Football Recruiting Class of 2023 - 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: Football Recruiting Class of 2023 (/thread-20001.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: Football Recruiting Class of 2023 (/thread-20001.html)
RE: Class of 2023 - Goose - 07-13-2022
(07-13-2022, 01:24 PM)msqueri Wrote: Goose, you're caricaturing my argument. An important phrase in my post was "all things being equal." Obviously Luck was/is/would be attractive because he's phenomenal at football, leadership, the whole package. That is different than being "football first" or having a mentality that teams would seek if they had a clone of him who didn't share that mentality.Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My point was that NFL teams don't care whether or not you have aspirations outside of Football. They deal with all kinds of guys that have all kinds of psyches. If you ask would an NFL team prefer a guy who would play football as long as they want vs one who may not do exactly what they want, the answer is clearly yes. The examples I gave show that "Stanford Men" often do that, so the NFL has no reason to believe that "mentality" will prevent that. The archetype is staying, the "mentality" isn't part of that. I am sure that the Browns didn't think they would be parting with Baker Mayfield at this point, but he is a "Football Guy". So was the guy the Texans had to get rid of and now the Browns are looking for a "short term" fill in for. You might want to talk to Seattle about Wilson's psyche, or perhaps anybody about Rosen. The idea there is a "prototype psyche" is just not supported by facts. The "archetype" is someone who does what the owner wants for the money the owner wants to pay. There are plenty of guys who don't do that for a rainbow of reasons that have nothing to do with their education or future prospects. Consider Pat Tillman.
Quote:Totally understandable but you think NFL teams admire that or would prefer Luck to a Luck who didn't have post-football options or aspirations and would play until he was physically unable?They don't care why, and they know that having other options isn't a disqualifying attribute. Elway could have quit and played baseball.
Quote:No way. I don't think Joe Burrow and Josh Allen are more talented than Luck, but they'll probably end up with better careers. I think we're kidding ourselves if we don't think guys like those I mentioned retiring early and/or otherwise showing they're not all in on football has an impact on how at least some NFL teams think.Where I think we differ on this is that I am pretty sure it is all about talent and little else. The NFL understands that in three or four years most guys will be gone. The ones that are good enough to continue playing will do things the player considers in his own interest (demand a trade, hold out for more money, whatever). They know these things aren't predictable a-prior and depend on the situation. They know guys that are "all football" will suddenly decide they want 20 million dollars or go out and take performance enhancing drugs or get arrested for God knows what. They don't care.
Regarding Mills, yes, he was a #1 QB recruit who then missed two years due to injury and was for a time not expected to play again. It is pretty clear that would be a major consideration. The fact he had played very few games relatively speaking was also a matter of obvious concern. Yet you are arguing, if I understand it correctly, that a major factor that pushed him from the first round to the third round was the fear he might quit on them? Frankly, I was very surprised he was drafted as high as he was. As I recall he wasn't expected to go in the first round.
Andrew Luck's father played professional football. He knew the situation. He committed to Captain Comeback who was building a program and was definitely on the way up. Luck was able to negotiate what he wanted. He was going to be the leader of a new dynasty. That sounds like a "Football Guy" to me who has supreme confidence in his own ability and wants to make a difference. Exactly what a team would want. I think you also have to consider that he undoubtedly felt that he should have won the Voldemort and came back to do exactly that (among other things). Again, I see that as a "Football Guy" choice. A "more cerebral" choice would be take the money and run. Anyway, it doesn't much matter. When the Colts drafted Luck, they didn't know what his career trajectory would be and neither did he. Given the money Luck made, it didn't matter if his future aspirations were to run for President or to sit on his rear drinking beer. He could do either. The fact he might chose architecture instead is a don't care. He was gone in any case.
Quote:<had to delete. Post too long>Mostly agree with the situation but not the motivation. It was always about the "40 year decision". Playing the game was part of that, and still can be. The zeitgeist is indeed a problem. U$Cs struggles I think illustrate this. However, the other side of the coin is that if you are taking advantage of the opportunity to play football, it makes no sense to to it halfway. You can be a success without the rah-rah. Alabama, Georgia, tOSU etc. aren't about the rah-rah.
Quote:My view, which you may not agree with, is that Shaw's very essence encourages all of this. Given that these changes we're talking about are, IMHO, related to an overall zeitgeist, I view one of the biggest differentiators in college football today as the ability for coaches to navigate these shoals. That, of course, includes all of the recruiting, retention, and transfer dynamics but it also includes motivation and culture building. Many of our fans don't want to hear it, but when I listen to Saban/Day/Swinney and others, as well as their players, I get much more of the "us" vibe than I do with Stanford. There is a perception some of our fans have of factories being comprised of "mercenaries." Not so. They build inspirational, dynamic, learning/evolving football cultures. That's part of their success and part of how they can sustain it. If it were all about recruiting and winning Stanford post-2015 would have looked different.I agree David Shaw is a professional and he acts like one. He expects his players to do so as well. He also thinks its fine that his student-athletes are exactly that. I think that part of the culture is fine. He has shown that under the right conditions it can work. However, I think his personality is not one that appeals to emotion. If you need it, that has to come from elsewhere, and at present I don't see it happening. It is not that Shaw doesn't care. He just doesn't communicate that side of his personality.
As far as Saban building a dynamic, learning/evolving football culture, that is probably true in some sense, but it has nothing to do with the players. He also isn't a rah-rah guy. The difference is he has the talent that if you don't perform, you get replaced. Nothing personal, just business. No emotion needed. You may recall him calling out his second string wide receivers for not being ready to play. Sounded like a job warning to me, just like you get in a bad performance review. Swinney used to be more emotional. He has changed. He is much less that way now. I see the situation at those schools as sterile and performance oriented. I get no "us" at all and it is anything but inspirational. They are "Plug and Play", and when they aren't you have Clemson a couple of years ago. Not that this is bad. That is how successful programs ideally work. The "us" factor is too ephemeral to rely on if you expect to contend every year.
Stanford unfortunately doesn't have the luxury of "Plug and Play". That is what we aspire to have. At one point, we thought we did, but it was a finely balanced system that depended on a lot of cogs meshing and a lot of individuals that were not interchangable. We aren't there now, and we need some emotion to make up for it. So in some areas we agree, and in others we don't.
RE: Class of 2023 - Phogge - 07-13-2022
(07-13-2022, 04:03 PM)Giants Wrote:(07-13-2022, 06:11 AM)Phogge Wrote: At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.
Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.
Hey, it wasn’t that long ago. Everyone who is covered by Medicare can say it was within their lifetime. :)
Yeah but they got trounced by Iowa. How many Cal fans were alive in 1937?
RE: Class of 2023 - CardinalSagehen - 07-13-2022
(07-13-2022, 05:53 PM)Phogge Wrote:(07-13-2022, 04:03 PM)Giants Wrote:(07-13-2022, 06:11 AM)Phogge Wrote: At least “we’ll always have Pasadena” Ingrid Bergman.
Not many Cal fans alive who can say that.
Hey, it wasn’t that long ago. Everyone who is covered by Medicare can say it was within their lifetime. :)
Yeah but they got trounced by Iowa. How many Cal fans were alive in 1937?
![[Image: 0d073472-79d5-4602-9012-18c14f5a1276_text.gif]](https://y.yarn.co/0d073472-79d5-4602-9012-18c14f5a1276_text.gif)
https://y.yarn.co/0d073472-79d5-4602-9012-18c14f5a1276.mp4
RE: Class of 2023 - slide - 07-15-2022
some interesting ones on this list: What Colleges Require the COVID-19 Vaccine? | BestColleges
I noticed Duke and wondered about their hoops recruits.
RE: Class of 2023 - SamuelMcF - 07-16-2022
(07-13-2022, 05:13 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Stanford has two RBs in this class so I’m not terribly concerned, but I do note than Nolan Ray chose Maryland. Best wishes to him. Hopefully a case where Stanford decided that it had what it needed at Ray’s position and that the program can recruit a class of 20 without him.
Yep.
RE: Class of 2023 - SamuelMcF - 07-18-2022
[tweet]https://twitter.com/HunterClegg/status/1549152679795908608[/tweet]
NIIIIIIICE.
RE: Class of 2023 - newguy - 07-18-2022
sounds good to me.
and i love it when we hear it from Sam before they post it on 24/7.
