[PrinceLightfoot]

Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!

[PrinceLightfoot]

Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!

[2 for 2028]

Third. And can we set it so that new posts are automatically marked as read?

[2 for 2028]

Third. And can we set it so that new posts are automatically marked as read?

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=9617.msg121957#msg121957 date=1436380267]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

Yes. No and yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupertino_effect

-m.
[/quote]

Enlightening, thanks!

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=9617.msg121957#msg121957 date=1436380267]

Plus with tweets you can't rule out Cupertinos or other random errors.

Did anybody catch this from earlier in this thread? Was this a result of the auto-correction program?

Yes. No and yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupertino_effect

-m.
[/quote]

Enlightening, thanks!

[PrinceLightfoot]

If the ability to speak one's native language above the level of "me is going to the store" is snobbish, then count me in. The reality is that most of the posters on this board don't value being able to speak and write correctly. No one here would consider it snobbish if a recruit were to say that he, Bob, and Joe had committed, so we had a total of two commitments. You don't give a damn whether these guys can read and write, as long as they can catch a ball.

This whole post has ignored most posts and concludes in nonsense (i.e. we only care about the athlete not the student). The assumption that one's informal speech directly relates to not being able to intelligibly read and write is simply incorrect. Your understanding of that concept is not my real concern.

I have never read anything so directly demeaning of our Stanford athletes or prospects - do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

[PrinceLightfoot]

If the ability to speak one's native language above the level of "me is going to the store" is snobbish, then count me in. The reality is that most of the posters on this board don't value being able to speak and write correctly. No one here would consider it snobbish if a recruit were to say that he, Bob, and Joe had committed, so we had a total of two commitments. You don't give a damn whether these guys can read and write, as long as they can catch a ball.

This whole post has ignored most posts and concludes in nonsense (i.e. we only care about the athlete not the student). The assumption that one's informal speech directly relates to not being able to intelligibly read and write is simply incorrect. Your understanding of that concept is not my real concern.

I have never read anything so directly demeaning of our Stanford athletes or prospects - do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

[yvonne]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."

[yvonne]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."

[TrumpCard]

Updates from the opening.
Costello down to #5 ranked qb.
Robertson just missed the cutoff for the sparq finals with a score over 130.
The top 10 made he finals. Those 10 include McCulloch, Crawford, and Imatorbhebhe.

[TrumpCard]

Updates from the opening.
Costello down to #5 ranked qb.
Robertson just missed the cutoff for the sparq finals with a score over 130.
The top 10 made he finals. Those 10 include McCulloch, Crawford, and Imatorbhebhe.

[yvonne]

do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

[yvonne]

do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

[oman]

We should have gone for Buechele, I knew it.

Oh well, we stole Luck from Texas.

[oman]

We should have gone for Buechele, I knew it.

Oh well, we stole Luck from Texas.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121962#msg121962 date=1436382715]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."
[/quote]

When I was at Stanford, I took one engineering course (besides computer science), aero/astr 100 (Intro to aero/astro).  I don't remember much from the course, but I do remember that one of the assignments was to calculate the amount of runway needed for a plane to land based on a number of variables (weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and a bunch of others that I have since forgotten).  The formula was complicated and somewhat arbitrary (in that it was based on empiric data rather than some fundamental attribute).  The formula of course produced a rather exact number in the end, but since a runway that was exactly the length needed to land a plane leaves no margin of error, at the end of the day, we were told to add a 50% "fudge factor" to the answer.

Now for those of us basic science people (I was a chemistry major), the exercise was somewhat unsatisfying.  But for the real world, it is important to remember that in this case, the math is a tool.  Getting the exact answer is not as important when determining a runway length as getting a useful answer.  And in this case, "useful" means having a runway that is long enough for a plane to stop even when the landing is not executed perfectly, or the plane in question doesn't fit the empiric model perfectly, or any number of other potential problems.  The math required for the class was a means to an end.  The end is to land the plane safely, not the mathematical calculation, thus the 50% factor, while unsatisfying, is appropriate.

The same is true with language.  Language is a means to an end.  The end is to be able to communicate.  Clear language following certain rules makes it easier to do so, particularly in certain situations (for example, long-form prose, debates, laws [see the thread], etc.)  Other modes of communication are more informal and improper grammar is more acceptable (or, at least, less unacceptable).  Spoken word between friends, modern social media, especially twitter.  It might be horribly unsatisfying to a language purist, but all of us knew exactly what the tweet meant.  He accomplished his goal of communicating.

