[d4cohn]

You misunderstand.  I recognize that recruiting holes, especially at stanford, are goingto happen. For OL, especially, you might view the coaches as victims of their own success; if you were a promising tackle in the year immediately after Little and Sarrell signed, you might look at the depth chart and reasonably factir in anticipated playing time (a similar thing happened after we signed the 2012 class with Garnett, Murphy, and Peat; we had relatively sparse OL recruiting in 2013 and 2014).  I think there are probably some things the coaches can do, in terms of taking a few more “plan B” players at poositions that are developing holes.  But you are right, we are dealing with small numbers, and the difference between a well stocked position and one in trouble comes down to one or two players.  Multiply that by 10 position groups, and the chances of having perfectly balanced classes across all position groups are negligeable.

The post was meant as an observation, not necessarily a complaint.  Based on the holes inthe lineup, a position that was expected to be a strength but is a weakness now will likely not improve, and could well get worse in the next two years.  Then take a position of relative strength on defense, and project forward, and its reasonable to expect a decline going forward.

BC

Or it is possible, with 4-6 new OL recruits coming in next year, included some highly touted prospects, that the OL could be young and promising, with guys who wouldn't otherwise play (and redshirt) playing out of necessity.

Playing out of necessity.  Isn't that code for "Mediocre season?" or "Welcome to the Foster Farms Bowl?"

Not necessarily. Nate Herbig played out of necessity as a true freshman, was solid at least from the start, and minus his performance against Notre Dame, has been our best OL (granted his pre-season All-American status was better than his play has probably shown this year). I also mean "out of necessity" from the perspective of Coach Shaw generally tends to favor playing more experienced players, even if there sometimes are younger, more talented players. Coach Shaw is more reticent than many coaches to unseat experienced hands (see current situation at one of two safety spots, where I believe Noah Williams or Stuart Head should be starting over No. 5, for example, or Ryan Johnson starting for No. 97, or how No.15, when he is healthy, continues to see significant playing time at ILB, despite his significant limitations in coverage). If there are fewer experienced players on the OL, then that would be a reason to modify our traditional plan of every or almost every freshman redshirts, and we pretty consistently preferentially play juniors and seniors. I mean, we are a program that even redshirted Andrew Luck (when he probably would have been better than Tavita). Just because a freshman is redshirting, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of holding their own on the field.

[d4cohn]

You misunderstand.  I recognize that recruiting holes, especially at stanford, are goingto happen. For OL, especially, you might view the coaches as victims of their own success; if you were a promising tackle in the year immediately after Little and Sarrell signed, you might look at the depth chart and reasonably factir in anticipated playing time (a similar thing happened after we signed the 2012 class with Garnett, Murphy, and Peat; we had relatively sparse OL recruiting in 2013 and 2014).  I think there are probably some things the coaches can do, in terms of taking a few more “plan B” players at poositions that are developing holes.  But you are right, we are dealing with small numbers, and the difference between a well stocked position and one in trouble comes down to one or two players.  Multiply that by 10 position groups, and the chances of having perfectly balanced classes across all position groups are negligeable.

The post was meant as an observation, not necessarily a complaint.  Based on the holes inthe lineup, a position that was expected to be a strength but is a weakness now will likely not improve, and could well get worse in the next two years.  Then take a position of relative strength on defense, and project forward, and its reasonable to expect a decline going forward.

BC

Or it is possible, with 4-6 new OL recruits coming in next year, included some highly touted prospects, that the OL could be young and promising, with guys who wouldn't otherwise play (and redshirt) playing out of necessity.

Playing out of necessity.  Isn't that code for "Mediocre season?" or "Welcome to the Foster Farms Bowl?"

Not necessarily. Nate Herbig played out of necessity as a true freshman, was solid at least from the start, and minus his performance against Notre Dame, has been our best OL (granted his pre-season All-American status was better than his play has probably shown this year). I also mean "out of necessity" from the perspective of Coach Shaw generally tends to favor playing more experienced players, even if there sometimes are younger, more talented players. Coach Shaw is more reticent than many coaches to unseat experienced hands (see current situation at one of two safety spots, where I believe Noah Williams or Stuart Head should be starting over No. 5, for example, or Ryan Johnson starting for No. 97, or how No.15, when he is healthy, continues to see significant playing time at ILB, despite his significant limitations in coverage). If there are fewer experienced players on the OL, then that would be a reason to modify our traditional plan of every or almost every freshman redshirts, and we pretty consistently preferentially play juniors and seniors. I mean, we are a program that even redshirted Andrew Luck (when he probably would have been better than Tavita). Just because a freshman is redshirting, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of holding their own on the field.

