TheBootleg.com®
Posts of the Week
Each week, we will highlight a few entertaining
and/or informative posts from the previous week. Please keep in
mind that it is hard to keep track/prioritize all posts so we
would welcome input from all Booties. You can make a "Bootie
Selection" post as a response to any post that you deem
worthy or you can email a link (to the nominated post) to me at lars@thebootleg.com.
Below are the posts that made this week's list:
Poster: Genuine Realist
Subject: A Domestic Scene
Date: 8/24/01
| |
Scene: the living room of the Younger Hulk domicile.
Gathered are Younger Hulk, his Sturdy Dad, and Gorgeous
Mom.
YH: "Now, we're all agreed. We flip the coin and
that decides it. Right ?"
GM: "Right."
SD: "Yes."
A pause.
YH: "Heads its Paradise, tails it's the Tar Pits.
Right ?"
SD and GM: "Right."
A long , silent, dramatic, karmatic (sic) pause.
YH: "So now I'm going to flip this sucker and decide
my future."
Another longer, silent pause. This is a momentous - er -
moment.
SD: "Flip that sucker, son, and find out."
YH: "Ok. Here goes." Up goes the coin (a silver
dollar, natch), flipping, turning, spirlaing, and
finally. . . . . descending. Kerplunk on the carpet. YH
runs over and looks at the coin.
YH: "It's tails! It's tails! Yippeee, it's tails!
It's the Tarpits ! Beautiful babes and hedonistic,
irresponsible lifestyle, here I come! Say, what was the
name of that linebacker who used to eat glass?"
Suddenly YH notices that SD and GM are not celebrating
with him - in fact, looking somewhat grim and determined.
The longest, most dramatic silence yet ensues.
SD (finally breaking the silence): "Flip the goddam
coin again."
Fade to black.
|
Poster: terry
Subject: The real facts and figures about redshirting
Date: 8/25/01
| |
Several points regarding
redshirting:
First, there clearly is an advantage in having 5th year
players. Players in their 5th year have had an extra year
of practice, an extra year in the program, an extra year
of learning the system, an extra year of weight-lifting
and conditioning, an extra year of physical maturity.
Players get bigger, faster, stronger, and better during
their college careers. For most players who stay for a
5th year, their 5th year is their best year. All other
things being equal, you have to admit that you would
rather have a more experienced, more physically mature
player. Willingham has had three recruiting classes that
worked their way through the system. Here are the
scholarship players who have returned for 5th years:
1999:
WR Troy Walters -- Starter, consensus All American
C Mike McLaughlin -- Starter, All Pac 10
LT Jeff Cronshagen -- Starter, All Pac 10
NT Andrew Currie -- Starter, Hon. mention All Pac 10
SS Tim Smith -- Starter, Hon. mention All Pac 10
LB Marc Stockbauer -- Starter, Hon. mention All Pac 10
LB Sharcus Steen -- Starter
CB Frank Primus -- Starter
CB Chris Johnson -- Starter/nickel back
G Joe Fairchild -- key reserve
2000:
WR DeRonnie Pitts -- Starter, All Pac 10
DT Willie Howard -- Starter, All Pac 10
LB Riall Johnson -- Starter, All Pac 10
TE Russell Stewart -- Starter
DE Sam Benner -- Starter
SS Aaron Focht -- Starter
FB Byron Glaspie -- reserve
2001:
QB Randy Fasani -- Starter
G Zack Quaccia -- Starter
CB Ruben Carter -- Starter
SS Simba Hodari -- Starter
LB Coy Wire -- Starter
LB Anthony Gabriel -- Starter
LB Matt Friedrichs -- Starter
DE Marcus Hoover -- Starter
DE Austin Lee -- Starter
K Mike Biselli -- Starter
WR Jamien McCullum -- key reserve
TE Matt Wright -- key reserve
DT Travis Pfeifer -- key reserve
Under Willingham, the 5th year players have been real
contributors. Most 5th year players have been starters. A
few have been key reserves. Players who are not
contributing haven't returned for a 5th year. Stanford
has not had 5th year players who were just taking up
space and occupying a scholarship that could have been
given to a new recruit. You say that the best 5 or 6
freshmen who redshirt clearly are better than the worst 5
or 6 5th year seniors. Oh, really? Then name some names.
Tell me which freshmen in each of those three years
should have played instead of these 5th year seniors.
Then, explain why the coaches were so stupid that they
couldn't figure this out.
Second, if a freshman is good enough to play, then he
plays. The guys who redshirt are the ones who wouldn't
have received significant playing time in any event.
There's little cost to redshirting somebody who wouldn't
play anyway. Who do you think should have played as a
true freshman, but was redshirted instead? I can't think
of anyone. And it's ridiculous to say that you don't know
unless you play them. Coaches always make judgments about
who should play based on practices, for freshmen or
anyone else. If a player earns the chance to play, he
will play. You say Elway and Nelson were good enough to
play as freshmen. Sure they were. But if we had an Elway
or Nelson today, he would play -- just like Tank
Williams, Eric Heitmann, Kerry Carter, Kwame Harris, etc.
Third, you say that redshirting gives Stanford has fewer
slots available for recruiting. Your assumption seems to
be that every player who redshirts reduces Stanford's
number of available scholarships by one. That's wrong.