If he were incapable of using proper grammar in situations that clearly called for it, such as his written Stanford essays, I think it would reflect poorly upon him.  But using poor grammar in a tweet?  That places him squarely within 99% of twitter users.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121962#msg121962 date=1436382715]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."
[/quote]

When I was at Stanford, I took one engineering course (besides computer science), aero/astr 100 (Intro to aero/astro).  I don't remember much from the course, but I do remember that one of the assignments was to calculate the amount of runway needed for a plane to land based on a number of variables (weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and a bunch of others that I have since forgotten).  The formula was complicated and somewhat arbitrary (in that it was based on empiric data rather than some fundamental attribute).  The formula of course produced a rather exact number in the end, but since a runway that was exactly the length needed to land a plane leaves no margin of error, at the end of the day, we were told to add a 50% "fudge factor" to the answer.

Now for those of us basic science people (I was a chemistry major), the exercise was somewhat unsatisfying.  But for the real world, it is important to remember that in this case, the math is a tool.  Getting the exact answer is not as important when determining a runway length as getting a useful answer.  And in this case, "useful" means having a runway that is long enough for a plane to stop even when the landing is not executed perfectly, or the plane in question doesn't fit the empiric model perfectly, or any number of other potential problems.  The math required for the class was a means to an end.  The end is to land the plane safely, not the mathematical calculation, thus the 50% factor, while unsatisfying, is appropriate.

The same is true with language.  Language is a means to an end.  The end is to be able to communicate.  Clear language following certain rules makes it easier to do so, particularly in certain situations (for example, long-form prose, debates, laws [see the thread], etc.)  Other modes of communication are more informal and improper grammar is more acceptable (or, at least, less unacceptable).  Spoken word between friends, modern social media, especially twitter.  It might be horribly unsatisfying to a language purist, but all of us knew exactly what the tweet meant.  He accomplished his goal of communicating.

If he were incapable of using proper grammar in situations that clearly called for it, such as his written Stanford essays, I think it would reflect poorly upon him.  But using poor grammar in a tweet?  That places him squarely within 99% of twitter users.

BC

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121965#msg121965 date=1436384094]
do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
[/quote]

Ridiculous! I expect them to block and tackle as well.  ;)

But we are not talking about a college student, are we...

They need to be able to attend my alma mater before I can care about their athletic ability with fanatical fervor, and last I checked that required writing essays, making the grades, and scoring exceptionally well on standardized tests. Good job on insulting most on this message board by assuming otherwise just because most responses do not subscribe to this spoken grammar snobbishness as it applies to high school teenagers. You know better, but you are throwing an online tantrum and doubling down. I won't hold it against you.

"Me and K.J. have been talking for the last two months..."

When the quoted statement is said out loud in a conversational tone, it has an entirely different feel than the strawman sentence "me went to the store"

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121965#msg121965 date=1436384094]
do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
[/quote]

Ridiculous! I expect them to block and tackle as well.  ;)

But we are not talking about a college student, are we...

They need to be able to attend my alma mater before I can care about their athletic ability with fanatical fervor, and last I checked that required writing essays, making the grades, and scoring exceptionally well on standardized tests. Good job on insulting most on this message board by assuming otherwise just because most responses do not subscribe to this spoken grammar snobbishness as it applies to high school teenagers. You know better, but you are throwing an online tantrum and doubling down. I won't hold it against you.

"Me and K.J. have been talking for the last two months..."

When the quoted statement is said out loud in a conversational tone, it has an entirely different feel than the strawman sentence "me went to the store"

[Hey]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg121937#msg121937 date=1436372136]
NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.
[/quote]

....and we've come full circle.  Kris's brother Kraig Kristofferson graduated from Stanford. ('65?) 

[Hey]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg121937#msg121937 date=1436372136]
NEXT ON CARDBOARD: How can Janis Joplin be a famous musical artist when she CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A SUBJECT OR OBJECT in "Me and Bobby McGee"?

Ha!  That song was written by Kris Kristoffersen, a Rhodes Scholar at Pomona.  I don't think we can equate a Rhodes Scholar and Hall of Fame songwriter with a high school recruit.  But Kristoffersen's college football career was undistinguished.  Robinson - we'll see.
[/quote]

....and we've come full circle.  Kris's brother Kraig Kristofferson graduated from Stanford. ('65?) 

