[qwerty49]

As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, the gravity of Richardson's value to the team, and the main impetus to his scholie award, was his service as the team's lone quarterback in spring 2018. Not saying he did not deserve it nor that I am not happy for him, but it seems that outside of that, he was not a contributor.

-m.

That's one way to look at it.  I kinda think that any kid who shows up at practice every day, exposes himself to potential injury, learns the playbook, helps the team prepare, works out in the off-season, travels to away games, dresses on Saturday mornings, is prepared to go into the game on a moment's notice, supports his teammates from the sidelines and shares the emotions of victory or defeat -- is a contributor, whether he earns a stat on the field or not.

Sorry, but "contributor" implies more to me than just actual playing time.

Well, of course. That's why I said "outside of that." So not sure why you are sorry.

By your own measure, and I agree with you, all walk-ons are contributors. Which is why I always report on their contributions after each game. But not all get scholarships. Those are reserved for those whose contributions are exceptional, like Jack two springs ago; again, I was happy for him, as I said. Just pointing out that I think we will be OK without him on Saturdays if he transfers.

-m.

I was being apologetic because I did not want to seem unappreciative of all that you do to track every player every week.  I was being perhaps too sensitive to semantics.  I know you are coming from a good place.

I always feel you can never have too many QBs.  Remember the game that West started?  Who knows if KJ or Mills could have stepped in that day, but by default, Richardson was one injury away from going in and having to run the show.

Backup QBs are the stuff legends are made of.  There's Tavita, of course, and more recently who can forget the freshman Tua coming in after halftime of the National Championship game and sending Jalen Hurts to the bench and ultimately Oklahoma?

[qwerty49]

As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, the gravity of Richardson's value to the team, and the main impetus to his scholie award, was his service as the team's lone quarterback in spring 2018. Not saying he did not deserve it nor that I am not happy for him, but it seems that outside of that, he was not a contributor.

-m.

That's one way to look at it.  I kinda think that any kid who shows up at practice every day, exposes himself to potential injury, learns the playbook, helps the team prepare, works out in the off-season, travels to away games, dresses on Saturday mornings, is prepared to go into the game on a moment's notice, supports his teammates from the sidelines and shares the emotions of victory or defeat -- is a contributor, whether he earns a stat on the field or not.

Sorry, but "contributor" implies more to me than just actual playing time.

Well, of course. That's why I said "outside of that." So not sure why you are sorry.

By your own measure, and I agree with you, all walk-ons are contributors. Which is why I always report on their contributions after each game. But not all get scholarships. Those are reserved for those whose contributions are exceptional, like Jack two springs ago; again, I was happy for him, as I said. Just pointing out that I think we will be OK without him on Saturdays if he transfers.

-m.

I was being apologetic because I did not want to seem unappreciative of all that you do to track every player every week.  I was being perhaps too sensitive to semantics.  I know you are coming from a good place.

I always feel you can never have too many QBs.  Remember the game that West started?  Who knows if KJ or Mills could have stepped in that day, but by default, Richardson was one injury away from going in and having to run the show.

Backup QBs are the stuff legends are made of.  There's Tavita, of course, and more recently who can forget the freshman Tua coming in after halftime of the National Championship game and sending Jalen Hurts to the bench and ultimately Oklahoma?

[Goose]

If everyone came back and were healthy next year, Stanford should be very good.  11 in the portal, even if a few a minimal losses, completely undermines the "40 year decision" mantra.

Well, as much as I would like to retain lots of those players, it in fact reinforces the 40 year decision mantra. They will have their degrees. They are ready to take a look at (gasp!) what starts next. The fact it may not be at Stanford is pretty normal for most graduates. If a lot of guys in the portal were starters this year and not graduating, that would undermine the 40 year decision. Leaving with a degree does not.

I appreciate the DL commitment today, but the PR problem right before Fall signing is just awful.

