[stan01]

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

[stan01]

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

[Redrum]

Jamal Rashaad Patterson is in the two-deep.  He's not the only one, but still (so far) represents promise unfulfilled.  Now he's #2 at one WR position.  Maybe this season he really will live up to his HS hype.  If so,  San Jose St. is the game to show it.

[Redrum]

Jamal Rashaad Patterson is in the two-deep.  He's not the only one, but still (so far) represents promise unfulfilled.  Now he's #2 at one WR position.  Maybe this season he really will live up to his HS hype.  If so,  San Jose St. is the game to show it.

[OutsiderFan]

That is one interesting depth chart.

Yankey listed at the top of the LT depth and LG depth at the same time. 

I would have thought Wayne Lyons would earn the #1 spot at LC, but I'm curious why Lyons is listed as a Soph in eligibility?  I thought Lyons redshirted in 2011?

The DB depth in general looks good.  Carrington still scares me, but overall, that looks like the best secondary Stanford has had in a long time.

[OutsiderFan]

That is one interesting depth chart.

Yankey listed at the top of the LT depth and LG depth at the same time. 

I would have thought Wayne Lyons would earn the #1 spot at LC, but I'm curious why Lyons is listed as a Soph in eligibility?  I thought Lyons redshirted in 2011?

The DB depth in general looks good.  Carrington still scares me, but overall, that looks like the best secondary Stanford has had in a long time.

[CowboyIndian]

Freshman long snapper, which means we didn't see him in the Spring game....that's the good news.

[CowboyIndian]

Freshman long snapper, which means we didn't see him in the Spring game....that's the good news.

[Spiny_Norman]

Ryan Hewitt not listed at FB.  Maybe his ankle needs another week of rest.

[Spiny_Norman]

Ryan Hewitt not listed at FB.  Maybe his ankle needs another week of rest.

[fullers]

Wayne Lyons is listed as a sophomore because he hasn't applied for his medical redshirt yet. If he decides to apply three years from now, he'll have no problem getting it. Just a stupid technicality.

[fullers]

Wayne Lyons is listed as a sophomore because he hasn't applied for his medical redshirt yet. If he decides to apply three years from now, he'll have no problem getting it. Just a stupid technicality.

[Hank 91]

I took Yankey's dual listing to mean that the left tackle job belongs to a freshman. Interesting.

[Hank 91]

I took Yankey's dual listing to mean that the left tackle job belongs to a freshman. Interesting.

[oman]

Good God that is a scary linebacking corps.

[oman]

Good God that is a scary linebacking corps.

[washingtonismoney]

Weirdest typo is Yankey's Junior/Junior listing on the line. Isn't he a redshirt sophomore? Is this a Wayne Lyons situation that I've just forgotten about?

Also interesting is after all the Kodi Whitfield valentines David Shaw's been sending, he isn't on the two-deep. Thought he'd be.

[washingtonismoney]

Weirdest typo is Yankey's Junior/Junior listing on the line. Isn't he a redshirt sophomore? Is this a Wayne Lyons situation that I've just forgotten about?

Also interesting is after all the Kodi Whitfield valentines David Shaw's been sending, he isn't on the two-deep. Thought he'd be.

[terry]

Weirdest typo is Yankey's Junior/Junior listing on the line. Isn't he a redshirt sophomore? Is this a Wayne Lyons situation that I've just forgotten about?

Yep. Yankey played a game or two as a true freshman in 2010, then missed the rest of the year with an injury. He should be able to get a medical redshirt if needed.

[terry]

Weirdest typo is Yankey's Junior/Junior listing on the line. Isn't he a redshirt sophomore? Is this a Wayne Lyons situation that I've just forgotten about?

Yep. Yankey played a game or two as a true freshman in 2010, then missed the rest of the year with an injury. He should be able to get a medical redshirt if needed.

[needle]

There's always a name or two on these things at the beginning of the year that is more or less completely unfamiliar to me. This year, it's former walk-on Conor McFadden, listed as back-up center. Would he really step in if Schwartzstein got injured ahead of somebody like Wilkes? I imagine so, initially, though there's a lot more highly-touted talent that could be a long-term replacement.

Here's a good read from Drukarev on McFadden and how he wound up at Stanford:

But when McFadden first sized up his college future, he was more focused on playing for an Ivy League school than a BCS conference program.

“I was already pretty much set on the Ivy leagues,” McFadden said. “I didn't really care about playing Division I football.” 

http://stanford.scout.com/2/997126.html

[needle]

There's always a name or two on these things at the beginning of the year that is more or less completely unfamiliar to me. This year, it's former walk-on Conor McFadden, listed as back-up center. Would he really step in if Schwartzstein got injured ahead of somebody like Wilkes? I imagine so, initially, though there's a lot more highly-touted talent that could be a long-term replacement.

Here's a good read from Drukarev on McFadden and how he wound up at Stanford:

But when McFadden first sized up his college future, he was more focused on playing for an Ivy League school than a BCS conference program.

“I was already pretty much set on the Ivy leagues,” McFadden said. “I didn't really care about playing Division I football.” 

http://stanford.scout.com/2/997126.html

[terry]

My guess is that Wilkes is ahead of McFadden at center. But that's just a guess.

Redshirt freshman Kevin Reihner reportedly has an injury, or he might be in the mix at center.

[terry]

My guess is that Wilkes is ahead of McFadden at center. But that's just a guess.

Redshirt freshman Kevin Reihner reportedly has an injury, or he might be in the mix at center.

[metsjetsfan]

Good God that is a scary linebacking corps.

Insert Skov for Hemschoot (presumably).  SCARY.

Interesting that Lancester, the leading tackler in 2011, is now backing up Vaughters.  Heard that Vaughters was a beast in camp, but wow....Skov 2.0?  IF Skov came back for one more year, Stanford could end up with the best pair of ILB in the nation.


Regarding the Conor McFadden article, I was concerned to see this quote:

An early commit to Princeton, McFadden had only applied and been accepted to one school - Princeton. So when he changed his mind about playing in the Ivy League, McFadden would have been in a difficult situation if he didn't get into Stanford,

“If I didn't get in here, 'Conor doesn't have a horse to ride',” McFadden said.

Never one to be overconfident (McFadden called his near-perfect score of 35 on the ACT “lucky”) the offensive lineman was worried about his admissions chances.

A phone call to Coach Harbaugh put McFadden's mind at ease.

“I was like 'Coach, I need to know this' and he goes, ‘Conor, if you do not get admitted, I'll retire on the spot as the Stanford Football coach,’ ” McFadden said. “I believed him and I did, and there were no problems with that.”

I recall one of our more excited recruits this past year (I forget the name  :-[) was under the impression that he would be accepted to Stanford and so he essentially ended his recruitment.  When he was rejected in late December or January, he was left scrambling.  At the time, I remember we all hoped that Stanford coaches made sure potential recruits knew that admissions is no guarantee, and that recruits needed to have backup plans in place.  But it appears that at least Harbaugh did not believe in that.  Or maybe Conor is a special case, especially with a 35 ACT.

[metsjetsfan]

Good God that is a scary linebacking corps.

Insert Skov for Hemschoot (presumably).  SCARY.

Interesting that Lancester, the leading tackler in 2011, is now backing up Vaughters.  Heard that Vaughters was a beast in camp, but wow....Skov 2.0?  IF Skov came back for one more year, Stanford could end up with the best pair of ILB in the nation.


Regarding the Conor McFadden article, I was concerned to see this quote:

An early commit to Princeton, McFadden had only applied and been accepted to one school - Princeton. So when he changed his mind about playing in the Ivy League, McFadden would have been in a difficult situation if he didn't get into Stanford,

“If I didn't get in here, 'Conor doesn't have a horse to ride',” McFadden said.

Never one to be overconfident (McFadden called his near-perfect score of 35 on the ACT “lucky”) the offensive lineman was worried about his admissions chances.

A phone call to Coach Harbaugh put McFadden's mind at ease.

“I was like 'Coach, I need to know this' and he goes, ‘Conor, if you do not get admitted, I'll retire on the spot as the Stanford Football coach,’ ” McFadden said. “I believed him and I did, and there were no problems with that.”

I recall one of our more excited recruits this past year (I forget the name  :-[) was under the impression that he would be accepted to Stanford and so he essentially ended his recruitment.  When he was rejected in late December or January, he was left scrambling.  At the time, I remember we all hoped that Stanford coaches made sure potential recruits knew that admissions is no guarantee, and that recruits needed to have backup plans in place.  But it appears that at least Harbaugh did not believe in that.  Or maybe Conor is a special case, especially with a 35 ACT.

[Hank 91]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

[Hank 91]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

[metsjetsfan]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

I get what you're saying.  However, I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on.  A top recruit would almost definitely get accepted into Stanford (assuming grades, extracurriculars, and classes are also up to standards).  But for Stanford/Ivy League schools, I'm curious if admissions officers hold walk-on/lower priority recruits to higher academic standards than scholarship/priority recruits...

Regardless, I suppose my concern is more about the fact that a coach guaranteed a recruit would be accepted into Stanford.  Then if the coach is wrong, the recruit is screwed.  More specifically, I wonder if the rejected recruit from earlier this year was the victim of that scenario...


