For Gekko - Stanford is more than just Andrew Luck
Ted Miller seems to think Stanford has some pretty good talent this season beyond Andrew Luck...
9 months ago
kirkd
26 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Ted Miller has been a far too bullish fan of Stanford for too long...
… example in point: he speaks of Chris Owusu as if he’s all world.
When healthy, Owusu is an explosive player — see 18.4 yards per catch in 2009 with five touchdowns
2009???? Owusu is a nice returner, but his numbers as a receiver aren’t any better than Devin Aguilar’s over the exact same time period … despite being the #1 guy for the #1 QB in the nation. Puhhh-lease.
Another example is Shane Skov.
What about defense?
Let’s start with Skov. Said Shaw, “Shayne is a nasty football player. He is fast, he is explosive, he has great anticipation. He’s fun to watch.”
This is the most overrated guy in the conference. Granted, he has a cool mohawk, but what has he done? For a guy as heralded as he is, he finished 13th in the Pac 10 in total tackles and 19th in solo tackles. Big plays? He had 0 interceptions, 0 QB hurries, 1 forced fumble, and a good-not-great 10 tackles for loss. Those stats are not even in the realm of dominant when compared to guys like Mason Foster, Vic Aiyewa, Sean Westgate, Paul Vassalo, Vontaze Burfict, Alex Hoffman-Ellis or Dwight Roberson. Compared to Cort Dennison, they are simply inferior. He’s good – but he’s not the second coming of Mike Singletary.
My other favorite Miller love-fest is Delano Howell.
At safety, there’s Delano Howell. While all four members of the secondary have starting experience, Howell leads the way with 23 starts. Shaw: "He’s our enforcer. Whenever we need a big hit, he’s the guy who makes it.
Delano, as a junior, had 5 intererceptions last year. that was good for second in the conference behind Cliff Harris’s 6, but only tied him with Nate Fellner and John Boyett. That’s right. Nate Fellner. The guy who may not start for us this season. In fact, you could argue with much reason that both Fellner and Boyett had not just better seasons, but DOMINANTLY better seasons that Howell. He finished behind both of them in passes defended, total tackles, solo tackles, and forced fumbles. Oh, and “the Enforcer” had 60 total tackles last year – barely cracking the top 50 in the conference … Top 50????. Truth is that he is a slow S who had his stats inflated by a very good (and now churned) Stanford D-line. He’s a weakness, not a strength.
These guys collectively are nice players, but they are hardly that much separated from the players that exist on other teams in the North.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
oh please
Gekko, please tell me you’re smarter than this, that you don’t put this much weight in individual football statistics, especially tackles.
First off, tackles are a subjective stat based on scorekeeper prerogative. Secondly, tackle numbers are dependent on a number of factors – how many plays does a defense have in which to make a tackle? Losing teams often have pretty good tackle numbers simply because their defenses are poor and allow the opposing team a lot of plays, and can’t get them off the field. Also, position plays a big role – the WIL position for example in most schemes is the spot that should get the most tackle opportunities.
Let’s look at Shayne Skov – despite missing the first two games of last season, he lead the Cardinal in tackles. And let’s keep in mind that Stanford was the 21st ranked defense in the country last year. As well, as a true Sophomore, he was voted Honorable Mention All Pac-10 by the conference coaches. But what do they know, right? Also, not sure where you’re getting your stats, but he finished with 7.5 sacks, 2 forced fumbles and 5 passes defensed on top of his team-leading tackle number.
If you are seriously suggesting he’s inferior to Cort Dennison, you need to have your head checked. He’s behind only Vontaze Burfict as a pro prospect ILB in the Pac-12.
Delano Howell a “weakness”? Yeah, again I guess the Pac-10 coaches that have voted him 2nd team All Pac-10 last year as a true Junior and Honorable Mention All Pac-10 the year before as a true Sophomore don’t know what they’re talking about, right? Delano Howell shows up as a later round draft prospect among 2012 safeties. Nate Fellner among 2013 safety prospects? Yeah, not so much. Again, you’re reading way too much into their individual stats.
