The CardBoard
2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - 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: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection (/thread-6317.html)

Pages: 1 2

2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Hulk01 - 12-10-2013

Here’s what we appear to have for our 2014 recruiting class. 

#1 TE (Dalton Schultz, top TE recruit ever at Stanford [Ertz #4, Toilolo #6. Lorig  #8])
#2 QB (Keller Chryst, consensus highest-ranked Stanford QB since Elway)
#3 DE (Solomon Thomas, second-highest DE ever, behind #1 Julian Jenkins)
#4 OT (Casey Tucker, one of the seven highest-rated OLs we’ve ever signed (joining Andy Sinclair, Bob Whitfield, Jeff Buckey, Kwame Harris, Peat, Murphy, and Garnett);
#5 FB (Daniel Marx, second-highest FB recruit behind #3 Gaffney)
#8 DE (Nifae Lealao, third-highest DE ever, behind Jenkins and Solomon Thomas)
#9 OLB (Joey Alfieri, fifth-highest LB ever, behind #1 Craven, #3 Skov, #6 Kalambayi, and #7 Vaughters)
#10 OLB (Bobby Okereke, sixth-highest LB ever)
#13 RB (Christian McCaffrey. third-highest RB ever, behind #3 Mike Mitchell and #9 Sanders)
#14 S (Brandon Simmons, third-highest DB ever, behind #8 Lyons and #9 Carter)

Note that the above means we landed top ten players in every position group, something we’ve never done. 

And the above list doesn’t include:
Thee hardest-hitting defender we ever have seen in a camp, #16 Jordan Perez; perhaps the most natural cornerback we’ve ever recruited in Terrence Alexander (Derrien Gordon  and Sherman took years to get it); and a possible Murphy clone in a much longer ((7-0 wingspan) version, in Lane Veach.

This class seems a good bet to be our best ever.  It's much deeper than the 2008 Luck/Decastro/Martin class and more balanced than 2012’s, which didn’t include a quarterback, tight end, or fullback.

Does this class fill of our apparent needs?  If McCaffrey can become an every-down running back. yes.

Do we lose any ground to our opponents?  Notre Dame will sign a comparable class although it is LOS-heavy.  Otherwise, we gain--significantly. Partly because of a perceived weak year for California hs seniors, the rest of the Pac-12 seems to be suffering its worst recruiting year of the last eight or more.  UCLA will land some excellent defensive backs but needs players everywhere but there, and still hasn’t found a quarterback; Oregon started slow and its two losses have hurt; USC could close strong and land some terrors but Sark's hiring (Sark?) hasn’t sparked a flurry of calls from top recruits; Washington is getting nowhere and recruits don't perk up at the thought of being coached by a former Boise State head coach.

And the recruiting for the rest of the conference teams, honestly, is not worth thinking about except to think "Good for us."

We've never heard this much enthusiasm for, and knowledge about, Stanford.  To recruits, we've arrived with a brobdingnagian splash: a gorgeous campus, California weather, Ivy academics, a likeable coach and young staff, and beautiful new facilities. 

It is all so damn good. . .

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - PrinceLightfoot - 12-10-2013

May admissions look upon their academic resumes favorably!

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Robbie - 12-10-2013

(12-10-2013, 04:53 PM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:May admissions look upon their academic resumes favorably!

And may the young men on that list take the admissions process seriously, and focus on those first semester grades, and on a last crack at the SAT/ACT. (And may my son do the same, even though he has no desire to go to Stanford, and has never played even one down of football. He's also a high school senior hoping for the best through the admissions process.)

I wonder... - Redrum - 12-10-2013

When will we see some schools--or at least some football staffs-- scramble to "rebrand" themselves.  In most cases it can't be done.  For the most part, universities are what they are and the metrics are public and abundant.  But that's what will make it interesting. 
--Will Kal make the difficult bootstrap marathon that will allow it to tout its academics (with a straight face)?  --Will we see an slight-of-hand wherein academic success in, say, the water polo squad is, by some bogus transitive property used to jigger the stats to make it look like the school is more "Ivy" than it really is?
-- Will any other of the near-Ivies (Duke, Vandy, Wake Forest, [insert school name here] ) be able to maintain their momentum and by association start touting their value proposition more?
-- Will there be more and more promo focus on individual athletes whose academic qualifications are leveraged into an assertion that all players/athletes are the equal performers?

