Bloomgren interviewing - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bloomgren interviewing (/thread-8610.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Bloomgren interviewing (/thread-8610.html)
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-06-2015
Here's a question. I think the range of opinion on our offensive coaching in the Shaw era goes from "it's awful" to something like "It gets the job done," or something similarly lukewarm. (You don't see anyone defending them as misunderstood geniuses, is my point.)
AND YET, Stanford offensive coaches are awfully popular targets for poaching. Why is this?
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - OutsiderFan - 01-06-2015
During the season my assumption was the offensive struggles were a product of coaching problems. I simply don't buy the "we're young" (on the OL) rationale for failing. Ohio State had four new OL starters this season and look where they are. When units perform so poorly it's a coaching issue. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. David Shaw isn't going to blame his coaching staff for any 2014 offensive failure publicly, but actions speak louder than words.Â
My assumption was Shaw would make changes to the offensive staff this offseason because that's what good head coaches do when units struggle so much. Moreoever, Shaw has shown he makes changes when things aren't working. Making offensive staff changes is a great sign that he doesn't believe the 2014 offensive performance was acceptable. It sends a clear message to the players too. Staff changes don't guarantee the 2015 offense will be fantastic, but it sure makes clear how high the bar is being set by the guy in charge, and that is a very good thing.
Stanford fans can thank their lucky stars the defense has been rock solid for five years now! Way harder to be great on defense than offense.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - stupac2 - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 08:17 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Here's a question. I think the range of opinion on our offensive coaching in the Shaw era goes from "it's awful" to something like "It gets the job done," or something similarly lukewarm. (You don't see anyone defending them as misunderstood geniuses, is my point.)
AND YET, Stanford offensive coaches are awfully popular targets for poaching. Why is this?
Fans are terrible at understanding what it takes to make a good coach?
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-06-2015
Good discussion. In the end, of course, the proof is in the pudding, and for much of the year, the offense didn't just struggle; it was probably the worst in the conference. This despite starting a bunch of four and five star recruits on the offensive line, a veteran QB, an all-conference receiver. The case that "it's the coaching" is pretty strong, at least on the face of things.
Still, there are some reasons to be a little more sanguine about the coaching. Our performance in the last three games was much better than earlier in the season. And, if your metric is how does the coaching staff adapt and correct deficiencies, the offensive coaching staff did reasonably well. Then there is also the issue that this is a single year. Would we have as weak an offense with 4 out of 5 starters in the offensive line returning? With McCaffrey given a full year to learn the playbook? With Hogan not having his father's illness hanging over him (if that is what was happening)? With three tight ends having a year of experience under their belt? With if not a single running back, at least the running back position more settled than it was this year?
Offensive continuity is important. If Bloomgren and whoever else leaves, it will be Hogan's third offensive coordinator in four years (if he's around). I'm not convinced that this wouldn't be a case of "be careful what you wish for".
But I wouldn't mind getting Mike Sanford back if Bloomgren left.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - OutsiderFan - 01-06-2015
Shaw says the reason for the improved offensive performance is "the players just played better." But that could very well be attributable to coaching adjustments/improvements. Maybe Shaw got more involved with the offense after the Utah debacle and Bloomgren just focused on the OL? Or maybe Shaw backed off and let Bloomgren take more control? Given the improved OL play, I'd say the former is more likely than the latter.
As for why the Stanford offensive assistants are revered, keep in mind that Hamilton wanted to go back closer to the east coast, Sanford wanted to coach at his alma mater, and Bloomgren knows Richt from a previous staff.Â
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - washingtonismoney - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 09:01 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:As for why the Stanford offensive assistants are revered, keep in mind that Hamilton wanted to go back closer to the east coast, Sanford wanted to coach at his alma mater, and Bloomgren knows Richt from a previous staff.
Sure... but other coaches had to want to employ them. "Man, that team is poorly coached. I want to hire them!" is not a sentence you typically hear, I imagine.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 09:01 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Shaw says the reason for the improved offensive performance is "the players just played better." But that could very well be attributable to coaching adjustments/improvements. Maybe Shaw got more involved with the offense after the Utah debacle and Bloomgren just focused on the OL? Or maybe Shaw backed off and let Bloomgren take more control? Given the improved OL play, I'd say the former is more likely than the latter.
As for why the Stanford offensive assistants are revered, keep in mind that Hamilton wanted to go back closer to the east coast, Sanford wanted to coach at his alma mater, and Bloomgren knows Richt from a previous staff.
Sanford didn't just go back to his alma mater; he was brought in as offensive coordinator there, a big step up. Hamilton got to be an OC in the pros, which most people would also consider a step up. Bloomgren hasn't left yet, AFAIK, but a move to Georgia would be a mostly lateral move. Sure, he gets to play in the SEC, and Georgia has a richer heritage and can probably devote more resources, but I would like to think that most Stanford coordinators would look at a head coaching gig (Mason) or an NFL coordinating gig (Hamilton) as the next logical step.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - Bruce Wang - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 07:57 PM)terry link Wrote:Info posted on Rivals indicates another possible departure on the offensive coaching staff.
I hope it's not Morgan Turner. The most impressive improvement in the offense was with the TEs.
I wonder why Bloomgren wasn't in the mix for the Michigan OC job. ::)
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanFan88 - 01-06-2015
I hope it's not Turner either, but given his coaching family it wouldn't surprise me if he jumped to a position coach in the NFL.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanfordMatt - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 09:09 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=11492.msg110198#msg110198 date=1420603260]
Shaw says the reason for the improved offensive performance is "the players just played better." But that could very well be attributable to coaching adjustments/improvements. Maybe Shaw got more involved with the offense after the Utah debacle and Bloomgren just focused on the OL? Or maybe Shaw backed off and let Bloomgren take more control? Given the improved OL play, I'd say the former is more likely than the latter.
As for why the Stanford offensive assistants are revered, keep in mind that Hamilton wanted to go back closer to the east coast, Sanford wanted to coach at his alma mater, and Bloomgren knows Richt from a previous staff.
Sanford didn't just go back to his alma mater; he was brought in as offensive coordinator there, a big step up. Hamilton got to be an OC in the pros, which most people would also consider a step up. Bloomgren hasn't left yet, AFAIK, but a move to Georgia would be a mostly lateral move. Sure, he gets to play in the SEC, and Georgia has a richer heritage and can probably devote more resources, but I would like to think that most Stanford coordinators would look at a head coaching gig (Mason) or an NFL coordinating gig (Hamilton) as the next logical step.
BC
[/quote]
Using data from the USA Today, three coordinators in the PAC-12 made over $600K and the median was around $500K. By comparison, three coordinators in the SEC made over $1.3 million and the median was around $750K. Calling a move from one to the other lateral really strains the definition of the word.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - dabigv13 - 01-06-2015
In my profession, the salaries in Alabama are three times the salaries in California. And it's still harder to get a job in California.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - BostonCard - 01-06-2015
(01-06-2015, 10:25 PM)dabigv link Wrote:In my profession, the salaries in Alabama are three times the salaries in California. And it's still harder to get a job in California.
You're a doctor too, right? (I think I gathered a head and neck surgeon based on the toradol thread).
As you rightly point out, salaries aren't the be all and end all for determining whether a job is a step up or not, but Matt is probably right in his implication that in terms of overall prestige, the Georgia job (and being in the SEC) is probably more prestigious than the Stanford one (and being in the Pac-12).
Still, the differences are small enough that it is fair to call the move a lateral one. It's not the sort of thing you make unless you had a reason, like you are from the area and want to get back, or you don't get along with your existing boss, or your boss has sort of hinted that you ought to be looking, or there is some sort of semi-promotion involved (like you are being made "associate head coach"). In the coaching carousel game, the big time is getting a shot to be head coach for most people, and being the OC at Georgia isn't all that much of a step closer than being the Andrew Luck DOO (director of offense) at Stanford.
BC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - teejers1 - 01-07-2015
1. Someone on the Bootleg posted that Bloomgren interested in GA job because of familiarity with Richt AND because Richt offered more autonomy.
2. I know people here really DON'T want to believe that offensive woes could be attributable to Shaw's insistence on meddling in the offense/controlling the play calling, but I still think that is Occam speaking. I also think Shaw's comment about improvement in O last 3 games being attributable to "the players just playing better" strikes me as something somebody would say if they didn't want to admit that coaches were screwing the pooch for most of the season (which was a common lament among Stanford fans).
3. I admittedly do not know what offensive play calling dynamic was for Stanford on game day, and if or how that changed in the last 3 games. And unless and until we all have that transparency, it is really hard to make any informed commentary on who is responsible for what.
4. Finally, following up on question asked in this thread: the offensive coaches getting interest from other schools despite a mediocre Stanford offense in 2014 must be able to tell and sell some story explaining what happened.
Again, it all makes me go "Hmmm."
My bottom line: I don't expect Shaw to loosen the reins on play calling (I assume he is firmly in control on this), regardless of who may or may not be hired. Instead, I will cling to hope that the last 3 games were not a fluke, or the product solely of playing crappy defenses. We shall see in 2015, but probably will get any insights into this before then.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - StanFan88 - 01-07-2015
Can't remember where I read this, but my understanding is that Shaw handled RZ playcalling and Bloomgren handled the rest. But I'm guessing it's not a zero-one thing there since Shaw is the one actually sending in the plays. I am equally concerned about the gameplanning, and clearly Bloomgren had a hand in that.
No doubt Shaw is a big part of the reason for the offense's underperformance this season, but he's not going anywhere. The question for me is whether he's willing to bring someone in from outside who can offer a fresh perspective.
This should all sort itself out by the end of this month.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - OutsiderFan - 01-07-2015
Given Richt was an OC before becoming the UGA HC, and the former OC (Mike Bobo) was a QB at UGA, it's a little hard to believe Bloomgren would get any more autonomy under Richt than with Shaw. What he would get is more money and the chance to run an offense with guys like Nick Chubb, Sony Michel, and other dynamic athletes that are relatively few and far between at Stanford, but litter the UGA roster.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - terry - 01-07-2015
Don't underestimate the lure of money. If an employee makes a move that gets him $50K or $100K more, that's not "lateral" in the economic sense. People make those decisions every day in the non-football world. I don't know why we would think football coaches are different.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - Bruce Wang - 01-07-2015
How about Lane Kiffin? He might be available soon, the Bama fans want him gone.
I'M JUST KIDDING.
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - rudruff - 01-07-2015
Amazed they are blaming him and not the DC
Re: Bloomgren interviewing - martyup - 01-07-2015
(01-07-2015, 08:51 AM)rudruff link Wrote:Amazed they are blaming him and not the DCHe's an easy target for Bama fans. Low hanging fruit. However, I seem to recall ESPN commentators falling all over themselves to point out what a great hire he was, and that he was a genius OC at Bama.
Bama's recriminations - Redrum - 01-07-2015
Enough blame to go around. Based on wailing on the radio and message boards, both the OC and DC might want to let other people start their cars before driving anywhere. Knuckleheads emoting, but they take this s*** seriously down heah.
Anyone who saw the late second quarter and second half of the Auburn/ Alabama game would have no evidence at all that Lane Kiffin doesn't know what he's doing as OC. Of course, Kiffin had Amari Cooper [ think Nelson Agholor in P12 terms] running routes so his job was a bit easier.
Bama lost to Ohio St. because it was a giant in the closed world of the SEC and the fawning media. That's the value of bowl games which match different conferences. Look at the mass-suicide of the SEC West in bowl games this year and the dangers of inbreeding and oversized self-regard are obvious.Â