[BostonCard]

This raises an interesting question: How many spots do we project in the ‘23 class?  Due to COVID redshirting rules, this coming year, Stanford could have 85 scholarship players, none of them running out of eligibility in 2022. I assume there won’t be any 6th year players and not too many 5th year players returning in 2023, but isn’t ‘23 going to be a relatively small class?

I think there will be 82 players with eligibility remaining after next year, but 22 academic seniors, I think.  So depending on how many fifth years come back, it could range between 3 and 25 players.  I think there are a fair number of seniors next year who will be starters or play positions of need, so it juggling the returners will be key.  If I had to guess, I would peg the class at somewhere in between, maybe 10 players invited back, though I expect some will elect to move on.  I think Kelly is the only guy I see drafted to the NFL, but I could see a few forgoing their extra year of eligibility and trying to make it as UDFA or will move onto the next phase in their life (plus the usual one or two players who are the victims of attrition for other reasons).  So, I would peg the class at around 18 to 20.  Thus, a slightly smaller than average class, but hopefully not the 15 player disasters we have seen in the past.

BC

[BostonCard]

This raises an interesting question: How many spots do we project in the ‘23 class?  Due to COVID redshirting rules, this coming year, Stanford could have 85 scholarship players, none of them running out of eligibility in 2022. I assume there won’t be any 6th year players and not too many 5th year players returning in 2023, but isn’t ‘23 going to be a relatively small class?

I think there will be 82 players with eligibility remaining after next year, but 22 academic seniors, I think.  So depending on how many fifth years come back, it could range between 3 and 25 players.  I think there are a fair number of seniors next year who will be starters or play positions of need, so it juggling the returners will be key.  If I had to guess, I would peg the class at somewhere in between, maybe 10 players invited back, though I expect some will elect to move on.  I think Kelly is the only guy I see drafted to the NFL, but I could see a few forgoing their extra year of eligibility and trying to make it as UDFA or will move onto the next phase in their life (plus the usual one or two players who are the victims of attrition for other reasons).  So, I would peg the class at around 18 to 20.  Thus, a slightly smaller than average class, but hopefully not the 15 player disasters we have seen in the past.

BC

[TrumpCard]

Thanks, BC!

[TrumpCard]

Thanks, BC!

[SamuelMcF]

This raises an interesting question: How many spots do we project in the ‘23 class?  Due to COVID redshirting rules, this coming year, Stanford could have 85 scholarship players, none of them running out of eligibility in 2022. I assume there won’t be any 6th year players and not too many 5th year players returning in 2023, but isn’t ‘23 going to be a relatively small class?

I think there will be 82 players with eligibility remaining after next year, but 22 academic seniors, I think.  So depending on how many fifth years come back, it could range between 3 and 25 players.  I think there are a fair number of seniors next year who will be starters or play positions of need, so it juggling the returners will be key.  If I had to guess, I would peg the class at somewhere in between, maybe 10 players invited back, though I expect some will elect to move on.  I think Kelly is the only guy I see drafted to the NFL, but I could see a few forgoing their extra year of eligibility and trying to make it as UDFA or will move onto the next phase in their life (plus the usual one or two players who are the victims of attrition for other reasons).  So, I would peg the class at around 18 to 20.  Thus, a slightly smaller than average class, but hopefully not the 15 player disasters we have seen in the past.

BC

+1. I think the lesson has been learned on the small class size front, especially with 2017 and 2018 being BACK TO BACK 16 and 15 player classes (including returning LDS players and excluding departing LDS players)...which was a disaster. I had been adamant for years that the 2018 class in particular was going to be so much worse than it looked for roster construction reasons, and I'm not happy to have been right. If you have a small class, it has to be sandwiched between bigger classes. And it should never have just one player at a position where we play 5. Ever. (2021, while subpar by our standards, had 17 players and checked both those boxes, although just one low-rated WR will prove a bit concerning.)

Note that non- or barely-contributors (who have all graduated, of course) are being pushed out the door to make room for 2022s. Good. We want that to continue further with next year's non-contributors to make room for more 23s. A freshman unknown is better than a known steak-eater, and I believe this is the beginning of a late adjustment to the new reality that most guys don't stick around for a 5th year anymore. Just another in a long line of multiple-years-too-late adjustments. 

Also note there is some super weird eligibility/Covid math going on that's going to affect the team in a massive way in a couple years - if my spreadsheet is right, we have 33!!! players across 3 different academic classes whose eligibility ends after the 2024 season (though many of those may leave earlier due to senior non-contribution, NFL declaration, etc). IMO the NCAA clamping straight back down to 85 scholarships after this past season is going to cause (and is already causing) a massive spike in trickle-down portal entries, which will result in hundreds of players either dropping down a level further than expected or even getting screwed out of a scholarship completely. If I'm Ryan Johnson, I'm thanking my lucky stars a bunch of G5s are offering me a scholarship given how much of a bloodbath it is out there right now. If I recall, there are over 1000 players in the portal already and it's not even the new year yet.

[SamuelMcF]

This raises an interesting question: How many spots do we project in the ‘23 class?  Due to COVID redshirting rules, this coming year, Stanford could have 85 scholarship players, none of them running out of eligibility in 2022. I assume there won’t be any 6th year players and not too many 5th year players returning in 2023, but isn’t ‘23 going to be a relatively small class?

I think there will be 82 players with eligibility remaining after next year, but 22 academic seniors, I think.  So depending on how many fifth years come back, it could range between 3 and 25 players.  I think there are a fair number of seniors next year who will be starters or play positions of need, so it juggling the returners will be key.  If I had to guess, I would peg the class at somewhere in between, maybe 10 players invited back, though I expect some will elect to move on.  I think Kelly is the only guy I see drafted to the NFL, but I could see a few forgoing their extra year of eligibility and trying to make it as UDFA or will move onto the next phase in their life (plus the usual one or two players who are the victims of attrition for other reasons).  So, I would peg the class at around 18 to 20.  Thus, a slightly smaller than average class, but hopefully not the 15 player disasters we have seen in the past.

BC

+1. I think the lesson has been learned on the small class size front, especially with 2017 and 2018 being BACK TO BACK 16 and 15 player classes (including returning LDS players and excluding departing LDS players)...which was a disaster. I had been adamant for years that the 2018 class in particular was going to be so much worse than it looked for roster construction reasons, and I'm not happy to have been right. If you have a small class, it has to be sandwiched between bigger classes. And it should never have just one player at a position where we play 5. Ever. (2021, while subpar by our standards, had 17 players and checked both those boxes, although just one low-rated WR will prove a bit concerning.)

Note that non- or barely-contributors (who have all graduated, of course) are being pushed out the door to make room for 2022s. Good. We want that to continue further with next year's non-contributors to make room for more 23s. A freshman unknown is better than a known steak-eater, and I believe this is the beginning of a late adjustment to the new reality that most guys don't stick around for a 5th year anymore. Just another in a long line of multiple-years-too-late adjustments. 

Also note there is some super weird eligibility/Covid math going on that's going to affect the team in a massive way in a couple years - if my spreadsheet is right, we have 33!!! players across 3 different academic classes whose eligibility ends after the 2024 season (though many of those may leave earlier due to senior non-contribution, NFL declaration, etc). IMO the NCAA clamping straight back down to 85 scholarships after this past season is going to cause (and is already causing) a massive spike in trickle-down portal entries, which will result in hundreds of players either dropping down a level further than expected or even getting screwed out of a scholarship completely. If I'm Ryan Johnson, I'm thanking my lucky stars a bunch of G5s are offering me a scholarship given how much of a bloodbath it is out there right now. If I recall, there are over 1000 players in the portal already and it's not even the new year yet.

[BostonCard]

If I’m Ryan Johnson, I’m thanking my lucky stars that I will graduate with a Stanford degree, and that even if I were to not get an offer for a scholarship for a graduate degree that my employment prospects in something other than football were good.

BC

[BostonCard]

If I’m Ryan Johnson, I’m thanking my lucky stars that I will graduate with a Stanford degree, and that even if I were to not get an offer for a scholarship for a graduate degree that my employment prospects in something other than football were good.

BC

[old spanish trail]

If I’m Ryan Johnson, I’m thanking my lucky stars that I will graduate with a Stanford degree, and that even if I were to not get an offer for a scholarship for a graduate degree that my employment prospects in something other than football were good.

BC

Yep.

[old spanish trail]

If I’m Ryan Johnson, I’m thanking my lucky stars that I will graduate with a Stanford degree, and that even if I were to not get an offer for a scholarship for a graduate degree that my employment prospects in something other than football were good.

BC

Yep.

[pefloresjr]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

By woefully inadequate, I was thinking of holes left by underrecruiting at key positions and the fact that Stanford wasn't filling its 85-scholarship limit--self-imposed scholarship limits, as someone else put it. 

So if you look at recruiting rankings alone, then yeah, we should be in top four in the Pac-12 every year. But, unlike other teams, we can't dip into the transfer portal to fill holes when unfortunate things happen like career-ending injuries or starters turn pro or grad transfer.

To answer your question, I do blame development and roster management, but I would argue that inadequate recruiting--the actual act of landing high-quality recruits in a way that doesn't leave holes in positions of needs--is the biggest reason why 2019 and 2021 yielded such awful results.

But it does look like I'm the only one who feels this way...

I completely agree with you.  The overall average recruit number doesn't tell the story of our recruiting problems in recent years.  It relates more to years with really low level production at some positions.  

Cheersl
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

By woefully inadequate, I was thinking of holes left by underrecruiting at key positions and the fact that Stanford wasn't filling its 85-scholarship limit--self-imposed scholarship limits, as someone else put it. 

So if you look at recruiting rankings alone, then yeah, we should be in top four in the Pac-12 every year. But, unlike other teams, we can't dip into the transfer portal to fill holes when unfortunate things happen like career-ending injuries or starters turn pro or grad transfer.

To answer your question, I do blame development and roster management, but I would argue that inadequate recruiting--the actual act of landing high-quality recruits in a way that doesn't leave holes in positions of needs--is the biggest reason why 2019 and 2021 yielded such awful results.

But it does look like I'm the only one who feels this way...

I completely agree with you.  The overall average recruit number doesn't tell the story of our recruiting problems in recent years.  It relates more to years with really low level production at some positions.  

Cheersl
Pete F.

[BostonCard]

The nice thing about having a balanced class in 2022 is that we don’t have any whopping holes that we will have to fill emergently in the class of 2023.  That being said, there are a couple of spots where the recruiting was a bit weaker and will need to be shored up in 2023, and a couple positions where we had decent numbers but not high level talent.  So here is my wish list for 2023:

Defensive back: the de-commitment of Ramsey really hurt, as we only recruited two other DB’s in the clas, neither of them what I would call elite (and if Wright doesn’t wind up signing his LOI, this will be a big problem for 2023.  So we will need a full DB class, with two Cb’s and two safeties in 2023.

Quarterback: thankfully, we have stopped taking gap years in QB recruiting, but we need to continue taking a QB every year, and I’m really hoping we can land an elite one.  Bonus points if he is a dual threat, for Phogge.

Wide receiver: we will need at least two WR’s (three if we can get good ones), preferably at least one a speedy guy who can stretch defenses.

Running back: like QB, we should be taking a running back every year.  And given that we only took one each in 2021 and 2022, if there are two good ones available, it would be nice to have extra depth, given the risk of injury (as we saw this year).

Offensive line: we did pretty well in terms of quality and quantity in 2022 (with 4, two of whom were four star, and the other two high three star recruits).  They are all nominally tackles, though I assume two will move inside.  Unlike prior years where we take a break from recruiting linemen every once in a while, we have to continue with another solid class of four or five so that by the time the classes of 2022 and 2023 are juniors and seniors, we can have a real two-deep.

Linebackers: if we truly are moving two a 4-3, then getting three linebackers in 2022 is good.  We will need 2-3 again next year.  And, if the rumors are false, we will need more like 4 next year.

Tight ends: we got two in 2022, which is great, but follows a whiff in 2021. So we need to get at least one for 2023, and a second would not be bad.

Defensive line: I can’t believe I’m saying it, but we will be in good shape a few years down the line when the class of 2022 matures (it’s a mess in the short term, as I’ve expanded on previously, but at least the class of 2022 was good).  Now, if we are moving to a 4-3, we are going to need to keep it up, with at least three defensive linemen in 2023.  If we stay in a 3-4, we can’t afford to whiff, but we would be fine with just two.

