[cardcrimson]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Not the way SC played today. Hungry and inspired. Bama isn't as fast, nor as physical as SC played today. SC was swarming and relentless up front. They've no QB of merit, nor a stand out RB.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Not the way SC played today. Hungry and inspired. Bama isn't as fast, nor as physical as SC played today. SC was swarming and relentless up front. They've no QB of merit, nor a stand out RB.

[washingtonismoney]

So, for all the sadness over the OL, the offense actually had a decent game -- 24 points and 6.3 yards per play is pretty solid work on an away game. The more pressing problem is on defense, and the question (of course) is whether this is a transitory issue or something deeper-seated. Darnold makes a lot of problems, their RBs are great and the line is experienced. So it's very plausible this is a temporary thing on defense. On the other hand...it's plausible it's not.

[washingtonismoney]

So, for all the sadness over the OL, the offense actually had a decent game -- 24 points and 6.3 yards per play is pretty solid work on an away game. The more pressing problem is on defense, and the question (of course) is whether this is a transitory issue or something deeper-seated. Darnold makes a lot of problems, their RBs are great and the line is experienced. So it's very plausible this is a temporary thing on defense. On the other hand...it's plausible it's not.

[stupac2]

So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)

In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).

Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.

What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.

EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.

How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players, and since we run off fewer players than most (something most people in here rightly laud) we're not going to be able to take 20-25 a year. DL depth has been a problem since, what, 2013? And the 2012 line was anchored by guys who weren't highly recruited, instead of guys coming in and exceeding expectations we've had the opposite lately. It's also worth noting that we've fielded competent defenses despite this in several years.

It really sucks that Stanford doesn't ever seem to be able to get everything to line up right, how many times could we have been in a title game if we had paired year N's defense with N+1's offense? Now it seems like things line up nicely for next year, except we have the brutal even-year schedule.

I think that, to some extent, this is just how it is for Stanford. We can still pull things together and make a good bowl (maybe even a NY6 bowl!) if we can manage to right the ship and figure something out on the DL (tackles seems to mostly be PLAY THE FRESHMEN), but we're clearly not a title contender. Then again, how many things needed to fall right for us to really be one this year? Did anyone expect it? Hope, sure, but expect? I know Shaw says the expectation is titles, but this team had too many obvious problems with no good solutions, and that showed tonight.

[stupac2]

So what can be done? In the short term, not sure how much. It's hard to scheme around being destroyed on both lines. So absent moving Sarrell and/or Little into the lineup with alacrity, I'm not sure what the solution is here. (Beyond hoping SC is *really* that good.)

In the long term, I think this should be a kick in the butt for Shaw and the staff to recruit better. A team's generally going to succeed or not with its older guys. In Stanford's case, the old guys are a tiny 2013 class and a pretty good 2014 class (which has been gutted a bit by McCaffrey's and Thomas's departures).

Of especial interest is the lines. The 2013 class had two linemen, Oser and Bright. Oser retired medically. The 2014 class had seven linemen, but its top-rated offensive linemen (Reilly Gibbons) left quickly. Thomas was, of course, a superstar. But both highly-rated linemen are now departed, meaning that between the 2013 and 2014 classes, no highly-ranked linemen survive.

What's the point here? That, if current trends continue, we'll be having a morose thread of this nature around 2022 or so. Why? The class of 2018 is both tiny and lacks highly-rated linemen.

EDIT: forgot Casey Tucker, which is the exception that proves the point, given he's sitting out for some odd reason.

How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players, and since we run off fewer players than most (something most people in here rightly laud) we're not going to be able to take 20-25 a year. DL depth has been a problem since, what, 2013? And the 2012 line was anchored by guys who weren't highly recruited, instead of guys coming in and exceeding expectations we've had the opposite lately. It's also worth noting that we've fielded competent defenses despite this in several years.

