[OutsiderFan]

If you go back and look at every school's commit list for a few years, you'll see many misses and guys who never set foot on the field for the teams with which they signed an LOI.

Here's USC's list from Scout.  It shows Stanford and USC both got about the same number of hits and misses from the 2010 signing class:

MLB JC    Dallas Kelley - Miss
DE JC  Marquis Jackson - Miss
FB 9    Soma Vainuku
TE 8    Christian Thomas - Miss
C 4    Giovanni Di Poalo
WR 24  Markeith Ambles - Miss
OLB JC  Glen Stanley - Miss
MLB 6    Hayes Pullard
CB 18  Nickell Robey
CB 21  Demetrius Wright
DT 3  George Uko
WR 2  Kyle Prater - Miss
WR 1  Robert Woods
QB 6  Jesse Scroggins - Miss
S 29 Dion Bailey
CB 57 Anthony Brown
TE 1  Xavier Grimble
TE    5  Randall Telfer
RB 9  D.J. Morgan - Miss
RB 5  Dillon Baxter - Miss

[OutsiderFan]

If you go back and look at every school's commit list for a few years, you'll see many misses and guys who never set foot on the field for the teams with which they signed an LOI.

Here's USC's list from Scout.  It shows Stanford and USC both got about the same number of hits and misses from the 2010 signing class:

MLB JC    Dallas Kelley - Miss
DE JC  Marquis Jackson - Miss
FB 9    Soma Vainuku
TE 8    Christian Thomas - Miss
C 4    Giovanni Di Poalo
WR 24  Markeith Ambles - Miss
OLB JC  Glen Stanley - Miss
MLB 6    Hayes Pullard
CB 18  Nickell Robey
CB 21  Demetrius Wright
DT 3  George Uko
WR 2  Kyle Prater - Miss
WR 1  Robert Woods
QB 6  Jesse Scroggins - Miss
S 29 Dion Bailey
CB 57 Anthony Brown
TE 1  Xavier Grimble
TE    5  Randall Telfer
RB 9  D.J. Morgan - Miss
RB 5  Dillon Baxter - Miss

[slide]

Garvin, Stanford doesn't need its coaches to be great recruiters.  The cases where a Stanford coach won a recent recruitment you can count without a hand. 

But a Stanford coach can lose a recruitment.  It happened at least twice with JH; it's widely known but, for obvious reasons, not widely publicized.

What Stanford needs is great evaluators, and his staff will, at least if served two drinks, insist that Jim simply does not have that skill.  There's no more compelling case than his insistence that RG3 was not a good enough athlete and that Crist, Jones, and Forcier were better quarterback prospects than RG3 and Luck.  He strongly influenced the push to land Patterson and Jemari Roberts and rushed Nottingham, Nunes, Crower, and Hill (who can play a version of quarterback but certainly not Stanford's version. 

Without question, the 2008 and 2009 classes proved strong.  But again, he had no interest in Murphy and took Gardner only because his dad insisted that he offer him.  And in 2010, the evaluation issues came to hurt us.  Of the 21 players in that class, seven have never taken a meaningful snap in a college football game; only six ever have become full-time starters.  Reynolds and Tarpley have proven to be nice surprises, but the lightly-recruited guys in that group also included Darren Daniel, Cleophus Robinson, and Alex Turner. 

And it appears that JH's final class may fall far short of what Stanford needs to be a top 10 team.  Only six starters from that group, now in their third year, have become starters, while eight of them never have played a meaningful snap. 

Stanford found gold in 2008 and 2009, without question.  But if that was because of superior recruiting, shouldn't we have seen that in our 2010 and 2011 classes, too?  If anything, given the improvement in our W-L record and experience gains in recruiting, shouldn't those classes have been slightly better than the 2008 and 2009 classes? 

Why weren't they?  And who was the head man in charge here?

Hulk -- I think you are delving into some error-filled revisionism.  just to pick out a couple -- Griffin was concerned that Harbs was going to move him to WR, not time share the QB spot.  no one doubted RGIII's athleticism.  and there was no Forcier in the Luck recruiting class.  Forcier was 09, Luck 08. 

and on Trent Murphy, please read the following:

"Harbaugh convinced Murphy he'd fit perfectly as a pass-rushing outside linebacker in Stanford's 3-4 defense. In the end, Murphy said it was no contest between the schools because of the way ''Harbaugh handled himself and his passion for this place and what he promised we would do.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/stanfords-t...ncaaf.html

and just a reminder on offers, in general, the recommendation to offer usually starts with the position coach, then the coordinator gets brought in and then a recommendation to HC, then the offer.  Harbs wasn't the only offerer or evaluator. 

frankly, along with the positive adds of Haskins, Lance and Eubanks, I kind of liked Harbs willingness to offer a lot of kids, rather than being miserly with offers.  I did not like some of the end game decisions though.

