08-14-2015, 03:08 PM
(08-14-2015, 02:29 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Two 250 CBs in one class? Times sure are different.
Three if you go by Rivals.
Class of 2016
Three if you go by Rivals.
(08-14-2015, 02:29 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Two 250 CBs in one class? Times sure are different.
Three if you go by Rivals.
08-14-2015, 03:20 PM
Stanford's ability to recruit has come into sync with my feeling about the school. For so many years, I was baffled by kids choosing other schools. Now the elite athletes are saying that Stanford is their dream school. That's exactly how I felt. The cognitive dissonance is finally over.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Stanford's ability to recruit has come into sync with my feeling about the school. For so many years, I was baffled by kids choosing other schools. Now the elite athletes are saying that Stanford is their dream school. That's exactly how I felt. The cognitive dissonance is finally over.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
08-14-2015, 03:57 PM
(08-14-2015, 02:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Cal, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
(08-14-2015, 02:33 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Cal, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
08-14-2015, 03:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2015, 04:21 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(08-14-2015, 03:20 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Stanford's ability to recruit has come into sync with my feeling about the school. For so many years, I was baffled by kids choosing other schools. Now the elite athletes are saying that Stanford is their dream school. That's exactly how I felt. The cognitive dissonance is finally over.
By now, Stanford has been a national football power since most of these kids were still playing pee wee. By the time they enter high school they know that getting a scholarship to a school like Stanford (which is now a legitimate NFL factory) takes more than just athletic prowess.
Stanford has always had a lot to offer recruits - except a respectable football program. Now times have changed, the football program is a power, and it's kind of a no-brainer for academically-minded athletes. When I was a high school football player in the Bay Area (Teevens-Harris eras) very few of the highly-touted guys I played with or against legitimately considered Stanford. At that time, Berkeley and Los Angeles were the desired destinations. Times have obviously changed.
And I'm sure Sherman helps in that regard too.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2015, 04:21 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(08-14-2015, 03:20 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Stanford's ability to recruit has come into sync with my feeling about the school. For so many years, I was baffled by kids choosing other schools. Now the elite athletes are saying that Stanford is their dream school. That's exactly how I felt. The cognitive dissonance is finally over.
By now, Stanford has been a national football power since most of these kids were still playing pee wee. By the time they enter high school they know that getting a scholarship to a school like Stanford (which is now a legitimate NFL factory) takes more than just athletic prowess.
Stanford has always had a lot to offer recruits - except a respectable football program. Now times have changed, the football program is a power, and it's kind of a no-brainer for academically-minded athletes. When I was a high school football player in the Bay Area (Teevens-Harris eras) very few of the highly-touted guys I played with or against legitimately considered Stanford. At that time, Berkeley and Los Angeles were the desired destinations. Times have obviously changed.
And I'm sure Sherman helps in that regard too.
08-14-2015, 05:10 PM
(08-14-2015, 02:50 PM)Fuzzy Dunlop link Wrote:https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
(08-14-2015, 02:50 PM)Fuzzy Dunlop link Wrote:https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
08-14-2015, 05:29 PM
(08-14-2015, 05:10 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Fuzzy Dunlop link=topic=9617.msg124434#msg124434 date=1439589035]
https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
[/quote]
This is all amazing. I realize momentum can be lost faster than it is created, but do you think we have the motor running enough to make this a long time trend? We always seemed to attract some big bodies, and of course a superstar now and then, but the speedsters always seemed to avoid us, especially on D. I think Sherman has at least as much to do with this as Akina, tho Akina certainly doesn't hurt. Luck and Sherman, followed by others, provide invaluable marketing.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-14-2015, 05:10 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Fuzzy Dunlop link=topic=9617.msg124434#msg124434 date=1439589035]
https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
[/quote]
This is all amazing. I realize momentum can be lost faster than it is created, but do you think we have the motor running enough to make this a long time trend? We always seemed to attract some big bodies, and of course a superstar now and then, but the speedsters always seemed to avoid us, especially on D. I think Sherman has at least as much to do with this as Akina, tho Akina certainly doesn't hurt. Luck and Sherman, followed by others, provide invaluable marketing.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-14-2015, 05:39 PM
(08-14-2015, 05:29 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg124447#msg124447 date=1439597432]
[quote author=Fuzzy Dunlop link=topic=9617.msg124434#msg124434 date=1439589035]
https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
[/quote]
This is all amazing. I realize momentum can be lost faster than it is created, but do you think we have the motor running enough to make this a long time trend? We always seemed to attract some big bodies, and of course a superstar now and then, but the speedsters always seemed to avoid us, especially on D. I think Sherman has at least as much to do with this as Akina, tho Akina certainly doesn't hurt. Luck and Sherman, followed by others, provide invaluable marketing.
