[terry]

Stanford has issued its first game-week press release --

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...829aaa.pdf

The press release includes the depth chart, or here's a direct link to the depth chart --

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan..._chart.pdf

A few comments on the depth chart:

- Yankey is # 1 at LG ahead of Danser, Fleming is # 1 at RT ahead of Mabry (who is # 2 at both tackle spots).

- Backup QB is listed as Nottingham or Picazo.

- Green is the # 1 punter.

- At ILB, Bergen is the starter at one position, backed up by Tarpley or Vaughters. Skov is backed up by Lancaster.

- Walk-on David Parry is # 2 at NT.

- At WR, it's Owusu-Patterson-Roberts at one position, and Whalen-Terrell-Gatewood at the other spot.

- Fleener is the # 1 TE, then Ertz, then Toilolo.

- There are three true freshmen on the depth chart, all of them listed as second-team players: Lyons at CB, Richards at FS, and Vaughters at ILB. Montgomery isn't listed.

[terry]

Stanford has issued its first game-week press release --

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...829aaa.pdf

The press release includes the depth chart, or here's a direct link to the depth chart --

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan..._chart.pdf

A few comments on the depth chart:

- Yankey is # 1 at LG ahead of Danser, Fleming is # 1 at RT ahead of Mabry (who is # 2 at both tackle spots).

- Backup QB is listed as Nottingham or Picazo.

- Green is the # 1 punter.

- At ILB, Bergen is the starter at one position, backed up by Tarpley or Vaughters. Skov is backed up by Lancaster.

- Walk-on David Parry is # 2 at NT.

- At WR, it's Owusu-Patterson-Roberts at one position, and Whalen-Terrell-Gatewood at the other spot.

- Fleener is the # 1 TE, then Ertz, then Toilolo.

- There are three true freshmen on the depth chart, all of them listed as second-team players: Lyons at CB, Richards at FS, and Vaughters at ILB. Montgomery isn't listed.

[washingtonismoney]

1. Given the raves about Montgomery, it's kind of surprising he wasn't listed. Injury, perhaps?
2. The reports about Danser being out, earlier in the week, were out with dehydration. That's not implausible. It does seem odd that he'd be knocked out for an entire week because of it. Wondering if there's a deeper issue there.
3. Looks like Schwartzstein beat out Wilkes, as was suspected.
4. One thing I'm wondering about seeing as it plays out on the field: last year in nickel packages Michael Thomas oftentimes shifted down to cornerback. What will the defense do this year? Amanam, Lyons, or neither?

[washingtonismoney]

1. Given the raves about Montgomery, it's kind of surprising he wasn't listed. Injury, perhaps?
2. The reports about Danser being out, earlier in the week, were out with dehydration. That's not implausible. It does seem odd that he'd be knocked out for an entire week because of it. Wondering if there's a deeper issue there.
3. Looks like Schwartzstein beat out Wilkes, as was suspected.
4. One thing I'm wondering about seeing as it plays out on the field: last year in nickel packages Michael Thomas oftentimes shifted down to cornerback. What will the defense do this year? Amanam, Lyons, or neither?

[yvonne]

That'd be really cool if Green didn't get to play!

[yvonne]

That'd be really cool if Green didn't get to play!

[terry]

Has Josh Nunes omitted because of his injury? Or has he actually been eclipsed by Robbie Picazo?

I think Nunes' injury definitely has set him back. Whether Nunes would be ahead of Picazo or Nottingham in the absence of the injury is an interesting question. I don't think there's any way for us to know the answer..

[terry]

Has Josh Nunes omitted because of his injury? Or has he actually been eclipsed by Robbie Picazo?

I think Nunes' injury definitely has set him back. Whether Nunes would be ahead of Picazo or Nottingham in the absence of the injury is an interesting question. I don't think there's any way for us to know the answer..

[washingtonismoney]

Thought it was interesting to break down the depth chart by class:

True Freshmen: 3 (all defense)
Redshirt Freshmen: 8 (5 offense, 3 defense)
Sophomores: 18  (10 offense, 8 defense)
Juniors: 10 (7 offense, 3 defense)
Seniors: 10 (5 offense, 5 defense)

Striking to see how many players are young.

(NOTE: special teams aren't included; players aren't double-counted.)

[washingtonismoney]

Thought it was interesting to break down the depth chart by class:

True Freshmen: 3 (all defense)
Redshirt Freshmen: 8 (5 offense, 3 defense)
Sophomores: 18  (10 offense, 8 defense)
Juniors: 10 (7 offense, 3 defense)
Seniors: 10 (5 offense, 5 defense)

Striking to see how many players are young.

