[Bruce Wang]

As Shaw says, football is a junior and senior sport.  So I thought it would be interesting to look at 2015 along with 2014.  In my recollection, I don't think we've put together two consecutive classes with this much PROSPECTIVE talent across so many positions.  I recall Walsh II assembling a top 5 class, but I don't remember if it was followed by another top class.  There's also the 2012 class, except it was followed by a small class, as a result of the 2012 class being larger than normal.

I checked and here are the positions as filled by players rated at least 4 stars by one recruiting service.  I made some exceptions. FB and kickers because they rarely rate higher than 3 stars, and Harrison Phillips because a) he should have been a 4 star and b) he started as true frosh.  Barton was rated as a safety, I put him in as an ILB because Shaw said that's the position he will play.  I also classified C-Mac as OW as in Offensive Weapon.

What stands out is the prospective talent in the secondary, proving Bill Walsh wrong.

This, of course, does a disservice to the other players with fewer stars.  We have a rich tradition of overachievers, which we all hope will continue.  And once they are on campus, they are all no stars.

QB Chryst 4 Star Rivals Scout 247 ESPN
WR Irwin 5R 4S2E
WR IBS 4E
OW McCaffrey 4RS2E
RB Love 4RSE, Scarlett 4RS
FB Marx 3R (Played as True Frosh)
OT Tucker 5S 4R2E
OG Wilson 4RE
C Chaffin 42E
OG Fanaika 4R2
OT Burkett 4E
TE Schultz 4RS2E

SDE Thomas 5S 4R2E
WDE/DT Phillips 3R (Started as True Frosh)
OLB Alfieri 4RS2
OLB Okereke 4RS2
ILB Barton 4R
ILB Perez 4E
FS Simmons 4RS2E, Reid 4S2
SS Edwards 4RE
CB Buncom 4RS2E, Meeks 4R2
CB Alexander 42, Holder 42

PK Bailey 3S

EDIT: Reflects oversights as pointed out by Trump.  Thanks!  The picture looks even better.  I hope everybody overachieves and we win a national championship.

[Bruce Wang]

As Shaw says, football is a junior and senior sport.  So I thought it would be interesting to look at 2015 along with 2014.  In my recollection, I don't think we've put together two consecutive classes with this much PROSPECTIVE talent across so many positions.  I recall Walsh II assembling a top 5 class, but I don't remember if it was followed by another top class.  There's also the 2012 class, except it was followed by a small class, as a result of the 2012 class being larger than normal.

I checked and here are the positions as filled by players rated at least 4 stars by one recruiting service.  I made some exceptions. FB and kickers because they rarely rate higher than 3 stars, and Harrison Phillips because a) he should have been a 4 star and b) he started as true frosh.  Barton was rated as a safety, I put him in as an ILB because Shaw said that's the position he will play.  I also classified C-Mac as OW as in Offensive Weapon.

What stands out is the prospective talent in the secondary, proving Bill Walsh wrong.

This, of course, does a disservice to the other players with fewer stars.  We have a rich tradition of overachievers, which we all hope will continue.  And once they are on campus, they are all no stars.

QB Chryst 4 Star Rivals Scout 247 ESPN
WR Irwin 5R 4S2E
WR IBS 4E
OW McCaffrey 4RS2E
RB Love 4RSE, Scarlett 4RS
FB Marx 3R (Played as True Frosh)
OT Tucker 5S 4R2E
OG Wilson 4RE
C Chaffin 42E
OG Fanaika 4R2
OT Burkett 4E
TE Schultz 4RS2E

SDE Thomas 5S 4R2E
WDE/DT Phillips 3R (Started as True Frosh)
OLB Alfieri 4RS2
OLB Okereke 4RS2
ILB Barton 4R
ILB Perez 4E
FS Simmons 4RS2E, Reid 4S2
SS Edwards 4RE
CB Buncom 4RS2E, Meeks 4R2
CB Alexander 42, Holder 42

PK Bailey 3S

EDIT: Reflects oversights as pointed out by Trump.  Thanks!  The picture looks even better.  I hope everybody overachieves and we win a national championship.

