Class of 2016 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Class of 2016 (/thread-6799.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Class of 2016 (/thread-6799.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Re: Class of 2016 - OutsiderFan - 02-04-2016
I'm really beginning to wonder about the de-commits.Â
Traded Ulloa for Pryts = could see staff preferring Pryts
Traded Edmonds for Eboh = could see staff preferring Eboh
Traded Stephens for Maddox = could see staff preferring Maddox
Traded Bisharat for Hamilton or Powell = could see staff preferring either or both to Bisharat
The only one that I couldn't see the staff willingly passing on was Long.
Not saying anything more, because this gets into a very touchy subject nobody on here has any facts about.
Re: Class of 2016 - OutsiderFan - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:13 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:Also, in re Bisharat, I am a little surprised that he wound up signing with Colorado, rather than Oregon, as most pundits had expected. I'm glad he landed on his feet elsewhere..AND that it wasn't with the Ducks. Either way, it'll be interesting watching him and Stephens the next few years. That said, I think Maddox is a solid pickup - I think he'll be a worthy successor to Remound in short yardage situations.
Oregon wanted him at LB. Ca.l said RB or LB. Colorado said RB. He signed with Colorado to play RB. Remember, Stanford said it wanted two RBs. Stanford staff may have told him on his visit they had him slated to play LB and he declined.
Re: Class of 2016 - cardfan77 - 02-04-2016
Who are the preferred walk-on guys? Is there a list out there?
Re: Class of 2016 - terry - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 06:14 AM)PalmTree link Wrote:This may be a dumb question, but here goes. - would his full-time attendance somewhere else this year affect (e.g. reduce) his four years of football eligibilty?
I don't know what Fox is doing this year. If he is attending a college or junior college as a full-time student (12 units or more), his five-year eligibility clock started running. If he is attending a college or JC less than full-time, his eligibility clock did not start. If he is doing a 5th year of high school at a prep school, his eligibility clock did not start. I assume he worked with our staff to avoid using any eligibility.
Re: Class of 2016 - AthleticsDynasty - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:13 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:I think he'll be a worthy successor to Remound in short yardage situations.
I see him as more of a Kelsey Young
Re: Class of 2016 - StanfordMatt - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 10:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Dorian Maddox a 2-star is a joke.
(02-04-2016, 12:16 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Traded Stephens for Maddox = could see staff preferring Maddox
I'm having a hard time getting on the Maddox bandwagon. I'm not a coach or a scout but his film is unspectacular to say the least. He didn't have a single offer from a Power 5 school other than us and he barely accounted for 1/3 of his high school's rushing yards last year (670/1995). His profile screams walk-on to me. Can someone help me see what I'm missing?
Re: Class of 2016 - terry - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:21 PM)cardfan77 link Wrote:Who are the preferred walk-on guys? Is there a list out there?
Stanford has revealed some of its walk-ons on Twitter, and a couple more have been mentioned in other tweets --
[tweet]695076337409593344[/tweet]
[tweet]695067797454323712[/tweet]
[tweet]695065412803768320[/tweet]
[tweet]695058835145252864[/tweet]
[tweet]695052535808135169[/tweet]
[tweet]694726758675800065[/tweet]
[tweet]695006562658574336[/tweet]
Re: Class of 2016 - Bosco - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:16 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The only one that I couldn't see the staff willingly passing on was Long.
When Long decommitted, the world was like ending before me....
Re: Class of 2016 - larkinforever - 02-04-2016
Who knows how this will turn out, but the walk-on class seems really great, too.
Re: Class of 2016 - PalmTree - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:23 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=PalmTree link=topic=9617.msg155551#msg155551 date=1454591663]
This may be a dumb question, but here goes. - would his full-time attendance somewhere else this year affect (e.g. reduce) his four years of football eligibilty?
I don't know what Fox is doing this year. If he is attending a college or junior college as a full-time student (12 units or more), his five-year eligibility clock started running. If he is attending a college or JC less than full-time, his eligibility clock did not start. If he is doing a 5th year of high school at a prep school, his eligibility clock did not start. I assume he worked with our staff to avoid using any eligibility.
[/quote]
Thanks, Terry!
Re: Class of 2016 - 82 Card - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 10:18 AM)rudruff link Wrote:Why am I not concerned that UCLA and Unbelievably Spoiled Children are ranked ahead of us?
Could it be because those other guys will not be developed by the Stanford coaching staff and are likely to under-perform like the classes before them?
Re: Class of 2016 - TrumpCard - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:16 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I'm really beginning to wonder about the de-commits.Â
Traded Ulloa for Pryts = could see staff preferring Pryts
Traded Edmonds for Eboh = could see staff preferring Eboh
Traded Stephens for Maddox = could see staff preferring Maddox
Traded Bisharat for Hamilton or Powell = could see staff preferring either or both to Bisharat
The only one that I couldn't see the staff willingly passing on was Long.
Not saying anything more, because this gets into a very touchy subject nobody on here has any facts about.
This is absurd.Â
First, if you look at the 5 year history with this staff, you'll see that the academic rejections are consistently painful, not helpful from a football perspective. For example, the staff lost a couple of coveted DL recruits in January last year. So, I am giving the coaches the benefit of the doubt that they have more integrity than the Harbaughs of the world.Â
Second, although we don't (and don't need to) know the full academic story on all of these kids, the data we have is telling. Stephens' self-reported gpa/act was not close to the admissible range. Edmonds reported that he was admitted and then that he was no longer admitted, meaning that he obviously blew his seventh semester report card. Do you have any academic data on any of the kids who didn't make it through admissions that would suggest they should have been admitted?
Third, the staff evaluated Eboh, Powell, Harrington, Segina and Maddox very early in the process and chose not to offer any of them until January. It's not as though the kids expressed no interest in Stanford for a long time and then suddenly decided that they would entertain an offer. The kids were so interested in Stanford that they took otherwise unnecessarily challenging classes in order to qualify for admission in the event that the staff ultimately decided to offer.Â
Fourth, if you just look at the ratings, film, and HS stats yourself, none of them except Eboh is comparable to the guys Stanford lost. For example, looking at Maddox's film (he does not have D1 speed), HS stats (especially considering he had two high end D1 OLs in front of him), and ratings, it should be clear as day that anyone would have preferred Stephens or Bisharat at RB.Â
Re: Class of 2016 - cardfan77 - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 12:37 PM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=cardfan77 link=topic=9617.msg155598#msg155598 date=1454613699]
Who are the preferred walk-on guys? Is there a list out there?
Stanford has revealed some of its walk-ons on Twitter, and a couple more have been mentioned in other tweets --
[tweet]695076337409593344[/tweet]
[tweet]695067797454323712[/tweet]
[tweet]695065412803768320[/tweet]
[tweet]695058835145252864[/tweet]
[tweet]695052535808135169[/tweet]
[tweet]694726758675800065[/tweet]
[tweet]695006562658574336[/tweet]
[/quote]
Thank Terry! Seems like a great walk-on class. Excited to see how these guys develop.
Re: Class of 2016 - pauloalto - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 10:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I wanted to put together a matrix of how many other top programs offered Stanford commits, but don't have the time now.Â
Fortunately for you, Outsider, I have too much time on my hands and I have some of that data:
[font=courier]
        Number of     #        #
        Offers      Stanford     Stanford
Team      In Common    Won       Lost
Oregon      5        3         2
UCLAÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3
U.SCÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3
NoDame      5        2         3
Mich      11        9         2
Ohio State    4        4         0
Penn St     8        5         3
Texas      6        3         3
Oklahoma     7        6         1
Florida St    2        1         1
Alabama     4        3         1
Ole Miss     7        5         2
Clemson     5        4         1
Georgia     5        3         2
from the 247 site.
With Robertson still uncommited.
Re: Class of 2016 - BostonCard - 02-04-2016
Can you add Texas? I know we lost one, and won at least a couple.
13-2 against Michigan/tOSU is unprecedented. As Hulk will tell you, those kids are the toughest to pull out of state. Add Penn State and (likely) Northwestern, and our record against the B1G is phenomenal.
And beating Texas for recruits is almost as hard.
BC
Re: Class of 2016 - cardcoug - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 10:19 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Also, if Demetris signs with Stanford, what would Stanford's class ranking be then?
According to 247's class calculator adding Robertson would move us ahead of ND and Tennessee, from 16 to 14. If we had landed McCulloch or held onto Long, it would move us up to #11. Netting all 3 would be good enough to just barely nudge ahead of USC for #8.
I applaud all of you who are Eagle Scouts. My own scouting adventures ended with a more ... exceptional outcome. My great grandfather became an eagle scout not too long after the rank was created, and I carry the honor of being the first of his male descendants to not follow suit. (Mine being a Mormon family, there are quite a few of us.) In fact, I never actually got out of the Webelos because I never got around to mastering the knots required to become a proper scout, even though I was still somewhat active with my troop for several years.
Re: Class of 2016 - ColoradoTree - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 01:26 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg155596#msg155596 date=1454613400]
I'm really beginning to wonder about the de-commits.Â
Traded Ulloa for Pryts = could see staff preferring Pryts
Traded Edmonds for Eboh = could see staff preferring Eboh
Traded Stephens for Maddox = could see staff preferring Maddox
Traded Bisharat for Hamilton or Powell = could see staff preferring either or both to Bisharat
The only one that I couldn't see the staff willingly passing on was Long.
Not saying anything more, because this gets into a very touchy subject nobody on here has any facts about.
