[CTcard]

Jeepers, CT.  Everything everyone says about our prospects at this time of year is, to one degree or another, based on a "wouldn't it be nice" outlook.  

Yeah, you may be right that I went off a little half-cocked because the errors in the article irked me too much. 

But I don't agree that everything everyone says about our guys this time of year is simply a wouldn't it be nice sort of interpretation. 

For our returning players that we have seen on the field, and we have a general idea of who they are and who they could become.  

For new guys, in many cases we know something about the kind of skills they have, if not necessarily the degree or how well they will transfer to the next level. For example, 
We knew that McCaffrey was a plus athlete in terms of balance and shiftiness. (certainly Hulk did - that was his specific rave on this board).
We knew that Love was fast. 
We knew Rector was fast. 
We knew Wedington was a quick athlete with a diverse skill set running and catching the ball. 

The primary theme of that article is that Osiris St. Brown will be a deep threat for Stanford in a blazing speed kind of way. 
I don't think we know Osiris is particularly fast - and there seems to be evidence that blazing speed is not among his best attributes, at least to the extent that would stand out among Stanford's best football players.

When I watch their HS highlight tapes, and read about others' evaluations of Osiris, to me it seems his skills are more akin to Trent Irwin than say … Michael Rector with better routes and ball skills that this article seems to be implying (though yes on the better routes and ball skills). In no way whatsoever is that derogatory, those skills are very important and can make a fantastic receiver, but they are different skills than that article was dreaming about.

[CTcard]

Jeepers, CT.  Everything everyone says about our prospects at this time of year is, to one degree or another, based on a "wouldn't it be nice" outlook.  

Yeah, you may be right that I went off a little half-cocked because the errors in the article irked me too much. 

But I don't agree that everything everyone says about our guys this time of year is simply a wouldn't it be nice sort of interpretation. 

For our returning players that we have seen on the field, and we have a general idea of who they are and who they could become.  

For new guys, in many cases we know something about the kind of skills they have, if not necessarily the degree or how well they will transfer to the next level. For example, 
We knew that McCaffrey was a plus athlete in terms of balance and shiftiness. (certainly Hulk did - that was his specific rave on this board).
We knew that Love was fast. 
We knew Rector was fast. 
We knew Wedington was a quick athlete with a diverse skill set running and catching the ball. 

The primary theme of that article is that Osiris St. Brown will be a deep threat for Stanford in a blazing speed kind of way. 
I don't think we know Osiris is particularly fast - and there seems to be evidence that blazing speed is not among his best attributes, at least to the extent that would stand out among Stanford's best football players.

When I watch their HS highlight tapes, and read about others' evaluations of Osiris, to me it seems his skills are more akin to Trent Irwin than say … Michael Rector with better routes and ball skills that this article seems to be implying (though yes on the better routes and ball skills). In no way whatsoever is that derogatory, those skills are very important and can make a fantastic receiver, but they are different skills than that article was dreaming about.