[BostonCard]

Is he injured?  Otherwise, why not get him into <5 games so as to get him some game experience, see how he does in game situations, etc.

This might be one of those cases where the coaches view the situation differently than the standard fan-take. 
Depending upon just what stage of development a player is in, and what they are working on, actual game time may or may not be the most important thing to spur development. I could at least imagine that Miezan needs to work on some fundamental issues and the coaches fear that the pressure of playing in games will cause him to revert to instincts, old habits, etc. 

Or simply that the coaches feel the four games are better spent when he is a few steps further down the development curve. 

I don't know, but it isn't so simple as he should be playing if not injured.

That's fair, but it means that it is less likely that he will be a solution next year, which is all I was trying to get at.  Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.  And there are examples of guys burning their freshman redshirt who later disappoint (Casey Tucker might be one such example; Curtis Robinson may be another).  But generally speaking playing as a freshman, even if it is in select situations such as on special teams or in the jumbo package, is a positive predictive sign for later contribution.

BC

[BostonCard]

Is he injured?  Otherwise, why not get him into <5 games so as to get him some game experience, see how he does in game situations, etc.

This might be one of those cases where the coaches view the situation differently than the standard fan-take. 
Depending upon just what stage of development a player is in, and what they are working on, actual game time may or may not be the most important thing to spur development. I could at least imagine that Miezan needs to work on some fundamental issues and the coaches fear that the pressure of playing in games will cause him to revert to instincts, old habits, etc. 

Or simply that the coaches feel the four games are better spent when he is a few steps further down the development curve. 

I don't know, but it isn't so simple as he should be playing if not injured.

That's fair, but it means that it is less likely that he will be a solution next year, which is all I was trying to get at.  Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.  And there are examples of guys burning their freshman redshirt who later disappoint (Casey Tucker might be one such example; Curtis Robinson may be another).  But generally speaking playing as a freshman, even if it is in select situations such as on special teams or in the jumbo package, is a positive predictive sign for later contribution.

BC

[CTcard]

That's fair, but it means that it is less likely that he will be a solution next year, which is all I was trying to get at.

Well, it might be less likely from the level of information a fan has point of view, and it's certainly less likely than if Miezan were currently getting snaps and making big plays all over the place. I don't think it is necessarily less likely from a level of information a coach has point of view - though given I don't have that knowledge it becomes guess work.

In his case there is at least a logical train of thought that would lead to his not playing now more or less irrelevant to how likely he is to contribute next year; i.e. he is a physical specimen but needs to get details of technique down as he hasn't played football a lot. Playing doesn't help him do that, but if he does get them down he would be well positioned for a big impact next year. 

... maybe.

Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.

The decision to play Phillips and not Thomas when an emergency player was needed in 2014 remains an intriguing mystery. I would love to have a few beers with Randy Hart and get him to tell me what he was really thinking about at the time.

As it stands, I tend to think they were primarily interested in preserving an extra full year of play for Thomas - which of course backfired as he ended up only playing two.

[CTcard]

That's fair, but it means that it is less likely that he will be a solution next year, which is all I was trying to get at.

Well, it might be less likely from the level of information a fan has point of view, and it's certainly less likely than if Miezan were currently getting snaps and making big plays all over the place. I don't think it is necessarily less likely from a level of information a coach has point of view - though given I don't have that knowledge it becomes guess work.

In his case there is at least a logical train of thought that would lead to his not playing now more or less irrelevant to how likely he is to contribute next year; i.e. he is a physical specimen but needs to get details of technique down as he hasn't played football a lot. Playing doesn't help him do that, but if he does get them down he would be well positioned for a big impact next year. 

... maybe.

Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.

The decision to play Phillips and not Thomas when an emergency player was needed in 2014 remains an intriguing mystery. I would love to have a few beers with Randy Hart and get him to tell me what he was really thinking about at the time.