Stanford's number of available scholarships is reduced
only if a player returns for a 5th year. If a player
redshirts but still only stays for four years, there is
no reduction in the number of scholarships. Here's the
math of redshirting: Stanford has had an average of 10
5th year players each year in the Willingham era (see
above). Stanford therefore can recruit an average of
18.75 players each year. If nobody ever returned for a
5th year, Stanford could recruit an average of 21.25
players each year. (In both cases, these numbers assume
there is no attrition due to injury, etc. Actual numbers
will be a little higher, because there is always some
attrition.) So the effect of Willingham's redshirting is
this: Stanford gets 10 5th year seniors each year, but
signs about 2.5 fewer recruits each year than it could
sign if nobody ever redshirted. It's impossible to know
how good those 2.5 extra players would have been. But
when I look at the last few recruiting classes, I'm not
seeing 2 or 3 players each year who we are turning away,
but who we wish we had. Until we are turning away
high-quality players each year, I'll take the known
advantage of having 10 5th year seniors rather than the
possible advantage of another 2.5 "Plan B"
recruits per year. You say this thread about current
recruiting efforts is "evidence enough" that we
don't have enough scholarships due to redshirting. That's
ridiculous. Stanford isn't close to running out of
scholarships -- in case you haven't noticed, we haven't
signed anyone at all. How can you possibly claim that we
don't have enough scholarships this year? |
Poster: Original East Coast Fan
Subject: No Free Lunch
Date: 8/25/01
| |
Terry's posts are usually quite
thoughtful. This one (see below) is, but he really
doesn't acknowledge the many costs of redshirting. Let's
list a few:
Fewer scholarships. Terry does the math. He is right the
number of reductions depends on the number of 5th yr
seniors. The more you have, the fewer scholarships. To me
this is probably the biggest factor against red shirting.
We will never know who we have lost. Remember that TW's
largest class by far was his first one because Walsh did
little redsiriting and held back scholarships to boot.
Who was the last player offered that year? Troy Walters.
We never offered Billy Silva (sp?) alto he had the grades
and interest in LSJU. He is now all Big 10. Would he have
been that player? Jeff Roehl? A second-string OL?
Inability to get injury redshirt year. Once you take a
volunatry redshirt year, you can't get another. This is
why Tim Smith played only three years. The reason Darin
Nelson played four years is that he wasn't redshirted as
a true freshman so he could take a year off to recover
from an inquiry.
Best players on the field. Terry says TW always plays the
best player, even if he is a true freshman. I wonder. Do
you really think Mark Sanders was better than Ruben
Carter (Carter's true freshman year)? If so, we are going
to have some real problems this year.
Recruiting. LW takes care of. Some players want to play
as true freshmen. An extreme redshirting policy hurts us
with these guys.
Not around for five years. TW redshirted Joe Borchard and
of course he was never around for five years. Not around
for four years either. I think the pressure for good
players to leave after four years will be intense. See
Jason Collins. The possiblity of an injury the fifth year
is too great.
Less development. There is nothing like game experience.
I think you would agree that a player who plays develops
more than one who doesn't. If a guy is only going to be
around for four years, say Eddie Gayles, perhaps he would
have been a little better if he had played his first
year.
The flow. To me, this is the biggest argument against
redshirting. Most recruits come in after a stellar HS
career. They have played most fall weekends for four
years. They are pumped and ready to go. And what happens?
They never get into a game because they are redshirted.
They don't practice with the first or second team. Scott
Frost talked publicly about his frustration with the
level of practice at Stanford, albeit under Walsh. So
under TW, the players are largeley a non-factor their
first year, the quasi-mandatory redshirt. Then few start
their second year (see depth chart). They get out of
flow, other things become important. I know this happens
to an extent at any school, but Stanford is extreme.
These, there are some major costs to redshirting. I
believe that these, esp the limit of 85 scholarships,
explains why the incidence of redshirting has gone down
significantly. I recognize the benefits to redshirting,
which Terry does a nice job of documenting. If I were the
coach, I certainly would redshirt a fair number of
players. OL and QB being at the top of the list.
But the point remains, even though TW has loosen-up
somewhat on redshirting, Stanford, I maintain, has the
most extreme redshirting policy in the country.
Three possibilities: TW knows something 109 other Div I
coaches don't know; 109 Div I coaches know something that
TW doesn't know, or Stanford is different. I know that
Terry and others will opt for the three option, but I
wonder.
In short, there are costs and benefits to redshirting.
I'm glad that TW has over time played more true freshmen.
I hope that the trend continues. |
Poster: Mike McLaughlin
Subject: Re: Hey, Mike
Date: 8/26/01
| |
Basically, a zone play is where
the linemen don't really block a specific guy on a play,
the block a path, or "zone". Usually this
involves 2 things. One, the lineman will sort of take a
drop step and then turn at a 45 degree angle to the side
the ball is going to, and then start to push and turn the
defensive linemen. Any lineman that is free will try to
go up to the line backers and throw at their legs,
hopefully knocking them down, but at least slow them up.
The RB has several options on these plays. As soon as the
ball is snapped, he starts running to a pre-determined
point, usually right off the outside of the tackle. The
QB usually has to spin and run to get him the ball, but
you can also pitch it to the RB. Once the RB has the
ball, he can go several ways, depending on what certain
DL of LB's do. Because the linemen are all (hopefully)
blocking kind of like they are on train tracks at a 45
degree angle to the LOS (line of scrimage) the RB will be
able to get around the tackle and get outside. He can
turn it up any hole he sees though.
Zone blocking and running was a huge thing for NFL teams
that had small linemen. I believe, but I could be wrong,
that the Redskins started this back in the early 80's.
That's why you see teams such as OSU using it, they using
don't have huge linemen. We use it because it is a great
play. Our linemen (Quaccia, Heitman), are nimble enough
to make the play work. Plus, we've always had a speedster
in the backfield (Remeber all the plays with Bookman?
Most of his long TD's were because of Zone plays). Hope
that explains everything... |
|