It really sucks that Stanford doesn't ever seem to be able to get everything to line up right, how many times could we have been in a title game if we had paired year N's defense with N+1's offense? Now it seems like things line up nicely for next year, except we have the brutal even-year schedule.

I think that, to some extent, this is just how it is for Stanford. We can still pull things together and make a good bowl (maybe even a NY6 bowl!) if we can manage to right the ship and figure something out on the DL (tackles seems to mostly be PLAY THE FRESHMEN), but we're clearly not a title contender. Then again, how many things needed to fall right for us to really be one this year? Did anyone expect it? Hope, sure, but expect? I know Shaw says the expectation is titles, but this team had too many obvious problems with no good solutions, and that showed tonight.

[washingtonismoney]

How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players,...

I think a fair bit. The big problem, quite simply, is that they are way too conservative and slow about offering players.

[washingtonismoney]

How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players,...

I think a fair bit. The big problem, quite simply, is that they are way too conservative and slow about offering players.

[VFRing98]

DL got pushed back 3 yards almost every play.

OL held its own but clearly the weaker talent vs the SC DL.

Shaw with his usual brain freeze after big plays, resulting in delay of game. As he would say, poor execution by the Coach.

Not much separation downfield. Why #5 isn't thrown the ball on 20% of our plays, I don't know. He's the only one who'd be on SC's 2-deep for WR or RB.

[VFRing98]

DL got pushed back 3 yards almost every play.

OL held its own but clearly the weaker talent vs the SC DL.

Shaw with his usual brain freeze after big plays, resulting in delay of game. As he would say, poor execution by the Coach.

Not much separation downfield. Why #5 isn't thrown the ball on 20% of our plays, I don't know. He's the only one who'd be on SC's 2-deep for WR or RB.

[stupac2]

And I thought the U$C DC called a great game.  This isn't just Helton, they clearly have talent on their staff.

Oh, sure, Pendergast has always seemed like a solid coach. No idea about the offense, pretty much every SC player was playing well enough that I probably could've called that game. (I almost started singling out players, but it was really everyone. Well, I guess I didn't hear about their TEs much...) And assembling a good staff is part of a coach's job, but I'm really curious what this team will look like without Darnold. The teams Helton fielded without him haven't been good.

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17352.msg199967#msg199967 date=1505016325]
How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players,...

I think a fair bit. The big problem, quite simply, is that they are way too conservative and slow about offering players.
[/quote]

I'll take your word on that. I've always heard that we're trying to identify talent years ahead of time (though I guess so is everyone else). Would be interesting for someone to ask Shaw about it, but he seems to get prickly when someone asks him something that implies he's making mistakes.

[stupac2]

And I thought the U$C DC called a great game.  This isn't just Helton, they clearly have talent on their staff.

Oh, sure, Pendergast has always seemed like a solid coach. No idea about the offense, pretty much every SC player was playing well enough that I probably could've called that game. (I almost started singling out players, but it was really everyone. Well, I guess I didn't hear about their TEs much...) And assembling a good staff is part of a coach's job, but I'm really curious what this team will look like without Darnold. The teams Helton fielded without him haven't been good.

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17352.msg199967#msg199967 date=1505016325]
How much can we reasonably do about this, thought? We're not going to bat 1.000 on admissible players,...

I think a fair bit. The big problem, quite simply, is that they are way too conservative and slow about offering players.
[/quote]

I'll take your word on that. I've always heard that we're trying to identify talent years ahead of time (though I guess so is everyone else). Would be interesting for someone to ask Shaw about it, but he seems to get prickly when someone asks him something that implies he's making mistakes.

[washingtonismoney]

I'll take your word on that. I've always heard that we're trying to identify talent years ahead of time (though I guess so is everyone else). Would be interesting for someone to ask Shaw about it, but he seems to get prickly when someone asks him something that implies he's making mistakes.

Basically, it's a matter of strategy. Shaw wants his offers to be real offers -- i.e. for every offer to be an actual commodity that, once tendered, can always be accepted. Basically every other coach in America doesn't operate this way, making hundreds of offers, which, definitionally, cannot all be accepted.

