Starting QB? - Printable Version

Starting QB? - 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: Starting QB? (/thread-24356.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Wright:

* I need to restrain myself. I know I get super excited when there's a non-blue chip former recruit I'm in love with and want to spread word about. If I do say so myself, I have a good track record on these (Anthony Kimble, Richard Sherman, Delano Howell, Justin Reid, JJ Arcega-Whiteside, with Marcus Rance a bad misfire and Ese Dubre looking like one and Kyu Blu Kelly one that looks good for me on paper but I came to view him as overrated). But Wright has played 22 college snaps on defense and never been part of a game plan. I should really try to restrain my hype. [By the way, Howell and Reid debatable inclusions as they arguably were blue chip recruits.]

* Man after my own heart right with his first answer. He started off saying making plays was the biggest thing coming into camp. Yes, what defense is all about....please, please, please let's get back to big plays that change possession or are negative for the offense. Then he noted (I would say humble brag but really more of an outright brag) that he has five turnovers so far in camp. If I am counting days right that's at least turnover every other day when this was recorded. That is massive. Beyond the glimpse into why he's impressing people so much, that he would share his number of practice turnovers is something I love. A cynic would mimic Allen Iverson's thoughts on practice and maybe mock the young, inexperienced guy for acting like practice accomplishments are real football, but to me a better reaction is that this is a driven, goal-oriented, notch-on-his-belt counting striver. He's keeping score. I like that. When I'm hiring I like candidates who can say on their resume the specific deliverables (whether down to events, outcomes, or dollars and cents) they brought into being. Wright's answer here gave me that vibe. He knows turnovers make the difference for his team, he has a goal to make turnovers, and he's counting them when he does. By the way, when speaking about the defense as a whole it was interesting to hear a reference to the defense getting forced fumbles. I wonder if that's a particular goal for the defense (his reference to swarming to the ball being what we need as a defense suggests so) and/or something the offense struggled with in the first week or so of camp.

* In light of all the praise he's getting, his assessment that he thinks he's doing ok seems like confident understatement. Said the right things about taking coaching, perfecting technique, competing, and getting better.

* Wright didn't hesitate in focusing on speed (which he subsequently expanded to speed and cleaning up footwork) as what he focused on during the off-season. To me it sounds like a guy who has a lot of the skills figured out pretty well and is focused on working hard to get his physical speed up at a position where that's important. We heard a lot of this from Mike Wilson on the other side of the ball in the latter parts of his career. We didn't have many data points on Wright's speed coming in but I had the general impression I often have with Stanford DB recruits of a very credible prospect held back from being pursued by the bigger programs because he didn't have elite speed. Quenton Meeks springs to mind as a comparison.

* Because Ben solicited the views on Kelly and Bonner it's hard to know with certainty how positive Wright's views are, but it sure sounded much less grudge-holding than a few of Wright's classmates have sounded with regard to departed teammates. In contrast, Wright sounded like an appreciative mentee, viewing Kelly and McGill in particular as models for leadership and film study. I would posit that is likely because Kelly is a role model for Wright in terms of a guy getting a lot of college play and then getting drafted and Bonner played five years at Stanford. As we found out later in the interview, Wright is not planning on completing his eligibility at Stanford, so he may be less inclined to hold uncompleted eligibility against former teammates in the way Anderson and Moi did. McGill did abandon us for greener pastures but Wright isn't holding a grudge.

* Wright echoed Manley in a lot of the defense being the same as last year from a CB perspective - as Wright put it "Cover-2, Cover-3, Cover-1." The CB room isn't where the change in defense is going to be a disruption. Coverage is what these guys do. I really don't know what to make of the rest of the answer. He talks about the defense being more complex but then said last year guys were thinking too much and this year April "is letting us play." I've heard this a few times about playing fast but also being more complex. I hope April has deftly threaded that needle. I never thought Anderson did and to be honest Wright's answer doesn't strike me as coherent.

* Wright's immediate mental association with Williams was "technique." Akina is a legend but to me this is a concrete example of how beneficial it is to have a dedicated CB coach. There's a reason the best defenses have recently tended to separate corners and safeties. They're different positions and with so much nickel it's damaging to do a one size fits all coaching approach for a subset of the defense that gets almost half the snaps. It really needs two coaches and this is one of the things I'm most excited about the new staff. We finally are in the modern era. Wright being struck by Williams' insights on technique is a good example (e.g., taking the right steps when in press/man coverage, having good eye control when you're in off man, etc.).

