[TrumpCard]

Thanks for the correction Samuel.  With Keck back to walk-on status, it sounds like the team is now only 1 over the limit of 85. Maybe there’s an injury retirement coming.

[TrumpCard]

Thanks for the correction Samuel.  With Keck back to walk-on status, it sounds like the team is now only 1 over the limit of 85. Maybe there’s an injury retirement coming.

[msqueri]

Thanks for the correction Samuel.  With Keck back to walk-on status, it sounds like the team is now only 1 over the limit of 85. Maybe there’s an injury retirement coming.

I think the math adds up to 85 if Patrick Fields is a walk-on, which is my assumption based on what was reported when he transferred.

[msqueri]

Thanks for the correction Samuel.  With Keck back to walk-on status, it sounds like the team is now only 1 over the limit of 85. Maybe there’s an injury retirement coming.

I think the math adds up to 85 if Patrick Fields is a walk-on, which is my assumption based on what was reported when he transferred.

[Phogge]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

[Phogge]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

[BobK]

While Fields is not on a football scholarship it certainly doesn’t mean he is paying himself.

[BobK]

While Fields is not on a football scholarship it certainly doesn’t mean he is paying himself.

[JohnR34231]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

I thought he had been awarded an academic scholarship, so he wouldn't have to pay for himself.
I also thought that if he plays, which he will, he had to count against the 85 limit.
True?

[JohnR34231]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

I thought he had been awarded an academic scholarship, so he wouldn't have to pay for himself.
I also thought that if he plays, which he will, he had to count against the 85 limit.
True?

[SamuelMcF]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

I thought he had been awarded an academic scholarship, so he wouldn't have to pay for himself.
I also thought that if he plays, which he will, he had to count against the 85 limit.
True?

Fields does not count because he was not recruited. Same with our other walk-ons who play garbage time.

One of the following needs to apply in order to be considered recruited:

1. Was provided an official visit to the institution's campus

2. Had an arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with a member of the institution's coaching staff (including a coach's arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete's family members)

3. Was issued a National Letter of Intent or a written offer of athletically related financial aid by the institution for a regular academic term

None of these apply to Fields (pertaining to his grad transfer) or our other walk-ons.

[SamuelMcF]

Fields is a starter. If he started at Okie he certainly is good enough to start at Stanford where safety has been, politely, underperforming.

How can you let him pay for himself? Some times you just have to cut somebody. Or does everybody at Stanford get a participation trophy?

I thought he had been awarded an academic scholarship, so he wouldn't have to pay for himself.
I also thought that if he plays, which he will, he had to count against the 85 limit.
True?

Fields does not count because he was not recruited. Same with our other walk-ons who play garbage time.

One of the following needs to apply in order to be considered recruited:

1. Was provided an official visit to the institution's campus

2. Had an arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with a member of the institution's coaching staff (including a coach's arranged, in-person, off-campus encounter with the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete's family members)

3. Was issued a National Letter of Intent or a written offer of athletically related financial aid by the institution for a regular academic term

None of these apply to Fields (pertaining to his grad transfer) or our other walk-ons.

[Phogge]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

[Phogge]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

[SamuelMcF]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

Ask the prospective fifth-years EVERY SINGLE SEASON that are not offered a spot to come back.

[SamuelMcF]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

Ask the prospective fifth-years EVERY SINGLE SEASON that are not offered a spot to come back.

[Phogge]

OK. How many schools other than Stanford honor four year scholarships all the way?

For reference in my soph year our starting LF was cut after 10 games. Wasn’t hitting. Luckily for him he stayed in school and became a doctor of pharmacy.

[Phogge]

OK. How many schools other than Stanford honor four year scholarships all the way?

For reference in my soph year our starting LF was cut after 10 games. Wasn’t hitting. Luckily for him he stayed in school and became a doctor of pharmacy.

[msqueri]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

Ask the prospective fifth-years EVERY SINGLE SEASON that are not offered a spot to come back.

I think "cut" is a silly word to use in the context of college sports (this isn't high school) but even assuming the validity of the word, correct, there are and have always been decisions regarding whether somebody gets a fifth year. Even more to the point, there are also mid-career retirements for which we don't know all the circumstances (which may be medical or pseudo medical or partly medical). Marcus Graham is not on Stanford's roster anymore, for instance, despite being a recruited, scholarship player with three seasons of eligibility remaining. Moreover, if somebody really gets their rocks off on seeing players "cut" certainly Joshua Pakola being kicked off the team would qualify.

As a general matter, Stanford's 2022 roster appears to be as aggressively managed as any in Shaw's tenure. We are full up on scholarships, had multiple guys removed from the roster and/or converted to walk-on status to get to that limit, and don't have a lot of dead wood (Colby Bowman is probably the most obvious example and there's no more than a small handful). Our roster problems have more to do with the overall quality than a refusal to manage the roster because we coddle players.

Now, Stanford probably is more likely to honor four year scholarships than other programs in the sense that we try to attract/retain players with the Stanford-specific appeal of the degree than other programs and therefore has fewer pull and push factors to entice and/or push out players on the "cut line" out of the program. That's always been the case as far as I can tell, but Harbaugh may have had more non-seniors transfer or retire than Shaw has, so attitude/congeniality toward players on the cut line can make a difference, which is probably Phogge's point.

[msqueri]

Just asking. Is there a no cut policy at Stanford?

Ask the prospective fifth-years EVERY SINGLE SEASON that are not offered a spot to come back.

I think "cut" is a silly word to use in the context of college sports (this isn't high school) but even assuming the validity of the word, correct, there are and have always been decisions regarding whether somebody gets a fifth year. Even more to the point, there are also mid-career retirements for which we don't know all the circumstances (which may be medical or pseudo medical or partly medical). Marcus Graham is not on Stanford's roster anymore, for instance, despite being a recruited, scholarship player with three seasons of eligibility remaining. Moreover, if somebody really gets their rocks off on seeing players "cut" certainly Joshua Pakola being kicked off the team would qualify.

As a general matter, Stanford's 2022 roster appears to be as aggressively managed as any in Shaw's tenure. We are full up on scholarships, had multiple guys removed from the roster and/or converted to walk-on status to get to that limit, and don't have a lot of dead wood (Colby Bowman is probably the most obvious example and there's no more than a small handful). Our roster problems have more to do with the overall quality than a refusal to manage the roster because we coddle players.

Now, Stanford probably is more likely to honor four year scholarships than other programs in the sense that we try to attract/retain players with the Stanford-specific appeal of the degree than other programs and therefore has fewer pull and push factors to entice and/or push out players on the "cut line" out of the program. That's always been the case as far as I can tell, but Harbaugh may have had more non-seniors transfer or retire than Shaw has, so attitude/congeniality toward players on the cut line can make a difference, which is probably Phogge's point.

[Phogge]

Hey pal, the rocks off comment is in bad taste. As for “cut” that word was directly used in football, basketball and baseball at my school. A four year college that sent thousands of teachers and hundreds of coaches into the California system. To nurture and to sometimes tell a kid that he might look elsewhere in his school for extracurricular ways to shine. It wasn’t Cal and it wasn’t Stanford but it did it’s job.

[Phogge]

Hey pal, the rocks off comment is in bad taste. As for “cut” that word was directly used in football, basketball and baseball at my school. A four year college that sent thousands of teachers and hundreds of coaches into the California system. To nurture and to sometimes tell a kid that he might look elsewhere in his school for extracurricular ways to shine. It wasn’t Cal and it wasn’t Stanford but it did it’s job.

[Langdude]

Ok. I'm going to go with Fields and Keck as walk-ons. (Really non-scholarship and not "walk-ons," but you understand.) This would explain how the staff is getting the roster down to 85. In both cases, it makes sense. As many (including me) thought at first, Fields was admitted to Stanford on graduate academic scholarship before he made (official) contact with the football team, so he is a non-recruited player, and it was just a brobdingnagian bonus that he decided he'd play some football on the side. :) And, as for Keck, I'll bet he tried the transfer protocol because he was told that he did not have a scholie for this year. And when he did not receive any offers from other schools, or perhaps no offers to his liking, he elected to return to Stanford, either on his own dime or he received an academic scholarship as well (it is not unusual to get at least partial academic scholarships to many of the grad programs).

Anyway, both of those scenarios seem right to me.

If either of them can play on the defensive line, we're set.

-m.

[Langdude]

Ok. I'm going to go with Fields and Keck as walk-ons. (Really non-scholarship and not "walk-ons," but you understand.) This would explain how the staff is getting the roster down to 85. In both cases, it makes sense. As many (including me) thought at first, Fields was admitted to Stanford on graduate academic scholarship before he made (official) contact with the football team, so he is a non-recruited player, and it was just a brobdingnagian bonus that he decided he'd play some football on the side. :) And, as for Keck, I'll bet he tried the transfer protocol because he was told that he did not have a scholie for this year. And when he did not receive any offers from other schools, or perhaps no offers to his liking, he elected to return to Stanford, either on his own dime or he received an academic scholarship as well (it is not unusual to get at least partial academic scholarships to many of the grad programs).

Anyway, both of those scenarios seem right to me.

If either of them can play on the defensive line, we're set.

-m.

[BobK]

A sad end to Petrucci’s career

https://twitter.com/stanfordrivals/statu...0OSSo3P-ug

[BobK]

A sad end to Petrucci’s career

https://twitter.com/stanfordrivals/statu...0OSSo3P-ug

[Phogge]

Sounds like he will lead a full life.

However: Sonny Bono, Natasha Richardson, Doak Walker, Michel Trudeau.

That’s why I cross country.

[Phogge]

Sounds like he will lead a full life.

However: Sonny Bono, Natasha Richardson, Doak Walker, Michel Trudeau.

That’s why I cross country.

[TrumpCard]

Is the consensus that Stanford should be pretty good and quite deep at defensive back and ILB, potentially good but green at EDGE, and frighteningly untested/young/thin at the two inside DL spots?  Looking at the roster, the scholarship players identified as the DL group are just Phillips, Franklin, Buckey, Rowell, Moi, and Caughey.  Phillips had 5 tackles (2 solo in his redshirt freshman season last year), Franklin had 4 tackles (1 solo) in his true freshman season last year, and no one else has seen the field in a college game.  I know in the olden days, you wanted to play juniors and seniors on the lines when possible, but it does seem like kids come more ready to play than they did in the past.  Do you all think that guys like Rowell or Moi are likely to be ready in their true freshman year?  Is this the group that the staff is going to play, or are we likely to either see walk-on players or players listed as EDGE get some of the snaps at the inside DL positions?  Sorry if this is a re-hash of prior posts, and thanks for the input.

[TrumpCard]

Is the consensus that Stanford should be pretty good and quite deep at defensive back and ILB, potentially good but green at EDGE, and frighteningly untested/young/thin at the two inside DL spots?  Looking at the roster, the scholarship players identified as the DL group are just Phillips, Franklin, Buckey, Rowell, Moi, and Caughey.  Phillips had 5 tackles (2 solo in his redshirt freshman season last year), Franklin had 4 tackles (1 solo) in his true freshman season last year, and no one else has seen the field in a college game.  I know in the olden days, you wanted to play juniors and seniors on the lines when possible, but it does seem like kids come more ready to play than they did in the past.  Do you all think that guys like Rowell or Moi are likely to be ready in their true freshman year?  Is this the group that the staff is going to play, or are we likely to either see walk-on players or players listed as EDGE get some of the snaps at the inside DL positions?  Sorry if this is a re-hash of prior posts, and thanks for the input.

[msqueri]

Is the consensus that Stanford should be pretty good and quite deep at defensive back and ILB, potentially good but green at EDGE, and frighteningly untested/young/thin at the two inside DL spots?  Looking at the roster, the scholarship players identified as the DL group are just Phillips, Franklin, Buckey, Rowell, Moi, and Caughey.  Phillips had 5 tackles (2 solo in his redshirt freshman season last year), Franklin had 4 tackles (1 solo) in his true freshman season last year, and no one else has seen the field in a college game.  I know in the olden days, you wanted to play juniors and seniors on the lines when possible, but it does seem like kids come more ready to play than they did in the past.  Do you all think that guys like Rowell or Moi are likely to be ready in their true freshman year?  Is this the group that the staff is going to play, or are we likely to either see walk-on players or players listed as EDGE get some of the snaps at the inside DL positions?  Sorry if this is a re-hash of prior posts, and thanks for the input.

DL - an obvious problem for the reasons we all understand, just going to be so green there; in reality DL and Edge will have some fluidity between them so Armitage and/or Keneley may play a lot in spots that will be hard if not impossible for fans to distinguish between DL and Edge.

