The CardBoard
the quality of this class - 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: the quality of this class (/thread-4735.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-15-2013

Rivals ranks all but one of these players in the top 100 in his position. Only four other Pac-12 schools have fewer than five players who are not in the top 100 in their positions: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, Oregon's class is even smaller than ours.

Although star ratings and rankings don't reveal everything about how a player will develop, it's clear that Stanford hasn't stepped down from elite recruiting.

Re: the quality of this class - socalstanfan1 - 01-15-2013

I'm further encouraged about this class by our recent success in finding and developing top-notch talent that seems, in retrospect, under-valued by the recruiting websites.  I'm thinking of two and three star players, particularly along the OL (Schwartzstein, Fleming, Yankey, who was borderline 4 star, Danser) and on the back 8 of the defense (Tarpley, Murphy, Lancaster, Brown, Browning, Reynolds).  We haven't done so well with receivers, but with OL and the D we've been outstanding.  Gives me faith that we may find a gem in, say, Oser or Bright, who might even end up challenging one of the more noteworthy class members from last year.  Hopefully we have also caught a surprise player in Eric Cotton.

Re: the quality of this class - OutsiderFan - 01-15-2013

My money is on Mike Tyler being the star diamond in the rough from this class.  Eric Cotton and Taijuan Thomas also provide reason to think they will be good.  Don't want to lose objectivity just because they are Stanford recruits, but the videos on these three guys are impressive. 

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-15-2013


Number of Arizona players who are in the top 100 at their position: 9; number who are not: 17 (34.62% of players are top 100 in their position)
Arizona State: 9; 12 (42.86%)
Cal: 11; 10 (52.38%)
Colorado: 3; 10 (23.08%)
Oregon: 10; 3 (76.92%)
Oregon State: 4; 17 (19.05%)
Stanford: 11; 1 (91.67%)
UCLA: 17; 2 (89.47%)
USC: 14; 0 (100%)
Utah: 6; 20 (23.08%)
Washington: 17; 5 (77.27%)
Washington State: 4; 19 (5.75%)

Granted, large numbers of players provide depth, but if the depth is already provided by the older players, then quality is necessary, and we seem to have hit it. Only three schools have more top 100 players than we do, and only one school has a higher percentage.

Re: the quality of this class - Cardinal96 - 01-15-2013

For some of us (me at least), I think last year's unprecedented haul of top-notch recruits may have gotten our expectations too high.  We are not USC or Alabama; programs that can consistently expect to attract four and five-star recruits.  This is a very decent class. 

Re: the quality of this class - socalstanfan1 - 01-15-2013

Agreed, we will not be able to consistently pull the class full of 4- and 5-star players like USC.  I think our model should be that of the New England Patriots (granted, the NFL, because of the nature of the draft, is different from college recruiting).  The Patriots, more than any other team in the NFL drafts low (maybe a rough equivalent of the high academic standards of Stanford that make certain recruits unattainable, just as the Patriots consistent success means the most highly regarded athletes are not typically available for them).  But, the Patriots are successful in scouting, finding the right players for their system, and then coaching those players to make them effective.  They get guys who are off the radar for most teams, or just considered to be "meh" players, and turn them into important cogs in their machine.

We need to do the same in identifying people like Cotton, Tyler, Thomas, etc, (or Murphy, David Parry, ....the list could go on and on), while still having success with highly regarded players who DO meet the academic criteria for the University (Peat, K. Murphy, Luck, etc.)  We can definitely sustain long-term success with that model.  Our margin for error will just be a bit more narrow than most places.  Of course, USC has been making a hell of a lot of errors lately.

Re: the quality of this class - DC - 01-15-2013

(01-15-2013, 09:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:Rivals ranks all but one of these players in the top 100 in his position. Only four other Pac-12 schools have fewer than five players who are not in the top 100 in their positions: Under Stanford Control, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, Oregon's class is even smaller than ours.

Although star ratings and rankings don't reveal everything about how a player will develop, it's clear that Stanford hasn't stepped down from elite recruiting.

USC and Notre Dame have elite recruiting this year. Our class last year was elite. This year's class is solid and may turn out well in areas of need, but initially on paper I wouldn't consider it elite.  Rumbling are though that our class next year has the potential to be elite.

Re: the quality of this class - slide - 01-15-2013

DC -- I think you are right on both counts. 

the Trojenz and NIPS are having a bumper year recruiting wise.  the link below shows Rivals rankings based on avg star per recruit.  we come in 18th on this basis, and 51st in total number of points.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/stanford/football/recruiting/teamrank;_ylt=AiEyqONmx5T7_IlZ.pdNEJ7WtpB4

and '14 is shaping up to be much closer to '12 than '13 for us.  we won't have a single position haul like we did in '12, but it is setting up to be a very good class.  Sanford et al need to work some magic, particularly in the classroom, if the class is going to be truly elite.

Re: the quality of this class - Bruce Wang - 01-15-2013

Have to agree with DC.  This is a good class, but not elite on the basis of the recruiting sites' ratings.  A small class should be high in quality since you are theoretically taking the best 15 players you can get.  So to compare this year's class (11 commits so far) with last year's class, you would need to compare the commits so far (3.2 stars according to Scout) to the 11 highest ranked recruits of last year's class (4.2 stars).

What's hard to to know for sure is whether this was the best Stanford could do.  It sounds like there weren't just as many elite players that could meet Stanford's admissions standards this year.  On the other hand there were a few lost to $C that may have been motivated by $C's gaudy pre-season hype.  Changing a person's mind is one of the hardest things to do in life.  (Texas must have really f'd up to lose Durham Smythe).  What Yvonne pointed out to start this thread is very insightful.  Perhaps this is just a down year in the Pac-12 in terms of new talent and we're in relatively good shape.  It is all relative.

I try to have a balanced view.  Stanford seems to get more out of its players than the recruiting ratings would predict, likely a function of mental toughness, smarts, and good coaching.  Still these recruiting ratings do seem to have some predictive value in the aggregate.  5 and 4 star rated players on average do have better college careers and are more likely to get drafted (there was an interesting article in the WSJ about this last year).

Overall, no complaints here.  The smaller class is a function of many outstanding proven players staying, and there are a large number of players from last year's class that redshirted.  And the future looks bright.  It appears there are a large number of talented and smart players in next year's class and hopefully a strong performance this coming season should impress them.  At the least this past season has proven that Stanford can win without Gerhart, Harbaugh, and Luck. And it appears that head coaching continuity will no longer be a problem on the Farm.  Stanford is an elite program and will be so for the foreseeable future.  There's a thread on Reddit today on who the elite programs for this decade will be and Stanford was as frequently mentioned as the usual suspects.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-15-2013

I don't think I'd classify this as an elite class, but I'm not dismissing this class as some of our competitors have and as some on other threads have. There were people wondering what was wrong with our recruiting this year because they hadn't heard a lot of news of five-star guys coming in. To be sure, I liked it better when every single guy on our list had four stars, but this is a very, very solid class. I think it's stronger than recruiting lists will indicate because most recruiting lists factor in the size of a class. I guess the word I'd use is "strong."

It's one thing to have two or three studs, but to have a real breadth of above average talent is the best way to build depth.

Re: the quality of this class - washingtonismoney - 01-15-2013

I don't know if I'd call it strong. We may be playing semantic games, but I think it's a B/B+ kind of a class. Fine, not exceptional; probably needs improvement in 2014 if you like the idea of Pasadena in January. Fortunately we're positioned for a blockbuster class, so that helps take the edge off.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-15-2013

Would you trade this class for anybody's other than SC's?

Re: the quality of this class - socalstanfan1 - 01-16-2013

(01-15-2013, 11:28 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Would you trade this class for anybody's other than SC's?

I think the best way to handle this question would be: would you take the top 15 people of any other class, since that is the number of spots, roughly, that we have.

Anybody in the country?  Notre Dame comes to mind.  Ohio State.  I think their classes look pretty impressive. Maybe Florida.  Of course Alabama.  Maybe Clemson and LSU.  But most of those SEC kids would not make it into Stanford academically, of course. 

Anybody in the conference?  I think UCLA has a very good looking class, with 11 4 stars according to Rivals.  Washington has a nice top-half of its class, perhaps a bit stronger than ours, at least in terms of counting stars.

But we are definitely in the top 1/3 of the conference, in terms of the quality of the recruits. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, where we really need to make up ground it in turning our slightly under-the-radar guys into productive players.  And hit home runs with the stars (Kalambayi, Burns

Re: the quality of this class - Bruce Wang - 01-16-2013

Ultimately the 2013 class is likely to be judged on Ryan Burns v Max Browne/Cooper Bateman/Trent Hosick.  It seems that Browne or Bateman would have come if they got offers.  And Hosick if he was recruited as a QB rather than an athlete.  There's alot of hype about Browne being Peyton Manning-like (perhaps that just means he will choke in big games). 

Anyhow, given how Hogan has turned out, in Shaw I trust.

Re: the quality of this class - DC - 01-16-2013

(01-16-2013, 07:27 AM)Publius link Wrote:Ultimately the 2013 class is likely to be judged on Ryan Burns v Max Browne/Cooper Bateman/Trent Hosick.  It seems that Browne or Bateman would have come if they got offers.  And Hosick if he was recruited as a QB rather than an athlete.  There's alot of hype about Browne being Peyton Manning-like (perhaps that just means he will choke in big games). 

Anyhow, given how Hogan has turned out, in Shaw I trust.

I also mentioned this on another thread:  Does anyone have any insight on why we seemed to bypass the very accomplished Max Browne in favor of the less proven Ryan Burns?

Re: the quality of this class - PrinceLightfoot - 01-17-2013

I also mentioned this on another thread:  Does anyone have any insight on why we seemed to bypass the very accomplished Max Browne in favor of the less proven Ryan Burns?

In my opinion this is why:

Keller Chryst

http://stanford.scout.com/a.z?s=18&p=8&c=1&nid=6019685

Re: the quality of this class - StannyBoy - 01-17-2013

Offering Burns over Browne has no relation to Keller Chryst. They think he'll be better than Browne with a little practice is a pro-style offense.

Re: the quality of this class - PrinceLightfoot - 01-17-2013

Barring any academic concerns, I can only guess that Burns showed more enthusiasm for Stanford before the offer was put on the table than Browne. When the offer came along with the early commitment last March, offering Browne seemed redundant from a personnel standpoint. The limited scholarships available for this class requried a better distribution amongst other positions at that point.

True, Keller being in the mix for 2014 is not directly related but one cannot deny that having Keller (who is leaning heavily towards Stanford) as a future stud QB wouldn't sway today's decisions on who to recruit further when you already have one stud QB in the current class.

Re: the quality of this class - yvonne - 01-17-2013

ESPN has a recruiting roundup, and I think it further supports the argument that this is a strong class, at least compared to the rest of the conference:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/52695/pac-12-recruiting-roundup-7

We have 12 commitments. Of those commitments, five of them are ESPN top 300. Only two schools have an equal or larger number of ESPN 300 commits. Only USC has a higher percentage of ESPN 300 commits. This may not be a class on par with last year's, but it's nothing to be sneezed at.

Re: the quality of this class - socalstanfan1 - 01-17-2013

r.e. Burns v. Browne:  I have no information that is not publicly available on the internet, but my guess would be that coaches are not as enamored of stats as the recruiting "experts" (and fans, like myself).  Much like scouts for professional sports, they may look more at "projectability," to borrow a term used commonly in baseball, when evaluating 17 year old players.  Maybe the player hasn't performed as well, statistically, as another player.  But that might be attributed to quality of coaching, the system they run at the player's HS, injuries, poor receivers, etc.  The bigger issue might be: what do we think the kid can do once we get him to college, coach up his fundamentals, put him in a weight room, etc.  It may very well be that, by those standards, Burns is just plain better than Browne, regardless of what the stats and pundits say.  What I like is that the Stanford coaches brought both guys on campus, evaluated them head to head, then chose their guy.  The same thing happened with the TEs when Eric Cotton beat out better-known competition (heck, everyone was "better-known" than Cotton at the time).  Only time will tell if the coaches made the right call.

On a related note: who here remembers Malcolm Jones?  Nearly a Stanford commit, went with UCLA instead.  National HS Player of the Year.  Now about #4 on UCLA's depth chart at RB.  The obvious point being: HS stats and fame are great and all, but that player may not always have what it takes against a higher level of competition.