* Random thought spurred by Wright saying (in the context of how exciting it is to be in line for much more playing time) that not a lot of the DBs got playing time last year: it's super interesting that it appears three of our top five DBs - Manley, Wyrick, and Slocum - are guys who took mid-career redshirt/sabbatical years last year. How odd. As a result it feels like our secondary is a complete rebuild, but at the same time it's very much in line with what one would have expected watching the 2021 team. Counting Gilman, our top DBs include four of the top nine from the 2021 team. If four of our five nickel DBs were in the mix in 2021 and the fifth is a redshirt freshman everybody is raving about as the team's breakout player, how much of an experience problem do we really have at DB? I can see arguments that the safeties are mediocre or worse talent-wise, but overall this seems like a very solid DB situation.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

* I am glad Ben alluded to eligibility multiple times. Stanford does a terrible job informing fans and media of the eligibility of its players (which maybe was convenient for Shaw because hardly anybody ever completed their eligibility) but fans want to get excited about players they can watch for multiple years. Frankly, it is also exciting to think about how if Wright balls out he could be one of the best "freshmen" around (though may or may not actually get that recognition if Stanford continues to list him as a sophomore). But I'm also glad Ben asked the question because it elicited genuine insight that Wright does not plan on being around nearly long enough for his redshirt year to matter. He was clear that the goal is to go to the NFL potentially as soon as he is allowed - Meeks-style after three years - and accelerate academics to the extent possible. The redshirt is there "if I need it" but clearly that's a Plan B. His goals are graduating from Stanford and going to the NFL. I continue to think that the systematic acceleration of degree progress among Stanford football players may have detrimental impacts on our football competitiveness, but I am most concerned about the trenches. If we have DBs good enough to go to the NFL after three or four years, that's a nice problem to have and will make it easier to recruit the next generation of DBs to compete, just as Wright follows in the footsteps of Meeks and Kelly. Nonetheless, fans may have to brace themselves for the possibility of one of those frustrating what-could-have-been careers where a good player redshirts AND leaves early (Solomon Thomas, Austin Hooper, etc.).

* Wright had no problem answering the question on NFL corners he studies. That answer reads as both a student of the game and an NFL aspirant. That adds to my picture of his preparation, drive, and ambition.

* Quintessential DB attitude of loving to be the villain. Corners are built a bit differently and personally I love it. It makes me chuckle because I think about how crazy it drives one of my brothers when DBs celebrate every incomplete pass whereas I love the swagger and in some sense ridiculousness of a good cover corner. For me Deion Sanders is the standard and I don't begrudge corners when they strut their stuff and crow a bit. At another position it may be brash or unearned, but at corner if you don't walk the walk you get exposed. If you can stay the villain rather than the clown, do you!

* We hear some players be forthright about this and some allude to it obliquely: Wright was willing to directly compare the Taylor staff as "a lot more family-oriented" than the Shaw staff. I think it's obvious Shaw was imperial and aloof and Taylor is the opposite. They have similarities, but when it comes to the things players think of as "family-oriented" it's really night and day. It makes me a bit sad to hear the favorable comparisons to Shaw put like Wright did, as the implication is Shaw didn't care about them as people (not saying Wright thinks that), which I don't think is the case. I do think Shaw cared, but he had that detached way about him and I don't think it made people feel the love like Taylor does. I think this will continue to be a big deal for the program.

* The interview ended with a mature reflection on time management. I think this adds to my picture of Wright as a locked in/focused/goal-oriented guy. Again, I'm trying to restrain myself with somebody with 22 career snaps but I like this guy a lot.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Manley:

* Taylor didn't catch many breaks when it came to roster retention and attrition but the big one he did catch was Manley coming back. Manley is one of the ten most experienced players on the entire roster and, unlike 3-4 of the other experienced players, played at a competitive level in the experience he had previously. In 2020 and 2021, Manley was right on the cusp of what one would call significant snaps relative to his peers (16th most snaps on the defense in 2020, 19th in 2021 but starter snaps all four games he played). Among players with his level of snaps, he was our third highest graded defender in 2020 and our fourth highest graded defender in 2021. To be gifted arguably your most proven defensive player is a nice boost, as much as Taylor couldn't catch a break otherwise.

* The talk of an acclimation and adjustment period was moderately surprising to me considering that we've already had spring and summer but on balance he comes across as a cerebral, reflective guy and I think he's just saying it's been a different kind of few months than he's had in a while, not necessarily saying it's been a difficult or problematic acclimation. One does have to wonder if taking a year off may have thrown him off his game or rhythms but I don't think that's necessarily (and hope it isn't) the case.

* He says he knew during fall quarter that he knew he wanted to come back and dedicated a lot of time to training by himself to stay in shape. This timeline may be a data point that his departure wasn't related to incompatibility with Akina, or at least that playing for Akina wasn't a deal breaker as there would have been no way to know in the fall that Akina would be departing. However, the "may" in that sentence is crucial as Manley easily could have grad transferred elsewhere if he didn't want to play for Stanford, so it's possible that the coaching change smoothed his way back to Stanford football. I have no idea how much of his sabbatical was physical or mental fatigue, exploring other passions before realizing football is still the main one, interpersonal issues with coaches, academic (certainly a possibility as we know he's a below average student since he's never made an academic honor roll), or something else. In his words it was a break to find himself off the field and explore other paths.

* Manley had an interesting point that last fall he had to put the work in to stay in shape but in the winter and spring the new staff did a good job making conditioning "competitive." The clear implication was that once he was back in the fold and working with the regimen of the new staff the getting back in shape took care of itself. This sounds to me like another modest data point on the new strength and conditioning approach striking players as a step up.

* If one is looking for an indication there may have been friction with Akina, you don't have to look far. First words out of Manley's mouth when asked about Paul Williams: "It's great, he's a very knowledgeable coach, very personable guy as well, which is a really refreshing experience for me." If I'm not mistaken the last part of that sentence had a bit of emphasis/lilt in his voice. As I've said, I tend to think it's easy to overestimate the amount the players' comments on their new coaches are meant comparatively with the old ones so I don't want to make too big of a deal out of this, but it's a possible hint. For what it's worth, the rest of the answer was a detailed endorsement of Williams' coaching, citing the way he coaches technique, whether press, playing off, or Cover 3 and oddly specifically mentioning the exact number of years Williams has experience coaching (27, obviously not a dig on Akina given his even vaster experience).

* From a DB perspective, Manley says the new defense "is kind of the same in terms of Cover 3/man but it's a lot more aggressive, a lot more stimulated pressures and just blitz packages." He also said there's a lot of press man coverage. I don't know enough scheme or have a specific enough memory to recall what our coverage schemes looked like under Akina but for what it's worth it's always interesting to hear these kind of observations from players. In terms of the aggressiveness, it's unclear how much Manley is talking about stimulated pressures and blitz packages generally or specifically with regard to corners but the implication seems to be that he specifically is involved in more of that than before. In any case, I don't view this as very significant because I did some digging into Stanford DB sack and tackle for loss numbers over the last decade and compared to both Wisconsin DBs and Wake Forest DBs (in the Williams years there) and don't think there's any significant disparity. Notably, this is despite there being a very significant disparity between Stanford and Wisconsin sack and tackle for loss numbers overall. The difference in sack and tackle for loss playmaking is exactly where you'd expect it to be, in the front seven. As we think about defensive playmakers, keep in mind that in the last five years Stanford had one guy rank in the top 100 in tackles for loss (Casey Toohill for those wondering) while Wisconsin had six. Of particular note, April has had two OLBs (Nick Herbig in 2022 and Zach Baun in 2019) finish in the top 14 of all players nationally in tackles for loss. For whoever emerges among Keneley, Bailey, Tafiti, Cooper, and Aybar, there will be opportunity to hunt. The same is true for ILBs as Wisconsin has had two top 30 and three top 100 tackle for loss master ILBs in this span (not coached by D'Onofrio, though his star pupil last year was just outside the top 100), though we have far less talent at ILB to exploit this than we do at OLB. Anyway, Manley may like the pressure he gets to be involved in but I view it as minimally relevant for the defense. The real story to watch is how the various looks we give unlock our OLBs.