[SeattleTree]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121965#msg121965 date=1436384094]
do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
[/quote]

You've made your point multiple times now.  I respectfully request that you drop the attitude, stop telling people what they think and get back to discussing sports, which is what this board is about. 

[SeattleTree]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121965#msg121965 date=1436384094]
do not tell me you are unaware of other eyes that read these post. Why would you do this just to qualify a snobbish comment?

Move all related posts to private board please

It's not snobbish to expect a college student to be able to speak English at least beyond the "me went to the store" level. You expect all other students to be able to do so. The reality is you care only about getting players who run fast, jump high, and catch well — the same as fans of any other sports team do. You're being hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
[/quote]

You've made your point multiple times now.  I respectfully request that you drop the attitude, stop telling people what they think and get back to discussing sports, which is what this board is about. 

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/jeremycrabtree/statu...7353793536

Some video from the openning, with Kaden Smith outmuscling a smaller DB for a back shoulder "fade" (didn't look like much of a fade to me).

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/jeremycrabtree/statu...7353793536

Some video from the openning, with Kaden Smith outmuscling a smaller DB for a back shoulder "fade" (didn't look like much of a fade to me).

BC

[TrumpCard]

Changing the subject completely.  So, how about that #CardClass16?
Here's my board of 36.  Let me know if you have additions or if you disagree on these guys.

Position-by-Position Breakdown:

QB:
Costello--#37 recruit. Committed and as good as signed.  4+ GPA.

WR:
Need at least 2 who will arrive in 2016.
Fehoko (c/o 2018)--#243 recruit. Stanford is the prohibitive favorite, with an announcement planned this month.  4.0 GPA. 
Stewart--#933 recruit.  Stanford is his "dream school."  May be working on academics.
Robertson--#34 recruit.  Stanford is in top 2 with Alabama.  Unofficial visit planned.  Academics a big issue.
Burton--#129 recruit.  Stanford not in top 7, but apparently getting an unofficial visit August 1.
Crawford--#80 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford in top 10.  Not a great feeling.

RB:
Bisharat--#304 recruit.  Committed.  Working to solidify academics.
Stephens--#392 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  No publicized top list.  Tough to read.
Speights--#629 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  On Top 3 list.  TAMU was thought to be favored, but why no commitment?  ;)

FB:
McElwain--N/R, 2-star.  Committed. 

TE:
Smith--#28 recruit.  Committed.

OL:
Yarbrough--#165 recruit.  Committed.  3.6 GPA.
Herbig--N/R, 2-star recruit.  Committed.  Working to solidify academics.
Farniok--#218 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  No top list publicized.  Distance an issue.
Hattis--#753 recruit.  Visited for Camp.  Tough to read, but Stanford and UCLA appear to be his best offers.

DL:
Williams--#228 recruit.  Committed. 
Peek--#765 recruit.  Committed.
Rand--#124 recruit.  Visited multiple times.  Called Stanford the clear favorite a year ago.  Academics are an issue.
Schaffer--#495 recruit.  Has not visited and is in Austria for the summer.  Tough to read.
Kemp--#289 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Chuck Pagano's nephew.  4.0 GPA.  No offer.  Why?  ???
Dexter Lawrence--#4 overall recruit.  He's just teasing us though.  No shot.

LB:
C. Robinson--#89 recruit.  Committed and as good as signed.  4+ GPA.
Simms--#530 recruit.  Stanford is his "dream school" and he visited for Junior Day.  Speculating that academics are an issue. 
Kelly--#18 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day and 2014 Camp.  Stanford recently made top 7 after missing prior top 10. 
McCulloch--#103 recruit.  No visit yet and will have to wait for officials.  Stanford on top 12 list.  Tough to read.  Great grades.
Winston--#239 recruit.  Stanford in top 3.  Commitment tomorrow.  Visit to Stanford/UCLA planned later this month.  Strange.
Jones--#410 recruit.  Stanford in top 3 but Michigan leads.  No visit yet.

