[washingtonismoney]

Two things:

1) while we haven't had too many true freshmen starting OL, it's not as rare as seeing, say, a baby unicorn. One-time Stanford recruit Michael Philipp started at left tackle for Oregon State as a frehsman and came thisclose to the Rose Bowl. Michael Oher started as a freshman for Ole Miss. I believe Georgia had a freshman starter in--2007, was it? It's really rare, but if--knock on wood, etc. etc.--we get an exceptional recruiting class at OL, it's not inconceivable one could start. And Josh Garnett has mentioned that Shaw's used the jumbo package as a selling point for early playing time for recruits (which I realize isn't exactly the same thing, but still).

2) That said, I also wouldn't entirely write off the possibility of one or the other staying. It's still overwhelmingly likely they both leave, but I do recall that Moose Martin interview in which he said he wasn't sure it was his last home game. Obviously getting one or the other would be enormously helpful for next season.

[washingtonismoney]

Two things:

1) while we haven't had too many true freshmen starting OL, it's not as rare as seeing, say, a baby unicorn. One-time Stanford recruit Michael Philipp started at left tackle for Oregon State as a frehsman and came thisclose to the Rose Bowl. Michael Oher started as a freshman for Ole Miss. I believe Georgia had a freshman starter in--2007, was it? It's really rare, but if--knock on wood, etc. etc.--we get an exceptional recruiting class at OL, it's not inconceivable one could start. And Josh Garnett has mentioned that Shaw's used the jumbo package as a selling point for early playing time for recruits (which I realize isn't exactly the same thing, but still).

2) That said, I also wouldn't entirely write off the possibility of one or the other staying. It's still overwhelmingly likely they both leave, but I do recall that Moose Martin interview in which he said he wasn't sure it was his last home game. Obviously getting one or the other would be enormously helpful for next season.

[terry]

I agree that it's unlikely that a freshman OL would start. However, if depth is the issue, it's not unreasonable to think that one would play.

As for not having a stellar OL class, we have commitments fro two offensive linemen so far. Oregon has zero. School near Oakland has two. the University of South Central had two, and is probably close to being finished. Washington has two, one of whom is a two-star center.

We're in the finals with six four- and five-star linemen. I sincerely doubt that we will either entirely whiff on evaluating or fail to sign fewer than two of those guys. Thus, we will most likely replenish the number of linemen we are losing. The quality may drop, but we're looking at a drop from All-America to All-Conference.

I would hardly characterize that as "poor."

It's pretty unusual for Stanford to have a true freshman OL who makes a meaningful contribution. My records show that in the last 18 seasons (1994-2011), Stanford has had only 3 offensive linemen who played as true freshmen -- Eric Heitmann, Kwame Harris, and Mike Holman (who later transferred to Rice). None of them was a starter. So far as I can recall at the moment, the last true freshman to start on the OL for Stanford was Bob Whitfield in 1989. Given that we've had only 3 offensive linemen in 18 seasons who played as true freshmen, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that any of the true freshmen will be significant contributors this fall. If some of them are so good that they can play right away, that would be great, but I wouldn't bank on it.

By the way, Yvonne, I didn't characterize our OL recruiting this year as "poor." I said based on current commitments, our OL recruiting is not impressive. I hope we land some of those highly regarded prospects, but as I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

P.S. Some sources indicate that Kirk Chambers started for Stanford as a true freshman, but that's not correct. He redshirted in the fall of 1997 as a true freshman, left for his mission after fall quarter, was gone on mission in 1998 and 1999, and became a starter in 2000. By that time, he was 3 years out of high school.

[terry]

I agree that it's unlikely that a freshman OL would start. However, if depth is the issue, it's not unreasonable to think that one would play.

As for not having a stellar OL class, we have commitments fro two offensive linemen so far. Oregon has zero. School near Oakland has two. the University of South Central had two, and is probably close to being finished. Washington has two, one of whom is a two-star center.

We're in the finals with six four- and five-star linemen. I sincerely doubt that we will either entirely whiff on evaluating or fail to sign fewer than two of those guys. Thus, we will most likely replenish the number of linemen we are losing. The quality may drop, but we're looking at a drop from All-America to All-Conference.

I would hardly characterize that as "poor."

It's pretty unusual for Stanford to have a true freshman OL who makes a meaningful contribution. My records show that in the last 18 seasons (1994-2011), Stanford has had only 3 offensive linemen who played as true freshmen -- Eric Heitmann, Kwame Harris, and Mike Holman (who later transferred to Rice). None of them was a starter. So far as I can recall at the moment, the last true freshman to start on the OL for Stanford was Bob Whitfield in 1989. Given that we've had only 3 offensive linemen in 18 seasons who played as true freshmen, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that any of the true freshmen will be significant contributors this fall. If some of them are so good that they can play right away, that would be great, but I wouldn't bank on it.

By the way, Yvonne, I didn't characterize our OL recruiting this year as "poor." I said based on current commitments, our OL recruiting is not impressive. I hope we land some of those highly regarded prospects, but as I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

P.S. Some sources indicate that Kirk Chambers started for Stanford as a true freshman, but that's not correct. He redshirted in the fall of 1997 as a true freshman, left for his mission after fall quarter, was gone on mission in 1998 and 1999, and became a starter in 2000. By that time, he was 3 years out of high school.