[/quote]
Indeed. No. 4 in average rating on 247, by my estimate (they don't allow you to sort that column). People sometimes get caught up in overall ranking, but don't take into account that those rankings inherently favor teams who oversign.
Stanford has 14 commits so far in the class and is sitting at 11th on 247. The average number of commits for the top 10 teams is 18.4.
(08-14-2015, 05:29 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg124447#msg124447 date=1439597432]
[quote author=Fuzzy Dunlop link=topic=9617.msg124434#msg124434 date=1439589035]
https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...0163875841
I just noticed this. Pretty heady stuff for Stanford football. This can't do anything but help with continuing the trend. Great players like to play with great players.
[/quote]
This is all amazing. I realize momentum can be lost faster than it is created, but do you think we have the motor running enough to make this a long time trend? We always seemed to attract some big bodies, and of course a superstar now and then, but the speedsters always seemed to avoid us, especially on D. I think Sherman has at least as much to do with this as Akina, tho Akina certainly doesn't hurt. Luck and Sherman, followed by others, provide invaluable marketing.
[/quote]
Indeed. No. 4 in average rating on 247, by my estimate (they don't allow you to sort that column). People sometimes get caught up in overall ranking, but don't take into account that those rankings inherently favor teams who oversign.
Stanford has 14 commits so far in the class and is sitting at 11th on 247. The average number of commits for the top 10 teams is 18.4.
08-14-2015, 05:45 PM
(08-14-2015, 03:57 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:Stanford has always had a lot to offer recruits - except a respectable football program. Now times have changed, the football program is a power, and it's kind of a no-brainer for academically-minded athletes.Â
You are obviously correct. The team's track record of success has really helped recruiting across most of the positions. The staff is winning recruiting battles against all of the juggernauts. The lack of DL depth is a bit of a mystery, but, even there, the staff has won some big battles for recruits like Williams and Thomas. I think the biggest question mark going forward is whether Stanford will be able to tell a similar story to WRs. The staff has not won a big recruiting battle for a WR in a long time. Guys like Irwin and Owusu were rated highly, but didn't have offers from U$C or Oregon, which seem to be the preferred destinations in the Pac-12 for elite WRs. I know Pritchard and Bloomgren have gained Shaw's confidence, but I think the WR recruiting situation can be explained by the fact that Pritchard and Bloomgren haven't yet established a track record of putting great offenses on the field. If the offense can put up a lot of points this year and if Hogan, Rector, and Cajuste can play themselves into the NFL, I think we'll see Stanford jump to the top of the list for WR recruits like Crawford, Burton, and maybe even McKinley (all of whom should be in Stanford's sweet spot because they live in California and are academically minded).Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(08-14-2015, 03:57 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:Stanford has always had a lot to offer recruits - except a respectable football program. Now times have changed, the football program is a power, and it's kind of a no-brainer for academically-minded athletes.Â
You are obviously correct. The team's track record of success has really helped recruiting across most of the positions. The staff is winning recruiting battles against all of the juggernauts. The lack of DL depth is a bit of a mystery, but, even there, the staff has won some big battles for recruits like Williams and Thomas. I think the biggest question mark going forward is whether Stanford will be able to tell a similar story to WRs. The staff has not won a big recruiting battle for a WR in a long time. Guys like Irwin and Owusu were rated highly, but didn't have offers from U$C or Oregon, which seem to be the preferred destinations in the Pac-12 for elite WRs. I know Pritchard and Bloomgren have gained Shaw's confidence, but I think the WR recruiting situation can be explained by the fact that Pritchard and Bloomgren haven't yet established a track record of putting great offenses on the field. If the offense can put up a lot of points this year and if Hogan, Rector, and Cajuste can play themselves into the NFL, I think we'll see Stanford jump to the top of the list for WR recruits like Crawford, Burton, and maybe even McKinley (all of whom should be in Stanford's sweet spot because they live in California and are academically minded).Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
08-14-2015, 06:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2015, 06:10 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(08-14-2015, 05:45 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:You are obviously correct. The team's track record of success has really helped recruiting across most of the positions. The staff is winning recruiting battles against all of the juggernauts. The lack of DL depth is a bit of a mystery, but, even there, the staff has won some big battles for recruits like Williams and Thomas. I think the biggest question mark going forward is whether Stanford will be able to tell a similar story to WRs. The staff has not won a big recruiting battle for a WR in a long time. Guys like Irwin and Owusu were rated highly, but didn't have offers from U$C or Oregon, which seem to be the preferred destinations in the Pac-12 for elite WRs. I know Pritchard and Bloomgren have gained Shaw's confidence, but I think the WR recruiting situation can be explained by the fact that Pritchard and Bloomgren haven't yet established a track record of putting great offenses on the field. If the offense can put up a lot of points this year and if Hogan, Rector, and Cajuste can play themselves into the NFL, I think we'll see Stanford jump to the top of the list for WR recruits like Crawford, Burton, and maybe even McKinley (all of whom should be in Stanford's sweet spot because they live in California and are academically minded).
