WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft

WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - 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: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft (/thread-21349.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - teejers1 - 01-06-2021

(01-06-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Right, there is no requirement to graduate in five years. I think the issue is that, and this has been decades in the making, college football has gone from a game you play with your friends that oh by the way pays for your college to a profit-maximizing business that doesn't pay its players. Is it any wonder that the players now view playing as a means to an end (an NFL payday for those good enough to get one, or at least a degree and a chance to earn a living for those not) than an end in itself? Taking one or two classes just to stay in school an extra year to play football will be the exception and not the rule. The majority of our players will go to the NFL, graduate and get a job at something else, or grad transfer and at least earn a masters degree for their trouble.

I think we have to assume that incoming recruits will be playing for no more than four year, if we are lucky.

BC

It's an extra quarter, not an extra year (as it always has been).

I get that people want to rationalize away the exodus of what used to be a very important part of Stanford's on-field success to something other than dissatisfaction with the program. But no matter how you want to characterize it, the departures distill to "it's not worth it to me" to come back and play ball. That's pretty significant, particularly if you believe (as I do) that every single one of these kids love to play the game. I disagree with any implication that people are mechanistically working the collegiate system as a means to an end - stepping stone to NFL and/or free degree. I think you short-sell the fun/love/desire these kids have to play the game itself when you do that.

Maybe Stanford makes it harder to stick around; maybe kids are burning out of football at a higher % and faster rate than in yesteryear; but it's hard to believe that satisfaction with the program (and prospects for next season) play no role - or even a small role - in the "it's not worth it to me" calculus.

Something is amiss. And maybe the "amiss" is only Shaw's inability to recognize the new reality and adjust accordingly (but I suspect it's a tad more than that).

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - pefloresjr - 01-07-2021

(01-06-2021, 06:35 PM)BobK Wrote: Return take a class you’re set. Look at other team rosters and see 5th year students

Back in the 80's, there were very few limits on the amount of time you could take in completing your degree. There were even unlimited stop outs where you could go pursue any other interests and return years later to complete your degree with no penalty. I thought that I recently saw a Stanford policy where your progress toward your degree is tracked and you aren't allowed to just choose when you want to put in your paperwork for graduation. I don't know the details, but I think it is at least administratively a bigger deal to stick around for a fifth year. It is also tougher to get into grad programs now compared to the past.

I also think that the program currently recruits more players who have ambitions to play in the NFL and the grad transfer rules actually promote graduating to give yourself more options in terms of playing time.

I raise these issues as partial factors in the issue of losing more players after 3 or 4 years. Shaw's job is to deal with the new landscape by recruiting more players to fill the void and to do more recruiting of players to stay. He has greatly increased the number of offers for next year.  Shaw has previously said that after players put in 4 years, he doesn't ask them to stay, he simply reviews their options with them to help them make the best decision for their future. That's noble but I think he needs to recruit the few who can really help us to stay.

I don't see the changes as definitive evidence of a problem within the program but would reconsider if more evidence appears. I do see it as part of the new landscape that Shaw has to adjust to and and eagerly hoping he does.

Cheers,
Pete F.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - winflop - 01-07-2021

(01-07-2021, 12:57 AM)pefloresjr Wrote:
(01-06-2021, 06:35 PM)BobK Wrote: Return take a class you’re set. Look at other team rosters and see 5th year students
Back in the 80's, there were very few limits on the amount of time you could take in completing your degree. There were even unlimited stop outs where you could go pursue any other interests and return years later to complete your degree with no penalty. I thought that I recently saw a Stanford policy where your progress toward your degree is tracked and you aren't allowed to just choose when you want to put in your paperwork for graduation. I don't know the details, but I think it is at least administratively a bigger deal to stick around for a fifth year. It is also tougher to get into grad programs now compared to the past.

I also think that the program currently recruits more players who have ambitions to play in the NFL and the grad transfer rules actually promote graduating to give yourself more options in terms of playing time.