The strategy isn't misguided for a pretty simple reason. Making a brobdingnagian volume of offers presents problems when you've got a traffic jam for a position or for the overall class. So coaches chuck out the lowest-ranked players. Leaving aside the morality of this move, it's just not tenable for Stanford to engage in that kind of ... class management. (A player doing the senior-year work to get in needs the assurance that that work is meaningful.)

Still, even given that constraint, the staff is taking it to an unnecessary extreme.

[washingtonismoney]

I'll take your word on that. I've always heard that we're trying to identify talent years ahead of time (though I guess so is everyone else). Would be interesting for someone to ask Shaw about it, but he seems to get prickly when someone asks him something that implies he's making mistakes.

Basically, it's a matter of strategy. Shaw wants his offers to be real offers -- i.e. for every offer to be an actual commodity that, once tendered, can always be accepted. Basically every other coach in America doesn't operate this way, making hundreds of offers, which, definitionally, cannot all be accepted.

The strategy isn't misguided for a pretty simple reason. Making a brobdingnagian volume of offers presents problems when you've got a traffic jam for a position or for the overall class. So coaches chuck out the lowest-ranked players. Leaving aside the morality of this move, it's just not tenable for Stanford to engage in that kind of ... class management. (A player doing the senior-year work to get in needs the assurance that that work is meaningful.)

Still, even given that constraint, the staff is taking it to an unnecessary extreme.

[OutsiderFan]

Thomas Booker and Andres Fox are MUST get recruits for Stanford on the DL in class of 2018.

[OutsiderFan]

Thomas Booker and Andres Fox are MUST get recruits for Stanford on the DL in class of 2018.

[BostonCard]

Given that we just closed on a recruiting class featuring 4 5* players (and three guys who were the top ranked player at their position) plus 5 4* players, it seems a bit odd to be ragging on the recruiting.  And although last year had an unusual number of exceptional players given the small class size, it is not the first time that Shaw had a first rate class class.  Right before the 2013 class you are complaining about, we had the epic 2012 class that gave us the best offensive line recruits in Stanford history as a whole (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Caspers, Shuler, plus Fanaika who went on a mission), as part of a 22 person class.

This year's class will not be as good, and may well be comparable to 2013.  But I find it hard to argue that it's a strategy problem when the strategy has produced really good results.

Put another way, is there any evidence that Shaw's recruiting has been any worse than Harbaugh's?  Harbaugh was certainly much more aggressive about throwing offers out, and of course ran into exactly the problem that you noted.

We have a problem at defensive line.  That is certainly clear, as we have been thin at that position for years.  Even when we've recruited high caliber players (Thomas, Phillips), we just haven't recruited enough of them.  But that has been a problem since time immemorial.  I'd say getting quality and quantity in defensive linemen has been a problem for at least as long as I have followed Stanford.  It has been helped somewhat by the move to the spread by a lot of Pac-12 teams, but that doesn't help us against a team like USC, that plays a pro set and has quality offensive linemen.  Washington will again be a problem for us.

Last point.  Our defensive line was lacking today.  BUt so too were our linebackers, a position that we have reasonable quality and certainly quantity.  Even our DB's (aside from the two interceptions) looked quite pedestrian and got beat a fair bit.  Yeah, it the lack of pressure up front didn't help, but still.  Our defensive backs are supposed to be good enough that we ought to be able to get a coverage sack or two a game.  Today... nothing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Given that we just closed on a recruiting class featuring 4 5* players (and three guys who were the top ranked player at their position) plus 5 4* players, it seems a bit odd to be ragging on the recruiting.  And although last year had an unusual number of exceptional players given the small class size, it is not the first time that Shaw had a first rate class class.  Right before the 2013 class you are complaining about, we had the epic 2012 class that gave us the best offensive line recruits in Stanford history as a whole (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Caspers, Shuler, plus Fanaika who went on a mission), as part of a 22 person class.

