11-03-2015, 11:47 AM
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
Meeks National Defensive Player of the Week!
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
11-03-2015, 12:40 PM
And some people think its asking too much for True Frosh to perform...
Luck and Hogan were both terrific play makers as RS Frosh. Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and CMac were very good as True Frosh. Solomon Thomas, Alijah Holder, and Joey Alfieri are all playing well as RS Frosh. and Hooper was great as a RS Frosh last year. Has Stanford had any truly elite WRs recently? No. None have really been great as Frosh. Rector had a great YPC average as a RS Frosh but the reality is he didn't have that many catches and couldn't get on the field as a True Frosh when Stanford was hurting for WR production. He's a nice player, but hardly elite.
The reality is the best players your team will have make big contributions early. If Annan doesn't play well next year, it would be cause for concern. I'm already concerned because Anderson didn't mention Annan as one of the Frosh who is standing out. He did mention Dylan Jackson. If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player. But I really like what I see from Williams in his videos and would be surprised if he isn't getting lots of PT as a True Frosh.
When you see Meeks playing this early and making the plays he did vs. WSU, it's safe to pencil him in as a star in the making. I do believe Love and Irwin also have the potential to prove they are stars in the making as True Frosh, but they need more opportunities to make an impact, IMO.
Luck and Hogan were both terrific play makers as RS Frosh. Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and CMac were very good as True Frosh. Solomon Thomas, Alijah Holder, and Joey Alfieri are all playing well as RS Frosh. and Hooper was great as a RS Frosh last year. Has Stanford had any truly elite WRs recently? No. None have really been great as Frosh. Rector had a great YPC average as a RS Frosh but the reality is he didn't have that many catches and couldn't get on the field as a True Frosh when Stanford was hurting for WR production. He's a nice player, but hardly elite.
The reality is the best players your team will have make big contributions early. If Annan doesn't play well next year, it would be cause for concern. I'm already concerned because Anderson didn't mention Annan as one of the Frosh who is standing out. He did mention Dylan Jackson. If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player. But I really like what I see from Williams in his videos and would be surprised if he isn't getting lots of PT as a True Frosh.
When you see Meeks playing this early and making the plays he did vs. WSU, it's safe to pencil him in as a star in the making. I do believe Love and Irwin also have the potential to prove they are stars in the making as True Frosh, but they need more opportunities to make an impact, IMO.
And some people think its asking too much for True Frosh to perform...
Luck and Hogan were both terrific play makers as RS Frosh. Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and CMac were very good as True Frosh. Solomon Thomas, Alijah Holder, and Joey Alfieri are all playing well as RS Frosh. and Hooper was great as a RS Frosh last year. Has Stanford had any truly elite WRs recently? No. None have really been great as Frosh. Rector had a great YPC average as a RS Frosh but the reality is he didn't have that many catches and couldn't get on the field as a True Frosh when Stanford was hurting for WR production. He's a nice player, but hardly elite.
The reality is the best players your team will have make big contributions early. If Annan doesn't play well next year, it would be cause for concern. I'm already concerned because Anderson didn't mention Annan as one of the Frosh who is standing out. He did mention Dylan Jackson. If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player. But I really like what I see from Williams in his videos and would be surprised if he isn't getting lots of PT as a True Frosh.
When you see Meeks playing this early and making the plays he did vs. WSU, it's safe to pencil him in as a star in the making. I do believe Love and Irwin also have the potential to prove they are stars in the making as True Frosh, but they need more opportunities to make an impact, IMO.
Luck and Hogan were both terrific play makers as RS Frosh. Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and CMac were very good as True Frosh. Solomon Thomas, Alijah Holder, and Joey Alfieri are all playing well as RS Frosh. and Hooper was great as a RS Frosh last year. Has Stanford had any truly elite WRs recently? No. None have really been great as Frosh. Rector had a great YPC average as a RS Frosh but the reality is he didn't have that many catches and couldn't get on the field as a True Frosh when Stanford was hurting for WR production. He's a nice player, but hardly elite.
The reality is the best players your team will have make big contributions early. If Annan doesn't play well next year, it would be cause for concern. I'm already concerned because Anderson didn't mention Annan as one of the Frosh who is standing out. He did mention Dylan Jackson. If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player. But I really like what I see from Williams in his videos and would be surprised if he isn't getting lots of PT as a True Frosh.
When you see Meeks playing this early and making the plays he did vs. WSU, it's safe to pencil him in as a star in the making. I do believe Love and Irwin also have the potential to prove they are stars in the making as True Frosh, but they need more opportunities to make an impact, IMO.
11-03-2015, 12:55 PM
(11-03-2015, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player.Â
Just like that Andrew Luck not playing as a true frosh period was evidence that he wasn't going to be a great player.
The real answer is ... it depends.
Some players play well early, some don't. It's never a bad sign if a player makes major contributions as a true frosh, but the opposite isn't true.
(11-03-2015, 12:40 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:If Michael Williams doesn't play next year period, it will be evident he's more than likely not going to be a great player.Â
Just like that Andrew Luck not playing as a true frosh period was evidence that he wasn't going to be a great player.
The real answer is ... it depends.
Some players play well early, some don't. It's never a bad sign if a player makes major contributions as a true frosh, but the opposite isn't true.
11-03-2015, 01:11 PM
Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
11-03-2015, 01:30 PM
CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard. It's not like Stanford would have lost him any earlier if he did They could have got four years of him starting instead of three. But it's not like Stanford was competing for the Pac-12 then, so the decision to redshirt him made some sense.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard. It's not like Stanford would have lost him any earlier if he did They could have got four years of him starting instead of three. But it's not like Stanford was competing for the Pac-12 then, so the decision to redshirt him made some sense.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
11-03-2015, 01:33 PM
(11-03-2015, 01:30 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard. It's not like Stanford would have lost him any earlier if he did They could have got four years of him starting instead of three. But it's not like Stanford was competing for the Pac-12 then, so the decision to redshirt him made some sense.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
If we didn't burn anyone's redshirt this year, what makes you think we will do so next year. Defensive Line is difficult to play as a freshman; the general consensus is that the closer you are to the snapping of the football, the easier it is to learn and rely on instinct and athleticism, so you wind up seeing a fair number of DB's and wide receivers playing as freshmen, and many fewer linemen and QB's. It doesn't mean you can't (Phillips played, and played reasonably well, as a true frosh); it just means it is hard, and you see those players blossoming later in their careers.
BC
(11-03-2015, 01:30 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard. It's not like Stanford would have lost him any earlier if he did They could have got four years of him starting instead of three. But it's not like Stanford was competing for the Pac-12 then, so the decision to redshirt him made some sense.
As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
None of the Seniors are anything to write home about. Phillips will be coming off an ACL injury. Annan only started playing football in high school. Solomon Thomas will be the only proven and reliable DL on the roster. If two of Williams, Swann, and Peek can't crack the playing time rotation as True Frosh, it's hard to imagine Stanford being very good on defense in 2016 or 2017.
If we didn't burn anyone's redshirt this year, what makes you think we will do so next year. Defensive Line is difficult to play as a freshman; the general consensus is that the closer you are to the snapping of the football, the easier it is to learn and rely on instinct and athleticism, so you wind up seeing a fair number of DB's and wide receivers playing as freshmen, and many fewer linemen and QB's. It doesn't mean you can't (Phillips played, and played reasonably well, as a true frosh); it just means it is hard, and you see those players blossoming later in their careers.
BC
11-03-2015, 01:36 PM
(11-03-2015, 01:11 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
No, it's not impossible for good players to only reveal it after several years of not playing. What I am saying is you know someone is a great player when they do play well early. Meeks is a star. The odds '14 recruit Brandon Simmons becomes one, with Reid, Edwards, and Meeks playing over him as '15 recruits, are not high, is my point.
(11-03-2015, 01:11 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
No, it's not impossible for good players to only reveal it after several years of not playing. What I am saying is you know someone is a great player when they do play well early. Meeks is a star. The odds '14 recruit Brandon Simmons becomes one, with Reid, Edwards, and Meeks playing over him as '15 recruits, are not high, is my point.
11-03-2015, 01:43 PM
(11-03-2015, 01:36 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13488.msg139231#msg139231 date=1446581464]
Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
No, it's not impossible for good players to only reveal it after several years of not playing. What I am saying is you know someone is a great player when they do play well early. Meeks is a star. The odds '14 recruit Brandon Simmons becomes one, with Reid, Edwards, and Meeks playing over him as '15 recruits, are not high, is my point.
[/quote]
Lyons is the counterexample. He played (started) as a frosh, but by his senior year, Harris was at least equal to him, and when he transferred to Michigan, he got lost on the depth chart. I hesitate to call a three-year starter a disappointment, but his career tragectory wasn't the same as, say Carter's.
BCÂ
(11-03-2015, 01:36 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13488.msg139231#msg139231 date=1446581464]
Just like David Parry not playing as a frosh, not starting as a sophomore, and not starting (except when the starter was injured) as a junior was a poor predictor of his success as a senior and RS senior.
There are lots of examples of guys who don't see much action until their third year in the program and then end up being stars.
BC
No, it's not impossible for good players to only reveal it after several years of not playing. What I am saying is you know someone is a great player when they do play well early. Meeks is a star. The odds '14 recruit Brandon Simmons becomes one, with Reid, Edwards, and Meeks playing over him as '15 recruits, are not high, is my point.
[/quote]
Lyons is the counterexample. He played (started) as a frosh, but by his senior year, Harris was at least equal to him, and when he transferred to Michigan, he got lost on the depth chart. I hesitate to call a three-year starter a disappointment, but his career tragectory wasn't the same as, say Carter's.
BCÂ
(11-03-2015, 01:30 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard.
That's rather the point.
There are a myriad of reasons a particular player might be redshirting. As a fan, you basically don't know which is in operation for any particular case.
Thus, while a redshirt for a player because the guy ahead is better is not sign that the player won't become a star, a redshirt for an unknown reason is really no sign that the player won't become a star.Â
Quote:As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
I see seven non-frosh, which by itself is plenty. Whether they'll all actually be on the team next year and contribute is currently an unknown.
If we need to play a frosh, we could easily be in the same situation as 2014. The fact that Phillips was called upon was not an indication that Thomas would never be a star. I see no reason the same situation couldn't be repeated in 2016.
Even if Williams turns out to simply not be as good next year as any of those other seven (or really, about 4-5), or one of the other frosh, that mostly says something about how good he is as a true frosh - not how good he'll be later.
(11-03-2015, 01:30 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:CT, you know as well as I do that Luck COULD have played as a True Frosh because he was way better than Pritchard.
That's rather the point.
There are a myriad of reasons a particular player might be redshirting. As a fan, you basically don't know which is in operation for any particular case.
Thus, while a redshirt for a player because the guy ahead is better is not sign that the player won't become a star, a redshirt for an unknown reason is really no sign that the player won't become a star.Â
Quote:As for Williams, let's look at the 2016 DL situation:
Sr. Watkins, Lohn, Kaumatule
Jr. Phillips (Soph in eligibility)
So. Thomas
RS Fr. Annan, Jackson
Fr. Williams, Peek, Swann
I see seven non-frosh, which by itself is plenty. Whether they'll all actually be on the team next year and contribute is currently an unknown.
If we need to play a frosh, we could easily be in the same situation as 2014. The fact that Phillips was called upon was not an indication that Thomas would never be a star. I see no reason the same situation couldn't be repeated in 2016.
Even if Williams turns out to simply not be as good next year as any of those other seven (or really, about 4-5), or one of the other frosh, that mostly says something about how good he is as a true frosh - not how good he'll be later.
11-03-2015, 03:48 PM
Pretty ironic considering the earlier thread about how unimpressive our DBs have been.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13344.0
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13344.0
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Pretty ironic considering the earlier thread about how unimpressive our DBs have been.
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13344.0
http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=13344.0
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
11-03-2015, 04:30 PM
Terrence Alexander burnt his redshirt.
Alijah Holder kept his on.
Which one is the better player today, in the coaches' eyes?
Alijah Holder kept his on.
Which one is the better player today, in the coaches' eyes?
Terrence Alexander burnt his redshirt.
Alijah Holder kept his on.
Which one is the better player today, in the coaches' eyes?
Alijah Holder kept his on.
Which one is the better player today, in the coaches' eyes?
11-03-2015, 04:32 PM
Hold on there, I suspect the coaches had a lot more to do with that than the players themselves. I doubt the coaches wished Holder would play last year and he refused, or vice versa.
11-03-2015, 04:48 PM
(11-03-2015, 04:32 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Hold on there, I suspect the coaches had a lot more to do with that than the players themselves. I doubt the coaches wished Holder would play last year and he refused, or vice versa.
I think WIM's point is that if you try too hard to project career trajectory based on how much someone plays as a freshman, as OutsiderFan does, you can run into problems. Using that logic, you would have expected Alexander to be a star (he not only played as a freshman, he was the fourth cornerback -- behind Carter, Lyons, and Harris, so essentially the first off the bench). Certainly with Carter and Lyons gone, we might have expected Alexander to win the CB spot opposite Harris, so we were all surprised when he wound up as the nickelback, and further surprised when he seems to have fallen behind Meeks.
On the other hand, Holder redshirted last year, which by OutsiderFan's portends for a not-so-good career, yet Holder is now our starting corner opposite Harris and slated for a long and productive three or four year career as a Stanford corner.
BC
(11-03-2015, 04:32 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Hold on there, I suspect the coaches had a lot more to do with that than the players themselves. I doubt the coaches wished Holder would play last year and he refused, or vice versa.
I think WIM's point is that if you try too hard to project career trajectory based on how much someone plays as a freshman, as OutsiderFan does, you can run into problems. Using that logic, you would have expected Alexander to be a star (he not only played as a freshman, he was the fourth cornerback -- behind Carter, Lyons, and Harris, so essentially the first off the bench). Certainly with Carter and Lyons gone, we might have expected Alexander to win the CB spot opposite Harris, so we were all surprised when he wound up as the nickelback, and further surprised when he seems to have fallen behind Meeks.
On the other hand, Holder redshirted last year, which by OutsiderFan's portends for a not-so-good career, yet Holder is now our starting corner opposite Harris and slated for a long and productive three or four year career as a Stanford corner.
BC
11-03-2015, 05:02 PM
So I have no problem with OutsiderFan's point as a soft criteria. In general players who play as true freshmen are better than those who wait.* Of course! But it's silly to elevate this too highly.
* (I've seen some evidence that QBs who redshirt play/develop better than those who play as true freshman.Can't find it now though.)
* (I've seen some evidence that QBs who redshirt play/develop better than those who play as true freshman.Can't find it now though.)
So I have no problem with OutsiderFan's point as a soft criteria. In general players who play as true freshmen are better than those who wait.* Of course! But it's silly to elevate this too highly.
* (I've seen some evidence that QBs who redshirt play/develop better than those who play as true freshman.Can't find it now though.)
* (I've seen some evidence that QBs who redshirt play/develop better than those who play as true freshman.Can't find it now though.)
11-03-2015, 05:08 PM
Happy takeaway Tuesday:
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
Happy takeaway Tuesday:
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
11-03-2015, 06:25 PM
(11-03-2015, 05:08 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Happy takeaway Tuesday:d
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
I'll take national over Pac12, but this is ridiculous.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(11-03-2015, 05:08 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Happy takeaway Tuesday:d
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...8288859137
https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...6032665600
Sadly, Meeks was not the Pac-12 defensive player of the week.
http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/02/pac...-announced
(he's nominated, as is Hogan for offense and Ukropina for special teams).
BC
I'll take national over Pac12, but this is ridiculous.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
11-04-2015, 07:09 AM
(11-03-2015, 05:02 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So I have no problem with OutsiderFan's point as a soft criteria.
I have no problem with the idea that it's a good sign if a player contributes significantly as a true frosh [which basically goes in the ...duh category].
I do contend whether it's a bad sign if they don't.
(11-03-2015, 05:02 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:So I have no problem with OutsiderFan's point as a soft criteria.
I have no problem with the idea that it's a good sign if a player contributes significantly as a true frosh [which basically goes in the ...duh category].
I do contend whether it's a bad sign if they don't.
11-04-2015, 10:58 AM
Very unusual for a Stanford defensive linemen to contribute as a true freshman; they're just not ready.Â
If we burn a freshman DL's shirt, it's from desperation--e.g, Phillips. And did burning his shirt, but not Thomas's, immediately signal that Solly was not the 4.8 star DL we had thought, and that Phillips was the superior prospect? Not at all.
If we burn a freshman DL's shirt, it's from desperation--e.g, Phillips. And did burning his shirt, but not Thomas's, immediately signal that Solly was not the 4.8 star DL we had thought, and that Phillips was the superior prospect? Not at all.
Very unusual for a Stanford defensive linemen to contribute as a true freshman; they're just not ready.Â
If we burn a freshman DL's shirt, it's from desperation--e.g, Phillips. And did burning his shirt, but not Thomas's, immediately signal that Solly was not the 4.8 star DL we had thought, and that Phillips was the superior prospect? Not at all.
If we burn a freshman DL's shirt, it's from desperation--e.g, Phillips. And did burning his shirt, but not Thomas's, immediately signal that Solly was not the 4.8 star DL we had thought, and that Phillips was the superior prospect? Not at all.
11-04-2015, 12:56 PM
(11-04-2015, 10:07 AM)garvin link Wrote:Or, take the non-theoretical case of Mike Boryla, who was a sophomore in 1970, back before freshman eligibility. The No. 1 Stanford quarterback that season was Jim Plunkett. The No. 2 was Jesse Freitas, who would eventally transfer in the face of Stanford's QB glut and win a national passing title at San Diego State. If both those guys had gone down with injuries, Don Bunce -- who would lead Stanford to a Rose Bowl in 1971 -- would surely have come off his redshirt to play.
So Boryla, in his first year of eligibility, took a redshirt. (And then broke his arm and would have missed the season anyway.) It had nothing to do with his talent -- he would become a two-year starter and made an All American team in his final year. It was just a matter of the program's manpower flow.
Holy moly. Plunkett, Freitas, Bunce, and Boryla one one team. Guess I never put that together.
Not to mention Randy Vataha split wide, with Bob Moore on the other side. And the Shockley/Brown 1-2 punch at RB. What an offense.
-m.
(11-04-2015, 10:07 AM)garvin link Wrote:Or, take the non-theoretical case of Mike Boryla, who was a sophomore in 1970, back before freshman eligibility. The No. 1 Stanford quarterback that season was Jim Plunkett. The No. 2 was Jesse Freitas, who would eventally transfer in the face of Stanford's QB glut and win a national passing title at San Diego State. If both those guys had gone down with injuries, Don Bunce -- who would lead Stanford to a Rose Bowl in 1971 -- would surely have come off his redshirt to play.
So Boryla, in his first year of eligibility, took a redshirt. (And then broke his arm and would have missed the season anyway.) It had nothing to do with his talent -- he would become a two-year starter and made an All American team in his final year. It was just a matter of the program's manpower flow.
Holy moly. Plunkett, Freitas, Bunce, and Boryla one one team. Guess I never put that together.
Not to mention Randy Vataha split wide, with Bob Moore on the other side. And the Shockley/Brown 1-2 punch at RB. What an offense.
-m.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »