[msqueri]

12. ...Ultimately, the Utah tenure is a mark against Taylor's reputation as an offensive wizard. Nonetheless, the fact he did it increases my confidence in the hire, as he's game planned against Pac-12 offenses and been mediocre at it, which is more than we can say for the man he's replacing. Moreover, people can learn and it is a very reasonable hope that Taylor will take lessons from that experience and be more poised to succeed in the Pac-12 this time around. For what it's worth, at Eastern Washington Taylor's offense averaged 42.36 points per game the year he was there compared to 34.64 the year before him and 34.45 the year after him, so that experience bolsters the narrative he was an outstanding FCS coordinator. Overall, there is extremely strong (I'd say ironclad) evidence Stanford is improving its offensive coaching.

Very insightful analysis of the Troy Taylor hiring.  In point 12, I think you meant to write that Taylor has game-planned against Pac-12 defenses (see above).

I hope he doesn't retain any of the current staff.  If he does, he should pick one or two of the better ones to ensure some semblance of continuity and put them in non-critical roles.  Not sure why you think Pritchard would be good as an RB position coach.  Nothing in his background and in Stanford's run game during his OC days indicate that he has any skills in this area.  And if Taylor is the acting OC, then he needs to bring in some top-notch position coaches to develop the pieces he will be orchestrating.  Pritchard wasn't even a top-notch QB coach, so I doubt his value in the new regime.  The sclerotic home-grown culture that Shaw cultivated needs to be purged.

I will be happy if he retains none of the current staff. I want a clean break in terms of culture. I trust his Sacramento State staff much more than i trust Shaw's staff. No argument from me there. But it's just realistic to acknowledge that oftentimes programs will have a program guy who lasts across coaching staffs, and Pritchard is a classic example of the kind of coach who can fall into that role, like Dave Tipton did for many years. It's also just realistic to acknowledge that Stanford's administration will make a big deal of recruiting Stanford Men and navigating our admissions landscape, and Anderson is a uniquely qualified individual to provide continuity on those matters even if Pritchard doesn't stay. There's also Gould, who Taylor has known for a quarter century and spent four years in a foxhole with as extremely close colleagues. And then we have assistants who might be able to sell their resumes. The point is there may be some continuity. That's not to say I want it. I'd rather have a clean break. I agree with you about the sclerotic home-grown culture. Oh how do I agree with you.

For what it's worth, though, I'm less harsh on Pritchard than you, especially in a role like running back coach that is essentially a glorified recruiter role. You may have forgotten that Pritchard's first full assistant job with us was as the RB coach before Gould, coaching up Tyler Gaffney and Anthony Wilkerson, or that when Pritchard was young and hungry he was one of the best recruiters in the history of the program (recruiter for, among others, Foster Sarell, Solomon Thomas, Kaden Smith, KJ Costello, Trent Irwin, Simi Fehoko, Austin Jones, and Connor Wedington). Even as maligned coordinator, I don't think it makes sense to blame Pritchard for Shawfense. After all these years it seems clear to me the problems were mostly with the head man. When we saw scripted segments at the beginning of games, or packages reportedly turned over to Pritchard in the red zone, they consistently worked better than Shawfense generally. My suspicion is Shaw held Pritchard back. That's not to cry tears for Pritchard but just to push back on notions he was some big failure. How would we know? Was he even really the offensive coordinator? Putting the scerotic culture issues (which I could not agree with you more about) aside, Pritchard would be a coup as a position coach. MUCH higher value proposition for him to be on staff than Gould IMHO.

[msqueri]

12. ...Ultimately, the Utah tenure is a mark against Taylor's reputation as an offensive wizard. Nonetheless, the fact he did it increases my confidence in the hire, as he's game planned against Pac-12 offenses and been mediocre at it, which is more than we can say for the man he's replacing. Moreover, people can learn and it is a very reasonable hope that Taylor will take lessons from that experience and be more poised to succeed in the Pac-12 this time around. For what it's worth, at Eastern Washington Taylor's offense averaged 42.36 points per game the year he was there compared to 34.64 the year before him and 34.45 the year after him, so that experience bolsters the narrative he was an outstanding FCS coordinator. Overall, there is extremely strong (I'd say ironclad) evidence Stanford is improving its offensive coaching.

Very insightful analysis of the Troy Taylor hiring.  In point 12, I think you meant to write that Taylor has game-planned against Pac-12 defenses (see above).

I hope he doesn't retain any of the current staff.  If he does, he should pick one or two of the better ones to ensure some semblance of continuity and put them in non-critical roles.  Not sure why you think Pritchard would be good as an RB position coach.  Nothing in his background and in Stanford's run game during his OC days indicate that he has any skills in this area.  And if Taylor is the acting OC, then he needs to bring in some top-notch position coaches to develop the pieces he will be orchestrating.  Pritchard wasn't even a top-notch QB coach, so I doubt his value in the new regime.  The sclerotic home-grown culture that Shaw cultivated needs to be purged.

I will be happy if he retains none of the current staff. I want a clean break in terms of culture. I trust his Sacramento State staff much more than i trust Shaw's staff. No argument from me there. But it's just realistic to acknowledge that oftentimes programs will have a program guy who lasts across coaching staffs, and Pritchard is a classic example of the kind of coach who can fall into that role, like Dave Tipton did for many years. It's also just realistic to acknowledge that Stanford's administration will make a big deal of recruiting Stanford Men and navigating our admissions landscape, and Anderson is a uniquely qualified individual to provide continuity on those matters even if Pritchard doesn't stay. There's also Gould, who Taylor has known for a quarter century and spent four years in a foxhole with as extremely close colleagues. And then we have assistants who might be able to sell their resumes. The point is there may be some continuity. That's not to say I want it. I'd rather have a clean break. I agree with you about the sclerotic home-grown culture. Oh how do I agree with you.

For what it's worth, though, I'm less harsh on Pritchard than you, especially in a role like running back coach that is essentially a glorified recruiter role. You may have forgotten that Pritchard's first full assistant job with us was as the RB coach before Gould, coaching up Tyler Gaffney and Anthony Wilkerson, or that when Pritchard was young and hungry he was one of the best recruiters in the history of the program (recruiter for, among others, Foster Sarell, Solomon Thomas, Kaden Smith, KJ Costello, Trent Irwin, Simi Fehoko, Austin Jones, and Connor Wedington). Even as maligned coordinator, I don't think it makes sense to blame Pritchard for Shawfense. After all these years it seems clear to me the problems were mostly with the head man. When we saw scripted segments at the beginning of games, or packages reportedly turned over to Pritchard in the red zone, they consistently worked better than Shawfense generally. My suspicion is Shaw held Pritchard back. That's not to cry tears for Pritchard but just to push back on notions he was some big failure. How would we know? Was he even really the offensive coordinator? Putting the scerotic culture issues (which I could not agree with you more about) aside, Pritchard would be a coup as a position coach. MUCH higher value proposition for him to be on staff than Gould IMHO.