I doubt that seniors going into the portal has any effect on current recruits. If there are rumors of personality problems with the coaches, that would, but absent that, it is a non-event. From a recruit's point of view, a bunch of seniors graduating and moving on just means that the recruit may play sooner.

[Goose]

If everyone came back and were healthy next year, Stanford should be very good.  11 in the portal, even if a few a minimal losses, completely undermines the "40 year decision" mantra.

Well, as much as I would like to retain lots of those players, it in fact reinforces the 40 year decision mantra. They will have their degrees. They are ready to take a look at (gasp!) what starts next. The fact it may not be at Stanford is pretty normal for most graduates. If a lot of guys in the portal were starters this year and not graduating, that would undermine the 40 year decision. Leaving with a degree does not.

I appreciate the DL commitment today, but the PR problem right before Fall signing is just awful.

I doubt that seniors going into the portal has any effect on current recruits. If there are rumors of personality problems with the coaches, that would, but absent that, it is a non-event. From a recruit's point of view, a bunch of seniors graduating and moving on just means that the recruit may play sooner.

[OutsiderFan]

Are all the Stanford players in the portal basically grad transfers? Meaning, will they have earned their Stanford degrees before moving on to another school?

I agree with those saying it's not a big deal to lose guys with another year of eligibility when they aren't projected starters, but when they are, that is alarming. So it seems reasonable to ask what is precipitating such decisions. We'll probably get quite a few answers next Wednesday, unless some Stanford reporting sleuth find some answers sooner.

[OutsiderFan]

Are all the Stanford players in the portal basically grad transfers? Meaning, will they have earned their Stanford degrees before moving on to another school?

I agree with those saying it's not a big deal to lose guys with another year of eligibility when they aren't projected starters, but when they are, that is alarming. So it seems reasonable to ask what is precipitating such decisions. We'll probably get quite a few answers next Wednesday, unless some Stanford reporting sleuth find some answers sooner.

[SamuelMcF]

Are all the Stanford players in the portal basically grad transfers? Meaning, will they have earned their Stanford degrees before moving on to another school?

AFAIK, every single one so far is a grad transfer.

[SamuelMcF]

Are all the Stanford players in the portal basically grad transfers? Meaning, will they have earned their Stanford degrees before moving on to another school?

AFAIK, every single one so far is a grad transfer.

[BostonCard]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

[BostonCard]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

[winflop]

Of the 11 transferring, I see 6 who are would get minimal playing time at best. I'm far less concerned about them.

But to have five guys who were certain to make the two-deep in the portal is very concerning. And they are all OL & DL which are both so critical to the team's success and where there isn't a lot of depth.

Something is going on here, but it doesn't sound like any of us knows. Maybe the guys behind the paywalls do but can't say. Regardless, it smells bad

[winflop]

Of the 11 transferring, I see 6 who are would get minimal playing time at best. I'm far less concerned about them.

But to have five guys who were certain to make the two-deep in the portal is very concerning. And they are all OL & DL which are both so critical to the team's success and where there isn't a lot of depth.

Something is going on here, but it doesn't sound like any of us knows. Maybe the guys behind the paywalls do but can't say. Regardless, it smells bad

[d4cohn]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

I think #3 is the answer for many/most of the transfers. While Swann and Williams likely would have been starters, I don't think it is a guarantee that previous starters such as Hamilton or Hattis would have been starters next year. IMO, the freshmen OL played mostly pretty well (exception being UCLA game), all things considered. While I think Hamilton or Hattis would certainly have been included in the two-deep, and as such, likely received fifth-year opportunities, I am not sure they would want to spend their final year here if there wasn't a guarantee/they weren't pretty confident that they would be starters; for them, a better chance to start elsewhere might be more appealing.