RE: Class of 2023 - TrumpCard - 07-18-2022
Awesome and I hope one or two of the edge defenders Stanford has landed recently will end up gaining enough good weight to play on the interior of the DL.
RE: Class of 2023 - SamuelMcF - 07-18-2022
(07-18-2022, 03:52 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Awesome and I hope one or two of the edge defenders Stanford has landed recently will end up gaining enough good weight to play on the interior of the DL.
Clegg is LDS and will be an Edge.
Mukam is a DL and already weighs 260+.
RE: Class of 2023 - BostonCard - 07-18-2022
Any idea why his bio says WR/TE even though he is considered an edge defender? I assume he plays both in HS.
BC
RE: Class of 2023 - SamuelMcF - 07-18-2022
(07-18-2022, 03:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Any idea why his bio says WR/TE even though he is considered an edge defender? I assume he plays both in HS.
BC
The best HS football players basically always play both ways because they are good enough athletes to do so.
RE: Class of 2023 - BostonCard - 07-18-2022
Sorry, I misread his bio. It says “edge, wr, te” but I only saw “wr, te”. My bad.
BC
RE: Class of 2023 - TrumpCard - 07-18-2022
As much as I’d love to have another 4-star recruit on the field asap, I think it’s probably good for roster balance sake that he’s coming in 2025. The edge position is stacked for now, but given the college football landscape, Stanford may not have too many edge players of Clegg’s caliber by 2025.
RE: Class of 2023 - msqueri - 07-18-2022
Three dimensional analysis on Clegg:
Services: 247 composite #189 (#23 Edge), On3 consensus #217 (#30 Edge), 247 #151 (#17 Edge), On3 #42 Edge, Rivals #198 (#14 Edge, 5.8 grade, same grade as Ernest Cooper, Teva Tafiti, Wilfredo Aybar, Joey Alfieri, Blake Lueders), ESPN #153 (#21 Edge)
Offers: Stanford, BYU, Utah, Baylor, USC, Arizona, Auburn, Cal, Colorado, LSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah State, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Production: As a junior against elite competition (top ten percent of all historical Shaw recruits), Clegg had 2.9 tackles per game (11th on his team), 9 tackles for loss (first, with his older brother/Utah signee Spencer second with 4), 5 sacks (first, Spencer second with 3), and one fumble caused. That was Clegg's first varsity season as he was a 195 pound junior varsity wide receiver as a sophomore, though there are stats reported of him in one varsity game as a sophomore, getting two tackles and one sack. The game that seems to have played the biggest role in making Clegg's reputation was the Honor Bowl against California's Gardena Serra, in which he sacked current Texas QB and former 4-star Maalik Murphy twice, one of which forced a fumble (there was also a play on Murphy's highlights that made them both look good as Clegg's rush forced Murphy out of the pocket to make a downfield touchdown throw while rolling out). Clegg was less effective in the five marquee in-state games, including two games against the famously prolific Corner Canyon offense led by Ohio State whale QB Devin Brown, though the second game featured some nice run stops for Clegg. Clegg didn't do much against a Bingham line that included both a current Baylor/former 4-star OL and a current Utah State OL. One intriguing tidbit from the highlights is that Clegg also played offensive tackle and there are numerous highlights of him impressively neutralizing 4-star prospect/current BYU DL Aisea Moa, whose own highlights show much less of him victimizing Clegg. In track this spring Clegg had personal records of 11.81 in the 100m (breaking 12 seconds four times on the season) and 24.39 in 200. That's moving quite nicely at his size, akin to Blake Martinez in both events. Aside from absolute freak Peter Kalambayi and the much smaller Sean Barton, Clegg's times are the next fastest we've seen from a big athlete. I don't want to overstate it as Clegg's times are nowhere close to those speed demons and much closer to Martinez, Jacob Mangum-Farrar, and Kevin Palma, but I think notable to be reliably sub-12 at 235 pounds.
A wonderful start to the 2025 class, assuming Clegg is an LDS missionary (in a few interviews this year he said he'd make that decision in consultation with his future coaches and I'll assume he's a 2025 recruit unless told otherwise). Clegg's reputation as a recruit is as a 4-star pass rush specialist - always happy to take those - but digging in I was surprised in several respects. First, he's bigger than I thought. Second, he's got some versatility to him in terms of stances, edge rush, inside moves, etc. Third, I didn't know he starts on the offensive line as well, much less that he got the best of a 4-star DL. I'm not sure I agree with the edge pass rush specialist book on Clegg. To me the Stanford comparisons that jump out are Erik Lorig, Blake Lueders, and Aaron Armitage. I see Clegg playing up on the line a lot for Stanford. It's too early to know what kind of needs we'll have with the 2025 class and where Clegg fits in (or even what our defensive coaching and scheme looks like then) but I essentially view Clegg as the eventual replacement in the pipeline for Armitage. Good news, special place in my heart for 4-star defenders, especially ones with offers that break through the regional recruit echelon.
RE: Class of 2023 - TrumpCard - 07-22-2022
Bunch of crystal balls for Walker Lyons to Stanford, including Huffman, Angulo, and Biggins. If the predictions are correct, he's a whale of a recruit for Shaw to land, especially in this environment (NLI, conference realignment, Stanford's recent win totals). By the way, is he taking an LDS mission like Hunter Clegg? If so, and if he comes, Stanford's 2025 class is off to a heck of a start.
RE: Class of 2023 - VB Card - 07-22-2022
(07-22-2022, 02:35 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Bunch of crystal balls for Walker Lyons to Stanford, including Huffman, Angulo, and Biggins. If the predictions are correct, he's a whale of a recruit for Shaw to land, especially in this environment (NLI, conference realignment, Stanford's recent win totals). By the way, is he taking an LDS mission like Hunter Clegg? If so, and if he comes, Stanford's 2025 class is off to a heck of a start.
I believe Lyons is taking a mission as well.
RE: Class of 2023 - PVTree - 07-22-2022
Has Shaw lost any LDS commits when they return from their mission? I seem to remember losing one a while ago, but am not sure if it was Shaw or Harballs.
RE: Class of 2023 - 82lsju - 07-22-2022
(07-22-2022, 04:23 PM)PVTree Wrote: Has Shaw lost any LDS commits when they return from their mission? I seem to remember losing one a while ago, but am not sure if it was Shaw or Harballs.
Quote:The theory has always been that quarterback Taysom Hill decided during his LDS Church mission in Australia to sign with BYU and not attend the school he signed with out of high school, Stanford, because coach Jim Harbaugh left to coach the San Francisco 49ers.
...Hill said the primary reason he didn't return to Stanford had nothing to do with Harbaugh at all, or his replacement, David Shaw.
Rather, Hill said he learned on his mission that Stanford does not allow incoming freshmen to join the team until June each year. Hill returned home after two years in Australia last December, enrolled at BYU in January, and immediately received a scholarship.
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=54836737&itype=CMSID
RE: Class of 2023 - TrumpCard - 07-22-2022
We often lament that guys leave after 3 years (or sometimes 4 years), instead of staying for 5 like in the olden days. Well, one solution is to recruit players who want to attend a mission before college. Even if Clegg and Lyons end up leaving Stanford after 3 years, they'll still be 23 years old by the time they do so, and they will have played as "grown men," not 18 year-old freshmen. Stanford needs more talent on the field immediately, so I'll be disappointed if it turns out that the two top recruits in the class both are really in the class of '25, but there is a bright side.
RE: Class of 2023 - Goose - 07-22-2022
(07-22-2022, 05:43 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: We often lament that guys leave after 3 years (or sometimes 4 years), instead of staying for 5 like in the olden days. Well, one solution is to recruit players who want to attend a mission before college. Even if Clegg and Lyons end up leaving Stanford after 3 years, they'll still be 23 years old by the time they do so, and they will have played as "grown men," not 18 year-old freshmen. Stanford needs more talent on the field immediately, so I'll be disappointed if it turns out that the two top recruits in the class both are really in the class of '25, but there is a bright side.One problem with players returning from a mission is that they have not played for two years and generally have been unable to work out enough to remain anywhere close to "football shape". While they can hit it hard when they return, rapidly building up strength to play on the OL or DL can be a problem. It just takes some time no matter how much "want to" is present.