[slide]

Garvin, Stanford doesn't need its coaches to be great recruiters.  The cases where a Stanford coach won a recent recruitment you can count without a hand. 

But a Stanford coach can lose a recruitment.  It happened at least twice with JH; it's widely known but, for obvious reasons, not widely publicized.

What Stanford needs is great evaluators, and his staff will, at least if served two drinks, insist that Jim simply does not have that skill.  There's no more compelling case than his insistence that RG3 was not a good enough athlete and that Crist, Jones, and Forcier were better quarterback prospects than RG3 and Luck.  He strongly influenced the push to land Patterson and Jemari Roberts and rushed Nottingham, Nunes, Crower, and Hill (who can play a version of quarterback but certainly not Stanford's version. 

Without question, the 2008 and 2009 classes proved strong.  But again, he had no interest in Murphy and took Gardner only because his dad insisted that he offer him.  And in 2010, the evaluation issues came to hurt us.  Of the 21 players in that class, seven have never taken a meaningful snap in a college football game; only six ever have become full-time starters.  Reynolds and Tarpley have proven to be nice surprises, but the lightly-recruited guys in that group also included Darren Daniel, Cleophus Robinson, and Alex Turner. 

And it appears that JH's final class may fall far short of what Stanford needs to be a top 10 team.  Only six starters from that group, now in their third year, have become starters, while eight of them never have played a meaningful snap. 

Stanford found gold in 2008 and 2009, without question.  But if that was because of superior recruiting, shouldn't we have seen that in our 2010 and 2011 classes, too?  If anything, given the improvement in our W-L record and experience gains in recruiting, shouldn't those classes have been slightly better than the 2008 and 2009 classes? 

Why weren't they?  And who was the head man in charge here?

Hulk -- I think you are delving into some error-filled revisionism.  just to pick out a couple -- Griffin was concerned that Harbs was going to move him to WR, not time share the QB spot.  no one doubted RGIII's athleticism.  and there was no Forcier in the Luck recruiting class.  Forcier was 09, Luck 08. 

and on Trent Murphy, please read the following:

"Harbaugh convinced Murphy he'd fit perfectly as a pass-rushing outside linebacker in Stanford's 3-4 defense. In the end, Murphy said it was no contest between the schools because of the way ''Harbaugh handled himself and his passion for this place and what he promised we would do.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/stanfords-t...ncaaf.html

and just a reminder on offers, in general, the recommendation to offer usually starts with the position coach, then the coordinator gets brought in and then a recommendation to HC, then the offer.  Harbs wasn't the only offerer or evaluator. 

frankly, along with the positive adds of Haskins, Lance and Eubanks, I kind of liked Harbs willingness to offer a lot of kids, rather than being miserly with offers.  I did not like some of the end game decisions though.

[washingtonismoney]

RGIII has changed his story on his recruitment a few times, slide. This week he claimed the reason was that Baylor would allow him to enroll early and Stanford wouldn't: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2...nford.html

[washingtonismoney]

RGIII has changed his story on his recruitment a few times, slide. This week he claimed the reason was that Baylor would allow him to enroll early and Stanford wouldn't: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2...nford.html

[Hulk01]

On Forcier, it's apparent to me that Landry Jones was in the Forcier role with Renfree, and that I was confusing Jones and Forcier.  Yes, the list was Jones, Crist, and Luck with Renfree as a possible Plan B or second QB in the class. 

The story for the public has been that JH wanted Griffin as a receiver, or that Griffin sensed/feared that JH did not view RG3 as a bona fide QB and was likely to move him tehre.  That's a slight misinterpretation; JH was willing to look at RG3 a receiver but not as a quarterback.  And while he agreed with the guys pushing on him that RG3 was fast, JH continued to say that he didn't think Griffin had the overall athleticism to become a valuable receiver or a good quarterback. He viewed Griffin as a straight line guy who was too long to run crisp route. 

I cannot rule out that the staff convinced JH to offer and accept a verbal from Griffin.  But if they did, JH did it against his own judgment.

There is no question that our staff offered Murphy and viewed him as a viable option there.  But that's because they all saw Murphy, as the end game approached, as their only option.  Skov and Lancaster projected as ILBs and every other OLB washed off their board. 

I've often said that after this class signed a staff member assured me that "in two years we won't have to sign guys like Trent Murphy." 

I have never forgotten these two stories.  Given the two players' careers these stories--and Lucks--seem utterly implausible.  We were this close to not offering or not accepting three of the best college players of the last five years.  But I have had these versions confirmed more than once.  I am just a messenger here; there is no interpretation going on.

[Hulk01]

On Forcier, it's apparent to me that Landry Jones was in the Forcier role with Renfree, and that I was confusing Jones and Forcier.  Yes, the list was Jones, Crist, and Luck with Renfree as a possible Plan B or second QB in the class. 

The story for the public has been that JH wanted Griffin as a receiver, or that Griffin sensed/feared that JH did not view RG3 as a bona fide QB and was likely to move him tehre.  That's a slight misinterpretation; JH was willing to look at RG3 a receiver but not as a quarterback.  And while he agreed with the guys pushing on him that RG3 was fast, JH continued to say that he didn't think Griffin had the overall athleticism to become a valuable receiver or a good quarterback. He viewed Griffin as a straight line guy who was too long to run crisp route. 

I cannot rule out that the staff convinced JH to offer and accept a verbal from Griffin.  But if they did, JH did it against his own judgment.

There is no question that our staff offered Murphy and viewed him as a viable option there.  But that's because they all saw Murphy, as the end game approached, as their only option.  Skov and Lancaster projected as ILBs and every other OLB washed off their board. 

I've often said that after this class signed a staff member assured me that "in two years we won't have to sign guys like Trent Murphy." 

I have never forgotten these two stories.  Given the two players' careers these stories--and Lucks--seem utterly implausible.  We were this close to not offering or not accepting three of the best college players of the last five years.  But I have had these versions confirmed more than once.  I am just a messenger here; there is no interpretation going on.

[JohnR34231]

The story for the public was that JH wanted Griffin as a receiver.  That's a slight misinterpretation; JH was willing to look at RG3 a receiver but not as a quarterback.  And while he agreed with the guys pushing on him that RG3 was fast, JH continued to say that he didn't think Griffin had the overall athleticism to become a valuable receiver.  He viewed Griffin as a straight line guy who was too long to run crisp route.

I cannot rule out that the staff convinced JH to offer and accept a verbal from Griffin.  But if they did, JH did it against his own judgment.

There is no question that our staff offered Murphy and viewed him as a viable option there.  But that's because they all saw Murphy, as the end game approached, as their only option.  Skov and Lancaster projected as ILBs and every other OLB washed off their board.  It's even possible

I've often said that after this class signed a staff member assured me that "in two years we won't have to sign guys like Trent Murphy." 

I have never forgotten these two stories.  Given the two players careers these stories--and Lucks--seem utterly implausible.  We were this close to not offering or not accepting three of the best college players of the last five years.  But I have had these versions confirmed more than once.  I am just a messenger here; there is no interpretation going on.

Here is what I heard. If it is incorrect it must be urban legend, because I've seen it posted often.
http://www.lostlettermen.com/4-24-2012-a...teammates/

[JohnR34231]

The story for the public was that JH wanted Griffin as a receiver.  That's a slight misinterpretation; JH was willing to look at RG3 a receiver but not as a quarterback.  And while he agreed with the guys pushing on him that RG3 was fast, JH continued to say that he didn't think Griffin had the overall athleticism to become a valuable receiver.  He viewed Griffin as a straight line guy who was too long to run crisp route.

I cannot rule out that the staff convinced JH to offer and accept a verbal from Griffin.  But if they did, JH did it against his own judgment.

There is no question that our staff offered Murphy and viewed him as a viable option there.  But that's because they all saw Murphy, as the end game approached, as their only option.  Skov and Lancaster projected as ILBs and every other OLB washed off their board.  It's even possible

I've often said that after this class signed a staff member assured me that "in two years we won't have to sign guys like Trent Murphy." 

I have never forgotten these two stories.  Given the two players careers these stories--and Lucks--seem utterly implausible.  We were this close to not offering or not accepting three of the best college players of the last five years.  But I have had these versions confirmed more than once.  I am just a messenger here; there is no interpretation going on.

Here is what I heard. If it is incorrect it must be urban legend, because I've seen it posted often.
http://www.lostlettermen.com/4-24-2012-a...teammates/

[Hulk01]

When the 2008 class came up for grabs, Harbaugh and his staff faced a problem.. 

They didn’t have a QB in the 2004 class and had only two semi-viable options at QB period: Tavita Pritchard from 2005 and Alex Loukas from 2006; Kellen Killsgard from the 2007 already had washed out.  They now realized that Loukas was a wonderful athlete who they might exploit in a Dallas Lloyd role, but he wasn’t an every down, pro-style QB. 

Essentially, our staff had one quarterback.

So everyone pressed to sign two QBs in the class.  Hence the push for Sean Renfree, who wasn’t seen as a Landry Jones, Dayne Crist, or Andrew Luck, but as an solid Plan B and a very appealing QB2.  It always was clear that if RB3 was in the picture at all, it was as a better choice over Renfree.  To many on the staff, however, Renfree was the more attractive candidate because, as he proved at Duke and to us in consecutive games, he’s a damn good, pro-style QB.  RB3 was this wild ass, world-class intermediate hurdler with some question marks as a true QB and, in JH’s case, question marks as an athlete period.

Griffin didn’t pass on Stanford because Stanford offered him a time share.  He passed because he knew Luck, who lived only a few hours away, was a helluva quarterback and fit the classic drop back mold: He was a bigger stronger Jim Harbaugh and Griffin wanted to start--and Briles showed him far more love. 

For some staff members, Griffin was attractive because he looked like an either-or.  If he couldn’t play QB he could be a better version of Gerren Crochet--an even better intermediate hurdler who might be able to become a wide receiver.  To JH--again, according to great sources---he was simply an option in a class that needed every option he could find. 

In the end, of course, we landed Luck, then with Nunes and Hill in the next class and Nottingham and Lloyd in the one following.

I cannot resist adding this again: We owe JH.  He did a dozen things well and a few things perfectly and he was not going to bow to any program--including the one up the road from the football facilities.  He was not going to wait or waste a minute, and he didn't.  But again, there is a lot of stunning evidence that he could not watch tape or ia live game and project an 18 year old as a college football player. 

it's very possible he cannot do that with college players either; I've no idea what his role for the 49ers is.  It's a good guess that Roman and Fangio and the others--and their dozen-plus scouts--tell JH to trust and listen to them. 

To JH's credit, I'd bet that he does just that.  He just wants to win. If that means sitting back and shutting up, he has the self confidence to do it.  But I am much less clear on this. . .

[Hulk01]

When the 2008 class came up for grabs, Harbaugh and his staff faced a problem.. 

They didn’t have a QB in the 2004 class and had only two semi-viable options at QB period: Tavita Pritchard from 2005 and Alex Loukas from 2006; Kellen Killsgard from the 2007 already had washed out.  They now realized that Loukas was a wonderful athlete who they might exploit in a Dallas Lloyd role, but he wasn’t an every down, pro-style QB. 

Essentially, our staff had one quarterback.

So everyone pressed to sign two QBs in the class.  Hence the push for Sean Renfree, who wasn’t seen as a Landry Jones, Dayne Crist, or Andrew Luck, but as an solid Plan B and a very appealing QB2.  It always was clear that if RB3 was in the picture at all, it was as a better choice over Renfree.  To many on the staff, however, Renfree was the more attractive candidate because, as he proved at Duke and to us in consecutive games, he’s a damn good, pro-style QB.  RB3 was this wild ass, world-class intermediate hurdler with some question marks as a true QB and, in JH’s case, question marks as an athlete period.

Griffin didn’t pass on Stanford because Stanford offered him a time share.  He passed because he knew Luck, who lived only a few hours away, was a helluva quarterback and fit the classic drop back mold: He was a bigger stronger Jim Harbaugh and Griffin wanted to start--and Briles showed him far more love. 

For some staff members, Griffin was attractive because he looked like an either-or.  If he couldn’t play QB he could be a better version of Gerren Crochet--an even better intermediate hurdler who might be able to become a wide receiver.  To JH--again, according to great sources---he was simply an option in a class that needed every option he could find. 

In the end, of course, we landed Luck, then with Nunes and Hill in the next class and Nottingham and Lloyd in the one following.

I cannot resist adding this again: We owe JH.  He did a dozen things well and a few things perfectly and he was not going to bow to any program--including the one up the road from the football facilities.  He was not going to wait or waste a minute, and he didn't.  But again, there is a lot of stunning evidence that he could not watch tape or ia live game and project an 18 year old as a college football player. 

it's very possible he cannot do that with college players either; I've no idea what his role for the 49ers is.  It's a good guess that Roman and Fangio and the others--and their dozen-plus scouts--tell JH to trust and listen to them. 

To JH's credit, I'd bet that he does just that.  He just wants to win. If that means sitting back and shutting up, he has the self confidence to do it.  But I am much less clear on this. . .

[Redrum]

this:

"People's weaknesses intrigue me at least as much as their strengths, and the weaknesses of the remarkably successful seem even more intriguing. "

[Redrum]

this:

"People's weaknesses intrigue me at least as much as their strengths, and the weaknesses of the remarkably successful seem even more intriguing. "

[washingtonismoney]

I think the 2010 class was a bit disappointing, but not from its top end (which is pretty solid w/ Yankey, Tarpley, Reynolds, Anderson). There were two problems with the class:

1) An unusual number of guys who simply didn't contribute much at all, and not due to performance reasons (Darren Daniel, Cleophus Robinson, Alex Turner.)
2) the top-rated guys (by Rivals) -- Nottingham, Wilkerson, Lueders, Bonnell, Seale -- have zero starters between them. Perhaps a bit of the luck-of-the-draw about it, but there you have it.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the 2010 class was a bit disappointing, but not from its top end (which is pretty solid w/ Yankey, Tarpley, Reynolds, Anderson). There were two problems with the class:

1) An unusual number of guys who simply didn't contribute much at all, and not due to performance reasons (Darren Daniel, Cleophus Robinson, Alex Turner.)
2) the top-rated guys (by Rivals) -- Nottingham, Wilkerson, Lueders, Bonnell, Seale -- have zero starters between them. Perhaps a bit of the luck-of-the-draw about it, but there you have it.

[Hulk01]

I am not sure how many ways I need to make this point: He was not a wretched recruiter and it barely would have mattered if he was.

He is not a skilled evaluator of talent.  He isn't. 

He is not a skillful salesman because he utterly lacks a quality that many people deplore; he cannot change colors.  He lacks the chameleon gene.  JH is JH, and he's not for everyone.
it's a strength, too.

He is fine one on one in some cases but he utterly blew up two recruitments that I know of personally.  Fortunately, it ended up not mattering because neither guy was a difference maker.  Plus Andrew Luck picked Stanford.  As the Colts have shown, Andrew Luck plus Robert Mathis plus some guys can easily go 10-3. 

Stanford landed some great guys.  Stanford always does; Fletcher, Bradford, Edwards, Atogwe, Tank, Okwo, Alston--you don't need to be a decent recruiter to get good guys at Stanford if your team is even watchable.  If it's outstanding you will land Barry Sanders and Solomon Thomas and Brandon Simmons in nice bunches like the 2012 class.  Coaches for other programs shake their heads about it and thank God Stanford cannot recruit seven kids out of eight. 

And on top of this, Harbaugh built an excellent recruiting team.  Everyone agrees that Lance and Sanford are among the best in the business and the back-end guys like ME have, with JH's passionate encouragment, built a process that works and saves the team a ton of time and money. 

But I promise not to say this again, he has a blind spot for evaluating talent--which is now the key talent, but one at which others (Hart and Lance particularly) are really good  JH didn't need to be good at evaluating talent as long as he was willing to defer or, in the case of Murphy, had almost no choice but to sign him.  And he didn't need to be great one-on-one with nine prospects in ten because they were coming and because they knew this force of nature was the head coach but not their position coach--so JH's ability to sell barely mattered.

I promise this is my last and apologize for apparently being less than clear.  If I haven't made this clear by now I am not capable of doing it and will move on to my next fuzzy post. . . :)

[Hulk01]

I am not sure how many ways I need to make this point: He was not a wretched recruiter and it barely would have mattered if he was.

He is not a skilled evaluator of talent.  He isn't. 

He is not a skillful salesman because he utterly lacks a quality that many people deplore; he cannot change colors.  He lacks the chameleon gene.  JH is JH, and he's not for everyone.
it's a strength, too.

He is fine one on one in some cases but he utterly blew up two recruitments that I know of personally.  Fortunately, it ended up not mattering because neither guy was a difference maker.  Plus Andrew Luck picked Stanford.  As the Colts have shown, Andrew Luck plus Robert Mathis plus some guys can easily go 10-3. 

Stanford landed some great guys.  Stanford always does; Fletcher, Bradford, Edwards, Atogwe, Tank, Okwo, Alston--you don't need to be a decent recruiter to get good guys at Stanford if your team is even watchable.  If it's outstanding you will land Barry Sanders and Solomon Thomas and Brandon Simmons in nice bunches like the 2012 class.  Coaches for other programs shake their heads about it and thank God Stanford cannot recruit seven kids out of eight. 

And on top of this, Harbaugh built an excellent recruiting team.  Everyone agrees that Lance and Sanford are among the best in the business and the back-end guys like ME have, with JH's passionate encouragment, built a process that works and saves the team a ton of time and money. 

But I promise not to say this again, he has a blind spot for evaluating talent--which is now the key talent, but one at which others (Hart and Lance particularly) are really good  JH didn't need to be good at evaluating talent as long as he was willing to defer or, in the case of Murphy, had almost no choice but to sign him.  And he didn't need to be great one-on-one with nine prospects in ten because they were coming and because they knew this force of nature was the head coach but not their position coach--so JH's ability to sell barely mattered.

I promise this is my last and apologize for apparently being less than clear.  If I haven't made this clear by now I am not capable of doing it and will move on to my next fuzzy post. . . :)

[OutsiderFan]

And just when the silence about the trio of 2013 Tight Ends became painfully deafening, Drukarev comes to the rescue...

...the Cardinal will likely count on its trio of freshmen tight ends to make an impact in the aerial attack in future seasons. According to Shaw, Greg Tabaoda, Austin Hooper and Eric Cotton are progressing well in their redshirt seasons.

"I think all three of them (have taken a step forward)," Shaw said. "We laugh all the time because it's so similar to having Levine, Zach and Fleener at the same time. Fleener was a year ahead but all those guys kind of grew up together. We look at these three guys and it's very similar. I think hopefully all three will be ready to play next year."

While the three freshmen possess varying skill sets, Shaw said that each has a better understanding of how to block than the vaunted 'Tree's Company' trio did early in their careers.

"They're all different," Shaw said. "They all do different things. The best thing about it to me is they all block well. Whereas it was something for Zach to try to have to learn to do just because he didn't do it as much in high school. Same thing for Coby. Coby was a receiver. We had to teach him how to get in a stance first and foremost and then how to block. But these guys have all played tight end, they've all put their hand in the dirt, they've all gone face-to-face with somebody so they all know how to do it. It's going to be fun trying to figure out how to use them next year."

Added tight ends coach Morgan Turner: "They've definitely all made strides. We're seeing a lot of good things, especially in Friday scrimmages. We're really excited about all of them." - See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?C...6nBJv.dpuf

[OutsiderFan]

And just when the silence about the trio of 2013 Tight Ends became painfully deafening, Drukarev comes to the rescue...

...the Cardinal will likely count on its trio of freshmen tight ends to make an impact in the aerial attack in future seasons. According to Shaw, Greg Tabaoda, Austin Hooper and Eric Cotton are progressing well in their redshirt seasons.

"I think all three of them (have taken a step forward)," Shaw said. "We laugh all the time because it's so similar to having Levine, Zach and Fleener at the same time. Fleener was a year ahead but all those guys kind of grew up together. We look at these three guys and it's very similar. I think hopefully all three will be ready to play next year."

While the three freshmen possess varying skill sets, Shaw said that each has a better understanding of how to block than the vaunted 'Tree's Company' trio did early in their careers.

"They're all different," Shaw said. "They all do different things. The best thing about it to me is they all block well. Whereas it was something for Zach to try to have to learn to do just because he didn't do it as much in high school. Same thing for Coby. Coby was a receiver. We had to teach him how to get in a stance first and foremost and then how to block. But these guys have all played tight end, they've all put their hand in the dirt, they've all gone face-to-face with somebody so they all know how to do it. It's going to be fun trying to figure out how to use them next year."

Added tight ends coach Morgan Turner: "They've definitely all made strides. We're seeing a lot of good things, especially in Friday scrimmages. We're really excited about all of them." - See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?C...6nBJv.dpuf

[stupac2]

And just when the silence about the trio of 2013 Tight Ends became painfully deafening, Drukarev comes to the rescue...

...the Cardinal will likely count on its trio of freshmen tight ends to make an impact in the aerial attack in future seasons. According to Shaw, Greg Tabaoda, Austin Hooper and Eric Cotton are progressing well in their redshirt seasons.

"I think all three of them (have taken a step forward)," Shaw said. "We laugh all the time because it's so similar to having Levine, Zach and Fleener at the same time. Fleener was a year ahead but all those guys kind of grew up together. We look at these three guys and it's very similar. I think hopefully all three will be ready to play next year."

While the three freshmen possess varying skill sets, Shaw said that each has a better understanding of how to block than the vaunted 'Tree's Company' trio did early in their careers.

"They're all different," Shaw said. "They all do different things. The best thing about it to me is they all block well. Whereas it was something for Zach to try to have to learn to do just because he didn't do it as much in high school. Same thing for Coby. Coby was a receiver. We had to teach him how to get in a stance first and foremost and then how to block. But these guys have all played tight end, they've all put their hand in the dirt, they've all gone face-to-face with somebody so they all know how to do it. It's going to be fun trying to figure out how to use them next year."

Added tight ends coach Morgan Turner: "They've definitely all made strides. We're seeing a lot of good things, especially in Friday scrimmages. We're really excited about all of them." - See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?C...6nBJv.dpuf

I found those quotes funny after someone in here was saying that none of them were TEs, all receivers, and that blocking would be a problem. Let's hope Shaw/Turner aren't coach-speaking this, because it would be excellent, excellent news for us next year.

[stupac2]

And just when the silence about the trio of 2013 Tight Ends became painfully deafening, Drukarev comes to the rescue...

...the Cardinal will likely count on its trio of freshmen tight ends to make an impact in the aerial attack in future seasons. According to Shaw, Greg Tabaoda, Austin Hooper and Eric Cotton are progressing well in their redshirt seasons.

"I think all three of them (have taken a step forward)," Shaw said. "We laugh all the time because it's so similar to having Levine, Zach and Fleener at the same time. Fleener was a year ahead but all those guys kind of grew up together. We look at these three guys and it's very similar. I think hopefully all three will be ready to play next year."

While the three freshmen possess varying skill sets, Shaw said that each has a better understanding of how to block than the vaunted 'Tree's Company' trio did early in their careers.

"They're all different," Shaw said. "They all do different things. The best thing about it to me is they all block well. Whereas it was something for Zach to try to have to learn to do just because he didn't do it as much in high school. Same thing for Coby. Coby was a receiver. We had to teach him how to get in a stance first and foremost and then how to block. But these guys have all played tight end, they've all put their hand in the dirt, they've all gone face-to-face with somebody so they all know how to do it. It's going to be fun trying to figure out how to use them next year."

Added tight ends coach Morgan Turner: "They've definitely all made strides. We're seeing a lot of good things, especially in Friday scrimmages. We're really excited about all of them." - See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?C...6nBJv.dpuf

I found those quotes funny after someone in here was saying that none of them were TEs, all receivers, and that blocking would be a problem. Let's hope Shaw/Turner aren't coach-speaking this, because it would be excellent, excellent news for us next year.

[Bruce Wang]

This is one of the most interesting discussions of recruiting I've read.  Seems to be that usually at most positions there isn't much choice in terms of student-athletes that can ball and study.  The exception is QB.  They are often good students and Stanford is QB U.  Along this line of reasoning, a Stanford coach's recruiting ability comes down to QB evaluation. 

So let's talk about Shaw.  Jameis Winston was the one he wanted.  That one may have been a no-brainer as is Keller Chryst.  So the really interesting case would be Ryan Burns.  Remember a bunch of 4 and 5* QBs (Browne, Bateman, Olsen) wanted to come to Stanford.  Shaw picked a 3/4* Burns.  Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

[Bruce Wang]

This is one of the most interesting discussions of recruiting I've read.  Seems to be that usually at most positions there isn't much choice in terms of student-athletes that can ball and study.  The exception is QB.  They are often good students and Stanford is QB U.  Along this line of reasoning, a Stanford coach's recruiting ability comes down to QB evaluation. 

So let's talk about Shaw.  Jameis Winston was the one he wanted.  That one may have been a no-brainer as is Keller Chryst.  So the really interesting case would be Ryan Burns.  Remember a bunch of 4 and 5* QBs (Browne, Bateman, Olsen) wanted to come to Stanford.  Shaw picked a 3/4* Burns.  Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

[washingtonismoney]

Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

The issue with offering Town instead of Rosen wasn't ratings -- the sites regard him as virtually equal, if not better, than Rosen -- but that Rosen was seen as a sure thing (if he got an offer, he was coming), whereas Town was a gamble to accept the offer. And of course that prophecy came to pass as Town more-or-less immediately decided to go to 'bama.

[washingtonismoney]

Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

The issue with offering Town instead of Rosen wasn't ratings -- the sites regard him as virtually equal, if not better, than Rosen -- but that Rosen was seen as a sure thing (if he got an offer, he was coming), whereas Town was a gamble to accept the offer. And of course that prophecy came to pass as Town more-or-less immediately decided to go to 'bama.

[Hey]

I read the arguments on the first page and was pretty taken aback about the criticism of Harbaugh.  I only came back to reminisce that we actually had 5 TE's from that 2009 class as Brock Sanders only decommitted later on, which led to some of the funniest writing on this board.  By the time Usua Amanam committed, the joke was he would be a 3rd-down TE or something. 

I find a multitude of flaws with a lot of arguments being made.  I'm not going to get drawn into the argument of what's wrong with Stanford or Harbaugh, but instead let me express that I truly hope to avoid seeing these negative comments any time we lose a game.  We have a lot to be grateful for, and we are privy to very little insider information.  The coaches have reasons for recruiting and not recruiting someone, and most of us will never know what they are.   

P.S.  In fact, 5 of our first 9 recruits in 2009 were TE's, which really kicked off a lot of the humorous speculation.

[Hey]

I read the arguments on the first page and was pretty taken aback about the criticism of Harbaugh.  I only came back to reminisce that we actually had 5 TE's from that 2009 class as Brock Sanders only decommitted later on, which led to some of the funniest writing on this board.  By the time Usua Amanam committed, the joke was he would be a 3rd-down TE or something. 

I find a multitude of flaws with a lot of arguments being made.  I'm not going to get drawn into the argument of what's wrong with Stanford or Harbaugh, but instead let me express that I truly hope to avoid seeing these negative comments any time we lose a game.  We have a lot to be grateful for, and we are privy to very little insider information.  The coaches have reasons for recruiting and not recruiting someone, and most of us will never know what they are.   

P.S.  In fact, 5 of our first 9 recruits in 2009 were TE's, which really kicked off a lot of the humorous speculation.

[Oasis]

I always appreciate Hulk's insights. In Harbaugh's defense, I would say that evaluating talent -- including where people will be a year or two from now -- is as difficult as picking stocks or doing anything else that involves predicting future outcomes.  Randomness affects it.  Andrew Luck redshirted his first year.

[Oasis]

I always appreciate Hulk's insights. In Harbaugh's defense, I would say that evaluating talent -- including where people will be a year or two from now -- is as difficult as picking stocks or doing anything else that involves predicting future outcomes.  Randomness affects it.  Andrew Luck redshirted his first year.

[DC]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8908.msg75477#msg75477 date=1385170435]
Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

The issue with offering Town instead of Rosen wasn't ratings -- the sites regard him as virtually equal, if not better, than Rosen -- but that Rosen was seen as a sure thing (if he got an offer, he was coming), whereas Town was a gamble to accept the offer. And of course that prophecy came to pass as Town more-or-less immediately decided to go to 'bama.
[/quote]Where do we and Rosen stand now?

[DC]

[quote author=Publius link=topic=8908.msg75477#msg75477 date=1385170435]
Another case would be offering Towne instead of Rosen.

The issue with offering Town instead of Rosen wasn't ratings -- the sites regard him as virtually equal, if not better, than Rosen -- but that Rosen was seen as a sure thing (if he got an offer, he was coming), whereas Town was a gamble to accept the offer. And of course that prophecy came to pass as Town more-or-less immediately decided to go to 'bama.
[/quote]Where do we and Rosen stand now?

[washingtonismoney]

Where do we and Rosen stand now?

I'd be shocked if we offered.

[washingtonismoney]

Where do we and Rosen stand now?

I'd be shocked if we offered.