[Langdude]

In the press conference, Shaw just said that there were no spots available for ILB, so that's why we did not sign any.

Really? So what about the guys you were recruiting for that position?

-m.

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

I disagree with the way these numbers are calculated. Shaw said we had "a couple spots at DL" and one spot at OLB, which means staff thinks about this in terms of RIGHT NOW, not in a couple years when the players will be contributing. Fatal flaw in the logic.

---

The "one more DL expected in this class" is current commit Lance Keneley, who has not yet been admitted and therefore could not sign today.

Thanks for the clarification, SMC. I thought they were after more than one ILB. My mistake.

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

This reasoning also assumes that there will be no other sorts of attrition, but that is less ably foreseen.

-m.

[Langdude]

In the press conference, Shaw just said that there were no spots available for ILB, so that's why we did not sign any.

Really? So what about the guys you were recruiting for that position?

-m.

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

I disagree with the way these numbers are calculated. Shaw said we had "a couple spots at DL" and one spot at OLB, which means staff thinks about this in terms of RIGHT NOW, not in a couple years when the players will be contributing. Fatal flaw in the logic.

---

The "one more DL expected in this class" is current commit Lance Keneley, who has not yet been admitted and therefore could not sign today.

Thanks for the clarification, SMC. I thought they were after more than one ILB. My mistake.

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

This reasoning also assumes that there will be no other sorts of attrition, but that is less ably foreseen.

-m.

[Goose]

We lost out on a couple guys going elsewhere, and stood pat rather than going for plan B's. IMO only taking 1 ILB and 1-2 OLB would've been fine (depending on the DiCosmo/Fox situation), but taking zero was stupid.

Right.  Sometimes taking a flyer on a project or a plan B is necessary.

BC

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

[Goose]

We lost out on a couple guys going elsewhere, and stood pat rather than going for plan B's. IMO only taking 1 ILB and 1-2 OLB would've been fine (depending on the DiCosmo/Fox situation), but taking zero was stupid.

Right.  Sometimes taking a flyer on a project or a plan B is necessary.

BC

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

[SamuelMcF]

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

I call the staff's positional calculations "reactive" rather than "proactive" for this reason, and it's why we'll never be well-stocked across the board. I would prioritize stability in each class's numbers to lower this volatility. No more classes of 4-5 LBs then 0, or 1 OL then 5 back-to-back. It throws stuff totally out of whack.

[SamuelMcF]

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

I call the staff's positional calculations "reactive" rather than "proactive" for this reason, and it's why we'll never be well-stocked across the board. I would prioritize stability in each class's numbers to lower this volatility. No more classes of 4-5 LBs then 0, or 1 OL then 5 back-to-back. It throws stuff totally out of whack.

[BostonCard]

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

Right, that's why if your target is to take two inside linebackers in the class, and you strike out on your Plan A's, maybe you offer one Plan B this year and pocket a slot for next year.  But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs. Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.

BC

---

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

Well, I shudder to think what would have happened had we not had 5 offensive linemen in this class, but your point is well-taken.  Surely it would have been better to have three available red-shirt freshmen offensive linemen in front of the three true freshmen.  And of course, even though we had three freshmen inside linebackers, they essentially couldn't help us because the hole was in the classes of 2016/17 so we had to rely on position switches.

I keep going back to the fact that you should look at needs through the lens of two-class aggregates, and you should studiously avoid leaving any holes.

BC

[BostonCard]

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

Right, that's why if your target is to take two inside linebackers in the class, and you strike out on your Plan A's, maybe you offer one Plan B this year and pocket a slot for next year.  But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs. Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.

BC

---

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

Well, I shudder to think what would have happened had we not had 5 offensive linemen in this class, but your point is well-taken.  Surely it would have been better to have three available red-shirt freshmen offensive linemen in front of the three true freshmen.  And of course, even though we had three freshmen inside linebackers, they essentially couldn't help us because the hole was in the classes of 2016/17 so we had to rely on position switches.

