The CardBoard
Class of 2015 - 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 2015 (/thread-5157.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

Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 11-21-2014

Shaw now has 11 in the class.  One is leaving for a mission, but Barton is returning from one.  If you take the statement at face value that Stanford will take 17-18 in this class, then you can make a very good guess as to who Shaw wants to fill those spots.  Wilkins, Irwin, Buncom, Edwards, Scarlett, Love and Meeks are the 4-star recruits left on the board who are reported to have serious Stanford interest.  There are some others, like Green, Warren, and St. Brown who seem unlikely.  With that in mind, I have to wonder whether the reported offers to Donelly, Saint-Amour, Brinson, Maihen, Reid, and Reid are all real and unconditional.  Maybe Shaw assumes that the elite RB or DB ranks will thin out so that he'll have a spot for an extra lineman, but there still are a lot of offers to have out to guys who aren't necessarily Plan A.  Any thoughts on this?

Re: Class of 2015 - CTcard - 11-21-2014

(11-21-2014, 04:11 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Shaw now has 11 in the class.  One is leaving for a mission, but Barton is returning from one.  If you take the statement at face value that Stanford will take 17-18 in this class, then you can make a very good guess as to who Shaw wants to fill those spots.
...
Any thoughts on this?

One thought is to not take the 17-18 in the class number too seriously.

By my quick count Stanford has 13 5th year seniors on the roster (maybe 3 of those are not on scholarship? Flacco, Trojan, I think at least one of Olugobode and Rhyne got a scholarship?).
From the depth chart I see 4 academic seniors who have used up their eligibility.

There are clearly candidates from the academic senior class to either not be invited back for a fifth year or decide they may wish to move on themselves. I see about 8 on a quick look - though it lacks decorum to put down names.

There are a couple of candidates for leaving early for the NFL - at the least Peat, Carter and Hogan have been mentioned.

There's always attrition we don't see coming for various reasons. Obviously hard to predict (because we don't see it coming) but that's typically 2-3.

So, I don't see any problems finding space for more than 18 new guys, if Shaw can attract more than 18 new guys who can play and get admitted.


Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 11-21-2014

Your math is fine, except there are even more spots than you indicated because the team wasn't full at the start of the year.  I would guess 25 open scholarships.  I guess Shaw's statement means that there are enough offers out there to theoretically fill the class, but that he expects only half of those kids who have offers to get admitted and commit.  Makes sense.

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 11-24-2014

Reading between the lines, it seems Stanford is doing some hedging with DBs.

Buncom, Edwards, Meeks, Reid, and now TCU commit Nico Small emerges late in the process, according to Drukarev.  All have offers, to go along with commit Arrington.  Buncom and Edwards seem to be in the lock category and project as Safeties.  Hulk has speculated Meeks won't be admitted, and he projects as a CB.  Reid is a pure Safety.  Given Small plays CB, it seems Hulk may be right about Meeks.  Stanford surely doesn't want four Safeties without a CB in the 2015 class.

Re: Class of 2015 - StannyBoy - 11-24-2014

(11-24-2014, 05:42 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Reading between the lines, it seems Stanford is doing some hedging with DBs.

Buncom, Edwards, Meeks, Reid, and now TCU commit Nico Small emerges late in the process, according to Drukarev.  All have offers, to go along with commit Arrington.  Buncom and Edwards seem to be in the lock category and project as Safeties.  Hulk has speculated Meeks won't be admitted, and he projects as a CB.  Reid is a pure Safety.  Given Small plays CB, it seems Hulk may be right about Meeks.  Stanford surely doesn't want four Safeties without a CB in the 2015 class.

I'm pretty sure Buncom is being recruited as a CB.

Re: Class of 2015 - BobK - 11-25-2014

We were at 84 or 85 at the start of the season including Pratt plus those Ct card named.    Those 4 or 5 were given scholies to return last spring.  All are 5th year thus moving on.

Yes easy to get to 25 or close. 