DB:
Edmonds--#344 recruit.  Committed, but planning visit to UDFG. 
Antoine--#963 recruit.  Committed.  4+ GPA.
Long--#66 recruit.  Stanford is prohibitive favorite for planned summer commitment.  Now clearly recruited at DB.
Butler--#215 recruit.  Stanford is prohibitive favorite for planned August 14 commitment.  4+ GPA.
Fuller--#116 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford thought to be in top 6ish.  Don't get a great feeling about this one.
Pryts--#313 recruit.  Visited in June.  4.0 GPA.  Stanford made top 5 after visit.  Tough to read.
R. Robinson--#397 recruit.  No visit yet.  4+ GPA.  Idolizes Richard Sherman.  Tough to read recruitment though. 
Ulloa--#656 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford in top 3.  I think he comes if admitted.  Academics may be an issue.
Okeke--#525 recruit.  No visit yet.  Stanford in top 3.  UDFG could have an edge, but no commitment at camp.   


Edited to add Williams (my short term memory, oy) as well as Burton and Crawford (thanks socalstanfan).

[TrumpCard]

Changing the subject completely.  So, how about that #CardClass16?
Here's my board of 36.  Let me know if you have additions or if you disagree on these guys.

Position-by-Position Breakdown:

QB:
Costello--#37 recruit. Committed and as good as signed.  4+ GPA.

WR:
Need at least 2 who will arrive in 2016.
Fehoko (c/o 2018)--#243 recruit. Stanford is the prohibitive favorite, with an announcement planned this month.  4.0 GPA. 
Stewart--#933 recruit.  Stanford is his "dream school."  May be working on academics.
Robertson--#34 recruit.  Stanford is in top 2 with Alabama.  Unofficial visit planned.  Academics a big issue.
Burton--#129 recruit.  Stanford not in top 7, but apparently getting an unofficial visit August 1.
Crawford--#80 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford in top 10.  Not a great feeling.

RB:
Bisharat--#304 recruit.  Committed.  Working to solidify academics.
Stephens--#392 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  No publicized top list.  Tough to read.
Speights--#629 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  On Top 3 list.  TAMU was thought to be favored, but why no commitment?  ;)

FB:
McElwain--N/R, 2-star.  Committed. 

TE:
Smith--#28 recruit.  Committed.

OL:
Yarbrough--#165 recruit.  Committed.  3.6 GPA.
Herbig--N/R, 2-star recruit.  Committed.  Working to solidify academics.
Farniok--#218 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  No top list publicized.  Distance an issue.
Hattis--#753 recruit.  Visited for Camp.  Tough to read, but Stanford and UCLA appear to be his best offers.

DL:
Williams--#228 recruit.  Committed. 
Peek--#765 recruit.  Committed.
Rand--#124 recruit.  Visited multiple times.  Called Stanford the clear favorite a year ago.  Academics are an issue.
Schaffer--#495 recruit.  Has not visited and is in Austria for the summer.  Tough to read.
Kemp--#289 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Chuck Pagano's nephew.  4.0 GPA.  No offer.  Why?  ???
Dexter Lawrence--#4 overall recruit.  He's just teasing us though.  No shot.

LB:
C. Robinson--#89 recruit.  Committed and as good as signed.  4+ GPA.
Simms--#530 recruit.  Stanford is his "dream school" and he visited for Junior Day.  Speculating that academics are an issue. 
Kelly--#18 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day and 2014 Camp.  Stanford recently made top 7 after missing prior top 10. 
McCulloch--#103 recruit.  No visit yet and will have to wait for officials.  Stanford on top 12 list.  Tough to read.  Great grades.
Winston--#239 recruit.  Stanford in top 3.  Commitment tomorrow.  Visit to Stanford/UCLA planned later this month.  Strange.
Jones--#410 recruit.  Stanford in top 3 but Michigan leads.  No visit yet.

DB:
Edmonds--#344 recruit.  Committed, but planning visit to UDFG. 
Antoine--#963 recruit.  Committed.  4+ GPA.
Long--#66 recruit.  Stanford is prohibitive favorite for planned summer commitment.  Now clearly recruited at DB.
Butler--#215 recruit.  Stanford is prohibitive favorite for planned August 14 commitment.  4+ GPA.
Fuller--#116 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford thought to be in top 6ish.  Don't get a great feeling about this one.
Pryts--#313 recruit.  Visited in June.  4.0 GPA.  Stanford made top 5 after visit.  Tough to read.
R. Robinson--#397 recruit.  No visit yet.  4+ GPA.  Idolizes Richard Sherman.  Tough to read recruitment though. 
Ulloa--#656 recruit.  Visited for Junior Day.  Stanford in top 3.  I think he comes if admitted.  Academics may be an issue.
Okeke--#525 recruit.  No visit yet.  Stanford in top 3.  UDFG could have an edge, but no commitment at camp.   


