[JohnR34231]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17193.msg197509#msg197509 date=1503357810]
[quote author=Goose link=topic=17193.msg197476#msg197476 date=1503346114]

That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Actually the question is whether they are likely to stay 3 OR 4 years no matter what. No reason to redshirt them if they stay 4 years but only play 3. The only scenario where redshirting benefits Stanford is if they would have stayed for a fifth year (presumably when they are at the peak of their abilities) but had exhausted their eligibility after four years.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this concept. If, for instance, Stanford doesn't use Little or Sarell this year, for whatever reason, they will in theory be able to play in 2021. If they leave as soon as eligible, they are gone at the end of 2019 no matter what. However, it would be a shame to waste a year of their eligibility on, say, protecting on FGs. It may not matter, but then again, it might. It is not totally irrelevant. The 5th year isn't out of the question until they declare for the draft. Nobody thought Luck would stay either.

If they play even close to their recruiting rankings it seems unlikely that they would be in school for five seasons.

True, but lots of things can happen in 5 years. For instance, last year, one might argue that our OL didn't play up to their rankings. One year like that can change a lot of things.  At the end of the day, they will play only if they are deemed useful by the coaches. I have no idea how well they are performing in the coach's eyes.
[/quote]

If the two are not "deemed useful" by the coaches it will IMO be for one of two reasons. One, the players ahead of them are much better than I thought, or two, neither of them is nearly as good as I thought. Hopefully it is the former.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17193.msg197509#msg197509 date=1503357810]
[quote author=Goose link=topic=17193.msg197476#msg197476 date=1503346114]

That is really the question, will they stay only 3 years no matter what.

Actually the question is whether they are likely to stay 3 OR 4 years no matter what. No reason to redshirt them if they stay 4 years but only play 3. The only scenario where redshirting benefits Stanford is if they would have stayed for a fifth year (presumably when they are at the peak of their abilities) but had exhausted their eligibility after four years.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this concept. If, for instance, Stanford doesn't use Little or Sarell this year, for whatever reason, they will in theory be able to play in 2021. If they leave as soon as eligible, they are gone at the end of 2019 no matter what. However, it would be a shame to waste a year of their eligibility on, say, protecting on FGs. It may not matter, but then again, it might. It is not totally irrelevant. The 5th year isn't out of the question until they declare for the draft. Nobody thought Luck would stay either.

If they play even close to their recruiting rankings it seems unlikely that they would be in school for five seasons.

True, but lots of things can happen in 5 years. For instance, last year, one might argue that our OL didn't play up to their rankings. One year like that can change a lot of things.  At the end of the day, they will play only if they are deemed useful by the coaches. I have no idea how well they are performing in the coach's eyes.
[/quote]

If the two are not "deemed useful" by the coaches it will IMO be for one of two reasons. One, the players ahead of them are much better than I thought, or two, neither of them is nearly as good as I thought. Hopefully it is the former.