Owusu? You’re really equating Aguilar’s 42 catches for 593 yards with Owusu’s 37 catches for 682 yards? Owusu had the better year in 2009, and was absolutely an “explosive” player as Miller describes him. And despite playing in 4 fewer games, Owusu had the better year last year too.
Kirkd, please tell me you are smarter than this...
… Tackles may be subjective, but production matters and the gap between Skov and the beat of the conference is too great
… I got stats from ESPN and CFBstats.com
… Nice that Stanford had a high team D, but my argument that this is attributable to their d-line and not Skov is not any less substantiate than your argument
…Owusu has a huge advantage as the clear #1 for a guy like Luck and he still hasn’t done much – that was my argument. Comparing him to Aguilar was convenient. I oils have compared him to Kearse
…what do coaches know? It’s a good question. They do tend to do really well in their coaches poll every week, don’t they? Oh, and they do tend to bias the winning teams.
…I’m didnt say Cort was better than Skov. I said that production matters and others produce as much or more than this guy, even if they don’t look as GOP with their shirt off
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 28, 2011 8:02 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Sorry for all typos, small buttons, big thumbs
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 28, 2011 8:03 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Tackles may be subjective, but production matters and the gap between Skov and the beat of the conference is too great
He was 8th in the conference in tackles per game (he missed the first two games). That isn’t a huge gap. Stanford’s defense also had among the fewest total snaps in the nation, due to the efficiency of their offense. Stanford’s D had 13% fewer snaps than their opponents. If you add 13% to Skov’s tackles per game, he’s up to second in the conference. And even missing two games, he tied for third in the conference in sacks. That’s pretty good production.
Owusu has a huge advantage as the clear #1 for a guy like Luck and he still hasn’t done much
I’m not sure where you’re getting this. Owusu has never been Luck’s primary target. Not even close. 18.4 yards per catch is definitely doing something. And you can’t discount what he does as a returner. He has over 1,500 return yards and 3 TD’s in the last year and a half. Average of close to 30 yards per return.
Oh, and they do tend to bias the winning teams.
This is true. But Howell was heralded by coaches in the conference before Stanford really broke out. The NFL likes him a lot, too. Calling him a “weakness” is disingenuous.
haha - we shall see...
… and I assure, I was quite genuine in calling Howell a weakness.
1) as for Skov, you proved my point. Even if you boil down the stats to per game or per play, its not like he somehow dramatically differentiated himself. And no one has countered the fact that his low level of forced fumbles, interceptions and tackles for loss are relevant.
2) as for Howell, the point that his production is not differentiated is still not challenged.
3) as for Owusu, he is the #1 option when he is on the field, otherwise he wouldn’t be cited as the first guy on the list when the analysts talk about Stanford receivers. To suggest he’s not is disingenuous.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
1. I showed that Skov is very productive. How is that proving your point? In 11 games, he tied for third in the conference in sacks.
2. Howell tied for second in the conference in picks. You’re far too hung up on tackle stats. You’re kind of all over the board with Howell, too.
Oh, and "the Enforcer" had 60 total tackles last year – barely cracking the top 50 in the conference … Top 50????. Truth is that he is a slow S who had his stats inflated by a very good (and now churned) Stanford D-line.
Did he have such poor stats that he didn’t differentiate himself, or did he have inflated stats that caused the coaches to vote him second team all-conference?
3. Not true. Whalen was the number one option. The three-headed monster at tight end was number two. Owusu is the big-play guy. He’s cited for that reason, not the number of catches he gets.
There’s a lot more to a game than the box score.
Sundodger...
… I noted that Howell tied for second in picks … and I noted he tied two guys who outperformed him in every other category INCLUDING tackles (but not just tackles). I also noted that one of those two guys (Fellner) may not even be a starter this year.
