Stanford Adds 5* OT Murphy to loaded class - Better OL class than UM's?

Submitted by jtmc33 on February 1st, 2012 at 5:47 PM

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=734&yr=2012

Even assuming Diamond is Blue, it looks like the best OL class may be Stanford's.

Barry Sanders Jr has a 5-star OT, 5-star OG, 4-star C, OT, and OG to run behind for the next 3-4 years.   And two 3-stars for depth.

I assumed with Harbough leaving  Palo Alto that Sttanford would  finish this season with a great record, say bye to Luck and the dominant O-Line, and then slip back to being fodder for USC and Oregon.

Looks like they are merely reloading.  

 

Comments

WolvinLA2

February 1st, 2012 at 5:54 PM ^

Yes, there's is far better than ours.  Assuming we get Diamond (which is by no means a lock), they have Peat and Murphy at OT which beats Magnuson and Diamond.  I would take Kalis over Garnett (but not by a mile), but then they have three more four star OLs, and we have one, plus Braden.  Ours might be second in the country, but Stanford is #1.

Their class, as a whole, is pretty incredible. 

Alumnus93

February 1st, 2012 at 9:16 PM ^

WolvinLA2,  the " plus Braden " statement  is indirectly dismissive.....  I hope you really how much it was so, when he ends up being the best OT than all of the Stanford and Michigan OL recruits.

Have you really seen Braden's tape ?  Its above outstanding. And he'd have a fourth star if not so isolated, and/or if he attended more elite camps... and I'd go to say he'd have a fifth star if he didn't mainly play hockey most of his high school.

Even an opposing coach said Braden is the best he has ever coached against, and thats including All Pro Joe Staley of the 49ers.  

Stanford's OL is not far better than ours, either. Not a chance.

kmedved

February 1st, 2012 at 5:56 PM ^

They may well end up ranking higher than UM overall, not just at OL.

Good for them. I know UM and Stanford go head to head on a bunch of recruits, but I like to see strong academic schools showing you don't need to be Notre Dame. Plus it's nice to have another counterweight to USC and Oregon in the Pac12.

pasadenablue

February 1st, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^

... i dont know if you can say one class is "better" than the other at this point, especially with a position like OL, where coaching, experience, growth, and random volatility all have such an impact.  ask again in 3-4 years.

kmedved

February 1st, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

Except Garnett wasn't considering USC, and they grabbed Peat from Nebraska, and Shittu was supposed to be Cal bound, etc...

It's not clear how much they're poaching guys USC doesn't have room for. I'm sure USC would be happy to replace Chad Wheeler and Morgan Breslin with Murphy/Peat and Shittu. They just weren't really in on those guys.

JackDonaghy

February 1st, 2012 at 7:11 PM ^

being they're one of if not the favorite to win the NC next year?
/s
I know what you mean about USC having scholarship limitations and not being able to pick up as many players as they had in the past, but I'm not sure you're giving Stanford enough credit. Didn't they also pull the top LB in Florida? Noor Davis is something?

WolvinLA2

February 1st, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

That's really not true.  Most of the top kids in that class weren't even considering USC, and the ones who were (Murphy, Peat, etc), USC would have gladly taken.  For example, only three of Stanford's 4+ star commits were from California.  I bet Stanford gets all of those guys even if USC could take a full class.  Remember, when SC was rolling, they were only taking 19-20 guys per class anyway, so this had little effect on other programs, Stanford especially. 

RickH

February 1st, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^

Extremely impressive class for Stanford.  It's pretty much got everything you'd want in a school except a large football fanbase.  Hopefully, for them though, they can turn that around and they'd be a sleeping giant awaking to be a top contender year after year in recruiting.  I doubt that will happen though as I just don't see Stanford packing the stands anytime soon or making their football players celebrities like the likes of Alabama, Texas, USC, etc.

MelchDaddy

February 1st, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^

That's certainly a nice haul on paper. It'll be interesting to see how it translates on the field. They clearly haven't lost any recruiting prowess with the departure of Harbaugh.

BursleysFinest

February 1st, 2012 at 6:11 PM ^

  Why do people keep assuming that Stanford can't sustain football success???