I raise these issues as partial factors in the issue of losing more players after 3 or 4 years. Shaw's job is to deal with the new landscape by recruiting more players to fill the void and to do more recruiting of players to stay. He has greatly increased the number of offers for next year.  Shaw has previously said that after players put in 4 years, he doesn't ask them to stay, he simply reviews their options with them to help them make the best decision for their future. That's noble but I think he needs to recruit the few who can really help us to stay.

I don't see the changes as definitive evidence of a problem within the program but would reconsider if more evidence appears. I do see it as part of the new landscape that Shaw has to adjust to and and eagerly hoping he does.

Cheers,
Pete F.

I think you're right that the reality is to not expect more than 4 years from any recruit - at Stanford or anywhere else. Shaw needs to adjust player development to enable more players to get on the field as true freshman. This could include:
- Early admission giving recruitied players more time on campus and in the S&C program and spring ball. Shaw has been anathema to this idea but it is now putting him at a competitive disadvantage
- Simplify offensive and defensive playbooks so that it doesn't take a full year to learn them
- Significantly improve and add resources to S&C. The pattern of injuries is no longer a blip after three years.
There's probably more but that's a start.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - 82lsju - 01-07-2021

(01-07-2021, 12:57 AM)pefloresjr Wrote:
(01-06-2021, 06:35 PM)BobK Wrote: Return take a class you’re set. Look at other team rosters and see 5th year students
Back in the 80's, there were very few limits on the amount of time you could take in completing your degree. There were even unlimited stop outs where you could go pursue any other interests and return years later to complete your degree with no penalty. I thought that I recently saw a Stanford policy where your progress toward your degree is tracked and you aren't allowed to just choose when you want to put in your paperwork for graduation. I don't know the details, but I think it is at least administratively a bigger deal to stick around for a fifth year. It is also tougher to get into grad programs now compared to the past.

I also think that the program currently recruits more players who have ambitions to play in the NFL and the grad transfer rules actually promote graduating to give yourself more options in terms of playing time.

I raise these issues as partial factors in the issue of losing more players after 3 or 4 years. Shaw's job is to deal with the new landscape by recruiting more players to fill the void and to do more recruiting of players to stay. He has greatly increased the number of offers for next year.  Shaw has previously said that after players put in 4 years, he doesn't ask them to stay, he simply reviews their options with them to help them make the best decision for their future. That's noble but I think he needs to recruit the few who can really help us to stay.

I don't see the changes as definitive evidence of a problem within the program but would reconsider if more evidence appears. I do see it as part of the new landscape that Shaw has to adjust to and and eagerly hoping he does.

Cheers,
Pete F.

Quote:Minimum Progress for Undergraduates

Undergraduates are expected to finish their degree requirements in a timely fashion. In addition to maintaining academic progress obligations, students are expected to take courses to progress towards a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science degree. If after 12 quarters, an undergraduate is not on track to complete degree requirements and graduate within the next two quarters, the University may impose requirements with deadlines on a student's course of study. Further, if a student fails to meet those imposed requirements and/or has not after 18 quarters completed all degree requirements, the University may discontinue the student for failure to progress.

https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/undergraduatedegreesandprograms/#minimumprogresstext

and the leave of absence rules are here

https://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/undergraduatedegreesandprograms/#leavesandreinstatementtext

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - BostonCard - 01-07-2021

(01-06-2021, 11:41 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(01-06-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Right, there is no requirement to graduate in five years. I think the issue is that, and this has been decades in the making, college football has gone from a game you play with your friends that oh by the way pays for your college to a profit-maximizing business that doesn't pay its players. Is it any wonder that the players now view playing as a means to an end (an NFL payday for those good enough to get one, or at least a degree and a chance to earn a living for those not) than an end in itself? Taking one or two classes just to stay in school an extra year to play football will be the exception and not the rule. The majority of our players will go to the NFL, graduate and get a job at something else, or grad transfer and at least earn a masters degree for their trouble.

I think we have to assume that incoming recruits will be playing for no more than four year, if we are lucky.

BC

It's an extra quarter, not an extra year (as it always has been).

I get that people want to rationalize away the exodus of what used to be a very important part of Stanford's on-field success to something other than dissatisfaction with the program. But no matter how you want to characterize it, the departures distill to "it's not worth it to me" to come back and play ball. That's pretty significant, particularly if you believe (as I do) that every single one of these kids love to play the game. I disagree with any implication that people are mechanistically working the collegiate system as a means to an end - stepping stone to NFL and/or free degree. I think you short-sell the fun/love/desire these kids have to play the game itself when you do that.

Maybe Stanford makes it harder to stick around; maybe kids are burning out of football at a higher % and faster rate than in yesteryear; but it's hard to believe that satisfaction with the program (and prospects for next season) play no role - or even a small role - in the "it's not worth it to me" calculus.

Something is amiss. And maybe the "amiss" is only Shaw's inability to recognize the new reality and adjust accordingly (but I suspect it's a tad more than that).

At a minimum, it is an extra six months of time, but it can be as much as a year if we compare winter quarter to winter quarter. Moreover, it is another cycle of spring practices, spring/summer conditioning, and summer practices, and the fall season. Players don't just show up in the fall and play; football is basically a year round commitment.

This is not just a Stanford phenomenon, though I think we are affected more than most. While Christian McCaffrey was the first prominent player to skip a lower tier bowl, that is now routine. Look at Florida's shell of a team this year in the Cotton Bowl. Hell, we had a thread about a player bailing on the team at halftime, having shown what he thought he needed to show scouts in the first half. I don't follow other teams as closely as Stanford, but looking at rosters I see fewer fifth year seniors than used to be the case. Here's the data from the final 2020 two-deep (based on depth charts on ourlads) for the various Pac-12 schools:
Arizona 4 RS SR (1 of whom is a transfer)
ASU 2
UCLA 2
USC 6 (2 of whom are transfers)
Colorado 3
Utah 6 (1 of whom transferred in)
Cal 10 (5 of whom are transfers)
Oregon 3 (1 of whom is a transfer)
OSU 7 (1 transfer)
Washington 6 (1 transfer)
WSU 9 (3 transfers)

That compares to 4 at Stanford (Schaffer, Harrington, Robinson, Antoine) none of whom transferred in. We were right around the median in the Pac-12 for redshirt seniors in our two-deep, and if you were to take away transfers in (which were basically not an option for us) our number was typical. When I was a student, it was a rare player who didn't redshirt, and a plurality of the players on the two-deep were redshirt seniors.

The world has changed since I was in school (and I suspect the same for you). Forget football; we used to joke about professional students who loved being in school so much that they would do what they could to prolong their stay. That's not really a thing anymore. Obviously, a college education has always been a means to an end, but "back in the day", it was an end in itself as well. Increasingly, though, it is viewed more pragmatically; just look at the share of graduates who major in the humanities, which has plummeted. I suspect that has to do with its cost, the student debt crisis that hit millennials, and increasing uncertainty in the job market for college graduates. While when I was going through, a college degree was viewed as a recipe for success, increasingly it is viewed as insufficient. So now, instead of "enjoy your four (or more) years in college; you will have nothing to worry about when you get out" the message kids are increasingly hearing is that they need to use college tactically to major in the right major, land the right internships and position themselves for life after graduation. Football players are little different, but for the fact that at least they don't graduate with (as much) student debt.

Shaw has been slow to react to the changing world, so I don't give him a pass on this. But he has not been the cause of the changing world as you intimate. I suspect this will be a problem for us going forward, as one of our competitive advantages had always been less attrition (due to academic or legal failings), and who wouldn't want to stay at Stanford a fifth year, for free. At the least, Shaw needs to plan for it, by recruiting as if fifth year players will be the exception and not the rule. I agree with calls for him to adapt to the new reality, but we do need to understand that some of the tools available to other teams (having freshmen enroll early, for example) will not be available to us.

