5th Year Decision Thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: 5th Year Decision Thread (/thread-18712.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: 5th Year Decision Thread (/thread-18712.html)
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - donkey687 - 01-31-2020
(01-30-2020, 08:45 PM)BobK Wrote: https://twitter.com/stanfordrivals/status/1223079026287206402?s=21
Hattis
Following in Casey Tucker's footsteps. Second starting lineman to transfer to ASU in the last 3 years. No mention of grad program. This feels like a football decision. It bums me out that Stanford isn't the best opportunity for a football decision for Hattis, Hamilton, Swann, Williams. These decisions for starters to make lateral transfers are pretty unusual and a terrible reflection of the program, coaches and the two position coaches where these 4 players are coming from. The other transfer decisions are understandable from a playing time or grad school perspective, but those 4 are probably aspiring for the NFL and making football decisions.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - LuckE2Bhere - 01-31-2020
How confident are you that Hattis and/or Hamilton would have been starters this season?
In any case, I would have greatly appreciated the depth (and would REALLY like to see Swann and Williams return)... and certainly wish them all well, but as others have noted, we're getting very tight on scholarship slots now (with another great 2020 OL signing this week), so I'm not sure we could have offered all 4 of them spots.
Moreover, if Hattis and Hamilton are not clear starters for Stanford, it raises a reasonable doubt about the NFL aspirations to which you refer, for them. Casey Tucker came to Stanford with very high expectations and started early, but ultimately lost his job, leading to his transfer. While he continues to bounce around NFL practice squads (currently with my Lions), I don't believe that he got drafted (and don't believe he's been activated for a single game). He may be an appropriate analogy for you, in that sense - but hardly makes Stanford look bad, from a football performance perspective, in my view.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - SamuelMcF - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 03:57 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(01-30-2020, 09:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Makes perfect sense. They lose both starting OTs and Hattis is from New Mexico.
I thought ASU had a True Frosh LT in 2019 that seemed to have good upside. And Hattis got most of his playing time and seemed to perform best at RG too.
The LT you mention was 6'4", and Rouse was better than him.
Know why Hattis got most of his playing time at RG? Because we have 2 younger, better tackles who started over him at the position he wanted to play. Why do you think he wanted out?
(01-31-2020, 10:08 AM)LuckE2Bhere Wrote: How confident are you that Hattis and/or Hamilton would have been starters this season?
I'm confident at least one would've started at a guard spot.
They are tackles. They want to play tackle with the one year they have left. This is not difficult to understand.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - donkey687 - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 10:16 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:They both started last year when everyone was healthy. Who would beat those guys out at the guard position? Now, especially with Hattis off the board, I don't see how Devery wouldn'tt start. If they have NFL aspirations, aren't they more likely guards?(01-31-2020, 03:57 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(01-30-2020, 09:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: Makes perfect sense. They lose both starting OTs and Hattis is from New Mexico.
I thought ASU had a True Frosh LT in 2019 that seemed to have good upside. And Hattis got most of his playing time and seemed to perform best at RG too.
The LT you mention was 6'4", and Rouse was better than him.
Know why Hattis got most of his playing time at RG? Because we have 2 younger, better tackles who started over him at the position he wanted to play. Why do you think he wanted out?
(01-31-2020, 10:08 AM)LuckE2Bhere Wrote: How confident are you that Hattis and/or Hamilton would have been starters this season?
I'm confident at least one would've started at a guard spot.
They are tackles. They want to play tackle with the one year they have left. This is not difficult to understand.
Casey Tucker was an all-conference honorable mention tackle at ASU. He was good enough to play as a true frosh and started all season on Stanford's Rose Bowl winning team and the following season until he got hurt. He had some sort of falling out with the coaches and wanted to leave. Maybe Carberry will have success with his own recruits, but he hasn't built a culture to retain Pac12 starting capable OL to want to stick around and play for him. Tucker left 2 seasons ago. Last season, Chaffin who could have been a starter this past season grad transferred and became all conference honorable mention at Rice. Wilson who would have been in line for major playing time last season retired from football. On the plus side, Little came back rather than go to the NFL so maybe the guys who never played for Bloomgren are more satisfied with Carberry.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - BostonCard - 01-31-2020
Read what Sam said.
Hattis and Hamilton want to play at tackle. Right now, we have three guys who would start ahead of them (Little, Sarell, and Rouse), plus an incoming freshman (Hinton) who you have to think would also be in line to start over them. One or both can probably be starting at guard, but they probably don't crack the two-deep at tackle.
As Sam has said, their desire to transfer to a team where they can start and play at tackle is understandable, and ultimately, the opportunity to start at tackle at ASU was more attractive than the opportunity to start at guard at Stanford.
BC
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - LuckE2Bhere - 01-31-2020
Agreed. I may be more optimistic than some that our young guys (who played far better than I would have expected after being forced into action last year) would have beaten one or both of them out at Guard too. Hate to say it, but if you can't make the two-deep at "your position" in college, your chances of an illustrious NFL career may not be great.
To their credit, they're getting their Stanford degrees; so what's wrong with them (assuming they both leave, in the worst case) having some fun and playing the sport they love, at the position they apparently want to play, while getting pursuing an additional degree at a school like ASU? Why does that reflect poorly on our program (especially if it's far from certain that they would both be offered 5th year's at Stanford)?
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - SamuelMcF - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 10:37 AM)donkey687 Wrote: They both started last year when everyone was healthy. Who would beat those guys out at the guard position? Now, especially with Hattis off the board, I don't see how Devery wouldn'tt start. If they have NFL aspirations, aren't they more likely guards?
Casey Tucker was an all-conference honorable mention tackle at ASU. He was good enough to play as a true frosh and started all season on Stanford's Rose Bowl winning team and the following season until he got hurt. He had some sort of falling out with the coaches and wanted to leave. Maybe Carberry will have success with his own recruits, but he hasn't built a culture to retain Pac12 starting capable OL to want to stick around and play for him. Tucker left 2 seasons ago. Last season, Chaffin who could have been a starter this past season grad transferred and became all conference honorable mention at Rice. Wilson who would have been in line for major playing time last season retired from football. On the plus side, Little came back rather than go to the NFL so maybe the guys who never played for Bloomgren are more satisfied with Carberry.
This is not a difficult concept. If Hamilton/Hattis really had serious NFL aspirations, they'd be prepping for the Combine right now. They want to play their preferred position, tackle, with their last year of eligibility after having received their Stanford degrees. They won't do that here. Done.
Neither Chaffin nor Wilson would've started (Dalman passed both of them at C and G respectively), so they left too. "Major playing time" and "starting" are two VERY different things.
"Maybe Carberry will have success with his own recruits, but he hasn't built a culture to retain Pac12 starting capable OL to want to stick around and play for him." -- this has NOTHING to do with Carberry, and EVERYTHING to do with having better younger players. In the age of the Transfer Portal, it makes perfect sense for a grad transfer to want to play versus...uh...not play (at least at the position he wants). Also, hard to "build a culture" with guys who aren't yours. Ask Haase.
Oh, and Tucker was gone before Bloom was.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - BobK - 01-31-2020
And keep in mind we are currently over 85
I expect a retirement or two
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - donkey687 - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 11:44 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-31-2020, 10:37 AM)donkey687 Wrote: They both started last year when everyone was healthy. Who would beat those guys out at the guard position? Now, especially with Hattis off the board, I don't see how Devery wouldn'tt start. If they have NFL aspirations, aren't they more likely guards?
Casey Tucker was an all-conference honorable mention tackle at ASU. He was good enough to play as a true frosh and started all season on Stanford's Rose Bowl winning team and the following season until he got hurt. He had some sort of falling out with the coaches and wanted to leave. Maybe Carberry will have success with his own recruits, but he hasn't built a culture to retain Pac12 starting capable OL to want to stick around and play for him. Tucker left 2 seasons ago. Last season, Chaffin who could have been a starter this past season grad transferred and became all conference honorable mention at Rice. Wilson who would have been in line for major playing time last season retired from football. On the plus side, Little came back rather than go to the NFL so maybe the guys who never played for Bloomgren are more satisfied with Carberry.
This is not a difficult concept. If Hamilton/Hattis really had serious NFL aspirations, they'd be prepping for the Combine right now. They want to play their preferred position, tackle, with their last year of eligibility after having received their Stanford degrees. They won't do that here. Done.
Neither Chaffin nor Wilson would've started (Dalman passed both of them at C and G respectively), so they left too. "Major playing time" and "starting" are two VERY different things.
"Maybe Carberry will have success with his own recruits, but he hasn't built a culture to retain Pac12 starting capable OL to want to stick around and play for him." -- this has NOTHING to do with Carberry, and EVERYTHING to do with having better younger players. In the age of the Transfer Portal, it makes perfect sense for a grad transfer to want to play versus...uh...not play (at least at the position he wants). Also, hard to "build a culture" with guys who aren't yours. Ask Haase.
Oh, and Tucker was gone before Bloom was.
It sounds like you have inside knowledge that Hattis and Hamilton want to play and will play tackle next year. That is a plausible explanation to transfer if true, but if we see them transferring to play guard that would be more concerning. For those implying that there aren't enough scholarships available for Hamilton or Hattis, I don't believe it. They were both starters. We are going to have some 5th years with an opportunity to come back under scholarship that have barely played and have little prospects of starting.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - SamuelMcF - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 01:18 PM)donkey687 Wrote: It sounds like you have inside knowledge that Hattis and Hamilton want to play and will play tackle next year. That is a plausible explanation to transfer if true, but if we see them transferring to play guard that would be more concerning.
Yep. They want to play and will play tackle next year. That's the position Bloom recruited them to play, and then the 5* guys came along.
(01-31-2020, 01:18 PM)donkey687 Wrote: For those implying that there aren't enough scholarships available for Hamilton or Hattis, I don't believe it. They were both starters. We are going to have some 5th years with an opportunity to come back under scholarship that have barely played and have little prospects of starting.
If all the guys currently in the portal leave, we will be at 84 scholarships. https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=18725&pid=268846#pid268846
Granted there is a bit of flexibility there as a couple guys (who you refer to in this quote) could not be asked back and there is a possibility of a medical retirement. So as it stands there is exactly one scholarship available, but ~2 more could be freed up as well.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - donkey687 - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 02:06 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-31-2020, 01:18 PM)donkey687 Wrote: It sounds like you have inside knowledge that Hattis and Hamilton want to play and will play tackle next year. That is a plausible explanation to transfer if true, but if we see them transferring to play guard that would be more concerning.
Yep. They want to play and will play tackle next year. That's the position Bloom recruited them to play, and then the 5* guys came along.
(01-31-2020, 01:18 PM)donkey687 Wrote: For those implying that there aren't enough scholarships available for Hamilton or Hattis, I don't believe it. They were both starters. We are going to have some 5th years with an opportunity to come back under scholarship that have barely played and have little prospects of starting.
If all the guys currently in the portal leave, we will be at 84 scholarships. https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=18725&pid=268846#pid268846
Granted there is a bit of flexibility there as a couple guys (who you refer to in this quote) could not be asked back and there is a possibility of a medical retirement. So as it stands there is exactly one scholarship available, but ~2 more could be freed up as well.
The 84 number includes Butler, Parsons, and Stratford.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - SamuelMcF - 01-31-2020
(01-31-2020, 02:19 PM)donkey687 Wrote:(01-31-2020, 02:06 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: If all the guys currently in the portal leave, we will be at 84 scholarships. https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=18725&pid=268846#pid268846
Granted there is a bit of flexibility there as a couple guys (who you refer to in this quote) could not be asked back and there is a possibility of a medical retirement. So as it stands there is exactly one scholarship available, but ~2 more could be freed up as well.
The 84 number includes Butler, Parsons, and Stratford.
Yes. I said that.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - OutsiderFan - 02-01-2020
Without looking at the roster breakdown, what position group has the surplus of scholarships? If Stanford is already at 85 without anyone in portal returning, and last year we were lamenting not having recruited enough players (“self imposed sanctions”), it seems some group has had an increase at the expense of an other.
It further seems DL is a position having scholarships taken away to give somewhere else. As Bob implies, there just isn’t gonna be enough room for Swann and Williams without several retirements.
Seems a paradox. There are more scholarship players than in recent times, but it doesn’t seem to be translating to overall team depth at any positions other than OL, OLB, and maybe WR?
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - 82lsju - 02-01-2020
(02-01-2020, 06:29 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Without looking at the roster breakdown, what position group has the surplus of scholarships? If Stanford is already at 85 without anyone in portal returning, and last year we were lamenting not having recruited enough players (“self imposed sanctions”), it seems some group has had an increase at the expense of an other.
It further seems DL is a position having scholarships taken away to give somewhere else. As Bob implies, there just isn’t gonna be enough room for Swann and Williams without several retirements.
Seems a paradox. There are more scholarship players than in recent times, but it doesn’t seem to be translating to overall team depth at any positions other than OL, OLB, and maybe WR?
see the nice summary here
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=18881
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - Pants - 02-01-2020
(02-01-2020, 06:29 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Without looking at the roster breakdown, what position group has the surplus of scholarships? If Stanford is already at 85 without anyone in portal returning, and last year we were lamenting not having recruited enough players (“self imposed sanctions”), it seems some group has had an increase at the expense of an other.
It further seems DL is a position having scholarships taken away to give somewhere else. As Bob implies, there just isn’t gonna be enough room for Swann and Williams without several retirements.
Seems a paradox. There are more scholarship players than in recent times, but it doesn’t seem to be translating to overall team depth at any positions other than OL, OLB, and maybe WR?
The wide receiver room definitely stands out as crowded (and talented), which is why the Marvin Mims decommitment didn't hurt as bad as it could have. It also makes the Brycen Tremayne scholarship an interesting choice. I don't doubt for a second that he earned it, but there certainly wasn't a lack of depth at the position.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - OutsiderFan - 02-01-2020
OK, so using those numbers in the linked thread.
Offense
QB: 3
RB: 6
FB: 2
TE: 5
WR: 11
OL: 13 (Not including Stratford, who everyone thinks is retiring and including James Pogorelc.)
Sub total: 40
Defense
DL: 7 (doesn't include Swann or Williams, but does include Lance Keneley)
OLB: 7
ILB: 7
CB: 10 (includes Treyjohn Butler)
S: 9 (includes JJ Parson)
Sub total: 40
Specialists
PK: 2
P: 1
LS: 1
Sub total: 4
Total: 84 (Bob says it's at 85 now, but not based on how I count, which doesn't include Stratford and does include Pogorelc)
Observations & Analysis
To me, it makes no sense to ask Stratford, Butler, or Parson back for another year on scholarship. I've already accounted for Stratford being gone in these numbers, as well as the James Pogorelc addition. I also don't know why OLB Caleb Kelly should stick around, but Shaw doesn't force guys out who haven't graduated, so he'd have to leave on his own.
It all adds up to potentially two more portal guys to be welcomed back. Swann and Williams would seem to be the guys you would prefer over JJ Parson and Treyjohn Butler.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - BobK - 02-01-2020
Stanford guarantees 4 years for one who came in on a scholarship
I count Stratford until I shouldnt
Speaking of Brycen
https://www.latimes.com/sports/highschool/story/2020-02-01/brycen-tremayne-inspires-players-entering-signing-day-no-scholarship-offer
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - OutsiderFan - 02-01-2020
OK, to make this more simple then...
If Stratford is still included, everyone in the 2020 class included, and nobody in the portal included, Stanford is at 85 scholarships.
The only final year guys it really doesn't make sense to bring back for a 5th year are Butler and Parson. There is no need for 11 CBs and 9 Safeties. Better roster balance would subtract these two and replace them with Swann and Williams.
Stanford will have a pretty deep 2020 team if these guys return as the logic seems to dictate.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - SamuelMcF - 02-01-2020
(02-01-2020, 11:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: OK, to make this more simple then...
If Stratford is still included, everyone in the 2020 class included, and nobody in the portal included, Stanford is at 85 scholarships.
The only final year guys it really doesn't make sense to bring back for a 5th year are Butler and Parson. There is no need for 11 CBs and 9 Safeties. Better roster balance would subtract these two and replace them with Swann and Williams.
Stanford will have a pretty deep 2020 team if these guys return as the logic seems to dictate.
Succinct and well-put, OF. Thanks for this. Also of note, assuming the roster stays pat as is (i.e. counting Parson), we'll have 5 walk-ons-turned-scholarships on the team, but that includes starting P Ryan Sanborn so it's really more like 4. 80-81 bonafide scholarship players is MUCH, MUCH better than we've done recently. Of course the class balance is still a little whack (skews young), but that's a separate concern and of course bodes well for the future.
As Bob said, we can't "not ask Stratford back" yet as he'll be a junior. We ought to count him as a member of the team until he isn't.
Though I don't see Swann or Williams returning (not based on any inside information beyond gut feel), I also agree with your hypothetical in terms of balancing the roster. That's why staff is going after 3+ DL in the '21 class (but really should've done so in '20...2 is treading water, but it should've been 3).
Overall, the roster balance actually seems quite close to ideal. To me, your 2 DB --> 2 DL conversion, swapping a WR for a QB, and swapping a FB for another OL (counting Stratford that would make 15, i.e. 3 deep) would fully balance the roster in terms of sheer position numbers.
RE: 5th Year Decision Thread - Langdude - 02-01-2020
I'll add Pogorelc and Keneley to the chart once they sign.
Technically, Brock Jones was also a scholarship-awarded walk-on. But, similar to Sanborn, he was always going to get a scholarship.
I wonder if we awarded more scholarships to walk-ons in the past two or three years than we intended because the recruiting classes were so small it gave us that latitude. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS BAD TO REWARD HARD WORKING WALK-ONS, for goodness' sake, nor that giving out scholarships is a not good incentive or system of recognition. I'm just wondering if this is another way our scholarship crunch is a consequence of past small classes, or poor planning on the part of Shaw and the rest of the staff. Perhaps an answer to that is to only give them to seniors or juniors. I don't know. Just thinking.
-m.