Stats (and fuel for optimism) on Stanford's 2010 Offensive Line
Much has been said and written about how mediocre offensive line play was what held Michigan back this year, so I decided to go digging for info about Stanford's 2010 offensive line.
- Stanford's O-line starters in 2010 were LT Jonathan Martin, LG Andrew Phillips, C Chase Beeler, RG David DeCastro, and RT Derek Hall. FB Owen Marecic also often lined up as a de facto sixth offensive lineman.
- In 13 games, they allowed 6 only sacks, which was second in the nation (first was Air Force, which ran an option-heavy offense in which they rarely ever threw the ball and never ran it up the middle).
- In 13 games, they committed only 16 holding or false start penalties, which helped make Stanford the least penalized team in the Pac-10.
- Stanford had the 17th-ranked rushing offense in 2010 despite the loss of Toby Gerhart.
- Four of the five OL starters were consensus 3-star recruits per Scout, Rivals, and 247. DeCastro was a 4-star to Scout. Hall was a converted DE. Marecic was a 2-star and was recruited only as an LB.
- All but Phillips played in the NFL.
- Stanford's OL coach that year? Tim Drevno.
Rest assured my friends: we gon' be alright.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:12 PM ^
Yeah but that was Harbaugh's 4th year. I think line play will probably be on par with this year, but there's going to be too many young guys playing to be consistently good. They'll show flashes but they'll also make some major mistakes. Hope they prove me wrong, we'll see!
December 6th, 2016 at 9:39 PM ^
Onwenu and Bredeson got a ton of PT this year, so I think the freshman-to-sophomore leap will be huge for them. Kalis came in with a lot of recruiting hype but never really lived up to it and continued making freshman mistakes well into his senior year, so while I appreciate his contributions to the program, there's a real opportunity for an upgrade at the RG position next year. Mason Cole will probably return. Juwan Bushell-Beatty showed flashes of brilliance. I'm confident that we'll see plenty of improvement.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:01 PM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 9:50 AM ^
And even that is a stretch
December 7th, 2016 at 1:13 AM ^
Who makes the line calls?Isn't it usually the center? Could it be that playing a guy at center for the first time led to some of those busts? The Big 10 coaches and the media thought Kalis was good enough to be 2nd team all-big 10.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:21 AM ^
but Kalis left Iowa's best DT, who was shaded to his shoulder, without so much as a push, before going to a double team leaving Magnusen a difficult task in getting inside (which he didn't) and resulted in a safety.
Unless Magnusen was supposed to down block to give the edge (which seems unlikely since Smith looked headed for an A-gap) I think this was a major mistake. There seemed to be a lot of small mental errors like this. He seems good when he can just line up and hit, but when he is tasked with passing off defenders and such, I don't remember anything spectacular.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:03 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^
I disagree. The call was fine. It was a poor execution, most likely by Kalis. And numerous people, including OL people, agree that Kalis was at fault.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:18 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:26 PM ^
and Drevno had something to do with it. Not all of them would have made it to NFL under a different regime.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:16 PM ^
We lost 2 games by 4 points.
One game had 4 zebras with flags (and poor eye sight) helping their home town buddies to victory.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:31 PM ^
They had four unhyped recruits whom Harbaugh and Drevno turned into NFL guys, not four blue-chippers who were expected to get to the NFL from day one.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:30 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 6th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^
This is going to be interesting to watch how future UM lines compare to Stanford's.
There was great success at Stanford, but the Pac-12 as a whole doesn't play a lot of great defense. Most teams might only see a pro style team once or twice a year. B1G defenses are more equipped to stop this style of play.
On the opposite side of that, Harbaugh will be getting blue chips instead of 3 stars at UM. So I guess they cancel out? I expect similar results.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:09 PM ^
in terms of offensive approaches?
USC, Stanford, Washington State, Utah, Washington, UCLA were not spread teams at that time, right?
Can't recall what Colorado, Oregon State, ASU, Arizona were doing back in 2010.
December 7th, 2016 at 6:27 AM ^
Know what 1969, 1971, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2003, and 2006 have in common?
The entirety of the Michigan fan base in each one of those years claimed that the Pac-12 teams don't play defense. That they're soft and don't like to get hit. I've heard the same damn thing every freaking year we've gone to the Rose Bowl—it's a zombie meme that won't die.
Our offensive output in all those Rose Bowls against those weak, defense-averse Pac-12 teams?
3, 12, 6, 20, 10, 23, 14, 15, 22, 10, 14, 38, 21, 14, 18.
No wonder our record in those games is 4-11.
December 7th, 2016 at 7:36 AM ^
Conference champ to legitimize the defensive play for a conference as a whole.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:26 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:24 PM ^
I'm kinda concerned about next year for all of the recruiting related reasons you said -- they just don't have the quality, depth, or eperience to give you hope. But going into 2018 and beyond they should be fine.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:35 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:39 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:46 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 6th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:56 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:14 PM ^
Do you understand why those work? If the line is mediocre, you can play a standard defense and guard the edges. If you have a good offensive line, you have to sell out and move guys closer to the center lest you get gashed up the middle (like OSU does to teams.) When you do that, you expose your defense to end arounds and reverses. So thanks for proving my point.
December 7th, 2016 at 8:11 AM ^
It's weird that your go-to is Ohio State. They don't gash people up the middle by running iso and power. They spread teams out and run zone read options and power read options, which by definition threaten the edges at the same time.
December 7th, 2016 at 1:51 PM ^
they are my go to because they led the conference in yards per carry. In other words, I think everybody would agree they have a good offensive line for running. They were not good for pass blocking. What you are describing is a schematic advantage they have by being able to threaten the middle and the edges on the same play. They force you to play honest. Wisconsin does the same thing with the jet sweeps. We try to do that with end around action. Those aren't gimmick plays. They are counters to the run up the middle stuff. Unfortunately, we only tried that twice against OSU for 14 yards.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^
Back up your mediocre claim with some stats.
mediocre: of only moderate quality, average, middling
Rushing S&P+: #42
Adjusted Line Yards: #49
Passing down sack rate: #77
Stuff rate: #64
Opportunity rate: #80
December 7th, 2016 at 1:58 PM ^
good stuff. For more: see http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol
I notice you cherry-picked your stats and left out our above average adjusted line yards and adjusted sack rank.
December 7th, 2016 at 2:33 PM ^
"I notice you cherry-picked your stats and left out our above average adjusted line yards"
...Ummm... From my post -
"Rushing S&P+: #42
Adjusted Line Yards: #49
Passing down sack rate: #77"
Plus - we're barely "above average".
Average is 103 with a standard deviation of 12... Michigan is 106.7 - IMO, that is statistically in the middle, which is mediocre.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:44 PM ^
I was at the Pac-12 Championship Game, and it was glaringly obvious how dominant Washington's O-line was against Colorado's front. That's a pretty telling indication of how our O-line stacked up against that of other elite teams.
December 6th, 2016 at 9:49 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:03 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:19 PM ^
only 35 of which came from smoke and mirrors Chesson and McDoom end arounds, which work, again, because the defense has to sell out to protect the middle of the field. Smith ran for 7.9 yards per carry. Isaac ran for 1.9 yards per carry. Same offensive line. 2 vastly different results, but go ahead and blame the line.
Colorado gave up 145 ypg this season. We gained 168 against them. Better than average is good in my book. Below average is mediocre. So explain how you get to mediocre? Oh that's right, i forgot about your feelings.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:27 PM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 11:26 AM ^
Below average is mediocre.
Average IS mediocre, by definition.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:06 PM ^
Like you said elsewhere, in the Big Ten Michigan was second overall in yards per carry at 4.98. But against FBS teams with a winning record, they were tied for 5th with Penn State at 3.83 ypc. The best rushing teams against FBS teams with a winning record were Ohio State (4.97), Wisconsin (4.3), Minnesota (4.05) and MSU (3.89). Most of Michigan's damage on the ground (5.72 ypc) was done in their 7 games against teams with a losing record.
Speaking of which, in the Big Ten only Indiana played more teams with a non-winning record than Michigan did this season. So for all of those times you though, hey, Michigan can't do anything offensively against this semi-decent team, that's why.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:54 AM ^
We did not play 7 teams with losing records. When citing facts at least get it kind of close. We played a bunch of 6-6 teams. Cherry picking stats and calling these teams losers to sway your stats is weak sauce.
We have all sorts of advanced stats to sort this stuff out. Why don't you just uses that?
December 7th, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^
He didn't say "losing"
He siad "not with a winning record".
6-6 is neither a losing, nor a winning record.
December 7th, 2016 at 1:01 PM ^
I didn't "just uses that" because I was on my phone and didn't have quick access to it. And you don't need fancy stats to show the big difference between Michigan's performance against non-winning (aka 6-6 or less) and winning teams. Those are all from cfbstats which is a quick an handy site.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:11 PM ^
Dude. Maybe you need to relax a little. Right after you posted this, at 9:50, I Eat Burgers posted stats just above this.
It's exactly what "feelings ball" was claiming. Against better competition, UM struggled to run the ball. It's okay. This team is still a work in progress.
December 7th, 2016 at 9:43 AM ^
show me one instance where i used ALL CAPS or any exclamation points. Did my heart rate increase? Did my blood pressure go up? Or are you projecting things onto me because you know my arguments have some merit.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 10:16 PM ^
Oh, and here's some more facts since you liked to cite the 45 against Colorado (14 of which belonged to the special teams).
Scoring offense vs:
FBS winning: 29.6 (36th nationally)
FBS Non-winning: 49.1 (6th nationally)
Basically, Michigan played a lot of bad teams this season and beat the hell out of them. And in their five games against teams with a winning record, they went 3-2. Mostly because they couldn't run the ball when they needed to.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:45 PM ^
Football Outsiders has us at the 49th best offensive line, slightly above average. Respectible pass rush ratings (~30th) and much worse running stats (63rd standard down line yards, 114th passing down line yards, 80th in opportunity rate, 64th in stuff rate, and what most are alluding to 41st in power success rate).
They just weren't a championship level line this year. The good news is they were good enough to be in every game at a minimum, so any improvement (and there is a lot of room still) should get them closer to that level.