[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[socalstanfan1]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

No.

If we somehow get three of the top 10 OL prospects in the country to commit to Stanford, there is absolutely no way we turn them down.  Personally, I think for a haul like that you just have to adjust in future recruiting classes to make up for the deficit you run at other positions this year.  Even if a few players don't pan out as projected for some reason (injuries, failure to develop, or transfer), the depth of a class like this year's could still make Stanford a force for years to come.

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position.  Maybe this was just a fluke, though.  If/when Fleener gets drafted early, that will be one more thing to point to while recruiting next year's crop of tight ends.

I'm already excited for Spring practice, to see who emerges to fill in some of the gaps that will be left by graduation.  There is always the outside possibility that the coaches have stumbled upon a walk-on (a la Ryan Whalen) who could emerge as a player. 

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[StannyBoy]

Taylor McNamara loved Stanford but dropped us early because of his grades. If we steal Adam Breneman from ND next year we'll be set at TE. And for taking too many o-line men, it seems like they'll make Fanaika take his Mormon mission before his freshman year. No point in red-shirting when the mission is essentially the same thing.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[DC]

We already have 4 OL and there are 4 still on the board:  Murphy, Peat, Garnett and Cyburt.  Would we turn down Murphy, Peat and Garnett if they wanted to commit?

We would take them.

One or more of the OL recruits could be moved to DL, some could redshirt, Fanaika could go on his mission, one of the earlier commits might change his mind if he thinks he will have a hard time cracking the lineup.

We also are short of OL on the roster.

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?

[Hank 91]

I'm a bit baffled at the failure to land any top notch tight ends this year.  Given how much we use TE's in our offense, one would think that we would get lots of attention from players at that position. 

This is something I've been wondering about for more than a year now. You'd think tight end recruits would be recruiting Stanford instead of the other way around. Why would you go anywhere else?