the line enough nor has the ability to judge individual linemen performances. The all-conference linemen (particularly OL) are typically the more well known players on the better teams - particularly with better run games. If they want to complain (and clearly they do) then they could focus on the fact that it tends to be much tougher for a c.a.l. OL to make all-conference than a Stanford OL. However, that also would mean the c.a.l. all-conference linemen are likely individually better than some of those from Stanford. 

-------------EDIT------------
I messed up. Coaches vote for the Pac-12 all conference team. That clearly negates much of the paragraph above. However, I have wondered about some all-conference selections. It will take further reflection to determine if I need to dump those questions or not.
---------------------------------

To their credit, the general c.a.l.-fan response cannot quite figure out if this result is something to ridicule (the rivalry response) or laud (the more logical response). I didn't see that any of them have questioned whether it is meaningful (the most logical response).

[washingtonismoney]

Don't coaches vote for the Pac-12 teams?

[washingtonismoney]

Don't coaches vote for the Pac-12 teams?

[CTcard]

Don't coaches vote for the Pac-12 teams?

Whoops.

[CTcard]

Don't coaches vote for the Pac-12 teams?

Whoops.

[fullmetal]

I think it says everything in the world when the 1959ers are ridiculing and sniping at Stanford players in the NFL when we're over here admiring Marshawn Lynch's financial discipline and his willingness to be open.

Chong: I was a new water boy, and I saw him walking across campus. I didn't stop to talk to him. We kind of nodded to each other in acknowledgement. That same afternoon, I went to work with the team and Marshawn was in the training room. He sees me and he comes over and immediately starts giving me all this [teasing]. He's just playing with me, saying, "How come you didn't say 'Hi' to me? I know you saw me." And I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't know if you knew who I was." And he said, "Next time, say hi to me." That's what I remember. He wasn't going to ignore you because you were a lowly water boy. He went out of his way to recognize people. He didn't think of himself as superior.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...t-ride-cal

[fullmetal]

I think it says everything in the world when the 1959ers are ridiculing and sniping at Stanford players in the NFL when we're over here admiring Marshawn Lynch's financial discipline and his willingness to be open.

Chong: I was a new water boy, and I saw him walking across campus. I didn't stop to talk to him. We kind of nodded to each other in acknowledgement. That same afternoon, I went to work with the team and Marshawn was in the training room. He sees me and he comes over and immediately starts giving me all this [teasing]. He's just playing with me, saying, "How come you didn't say 'Hi' to me? I know you saw me." And I said, "I'm sorry, I didn't know if you knew who I was." And he said, "Next time, say hi to me." That's what I remember. He wasn't going to ignore you because you were a lowly water boy. He went out of his way to recognize people. He didn't think of himself as superior.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...t-ride-cal