In the coming weeks, Bryce Love will face a difficult decision between staying at Stanford for his final year or entering the NFL draft. Whatever he chooses, Stanford fans will support his decision, but I’m not alone when I say that I hope he stays.
This time last year, Christian McCaffrey faced the exact same dilemma, and ultimately, he chose to forgo his senior year for the NFL. His decision paid off. He shot up the draft boards, and the Panthers selected him with the eighth pick and paid him $17.2 million over four years. I mean, how do you turn down that much money?
Bryce Love, however, is not the same person as Christian McCaffrey. First, Love’s academic aspirations are lofty. The heisman finalist currently studies human biology and plans on becoming a pediatrician. It’s a difficult major, yet Love finds time to dedicate himself in the classroom, and leaving for the NFL would slow down his lifelong goal.
Currently, CBS ranks Love as the sixteenth best player available in this year’s draft. Last year, that draft slot earned almost $12 million, which is still a substantial amount but not as high as McCaffrey’s current earnings. NFL teams are likely to downgrade Love for his small frame and won’t consider him an every-down back. If Love returns next year, perhaps he can improve his draft stock and potentially become a top five pick.
In between McCaffrey’s sophomore and junior seasons, he was a workout machine and gained weight while maintaining his speed. Love could do the same this offseason and add muscle. Furthermore, Love has room to improve on the field.
I can assure you that McCaffrey wasn’t picked eighth just because of his running ability but also because of his ability to also catch the ball and return kicks. Love didn’t do either this season and could prove to scouts that he’s more than just a runner by staying.
There’s always the risk of seriously getting hurt by staying, but recent history shows that might not matter. For example, Todd Gurley tore his ACL at Georgia but was still picked with the tenth pick. Leonard Fournette dealt with a reoccurring ankle injury throughout his final season at LSU, but that didn’t stop the Jaguars from picking him fourth.
Ultimately, it’s always difficult to turn down millions of dollars, but the NFL can always wait; college can’t. Attending Stanford and playing football is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, and the team is returning many starters on both sides of the ball and could compete for the national championship next season, and Love is a part of that championship equation.
I think Bryce Love will consider all these aspects while making decisions, and if you asked me, I’d say that he stays. (But I tend to be overly optimistic.)
Comments
I agree that he'll stay
His pro pedigree is not that high yet; another year and a potential Heisman would move him higher up the draft boards.
By worldblee on 12.12.17 12:17pm
Not Sure He Goes In The First Round If He Comes Out
Stanford has produced a string of highly touted running backs who have (largely) failed to have the impact expected of them in the NFL (Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney, even McCaffrey to some extent). One can talk all day about Love’s ability to run "between the tackles" but who knows if that translates against an NFL defense. The same was said about McCaffrey, and he has frankly struggled mightily in that area. McCaffrey brings another dimension. Catching passes. And he has not disappointed. But Love has yet to demonstrate (at all) that he can catch passes. Maybe he can. Maybe he can’t. But it is not on film. So he is a scatback based on size and speed who has not demonstrated the ability to play scatback or slot. And however much I like Bryce Love, it is hard to just assume he is going to be a successful between the tackles runner in the NFL. Are you going to draft him in the first round without knowing that, at a minimum, he can play a scatback role if his between the tackles performance fails to pan out?
None of this is to say that Bryce can’t do it all. I have enormous respect for his talent and drive. Just that it hasn’t been demonstrated from the point of the NFL. Make no mistake. Bryce can and will play in the NFL if he wants. Just don’t think he goes in the first round this year.
So come back Bryce. Get your degree. Have Shaw dial up 3 – 4 passes per game to you (and not just screens or bubble screens). Line up in the slot and stay there every once in a while. And if you decide to come out, have Shaw showcase your pass catching a bit against TCU.
By hoyaparanoia on 12.12.17 12:45pm
His style translates more to a rotation or change of pace back
I had doubts about Mccaffrey at the next level as a RB but genuinely thought he could be a top-10 slot receiver which he has proven this year. Love is definitely not an every down back and will have to settle himself in a situation with a bell-cow to make a difference. That usually means more mid-to-late 2nd.
But considering the money on the table, I don’t know why I would want to stay and take that pounding the shaw system brings. The guy was playing on literally 1 leg and I don’t see him surviving another season with that kind of workload without making any $. Really wish him the best of luck either way and cheer him on I guess.
By layman on 12.12.17 5:47pm
Being a change of pace back ain’t bad
Lengthens nfl career, less head hits than a bell cow back. I’d take second round money and preserve my brain over first round bell cow money
By nerdnationfan on 12.12.17 9:41pm
I don't think Taylor or Gaffney were ever projected as great - or even above average - NFL talents
Gerhart certainly disappointed relative to his draft position. The jury is still out on McCaffrey – I think he’s been much more effective in the second half of the season as Carolina’s offense has gotten in rhythm.
