12-20-2023, 08:51 PM
Press conference reactions:
* Will start with the super petty because I'm reacting chronologically as I watch the press conference and this was the first thing said: what's with the Cardprint branding? Is that like footprint? Fingerprint? Some meaning that's going over my head? CardClass made more sense to me but whatever, this doesn't matter and I hope the branding reaches some audience.
* Taylor gonna Taylor, right to questions as always. If ever there was time to have a set piece and to market this is it. This is where you get your deliberate messages and spin out there, a free platform to sell your program and the progress it's making. That's not how he rolls. Gotta respect the authenticity at least. And it's no harm because he predictably used the first question to hit the toplines/main message anyway.
* Taylor contrasted this year with last year by noting they stuck with the previous staff's recruits. The subtext here is this is his first class with his own guys. That's obvious to all of us but Taylor subtly framing it as such is notable. There are probably guys, maybe a fair number of guys, in our 2023 class who would not be here if the new staff's evaluation and approach were previously in place. That's a reminder that it will take years for Taylor to have his full imprint, errr Cardprint, on the program.
* Taylor called it a "really good recruiting class" and noted that it includes a player from every position other than kicker and punter. His bottom line is it accomplishes all of our goals. He of course should say all that. Looking at the class a bit more objectively, the most established recruiting service (247) has us at #30 while the rising force in recruiting evaluation (On3) has us #37, while the others have us a bit higher. This compares to a 247 Talent Composite baseline for us of #37 and a five year median of #21. When you consider the relatively bigger boosts Power Five competitors will tend to get via the transfer portal, it's hard to view this class as anything more than treading water. It may even be less than that on paper (i.e., it is possible we drop to #38 or #39 or something in next year's 247 Talent Composite). But we have been getting far less than our on paper talent for years and IMHO a stabilizing class that injects some credible talent is a big step forward in the rebuild. This class is - or should be - part of the healing process.
* Recruiting a player from every position other than kicker and punter is a nice thing to sell. It slightly oversells the balance insofar as there are only three OL. We did not recruit every position on the OL. But by and large it is a very notable amount of balance in one class. Part of that healing process I mentioned is now we have a foundation for the rebuild of a large, balanced class of the staff's own guys that can go forth and compete while starting from a common place culturally.
* Not recruiting a scholarship specialist is a choice. Arguably kicker was a pretty big need in this class. I continue to think Taylor may be the type to want to fill specialists via the walk-on route. As with his eschewing of a dedicated special teams coach it's a choice with tradeoffs but it's defensible. In addition to the opportunity cost argument a fair case can be made that Stanford institutionally should be able to attract very solid specialists as walk-ons. The proof will be in the overall pudding.
* Taylor noted at the end of his version of a big picture set piece that recruiting never ends and you just go to the next cycle. Amen. It seems like our offer rhythms so far back up this rhetoric. Minds should be on 2025 recruiting basically now, though I admit my mind is probably lagging where I hope the coaches are. For instance, I haven't given much thought yet to 2025 class size or needs. Well, for needs, I can tell you based on what we just signed that I will have OL at the top of the list bar none and I also think we could be bringing in better athleticism on the edges.
* For 2024, Taylor rightly talked about having needs at every position and signing the best players we could. As others have noted, this is above all a function of our depleted roster and that we need to improve everywhere. Taylor gets that. That being said, I do like to assess how classes do in terms of the needs I assess heading into them. I thought far and away the biggest need for us, to Taylor's point about best available players, was to get some studs. We got zero composite top 100 players and three composite top 400 players. That's sobering and not very impressive but it's a hell of a lot better than 2023 (and also 2021 but not 2022). The other thing I really wanted was to change the culture in a positive way. There is no objective way for me to measure that but I will choose optimism. In terms of concrete positional need, our biggest needs for volume/depth were at OL, DL, ILB, and DB and our greatest needs relative to Power Five standards were QB, RB, and ILB. As noted in the balance point, we got volume everywhere but OL (a big but unfortunately). RB and ILB remain question marks relative to Power Five standards, but the volume helps a lot to give confidence in the competition.
* Continuing this discussion on need, my view on need was: 1) Stud QB, 2) Stud ILB (but depth also extremely important since that room is so troubled), 3) DL volume (would love a stud of course), 4) OL volume (would love a stud of course), 5) Stud RB (but depth also important since that room is so troubled). I give Taylor an A- on #1, a B- on #2 (probably generous but points for multiple guys), an A on #3, a C on #4, and a B on #5 (very similar to ILB but even better on the volume front). That's a 3.08 GPA. That won't get you into Stanford, but it's a lot better than I was grading Shaw by the end.
* The reference to guys knowing they are coming in to play right away and compete reinforced the sense - no surprise - that Taylor doesn't think highly of the roster. He followed that with discussion of the six mid-year enrollees, so I think it's pretty clear that in his mind these are key guys for 2024. As a refresher, we are talking about Umeh, E. Brown, Mosley, Mattingly, Stephenson, and Richardson. In addition to Taylor's signals, we have the recent history of immediate playing time for mid-year enrollees Bailey, Roush, Reuben, and Bachmeier. Have to figure these six have every opportunity. I'm watching Umeh, Brown, and Mosley most closely but all have a real shot.
* The Umeh story is great and the way Taylor talked about it was neat. The story gets even better if Umeh stars in college. Here's hoping. I was a bit verklempt reading The Athletic story today. Think this will be one of the favorite players for many Stanford fans.
* Will start with the super petty because I'm reacting chronologically as I watch the press conference and this was the first thing said: what's with the Cardprint branding? Is that like footprint? Fingerprint? Some meaning that's going over my head? CardClass made more sense to me but whatever, this doesn't matter and I hope the branding reaches some audience.
* Taylor gonna Taylor, right to questions as always. If ever there was time to have a set piece and to market this is it. This is where you get your deliberate messages and spin out there, a free platform to sell your program and the progress it's making. That's not how he rolls. Gotta respect the authenticity at least. And it's no harm because he predictably used the first question to hit the toplines/main message anyway.
* Taylor contrasted this year with last year by noting they stuck with the previous staff's recruits. The subtext here is this is his first class with his own guys. That's obvious to all of us but Taylor subtly framing it as such is notable. There are probably guys, maybe a fair number of guys, in our 2023 class who would not be here if the new staff's evaluation and approach were previously in place. That's a reminder that it will take years for Taylor to have his full imprint, errr Cardprint, on the program.
* Taylor called it a "really good recruiting class" and noted that it includes a player from every position other than kicker and punter. His bottom line is it accomplishes all of our goals. He of course should say all that. Looking at the class a bit more objectively, the most established recruiting service (247) has us at #30 while the rising force in recruiting evaluation (On3) has us #37, while the others have us a bit higher. This compares to a 247 Talent Composite baseline for us of #37 and a five year median of #21. When you consider the relatively bigger boosts Power Five competitors will tend to get via the transfer portal, it's hard to view this class as anything more than treading water. It may even be less than that on paper (i.e., it is possible we drop to #38 or #39 or something in next year's 247 Talent Composite). But we have been getting far less than our on paper talent for years and IMHO a stabilizing class that injects some credible talent is a big step forward in the rebuild. This class is - or should be - part of the healing process.
* Recruiting a player from every position other than kicker and punter is a nice thing to sell. It slightly oversells the balance insofar as there are only three OL. We did not recruit every position on the OL. But by and large it is a very notable amount of balance in one class. Part of that healing process I mentioned is now we have a foundation for the rebuild of a large, balanced class of the staff's own guys that can go forth and compete while starting from a common place culturally.
* Not recruiting a scholarship specialist is a choice. Arguably kicker was a pretty big need in this class. I continue to think Taylor may be the type to want to fill specialists via the walk-on route. As with his eschewing of a dedicated special teams coach it's a choice with tradeoffs but it's defensible. In addition to the opportunity cost argument a fair case can be made that Stanford institutionally should be able to attract very solid specialists as walk-ons. The proof will be in the overall pudding.
* Taylor noted at the end of his version of a big picture set piece that recruiting never ends and you just go to the next cycle. Amen. It seems like our offer rhythms so far back up this rhetoric. Minds should be on 2025 recruiting basically now, though I admit my mind is probably lagging where I hope the coaches are. For instance, I haven't given much thought yet to 2025 class size or needs. Well, for needs, I can tell you based on what we just signed that I will have OL at the top of the list bar none and I also think we could be bringing in better athleticism on the edges.
* For 2024, Taylor rightly talked about having needs at every position and signing the best players we could. As others have noted, this is above all a function of our depleted roster and that we need to improve everywhere. Taylor gets that. That being said, I do like to assess how classes do in terms of the needs I assess heading into them. I thought far and away the biggest need for us, to Taylor's point about best available players, was to get some studs. We got zero composite top 100 players and three composite top 400 players. That's sobering and not very impressive but it's a hell of a lot better than 2023 (and also 2021 but not 2022). The other thing I really wanted was to change the culture in a positive way. There is no objective way for me to measure that but I will choose optimism. In terms of concrete positional need, our biggest needs for volume/depth were at OL, DL, ILB, and DB and our greatest needs relative to Power Five standards were QB, RB, and ILB. As noted in the balance point, we got volume everywhere but OL (a big but unfortunately). RB and ILB remain question marks relative to Power Five standards, but the volume helps a lot to give confidence in the competition.
* Continuing this discussion on need, my view on need was: 1) Stud QB, 2) Stud ILB (but depth also extremely important since that room is so troubled), 3) DL volume (would love a stud of course), 4) OL volume (would love a stud of course), 5) Stud RB (but depth also important since that room is so troubled). I give Taylor an A- on #1, a B- on #2 (probably generous but points for multiple guys), an A on #3, a C on #4, and a B on #5 (very similar to ILB but even better on the volume front). That's a 3.08 GPA. That won't get you into Stanford, but it's a lot better than I was grading Shaw by the end.
* The reference to guys knowing they are coming in to play right away and compete reinforced the sense - no surprise - that Taylor doesn't think highly of the roster. He followed that with discussion of the six mid-year enrollees, so I think it's pretty clear that in his mind these are key guys for 2024. As a refresher, we are talking about Umeh, E. Brown, Mosley, Mattingly, Stephenson, and Richardson. In addition to Taylor's signals, we have the recent history of immediate playing time for mid-year enrollees Bailey, Roush, Reuben, and Bachmeier. Have to figure these six have every opportunity. I'm watching Umeh, Brown, and Mosley most closely but all have a real shot.
* The Umeh story is great and the way Taylor talked about it was neat. The story gets even better if Umeh stars in college. Here's hoping. I was a bit verklempt reading The Athletic story today. Think this will be one of the favorite players for many Stanford fans.