[msqueri]

Thanks, Matt, for the detailed report.  A couple questions, if you don’t mind… how do the results for our guys so far this year compare to historical classes of comparable quality?  And, also, based on what you have seen, are there any players (especially some lower ranked ones) that looked poised to have great seasons at Stanford, and, conversely, are there any guys who are looking like they might be duds?

BC

It will be easier to judge at the end of the year with the benefit of more data points and perspective but I don't mind conjecturing now. Love the questions.

Comparing to past classes is a bit difficult for me because my methods in this project evolved over time in light of available information. For about 15 years the method was scraping search engines for local newspaper reports. That produced much less information and was more useful at some positions than others, but had a certain charm in terms of feeling like a bell went off when an interesting tidbit presented itself. Over time Maxpreps became more and more all-encompassing, and has been a great source for schedules, rosters, and stats for a while now. And then it's been within the last half decade that Hudl and Twitter completely change the game of recruit watching. In particular individual prospects having their own curated highlights allows insights into so many players compared to before, not to mention being able to watch the opposition for non-curated highlights. Because of this evolution, comparison over time is difficult.

Grains of salt disclaimers aside, this strikes me as a pretty solid month of action for Stanford prospects. The course of the season and playoff action will be interesting to see what holds up, who rises to the occasion, and who recedes. In general, it feels to me like a productive group of skill position talent. Platt is a very dynamic receiver compared to what tight ends usually do at the high school level. Martin, Borden, and Bachmeier don't face much good competition but they make the most of their opportunities. Couple these guys with Reuben, Ayomanor, Roush, and Hawkins and I think Stanford has weapons going forward. On paper it's nothing to write home about compared to some of our past recruits, but in between the lines on Friday they deliver reliably enough that I have confidence we can have good weapons. The questions are who will get them the ball, will the line give them a chance, and is it a problem we're light on high voltage star power.

On favorites/least favorites, don't hold me to this if my mind changes by the end of the year, but I'm highly confident Platt, Brandt (at least as much as one can be with a DL, the crapshoot of all positions), and Frausto-Ramos can play at Stanford and Irvin is one of my least favorite borderline 4-star recruits ever (and I think his profile will continue to drop such that he's nowhere near that border). I liked each of the OL individually as recruits but it's a heck of a third, fourth, and fifth OL in a class more so than a first, second, and third OL in a class.

[msqueri]

Thanks, Matt, for the detailed report.  A couple questions, if you don’t mind… how do the results for our guys so far this year compare to historical classes of comparable quality?  And, also, based on what you have seen, are there any players (especially some lower ranked ones) that looked poised to have great seasons at Stanford, and, conversely, are there any guys who are looking like they might be duds?

BC

It will be easier to judge at the end of the year with the benefit of more data points and perspective but I don't mind conjecturing now. Love the questions.

Comparing to past classes is a bit difficult for me because my methods in this project evolved over time in light of available information. For about 15 years the method was scraping search engines for local newspaper reports. That produced much less information and was more useful at some positions than others, but had a certain charm in terms of feeling like a bell went off when an interesting tidbit presented itself. Over time Maxpreps became more and more all-encompassing, and has been a great source for schedules, rosters, and stats for a while now. And then it's been within the last half decade that Hudl and Twitter completely change the game of recruit watching. In particular individual prospects having their own curated highlights allows insights into so many players compared to before, not to mention being able to watch the opposition for non-curated highlights. Because of this evolution, comparison over time is difficult.

Grains of salt disclaimers aside, this strikes me as a pretty solid month of action for Stanford prospects. The course of the season and playoff action will be interesting to see what holds up, who rises to the occasion, and who recedes. In general, it feels to me like a productive group of skill position talent. Platt is a very dynamic receiver compared to what tight ends usually do at the high school level. Martin, Borden, and Bachmeier don't face much good competition but they make the most of their opportunities. Couple these guys with Reuben, Ayomanor, Roush, and Hawkins and I think Stanford has weapons going forward. On paper it's nothing to write home about compared to some of our past recruits, but in between the lines on Friday they deliver reliably enough that I have confidence we can have good weapons. The questions are who will get them the ball, will the line give them a chance, and is it a problem we're light on high voltage star power.

On favorites/least favorites, don't hold me to this if my mind changes by the end of the year, but I'm highly confident Platt, Brandt (at least as much as one can be with a DL, the crapshoot of all positions), and Frausto-Ramos can play at Stanford and Irvin is one of my least favorite borderline 4-star recruits ever (and I think his profile will continue to drop such that he's nowhere near that border). I liked each of the OL individually as recruits but it's a heck of a third, fourth, and fifth OL in a class more so than a first, second, and third OL in a class.