Mark Vader Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I have to think location was a factor, too. Trent grew up in Los Gatos, CA. The Stanford campus is less than 20 miles from there. So he gets the opportunity to go to one of the top academic schools in the world, become the starting quarterback for an above-average D1 program (granted, they sucked last year, but they have had their share of greatness over the years; John Elway, anyone?), and stay close to his family (we know from Chris Brown's reports that he's extremely close with his family, especially his sister). Maybe it's just that I've lived in the SF Bay Area for almost 20 years and have been brainwashed about how excellent Stanford is, but I can't fault Trent one bit for his choice. Certainly didn't seem to hurt his chances of playing in the NFL! 3. Quarterback U. Stanford has a storied football tradition, producing quarterbacks such as John Elway, Jim Plunkett and John Brodie. An article in 2005 addressing this topic declared that Stanford has produced more pro-quality quarterbacks since 1960 than any other school in the country (Notre Dame, USC, LSU and Florida State rounded out the top five). 8. Recent History. When Trent was being recruited, Stanford had been to bowl games six of the previous ten seasons (including the Rose Bowl in 1999, Stanford’s twelfth Rose Bowl appearance). Greatness? As Bagel points out Stanford has been to 12 Rose Bowl games. The Rose Bowl has been around since 1902, then discontinued until 1916. Thats 93 Rose Bowls, with Stanford averaging an appearence once every 8 years. I wonder how many times teams like USC, Ohio State, & Michigan have gone to the Rose Bowl. Yes there have been great QB's from that school; Elway, Plunkett, & Brodie. Yet how many times did they get Stanford to the Rose Bowl? For that matter when was the last time Stanford won the National Title? Yes, Stanford is one of the top schools in education and overall athletics. In the world of college football though, Stanford is far from greatness.
/dev/null Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Yes, Stanford is one of the top schools in education and overall athletics. In the world of college football though, Stanford is far from greatness. I don't mean to turn this into yet another JP vs Trent flame war, but Tulane was never that high up one the College Football food chain. But then again neither was Miami in the early 80s, but that QB the Bills drafted turned out pretty good
Bagel Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Greatness? As Bagel points out Stanford has been to 12 Rose Bowl games. The Rose Bowl has been around since 1902, then discontinued until 1916. Thats 93 Rose Bowls, with Stanford averaging an appearence once every 8 years. I wonder how many times teams like USC, Ohio State, & Michigan have gone to the Rose Bowl. Yes there have been great QB's from that school; Elway, Plunkett, & Brodie. Yet how many times did they get Stanford to the Rose Bowl? For that matter when was the last time Stanford won the National Title? Yes, Stanford is one of the top schools in education and overall athletics. In the world of college football though, Stanford is far from greatness. It's true, Stanford is no USC (32 Rose Bowls) or Michigan (24 Rose Bowls). Stanford is surprisingly close to Ohio State in Rose Bowl appearances (by my count OSU has been to 13 Rose Bowls while Stanford has been to 12). It's also true that Stanford hasn't had an undisputed national championship since 1926 (they shared the title in 1935 and 1940). But with 3 national titles, 12 Rose Bowls and 20 Bowl appearances total, is it that disingenuous to say that Stanford has had their share of football greatness? Would you agree to goodness?
Mark Vader Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 It's true, Stanford is no USC (32 Rose Bowls) or Michigan (24 Rose Bowls). Stanford is surprisingly close to Ohio State in Rose Bowl appearances (by my count OSU has been to 13 Rose Bowls while Stanford has been to 12). It's also true that Stanford hasn't had an undisputed national championship since 1926 (they shared the title in 1935 and 1940). But with 3 national titles, 12 Rose Bowls and 20 Bowl appearances total, is it that disingenuous to say that Stanford has had their share of football greatness? Would you agree to goodness? You make a good point. I had no idea Ohio St. had been to about the same amount of Rose Bowls. I could agree that Stanford would apply to goodness than greatness. Yet as you point out, Stanford's last national title was in 1940, that is a very long time. My main point is that Stanford has produced some outstanding football players in recent times, but not outstanding teams.
dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I was wondering.. why did Trent Edwards back coming out of high school, as one of the best quarterbacks in the country, decide to go to Stanford? I mean.. look at these schools that recruited him. Standford (LOI) Tennessee UCLA Washington California Florida Michigan This is sarcasm, right? Stanford? A school that has produced a bevy of QBs and two #1 overall QBs in the last 35 years (an incredibly high percentage, considering the number of 1A schools and the number of positions)?
JPicc2114 Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 Stanford as team, has not been good in many years. Trent got hammered his entire college career behind a horrid offensive line. If he went to say... michigan or something, do you think he would have gotten drafted in the second or possibly the first round and make more money?
dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Stanford as team, has not been good in many years. Trent got hammered his entire college career behind a horrid offensive line. If he went to say... michigan or something, do you think he would have gotten drafted in the second or possibly the first round and make more money? Dude, Stanford is more or less one of the ten best institutions of higher learning in the world. Among those ten, it's the only one that's any good at football. If an 18-year old guy is *really* smart and can throw a football well, Stanford is a way, way better career choice than Alabama or LSU or Florida or Texas or wherever.
Steely Dan Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Dude, Stanford is more or less one of the ten best institutions of higher learning in the world. Among those ten, it's the only one that's any good at football. If an 18-year old guy is *really* smart and can throw a football well, Stanford is a way, way better career choice than Alabama or LSU or Florida or Texas or wherever. As I said above he probably didn't want a degree in basket weaving.
Bagel Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Stanford as team, has not been good in many years. Trent got hammered his entire college career behind a horrid offensive line. If he went to say... michigan or something, do you think he would have gotten drafted in the second or possibly the first round and make more money? Circler, I understand your question. Let me add four thoughts: 1. When Trent was making this decision in the spring of 2002, Stanford was coming off a 9-3 season, was two years removed from the Rose Bowl and had been to bowl games in six of the previous ten seasons. He did not have a crystal ball to foresee what the Buddy Teevens/Walt Harris/Dean of Admissions Mamlet years would bring. 2. How well do you think Stanford prepared Trent for the NFL? In other words, how did his performance compare to a typical rookie QB? Let’s even compare his level of preparation to the first pick in the draft, JaMarcus Russell from LSU – a football powerhouse. I’d submit that Trent appeared at least equally well prepared in comparison. 3. Leading up to the draft, most folks thought Trent would be selected in the early second round. Had he not had the flu at the NFL combine perhaps he would have. 4. I have heard someone ask Trent – with my very own two and a half ears – if he ever regretted going to Stanford. He said clearly and unequivocally, no. If he had the opportunity to do it over, he would choose Stanford again.
JPicc2114 Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 Hopefully everything works out for him and he starts making the type of money he deserves and not 3rd round money.
billsfanincuse Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Hopefully everything works out for him and he starts making the type of money he deserves and not 3rd round money. He's got to show he deserves it this year i'm sure the Bills aren't in nogotiations for that $100 million contract just yet
WellDressed Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 This is sarcasm, right? Stanford? A school that has produced a bevy of QBs and two #1 overall QBs in the last 35 years (an incredibly high percentage, considering the number of 1A schools and the number of positions)? yea, and our OC as well.
port allegany Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 BINGO. Could not have said it better.[ quote name=Bagel' date='Apr 12 2008, 07:38 PM' post='1003479] I can think of nine good reasons why Trent chose Stanford. 1. NFL. Stanford is a pipeline to the NFL. In the last 10 years Stanford has had 35 players drafted by the NFL -- second most in the Pac-10 behind USC. Since 2002, Trent's freshman red-shirt season, they have had 26 players drafted. 2. Academics. Stanford is the finest academic institution in the United States. This is not a four year decision. It is a forty year decision. 3. Quarterback U. Stanford has a storied football tradition, producing quarterbacks such as John Elway, Jim Plunkett and John Brodie. An article in 2005 addressing this topic declared that Stanford has produced more pro-quality quarterbacks since 1960 than any other school in the country (Notre Dame, USC, LSU and Florida State rounded out the top five). 4. Location. The Stanford campus is gorgeous and the weather in Palo Alto is sunny and warm nearly year round. It is also only 40 minutes from San Francisco and a few miles from the beach. 5. Coeds. The Stanford women’s volleyball team and swim team. Trust me on this one. 6. Athletics. Overall the Stanford athletic department is dominant, winning the Director’s Cup as the nation’s top Division I athletic program 13 years in a row (and leading again this year). 7. Conference. Stanford plays in the Pac-10, an excellent football conference that is quarterback friendly. 8. Recent History. When Trent was being recruited, Stanford had been to bowl games six of the previous ten seasons (including the Rose Bowl in 1999, Stanford’s twelfth Rose Bowl appearance). 9. Extra Guidance. In addition to the coaching staff, at Stanford Trent could and did seek guidance from Bill Walsh.
Lori Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 Circler, I understand your question. Let me add four thoughts: 1. When Trent was making this decision in the spring of 2002, Stanford was coming off a 9-3 season, was two years removed from the Rose Bowl and had been to bowl games in six of the previous ten seasons. He did not have a crystal ball to foresee what the Buddy Teevens/Walt Harris/Dean of Admissions Mamlet years would bring. 2. How well do you think Stanford prepared Trent for the NFL? In other words, how did his performance compare to a typical rookie QB? Let’s even compare his level of preparation to the first pick in the draft, JaMarcus Russell from LSU – a football powerhouse. I’d submit that Trent appeared at least equally well prepared in comparison. 3. Leading up to the draft, most folks thought Trent would be selected in the early second round. Had he not had the flu at the NFL combine perhaps he would have. 4. I have heard someone ask Trent – with my very own two and a half ears – if he ever regretted going to Stanford. He said clearly and unequivocally, no. If he had the opportunity to do it over, he would choose Stanford again. Agree with all your points, but I'll add a professional analyst's take on the bolded one. (No, not mine; I'm not nearly that presumptuous. This is clipped from a Q-and-A session with Mark Kelso and Chris Brown. Sorry, no link -- this is from the recap I filed on last November's Booster Club meeting, and that thread is gone unless we can retrieve the data from the crashed hard drive): Bills Radio Network color analyst Mark Kelso, #38 in your Super Bowl-era programs, then joined Brown at the podium. Kelso also opened his remarks by discussing the quarterback shuffle. He feels bad for J.P.; the guy's worked his tail off, good in the community, etc. But while there were extenuating circumstances -- the injury against New England, a gameplan that could have taken better advantage of his strengths (bootlegs, deep throws) -- in the end, Losman was given an opportunity, but couldn't do what he needed to to keep the job. He's not hard to game-plan against: even Jacksonville, a team that normally plays a lot of man-to-man D in their secondary, gave him a lot of Cover 2 looks because they knew he's struggled against it in the past. The talk then turned to comparing Losman and Trent Edwards. Kelso and Brown agreed that Edwards was the more "polished" of the two and has progressed more quickly, probably at least in part because TE received better coaching in college (as opposed to the run-for-your-life, chuck-and-duck offense Losman endured at Tulane). They agreed on something else, too: Losman may be one of the most mishandled players in Bills history. Kelso feels that neither coaching staff has done a particularly good job of finding a way to utilize the things he's good at, instead of trying to make him fit into their systems. Mention was made of the fact that the playcalling has been "under the radar" these last few weeks... but if Edwards' return doesn't improve the offense's production, well... Looking at my notes, I found two words I left out of the original: pattern recognition. Despite his problem with CBs jumping 'dig' routes -- something Losman still struggles with, as well -- Trent was pretty good at it for a rookie who was getting second- and third-team reps in training camp. I'll be anxious to see how much he improves with a full offseason as the starter.
Recommended Posts