[Rally]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

[Rally]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

[BobK]

Good one 2028 you are right.   

[BobK]

Good one 2028 you are right.   

[TrumpCard]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Stanford definitely has success recruiting LDS kids, and that fact is regularly noted with frustration by Utah and BYU fans.  I don't know the LDS faith well enough to say whether there is anything that causes its adherents to choose an elite academic institution like Stanford.  Aside from the obvious geographic proximity and the various advantages that Stanford offers to all recruits, I can think of only one specific advantage that Stanford has in LDS recruiting, which is that Lance Anderson is LDS. 

[TrumpCard]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Stanford definitely has success recruiting LDS kids, and that fact is regularly noted with frustration by Utah and BYU fans.  I don't know the LDS faith well enough to say whether there is anything that causes its adherents to choose an elite academic institution like Stanford.  Aside from the obvious geographic proximity and the various advantages that Stanford offers to all recruits, I can think of only one specific advantage that Stanford has in LDS recruiting, which is that Lance Anderson is LDS. 

[BostonCard]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=11701.msg155169#msg155169 date=1454366704]
Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Stanford definitely has success recruiting LDS kids, and that fact is regularly noted with frustration by Utah and BYU fans.  I don't know the LDS faith well enough to say whether there is anything that causes its adherents to choose an elite academic institution like Stanford.  Aside from the obvious geographic proximity and the various advantages that Stanford offers to all recruits, I can think of only one specific advantage that Stanford has in LDS recruiting, which is that Lance Anderson is LDS.
[/quote]

We have recruited LDS kids well for a long time, including Mark Madsen, for example.  I suspect that the demographics of LDS favor schools like Stanford.  First off, 76% of Mormons live out West, and after Utah, California has the highest LDS population (13%).  Secondly, Mormons are highly educated; 60% have at least some college education, compared to 50% of the general population.  Mormon's also have a higher chance of being in a middle income bracket ( 38% of Mormons report earning between $50,000 and $100,000 annually, compared with 30% among the population overall in this income category), and relatively few are in the lowest income bracket.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-por...in-the-us/

The bottom line is that religion aside, the demographics of the LDS church favor Stanford.  Although I couldn't find data to back it up, I did get the sense that Mormons were overrepresented at Stanford (compared to the population at large) when I was there.  I also found this link:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/200...e-mormons/

Suggesting that Stanford was one of the "best colleges for young single mormons".

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=11701.msg155169#msg155169 date=1454366704]
Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Stanford definitely has success recruiting LDS kids, and that fact is regularly noted with frustration by Utah and BYU fans.  I don't know the LDS faith well enough to say whether there is anything that causes its adherents to choose an elite academic institution like Stanford.  Aside from the obvious geographic proximity and the various advantages that Stanford offers to all recruits, I can think of only one specific advantage that Stanford has in LDS recruiting, which is that Lance Anderson is LDS.
[/quote]

We have recruited LDS kids well for a long time, including Mark Madsen, for example.  I suspect that the demographics of LDS favor schools like Stanford.  First off, 76% of Mormons live out West, and after Utah, California has the highest LDS population (13%).  Secondly, Mormons are highly educated; 60% have at least some college education, compared to 50% of the general population.  Mormon's also have a higher chance of being in a middle income bracket ( 38% of Mormons report earning between $50,000 and $100,000 annually, compared with 30% among the population overall in this income category), and relatively few are in the lowest income bracket.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-por...in-the-us/

The bottom line is that religion aside, the demographics of the LDS church favor Stanford.  Although I couldn't find data to back it up, I did get the sense that Mormons were overrepresented at Stanford (compared to the population at large) when I was there.  I also found this link:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/200...e-mormons/

Suggesting that Stanford was one of the "best colleges for young single mormons".

