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 7th, 2016 at 1:31 AM ^
What was our signature running today play? We didn't have one. When the chips were down, our offense didn't have an identity because we couldn't block a running play consistently. Credit goes to Drevno, Harbaugh, and Fisch for creative schemes to get yards and points, but we did not have a play--run or pass--we could hang our hat on. We weren't a power running team. We weren't a zone running team or a sweep team. We counted on deception to get yards, and when everyone knew we had to run, we couldn't get yards. My hope is that next year's line can help create an identity that puts fear in defenses and sets up counters and play action for big gains. We also need improved play from our RBs.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^
If you live by a play you die by it. Denardball could drop 40 on overmatched opponents but against any defense that could defend the edge without leaving the slot uncovered, which were few but unfortunately our rivals, RichRod didn't have an answer. It looks like he still doesn't.
The problems with the offense were cyclical, which meant they were prone to misfiring on all cylinders. Solid O-line play makes a QB better; a good QB can bail out a bad O-line. Speight was fine; what he couldn't do is win games by himself. Against undersized defenses we had a squad of maulers. But several players tended to miss assignments; others were just strong enough to hold ground but not do much else. Bredeson, JBB, Hill, Poggi, Asiasi, Wheatley and Kalis have varying levels of athleticism from decent (for FBS) to freakish but were all prone to mistakes, some just because of youth but we're talking this season here. Butt was a willing but mediocre blocker, Cole and Mags were fine, Braden would kind of swing somewhere between OK and terrific. Newsome got injured :'(. We didn't have a Molk or Lewan.
So if you're Harbaugh and you NEED a first down, what do you call? Iowa got a safety on a run because Kalis busted. Speight got shaken up on a pass against Colorado because Hill busted. You can't bet on a playmaker to deliver and the ONLY guy you trust for blitz pickup is Smith. It's not that there wasn't some sort of play that utilized the players' strengths; Harbaugh has plenty. The problem is that when Michigan needed a first down, these plays got blown up because the O-line busted. It wasn't for lack of a one play they could execute consistently for want of talent; it's that some players couldn't execute anything consistently. It didn't matter what that one hypothetical play was. So in crunch time, the options were really to squander the lead slowly or squander it quickly. When the offense coughed up the ball late with a slim lead, Harbaugh went into a shell.
Stanford's 2010 stats are comparable to Michigan's because they had fewer pure athletes. What they didn't have was problems executing key plays with consistency. If Harbaugh felt he could dial up an exotic play on 2nd and 9 with the game on the line he could do it with confidence.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^
we're a play-action passing team. That means you have to run the ball up the middle occassionally to get the linebackers to commit, then you throw to Butt wide open in the vacated spaces. That worked for the most part. We had two problematic drives/quarters of football this season. You all are using that to condemn the offensive line. That's not fair. Judge someone on the totality of their contribution, not their worst day or play.
December 7th, 2016 at 6:40 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 8:03 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^
that is becasue we had a defense for the ages...
...and also an offensive coaching staff that just about maximized the producitivity on offense despite good but not great talent on offense...
December 7th, 2016 at 7:06 AM ^
I don't think it's a coincidence that in our two losses we had trouble completing passes downfield. If Speight manages to connect more consistently with our WRs in Iowa City, it would have aided our running game and we probably win. Same in Columbus, although the culprits were mainly Speight's dinged-up shoulder and incompetent/biased refs.
It's unusual that we finished second in the conference in rushing—even ahead of Wisconsin—yet we didn't have a guy in the top ten in individual rushing.
Describing our OL as "mediocre" doesn't do them justice, but one of the characteristics of truly top-notch OLs is the ability to grind out first downs on the ground in critical end-of-game situations against capable defenses when all you need is to maintain possession for a few minutes to secure victory. We weren't able to do that against MSU last year nor against Iowa and OSU this year. That's the next step the OL needs to take, and there's no reason to think Drevno and Harbaugh won't make it happen.
As far as accumulating gaudy numbers against weak opposition goes, that certainly was the case all during the first ten years of Bo's tenure here. We weren't running for 300 yds per game against OSU or in our Rose Bowls.
December 7th, 2016 at 7:52 AM ^
December 7th, 2016 at 8:43 AM ^
idea how people can come to conclusions with stats when it's not the same players etc.
stats like these are so pointless.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:39 AM ^
I see the OP edited his title to highlight stats. My original objection was not to the OP, but to the board in general that claims the line was mediocre. I think that claim is unsupported by the stats, but after much cajoling, I was able to get the board to provide some stats. To those that did, thank you. To those that said, remember that one time against Iowa or Colorado? Those are lazy arguments. As I mentioned above, I don't recall the line dropping passes, throwing behind the receivers, missing blitz pickups (RBs job,) committing running into the punter penalties, vacating running lanes for Barrett to walk through, or missing obvious PI penalties.
It might be easier to just blame the line, but in fact, it was a TEAM effort, both for the positive and the negative. I grew up on Schembechler football. Trust me, after 4 years of Hokian futility on the line, he would have loved this line.
All that said, since the OP decided to mention 'stats,' let it be know that I think his argument is week. A good argument would provide a contrast to this year's line. How many sacks did we give up? How many penalties did we commit? What was our national yardage ranking? For that matter, what was our strength of schedule compared to Stanford's? Magnus was kind enough to point out that Stanford played all of 2 top 25 teams that year. We played 5. Does that matter in the analysis?
P.S. Accounting for sacks, we actually gained 5.4 ypc. I can't find how many yards Stanford gave up in sacks, but the OP points out they only gave up 6 sacks, so I can't imagine their sack adjusted ypc is much better than 5.2 ypc. Since we did as well or better than this Stanford offense line that is something we are to aspire to - against a significantly stronger schedule - I think our line this actually pretty, pretty, good.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^
Looking to next year, we return Bredeson and hopefully Cole. Hopefully, Newsome is able to recover from that brutal injury, because he showed some real promise. We have to be excited about the possibilities of some of these 2017 recruits. In particular, I hope we can get Ruiz and Isiah Wilson. Wilson could be a starter from day 1, he looks like a grown man already.
December 7th, 2016 at 7:16 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 7th, 2016 at 7:17 PM ^
Good post FM