2017 Redshirts? - Printable Version

2017 Redshirts? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: 2017 Redshirts? (/thread-14091.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Cap Heresy - 08-21-2017

(08-21-2017, 02:54 PM)BobK link Wrote:I understand every one travelled.Â Â Would be quite an insult if not.Â But I'm sure they did

I read somewhere that 99 of 100 traveled, and I have no idea which one did not.

As for LBs, I find it hard to believe that Okereke won't start.

I'm totally shocked that Parkinson might not be RSd, unless he plays wide or in the slot. Osiris seems more logical to me.

I can't wait to see Wedington on kickoffs.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - DC 86 - 08-21-2017

(08-21-2017, 01:08 PM)Goose link Wrote:That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Davis Mills - JohnR34231 - 08-21-2017

He injured his knee in a non football incident before the start of his senior year. He came back and played most of the season, then re-injured it in the state championship game. He was held out for the remainder of the game for what was described as cautionary. If it still is bothering him eight months later, I can't help but wonder if it is going to be some chronic condition that will hamper him through his entire career. Hopefully it isn't.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - CrazedZooChimp - 08-21-2017

(08-21-2017, 04:23 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17193.msg197476#msg197476 date=1503346114]

That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Actually the question is whether they are likely to stay 3 OR 4 years no matter what. No reason to redshirt them if they stay 4 years but only play 3. The only scenario where redshirting benefits Stanford is if they would have stayed for a fifth year (presumably when they are at the peak of their abilities) but had exhausted their eligibility after four years. If they play even close to their recruiting rankings it seems unlikely that they would be in school for five seasons.
[/quote]

And a side benefit of not redshirting a guy you don't think will stay five years is and/or is ready to play now is that he can still redshirt later down the line if he were to suffer a major injury (I think Aziz almost got an extra year, but he was on the edge for games played and his appeal was rejected). Or, if for some reason we decide to change a guys position and he can take that extra year in the middle to try to learn it.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Goose - 08-21-2017

(08-21-2017, 04:23 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17193.msg197476#msg197476 date=1503346114]

That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Actually the question is whether they are likely to stay 3 OR 4 years no matter what. No reason to redshirt them if they stay 4 years but only play 3. The only scenario where redshirting benefits Stanford is if they would have stayed for a fifth year (presumably when they are at the peak of their abilities) but had exhausted their eligibility after four years.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this concept. If, for instance, Stanford doesn't use Little or Sarell this year, for whatever reason, they will in theory be able to play in 2021. If they leave as soon as eligible, they are gone at the end of 2019 no matter what. However, it would be a shame to waste a year of their eligibility on, say, protecting on FGs. It may not matter, but then again, it might. It is not totally irrelevant. The 5th year isn't out of the question until they declare for the draft. Nobody thought Luck would stay either.

Quote:If they play even close to their recruiting rankings it seems unlikely that they would be in school for five seasons.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - DC 86 - 08-21-2017

(08-21-2017, 05:42 PM)Goose link Wrote:I don't agree with this concept. If, for instance, Stanford doesn't use Little or Sarell this year, for whatever reason, they will in theory be able to play in 2021. If they leave as soon as eligible, they are gone at the end of 2019 no matter what. However, it would be a shame to waste a year of their eligibility on, say, protecting on FGs. It may not matter, but then again, it might. It is not totally irrelevant. The 5th year isn't out of the question until they declare for the draft. Nobody thought Luck would stay either.

But Luck didn't stay (for a fifth year.) He is the model for the downside of redshirting.

Regardless of whether they redshirt this year or not they may leave after 2019 as Soloman Thomas did after only being active for two years.

Certainly if they exclusively are on the FG team that would be absurd, but past history would indicate that they if they play this year they would at a minimum be part of jumbo formations.

In any case, my main point is that the calculus is not whether they are likely to leave within three years (although they might) but instead four years (as Luck did).

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - JohnR34231 - 08-22-2017

(08-21-2017, 05:42 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17193.msg197509#msg197509 date=1503357810]
[quote author=Goose link=topic=17193.msg197476#msg197476 date=1503346114]

That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Actually the question is whether they are likely to stay 3 OR 4 years no matter what. No reason to redshirt them if they stay 4 years but only play 3. The only scenario where redshirting benefits Stanford is if they would have stayed for a fifth year (presumably when they are at the peak of their abilities) but had exhausted their eligibility after four years.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this concept. If, for instance, Stanford doesn't use Little or Sarell this year, for whatever reason, they will in theory be able to play in 2021. If they leave as soon as eligible, they are gone at the end of 2019 no matter what. However, it would be a shame to waste a year of their eligibility on, say, protecting on FGs. It may not matter, but then again, it might. It is not totally irrelevant. The 5th year isn't out of the question until they declare for the draft. Nobody thought Luck would stay either.

Quote:If they play even close to their recruiting rankings it seems unlikely that they would be in school for five seasons.

True, but lots of things can happen in 5 years. For instance, last year, one might argue that our OL didn't play up to their rankings. One year like that can change a lot of things.Â At the end of the day, they will play only if they are deemed useful by the coaches. I have no idea how well they are performing in the coach's eyes.
[/quote]

If the two are not "deemed useful" by the coaches it will IMO be for one of two reasons. One, the players ahead of them are much better than I thought, or two, neither of them is nearly as good as I thought. Hopefully it is the former.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - OutsiderFan - 08-22-2017

(08-21-2017, 08:38 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:But Luck didn't stay (for a fifth year.) He is the model for the downside of redshirting.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - donkey687 - 08-22-2017

It is crazy now to think that Thomas didn't play as a true frosh given our need and how good he turned out to be. We had so many injuries on the DL that year. I remember the ASU game when undersized true frosh Harrison Phillips and career backup Nate Lohn manned two of the three DL positions for much of the game.Â It was a disaster.Â A mediocre ASU team ran all over Stanford.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Stymie - 08-22-2017

The only logical reasons I can see for redshirting any freshman players are physical or academic concerns.Â If we're relegating the Lucks or Thomases or Little or Sarrels to a year of splinter avoidance, we're not as smart as some us think we are.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Goose - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 05:28 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17193.msg197518#msg197518 date=1503373133]

But Luck didn't stay (for a fifth year.) He is the model for the downside of redshirting.

Actually, Solomon Thomas is.Â He only played two seasons at Stanford because rather than play as a True Frosh, he redshirted.Â The year he didn't play, Stanford went 8-5.Â If he played that year, does Stanford win 10 games?Â I have my doubts.Â But he is a cautionary tale about how it makes sense to play the best players, particularly the most coveted recruits, immediately, even if they may not be as ready as they could be as RS Frosh.Â If you play them, not only do you get at least three years of service from them, but you also set examples of how the most sought after recruits can play early at your school, something the top recruits often want to see.
[/quote]
He was just too small that year. He wasn't ready to show what he did later. At the size he was, he probably couldn't play in the line very effectively. He needed the redshirt year to become the player he is. If he didn't redshirt, it wouldn't have helped the team any and wouldn't have helped him any, because he wouldn't have seen any meaningful time. I think he is an argument FOR redshirting if you aren't ready. As I recall, he has made statements to that effect, although I don't have a reference ATM. So, it would have been at best a Pro Forma non-redshirt. Further, playing too light, he may have been hurt, which could have delayed or prevented his emergence as an exceptional player.

Quote:And just to be clear, Thomas would have been insane to return for his 3rd college football season when he was set to be a Top 10, and ultimately was, the #3 overall pick in the NFL draft.

Totally true. His great Sun Bowl game created a buzz that would be hard to duplicate. He had to go after that performance. Without that, it may have been arguable. With that, nobody could disagree with his choice.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Stymie - 08-22-2017

So Solly T as a Freshman was an inferior interior to Nate C?Â Or even the then group of OLB's?Â Give me a break, coaching staff.....

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - BostonCard - 08-22-2017

This isn't that friggin difficult.

If a player will help you win, you play them.Â If they aren't good enough to crack the two-deep, you don't.

You don't play them because they might not be around for their fourth or fifth year.
You don't play them because playing them today because it will give them experience.
You don't play them because of potential.
You sure as hell don't play them on the basis of their recruiting rankings.

Conversely, you don't redshirt them because you want to preserve a fifth year that may never come.

It's simple... does playing the freshman make you a better team?Â Sometimes it's hard to judge, but that is the standard, and should be the only standard.

BC

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Spiny_Norman - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 03:36 AM)JPRI link Wrote:If the two are not "deemed useful" by the coaches it will IMO be for one of two reasons. One, the players ahead of them are much better than I thought, or two, neither of them is nearly as good as I thought. Hopefully it is the former.

What the coaches might be saying (if we are interpreting the pseudo depth chart correctly) is that Little and Sarell are not ready to play week 1.Â David Shaw history suggests that both will be eased into the offense as they earn the confidence of the coaches in practice.Â If Little and Sarell still are not on the depth chart by week 9 or 10, then we might be able to draw a conclusion about their progress or the players ahead of them. I don't think we can say anything at this point.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - BostonCard - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 10:18 AM)Stymie link Wrote:So Solly T as a Freshman was an inferior interior to Nate C?Â Or even the then group of OLB's?Â Give me a break, coaching staff.....

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Goose - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 10:38 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:This isn't that friggin difficult.

If a player will help you win, you play them.Â If they aren't good enough to crack the two-deep, you don't.

You don't play them because they might not be around for their fourth or fifth year.
You don't play them because playing them today because it will give them experience.
You don't play them because of potential.
You sure as hell don't play them on the basis of their recruiting rankings.

Conversely, you don't redshirt them because you want to preserve a fifth year that may never come.

It's simple... does playing the freshman make you a better team?Â Sometimes it's hard to judge, but that is the standard, and should be the only standard.

BC

I agree that you should, in fact must, play a freshman if you believe it will make you a better team. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I think we are talking more about here is cases where the player would see action in special cases or in garbage time. Those cases don't affect how good a team you are ATM, but could affect how good a team you have the future (where the "future" is defined as any time from next week to the end of the players eligibility). In those cases, there may be some tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs CAN be difficult, given the number of variables involved. Some guys clearly aren't ready, either physically, mentally, or both. Some guys are almost ready, but you don't really "need" them. They may benefit from the experience gained in garbage time, but will the benefit be large enough to lose a year of eligibility? Will it help player motivation? It certainly will allow the coaching staff to see how the player performs in "live" situations. One might argue that these are corner cases, but these cases are the hard ones.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - CTcard - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 10:44 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17193.msg197545#msg197545 date=1503422302]
So Solly T as a Freshman was an inferior interior to Nate C?Â Or even the then group of OLB's?Â Give me a break, coaching staff.....

Remember that we burned Harrison Phillips' redshirt that year (as he and Thomas were both in the same class), so it clearly wasn't a case that the staff was unwilling to burn a defensive lineman's redshirt.Â More likely, they thought that Phillips was closer to being ready than Thomas.Â
[/quote]

The 2014 choice of Philips over Thomas as the emergency injury replacement is really quite fascinating. At the time it raised my interest, and Thomas' steep rise and short career only adds to the curiosity. I suppose many things could have been going through the coaches' minds, but it is hard to believe that in the end it was anything other than "Philips is more ready to contribute where we need him at this moment."
At any rate, if I were a good buddy of Randy Hart and could get a few beers into him, it's a topic I'd love to hear him expound upon.

On other matters, is Nate C = Nate Lohn?
He didn't play enough snaps in 2014 that his role really had an impact on any decisions regarding redshirting Phillips or Thomas.

The OLB in 2014 were good - with Anderson and Vaughters starting and Kalambayi the top backup. Don't see that group had an impact on Thomas' redshirt decision either.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - CTcard - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 11:14 AM)Goose link Wrote:They may benefit from the experience gained in garbage time, but will the benefit be large enough to lose a year of eligibility? Will it help player motivation?

I would argue that playing a little bit in garbage time almost never helps a player's development in a direct sense.
It may help with a player's motivation, however. Obviously depends upon the player.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - Goose - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 11:22 AM)CTcard link Wrote:I would argue that playing a little bit in garbage time almost never helps a player's development in a direct sense.

I mostly agree. What it does do, however, is give the coach the chance to see how the player stacks up against a first stringer in a real game. It can reveal guys that are either a lot worse (more common)Â or a lot better (seldom) than the coaches think.

Quote:It may help with a player's motivation, however. Obviously depends upon the player.

For sure. I put this comment in mostly to placate those that think playing early will bring players to Stanford. I think the real facts are that to play at Stanford, you have to buy into the "iron sharpens iron" theory and accept the fact that you will play when you are good enough, and not before. If one is a 5 start guy that is concerned that he will sit on the bench because he isn't yet good enough, one isn't Stanford football material. Others appear to disagree.

Re: 2017 Redshirts? - CrazedZooChimp - 08-22-2017

(08-22-2017, 11:18 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17193.msg197553#msg197553 date=1503423887]
[quote author=Stymie link=topic=17193.msg197545#msg197545 date=1503422302]
So Solly T as a Freshman was an inferior interior to Nate C?Â Or even the then group of OLB's?Â Give me a break, coaching staff.....

Remember that we burned Harrison Phillips' redshirt that year (as he and Thomas were both in the same class), so it clearly wasn't a case that the staff was unwilling to burn a defensive lineman's redshirt.Â More likely, they thought that Phillips was closer to being ready than Thomas.Â
[/quote]

The 2014 choice of Philips over Thomas as the emergency injury replacement is really quite fascinating. At the time it raised my interest, and Thomas' steep rise and short career only adds to the curiosity. I suppose many things could have been going through the coaches' minds, but it is hard to believe that in the end it was anything other than "Philips is more ready to contribute where we need him at this moment."
At any rate, if I were a good buddy of Randy Hart and could get a few beers into him, it's a topic I'd love to hear him expound upon.

[/quote]

Well, we also don't know what Harry's trajectory would look like if he had had fewer injuries the last couple years. Maybe if he'd been 100% both years he'd have been eve better than SollyÂ :o