Re: I wonder... - CowboyIndian - 12-10-2013

(12-10-2013, 05:21 PM)Redrum link Wrote:When will we see some schools--or at least some football staffs-- scramble to "rebrand" themselves.

Not at Kal...at least if you read BearInsider. They'll be damned if they'll copy anything we're doing, even if it's right and might work for them. They are a sad and bitter populace.

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - washingtonismoney - 12-10-2013

If we finish with the top Pac-12 class (but second in the Pac-12 + N.D. derby), that's a problem for our opponents. Everyone talks about how admissions and its requirements are a barrier but don't consider that it confers some benefits: namely, that we know the kids can do the classroom work and are (generally) reasonably solid citizens. Stanford filters players up front and reaps the benefit in the form of lower attrition. For our competitors, the formula is flipped: they let more players in, and filter them out later.

So every year they'll lose guys for reasons incidental to football -- because they can't do the work, because they have some indiscretion, or because they get homesick/get tired of spending winter in a cold, gloomy post-industrial ghost down, and exit, pursued by screaming Brian Kelly. (Or they sign but never quite make it into school, for whatever reason.) Stanford loses far fewer than they do, but the only formalized rating of a team's roster quality measures signed players. For tons of schools that rating system works OK, because they're all roughly equivalent in attrition. Stanford attrits less, and so will always be deceptively low in recruiting rankings. If it starts with a lead, the odds are stacked in its favor.

(But they're just odds.)

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - pincemob - 12-10-2013

Those guys all sound great.  I primarily hope they have that meanness quality that Harbaugh had a keen sense for, with the anecdotes about liking guys who crack helmets and enjoy pain.  I'm not concerned at all about our talent dropping, I've been convinced that toughness is the key element in recruiting.  We're losing some great ones in Gaffney, Skov, Murphy, and others. 

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Gauss - 12-10-2013

I'm probably in the minority here, but what I look for first in recruits is how much zeal they have in their academic pursuit. Academic excellence typically is an added bonus on the field, but, more importantly, it places them in line with Stanford goals and what the university represents to me.

Sure, if you are an elite athlete you've had to spend many hours in training and traveling, and it is not needed that you get a 2350 in the SAT (Stanford's 75th percentile), but I wouldn't want them to be treated any differently that somebody with an outstanding ability playing the violin or debating. Somewhere around 2000 would be nice  :)

That said, this class does look fantastic. I hope they are indeed good enough to pass admissions, and we can continue making true this almost-too-good-to-believe dream where Stanford has the longest active streak attending BCS bowls!

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - slide - 12-11-2013

a couple of cautions.

first, 3 on the list - Schultz, Thomas, and Tucker -- are not Stanford verbals so may be a bit premature to include them as part of the class.

second, even with those 3 in the class, the 2014 class will have no 5 star recruits (and I think we may have offered as many as ten 5 stars)

third, with a sweep of the remaining board, by total points rankings or by average recruit ranking, 2014 won't rank ahead of 2012 class.

it probably shows some of the vagueries of recruiting, but I am not sure we will ever have a recruiting class as productive as the class of 2009 in terms of talent, depth, wins and leadership.  4 BCS games in a row!  Skov, Murphy, Taylor, Ertz, Gaffney, Gardner, Danser, Wilkes, Stephens, Mauro, Hewitt, Lancaster, Toilolo, Amanam etc.  Hill and Navjar ended up not part of the class and had (or are having) very productive college careers.  Jemari Roberts was the big whiff and JRP underperformed his recruiting class.

lastly, we only have a few admitted players.  Rick Shaw will need to be very kind.

