02-01-2022, 11:22 PM
Football Recruiting Class of 2022
02-02-2022, 09:06 AM
I note that CJ Hawkins played just 4 games this year. I was hoping to see him break out because he only started playing football last season. Does anyone know why he wasn’t able to play more and whether he has any injuries that would prevent him from having a productive offseason?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
I note that CJ Hawkins played just 4 games this year. I was hoping to see him break out because he only started playing football last season. Does anyone know why he wasn’t able to play more and whether he has any injuries that would prevent him from having a productive offseason?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-02-2022, 11:09 AM
(02-02-2022, 09:06 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: I note that CJ Hawkins played just 4 games this year. I was hoping to see him break out because he only started playing football last season. Does anyone know why he wasn’t able to play more and whether he has any injuries that would prevent him from having a productive offseason?
Considering he is currently playing basketball (and put up 24 the other night in a win), I think he's doing just fine.
He only recorded CATCHES in those 4 games, but I believe he played all and had no injuries. He was primarily a blocker.
(02-02-2022, 09:06 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: I note that CJ Hawkins played just 4 games this year. I was hoping to see him break out because he only started playing football last season. Does anyone know why he wasn’t able to play more and whether he has any injuries that would prevent him from having a productive offseason?
Considering he is currently playing basketball (and put up 24 the other night in a win), I think he's doing just fine.
He only recorded CATCHES in those 4 games, but I believe he played all and had no injuries. He was primarily a blocker.
02-02-2022, 11:36 AM
Thanks, Samuel. Good news. I read that Hawkins also wants to play basketball for Stanford. I hope that works out for him.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Thanks, Samuel. Good news. I read that Hawkins also wants to play basketball for Stanford. I hope that works out for him.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-02-2022, 11:43 AM
(02-02-2022, 11:36 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Thanks, Samuel. Good news. I read that Hawkins also wants to play basketball for Stanford. I hope that works out for him.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
The 247 composite is probably the most reliable and they have him at #666 (#34 among TE), it's hard for a TE without big pass catching numbers to be ranked too high coming out of high school.
ESPN has the worst track record in terms of their rankings; On3 is new but is putting a lot of effort in covering recruiting, too early to tell how accurate their rankings prove to be.
(02-02-2022, 11:36 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Thanks, Samuel. Good news. I read that Hawkins also wants to play basketball for Stanford. I hope that works out for him.
I note that Rivals assigned a 5.5 rating to Hawkins, which would put him outside the top 1000 recruits. That seems odd for a player with offers from the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Florida St., Miami, etc. The other recruiting services besides Rivals also seem to like Hawkins. ESPN and On3 give him 4 stars, and 247's proprietary ranking has him as the top TE who doesn't have 4 stars.
FWIW, I don't think we can blame it solely on Hawkins' lack of proven results in high school. Ashton Daniels led Buford to a third straight state championship, yet Rivals also assigned Daniels a 5.5 rating. Feels like Russian judging of American gymnasts circa the 1970s.
The 247 composite is probably the most reliable and they have him at #666 (#34 among TE), it's hard for a TE without big pass catching numbers to be ranked too high coming out of high school.
ESPN has the worst track record in terms of their rankings; On3 is new but is putting a lot of effort in covering recruiting, too early to tell how accurate their rankings prove to be.
02-02-2022, 11:56 AM
Here are Hawkins' rankings:
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Here are Hawkins' rankings:
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(02-02-2022, 11:56 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here are Hawkins' rankings:
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
Rivals is notorious for not giving a crap about recruits that did not attend their camps. Hawkins (and Ashton Daniels and ILB Matt Rose who I am more bullish on, for that matter) didn't attend ANY camps. At least the other services noticed his offer list (yes, they were committable) and adjusted accordingly.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2022, 12:02 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(02-02-2022, 11:56 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: Here are Hawkins' rankings:
On3: #15 TE
ESPN: #11 Y-TE (implies #19-#21 TE overall)
247: #22 TE
Rivals: NR (40 TEs are ranked)
So 3 of 4 services have Hawkins in a fairly narrow range, with an average around the the high teens among TEs, and maybe ~400 overall.
Hawkins' offer list, assuming the offers were accurately reported and commitable, lends credence to the higher rankings.
My point is that Rivals' evaluation appears to be an outlier, and I'm wondering whether to discount it.
Your point that Hawkins lacks pass-catching stats that we can readily find online might suggest that Rivals failed to rank Hawkins only because they failed to put eyes on him to evaluate his ability as a blocker.
If so, that's good news for Stanford.
Rivals is notorious for not giving a crap about recruits that did not attend their camps. Hawkins (and Ashton Daniels and ILB Matt Rose who I am more bullish on, for that matter) didn't attend ANY camps. At least the other services noticed his offer list (yes, they were committable) and adjusted accordingly.
02-02-2022, 12:33 PM
Once again, thank you, Samuel.