[d4cohn]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

I think #3 is the answer for many/most of the transfers. While Swann and Williams likely would have been starters, I don't think it is a guarantee that previous starters such as Hamilton or Hattis would have been starters next year. IMO, the freshmen OL played mostly pretty well (exception being UCLA game), all things considered. While I think Hamilton or Hattis would certainly have been included in the two-deep, and as such, likely received fifth-year opportunities, I am not sure they would want to spend their final year here if there wasn't a guarantee/they weren't pretty confident that they would be starters; for them, a better chance to start elsewhere might be more appealing.

[SamuelMcF]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

I think #3 is the answer for many/most of the transfers. While Swann and Williams likely would have been starters, I don't think it is a guarantee that previous starters such as Hamilton or Hattis would have been starters next year. IMO, the freshmen OL played mostly pretty well (exception being UCLA game), all things considered. While I think Hamilton or Hattis would certainly have been included in the two-deep, and as such, likely received fifth-year opportunities, I am not sure they would want to spend their final year here if there wasn't a guarantee/they weren't pretty confident that they would be starters; for them, a better chance to start elsewhere might be more appealing.

Hamilton would 100% have started. Though it's possible Little is returning and Hamilton wants to spend his final year at tackle somewhere else rather than at guard here.

[SamuelMcF]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

I think #3 is the answer for many/most of the transfers. While Swann and Williams likely would have been starters, I don't think it is a guarantee that previous starters such as Hamilton or Hattis would have been starters next year. IMO, the freshmen OL played mostly pretty well (exception being UCLA game), all things considered. While I think Hamilton or Hattis would certainly have been included in the two-deep, and as such, likely received fifth-year opportunities, I am not sure they would want to spend their final year here if there wasn't a guarantee/they weren't pretty confident that they would be starters; for them, a better chance to start elsewhere might be more appealing.

Hamilton would 100% have started. Though it's possible Little is returning and Hamilton wants to spend his final year at tackle somewhere else rather than at guard here.

[BobK]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy . I would think that’s iffy

[BobK]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy . I would think that’s iffy

[82lsju]

Questions: 

- when are potential fifth year players told they either will or will not be invited back for a fifth year?  After the signing period in Feb?  Earlier? 
- Is it a mass notification or a rolling process based on who is expected to sign an LOI, retire, etc?

[82lsju]

Questions: 

- when are potential fifth year players told they either will or will not be invited back for a fifth year?  After the signing period in Feb?  Earlier? 
- Is it a mass notification or a rolling process based on who is expected to sign an LOI, retire, etc?

[BobK]

Most have to be told by now with the signing period next week. We do need room

[BobK]

Most have to be told by now with the signing period next week. We do need room

[winflop]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy .  I would think that’s iffy

If Hamilton wouldn't be healthy, then wouldn't a medical retirement be more likely? And if his health issues are that significant, would anyone offer him a spot?

[winflop]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy .  I would think that’s iffy

If Hamilton wouldn't be healthy, then wouldn't a medical retirement be more likely? And if his health issues are that significant, would anyone offer him a spot?

[82lsju]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy .  I would think that’s iffy

If Hamilton wouldn't be healthy, then wouldn't a medical retirement be more likely? And if his health issues are that significant, would anyone offer him a spot?

Question: would they do medical retirements for a fifth year given scholarships are for four years with a University option to offer a fifth year if a player red-shirted?

[82lsju]

Not sure Hamilton would be healthy .  I would think that’s iffy

If Hamilton wouldn't be healthy, then wouldn't a medical retirement be more likely? And if his health issues are that significant, would anyone offer him a spot?

Question: would they do medical retirements for a fifth year given scholarships are for four years with a University option to offer a fifth year if a player red-shirted?

[CardinalSagehen]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

[CardinalSagehen]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

[fullmetal]

Starting to feel like the portal is a hedge against failed coterm/grad admission.  Ergo, not too much to worry about...?  I hope.

[fullmetal]

Starting to feel like the portal is a hedge against failed coterm/grad admission.  Ergo, not too much to worry about...?  I hope.

[winflop]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

I'm not sure comparing them to players over the last 10 years is appropriate. The question is whether they would be better than the player who is going to take their spot. When it comes to Williams and Swann, I think that's an absolute yes. Both were starters this season. Same for Hamilton. Less sure about Powell & Hattis, but they were going to be part of the two-deep in an already-thin unit so their leaving will negatively impact the roster.

[winflop]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

I'm not sure comparing them to players over the last 10 years is appropriate. The question is whether they would be better than the player who is going to take their spot. When it comes to Williams and Swann, I think that's an absolute yes. Both were starters this season. Same for Hamilton. Less sure about Powell & Hattis, but they were going to be part of the two-deep in an already-thin unit so their leaving will negatively impact the roster.

[CTcard]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

One thing I try to remember is that for the players we are talking about right now, none of this is really transferring. They are finishing their degree at Stanford then going somewhere else. When I got a BS at Stanford and then started grad school elsewhere, I didn't fill out any transfer papers.

The total number currently is also not a problem. I see 9 transferred or in the portal listed at the top of this thread (though I saw 11 claimed in another thread), and I think it was written that we need an attrition of 14+ or something to accommodate the entering class. So, one way or another, more attrition is coming.

As discussed there are 3/4 in the portal that Stanford football would presumably want back, and they constitute the trouble. If they are really wanted back, I trust that the coaching staff are still recruiting them to stay. There's at least a chance.

At any rate, I am not yet ready to condemn the staff over 3/4 productive guys who have worked hard for four years, earned a degree, then want to try something else. 
I am much more ready to condemn the staff over the win-loss record, which had better be turning around.

[CTcard]

Seems to me there are maybe four main reasons to transfer:
1) Academic opportunities (MBA from a school that might not require experience, getting a masters in a program that Stanford doesn't have, etc.)
2) Personal reasons (moving closer to family, etc.)
3) Football opportunities (chance to be a starter, compared to back-up at Stanford)
4) Programmatic issues (everything from friction with the head or position coach, unhappiness with the direction of the program, desire to go to a place with a chance to compete for a championship, feeling that development/coaching will be better elsewhere, dissatisfaction at the handling of an injury, etc.)

One through three (or a combination thereof) should not raise concern.  I wouldn't begrudge a player who had been over-recruited by a younger player, or someone transferring to get a master's or professional degree in a program that is not available at Stanford, or not easy to get into.  However, the number of players who are projected to be starters who have transferred points to #4, and that is a genuine concern.  I particularly worry about a few position groups: we've had multiple offensive linemen transfer for several years now.

BC

One thing I try to remember is that for the players we are talking about right now, none of this is really transferring. They are finishing their degree at Stanford then going somewhere else. When I got a BS at Stanford and then started grad school elsewhere, I didn't fill out any transfer papers.

The total number currently is also not a problem. I see 9 transferred or in the portal listed at the top of this thread (though I saw 11 claimed in another thread), and I think it was written that we need an attrition of 14+ or something to accommodate the entering class. So, one way or another, more attrition is coming.

As discussed there are 3/4 in the portal that Stanford football would presumably want back, and they constitute the trouble. If they are really wanted back, I trust that the coaching staff are still recruiting them to stay. There's at least a chance.

At any rate, I am not yet ready to condemn the staff over 3/4 productive guys who have worked hard for four years, earned a degree, then want to try something else. 
I am much more ready to condemn the staff over the win-loss record, which had better be turning around.

[OutsiderFan]

While CT's points are well-reasoned, let's open the lens to see a larger context:

- Seemingly alarming number of injuries
- A 4-8 record
- Trends for on-field performance over last three seasons being downward
- A coaching staff that hasn't been held accountable for falling performance
- Inability to recruit adequate numbers for depth, but still needing attrition to bring in new class

So I agree in a micro sense the transfer portal is not a big deal, but in conjunction with all the other evidence, the wider program picture makes it troubling.