Re: Class of 2015 - PrinceLightfoot - 12-02-2014

Great interview with Frank Buncom IV. To say he is not Stanford bound after signing day would be astonishing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7qCiKXPF5Y

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 12-04-2014

The RB situation is not improving any time soon.  Chris Warren is no longer an option and a giant miss.  Remaining option one, Cameron Scarlett apparently has a knee injury that may force a redshirt.  Option 2 Bryce Love, is a scat back. There are no other options apparently.

Aside from the pure recruiting situation, this also suggests a continued need to tweak the offense to be more favorable to RBs who are better in space than pushing piles and breaking tackles.

Re: Class of 2015 - yvonne - 12-04-2014

A couple of prospects (or their parents) tweeted about in-home visits yesterday.

[tweet]540343720034713600[/tweet]


[tweet]540348272381263872[/tweet]


Re: Class of 2015 - PrinceLightfoot - 12-04-2014

JJ Arcega-Whiteside has been named the 2014-2015 South Carolina Gatorade Player of the Year!

[tweet]540518655571005440[/tweet]

Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 12-04-2014

The hand wringing over RB recruiting does not make sense to me. Stanford has Sanders and McCaffrey and is likely to land Love.  If the coaching staff can't find a decent back in that group, that's a coaching problem, not a recruiting problem.  If the offense has to modernize in order to make use of these guys, all the better. Two birds with one stone.

Re: Class of 2015 - StanfordMatt - 12-04-2014

I think it's fair to say that Stanford faces unique obstacles when it comes to recruiting and for whatever reason, the profile of kids that we are able to recruit successfully tends to fit well with an offense based on a power running game. Taking this line of thinking one step further, another reason we have had so much success recently is that we are somewhat unique in taking this approach which makes opponents ill prepared to handle our power running game. Thus all the hand wringing over power RB recruiting.

Reasonable minds can disagree, but count me as one of the believers of this line of thinking and a fellow hand wringer.

Re: Class of 2015 - BostonCard - 12-04-2014

I think the hand wringing about power running backs is overstated, not because I don't think we should run a power running game, but because I think we are capable of running a power running game with somewhat undersized running backs.  Although we've been very effective running with Gerhart, Taylor, and then Gaffney, and less so this last year, I think that has had more to do with the lack of an effective pulling guard than with the lack of a power running back.  Power is not a play that depends on the running back to break a tackle at the line of scrimmage; if everything works correctly, the pulling guard and fullback will have blocked would be tacklers at the point of attack, and it will be a safety coming up to make the tackle.

In our last three games, we gained 190, 204, and 202 yards rushing, compared to an average of 140 yards rushing the first 9 games of the season.  Much of that was gained with our traditional between the tackles rushing game.  I think the big thing was not that our running backs somehow got bigger and stronger, but that our offensive line finally jelled (and our coaches finally started calling more rushes; the last two games were the only two in which we rushed more than 40 times in the game, versus eight such games last year, including the famous 66 times we ran against Oregon).  Next year, either four or five of our starting offensive linemen will be back, including both guards and our center; while they were a bit slow to develop this year, I expect our running game will look more like our running game of the previous five years than this year's running game, despite the fact that we will be using the same personnel at running back next year.

BC

Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 12-04-2014

(12-04-2014, 05:19 PM)StanfordMatt link Wrote:the profile of kids that we are able to recruit successfully tends to fit well with an offense based on a power running game.

Reasonable minds can disagree, but count me as one of the believers of this line of thinking and a fellow hand wringer.

I would need to hear this argument in more detail to evaluate it properly.  My initial reaction is that Stanford should be able to create a high octane offense because it recruits well at QB.  If the argument is that the team lacks WRs, that may be based more on history than on current reality.  JJAW and Irwin would be a great WR class to add to a good existing stable.

Re: Class of 2015 - StanfordMatt - 12-04-2014

(12-04-2014, 07:16 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:I would need to hear this argument in more detail to evaluate it properly.  My initial reaction is that Stanford should be able to create a high octane offense because it recruits well at QB.  If the argument is that the team lacks WRs, that may be based more on history than on current reality.  JJAW and Irwin would be a great WR class to add to a good existing stable.

