(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
(06-09-2022, 02:20 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
Interesting tweet. The one I'm attaching from 5 hours ago is more interesting. It's a shame that Notre Dame can say this. They couldn't have said this a decade ago.
(06-09-2022, 02:20 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
Interesting tweet. The one I'm attaching from 5 hours ago is more interesting. It's a shame that Notre Dame can say this. They couldn't have said this a decade ago.
(06-09-2022, 02:20 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
Interesting tweet. The one I'm attaching from 5 hours ago is more interesting. It's a shame that Notre Dame can say this. They couldn't have said this a decade ago.
[tweet] https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/stat...7054938112 [/tweet]
(06-09-2022, 02:20 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(05-23-2022, 03:44 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/status/1527788971102588928[/tweet]
Interesting tweet. The one I'm attaching from 5 hours ago is more interesting. It's a shame that Notre Dame can say this. They couldn't have said this a decade ago.
[tweet] https://twitter.com/cellesthegreat1/stat...7054938112 [/tweet]
(07-19-2022, 04:21 PM)BobK Wrote: QB offer
https://twitter.com/austinmack2024/statu...DoHm8xzd1Q
And another
https://twitter.com/elijahbrown_29/statu...DoHm8xzd1Q
(07-19-2022, 04:21 PM)BobK Wrote: QB offer
https://twitter.com/austinmack2024/statu...DoHm8xzd1Q
And another
https://twitter.com/elijahbrown_29/statu...DoHm8xzd1Q
(07-19-2022, 07:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: The pessimistic take is that these offers going out suggests that we don't have a likely path forward with Brock Glenn, Emory Williams, or anybody else of defensibly plausible Plan B status for 2023 and are moving forward with 2024 recruiting so urgently we're going to make these offers even before junior seasons have started, notwithstanding Mack's low profile (albeit some offers that make it possible services are lagging) and our previous experience with Jack West. Our QB recruiting has declined so much that we don't have confidence we can get a whale like Julian Sayin, Jadyn Davis, or Elijah Brown, and given the loss of Lonergan we are being honest with ourselves and know that we absolutely need an at least plausible 2024 QB. No room for gambling. Maybe we can go for a two QB class and still gun for Sayin, Davis, Brown, or somebody else, but the idea of going Patu-Daniels-nothing and then missing out on a plausible QB was just unacceptable.I wouldn't say Stanford has thrown in the towel for 2023, but rather are excepting the fact that QB recruiting is speeding up, so they must follow suit no matter the risk of spending resources on a player that may not qualify.
Because I know many will want to go there, a stab at an optimistic read: it's early in 2024 recruiting, the services are quite fallible at this stage, and our coaches evaluated Austin Mack against other candidates for an offer and just love Mack so much that it's worth a pre-junior year offer. I suspect hedging bets/convincing ourselves he's great like we did with Patu is the more likely story.
Anyway, Austin Mack is rated the #35 QB by one leading service and the #48 QB by another and, per my analysis of Stanford recruiting historically anything that isn't top 15 is below-average for Stanford and anything that isn't top 20 is straight-up slumming. Have to hope services are late on this one (and offers suggest that may be possible) but still hard to see this being a top dozen kind of QB, which in itself is a sign of a drop-off in Stanford QB recruiting. I don't love the idea of becoming a Folsom welfare program. Aside from Jake Browning - who we declined to offer despite being a much bigger prospect than Patu and Mack and us passing on Rosen as a QB that year! - Folsom doesn't have a great history with QBs at the next level. Mack, like Patu before him, gets the offer before even being QB1 at the high school level.
Elijah Brown, on the other hand, is a whale.
We've now offered Patu without starting for Folsom, Daniels based on in-person workout without moving targets, and Mack without starting for Folsom.....