* Big-ish caveat to what I just wrote that is just now occurring to me. For nine months I've been analyzing the "Wisconsin defense" somewhat as if Dave Aranda, Justin Wilcox, Jim Leonhard, and Bobby April are the same person. Obviously they aren't. It is possible that April is bringing tweaks, maybe even significant ones, compared to how Leonhard operated. For all I know corner blitzes, for example, are going to be a much bigger deal than they were at Wisconsin. Once we start seeing this in action it will be fun to start talking about the April defense and, hopefully eventually, the "Stanford defense."

* It's just words but the way he talks about competition and pushing himself to reach the goals he has for himself is what I like to hear. He seems locked in for his fifth year in an unfinished personal business kind of way, somewhat reminiscent of Ethan Bonner last year.

* Humphreys, Ayomanor, and Reuben were the three WRs he highlighted. It's just one data point but it supports a picture that those are three receivers in line for the bulk of opportunities at WR (assuming health, a historic question mark with Ayomanor).

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

* Regarding the offense generally, of course there was mention of pace and tempo like there always is but of note was Manley mentioning "a lot more shots." It's unclear to me whether he's talking volume of plays (in which case it's just another way of making the tempo point) or shots down field or percentage of plays that are passing plays. If I had to guess I think he means shots down field, but it could be any or a combination. The biggest insight was probably "the quick game is lethal, that's kind of hard to cover at times." I consider spring games, including this year's non-game showcase, essentially worthless, but one thing I did notice was a lot of that quick game. I expect that to be a staple in the offense (and really wish we still had Mike Wilson or Connor Wedington).

* The answer on what he likes most about Stanford started out very odd (at least unusual compared to how other players answer) in talking about Andrew Luck and Michael Thomas coming around and there being alumni support to get Stanford football back to its standard, but eventually he circled around to the obligatory genuflection toward the "it's the people" kind of answer everybody gives about schoolmates and professors.

* I like that he corrected himself a bit when he was talking about how he's excited for Hawaii after all the work we have put in - "especially all the work that I've put in personally." Speaks to that unfinished personal business vibe and competitiveness and maybe a bit of a chip on his shoulder too. Just in general he said some version of the word "compete" a lot and I like that.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Williams:

* It's a Troy Taylor staff coach so it's all about process - taking it one day at a time, worrying about today, cleaning up techniques. Stacking days adds up to something and you get there by just continuing to have good days, not worrying about where you'll end up or even putting much thought into putting into perspective how things are looking so far. I dig it but it doesn't always lend itself to the most interesting answers to the questions trying to get a snapshot on camp.

* The answer on Manley was about leadership, preparation, and showing by example. It sounds like somebody Williams appreciates most for the example he sets for his teammates rather than the particular future Manley himself has with Stanford. This may be partly psychological as Williams knows he's part of a rebuild and Manley is a fifth year guy, a short-timer. Still, for a guy who has been a legitimate Pac-12 DB in numerous past seasons I was expecting a little bit more of a commentary on Manley as a player. I think Manley faces some risk of being passed up by younger guys as the season progresses. Caveat here is after extolling Wright's virtues Williams circled back and said both Wright and Manley are talented, so it's not like Manley didn't get any praise beyond leadership.

* There have been many data points establishing Wright as the breakout player but this interview goes to the top of the list. Zero restraint or expectations management for a guy with 22 snaps. I'll share the whole quote as it's so notable for somebody at this stage: "for a freshman, he's waaaaaaay ahead, you know. I've coached a lot of good DBs and I think he has a very bright future. He's a quiet kid but he comes to work every day, you know. He competes, he really tries to work his technique, and he gets better every day, you know. I'm really looking forward to the rest of camp with him and just to see how he plays this year but he's a talented guy." In coachspeak that's "I lucked out to inherit this guy right away, what a stud."

* Williams noted that most of his career he's coached the whole DB room and now getting to focus on corners and nickels he can be more detail-oriented on technique. This is exactly what I've long harped on with DB coaching and praised Taylor for getting with best practices and breaking DB into two rooms, and we've heard players validate/demonstrate this point in their comments too. Very excited about this change.