As it stands, I tend to think they were primarily interested in preserving an extra full year of play for Thomas - which of course backfired as he ended up only playing two.

[qwerty49]

I think the 4-game rule lets us experiment on a limited basis with players like Miezan, Head, Pryts, Noah Williams (who has already done well).  I might guess that there may have been a plan to do that vs Oregon St and Davis.  But that plan may have existed when we thought we could win those types of games by 35 points, i.e. before we found out just how bad we really were.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of adjustments and changes are made for ASU.  d4cohn has already mentioned a couple of specific personnel changes I would like to see.  I also feel T. Booker deserves more playing time.  But if staff continues to feel that that the issue is lack of execution, the question becomes how much longer you ride horses that keep stumbling.

[qwerty49]

I think the 4-game rule lets us experiment on a limited basis with players like Miezan, Head, Pryts, Noah Williams (who has already done well).  I might guess that there may have been a plan to do that vs Oregon St and Davis.  But that plan may have existed when we thought we could win those types of games by 35 points, i.e. before we found out just how bad we really were.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of adjustments and changes are made for ASU.  d4cohn has already mentioned a couple of specific personnel changes I would like to see.  I also feel T. Booker deserves more playing time.  But if staff continues to feel that that the issue is lack of execution, the question becomes how much longer you ride horses that keep stumbling.

[Goose]

 I mean, we are a program that even redshirted Andrew Luck (when he probably would have been better than Tavita). Just because a freshman is redshirting, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of holding their own on the field.

Yes, but given our team that year, I am not sure Andrew would have survived the experience! Or, perhaps it would have better prepared him for playing for the Colts.

[Goose]

 I mean, we are a program that even redshirted Andrew Luck (when he probably would have been better than Tavita). Just because a freshman is redshirting, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of holding their own on the field.

Yes, but given our team that year, I am not sure Andrew would have survived the experience! Or, perhaps it would have better prepared him for playing for the Colts.

[BostonCard]

Well, it might be less likely from the level of information a fan has point of view, and it's certainly less likely than if Miezan were currently getting snaps and making big plays all over the place. I don't think it is necessarily less likely from a level of information a coach has point of view - though given I don't have that knowledge it becomes guess work.

At the risk of offending you as a physicist, I'm going to call this situation "Schrodinger's Coach", which means that Miezan is simultaneously a future star and a bust.

The situation you describe where the coaches are holding him back because they think it will hurt his development is plausible, but of course not all physical specimens ever develop the technique.  So, in this case, all else being equal, I would prefer the situation where the coaches felt the player was ready from a technique perspective, than the observed situation. 

Moreover, in prior years there was a potential opportunity cost (beyond hampering individual development): the potential to lose a year of eligibility (as happened to Aziz Shittu, who played 6 games as a freshman and recorded one tackle).  Now, we don't have that opportunity cost, so long as players play fewer than 5 games, so you would expect the threshold to playing to be lower.
 

Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.

The decision to play Phillips and not Thomas when an emergency player was needed in 2014 remains an intriguing mystery. I would love to have a few beers with Randy Hart and get him to tell me what he was really thinking about at the time.

As it stands, I tend to think they were primarily interested in preserving an extra full year of play for Thomas - which of course backfired as he ended up only playing two.

Since neither Thomas nor Phillips exhausted their eligibility, this is a not an either/or; in retrospect, we should have played both!  I feel like the last half-dozen years have represented a transition, from where almost all players played until they exhausted their eligibility (except unique talents like Toby Gerhart and Andrew Luck), and even superior talents stayed until they graduated.  Now the threshold for players forgoing eligibility to go to the NFL is much lower, and even a CB who wound up an undrafted free agent decided to forgo his fifth year of eligibility and a safety who got drafted in the third round left as a junior.

In light of all that, the only reason not to play someone as a true freshman is if they are not going to contribute.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, it might be less likely from the level of information a fan has point of view, and it's certainly less likely than if Miezan were currently getting snaps and making big plays all over the place. I don't think it is necessarily less likely from a level of information a coach has point of view - though given I don't have that knowledge it becomes guess work.

At the risk of offending you as a physicist, I'm going to call this situation "Schrodinger's Coach", which means that Miezan is simultaneously a future star and a bust.