This year's class will not be as good, and may well be comparable to 2013.  But I find it hard to argue that it's a strategy problem when the strategy has produced really good results.

Put another way, is there any evidence that Shaw's recruiting has been any worse than Harbaugh's?  Harbaugh was certainly much more aggressive about throwing offers out, and of course ran into exactly the problem that you noted.

We have a problem at defensive line.  That is certainly clear, as we have been thin at that position for years.  Even when we've recruited high caliber players (Thomas, Phillips), we just haven't recruited enough of them.  But that has been a problem since time immemorial.  I'd say getting quality and quantity in defensive linemen has been a problem for at least as long as I have followed Stanford.  It has been helped somewhat by the move to the spread by a lot of Pac-12 teams, but that doesn't help us against a team like USC, that plays a pro set and has quality offensive linemen.  Washington will again be a problem for us.

Last point.  Our defensive line was lacking today.  BUt so too were our linebackers, a position that we have reasonable quality and certainly quantity.  Even our DB's (aside from the two interceptions) looked quite pedestrian and got beat a fair bit.  Yeah, it the lack of pressure up front didn't help, but still.  Our defensive backs are supposed to be good enough that we ought to be able to get a coverage sack or two a game.  Today... nothing.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

[BostonCard]

Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

It is better to look at two-year classes than single years.  Between fifth year seniors and players going pro after three years, more than half of a class will wind up playing their last year of football with either the class ahead of them or behind them.  The problem, as you pointed out, was that the 2013 class was followed by a 2014 that didn't solve the linemen problem.

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

It is better to look at two-year classes than single years.  Between fifth year seniors and players going pro after three years, more than half of a class will wind up playing their last year of football with either the class ahead of them or behind them.  The problem, as you pointed out, was that the 2013 class was followed by a 2014 that didn't solve the linemen problem.

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

[norcard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17352.msg199988#msg199988 date=1505018188]
Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

It is better to look at two-year classes than single years.  Between fifth year seniors and players going pro after three years, more than half of a class will wind up playing their last year of football with either the class ahead of them or behind them.  The problem, as you pointed out, was that the 2013 class was followed by a 2014 that didn't solve the linemen problem.

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC
[/quote]


I think people are frustrated not at recruiting as a whole since our offense looked great but more at defensive recruiting (CB which we've kind of addressed, and the DL which you alluded to).  Our DL development has also been questionable as you can see from the lack of depth (in terms of talent, not bodies). 

SC's best Defensive player tonight was Ochenna Nwusu who was very low ranked in the recruiting circles.  We just have to get more DL recruits since whatever we have isn't exactly panning out

[norcard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17352.msg199988#msg199988 date=1505018188]
Well, sure, but Shaw could be doing even better from a recruiting perspective. You need to have deep, strong, comprehensive teams, and having a dud class really hampers a team down the road.

Shaw himself has said that Stanford, historically, has been a school with peaks and valleys -- and one of his goals is to take the valleys out. He's also said he wants to win titles. Both are worthy goals. If he wants to accomplish them, one excellent sub-goal would be to avoid 2013-style classes. Particularly at the line. Sadly, the odds are pretty strong that 2018 will resemble 2013.

It is better to look at two-year classes than single years.  Between fifth year seniors and players going pro after three years, more than half of a class will wind up playing their last year of football with either the class ahead of them or behind them.  The problem, as you pointed out, was that the 2013 class was followed by a 2014 that didn't solve the linemen problem.

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC
[/quote]


I think people are frustrated not at recruiting as a whole since our offense looked great but more at defensive recruiting (CB which we've kind of addressed, and the DL which you alluded to).  Our DL development has also been questionable as you can see from the lack of depth (in terms of talent, not bodies). 

SC's best Defensive player tonight was Ochenna Nwusu who was very low ranked in the recruiting circles.  We just have to get more DL recruits since whatever we have isn't exactly panning out

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Leave me with my illusions, bro.    Because if SC is not a playoff contender...

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Leave me with my illusions, bro.    Because if SC is not a playoff contender...

[Remy74]

[quote author=norcard link=topic=17352.msg199945#msg199945 date=1505015053]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Not the way SC played today. Hungry and inspired. Bama isn't as fast, nor as physical as SC played today. SC was swarming and relentless up front. They've no QB of merit, nor a stand out RB.
[/quote]

I attended the Bama vs FSU game last week [as well as the Bama vs USC game last year].

Bama has better and faster athletes than USC.  Competely different level of athletes for Bama. 

USC's only chance against Bama would be Sam Darnold but he would be running for his life in that match-up.

Bama would beat USC by 10-17 points. Different breed of athletes in the South, in particular on the defensive line and their LBs.

Bama also has 4 very good RBs but none get the 15-20 carries a game that teams with less RB depth provide.

[Remy74]

[quote author=norcard link=topic=17352.msg199945#msg199945 date=1505015053]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17352.msg199932#msg199932 date=1505014662]
Might be looking at a national champion here.

I'd say that is a little overblown.  Our D sucks. Also, S.C. Is far from a complete team.  Bama would destroy them
[/quote]

Not the way SC played today. Hungry and inspired. Bama isn't as fast, nor as physical as SC played today. SC was swarming and relentless up front. They've no QB of merit, nor a stand out RB.
[/quote]

I attended the Bama vs FSU game last week [as well as the Bama vs USC game last year].

Bama has better and faster athletes than USC.  Competely different level of athletes for Bama. 

USC's only chance against Bama would be Sam Darnold but he would be running for his life in that match-up.

Bama would beat USC by 10-17 points. Different breed of athletes in the South, in particular on the defensive line and their LBs.

Bama also has 4 very good RBs but none get the 15-20 carries a game that teams with less RB depth provide.

[Remy74]

DL got pushed back 3 yards almost every play.

OL held its own but clearly the weaker talent vs the SC DL.

Shaw with his usual brain freeze after big plays, resulting in delay of game. As he would say, poor execution by the Coach.

Not much separation downfield. Why #5 isn't thrown the ball on 20% of our plays, I don't know. He's the only one who'd be on SC's 2-deep for WR or RB.

Bryce Love would be in the 2 deep for USC. I've been watching football and evaluating players for a long time and Love is a special player.  Hard to run effectively when USC has 9 players in the box and Stanford has little to no passing game.

There are plethora of analytics available evaluating RBs.  Love is not as good in the passing game as McCaffey but Love evaluates better as a RB in terms of elusiveness, yards after contact and big play ability.

If Love were playing for USC he'd have running lanes due to the threat of Sam Darnold in the passing game and he might be doing better than his current 11.3 yards per carry on the season or his 7.9 yards per carry for his career.

Trent Irwin is also an excellent WR that simply doesn't get enough opportunities due to Stanford's mediocre passing game.

[Remy74]

DL got pushed back 3 yards almost every play.

OL held its own but clearly the weaker talent vs the SC DL.

Shaw with his usual brain freeze after big plays, resulting in delay of game. As he would say, poor execution by the Coach.

Not much separation downfield. Why #5 isn't thrown the ball on 20% of our plays, I don't know. He's the only one who'd be on SC's 2-deep for WR or RB.

Bryce Love would be in the 2 deep for USC. I've been watching football and evaluating players for a long time and Love is a special player.  Hard to run effectively when USC has 9 players in the box and Stanford has little to no passing game.

There are plethora of analytics available evaluating RBs.  Love is not as good in the passing game as McCaffey but Love evaluates better as a RB in terms of elusiveness, yards after contact and big play ability.

If Love were playing for USC he'd have running lanes due to the threat of Sam Darnold in the passing game and he might be doing better than his current 11.3 yards per carry on the season or his 7.9 yards per carry for his career.