* I had been somewhat worried previously about the lack of clarity on who in our two-headed DB coaching arrangement would be coaching the nickels, in part because previous interviews with Williams and Gregory made it sound like both/it depends, which has some logic but would raise questions about clarity, coordination, and specialization. This interview with Williams is one data point suggesting Williams is responsible for nickels. It's not dispositive because if the answer is both/it depends they both could fairly see themselves that way, but I do think it's a data point. On balance, though, I am still not sure whether the real answer is both/it depends. Depth chart reporting on TOS has consistently suggested that Slocum (a corner) is the nickel and Wyrick (not only a safety but a starting safety) is the backup. The question I'd have is whether Williams coaches Wyrick on nickel responsibilities or if that's Gregory as the safeties coach. I really don't know. I think I'd prefer one cook in the kitchen and Williams as the far more experienced and proven DB coach takes Wyrick under his wing for the nickel responsibilities. I'm not confident that is the case, though, as nothing in the interview came close to alluding to Wyrick as far as I could tell.

* Williams on April seemed a bit more comfortable and less conflicted than I thought I may have picked up from the earlier interview. One consistent point of praise for April is "great football mind" and Williams also added that every day April comes in with some "juice," which I interpret as energy and fire to get to work. Williams called the defense "a good package" with some uniqueness. The reference to uniqueness gave me a bit of the adjustment/learning curve/not totally what Williams is used to vibe I picked up before, but the buy-in/excitement/fun quotients seem reasonably high. Certainly good vibes on defense right now.

* Minor thing but Williams noted that Kelly had been drafted and Bonner is in camp as a free agent, which reinforced a view I already had of Williams as somebody very attuned to developing NFL talent. His bio emphasizes this. In the same way I observed Wright is a striver who's keeping score when it comes to the practice turnovers he generates, I think Williams keeps score on who goes to the NFL. I am confident he'll have somebody to add to his resume within a few years.

* Riffing off Ben's question, Williams really emphasized the youth and inexperience of his group, noting the time off Manley (via leaving the team) and Slocum (via redshirting) had. At the same time, he said that from watching them play you really wouldn't know it and that they look like a veteran group. I think this is the real point. Manley has 350 snaps and Slocum has 275 snaps. Those are veterans. To have your three primary corners include two veterans and a young guy you're ecstatic about is not a tough situation. As I keep saying, CB is right at the top of the list of best positions on our roster. To that point, it seems clear who the top three in his group are: Manley, Wright, and Slocum. Those were the three he named when asked about his group.

* All of Williams' positivity about his group is great to hear but what I like best is that the corners have "great work ethic" and "want to be good" and "want to work." We've been hearing a lot of that from our coaches and we really need it to be true. I do not believe our players by and large played like that the last several years. If they were just beaten down and now with a new staff a pall has been lifted/switch has been flipped, that would be great. Similarly, we very much have to hope there's truth to all the happy talk about how guys are competing and making each other better. Hope springs eternal and we can't just assume all this talk will translate. But we certainly can hope while we wait for real fall action.

* We always hear about how DBs are different and corners especially are on the island. Wright's comments gave us a glimpse into the us against the world mentality. But what I appreciated about Williams' meditation on this was that he homed in on how that vulnerability to exposure means you have to come to work every day. I don't think there's anything novel about this mindset and I think we've had plenty of guys who've embodied it (Kelly, Meeks, etc.) but I do like seeing evidence it's the tone being set by the position coach.

* As with Wright, a lot of talk about competing. As always, it's just words....but that is the word I want to hear.

* Williams really does seem effusive about Taylor and April and the current vibe. All the good vibes are soon going to come into contact with reality and that's what really matters, but there is unmistakably an optimism around the program and that's refreshing.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Taylor's third press availability:

* More of the same, very upbeat whenever asked about how practice is going ("good, really good, they did a good job" is how this one started). In the spring it often seemed like the coaches were managing expectations but in camp it's been unfailingly upbeat. There's of course mention of having more work to do but it's clear Taylor is more on the power of positive thinking/positive reinforcement/upbeat leadership side of the spectrum. One does have to wonder about what happens when we come into contact with reality and face adversity. I also wonder how much the vibes are trying to will confidence into being as opposed to having something to legitimately be confident about. We'll start to get real data points in a few weeks. Right now it just seems to be all positive thinking.

* It was interesting that in responding to the first question Taylor's mind went to learning how to be physical and aggressive without going to the ground and that he repeatedly talked about taking care of each other. This is the first time this camp he's started to sound like Shaw to me, clearly acutely feeling the risk of practice injuries. I suspect that in the second week of camp we probably had some injuries and near injuries. Taylor couched this in terms of learning how to stay off the ground and doing a much better job, but that could just be the instinct for positivity speaking. The notable thing here seems to be Taylor being attuned to risk and implying the physicality and aggression got people to the ground too often in the first half of camp. There's always a tension between practice physicality and injury avoidance and it sounds like Taylor is surfing that wave. I think the physicality is pretty important to what we're trying to establish, particularly on defense, and there's no easy answer on how to navigate this other than continuing to surf. We need to set a tone of physicality, aggression, and competition, but we also have limited depth. Not all sunshine and rainbows despite external appearances.

* As always, competitive and tough the first things out of Taylor's mouth in talking about Lamson, and accurate also got in there as usual. Making an appearance this time were picks things up quickly, intelligent, and good under pressure. No indication the injury rehab is an issue at this point. Taylor acknowledged that Lamson has had many fewer reps with him than Daniels and Patu and that it's hard to come in as the new guy and get a feel for your teammates. There may be an allusion here to initial chemistry issues on and/or off the field. Taylor seems somewhat protective (or maybe just proud) of Lamson, emphasizing that Lamson joined the team as early as he could and that he's led with his work ethic and made friends. Unsurprising but very interesting that the transition has been a process and not totally smooth. By the way, we've heard about Taylor's open door/family-oriented kind of atmosphere and of all the players one would expect him to communicate with about life on and off the field the scholarship QBs would be top of the list. I suspect Lamson has confided in Taylor with regard to acclimation issues, or Taylor can just pick things up.

* Confirmation (again) that Lamson, Patu, and Daniels are battling and that Jackson is out of the competition, though Jackson got praise as very accurate and Taylor said he thought he'd be a really good player, but by far the headline of the interview is that Taylor said separation among the three battling has definitely taken place. Taylor didn't need to say this if there was anything resembling an open competition still going on. This sounds like somebody who has made the decision or, at a minimum, was close to a decision between two guys. My guess is that it's Lamson and Taylor doesn't want to be too coy because he wants to pave the way for the eventual announcement but that there also may be value in letting the separation make itself totally clear on the field (especially among teammates who have known the other two longer). Another consideration is that Taylor would of course want to be thoughtful about how he broke the news to the room and how depth (and in this day and age considerations of transfer options) plays out. I'd expect an announcement this week most likely. Taylor did talk about being patient and letting it play out and how usually a starter would be clear before the first game, so we can't rule out a more up in the air competition, but that's not my guess. My guess is the "patience" is as much about not making any announcement prematurely or not navigating the various dynamics thoughtfully as it is not knowing who the guy would be. Taylor was forthright (in fact volunteered) when it came to "separation."

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

* Amusing moment of self (or team)-deprecation and expectations management when Taylor corrected a comment about OL inexperience by interjecting that "really" should modify inexperienced. There were a lot comments like this in the spring and less so far in camp, but clearly Taylor is keenly aware of OL inexperience. In his view we need patience and repetition, especially to build confidence in an inexperienced group. There's a long game implication here to his use of patience that does strike me as managing expectations. There was also an interesting insight about balancing doing things to put them in positions to be successful (a coaching to cover up weaknesses/not coaching to the top of the class kind of comment we don't hear a lot of from this staff) with putting them in pressure situations so they can get better. I don't think there's any science to that balance, just trying to optimize for both to the extent you can. What we must avoid is the demoralization and building of bad habits that afflicted our lines from 2003-2006. Our 2023 line should have vastly more experience and recruiting hype than the 2003 line did so I am hopeful we can avoid utter demoralization. Even our 2019 OL avoided that, though they arguably never built up the confidence that needs to be the next step. This is one of the big things facing our program, how Talamaivao and Netter can help build up confidence and make it a progression the next few years. It's a lot to put on first time major college football coaches, but at least they're doing it together and we're devoting manpower and intention to this. By the way, Taylor also had a brief, interesting comment about how we have "some really good pass rushers" to test the OL. We've talked a lot about our OLB group but it's good to get some validation from the head man. Of course, speaking of the mid-2000s, we face the perennial challenge that when one part of our team does well in practice it's going up against another part of our team. We can't really know what we have, including at OLB, until live bullets are flying.

