The CardBoard
Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - 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: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) (/thread-11539.html)


Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - BostonCard - 02-04-2016

I like evaluating recruiting classes in 2-year intervals, since classes blur together because of redshirts, and it is ok to strike out at a position one year, but not to do so two years in a row.  With that in mind, here is the evaluation of our recruiting needs and whether we met them.

QB
2015: none
2016: KJ Costello

I like to get a QB every year, so given that we had no QB's in 2015, we absolutely had to get a top-shelf QB this year, and we got one with Costello.  In addition, we got a couple of walk-ons (Brent Peus, Jack Richardson), who should at least provide a little depth.  We will still be a little bit thin at the position, especially if we want Costello redshirting or if the loser of the Chryst/Burns competition decides to graduate transfer.  But certainly, the quality is there.

RB
2015: Bryce Love, Cameron Scarlett
2016: Trevor Speights, Dorian Maddox

You want three running backs for every two year class, and we have four over the last two classes.  Plus, we have both speed (Love) and size (Scarlett).  Unfortunately, we lost a couple of well regarded RB's to admissions/decomitments, but Speights is a good one.  Like others, I have reservations about Maddox, but hopefully he is like Ben Gardner (another two-star player offered late, who wound up doing great things for us).  We don't have any fullbacks in 2015-2016, but Marx should be good for a few more years, Houston Heimuli should be back from his mission for the 2017, and Bailey McElwain should hopefully be back with us then as well (in which case we will probably have too many fullbacks, even for us, so we might anticipate one moving to LB).

OL
2015: Brian Chaffin ©, Nick Wilson (G), Jack Dyer (T), Austin Maihen (T)
2016: Devery Hamilton (T), Clark Yarborough (T), Henry Hattis (T), Dylan Powell (G), Nate Herbig (G)

The offensive line is the key to our success, and you have to be happy with how we did.  One can almost man an entire two-deep just with the 2015/2016 classes, and we got a three-star walk-on to boot with Matthew Guttwald.  We don't have quite the star power of the Peat/Murphy/Garnett class, but the recruits are nonetheless very good and the class is deep at offensive line.

TE
2015: none
2016: Kaden Smith, Scooter Harrington

Since we whiffed last year, we absolutely needed two tight ends, and we got them.  Kaden Smith is one of the stars of the class, and should continue the mantle of tightendU.  Harrington gives us a second tight end for our multi-tight end sets, and we already have a commit from a top tight end (Colby Parkinson) next year.

WR
2015: Trent Irwin, JJ Arcega-Whiteside
2016: Donald Stewart, Paxton Segina

The best reciever (Simi Fehoko) is going on a mission, but we have a decent set of receivers the last couple years.  Irwin will hopefully blossom his sophomore year, Donald Stewart has the size to be a Devon Cajuste type receiver.  Segina doesn't have much of a recruiting profile, but like Maddox, you hope he surprises.  In addition, we inked Harry Schwartz as a walk-on.  And, of course, there is still a whale out there who wants to come, if only he gets his SAT score up.  Adding Demetris Robertson would massively upgrade our wide receiving corps.


Overall, on offense, I think we accomplished what we needed to accomplish.  There are a couple of obvious plan B's that you hope pan out, but on the whole I like where our offense projects in three years when these guys are juniors and seniors.

BC

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Defensive answers) - BostonCard - 02-04-2016

[placeholder]

OL add... - FrankO - 02-04-2016

walk-on Gutwald a 3 star with legit scholie offers... but academics prevailed and he opted to walk-on at Stanford...

Stanford has had  success with walk-ons  over recent years earniong substantial playing time (and scholarships which opened up) ... we got 7 this year, who if developed, could make major contributions



Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - winflop - 02-04-2016

Burns may transfer if he loses, but not Chryst who hasn't used up any eligibility.

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 02-04-2016

(02-04-2016, 06:50 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We don't have any fullbacks in 2015-2016, but Marx should be good for a few more years, Houston Heimuli should be back from his mission for the 2017, and Bailey McElwain should hopefully be back with us then as well (in which case we will probably have too many fullbacks, even for us, so we might anticipate one moving to LB).

Did I miss some news about Reagan Williams?

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - AthleticsDynasty - 02-04-2016

(02-04-2016, 10:57 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14555.msg155705#msg155705 date=1454637035]We don't have any fullbacks in 2015-2016, but Marx should be good for a few more years, Houston Heimuli should be back from his mission for the 2017, and Bailey McElwain should hopefully be back with us then as well (in which case we will probably have too many fullbacks, even for us, so we might anticipate one moving to LB).

Did I miss some news about Reagan Williams?
[/quote]

i'm guessing he and Jay Tyler were oversights

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - Hulk01 - 02-05-2016

Stewart is a much different athlete and receiver than Cajuste.  Cajuste is a bit-too-small tight end who depends on speed and strength; Stewart is a very long and lean, has a much bigger catch radius, and shows better all around skills now than Cajuste did; Cajuste looked like me could turn into an effective wide receiver; Stewart already shows those skills.

Fans tend to lump 6'4" wide receivers in a group, and suggest that Connor Crane, Cajuste, and Stewart are all "one of the 6'4" wide receivers.  But those three have little in common but their height. Crane was a one-trick pony in high school, running skinny post after skinny post from the Z spot.  Stewart is an X, scaring shorter corners and forcing the free safety to fear he must come over to help on a deep ball. And Cajuste is very much like a flexed-out tight end--which is basically how he was aligned when he made the key late catch against Notre Dame.  We've never run a back shoulder fade to Cajuste, for example, a play that Stewart can live off of his because of his ability to go up and pluck balls out of the air.

And Segina, another 6'4" receiver, is another type, too, lots of power, perhaps most like Cajuste once he develops.



Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - slide - 02-05-2016

hulk, I think you under-appreciate Cajuste.  just as offer Irwin will show better with a different type of QB, I suspect the same argument can be made with Cajuste.

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - DC - 02-05-2016

(02-04-2016, 10:51 PM)winflop link Wrote:Burns may transfer if he loses, but not Chryst who hasn't used up any eligibility.

I think Chryst has used up a year of eligibility as a redshirt freshman.  And he will be a junior scholastically next year.

Burns is a year ahead and should already know his strengths and weaknesses relative to Chryst by now.

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - Hulk01 - 02-05-2016

I didn't intend to express disregard for Cajuste; he's been very effective.  It's that he didn't show in high school what Stewart shows--and Stewart didn't have Cajuste's strength and not quite his speed--and I'm fighting the widespread belief among many Stanford fans that 6'4" receivers are a type--or, for that matter, 6'4" receivers from New Jersey.  Among other things, as most fans here know, some 6'4" receivers play relatively short and some  long; the distance from the top of one's head to the turf isn't the whole story.  Fehoko, for example, lists as 6'2" but plays at least 6'4", and Stewart might play even taller/longer. 

And to add: The services look right in giving Fehoko an edge over Stewart, based on what you can see right now.  Fehoko looks at least a tenth of a second faster.  But Stewart improved significantly in the last two seasons, so we will see.  Like them both a lot; the services would like them more if they weren't obsessed with speed and inclined to overlook ball skills, which are real and not all teachable.

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - ColoradoTree - 02-05-2016

I'm disappointed.  None of these answers are very offensive at all. 

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - 82lsju - 02-05-2016

(02-05-2016, 06:01 AM)DC link Wrote:I think Chryst has used up a year of eligibility as a redshirt freshman.  And he will be a junior scholastically next year.

correct, who can forget his block vs Arizona???

https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1003449983009739/

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - CornFed - 02-05-2016

(02-05-2016, 11:15 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:I'm disappointed.  None of these answers are very offensive at all.

Very way excellent, CT.  But the thread is not over yet.  And ferrari hasn't weighed in yet.

Re: Did we meet our recruiting needs? (Offensive answers) - Rally - 02-05-2016

(02-05-2016, 05:53 PM)CornFed link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=14555.msg155762#msg155762 date=1454696130]
I'm disappointed.  None of these answers are very offensive at all.

Very way excellent, CT.  But the thread is not over yet.  And ferrari hasn't weighed in yet.
[/quote]

178.