[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Yeah, sad.  So much promise.  Since he led the team to The Play, maybe his name should be autocorrected to Noway?  Well, keep signing those high school stars.  One of them is bound to turn out decent someday.  Isn't he the guy who ended up selling cars?

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Yeah, sad.  So much promise.  Since he led the team to The Play, maybe his name should be autocorrected to Noway?  Well, keep signing those high school stars.  One of them is bound to turn out decent someday.  Isn't he the guy who ended up selling cars?

[Mick]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Some accomplishments from the NFL HoF Bust:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-to...ay-moments

[Mick]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Some accomplishments from the NFL HoF Bust:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-to...ay-moments

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Sorry, Robby.  Elway was 6-5 as a sophomore, including an upset of #3 Oklahoma in Norman.  But you may consider that to be a niggling detail that does not negate his overall 15-18 college record.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124760#msg124760 date=1439852572]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=9617.msg124758#msg124758 date=1439852469]
John  Elway was the # 1 player in the US

Did he get in?
[/quote]

I suppose, but he never led the Stanford team to a winning record. He refused to play for the NFL team that drafted him. He tried professional baseball, but never got past 'A' ball.

So, a bust overall.
[/quote]

Sorry, Robby.  Elway was 6-5 as a sophomore, including an upset of #3 Oklahoma in Norman.  But you may consider that to be a niggling detail that does not negate his overall 15-18 college record.

[Mick]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjkiebus/reasons....owQYrv1QE

[Mick]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjkiebus/reasons....owQYrv1QE

[Rally]

Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

[Rally]

Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

[Mick]

Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

My sarcasm or his sarcasm?

[Mick]

Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

My sarcasm or his sarcasm?

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124780#msg124780 date=1439858081]
Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

My sarcasm or his sarcasm?
[/quote]

Hmmmm.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=9617.msg124780#msg124780 date=1439858081]
Sarcasm is wasted on the literal minded.

My sarcasm or his sarcasm?
[/quote]

Hmmmm.

[BostonCard]

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/...w-recruits

Palo Alto online with capsules on Long, Butler and Hattis.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/...w-recruits

Palo Alto online with capsules on Long, Butler and Hattis.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

More on Robertson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robertson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robertson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robertson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or USC.




 

[OutsiderFan]

More on Robertson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robertson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robertson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robertson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or USC.




 

[Roberton3]

...Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT. 

You mean SAT doesn't stand for "Stanford's admission test"?

[Roberton3]

...Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT. 

You mean SAT doesn't stand for "Stanford's admission test"?

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg124808#msg124808 date=1439895828]
...Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT. 

You mean SAT doesn't stand for "Stanford's admission test"?
[/quote]

+1! Our football program is the only one that makes it an important part of recruiting.  Therefore in the context of college football, the SAT does stand for Stanford Admission Test.

[Bruce Wang]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg124808#msg124808 date=1439895828]
...Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT. 

You mean SAT doesn't stand for "Stanford's admission test"?
[/quote]

+1! Our football program is the only one that makes it an important part of recruiting.  Therefore in the context of college football, the SAT does stand for Stanford Admission Test.

[socalstanfan1]

My impression from reading the recruiting blogs is that their standard for reporting and writing are not that great, which makes me appreciate someone like Drukarev all the more.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder about the process for editing, fact checking, etc.  If a reporter takes it upon him or herself to act like a professional and check their information and actually do some work, that's great.  But often it seems that the reporters are just emailing in their report.

Maybe part of the general decline of American journalism in the digital age.

[socalstanfan1]

My impression from reading the recruiting blogs is that their standard for reporting and writing are not that great, which makes me appreciate someone like Drukarev all the more.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder about the process for editing, fact checking, etc.  If a reporter takes it upon him or herself to act like a professional and check their information and actually do some work, that's great.  But often it seems that the reporters are just emailing in their report.

Maybe part of the general decline of American journalism in the digital age.

[BobK]

Gee now poor reporting here.  The next SAT test is in October, the next ACT test is next month.  Gee guys get on it.  :) :D :P

[BobK]

Gee now poor reporting here.  The next SAT test is in October, the next ACT test is next month.  Gee guys get on it.  :) :D :P

[JohnR34231]

More on Robinson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robinson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robinson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or U$€.

I'm all for accurate reporting, but does anyone (with the possible exception of the Stanford Admissions Department) know the minimum standardized test score a prospective Stanford football recruit needs to qualify? I know there is speculation that it is around a 26 ACT (1170-1200 2 part SAT), but I would assume it is somewhat contingent on how the rest of his application looks.

[JohnR34231]

More on Robinson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robinson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robinson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or U$€.

I'm all for accurate reporting, but does anyone (with the possible exception of the Stanford Admissions Department) know the minimum standardized test score a prospective Stanford football recruit needs to qualify? I know there is speculation that it is around a 26 ACT (1170-1200 2 part SAT), but I would assume it is somewhat contingent on how the rest of his application looks.

[Bruce Wang]

More on Robinson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robinson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robinson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or U$€.

Did they get his last name wrong too?

[Bruce Wang]

More on Robinson...

That Rivals interview with the Georgia site writer just posted yesterday is unfortunate.  The writer uses "Cardinals" when referring to Stanford.  Then he proceeds to claim Robinson is taking "Stanford's admission test" next month to see if he gets a qualifying score, rather than say he is taking whatever it is, the SAT or ACT.  So naturally, some UGA fan comments and says "if he passes Stanford's test, he goes there." 

Aren't reporters suppose to check facts and give some semblance of accuracy in their reporting?  Might it be appropriate for the writer to bone up on what the Stanford admissions process is, so he can at least say "Robinson needs a minimum X score on Y test, and has to write five essays as part of his application.  He has already enrolled in two AP classes in his Senior year, which Stanford also requires, and he believes his GPA is high enough to gain admission." Or something akin to that?

The good news in that article:  It seems Robinson is traveling to the West Coast specifically to visit Stanford.  He's not checking out Ca.l (as if it would be an option), UCLA, or U$€.

Did they get his last name wrong too?

[PrinceLightfoot]

Did they get his last name wrong too?

We were recruiting a Robbie Robinson at one point which is probably the source of confusion.

Demetris Robertson is the correct name, but you know already know that  ;)

[PrinceLightfoot]

Did they get his last name wrong too?

We were recruiting a Robbie Robinson at one point which is probably the source of confusion.

Demetris Robertson is the correct name, but you know already know that  ;)

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=9617.msg124830#msg124830 date=1439907297]
Did they get his last name wrong too?

We were recruiting a Robbie Robinson at one point which is probably the source of confusion.

Demetris Robertson is the correct name, but you know already know that  ;)
[/quote]

. . . not to be confused with Robbie Robertson of The Band.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=9617.msg124830#msg124830 date=1439907297]
Did they get his last name wrong too?

We were recruiting a Robbie Robinson at one point which is probably the source of confusion.

Demetris Robertson is the correct name, but you know already know that  ;)
[/quote]

. . . not to be confused with Robbie Robertson of The Band.

[BobK]

The Band, there is no better group. 

[BobK]

The Band, there is no better group. 

[TrumpCard]

We've talked a lot about the current board.  There are some really elite players still out there, and I would not be at all surprised if Stanford grabs at least 1 of them.  We haven't talked as much about the Plan B options out there, however, and there are some really solid ones.  Here's a partial list:

OL: Gutwald, Niang, Tatum, Alves
WR: Boateng, Croom
DL: Kemp, Burton
DB: Eboh
LB: Dublanko, Cassidy

I'm not including kids who are going on a mission because I don't think the normal Plan B calculus applies when the staff is looking at a kid that's coming in 2 years.  I'm also not including guys who committed elsewhere and still lack a Stanford offer, though it's possible that something could happen there as well.

Any others out there?

[TrumpCard]

We've talked a lot about the current board.  There are some really elite players still out there, and I would not be at all surprised if Stanford grabs at least 1 of them.  We haven't talked as much about the Plan B options out there, however, and there are some really solid ones.  Here's a partial list:

OL: Gutwald, Niang, Tatum, Alves
WR: Boateng, Croom
DL: Kemp, Burton
DB: Eboh
LB: Dublanko, Cassidy

I'm not including kids who are going on a mission because I don't think the normal Plan B calculus applies when the staff is looking at a kid that's coming in 2 years.  I'm also not including guys who committed elsewhere and still lack a Stanford offer, though it's possible that something could happen there as well.

Any others out there?

[Hank 91]

My impression from reading the recruiting blogs is that their standard for reporting and writing are not that great, which makes me appreciate someone like Drukarev all the more.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder about the process for editing, fact checking, etc.  If a reporter takes it upon him or herself to act like a professional and check their information and actually do some work, that's great.  But often it seems that the reporters are just emailing in their report.

Maybe part of the general decline of American journalism in the digital age.

There are two problems, as I see it. First, the standards for these sites are pretty low. Soon after I started my site, I was approached by the person running the Rivals site about writing for them. (This was three or four years ago, long before Drukarev.) I have no inside information about the program nor any journalistic training. As you mention, Drukarev is excellent, far better than what you see on most of the other Rivals sites.

Second, it simply isn't realistic to expect anyone out there to know as much about Stanford and the Stanford football program as so many of us here do. How often have we heard incorrect information during a national telecast of a Stanford game? I'm sure that writer knows an unhealthy amount about Georgia football. There probably isn't room in his head for Stanford data, and he probably doesn't have time to research it. Maybe he should, but I don't think we should be surprised by others' ignorance; we should expect it.

[Hank 91]

My impression from reading the recruiting blogs is that their standard for reporting and writing are not that great, which makes me appreciate someone like Drukarev all the more.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder about the process for editing, fact checking, etc.  If a reporter takes it upon him or herself to act like a professional and check their information and actually do some work, that's great.  But often it seems that the reporters are just emailing in their report.

Maybe part of the general decline of American journalism in the digital age.

There are two problems, as I see it. First, the standards for these sites are pretty low. Soon after I started my site, I was approached by the person running the Rivals site about writing for them. (This was three or four years ago, long before Drukarev.) I have no inside information about the program nor any journalistic training. As you mention, Drukarev is excellent, far better than what you see on most of the other Rivals sites.

Second, it simply isn't realistic to expect anyone out there to know as much about Stanford and the Stanford football program as so many of us here do. How often have we heard incorrect information during a national telecast of a Stanford game? I'm sure that writer knows an unhealthy amount about Georgia football. There probably isn't room in his head for Stanford data, and he probably doesn't have time to research it. Maybe he should, but I don't think we should be surprised by others' ignorance; we should expect it.