[Rachel_CoachScoop]

Hi guys (and girls),

My name is Rachel Fisher and I work for a website called CoachScoop.com. I posted a story a little while ago that might be of interest...

Morgan Turner will be Stanford's new tight ends coach.

Morgan had been an offensive quality control assistant the last two years, but it was recently announced that he would join his father's staff at Florida International as tight ends coach. However, when the Stanford opportunity was presented to him, he decided to leave FIU and return there.

He fills the spot that opened up when Ron Crook left for West Virginia. Crook, as you probably know, coached tight ends and tackles, but Turner is just going to coach tight ends. (Mike Bloomgren will coach the entire OL now.)

Anyway here's is a link to the story, in case anyone in interested:

http://www.coachscoop.com/2013/02/25/mor...-stanford/

[Rachel_CoachScoop]

Hi guys (and girls),

My name is Rachel Fisher and I work for a website called CoachScoop.com. I posted a story a little while ago that might be of interest...

Morgan Turner will be Stanford's new tight ends coach.

Morgan had been an offensive quality control assistant the last two years, but it was recently announced that he would join his father's staff at Florida International as tight ends coach. However, when the Stanford opportunity was presented to him, he decided to leave FIU and return there.

He fills the spot that opened up when Ron Crook left for West Virginia. Crook, as you probably know, coached tight ends and tackles, but Turner is just going to coach tight ends. (Mike Bloomgren will coach the entire OL now.)

Anyway here's is a link to the story, in case anyone in interested:

http://www.coachscoop.com/2013/02/25/mor...-stanford/

[Hurlburt88]

ends up being an internal promotion  :)

[Hurlburt88]

ends up being an internal promotion  :)

[yvonne]

At least it's solely Stanford related, and she's upfront about what she's doing. I would prefer if she stuck around and discussed the story, however.

[yvonne]

At least it's solely Stanford related, and she's upfront about what she's doing. I would prefer if she stuck around and discussed the story, however.

[Rachel_CoachScoop]

Yes, it is technically a "promotional" post, but I do feel like it's informative. If it's a violation of the board policy or protocol, I understand if the post is deleted.

Also, I'm still here-- I'd love to discuss the hire if anyone has any questions.

Thanks!

[Rachel_CoachScoop]

Yes, it is technically a "promotional" post, but I do feel like it's informative. If it's a violation of the board policy or protocol, I understand if the post is deleted.

Also, I'm still here-- I'd love to discuss the hire if anyone has any questions.

Thanks!

[Robbie]

Yes, it is technically a "promotional" post, but I do feel like it's informative. If it's a violation of the board policy or protocol, I understand if the post is deleted.

Also, I'm still here-- I'd love to discuss the hire if anyone has any questions.

Thanks!

I have a question. How do you learn stuff like this before it's formally announced?

[Robbie]

Yes, it is technically a "promotional" post, but I do feel like it's informative. If it's a violation of the board policy or protocol, I understand if the post is deleted.

Also, I'm still here-- I'd love to discuss the hire if anyone has any questions.

Thanks!

I have a question. How do you learn stuff like this before it's formally announced?

[Rachel_CoachScoop]

That's actually a great question. Honestly, it's just a matter of having/developing good sources within the coaching community. We're a new website, but members of our behind-the-scenes staff have 30+ years experience working and reporting on college athletics, and have, over time, developed a great network of contacts in the coaching community (to include coaches, agents, administrative staff, etc.) which they've passed on to me. From there, it's just a matter of keeping your eyes and ears open to try and get the scoop on a story -- which isn't easy with so many others trying to do the same nowadays.

[Rachel_CoachScoop]

That's actually a great question. Honestly, it's just a matter of having/developing good sources within the coaching community. We're a new website, but members of our behind-the-scenes staff have 30+ years experience working and reporting on college athletics, and have, over time, developed a great network of contacts in the coaching community (to include coaches, agents, administrative staff, etc.) which they've passed on to me. From there, it's just a matter of keeping your eyes and ears open to try and get the scoop on a story -- which isn't easy with so many others trying to do the same nowadays.

[yvonne]

Am I the only one here who's uncomfortable about the fact that our experienced coaches have all been replaced by graduate assistants?

[yvonne]

Am I the only one here who's uncomfortable about the fact that our experienced coaches have all been replaced by graduate assistants?