BC

[socalstanfan1]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Just a guess, but I would think that Stanford's very willingness to recruit students it knows will not be around for two more years becomes one of the factors that leads to our success.  I assume that a certain number of coaches would consider LDS kids problematic, not for character or any other issues, but simply because they will not be around for a two years.  If you are a coach under the gun to win right away, will you tie your program to players with a delayed return?  Are there concerns among some coaches about players falling out of shape over those two years?  But Stanford now has a history of accepting this pathway, even embracing the added maturity that comes with the experience.  And, of course, once LDS players from the Rocky Mountain region see friends and team mates being welcomed by Stanford, and returning to enjoy success on the gridiron and in the classroom, Stanford becomes more attractive.

[socalstanfan1]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

Just a guess, but I would think that Stanford's very willingness to recruit students it knows will not be around for two more years becomes one of the factors that leads to our success.  I assume that a certain number of coaches would consider LDS kids problematic, not for character or any other issues, but simply because they will not be around for a two years.  If you are a coach under the gun to win right away, will you tie your program to players with a delayed return?  Are there concerns among some coaches about players falling out of shape over those two years?  But Stanford now has a history of accepting this pathway, even embracing the added maturity that comes with the experience.  And, of course, once LDS players from the Rocky Mountain region see friends and team mates being welcomed by Stanford, and returning to enjoy success on the gridiron and in the classroom, Stanford becomes more attractive.

[washingtonismoney]

Looks like we're starting on '17:

https://twitter.com/DeejayDallas5/status...6386447360

Dallas is apparently an ATH/WR and a highly-rated/offered one at that.

[washingtonismoney]

Looks like we're starting on '17:

https://twitter.com/DeejayDallas5/status...6386447360

Dallas is apparently an ATH/WR and a highly-rated/offered one at that.

[BostonCard]

So, is it time to pin this thread on the main page?

Edit:  careful, or i will start thinking I have some pull around here.

BC

[BostonCard]

So, is it time to pin this thread on the main page?

Edit:  careful, or i will start thinking I have some pull around here.

BC

[yvonne]

Looks like we're starting on '17:

https://twitter.com/DeejayDallas5/status...6386447360

Dallas is apparently an ATH/WR and a highly-rated/offered one at that.

Starting? We already have 40 offers, according to Rivals (fewer, according to 247), and several commits.

[yvonne]

Looks like we're starting on '17:

https://twitter.com/DeejayDallas5/status...6386447360

Dallas is apparently an ATH/WR and a highly-rated/offered one at that.

Starting? We already have 40 offers, according to Rivals (fewer, according to 247), and several commits.

[TrumpCard]

Orisis St. Brown, brother of former recruit Equamineous, just reported an offer from Stanford on Twitter. Interesting that the first two reported post signing day offers are to WRs. I think that may be an indication of the staff's thought about needs for next year and/or where the staff doesn't have as much traction with current offerees. 

If we don't see an offer to an OLB soon, then I'll imcrease my bet on Jaelan Phillips.  He's a freak of nature and would be a great addition for Stanford's pass rush.

[TrumpCard]

Orisis St. Brown, brother of former recruit Equamineous, just reported an offer from Stanford on Twitter. Interesting that the first two reported post signing day offers are to WRs. I think that may be an indication of the staff's thought about needs for next year and/or where the staff doesn't have as much traction with current offerees. 

If we don't see an offer to an OLB soon, then I'll imcrease my bet on Jaelan Phillips.  He's a freak of nature and would be a great addition for Stanford's pass rush.

[yvonne]

The beginnings of this year's list:
https://twitter.com/IamYvonneL/lists/su-...iting-2017

[yvonne]

The beginnings of this year's list:
https://twitter.com/IamYvonneL/lists/su-...iting-2017

[AthleticsDynasty]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

BYU probably has more than half their class go on mission, Utah St and Utah average maybe 5-10 a year, we have 1 or 2. I would guess Colorado probably also has 1 or 2 a year

[AthleticsDynasty]

Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

BYU probably has more than half their class go on mission, Utah St and Utah average maybe 5-10 a year, we have 1 or 2. I would guess Colorado probably also has 1 or 2 a year

[TrumpCard]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

Parkinson, Lund, Holmes, Jaggers, Molden, Ah You, Neilon, Ahmed, Andrus, Phillips, and Bynum all are on the 2017 Rivals250, all appear to report a GPA of at least 3.6, and mercifully for the staff, all are from the West region.  This is the kind of geographic advantage that Stanford had in 2012 and 2014, but did not have this last year.  And I'm sure that my list of 2017 recruits is by no means comprehensive since it's so early in the cycle.

