[OutsiderFan]

OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  Whether they are ready to play or not is TBD, but given how small Stanford is on the DL, and how poor the returning OTs were in 2016, it is my hope that these guys play meaningful roles as True Frosh.

Someone needs to explain to me why Anderson, Shaw, and/or Turley prefer lighter DL, because outside of Wade-Perry, not a single Stanford DL is listed at even 290.  When you consider UW started three 300 pounders on its DL in 2016 and won the conference, this seems like an issue.

Stanford's DL according to the updated roster:

Wade-Perry 330
Peek 286
Phillips 285
Williams 276
Annan 275
Cotton 273
Swann 269
Jackson 267
Schaffer 266
Johnson 245

I really wonder how this DL is going to avoid being pushed around by 300 pound OLs.  To me, each of these guys other than Wade-Perry needs 20 pounds to feel good about holding the point of attack.  Solomon Thomas wasn't big either, but his lack of size was made up for by elite quickness I'm not sure any of these DL have.

[OutsiderFan]

OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  Whether they are ready to play or not is TBD, but given how small Stanford is on the DL, and how poor the returning OTs were in 2016, it is my hope that these guys play meaningful roles as True Frosh.

Someone needs to explain to me why Anderson, Shaw, and/or Turley prefer lighter DL, because outside of Wade-Perry, not a single Stanford DL is listed at even 290.  When you consider UW started three 300 pounders on its DL in 2016 and won the conference, this seems like an issue.

Stanford's DL according to the updated roster:

Wade-Perry 330
Peek 286
Phillips 285
Williams 276
Annan 275
Cotton 273
Swann 269
Jackson 267
Schaffer 266
Johnson 245

I really wonder how this DL is going to avoid being pushed around by 300 pound OLs.  To me, each of these guys other than Wade-Perry needs 20 pounds to feel good about holding the point of attack.  Solomon Thomas wasn't big either, but his lack of size was made up for by elite quickness I'm not sure any of these DL have.

[ChicagoCard]

I think the returning players' weights get updated closer to the start of fall camp.

[ChicagoCard]

I think the returning players' weights get updated closer to the start of fall camp.

[PalmTree]

OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  .........

Not quite, Nate "The Big Island" Herbig (6'4", 346) is still, ummm....hugely big 

[PalmTree]

OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  .........

Not quite, Nate "The Big Island" Herbig (6'4", 346) is still, ummm....hugely big 

[82lsju]

http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?path=football

[82lsju]

http://www.gostanford.com/roster.aspx?path=football

[Spiny_Norman]

For those following along at home, here are the jersey numbers for the frosh:
Connor Weddington - 5 (lot of confidence in that young man given the record of the previous #5)
Davis Mills - 15 (have we had a QB wearing #15 in recent memory?)
Paulson Adebo - 17 (following Brennan Scarlett and AJ Tarpley)
Stuart Head - 18
Ryan Johnson - 23
Sione Lund - 25 (that number worked well for Tyler Gaffney)
Houston Heimuli - 34
Dalyn Wade-Perry - 50
Drew Dalman - 51 (what # was his dad?)
Walker Little - 72
Foster Sarell - 79
Osiris St Brown - 80
Colby Parkinson - 84
Tucker Fisk - 88
Gabe Reid - 90

[Spiny_Norman]

For those following along at home, here are the jersey numbers for the frosh:
Connor Weddington - 5 (lot of confidence in that young man given the record of the previous #5)
Davis Mills - 15 (have we had a QB wearing #15 in recent memory?)
Paulson Adebo - 17 (following Brennan Scarlett and AJ Tarpley)
Stuart Head - 18
Ryan Johnson - 23
Sione Lund - 25 (that number worked well for Tyler Gaffney)
Houston Heimuli - 34
Dalyn Wade-Perry - 50
Drew Dalman - 51 (what # was his dad?)
Walker Little - 72
Foster Sarell - 79
Osiris St Brown - 80
Colby Parkinson - 84
Tucker Fisk - 88
Gabe Reid - 90

[donkey687]

#5 and #12 will be retired some day just not today.  May as well use them in the meantime.  It was probably a recruiting promise that he could use it.