I keep going back to the fact that you should look at needs through the lens of two-class aggregates, and you should studiously avoid leaving any holes.

BC

[d4cohn]

I feel like, to some degree, Shaw et al can't win re roster management. If too many
fifth year players leave that free up spots for incoming classes, then we get threads
like the 5th year decision thread bemoaning the loss of upperclassmen. If the 
upperclassmen return, and then that means we only have so many scholarship spots for 
the incoming class, then we get criticism for roster management/not taking
enough younger players proactively.

I think another important consideration is that while this may be a math formula
in the way we are talking about this, each of these cases involve 40-year decisions,
guys getting Master's to set up their futures etc. Also add in the fact that Stanford's
pool of players is very small for academic reasons, and there may not, for example,
be 7 LB's we can reasonably get that can also play elite P5 football in any given 2 year period. 

At the end of the day, while I obviously 
want us to win, I think the individual aspect in terms of guys developing athletically and
academically is ultimately most important. And Coach Shaw seems to recognize that.

[d4cohn]

I feel like, to some degree, Shaw et al can't win re roster management. If too many
fifth year players leave that free up spots for incoming classes, then we get threads
like the 5th year decision thread bemoaning the loss of upperclassmen. If the 
upperclassmen return, and then that means we only have so many scholarship spots for 
the incoming class, then we get criticism for roster management/not taking
enough younger players proactively.

I think another important consideration is that while this may be a math formula
in the way we are talking about this, each of these cases involve 40-year decisions,
guys getting Master's to set up their futures etc. Also add in the fact that Stanford's
pool of players is very small for academic reasons, and there may not, for example,
be 7 LB's we can reasonably get that can also play elite P5 football in any given 2 year period. 

At the end of the day, while I obviously 
want us to win, I think the individual aspect in terms of guys developing athletically and
academically is ultimately most important. And Coach Shaw seems to recognize that.

[BostonCard]

I think you misunderstand the criticism.  Because a fifth year is not guaranteed, that offers the staff flexibility to manage the roster.  Basically, Sam McFadden categorized (link) players into three groups.  Those who you really hope to have back, those who you congratulate and send on their way, and a group of players in between where there has been some anticipated contribution, but where if they left it wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are five such players (although you can debate the categories a bit).  So those are guys who give you some flexibility to make offers to players you would really like to add to the class, even if our roster would otherwise be "full".

In any case, the criticism of Shaw arises because of the fifth year players who have entered the portal, too many are from the first category (those we would want to have back) and too few from the third.  Like, I think we would all prefer to have Swann and Williams back, and see Butler and Parson in the portal instead.  Swann, Williams, Hattis, Hamilton, and possibly Eboh, are not in the portal because we needed to make room for incoming players; they are in there because they wanted to explore a change in scenery despite the fact that we want them to come back.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think you misunderstand the criticism.  Because a fifth year is not guaranteed, that offers the staff flexibility to manage the roster.  Basically, Sam McFadden categorized (link) players into three groups.  Those who you really hope to have back, those who you congratulate and send on their way, and a group of players in between where there has been some anticipated contribution, but where if they left it wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are five such players (although you can debate the categories a bit).  So those are guys who give you some flexibility to make offers to players you would really like to add to the class, even if our roster would otherwise be "full".

In any case, the criticism of Shaw arises because of the fifth year players who have entered the portal, too many are from the first category (those we would want to have back) and too few from the third.  Like, I think we would all prefer to have Swann and Williams back, and see Butler and Parson in the portal instead.  Swann, Williams, Hattis, Hamilton, and possibly Eboh, are not in the portal because we needed to make room for incoming players; they are in there because they wanted to explore a change in scenery despite the fact that we want them to come back.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Just some housekeeping on the 2 guys left to join the class...

DE Lance Keneley was not among the reported LOIs today and Shaw said one more DL will sign later.
He also said one more OL and all signs are that is OT James Pogerelc. 