I'm going to try to avoid the trap of falling into simplistic stereotypes, but basically the point is that there are more 4 and 5 star OL's each year that fit the Stanford profile than 4 and 5 star speedy WR's. As always, there are exceptions but I think by and large this position has merit.

Every team needs a good OL to be successful but it's not as critical for a team like Baylor where the QB is often hitting his play makers with quick routes and letting them make defenders miss. While we've had some success throwing bubble screens to Ty, he's just a 220 pound freak of nature that is just as likely to run someone over as he is to run by them. Cajuste and our TE's are play makers, but we're certainly not going to have much success throwing passes to them around the LOS. Similarly, a lot of these spread offenses don't place as great of a demand on their QB's as evidenced by a lot of these QB's struggling in the NFL.

We have demonstrated an ability to successfully recruit the very top QB's and OL's in the nation consistently. While we can get talented WR's, we're not consistently pulling in the top players in the nation at this position. As a result, we are best served by utilizing an offensive system that takes full advantage of our strengths (similarly, we have historically had a hard time recruiting elite DL which is why we use a base 3-4 defense which inherently requires one less DL to be on the field). The Christian McCaffrey's and Barry Sanders's are great but ultimately we need a big back that can have success running between the tackles because every other part of our prototypical offense (QB, OL, TE, WR) meshes with the power running game model so well.

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 12-05-2014

Though inferred, another position Stanford has historically recruited well is the "jumbo athlete."  These are TEs and OLBs.  This is the real reason Stanford plays a 3-4 defense.  You actually need more bigger DL to play the 3-4.  What you don't need are the WDE types who are 220-230 speed demons coming out of high school.

So look at 2015.  What are the strengths? OL, QB, TE, and LB.  Stanford's improvement has been made by doing a better job than has historically been the norm at DB.  I mean where would they be without Richards, Carter, and Lyons? 

Stanford has always been able to have productive RBs and WRs, but now the depth is better than its been most of the time.  It does seem the staff has decided they would rather take fewer guys who aren't the best athletes than offer guys who are more walk-on type athletes. It's obvious they are really trying hard to land the first 5 star CB the program has had, as they were in it with Peppers and even closer with Marshall this cycle.

Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 12-05-2014

Let's leave aside the issue of the 3-4 versus the 4-3 for now. 

The question is whether Stanford recruits the right kind of athletes to run a higher octane offense.  Let's start with the obvious.  Even though it's possible to run power with a small back, it's certainly easier to run power with a bigger back, which Stanford doesn't have.  Also, in the past Stanford has had an NFL-caliber fullback (Hewitt and Marecic), but Stanford is currently playing a former walk-on and next year may be only marginally better.  That's two very goods reason to implement a higher octane offense.  If the argument against is that Stanford recruits too many TEs and not enough WRs, Shaw could just move one TE to line up at WR.  That's what he did with Cajuste and with Fleener.  I could easily see the same thing happen with Cotton or Schultz.  I'm not even sure that's necessary if Shaw lands Irwin and JJAW this year.  The other arguments in favor of a power running offense don't seem all that powerful.  In particular, I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that a good QB and a good OL still would be valuable in an offense that passes more often. 

Re: Class of 2015 - BigEasyCard - 12-05-2014

Hope parents of our recruiting targets get to see this:

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/540660192254251008

Geaux Cardinal!

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 12-05-2014

Trent Irwin apparently has not submitted an application per Rivals story this week.  He had an in-home with David Shaw that featured Shaw informing him what he must do to qualify for admission. 

Question:  Has Stanford ever landed a recruit who had not submitted an application by December 5?

Re: Class of 2015 - BostonCard - 12-05-2014

(12-05-2014, 02:14 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Trent Irwin apparently has not submitted an application per Rivals story this week.  He had an in-home with David Shaw that features Shaw informing him what he must do to qualify for admission. 

Question:  Has Stanford ever landed a recruit who had not submitted an application by December 5?

Yes.  I don't remember the details, but I remember one recruit submitted an application about 1 week before signing day.  Might have been Teyo Johnson.

BC