[OutsiderFan]

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...oss-to-usc

How does it make any sense to do anything other than start Little and Sarell against SDSU, if they could possibly be ready for UCLA?  Get them some game action in an OOC game before another conference opponent.  The UCLA game is a must win for Stanford if it wants to win the North.  Would rather have those youngsters with a game under their belt before the Bruins.

[OutsiderFan]

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...oss-to-usc

How does it make any sense to do anything other than start Little and Sarell against SDSU, if they could possibly be ready for UCLA?  Get them some game action in an OOC game before another conference opponent.  The UCLA game is a must win for Stanford if it wants to win the North.  Would rather have those youngsters with a game under their belt before the Bruins.

[lex24]

Depends on their readiness of course. RT is the biggest issue. Little has received a fair amount of snaps. My guess is he plays quite a bit Sat. And if he plays well, maybe he grabs the job. Sarrell I suspect will play a fair amount. But for him to start means an in-season shuffle. Somewhat tough to do. Love to hear o-lines take. But not sure he's on this board.

The main thing is you want your 5 best on the field.  So while a shuffle may be difficult, I suspect it's worth it.

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...-loss-to-U$C

How does it make any sense to do anything other than start Little and Sarell against SDSU, if they could possibly be ready for UCLA?  Get them some game action in an OOC game before another conference opponent.  The UCLA game is a must win for Stanford if it wants to win the North.  Would rather have those youngsters with a game under their belt before the Bruins.

[lex24]

Depends on their readiness of course. RT is the biggest issue. Little has received a fair amount of snaps. My guess is he plays quite a bit Sat. And if he plays well, maybe he grabs the job. Sarrell I suspect will play a fair amount. But for him to start means an in-season shuffle. Somewhat tough to do. Love to hear o-lines take. But not sure he's on this board.

The main thing is you want your 5 best on the field.  So while a shuffle may be difficult, I suspect it's worth it.

https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...-loss-to-U$C

How does it make any sense to do anything other than start Little and Sarell against SDSU, if they could possibly be ready for UCLA?  Get them some game action in an OOC game before another conference opponent.  The UCLA game is a must win for Stanford if it wants to win the North.  Would rather have those youngsters with a game under their belt before the Bruins.

[OutsiderFan]

The best 5 guys makes sense.  Who are they?

Herbig seems to be one.  Burkett is probably two because there aren't too many Centers available.  So who are the other three?  Is Bright a better RG than Fanaika, Tucker, and Wilson?

[OutsiderFan]

The best 5 guys makes sense.  Who are they?

Herbig seems to be one.  Burkett is probably two because there aren't too many Centers available.  So who are the other three?  Is Bright a better RG than Fanaika, Tucker, and Wilson?

[Redrum]

is when our OLine gets beat by good DLs,  we can point to "youth and inexperience" rather than simply being... not good enough.

[Redrum]

is when our OLine gets beat by good DLs,  we can point to "youth and inexperience" rather than simply being... not good enough.

[fullmetal]

The other benefit is that the young talent will grow up quicker.  I hope Sarell and Little got a bit of that U$C action because they need to know what they'll be up against hopefully in early December.

[fullmetal]

The other benefit is that the young talent will grow up quicker.  I hope Sarell and Little got a bit of that U$C action because they need to know what they'll be up against hopefully in early December.

[Spiny_Norman]

The depth chart is posted and shows Little moving down to 3rd team at RT with Hamilton or Hall starting.  I just heard Coach Shaw at the weekly presser say that he thought Hall played well on Saturday. I guess the coaches see things that we don't.

http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/11/depth.pdf

[Spiny_Norman]

The depth chart is posted and shows Little moving down to 3rd team at RT with Hamilton or Hall starting.  I just heard Coach Shaw at the weekly presser say that he thought Hall played well on Saturday. I guess the coaches see things that we don't.

http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/11/depth.pdf

[OutsiderFan]

To be fair, it says Hamilton OR Little.  This is pretty much the depth chart they wanted to have for the first three games I'm guessing.

And yes, the coaches see things we don't.  They also don't see things we do.

[OutsiderFan]

To be fair, it says Hamilton OR Little.  This is pretty much the depth chart they wanted to have for the first three games I'm guessing.

