[TrumpCard]

Question for Admin:  If a subscribers-only board allows non-subscribers to see a portion of posts as a teaser, are the portions of posts visible to non-subscribers still considered off limits?  (FYI, the partial posts that I copied came from a board where I am not a subscriber.)

[TrumpCard]

Question for Admin:  If a subscribers-only board allows non-subscribers to see a portion of posts as a teaser, are the portions of posts visible to non-subscribers still considered off limits?  (FYI, the partial posts that I copied came from a board where I am not a subscriber.)

[BobK]

I'm with Trump.    :)

[BobK]

I'm with Trump.    :)

[BobK]

@_Chacho13_: Thank God for this amazing opportunity. I'm Excited to Say I'm Committed to Stanford University 🏈🌲🌹 #CardClass16 http://t.co/3EvIeI50i1

[BobK]

@_Chacho13_: Thank God for this amazing opportunity. I'm Excited to Say I'm Committed to Stanford University 🏈🌲🌹 #CardClass16 http://t.co/3EvIeI50i1

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...3564402688

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/statu...3564402688

[ColoradoTree]

Ha! I am quite pleased to be wrong. Turns out he was just being polite to the Irish fans?  (Or he was trolling them.  I'm good either way.)  Drukarev said that he didn't think Ulloa was going to South Bend this weekend for a visit, so perhaps 247's info (which was on its public page, by the way--no paywall violations here) was incorrect.  Wouldn't be the first time.  Either that, or that is going to be one very awkward official visit....

[ColoradoTree]

Ha! I am quite pleased to be wrong. Turns out he was just being polite to the Irish fans?  (Or he was trolling them.  I'm good either way.)  Drukarev said that he didn't think Ulloa was going to South Bend this weekend for a visit, so perhaps 247's info (which was on its public page, by the way--no paywall violations here) was incorrect.  Wouldn't be the first time.  Either that, or that is going to be one very awkward official visit....

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/ClarkYarbrough/statu...9645435904

https://twitter.com/_curtisrobinson/stat...9654430720

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/ClarkYarbrough/statu...9645435904

https://twitter.com/_curtisrobinson/stat...9654430720

[BostonCard]

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/co...ID=1813858

I hope his score comes back as good as he feels it will.

http://www.scout.com/college/football/re...o-the-farm

Neither are behind a paywall

BC

[BostonCard]

https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/co...ID=1813858

I hope his score comes back as good as he feels it will.

http://www.scout.com/college/football/re...o-the-farm

Neither are behind a paywall

BC

[OutsiderFan]

For the same reasons its hard to believe Robertson would still have Stanford #1 at this late date if he wasn't quite confident he would be admitted, Ulloa isn't going to verbally commit unless he is sure of his admission fate as well.  I'm guessing SAT scores are returned a lot faster these days than in the past as well, so he may already know his score?

Now the implications of the Ulloa commitment...

Including David Long, Stanford now has 5 DB commits, and Robertson is obviously still out there, as a potential DB, and so too is Brandon Burton?

If I'm Stanford, I look at it this way:  We've had pretty good success with the Terrence Brown, Wayne Lyons, Alex Carter, Alijah Holder, Quenton Meeks, Frank Buncom-type recruits to play CB.  These are bigger/taller guys playing Corner, than maybe smaller, quicker players.  As much as the adage is "play your best athletes on defense," it seems we are doing just fine on defense with the bigger/taller Corners.  Maybe David Long and Demetris Robertson could be shut-down Corners, but given how many scholarships we have invested in DBs, doesn't it make the most sense to earmark them to offense?

To me, Stanford would be best served earmarking Long and Robertson for offense as WRs.  You put those guys on the field with Trent Irwin and you've got something dynamic, guys who can make big-time, individual game-winning plays with the ball in their hands.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[OutsiderFan]

For the same reasons its hard to believe Robertson would still have Stanford #1 at this late date if he wasn't quite confident he would be admitted, Ulloa isn't going to verbally commit unless he is sure of his admission fate as well.  I'm guessing SAT scores are returned a lot faster these days than in the past as well, so he may already know his score?

Now the implications of the Ulloa commitment...

Including David Long, Stanford now has 5 DB commits, and Robertson is obviously still out there, as a potential DB, and so too is Brandon Burton?

If I'm Stanford, I look at it this way:  We've had pretty good success with the Terrence Brown, Wayne Lyons, Alex Carter, Alijah Holder, Quenton Meeks, Frank Buncom-type recruits to play CB.  These are bigger/taller guys playing Corner, than maybe smaller, quicker players.  As much as the adage is "play your best athletes on defense," it seems we are doing just fine on defense with the bigger/taller Corners.  Maybe David Long and Demetris Robertson could be shut-down Corners, but given how many scholarships we have invested in DBs, doesn't it make the most sense to earmark them to offense?

