Respect in Vegas - 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: Respect in Vegas (/thread-23392.html)
+- 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: Respect in Vegas (/thread-23392.html)
Pages:
1
2
Respect in Vegas - umbra - 08-27-2022
Checked our odds of taking the PAC-12 since I’m in Vegas. We are 50-1, which is a big move compared to 100-1 which was the initial oddsmakers appraisal…
I’m putting down $50, which would pay for the trip back here for the Championship game at Allegiant Stadium in December..
Allegiant is an amazing place BTW- basically a memorial to Al Davis…
RE: Respect in Vegas - Softball Fan - 08-27-2022
On ESPN2 there was a high school football game. A ESPN commentator at halftime picked Stanford as his college turn-around team for this season.
umbra - umbra - 08-27-2022
Injuries killed us last year, remember 2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC
brobdingnagian problem is lack of depth
Hope springs eternal but it’s a game of attrition…
RE: Respect in Vegas - Phogge - 08-27-2022
(08-27-2022, 08:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On ESPN2 there was a high school football game. A ESPN commentator at halftime picked Stanford as his college turn-around team for this season.
That commentator entered into the ESPN concussion protocol immediately after the show.
RE: umbra - SamuelMcF - 08-28-2022
(08-27-2022, 08:57 PM)umbra Wrote: Injuries killed us last year, remember 2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC
of immense proportions problem is lack of depth
Hope springs eternal but it’s a game of attrition…
It was not "2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC." Please don't misremember. We were 2-1 with wins over USC (yay!) and Vanderbilt (table stakes).
The Oregon game was our 5th, putting us at 3-2 after getting completely pushed up and down the field by UCLA...which, to be fair, we thought would be replicated vs. Oregon (and then actually was replicated against ASU the next week).
RE: umbra - msqueri - 08-28-2022
(08-27-2022, 08:57 PM)umbra Wrote: Injuries killed us last year, remember 2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC
of immense proportions problem is lack of depth
Hope springs eternal but it’s a game of attrition…
Pet peeve of mine: Stanford fans always citing "lack of depth." This is a muscle memory instinct for those who were fans from 1960-2008. It is not an evidence-based way of thinking about any team Shaw has coached. Shaw has always had one of the top 25 rosters in America top to bottom. Yes, there are individual positions that are problematic when it comes to depth, notably RB and DL this year. But that's life. Outside of a very small handful of teams that would be true for everyone. Thinking systematically about Stanford's roster one shouldn't think "depth" has been a particular problem for us over the last decade, at least not in a way our opponents don't have to deal with too. The constant harping on depth lets Shaw off the hook too easily. Historically we had depth issues because our recruiting/admissions standards meant we only brought like 8-12 Pac-10/12-level players in every year, which guaranteed serious depth issues across the roster. But that hasn't been our environment for a long, long time. Shaw's recruiting/Stanford's admission allows us to recruit competitively or better than most of our opponents. If depth issues arise, in most cases it's because of a lack of development rather than anything inherent about being at Stanford.
RE: Respect in Vegas - BostonCard - 08-28-2022
Remember that for a few years in there (late 2010’s until COVID) we were operating under the 85 scholarship limit (voluntarily). That wasn’t an issue of having the five or so lowest recruits on the roster being borderline PAC-12 recruits, but, rather, the five or so lowest recruits not even being filled, which is a bigger hit for depth than just poor quality recruiting at the bottom of the class.
Thankfully that seems to have passed and we are now back to utilizing our full complement of scholarships. Note that we were at or close to 85 last year, so the excuse doesn’t apply.
I do think that an analysis of the recruiting rankings of the five or so lowest ranked recruits in a class would look pretty favorable for Stanford vis a vis most of our competitors. I haven’t done the analysis, but I would guess that the bottom end might be below Oregon and USC but not many others.
BC
RE: Respect in Vegas - msqueri - 08-28-2022
The leaving scholarships open thing drove me crazy and I do think was unwise, but it's not a massive depth issue IMHO. Even accounting for that we always had top 25 rosters top to bottom under Shaw (per 247's tracking of roster quality). I mean, think about the roster without Marcus Graham (indeed, he didn't last), Silas Starr, Scotty Edwards, and Coco Lukrich. Zero meaningful impact on the team's depth. Going without a marginal extra recruit a year was in essence the situation in the years you mentioned we didn't fill our scholarship allotment. The 80th-85th spots on the roster are not what makes or breaks depth. What makes or breaks depth is however many spots into a class a program can go getting no doubt about it Power Five players until they've reached their ceiling. Alabama never reaches that ceiling, so their depth is incredible. Vanderbilt doesn't get very far at all before they have to take guys lucky to be playing above Group of Five or even FCS. When you line all teams nationally up along this spectrum, Stanford is in the 20s. Good depth.
RE: Respect in Vegas - BostonCard - 08-28-2022
By citing the bottom of the roster, you are using the benefit of hindsight. The 80th through 85th recruits aren’t necessarily the 80th through 85th players on the roster, given the uncertain translatability between recruiting rankings and eventual outcome. And while the last guys on the roster are unlikely to be stars (though there are notable exceptions, like Ben Gardner), we are talking about depth, where we do benefit from more shots on goal. I think that there’s a pretty good chance that had we filled our scholarship quota to 85 consistently, that a couple of those counterfactual players might have been meaningful contributors had they been on the roster.
There’s a reason that imposing scholarship limits is viewed as a punishment for NCAA violations. If your average school could laugh it off, then it wouldn’t be imposed. But scholarship reductions are one of the more meaningful punishments that the NCAA metes out, and it’s the one schools really don’t want.
BC
RE: Respect in Vegas - msqueri - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 12:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: By citing the bottom of the roster, you are using the benefit of hindsight. The 80th through 85th recruits aren’t necessarily the 80th through 85th players on the roster, given the uncertain translatability between recruiting rankings and eventual outcome. And while the last guys on the roster are unlikely to be stars (though there are notable exceptions, like Ben Gardner), we are talking about depth, where we do benefit from more shots on goal. I think that there’s a pretty good chance that had we filled our scholarship quota to 85 consistently, that a couple of those counterfactual players might have been meaningful contributors had they been on the roster.
There’s a reason that imposing scholarship limits is viewed as a punishment for NCAA violations. If your average school could laugh it off, then it wouldn’t be imposed. But scholarship reductions are one of the more meaningful punishments that the NCAA metes out, and it’s the one schools really don’t want.
BC
I wasn't citing the bottom of the roster or using the benefit of hindsight, I was citing the most marginal guys in each class. If I were using the benefit of hindsight there would have been Plan A guys I could have cited like Colby Bowman, Lukas Ungar, Mitch Leigber, etc. You misunderstand me: the guys I picked out are exactly the kind of guys we'd be without if we didn't fill our scholarships. As an outsider I can't know exactly who the most marginal guy in each class is, but I assure you that the marginal guys Shaw has brought on in the last decade haven't been big boons to depth. I agree with the logic of your post, but in reality the guys Shaw fills out the 80th-85th spots with - not based on hindsight - aren't becoming meaningful contributors like you think they are.
If you look at Shaw's recruiting ever since the incredible 2012 class (for which the players who weren't reputed to be no doubt about it Power Five guys, like Caspers and Rector, turned out to be amazing takes), what you'll see is that Shaw tends to fill out classes as far as he can with guys who aren't stretches. Oftentimes when a guy does seem like a stretch it's because we can't do better at that position, like our 2022 ILB recruits Rose and Hudson, not marginal recruits we're adding just to get to 85 scholarships. The true flyer/marginal recruits haven't been helpful hardly whatsoever - Paxton Segina, Dorian Maddox (arguably more of the Rose/Hudson category anyway), Jay Tyler, Caleb Kelly.
Again, not hindsight, just looking at when Shaw has/hasn't filled space with marginal guys. I think Shaw coached long enough at Stanford to know that getting somebody like these guys is not really any more valuable than leaving the spot open to reward a walk-on. If you're at 84 scholarships, does it help you to add one of these guys for depth? Nah.
It basically boils down to this: you fill the roster with guys in your most cold-eyed assessment you think will make your team better. If you can only get to 82/83/84 of those guys, it's not really leaving meat on the bone to refrain from concocting a case that the marginal guy really helps you.
RE: Respect in Vegas - old spanish trail - 08-28-2022
(08-27-2022, 09:11 PM)Phogge Wrote:(08-27-2022, 08:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On ESPN2 there was a high school football game. A ESPN commentator at halftime picked Stanford as his college turn-around team for this season.
That commentator entered into the ESPN concussion protocol immediately after the show.
LOL
RE: Respect in Vegas - BostonCard - 08-28-2022
Now you got me curious. Let’s look at the bottom five non-specialist players (by 247 composite) from the 2016-2018, which I think is when we had the biggest scholarship gaps. Lots of caveats here, which you identify (like, we don’t know that the bottom of the 247 rankings was the bottom of the internal rankings) and I’m using a limited time frame, but still a useful exercise, I think.
2016: Dorian Maddox, Paxton Segina, Dylan Powell, Nate Hebrig, Malik Antoine
2017: Drew Dalman, Tucker Fisk, Stuart Head, Levani Damuni, Dalyn Wade-Pery
2018: Tae Le, Ethan Bonner, Jay Symonds, Donjae Logan, Justus Woods
So, yeah, a lot of total non-contributors, like Segina, Le, Logan, and Woods, but some guys who were back-ups like Maddox and a bona fide star, Dalman, who was our lowest ranked recruit in 2017. In fact the bottom of that 2017 class produced not just contributors, but a number of multi-year starters.
Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.
BC
RE: Respect in Vegas - msqueri - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 02:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Now you got me curious. Let’s look at the bottom five non-specialist players (by 247 composite) from the 2016-2018, which I think is when we had the biggest scholarship gaps. Lots of caveats here, which you identify (like, we don’t know that the bottom of the 247 rankings was the bottom of the internal rankings) and I’m using a limited time frame, but still a useful exercise, I think.
2016: Dorian Maddox, Paxton Segina, Dylan Powell, Nate Hebrig, Malik Antoine
2017: Drew Dalman, Tucker Fisk, Stuart Head, Levani Damuni, Dalyn Wade-Pery
2018: Tae Le, Ethan Bonner, Jay Symonds, Donjae Logan, Justus Woods
So, yeah, a lot of total non-contributors, like Segina, Le, Logan, and Woods, but some guys who were back-ups like Maddox and a bona fide star, Dalman, who was our lowest ranked recruit in 2017. In fact the bottom of that 2017 class produced not just contributors, but a number of multi-year starters.
Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.
BC
I don't think it's helpful to think about bottom of the class as if the bottom of the class in 2017 means the same thing as the bottom of the class in 2022. Your bottom five for 2017 includes multiple guys who were 4-stars on major services. In years with small classes (2013, 2017) it's questionable whether you should even think of the class having a "bottom." Dalman was the composite #650 recruit in the country. Not only is that no doubt about it Power Five recruit, it's a very high 3-star.
Rather than thinking about Dalman as the last guy in his class, it would be more accurate to say he was the 14th highest-regarded guy in one of the most talented classes in Stanford history. For what it's worth, Dalman's ranking would have been the 10th highest of the 21 person most recent class. That's a far cry from a marginal recruit for any program. You can't call the third OL in a class a marginal recruit. Because we were able to get Little, Sarell, and Dalman, that year we passed on 4-star Brett Neilon, among other extremely coveted linemen. [Indeed, USC's highly touted current line are largely guys who could have gone to Stanford if we weren't so high on the hog.]
In other words, you don't have marginal recruits every year. Some years you go light and it's about quality rather than quantity. I don't think it makes sense to view anybody in the 2013 or 2017 classes as the 85th man.
If you look at things like which recruit at a position a player was and when we offered (i.e., were they Plan A or otherwise good enough to be a no doubt about it member of the class), you'll find that there haven't really been the hidden stars you're talking about. Herbig originally committed to us before his senior year even began. Levani Damuni was a 4-star according to Rivals. In what world are these marginal recruits? They simply were not.
RE: Respect in Vegas - old spanish trail - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 02:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Now you got me curious. Let’s look at the bottom five non-specialist players (by 247 composite) from the 2016-2018, which I think is when we had the biggest scholarship gaps. Lots of caveats here, which you identify (like, we don’t know that the bottom of the 247 rankings was the bottom of the internal rankings) and I’m using a limited time frame, but still a useful exercise, I think.
2016: Dorian Maddox, Paxton Segina, Dylan Powell, Nate Hebrig, Malik Antoine
2017: Drew Dalman, Tucker Fisk, Stuart Head, Levani Damuni, Dalyn Wade-Pery
2018: Tae Le, Ethan Bonner, Jay Symonds, Donjae Logan, Justus Woods
So, yeah, a lot of total non-contributors, like Segina, Le, Logan, and Woods, but some guys who were back-ups like Maddox and a bona fide star, Dalman, who was our lowest ranked recruit in 2017. In fact the bottom of that 2017 class produced not just contributors, but a number of multi-year starters.
Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.
BC
Looks like Dalman is going to start for Atlanta, Herbig bumped down to 2nd string maybe for the Jets.
RE: Respect in Vegas - McKenwood - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 02:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Now you got me curious. Let’s look at the bottom five non-specialist players (by 247 composite) from the 2016-2018, which I think is when we had the biggest scholarship gaps. Lots of caveats here, which you identify (like, we don’t know that the bottom of the 247 rankings was the bottom of the internal rankings) and I’m using a limited time frame, but still a useful exercise, I think.
2016: Dorian Maddox, Paxton Segina, Dylan Powell, Nate Hebrig, Malik Antoine
2017: Drew Dalman, Tucker Fisk, Stuart Head, Levani Damuni, Dalyn Wade-Pery
2018: Tae Le, Ethan Bonner, Jay Symonds, Donjae Logan, Justus Woods
So, yeah, a lot of total non-contributors, like Segina, Le, Logan, and Woods, but some guys who were back-ups like Maddox and a bona fide star, Dalman, who was our lowest ranked recruit in 2017. In fact the bottom of that 2017 class produced not just contributors, but a number of multi-year starters.
Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.
BC
Good discussion here. This shortfall in filling scholarships was one of several indicators that Shaw was not on top of his job after the Iowa Rose bowl. Not only were scholarships not filled but certain positions groups were neglected, especially the lines and QB.
Given the time necessary for Stanford to physically develop offensive and defensive linemen these extra scholarships should have been devoted to these position groups. The 2019 - 2021 seasons might have been different with players similar to Dalman, Herbig, Fisk and Powell filling those slots.
One other area that Stanford has fallen down in recent years is the quality of their walk-ons. In the Harbaugh/early Shaw years some really good players (future pros) ended up as scholarship players. If you have a productive walk-on program then maybe you leave a scholarship or two open as a reward for walk-ons who become starters. Treymane has been a recent success story but who else? Spencer Jorgenson? Caleb Robinson? Given the pitiful play from some of Stanford's scholarship players in recent seasons, I would have thought more walk-ons would have contributed.
RE: Respect in Vegas - msqueri - 08-28-2022
The deeper you are in scholarship recruits the less opportunity there will be for walk-ons to contribute, so this is hard to judge. But Tremayne certainly has been an enormous success. We'll see how much longer he plays for Stanford. He'll have a sixth year of eligibility in 2023 and could conceivably apply for a seventh, though my default assumption is this is his last year. Whatever happens, big success for a walk-on. Jorgensen would qualify as a modest success too. How many walk-on success stories should we expect/want at one time? It seems to me 1-2 at a time is a fine performance.
Jason Thompson is my prediction for the next one.
RE: Respect in Vegas - Goose - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 02:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.While I generally agree that taking as many players as possible is a good idea, you have to remember that these players take up coaching time, practice reps, and S&C effort. They also contribute/detract to the ethos of the team. Sometimes an unhappy 80th scholarship player is not a good thing. OTOH, a 3* guy (Rudy) who will run through a wall (even though not as fast as you may want) can be a plus, even if he doesn't play in a game. I think you have to trust the coaches to evaluate the relative merits of the guys available. If they leave a scholarship on the table, it should be because the available choices were not better than the null hypothesis. Granted, this situation should be infrequent, and probably the team has altered their evaluation criteria in recent years. IOW, more is not always better, but usually it is.
BC
RE: Respect in Vegas - Mick - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-28-2022, 02:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line. I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.While I generally agree that taking as many players as possible is a good idea, you have to remember that these players take up coaching time, practice reps, and S&C effort. They also contribute/detract to the ethos of the team. Sometimes an unhappy 80th scholarship player is not a good thing. OTOH, a 3* guy (Rudy) who will run through a wall (even though not as fast as you may want) can be a plus, even if he doesn't play in a game. I think you have to trust the coaches to evaluate the relative merits of the guys available. If they leave a scholarship on the table, it should be because the available choices were not better than the null hypothesis. Granted, this situation should be infrequent, and probably the team has altered their evaluation criteria in recent years. IOW, more is not always better, but usually it is.
BC
I think Stanford has had a number of strong walk-ons. Kyle Olugbode, started as a fifth year senior.
RE: Respect in Vegas - BostonCard - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 02:44 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don't think it's helpful to think about bottom of the class as if the bottom of the class in 2017 means the same thing as the bottom of the class in 2022. Your bottom five for 2017 includes multiple guys who were 4-stars on major services. In years with small classes (2013, 2017) it's questionable whether you should even think of the class having a "bottom." Dalman was the composite #650 recruit in the country. Not only is that no doubt about it Power Five recruit, it's a very high 3-star.
Rather than thinking about Dalman as the last guy in his class, it would be more accurate to say he was the 14th highest-regarded guy in one of the most talented classes in Stanford history. For what it's worth, Dalman's ranking would have been the 10th highest of the 21 person most recent class. That's a far cry from a marginal recruit for any program. You can't call the third OL in a class a marginal recruit. Because we were able to get Little, Sarell, and Dalman, that year we passed on 4-star Brett Neilon, among other extremely coveted linemen. [Indeed, USC's highly touted current line are largely guys who could have gone to Stanford if we weren't so high on the hog.]
In other words, you don't have marginal recruits every year. Some years you go light and it's about quality rather than quantity. I don't think it makes sense to view anybody in the 2013 or 2017 classes as the 85th man.
If you look at things like which recruit at a position a player was and when we offered (i.e., were they Plan A or otherwise good enough to be a no doubt about it member of the class), you'll find that there haven't really been the hidden stars you're talking about. Herbig originally committed to us before his senior year even began. Levani Damuni was a 4-star according to Rivals. In what world are these marginal recruits? They simply were not.
But that’s the point, isn’t it? The class of 2017 didn’t have to be as small as it was. Im pretty sure there was room for more than 14 recruits that year. Unfortunately, Langdude’s extremely helpful roster summary only extends back to 2018, but at that point we had only 79 scholarship players, and I don’t remember the problem developing all of a sudden in the class of 2018. So even though we were “high on the hog” in 2017 with OL, we could have recruited Neilon; he’d have come in handy with all the injuries in 2019, and could have anchored the line with Dalman last year.
Indeed, in those years where we are blessed with a plethora of quality recruits, it makes sense to absolutely bring them in (being vicious, if we have to, about culling marginal fifth years). Yeah, there will be some more marginal years, in which case we might be a bit less picky, and keep some fifth years on scholarship who might be more marginal contributors.
For what it’s worth, here are the scholarship numbers by year. 2018: 79; 2019: 81; 2020: 81; 2021: 82; 2022: 84. Are you telling me that there weren’t a couple of players in each of the years between 2018 and 2021 who wouldn’t have been worth taking a flyer on?
BC
RE: Respect in Vegas - Goose - 08-28-2022
(08-28-2022, 08:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote: For what it’s worth, here are the scholarship numbers by year. 2018: 79; 2019: 81; 2020: 81; 2021: 82; 2022: 84. Are you telling me that there weren’t a couple of players in each of the years between 2018 and 2021 who wouldn’t have been worth taking a flyer on?I am not telling you that, but Shaw was saying exactly that since he didn't fill those slots. He may have been wrong, but I don't know for sure what was actually available at that point.
BC