Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor) - 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: Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor) (/thread-23811.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: Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor) (/thread-23811.html)
RE: The Great Mentioners - PVTree - 11-29-2022
Harballs has sons that are coaching. Any of them with enough experience (wasn't there one at OSU when he was our coach) to bring EUTM Jr. to Stanford?
Another coach that comes to mind is Mike Sanford who's about to leave Colorado where he's been the interim head coach. I recall reading good comments about him on this board.
RE: Stanford Football moving on - JohnR34231 - 11-29-2022
People are always complaining that reporters won't ask the Shaw the tough questions.
One guy yesterday did ask him why, when things were going downhill, he didn't change coordinators.
Shaw, not surprisingly, refused to answer the question.
Bottom line is even if they had he wouldn't have answered them.
RE: Stanford Football moving on - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2022
Mostly softball questions, and when Muir tried to deflect or be vague, nobody demanded more. I agree the search committee question should have been hammered. "Will John Lynch or Condi Rice be on the committee?" Would have been a simple follow-up. And if he said he won't get into names, and didn't even say "those are the level of people who will be involved," they could have pressed even more.
I didn't think Muir was terrible and uninspiring. He spoke like most ADs I've ever heard. I was disappointed no reporter asked Muir if putting butts in seats is a priority, and in general if raising the program's profile in the Bay Area to build a larger fan base is important.
Muir says winning is a priority, and that there is no set qualifying criteria for candidates to be considered other than they can get the job done at Stanford, when asked if experience at an "academic school" is important. Good thing there will be a search committee, because Muir seems clueless as to what criteria the coach should meet. But he has made other successful hires so he could have been purposely vague to hold the cards close to his vest.
And frankly, a major missed opportunity for the reporters to ask Muir about conference alignment issues and what Stanford must do to secure its future as media rights deals evolve.
All in all, I was more disappointed with the questions reporters asked and didn't ask, than in what Muir said.
RE: Stanford Football moving on - needle - 11-29-2022
Deion Sanders mad at being called “Deion,” falsely says reporters don’t call Nick Saban “Nick”
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/20/deion-sanders-mad-at-being-called-deion-falsely-says-reporters-dont-call-nick-saban-nick/amp/
RE: Dave Clawson will be our next HC. Here's why. - lex24 - 11-29-2022
(11-28-2022, 09:36 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote:(11-28-2022, 08:53 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-28-2022, 01:42 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: ...and the offensive players already know the slow mesh!
Hmm.
I hope they are allowed to forget it asap. I hate it.
Here’s what I want. A coach with the following philosophy: Offense. Our fatties are going to beat the ever loving sh-t out of you. Even when you know it’s coming, you are not going to be able to stop us, And just when you start to cheat up, we will beat you downfield with play action. Multiple sets. Sure. Misdirection, you betcha. But in the end we are going to consistently win at the LOS. We will recruit to it. Our recruits will get bigger and stronger (or they will sit). We will develop them.. And we will recruit running backs that punish defenses. QBs with downfield arms and mobility. WRs will need to be willing and able to block. So, guys with some size. Along with a couple little demons that create havoc out of the slot. TE’s. Lots of them. And a fullback or two that gets a charge from pancaking linebackers.
Defensively. Do all the cute things you want. Cause what we are going to do is beat the hell out of you at the LOS. Penetrate and hammer your RBs and pummel your QB. Over and over again. Tough, smart, relentless and MEAN front 7. With ballhawks in the backfield.
Simply put - I want intellectual brutality again. Emphasis on the latter. I don’t care about fancy schemes.
Lex24:
Like your passion.
I think everyone agrees (myself included) that a Football Team needs to be PHYSICAL & DOMINANT at the LOS on both sides, I think that is what you are saying, and that is Foundational.
But that alone would just net you an 8-9 win Team (Coach Shaw & Coach Chryst of Wisconsin are the poster children for this & you see what happened to them as College Football evolved)
But in College Football today, you must also be able to, on Offense:
--Go UpTempo (to get easy yards, when defenses are not quite ready)
--Utilize an Athletic Dual Threat QB on 'Designed QB runs' about 10 times a game for about 50+ QBRush Yards, ...to be able to spread people out and go 'Empty Set' and still rush the football. (Actually, a modern college team should have 2 Dual-Threat QBs on the roster at all times, in case 1 gets banged up QBrunning the ball)
--Score TDs quickly (like if you are down by 10pts with 4 minutes 30secs left in the game, and have the ball on your 25yard line)
The best way I can say this, is Imagine if Stanford ever got into the 4 Team Playoff & had to face Alabama or Georgia; You are not going to phase Alabama or Georgia with Intellectual Brutality Alone. You better have the ability to go UpTempo and Spread out their Defense, and use Space & a QuickPassingGame, and a Dual-Threat QB, the way Oklahoma under Bob Stoops used to beat Alabama & SEC teams.
The only time in my 55 plus years of imagining Stanford competing for an NC is when their philosophy was exactly as I laid out.
Stanford will never get the speed and depth of the Alabamas of the world. Not close. Of course your QB needs mobility. And in no way am I suggesting they become Navy. But up-tempo wide open will not work. Maybe the occasional knock off win. But not a winning formula. Look at Dykes with nCal. Another place where depth is always a factor.
I’ll take a consistent 8-9 wins any day. Although Stanford did better than that from ‘10-15 employing essentially the philosophy I suggest. In fact, it was their best run of our lifetimes.
RE: Dave Clawson will be our next HC. Here's why. - 81alum - 11-29-2022
(11-28-2022, 09:34 PM)Red80 Wrote:Thanks for that explanation. I like a contrarian philosophy. However, I did begin to feel as if ground-and-pound wore out its contrarian nature as more and more teams figured out they could put 8 or 9 in the box to defend us. I am remembering Michigan State in the Rose Bowl, for example, but this board was filled with people complaining that opposing defensive coordinators had "solved" our offense and that Shaw stubbornly clung to ground and pound and needed to punish the 8-in-a-box defenses. This was long before the worst of our decline began. Our defense carried us at times, and Shaw eventually became much more balanced on offense.(11-28-2022, 09:10 PM)81alum Wrote:Back in the Benjamin/Dils years it was an offense that was contrarian to almost all others. It gave Stanford their best chance to compete and win some games against superior rushing teams.(11-28-2022, 09:03 PM)Red80 Wrote: I read that Oregon State's Jonathan Smith has agreed to speak with Stanford. I doubt he'd leave his alma mater, however.An honest question: why do you (and others) think a ball-control offense suits us best? Back in the Walsh years when we were "Quarterback U" it was felt that a passing-oriented offense suited us. What is it about Stanford that makes it more suitable to ball control rather than to other offenses-- other than the fact that we did ball control well in the Gerhardt/Taylor/Gaffney years? We did downfield passing pretty well in the
I like him a lot and the job he's doing at OSU. Favors a run-heavy, ball-control offense, which I think best suits Stanford. Love their OL coach as well, probably the best in the league.
Benjamin/Dils/Stenstrom/Elway years.
Today, the trend is air-raid, spread-run, spread-pass, up tempo offenses that feature many speed, twitch athletes in 4-5 receiver sets. Stanford simply does not have the athletes to run these schemes. In fact, they've tried to do so since 2019 and the results speak for themselves.
From 2012-17 Stanford played another version of contrary football: Ground and Pound. They dominated TOP, kept opposing high powered offenses off the field for long lengths of time, and scored enough to win A LOT of football games. Opposing teams hated playing Stanford for this reason.
In both eras, these against-the-grain offenses gave Stanford its best chance to compete. I desperately want to see Stanford realign with Big Boy, Smash Mouth Football!
But there seem to be two arguments here. 1) We would do well to develop a contrarian offense. (I like that approach, and think it makes sense, so long as sit genuinely presents difficulties to the defenses of our opponents.) But it has been suggested that 2) there is something about Stanford that means we only attract certain kinds of athletes that are suitable to certain styles of play, and thus we need to build around that style. I guess I need more explanation about 2.
Troy Taylor - gailtate - 11-29-2022
Paywall:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/Find-the-new-Harbaugh-Why-Stanford-needs-to-17616971.php
Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - msqueri - 11-29-2022
I'm having a hard time ranking a wish list for two reasons. First, my basic view is there are many dozens of very plausible candidates (very conservatively...recall earlier in the year when I posted 100) and I think there's risk and uncertainty (as well as excitement and upside) no matter what direction we go. Second, I really don't know how to define the universe of what's possible. My past posts and most posts on this board operate within a universe where we try to bind ourselves with some degree of realism. People aren't suggesting trying to bring Harbaugh back or trying to lure Franklin from Penn State. At the same time, there may be some very established Power Five coaches who'd be interested and we won't know unless we try (or they reach out).
For instance, I think highly of guys like Mike Gundy, Lane Kiffin, Billy Napier, Bret Bielema, Jonathan Smith, Mike Norvell, Kalen DeBoer, Sonny Dykes, PJ Fleck, Matt Campbell, Chris Klieman, Lance Leipold, Jeff Brohm, Dave Aranda, and Steve Sarkisian, but it ranges from difficult to laughable to imagine most of them leaving current gigs for Stanford. But stranger things have happened than one or more of them having a deep secret interest in Stanford and/or ties with Shaw or Muir that make it plausible. I'd hope Muir quietly takes a shot with a few of these guys.