[donkey687]

#5 and #12 will be retired some day just not today.  May as well use them in the meantime.  It was probably a recruiting promise that he could use it.

[ChicagoCard]

Harrington and St. Brown both 80, for now. So something needs to change.

[ChicagoCard]

Harrington and St. Brown both 80, for now. So something needs to change.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17052.msg195450#msg195450 date=1499805607]
OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  .........

Not quite, Nate "The Big Island" Herbig (6'4", 346) is still, ummm....hugely big
[/quote]

HOW could I forget Nate and his listed 346!?!?!?!

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17052.msg195450#msg195450 date=1499805607]
OT Walker Little: 6-7 310
OT Foster Sarell: 6-7 315
DT Dalyn Wade-Perry: 6-4 330

These frosh are now the biggest Linemen on campus.  .........

Not quite, Nate "The Big Island" Herbig (6'4", 346) is still, ummm....hugely big
[/quote]

HOW could I forget Nate and his listed 346!?!?!?!

[BobK]

Sad news on Yarbough

https://stanford.forums.rivals.com/threa...all.15793/

[BobK]

Sad news on Yarbough

https://stanford.forums.rivals.com/threa...all.15793/

[82lsju]

Drew Dalman - 51 (what # was his dad?)

maybe 50

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stor...07aay.html

[82lsju]

Drew Dalman - 51 (what # was his dad?)

maybe 50

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stor...07aay.html

[winflop]

45 days boys & girls. 45 slow, long days :D

[winflop]

45 days boys & girls. 45 slow, long days :D

[pcgoode]

Does anyone know when camp starts?

[pcgoode]

Does anyone know when camp starts?

[OutsiderFan]

I read UCB starts July 31.  It's an earlier than usual start due to NCAA outlawing double days.  Given Stanford plays a week earlier, Stanford would probably start around July 24.

[OutsiderFan]

I read UCB starts July 31.  It's an earlier than usual start due to NCAA outlawing double days.  Given Stanford plays a week earlier, Stanford would probably start around July 24.

[Bruce Wang]

Word is that Clark Yarborough retiring for medical reasons.

[Bruce Wang]

Word is that Clark Yarborough retiring for medical reasons.

[Spiny_Norman]

Word is that Clark Yarborough retiring for medical reasons.

BobK mentioned it above but linked to a story behind a paywall.  Here is Yarbrough's announcement - https://www.instagram.com/p/BWbHgv-hzFN/

[Spiny_Norman]

Word is that Clark Yarborough retiring for medical reasons.

BobK mentioned it above but linked to a story behind a paywall.  Here is Yarbrough's announcement - https://www.instagram.com/p/BWbHgv-hzFN/

[Bruce Wang]

There's a doctor I've gotten to know that played football for Princeton.  He said he had many many concussions from playing football in high school and college.  It does not seem to have impaired him neurologically as he's one of the top doctors in his specialty.  Could be his physiology.  It could also be the amount of force (mass x acceleration) in high school and Ivy League football is lower than FBS or the NFL.  Perhaps the NCAA and the NFL should limit weight for various positions.  They would pull back this arms race on bulking up and perhaps reduce the use of PEDs and concussions.

[Bruce Wang]

There's a doctor I've gotten to know that played football for Princeton.  He said he had many many concussions from playing football in high school and college.  It does not seem to have impaired him neurologically as he's one of the top doctors in his specialty.  Could be his physiology.  It could also be the amount of force (mass x acceleration) in high school and Ivy League football is lower than FBS or the NFL.  Perhaps the NCAA and the NFL should limit weight for various positions.  They would pull back this arms race on bulking up and perhaps reduce the use of PEDs and concussions.

[Mick]

There's a doctor I've gotten to know that played football for Princeton.  He said he had many many concussions from playing football in high school and college.  It does not seem to have impaired him neurologically as he's one of the top doctors in his specialty.  Could be his physiology.  It could also be the amount of force (mass x acceleration) in high school and Ivy League football is lower than FBS or the NFL.  Perhaps the NCAA and the NFL should limit weight for various positions.  They would pull back this arms race on bulking up and perhaps reduce the use of PEDs and concussions.

In reverse order...

