Football Recruiting Class of 2022 - 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: Football Recruiting Class of 2022 (/thread-19080.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: Football Recruiting Class of 2022 (/thread-19080.html)
RE: Class of 2022 - Goose - 09-03-2021
(09-03-2021, 12:07 AM)Phogge Wrote: “40 year decision.” Holy cow. Come on guys, hundreds of colleges have graduated millions of students who made the right decision and who prospered in every field that Stanford serves.Exactly! And players know that. Just because Stanford wants you doesn't necessarily mean you will want Stanford, especially if you have to jump through hoops to get in.
Some around here act like it’s the only possible decision. It’s not.
RE: Class of 2022 - martyup - 09-03-2021
I would posit that it is difficult for Stanford to recruit defensive linemen because this is a position that is least likely to be played by boys that can gain admission into Stanford. The big boys in youth leagues and high school have to be sorted between offensive line and defensive line. Offensive linemen have to keep track of more information from the playbook (e.g., complicated blocking schemes, audibles, etc.). Therefore, coaches will place the most intelligent big boys on the offensive line. In other words, if you are a lineman and intelligent you are more likely to have been assigned to the offensive line as your football career developed.
There are always exceptions to every rule and Stanford has to live off of those exceptions to fill defensive lineman positions. While this puts us at a disadvantage in recruiting, there is a silver lining. Our defensive linemen are undoubtedly more intelligent that the guys that our opponents are used to lining up against. This should allow us to implement defensive schemes that other teams could not pull off.
RE: Class of 2022 - Papa John - 09-03-2021
According to the Rivals database, which could be way off but it's the best I can do, here's the data on DE and DT offers since 2011:
2011: 39 offers (including Brennan Scarlett), 5 commits (Charlie Hoplins, JB Salem, Anthony Hayes, Kevin Anderson, Lance Callihan)
2012: 29, 5 (Luke Kaumatule, Aziz Shittu, Nathanael Lohn, Ikenna Nwafor, Jordan Watkins)
2013: 8, 2 (Mike Tyler, Austin Hooper)
2014: 14, 3 (Solomon Thomas, Harrison Phillips, Lane Veach)
2015: 22, 3 (Dylan Jackson, Gabe Reid, Wesley Annan)
2016: 15, 4 (Peek, Schaffer, Swann, Williams)
2017: 7, 2 (Ryan Johnson, DWP)
2018: 7, 2 (Booker, Tobe Umerah)
2019: 11, 2 (Herron, Pakola)
2020: 8, 3 (Lester, Keneley, Phillips)
2021: 12, 3 (Buckley, Franklin, Armitage)
2022: 13, 4 (Zach Rowell, Pat Caughey, RJ Cooper, Teva Tafiti)
Yes, the data are noisy, as a number of these players are out of position--the "errors" played as LBs and TEs, as best I can tell--and the more recent years include PWO (I think).
But the general trend in terms of number of offers is probably accurate enough to say that we aren't getting enough DL because we aren't making enough offers. Take away 2011, Harbaugh's last year in charge of recruiting and the average number of offers under Hart was 15 or 16. I think a lot of the 2016 offers were made when Hart was still in charge of DL, so look at 2017 on for a comparison with Reynolds, and the average number of purported DL offers is 9 or 10.
Does this reflect reality? Or maybe the Rivals data are too unreliable to draw conclusions?
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-03-2021
The data on number of takes is a little noisy. The data on number of offers does show a decline. If you buy that Shaw is purposefully limiting DL takes to preserve more slots for other positions, then one explanation for declining offers is that Reynolds simply is converting more of his top choices than Hart did. I’m not close enough to recruiting to reach a firm conclusion, but the fact that Reynolds has landed such a high percentage of top 400 recruits at DL suggests that could be the case. None of this excuses taking so few DLs though.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 09-03-2021
(09-03-2021, 12:08 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: The data on number of takes is a little noisy. The data on number of offers does show a decline. If you buy that Shaw is purposefully limiting DL takes to preserve more slots for other positions, then one explanation for declining offers is that Reynolds simply is converting more of his top choices than Hart did. I’m not close enough to recruiting to reach a firm conclusion, but the fact that Reynolds has landed such a high percentage of top 400 recruits at DL suggests that could be the case. None of this excuses taking so few DLs though.
Since for many of those years we were operating below the scholarship limit, this doesn't compute. We could have made more offers and taken more defensive linemen without impacting the number of recruits at other positions.
BC
RE: Class of 2022 - martyup - 09-03-2021
Is is reasonable to assume that we don't make offers unless there is a good chance of admission and the player is interested in attending Stanford? If so, could it be that there have been fewer HS DL players that we liked and that had a good chance of admission and wanted to go to Stanford?
RE: Class of 2022 - old spanish trail - 09-03-2021
(09-03-2021, 03:42 PM)martyup Wrote: Is is reasonable to assume that we don't make offers unless there is a good chance of admission and the player is interested in attending Stanford? If so, could it be that there have been fewer HS DL players that we liked and that had a good chance of admission and wanted to go to Stanford?
Yes. That is a reasonable assumption.
(09-03-2021, 03:42 PM)martyup Wrote: Is is reasonable to assume that we don't make offers unless there is a good chance of admission and the player is interested in attending Stanford? If so, could it be that there have been fewer HS DL players that we liked and that had a good chance of admission and wanted to go to Stanford?
Yes. Seems reasonable to me.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 09-03-2021
Desperate times call for desperate measures. If you don't have Plan A recruits, you go to Plan B. If Plan B fails, you go to Plan C. But for gawd's sake you recruit enough linemen to have a two-deep.
BC
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-03-2021
(09-03-2021, 01:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Since for many of those years we were operating below the scholarship limit, this doesn't compute. We could have made more offers and taken more defensive linemen without impacting the number of recruits at other positions.
BC
Shaw’s policy for a while appeared to be to refrain from making more than 1 offer for every scholarship he knew would be available. The obvious problems with that policy were: (1) not everyone with an offer accepts; and (2) not every current player will stay until his eligibility is exhausted.
RE: Class of 2022 - 82lsju - 09-03-2021
(09-03-2021, 07:30 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:(09-03-2021, 01:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Since for many of those years we were operating below the scholarship limit, this doesn't compute. We could have made more offers and taken more defensive linemen without impacting the number of recruits at other positions.
BC
Shaw’s policy for a while appeared to be to refrain from making more than 1 offer for every scholarship he knew would be available. The obvious problems with that policy were: (1) not everyone with an offer accepts; and (2) not every current player will stay until his eligibility is exhausted.
(3) not everyone offered gets accepted....
RE: Class of 2022 - Mick - 09-05-2021
(09-03-2021, 12:07 AM)Phogge Wrote: “40 year decision.” Holy cow. Come on guys, hundreds of colleges have graduated millions of students who made the right decision and who prospered in every field that Stanford serves.
Some around here act like it’s the only possible decision. It’s not.
Well, you're both right.
I'll use myself as an example. I've been a Stanford athletics supporter for as long as I can remember. I applied to Stanford and Santa Clara. Didn't get into Stanford, deservedly so. Thrived and happy with my SCU degree for a variety of reasons, successful career, published books, added to my chosen profession. Things worked out fine for me.
At the same time, I very much understood the 40 year decision. I had an exceedingly successful grandfather (Stanford '42) and a still-successful-but-not-quite-as-successful grandfather who dropped out of Cal. Neither of my parents had gone to a four year college by the time I was a senior in high school (Mom, as a re-entry student, made the President's List at SJSU multiple times). I somewhat understood the importance of the best possible college as a 17 year old but WOW did I understand it ten years later and was trying to progress in my career. Let's just add the 40 year decision to the list of things high schools don't teach that they really, really should.
To Phogge's point, I would ask those millions of graduates whether, in their heart of hearts, they would prefer to have a degree from Stanford over their alma mater. I know what I would say.
RE: Class of 2022 - Phogge - 09-05-2021
Not me. I used to think so however.
I had a ton of fun in college that I never would have had if I had to actually study. Somehow I did enough in a non-PE major to graduate cum laude. I surprised myself that once self employed I possessed a work ethic in a profession that hundreds of times put me in situations that over 99.9% of the population never saw the inside of. Plus it was fun.
I am at heart blue collar. Three entertainment union member, labor delegate. I'm not elite, except in my field. I didn't belong in an elite environment.
My college choice was correct although I probably should have gone to St. Mary's. Stanford is for the VERY few and that has at times made me proud to have so many ex-jocks as friends and at other times to resent the stuffed-shirt persons at the institution, especially in the press office after Byers left (except for Jack H.).
No Mick, I am very happy that I made the proper 53 year decision.
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-11-2021
Ashton Daniels led Buford to an easy win. He was 7-11 for 79 with an 11-yard TD on a fake field goal. His team gained most of its yards on the ground and Daniels ran effectively but I could not find yardage info. I also did not see whether Daniels continues to split time at QB.
I also just noticed that Daniels is Buford’s punter. In Buford’s first two games, he punted 11 times with a 40.8 yard average, with 9 falling inside the 20. Given how Stanford’s offense looked last week, that could be a useful skill.
RE: Class of 2022 - BostonCard - 09-11-2021
You are not suggesting we go back to quick kick if, are you?
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-11-2021
(09-11-2021, 01:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You are not suggesting we go back to quick kick if, are you?
No? I mean, the defense would have to be better, right?
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-12-2021
So my last post was overly negative. I'll try to recover from that by noting that Stanford's most coveted recruit in the class -- David Bailey -- seems to favor Stanford or U$C. He hails from OC and almost certainly watched the Beat Down in South Central.
rastaman85 - rastaman85 - 09-12-2021
(09-12-2021, 12:14 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: So my last post was overly negative. I'll try to recover from that by noting that Stanford's most coveted recruit in the class -- David Bailey -- seems to favor Stanford or U$C. He hails from OC and almost certainly watched the Beat Down in South Central.
It was reported elsewhere that Mr. Bailey planned to attend the game, and he was said to be keen on observing how he might fit on each defense.
RE: Class of 2022 - TrumpCard - 09-12-2021
Good news for U$C is that Bailey could probably envision himself starting there on Day One.
RE: Class of 2022 - Spiny_Norman - 09-12-2021
(09-12-2021, 07:16 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Good news for U$C is that Bailey could probably envision himself starting there on Day One.
OLB, correct? He could play from Day One at Stanford too.
RE: Class of 2022 - JohnR34231 - 09-13-2021
(09-12-2021, 07:16 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: Good news for U$C is that Bailey could probably envision himself starting there on Day One.
Recalls the old joke about the college football coach being interviewed after his team had a terrible game.
Asked if he saw any positives he said "Yeah, if any recruits were looking in, they know we need help."