To that end, I know it will sound crazy to many (most?) but I see big hairy audacious appeal, Stanford fit, and arguable mutual benefit with Dabo Swinney. That would rock the football world and is 99 point something percent unlikely/insane, by why not make the call and see if he wants to avoid the potential staleness trap? Less audaciously but still appealing to me I'd make a run at Fleck, Klieman, Brohm, and Campbell. Aranda strikes many as an obvious Stanford fit and I'm intrigued but wary of his limited track record. There are others I mentioned I like just as much/even more and I'd be supportive of back channels.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - msqueri - 11-29-2022
In the spirit of taking a few big swings, I'd work my way through this list, which attempts to take into account the obvious criteria (fit at Stanford, ability to sell/recruit at Stanford, ability to hire/retain/motivate/lead the people who comprise a winning football organization, etc.):
1) Dabo Swinney: I know it's a silly suggestion but I think it would be incredible and you don't make shots you don't take
2) Dan Quinn: Our chance at a Pete Carroll to USC kind of phenomenon and I'd be so freaking excited about what it would mean for the defense
3) Bill O'Brien: Open to being disabused by those in the know but I see fit and competence everywhere I look from the Ivy League pedigree, coaching at two different high academic Power Five schools, having a winning record as a head coach in college and the NFL, and serving the best apprenticeship in the sport
4) Jason Garrett: Big, unlikely shot but he's a very good coach who might be a fit
5) Dave Clawson: Many will play up the fit of somebody who's coached at Wake Forest and high-academic lower-level schools and went to Williams and that's a big part of the appeal, but what does it for me is winning wherever he goes at multiple levels (Fordham, Richmond, Bowling Green, Wake Forest) as that is exactly the mark of the best coaches (Saban, Meyer, Kelly, Harbaugh, etc.)
6) Jeff Brohm: Another multi-stop winner who has a Power Five program the best they've been in a decade and a half and, significantly to me, has had them above-average on both sides of the ball for a few years in a row now
7) Chris Petersen: Sparkling head coaching record at two different schools and dream fit in terms of values/personality/etc. but lower on my list than on most people's list because I can't fully shake the risk he won't have the same drive and/or has been away just a bit too long (but I still think this is a placement on the list befitting how excited I'd be)
8) Chris Klieman: Multi-level winner I think highly of and think could be a fit but have less of a sense of than I do with some above
9) PJ Fleck: Yet another multi-stop proven winner with a scrappiness relevant for a rebuild, especially at a quality but non-top tier program, and brings the kind of culture building I want with whoever we get
10) Matt Campbell: Opinions evidently differ but I think his Toledo and Iowa State track records are both extremely impressive notwithstanding this season's disappointment
11) Troy Taylor: Transcendently spectacular track record at Sacramento State and our chance at a Jim Harbaugh/Art Briles kind of hire but FCS to Power Five is a gigantic leap that aside from Harbaugh doesn't have much track record of working for big turnaround projects like this
12) Brent Brennan: I'm a really big fan and think he's our chance at an up-and-comer, just don't think he's as established as those above
13) Deion Sanders: Yes, I know the drama would be too rich for most people's blood at Stanford but this would be instant recruiting/excitement/relevance and it's extremely notable that despite the circus he has Jackson State absolutely rocking
14) Dave Aranda: Very intriguing potential sweet spot between a decently big name/splash and Stanford fit but I don't know what to make of his roller coaster track record at Baylor
15) Jamey Chadwell: So far the last couple of years he seems to be the big loser in the coaching carousel, which I can only imagine owes to having never spent a day of his life in a Power Five program, but jeez 39-21 as an FBS head coach makes me think this is a stud waiting for an opportunity.....I have no idea if the Stanford fit is even plausible but if it were he could arguably shoot way up the list
16) Curt Cignetti: I'll admit to being age-ist (or at least bowing to conventional wisdom on coaching hires against some of my instincts) as if he were 51 rather than 61 I would giddily have him in my top five, such is my massive man crush on everything about the James Madison football program and Cignetti's three-level dominance (.761 winning percentage over 12 years, including 8-3 in JMU's first FBS season)
17) Jim Leonhard: He now has half a year of head coaching experience so isn't a pure coordinator promotion untested guy and him being jilted at the altar by his alma mater may open up an opportunity to get one of the hottest coordinators in the sport in recent years, which isn't a model I love for head coach hires but Leonhard reputedly has the right attributes and I'm head over heels in love with the idea of bringing the Wisconsin defense to Stanford