[TrumpCard]

Some 4-star recognition missing:
Chaffin:  also ESPN
Fanaika (returned from mission): Rivals, 247
Burkett: ESPN
Perez: ESPN
Brandt-Sims: 247

Also, I think it you are right that focusing on stars does a disservice to some really good players.  JJ Arcega-Whiteside was awarded Parade AA honors and Gatorade POY.  Jordan Fox got an invitation to the Semper Fidelis AA game.  Those are big time honors.  Other guys may not have gotten those kind of honors but are legitimate Pac-12 players in their own right.  I think Hall and Dreyer both have a good chance to develop into a solid RT.  I think Annan could end up being a linchpin, both out of necessity and ability.  FBs get no glory or recruiting stars, but Williams has as much a shot as Marx to contribute.  There are also a lot of really good athletes who were a bit skinny during their senior year of HS, but who could easily end up putting on a lot of good weight in college and contributing to the team.  Veach is #1 in that dept, but there are others.  I'm leaving out lots of folks.  There really is just a ton of quality depth at a lot of positions. 

[TrumpCard]

Some 4-star recognition missing:
Chaffin:  also ESPN
Fanaika (returned from mission): Rivals, 247
Burkett: ESPN
Perez: ESPN
Brandt-Sims: 247

Also, I think it you are right that focusing on stars does a disservice to some really good players.  JJ Arcega-Whiteside was awarded Parade AA honors and Gatorade POY.  Jordan Fox got an invitation to the Semper Fidelis AA game.  Those are big time honors.  Other guys may not have gotten those kind of honors but are legitimate Pac-12 players in their own right.  I think Hall and Dreyer both have a good chance to develop into a solid RT.  I think Annan could end up being a linchpin, both out of necessity and ability.  FBs get no glory or recruiting stars, but Williams has as much a shot as Marx to contribute.  There are also a lot of really good athletes who were a bit skinny during their senior year of HS, but who could easily end up putting on a lot of good weight in college and contributing to the team.  Veach is #1 in that dept, but there are others.  I'm leaving out lots of folks.  There really is just a ton of quality depth at a lot of positions. 

[socalstanfan1]

Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.

Each team can have 85 scholarship-supported players on the roster at any given time, and there are roughly 46 players who are playing significant minutes (22 starters, 22 primary backups, plus the two specialists, P/K)  Stanford may try to get players onto the field who are a bit further down the depth chart, but on the other hand you are not constantly shuttling in backup OL.  So 46 seems like a fair number.  So it seems to me that in any given recruiting class, roughly half the players may not make it to being major contributors on the field, whether due to injury, lack of expected development, transfers, whatever.  Even in the vaunted class of 2012, generally considered one of the best classes in Stanford history, this is the case:

Total Class Size: 22

Clear Starters after three years

Andrus Peat
Kyle Murphy
Graham Schuler
Johnny Caspers (3 Star)
Josh Garnett
Alex Carter
Blake Martinez (3 Star)
Michael Rector (3 Star)

Non-Starters but Contributing Significantly/Possible Starters for 2015

Aziz Shittu
Zach Hoffpauir (3 Star)
Barry Sanders
Luke Kaumatule

On the Bubble of Productivity

Noor Davis
Kodi Whitfiled
Jordan Watkins

Yet to make an impact

Connor Crane
Dontonio Jordan
Nick Davidson
Nathanial Lohn
Drew Madhu (medical retirement)
Ikenna Nwafor (medical retirement)

TBD
Brandon Fanaika (returned from mission, then injured)

But if we look back at recent classes, one that seems to be having a disproportionately large impact on the program is the smallest group in recent memory, the class of 2013.

Starter or likely starter for 2015

Austin Hooper, TE--Starter
Peter Kalambayi, LB--Probable starter this year, flashed incredible athleticism
Francis Owusu, WR--gained more PT at the end of last season, likely #3 receiver unless Trent Irwin makes a move
Eric Cotton, TE--Not a starter, but found significant playing time; not starter but given the way we like to use TEs he could be as productive as a starter
Greg Taboada, TE--Same as Cotton, productive, will see field a lot

On the Bubble, but likely to play a lot
Kevin Palma, LB--Legitimate Challenger for a starting position
Dave Bright, OL--Hasn't cracked the starting lineup, but has seen time as the extra OL
Mike Tyler, OLB--received early raves, a big year for him to work himself into the rotation when the D makes wholesale substitutions against the run-and-gun teams

Yet to Make an Impact
Thomas Oser, OL--has suffered through injury issues, jury still out
Taijuan Thomas, CB--hasn't been a big contributor yet, now needs to claw his way through intense competition
Ryan Burns, QB--We will know a bit more about his development in the Spring

TBD
Sean Barton, LB--Just getting started

If this works out, roughly two-thirds of the class of 2013 (7 or 8 players, depending on the role developed for Bright)will take positions either as starters or major contributors as part of a rotation (thinking LBs and TEs especially, and the Ogre Lineman), with still the possibility of Burns (though he will need to pass Chryst) and Barton also having an impact.

This strikes me as really impressive, given the initial sense of many that the class had some good members but that the numbers were a bit underwhelming (particularly following on the heels of the famed 2012 class). And if Stanford needs to do a better job than the traditional football powerhouses at finding and developing talent that is under appreciated, then the 2013 class seems to be a great example of the coaches doing just that.

[socalstanfan1]

Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.

Each team can have 85 scholarship-supported players on the roster at any given time, and there are roughly 46 players who are playing significant minutes (22 starters, 22 primary backups, plus the two specialists, P/K)  Stanford may try to get players onto the field who are a bit further down the depth chart, but on the other hand you are not constantly shuttling in backup OL.  So 46 seems like a fair number.  So it seems to me that in any given recruiting class, roughly half the players may not make it to being major contributors on the field, whether due to injury, lack of expected development, transfers, whatever.  Even in the vaunted class of 2012, generally considered one of the best classes in Stanford history, this is the case:

Total Class Size: 22

Clear Starters after three years

Andrus Peat
Kyle Murphy
Graham Schuler
Johnny Caspers (3 Star)
Josh Garnett
Alex Carter
Blake Martinez (3 Star)
Michael Rector (3 Star)

Non-Starters but Contributing Significantly/Possible Starters for 2015

Aziz Shittu
Zach Hoffpauir (3 Star)
Barry Sanders
Luke Kaumatule

On the Bubble of Productivity

Noor Davis
Kodi Whitfiled
Jordan Watkins

Yet to make an impact

Connor Crane
Dontonio Jordan
Nick Davidson
Nathanial Lohn
Drew Madhu (medical retirement)
Ikenna Nwafor (medical retirement)

TBD
Brandon Fanaika (returned from mission, then injured)

But if we look back at recent classes, one that seems to be having a disproportionately large impact on the program is the smallest group in recent memory, the class of 2013.

Starter or likely starter for 2015

Austin Hooper, TE--Starter
Peter Kalambayi, LB--Probable starter this year, flashed incredible athleticism
Francis Owusu, WR--gained more PT at the end of last season, likely #3 receiver unless Trent Irwin makes a move
Eric Cotton, TE--Not a starter, but found significant playing time; not starter but given the way we like to use TEs he could be as productive as a starter
Greg Taboada, TE--Same as Cotton, productive, will see field a lot

On the Bubble, but likely to play a lot
Kevin Palma, LB--Legitimate Challenger for a starting position
Dave Bright, OL--Hasn't cracked the starting lineup, but has seen time as the extra OL
Mike Tyler, OLB--received early raves, a big year for him to work himself into the rotation when the D makes wholesale substitutions against the run-and-gun teams

Yet to Make an Impact
Thomas Oser, OL--has suffered through injury issues, jury still out
Taijuan Thomas, CB--hasn't been a big contributor yet, now needs to claw his way through intense competition
Ryan Burns, QB--We will know a bit more about his development in the Spring

TBD
Sean Barton, LB--Just getting started

If this works out, roughly two-thirds of the class of 2013 (7 or 8 players, depending on the role developed for Bright)will take positions either as starters or major contributors as part of a rotation (thinking LBs and TEs especially, and the Ogre Lineman), with still the possibility of Burns (though he will need to pass Chryst) and Barton also having an impact.

This strikes me as really impressive, given the initial sense of many that the class had some good members but that the numbers were a bit underwhelming (particularly following on the heels of the famed 2012 class). And if Stanford needs to do a better job than the traditional football powerhouses at finding and developing talent that is under appreciated, then the 2013 class seems to be a great example of the coaches doing just that.

[gocard14]

You raise a fair point, but your analysis neglects the fact that contributions will naturally be weight much more heavily towards upperclassmen, and that many people will be significant contributors but only for 1-2 years.  If we accept your hypothesis that about 45 people will be meaningful contributors, in the most extreme setting that could mean that every junior and senior is a meaningful contributor with a few undercalssman and fifth year contributors. 

[gocard14]

You raise a fair point, but your analysis neglects the fact that contributions will naturally be weight much more heavily towards upperclassmen, and that many people will be significant contributors but only for 1-2 years.  If we accept your hypothesis that about 45 people will be meaningful contributors, in the most extreme setting that could mean that every junior and senior is a meaningful contributor with a few undercalssman and fifth year contributors. 

[socalstanfan1]

You raise a fair point, but your analysis neglects the fact that contributions will naturally be weight much more heavily towards upperclassmen, and that many people will be significant contributors but only for 1-2 years.  If we accept your hypothesis that about 45 people will be meaningful contributors, in the most extreme setting that could mean that every junior and senior is a meaningful contributor with a few undercalssman and fifth year contributors.

True enough.  Really getting a better sense of this would require going back through a bunch of past classes and seeing how many players just never became major contributors, and how many (as you point out) develop in their last year or two (a great example being Josh Mauro).  As Shaw points out, the game is kind of dominated by Juniors and Seniors.

But I suspect what happens is something slightly different: some players do develop into starters by their Jr/Sr years, but they often have seen increasing playing time in their second year.  And a larger number just never quite see the field as they are challenged by each incoming class, with the occasional RS Freshman or Sophomore who just takes over a position.  (This is going to be the challenge for players like Kodi Whitfiled and Dallas Lloyd, safeties who now have to face all the younger talent from both last year's class and this year's class.)  But, again, nailing this down would require looking at more than just two groups of new players.

Edit: Just a quick follow up on a few other classes: In the 2010 class, 10 players did not really play a significant role on the field, and one player (Dallas Lloyd) still has a chance to make an impact.  That fits the 50 percent pattern.  On the other hand, the class of 2009 was awesome: in a class of 22 only 5 players really did not make an impact: Taysom Hill never arrived on campus when he went to BYU, Jordan Najvar was the FOURTH TE recruited in that class (with Ertz, Toilolo and Hewitt), and he transferred after his RS year, Geoff Heineken suffered a series of injuries that kept him from reaching his great potential, Jamal Rashard Patterson and Jemari Roberts just never developed.  But the success rate in that class was tremendous; 2011, 8/19 not cracking the top two or finding the field very often (though Lance Callahan was part of this class, so perhaps he makes his contribution this year)

[socalstanfan1]

You raise a fair point, but your analysis neglects the fact that contributions will naturally be weight much more heavily towards upperclassmen, and that many people will be significant contributors but only for 1-2 years.  If we accept your hypothesis that about 45 people will be meaningful contributors, in the most extreme setting that could mean that every junior and senior is a meaningful contributor with a few undercalssman and fifth year contributors.

True enough.  Really getting a better sense of this would require going back through a bunch of past classes and seeing how many players just never became major contributors, and how many (as you point out) develop in their last year or two (a great example being Josh Mauro).  As Shaw points out, the game is kind of dominated by Juniors and Seniors.

But I suspect what happens is something slightly different: some players do develop into starters by their Jr/Sr years, but they often have seen increasing playing time in their second year.  And a larger number just never quite see the field as they are challenged by each incoming class, with the occasional RS Freshman or Sophomore who just takes over a position.  (This is going to be the challenge for players like Kodi Whitfiled and Dallas Lloyd, safeties who now have to face all the younger talent from both last year's class and this year's class.)  But, again, nailing this down would require looking at more than just two groups of new players.

Edit: Just a quick follow up on a few other classes: In the 2010 class, 10 players did not really play a significant role on the field, and one player (Dallas Lloyd) still has a chance to make an impact.  That fits the 50 percent pattern.  On the other hand, the class of 2009 was awesome: in a class of 22 only 5 players really did not make an impact: Taysom Hill never arrived on campus when he went to BYU, Jordan Najvar was the FOURTH TE recruited in that class (with Ertz, Toilolo and Hewitt), and he transferred after his RS year, Geoff Heineken suffered a series of injuries that kept him from reaching his great potential, Jamal Rashard Patterson and Jemari Roberts just never developed.  But the success rate in that class was tremendous; 2011, 8/19 not cracking the top two or finding the field very often (though Lance Callahan was part of this class, so perhaps he makes his contribution this year)

[CTcard]

Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?

[CTcard]

Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?

[CTcard]

Geoff Heineken suffered a series of injuries that kept him from reaching his great potential,

Too much beer?





[p.s. Jamal Rashard Patterson was a starter his senior year, even if he never lived up to recruiting rankings.]

[CTcard]

Geoff Heineken suffered a series of injuries that kept him from reaching his great potential,

Too much beer?





[p.s. Jamal Rashard Patterson was a starter his senior year, even if he never lived up to recruiting rankings.]

[Hey]

..... proving Bill Walsh wrong.

Blasphemer!  You take that back!

Edit:  This was sarcasm.  I certainly didn't mean to kill this thread.  ???

[Hey]

..... proving Bill Walsh wrong.

Blasphemer!  You take that back!

Edit:  This was sarcasm.  I certainly didn't mean to kill this thread.  ???

[BostonCard]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=7902.msg112713#msg112713 date=1423205112]
Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?
[/quote]

To take this further, it seems likely that the proportion of meaningful contributors to the team is going to be relatively independent of long term trends in recruiting.  My guess is that during the Teevens/Wlat reign, the proportion of contributors from each recruiting class is probably pretty similar to what it is now, even though the overall quality of the recruiting classes during those years was much lower.  No matter what, you need 5 offensive linemen playing.  If, say, even if the 12 offensive linemen on your roster are potential all-conference types, only five of them will be starters and maybe a couple more will be meaningful contributors.  Conversely, even if all 12 of your offensive linemen would be so bad as to not be starters in a Div II team, you still have to play at least five of them.

Looking at the proportion who play, then, really only helps in comparing short term fluctuations in class quality.  Yes, if you have a rapid improvement in recruiting, then you will see a lot of the younger guys leapfrogging the older players.  And generally, if you have a very heterogenous recruiting (some awesome guys and some very questionable types), you will see the really great players hold down starting spots for three or even four years, while the other guys never hit the field.  But if things are pretty even, and you get a consistent inflow of good players, what you will see is a lot of guys redshirting, becoming spot contributors their rs freshman year, becoming solid contributors their rs sophomore years, and then starters their junior or senior years, with the cycle continuing.

A better metric to use if you want to see how good a recruiting class is, is to look at external metrics: the numbers who become all-conference or all-American.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=7902.msg112713#msg112713 date=1423205112]
Just a thought on evaluating recruiting classes.

Judging the quality of a class is a lot like evaluating an NFL Draft.  We probably won't really be able to figure out exactly how good this group is for a few years, though it does seem quite promising.  But if we think carefully about this, only roughly half of all scholarship players, on average, are likely to play a really significant role on the field.
...

While I quibble with some of your specific characterizations of players, of course the overall point that only some fraction of recruited players end up as major contributors is quite true.

What is unclear to me is what you are postulating about how that affects evaluation of recruiting classes. Does that make your estimation of our class better or worse than the national services average (a little worse than 20th)?

My guess is that you were making a point something along the lines that nobody knows how good a class really is until they play their four years and we can look back on their success.  Yes?
[/quote]

To take this further, it seems likely that the proportion of meaningful contributors to the team is going to be relatively independent of long term trends in recruiting.  My guess is that during the Teevens/Wlat reign, the proportion of contributors from each recruiting class is probably pretty similar to what it is now, even though the overall quality of the recruiting classes during those years was much lower.  No matter what, you need 5 offensive linemen playing.  If, say, even if the 12 offensive linemen on your roster are potential all-conference types, only five of them will be starters and maybe a couple more will be meaningful contributors.  Conversely, even if all 12 of your offensive linemen would be so bad as to not be starters in a Div II team, you still have to play at least five of them.

Looking at the proportion who play, then, really only helps in comparing short term fluctuations in class quality.  Yes, if you have a rapid improvement in recruiting, then you will see a lot of the younger guys leapfrogging the older players.  And generally, if you have a very heterogenous recruiting (some awesome guys and some very questionable types), you will see the really great players hold down starting spots for three or even four years, while the other guys never hit the field.  But if things are pretty even, and you get a consistent inflow of good players, what you will see is a lot of guys redshirting, becoming spot contributors their rs freshman year, becoming solid contributors their rs sophomore years, and then starters their junior or senior years, with the cycle continuing.

A better metric to use if you want to see how good a recruiting class is, is to look at external metrics: the numbers who become all-conference or all-American.

BC

[BigEasyCard]

This photograph reminds me that Stanford football is about extraordinary young men coming together from across the country for a common purpose dear to many of us on the Cardboard:

[tweet]612467880353869824[/tweet]

Geaux Cardinal!

[BigEasyCard]

This photograph reminds me that Stanford football is about extraordinary young men coming together from across the country for a common purpose dear to many of us on the Cardboard:

[tweet]612467880353869824[/tweet]

Geaux Cardinal!

[Hank 91]

For the past couple months I've been posting capsules on the members of CardClass15. Here's a link to all 22:


http://www.gomightycard.com/class-of-2015/

[Hank 91]

For the past couple months I've been posting capsules on the members of CardClass15. Here's a link to all 22:


http://www.gomightycard.com/class-of-2015/

[Extra Point]

Thank you Hank!

[Extra Point]

Thank you Hank!

[JJJ]

For the past couple months I've been posting capsules on the members of CardClass15. Here's a link to all 22:


http://www.gomightycard.com/class-of-2015/

This is great--thank you Hank91!

[JJJ]

For the past couple months I've been posting capsules on the members of CardClass15. Here's a link to all 22:


http://www.gomightycard.com/class-of-2015/

This is great--thank you Hank91!

[Papa John]

Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, USC, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

[Papa John]

Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, USC, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

[JJJ]

A bit off topic, but offering an eighth grader? (not Stanford) What are the chances the coaches will even be around when he gets to college?  At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnst...22944.html

[JJJ]

A bit off topic, but offering an eighth grader? (not Stanford) What are the chances the coaches will even be around when he gets to college?  At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-turnst...22944.html

[CTcard]

At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

Probably about 50 years ago. Maybe sooner.

[CTcard]

At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

Probably about 50 years ago. Maybe sooner.

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=7902.msg121606#msg121606 date=1435697375]
At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

Probably about 50 years ago. Maybe sooner.
[/quote]
:D

[JJJ]

[quote author=JJJ link=topic=7902.msg121606#msg121606 date=1435697375]
At what point does this get a little ridiculous?

Probably about 50 years ago. Maybe sooner.
[/quote]
:D

[Hank 91]

Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, U$€, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

It's funny you mention him. After writing the last one the other night -- and being kind of glad to be done, if I'm being honest -- I scrolled through the names again. When I saw Cameron Scarlett, I immediately thought about Brennan. I think instead of giving him his own capsule I'll just make him the focus once I start the position group previews later in the summer.

[Hank 91]

Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, U$€, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

It's funny you mention him. After writing the last one the other night -- and being kind of glad to be done, if I'm being honest -- I scrolled through the names again. When I saw Cameron Scarlett, I immediately thought about Brennan. I think instead of giving him his own capsule I'll just make him the focus once I start the position group previews later in the summer.

[Papa John]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=7902.msg121600#msg121600 date=1435689446]
Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, U$€, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

It's funny you mention him. After writing the last one the other night -- and being kind of glad to be done, if I'm being honest -- I scrolled through the names again. When I saw Cameron Scarlett, I immediately thought about Brennan. I think instead of giving him his own capsule I'll just make him the focus once I start the position group previews later in the summer.
[/quote]
Sounds great, and I look forward to seeing the position group previews, especially DL.

[Papa John]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=7902.msg121600#msg121600 date=1435689446]
Hey Hank, are you planning a write-up for Brennan Scarlett? I'll help a little. Back in 2011, he was a 4-star on Rivals (#9 DE, #138 National), 4-star on ESPN (#15 DE), 4-star on Scout (#22 DE, #208 National) and a 4-star on 247 (#5, DE/TE, #49 National).

Per Rivals, Brennan had offers from Stanford, ASU, UO, OSU, UCLA, U$€, BYU, Nebraska, UND, Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

It's funny you mention him. After writing the last one the other night -- and being kind of glad to be done, if I'm being honest -- I scrolled through the names again. When I saw Cameron Scarlett, I immediately thought about Brennan. I think instead of giving him his own capsule I'll just make him the focus once I start the position group previews later in the summer.
[/quote]
Sounds great, and I look forward to seeing the position group previews, especially DL.