Please, feel free to over inflate the value of these guys all day long. I won’t subscribe to the media campaign to do so.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
The problem, really, is that you’ve gone so far over the top in bashing these guys (calling Howell a weakness, for example). Disagreeing with you isn’t over inflating their value, it’s disagreeing with you. You are trying to create a strawman.
They’re all good players. It’s bordering on a universally accepted truth. Coaches, writers, fans…Pretty much everybody but you.
I haven't gone over the top ...
… you guys have gone over the top. I called them a 8-9 win talent team that happened to only lose one after pulling out some lucky wins vs ND, UCLA and ASU. I also said that I expect them to be a 7-8 win team this year. That is still very good … just not top 5. I’m not the only one. Stewart Mandel said the same. Several journalists have called out Stanford as a team primed to decline from 2010. Ted Miller just isn’t one of them.
And, we differ on Howell. I do see him as a bottom half safety in the Pac 12.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
…after pulling out some lucky wins vs ND, UCLA and ASU.
Ya gotta love a guy that can somehow convince himself a 35-0 pasting with a dominant defensive performance is a “lucky win.” Or that a 23-point win on the road is “lucky.” Or that an offense overcoming a bad day, while the D again dominated the game, is “lucky.”
The perfect example of the over-the-top criticism.
I’ve never said Stanford is a top 5 team this year, either. 10-3 or 9-4 won’t get them that high. Or it shouldn’t, anyway.
yeah - that was a little over the top, I admit...
… but those games were not nearly as impressively played as the scores would indicate.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
again, main debatable point is this....
… Ted Miller loves to cite all of these Stanford players that he thinks are differentiated in their positions. Other than Luck and maybe Martin, are there any guys on the Stanford roster that are all that differentiated? Even just comparing the UW to Stanford:
is Skov really all that differentiated from Cort? is Howell all that differentiated from Fellner? is Owusu all that differentiated from Aguilar much less Kearse?Sure, they have advantages at QB, but we have an advantage at RB. They have an advantage at OLB, but we have the advantage at DT. They have the advantage at TE, but we have the advantage at CB. they have the advantage at C, but we have the advantage at G.
Is this team good? Sure. Is this team that special? I don’t see it. They are the flavor of the month and you guys are buying it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
… Ted Miller loves to cite all of these Stanford players that he thinks are differentiated in their positions.
No, that’s your point. Miller’s point is that Stanford has several talented players outside of Andrew Luck. And he’s right.
sure he's right ...
… but are they that much better than what anyone else has at those positions? I think not.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Howell and Skov are easily top quarter of the conference.
I wouldn’t put Owusu there, in large part because he can’t seem to stay healthy. His value is more as a returner. But he’d be in the rotation at just about every school in the conference.
haha - I thought we were up to a million? what happened???
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Ed Cunningham called Stanford a .500 team
…. If Luck was taken away. This is even harsher than my assessment. I guess I’m not the only one that see the Stanford fluff job in the media. But, hey, who cares about Ed Cunningham when you guys got Ted Miller?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 28, 2011 7:06 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
yeah - you still have Ted Miller! yay
and the cougs weren’t that far away from winning the Apple Cup.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
and the cougs weren’t that far away from winning the Apple Cup.
-Gekko Mojo 8/29/11
Wowsers. That’s one hell of a statement you just had to make in order to prop up a guy that’s critical of a hypothetical Stanford team that doesn’t have Andrew Luck as its QB. In reality, though, Andrew Luck IS the QB, so the hypothetical is meaningless
Does close somehow count in Cunningham’s assesment? He gets partial credit?
I don’t need Miller as a cohort or a source; I’ve yet to quote him in my defense. I can use the fact that 6 Cardinal players are on preseason All-American lists (Luck, Martin, DeCastro, Skov, Howell, Thomas). And by what I’ve seen with my own eyes.
I know a guy that works for Stanford. I’ll talk to him about getting you some sort of honorary diploma. Maybe then you can be a little more objective.
We really need Saturday to get here. You going to make any games this season?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