This is absurd.Â
First, if you look at the 5 year history with this staff, you'll see that the academic rejections are consistently painful, not helpful from a football perspective. For example, the staff lost a couple of coveted DL recruits in January last year. So, I am giving the coaches the benefit of the doubt that they have more integrity than the Harbaughs of the world.Â
Second, although we don't (and don't need to) know the full academic story on all of these kids, the data we have is telling. Stephens' self-reported gpa/act was not close to the admissible range. Edmonds reported that he was admitted and then that he was no longer admitted, meaning that he obviously blew his seventh semester report card. Do you have any academic data on any of the kids who didn't make it through admissions that would suggest they should have been admitted?
Third, the staff evaluated Eboh, Powell, Harrington, Segina and Maddox very early in the process and chose not to offer any of them until January. It's not as though the kids expressed no interest in Stanford for a long time and then suddenly decided that they would entertain an offer. The kids were so interested in Stanford that they took otherwise unnecessarily challenging classes in order to qualify for admission in the event that the staff ultimately decided to offer.Â
Fourth, if you just look at the ratings, film, and HS stats yourself, none of them except Eboh is comparable to the guys Stanford lost. For example, looking at Maddox's film (he does not have D1 speed), HS stats (especially considering he had two high end D1 OLs in front of him), and ratings, it should be clear as day that anyone would have preferred Stephens or Bisharat at RB.
[/quote]
Fully agreed with TrumpCard, with one exception. You could reasonably prefer Pryts to Ulloa, but then again, Pryts wasn't a January offer--IIRC, he was one of the first or second waves of offers in this class, but we lost out to Penn State then and only seemed to reemerge as an option once Penn State's DC decamped for Tennessee.Â
Also, given our lack of RB depth on the coming roster, I simply cannot fathom our coaching staff deciding to revoke offers to two 4-star RBs and instead hand them to a 2-star RB who appears to have the lowest (or at least narrowest) ceiling of our 2016 signees. Bisharat seems to be telling precisely that story, however (http://www.sacbee.com/sports/high-school/joe-davidson/article58173243.html), though I cannot accept it. It feels more like a kid feeling burned by Stanford and lashing out. I mean, does Dorian Maddox even think he was preferred over Stephens or Bisharat? If we'd turned around and nabbed another 4-star RB to replace those guys, then maybe wondering would be reasonable (though I think our current staff has absolutely earned the benefit of the doubt on this, though Coach Shaw's immediate predecessor obviously isn't/wasn't above such tactics), but the only explanation on Maddox that makes sense to me is that when Stephens/Bisharat got dinged, our staff was legitimately surprised, and went down the RB list to see who was the next best option--and they had to go down that list for a little while. Heck, when Maddox committed, there were people here and elsewhere who presumed he was committing as a preferred walk-on, given his otherwise complete lack of Power 5 offers. Maddox may well outperform his recruiting profile (and I sincerely hope he does), but there's just no way the staff preferred him to Bisharat or Stephens.Â
Bottom line: I'll concede that football-wise, Pryts for Ulloa and Eboh for Edmonds are relatively even trades, though I have more faith in Coach Shaw's honor than you apparently do (I can't imagine him stringing a kid along and cutting him loose just a couple weeks before Signing Day--sorry, I just can't). But our RB depth after next year is so weak that I just can't accept that we would have voluntarily let go of Stephens/Bisharat in exchange for anybody, let alone a relatively lightly-recruited OG like Powell at a position of solid current depth. Especially since with McElwain going the prep school route and Fehoko/Kaufusi going on missions, we'll have just 23 initial counters in the incoming class. There was room for Stephens/Bisharat and Hamilton/Powell in the class. Someone might have had to delay signing a financial aid agreement until June, but there was room.Â
OutsiderFan, I think it's the "outsider" in you questioning the legitimacy of the decommitments as opposed to being impressed that we managed to shepherd so many quality Plan B options through admissions. ;)
Re: Class of 2016 - Extra Point - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 01:26 PM)82 Card link Wrote:[quote author=rudruff link=topic=9617.msg155575#msg155575 date=1454606316]
Why am I not concerned that UCLA and Unbelievably Spoiled Children are ranked ahead of us?
Could it be because those other guys will not be developed by the Stanford coaching staff and are likely to under-perform like the classes before them?
[/quote]
Some of them will fall along the wayside. U.SC and UCLA always have more attrition than Stanford.
Re: Class of 2016 - ColoradoTree - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 01:26 PM)82 Card link Wrote:[quote author=rudruff link=topic=9617.msg155575#msg155575 date=1454606316]
Why am I not concerned that UCLA and Unbelievably Spoiled Children are ranked ahead of us?
Could it be because those other guys will not be developed by the Stanford coaching staff and are likely to under-perform like the classes before them?
[/quote]
Or maybe because they're usually ranked ahead of us on Signing Day and lately, we've usually been ranked ahead of them when it counts. ;)
Re: Class of 2016 - pauloalto - 02-04-2016
(02-04-2016, 01:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Can you add Texas? I know we lost one, and won at least a couple.
I updated my earlier chart just for you, BC.
(And we were 9-2 vs. Michigan, not 13-2)