Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 4:47 PM, Machinator said:

Nobody is saying this.

Expand  

 

  On 1/22/2019 at 5:14 PM, Dbeasy said:


Ya that wasn’t what was said at all but it’s interesting that you interpreted that way.

Expand  

My post was slightly tongue in cheek, but I just don't agree that, as you put it, "the Stanford Texas equation has changed for the future." As long as Stanford fields a competitive football team that puts guys in the league and offers an education on par with the Ivy Leagues, the Stanford equation is a constant. They will always be a threat to sign guys like Little, Bragg, Lindberg, etc. We could win 3 national championships in the next decade and still lose guys to them. 

I don't really want to open this can of worms because it's been beaten to death, but to assume that Stanford poses less of a threat in recruiting is premature. I'm gonna wait until we win the majority of these head-to-head battles before I can start disregarding them.

 

 

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:28 PM, irishtexan said:

 

My post was slightly tongue in cheek, but I just don't agree that, as you put it, "the Stanford Texas equation has changed for the future." As long as Stanford fields a competitive football team that puts guys in the league and offers an education on par with the Ivy Leagues, the Stanford equation is a constant. They will always be a threat to sign guys like Little, Bragg, Lindberg, etc. We could win 3 national championships in the next decade and still lose guys to them. 

I don't really want to open this can of worms because it's been beaten to death, but to assume that Stanford poses less of a threat in recruiting is premature. I'm gonna wait until we win the majority of these head-to-head battles before I can start disregarding them.

  

 

Expand  

It's more that we're better equipped to fight them than we have been.

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

Mack, is that you? 

 

 

Even if this thread hits 1,000, this will be the dumbest take of the thread. Lets not take our top OL targets because it might make Evans look elsewhere!!!

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:36 PM, texastough said:

Mack, is that you? 

 

 

Even if this thread hits 1,000, this will be the dumbest take of the thread. Lets not take our top OL targets because it might make Evans look elsewhere!!!

Expand  

Please point me to where I said we shouldn't take them. 

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:28 PM, irishtexan said:
My post was slightly tongue in cheek, but I just don't agree that, as you put it, "the Stanford Texas equation has changed for the future." As long as Stanford fields a competitive football team that puts guys in the league and offers an education on par with the Ivy Leagues, the Stanford equation is a constant. They will always be a threat to sign guys like Little, Bragg, Lindberg, etc. We could win 3 national championships in the next decade and still lose guys to them. 
I don't really want to open this can of worms because it's been beaten to death, but to assume that Stanford poses less of a threat in recruiting is premature. I'm gonna wait until we win the majority of these head-to-head battles before I can start disregarding them.
 
 

No one said we would never lose a player to them ever again. Of course they will be a threat. It is pretty clear, however, that we are stronger than in the past and they are weaker. The data is there for all to see. That will translate to more coming our way than over the last few years. It’s science yo.
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:31 PM, Machinator said:

It's more that we're better equipped to fight them than we have been.

Expand  

Sure. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't think "the narrative has changed" in any way. I hope our on-field success results in some head-to-head battles with those fuckers.

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:58 PM, texastough said:

What I hear you saying is, we should lose some games because too much winning is bad for the kids

Expand  

Fighting against adversity makes us better.

Let's start by losing the spring game every year.

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

Well considering you have 2 interior guys for sure in Parr and Majors, one guy that projects to either OG/OT in Lindberg, and 2 OTs. I would say it would be the perfect line class, and the depth chart at Texas should be enticing as there isn't a lot of experienced depth right now to keep those guys off the field for 2-3 years.

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 4:45 PM, irishtexan said:

Don't worry. Multiple posters have insisted that the narrative has changed re: Stanford and they're no longer a threat because we won one big game. Apparently people won't care about a Stanford education anymore because we beat Georgia.

Expand  

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:28 PM, irishtexan said:

My post was slightly tongue in cheek, but I just don't agree that, as you put it, "the Stanford Texas equation has changed for the future." As long as Stanford fields a competitive football team that puts guys in the league and offers an education on par with the Ivy Leagues, the Stanford equation is a constant. They will always be a threat to sign guys like Little, Bragg, Lindberg, etc. We could win 3 national championships in the next decade and still lose guys to them.

Expand  

 

I don't totally disagree but I do think that Stanford's day in the sun may be waning a bit in terms of 10 win football and the NFL impact OL/DL being cranked out - the education is indeed legit and will always and forever pay dividends in OL recruiting.  For years they physically punished their opponents in the trenches, but Roman and Bloomgren are exceptional coaches. Their ability to develop players was a huge part of the NFL equation. Carberry is no Roman or Bloomgren. 

Stanford will ALWAYS be a destination school and as you said "We could win 3 national championships in the next decade and still lose guys to them." -- totally agreed. That part will never go away. It's impact will simply be less if the NFL pedigree isn't in play. Stanford is not physically dominating opponents in the trenches the way they have been and it's talented recruits are not showing development. That will likely manifest itself in the draft and likely on Pac 12 scoreboards as well over the next 3-5 years. They got manhandled up front in several conference games this season - their meal ticket has been being the most physical Pac 12 team. 

Combine the above with the clear direction of this Texas team and it's physical brand of football ...  

 

 

 

 

 

** Walker Little was never coming to Texas. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

Maybe, but that is not how this usually works.

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

I don't think this is an issue with the 2020 class after potentially taking only two high schoolers in 2019

I think it could be a factor in 2021 after landing what appears to be the preferred five OL class in 2020, especially at tackle if/when we land Brockermeyer early and add one more tackle like Conner, and then try to talk a third one like Fatheree or Jackson into the class

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 7:37 PM, Fud said:

I don't think this is an issue with the 2020 class after potentially taking only two high schoolers in 2019

I think it could be a factor in 2021 after landing what appears to be the preferred five OL class in 2020, especially at tackle if/when we land Brockermeyer early and add one more tackle like Conner, and then try to talk a third one like Fatheree or Jackson into the class

Expand  

I mean, you type that like it's a detriment to our efforts as a program but I read that entire second sentence and my reaction is:

28b68d04506a0e60aa7d994f9f8e8d71.gif

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 2:43 PM, ClubWhatever said:

Just as long as you understand he's a guard not a tackle.  To me he's another Patrick Vahe, but hopefully with a little better awareness in pass pro.

Expand  

 

  On 1/22/2019 at 6:50 PM, HtownHorn said:

Well considering you have 2 interior guys for sure in Parr and Majors, one guy that projects to either OG/OT in Lindberg, and 2 OTs. I would say it would be the perfect line class, and the depth chart at Texas should be enticing as there isn't a lot of experienced depth right now to keep those guys off the field for 2-3 years.

Expand  

You're both definitively stating that Majors is a guard. I've only seen him as a Tackle. Where is this confidence in him being an inside guy coming from? 

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 9:52 PM, irishtexan said:

 

You're both definitively stating that Majors is a guard. I've only seen him as a Tackle. Where is this confidence in him being an inside guy coming from? 

Expand  

Shackelford was an OT in HS. Majors is 6-3/6-4 and likely a C/G. 

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 9:52 PM, irishtexan said:

 

You're both definitively stating that Majors is a guard. I've only seen him as a Tackle. Where is this confidence in him being an inside guy coming from?  

Expand  

From him apparently being a bit short for tackle, especially since Hand likes tall tackles

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 9:52 PM, irishtexan said:

 

You're both definitively stating that Majors is a guard. I've only seen him as a Tackle. Where is this confidence in him being an inside guy coming from? 

Expand  

He's shaped like guys who almost always play in the interior 

Posted (edited)

Being completely honest, if my children were athletically gifted enough to merit multiple P5 offers and the fit made sense otherwise (by position/coach/need/etc), one of the only schools I would seriously be fine with along with Texas of course would be Stanford.  It's just too good academically to ignore versus almost any other major football program and academics would always be a big factor for me personally.  

Edited by UTDD
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 9:52 PM, irishtexan said:

 

You're both definitively stating that Majors is a guard. I've only seen him as a Tackle. Where is this confidence in him being an inside guy coming from? 

Expand  

and the most athletic kid in school usually plays SS on the baseball team, but very few actually stick there as they move up in level of competition.

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 10:19 PM, UTDD said:
Being completely honest, if my children were athletically gifted enough to merit multiple P5 offers and the fit made sense otherwise (by position/coach/need/etc), one of the only schools I would seriously be fine with along with Texas of course would be Stanford.  It's just too good academically to ignore versus almost any other major football program and academics would always be a big factor for me personally.  

 

 

467cfea3ed86a756d3506607f980d875.gif

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

We're getting everybody!

Posted

IT on OOS recruits

  Reveal hidden contents

Posted
  On 1/22/2019 at 5:26 PM, Tex-19 said:

Is it actually realistic to get all 5 of the OLs we're targeting? At some point it seems like they're going to look around and see too much competition with each other. For example, if we do end up adding Majors, Lindberg and Garth, George could see 4 commits already on board and decide to go somewhere with an easier path to playing time, which could then affect Evans.

Expand  

George won’t be going to Texas. Better to load up on the talented guys that want to be here.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
  On 1/23/2019 at 2:44 AM, Machinator said:

IT on OOS recruits

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Expand  

Does IT proofread their articles?!

Posted

IT notes

  Reveal hidden contents

Posted
  On 1/23/2019 at 8:57 PM, Elmer_Fudd said:

I've seen IT mention a couple of times "if the staff pushes for Washington" is he not a take??  Seems like he'd definately be.

Expand  

The answer is right there, although I think it says Thompson where it should say Washington at the beginning of the sentence.

Posted

IT Q&A part 1 (EN is Eric Nahlin, JW is Justin Wells)

  Reveal hidden contents

  • Like 2
Posted

IT Q&A part 2:

  Reveal hidden contents

Posted

Some kids are going to go to Stanford. It's a great university, but we also have Herb Hand who can find those diamond in the rough types, too. Just keep winning. It's not like Texas doesn't have great academics, too. Winning cures all. 

 

/obviously 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...