The WR position lends itself to prima donna types. Stanford has a reputation as a hard-nosed, grind-it-out program. This is of course very appealing to backs and linemen, but not necessarily receivers. However, I question the importance of signing star wide receivers in this offense. Obviously you want some sort of talent on the outsides (just like you do at every position on the field), but I don't think an inability to consistently pull down highly-touted WRs is too detrimental to the overall goal.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2015, 06:10 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(08-14-2015, 05:45 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:You are obviously correct. The team's track record of success has really helped recruiting across most of the positions. The staff is winning recruiting battles against all of the juggernauts. The lack of DL depth is a bit of a mystery, but, even there, the staff has won some big battles for recruits like Williams and Thomas. I think the biggest question mark going forward is whether Stanford will be able to tell a similar story to WRs. The staff has not won a big recruiting battle for a WR in a long time. Guys like Irwin and Owusu were rated highly, but didn't have offers from U$C or Oregon, which seem to be the preferred destinations in the Pac-12 for elite WRs. I know Pritchard and Bloomgren have gained Shaw's confidence, but I think the WR recruiting situation can be explained by the fact that Pritchard and Bloomgren haven't yet established a track record of putting great offenses on the field. If the offense can put up a lot of points this year and if Hogan, Rector, and Cajuste can play themselves into the NFL, I think we'll see Stanford jump to the top of the list for WR recruits like Crawford, Burton, and maybe even McKinley (all of whom should be in Stanford's sweet spot because they live in California and are academically minded).
The WR position lends itself to prima donna types. Stanford has a reputation as a hard-nosed, grind-it-out program. This is of course very appealing to backs and linemen, but not necessarily receivers. However, I question the importance of signing star wide receivers in this offense. Obviously you want some sort of talent on the outsides (just like you do at every position on the field), but I don't think an inability to consistently pull down highly-touted WRs is too detrimental to the overall goal.
08-14-2015, 07:43 PM
(08-14-2015, 03:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg124418#msg124418 date=1439588007]
If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Low APR U, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
[/quote]
Probably some mushrooms mixed in there as well...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-14-2015, 03:57 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg124418#msg124418 date=1439588007]
If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Low APR U, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
[/quote]
Probably some mushrooms mixed in there as well...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-14-2015, 07:43 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9617.msg124440#msg124440 date=1439593021]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg124418#msg124418 date=1439588007]
If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Low APR U, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
[/quote]
Probably some mushrooms mixed in there as well...
[/quote]
To be fair, he did say he was smoking tea leaves, so it was an intentional joke.
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2015, 12:36 AM by CompSci87.)
(08-14-2015, 07:43 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9617.msg124440#msg124440 date=1439593021]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=9617.msg124418#msg124418 date=1439588007]
If you enjoy 59er schadenfreude, direct your browser to this thread: http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread...-tommorrow
I hate to break it to the guy who said that the tea leaves favored Low APR U, but those weren't tea leaves.
BC
[/quote]
Probably some mushrooms mixed in there as well...
[/quote]
To be fair, he did say he was smoking tea leaves, so it was an intentional joke.
08-15-2015, 12:19 AM
I'd rather be fair to Vlad the Impaler than fair to BearInsider posters.
BC
BC
I'd rather be fair to Vlad the Impaler than fair to BearInsider posters.
BC
BC
08-15-2015, 07:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2015, 07:12 AM by socalstanfan1.)
Non-Committed players who seem to be strongly considering Stanford
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB) *** (based on the fact that he traveled all the way out to Stanford even after having a host of offers, and seems excited by our offer)
Players with whom we seem to have a decent shot, though perhaps not favorites
Dylan Crawford (WR) ****
Chacho Ulloa (S) ***
Keith Simms (LB) **** (once in the favorites category, but are grades an issue? is he even a candidate now?)
Ikenna Okeke (DB) *** (but is there a limit to the number of DBs we take? Will his offer depend on the decision of someone like Brandon Burton?)
Longshots, but hey, we've got a chance.Â
Brandon Burton (ATH/DB) ****
Mecole Hardman (ATH/WR) **** (has said Stanford will receive an OV)
Caleb Kelly (LB) **** (says Stanford is among his top schools)
Landon Dickerson (OL) **** (Late offer, but who knows?)
Matt Farniok (OL) **** (consensus seems to be he is leaning toward staying in the midwest, but he's been very close mouthed through the process)
Connor Murphy (DL) *** (I've heard conflicting reports as to whether we have even offered him)
Who have I missed? Who belongs in a different category? Does anyone think there will be surprises, commits who seem to come out of nowhere in the next few months?
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB) *** (based on the fact that he traveled all the way out to Stanford even after having a host of offers, and seems excited by our offer)
Players with whom we seem to have a decent shot, though perhaps not favorites
Dylan Crawford (WR) ****
Chacho Ulloa (S) ***
Keith Simms (LB) **** (once in the favorites category, but are grades an issue? is he even a candidate now?)
Ikenna Okeke (DB) *** (but is there a limit to the number of DBs we take? Will his offer depend on the decision of someone like Brandon Burton?)
Longshots, but hey, we've got a chance.Â
Brandon Burton (ATH/DB) ****
Mecole Hardman (ATH/WR) **** (has said Stanford will receive an OV)
Caleb Kelly (LB) **** (says Stanford is among his top schools)
Landon Dickerson (OL) **** (Late offer, but who knows?)
Matt Farniok (OL) **** (consensus seems to be he is leaning toward staying in the midwest, but he's been very close mouthed through the process)
Connor Murphy (DL) *** (I've heard conflicting reports as to whether we have even offered him)
Who have I missed? Who belongs in a different category? Does anyone think there will be surprises, commits who seem to come out of nowhere in the next few months?
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2015, 07:12 AM by socalstanfan1.)
Non-Committed players who seem to be strongly considering Stanford
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB) *** (based on the fact that he traveled all the way out to Stanford even after having a host of offers, and seems excited by our offer)
Players with whom we seem to have a decent shot, though perhaps not favorites
Dylan Crawford (WR) ****
Chacho Ulloa (S) ***
Keith Simms (LB) **** (once in the favorites category, but are grades an issue? is he even a candidate now?)
Ikenna Okeke (DB) *** (but is there a limit to the number of DBs we take? Will his offer depend on the decision of someone like Brandon Burton?)
Longshots, but hey, we've got a chance.Â
Brandon Burton (ATH/DB) ****
Mecole Hardman (ATH/WR) **** (has said Stanford will receive an OV)
Caleb Kelly (LB) **** (says Stanford is among his top schools)
Landon Dickerson (OL) **** (Late offer, but who knows?)
Matt Farniok (OL) **** (consensus seems to be he is leaning toward staying in the midwest, but he's been very close mouthed through the process)
Connor Murphy (DL) *** (I've heard conflicting reports as to whether we have even offered him)
Who have I missed? Who belongs in a different category? Does anyone think there will be surprises, commits who seem to come out of nowhere in the next few months?
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB) *** (based on the fact that he traveled all the way out to Stanford even after having a host of offers, and seems excited by our offer)
Players with whom we seem to have a decent shot, though perhaps not favorites
Dylan Crawford (WR) ****
Chacho Ulloa (S) ***
Keith Simms (LB) **** (once in the favorites category, but are grades an issue? is he even a candidate now?)
Ikenna Okeke (DB) *** (but is there a limit to the number of DBs we take? Will his offer depend on the decision of someone like Brandon Burton?)
Longshots, but hey, we've got a chance.Â
Brandon Burton (ATH/DB) ****
Mecole Hardman (ATH/WR) **** (has said Stanford will receive an OV)
Caleb Kelly (LB) **** (says Stanford is among his top schools)
Landon Dickerson (OL) **** (Late offer, but who knows?)
Matt Farniok (OL) **** (consensus seems to be he is leaning toward staying in the midwest, but he's been very close mouthed through the process)
Connor Murphy (DL) *** (I've heard conflicting reports as to whether we have even offered him)
Who have I missed? Who belongs in a different category? Does anyone think there will be surprises, commits who seem to come out of nowhere in the next few months?
08-15-2015, 07:08 AM
I love to see those BearInsiders writhing in the muck of their own bitterness.
I love to see those BearInsiders writhing in the muck of their own bitterness.
08-15-2015, 07:45 AM
Murphy doesn't have an offer. Simms doesn't seem to be an option anymore. Kelly says nice things about Stanford but I don't think there's any serious interest on his end. Robertson likes Stanford but may not have the academics and hasn't visited yet, which is never a good sign.
Murphy doesn't have an offer. Simms doesn't seem to be an option anymore. Kelly says nice things about Stanford but I don't think there's any serious interest on his end. Robertson likes Stanford but may not have the academics and hasn't visited yet, which is never a good sign.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-15-2015, 06:54 PM
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB)
And a DL or OL to be named from longshot/??? list
We do need a good QB to lead us in the future, but I think Stanford's sweet spot is in the quality of our OL and DL (or Def. front 7, actually) Don't know that much about Carmouche. Swann seems a bit light at 250lbs. and at 6'3" doesn't immediately project as a guy who will or can carry weight to play DL. But, the coaches have offered him...so what do I know? Maybe he has an incredible motor. We need some big guys for the DL middle. Horrible Harry could be a real force at DE but we've got him plugging the middle-- where he copes-- because we ain't got anyone else but the so-far brittle Shittu, who is tall, maybe too tall, for a NT.
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB)
And a DL or OL to be named from longshot/??? list
We do need a good QB to lead us in the future, but I think Stanford's sweet spot is in the quality of our OL and DL (or Def. front 7, actually) Don't know that much about Carmouche. Swann seems a bit light at 250lbs. and at 6'3" doesn't immediately project as a guy who will or can carry weight to play DL. But, the coaches have offered him...so what do I know? Maybe he has an incredible motor. We need some big guys for the DL middle. Horrible Harry could be a real force at DE but we've got him plugging the middle-- where he copes-- because we ain't got anyone else but the so-far brittle Shittu, who is tall, maybe too tall, for a NT.
Demetris Robertson (ATH/WR) *****
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB)
And a DL or OL to be named from longshot/??? list
We do need a good QB to lead us in the future, but I think Stanford's sweet spot is in the quality of our OL and DL (or Def. front 7, actually) Don't know that much about Carmouche. Swann seems a bit light at 250lbs. and at 6'3" doesn't immediately project as a guy who will or can carry weight to play DL. But, the coaches have offered him...so what do I know? Maybe he has an incredible motor. We need some big guys for the DL middle. Horrible Harry could be a real force at DE but we've got him plugging the middle-- where he copes-- because we ain't got anyone else but the so-far brittle Shittu, who is tall, maybe too tall, for a NT.
Thomas Schaffer (DL/OL) ***
Jovan Swann (DT/DE) ***
Donald Stewart (WR) ***
Trevor Speights (RB) ***
Henry Hattis (OT) ***
Jordan Carmouche (LB)
And a DL or OL to be named from longshot/??? list
We do need a good QB to lead us in the future, but I think Stanford's sweet spot is in the quality of our OL and DL (or Def. front 7, actually) Don't know that much about Carmouche. Swann seems a bit light at 250lbs. and at 6'3" doesn't immediately project as a guy who will or can carry weight to play DL. But, the coaches have offered him...so what do I know? Maybe he has an incredible motor. We need some big guys for the DL middle. Horrible Harry could be a real force at DE but we've got him plugging the middle-- where he copes-- because we ain't got anyone else but the so-far brittle Shittu, who is tall, maybe too tall, for a NT.
Stewart not being put on the realists list is strange.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-15-2015, 07:57 PM
Won't visit until mid-late January. Upside: maybe by then he'll know something positive on his admissions and he delayed committing elsewhere. Downside: By then Michigan will have hosted him for the UM/ Ohio St. game. He'll be admitted, he'll be goggle-eyed about playing in the Big House and have Harbaugh putting his arm around his shoulders to counsel him. And Notre Dame will take the same kind of shot at him.
Won't visit until mid-late January. Upside: maybe by then he'll know something positive on his admissions and he delayed committing elsewhere. Downside: By then Michigan will have hosted him for the UM/ Ohio St. game. He'll be admitted, he'll be goggle-eyed about playing in the Big House and have Harbaugh putting his arm around his shoulders to counsel him. And Notre Dame will take the same kind of shot at him.
08-15-2015, 09:32 PM
(08-15-2015, 07:57 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Won't visit until mid-late January.Â
Stewart already visited for camp, which is why he got offered.
(08-15-2015, 07:57 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Won't visit until mid-late January.Â
Stewart already visited for camp, which is why he got offered.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »