[msqueri]

to only go one deep at RB with a converted safety on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

Fixed it for you.  And yes, injuries have hit the running back room, but that wouldn't have been an issue had our top two running backs not entered the portal after last year, and even then, we'd be looking at having a top freshman running back playing had he too not left the team midseason.  One event like that is understandable in this day and age; two and you think maybe you just have rotten luck, but at this point (and especially since these are not the first player to transfer away with eligibility remaining) this points to a severe systemic problem.

Last comment, which is that saying "but for running back and linebacker the depth chart doesn't look disastrous" is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln about the play.  You cannot point to great depth at wide receiver and say that it should make up for the fact that you only have one player, a converted safety, at running back (unless you can bring back Ty Montgomery).  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

BC

I wasn't trying to dispute any of the points in this post. I was responding to SamuelMcF's subtweet (sub-post?) of me. I don't think our RB and ILB situation can be used to make a sweeping claim about the talent on our roster. That's not to say they're not glaring deficiencies. I have railed loudly and often in recent years about the shortcomings in both position pipelines. SamuelMcF and I have long been in violent agreement about this. You can tell from following recruiting where vulnerabilities are going to arise down the line.

My view is that Stanford has at least top 40 talent nationally (objective metrics would say top 25). That is not mutually exclusive with there being massive holes on the roster. Fans often underestimate how many issues other teams have. A team with the 25th best talent in the nation is going to have some significant roster problems.

My sense is that where SamuelMcF thinks I'm off-base, though I don't want to speak for him, is in his sense that transfers have now allowed a broad swath of non-Stanford teams to fill those holes such that Stanford's roster problems are sui generis compared to other Power Five teams. I think this is an interesting hypothesis that, if the spirit moves me, I'd like to look into in more detail in the off-season. Absent that, though, I'm not persuaded merely by the numbers of incoming transfers at other schools. The way to really assess this is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis that looks across all position groups. I'd be shocked if there were 25+ teams in the country (and I GUARANTEE you there aren't 40+ such teams) that didn't have 1+ highly problematic position groups, but that's just a hypothesis on my end.

[msqueri]

to only go one deep at RB with a converted safety on a depth chart is a stunning sight.

Fixed it for you.  And yes, injuries have hit the running back room, but that wouldn't have been an issue had our top two running backs not entered the portal after last year, and even then, we'd be looking at having a top freshman running back playing had he too not left the team midseason.  One event like that is understandable in this day and age; two and you think maybe you just have rotten luck, but at this point (and especially since these are not the first player to transfer away with eligibility remaining) this points to a severe systemic problem.

Last comment, which is that saying "but for running back and linebacker the depth chart doesn't look disastrous" is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln about the play.  You cannot point to great depth at wide receiver and say that it should make up for the fact that you only have one player, a converted safety, at running back (unless you can bring back Ty Montgomery).  Being lopsided with depth is just as disastrous as not having any.

BC

I wasn't trying to dispute any of the points in this post. I was responding to SamuelMcF's subtweet (sub-post?) of me. I don't think our RB and ILB situation can be used to make a sweeping claim about the talent on our roster. That's not to say they're not glaring deficiencies. I have railed loudly and often in recent years about the shortcomings in both position pipelines. SamuelMcF and I have long been in violent agreement about this. You can tell from following recruiting where vulnerabilities are going to arise down the line.

My view is that Stanford has at least top 40 talent nationally (objective metrics would say top 25). That is not mutually exclusive with there being massive holes on the roster. Fans often underestimate how many issues other teams have. A team with the 25th best talent in the nation is going to have some significant roster problems.

My sense is that where SamuelMcF thinks I'm off-base, though I don't want to speak for him, is in his sense that transfers have now allowed a broad swath of non-Stanford teams to fill those holes such that Stanford's roster problems are sui generis compared to other Power Five teams. I think this is an interesting hypothesis that, if the spirit moves me, I'd like to look into in more detail in the off-season. Absent that, though, I'm not persuaded merely by the numbers of incoming transfers at other schools. The way to really assess this is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis that looks across all position groups. I'd be shocked if there were 25+ teams in the country (and I GUARANTEE you there aren't 40+ such teams) that didn't have 1+ highly problematic position groups, but that's just a hypothesis on my end.