1)  There is an NCAA-recognized variant of varsity football that limits weight.  It's called "sprint football" f/k/a lightweight football.  Players are limited to 178 pounds, and must have a minimum of 5% body fat.  One of the Ivies, West Point and Annapolis play it.  Traditionally, the military academies are terrific.  Princeton dropped the sport in 2015 after 16 consecutive winless seasons, a record.  Today, only two Ivies still play it, Penn and Cornell, along with West Point and Annapolis.  The other four schools are Chestnut Hill, Franklin Pierce, Mansfield and Post University.  All are in the Northeast.

2)  The difference between force and mass between the Ivies and FBS schools is substantial.  So is the coaching and level of athletic ability.  Candidly, it's a little bit painful to watch the Ivies, it reminds me of the old SCU football.  My son told me the first play he witnessed was the tight end going out in the flat, the QB telegraphed his pass which needed to travel about 15 yards in the air.  Result?  He threw it six yards short.  Stanford's walk-ons, generally speaking would fit right in with the Ivies.

[Mick]

There's a doctor I've gotten to know that played football for Princeton.  He said he had many many concussions from playing football in high school and college.  It does not seem to have impaired him neurologically as he's one of the top doctors in his specialty.  Could be his physiology.  It could also be the amount of force (mass x acceleration) in high school and Ivy League football is lower than FBS or the NFL.  Perhaps the NCAA and the NFL should limit weight for various positions.  They would pull back this arms race on bulking up and perhaps reduce the use of PEDs and concussions.

In reverse order...

1)  There is an NCAA-recognized variant of varsity football that limits weight.  It's called "sprint football" f/k/a lightweight football.  Players are limited to 178 pounds, and must have a minimum of 5% body fat.  One of the Ivies, West Point and Annapolis play it.  Traditionally, the military academies are terrific.  Princeton dropped the sport in 2015 after 16 consecutive winless seasons, a record.  Today, only two Ivies still play it, Penn and Cornell, along with West Point and Annapolis.  The other four schools are Chestnut Hill, Franklin Pierce, Mansfield and Post University.  All are in the Northeast.

2)  The difference between force and mass between the Ivies and FBS schools is substantial.  So is the coaching and level of athletic ability.  Candidly, it's a little bit painful to watch the Ivies, it reminds me of the old SCU football.  My son told me the first play he witnessed was the tight end going out in the flat, the QB telegraphed his pass which needed to travel about 15 yards in the air.  Result?  He threw it six yards short.  Stanford's walk-ons, generally speaking would fit right in with the Ivies.

[Phogge]

Cordova threw them six yards short sometimes but at least they were heat seeking missles that could have taken off a gopher's head.

[Phogge]

Cordova threw them six yards short sometimes but at least they were heat seeking missles that could have taken off a gopher's head.

[washingtonismoney]

To state upfront, concussions and brain damage are a serious issue that need addressing. And if you've had a lot of concussions, like Yarbrough, it's better safe than sorry to retire, unless you value football more than conceivably anything.

But the debate playing out on concussions appears to me -- as someone who isn't personally a scientist or doctor, but who writes about health issues a lot -- to be, oftentimes, a bit exaggerated in the doom and harm from concussions. I may have missed some new studies, but based on my most recent review:

1) The CDC periodically conducts surveys of football players. They don't seem to live less long than their comparators. IIRC the rates of depression aren't that much different than their chosen comparators either. This strikes me as an interesting fact to keep in mind.

2) Apparently the media has started to pick up on the possibility of CTE in soccer players of late. Again, this seems logical -- getting a soccer ball hit into your head at 30-40 mph multiple times a game doesn't seem wonderful for your health. But it sort of opens the question: as far as I know, people haven't exactly been clamoring about soccer players' awful post-playing lifestyle for ages. Again, you don't necessarily want to overly rely on casual observation too much, but at a certain point if the health effects are so deleterious you'd think they'd be reasonably easy to pick up on naive pass-throughs.

3) There's a selection bias issue in the science we see presented. That is, the neurologists and pathologists who are looking into this have started with ex-players in bad shape and noticed CTE. It's not quite the same as observing CTE ex ante and then discovering that this leads to bad results. It's possible all sorts of misfortunes caused the players to fall down on their luck. Or it's possible that there's some sort of combination of factors leads to tragedy. Don't quite know.

