[jonnyss]

some folks seem to be saying that evaluating talent is just a roll of the dice. you take 10 players ranked 200 to 800 and half turn out to be good. no way to predict.

as others have mentioned, max borghi is an interesting comparison. folks on the board really wanted us to offer - not nearly as strongly as we wanted burr-kirven, but similar. 

is it just luck that washington chooses burr-kirven and wsu chooses borghi? and is it just coincidence that washington and wsu are doing well?

i don't think so. 

evaluation of talent is one competency of a staff. that can be a particular strength of a staff or a shortcoming or somewhere in between.

stanford's fixed requirement of attending camp (which, fortunately, seems to be loosening up) will imo bias towards recruits who perform best in practice and against recruits who perform best under game pressure.

imo, since burr-kirven performs best in game conditions (think joe montana), it's predictable rather than random that stanford would whiff on him.

and so what if those of us who predicted burr-kirven would be great are now saying, "i told you so." seems fair to me.

[jonnyss]

some folks seem to be saying that evaluating talent is just a roll of the dice. you take 10 players ranked 200 to 800 and half turn out to be good. no way to predict.

as others have mentioned, max borghi is an interesting comparison. folks on the board really wanted us to offer - not nearly as strongly as we wanted burr-kirven, but similar. 

is it just luck that washington chooses burr-kirven and wsu chooses borghi? and is it just coincidence that washington and wsu are doing well?

i don't think so. 

evaluation of talent is one competency of a staff. that can be a particular strength of a staff or a shortcoming or somewhere in between.

stanford's fixed requirement of attending camp (which, fortunately, seems to be loosening up) will imo bias towards recruits who perform best in practice and against recruits who perform best under game pressure.

imo, since burr-kirven performs best in game conditions (think joe montana), it's predictable rather than random that stanford would whiff on him.

and so what if those of us who predicted burr-kirven would be great are now saying, "i told you so." seems fair to me.