I was quite pessimistic about Daniels during the season based on his total lack of other P5 offers, the fact that he split time with another QB, and seeing that he posted such paltry passing numbers week after week. I'm a little more sanguine now that I realize he came from an offense that just doesn't pass much and now that I've noted that Daniels led the team to 3 straight state titles. I can even understand a coach deciding to give some snaps to a lesser, backup QB who'll be the starter next year, but the lack of other P5 offers remains puzzling to me. Not even one. It's not like the QB at Buford can fly under the radar. What gives?
I was quite pessimistic about Daniels during the season based on his total lack of other P5 offers, the fact that he split time with another QB, and seeing that he posted such paltry passing numbers week after week. I'm a little more sanguine now that I realize he came from an offense that just doesn't pass much and now that I've noted that Daniels led the team to 3 straight state titles. I can even understand a coach deciding to give some snaps to a lesser, backup QB who'll be the starter next year, but the lack of other P5 offers remains puzzling to me. Not even one. It's not like the QB at Buford can fly under the radar. What gives?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Once again, thank you, Samuel.
I was quite pessimistic about Daniels during the season based on his total lack of other P5 offers, the fact that he split time with another QB, and seeing that he posted such paltry passing numbers week after week. I'm a little more sanguine now that I realize he came from an offense that just doesn't pass much and now that I've noted that Daniels led the team to 3 straight state titles. I can even understand a coach deciding to give some snaps to a lesser, backup QB who'll be the starter next year, but the lack of other P5 offers remains puzzling to me. Not even one. It's not like the QB at Buford can fly under the radar. What gives?
I was quite pessimistic about Daniels during the season based on his total lack of other P5 offers, the fact that he split time with another QB, and seeing that he posted such paltry passing numbers week after week. I'm a little more sanguine now that I realize he came from an offense that just doesn't pass much and now that I've noted that Daniels led the team to 3 straight state titles. I can even understand a coach deciding to give some snaps to a lesser, backup QB who'll be the starter next year, but the lack of other P5 offers remains puzzling to me. Not even one. It's not like the QB at Buford can fly under the radar. What gives?
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-02-2022, 12:36 PM
I don't expect any surprises today on the scholly front. It felt a bit unusual that no more PWOs have been added today, but I believe they have to wait for the regular decision application results to come out (April 1).
02-02-2022, 03:32 PM
I didn’t see it posted here yet, so here’s an interview with David Shaw about recruiting generally and a bit about Stanford’s 2022 class.
https://twitter.com/Rivals/status/1488929355195719685?cxt=HHwWioC9gYTX3qkpAAAA
https://twitter.com/Rivals/status/1488929355195719685?cxt=HHwWioC9gYTX3qkpAAAA
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
I didn’t see it posted here yet, so here’s an interview with David Shaw about recruiting generally and a bit about Stanford’s 2022 class.
https://twitter.com/Rivals/status/1488929355195719685?cxt=HHwWioC9gYTX3qkpAAAA
https://twitter.com/Rivals/status/1488929355195719685?cxt=HHwWioC9gYTX3qkpAAAA
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-02-2022, 03:54 PM
Here's Coach Shaw talking recruiting and more on the Pac-12 Network:
https://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-footb...igning-day
https://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-footb...igning-day
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Here's Coach Shaw talking recruiting and more on the Pac-12 Network:
https://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-footb...igning-day
https://pac-12.com/videos/stanford-footb...igning-day
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
02-02-2022, 05:15 PM
With all but a handful of the top HS players now signed, it looks like Stanford will end up with the #1 ranked recruiting class in the Pac-12, per 247 sports. This ranking has as much to do with coaching changes at Oregon, USC and UW than anything else, but I'll certainly take it!
What's really scary to me is the gap between the haves and almost-haves. Texas A&M has the #1 ranked class nationally, with 7 5-stars, 18 4-stars and 3 3-stars. Stanford, ranked #17, has 7 4-stars and 15 3-stars. So aTm has as many 5-stars as Stanford has 4-stars and more 4- and 5-stars combined than Stanford has total recruits. I think that the best metaphor is that Stanford, #1 in the Pac-12, has been lapped by aTm.
I'm not going to take the time to check year-by-year, but I have to think that the gap between this year's #1 national recruiting class and the #1 Pac-12 recruiting class is the largest that it has ever been since team recruiting rankings became a thing.
What's really scary to me is the gap between the haves and almost-haves. Texas A&M has the #1 ranked class nationally, with 7 5-stars, 18 4-stars and 3 3-stars. Stanford, ranked #17, has 7 4-stars and 15 3-stars. So aTm has as many 5-stars as Stanford has 4-stars and more 4- and 5-stars combined than Stanford has total recruits. I think that the best metaphor is that Stanford, #1 in the Pac-12, has been lapped by aTm.
I'm not going to take the time to check year-by-year, but I have to think that the gap between this year's #1 national recruiting class and the #1 Pac-12 recruiting class is the largest that it has ever been since team recruiting rankings became a thing.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
With all but a handful of the top HS players now signed, it looks like Stanford will end up with the #1 ranked recruiting class in the Pac-12, per 247 sports. This ranking has as much to do with coaching changes at Oregon, USC and UW than anything else, but I'll certainly take it!
What's really scary to me is the gap between the haves and almost-haves. Texas A&M has the #1 ranked class nationally, with 7 5-stars, 18 4-stars and 3 3-stars. Stanford, ranked #17, has 7 4-stars and 15 3-stars. So aTm has as many 5-stars as Stanford has 4-stars and more 4- and 5-stars combined than Stanford has total recruits. I think that the best metaphor is that Stanford, #1 in the Pac-12, has been lapped by aTm.
I'm not going to take the time to check year-by-year, but I have to think that the gap between this year's #1 national recruiting class and the #1 Pac-12 recruiting class is the largest that it has ever been since team recruiting rankings became a thing.
What's really scary to me is the gap between the haves and almost-haves. Texas A&M has the #1 ranked class nationally, with 7 5-stars, 18 4-stars and 3 3-stars. Stanford, ranked #17, has 7 4-stars and 15 3-stars. So aTm has as many 5-stars as Stanford has 4-stars and more 4- and 5-stars combined than Stanford has total recruits. I think that the best metaphor is that Stanford, #1 in the Pac-12, has been lapped by aTm.
I'm not going to take the time to check year-by-year, but I have to think that the gap between this year's #1 national recruiting class and the #1 Pac-12 recruiting class is the largest that it has ever been since team recruiting rankings became a thing.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
02-02-2022, 05:33 PM
Although most of the programs with perennially strong recruiting classes occupy the top of the rankings again this year, if you’re looking at these ranking to project a change in talent level on the various P5 rosters, you should keep in mind that there are some factors this year that skew the results a bit. In particular, a number of teams seem to be focused on the transfer portal for replenishing their talent. For that reason, I’m not sure that Stanford’s total sum of new talent actually would be in the top 20, even though the recruiting ranking is in that range.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Although most of the programs with perennially strong recruiting classes occupy the top of the rankings again this year, if you’re looking at these ranking to project a change in talent level on the various P5 rosters, you should keep in mind that there are some factors this year that skew the results a bit. In particular, a number of teams seem to be focused on the transfer portal for replenishing their talent. For that reason, I’m not sure that Stanford’s total sum of new talent actually would be in the top 20, even though the recruiting ranking is in that range.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
02-02-2022, 06:04 PM
(02-02-2022, 05:33 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Although most of the programs with perennially strong recruiting classes occupy the top of the rankings again this year, if you’re looking at these ranking to project a change in talent level on the various P5 rosters, you should keep in mind that there are some factors this year that skew the results a bit. In particular, a number of teams seem to be focused on the transfer portal for replenishing their talent. For that reason, I’m not sure that Stanford’s total sum of new talent actually would be in the top 20, even though the recruiting ranking is in that range.
247 has a Team Talent Composite metric which measures the complete roster, including transfers. It's imperfect since it relies solely on a recruit's original ranking but it gives a more accurate perspective now that many teams are transfer-heavy. Stanford ranks 25th at the moment.
(02-02-2022, 05:33 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Although most of the programs with perennially strong recruiting classes occupy the top of the rankings again this year, if you’re looking at these ranking to project a change in talent level on the various P5 rosters, you should keep in mind that there are some factors this year that skew the results a bit. In particular, a number of teams seem to be focused on the transfer portal for replenishing their talent. For that reason, I’m not sure that Stanford’s total sum of new talent actually would be in the top 20, even though the recruiting ranking is in that range.
247 has a Team Talent Composite metric which measures the complete roster, including transfers. It's imperfect since it relies solely on a recruit's original ranking but it gives a more accurate perspective now that many teams are transfer-heavy. Stanford ranks 25th at the moment.
02-02-2022, 07:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2022, 07:21 PM by OutsiderFan.)
ESPN's Bottom Line ranked Stanford's recruiting class #12.
ESPN's recruiting folks like Stanford's class.
ESPN's recruiting folks like Stanford's class.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2022, 07:21 PM by OutsiderFan.)
ESPN's Bottom Line ranked Stanford's recruiting class #12.
ESPN's recruiting folks like Stanford's class.
ESPN's recruiting folks like Stanford's class.
02-03-2022, 11:12 AM
Five-star prospect Lebbeus Overton, top-ranked football recruit, reclassifying to 2022 class
"He's a 4.0 kid, he has been taking AP classes and so he's got quite a few college credits already and was already in position to graduate this spring."
Jump on it, David!
"He's a 4.0 kid, he has been taking AP classes and so he's got quite a few college credits already and was already in position to graduate this spring."
Jump on it, David!
Five-star prospect Lebbeus Overton, top-ranked football recruit, reclassifying to 2022 class
"He's a 4.0 kid, he has been taking AP classes and so he's got quite a few college credits already and was already in position to graduate this spring."
Jump on it, David!
"He's a 4.0 kid, he has been taking AP classes and so he's got quite a few college credits already and was already in position to graduate this spring."
Jump on it, David!
02-03-2022, 11:28 AM
It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
It looks like we offered Overton, but his top five are Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas A&M.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »