[CompSci87]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12063.msg117262#msg117262 date=1429899968]
Must students be officially registered at the school and paying tuition while they're working on the dissertation?

Actually a somewhat complicated question.

Almost every university has a residency requirement to get a PhD, i.e. they have to be registered students for enough terms. Sometimes once that requirement is satisfied, there are ways to save by not officially being registered.

The issue comes up in my field in that often the bulk of the PhD work is done at some big national facility (think Fermi Lab or SLAC). It would generally be cheaper for the advisor and student to not be a registered student (and not pay tuition, fees, and more importantly overhead on salaries) at the home institution while doing this work. That is mostly not allowed, precisely because the university loses where advisors gain.
[/quote]

It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12063.msg117262#msg117262 date=1429899968]
Must students be officially registered at the school and paying tuition while they're working on the dissertation?

Actually a somewhat complicated question.

Almost every university has a residency requirement to get a PhD, i.e. they have to be registered students for enough terms. Sometimes once that requirement is satisfied, there are ways to save by not officially being registered.

The issue comes up in my field in that often the bulk of the PhD work is done at some big national facility (think Fermi Lab or SLAC). It would generally be cheaper for the advisor and student to not be a registered student (and not pay tuition, fees, and more importantly overhead on salaries) at the home institution while doing this work. That is mostly not allowed, precisely because the university loses where advisors gain.
[/quote]

It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Good to hear about Schultz.  I'm really high on the kid, though that's hardly going out on a limb.

I hope to see big things from Sanders this year, though that might be tough.  His father was one of my favorite players to watch growing up so I had high hopes.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Good to hear about Schultz.  I'm really high on the kid, though that's hardly going out on a limb.

I hope to see big things from Sanders this year, though that might be tough.  His father was one of my favorite players to watch growing up so I had high hopes.

[CTcard]

It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

I would assume you had presented/defended it while you were still registered, yes?

[CTcard]

It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

I would assume you had presented/defended it while you were still registered, yes?

[Langdude]

Must students be officially registered at the school and paying tuition while they're working on the dissertation?

Now that I think about it, we had to pay a "continuation fee" for every semester post-residency but pre-dissertation defense. Some, for various reasons (either because they were incredibly productive - often if single or anti-social - or because they had an easier project), had their dissertation done at end of residency, but that was pretty rare. The rest of us were paying this "fee" each semester while we worked on the diss AND working a job to pay for living expenses. Now that I think about it, I have no idea precisely where that continuation fee went; it was literally costing the institution nothing since we were no longer taking seminars. But I suppose it was another motivation to get done. As one of my profs said, the best dissertation is a finished dissertation.

-m.

[Langdude]

Must students be officially registered at the school and paying tuition while they're working on the dissertation?

Now that I think about it, we had to pay a "continuation fee" for every semester post-residency but pre-dissertation defense. Some, for various reasons (either because they were incredibly productive - often if single or anti-social - or because they had an easier project), had their dissertation done at end of residency, but that was pretty rare. The rest of us were paying this "fee" each semester while we worked on the diss AND working a job to pay for living expenses. Now that I think about it, I have no idea precisely where that continuation fee went; it was literally costing the institution nothing since we were no longer taking seminars. But I suppose it was another motivation to get done. As one of my profs said, the best dissertation is a finished dissertation.

-m.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=12063.msg117287#msg117287 date=1429938829]
It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

I would assume you had presented/defended it while you were still registered, yes?
[/quote]

Yes, I did my defense long before my committee was ready to sign off on the written dissertation.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=12063.msg117287#msg117287 date=1429938829]
It's been a long time, but if I remember right, back in 1987 I was allowed to turn in my dissertation in the quarter following the last one in which I was registered, and I did so.

I would assume you had presented/defended it while you were still registered, yes?
[/quote]

Yes, I did my defense long before my committee was ready to sign off on the written dissertation.

[JohnR34231]

Good to hear about Schultz.  I'm really high on the kid, though that's hardly going out on a limb.

I hope to see big things from Sanders this year, though that might be tough.  His father was one of my favorite players to watch growing up so I had high hopes.

Schultz is a stud. I predict he will see a lot of action this year even though the older guys are very good, too. Definitely not a problem position.

Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

[JohnR34231]

Good to hear about Schultz.  I'm really high on the kid, though that's hardly going out on a limb.