BC

[BostonCard]

The nice thing about having a balanced class in 2022 is that we don’t have any whopping holes that we will have to fill emergently in the class of 2023.  That being said, there are a couple of spots where the recruiting was a bit weaker and will need to be shored up in 2023, and a couple positions where we had decent numbers but not high level talent.  So here is my wish list for 2023:

Defensive back: the de-commitment of Ramsey really hurt, as we only recruited two other DB’s in the clas, neither of them what I would call elite (and if Wright doesn’t wind up signing his LOI, this will be a big problem for 2023.  So we will need a full DB class, with two Cb’s and two safeties in 2023.

Quarterback: thankfully, we have stopped taking gap years in QB recruiting, but we need to continue taking a QB every year, and I’m really hoping we can land an elite one.  Bonus points if he is a dual threat, for Phogge.

Wide receiver: we will need at least two WR’s (three if we can get good ones), preferably at least one a speedy guy who can stretch defenses.

Running back: like QB, we should be taking a running back every year.  And given that we only took one each in 2021 and 2022, if there are two good ones available, it would be nice to have extra depth, given the risk of injury (as we saw this year).

Offensive line: we did pretty well in terms of quality and quantity in 2022 (with 4, two of whom were four star, and the other two high three star recruits).  They are all nominally tackles, though I assume two will move inside.  Unlike prior years where we take a break from recruiting linemen every once in a while, we have to continue with another solid class of four or five so that by the time the classes of 2022 and 2023 are juniors and seniors, we can have a real two-deep.

Linebackers: if we truly are moving two a 4-3, then getting three linebackers in 2022 is good.  We will need 2-3 again next year.  And, if the rumors are false, we will need more like 4 next year.

Tight ends: we got two in 2022, which is great, but follows a whiff in 2021. So we need to get at least one for 2023, and a second would not be bad.

Defensive line: I can’t believe I’m saying it, but we will be in good shape a few years down the line when the class of 2022 matures (it’s a mess in the short term, as I’ve expanded on previously, but at least the class of 2022 was good).  Now, if we are moving to a 4-3, we are going to need to keep it up, with at least three defensive linemen in 2023.  If we stay in a 3-4, we can’t afford to whiff, but we would be fine with just two.

BC

[Maple Leaf]

the Quackers/Oregon have 13 players who have decommitted. one 5 star and seven 4 star players.  I guess the NIL that Phil Knight is offering is not at the same level as Air Jordans, or Phil did not take that class in NIL at Stanford Biz School.

[Maple Leaf]

the Quackers/Oregon have 13 players who have decommitted. one 5 star and seven 4 star players.  I guess the NIL that Phil Knight is offering is not at the same level as Air Jordans, or Phil did not take that class in NIL at Stanford Biz School.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Mason42Robinson/status/1473009046802284547[/tweet]

New OLB offer puts us at 41 total for the class. This more aggressive pace (second-most by this stage after the torrent that was 2022) suggests the class will be on the larger side as well, which I support.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Mason42Robinson/status/1473009046802284547[/tweet]

New OLB offer puts us at 41 total for the class. This more aggressive pace (second-most by this stage after the torrent that was 2022) suggests the class will be on the larger side as well, which I support.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EnowEtta1/status/1473448538516463621[/tweet]

Another OLB offer. 4.1 GPA.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EnowEtta1/status/1473448538516463621[/tweet]

Another OLB offer. 4.1 GPA.

[slide]

The nice thing about having a balanced class in 2022 is that we don’t have any whopping holes that we will have to fill emergently in the class of 2023.  That being said, there are a couple of spots where the recruiting was a bit weaker and will need to be shored up in 2023, and a couple positions where we had decent numbers but not high level talent.  So here is my wish list for 2023:

Defensive back: the de-commitment of Ramsey really hurt, as we only recruited two other DB’s in the clas, neither of them what I would call elite (and if Wright doesn’t wind up signing his LOI, this will be a big problem for 2023.  So we will need a full DB class, with two Cb’s and two safeties in 2023.

Quarterback: thankfully, we have stopped taking gap years in QB recruiting, but we need to continue taking a QB every year, and I’m really hoping we can land an elite one.  Bonus points if he is a dual threat, for Phogge.

Wide receiver: we will need at least two WR’s (three if we can get good ones), preferably at least one a speedy guy who can stretch defenses.

Running back: like QB, we should be taking a running back every year.  And given that we only took one each in 2021 and 2022, if there are two good ones available, it would be nice to have extra depth, given the risk of injury (as we saw this year).

Offensive line: we did pretty well in terms of quality and quantity in 2022 (with 4, two of whom were four star, and the other two high three star recruits).  They are all nominally tackles, though I assume two will move inside.  Unlike prior years where we take a break from recruiting linemen every once in a while, we have to continue with another solid class of four or five so that by the time the classes of 2022 and 2023 are juniors and seniors, we can have a real two-deep.

Linebackers: if we truly are moving two a 4-3, then getting three linebackers in 2022 is good.  We will need 2-3 again next year.  And, if the rumors are false, we will need more like 4 next year.

Tight ends: we got two in 2022, which is great, but follows a whiff in 2021. So we need to get at least one for 2023, and a second would not be bad.

Defensive line: I can’t believe I’m saying it, but we will be in good shape a few years down the line when the class of 2022 matures (it’s a mess in the short term, as I’ve expanded on previously, but at least the class of 2022 was good).  Now, if we are moving to a 4-3, we are going to need to keep it up, with at least three defensive linemen in 2023.  If we stay in a 3-4, we can’t afford to whiff, but we would be fine with just two.

BC

nice summary BC of needs.  if we are to err on scholarships, I'd hope it would be on the defensive side of the ball.  the 2022 class is the most balanced (O&D) we've had in years. 

late adds to this thread is the self sanctions by Shaw cover most of his head coaching career.  in the end, the approach (leaving numerous unused scholarships annually) is really a disservice to the players as the lack of numbers (especially with the accompanying number of "steak eater/bus riders") that it inhibits full squad scrimmages and player development.  recall the team went a couple of years without such regular scrimmages due to lack of OL and DL.  

on hopes going forward (and covid willing), I'd like to see an early aggressive Spring OV schedule -- may be targeting a dozen of our high-rated/early offers including Pratt.  use that group to build the core of the '23 class.  Gus can provide the numbers, but we've had a low hit rate on early offers and it would be nice to change it.

[slide]

The nice thing about having a balanced class in 2022 is that we don’t have any whopping holes that we will have to fill emergently in the class of 2023.  That being said, there are a couple of spots where the recruiting was a bit weaker and will need to be shored up in 2023, and a couple positions where we had decent numbers but not high level talent.  So here is my wish list for 2023:

Defensive back: the de-commitment of Ramsey really hurt, as we only recruited two other DB’s in the clas, neither of them what I would call elite (and if Wright doesn’t wind up signing his LOI, this will be a big problem for 2023.  So we will need a full DB class, with two Cb’s and two safeties in 2023.

Quarterback: thankfully, we have stopped taking gap years in QB recruiting, but we need to continue taking a QB every year, and I’m really hoping we can land an elite one.  Bonus points if he is a dual threat, for Phogge.

Wide receiver: we will need at least two WR’s (three if we can get good ones), preferably at least one a speedy guy who can stretch defenses.

Running back: like QB, we should be taking a running back every year.  And given that we only took one each in 2021 and 2022, if there are two good ones available, it would be nice to have extra depth, given the risk of injury (as we saw this year).

Offensive line: we did pretty well in terms of quality and quantity in 2022 (with 4, two of whom were four star, and the other two high three star recruits).  They are all nominally tackles, though I assume two will move inside.  Unlike prior years where we take a break from recruiting linemen every once in a while, we have to continue with another solid class of four or five so that by the time the classes of 2022 and 2023 are juniors and seniors, we can have a real two-deep.

Linebackers: if we truly are moving two a 4-3, then getting three linebackers in 2022 is good.  We will need 2-3 again next year.  And, if the rumors are false, we will need more like 4 next year.

Tight ends: we got two in 2022, which is great, but follows a whiff in 2021. So we need to get at least one for 2023, and a second would not be bad.

Defensive line: I can’t believe I’m saying it, but we will be in good shape a few years down the line when the class of 2022 matures (it’s a mess in the short term, as I’ve expanded on previously, but at least the class of 2022 was good).  Now, if we are moving to a 4-3, we are going to need to keep it up, with at least three defensive linemen in 2023.  If we stay in a 3-4, we can’t afford to whiff, but we would be fine with just two.

BC

nice summary BC of needs.  if we are to err on scholarships, I'd hope it would be on the defensive side of the ball.  the 2022 class is the most balanced (O&D) we've had in years. 

late adds to this thread is the self sanctions by Shaw cover most of his head coaching career.  in the end, the approach (leaving numerous unused scholarships annually) is really a disservice to the players as the lack of numbers (especially with the accompanying number of "steak eater/bus riders") that it inhibits full squad scrimmages and player development.  recall the team went a couple of years without such regular scrimmages due to lack of OL and DL.  

on hopes going forward (and covid willing), I'd like to see an early aggressive Spring OV schedule -- may be targeting a dozen of our high-rated/early offers including Pratt.  use that group to build the core of the '23 class.  Gus can provide the numbers, but we've had a low hit rate on early offers and it would be nice to change it.

[SamuelMcF]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

[SamuelMcF]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

[McKenwood]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

[McKenwood]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

[SamuelMcF]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

This list has nothing to do with recruit ratings, only to do with the order in which they were offered. Aybar was technically the very last offer for '21 (and was on the later side for '22 before reclassifying).

I believe the initial '22 QB offer flurry had much more to do with us not being able to see any of them in person, and their subsequent commitments elsewhere more to do with not being able to visit Stanford in person (until Daniels visited over the summer), or in MJ Morris' case no longer being a "take" anywhere besides NC State where he committed. 
You'll note that 3 of the 4 pre-Daniels offers started out as bonafide whales or 4* prospects, then slipped in the rankings over time until ending up as barely-4* or high 3* guys. That's because all evaluators could go on was limited tape until senior seasons and summer camps were a go. (The exception, AJ Duffy, moved to Florida and is "the guy" FSU is rebuilding around under the new staff. They didn't take a QB in '21 and their '20 QB sucks.)

All this is to say I don't expect multiple simultaneous QB offers anymore as 2022 hopefully proves to be a Covid-related anomaly. If Arnold proves not to have much traction (personally I believe he does as Pritchard had many next-offer options and visited Arnold's HS a couple weeks ago), I would expect just one at a time.

[SamuelMcF]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

This list has nothing to do with recruit ratings, only to do with the order in which they were offered. Aybar was technically the very last offer for '21 (and was on the later side for '22 before reclassifying).

I believe the initial '22 QB offer flurry had much more to do with us not being able to see any of them in person, and their subsequent commitments elsewhere more to do with not being able to visit Stanford in person (until Daniels visited over the summer), or in MJ Morris' case no longer being a "take" anywhere besides NC State where he committed. 
You'll note that 3 of the 4 pre-Daniels offers started out as bonafide whales or 4* prospects, then slipped in the rankings over time until ending up as barely-4* or high 3* guys. That's because all evaluators could go on was limited tape until senior seasons and summer camps were a go. (The exception, AJ Duffy, moved to Florida and is "the guy" FSU is rebuilding around under the new staff. They didn't take a QB in '21 and their '20 QB sucks.)

All this is to say I don't expect multiple simultaneous QB offers anymore as 2022 hopefully proves to be a Covid-related anomaly. If Arnold proves not to have much traction (personally I believe he does as Pritchard had many next-offer options and visited Arnold's HS a couple weeks ago), I would expect just one at a time.

[slide]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

McKenwood -- agreed on your comments on Sam's table too.

all schools are allotted 56 OVs and each recruit 5 OVs.  in a big year, Shaw may use 30 OVs, with most used at the official s'mores/bonding weekend post-first LOI day.  good for the signees, but really no bump in recruiting.  so why not spend the unused ones (and the unused ones don't carry forward) and try to land whales?  the campus is like no other, the same is true with professors and the team/coaches seemingly sell very well at home.  granted not high odds, but if you can get whales to give up an OV, it is worth the chance and spring is early enough to develop some traction.  

Ashton Daniels and MJ Morris faced off against each other in the high school semifinals. Daniels was the better QB -- better decision-maker, more efficient, avoided negative plays etc.  it also helps Buford was a lot better than Carrollton.  21-6, but not really that close.

[slide]

Re slide's final point:

Our earliest offers overwhelmingly tend to be mega-whales that everyone in the country is prioritizing, and hence are usually never in play later on in the process unless they really care about academics or have a Stanford connection. For a few we'll be in a top X list, but by the end they almost always sign with a football factory. I don’t have info on top X lists but I do keep a sheet of commitments. I will start in 2018, when the Early Signing Period began, and assume 2022 is done.

# of commits within the first 30 offers by class:
2018: 4 (#1 West, #19 Woods, #27 Umerah, #29 Wilson). Offer #30 was given in March, later than any subsequent class. There were just 51 offers total. (And West should never have been offered that insanely early…or at all.)
2019: 5 (#20 Herron, #21 Pakola, #23 McGill, #26 Bowman, #29 Bragg). Offer #30 was given in January.
2020: 6 (#3 Hinton, #11 B. Jones, #12 Humphreys, #17 Farrell, #24 Ungar, #30 Starr). Offer #30 was given in December.
2021: 3 (#23 Armitage, #26 Wyrick, #28 Slocum). Offer #30 was given in February.
2022: 7 (#4 Bailey, #8 Roush, #12 Cooper, #17 Swanson, #26 Harris, #27 Tafiti, #30 Thompson). Offer #30 was given in August.
2023: 1 so far (#22 Platt). Offer #30 was given in September.

You’ll note a correlation: the earlier offer #30 went out, the more early offers converted to commits. Purely based on this, I’d expect that number to be 6-7 again in ’23. I can see a path to that number for sure but it’s way too early to predict anything. Platt was a good start.

Excellent work Sam. Not sure where you can slot Aybar into your chart but he is one of Stanford's more highly rated recruits.
Prior to 2022 Stanford held onto the fiction that they had a chance with the mega whales and essentially reserved spots for them. Of course they did not commit and Stanford was always playing catch up later in the process with more attainable prospects.
Stanford now is getting the message even at the QB position. They had four offers out besides Daniels who they ultimately settled on. I would like to see a couple more '23 QB offers with the idea of getting a commitment in March or April.

McKenwood -- agreed on your comments on Sam's table too.

all schools are allotted 56 OVs and each recruit 5 OVs.  in a big year, Shaw may use 30 OVs, with most used at the official s'mores/bonding weekend post-first LOI day.  good for the signees, but really no bump in recruiting.  so why not spend the unused ones (and the unused ones don't carry forward) and try to land whales?  the campus is like no other, the same is true with professors and the team/coaches seemingly sell very well at home.  granted not high odds, but if you can get whales to give up an OV, it is worth the chance and spring is early enough to develop some traction.  

Ashton Daniels and MJ Morris faced off against each other in the high school semifinals. Daniels was the better QB -- better decision-maker, more efficient, avoided negative plays etc.  it also helps Buford was a lot better than Carrollton.  21-6, but not really that close.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Ty_Williams04/status/1479551457414328324[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikalPilot/status/1479582619549540365[/tweet]


Two 4* WR offers today.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Ty_Williams04/status/1479551457414328324[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikalPilot/status/1479582619549540365[/tweet]


Two 4* WR offers today.

[SamuelMcF]

He doesn't have a Twitter, but apparently we recently offered mega-whale legendary-pedigree QB Arch Manning.

[SamuelMcF]

He doesn't have a Twitter, but apparently we recently offered mega-whale legendary-pedigree QB Arch Manning.

[Phogge]

He doesn't have a Twitter, but apparently we recently offered mega-whale legendary-pedigree QB Arch Manning.

I imagine that if he commits outside of the SEC the Manning family will never be let into the Southern USA again.

Of course Arriaga could offer him a hundred million to cut his lawn.

[Phogge]

He doesn't have a Twitter, but apparently we recently offered mega-whale legendary-pedigree QB Arch Manning.

I imagine that if he commits outside of the SEC the Manning family will never be let into the Southern USA again.

Of course Arriaga could offer him a hundred million to cut his lawn.

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JayvonThomas10/status/1482886131880546307[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaleSimione/status/1484716474090409985[/tweet]

[SamuelMcF]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JayvonThomas10/status/1482886131880546307[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaleSimione/status/1484716474090409985[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

Seems to me we should be spreading offers more widely, instead of offering one guy 23 times.  Or maybe there is a missing comma in there.

Also, we are not a wannabe Ohio State.  Just “Stanford University” will do.

BC

[BostonCard]

Seems to me we should be spreading offers more widely, instead of offering one guy 23 times.  Or maybe there is a missing comma in there.

Also, we are not a wannabe Ohio State.  Just “Stanford University” will do.

BC