Also, as indicated by the criteria I listed, I'm not including guys such as Foster Sarell, Wyatt Davis, and Osiris St. Brown, who have not reported a gpa that I've found online, but who have expressed at least some interest in Stanford.  I'm also not inculding a bunch of elite recruits, including both offered QBs and a couple of really good linemen, who report a gpa of at least 3.6 and interest in Stanford, but who are outside the West region. 

In sum, despite the relatively small number of open slots, 2017 could turn out to be another very solid class. 

I welcome additions to my list or more data on the guys I identified.

[TrumpCard]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

Parkinson, Lund, Holmes, Jaggers, Molden, Ah You, Neilon, Ahmed, Andrus, Phillips, and Bynum all are on the 2017 Rivals250, all appear to report a GPA of at least 3.6, and mercifully for the staff, all are from the West region.  This is the kind of geographic advantage that Stanford had in 2012 and 2014, but did not have this last year.  And I'm sure that my list of 2017 recruits is by no means comprehensive since it's so early in the cycle.

Also, as indicated by the criteria I listed, I'm not including guys such as Foster Sarell, Wyatt Davis, and Osiris St. Brown, who have not reported a gpa that I've found online, but who have expressed at least some interest in Stanford.  I'm also not inculding a bunch of elite recruits, including both offered QBs and a couple of really good linemen, who report a gpa of at least 3.6 and interest in Stanford, but who are outside the West region. 

In sum, despite the relatively small number of open slots, 2017 could turn out to be another very solid class. 

I welcome additions to my list or more data on the guys I identified.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=11701.msg155169#msg155169 date=1454366704]
Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

BYU probably has more than half their class go on mission, Utah St and Utah average maybe 5-10 a year, we have 1 or 2. I would guess Colorado probably also has 1 or 2 a year
[/quote]

According to these articles, the schools that get a lot of missionary football players are the three Utah schools (with BYU lapping the field), plus others in the western U.S.:

[Tanner] Mangum is one of 147 returned Mormon missionaries in the Football Bowl Subdivision this season who have served full-time missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at various locations around the globe.

The list includes 74 players at BYU, 22 at Utah State and 20 at the University of Utah. There are seven playing for Hawaii, four on the roster at Arizona State, and three each at UNLV, Boise State, Stanford and San Jose State. Oregon State, Arizona and Rice each have two. Wyoming and New Mexico each have one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3367/0/Re...tball.html

Schools that have also had LDS missionary kids in the recent past, but not this past year, include C.al, Oregon, and Air Force. See http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2697/0/Re...all.html. 

But in general, we appear to be the only major college power program (depending on how you count Utah) that has a steady diet of LDS missionaries.  According to this article, a lot of major college programs shy away from mission-bound players because it complicates counting.  See http://www.deseretnews.com/article/76562...l?pg=all.  (Sean Barton and his father feature heavily.)

But as others have mentioned, yes, thank goodness for Lance Anderson.  In addition to selling our academic and football success, we also can sell a sense of comfort and willingness to work with each LDS kid's situation, with a former missionary himself doing the selling.  That has to be key for LDS students and their families.  Without Anderson, perhaps it's possible that we still land Simi Fehoko, Brandon Fanaika, Dallas Lloyd, Sean Barton, the two guys joining the team this fall (Gabe Reid and Houston Heimuli), or one of our 3 current 2017 commits (4-star RB Sione Heimuli-Lund).  But maybe not.  And those are just the LDS guys.  Having a Utah guy like Anderson go get non-LDS kids from there (Dalton Schultz coming to mind) can't hurt. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=11701.msg155169#msg155169 date=1454366704]
Do we seem to get an unusual number of guys who go on missions?  Other than BYU, of course, are other top schools on a par with us regarding this?  Curious because I have no idea.  If the answer is no, then why?

BYU probably has more than half their class go on mission, Utah St and Utah average maybe 5-10 a year, we have 1 or 2. I would guess Colorado probably also has 1 or 2 a year
[/quote]

According to these articles, the schools that get a lot of missionary football players are the three Utah schools (with BYU lapping the field), plus others in the western U.S.:

[Tanner] Mangum is one of 147 returned Mormon missionaries in the Football Bowl Subdivision this season who have served full-time missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at various locations around the globe.

The list includes 74 players at BYU, 22 at Utah State and 20 at the University of Utah. There are seven playing for Hawaii, four on the roster at Arizona State, and three each at UNLV, Boise State, Stanford and San Jose State. Oregon State, Arizona and Rice each have two. Wyoming and New Mexico each have one.

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/3367/0/Re...tball.html

Schools that have also had LDS missionary kids in the recent past, but not this past year, include C.al, Oregon, and Air Force. See http://www.deseretnews.com/top/2697/0/Re...all.html. 

But in general, we appear to be the only major college power program (depending on how you count Utah) that has a steady diet of LDS missionaries.  According to this article, a lot of major college programs shy away from mission-bound players because it complicates counting.  See http://www.deseretnews.com/article/76562...l?pg=all.  (Sean Barton and his father feature heavily.)

But as others have mentioned, yes, thank goodness for Lance Anderson.  In addition to selling our academic and football success, we also can sell a sense of comfort and willingness to work with each LDS kid's situation, with a former missionary himself doing the selling.  That has to be key for LDS students and their families.  Without Anderson, perhaps it's possible that we still land Simi Fehoko, Brandon Fanaika, Dallas Lloyd, Sean Barton, the two guys joining the team this fall (Gabe Reid and Houston Heimuli), or one of our 3 current 2017 commits (4-star RB Sione Heimuli-Lund).  But maybe not.  And those are just the LDS guys.  Having a Utah guy like Anderson go get non-LDS kids from there (Dalton Schultz coming to mind) can't hurt. 

[BostonCard]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

The good news is that because we can recruit nationwide, we are less vulnerable to the ups and downs of west coast talent than most teams.  That lets us have a strong class even in a down year for west coast talent.

BC

[BostonCard]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

The good news is that because we can recruit nationwide, we are less vulnerable to the ups and downs of west coast talent than most teams.  That lets us have a strong class even in a down year for west coast talent.

BC

[larkinforever]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

@TrumpCard - Thanks for the informative post. I have a question about our recruiting strategy/tactics - even if we could fill the class with top recruits from the West region, wouldn't it be good to spend a significant amount of time in other parts of the country anyhow to continue to build relationships, maintain relationships and keep the pipeline strong for future years? Maybe it's a balancing act and you're shorthanding that this year the coaches might be able to spend relatively less time flying around the country but still spend quite a bit of time in absolute terms flying around the country?

[larkinforever]

The staff did a great job flipping some very good 2016 recruits from all around the country, but I'm optimistic that next year won't be quite so taxing in terms of racking up frequent flyer miles.  Whereas Stanford was only able to land 3 total recruits from CA and only 1 consensus four-star recruit from the rest of the West region in 2016, the 2017 board stacks up pretty well in terms of having elite recruits in the West region who appear to be in the academic ballpark. 

@TrumpCard - Thanks for the informative post. I have a question about our recruiting strategy/tactics - even if we could fill the class with top recruits from the West region, wouldn't it be good to spend a significant amount of time in other parts of the country anyhow to continue to build relationships, maintain relationships and keep the pipeline strong for future years? Maybe it's a balancing act and you're shorthanding that this year the coaches might be able to spend relatively less time flying around the country but still spend quite a bit of time in absolute terms flying around the country?

[Hulk01]

We're off the an excellent start--really.

We badly need a safety in this class as we have none with four years of eligibility left and only took one in this class.  If we failed to take a safety, we'd have only one safety in three consecutive classes.

Fortunately, we've landed a very good one to complement Andrew Pryts, who could be sensational just terrifying receivers who dare to run crossing routes: Georgian Stuart Head, a freakishly long (6'4") safety with terrific football instincts and a great 0-10 burst who knows hot to deliver a blow--and will beat some receivers with sheer length and wing span alone.  And could be particularly useful against teams like the Ducks, giving us a stopper in the back row who can close down fast on a ball carrier.

We also need a tight end, and have a commitment there too, from Oaks Christian TE Colby Parkinson, another freakish long guy.  I saw him play against Thousand Oaks last fall and he towers over guys.  But he needs some very good weight and work inside as a tight end, but certainly could one day give Stanford a lineup of the tallest receivers in college football: Stewart 6-4, Segina 6-4, Smith 6-6, and Parkisnon at least 6'7.

Our acute need, however, is for inside and outside linebackers, and we've no one there yet.  Davis has only a year left, Palma just two.  Barton could be great, Jordan Fox is a question mark, and Branch, Perez and Okereke all leave at once, three seasons from now.  On the outside, we have several more years of Tyler, Alfieri and Robinson, perhaps a great three some, but that's it after Kalambayi graduates next year, unless Lane Veach shows more very soon.

But a good start, with one more guy, Sione Heimuli, a thick (6'O", 23o lb) power back in the mole of several NFL running backs, and with a nice burst and surprising nice quick cuts for so big a guy, and nice vision. 

So let's go get some linebackers--and another receiver, although we may lead for another for the St. Browns, this one four-star Onisis.

[Hulk01]

We're off the an excellent start--really.

We badly need a safety in this class as we have none with four years of eligibility left and only took one in this class.  If we failed to take a safety, we'd have only one safety in three consecutive classes.

Fortunately, we've landed a very good one to complement Andrew Pryts, who could be sensational just terrifying receivers who dare to run crossing routes: Georgian Stuart Head, a freakishly long (6'4") safety with terrific football instincts and a great 0-10 burst who knows hot to deliver a blow--and will beat some receivers with sheer length and wing span alone.  And could be particularly useful against teams like the Ducks, giving us a stopper in the back row who can close down fast on a ball carrier.

We also need a tight end, and have a commitment there too, from Oaks Christian TE Colby Parkinson, another freakish long guy.  I saw him play against Thousand Oaks last fall and he towers over guys.  But he needs some very good weight and work inside as a tight end, but certainly could one day give Stanford a lineup of the tallest receivers in college football: Stewart 6-4, Segina 6-4, Smith 6-6, and Parkisnon at least 6'7.

Our acute need, however, is for inside and outside linebackers, and we've no one there yet.  Davis has only a year left, Palma just two.  Barton could be great, Jordan Fox is a question mark, and Branch, Perez and Okereke all leave at once, three seasons from now.  On the outside, we have several more years of Tyler, Alfieri and Robinson, perhaps a great three some, but that's it after Kalambayi graduates next year, unless Lane Veach shows more very soon.

But a good start, with one more guy, Sione Heimuli, a thick (6'O", 23o lb) power back in the mole of several NFL running backs, and with a nice burst and surprising nice quick cuts for so big a guy, and nice vision. 

So let's go get some linebackers--and another receiver, although we may lead for another for the St. Browns, this one four-star Onisis.

[PalmTree]

But in general, we appear to be the only major college power program (depending on how you count Utah) that has a steady diet of LDS missionaries....

OK, as you may surmise from my handle, my roots are tropical - so when I saw this line, I resisted the temptation to offer some smart-a** comment about "cannibalizing" numbers of LDS students enrolling at other institutions of higher education...oh wait, I just did ...  ::)

[PalmTree]

But in general, we appear to be the only major college power program (depending on how you count Utah) that has a steady diet of LDS missionaries....

OK, as you may surmise from my handle, my roots are tropical - so when I saw this line, I resisted the temptation to offer some smart-a** comment about "cannibalizing" numbers of LDS students enrolling at other institutions of higher education...oh wait, I just did ...  ::)

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/beemac99/status/695294335953342464

I guess it makes sense to consider McElwain a class of 2017 commitz

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/beemac99/status/695294335953342464

I guess it makes sense to consider McElwain a class of 2017 commitz

BC

[TrumpCard]

Our acute need, however, is for inside and outside linebackers, and we've no one there yet.  Davis has only a year left, Palma just two.  Barton could be great, Jordan Fox is a question mark, and Branch, Perez and Okereke all leave at once, three seasons from now.  On the outside, we have several more years of Tyler, Alfieri and Robinson, perhaps a great three some, but that's it after Kalambayi graduates next year, unless Lane Veach shows more very soon.

I don't think the need is as dire as you portray it.  The staff has a head start because Gabe Reid is scheduled to return from an LDS mission next year.  The 2016 class is not numerous, but Robinson is really elite, and I think Fox may be under-rated given his offers from Georgia, Miami, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.  Also, based on what I've heard, the staff hasn't really whiffed on many guys in the last 2 classes, except maybe Veach.  The 2015 class is a good size as it includes a speedy 4-star recruit (Barton) and two more guys who have gotten good reviews relative to their rating (Branch and Toohill (who I think you confused with Tyler)).  The 2014 class won't be around forever, but all of them used a redshirt, two of them were unanimous 4-star recruits and Perez earned a fair amount of playing time for a moderately recruited player in only his second season. 

With all that said, I do see some need at LB.  Jaelan Phillips probably is the guy who Stanford fans should covet the most this year.  His hudl film is worth a watch.  He's just incredible.  Plus, he's a California kids who reports a 4.1 GPA.  Beyond that, the LB pool is a little iffy, unfortunately. 

[TrumpCard]

Our acute need, however, is for inside and outside linebackers, and we've no one there yet.  Davis has only a year left, Palma just two.  Barton could be great, Jordan Fox is a question mark, and Branch, Perez and Okereke all leave at once, three seasons from now.  On the outside, we have several more years of Tyler, Alfieri and Robinson, perhaps a great three some, but that's it after Kalambayi graduates next year, unless Lane Veach shows more very soon.

I don't think the need is as dire as you portray it.  The staff has a head start because Gabe Reid is scheduled to return from an LDS mission next year.  The 2016 class is not numerous, but Robinson is really elite, and I think Fox may be under-rated given his offers from Georgia, Miami, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.  Also, based on what I've heard, the staff hasn't really whiffed on many guys in the last 2 classes, except maybe Veach.  The 2015 class is a good size as it includes a speedy 4-star recruit (Barton) and two more guys who have gotten good reviews relative to their rating (Branch and Toohill (who I think you confused with Tyler)).  The 2014 class won't be around forever, but all of them used a redshirt, two of them were unanimous 4-star recruits and Perez earned a fair amount of playing time for a moderately recruited player in only his second season. 

With all that said, I do see some need at LB.  Jaelan Phillips probably is the guy who Stanford fans should covet the most this year.  His hudl film is worth a watch.  He's just incredible.  Plus, he's a California kids who reports a 4.1 GPA.  Beyond that, the LB pool is a little iffy, unfortunately. 

[BostonCard]

I always go by 2-year classes.  So we will want to look at 2015/2016 combined, and have 5-6 linebackers between them, including guys returning from missions.

2016 we have Robinson and Fox (who was signed last year but will start to fall).  Loosing out on the shark hurt.

That means we should get three for 2017 and absolutely need at least two.  Four would be ideal, but seems unlikely.

It's easily doable, but doesn't leave us with much margin.

BC

[BostonCard]

I always go by 2-year classes.  So we will want to look at 2015/2016 combined, and have 5-6 linebackers between them, including guys returning from missions.

2016 we have Robinson and Fox (who was signed last year but will start to fall).  Loosing out on the shark hurt.

That means we should get three for 2017 and absolutely need at least two.  Four would be ideal, but seems unlikely.

It's easily doable, but doesn't leave us with much margin.

BC