The CardBoard
Future Stanford QB? - 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: Future Stanford QB? (/thread-3239.html)


Future Stanford QB? - yvonne - 04-19-2012

Is Ryan Burns likely to be our only QB in this class, given its small size?

Here's a guy we might be recruiting:
https://twitter.com/#!/GrahamShuler/status/193150991363878913

Re: Future Stanford QB? - socalstanfan1 - 04-19-2012

Nice find!  I wonder if we will recruit young(er) Shuler.  It is a long way to signing day, with the hurdles of admissions still to surmount for everyone committed right now, as well as other temptations for them along the way.  Probably a good idea to have at least one other talented QB in the wings.  But the small size of this class is going to make for some tough decisions by the coaches.

If we can trust the recruiting sites, it looks like the coaches are trying to put together a stellar LB class, much as they addressed primarily the OL and DL last cycle.  How much room is there in the rest of this class for RB (only two that I can see we have offered), TE (struck out so far), DB (narrow miss on Hawkins), WR (Owusu?). 

I'm clearly way too obessed with the whole process. 

Re: Future Stanford QB? - washingtonismoney - 04-19-2012

(04-19-2012, 09:11 PM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:Nice find!  I wonder if we will recruit young(er) Shuler.  It is a long way to signing day, with the hurdles of admissions still to surmount for everyone committed right now, as well as other temptations for them along the way.  Probably a good idea to have at least one other talented QB in the wings.  But the small size of this class is going to make for some tough decisions by the coaches.

If we can trust the recruiting sites, it looks like the coaches are trying to put together a stellar LB class, much as they addressed primarily the OL and DL last cycle.  How much room is there in the rest of this class for RB (only two that I can see we have offered), TE (struck out so far), DB (narrow miss on Hawkins), WR (Owusu?). 

I'm clearly way too obessed with the whole process.

It's not a younger Shuler--the "brother" is figurative. Staver is just visiting us sometime in the summer...I'd be highly surprised if we took a second QB in the class--it's small, and you could make an argument that zero is a better number than two for the proper number of QBs to take in this class, whatever size it ends up being.

LBs are a focus because we need them, and like class of 2012 OL, there are many with good grades. So that's a priority.  We can get by with zero RBs if we want, so as with Barry J. Sanders, we'll only take one if we think he's really good. TE is a must-get. WRs and DBs there are some good ones floating around and obviously we'll take them, but I don't think they're a priority in the same way TE and LB should be.

Re: Future Stanford QB? - yvonne - 04-19-2012

Thanks for pointing out about the "brother." I should have gone to @Haagen_Daaz' page.

We didn't get a QB this year, so we've got to get one next year. Shaw said as much.

Re: Future Stanford QB? - washingtonismoney - 04-19-2012

(04-19-2012, 10:24 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:We didn't get a QB this year, so we've got to get one next year. Shaw said as much.

Got Dallas Lloyd coming in. Not a "recruit" per se so there wasn't a big fuss made over him.

Re: Future Stanford QB? - socalstanfan1 - 04-20-2012

(04-19-2012, 09:18 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:LBs are a focus because we need them, and like class of 2012 OL, there are many with good grades. So that's a priority.  We can get by with zero RBs if we want, so as with Barry J. Sanders, we'll only take one if we think he's really good. TE is a must-get. WRs and DBs there are some good ones floating around and obviously we'll take them, but I don't think they're a priority in the same way TE and LB should be.

I keep hearing that LBs are a need, but also reading about the increadible depth that we have there.  Granted, Thomas and, in all probability, Skov, are gone after next year.  But Tarpley, Vaughters, Hemschoot, Anderson, Leuders, Lancaster, Murphy, all have eligility left after this season, with Noor Davis and Blake Martinez coming in.  Debniak also missed an entire season to injury, which would probably make him eligible for an extra year should he want it.  I know you need lots of LBs if you are running a 3-4, and you need depth to help guard against inevitable injuries, or players just not developing.  But I'm not sure I would consider this an area of real need, particularly after Tarpley and Lancaster showed so much growth last year, and with apparent growth by Hemschoot this year.

To me, TE adn S are both areas of greater need.  Ertz likely goes after this season, Toilolo possibly going too, should he have a big year and remain healthy.  Davis Dudchock shows promise, but he was the last recruited TE that we actually signed on NSD.  Behind him, we are basically down to walk ons (who might be fine, if they develop), or converting players from other positions.  Safety also seems an area of greater need (perhaps that will change if both Madhu and Hoffpauir pan out, and if someone like Olugbode emerges from walk-on status).  Otherwise, who are our safeties?  Carrington (who may develop, but struggled last season); Ed Reynolds (returning from injury); Jordan Richards (maybe the most promising?); and then walk-ons and guys who have not really seized the opportunity in the past, or moving CBs to S, etc.

But, there's something to be said for just nailing a great group of players at one area all at once.  That certainly worked well for TEs the last few years following the big year of recruiting; will probably work for the OL as well; you can focus on other positions while those guys grow together.

Re: Future Stanford QB? - washingtonismoney - 04-20-2012

In terms of LB, probably should be more specific and say ILB. You have Skov and Lancaster as redshirt juniors next season; beyond that you've got Tarpley, Hemschoot, Vaughters as sophomores and Martinez as an incoming freshman. If Skov leaves after 2012, then you've got one senior ILB, three ILB as juniors and one ILB as a redshirt freshman/true sophomore in 2013. 5 ILB is a bit on the light side for 2013 and 4 in 2014 is a problem. So ideally we pick up two ILB in the 2013 class. Fortunately we're halfway there with Savaiinaea and just need one more.

OLB is much less pressing--you've got Thomas, who's a senior. Murphy, who's a junior. Backups are fluid in this situation but Lueders is a junior, Debniak is a senior...but Davis and Anderson are freshmen. Again, you'd like to bring in two. Randolph gets you halfway there but he seems to be a flight risk given the number of visits he's taken.

S we've got no seniors and two incoming freshmen. We're good there, numbers-wise. It's probably safe to count Olugbode as part of the future at this point--Mason said after the spring game that if we had a real game tomorrow, Olugbode would be the starter. (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rapid-reports/post/18606504) Quality might be a different question entirely; I'll never object to efforts to bring in high-quality defensive backs.

We agree TE is a big issue. I suppose it depends on whether the coaches plan on converting players to the position. If Kaumatule and Cajuste become TEs or there's a walk-on TE that can play the part convincingly, suddenly the problems become much less urgent. I wonder if that's what the coaches are planning on doing because there's an odd lack of urgency in terms of addressing what would seem on the outside to be a problem--the coaches are only looking at premium TEs and trying to outrecruit power programs for them.

Re: Future Stanford QB? - StannyBoy - 04-20-2012

Randolph isn't a flight risk, he's an admissions risk. He's definitely 100% committed to Stanford if he gets in if you've ready any articles about him.