Bryce Love should certainly go pro, especially now that almost no NFL teams expect RBs to perform as true bellcows. Most playoff-bound teams used at least a two back rotation (Ingram/Kamara, Lewis/Burkhead, Murray/McKinnon, Stewart/McCaffrey, Freeman/Coleman). As a player who might expect 10-15 touches/game, he is a perfect fit as-is for NFL offenses.
By Leland's Axe on 12.20.17 12:13pm
For selfish reasons, I hope he comes back for his senior season.
After that, he should skip the NFL entirely. The world needs good pediatricians more than it needs another brain-damaged ex-NFL player.
By Cardinal&Orange on 12.12.17 9:29pm
Sub concussive hits.. go to nfl now Bryce
From a medical perspective if Bryce is set on playing in the nfl then going early makes a lot of sense. 25-30 hits per game, and then add on hits in practice, we’re talking what 500 hits over a college season? he needs to limit that number as much as possible if he’s going to med school.
You can come back after 4-5 years in the nfl, finish ur humbio degree with hopefully a higher gpa (no distraction of being a part time student part time college player), and still go to med school no problem.
Bryce is already listed at 197 pounds. His frame won’t take more than what another 5 pounds max if he wants to keep that explosiveness. Shaw said so himself during one if the Facebook interviews. Mccaffrey for all his training is still what 205? Bryce can put on those five pounds of muscle in one nfl offseason, don’t need a full year of college ball to do it.
I would love to see Bryce return and take us to the playoffs but please for his long term sake pls go now if you’re going. Another year for mccaffrey didn’t get him any closer to the Heisman. Heisman is a popularity contest that stanford players just don’t win.
By nerdnationfan on 12.12.17 9:36pm
I agree 100% with this post by nerdnationfan. Bryce is currently projected as the # 2 RB selected and a mid/late Round 1 selection by many and at worst a 2nd Round selection. Returning to college is not going to improve his draft stock. If anything, he is more likely to hurt his draft stock due to performance or injury. He does need to improve his pass-catching skills but it is not worth coming back to college to do so.
He is a RB and the position has the shortest average career duration of all positions and it is a young man’s role. 1 more year of college = 1 year less of being paid to take hits.
If he wants to play in the NFL he should leave after this season and be a part of the 2018 NFL Draft.
By Remy74 on 12.15.17 9:57am
Projected #2?
By whom and to whom?
Casually reading the wires, I haven’t seen any of the 32 posted as having him at the top of their list. A serious bowl performance might elevate the stock, but only if the Cardinal win convincingly, IMO.
Possibly willful ignorance on my part, as I would greatly prefer to see another season of Love, considering the QB piece is now in place. Yet something about Bryce strikes me as somewhat Luckian; I think finishing the Bachelor now is of significant import to him. Part of his character. I think Cmac always saw his future as football first and whatever comes after, but Bryce strikes me as having the opposite take.
Again, possibly willful…
By Plan Man on 12.16.17 8:28am
My gut is he stays
What we witnessed the last half of the season is a player who is all about team rather than either improving his draft stock or prolonging his earning capacity. I think if he stays healthy next year for the full season, he could easily run for 2500 yards and run away with the Heisman even without improved QB or OL play which are both almost guaranteed. And if he stays healthy, the team could go 11-2 or 12-1, and that has to excite him. If you want to talk about his draft potential, I don’t think he gets chosen in the first two rounds without more film of him succeeding in the passing game. But I don’t think he is focused on where he gets taken in the draft the way Christian was. Nothing against Christian, but Bryce would never skip a Bowl just to avoid injury. And that mentality I think suggests that he will come back.
By brandtjl1 on 12.17.17 9:01am
Love will return...I think
I am disappointed that Love didn’t win the Heisman but few people thought he would.
I want him to return for another year with the team not to shoot for the Heisman (which a Stanford player may never win again due to the bias against the school and what is known as "the East Coast mentality") but to take the team to The Rose Bowl. This will be one of the few times I’ve ever missed watching that game. USC should have been in it—they were the best team in the conference, hands down. If the powers that be again use The Rose Bowl for the final four playoffs, then the Fiesta Bowl but graduating is also important to Love’s medical career. If he turns pro, he may never return to college. I don’t believe McCaffrey will.
I do hope that either Shaw moves on and is replaced by an "outside-the-box" coach or hires an Offensive Coordinator who can make Stanford great again. The play-calling was atrocious and predictable.
Unlike Charlie Foy, I don’t believe Stanford will get to the Final Four next year even with Love. The reason? The defense. Too many small, slow DBs. Holder is gone. Meeks had a terrible year as did FS Reid. Reid will likely go pro. Phillips will be gone and there was no replacement for Solomon Thomas. I see little improvement in Stanford’s pass rush and blitzing doesn’t seem to be something Shaw wants any part of. Getting some big-play-making LBs should be a priority. The LBs along with the DBs were not the strongest part of the team this season.
On special teams, will Junior punting and placekicking sensation Jake Bailey go pro? If he stays, Stanford’s special teams will be strong next year.
By Dave Levine on 12.18.17 9:46pm
Play calling had nothing to do with Stanford's success or lack thereof
This is an often repeated sentiment by forum posters and is a litmus test for people who have essentially no clue about how offense works.
1. No other coach will take Stanford farther than Shaw because no other coach will stay at Stanford long enough to take Stanford that far. If by some fluke we get a Gruden @ Tampa Bay fluke, that coach will be gone the next year. Stanford is not a destination school. We couldn’t even get Tyrone Willingham to stick around.
2. Based on what’s been published and repeated by Shaw and others, the goal of Shaw is that the QB chooses the play based on a limited set of options and the defensive alignments. This means that Stanford will attract some of the best minds at QB and we can win without a world beater at QB, but there is a steeper than normal learning curve. It also means that if the QB fails to make a read properly, we run a bad play. But that isn’t a failure of the offensive coaching staff at Stanford, it’s a failure of coaching.
You’re also delusional if you think offensive play-calling is what made Stanford great in the first place. Stanford had a generational QB in Andrew Luck and some of the best defensive linemen and linebackers we’ve seen in a decade.
3. I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat it, play calling has nothing to do with Stanford’s loses. We lose games because teams play better than we do. We lose games because our defense can’t stop the other team’s offense. We lose games because players fail to execute blocks and make mental mistakes. We lose games because that is the nature of the sports.
By Blackjoy on 12.18.17 11:20pm
:Play calling had everything to do with Stanford's losses this season...
Considering I’ve been watching Stanford football for 63 years, I believe I’m qualified to judge the play-calling. Those four running plays Stanford ran in a row against USC near the goal line without Love instead of passing into the end zone were called by the Coach or coaches, not by Costello. Costello lives by the pass. He’s got "killer instinct"! He wanted to beat the Trojans. The play calling (four runs into the line) was called by the Coach or coaches and totally lacked that "killer instinct". And it wasn’t just a fact in the Championship game—it happened all season. Being "too predictable" seems to be a huge problem with Coach Shaw. He benches talented players like Donald Stewart for reasons unknown, players who can impact a game. Figure it!
Any intelligent observer of the game knows that games are won or lost by the team that makes the fewest mistakes (penalties, poor play-calling, bad playing by key players, etc.). The PAC-12 Championship Game was lost by truly awful play calling. I’ll give you this: USC’s play-calling was sensational! They had their QB passing a bomb from his end zone! By comparison, Stanford’s was awful—the entire game, not just in the 4th Quarter.
By Dave Levine on 12.21.17 5:39pm
Experience means nothing if you draw the wrong conclusionsp
63 years of watching football does one little service if you don’t understand what you’re watching.
So your assertion that Costello did not have a pass option when he went to the LOS is that because he would have used it because "He’s got the ‘killer instinct!’" Really?
What I love about statements like these is that they are made irrespective of the facts. How many TD’s has Stanford scored running the ball inside the 5 versus throwing it up to a TE/Arciega? More to the point, however, is that by seeming predictable, you can burn opposing defenses. To illustrate that point, one of Love’s TD’s against UW was facilitated by the fact that everyone was expecting us to throw a jump ball to Arciega. That pulled the safety away from the LOS and when we ran it, instead of doing the predictable pass, the safety was late to the hole and that allowed Love to score.
Shaw/Costello/Bloomgren probably chose to go with a run play, because we were pushing them off the line of scrimmage. Had #42 not come in from the side, we score.
Stanford’s run to greatness under Harbaugh was predicated under the idea of not only running the ball, but running the same play and proving that the other team can’t stop you, even when they know what’s coming. But beyond that, all running plays are not the same, even when the personnel and formations are identical, small changes to the blocking scheme can create the leverage or the gap needed to dramatically change the outcome.
Dave, you would be greatly benefited by doing Internet searches and learning about offensive play calling and how and why play calls are made. I’ve seen you criticize play calls on just about every thread. But you don’t’ seem to have any understanding of why the play was called or what should have happened that didn’t.
I’ll also point out that both sides make bad play calls during a game. You haven’t even begun to show me or anyone else that Shaw’s propensity to call bad plays is higher than any other coach. And if you think bad calls are why we lose games, given Shaw’s win percentage, we can argue that his bad calls are among the fewest of all active FBS coaches….that’s with the fast majority of 5* athletes out of his reach.
By Blackjoy on 12.22.17 12:21pm