Trent Murphy - Stanford Defensive End

[OklahomaIrish 0]

I bet most of you watched Stanford beat Oregon State last night. Stanford's best player in my opinion is Trent Murphy. This tall, fast, athletic and brutal defensive end played havoc with Oregon State all night. They couldn't keep him out of the backfield. He's a beast and one helluva player.

 

Here's my point. This kid was a three star recruit, only 5.5 points on rivals scale. But Stanford knew exactly what they were doing. They can't get Stephon Tuitt or Clowney, but their defensive line is top ten every single year. They do it with a bunch of three star white guys.

 

But not just any three star white guys. They all have several things in common. They are tall. Usually 6' 5'' or 6' 6''. They are underweight and under the radar when recruited. They have a superior work ethic, but most importantly they can flat out run. In high school they weigh about 230 pounds as seniors and may be playing outside linebacker.

 

These guys should be redshirted as freshmen and put on a stringent weight lifting and protein filled diet. By the time they are in their third year they are good to go at about 270 pounds (that's what Murphy weighs now). When they are in their 4th and 5th years they can be dominant and very disruptive.

 

At Notre Dame we have the best of both worlds. We can attract an occasional Tuitt or Lynch, but we should darn sure go after some of these Murphy guys.

 

WE ARE DOING EXACTLY THAT. Grant Blankenship and Andrew Trumbetti are these types of players in our next recruiting class. Grant Blankenship is a Texas kid (See Cam to understand ) and has all these traits. He's a three star, but don't be shocked if he gets his 4th star soon. He has already grown to 6' 6'' and 250 pounds. The kid runs a 4.6 40. He was coveted by Stanford and Oklahoma.

 

Andrew Trumbetti may also be in this mold. I haven't followed him to have a solid opinion, but he is 6' 5'' 235 and just made the Under Armor All American bowl.

 

Those that are disappointed in our defensive line recruiting should not be. I sure hope we get Elam, but this staff addresses the defensive line hard every recruiting class. You gotta love these big rangy baddass defensive ends.

Edited October 27, 2013 by OklahomaIrish

[ndjohn 0]

Longo is the key. Just give him the tools.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

Josh Mauro is Stanford's weakside defensive end. He is 6' 6'' and 275. Checking his high school rating he is another lowly 3 star with a 5.5 rating on rivals.

 

Stanfords' nose guard is only 292 pounds.

 

Why do we think we have to have a 350 pound nose guard?? If Springmann comes back healthy and continues to work hard he will be just fine some where along our line. I do hope we get Elam, but it won't be the end of the world if we don't.

 

PS: Murphy was actually hurt in the game last night in the 4th quarter. I don't think it's serious but he left the game with a grimace.

 

I've been looking at Stanford because they are constantly in the top ten, they beat Oregon last year and I never see them in the top ten in recruiting. Seems like we can learn from them.

[irishguy773 0]

Stanford's bringing in a top 25 class every year and have had a couple top 10 classes since 2008 (namely, a top 5-7 class in 2012).

 

They bring in tons of talent. They just focus it on the lines and on defense. Skov was an all everything 5 star a couple years back.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

Stanford is currently ranked 24 on rivals. I don't see a single 4 star recruit on their defensive front line. Tuitt was a 5 star, Nix 4 star, Day 4 star, Ishaq 5 star, Jaylon 5 star, Councell 4 star.

 

My point, is if you take a 3 star kid, go for height, athleticism and speed. Get a frame big enough to carry a lot more weight and build these guys to supplement the roster. Murphy would start for us. Stanford does a great job finding these guys and working them up to elite status.

[dangeruss 6]

But not just any three star white guys. They all have several things in common. They are tall. Usually 6' 5'' or 6' 6''. They are underweight and under the radar when recruited. They have a superior work ethic, but most importantly they can flat out run. In high school they weigh about 230 pounds as seniors and may be playing outside linebacker.

Justin tuck fit that mold also. came in as a lanky 6'4 210 OLB and eventually beefed up to 275 lbs. I also agree that Blankenship fits that mold perfectly as well. I really like how Stanford does it.

[irishguy773 0]

Stanford is currently ranked 24 on rivals. I don't see a single 4 star recruit on their defensive front line. Tuitt was a 5 star, Nix 4 star, Day 4 star, Ishaq 5 star, Jaylon 5 star, Councell 4 star.

 

My point, is if you take a 3 star kid, go for height, athleticism and speed. Get a frame big enough to carry a lot more weight and build these guys to supplement the roster. Murphy would start for us. Stanford does a great job finding these guys and working them up to elite status.

 

Cool. Tell Nix, Tuitt, Jaylon, Day, Ishaq, and Councill to hit the road, we've GOT SOME 3 STARS TO DEVELOP!!!

 

We do both. We've brought in 5 stars and 3 stars. You're not exactly asking for something new here. This staff, and even previous staffs have been doing it forever. Are you asking them to forsake 5 and 4 stars and just go solely after 3 stars from Texas? Otherwise, you're just kind of restating what we already do, as well as pretty much every other school in the country.

 

Also, a recruiting ranking right now means virtually nothing, so I wouldn't look at that. Wait until after signing day, and who they actually enroll, that's when you can look at a ranking as something relatively finite.

[corysold 0]

Cool. Tell Nix, Tuitt, Jaylon, Day, Ishaq, and Councill to hit the road, we've GOT SOME 3 STARS TO DEVELOP!!!:wink:We do both. We've brought in 5 stars and 3 stars. You're not exactly asking for something new here. This staff,and even previous staffs have been doing it forever. Are you asking them to forsake 5 and 4 stars and just go solely after 3 stars from Texas?Otherwise,you're just kind of restating what we already do, as well as pretty much every other school in the country.

 

Also, a recruiting ranking right now means virtually nothing, so I wouldn't look at that. Wait until after signing day,and who they actually enroll,that's when you can look at a ranking as something relatively finite.

 

And who stays beyond their freshman season.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

Cool. Tell Nix, Tuitt, Jaylon, Day, Ishaq, and Councill to hit the road, we've GOT SOME 3 STARS TO DEVELOP!!!

 

We do both. We've brought in 5 stars and 3 stars. You're not exactly asking for something new here. This staff, and even previous staffs have been doing it forever. Are you asking them to forsake 5 and 4 stars and just go solely after 3 stars from Texas? Otherwise, you're just kind of restating what we already do, as well as pretty much every other school in the country.

 

Also, a recruiting ranking right now means virtually nothing, so I wouldn't look at that. Wait until after signing day, and who they actually enroll, that's when you can look at a ranking as something relatively finite.

 

Hold on Irishguy. I'm not seeing a Tuitt, Lynch, Vanderdoes or Williams in this class. My point is not to worry about this class because I see the length and speed that is uncommon in this next class. The only recruit in the past 3 years that is similar would be Springmann, but he can't run with Blankenship. Blankenship is more along the lines of Trent Murphy. This is new territory.

 

If you can find me a 6' 6'' 3 star defensive line recruit that runs a 4.6 40 in the last 4 years (Kelly's regime) please educate me. This is new ground. This is what Stanford does and we have to identify these guys and go after them. I think we should take a strong look at who Stanford goes after and evaluate them. First, you know they have the grades. Just a shift in recruiting, especially when you don't get the 5 star guys.

[piratey 6]

3* developed kids are great if you want to finish second in your conference(which isn't the SEC) just like Stanford. It's why we got our doors blown off against Alabama last year, the 3* developed kids that littered our defense, they looked so good against everyone else...

 

I want to win a national title. Unless you're signing 30 kids, you need those 4/5* kids to compete with the Big dogs down south. For ever 3* success story, there are about 50 others...

[OklahomaIrish 0]

3* developed kids are great if you want to finish second in your conference(which isn't the SEC) just like Stanford. It's why we got our doors blown off against Alabama last year, the 3* developed kids that littered our defense, they looked so good against everyone else...

 

I want to win a national title. Unless you're signing 30 kids, you need those 4/5* kids to compete with the Big dogs down south. For ever 3* success story, there are about 50 others...

 

 

When you don't get the guys at the top of your list, there is a formula that helps identify a 3 star kid that has a much higher upside. These kids can and will develop into 4 star talent. Stanford does not get many 4 star defensive linemen but they are consistently in the top 5 defensive fronts. Studying them reveals how they do it.

 

We can get an occasional Lynch or Tuitt. We usually can get a couple 4 star defensive ends, but don't take just any 3 star guys to supplement your roster. Height and speed can not be coached. Strength and girth can.

[corysold 0]

3* developed kids are great if you want to finish second in your conference(which isn't the SEC) just like Stanford. It's why we got our doors blown off against Alabama last year, the 3* developed kids that littered our defense, they looked so good against everyone else...

 

I want to win a national title. Unless you're signing 30 kids, you need those 4/5* kids to compete with the Big dogs down south. For ever 3* success story, there are about 50 others...

 

I would agree. Relying on developing 3*s can work if you run off the ones that don't develop like they do in the SEC.

 

Sure, Stanford has had a pretty good run of success the last 3-4 years, but let's see how they sustain it before we suggest we want to emulate them. Harbaugh rode the Andrew Luck train and much of their recruiting followed that.

 

Ben Gardner is another example of a guy they've developed, but they have a lot of examples of 3* guys that didn't develop as well.

 

Now, if they show that they can continue to find and develop unheralded players, then that would be great. But I don't see them maintaining success without the influx of a lot of 4 and 5* talent as well. From 2009-1012 they brought in 8,4,6 and 11 4 and 5* players each year. Last year they had 4 this year 5 so far.

 

You can survive one "down" year in recruiting. We'll see if they can survive two in a row, depending on how this year end up.

[piratey 6]

When you don't get the guys at the top of your list, there is a formula that helps identify a 3 star kid that has a much higher upside. These kids can and will develop into 4 star talent. Stanford does not get many 4 star defensive linemen but they are consistently in the top 5 defensive fronts. Studying them reveals how they do it.

 

We can get an occasional Lynch or Tuitt. We usually can get a couple 4 star defensive ends, but don't take just any 3 star guys to supplement your roster. Height and speed can not be coached. Strength and girth can.

 

The difference is Okie, is that from day one, Stanford recognizes they won't be able to sniff a kid like Stephan Tuitt. They don't even bother going down to the bible belt to grab elite kids.This means the time and effort they put into finding the "perfect 3-star" is much greater than ours. I think that THIS staff does a MUCH better job at balancing the two approaches than the previous one did however. Romeo Okwara is an example on defense of a kid that will make large contributions next year and you need only look at the kids who caught TD's this weekend to see 3* kids shine.

[roarcity269 0]

Stanford has to get skinny fast kids that they can develop because they play Oregon every year and the rest of the conference runs heavy spread. They know their defenses must be fast enough to get to the outside with those Oregon/USC backs.

 

They do a good job of meeting the requirements of their league.

 

However, national champions (mainly SEC) get guys that are not only fast, but big.

[OklahomaIrish 0]

Stanford has to get skinny fast kids that they can develop because they play Oregon every year and the rest of the conference runs heavy spread. They know their defenses must be fast enough to get to the outside with those Oregon/USC backs.

 

They do a good job of meeting the requirements of their league.

 

However, national champions (mainly SEC) get guys that are not only fast, but big.

 

I fully understand what you guys are saying. I have been studying Stanford. Trent Murphy is a beast and in my opinion could play for Alabama. He darn sure could play for Notre Dame. We need speed. We need to pressure the quarterbacks. KLM seldom could get after the quarterback and he was a 4 star.

 

When I started looking at Blankenship and his videos I was reminded of Murphy. I think we have a real gem. In fact I really think he will get a 4th star. Trumbetti is similar but a shade shorter and slower. He, however, was chosen for the Under Armor game. We can't really make a kid faster or taller, so we have to recruit that regardless of stars.

[mtl_irish03 0]

3* developed kids are great if you want to finish second in your conference(which isn't the SEC) just like Stanford. It's why we got our doors blown off against Alabama last year, the 3* developed kids that littered our defense, they looked so good against everyone else...

 

I want to win a national title. Unless you're signing 30 kids, you need those 4/5* kids to compete with the Big dogs down south. For ever 3* success story, there are about 50 others...

 

ND's Dline had far more recruiting "stars" than did Bamas last year.

We need more depth but its their LB/DB that set them apart.

[corysold 0]

I fully understand what you guys are saying. I have been studying Stanford. Trent Murphy is a beast and in my opinion could play for Alabama. He darn sure could play for Notre Dame. We need speed. We need to pressure the quarterbacks. KLM seldom could get after the quarterback and he was a 4 star.

 

When I started looking at Blankenship and his videos I was reminded of Murphy. I think we have a real gem. In fact I really think he will get a 4th star. Trumbetti is similar but a shade shorter and slower. He, however, was chosen for the Under Armor game. We can't really make a kid faster or taller, so we have to recruit that regardless of stars.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't Murphy an OLB? Comparing him to KLM is a bit off. He is more or less our Shembo right? Maybe he would play over Shembo, who knows, but aren't Ishaq and Okwara basically higher rated Murphy's? Unless Murphy does play DE like Day/Tuitt, then your comparison is apt, but I think he is an OLB, so we should look at guys like Bonner and Jaylon.