[socalstanfan1]

r.e. Burns v. Browne:  I have no information that is not publicly available on the internet, but my guess would be that coaches are not as enamored of stats as the recruiting "experts" (and fans, like myself).  Much like scouts for professional sports, they may look more at "projectability," to borrow a term used commonly in baseball, when evaluating 17 year old players.  Maybe the player hasn't performed as well, statistically, as another player.  But that might be attributed to quality of coaching, the system they run at the player's HS, injuries, poor receivers, etc.  The bigger issue might be: what do we think the kid can do once we get him to college, coach up his fundamentals, put him in a weight room, etc.  It may very well be that, by those standards, Burns is just plain better than Browne, regardless of what the stats and pundits say.  What I like is that the Stanford coaches brought both guys on campus, evaluated them head to head, then chose their guy.  The same thing happened with the TEs when Eric Cotton beat out better-known competition (heck, everyone was "better-known" than Cotton at the time).  Only time will tell if the coaches made the right call.

On a related note: who here remembers Malcolm Jones?  Nearly a Stanford commit, went with UCLA instead.  National HS Player of the Year.  Now about #4 on UCLA's depth chart at RB.  The obvious point being: HS stats and fame are great and all, but that player may not always have what it takes against a higher level of competition.

[socalstanfan1]

r.e. Burns v. Browne:  I have no information that is not publicly available on the internet, but my guess would be that coaches are not as enamored of stats as the recruiting "experts" (and fans, like myself).  Much like scouts for professional sports, they may look more at "projectability," to borrow a term used commonly in baseball, when evaluating 17 year old players.  Maybe the player hasn't performed as well, statistically, as another player.  But that might be attributed to quality of coaching, the system they run at the player's HS, injuries, poor receivers, etc.  The bigger issue might be: what do we think the kid can do once we get him to college, coach up his fundamentals, put him in a weight room, etc.  It may very well be that, by those standards, Burns is just plain better than Browne, regardless of what the stats and pundits say.  What I like is that the Stanford coaches brought both guys on campus, evaluated them head to head, then chose their guy.  The same thing happened with the TEs when Eric Cotton beat out better-known competition (heck, everyone was "better-known" than Cotton at the time).  Only time will tell if the coaches made the right call.

On a related note: who here remembers Malcolm Jones?  Nearly a Stanford commit, went with UCLA instead.  National HS Player of the Year.  Now about #4 on UCLA's depth chart at RB.  The obvious point being: HS stats and fame are great and all, but that player may not always have what it takes against a higher level of competition.