[washingtonismoney]

Am I the only one here who's uncomfortable about the fact that our experienced coaches have all been replaced by graduate assistants?

Nope.

I reassure myself thusly: I haven't been particularly enthused about almost all of Shaw's outside hires, except for Tarver.

[washingtonismoney]

Am I the only one here who's uncomfortable about the fact that our experienced coaches have all been replaced by graduate assistants?

Nope.

I reassure myself thusly: I haven't been particularly enthused about almost all of Shaw's outside hires, except for Tarver.

[OutsiderFan]

I have a question, and Rachel can feel free to chime in if she's still here...

It seems there is reason to be concerned about the Stanford coaching staff.  Here are the factors to consider that lead to this conclusion:

1.  OC Hamilton is gone.
2. Replaced by OL coach Bloomgren.  No big deal, but now Bloomgren takes over OC duties, and has to coach the whole OL, whereas before Crook coached the offensive tackles (and TEs). 
3. The TE coach is gone, replaced by a first time coach at a quite inexperienced and critical position for the style of offense Stanford plays.
4. The RB coach is coaching RBs for the first time.
5. The WR coach is coaching WRs and QBs for the first time.

So basically, every position on offense has a new coach, except the Guards and Centers.  Contrast this with the defense.  Mason has NFL coaching experience and two years as DC.  Kotulski is a 20 year coach.  Hart has even more experience.  The defensive lost two guys between the coaching staff and players.

Given the offense is where all the questions are, shouldn't these factors be quite an area of concern?  Should a team with such player and coaching turnover be a Top 5 team, even with such a stout defense, experienced QB, and OL?

[OutsiderFan]

I have a question, and Rachel can feel free to chime in if she's still here...

It seems there is reason to be concerned about the Stanford coaching staff.  Here are the factors to consider that lead to this conclusion:

1.  OC Hamilton is gone.
2. Replaced by OL coach Bloomgren.  No big deal, but now Bloomgren takes over OC duties, and has to coach the whole OL, whereas before Crook coached the offensive tackles (and TEs). 
3. The TE coach is gone, replaced by a first time coach at a quite inexperienced and critical position for the style of offense Stanford plays.
4. The RB coach is coaching RBs for the first time.
5. The WR coach is coaching WRs and QBs for the first time.

So basically, every position on offense has a new coach, except the Guards and Centers.  Contrast this with the defense.  Mason has NFL coaching experience and two years as DC.  Kotulski is a 20 year coach.  Hart has even more experience.  The defensive lost two guys between the coaching staff and players.

Given the offense is where all the questions are, shouldn't these factors be quite an area of concern?  Should a team with such player and coaching turnover be a Top 5 team, even with such a stout defense, experienced QB, and OL?

[washingtonismoney]

Should a team with such player and coaching turnover be a Top 5 team, even with such a stout defense, experienced QB, and OL?

No, but then again it shouldn't've been a top five team in the first place.

[washingtonismoney]

Should a team with such player and coaching turnover be a Top 5 team, even with such a stout defense, experienced QB, and OL?

No, but then again it shouldn't've been a top five team in the first place.

[Leftcoast]

Evaluating coaching prospects and attracting NFL experience to Stanford was one of the escalators driving Coach Harbaugh's upward success.  Maybe one of Coach Shaw's skills is developing a younger staff but that strikes me as having a longer term payoff.  Count me as mildly worried.

[Leftcoast]

Evaluating coaching prospects and attracting NFL experience to Stanford was one of the escalators driving Coach Harbaugh's upward success.  Maybe one of Coach Shaw's skills is developing a younger staff but that strikes me as having a longer term payoff.  Count me as mildly worried.

[slide]

Bloomgren '99
Sanford '04
Pritchard '09
Turner '09

all in new positions at a BCS school -- 1st time OC, 1st time QB/WR coach, 1st time RB coach, 1st TE coach

fingers crossed here

[slide]

Bloomgren '99
Sanford '04
Pritchard '09
Turner '09

all in new positions at a BCS school -- 1st time OC, 1st time QB/WR coach, 1st time RB coach, 1st TE coach

fingers crossed here

[BigEasyCard]

Garvin --

I also took "internal promotion" to mean someone on the Stanford staff was now coaching here in a different capacity.  Perhaps Hurlburt 88 can explain the intended meaning of the phrase.

In any event, I see value in Rachel's contributed information and appreciate knowing the source (at least somewhat).

[BigEasyCard]

Garvin --

I also took "internal promotion" to mean someone on the Stanford staff was now coaching here in a different capacity.  Perhaps Hurlburt 88 can explain the intended meaning of the phrase.

In any event, I see value in Rachel's contributed information and appreciate knowing the source (at least somewhat).

[Extra Point]

I think that under different circumstances Shaw might have taken the time to find the ideal TE coach, but:

The system relies upon multiple tight ends and there is no proven talent right now. The current group of receivers are not in a position to pick up the slack. Tight ends are needed to catch footballs.

All of the tight ends on the roster are green and need immediate instruction.

Turner is familiar with the system and the players. And, the players are familiar with him.

Doing a job search to find a coach during spring practices is not going to happen. Time is much better spent coaching.

[Extra Point]

I think that under different circumstances Shaw might have taken the time to find the ideal TE coach, but:

The system relies upon multiple tight ends and there is no proven talent right now. The current group of receivers are not in a position to pick up the slack. Tight ends are needed to catch footballs.

All of the tight ends on the roster are green and need immediate instruction.

Turner is familiar with the system and the players. And, the players are familiar with him.

Doing a job search to find a coach during spring practices is not going to happen. Time is much better spent coaching.

[stupac2]

I'm not particularly worried about the coaching staff. Shaw has shown a good eye for talent, so far at least. And, really, this isn't a whole lot of turnover. A lot of internal promotion, which means people don't need to learn much new, even if they're in a different spot. I don't think we'll see that much of a drop from last year on offense, and if we find a few good replacements in key spots (or if we finally find some wide receivers) we might be improved.

The worrying thing is that the offense wasn't great last year. But at the same time, great defense combined with "good enough" offense is a recipe that can work at all levels.

Is this a top 5 preseason team? I don't know, preseason polls are meaningless, and I have no idea where on the scale of things our turnover really is. (How many coaches/players did Alabama lose? I don't know.) But at the same time I don't really care what people outside the program think about us, I doubt we'll ever have USC's arrogant sense of entitlement that doomed them this year, so I don't see why it matters. Temper your own expectations and let the bloviators bloviate.

We'll have a much better idea of what this team will be after Spring Game.

[stupac2]

I'm not particularly worried about the coaching staff. Shaw has shown a good eye for talent, so far at least. And, really, this isn't a whole lot of turnover. A lot of internal promotion, which means people don't need to learn much new, even if they're in a different spot. I don't think we'll see that much of a drop from last year on offense, and if we find a few good replacements in key spots (or if we finally find some wide receivers) we might be improved.

The worrying thing is that the offense wasn't great last year. But at the same time, great defense combined with "good enough" offense is a recipe that can work at all levels.

Is this a top 5 preseason team? I don't know, preseason polls are meaningless, and I have no idea where on the scale of things our turnover really is. (How many coaches/players did Alabama lose? I don't know.) But at the same time I don't really care what people outside the program think about us, I doubt we'll ever have USC's arrogant sense of entitlement that doomed them this year, so I don't see why it matters. Temper your own expectations and let the bloviators bloviate.

We'll have a much better idea of what this team will be after Spring Game.

[ChicagoCard]

Probably good for the team to be under-appreciated, under-valued by the college football press. Chip on the shoulder thing. I am more optimistic than seems others are on the coaching situation. There's a strong nucleus in place and bringing somebody more established, experienced might mean also a person more set in his ways. Shaw intends on being in control of the culture, the fit of any new addition. And I'll go out on a limb and say again that I suspect Kotulski was a very solid Shaw hire, the only one significant Shaw hire of somebody from outside of Stanford. Although Kotulski overlapped with Derek Mason in past positions.

Reasons to hope the offense might be stronger in '13: Hogan as a better developed QB, and a stronger more formidable offensive line. Also, six 4-star running backs on the roster.

[ChicagoCard]

Probably good for the team to be under-appreciated, under-valued by the college football press. Chip on the shoulder thing. I am more optimistic than seems others are on the coaching situation. There's a strong nucleus in place and bringing somebody more established, experienced might mean also a person more set in his ways. Shaw intends on being in control of the culture, the fit of any new addition. And I'll go out on a limb and say again that I suspect Kotulski was a very solid Shaw hire, the only one significant Shaw hire of somebody from outside of Stanford. Although Kotulski overlapped with Derek Mason in past positions.

Reasons to hope the offense might be stronger in '13: Hogan as a better developed QB, and a stronger more formidable offensive line. Also, six 4-star running backs on the roster.

[OutsiderFan]

Is this a top 5 preseason team? I don't know, preseason polls are meaningless...

College football's pecking order is predicated on perception.  You have to win your games no matter the ranking, but you have a cushion for error when ranked higher in pre-season that you don't have when ranked lower, in terms of BCS opportunities.

[OutsiderFan]

Is this a top 5 preseason team? I don't know, preseason polls are meaningless...

College football's pecking order is predicated on perception.  You have to win your games no matter the ranking, but you have a cushion for error when ranked higher in pre-season that you don't have when ranked lower, in terms of BCS opportunities.

[stupac2]

College football's pecking order is predicated on perception.  You have to win your games no matter the ranking, but you have a cushion for error when ranked higher in pre-season that you don't have when ranked lower, in terms of BCS opportunities.

Sort of. I mean, look at ND, I don't think they were even ranked preseason (and if they were it was low). If you go undefeated as a team from a major conference (or ND) then you're almost certainly in.

The question of cushion is an interesting one. Alabama or Georgia were in with 1 loss last year, but Oregon and KST were definitely out. Why? I don't think it's because the latter pair lost later, I think it's just that the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt (with "neither of the non-SEC teams played in a CCG" thrown in as a rationale). Is this deplorable and terrible and a travesty upon our great sport? Yes. Hopefully the move to a playoff (and the eventual move to a bigger playoff) will mitigate the blatant unfairness some, but until then we're stuck with pretty much needing to go undefeated, unless you're from the SEC.

Anyway, do there exist scenarios where a 1-loss PAC-12 team makes the NCG? Of course. Are they likely? I don't really think so. I think that scenarios where a 1-loss PAC-12 team makes the NCG because it was ranked top-5 but wouldn't had it been ranked only 6-10 (and there's really no reason to have Stanford outside of the top 10), or even 11-25 basically don't exist. So in that sense exactly where we're ranked in the preseason doesn't matter a ton.

[stupac2]

College football's pecking order is predicated on perception.  You have to win your games no matter the ranking, but you have a cushion for error when ranked higher in pre-season that you don't have when ranked lower, in terms of BCS opportunities.

Sort of. I mean, look at ND, I don't think they were even ranked preseason (and if they were it was low). If you go undefeated as a team from a major conference (or ND) then you're almost certainly in.

The question of cushion is an interesting one. Alabama or Georgia were in with 1 loss last year, but Oregon and KST were definitely out. Why? I don't think it's because the latter pair lost later, I think it's just that the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt (with "neither of the non-SEC teams played in a CCG" thrown in as a rationale). Is this deplorable and terrible and a travesty upon our great sport? Yes. Hopefully the move to a playoff (and the eventual move to a bigger playoff) will mitigate the blatant unfairness some, but until then we're stuck with pretty much needing to go undefeated, unless you're from the SEC.

Anyway, do there exist scenarios where a 1-loss PAC-12 team makes the NCG? Of course. Are they likely? I don't really think so. I think that scenarios where a 1-loss PAC-12 team makes the NCG because it was ranked top-5 but wouldn't had it been ranked only 6-10 (and there's really no reason to have Stanford outside of the top 10), or even 11-25 basically don't exist. So in that sense exactly where we're ranked in the preseason doesn't matter a ton.

[pincemob]

Morgan Turner is son of Ron (sorry if that was posted earlier, I didn't see it).  The fact that he left his Dad's staff for ours seems like a plus to me.  I would guess having a coach for a father might compensate for some inexperience.  Our last 2 head coaches have shown that.

[pincemob]

Morgan Turner is son of Ron (sorry if that was posted earlier, I didn't see it).  The fact that he left his Dad's staff for ours seems like a plus to me.  I would guess having a coach for a father might compensate for some inexperience.  Our last 2 head coaches have shown that.

[terry]

Nice job by Rachel. She had this early, and she was right.

[terry]

Nice job by Rachel. She had this early, and she was right.