(NOTE: special teams aren't included; players aren't double-counted.)

[CowboyIndian]

Striking to see how many players are young.

They're ALL young, dagnab it!

[CowboyIndian]

Striking to see how many players are young.

They're ALL young, dagnab it!

[CowboyIndian]

He has a few Preacher Roe stories, too.

[CowboyIndian]

He has a few Preacher Roe stories, too.

[Hank 91]

Didn't the tight end depth chart go Ertz, Toilolo, Fleener just the other day? Or did I imagine that?

[Hank 91]

Didn't the tight end depth chart go Ertz, Toilolo, Fleener just the other day? Or did I imagine that?

[StannyBoy]

Didn't the tight end depth chart go Ertz, Toilolo, Fleener just the other day? Or did I imagine that?

I remember reading somewhere that it was going to be Toilolo, Ertz, Fleener. I think they'll be rotated pretty evenly though.

[StannyBoy]

Didn't the tight end depth chart go Ertz, Toilolo, Fleener just the other day? Or did I imagine that?

I remember reading somewhere that it was going to be Toilolo, Ertz, Fleener. I think they'll be rotated pretty evenly though.

[stanfan]

Coach Shaw said  that he has 3 starting tight ends...they'll rotate based on the nature of the play to be run.

[stanfan]

Coach Shaw said  that he has 3 starting tight ends...they'll rotate based on the nature of the play to be run.

[Spiny_Norman]

An addendum from the Go Stanford site:

After a recent practice, Shaw announced to the team that four walk-ons had earned scholarships for this year: sixth-year long snapper Andrew Fowler, redshirt freshman defensive tackle David Parry, redshirt sophomore quarterback Robbie Picazo, and redshirt freshman fullback Lee Ward.

More pre-game notes here:
http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...11aaa.html

[Spiny_Norman]

An addendum from the Go Stanford site:

After a recent practice, Shaw announced to the team that four walk-ons had earned scholarships for this year: sixth-year long snapper Andrew Fowler, redshirt freshman defensive tackle David Parry, redshirt sophomore quarterback Robbie Picazo, and redshirt freshman fullback Lee Ward.

More pre-game notes here:
http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...11aaa.html

[terry]

How is it we have so many scholarships available?

As is the case every year, some scholarships have opened up due to attrition. Warren Reuland retired for medical reasons, Thomas Keiser declared for the draft, Darren Daniel reportedly is transferring. . . .

[terry]

How is it we have so many scholarships available?

As is the case every year, some scholarships have opened up due to attrition. Warren Reuland retired for medical reasons, Thomas Keiser declared for the draft, Darren Daniel reportedly is transferring. . . .

[Farm93]

I know magically having space to give a few walk-ons scholarships can raise questions.  Still, that is far better than the SEC way.  In the SEC the approach seems to be to tell far too many H.S. kids that they will be on the team.  Then if too many are willing they tell some of the others to go to a JC for a while.  Those kids missed the cycle to play at others schools, so they have very little choice.  Or worse yet, many SEC schools find some underperforming current roster kid and tell him to take a hike.

I like the happier system that rewards the hardest working walk-ons.

FWIW, the NCAA really should make the scholarship a four year deal.  This would not change things for Stanford, but it is just the right thing to do IMHO.

[Farm93]

I know magically having space to give a few walk-ons scholarships can raise questions.  Still, that is far better than the SEC way.  In the SEC the approach seems to be to tell far too many H.S. kids that they will be on the team.  Then if too many are willing they tell some of the others to go to a JC for a while.  Those kids missed the cycle to play at others schools, so they have very little choice.  Or worse yet, many SEC schools find some underperforming current roster kid and tell him to take a hike.

I like the happier system that rewards the hardest working walk-ons.

FWIW, the NCAA really should make the scholarship a four year deal.  This would not change things for Stanford, but it is just the right thing to do IMHO.

[washingtonismoney]

Some comments from Shaw on the offensive line:

"The last two weeks have calmed a lot of our fears and anxiety," Shaw said

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-card...source=rss

Still trying to sell the Danser-was-dehydrated story. Any doctors--amateur, pontificator, or otherwise--want to opine whether it's really possible to miss several days from dehydration?

[washingtonismoney]

Some comments from Shaw on the offensive line:

"The last two weeks have calmed a lot of our fears and anxiety," Shaw said

http://www.mercurynews.com/stanford-card...source=rss

Still trying to sell the Danser-was-dehydrated story. Any doctors--amateur, pontificator, or otherwise--want to opine whether it's really possible to miss several days from dehydration?

[fullmetal]

Maybe they thought it was rhabdo?

[fullmetal]

Maybe they thought it was rhabdo?