And yes, the coaches see things we don't.  They also don't see things we do.

[Spiny_Norman]

To be fair, it says Hamilton OR Little.  This is pretty much the depth chart they wanted to have for the first three games I'm guessing.

And yes, the coaches see things we don't.  They also don't see things we do.

OF, if we read the placement of the OR consistent with other positions, it says Hall or Hamilton will start.  If it was intended for the backup, the OR would have been placed next to Little, similar to QB (where the backup is Burns OR Costello).

[Spiny_Norman]

To be fair, it says Hamilton OR Little.  This is pretty much the depth chart they wanted to have for the first three games I'm guessing.

And yes, the coaches see things we don't.  They also don't see things we do.

OF, if we read the placement of the OR consistent with other positions, it says Hall or Hamilton will start.  If it was intended for the backup, the OR would have been placed next to Little, similar to QB (where the backup is Burns OR Costello).

[qwerty49]

The depth chart is posted and shows Little moving down to 3rd team at RT with Hamilton or Hall starting.  I just heard Coach Shaw at the weekly presser say that he thought Hall played well on Saturday. I guess the coaches see things that we don't.

http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/11/depth.pdf

Well, the coaches have the benefit of seeing a lot of different views of every play.  In real time, it did not look to me like Hall particularly distinguished himself.  Maybe some of that is bias since we only tend to notice an o-lineman when he gets beat in pass pro.

What was very nice was that in the end-zone replay of Love's opening 75-yd run, our blockers swung out in both directions like a gate to mark that hole.  I have never seen that kind of blocking before. There were literally 5 white shirts in a row marking the right side of that hole.

[qwerty49]

The depth chart is posted and shows Little moving down to 3rd team at RT with Hamilton or Hall starting.  I just heard Coach Shaw at the weekly presser say that he thought Hall played well on Saturday. I guess the coaches see things that we don't.

http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/11/depth.pdf

Well, the coaches have the benefit of seeing a lot of different views of every play.  In real time, it did not look to me like Hall particularly distinguished himself.  Maybe some of that is bias since we only tend to notice an o-lineman when he gets beat in pass pro.

What was very nice was that in the end-zone replay of Love's opening 75-yd run, our blockers swung out in both directions like a gate to mark that hole.  I have never seen that kind of blocking before. There were literally 5 white shirts in a row marking the right side of that hole.

[Stymie]

What was very nice was that in the end-zone replay of Love's opening 75-yd run, our blockers swung out in both directions like a gate to mark that hole.  I have never seen that kind of blocking before. There were literally 5 white shirts in a row marking the right side of that hole.
[/quote]

Am I completely stupid in wondering why we did not do relentless variations of that play until SC figured out a way to stop it?  BTW, "Yes" is  not a proper answer.

[Stymie]

What was very nice was that in the end-zone replay of Love's opening 75-yd run, our blockers swung out in both directions like a gate to mark that hole.  I have never seen that kind of blocking before. There were literally 5 white shirts in a row marking the right side of that hole.
[/quote]

Am I completely stupid in wondering why we did not do relentless variations of that play until SC figured out a way to stop it?  BTW, "Yes" is  not a proper answer.

[OutsiderFan]

Didn't re-watch the play in detail, but the odds are Stanford caught the defense in a bad defensive play call that was sort of lucky for Stanford.  Yes, the play was blocked well, but if it was that easy, long runs would be the rule not the exception.

[OutsiderFan]

Didn't re-watch the play in detail, but the odds are Stanford caught the defense in a bad defensive play call that was sort of lucky for Stanford.  Yes, the play was blocked well, but if it was that easy, long runs would be the rule not the exception.

[washingtonismoney]

They did try the playcall again a few times. As I recall the successful iterations got 15-20 yards as opposed to a brobdingnagian TD. Because of SC's strategy (crowd the line), think of the playcall as a running-equivalent of a play-action pass: many times with basically zero yardage followed by brobdingnagian gains. The problem is, such a high-risk/high-reward strategy can't keep up (in general) with sheer offensive domination (as SC demonstrated).

