The CardBoard
Stanford in the draft - 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: Stanford in the draft (/thread-5099.html)


Stanford in the draft - FarmBoy - 04-25-2013

So who goes in what round?

My prediction:
Ertz: 2
Taylor: 5
Thomas: 5
Toilolo: 6
Stephens: 7

Gostanford's write up: http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/042413aad.html

Re: Stanford in the draft - washingtonismoney - 04-25-2013

We're #3 in this Emory study of producing NFL talent 2007-12 (adjusted relative to our share of elite talent): https://t.co/c0WlnDMQFp

A few caveats -- Kentucky's #1 on this study. My guess is because the low base of elite talent makes it really easy to outperform. On the other hand, many power schools are surprisingly low; my guess is SEC-style roster management means a bigger base of incoming elite talent (while not necessarily increasing NFL talent commensurately).

Nevertheless, it indicates that, per capita, Stanford under the Harbaugh/Shaw regime performs really well; with this, results on the field, location, and academics, there really aren't too many schools with a comparable pitch.

Re: Stanford in the draft - Bruce Wang - 04-25-2013

(04-25-2013, 11:20 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:We're #3 in this Emory study of producing NFL talent 2007-12 (adjusted relative to our share of elite talent): https://t.co/c0WlnDMQFp

Great post, WIM!  This is something I've been wondering about, as I've sensed this anecdotally. The other factor being the greatest leap from the college to the pros: the mental aspects of the game, both in terms of grasping the complexity of the schemes as well as the willpower for excellence.

Re: Stanford in the draft - FarmBoy - 04-25-2013

My hypothesis: there is some biased review process of high school players that reinforces the "SEC uber alles" world view. If you're a high school player from the south and go to an SEC school, then you're more likely to be rated highly by the services than if you're a CA guy who goes to a Pac12 school. On the other hand, NFL GMs are paying real money, so they conduct more objective due diligence and are not as enamored by the "SEC" label.

On the other hand, you can only have 1 starting left OT at a time. So signing multiple elite prospects means that only one of those guys is likely to get significant playing time that will drive their NFL stock.

Re: Stanford in the draft - cardfan09 - 04-25-2013

Agree with your predictions, though I wouldn't be surprised to see Toilolo nabbed in the 4th or 5th due to his upside.

Re: Stanford in the draft - fullmetal - 04-25-2013

The interesting thing is that the higher-ranked players are chosen by teams who performed poorly and therefore have high draft picks to spend.  Does that speak to a mitigated impact of talented players on a team's fortunes?

Re: Stanford in the draft - LuckE2Bhere - 04-26-2013

(04-25-2013, 11:41 AM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=7821.msg61562#msg61562 date=1366914034]
We're #3 in this Emory study of producing NFL talent 2007-12 (adjusted relative to our share of elite talent): https://t.co/c0WlnDMQFp

Great post, WIM!  This is something I've been wondering about, as I've sensed this anecdotally. The other factor being the greatest leap from the college to the pros: the mental aspects of the game, both in terms of grasping the complexity of the schemes as well as the willpower for excellence.
[/quote]

This is akin something we used to say when I was on a (secondary) varsity team at Stanford a couple of decades ago...
Stanford: where All-State athletes go to become All-Americans
Notre Dame [or whatever the applicable peer may be in your sport]: where All-American athletes go to become All-Conference

Re: Stanford in the draft - brannerhall - 04-26-2013

I was one of the co-authors of the blog post about converting elite prospects into draft picks.  We did a follow-up with more complete rankings and explanations: 

https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/04/25/best-worst-colleges-for-converting-elite-recruits-into-nfl-draft-picks/

Stanford does well because of a good balance of 4 and 5 star recruits and because of the school's investment into the program.  One of our findings, based on more robust regression techniques was that if there are too many 5-star players, the probability of being drafted as a 4-star player is reduced.  While that makes common sense based on playing time, it's not something that has been empirically shown.  GO CARD!