05-06-2015, 08:10 PM
A great comment. It's also Jr day next week
Class of 2016
05-06-2015, 10:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2015, 10:55 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(05-06-2015, 11:39 AM)Papa John link Wrote:According to his Twitter account, Chidi Okonya, SSDE from Georgia, is announcing his commitment on May 15. Anyone know if Stanford is still in the running? I know that we are in his top 5, but he seems to have taken a fancy to Tennessee lately, and I seem to recall that Hulk had mentioned that distance might be an issue for Chidi.I can't even think about Tennessee football without craving a creamsicle - or a box of them
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2015, 10:55 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(05-06-2015, 11:39 AM)Papa John link Wrote:According to his Twitter account, Chidi Okonya, SSDE from Georgia, is announcing his commitment on May 15. Anyone know if Stanford is still in the running? I know that we are in his top 5, but he seems to have taken a fancy to Tennessee lately, and I seem to recall that Hulk had mentioned that distance might be an issue for Chidi.I can't even think about Tennessee football without craving a creamsicle - or a box of them
05-07-2015, 10:51 AM
Coaches have a tough job. Recruiting trip to IL. Coach Hart on the field at 6 a.m. Central Time.Â
[tweet]596292917859225600[/tweet]
[tweet]596292917859225600[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
05-07-2015, 11:21 AM
(05-07-2015, 10:51 AM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Coaches have a tough job. Recruiting trip to IL. Coach Hart on the field at 6 a.m. Central Time.ÂWe're recruiting two of Annan's fellow D-linemen in Thomas Schaffer and Daniel Joseph.
[tweet]596292917859225600[/tweet]
05-07-2015, 11:46 AM
Distance always is some issue. Okonya can reach most of his final five teams with a drive and three wood, with us the only par 11 on his card.Â
Another issue: He's a 4.1 student, but likes schools like Tennesse that offer "significant academic support." He may worry that Stanford is simply "too academic," too challenging for someone trying to mix college football with studies. It's hard to put many hips on any Stanford recruit with is strongly considering Mississippi and Tennessee; you almost scratch them off for that alone.
He's also very low-key. He doesn't gush over anything. It's harder to predict those kids than the ones who tip their hands, often with exclamation points. What he does gush about is "comfort," and traveling cross-country to an Ivy League college may not sound very comfortable for a public school kid from a relatively poor town South of Atlanta.
So I like our chances, but am betting on "the field".
Another issue: He's a 4.1 student, but likes schools like Tennesse that offer "significant academic support." He may worry that Stanford is simply "too academic," too challenging for someone trying to mix college football with studies. It's hard to put many hips on any Stanford recruit with is strongly considering Mississippi and Tennessee; you almost scratch them off for that alone.
He's also very low-key. He doesn't gush over anything. It's harder to predict those kids than the ones who tip their hands, often with exclamation points. What he does gush about is "comfort," and traveling cross-country to an Ivy League college may not sound very comfortable for a public school kid from a relatively poor town South of Atlanta.
So I like our chances, but am betting on "the field".
Distance always is some issue. Okonya can reach most of his final five teams with a drive and three wood, with us the only par 11 on his card.Â
Another issue: He's a 4.1 student, but likes schools like Tennesse that offer "significant academic support." He may worry that Stanford is simply "too academic," too challenging for someone trying to mix college football with studies. It's hard to put many hips on any Stanford recruit with is strongly considering Mississippi and Tennessee; you almost scratch them off for that alone.
He's also very low-key. He doesn't gush over anything. It's harder to predict those kids than the ones who tip their hands, often with exclamation points. What he does gush about is "comfort," and traveling cross-country to an Ivy League college may not sound very comfortable for a public school kid from a relatively poor town South of Atlanta.
So I like our chances, but am betting on "the field".
Another issue: He's a 4.1 student, but likes schools like Tennesse that offer "significant academic support." He may worry that Stanford is simply "too academic," too challenging for someone trying to mix college football with studies. It's hard to put many hips on any Stanford recruit with is strongly considering Mississippi and Tennessee; you almost scratch them off for that alone.
He's also very low-key. He doesn't gush over anything. It's harder to predict those kids than the ones who tip their hands, often with exclamation points. What he does gush about is "comfort," and traveling cross-country to an Ivy League college may not sound very comfortable for a public school kid from a relatively poor town South of Atlanta.
So I like our chances, but am betting on "the field".