The other other problem, of course, was that SC's crowd-the-line strategy -- combined with the OL's pass-blocking deficiencies (more important) and Chryst's various flaws (less, but not un-, important) -- meant that Stanford was forced into high-risk, high-reward passes. Add it all up and you get a pretty solid offensive performance (24 points, 6.3 yards per play) but not enough to win.

Overall, Stanford's offensive performance Saturday stands up decently during the Shaw era:

2011 (OT): 56 points, 5.86 ypp
2015 (II): 41 points, 6.52 ypp
2015 (I): 31 points, 6.49 ypp
2016: 27 points, 6.52 ypp
2017: 24 points, 6.3 ypp
2012: 21 points, 6.04 ypp
2013: 17 points, 5.62 ypp
2014: 10 points, 6.07 ypp

So the 2017 performance was roughly the median offensive performance against SC. Of course if that correlates to a median Shaw offense, then that'd be a top-25 squad on that side of the ball -- which would be pretty solid, considering.

[washingtonismoney]

They did try the playcall again a few times. As I recall the successful iterations got 15-20 yards as opposed to a brobdingnagian TD. Because of SC's strategy (crowd the line), think of the playcall as a running-equivalent of a play-action pass: many times with basically zero yardage followed by brobdingnagian gains. The problem is, such a high-risk/high-reward strategy can't keep up (in general) with sheer offensive domination (as SC demonstrated).

The other other problem, of course, was that SC's crowd-the-line strategy -- combined with the OL's pass-blocking deficiencies (more important) and Chryst's various flaws (less, but not un-, important) -- meant that Stanford was forced into high-risk, high-reward passes. Add it all up and you get a pretty solid offensive performance (24 points, 6.3 yards per play) but not enough to win.

Overall, Stanford's offensive performance Saturday stands up decently during the Shaw era:

2011 (OT): 56 points, 5.86 ypp
2015 (II): 41 points, 6.52 ypp
2015 (I): 31 points, 6.49 ypp
2016: 27 points, 6.52 ypp
2017: 24 points, 6.3 ypp
2012: 21 points, 6.04 ypp
2013: 17 points, 5.62 ypp
2014: 10 points, 6.07 ypp

So the 2017 performance was roughly the median offensive performance against SC. Of course if that correlates to a median Shaw offense, then that'd be a top-25 squad on that side of the ball -- which would be pretty solid, considering.

[gocard14]

Of course ypp isn't the whole story. Normally our mean and median yardage play are probably relatively similar with a lot of moderate gains and a few bigger ones. Having a boom or bust offense can give you an average mean ypp but poor median, which means you're not maintaining possession or sustaining many drives. When faced with an opponent that is, like USC was it means we get schooled on time of possession and our defense is gassed when it counts.

There's a good reason that Shaw and co try to do to other teams pretty much exactly what USC did to us.

[gocard14]

Of course ypp isn't the whole story. Normally our mean and median yardage play are probably relatively similar with a lot of moderate gains and a few bigger ones. Having a boom or bust offense can give you an average mean ypp but poor median, which means you're not maintaining possession or sustaining many drives. When faced with an opponent that is, like USC was it means we get schooled on time of possession and our defense is gassed when it counts.

There's a good reason that Shaw and co try to do to other teams pretty much exactly what USC did to us.

[Snorlax94]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with USC. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford. If I rated last year's edge pass protection an 'F-' for a Power 5 Team, so far, this year it might be a 'D+' or better (need to see what others can do). But actually a solid improvement, and remember, this is pinpointing the Achilles' Heel of the offense. And I'd say last year's run blocking was a B and this year's looks like an A. And it's only week 2 -- of course, the team needs to improve a lot. I think most offenses, even most top-10 teams, have some dimension that is quite weak. Unfortunately, ours is just well known, but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Notre Dame) will really be able to exploit it. All teams will try, and even poor teams may get rushes and a couple of sacks, but the problem is an order of magnitude less severe than last year.

Second, even in the USC game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion. The worst way you get a sack is from an unblocked defender. And those usually happen when: 1) someone doesn't know their assignment, or 2) someone doesn't communicate well with other lineman, or 3) someone gets tricked by something like a crossing blitz or a delayed blitz, or 4) a lineman just doesn't see something coming in late, like an outside edge rush. And if anything, I'd think true frosh a year out of high school are just going to get beat worse -- much worse -- by these tricks. I don't know if people saw the post-game interview with Helton, but he was saying how Pendergast's gameplan was masterful and they were throwing their entire playbook of blitzes at Stanford. I think a less experienced line would have gotten torched even worse.