Trent Irwin is also an excellent WR that simply doesn't get enough opportunities due to Stanford's mediocre passing game.

[stupac2]

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".

[stupac2]

Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".

[Remy74]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17352.msg199993#msg199993 date=1505018783]Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".
[/quote]

The issue with the DL is that if you were to analyze a map with the hometown of each NFL DL denoted by a dot you would see about 90% of the dots located in the southern US, from NC to Texas. Many of these kids would not get into Stanford. 

This the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.

[Remy74]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17352.msg199993#msg199993 date=1505018783]Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".
[/quote]

The issue with the DL is that if you were to analyze a map with the hometown of each NFL DL denoted by a dot you would see about 90% of the dots located in the southern US, from NC to Texas. Many of these kids would not get into Stanford. 

This the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.

[Mick]

This is the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.

I was always told it was the defensive backs.  I've also always been told that OLs were the smartest players on the team as a general rule of thumb, and that Stanford should always have great offensive linemen.

[Mick]

This is the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.

I was always told it was the defensive backs.  I've also always been told that OLs were the smartest players on the team as a general rule of thumb, and that Stanford should always have great offensive linemen.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17352.msg200034#msg200034 date=1505054690]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17352.msg199993#msg199993 date=1505018783]Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".
[/quote]

The issue with the DL is that if you were to analyze a map with the hometown of each NFL DL denoted by a dot you would see about 90% of the dots located in the southern US, from NC to Texas. Many of these kids would not get into Stanford. 

This the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.
[/quote]

It would be interesting to actually see the data on this. If you look at the 49ers roster, the geographical argument doesn't bear out, though obviously small sample size.

Earl Mitchell, Houston, Texas
Arik Armstead, Sacramento, CA
DJ Jones, Greenville, South Carolina
Solomon Thomas, Chicago, Illinois
Xavier Cooper, Tacoma, WA
DeForest Buckner, Waianae, Hawaii
Tank Carradine, Cincinnati, Ohio

[dabigv13]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17352.msg200034#msg200034 date=1505054690]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17352.msg199993#msg199993 date=1505018783]Let's see what this class winds up with.  More than every once in a while you get a David Parry or a Ben Gardner (in back-to-back classes no less), guys who weren't all that highly recruited out of high school but wound up being stars.

BC

I pointed this out too, we haven't seen a single player come in and turn into something more than their recruiting suggested (I guess you could say Thomas but having a highly ranked guy turn into a top-3 pick isn't quite the same thing as a 2-star turning into an all-conference guy). But even more than that, how many early retirements or other busts have we had? It seems like we're snakebitten at this one position, and even a tiny bit more luck would turn it from a glaring weakness to "I'd like more depth but we're fine".
[/quote]

The issue with the DL is that if you were to analyze a map with the hometown of each NFL DL denoted by a dot you would see about 90% of the dots located in the southern US, from NC to Texas. Many of these kids would not get into Stanford. 

This the position that Stanford is impacted the most by the academic standards.
[/quote]

It would be interesting to actually see the data on this. If you look at the 49ers roster, the geographical argument doesn't bear out, though obviously small sample size.

Earl Mitchell, Houston, Texas
Arik Armstead, Sacramento, CA
DJ Jones, Greenville, South Carolina
Solomon Thomas, Chicago, Illinois
Xavier Cooper, Tacoma, WA
DeForest Buckner, Waianae, Hawaii
Tank Carradine, Cincinnati, Ohio

[dabigv13]

I looked at the Dolphins as well since they're the NFL team I follow closest, and there are more Southern players, but not a majority.

Maryland
Oregon
Kansas
Missouri
New York
North Carolina
Virginia
Louisiana
Louisiana

[dabigv13]

I looked at the Dolphins as well since they're the NFL team I follow closest, and there are more Southern players, but not a majority.

Maryland
Oregon
Kansas
Missouri
New York
North Carolina
Virginia
Louisiana
Louisiana