[OutsiderFan]

This is a great thread.  It's discussion like this why I joined this board.  Anyway...

The three top OL targets Stanford is recruiting are ranked #2, #2 and #6 at their positions.  How many guys has Stanford signed that ranked that high at their positions at OL?  Just this year USC started a True Frosh at Guard and Florida State started one at RT (Bobby Hart, ranked #4 OT on Scout in 2011 class).  Admittedly, it is rare that True Frosh start on the OL, but it can and does happen.  I'm going to guess Stanford lands Garnett and Murphy.  Peat seems least likely of the three, but Stanford is in his final four, so who knows.  Garnett seems the most ready to play as a True Frosh.  I think part of the appeal for Garnett going to Stanford is to step into DeCastro's shoes right away.  Murphy looks the most physically ready to play right away between he and Peat.

As far as the bodies issue, it really isn't that rare for most college teams to only bring in two OL in a class.  California and U.S.C. only had nine scholarship OL last Spring too.  California doesn't have great OL talent, but performed pretty damn well  in 2011.  U.S.C. had a great year from its OL, and both avoided significant OL injuries.  California only lost I believe one OL game due to injury, and that was when LG Brian Schwenke was sick against WSU.

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Again, I just don't see anything for Stanford fans to worry about other than Wide Receivers.

[OutsiderFan]

This is a great thread.  It's discussion like this why I joined this board.  Anyway...

The three top OL targets Stanford is recruiting are ranked #2, #2 and #6 at their positions.  How many guys has Stanford signed that ranked that high at their positions at OL?  Just this year USC started a True Frosh at Guard and Florida State started one at RT (Bobby Hart, ranked #4 OT on Scout in 2011 class).  Admittedly, it is rare that True Frosh start on the OL, but it can and does happen.  I'm going to guess Stanford lands Garnett and Murphy.  Peat seems least likely of the three, but Stanford is in his final four, so who knows.  Garnett seems the most ready to play as a True Frosh.  I think part of the appeal for Garnett going to Stanford is to step into DeCastro's shoes right away.  Murphy looks the most physically ready to play right away between he and Peat.

As far as the bodies issue, it really isn't that rare for most college teams to only bring in two OL in a class.  California and U.S.C. only had nine scholarship OL last Spring too.  California doesn't have great OL talent, but performed pretty damn well  in 2011.  U.S.C. had a great year from its OL, and both avoided significant OL injuries.  California only lost I believe one OL game due to injury, and that was when LG Brian Schwenke was sick against WSU.

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Again, I just don't see anything for Stanford fans to worry about other than Wide Receivers.

[OutsiderFan]

This is a great thread.  It's discussion like this why I joined this board.  Anyway...

The three top OL targets Stanford is recruiting are ranked #2, #2 and #6 at their positions.  How many guys has Stanford signed that ranked that high at their positions at OL?  Just this year USC started a True Frosh at Guard and Florida State started one at RT (Bobby Hart, ranked #4 OT on Scout in 2011 class).  Admittedly, it is rare that True Frosh start on the OL, but it can and does happen.  I'm going to guess Stanford lands Garnett and Murphy.  Peat seems least likely of the three, but Stanford is in his final four, so who knows.  Garnett seems the most ready to play as a True Frosh.  I think part of the appeal for Garnett going to Stanford is to step into DeCastro's shoes right away.  Murphy looks the most physically ready to play right away between he and Peat.

As far as the bodies issue, it really isn't that rare for most college teams to only bring in two OL in a class.  California and U.S.C. only had nine scholarship OL last Spring too.  California doesn't have great OL talent, but performed pretty damn well  in 2011.  U.S.C. had a great year from its OL, and both avoided significant OL injuries.  California only lost I believe one OL game due to injury, and that was when LG Brian Schwenke was sick against WSU.

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Again, I just don't see anything for Stanford fans to worry about other than Wide Receivers.

[OutsiderFan]

This is a great thread.  It's discussion like this why I joined this board.  Anyway...

The three top OL targets Stanford is recruiting are ranked #2, #2 and #6 at their positions.  How many guys has Stanford signed that ranked that high at their positions at OL?  Just this year USC started a True Frosh at Guard and Florida State started one at RT (Bobby Hart, ranked #4 OT on Scout in 2011 class).  Admittedly, it is rare that True Frosh start on the OL, but it can and does happen.  I'm going to guess Stanford lands Garnett and Murphy.  Peat seems least likely of the three, but Stanford is in his final four, so who knows.  Garnett seems the most ready to play as a True Frosh.  I think part of the appeal for Garnett going to Stanford is to step into DeCastro's shoes right away.  Murphy looks the most physically ready to play right away between he and Peat.

As far as the bodies issue, it really isn't that rare for most college teams to only bring in two OL in a class.  California and U.S.C. only had nine scholarship OL last Spring too.  California doesn't have great OL talent, but performed pretty damn well  in 2011.  U.S.C. had a great year from its OL, and both avoided significant OL injuries.  California only lost I believe one OL game due to injury, and that was when LG Brian Schwenke was sick against WSU.

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Again, I just don't see anything for Stanford fans to worry about other than Wide Receivers.

[Farm93]

Outsiderfan,

Yeah, WR is the biggest concern.  Especially since 4.4 40 guys just don't stroll up to practice every day as walk-ons.  Stanford was super lucky with both of the Whalen receivers, but strong recruiting at that position would be nice.  Also WRs can be converted to DBs, which is another traditional area of need for Stanford.  So I am far more concerned with the limited number of burners on the 2011 squad.  Luck was good enough to work around that deficiency, but it is a deficiency for the Stanford team.

The current OL talent and the likely recruiting prospects are so good that OL play should not be a Stanford fan's primary concern, at least not in 2012 or 2013.

Yes there will likely be drops in talent at QB and OL, but it is the lack of quality and quantity at WR that seems most glaring.

[Farm93]

Outsiderfan,

Yeah, WR is the biggest concern.  Especially since 4.4 40 guys just don't stroll up to practice every day as walk-ons.  Stanford was super lucky with both of the Whalen receivers, but strong recruiting at that position would be nice.  Also WRs can be converted to DBs, which is another traditional area of need for Stanford.  So I am far more concerned with the limited number of burners on the 2011 squad.  Luck was good enough to work around that deficiency, but it is a deficiency for the Stanford team.

The current OL talent and the likely recruiting prospects are so good that OL play should not be a Stanford fan's primary concern, at least not in 2012 or 2013.

Yes there will likely be drops in talent at QB and OL, but it is the lack of quality and quantity at WR that seems most glaring.

[Farm93]

Outsiderfan,

Yeah, WR is the biggest concern.  Especially since 4.4 40 guys just don't stroll up to practice every day as walk-ons.  Stanford was super lucky with both of the Whalen receivers, but strong recruiting at that position would be nice.  Also WRs can be converted to DBs, which is another traditional area of need for Stanford.  So I am far more concerned with the limited number of burners on the 2011 squad.  Luck was good enough to work around that deficiency, but it is a deficiency for the Stanford team.

The current OL talent and the likely recruiting prospects are so good that OL play should not be a Stanford fan's primary concern, at least not in 2012 or 2013.

Yes there will likely be drops in talent at QB and OL, but it is the lack of quality and quantity at WR that seems most glaring.

[Farm93]

Outsiderfan,

Yeah, WR is the biggest concern.  Especially since 4.4 40 guys just don't stroll up to practice every day as walk-ons.  Stanford was super lucky with both of the Whalen receivers, but strong recruiting at that position would be nice.  Also WRs can be converted to DBs, which is another traditional area of need for Stanford.  So I am far more concerned with the limited number of burners on the 2011 squad.  Luck was good enough to work around that deficiency, but it is a deficiency for the Stanford team.

The current OL talent and the likely recruiting prospects are so good that OL play should not be a Stanford fan's primary concern, at least not in 2012 or 2013.

Yes there will likely be drops in talent at QB and OL, but it is the lack of quality and quantity at WR that seems most glaring.

[terry]

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Yankey already has some background at tackle. He played left tackle in 2010, appearing in one or two early games before being injured. He ended up with a medical redshirt. Yankey was competing for the right tackle job throughout spring practice and fall camp this year. He moved to left guard in the last week of fall camp due to a medical problem with Danser. I think it's possible that Yankey may end up being Stanford's best option at left tackle. If that move gives us the ability to put our best 5 guys on the field, then we have that flexibility.

[terry]

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Yankey already has some background at tackle. He played left tackle in 2010, appearing in one or two early games before being injured. He ended up with a medical redshirt. Yankey was competing for the right tackle job throughout spring practice and fall camp this year. He moved to left guard in the last week of fall camp due to a medical problem with Danser. I think it's possible that Yankey may end up being Stanford's best option at left tackle. If that move gives us the ability to put our best 5 guys on the field, then we have that flexibility.

[terry]

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Yankey already has some background at tackle. He played left tackle in 2010, appearing in one or two early games before being injured. He ended up with a medical redshirt. Yankey was competing for the right tackle job throughout spring practice and fall camp this year. He moved to left guard in the last week of fall camp due to a medical problem with Danser. I think it's possible that Yankey may end up being Stanford's best option at left tackle. If that move gives us the ability to put our best 5 guys on the field, then we have that flexibility.

[terry]

Yankey found a home at LG and excelled.  I don't see the merit in moving him to OT.  If you want some experience at LT, move Flemming to LT from RT.  It's much easier to go from one Tackle to the other than from Guard to Tackle. 

Yankey already has some background at tackle. He played left tackle in 2010, appearing in one or two early games before being injured. He ended up with a medical redshirt. Yankey was competing for the right tackle job throughout spring practice and fall camp this year. He moved to left guard in the last week of fall camp due to a medical problem with Danser. I think it's possible that Yankey may end up being Stanford's best option at left tackle. If that move gives us the ability to put our best 5 guys on the field, then we have that flexibility.