05-07-2015, 11:55 AM
Thanks for the update, Hulk. We've had such a great run of high-quality commitments lately, I just hate to see it end with someone the caliber--academic and athletic--of Chidi Okonya. I'll still follow his May 15 announcement, of course, but I won't get my hopes too high.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Thanks for the update, Hulk. We've had such a great run of high-quality commitments lately, I just hate to see it end with someone the caliber--academic and athletic--of Chidi Okonya. I'll still follow his May 15 announcement, of course, but I won't get my hopes too high.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
05-08-2015, 03:44 PM
The big question for any recruiting class is whether you take in more talent than you lose. While the class of 2016 looks to be in a strong spot, there's also quite a bit of outgoing talent in the classes of 2011 and 2012 to replace. Judging strictly by high school rankings, here are the once-upon-a-time-premium prospects we'll definitely be replacing (rated by 247 composite):
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
The big question for any recruiting class is whether you take in more talent than you lose. While the class of 2016 looks to be in a strong spot, there's also quite a bit of outgoing talent in the classes of 2011 and 2012 to replace. Judging strictly by high school rankings, here are the once-upon-a-time-premium prospects we'll definitely be replacing (rated by 247 composite):
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
05-08-2015, 05:33 PM
(05-08-2015, 03:44 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The big question for any recruiting class is whether you take in more talent than you lose. While the class of 2016 looks to be in a strong spot, there's also quite a bit of outgoing talent in the classes of 2011 and 2012 to replace. Judging strictly by high school rankings, here are the once-upon-a-time-premium prospects we'll definitely be replacing (rated by 247 composite):
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
I agree with your conclusion that Stanford needs at least 8 premium prospects to maintain a very high level of talent across the board. I would go further and say that is generally true in any year. Further, as far as I can tell, Stanford appears to be in a very good position to achieve that goal this year. The class already includes 4 premium prospects, plus Stanford appears to lead for Yarbrough, Butler, Rand, Williams, and Long. That would make 9. My mini version of Hulk's list includes a number of other elite players who could easily join the class as well. Stanford's position is so strong right now that the staff has decided to hold off on even offering a number of guys who might qualify as premium recruits (e.g. Wattenberg, Alves, Kemp, Quansah, and Eboh). In sum, until further notice, I think you can feel pretty confident that Shaw is going to maintain or improve the overall talent level with the 2016 recruiting class.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
(05-08-2015, 03:44 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The big question for any recruiting class is whether you take in more talent than you lose. While the class of 2016 looks to be in a strong spot, there's also quite a bit of outgoing talent in the classes of 2011 and 2012 to replace. Judging strictly by high school rankings, here are the once-upon-a-time-premium prospects we'll definitely be replacing (rated by 247 composite):
4/5 stars:
Kelsey Young
Wayne Lyons
Brandon Austin
Remound Wright
Kyle Murphy
Josh Garnett
Aziz Shittu
Luke Kaumatule
(Noor Davis, Jordan Watkins, and Barry Sanders seem like possible not-invited-for-fifth-year candidates; Ryan Burns or Keller Chryst are possible transfer candidates; Peter Kalambayi a possible leave-early guy.)
So that's eight definitely gone; figure ten as an estimate to retain the same rough talent level. Can we reach eight or ten -- or even exceed it? It would take a very strong effort by Stanford standards; the 2012 class brought in 11 premium prospects. (2014: 8; 2015: only 5).
I'll leave it to prognosticators whether or not it'll happen, but I see the 8-10 premium prospect range as the separation between likely success and failure.
(Note that we've already got four committed.)
I agree with your conclusion that Stanford needs at least 8 premium prospects to maintain a very high level of talent across the board. I would go further and say that is generally true in any year. Further, as far as I can tell, Stanford appears to be in a very good position to achieve that goal this year. The class already includes 4 premium prospects, plus Stanford appears to lead for Yarbrough, Butler, Rand, Williams, and Long. That would make 9. My mini version of Hulk's list includes a number of other elite players who could easily join the class as well. Stanford's position is so strong right now that the staff has decided to hold off on even offering a number of guys who might qualify as premium recruits (e.g. Wattenberg, Alves, Kemp, Quansah, and Eboh). In sum, until further notice, I think you can feel pretty confident that Shaw is going to maintain or improve the overall talent level with the 2016 recruiting class.
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
05-09-2015, 06:40 AM
I agree with the general tenor of the last couple of posts, regarding the need to bring in a top class just to maintain the program. But I think there is still a bit too much emphasis on the number of stars a recruit has coming in, rather than on the way in which athletes develop. Depending on how the year plays out, I could see Kevin Anderson being a much bigger loss to the Cardinal next year than a number of the players on this list. One could also argue that Dave Bright has a legitimate chance of being a bigger contributor than some of the other, higher rated linemen who have been brought in. The same is true of A.J. Tartly and now Blake Martinez. Henry Anderson, David Parry, and Trent Murphy, our most highly drafted players from the front seven of the defense wouldn't even make a list of 4/5 star players of the past several seasons, as two came in as 3* recruits and the other was a walk-on. The key, in my mind, is not to pay too much attention to the ranking of a recruit as he enters the program, but his contributions on the field by the time he leaves. We will need to replace a number of starters or players who get major PT, only some of whom are on that list: Remound Wright, Kyle Murphy, Josh Garnett, Aziz Shittu, Luke Kaumatule; but also perhaps Blake Martinez, Kevin Anderson, Ronnie Harris, and Devon Cajuste.Â
I agree with the general tenor of the last couple of posts, regarding the need to bring in a top class just to maintain the program. But I think there is still a bit too much emphasis on the number of stars a recruit has coming in, rather than on the way in which athletes develop. Depending on how the year plays out, I could see Kevin Anderson being a much bigger loss to the Cardinal next year than a number of the players on this list. One could also argue that Dave Bright has a legitimate chance of being a bigger contributor than some of the other, higher rated linemen who have been brought in. The same is true of A.J. Tartly and now Blake Martinez. Henry Anderson, David Parry, and Trent Murphy, our most highly drafted players from the front seven of the defense wouldn't even make a list of 4/5 star players of the past several seasons, as two came in as 3* recruits and the other was a walk-on. The key, in my mind, is not to pay too much attention to the ranking of a recruit as he enters the program, but his contributions on the field by the time he leaves. We will need to replace a number of starters or players who get major PT, only some of whom are on that list: Remound Wright, Kyle Murphy, Josh Garnett, Aziz Shittu, Luke Kaumatule; but also perhaps Blake Martinez, Kevin Anderson, Ronnie Harris, and Devon Cajuste.Â
05-09-2015, 08:30 AM
Well, sure, individual three-stars often outperform individual four- or five-stars. Stanford would not be as successful as it has been since 2009 if that weren't true. But, per capita, four- and five-stars are much better bets than three-stars.
Well, sure, individual three-stars often outperform individual four- or five-stars. Stanford would not be as successful as it has been since 2009 if that weren't true. But, per capita, four- and five-stars are much better bets than three-stars.
05-09-2015, 11:22 AM
Far be it for me to disagree with WIM, but there are two points in your analysis that I take issue with. It is very unlikely that incoming freshmen are going to replace graduating seniors. Rather, the guys replacing the guys graduating pretty much are all already on the roster. I think it is easier to think of recruitment in two-year cycles instead of four year cycles. Thus, replacing Wayne Lyons isn't going to be done by a CB we are recruiting this year, but by a CB we recruited a couple years ago (presumably Terrence Alexander). Likewise, when Hogan leaves after this year, he most likely won't be replaced by Costello, but rather by Chryst or Burns.
The second issue is the use of star ratings of guys who already have a track record in college. When we talk about replacing Hogan, we aren't really talking about replacing 4* rated QB Kevin Hogan, we are talking about replacing 3.5 year starting QB (and hopefully by next year, an all-Pac-12 honoree Kevin Hogan). It doesn't matter whether Hogan was a 2* or a 5*, since we have his track record in college. Replacing 4* 2009 recruit Josh Nunes was trivial; replacing 2* 2009 recruit Ben Gardner was not so.
That's not to poo poo rankings; as you mentioned there is a strong correlation between ranking and how someone will do. And I understand that when you are looking at guys who have yet to step foot on the Stanford campus, ranking is all you have to look at. But when you are talking about filling holes for the guys who are departing, the size of the hole is dependent on what the recruit has accomplished since joining the team, not what their ranking was coming in.
BC
The second issue is the use of star ratings of guys who already have a track record in college. When we talk about replacing Hogan, we aren't really talking about replacing 4* rated QB Kevin Hogan, we are talking about replacing 3.5 year starting QB (and hopefully by next year, an all-Pac-12 honoree Kevin Hogan). It doesn't matter whether Hogan was a 2* or a 5*, since we have his track record in college. Replacing 4* 2009 recruit Josh Nunes was trivial; replacing 2* 2009 recruit Ben Gardner was not so.
That's not to poo poo rankings; as you mentioned there is a strong correlation between ranking and how someone will do. And I understand that when you are looking at guys who have yet to step foot on the Stanford campus, ranking is all you have to look at. But when you are talking about filling holes for the guys who are departing, the size of the hole is dependent on what the recruit has accomplished since joining the team, not what their ranking was coming in.
BC
Far be it for me to disagree with WIM, but there are two points in your analysis that I take issue with. It is very unlikely that incoming freshmen are going to replace graduating seniors. Rather, the guys replacing the guys graduating pretty much are all already on the roster. I think it is easier to think of recruitment in two-year cycles instead of four year cycles. Thus, replacing Wayne Lyons isn't going to be done by a CB we are recruiting this year, but by a CB we recruited a couple years ago (presumably Terrence Alexander). Likewise, when Hogan leaves after this year, he most likely won't be replaced by Costello, but rather by Chryst or Burns.
The second issue is the use of star ratings of guys who already have a track record in college. When we talk about replacing Hogan, we aren't really talking about replacing 4* rated QB Kevin Hogan, we are talking about replacing 3.5 year starting QB (and hopefully by next year, an all-Pac-12 honoree Kevin Hogan). It doesn't matter whether Hogan was a 2* or a 5*, since we have his track record in college. Replacing 4* 2009 recruit Josh Nunes was trivial; replacing 2* 2009 recruit Ben Gardner was not so.
That's not to poo poo rankings; as you mentioned there is a strong correlation between ranking and how someone will do. And I understand that when you are looking at guys who have yet to step foot on the Stanford campus, ranking is all you have to look at. But when you are talking about filling holes for the guys who are departing, the size of the hole is dependent on what the recruit has accomplished since joining the team, not what their ranking was coming in.
BC
The second issue is the use of star ratings of guys who already have a track record in college. When we talk about replacing Hogan, we aren't really talking about replacing 4* rated QB Kevin Hogan, we are talking about replacing 3.5 year starting QB (and hopefully by next year, an all-Pac-12 honoree Kevin Hogan). It doesn't matter whether Hogan was a 2* or a 5*, since we have his track record in college. Replacing 4* 2009 recruit Josh Nunes was trivial; replacing 2* 2009 recruit Ben Gardner was not so.
That's not to poo poo rankings; as you mentioned there is a strong correlation between ranking and how someone will do. And I understand that when you are looking at guys who have yet to step foot on the Stanford campus, ranking is all you have to look at. But when you are talking about filling holes for the guys who are departing, the size of the hole is dependent on what the recruit has accomplished since joining the team, not what their ranking was coming in.
BC
05-09-2015, 11:40 AM
I completely agree with your critique, BC. My analysis was a pretty rough heuristic: there's a relationship between roster talent and wins, of course. If we want to predict roster talent, the best means of doing so is recruiting rankings. (And though I haven't seen any specific analysis, intuitively composite or blended rankings such as 247's are best.)
Given that, I wanted to know how we could maintain the same rough level of talent on the roster, which is all that I wanted to accomplish. And it may be that pedigree wins out -- Noor Davis hasn't produced like an elite recruit, but then again being stuck behind Tarpley limits your opportunities.
I think this analysis demonstrates one important thing: the big opportunity to change roster composition may be with the class of 2017 rather than the class of 2016.
Given that, I wanted to know how we could maintain the same rough level of talent on the roster, which is all that I wanted to accomplish. And it may be that pedigree wins out -- Noor Davis hasn't produced like an elite recruit, but then again being stuck behind Tarpley limits your opportunities.
I think this analysis demonstrates one important thing: the big opportunity to change roster composition may be with the class of 2017 rather than the class of 2016.
I completely agree with your critique, BC. My analysis was a pretty rough heuristic: there's a relationship between roster talent and wins, of course. If we want to predict roster talent, the best means of doing so is recruiting rankings. (And though I haven't seen any specific analysis, intuitively composite or blended rankings such as 247's are best.)
Given that, I wanted to know how we could maintain the same rough level of talent on the roster, which is all that I wanted to accomplish. And it may be that pedigree wins out -- Noor Davis hasn't produced like an elite recruit, but then again being stuck behind Tarpley limits your opportunities.
I think this analysis demonstrates one important thing: the big opportunity to change roster composition may be with the class of 2017 rather than the class of 2016.
Given that, I wanted to know how we could maintain the same rough level of talent on the roster, which is all that I wanted to accomplish. And it may be that pedigree wins out -- Noor Davis hasn't produced like an elite recruit, but then again being stuck behind Tarpley limits your opportunities.
I think this analysis demonstrates one important thing: the big opportunity to change roster composition may be with the class of 2017 rather than the class of 2016.
05-11-2015, 09:48 AM
This coming weekend is shaping up to be big. Looks like OL target, Matt Farniok, will be there too. He joins Mike Williams, Javon McKinley, and Chacho Ulloa. I'm sure others as well, but those are the big names I remember seeing.Â
http://recruiting.scout.com/story/1545400
http://recruiting.scout.com/story/1545400
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
This coming weekend is shaping up to be big. Looks like OL target, Matt Farniok, will be there too. He joins Mike Williams, Javon McKinley, and Chacho Ulloa. I'm sure others as well, but those are the big names I remember seeing.Â
http://recruiting.scout.com/story/1545400
http://recruiting.scout.com/story/1545400
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
05-11-2015, 09:52 AM
Per Simi Fehoko's twitter, as usual, mom apparently favors Stanford:
[tweet]597580479567532032[/tweet]
[tweet]597580479567532032[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
05-11-2015, 08:51 PM
I am confident that our 2016 class will include at least ten four or five-star recruits.Â
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »