The CardBoard
Fball Recruiting Class of 2020 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The CARDboard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Fball Recruiting Class of 2020 (/showthread.php?tid=17091)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


RE: Class of 2020 - SamuelMcF - 05-11-2019

(05-11-2019, 05:58 PM)Goose Wrote:  In short, this "self-sanctioning" argument only works if there is a pool of players out there that want to come to Stanford, are good enough to be a net positive, are good enough to be admitted, but don't come here only because they weren't offered a football scholarship. I am not sure such a pool exists.

It does.


RE: Class of 2020 - JohnR34231 - 05-12-2019

(05-11-2019, 11:36 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(05-11-2019, 05:58 PM)Goose Wrote:  In short, this "self-sanctioning" argument only works if there is a pool of players out there that want to come to Stanford, are good enough to be a net positive, are good enough to be admitted, but don't come here only because they weren't offered a football scholarship. I am not sure such a pool exists.

It does.

Assuming you are correct, what do you attribute that to?
Lazy recruiting on the part of the coaches?


RE: Class of 2020 - Phogge - 05-12-2019

“Duel” guy. Leaning toward Utah State and Mike Sanford. Last guy Stanford stole from there was Ralston.


RE: Class of 2020 - OutsiderFan - 05-12-2019

OK, this is a little bit intriguing.  Shane Jennings has 0 Power 5 offers, just one D1 offer, and two total.  But the one D1 offer he has is Utah State, and 247 lists his main recruiter there as Mike Sanford.  Utah State is a top MWC program, but obviously Shaw has to have some respect for Sanford.  Jennings is barely a 3 star recruit, though he is labeled a "dual threat" which some have reported is what Stanford wants in a QB this cycle if it brings one in.

His Hudl highlights are meh: https://www.hudl.com/video/3/6407609/5c1959b8176cd909c41dc0c0

Doesn't do anything particularly great. Pretty average arm and inefficient throwing motion.  Seems to throw well on the run, has some escapability and decent feet.  Good not great athleticism.  Average speed.  Maybe if he played with better players and against better competition he might get more attention. I'll guess a few coaches have gotten to know the kid, like his mental makeup, and think they can coach him up. But it would certainly be curious to go after an unknown, barely recruited QB in Idaho instead of a legacy national 4-star legacy QB recruit.


RE: Class of 2020 - Phogge - 05-12-2019

... and who does not fit the offense.

Remember that Shaw did not offer Rosen who fit the offense.


RE: Class of 2020 - donkey687 - 05-12-2019

In reading the article on Butter, I saw that Andy Alfieri committed to Cal and is their top recruit. He sounds a lot like Joey as RB/LB with speed and an academic focus. Is this another case of us slow playing an offer and losing a good recruit?

https://www.oregonlive.com/recruiting/2019/05/andy-alfieri-jesuit-4-star-lb-commits-to-california-golden-bears.html


RE: Class of 2020 - CTcard - 05-12-2019

(05-11-2019, 03:04 PM)82lsju Wrote:  
(05-11-2019, 09:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Was that episode the vandalism of the gay liberation statue?

BC

https://stanforddailyarchive.com/cgi-bin/stanford?a=d&d=stanford19940517-01.2.6&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------

I was a student then.

I think that at the time, the part we commented upon the most was,
Quote:Gardner, Butterfield and White will also be charged with resisting arrest for allegedly running from police, ... while another deputy single-hand-edly pursued [and apparently caught] three on foot
Which seemed to roughly explain the record of our football team at the time.


RE: Class of 2020 - Phogge - 05-12-2019

Butter had a good senior year which led to a bowl after The Genius almost ruined the program.


RE: Class of 2020 - JohnR34231 - 05-12-2019

(05-12-2019, 07:30 AM)Phogge Wrote:  Butter had a good senior year which led to a bowl after The Genius almost ruined the program.

As I recall it Walsh came in and had an excellent year in 1992 (10-3) and an even better recruiting year (top ten I believe). However, he lost most of his top players to graduation, and didn't have much left over. So the new outstanding recruits got thrown into the fray before they were ready. 1993 and 1994 were not good years due to the lack of experienced talent. When Walsh got frustrated and quit, Leland brought in Tyrone, who was able to take the team to a bowl game in his first year now that the talent Walsh brought in had taken their lumps and matured.
So "The Genius" did not almost ruin the program, at least IMO.
That's the way I remember it but it has been 25 years. So anyone who has a different memory, feel free to chime in.


RE: Class of 2020 - BobK - 05-12-2019

Two things. Walsh brought in formers 49ers as coaches and their first coaching job. That hurt

Walsh wanted to play his players more than others graduated.

I was at the Blockbuster Bowl. Awesome time


RE: Class of 2020 - Goose - 05-12-2019

(05-12-2019, 05:42 AM)Phogge Wrote:  Remember that Shaw did not offer Rosen who fit the offense.

Sorry Phogge, but Shaw didn't offer Rosen because Rosen was going someplace he could start as a freshman. He wanted to be 3 and out, as he in fact was. That wasn't happening at Stanford, so there was no point in offering Rosen. He already knew he could get what he wanted at UCLA. He wasn't coming, offer or no. It may well be that Shaw also didn't like him much, but that is beside the point.


RE: Class of 2020 - BostonCard - 05-12-2019

Remember also that Shaw beat Rosen... with Ryan Burns.

BC

(05-12-2019, 03:32 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:  
(05-11-2019, 11:36 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(05-11-2019, 05:58 PM)Goose Wrote:  In short, this "self-sanctioning" argument only works if there is a pool of players out there that want to come to Stanford, are good enough to be a net positive, are good enough to be admitted, but don't come here only because they weren't offered a football scholarship. I am not sure such a pool exists.

It does.

Assuming you are correct, what do you attribute that to?
Lazy recruiting on the part of the coaches?

Well, the name everyone will point to is Ben Burr Kirven, no?


Lazy recruiting is the knock on the coaches.  And it is to an extent, especially since having to evaluate players on an academic axis does make things more challenging.  I don’t think the staff utilizes it’s resources efficiently, but it is true that there is at least a little opportunity cost in terms of keeping track of everything and class management the more offers you have out there.

Still, I think it probably boils down to conservatism on offers.  There are players out there who would come if offered a scholarship and are more likely to be contributors than former walk ons.  But those players are typically going to be like BBK... players who may have had an injury so the staff can’t see them in person, or who have a limitation in terms of their athleticism, or who may have picked up the sport later, or who might lack a bit on the measurables, etc.  They may be less likely to contribute than primary targets, but they are more likely to contribute than an unused scholarship.

BC


RE: Class of 2020 - Goose - 05-12-2019

(05-12-2019, 02:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Well, the name everyone will point to is Ben Burr Kirven, no?


Lazy recruiting is the knock on the coaches.  And it is to an extent, especially since having to evaluate players on an academic axis does make things more challenging.  I don’t think the staff utilizes it’s resources efficiently, but it is true that there is at least a little opportunity cost in terms of keeping track of everything and class management the more offers you have out there.

Still, I think it probably boils down to conservatism on offers.  There are players out there who would come if offered a scholarship and are more likely to be contributors than former walk ons.  But those players are typically going to be like BBK... players who may have had an injury so the staff can’t see them in person, or who have a limitation in terms of their athleticism, or who may have picked up the sport later, or who might lack a bit on the measurables, etc.  They may be less likely to contribute than primary targets, but they are more likely to contribute than an unused scholarship.

BC

The problem with all contra-factual speculation is that it relies on assumptions that may or may not be true. With BBK, you are assuming that he would have come to Stanford and that he would have played meaningful minutes. There are reasons to believe that neither would have been true.

First, he was a much better "fit" at Washington. They had athletes on the D line that could keep BBK clean most of the time. Stanford basically didn't. Washington also utilized him in a "read and react" mode, which they could do because they had more good athletes that could probably cover for him when he read it wrong. As has been pointed out previously, Stanford had success fooling him in 2017. Had he actually come to Stanford, I think it probable that he may not have seen the field, because we would not have been able to use him effectively.

Second, while he was being recruited I am sure UW told him what role he would be playing, and it was an important one. Stanford couldn't have offered nearly as good of story. We didn't have the supporting cast or the same philosophy. BBK is supposed to be a smart guy. It is very probable he would have seen that UW was a much better fit for him. Granted, I am saying this now knowing he had a good to great career there. However, it was a good argument back while he was being recruited as well. He may well have gone to UW anyway.

So it isn't really clear that he is an example of the "pool" of guys we miss on by not offering. Granted, there will never be any way to "know" what would of happened. I just don't think BBK is a slam dunk example of a miss because not offered.

In so far as the coaching staff isn't taking advantage of all the options open to them because they just don't inform themselves about these options, there is a problem. However, the coaches do have to make judgements about how to split up their time. The also have to weigh outcomes. Apparently, the staff thinks that not filling the quota with offered guys is a reasonable approach. If that is just because they are lazy, indeed that would be bad. If it is because they are inefficient, that would also be bad. I don't have enough insight to say they are inefficient, so I  have to rely on others for that data. However, I remain unconvinced that we are missing on a significant number of guys that would actually help us. It would  make no sense for the coaching staff to pass over guys they actually wanted when there are spots available. I can only assume they pass because, for whatever set of reasons, the coaches prefer it that way.

It may be that they are wrong in this approach, but there are enough examples of guys that we DID want, that did accept, and didn't pan out to lend credence to the idea that there are few "sure things" in recruiting. The coaches seem to believe that the opportunity cost of recruiting and coaching guys that you don't think are going to help you is greater that the value those guys may provide. It is addition by subtraction. Many here disagree. It can't be the money, because the money is there to be spent. It must be the actual belief that the way they are doing it is more closely optimal.

One could possibly argue that Ryan Burns was a guy who was in the "pool". He wasn't highly thought of as a passer, but maybe he was "better than not using a scholarship". Well, he did see the field, and maybe the time spent coaching him up delayed the recognition that Chryst didn't have it. We could have got Costello much earlier if we didn't offer Burns. Do I actually believe this argument? Well, it isn't totally crazy. Lots of assumptions that may or may not be true. Of course, it is contra-factual speculation, so who can say.


RE: Class of 2020 - BostonCard - 05-12-2019

That is the opportunity cost argument, in a nutshell.

But I think if that were a legit concern, you’d see more teams under the scholarship limit, and there aren’t.

BC

Back to the class of 2020.  Arrow up here.




Always love a kid who advertises his AP gets status.

BC


TreesAndBirds - TreesAndBirds - 05-12-2019

(05-12-2019, 05:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  That is the opportunity cost argument, in a nutshell.

But I think if that were a legit concern, you’d see more teams under the scholarship limit, and there aren’t.

BC

Back to the class of 2020.  Arrow up here.




Always love a kid who advertises his AP gets status.

BC

Note on his twitter feed he says he is “Blessed” to receive an offer from each school that offers him. But when it comes to Stanford he says he is “Extremely blessed” :)


RE: Class of 2020 - Phogge - 05-12-2019

Goose, what don’t you understand about the line, “Shaw didn’t offer Rosen.” The qualification was that he fit the offense. And he didn’t offer so sorry Goose, my line was correct.


RE: Class of 2020 - Goose - 05-12-2019

(05-12-2019, 06:28 PM)Phogge Wrote:  Goose, what don’t you understand about the line, “Shaw didn’t offer Rosen.” The qualification was that he fit the offense. And he didn’t offer so sorry Goose, my line was correct.

Your line was absolutely factually correct. However, I thought the point you were trying to make is that it was strange (or maybe not wise) that Shaw would offer a guy who doesn't obviously fit the offense when he didn't offer one who did. My point was that there was an overriding reason not to offer the guy that fit the offense (Rosen), making his lack of an offer completely reasonable. Maybe I misunderstood your intent here.


RE: Class of 2020 - Phogge - 05-12-2019

Yep. I get your point but I was only commenting on the lack of offer. It would be interesting to know if Shaw would have offered under different circumstances. Time for me to move on and root for Butter II in eleven of his regular season games.


RE: Class of 2020 - JohnR34231 - 05-13-2019

(05-12-2019, 06:16 AM)donkey687 Wrote:  In reading the article on Butter, I saw that Andy Alfieri committed to Cal and is their top recruit. He sounds a lot like Joey as RB/LB with speed and an academic focus. Is this another case of us slow playing an offer and losing a good recruit?

https://www.oregonlive.com/recruiting/2019/05/andy-alfieri-jesuit-4-star-lb-commits-to-california-golden-bears.html

Who knows, but since he hasn't signed anything yet we haven't really lost him.  If we subsequently decide we want to offer and he accepts, it wouldn't be the first recruit we have pulled away from Kal.


RE: Class of 2020 - OutsiderFan - 05-13-2019

There are two brothers of players on the Stanford football roster in 2018 who are eligible to sign in the 2020 signing class. Andy Alfieri and Nick Herbig are brothers of Joey and Nate.

Only Nick has an offer. That may be because they are both OLB recruits and Stanford doesn’t need OLBs right now.