[OutsiderFan]

While CT's points are well-reasoned, let's open the lens to see a larger context:

- Seemingly alarming number of injuries
- A 4-8 record
- Trends for on-field performance over last three seasons being downward
- A coaching staff that hasn't been held accountable for falling performance
- Inability to recruit adequate numbers for depth, but still needing attrition to bring in new class

So I agree in a micro sense the transfer portal is not a big deal, but in conjunction with all the other evidence, the wider program picture makes it troubling.

[CardinalSagehen]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

I'm not sure comparing them to players over the last 10 years is appropriate. The question is whether they would be better than the player who is going to take their spot. When it comes to Williams and Swann, I think that's an absolute yes. Both were starters this season. Same for Hamilton. Less sure about Powell & Hattis, but they were going to be part of the two-deep in an already-thin unit so their leaving will negatively impact the roster.

We are definitely not better in 2020 because these guys left, but I am rationalizing that we might be better in 2021 and 2022 because other guys get more time. Maybe those guys turn out to be better players. I’m also speculating that a high volume of grad transfers might be the new normal, so the best adaptation is to recruit larger classes and play them sooner.  

Trying to see the bright side...

[CardinalSagehen]

Would we like to have Swann, Williams and Hamilton next year, for short-term success?  Absolutely - they all deserved to start on our current team and made strong contributions over the last two years, for which any fan is thankful.  

But does anyone believe they were above-average performers relative to the pool of Stanford starters at their positions over the last 10 years? If they’d stayed, they’d have to start, and they’d be taking time away from underclassmen. So we might as well move toward developing and giving experience to others that have a chance to reach a higher ceiling while earning their undergrad degrees.   This is especially true because those younger players won’t give us five years when their time comes, either, or they won’t have five years to give because we played so many of them already. In the new world of the one-way transfer portal (effectively, at Stanford), young players need to be developed and started even more rapidly. This can’t happen quickly enough when average players above them are hogging all the spots. 

I know some of you are thinking, which young DLs? Three-hundred pound nerds aren’t growing on trees - depth is a real concern. However, if we run out of linemen altogether, we can simply activate the discus thrower, who is like clay and can still be molded for offense, defense or perhaps even placekicking as required.

I'm not sure comparing them to players over the last 10 years is appropriate. The question is whether they would be better than the player who is going to take their spot. When it comes to Williams and Swann, I think that's an absolute yes. Both were starters this season. Same for Hamilton. Less sure about Powell & Hattis, but they were going to be part of the two-deep in an already-thin unit so their leaving will negatively impact the roster.

We are definitely not better in 2020 because these guys left, but I am rationalizing that we might be better in 2021 and 2022 because other guys get more time. Maybe those guys turn out to be better players. I’m also speculating that a high volume of grad transfers might be the new normal, so the best adaptation is to recruit larger classes and play them sooner.  

Trying to see the bright side...

[BostonCard]

- Inability to recruit adequate numbers for depth, but still needing attrition to bring in new class

Not sure what the "needing attrition to bring in new class" is supposed to mean.  That's the way it is supposed to work.  We have never guaranteed fifth years, and we have always counted on not inviting some seniors who were not anticipated to contribute much in order to make room for freshmen coming in.  That we haven't needed to do that in the last couple years was a sign of problem.  That we need attrition this year means that we are more or less back to normal (unless we get more attrition than we need to make space for the class).

BC

[BostonCard]

- Inability to recruit adequate numbers for depth, but still needing attrition to bring in new class

Not sure what the "needing attrition to bring in new class" is supposed to mean.  That's the way it is supposed to work.  We have never guaranteed fifth years, and we have always counted on not inviting some seniors who were not anticipated to contribute much in order to make room for freshmen coming in.  That we haven't needed to do that in the last couple years was a sign of problem.  That we need attrition this year means that we are more or less back to normal (unless we get more attrition than we need to make space for the class).

BC