To me, Stanford would be best served earmarking Long and Robertson for offense as WRs.  You put those guys on the field with Trent Irwin and you've got something dynamic, guys who can make big-time, individual game-winning plays with the ball in their hands.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[socalstanfan1]

OF, while what you say makes sense, I think it ultimately comes down to what the player themselves wants or will accept.  If a player says, "use me however you want, I just want on the field," then great.  But if Long, for example, really strongly sees himself as a DB then I think you don't mess with that.  Now, if he competes for playing time at DB and finds he is not starting because we have so much depth, then maybe the player changes his mind. But I think, realistically, we have to respect what that player wants. 

[socalstanfan1]

OF, while what you say makes sense, I think it ultimately comes down to what the player themselves wants or will accept.  If a player says, "use me however you want, I just want on the field," then great.  But if Long, for example, really strongly sees himself as a DB then I think you don't mess with that.  Now, if he competes for playing time at DB and finds he is not starting because we have so much depth, then maybe the player changes his mind. But I think, realistically, we have to respect what that player wants. 

[BobK]

From what Iv'e read Long sees himself as a DB Robertson a WR

Scores from the October 3 SAT iirc were available yesterday.  He seemed confident in a story

[BobK]

From what Iv'e read Long sees himself as a DB Robertson a WR

Scores from the October 3 SAT iirc were available yesterday.  He seemed confident in a story

[BobK]

And now the rest of the story

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/257...rsatile-db

He committed earlier lol. 

[BobK]

And now the rest of the story

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/257...rsatile-db

He committed earlier lol. 

[TrumpCard]

As much as the adage is "play your best athletes on defense," it seems we are doing just fine on defense with the bigger/taller Corners. 

Maybe David Long and Demetris Robertson could be shut-down Corners, but given how many scholarships we have invested in DBs, doesn't it make the most sense to earmark them to offense?

I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Long shouldn't play defense due to his size.  Stanford, like virtually every other school, has had plenty of success with small/speedy corners.  Merely by way of example, Ronnie Harris took over Wayne Lyons' starting spot last year and is the top CB on the team this year.  Also, some of the bigger/taller CBs you list have made little or no impact to date.  For example, Buncom is redshirting and Meeks played significant minutes on defense in only 1 game. 

Although I think Long would be successful at WR as well, remember that short stature is a disadvantage on offense as well.  Who is the last 5'10" receiver at Stanford who's had a ton of success?  Maybe Drew Terrell (though most of his success was as a punt returner) or Doug Baldwin (though he didn't really blow up until after he graduated).  I think Long has other attributes that would make him the next big success IF he were to play WR at Stanford, but let's not pretend that short stature is no big deal for a WR. 

[TrumpCard]

As much as the adage is "play your best athletes on defense," it seems we are doing just fine on defense with the bigger/taller Corners. 

Maybe David Long and Demetris Robertson could be shut-down Corners, but given how many scholarships we have invested in DBs, doesn't it make the most sense to earmark them to offense?

I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Long shouldn't play defense due to his size.  Stanford, like virtually every other school, has had plenty of success with small/speedy corners.  Merely by way of example, Ronnie Harris took over Wayne Lyons' starting spot last year and is the top CB on the team this year.  Also, some of the bigger/taller CBs you list have made little or no impact to date.  For example, Buncom is redshirting and Meeks played significant minutes on defense in only 1 game. 

Although I think Long would be successful at WR as well, remember that short stature is a disadvantage on offense as well.  Who is the last 5'10" receiver at Stanford who's had a ton of success?  Maybe Drew Terrell (though most of his success was as a punt returner) or Doug Baldwin (though he didn't really blow up until after he graduated).  I think Long has other attributes that would make him the next big success IF he were to play WR at Stanford, but let's not pretend that short stature is no big deal for a WR. 

[TrumpCard]

Ulloa is a nice addition to this class.  His sub-4.6 speed probably makes him the fastest safety on the team, plus he has a decent-sized frame for a safety.  He is not very muscular yet, but his frame will allow him to add a fair amount of good weight during a redshirt year under Turley's tutelage.  The fact that he plays for the #1 team in the state but still doesn't have an offer from either of the local schools tells me that he's not an all-world player right now, but I think he has nice upside if he works hard.  Even if he's not a starter right away, he'll provide good depth and will be a solid ST player so that Shaw won't have to burn redshirts like Mustafa Branch in the future.

[TrumpCard]

Ulloa is a nice addition to this class.  His sub-4.6 speed probably makes him the fastest safety on the team, plus he has a decent-sized frame for a safety.  He is not very muscular yet, but his frame will allow him to add a fair amount of good weight during a redshirt year under Turley's tutelage.  The fact that he plays for the #1 team in the state but still doesn't have an offer from either of the local schools tells me that he's not an all-world player right now, but I think he has nice upside if he works hard.  Even if he's not a starter right away, he'll provide good depth and will be a solid ST player so that Shaw won't have to burn redshirts like Mustafa Branch in the future.

[BostonCard]

Although I think Long would be successful at WR as well, remember that short stature is a disadvantage on offense as well.  Who is the last 5'10" receiver at Stanford who's had a ton of success?  Maybe Drew Terrell (though most of his success was as a punt returner) or Doug Baldwin (though he didn't really blow up until after he graduated).  I think Long has other attributes that would make him the next big success IF he were to play WR at Stanford, but let's not pretend that short stature is no big deal for a WR.

Drew Terrell was our top wide receiver in 2012, with 33 catches for 463 yards and a 4 touchdowns.  Our next leading wide receiver was Jamal Rashad-Patterson with 16 catches for 271 yards and two touchdowns.

Doug Baldwin was our top receiver in 2010, with 58 receptions for 857 yards and 9 touchdowns.  That's our third highest receiving total for a wide receiver since 2008 (only Ryan Whalen in 2009 and Ty Montgomery in 2013 posted more receiving yards).

BC

[BostonCard]

Although I think Long would be successful at WR as well, remember that short stature is a disadvantage on offense as well.  Who is the last 5'10" receiver at Stanford who's had a ton of success?  Maybe Drew Terrell (though most of his success was as a punt returner) or Doug Baldwin (though he didn't really blow up until after he graduated).  I think Long has other attributes that would make him the next big success IF he were to play WR at Stanford, but let's not pretend that short stature is no big deal for a WR.

Drew Terrell was our top wide receiver in 2012, with 33 catches for 463 yards and a 4 touchdowns.  Our next leading wide receiver was Jamal Rashad-Patterson with 16 catches for 271 yards and two touchdowns.

Doug Baldwin was our top receiver in 2010, with 58 receptions for 857 yards and 9 touchdowns.  That's our third highest receiving total for a wide receiver since 2008 (only Ryan Whalen in 2009 and Ty Montgomery in 2013 posted more receiving yards).

BC

[TrumpCard]

I acknowledged that Terrell and Baldwin were good WRs for Stanford.  I just meant that they are remembered by some as being great for reasons other than their WR play at Stanford.  Terrell was one of Stanford's best punt returners of all time (probably top 5 or so), and fine, but not great, as a WR.  In 2012, Ertz was the leading receiver with about twice as many yards as Terrell had.  Baldwin was an even better WR than Terrell was for Stanford, but Baldwin is known now for his play in the NFL, which is certainly better than his play in college.

[TrumpCard]

I acknowledged that Terrell and Baldwin were good WRs for Stanford.  I just meant that they are remembered by some as being great for reasons other than their WR play at Stanford.  Terrell was one of Stanford's best punt returners of all time (probably top 5 or so), and fine, but not great, as a WR.  In 2012, Ertz was the leading receiver with about twice as many yards as Terrell had.  Baldwin was an even better WR than Terrell was for Stanford, but Baldwin is known now for his play in the NFL, which is certainly better than his play in college.

[OutsiderFan]

Two of the best WRs in my history following Stanford were Luke Powell and Troy Walters.  Neither one of those guys were over 5-9 IIRC.  There are plenty of WRs 6 ft or shorter who are dominant.  Arguably one of the Top 3 WRs in the NFL right now, is Antonio Brown who is listed at 5-10.

At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

[OutsiderFan]

Two of the best WRs in my history following Stanford were Luke Powell and Troy Walters.  Neither one of those guys were over 5-9 IIRC.  There are plenty of WRs 6 ft or shorter who are dominant.  Arguably one of the Top 3 WRs in the NFL right now, is Antonio Brown who is listed at 5-10.

At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

[StannyBoy]

At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

Long measured out at 5 foot 10 in the spring at a Nike camp.

[StannyBoy]

At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

Long measured out at 5 foot 10 in the spring at a Nike camp.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg134587#msg134587 date=1444851593]
At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

Long measured out at 5 foot 10 in the spring at a Nike camp.
[/quote]

God willing he'll grow a little bit between his junior year of high school and his first year of college.  I know I did.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg134587#msg134587 date=1444851593]
At 6 ft tall, David Long is plenty tall enough to play WR.  So if he finds the CB rotation tough to crack, he may have another option to get on the field.  Or, I suppose he could play both ways if the coaches would let him.

Long measured out at 5 foot 10 in the spring at a Nike camp.
[/quote]

God willing he'll grow a little bit between his junior year of high school and his first year of college.  I know I did.

[BostonCard]

Here's his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4s7kOupJ6g&app=desktop

He highlights his turnover creation (19 in two seasons).  Given our relative paucity of turnovers this year, that auger's well.  His coverage skills look good; looks like he would make a good free safety.  I saw him overpursue a couple times, so he will need to be more disciplined, and there was one or two missed tackles, probably a result of aggressively going for a strip.  To his credit, he stuck with the plays and eventually got his guy or forced a turnover.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's his video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4s7kOupJ6g&app=desktop

He highlights his turnover creation (19 in two seasons).  Given our relative paucity of turnovers this year, that auger's well.  His coverage skills look good; looks like he would make a good free safety.  I saw him overpursue a couple times, so he will need to be more disciplined, and there was one or two missed tackles, probably a result of aggressively going for a strip.  To his credit, he stuck with the plays and eventually got his guy or forced a turnover.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/beemac99/status/654337303423397889

Congrats to Bailey McElwain for being invited to the International Bowl.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/beemac99/status/654337303423397889

Congrats to Bailey McElwain for being invited to the International Bowl.

BC