Edge - on paper probably top 15 in the nation in talent but extremely unproven and we have a very poor track record of Edge play in recent years; based on Anderson’s track record it will be some time, if ever, before the young guys are good, so there’s a lot of pressure on Herron to take a big step forward

ILB - your take doesn’t resonate for me, why would we think this group would be pretty good? It’s been a terrible position group for years. I guess we have to hope all the talk about Miezan and Mangum-Farrar is for real but recall we heard the same about Curtis Robinson, who was actually a whale recruit and then made the NFL, and he was never good at Stanford. 

DB - clearly the strong suit but based on past history there is good reason to expect reversion to the mean to some degree. I also think Akina plays favorites sometimes with bad or mediocre players and I’m concerned some very solid guys may have to wait behind Bonner and/or Turner-Muhammad until Bonner inevitably gets hurt. Anyway, DB should be fine but will they create turnovers/make big plays if the front seven doesn’t? 

The personnel bottom line, I think, is we need superstar breakthroughs for guys like Herron, Kelly, and one or more ILB, and the DL to give them a chance. And then my real bottom line is we need the scheme tweaks to come through and the coaches to put the players in a position to succeed, as the defense has badly underperformed talent for years.

[msqueri]

Is the consensus that Stanford should be pretty good and quite deep at defensive back and ILB, potentially good but green at EDGE, and frighteningly untested/young/thin at the two inside DL spots?  Looking at the roster, the scholarship players identified as the DL group are just Phillips, Franklin, Buckey, Rowell, Moi, and Caughey.  Phillips had 5 tackles (2 solo in his redshirt freshman season last year), Franklin had 4 tackles (1 solo) in his true freshman season last year, and no one else has seen the field in a college game.  I know in the olden days, you wanted to play juniors and seniors on the lines when possible, but it does seem like kids come more ready to play than they did in the past.  Do you all think that guys like Rowell or Moi are likely to be ready in their true freshman year?  Is this the group that the staff is going to play, or are we likely to either see walk-on players or players listed as EDGE get some of the snaps at the inside DL positions?  Sorry if this is a re-hash of prior posts, and thanks for the input.

DL - an obvious problem for the reasons we all understand, just going to be so green there; in reality DL and Edge will have some fluidity between them so Armitage and/or Keneley may play a lot in spots that will be hard if not impossible for fans to distinguish between DL and Edge.

Edge - on paper probably top 15 in the nation in talent but extremely unproven and we have a very poor track record of Edge play in recent years; based on Anderson’s track record it will be some time, if ever, before the young guys are good, so there’s a lot of pressure on Herron to take a big step forward

ILB - your take doesn’t resonate for me, why would we think this group would be pretty good? It’s been a terrible position group for years. I guess we have to hope all the talk about Miezan and Mangum-Farrar is for real but recall we heard the same about Curtis Robinson, who was actually a whale recruit and then made the NFL, and he was never good at Stanford. 

DB - clearly the strong suit but based on past history there is good reason to expect reversion to the mean to some degree. I also think Akina plays favorites sometimes with bad or mediocre players and I’m concerned some very solid guys may have to wait behind Bonner and/or Turner-Muhammad until Bonner inevitably gets hurt. Anyway, DB should be fine but will they create turnovers/make big plays if the front seven doesn’t? 

The personnel bottom line, I think, is we need superstar breakthroughs for guys like Herron, Kelly, and one or more ILB, and the DL to give them a chance. And then my real bottom line is we need the scheme tweaks to come through and the coaches to put the players in a position to succeed, as the defense has badly underperformed talent for years.

[TrumpCard]

As you aluded at the end of your post, I am hoping that the new 4-3 scheme and the purported end of the "pandemic stage" of COVID will re-invigorate the coaches and players on the defensive side of the ball.  There are clearly plenty of veteran players at ILB, including Miezan, Damuni, JMF, and Sinclair.  They've all shown liabitiliies on the field, but the new scheme and a hopefully solid offseason should help.  

For anyone who was hoping to upgrade over Shaw & Co., good luck with that now.  A knight in shining armor is not coming to the rescue of a WCC school with impossible academic hurdles and a small fan base.  We're dancing with the coaches who brought us, and we have to hope it'll work out.

[TrumpCard]

As you aluded at the end of your post, I am hoping that the new 4-3 scheme and the purported end of the "pandemic stage" of COVID will re-invigorate the coaches and players on the defensive side of the ball.  There are clearly plenty of veteran players at ILB, including Miezan, Damuni, JMF, and Sinclair.  They've all shown liabitiliies on the field, but the new scheme and a hopefully solid offseason should help.  

For anyone who was hoping to upgrade over Shaw & Co., good luck with that now.  A knight in shining armor is not coming to the rescue of a WCC school with impossible academic hurdles and a small fan base.  We're dancing with the coaches who brought us, and we have to hope it'll work out.

[Langdude]

Roster Attrition:

Senior safety Zahran Manley. This was somewhat surprising, given that Manley started two games last season, and played in eight games his true frosh year (2019). However, he did only play in four total games in 2021, perhaps suggesting an injury retirement. (I know Manley's deletion from the roster was already reported in another thread.)

Senior walk-on kicker Diego Preciado. Some will remember that Diego began his Stanford football career as a wide receiver, which I think is super interesting. But in three seasons he saw no action at either position.

Junior walk-on edge Kiersten Lee. Actually a pretty heralded PWO from Georgia (an ILB out of high school), but never played a down in two seasons.

Sophomore walk-on offensive guard Matthew Moore, who had just joined the team in the spring following an LDS mission. Shortest ever tenure?

-m.

[Langdude]

Roster Attrition:

Senior safety Zahran Manley. This was somewhat surprising, given that Manley started two games last season, and played in eight games his true frosh year (2019). However, he did only play in four total games in 2021, perhaps suggesting an injury retirement. (I know Manley's deletion from the roster was already reported in another thread.)

Senior walk-on kicker Diego Preciado. Some will remember that Diego began his Stanford football career as a wide receiver, which I think is super interesting. But in three seasons he saw no action at either position.

Junior walk-on edge Kiersten Lee. Actually a pretty heralded PWO from Georgia (an ILB out of high school), but never played a down in two seasons.

Sophomore walk-on offensive guard Matthew Moore, who had just joined the team in the spring following an LDS mission. Shortest ever tenure?

-m.

[ADPinWDC]

From the discussion here on personnel, it sounds like Anderson, using smaller, quicker Edge players we are not fielding an NFL (or classic Bama / Clemson) 4-3.
It's really a 2-5-4, with an LB blitzing a lot. Non?

[ADPinWDC]

From the discussion here on personnel, it sounds like Anderson, using smaller, quicker Edge players we are not fielding an NFL (or classic Bama / Clemson) 4-3.
It's really a 2-5-4, with an LB blitzing a lot. Non?

[msqueri]

From the discussion here on personnel, it sounds like Anderson, using smaller, quicker Edge players we are not fielding an NFL (or classic Bama / Clemson) 4-3.
It's really a 2-5-4, with an LB blitzing a lot. Non?

The reason it's at least somewhat useful in my opinion to think about it as 4-3 or a 4-2-5 when in nickel is that the edge players are going to play up on the line more often. Armitage in particular is an obvious fit for this. Otherwise, we'll see what mix of DE vs. Sam LB duties the edge players have. I suspect we'll see a mix of 4-3, 3-3-5, and 4-2-5. If the coaches are to believed having more four man fronts than last year is one of the fundamental changes, which would mean counting edge as part of the front.

Regarding the prototype and how closely Stanford will mirror other models, I think it is worth bearing in mind that they'll do what they can with their personnel. We are going to be light up front no matter what because our DL are tiny. But that doesn't mean what we see this year is what we envision as the new defensive scheme. As we're seeing in recruiting, the coaches are trying to transform the roster for a new scheme. But that will take time.

[msqueri]

From the discussion here on personnel, it sounds like Anderson, using smaller, quicker Edge players we are not fielding an NFL (or classic Bama / Clemson) 4-3.
It's really a 2-5-4, with an LB blitzing a lot. Non?

The reason it's at least somewhat useful in my opinion to think about it as 4-3 or a 4-2-5 when in nickel is that the edge players are going to play up on the line more often. Armitage in particular is an obvious fit for this. Otherwise, we'll see what mix of DE vs. Sam LB duties the edge players have. I suspect we'll see a mix of 4-3, 3-3-5, and 4-2-5. If the coaches are to believed having more four man fronts than last year is one of the fundamental changes, which would mean counting edge as part of the front.

Regarding the prototype and how closely Stanford will mirror other models, I think it is worth bearing in mind that they'll do what they can with their personnel. We are going to be light up front no matter what because our DL are tiny. But that doesn't mean what we see this year is what we envision as the new defensive scheme. As we're seeing in recruiting, the coaches are trying to transform the roster for a new scheme. But that will take time.