  Schools like Michigan and Notre Dame have proven you can have academic and athletic success, not to mention California/The West Coast has a TON of high school football talent to go after, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the success lasts

WolvinLA2

February 1st, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^

1. They lack a fanbase.  Players like to play for teams that have large fanbases so that poeple will wear their jerseys, pack their stadiums, talk about them across the country, etc.  Even when Stanford wins lots of games, they have 40k people at their games, many of which are Pac-12 alums who live in the Bay Area. 

2. Unlike Michigan and ND, they truly have higher academic criteria for football players than everyone else.  Their pool to pick from is simply smaller because of it.  There are a handful of guys that we take every year who might not qualify at Stanford, but do at UM. 

3.  Because they haven't done it before.  This doesn't preclude them from being able to do it, but it suggests they won't.  It's not like those reasons you mention about Stanford being appealing are new.  And it's not like they haven't had good teams or star players before.  But they've never been able to sustain that.

FrankMurphy

February 1st, 2012 at 6:56 PM ^

They also don't pay their coaches top of the market salaries, which makes it difficult to hold onto successful coaches. That's particularly significant since Palo Alto is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. Shaw is an alum so he may stick around a while, but every Stanford coach who has had some success has left either for the NFL (Dennis Green, Bill Walsh, Harbaugh) or for a better college job (Tyrone Willingham). 

WolvinLA2

February 1st, 2012 at 8:01 PM ^

Good point.  This is especially important to non-coordinator assistant coaches, especially the ones who aren't really young.  If you're a 35 year old guy with a couple of kids and a wife who maybe doesn't have a great job (partly because you uproot her every few years), living on a household income on 100k doesn't go a long way in the Bay Area, especially compared to 125k in most midwestern or southern college towns.

Don

February 1st, 2012 at 8:25 PM ^

I'm not disputing your main point about Stanford's fanbase, but their attendance is a bit better than 40K, at least for last season. Their stadium's capacity is only 50,360, which they reached in 6 of their 7 home games. They only had 47+K for their first home game against San Jose St.

Their OL haul has to be the best in the country.

bronxblue

February 1st, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^

I do take issue with #2 a bit (and please do correct me with a link if one is available) - but like all D1 schools Stanford's only official criteria for admission is passing the NCAA clearinghouse.  I thought during the whole Harbaugh trash talking discussion, people showed that Stanford did let in students who would not have been admitted without the football component.  Yes, Stanford probably recruits from a smaller pool than, say, Texas Tech because of the academic standards held by the school, but school like Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern are also elite academic programs in power conferences that find a way to field good teams.  I think people too often see an easy narrative - top school wins on the athletic field, has a prominent athlete (Luck) who is also quite bright, so clearly entire team is filled with braniacs who are good at football - and run with it.  Personally, I am impressed that Stanford can recruit so well, but I know people who were recruited to schools for their athletic exploits over their academics, and gained admittance largely because of that factor (as their grades and test scores certainly were below the average).

Again, I am open to being proven wrong, but I have yet to see some overwhelming evidence that Stanford holds its athletes to an academic standard far greater than other academically-rigorous institutions.

FrankMurphy

February 1st, 2012 at 6:25 PM ^

It's nice to see a school like Stanford succeed, but what's annoying to me is that they don't seem to have any real fans. I live near Palo Alto, and I have yet to meet anyone who is a truly devoted fan of Stanford football. 

When Garnett chose them over us, I looked for a Stanford blog to read their fans' reactions, but I couldn't find one. 

BlueVball8

February 1st, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^

Unfortunately they have a ridiculous OLine class.  We have two really good tackles and a couple good tackles.  But they have two really good/great tackles and a spectacular guard.

radfan5

February 1st, 2012 at 6:55 PM ^

 is pretty amazing. Quite a haul of O-lineman today too. I still love our class, particularly the O-line. We still have a couple bullets left in the gun too, so who knows.

goblue27

February 1st, 2012 at 8:36 PM ^

just hearing an interview with shaw, he just seems like a great, well educated man.  very well spoken but tough, i'm not surprised he's recruited a great class

lhglrkwg

February 1st, 2012 at 8:54 PM ^

this is like a mind-bendingly amazing class for stanford. It's not just a "wow stanford has a few four stars" its more of a "wow stanford is playing and recruiting in the top 10. what dimension am i in again?"

nike

June 22nd, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

This is just the information I am finding everywhere.Me Toyota Prius and my friend were arguing about an issue similar to this! Now I know that I was right.Thanks ford cars for the information you post. I just subscribe your blog. This is a nice blog.