The situation you describe where the coaches are holding him back because they think it will hurt his development is plausible, but of course not all physical specimens ever develop the technique.  So, in this case, all else being equal, I would prefer the situation where the coaches felt the player was ready from a technique perspective, than the observed situation. 

Moreover, in prior years there was a potential opportunity cost (beyond hampering individual development): the potential to lose a year of eligibility (as happened to Aziz Shittu, who played 6 games as a freshman and recorded one tackle).  Now, we don't have that opportunity cost, so long as players play fewer than 5 games, so you would expect the threshold to playing to be lower.
 

Solomon Thomas is a great example of someone who redshirted as a freshman and started as a sophomore.

The decision to play Phillips and not Thomas when an emergency player was needed in 2014 remains an intriguing mystery. I would love to have a few beers with Randy Hart and get him to tell me what he was really thinking about at the time.

As it stands, I tend to think they were primarily interested in preserving an extra full year of play for Thomas - which of course backfired as he ended up only playing two.

Since neither Thomas nor Phillips exhausted their eligibility, this is a not an either/or; in retrospect, we should have played both!  I feel like the last half-dozen years have represented a transition, from where almost all players played until they exhausted their eligibility (except unique talents like Toby Gerhart and Andrew Luck), and even superior talents stayed until they graduated.  Now the threshold for players forgoing eligibility to go to the NFL is much lower, and even a CB who wound up an undrafted free agent decided to forgo his fifth year of eligibility and a safety who got drafted in the third round left as a junior.

In light of all that, the only reason not to play someone as a true freshman is if they are not going to contribute.

BC

[slide]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

[slide]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

[d4cohn]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

I think it is important to add, for some of our recruiting misses in terms of not offering certain guys (Tillery, Williams etc.), Foster Sarrell and Walker Little were 5-star recruits according to 24-7 Sports, and two of the best recruits we have ever landed at Stanford, both in the same class on the OL. It is not like we have missed on everyone.

[d4cohn]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

I think it is important to add, for some of our recruiting misses in terms of not offering certain guys (Tillery, Williams etc.), Foster Sarrell and Walker Little were 5-star recruits according to 24-7 Sports, and two of the best recruits we have ever landed at Stanford, both in the same class on the OL. It is not like we have missed on everyone.

[CTcard]

At the risk of offending you as a physicist, I'm going to call this situation "Schrodinger's Coach", which means that Miezan is simultaneously a future star and a bust.

Not only am I not offended, I like it. It sort of fits here, though its really Schroedinger's linebacker.
We have a lack of information - pretending that lack of information is bad news (or good) isn't helpful.
[The Schrodinger cat gedanken is a statement about the limitations of information in quantum mechanics.]

The issue I was trying to address is sometimes we simply don't know anything about a player's development, but that doesn't mean the coaches' don't know anything and isn't necessarily bad news either.

I would prefer the situation where the coaches felt the player was ready from a technique perspective, than the observed situation.

Well, I would prefer the situation where the coaches know the player is a star and he is performing as one.

However, I'd probably prefer the situation where the the player is a physical stud and still learning technique after barely playing football than a player whose technique is down to a T but simply doesn't have the athletic ability to perform. [Though I tend to cheer for the latter guy - it's more like me.]

[CTcard]

At the risk of offending you as a physicist, I'm going to call this situation "Schrodinger's Coach", which means that Miezan is simultaneously a future star and a bust.

Not only am I not offended, I like it. It sort of fits here, though its really Schroedinger's linebacker.
We have a lack of information - pretending that lack of information is bad news (or good) isn't helpful.
[The Schrodinger cat gedanken is a statement about the limitations of information in quantum mechanics.]

The issue I was trying to address is sometimes we simply don't know anything about a player's development, but that doesn't mean the coaches' don't know anything and isn't necessarily bad news either.

I would prefer the situation where the coaches felt the player was ready from a technique perspective, than the observed situation.

Well, I would prefer the situation where the coaches know the player is a star and he is performing as one.

However, I'd probably prefer the situation where the the player is a physical stud and still learning technique after barely playing football than a player whose technique is down to a T but simply doesn't have the athletic ability to perform. [Though I tend to cheer for the latter guy - it's more like me.]

[Beeg_Dawg]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

[Beeg_Dawg]

I think the OL situation has been exacerbated by program losses.

Casey Tucker - grad transfer to ASU
Jack Dreyer - medical retirement
Austin Maihen - medical retirement
Clark Yarborough - medical retirement
Reilly Gibbons - signed but never enrolled; transferred to South Florida

But this is particularly telling:
In 2015, Stanford signed 4 O Linemen - Nick Wilson, Dreyer, Maihen and Brian Chaffin. I don't think any of them have started a game for Stanford (though Chaffin does play on short yardage situations).
In 2016, Stanford signed 5 O Linemen. Out of that group, we find one solid starter (Herbig) and a part-time player (Hamilton). No game contribution from Yarborough, Henry Hattis or Dylan Powell.

That's 9 players across two recruiting classes with one starter and one contributor. Leaves a big hole.

nice post Spiny.  

if anything you may be painting a rosy picture of our OL evaluation and offer strategy.  for instance, in 2015 class, Connor Williams, a future NFL 1st round draft pick, camped with Stanford, wanted an offer and had the academics.  Bloom, Shaw et al chose not to offer him in favor of Maihen and Dreyer.  same year no offer to Jerry Tillery, a top 150 guy.  of course, this may be not as bad as the QB evaluations that year -- Ricky Town, Josh Rosen and Sam Darnold.  all camped at Stanford, had the academics and we offer Town.  Town verbals elsewhere and we wait 6 months for the next offer, but not to Rosen or Darnold.  next guy is Wimbush.  2 NFL 1st round picks at QB and our evaluators chose to offer the other two?

lastly, after having the 9 OL guys for a couple of years and see the lack of collective progress (or early departure/retirement), we sign 3 OL in '17 and 1 OL in '18.  '18 included slow playing the #1 OT in the country -- someone flagged to staff by a former Stanford teammate a couple years prior.  just odd (especially as infrequently Stanford offers).  there are no awards for highest yield rates for football offers -- quality, quantity and position coverage/balance matter.

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

[OutsiderFan]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

[OutsiderFan]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

[GK3]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Does anyone have any idea of how many high school offensive lineman, nation wide,  can qualify for Stanford each year?  Then how many can we make headway with each year?  Just because they can get in does not mean they will always come when offered.  Some would just rather play for Alabama, Ohio State or other power than come to Stanford.  It just seems to me that trying to find 4 guys per year who can get in, and have good potential to contribute is a challenge.  As Beeg Dawg points out, some will medical retire, and another will turn out to be a bust.  Unfortunately, there is no certainty that any recruit will develop significantly beyond his high school level.  Some mature very early.   This makes recruiting something of a crap shoot regardless of how good you are at evaluating talent. This is also full justification for taking at least four per year.

[GK3]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Does anyone have any idea of how many high school offensive lineman, nation wide,  can qualify for Stanford each year?  Then how many can we make headway with each year?  Just because they can get in does not mean they will always come when offered.  Some would just rather play for Alabama, Ohio State or other power than come to Stanford.  It just seems to me that trying to find 4 guys per year who can get in, and have good potential to contribute is a challenge.  As Beeg Dawg points out, some will medical retire, and another will turn out to be a bust.  Unfortunately, there is no certainty that any recruit will develop significantly beyond his high school level.  Some mature very early.   This makes recruiting something of a crap shoot regardless of how good you are at evaluating talent. This is also full justification for taking at least four per year.

[slide]

in '19, there are 240 OL rated 3-stars or above per Rivals database.  generally about 8 to 10% of the D-1 football offer pool has Stanford ballpark grades with OL generally having a larger pool and DT/CB having smaller pools.  so I'd guess 25 to 30 each year as ballpark start on 3-star and up OL.  

the last 3 years we've offered 6, 4 and 12 OL.  iirc, and per recruiting articles, the intent was to sign 3, 1 and 5 by year.

[slide]

in '19, there are 240 OL rated 3-stars or above per Rivals database.  generally about 8 to 10% of the D-1 football offer pool has Stanford ballpark grades with OL generally having a larger pool and DT/CB having smaller pools.  so I'd guess 25 to 30 each year as ballpark start on 3-star and up OL.  

the last 3 years we've offered 6, 4 and 12 OL.  iirc, and per recruiting articles, the intent was to sign 3, 1 and 5 by year.

[BostonCard]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

[BostonCard]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

[stupac2]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)

[stupac2]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)

[CTcard]

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

Well, at least in our base packages, 8 of the starting 22 are OL or DL. That's 36% of the lineup.
So, I guess we could have 1/3 of our class every year be offensive or defensive linemen.

[CTcard]

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

Well, at least in our base packages, 8 of the starting 22 are OL or DL. That's 36% of the lineup.
So, I guess we could have 1/3 of our class every year be offensive or defensive linemen.

[qwerty49]

It's pretty simple math.  We have at least 5 OL when we have the ball.  Our base D uses 3 DL and our nickle uses 2.  That's 7-8 linemen for every 22 we put out there.  More than a third, just counting base formations and not allowing for ogre, etc.

So on average we need more than a third of our scholies to be linemen.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

[qwerty49]

It's pretty simple math.  We have at least 5 OL when we have the ball.  Our base D uses 3 DL and our nickle uses 2.  That's 7-8 linemen for every 22 we put out there.  More than a third, just counting base formations and not allowing for ogre, etc.

So on average we need more than a third of our scholies to be linemen.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

[Redrum]

[/quote]

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)
[/quote]

Yeah, any kid or their parents could grasp the powerful attraction of knowing up front that they might have (best case) the uncertainty of further academic or need-based  scholarship support for their kid who might be moved off a football scholarship for 'performance reasons" half-way through their time at Stanford.  I think that's what you're talking about.  What is the NCAA rule on non-injury scholarship support for players who leave the team?

[Redrum]

[/quote]

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)
[/quote]

Yeah, any kid or their parents could grasp the powerful attraction of knowing up front that they might have (best case) the uncertainty of further academic or need-based  scholarship support for their kid who might be moved off a football scholarship for 'performance reasons" half-way through their time at Stanford.  I think that's what you're talking about.  What is the NCAA rule on non-injury scholarship support for players who leave the team?

[d4cohn]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)

Respectfully, are we seriously proposing this? Part of what makes Stanford different from the other football factories is that we don't put wins ahead of everything else, including kicking people off scholarship for on-field performance issues only, ignoring academics etc. This is a total non-starter. I will take 7 wins, and not acting like a football factory, over 10-11 while acting as one. Who knows: there are six games left and a likely bowl game, we could still reach 9-10 wins.

[d4cohn]

Rough rule of thumb for OL recruiting.

1 Will medically retire
1 will be a bust- as in never see the field
1 will be functional backup
1 will be a starter
1 will be an anchor, potentially (hopefully) NFL caliber.

The numbers might shift a bit, but this is tends to be fairly accurate.

This is why you should always bring in 4-5 OL per class. And why you should always bring in 2-3 DL per class. The attrition at these positions are higher than any on a college football team. These are the positions where it is OK to "reach" to bring in sufficient bodies.

Have they done away with the scholarship limit or something?  I like linemen as much as the next person, but you can't have 1/3 to 1/2 of your class every year be offensive and defensive linemen.  We need linebackers, DB's and skill players too.

BC

This is why our refusal to kick people off their scholarships is such a competitive disadvantage. We can't bring in the 25-player classes every year like many schools can. (I know not all of that extra churn at other programs is unethical, but a lot of it is.)

Respectfully, are we seriously proposing this? Part of what makes Stanford different from the other football factories is that we don't put wins ahead of everything else, including kicking people off scholarship for on-field performance issues only, ignoring academics etc. This is a total non-starter. I will take 7 wins, and not acting like a football factory, over 10-11 while acting as one. Who knows: there are six games left and a likely bowl game, we could still reach 9-10 wins.

[OutsiderFan]

What would be the reason to keep people on football scholarships if they aren't providing the value expected of those on scholarship. If players aren't good enough or are injured, why can't they be put on some other scholarship, but not a football one?

[OutsiderFan]

What would be the reason to keep people on football scholarships if they aren't providing the value expected of those on scholarship. If players aren't good enough or are injured, why can't they be put on some other scholarship, but not a football one?