These additions might move Stanford up a bit in national rankings, but probably not gonna surpass Oregon in Pac-12. Speaking of, 247 conference class rankings:

1. Washington
2. Oregon
3. Stanford
4. UCLA
5. Cal
6. ASU
7. Colorado
8. Oregon State
9. Utah
10. Washington State
11. Arizona
12. USC (even the average recruit rating is pretty damn low for them)

[OutsiderFan]

Just some housekeeping on the 2 guys left to join the class...

DE Lance Keneley was not among the reported LOIs today and Shaw said one more DL will sign later.
He also said one more OL and all signs are that is OT James Pogerelc. 

These additions might move Stanford up a bit in national rankings, but probably not gonna surpass Oregon in Pac-12. Speaking of, 247 conference class rankings:

1. Washington
2. Oregon
3. Stanford
4. UCLA
5. Cal
6. ASU
7. Colorado
8. Oregon State
9. Utah
10. Washington State
11. Arizona
12. USC (even the average recruit rating is pretty damn low for them)

[d4cohn]

I think you misunderstand the criticism.  Because a fifth year is not guaranteed, that offers the staff flexibility to manage the roster.  Basically, Sam McFadden categorized (link) players into three groups.  Those who you really hope to have back, those who you congratulate and send on their way, and a group of players in between where there has been some anticipated contribution, but where if they left it wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are five such players (although you can debate the categories a bit).  So those are guys who give you some flexibility to make offers to players you would really like to add to the class, even if our roster would otherwise be "full".

In any case, the criticism of Shaw arises because of the fifth year players who have entered the portal, too many are from the first category (those we would want to have back) and too few from the third.  Like, I think we would all prefer to have Swann and Williams back, and see Butler and Parson in the portal instead.  Swann, Williams, Hattis, Hamilton, and possibly Eboh, are not in the portal because we needed to make room for incoming players; they are in there because they wanted to explore a change in scenery despite the fact that we want them to come back.

BC

The operative phrase is my previous post was "to some degree". I certainly see the logic that you, Goose and others are making,
and I think your general philosophy on position counts over a two-year period is great. And given the way Coach Shaw talks about
spots/filling needs, it sounds like he is following a count-based approach too (although his internal counts maybe different from yours).
I am a data scientist, so I am all for data-driven approaches. 

However, I think two things to keep in mind are, even over a 2-year period,
the counts you are talking about are very small (so small sample size), and given our recruiting profile, counts at a particular position may not add up to where we need them to be, necessarily resulting in some deficiencies in the roster. Personally, I would rather honor commitments (both in offers
and the 4-year commitment of the scholarship) and the recruiting profile of Stanford, than use the approach at times of the previous coaching staff re roster management, or lessen too dramatically our academic requirements. The second point is that while roster management is important re the success of the team, I think it is also important to consider the individual element in this too. When I look at my Twitter feed today, I see tweets from our commits referring to joining the Stanford family, and some exemplary men are going to get the chance to fulfill their 40 year decisions.

In summary, I think this discussion is very reasonable; my only points would be re piling on, and not losing the forest for the trees (pun intended) as far as the other ways this day is significant.

As far as Hamilton, Hattis, Williams and Swann being in the portal, I think the DL may be in the portal because it could be a prelude to a defensive formation change away from the 4-2-5 that may not work as well with what Swann in particular, but also Williams to a degree, is looking to do/looking to put on tape re chances to play at the next level. The OL may be in the portal because, although they would have made the two-deep, maybe they weren't going to be definite starters (particularly with our youth movement), and didn't want to come back for a fifth year only to be a rotational piece.

[d4cohn]

I think you misunderstand the criticism.  Because a fifth year is not guaranteed, that offers the staff flexibility to manage the roster.  Basically, Sam McFadden categorized (link) players into three groups.  Those who you really hope to have back, those who you congratulate and send on their way, and a group of players in between where there has been some anticipated contribution, but where if they left it wouldn't be the end of the world.  There are five such players (although you can debate the categories a bit).  So those are guys who give you some flexibility to make offers to players you would really like to add to the class, even if our roster would otherwise be "full".

In any case, the criticism of Shaw arises because of the fifth year players who have entered the portal, too many are from the first category (those we would want to have back) and too few from the third.  Like, I think we would all prefer to have Swann and Williams back, and see Butler and Parson in the portal instead.  Swann, Williams, Hattis, Hamilton, and possibly Eboh, are not in the portal because we needed to make room for incoming players; they are in there because they wanted to explore a change in scenery despite the fact that we want them to come back.

BC

The operative phrase is my previous post was "to some degree". I certainly see the logic that you, Goose and others are making,
and I think your general philosophy on position counts over a two-year period is great. And given the way Coach Shaw talks about
spots/filling needs, it sounds like he is following a count-based approach too (although his internal counts maybe different from yours).
I am a data scientist, so I am all for data-driven approaches. 

However, I think two things to keep in mind are, even over a 2-year period,
the counts you are talking about are very small (so small sample size), and given our recruiting profile, counts at a particular position may not add up to where we need them to be, necessarily resulting in some deficiencies in the roster. Personally, I would rather honor commitments (both in offers
and the 4-year commitment of the scholarship) and the recruiting profile of Stanford, than use the approach at times of the previous coaching staff re roster management, or lessen too dramatically our academic requirements. The second point is that while roster management is important re the success of the team, I think it is also important to consider the individual element in this too. When I look at my Twitter feed today, I see tweets from our commits referring to joining the Stanford family, and some exemplary men are going to get the chance to fulfill their 40 year decisions.

In summary, I think this discussion is very reasonable; my only points would be re piling on, and not losing the forest for the trees (pun intended) as far as the other ways this day is significant.

As far as Hamilton, Hattis, Williams and Swann being in the portal, I think the DL may be in the portal because it could be a prelude to a defensive formation change away from the 4-2-5 that may not work as well with what Swann in particular, but also Williams to a degree, is looking to do/looking to put on tape re chances to play at the next level. The OL may be in the portal because, although they would have made the two-deep, maybe they weren't going to be definite starters (particularly with our youth movement), and didn't want to come back for a fifth year only to be a rotational piece.

[BostonCard]

Keneley is already factored into the rankings.  There is a reasonable amount of space between the top 4 schools (UW, UO, Stanford, UCLA), and then Cal, Colorado, and ASU are more or less tied for fifth.  ASU, Utah, Arizona, and USC all have small classes, so they may not be done, though I don't know how many big fish remain.

I can't think of anything better than seeing USC rank 12th in the Pac-12 recruiting rankings.

Top three and four of the top 5 are in the North.  Three out of the bottom four are in the South.

BC

[BostonCard]

Keneley is already factored into the rankings.  There is a reasonable amount of space between the top 4 schools (UW, UO, Stanford, UCLA), and then Cal, Colorado, and ASU are more or less tied for fifth.  ASU, Utah, Arizona, and USC all have small classes, so they may not be done, though I don't know how many big fish remain.

I can't think of anything better than seeing USC rank 12th in the Pac-12 recruiting rankings.

Top three and four of the top 5 are in the North.  Three out of the bottom four are in the South.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

Just some housekeeping on the 2 guys left to join the class...

DE Lance Keneley was not among the reported LOIs today and Shaw said one more DL will sign later.
He also said one more OL and all signs are that is OT James Pogerelc.

Possibly 1 more in Feb, S Scotty Edwards. But he is LDS so won't affect this class.

[SamuelMcF]

Just some housekeeping on the 2 guys left to join the class...

DE Lance Keneley was not among the reported LOIs today and Shaw said one more DL will sign later.
He also said one more OL and all signs are that is OT James Pogerelc.

Possibly 1 more in Feb, S Scotty Edwards. But he is LDS so won't affect this class.

[Goose]

But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs.

True if and only if the plan B guy that you offer can play better than the guy(s) you could switch to ILB. If he can't, you waste time coaching him and you are stuck with him for four years. It may be the equivalent of the wrestler from Maine, except you can't cut him. PWO are much better alternatives because you can effectively cut them. Guys on scholarship, you can't.

Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.


BC

The crux of the issue is that the staff doesn't agree with that conclusion, although it may depend a lot on the exact characteristics of the "warm body". There certainly is such a thing as "addition by subtraction". If you can't get guys that you think can actually play at the PAC-12 level, having more warm bodies who you have to coach up, that still can't do the job, and can't cut is not a plus. If you have alternatives that you can move to the position that you think will be adequate, that may be a better choice. Naturally, neither choice is ideal. If there existed alternatives that were admissible and would have played at least as well as the guys we moved to ILB, I expect we would have offered them. Apparently the staff didn't think there were.

[Goose]

But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs.

True if and only if the plan B guy that you offer can play better than the guy(s) you could switch to ILB. If he can't, you waste time coaching him and you are stuck with him for four years. It may be the equivalent of the wrestler from Maine, except you can't cut him. PWO are much better alternatives because you can effectively cut them. Guys on scholarship, you can't.

Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.


BC

The crux of the issue is that the staff doesn't agree with that conclusion, although it may depend a lot on the exact characteristics of the "warm body". There certainly is such a thing as "addition by subtraction". If you can't get guys that you think can actually play at the PAC-12 level, having more warm bodies who you have to coach up, that still can't do the job, and can't cut is not a plus. If you have alternatives that you can move to the position that you think will be adequate, that may be a better choice. Naturally, neither choice is ideal. If there existed alternatives that were admissible and would have played at least as well as the guys we moved to ILB, I expect we would have offered them. Apparently the staff didn't think there were.

[slide]

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

two offers but only 1 slot available:  Steiner and then moved on to try and flip Coleman from Northwestern.  

'21 offers running about 50/50 on O & D; a few more misses early on O

[slide]

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

two offers but only 1 slot available:  Steiner and then moved on to try and flip Coleman from Northwestern.  

'21 offers running about 50/50 on O & D; a few more misses early on O

[SamuelMcF]

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

two offers but only 1 slot available:  Steiner and then moved on to try and flip Coleman from Northwestern.  

'21 offers running about 50/50 on O & D; a few more misses early on O

Forgot about Coleman. That one was puzzling; we thought we had him stealthed for a while. Although unsure if he would've played ILB or OLB.

[SamuelMcF]

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

two offers but only 1 slot available:  Steiner and then moved on to try and flip Coleman from Northwestern.  

'21 offers running about 50/50 on O & D; a few more misses early on O

Forgot about Coleman. That one was puzzling; we thought we had him stealthed for a while. Although unsure if he would've played ILB or OLB.

[JJJ]

STANFORD, Calif. – Adding talent across the board, the Stanford football team announced the addition of 22 student-athletes on Wednesday during the NCAA's Early National Signing period. Ranked among the Top 25 classes in the country and third in the Pac-12 Conference, the Cardinal landed one five-star, 12 four-star players, and 13 high school All-Americans.

Stanford's class, which represents 11 states, is comprised of 13 players on offense, seven on defense and two specialists. Also joining the Cardinal is four-star quarterback Tanner McKee, who will return from an LDS mission in Brazil and join the team this fall.

"I'm really excited about this group," said Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football David Shaw.

Two of the top newcomers come from famous NFL lineage. Myles Hinton, a consensus five-star offensive tackle from John's Creek, Georgia, is the son of Chris, an offensive guard who played professionally for 13 seasons and was named to seven Pro Bowls. E.J. Smith, a unanimous four-star running back from Dallas, Texas, is the son of Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith, who rushed for 18,355 yards and 164 touchdowns during his 15-year NFL career.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/12/18/f...-2020.aspx

[JJJ]

STANFORD, Calif. – Adding talent across the board, the Stanford football team announced the addition of 22 student-athletes on Wednesday during the NCAA's Early National Signing period. Ranked among the Top 25 classes in the country and third in the Pac-12 Conference, the Cardinal landed one five-star, 12 four-star players, and 13 high school All-Americans.

Stanford's class, which represents 11 states, is comprised of 13 players on offense, seven on defense and two specialists. Also joining the Cardinal is four-star quarterback Tanner McKee, who will return from an LDS mission in Brazil and join the team this fall.

"I'm really excited about this group," said Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football David Shaw.

Two of the top newcomers come from famous NFL lineage. Myles Hinton, a consensus five-star offensive tackle from John's Creek, Georgia, is the son of Chris, an offensive guard who played professionally for 13 seasons and was named to seven Pro Bowls. E.J. Smith, a unanimous four-star running back from Dallas, Texas, is the son of Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith, who rushed for 18,355 yards and 164 touchdowns during his 15-year NFL career.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/12/18/f...-2020.aspx

[Phogge]

In limited action Fox and Umerah have showed promise. Big IF’s but both could seriously upgrade the D next year. Still incredibly weak at safety with Antoine and Head poor tacklers. Hope they can be coached up.

[Phogge]

In limited action Fox and Umerah have showed promise. Big IF’s but both could seriously upgrade the D next year. Still incredibly weak at safety with Antoine and Head poor tacklers. Hope they can be coached up.

[Goose]

In limited action Fox and Umerah have showed promise. Big IF’s but both could seriously upgrade the D next year. Still incredibly weak at safety with Antoine and Head poor tacklers. Hope they can be coached up.

Having Safeties that can't tackle is a real liability. I don't expect a miracle improvement. The freshman Safety for next year could see action sooner that many would expect. We also have some corners and nickles that aren't great tacklers either. Against WSU, that will kill you.

[Goose]

In limited action Fox and Umerah have showed promise. Big IF’s but both could seriously upgrade the D next year. Still incredibly weak at safety with Antoine and Head poor tacklers. Hope they can be coached up.

Having Safeties that can't tackle is a real liability. I don't expect a miracle improvement. The freshman Safety for next year could see action sooner that many would expect. We also have some corners and nickles that aren't great tacklers either. Against WSU, that will kill you.

[lex24]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

[lex24]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

[BostonCard]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

Generally, yes.  I’d probably give it a B.  A on offense, C on defense.

BC

[BostonCard]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

Generally, yes.  I’d probably give it a B.  A on offense, C on defense.

BC

[Langdude]

As far as the average quality of recruit, I definitely think this class is good. Better than last year. But the problem comes not just in the relative skill level of athletes because they also play on a team. The class also needs to be judged in terms of how it presently and in the future meets the needs of a team, which recruiting rankings often do not take into account (in either direction). Pipeline thinking.

-m.

---

PS: We also need to remember that Tanner McKee is a member of this class...

[Langdude]

As far as the average quality of recruit, I definitely think this class is good. Better than last year. But the problem comes not just in the relative skill level of athletes because they also play on a team. The class also needs to be judged in terms of how it presently and in the future meets the needs of a team, which recruiting rankings often do not take into account (in either direction). Pipeline thinking.

-m.

---

PS: We also need to remember that Tanner McKee is a member of this class...

[slide]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

Generally, yes.  I’d probably give it a B.  A on offense, C on defense.

BC

may be a bit high wtih the difference between offense/defense greater.  

upside are potential difference makers:  Humphreys early, then McKee along with OL.  on defense, Phillips and may be Jones.  Karty is definitely a weapon.

[slide]

Simple question:  Is this a good class?

Generally, yes.  I’d probably give it a B.  A on offense, C on defense.

BC

may be a bit high wtih the difference between offense/defense greater.  

upside are potential difference makers:  Humphreys early, then McKee along with OL.  on defense, Phillips and may be Jones.  Karty is definitely a weapon.