Edited to add Williams (my short term memory, oy) as well as Burton and Crawford (thanks socalstanfan).

[socalstanfan1]

A couple with adding, IMO


Brandon Burton, a 4* athlete (DB/WR) will visit Stanford on August 1, making him worthy of the list even if he is a long shot.


Dylan Crawford, a WR playing with Costello, is consistently mentioned by Costello as a target. Maybe this is just Costello publicly pulling for one of his guys to join him, but Crawford has said nothing to discourage speculation about Stanford, so I think he belongs on the list.

[socalstanfan1]

A couple with adding, IMO


Brandon Burton, a 4* athlete (DB/WR) will visit Stanford on August 1, making him worthy of the list even if he is a long shot.


Dylan Crawford, a WR playing with Costello, is consistently mentioned by Costello as a target. Maybe this is just Costello publicly pulling for one of his guys to join him, but Crawford has said nothing to discourage speculation about Stanford, so I think he belongs on the list.

[TrumpCard]

Thanks, socalstanfan.  I suppose it is good to dream.  The staff probably won't get a top 10 class unless it pursues every lead, even the ones that seem unlikely to be productive.  A difference of just two 4-star players could easily vault Stanford from top 15 to top 10 in the team recruiting rankings. 

[TrumpCard]

Thanks, socalstanfan.  I suppose it is good to dream.  The staff probably won't get a top 10 class unless it pursues every lead, even the ones that seem unlikely to be productive.  A difference of just two 4-star players could easily vault Stanford from top 15 to top 10 in the team recruiting rankings. 

[washingtonismoney]

Here are athletic testing results from the Opening: http://www.studentsports.com/football/20...p-results/


Our commits:


Kaden Smith: 4.95 (40); 4.55 (shuttle); 27 inch vert; 82.29 rating -- surprisingly mediocre
Costello -- no results
Curtis Robinson -- 4.72 (40); 4.4 (shuttle); 32.2 inch vert; 103.29

[washingtonismoney]

Here are athletic testing results from the Opening: http://www.studentsports.com/football/20...p-results/


Our commits:


Kaden Smith: 4.95 (40); 4.55 (shuttle); 27 inch vert; 82.29 rating -- surprisingly mediocre
Costello -- no results
Curtis Robinson -- 4.72 (40); 4.4 (shuttle); 32.2 inch vert; 103.29

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Here are athletic testing results from the Opening: http://www.studentsports.com/football/20...p-results/


Our commits:


Kaden Smith: 4.95 (40); 4.55 (shuttle); 27 inch vert; 82.29 rating -- surprisingly mediocre
Costello -- no results
Curtis Robinson -- 4.72 (40); 4.4 (shuttle); 32.2 inch vert; 103.29

:(


Thankfully there's more to the position than straight-line speed.  Anybody have a 10-yard split?  Maybe he's a slow starter.


Actually after looking at the list, all the TEs appear to be in the same ballpark.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Here are athletic testing results from the Opening: http://www.studentsports.com/football/20...p-results/


Our commits:


Kaden Smith: 4.95 (40); 4.55 (shuttle); 27 inch vert; 82.29 rating -- surprisingly mediocre
Costello -- no results
Curtis Robinson -- 4.72 (40); 4.4 (shuttle); 32.2 inch vert; 103.29

:(


Thankfully there's more to the position than straight-line speed.  Anybody have a 10-yard split?  Maybe he's a slow starter.


Actually after looking at the list, all the TEs appear to be in the same ballpark.

[washingtonismoney]

It's pretty similar to Dalton Schultz's 40 time of 4.91: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ening-2013

[washingtonismoney]

It's pretty similar to Dalton Schultz's 40 time of 4.91: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ening-2013

[washingtonismoney]

Barton Simmons compares Costello to Christian Hackenberg, which I wouldn't say no to: http://247sports.com/Article/QB-comparis...s-38106560

[washingtonismoney]

Barton Simmons compares Costello to Christian Hackenberg, which I wouldn't say no to: http://247sports.com/Article/QB-comparis...s-38106560