(07-19-2022, 07:23 PM)msqueri Wrote: The pessimistic take is that these offers going out suggests that we don't have a likely path forward with Brock Glenn, Emory Williams, or anybody else of defensibly plausible Plan B status for 2023 and are moving forward with 2024 recruiting so urgently we're going to make these offers even before junior seasons have started, notwithstanding Mack's low profile (albeit some offers that make it possible services are lagging) and our previous experience with Jack West. Our QB recruiting has declined so much that we don't have confidence we can get a whale like Julian Sayin, Jadyn Davis, or Elijah Brown, and given the loss of Lonergan we are being honest with ourselves and know that we absolutely need an at least plausible 2024 QB. No room for gambling. Maybe we can go for a two QB class and still gun for Sayin, Davis, Brown, or somebody else, but the idea of going Patu-Daniels-nothing and then missing out on a plausible QB was just unacceptable.I wouldn't say Stanford has thrown in the towel for 2023, but rather are excepting the fact that QB recruiting is speeding up, so they must follow suit no matter the risk of spending resources on a player that may not qualify.
Because I know many will want to go there, a stab at an optimistic read: it's early in 2024 recruiting, the services are quite fallible at this stage, and our coaches evaluated Austin Mack against other candidates for an offer and just love Mack so much that it's worth a pre-junior year offer. I suspect hedging bets/convincing ourselves he's great like we did with Patu is the more likely story.
Anyway, Austin Mack is rated the #35 QB by one leading service and the #48 QB by another and, per my analysis of Stanford recruiting historically anything that isn't top 15 is below-average for Stanford and anything that isn't top 20 is straight-up slumming. Have to hope services are late on this one (and offers suggest that may be possible) but still hard to see this being a top dozen kind of QB, which in itself is a sign of a drop-off in Stanford QB recruiting. I don't love the idea of becoming a Folsom welfare program. Aside from Jake Browning - who we declined to offer despite being a much bigger prospect than Patu and Mack and us passing on Rosen as a QB that year! - Folsom doesn't have a great history with QBs at the next level. Mack, like Patu before him, gets the offer before even being QB1 at the high school level.
Elijah Brown, on the other hand, is a whale.
We've now offered Patu without starting for Folsom, Daniels based on in-person workout without moving targets, and Mack without starting for Folsom.....
(07-20-2022, 08:48 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: In the case of Mack, he received 4 offers on the same day following the big showcase in Oakland. That was the first opportunity for many coaches and evaluators to get eyes on him, and they obviously liked what they saw. With his measurables it's way to early to put any kind of ceiling on him as a prospect. 247 is not going to highly rate a prospect without much film, but that can change quickly. I believe he has already been on campus twice & it would be great to have a QB led class for a change.
(07-20-2022, 08:48 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: In the case of Mack, he received 4 offers on the same day following the big showcase in Oakland. That was the first opportunity for many coaches and evaluators to get eyes on him, and they obviously liked what they saw. With his measurables it's way to early to put any kind of ceiling on him as a prospect. 247 is not going to highly rate a prospect without much film, but that can change quickly. I believe he has already been on campus twice & it would be great to have a QB led class for a change.
(07-28-2022, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2024’s on campus for junior day, so we should expect a plethora of offers going out.
(07-28-2022, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/fletcherwestph1/status/1552666105226768385?s=21&t=1KFnxI0p5BiyxhXYq5OSAA[/tweet]
Don’t see an offer reported yet, but a 4* OT.
(07-28-2022, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2024’s on campus for junior day, so we should expect a plethora of offers going out.
(07-28-2022, 08:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote: [tweet]https://twitter.com/fletcherwestph1/status/1552666105226768385?s=21&t=1KFnxI0p5BiyxhXYq5OSAA[/tweet]
Don’t see an offer reported yet, but a 4* OT.
(07-29-2022, 02:53 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think historically we’ve seen offers bestowed on junior day visitors, and in many cases juniors working out in person catch the attention of coaches and earn offers.
BC
(07-29-2022, 02:53 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think historically we’ve seen offers bestowed on junior day visitors, and in many cases juniors working out in person catch the attention of coaches and earn offers.
BC