18) Charles Huff: He'll be riper for plucking by a Power Five school in another year or three but he's done a credible job two years in at Marshall and was mentored by James Franklin and Nick Saban
19) Lance Taylor: As should be abundantly clear from my list, I have an extreme prejudice against candidates without head coaching experience, just think it's generally a fairly silly thing for a Power Five program to do....but if we were to go that route Taylor makes a lot of sense to me as somebody who coached and recruited effectively at Stanford under Shaw as well as at several other Power Five programs (including his year as offensive coordinator at Louisville on the front lines of the NIL and transfer landscape), and apprenticed for an insanely impressive assortment of masters in Nick Saban, Jerry Moore (Hall of Fame FCS coach for those who don't know), Rex Ryan, Ron Rivera, David Shaw, and Brian Kelly
20) Jesse Minter: The other exception I'd make to my aversion to coordinators, in light of his pedigree learning from Brian Kelly, John Harbaugh, and Jim Harbaugh and the high confidence I'd have on the impact on the defense
21) Jim Mora: I know many will hate this inclusion but he's already turned around a Pac-12 program (albeit then fizzling a half decade in) and this year did a remarkable instant turnaround of one of the worst programs in FBS
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - msqueri - 11-29-2022
Honorable mention:
* Greg Roman: I get it, he's an offensive genius and shaped some of the best offenses in Stanford history, I just don't get what that has to do with the rest of being a college football head coach
* Mike Bloomgren: I don't want this but if we're being honest he's extremely plausible given the partial truth and narrative (fueled by the Athletic article) that he was a brobdingnagian part of the secret sauce of Shaw's success, coupled with his credible performance at Rice in light of the circumstances, and I do think he could succeed....thought hard about putting him on the ranked part but it's my list and I don't want to
* Lance Anderson: Another guy it's only realistic to acknowledge may get a look, though the case for a continuity candidate is awful under the circumstances and would be pretty galling....I don't know if Anderson would bring in a good coordinator or handle it himself but in a CEO role I acknowledge an outside chance of success, just not the juice I think we want/deserve
* Tavita Pritchard: Ditto
* Garret Riley: I'm not a big fan of the hire the 33 year old hotshot coordinator as a head coach model, but Riley sure is interesting and is a scorching hot name not only because of his brother but because of TCU's success this year
* Bronco Mendenhall: Again I'm a sucker for multi-stop success and I also have a soft spot for defensive specialists, but it just feels like an uninspired choice
* Paul Chryst: Ditto, except for the defense part
* Kalani Sitake: I've long found him attractive but am troubled by what he's allowed to happen to BYU's defense despite ostensibly being a defensive specialist
* Jeff Traylor: Probably a bad fit but UTSA is really good
* Bryan Harsin: Intriguing buy-low opportunity for a program as far away from SEC boosters as possible, both geographically and temperamentally
* Jeff Monken: Multi-stop success and navigating admissions at Army are appealing but I'm just not feeling it
* Jay Hill: He seems like a really good coach but FCS is a gigantic leap and he's only got experience in Utah
* Sherrone Moore: He seems great but just really unseasoned to get a Power Five head coach job at this point
Every guy I mentioned in the ranked portion is LFG territory for me (and several in honorable mention would be too if I'm honest). I'd be so pumped to get any of these candidates. I'm prepared for the actual hire to come from my honorable mention list or the field and that might be ok, but obviously I hope one of my preferred candidates gets it or else I wouldn't have done this list.
I view Swinney, Quinn, Garrett, and O'Brien as big swings with low likelihoods of making contact. I just think we need to take the swing. I really surprised myself having such an NFL flavor at the top of this list as that is definitely not my predisposition, but a) the names I listed have such intriguing competence/fit, b) the research I've done on successful Power Five turnarounds showed an excellent track record of former NFL head coaches turning around struggling Power Five programs (Chip Kelly, Jim Mora, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, Rich Brooks, Pete Carroll, Dennis Erickson), c) the name recognition and cachet would help with recruiting and trying to secure a position at one of the big boy tables in college football, and d) to the extent Shaw has tried to establish a pro-style program, getting one of these true pros would solidify approaches and styles Shaw was only cosplaying.
If we miss on those big swings I think we should be able to get a proven Power Five winner and my preferences would be Clawson, Brohm, Petersen, Klieman, Fleck, and Campbell. Honestly I'd be surprised if the search had to go beyond my top ten in the fanciful world in which Muir adopted my list whole cloth, but I'm glad there are many more than ten candidates I'd be stoked with.
As I make this list something I am cognizant of and troubled by is the lack of racial diversity at the top of my list. I think this is a problem in the sport generally, at both the college and pro levels. I wish my process came up with a different result but when I try to rack and stack based on my sense of merit and fit this is where I come down. But I did list numerous people of color and there are good options out there of all races, levels of major college football, offensive/defensive persuasion, geography, age demographic, and so forth. A national search should get us a hire we can be excited about. Fingers crossed.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - Phogge - 11-29-2022
Bill O’Brien? AUFKM? Past experience.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - cardcrimson - 11-29-2022
Though he's probably a lock for Georgia Tech, surprised no mention of Willie Fritz. Remarkable success at Tulane and an overall record of 195-114. Somewhat old, but 60 is the new 50. Tulane has some academic credentials, as well.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - msqueri - 11-29-2022
Open to being educated on why O'Brien is bad but I see a 52-48 NFL head coaching record, which is better than Chip Kelly, Jim Mora, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, and Dennis Erickson did in the NFL. Every single one of those guys came to college after failing in the NFL and accomplished the kind of Power Five turnaround I think we should aspire to (multiple 8+ win seasons). His record is a winning one in both college and the NFL and then after that he took a job that previously belonged to Brian Daboll, Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Mike Locksley, and Jim McElwain, a pretty sparkling track record of those coordinators being mentored into a position to be successful head coaches. I'm trying to see why O'Brien wouldn't be considered one of the top coaching candidates in the country. When you add on that he's actually spent time in the Brown, Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Penn State, and Alabama programs he seems to have the pedigree that answers a lot of questions about understanding what Stanford is trying to do in terms of academic and athletic excellence.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - French Rage - 11-29-2022
If we want someone who can work with a school with a high academic reputation, this current guy at Dartmouth has really done great things there.
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - msqueri - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 08:48 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Though he's probably a lock for Georgia Tech, surprised no mention of Willie Fritz. Remarkable success at Tulane and an overall record of 195-114. Somewhat old, but 60 is the new 50. Tulane has some academic credentials, as well.
Fritz absolutely could fit in with a similar description as what I wrote for Cignetti, though Fritz is even older and I like Tulane's program a lot less than I like James Madison. But yeah, I mentally wrote him off to Georgia Tech.
RE: The Great Mentioners - French Rage - 11-29-2022
(11-28-2022, 04:23 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: My wild and crazy idea for Stanford's next coach - Dabo Swinney. Even though Clemson just gave him a 10 year contract extension, they might be getting tired of him after 15 years. His trend line is down lately, at least compared to what his teams accomplished from 2015-2020. At the very least, he ticks a lot of boxes - proven winner, program builder, big time recruiter.
He is good friends with Shaw, right? Maybe Shaw can put in some good words for us as his last act?
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - lex24 - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 08:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: Open to being educated on why O'Brien is bad but I see a 52-48 NFL head coaching record, which is better than Chip Kelly, Jim Mora, Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, and Dennis Erickson did in the NFL. Every single one of those guys came to college after failing in the NFL and accomplished the kind of Power Five turnaround I think we should aspire to (multiple 8+ win seasons). His record is a winning one in both college and the NFL and then after that he took a job that previously belonged to Brian Daboll, Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Mike Locksley, and Jim McElwain, a pretty sparkling track record of those coordinators being mentored into a position to be successful head coaches. I'm trying to see why O'Brien wouldn't be considered one of the top coaching candidates in the country. When you add on that he's actually spent time in the Brown, Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Penn State, and Alabama programs he seems to have the pedigree that answers a lot of questions about understanding what Stanford is trying to do in terms of academic and athletic excellence.
Didn’t O’Brien have “issues” with some of his players?
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - Stanfordindians1again - 11-29-2022
5 Star post msqueri.
Thanks for sharing and all the info. Well done.
RE: Troy Taylor - BobK - 11-29-2022
Taylor would be a great choice. And my choice His OL coach has been with him for years so there’s the start of a staff
A cal guy well John Ralston worked out fine
RE: Coaching Search: My proposed approach and wish list - martyup - 11-29-2022
Thanks Matt.
Boy, there are a lot of moving parts when choosing a new head coach. There are very few paths to get it right and many obstacles and pit falls that could lead to a bad hire.
Let's hope the best and brightest minds use clear eyes and full hearts in the selection process.
Unfortunately, we fans don't get to watch them make the sausage, we just get to eat it when it's done. Let's hope that it's Jimmy Dean good.