[qwerty49]

There might be some flexibility between FB and TE to allow for H-Back types (Hewitt being an obvious recent example and Symonds being touted that way this year)

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

[qwerty49]

There might be some flexibility between FB and TE to allow for H-Back types (Hewitt being an obvious recent example and Symonds being touted that way this year)

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

[qwerty49]

There might be some flexibility between FB and TE to allow for H-Back types (Hewitt being an obvious recent example and Symonds being touted that way this year)

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

[qwerty49]

There might be some flexibility between FB and TE to allow for H-Back types (Hewitt being an obvious recent example and Symonds being touted that way this year)

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

[82lsju]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)

[82lsju]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)

[82lsju]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)

[82lsju]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

We can get those in free agency... :P

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

We can get those in free agency... :P

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

We can get those in free agency... :P

[Mick]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

We can get those in free agency... :P

[Langdude]

Stratford played LT this past season. I doubt he’s ever taken a snap in a game.

Interesting. But he is listed on 247 as a center recruit. He is listed on the roster as "guard/tackle." I'm putting him at guard for now as that seems to be our greater dearth. We'll see.

-m.

[Langdude]

Stratford played LT this past season. I doubt he’s ever taken a snap in a game.

Interesting. But he is listed on 247 as a center recruit. He is listed on the roster as "guard/tackle." I'm putting him at guard for now as that seems to be our greater dearth. We'll see.

-m.

[Langdude]

Stratford played LT this past season. I doubt he’s ever taken a snap in a game.

Interesting. But he is listed on 247 as a center recruit. He is listed on the roster as "guard/tackle." I'm putting him at guard for now as that seems to be our greater dearth. We'll see.

-m.

[Langdude]

Stratford played LT this past season. I doubt he’s ever taken a snap in a game.

Interesting. But he is listed on 247 as a center recruit. He is listed on the roster as "guard/tackle." I'm putting him at guard for now as that seems to be our greater dearth. We'll see.

-m.

[Langdude]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Thanks, BC.

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.

-m.

[Langdude]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Thanks, BC.

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.

-m.

[Langdude]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Thanks, BC.

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.

-m.

[Langdude]

Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Thanks, BC.

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.

-m.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

That's 9 (minimum) to 16 (nice to have) on offense, which leaves 9 - 16 players left for the defense (we should have close to 25 spots this year).  If you look, the ideal distribution if we take 12 on offense would be as follows: 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR, 3 OT, 3 G, 1 C.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

That's 9 (minimum) to 16 (nice to have) on offense, which leaves 9 - 16 players left for the defense (we should have close to 25 spots this year).  If you look, the ideal distribution if we take 12 on offense would be as follows: 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR, 3 OT, 3 G, 1 C.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

That's 9 (minimum) to 16 (nice to have) on offense, which leaves 9 - 16 players left for the defense (we should have close to 25 spots this year).  If you look, the ideal distribution if we take 12 on offense would be as follows: 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR, 3 OT, 3 G, 1 C.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

Here's an assessment of needs for the class of 2019 (numbers are bare minimum and recommended):
QB: 1/1 - if 2014 taught us anything it's that we need a QB in every class
RB: 1/2 (can take two given that we took 0 in 2017)
FB: 0/1 two fullbacks every three years is fine
TE: 1/2 (should take two given that we didn't take any in 2018)
WR: 1/2 (decent shape here since we have two in last year's class)
OT: 2/3 (I suppose we could survive with 2 if we also take 2 next year, but yuck)
OG: 2/3 (two is a bare minimum; three would be better)
OC: 1/2 (we need two over the next two years)

As surmised, we have major needs in the offensive line.  We will not be in good shape unless we can pick up a full line (5 OL this year), and would be better with 6 or 7 linemen, given the two year gap.

BC

so that's 16 recommended on offense, what about the defense :)
[/quote]

That's 9 (minimum) to 16 (nice to have) on offense, which leaves 9 - 16 players left for the defense (we should have close to 25 spots this year).  If you look, the ideal distribution if we take 12 on offense would be as follows: 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR, 3 OT, 3 G, 1 C.

BC

[UltimateCard]

Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)

[UltimateCard]

Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)

[UltimateCard]

Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)

[UltimateCard]

Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.
[/quote]


While I am still not convinced that Stanford does all that much more redshirting than other programs, in this case I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

There are only six scholarship players on offense coming in this summer/fall, one of those coming off a two year mission. Looking at a combination of hype and need, I would guess at most one of these guys plays in 2018. [That would be Michael Wilson - in this case based upon hype/ability rather than need. The scouting report I saw describes him like other Stanford receivers: big, strong, good route runner, not particularly fast.]

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.
[/quote]


While I am still not convinced that Stanford does all that much more redshirting than other programs, in this case I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

There are only six scholarship players on offense coming in this summer/fall, one of those coming off a two year mission. Looking at a combination of hype and need, I would guess at most one of these guys plays in 2018. [That would be Michael Wilson - in this case based upon hype/ability rather than need. The scouting report I saw describes him like other Stanford receivers: big, strong, good route runner, not particularly fast.]

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.
[/quote]


While I am still not convinced that Stanford does all that much more redshirting than other programs, in this case I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

There are only six scholarship players on offense coming in this summer/fall, one of those coming off a two year mission. Looking at a combination of hype and need, I would guess at most one of these guys plays in 2018. [That would be Michael Wilson - in this case based upon hype/ability rather than need. The scouting report I saw describes him like other Stanford receivers: big, strong, good route runner, not particularly fast.]

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18723.msg223844#msg223844 date=1518537975]
Great job!

Oviously the RS are dependent on them actually redshirting; some may play snaps. Might be better to organize by the number of years of eligibility remaining (which you largely have done by doing away with the RS Senior, RS Junior, and RS sophomore designations).

I actually originally had both FR and RS FR under "first year." But, given that Shaw spreads out recruiting over five seasons rather than for (i.e., he redshirts almost the entire freshman class), I think this is a better way to look at our recruiting pipeline. Though, of course, some true freshmen will play. But that deliberation has not yet been made, at least not wholly.
[/quote]


While I am still not convinced that Stanford does all that much more redshirting than other programs, in this case I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

There are only six scholarship players on offense coming in this summer/fall, one of those coming off a two year mission. Looking at a combination of hype and need, I would guess at most one of these guys plays in 2018. [That would be Michael Wilson - in this case based upon hype/ability rather than need. The scouting report I saw describes him like other Stanford receivers: big, strong, good route runner, not particularly fast.]

[UltimateCard]

[quote author=UltimateCard link=topic=18723.msg223856#msg223856 date=1518552343]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.
[/quote]

I was there Winter and Spring so we overlapped one quarter; I remember Doug Marty! Football players could only go overseas Winter quarter given Spring practice.

[UltimateCard]

[quote author=UltimateCard link=topic=18723.msg223856#msg223856 date=1518552343]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.
[/quote]

I was there Winter and Spring so we overlapped one quarter; I remember Doug Marty! Football players could only go overseas Winter quarter given Spring practice.

[UltimateCard]

[quote author=UltimateCard link=topic=18723.msg223856#msg223856 date=1518552343]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.
[/quote]

I was there Winter and Spring so we overlapped one quarter; I remember Doug Marty! Football players could only go overseas Winter quarter given Spring practice.

[UltimateCard]

[quote author=UltimateCard link=topic=18723.msg223856#msg223856 date=1518552343]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=18723.msg223826#msg223826 date=1518496358]
Rugby RB - JJ Lasley. If you know JJ, he looks ready now to go back out on the football field or the rugby pitch.

While I doing overseas studies at Cliveden, many football players were there winter quarter and a number were recruited by the local rugby club. Running back Todd Wasik, however, was on our Ultimate Frisbee team - the Cliveden Studs - and we won the British indoor championship! (Spiney - were you there Winter or Spring?)
[/quote]

UC, I was at Cliveden spring, 1981. Did I just miss you?  A basketball player was there (Doug Marty) but no football players.
[/quote]

I was there Winter and Spring so we overlapped one quarter; I remember Doug Marty! Football players could only go overseas Winter quarter given Spring practice.