I hope to see big things from Sanders this year, though that might be tough.  His father was one of my favorite players to watch growing up so I had high hopes.

Schultz is a stud. I predict he will see a lot of action this year even though the older guys are very good, too. Definitely not a problem position.

Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

[Redrum]

It's like standing in a party listening to small groups talking.  Pay attention to one and they're talking football.  Simply shift your attention to another group and they're talking the mechanics of getting a PhD.  No cross-talk, no interference. Clear and discreet channels. Take your pick out of one Cardboard thread.

[Redrum]

It's like standing in a party listening to small groups talking.  Pay attention to one and they're talking football.  Simply shift your attention to another group and they're talking the mechanics of getting a PhD.  No cross-talk, no interference. Clear and discreet channels. Take your pick out of one Cardboard thread.

[terry]

Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

Agreed. Sanders will have less competition for the third-string carries due to the departure of Young and Seale. But I expect McCaffrey to have an expanded role, so there probably won't be many carries available to the #3 RB. To the extent Sanders gets the ball, I'd like to see him catch some screen passes. He can make people miss when he has an open field.

[terry]

Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

Agreed. Sanders will have less competition for the third-string carries due to the departure of Young and Seale. But I expect McCaffrey to have an expanded role, so there probably won't be many carries available to the #3 RB. To the extent Sanders gets the ball, I'd like to see him catch some screen passes. He can make people miss when he has an open field.

[Rally]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12063.msg117292#msg117292 date=1430055401]
Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

Agreed. Sanders will have less competition for the third-string carries due to the departure of Young and Seale. But I expect McCaffrey to have an expanded role, so there probably won't be many carries available to the #3 RB. To the extent Sanders gets the ball, I'd like to see him catch some screen passes. He can make people miss when he has an open field.
[/quote]

Why do you (all) think Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations so far?  Unrealistic expectations based, at least partly, on his father?  Poorly used by coaches?  Bad luck?  Poor blocking?  What?  It seems to happen so often, everywhere, that a highly touted recruit doesn't live up to perceived potential.  Why?

[Rally]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12063.msg117292#msg117292 date=1430055401]
Although Sanders seems to be everyone's sentimental favorite, unless he shows something he hasn't in the past I don't think he will get a lot of carries this fall. CMac and Wright will get the lion's share.

Agreed. Sanders will have less competition for the third-string carries due to the departure of Young and Seale. But I expect McCaffrey to have an expanded role, so there probably won't be many carries available to the #3 RB. To the extent Sanders gets the ball, I'd like to see him catch some screen passes. He can make people miss when he has an open field.
[/quote]

Why do you (all) think Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations so far?  Unrealistic expectations based, at least partly, on his father?  Poorly used by coaches?  Bad luck?  Poor blocking?  What?  It seems to happen so often, everywhere, that a highly touted recruit doesn't live up to perceived potential.  Why?

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12063.msg117204#msg117204 date=1429833646]
Great report, Hank!  But, dang, what am I going to ask Shaw about tonight?  You covered quite a lot.

Here's what I really wanted to ask but didn't: what goes into the thought process when deciding whether or not to redshirt a kid.
[/quote]

First of all, it was a pleasure chatting with TCUFrog, another CardBoarder, at the LA Coaches event.  Despite his handle, he does have Stanford ties as a law school alum.  He is a gentleman and a scholar.  Even though he is rarely active on the board, he is a regular reader so maybe I can coax him into adding his comments on the event.

Hank, Coach Shaw indirectly addressed your question about redshirting.  He said that he does not want to play a kid until he is convinced that the player is physically, emotionally and mentally ready.  Sometimes the players make the decision for him.  Shaw used the example of Kelsey Young who asked to sit out his freshman year. And of course Andrew Luck needed a redshirt year to get a handle on the QB requirements. 

I asked about the fullback position.  Since Stanford will only have 3 FBs on the roster (a true soph, a true frosh and a walkon), might we see some different players in the backfield?  I continue to be curious about what Joey Alfieri might do back there.  Coach Shaw did not directly answer.  He said that while Stanford is perceived as a 2 back, power running team, they actually use a lot of different sets.  I think he was implying that other position players like TEs can be used as blocking backs too.  I guess we will see once the season begins.

My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12063.msg117204#msg117204 date=1429833646]
Great report, Hank!  But, dang, what am I going to ask Shaw about tonight?  You covered quite a lot.

Here's what I really wanted to ask but didn't: what goes into the thought process when deciding whether or not to redshirt a kid.
[/quote]

First of all, it was a pleasure chatting with TCUFrog, another CardBoarder, at the LA Coaches event.  Despite his handle, he does have Stanford ties as a law school alum.  He is a gentleman and a scholar.  Even though he is rarely active on the board, he is a regular reader so maybe I can coax him into adding his comments on the event.

Hank, Coach Shaw indirectly addressed your question about redshirting.  He said that he does not want to play a kid until he is convinced that the player is physically, emotionally and mentally ready.  Sometimes the players make the decision for him.  Shaw used the example of Kelsey Young who asked to sit out his freshman year. And of course Andrew Luck needed a redshirt year to get a handle on the QB requirements. 

I asked about the fullback position.  Since Stanford will only have 3 FBs on the roster (a true soph, a true frosh and a walkon), might we see some different players in the backfield?  I continue to be curious about what Joey Alfieri might do back there.  Coach Shaw did not directly answer.  He said that while Stanford is perceived as a 2 back, power running team, they actually use a lot of different sets.  I think he was implying that other position players like TEs can be used as blocking backs too.  I guess we will see once the season begins.

My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

[yvonne]

Why do you (all) think Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations so far?  Unrealistic expectations based, at least partly, on his father?  Poorly used by coaches?  Bad luck?  Poor blocking?  What?  It seems to happen so often, everywhere, that a highly touted recruit doesn't live up to perceived potential.  Why?

Well, let's see. Rivals (http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti...ders-91034) compared Barry to Todd Gurley, who went to Georgia, and made second team All SEC. Reasonable, by not spectacular. Another back it compared him to is Byran Marshall of Oregon. He had a 1000+ yard season in 2013, and excelled as both a back and receiver last year. He was second on the team in all-purpose yards. Then, there's Rushel Shell of West Virginia, who rushed for 788 yards, and averaged 4.5 yards per carry.

You'd consider them all serviceable backs, not memorable, but they get the job done. Now, name one of them Barry Sanders, and how do you feel about him?

[yvonne]

Why do you (all) think Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations so far?  Unrealistic expectations based, at least partly, on his father?  Poorly used by coaches?  Bad luck?  Poor blocking?  What?  It seems to happen so often, everywhere, that a highly touted recruit doesn't live up to perceived potential.  Why?

Well, let's see. Rivals (http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti...ders-91034) compared Barry to Todd Gurley, who went to Georgia, and made second team All SEC. Reasonable, by not spectacular. Another back it compared him to is Byran Marshall of Oregon. He had a 1000+ yard season in 2013, and excelled as both a back and receiver last year. He was second on the team in all-purpose yards. Then, there's Rushel Shell of West Virginia, who rushed for 788 yards, and averaged 4.5 yards per carry.

You'd consider them all serviceable backs, not memorable, but they get the job done. Now, name one of them Barry Sanders, and how do you feel about him?

[StanfordMatt]

Gurley was the best RB in the nation last year. He made Second Team All-SEC despite only playing in five full games due to a suspension and injury. He's also likely to be the first RB drafted in the first round since 2012. Sorry to pile on, but I'd be happy if Sanders developed into a RB half as good as Gurley.

[StanfordMatt]

Gurley was the best RB in the nation last year. He made Second Team All-SEC despite only playing in five full games due to a suspension and injury. He's also likely to be the first RB drafted in the first round since 2012. Sorry to pile on, but I'd be happy if Sanders developed into a RB half as good as Gurley.

[washingtonismoney]

Barry Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations because they're unreasonable. Sanders was a very good recruit, of course -- and that is meaningful. So Sanders was a better bet than a random three-star RB, but we shouldn't've confused that with being terribly likely to succeed. A five-star is, I believe, about a 40% shot to be drafted. A four-star, half that; and a three-star, half that.

Additionally, Sanders is stuck behind two other highly-ranked RBs. McCaffrey was the #2 APB and #91 overall player, per 247's composite ranking; Wright was the #22 RB and #220 overall player. In this context, it's not exactly shocking that Sanders -- #4 APB, #81 player -- is behind these other two players.

[washingtonismoney]

Barry Sanders hasn't lived up to expectations because they're unreasonable. Sanders was a very good recruit, of course -- and that is meaningful. So Sanders was a better bet than a random three-star RB, but we shouldn't've confused that with being terribly likely to succeed. A five-star is, I believe, about a 40% shot to be drafted. A four-star, half that; and a three-star, half that.

Additionally, Sanders is stuck behind two other highly-ranked RBs. McCaffrey was the #2 APB and #91 overall player, per 247's composite ranking; Wright was the #22 RB and #220 overall player. In this context, it's not exactly shocking that Sanders -- #4 APB, #81 player -- is behind these other two players.

[winflop]

Expectations for Sanders were out of this world ridiculous, and they got more so when he took one of the first touches of his career and showed serious flashes of his old man's moves.

I've seen/heard two major challenges to his getting more snaps.  First and foremost is pass blocking.  Like it or not, Shaw is a broken record on this.  You **HAVE** to be an effective pass blocker if you want to play RB for Stanford.  The second challenge I see for Sanders is that although he has great jukes and spins, he lacks breakaway speed to turn a hole in the secondary into a big gain of more than 20.

I think he could be a useful 3rd down back if he has the pass blocking figured out.  If not it'll be 10 snaps a game or fewer.

[winflop]

Expectations for Sanders were out of this world ridiculous, and they got more so when he took one of the first touches of his career and showed serious flashes of his old man's moves.

I've seen/heard two major challenges to his getting more snaps.  First and foremost is pass blocking.  Like it or not, Shaw is a broken record on this.  You **HAVE** to be an effective pass blocker if you want to play RB for Stanford.  The second challenge I see for Sanders is that although he has great jukes and spins, he lacks breakaway speed to turn a hole in the secondary into a big gain of more than 20.

I think he could be a useful 3rd down back if he has the pass blocking figured out.  If not it'll be 10 snaps a game or fewer.

[OutsiderFan]

Sanders is miscast in Stanford's offense.  He'd have been better off at OSU from a football standpoint.  But if he's happy at Stanford, good for him.

[OutsiderFan]

Sanders is miscast in Stanford's offense.  He'd have been better off at OSU from a football standpoint.  But if he's happy at Stanford, good for him.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Expectations for Sanders were out of this world ridiculous, and they got more so when he took one of the first touches of his career and showed serious flashes of his old man's moves.

I've seen/heard two major challenges to his getting more snaps.  First and foremost is pass blocking.  Like it or not, Shaw is a broken record on this.  You **HAVE** to be an effective pass blocker if you want to play RB for Stanford.  The second challenge I see for Sanders is that although he has great jukes and spins, he lacks breakaway speed to turn a hole in the secondary into a big gain of more than 20.

I think he could be a useful 3rd down back if he has the pass blocking figured out.  If not it'll be 10 snaps a game or fewer.

I think third and mid is a great time to use Sanders, as he likely won't be needed to pass block.  He can go out into the pattern or take a handoff.  Third and long, the halfback likely wouldn't be getting the ball (unless that halfback's name is McCaffrey) so pass pro would come into play.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Expectations for Sanders were out of this world ridiculous, and they got more so when he took one of the first touches of his career and showed serious flashes of his old man's moves.

I've seen/heard two major challenges to his getting more snaps.  First and foremost is pass blocking.  Like it or not, Shaw is a broken record on this.  You **HAVE** to be an effective pass blocker if you want to play RB for Stanford.  The second challenge I see for Sanders is that although he has great jukes and spins, he lacks breakaway speed to turn a hole in the secondary into a big gain of more than 20.

I think he could be a useful 3rd down back if he has the pass blocking figured out.  If not it'll be 10 snaps a game or fewer.

I think third and mid is a great time to use Sanders, as he likely won't be needed to pass block.  He can go out into the pattern or take a handoff.  Third and long, the halfback likely wouldn't be getting the ball (unless that halfback's name is McCaffrey) so pass pro would come into play.

[Mick]

My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

I'm trying to parse this last paragraph.  One the one hand, Coach Shaw said it took 3/4 of the season for the OL to gel.  That seems like an awfully long time to me.  Separately, you mentioned that by the end of last season the casual fan could predict plays based upon formation.  Does that indicate that the OL didn't gel so much as the playbook got a lot easier?

[Mick]

My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

I'm trying to parse this last paragraph.  One the one hand, Coach Shaw said it took 3/4 of the season for the OL to gel.  That seems like an awfully long time to me.  Separately, you mentioned that by the end of last season the casual fan could predict plays based upon formation.  Does that indicate that the OL didn't gel so much as the playbook got a lot easier?

[Langdude]

I seem to remember another year - 2011? 2010? 2009? - when there were 4 new starters on the OL? It took a couple of games for them to gel, but it came together nicely. And, IIRC, they were not nearly as heralded as last year's new starters.

-m.

[Langdude]

I seem to remember another year - 2011? 2010? 2009? - when there were 4 new starters on the OL? It took a couple of games for them to gel, but it came together nicely. And, IIRC, they were not nearly as heralded as last year's new starters.

-m.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12063.msg117301#msg117301 date=1430095550]
My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

I'm trying to parse this last paragraph.  One the one hand, Coach Shaw said it took 3/4 of the season for the OL to gel.  That seems like an awfully long time to me.  Separately, you mentioned that by the end of last season the casual fan could predict plays based upon formation.  Does that indicate that the OL didn't gel so much as the playbook got a lot easier?
[/quote]

Mick - my interpretation of Coach Shaw's words is that the offensive approach will not change much.  The offense finally gelled the last 3 games.  The OL came together.  Kevin Hogan executed well.  Things clicked.  Since the objective is to build on that success, the playbook will not change much.  But to my observation the play calling became predictable for part of the season, especially the stagnant middle of the season (despite the myriad sets and player packages).  Do I remember correctly that Oregon defenders said that they were calling out Stanford's plays before the ball was snapped?  If the players are substantially the same and the coaches are the same and the approach is the same, how does Stanford avoid falling in the same rut?

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12063.msg117301#msg117301 date=1430095550]
My takeaway is that the nothing has changed with the offensive philosophy of the team.  Coach Shaw said that he underestimated how long it would take for the OL to gel.  It was 8-9 games, not 3-4.  With an experienced QB and an experienced OL, we will probably see the same offensive approach we saw in 2014.  I guess the coaches know what they are doing, but I am concerned that it makes Stanford predictable and easier for opponents to prepare for.  You are in pretty bad shape when even fans like me can predict the play from the formation which happened a fair bit towards the end of the season.

I'm trying to parse this last paragraph.  One the one hand, Coach Shaw said it took 3/4 of the season for the OL to gel.  That seems like an awfully long time to me.  Separately, you mentioned that by the end of last season the casual fan could predict plays based upon formation.  Does that indicate that the OL didn't gel so much as the playbook got a lot easier?
[/quote]

Mick - my interpretation of Coach Shaw's words is that the offensive approach will not change much.  The offense finally gelled the last 3 games.  The OL came together.  Kevin Hogan executed well.  Things clicked.  Since the objective is to build on that success, the playbook will not change much.  But to my observation the play calling became predictable for part of the season, especially the stagnant middle of the season (despite the myriad sets and player packages).  Do I remember correctly that Oregon defenders said that they were calling out Stanford's plays before the ball was snapped?  If the players are substantially the same and the coaches are the same and the approach is the same, how does Stanford avoid falling in the same rut?

[kuz]

I seem to remember another year - 2011? 2010? 2009? - when there were 4 new starters on the OL? It took a couple of games for them to gel, but it came together nicely. And, IIRC, they were not nearly as heralded as last year's new starters.

-m.

2011 had Fleming (RS Fr) at RT, Yankey (RS Fr) at LG, and Schwartzstein (RS Jr) at C starting for the first time. That and 2010 were probably the best O-lines in recent years. Of course, we had Martin at LT and DeCastro at RG who were studs.

[kuz]

I seem to remember another year - 2011? 2010? 2009? - when there were 4 new starters on the OL? It took a couple of games for them to gel, but it came together nicely. And, IIRC, they were not nearly as heralded as last year's new starters.

-m.

2011 had Fleming (RS Fr) at RT, Yankey (RS Fr) at LG, and Schwartzstein (RS Jr) at C starting for the first time. That and 2010 were probably the best O-lines in recent years. Of course, we had Martin at LT and DeCastro at RG who were studs.