[lex24]

+1. Great stuff.

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.

[lex24]

+1. Great stuff.

Going 'round the horn on the Bloomgren thread ...


Congratulations to Bloomgren. It's good for Stanford because we really want to have a program successful enough that our coordinators get hired as head coaches.
I am less sure that it will be good for Stanford because the next OC will necessarily be better, but we will see.

The Schwartzstein tribute is moving and hints at a great job by the coach. It's a little tougher to have that kind of one-on-one involvement when you are the head guy so it may not be directly relevant to his success in this next endeavor, but still a great compliment to the man.

Rice is a tough place to build a career. I wonder if Bailiff had any interest from other programs after going 10-3 in year two or after three strong years 2012-14?

As for his replacement as OC, I suspect the best candidate for the job is somebody not on the radar as posted here. Think about our past successful coordinators, while they weren't unknowns in the football world but weren't on typical fans' wish lists (with the caveat that Stanford fans certainly knew of the guys who were internal hires).
Fangio - Mason - Anderson
Roman (was he ever exactly OC?) - Pep Hamilton

My general thought is somebody with NFL experience would be good - but it depends far more on the detailed abilities of the individual.

A successful OC at Stanford will have to be able to either convince Shaw or agree with Shaw about what our approach should be. If that were Walters or Helfrich, that would either mean a lot of convincing or running something drastically different from what they have done most recently. It certainly could be possible, but it would be a big change on one side or the other. As for Husak, I have heard only positive things about the guy, but as far as coaching experience goes I think his entire resume is a single year as a graduate assistant at Stanford. I tend to think that the job involves enough skills that you have to have some kind of relevant experience to be good at it.

In thinking about what our approach should be, it is worth noting that our offenses have often been good to very good, but have indeed suffered from meltdowns - winflop's "mercurial" I would presume.
That up and down nature of our offense covers both season to season variation, and at least this year, within a season. Right now, our offense ranks #19 in the country in yds/play, #24 #17 in pts/drive, #16 in FEI, and #29 in S&P+. Those aren't spectacular rankings, but probably better than most here would guess. Those averages include the hideous outputs vs. OSU, WSU, and SDSU.
Personally, I would like to see a continuation of our focus on a run-first, run-power game but coupled to better counters when things go off the rails. That might also mean some simplification so that the offense doesn't take such a hit with inexperienced QBs and OLs.

My gut feeling is that if we were to do an internal hire for OC, it would be more likely to be Ron Gould than Pritchard. Gould has a lot more experience, has been a head coach, and doesn't seem either too young or too old (52 I think). But that is purely a guess.