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Hey - 12-11-2013

Love Gauss's comment. 

Love Hulk's early list, looking forward to his thoughts for 2015. 

One point of contention, these recruiting websites weren't even around during all of the previous two centuries while Stanford was playing football.  Can't compare these recruits against the all-time Stanford recruits, only recruits since 2002.    ;)

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Hulk01 - 12-11-2013

Among the good points here, it's best to remember that our competitor's classes shrink and ours--relatively speaking--do not.  So final class rankings are of limited value.

In addition, you usually will see an outlier class or two--this year it will be Alabama and LSU--and then good-sized clusters of teams with comparable incoming classes.

Given attrition and this cluster phenomenon, we can say that we will lose ground to those two SEC schools but are in the game with the next seven to ten.  Once you get down to the 16th ranked class, say, you are dealing with rankings for the sake of rankings.

Another influence this year is selectivity.  Six years ago, Stanford had to take good warm bodies with upsides.  That has changed and it's apparent in this class and the next one, where we've already offered one in five of the nation's putative top 100.  The coaches are now able to select for fit; it's apparent in the 2014 and 2015 DBs, all of whom are hitters.  Six years ago, a 4.5 guy who could stay with nine in ten good Pac-123 receivers was a top corner

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Hulk01 - 12-11-2013

We have all the evidence that we need to conclude that this class is virtually locked up.  If you've heard of him, he's probably a silent verbal and is simply waiting for December grades--for all but one guy, a mere formality--and the big envelope.    Our one worry is a guy who I am not convinced will ever contribute.

Chryst, Thomas, Tucker, and Schultz all already are, or will be, five stars according to at least one site and all have reputations and profiles equal to our past five stars like Craven, Fletcher, Edwards (Chryst is more highly regarded), Jenkins, and Peat ( And remember that Peat was ranked as low as #9 at his position.) 

This class also is as highly-offered at the top as the 2012 class and much more heavily offered in the middle.  By an offer theory, this class is our best ever--even with one of those whales. 


Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - slide - 12-11-2013

Hulk, I hope your more optimistic read proves correct.  I just look at some positions like CB and see we offered many and we are landing the ones with the lowest rankings.  Alijah Holder is not Jabrill Peppers.

on 2015, it looks like we have been much more aggressive in earlier offers (35 or so known offers) with about 15 to top 100 players (5 or 6 in the top 25) plus offers to guys who curiously are not in the top 100 (Canton Kaumatule, Tristen Hoge -- a Notre Dame verbal, Breiden Fohoko).  hopefully we will show more and more traction with these recruits than we did with the top guys in 2014.

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Langdude - 12-11-2013

I am very happy with how well-rounded this class appears. And I like skill players as much as the next guy. But to continue our style of football, we need great OL recruits. (We also need great DL recruits, but we seem to have that covered.) Tucker is awesome. But I am a little concerned that this class plus last year's does not have enough. Maybe I am being paranoid.

-m.

Nerds rock: - Hulk01 - 12-11-2013

This would have been an even stronger class but it was an epicly bad year for Western high school seniors. 

That hurt us on the OL.  In 2012 we landed five-stars OLs Garnett (Washington) and Murphy (Cal), plus four-star Fanaika from Utah.  This year Casey Tucker was the only elite OL prospect West of Texas with any chance of Stanford admissions.  That left us heavily prospecting for OLs in Maryland (Mustipher), New Jersey (Nelson),  Florida (Cole), North Carolina (Spain), Ohio (Dalton) and Iowa (Pierschbacher).  Those are tough areas to recruit for us.  But it’s also a sign of Stanford’s strength that we flat-out passed on two four-star OLs with good offers (Gibbons and Mike).

I don’t have a read on OLs in the West for this next class except for Luke Kaumatule’s brother, who I assume becomes an elite left tackle and a star of our 2015 class---pending admissions, of course, but the Kaumatules are workhorses.  Canton will retake the ACT seven times if he has to.
Hoge is a stretch for us fit-wise (I have contacts on this one).

We faced a similar challenge for DBs this year.  No Sua Cravens in the West this year, so we worked Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.  Simmons and Alexander are clear four-star prospects and Murphy, Holder, and Tucker all are hammers in the Mason style, great and aggressive tacklers who can stick with guys.  (Franklin is a mystery).  And we still are in play for Kendall Randolph, another four-star Floridian.

And regardless, the 2015 DB class looks great for Stanford.  We’re in excellent shape for four or five DBs ranked in the top 150 players in the class. 

OL (Barnett from Oklahoma) and power back (Soko Jamabo out of Plano Texas may be RB 1) are the positions to watch. Plus we will want two good receivers in this class, particularly if Trevon Lee sticks close to his Florida home and chooses Duke or Vanderbilt.  But those schools really aren’t that close to Lee’s family and he and his family draw the same line between Stanford and those two schools that we alums do.  But here too, we have a great start with four top 200 WRs in 2015 (Christian Kirk (AZ) and C.J. Sanders (buddy of Shuler and from same prep school) if we fail to land Lee.

There’s ample evidence that everyone but Randolph and Lee is a silent verbal and strong evidence that everyone will clear. 

As for Alijah Holder not being Jabrill Peppers, that's part of the good news.

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - ahuang06 - 12-11-2013

It's interesting to think in retrospect about how the team has changed its strengths over the HarShaw era that have come and gone w/ the talent we've developed - especially how far our front seven came along and then our secondary to match. Overall, it gives me confidence that we'll figure out a way to win with whatever we recruit. My super rough narrative:

2009: Unstoppable running game/front-line with a slightly inconsistent passing game. Defense had a tough time stopping
2010/2011: Unstoppable offense, 3rd down conversions all the time to our TEs. Defense was somewhat porous (though pitched 3 shutouts). Front seven started showing promise (Vic Fangio + 3/4 set in), but our secondary wasn't there - and it showed against Oregon.
2012/2013: Dominant front seven complemented by a hard-hitting, fast secondary that doesn't miss tackles (except for may that one in the Washington game). Offense was inconsistent, but TEs (in 2012) and WRs(in 2013) + solid production from Taylor got us the points we needed.

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - AthleticsDynasty - 12-13-2013

(12-10-2013, 04:39 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:This class seems a good bet to be our best ever.  It's much deeper than the 2008 Luck/Decastro/Martin class and more balanced than 2012’s, which didn’t include a quarterback, tight end, or fullback.

The 2009 class is our best ever and one of the best in recent college football history. If this class can even come close we will be in very good shape

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - Stymie - 12-14-2013

Great post and thread, Hulk.  Thanks.

One question--why no mention of Isiah Brandt-Sims?  He may be playing in a weak HS league, but his FB stats and a 10.37 100 (beating Michael Rector in the Washington State Championships) isn't chopped liver.  Also seems to be centered and mature for his age.  I think he could be a real sleeper, if he develops and is developed properly.abincg

Re: 2014 Recruiting: Full view and a projection - rudruff - 12-14-2013



A few highlights of Jordan Perez hitting people.

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/629748/

Forgetting Brandt-Sims - Hulk01 - 12-17-2013

My guess is that Brandt=Sims’ low profile conspired with my age impairment to lead me to fail to include him in this recruiting class.  But another influence probably was working on me: He appears to have the slowest first three steps of any sub 10.6 guy I’ve ever seen.

This shows up in IBS’s track highlights.  At five yards he is a foot behind and at ten yards he’s a yard behind.  Not until around the 60 does he catch the leader.  It seems that his greatest asset is his strength: he can hold his speed while others falter. If Burns can throw the ball 90 yards, however, this is the guy we want running the go route.

But our coaches saw the same film and lots more.  Maybe they love him as a gunner.  Or maybe a guy who can pull away after 25 yards automatically will draw double teams.  Or maybe the track coaches worked Shaw over. 

I just don’t know what is going on here.Â