(Obviously you can't do a randomized controlled trial because it'd be unethical. Still, we've been able to figure out that certain things are bad for health without the benefit of such a trial. Cigarettes are the classic example. But while it took a lot of rigorous scientific work to nail down conclusively that it was bad, and roughly quantify how bad, it was reasonably obvious and accepted that cigarettes were on some level not-so-great for you. King James I of England banned tobacco from the country way back in the day for reasons that are strikingly reminiscent of contemporary times.)

[washingtonismoney]

To state upfront, concussions and brain damage are a serious issue that need addressing. And if you've had a lot of concussions, like Yarbrough, it's better safe than sorry to retire, unless you value football more than conceivably anything.

But the debate playing out on concussions appears to me -- as someone who isn't personally a scientist or doctor, but who writes about health issues a lot -- to be, oftentimes, a bit exaggerated in the doom and harm from concussions. I may have missed some new studies, but based on my most recent review:

1) The CDC periodically conducts surveys of football players. They don't seem to live less long than their comparators. IIRC the rates of depression aren't that much different than their chosen comparators either. This strikes me as an interesting fact to keep in mind.

2) Apparently the media has started to pick up on the possibility of CTE in soccer players of late. Again, this seems logical -- getting a soccer ball hit into your head at 30-40 mph multiple times a game doesn't seem wonderful for your health. But it sort of opens the question: as far as I know, people haven't exactly been clamoring about soccer players' awful post-playing lifestyle for ages. Again, you don't necessarily want to overly rely on casual observation too much, but at a certain point if the health effects are so deleterious you'd think they'd be reasonably easy to pick up on naive pass-throughs.

3) There's a selection bias issue in the science we see presented. That is, the neurologists and pathologists who are looking into this have started with ex-players in bad shape and noticed CTE. It's not quite the same as observing CTE ex ante and then discovering that this leads to bad results. It's possible all sorts of misfortunes caused the players to fall down on their luck. Or it's possible that there's some sort of combination of factors leads to tragedy. Don't quite know.

(Obviously you can't do a randomized controlled trial because it'd be unethical. Still, we've been able to figure out that certain things are bad for health without the benefit of such a trial. Cigarettes are the classic example. But while it took a lot of rigorous scientific work to nail down conclusively that it was bad, and roughly quantify how bad, it was reasonably obvious and accepted that cigarettes were on some level not-so-great for you. King James I of England banned tobacco from the country way back in the day for reasons that are strikingly reminiscent of contemporary times.)

[DenverCard]

WIM, real nice summary of the issues surrounding risk of dementia related to concussions.  For those who want some rather heavy mental lifting, here's a recent review paper on what is and isn't known about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and the potential risk factors.

https://www.nature.com/labinvest/journal...01554a.pdf

In the case of Clark Yarbrough, I wonder if he underwent genetic testing to try to assess his risk of future cognitive problems.  I read somewhere that individuals who are homozygous for the apoE-4 allele are 15 times more likely to develop dementia relative to those without that allele; some suggest that those with that genetic make-up should avoid sports with recurrent head impacts altogether.  I also wonder if a pattern had emerged regarding his concussions, whereby lesser impacts were causing concussions, and his recovery was progressively slower with each one.

It's sad that he cannot continue to play a sport he loves, but from his posting and the responses of others, it sounds like he's got a very bright future ahead of him.

[DenverCard]

WIM, real nice summary of the issues surrounding risk of dementia related to concussions.  For those who want some rather heavy mental lifting, here's a recent review paper on what is and isn't known about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and the potential risk factors.

https://www.nature.com/labinvest/journal...01554a.pdf

In the case of Clark Yarbrough, I wonder if he underwent genetic testing to try to assess his risk of future cognitive problems.  I read somewhere that individuals who are homozygous for the apoE-4 allele are 15 times more likely to develop dementia relative to those without that allele; some suggest that those with that genetic make-up should avoid sports with recurrent head impacts altogether.  I also wonder if a pattern had emerged regarding his concussions, whereby lesser impacts were causing concussions, and his recovery was progressively slower with each one.

It's sad that he cannot continue to play a sport he loves, but from his posting and the responses of others, it sounds like he's got a very bright future ahead of him.