Anyway, back to the depth chart, I wonder if Kelsey Young above Whitfield means KY is a better wide receiver than Whitfield?  For example, in a 3 or 4 WR set, would KY and not Whitfield be the 3rd or 4th receiver?  It would seem the coaches want to put KY on the field as much as possible, and not necessarily designating him as a RB or WR.  So it makes sense to me that they would choose Whitfield for more conventional WR sets...unless KY was simply better at the wide receiver position, which to me, may be what they're suggesting by placing KY above Whitfield in the depth chart.  Are there any indications that they deviated from the original plan of creating a "KY" position, and have decided he will be best served as a WR?

[metsjetsfan]

It's my understanding that if you're "just" a regular student, there are really no guarantees for Stanford admission, regardless of what your numbers are. A friend of mine who's an older Stanford alum recently described admission as "being hit by lightning," and I think that's pretty accurate.

But if you're a player that the football team is recruiting, I think it's more about meeting certain requirements. If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

I get what you're saying.  However, I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on.  A top recruit would almost definitely get accepted into Stanford (assuming grades, extracurriculars, and classes are also up to standards).  But for Stanford/Ivy League schools, I'm curious if admissions officers hold walk-on/lower priority recruits to higher academic standards than scholarship/priority recruits...

Regardless, I suppose my concern is more about the fact that a coach guaranteed a recruit would be accepted into Stanford.  Then if the coach is wrong, the recruit is screwed.  More specifically, I wonder if the rejected recruit from earlier this year was the victim of that scenario...


Anyway, back to the depth chart, I wonder if Kelsey Young above Whitfield means KY is a better wide receiver than Whitfield?  For example, in a 3 or 4 WR set, would KY and not Whitfield be the 3rd or 4th receiver?  It would seem the coaches want to put KY on the field as much as possible, and not necessarily designating him as a RB or WR.  So it makes sense to me that they would choose Whitfield for more conventional WR sets...unless KY was simply better at the wide receiver position, which to me, may be what they're suggesting by placing KY above Whitfield in the depth chart.  Are there any indications that they deviated from the original plan of creating a "KY" position, and have decided he will be best served as a WR?

[Hank 91]

I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on. 

That definitely makes sense. I know that coaches everywhere often designate certain players as "preferred walk-ons," meaning that they aren't offered scholarships but the coaches hope they'll come anyway to see if they'll make the squad. If McFadden was talking to Harbaugh, he would certainly have fallen into that category. It would be interesting to know if the admissions office makes any distinction between preferred walk-ons and regular joes. I'm betting they do, at least a little bit.

As for Kelsey Young and the wide receiver depth chart, I'm guessing there will be very few times when there are four wide receivers on the field. Considering the quality of the tight ends, I can't imagine there will ever be a time when both Ertz and Toilolo are off the field. It wouldn't make sense to empty the backfield, leaving a young quarterback without any blitz protection, so I'd think there will always be someone back there with him -- a full back or the best-blocking tailback. If we assume one tight end, that leaves a maximum of three receivers -- Montgomery, Terrell, JRP.

I think Young is on the depth chart because he'll be in the game in some capacity at some point. I bet we see him in the slot a lot, where he can be used for screens and reverses.

[Hank 91]

I'm thinking that McFadden's case is a little different because he's a walk-on. 

That definitely makes sense. I know that coaches everywhere often designate certain players as "preferred walk-ons," meaning that they aren't offered scholarships but the coaches hope they'll come anyway to see if they'll make the squad. If McFadden was talking to Harbaugh, he would certainly have fallen into that category. It would be interesting to know if the admissions office makes any distinction between preferred walk-ons and regular joes. I'm betting they do, at least a little bit.

As for Kelsey Young and the wide receiver depth chart, I'm guessing there will be very few times when there are four wide receivers on the field. Considering the quality of the tight ends, I can't imagine there will ever be a time when both Ertz and Toilolo are off the field. It wouldn't make sense to empty the backfield, leaving a young quarterback without any blitz protection, so I'd think there will always be someone back there with him -- a full back or the best-blocking tailback. If we assume one tight end, that leaves a maximum of three receivers -- Montgomery, Terrell, JRP.

I think Young is on the depth chart because he'll be in the game in some capacity at some point. I bet we see him in the slot a lot, where he can be used for screens and reverses.

[Hank 91]

Sorry, but I have to disagree on football recruits being automatic admits if they have the right nexis of grades and test scores. A guy who gets badly dinged in his letters of recommendation -- which, admissions people say happens with startling frequency -- or writes illiterate drivel in his essay (or praises Hitler, as Jean Fetter recounted in her book) is still going to get turned down. I think a recruited athlete with good grades and scores is in better shape than a physics nerd, but nothing's automatic. And Jim Harbaugh made a mistake if he said it was.

Here's what I said:

If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

When I mentioned the application, I was thinking about the essays and recommendations. I'll admit, though, that it's unlikely Harbaugh had any insight into McFadden's application, but the coaches talk a lot about the importance of speaking to teachers and guidance counsellors during the recruiting process. It's possible, I suppose, that Harbaugh had heard enough glowing reports from these people regarding McFadden that he knew the letters of recommendation would be stellar. It is possible.

As for Jontrey Tillman -- last winter's jilted commit -- we've been down that road. By all reports he was a borderline admit at best. I have no problem with this story of Harbaugh guaranteeing admission to McFadden, but if someone said something similar to Tillman, that person made a large error.

[Hank 91]

Sorry, but I have to disagree on football recruits being automatic admits if they have the right nexis of grades and test scores. A guy who gets badly dinged in his letters of recommendation -- which, admissions people say happens with startling frequency -- or writes illiterate drivel in his essay (or praises Hitler, as Jean Fetter recounted in her book) is still going to get turned down. I think a recruited athlete with good grades and scores is in better shape than a physics nerd, but nothing's automatic. And Jim Harbaugh made a mistake if he said it was.

Here's what I said:

If your test scores and transcript and application indicate that you can handle the academics, you're in. I can't imagine that a recruited football player with an ACT score of 35 (which puts him in the top 1%) has ever been denied admission to any school in America, not even Stanford.

When I mentioned the application, I was thinking about the essays and recommendations. I'll admit, though, that it's unlikely Harbaugh had any insight into McFadden's application, but the coaches talk a lot about the importance of speaking to teachers and guidance counsellors during the recruiting process. It's possible, I suppose, that Harbaugh had heard enough glowing reports from these people regarding McFadden that he knew the letters of recommendation would be stellar. It is possible.

As for Jontrey Tillman -- last winter's jilted commit -- we've been down that road. By all reports he was a borderline admit at best. I have no problem with this story of Harbaugh guaranteeing admission to McFadden, but if someone said something similar to Tillman, that person made a large error.

[washingtonismoney]

Don't know if this had an effect on the decision, but one thing I noticed on rewatching a few of the season games that I didn't pick up on originally--Jarek Lancaster was one of the more pass-interference-happy inside linebackers I've seen. I believe three or four all season, which seems like an unusual number.

It also stuck out how often opponents targeted Bademosi (or his area) in their passing attacks.

[washingtonismoney]

Don't know if this had an effect on the decision, but one thing I noticed on rewatching a few of the season games that I didn't pick up on originally--Jarek Lancaster was one of the more pass-interference-happy inside linebackers I've seen. I believe three or four all season, which seems like an unusual number.

It also stuck out how often opponents targeted Bademosi (or his area) in their passing attacks.

[socalstanfan1]

It also stuck out how often opponents targeted Bademosi (or his area) in their passing attacks.

One reason why, although the loss of the safeties is a considerable concern, I actually think whoever replaces Bedmosi (Browning at the moment, Lyons later?) will probably be an improvement, at least in pass defense.  I always assumed that Bademosi held his job in part because he was such a strong defender against the run.  But one look at Lyon's HS film gives you the idea this guy can defend the run as well. 

[socalstanfan1]

It also stuck out how often opponents targeted Bademosi (or his area) in their passing attacks.

One reason why, although the loss of the safeties is a considerable concern, I actually think whoever replaces Bedmosi (Browning at the moment, Lyons later?) will probably be an improvement, at least in pass defense.  I always assumed that Bademosi held his job in part because he was such a strong defender against the run.  But one look at Lyon's HS film gives you the idea this guy can defend the run as well. 

[ChicagoCard]

Don't know if this had an effect on the decision, but one thing I noticed on rewatching a few of the season games that I didn't pick up on originally--Jarek Lancaster was one of the more pass-interference-happy inside linebackers I've seen. I believe three or four all season, which seems like an unusual number.

Todd Husak early last year mentioned that Lancaster wasn't very proficient in pass coverage. At the time I was surprised because it seemed petty bluntly put. Seemed on some of those pass interference calls he was sort of playing the receiver so had bad technique but didn't necessarily deserve a penalty.

[ChicagoCard]

Don't know if this had an effect on the decision, but one thing I noticed on rewatching a few of the season games that I didn't pick up on originally--Jarek Lancaster was one of the more pass-interference-happy inside linebackers I've seen. I believe three or four all season, which seems like an unusual number.

Todd Husak early last year mentioned that Lancaster wasn't very proficient in pass coverage. At the time I was surprised because it seemed petty bluntly put. Seemed on some of those pass interference calls he was sort of playing the receiver so had bad technique but didn't necessarily deserve a penalty.