BC

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - teejers1 - 01-07-2021

(01-07-2021, 09:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: At a minimum, it is an extra six months of time, but it can be as much as a year if we compare winter quarter to winter quarter. Moreover, it is another cycle of spring practices, spring/summer conditioning, and summer practices, and the fall season. Players don't just show up in the fall and play; football is basically a year round commitment.

This is not just a Stanford phenomenon, though I think we are affected more than most. While Christian McCaffrey was the first prominent player to skip a lower tier bowl, that is now routine. Look at Florida's shell of a team this year in the Cotton Bowl. Hell, we had a thread about a player bailing on the team at halftime, having shown what he thought he needed to show scouts in the first half. I don't follow other teams as closely as Stanford, but looking at rosters I see fewer fifth year seniors than used to be the case. Here's the data from the final 2020 two-deep (based on depth charts on ourlads) for the various Pac-12 schools:
Arizona 4 RS SR (1 of whom is a transfer)
ASU 2
UCLA 2
USC 6 (2 of whom are transfers)
Colorado 3
Utah 6 (1 of whom transferred in)
Cal 10 (5 of whom are transfers)
Oregon 3 (1 of whom is a transfer)
OSU 7 (1 transfer)
Washington 6 (1 transfer)
WSU 9 (3 transfers)

That compares to 4 at Stanford (Schaffer, Harrington, Robinson, Antoine) none of whom transferred in. We were right around the median in the Pac-12 for redshirt seniors in our two-deep, and if you were to take away transfers in (which were basically not an option for us) our number was typical. When I was a student, it was a rare player who didn't redshirt, and a plurality of the players on the two-deep were redshirt seniors.

The world has changed since I was in school (and I suspect the same for you). Forget football; we used to joke about professional students who loved being in school so much that they would do what they could to prolong their stay. That's not really a thing anymore. Obviously, a college education has always been a means to an end, but "back in the day", it was an end in itself as well. Increasingly, though, it is viewed more pragmatically; just look at the share of graduates who major in the humanities, which has plummeted. I suspect that has to do with its cost, the student debt crisis that hit millennials, and increasing uncertainty in the job market for college graduates. While when I was going through, a college degree was viewed as a recipe for success, increasingly it is viewed as insufficient. So now, instead of "enjoy your four (or more) years in college; you will have nothing to worry about when you get out" the message kids are increasingly hearing is that they need to use college tactically to major in the right major, land the right internships and position themselves for life after graduation. Football players are little different, but for the fact that at least they don't graduate with (as much) student debt.

Shaw has been slow to react to the changing world, so I don't give him a pass on this. But he has not been the cause of the changing world as you intimate. I suspect this will be a problem for us going forward, as one of our competitive advantages had always been less attrition (due to academic or legal failings), and who wouldn't want to stay at Stanford a fifth year, for free. At the least, Shaw needs to plan for it, by recruiting as if fifth year players will be the exception and not the rule. I agree with calls for him to adapt to the new reality, but we do need to understand that some of the tools available to other teams (having freshmen enroll early, for example) will not be available to us.

BC

The only "changing world" I hold Shaw potentially responsible for is the change in the allure of staying with the football team for a fifth year because it's going to be a kick-ass year. That prospect, including in the early Shaw years, used to be pretty strong. No more.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - Goose - 01-07-2021

(01-07-2021, 09:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: When I was a student, it was a rare player who didn't redshirt, and a plurality of the players on the two-deep were redshirt seniors.

The world has changed since I was in school (and I suspect the same for you). Forget football; we used to joke about professional students who loved being in school so much that they would do what they could to prolong their stay. That's not really a thing anymore. Obviously, a college education has always been a means to an end, but "back in the day", it was an end in itself as well. Increasingly, though, it is viewed more pragmatically; just look at the share of graduates who major in the humanities, which has plummeted. I suspect that has to do with its cost, the student debt crisis that hit millennials, and increasing uncertainty in the job market for college graduates. While when I was going through, a college degree was viewed as a recipe for success, increasingly it is viewed as insufficient. So now, instead of "enjoy your four (or more) years in college; you will have nothing to worry about when you get out" the message kids are increasingly hearing is that they need to use college tactically to major in the right major, land the right internships and position themselves for life after graduation. Football players are little different, but for the fact that at least they don't graduate with (as much) student debt.

Shaw has been slow to react to the changing world, so I don't give him a pass on this. But he has not been the cause of the changing world as you intimate. I suspect this will be a problem for us going forward, as one of our competitive advantages had always been less attrition (due to academic or legal failings), and who wouldn't want to stay at Stanford a fifth year, for free. At the least, Shaw needs to plan for it, by recruiting as if fifth year players will be the exception and not the rule. I agree with calls for him to adapt to the new reality, but we do need to understand that some of the tools available to other teams (having freshmen enroll early, for example) will not be available to us.

BC

For sure times have changed. When I was a student, freshmen weren't eligible and played freshman football. Back then, almost nobody went to the NFL and players did play because they loved the game. Naturally, there were no redshirts. unless you got hurt, and even that was real rare. Yet we still had a football team. It can be done under different conditions.

For the record, I don't think it has ever been the large offensive playbook that was the problem. Stanford students can learn things like that fast The problem is the QB learning to recognize the defense and checking off to the right play. The rest of the team only needs to know what to do when the check off happens. A freshman can do that, as our OL proved last year. The QB probably cannot. One of eleven. A much bigger problem in how the game has changed is that college athletes are expected to be much bigger and much stronger. Freshmen often are not. That is a problem that can't be fixed by being smart and studying the playbook. That takes S&C time.

Shaw's ideal situation is freshmen and sophomores getting strong and gaining experience (to avoid "freshman mistakes) while juniors and seniors play. One big problem with this approach is that if the upperclassmen get injured or are just not very good, you have to play a younger guy. That isn't fatal, but is not ideal. A more significant problem is really good players are going to go to the NFL as soon as they can. They won't be there in year four.

Fifth year players were always a "bonus". The pattern of freshman redshirts was a luxury Stanford was often afforded because people were actually glad to get an "extra" year paid for. It did produce more mature, better football players, so the approach could be sold to some pretty good athletes. That just isn't the case anymore. The guys who want to go pro want to get the money ASAP. The NFL is drafting much more based on potential, not proven performance, so staying around to "prove it" just risks injury for no real benefit. Other players figure out they aren't going to the NFL and possibly aren't even going to play much if they stay for their fifth year and will grad transfer. In the past, nobody would take such players, but with all the "holes" opening up on other teams because of guys leaving early, there is now a market. These are just facts.

Shaw can't really fix this problem by signing more recruits. If you lose a rising junior or rising senior, you just aren't going to plug in a freshman and get the same results, at least in general. Sometimes you find an exceptional guy who can step in as a freshman and play like a junior, but that is the exception. Other programs can get JC transfers or graduate transfers (and probably soon non-graduate transfers) to fill unexpected holes. One may say "Sign better freshman", but if they existed and wanted to come to Stanford they would already be here.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - BostonCard - 01-07-2021

As I've posted before, we've done fine with QB's in their redshirt freshman year taking over the playbook:

Andrew Luck (yes, under Harbaugh, but similar offensive style) became a starter his RS freshman year; his QB rating (143) was the top in the Pac-10
Kevin Hogan became a starter midway through his RS freshman year; his QB rating (148) would have been sixth in the Pac-12 had he qualified, and was actually higher than Luck's his RS freshman year.
Keller Chryst became a starter midway through his RS sophomore year; his QB rating (134) would have been sixth in the Pac-12 had he qualified
KJ Costello became a starter midway through his RS freshman year; his QB (143) would have been fifth in the Pac-12 had he qualified
Davis Mills had a QB rating of 145 last year, his RS sophomore year (technically he didn't become the starter over Costello, but started while Costello was injured). That QBR would have tied for second in the Pac-12 last year.

Bottom line is that we have had QB's start and thrive as redshirt freshmen, with QB ratings in the 140's, which is respectable and typically ranks in the middle of the Pac-12. The theory that young QB's struggle in our system is not supported by the facts. I think an alternate theory is that Shaw is biased towards starting more experienced QBs (e.g. Nunez in 2012, Burns in 2016, Chryst in 2017, and Costello in 2019) when arguably more talented QBs were sitting on the bench. But when forced to put in younger QBs (due to poor performance of the more experienced ones or injury) they have done fine.

All of this is to say that I don't think the playbook will be an obstacle to McKee being a serviceable to good QB next year.

BC

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - Mick - 01-07-2021

(01-06-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think the issue is that, and this has been decades in the making, college football has gone from a game you play with your friends that oh by the way pays for your college to a profit-maximizing business that doesn't pay its players.

BC

My father in law told me that when he played basketball for Stanford in the 1950s that, even then, there was no time for anything but school and work. And, five decades later, Stanford's volleyball coaches told my son that a 40 hour week commitment was expected for the sport.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - fullmetal - 01-07-2021

Oof, they said 40? I mean, maybe they included spending time outside of supervised practices...because there's that NCAA hard limit of 20 hrs/week supervised practices (while in season).

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - CompSci87 - 01-07-2021

(01-07-2021, 06:26 AM)winflop Wrote: - Early admission giving recruitied players more time on campus and in the S&C program and spring ball. Shaw has been anathema to this idea but it is now putting him at a competitive disadvantage

I don't believe early admission is Shaw's decision. It's the university that doesn't allow it.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - AthleticsDynasty - 01-07-2021

At this point with what we have coming back I think a .500 season would be above expectations.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - CTcard - 01-08-2021

(01-07-2021, 01:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: All of this is to say that I don't think the playbook will be an obstacle to McKee being a serviceable to good QB next year.

Not only is that apparently true from past events, the playbook itself appears to be considerably simplified from 9/10 years ago.

As always, the QB competition will be interesting to watch. It looks like a replay of the classic more developed versus more physical talent battle. In the one performance for West and McKee in 2020, West had clearly improved since his debacle vs UCLA in 2019 but with some limit on physical skills. McKee had obvious talent but was obviously not ready.

West's overall performance vs Oregon wasn't terrible. 13/19, 154 yds, 0 INTs, 0 TDs, PER=136.5 (11.8 yds/reception).
However, he wasn't good at getting the ball down the field and you could see the problems with smaller windows as the field shrank (red zone).

McKee had a bigger arm, was athletic, but not accurate and looked rather unsure of himself at times. 3/7, 62 yds, 0 INTs, 0 TDs, PER=117.3 (20.7 yds/reception).

I suspect we'll see some of both early next season. If and until McKee proves himself incapable, fans will be clamoring for him.

RE: WR Connor Wedington Declares for Draft - Phogge - 01-08-2021

Stanford is playing in a conference which is not as powerful as it once was. Everybody has or will have good players with eligibility remaining leave early. I don’t do handwringing very well so I’m looking forward to a year where, hopefully, Stanford surprises when an underdog once or twice. Guys leaving early is spilt milk, love the one you’re with. If they are entertaining I’ll make the long drive a couple of times because you will always be able to get a ticket.

I think they will be better than they are rated coming out of the gate. An INT or two won’t upset me but a delay of game will. I hope I’m wrong about Shaw’s staleness and that he can reinvent himself if only by a little bit.

Let’s all stay safe and be patient.