And third, from my glimpses of Little and Sarell during the Rice game, it is not like they are so dominant right now. I saw Sarell totally whiff on one of his run blocks and one of his pass blocks. Players, even with exceptional raw talent, need to really know their assignments and the scheme well to hit the right player in our running game. And they'll need good technique to be successful against elite talent in tough situations. So, I think things could be worse for a while if we throw them in too early.

All that said, I was thrilled when I saw Shaw putting Little and Sarell in the Rice game. I hope it means he's trying to get them experienced and ready as quickly as possible. If Stanford is to achieve its highest hopes for the season (still possible), they will need elite athleticism ready to be called in at the tackles by the season's end, and they will need a 2-deep ready to go, and I think/hope Shaw is working toward that goal, but doing it in a piecemeal, steady way.  Or, ideally, we will have Little and Sarell ready to contribute by the season's end if they are the best option then, but there is no need to start an inexperienced line now against SD State and UCLA. If we put them in too early and unnecessarily lose some winnable games, there may be no need for them in December and January.

[Snorlax94]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with USC. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford. If I rated last year's edge pass protection an 'F-' for a Power 5 Team, so far, this year it might be a 'D+' or better (need to see what others can do). But actually a solid improvement, and remember, this is pinpointing the Achilles' Heel of the offense. And I'd say last year's run blocking was a B and this year's looks like an A. And it's only week 2 -- of course, the team needs to improve a lot. I think most offenses, even most top-10 teams, have some dimension that is quite weak. Unfortunately, ours is just well known, but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Notre Dame) will really be able to exploit it. All teams will try, and even poor teams may get rushes and a couple of sacks, but the problem is an order of magnitude less severe than last year.

Second, even in the USC game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion. The worst way you get a sack is from an unblocked defender. And those usually happen when: 1) someone doesn't know their assignment, or 2) someone doesn't communicate well with other lineman, or 3) someone gets tricked by something like a crossing blitz or a delayed blitz, or 4) a lineman just doesn't see something coming in late, like an outside edge rush. And if anything, I'd think true frosh a year out of high school are just going to get beat worse -- much worse -- by these tricks. I don't know if people saw the post-game interview with Helton, but he was saying how Pendergast's gameplan was masterful and they were throwing their entire playbook of blitzes at Stanford. I think a less experienced line would have gotten torched even worse.

And third, from my glimpses of Little and Sarell during the Rice game, it is not like they are so dominant right now. I saw Sarell totally whiff on one of his run blocks and one of his pass blocks. Players, even with exceptional raw talent, need to really know their assignments and the scheme well to hit the right player in our running game. And they'll need good technique to be successful against elite talent in tough situations. So, I think things could be worse for a while if we throw them in too early.

All that said, I was thrilled when I saw Shaw putting Little and Sarell in the Rice game. I hope it means he's trying to get them experienced and ready as quickly as possible. If Stanford is to achieve its highest hopes for the season (still possible), they will need elite athleticism ready to be called in at the tackles by the season's end, and they will need a 2-deep ready to go, and I think/hope Shaw is working toward that goal, but doing it in a piecemeal, steady way.  Or, ideally, we will have Little and Sarell ready to contribute by the season's end if they are the best option then, but there is no need to start an inexperienced line now against SD State and UCLA. If we put them in too early and unnecessarily lose some winnable games, there may be no need for them in December and January.

[dabigv13]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with U$C. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford. If I rated last year's edge pass protection an 'F-' for a Power 5 Team, so far, this year it might be a 'D+' or better (need to see what others can do). But actually a solid improvement, and remember, this is pinpointing the Achilles' Heel of the offense. And I'd say last year's run blocking was a B and this year's looks like an A. And it's only week 2 -- of course, the team needs to improve a lot. I think most offenses, even most top-10 teams, have some dimension that is quite weak. Unfortunately, ours is just well known, but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Votre Dame) will really be able to exploit it. All teams will try, and even poor teams may get rushes and a couple of sacks, but the problem is an order of magnitude less severe than last year.

Second, even in the U$C game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion. The worst way you get a sack is from an unblocked defender. And those usually happen when: 1) someone doesn't know their assignment, or 2) someone doesn't communicate well with other lineman, or 3) someone gets tricked by something like a crossing blitz or a delayed blitz, or 4) a lineman just doesn't see something coming in late, like an outside edge rush. And if anything, I'd think true frosh a year out of high school are just going to get beat worse -- much worse -- by these tricks. I don't know if people saw the post-game interview with Helton, but he was saying how Pendergast's gameplan was masterful and they were throwing their entire playbook of blitzes at Stanford. I think a less experienced line would have gotten torched even worse.

And third, from my glimpses of Little and Sarell during the Rice game, it is not like they are so dominant right now. I saw Sarell totally whiff on one of his run blocks and one of his pass blocks. Players, even with exceptional raw talent, need to really know their assignments and the scheme well to hit the right player in our running game. And they'll need good technique to be successful against elite talent in tough situations. So, I think things could be worse for a while if we throw them in too early.

All that said, I was thrilled when I saw Shaw putting Little and Sarell in the Rice game. I hope it means he's trying to get them experienced and ready as quickly as possible. If Stanford is to achieve its highest hopes for the season (still possible), they will need elite athleticism ready to be called in at the tackles by the season's end, and they will need a 2-deep ready to go, and I think/hope Shaw is working toward that goal, but doing it in a piecemeal, steady way.  Or, ideally, we will have Little and Sarell ready to contribute by the season's end if they are the best option then, but there is no need to start an inexperienced line now against SD State and UCLA. If we put them in too early and unnecessarily lose some winnable games, there may be no need for them in December and January.

Agree with this completely. I think more than most positions, OL is difficult for a fan to judge, and I trust our coaching staff to make the right decision here.

Now, if either of them can learn how to be a DT in the next week, I say throw em in.

[dabigv13]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with U$C. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford. If I rated last year's edge pass protection an 'F-' for a Power 5 Team, so far, this year it might be a 'D+' or better (need to see what others can do). But actually a solid improvement, and remember, this is pinpointing the Achilles' Heel of the offense. And I'd say last year's run blocking was a B and this year's looks like an A. And it's only week 2 -- of course, the team needs to improve a lot. I think most offenses, even most top-10 teams, have some dimension that is quite weak. Unfortunately, ours is just well known, but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Votre Dame) will really be able to exploit it. All teams will try, and even poor teams may get rushes and a couple of sacks, but the problem is an order of magnitude less severe than last year.

Second, even in the U$C game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion. The worst way you get a sack is from an unblocked defender. And those usually happen when: 1) someone doesn't know their assignment, or 2) someone doesn't communicate well with other lineman, or 3) someone gets tricked by something like a crossing blitz or a delayed blitz, or 4) a lineman just doesn't see something coming in late, like an outside edge rush. And if anything, I'd think true frosh a year out of high school are just going to get beat worse -- much worse -- by these tricks. I don't know if people saw the post-game interview with Helton, but he was saying how Pendergast's gameplan was masterful and they were throwing their entire playbook of blitzes at Stanford. I think a less experienced line would have gotten torched even worse.

And third, from my glimpses of Little and Sarell during the Rice game, it is not like they are so dominant right now. I saw Sarell totally whiff on one of his run blocks and one of his pass blocks. Players, even with exceptional raw talent, need to really know their assignments and the scheme well to hit the right player in our running game. And they'll need good technique to be successful against elite talent in tough situations. So, I think things could be worse for a while if we throw them in too early.

All that said, I was thrilled when I saw Shaw putting Little and Sarell in the Rice game. I hope it means he's trying to get them experienced and ready as quickly as possible. If Stanford is to achieve its highest hopes for the season (still possible), they will need elite athleticism ready to be called in at the tackles by the season's end, and they will need a 2-deep ready to go, and I think/hope Shaw is working toward that goal, but doing it in a piecemeal, steady way.  Or, ideally, we will have Little and Sarell ready to contribute by the season's end if they are the best option then, but there is no need to start an inexperienced line now against SD State and UCLA. If we put them in too early and unnecessarily lose some winnable games, there may be no need for them in December and January.

Agree with this completely. I think more than most positions, OL is difficult for a fan to judge, and I trust our coaching staff to make the right decision here.

Now, if either of them can learn how to be a DT in the next week, I say throw em in.

[BostonCard]

For what it is worth, USC only had 2 sacks on 30 dropbacks, a rate of about 6.7%.  They had 3 TFL on 24 running plays, which is actually a worse ratio (12.5% of running plays went for negative yards).  I don't think CFB keeps track of hurries, but from that perspective, pass blocking wasn't atrocious.  Compare that to the 7 (if memory serves) sacks that UW had against us last year, and the improvement is more than from a F- to a D+.

We are allowing 2 sacks/game this year.  That compares to 2.6 last year.  Of course in 2009, we allowed 6 sacks.... all year!

BC

[BostonCard]

For what it is worth, USC only had 2 sacks on 30 dropbacks, a rate of about 6.7%.  They had 3 TFL on 24 running plays, which is actually a worse ratio (12.5% of running plays went for negative yards).  I don't think CFB keeps track of hurries, but from that perspective, pass blocking wasn't atrocious.  Compare that to the 7 (if memory serves) sacks that UW had against us last year, and the improvement is more than from a F- to a D+.

We are allowing 2 sacks/game this year.  That compares to 2.6 last year.  Of course in 2009, we allowed 6 sacks.... all year!

BC

[winflop]

So while a shuffle may be difficult, I suspect it's worth it.

How'd that work out last year when Shawgren switched our tackles at the start of the season?

The shuffle that's really needed is to have a full-time OL coach. Hopefully with the addition of an additional position next year we will get one.

[winflop]

So while a shuffle may be difficult, I suspect it's worth it.

How'd that work out last year when Shawgren switched our tackles at the start of the season?

The shuffle that's really needed is to have a full-time OL coach. Hopefully with the addition of an additional position next year we will get one.

[fullmetal]

I succumb to the voice of reason.  Those U$C stunts did a number on our OL.  Hope the frosh can learn from tape rather than from the experience of getting beat.

[fullmetal]

I succumb to the voice of reason.  Those U$C stunts did a number on our OL.  Hope the frosh can learn from tape rather than from the experience of getting beat.

[CTcard]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with U$C. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford.

... but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Votre Dame) will really be able to exploit it.
...
Second, even in the U$C game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion.

I agree with the gist of your post, though I would point out a few details: we only scored 24 points in the game and since we gave up only two sacks, the phrase "some of the sacks I saw came from ..." seems a little off.

Still, overall, while the OL did generally get whipped, I would say it at least shows signs of hope. And, I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that swapping in Sarrell and/or Little would make things better at the moment.

The DL, as many seem to have noted, is a much bigger concern. The only hope I see there is to not play teams that will run right at us - at least not teams that combine that with a soon to be NFL QB at the height of his game. Fortunately, there is probably only one other team on our schedule that can/will do that, though a few others that will do the run part. Interestingly, that list tends to match the teams whose DLs you expressed concern about, plus SDSU coming up.

[CTcard]

I often see people suggesting we start Little and Sarell iummediately, and IMO, that is a bad idea for now.

First, from what I can see, the O Line is greatly improved from last year. Yes, the kind of things that caused problems last year (edge rushing the tackles and pressuring our non-scrambling QBs with only 3-4) caused problems with U$C. But I would say with less severity, and with a much more elite level of defensive talent. I think very few teams have the personnel to try that gameplan against Stanford, and even then, Stanford scored 34, and that's a lot of offensive pts for Stanford.

... but if things are where I think they are, maybe only Washington and Utah (and possibly Votre Dame) will really be able to exploit it.
...
Second, even in the U$C game, some of the sacks I saw came from lack of communication or cohesion.

I agree with the gist of your post, though I would point out a few details: we only scored 24 points in the game and since we gave up only two sacks, the phrase "some of the sacks I saw came from ..." seems a little off.

Still, overall, while the OL did generally get whipped, I would say it at least shows signs of hope. And, I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that swapping in Sarrell and/or Little would make things better at the moment.

The DL, as many seem to have noted, is a much bigger concern. The only hope I see there is to not play teams that will run right at us - at least not teams that combine that with a soon to be NFL QB at the height of his game. Fortunately, there is probably only one other team on our schedule that can/will do that, though a few others that will do the run part. Interestingly, that list tends to match the teams whose DLs you expressed concern about, plus SDSU coming up.

[Snorlax94]

You're right and you're right CTCard.

First, yes, I made a typo. Stanford scored 24 USC, but I still say that's a good number of offensive points against a great defense. If a team can score 24 points against elite talent playing lights out, that is a very good offense. Especially comparing it to last year, where we scored 3 offensive points against Colorado, 6 against Washington, 8 against Notre Dame, etc., the rest coming usually from our defense, (2 safeties and a pick six in those games). But despite the typo, I think we agree.

And yes, Stanford was technically sacked only a few times vs. USC. But I am most concerned about plays where drives are killed due to a lack of pass protection. If it's 3rd and medium, and Chryst does not have time in the pocket, whether he is sacked, deflected, flushed out of the pocket for no gain, or has to throw it away our of bounds -- I would categorize those all as plays/drives killed due to a lack of pass protection. To my recollection -- and I haven't re-watched the game yet -- it seemed like almost every drive died due to a lack of protection, regardless of whether it was a sack. But, you're right, I should've said there were many instances of sacks/rushes/throwaways, instead of just sacks. But still, and I think we agree on this, a large improvement over last year. Not only is there more time and fewer mistakes up front this year, Chryst is moving around a little better, finding targets a little better, and throwing a little better, from last year.

And yes, at this point, the Washington and Notre Dame games look daunting (also Wasu). Although I do worry particularly about Utah due to its physicality and home crowd, my hope for both Utah and SDSU is that there's  a brobdingnagian difference between a physical running game balanced with a credible passing game, and one that is not. Especially vs. SDSU this weekend, when Stanford can sell out on the run game without worrying about a passing game, in the past, we've been able to stop the run, even when short-handed on the D Line (which has happened a lot due to the ongoing thinness at that position). It takes a certain type of team to really exploit this.

That's part of why my prediction vs SDSU is quite optimistic (I'm predicting a 36 pt win). But then again, I've been off by 30+ points each game this season.

[Snorlax94]

You're right and you're right CTCard.

First, yes, I made a typo. Stanford scored 24 USC, but I still say that's a good number of offensive points against a great defense. If a team can score 24 points against elite talent playing lights out, that is a very good offense. Especially comparing it to last year, where we scored 3 offensive points against Colorado, 6 against Washington, 8 against Notre Dame, etc., the rest coming usually from our defense, (2 safeties and a pick six in those games). But despite the typo, I think we agree.

And yes, Stanford was technically sacked only a few times vs. USC. But I am most concerned about plays where drives are killed due to a lack of pass protection. If it's 3rd and medium, and Chryst does not have time in the pocket, whether he is sacked, deflected, flushed out of the pocket for no gain, or has to throw it away our of bounds -- I would categorize those all as plays/drives killed due to a lack of pass protection. To my recollection -- and I haven't re-watched the game yet -- it seemed like almost every drive died due to a lack of protection, regardless of whether it was a sack. But, you're right, I should've said there were many instances of sacks/rushes/throwaways, instead of just sacks. But still, and I think we agree on this, a large improvement over last year. Not only is there more time and fewer mistakes up front this year, Chryst is moving around a little better, finding targets a little better, and throwing a little better, from last year.

And yes, at this point, the Washington and Notre Dame games look daunting (also Wasu). Although I do worry particularly about Utah due to its physicality and home crowd, my hope for both Utah and SDSU is that there's  a brobdingnagian difference between a physical running game balanced with a credible passing game, and one that is not. Especially vs. SDSU this weekend, when Stanford can sell out on the run game without worrying about a passing game, in the past, we've been able to stop the run, even when short-handed on the D Line (which has happened a lot due to the ongoing thinness at that position). It takes a certain type of team to really exploit this.

That's part of why my prediction vs SDSU is quite optimistic (I'm predicting a 36 pt win). But then again, I've been off by 30+ points each game this season.