* Taylor was asked about Simi Pale, as a true freshman OL playing with the first team OL in the practices reporters observed leading up to this interview is a quite notable development. Taylor talked about Pale being a "really powerful guy, really tough, picks up on football" and the praise just continued from there with "he's super strong, once he gets his hands on you it's very hard to come off" and "he plays with a great pad level, super explosive, just an awesome kid." As effusive as it gets for a true freshman. One of the stories of the Taylor era so far. The mention of the triple option high school offense was not meant as a compliment but rather by way of explanation that Pale didn't do a lot of pass blocking, which Taylor says Pale has adapted really well to. As I've pointed out previously, Elk Grove ran 92.3 percent of the time Pale's senior year and 89.9 percent of the time Pale's junior year. So yeah, essentially no pass blocking experience. It is very interesting a player like this may be in line to start from the first game of his college career. Actually, it would be historic for even an elite recruit with a ton of pass blocking experience. Walker Little's first start was his third game. Nate Herbig's was his eighth. Andrus Peats' was his 15th. (I believe cracking the lineup as a true sophomore was also the case with Kwame Harris.) Herbig started his eighth game. Ismail Simpson, Jeff Edwards, Alex Fletcher, David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin, David Yankey, and Cameron Fleming started from game one as freshmen but redshirted. Maybe somebody can help me if anybody has ever started earlier than Little. I'm ecstatic to have an apparent stud lineman but do worry a bit that our lack of interior OL quality and depth could rush him. Really need to make sure to avoid the demoralization possibility of playing before you can be effective enough to build confidence. I think about Herbig and how by the time he got rolled in as a true freshman he was ready to be quite competitive. Hopefully Pale is like that even earlier.

* Taylor's initial reaction to the EJ Smith question was to note that getting healthy was the biggest thing and now he looks comfortable and then Taylor talked about how versatile of a position it is and how much information you have to know to combine running, receiving, and blocking....without actually commenting on how Smith is checking those boxes (aside from an aside on receiving that Smith is good with the ball in his hands). It sounded more like an apologia for why Smith isn't favored and/or may not be featured front and center than like any kind of praise of Smith. It would be interesting to have gotten a question about Filkins or about the RB room generally rather than a question on Smith specifically. I continue to think Smith may have to fight Filkins for touches. At a minimum, Taylor strikes me as somebody who thinks Smith has a lot to prove.

* I take Taylor at his word that he's not distracted by the conference realignment drama. I'd like to take him at his word that his coaches and players aren't either, but it certainly can't help. The longer it drags on the worse. Hopefully there's a resolution that finds a power football home very soon.

* The Yurosek praise, especially of Yurosek as a runner, seemed genuine but also a bit removed, acknowledging that a lot of what Taylor knows Yurosek can do comes from tape. I've always viewed Yurosek as more of a gamer than practice guy and do wonder how cautious we may be with our one and only big-time proven playmaker. Feels like a toy Taylor knows he has and won't scuff up too much before taking out of the box before it's time to shine. In terms of TE usage in the offense, Taylor says TE is a brobdingnagian part of the passing game and obviously will always be involved in the run game. That part sounded pretty boilerplate and obligatory. The part about loving that Stanford gets multiple good tight ends sounded like more the real answer, that this is a luxury he isn't so used to. I continue to think that utilizing TEs anywhere close to how Stanford has in recent years (or Utah has after Taylor left) would be a really big adjustment for Taylor that may or may not happen but that Taylor probably will try to adjust to personnel and use TEs more than he's used to. I've done previous in-depth analyses on TE usage and won't repeat that here, but my current operating assumption is that going forward Taylor will use TEs slightly less than Shaw tended to but more than Taylor did at Sacramento State. If anything, 2023 may look more like the personnel usage we're accustomed to because TE is a stronger position for us than WR and presumably that gap will be narrowed or even totally reversed with Taylor's future recruiting.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Roush:

* Roush started off talking about the work they're putting in (though he said Taylor put together a great schedule so the players aren't feeling it too much) and noting with some pride/amazement that they're getting a hundred team reps a practice. I think I'd seen that stat mentioned somewhere but interesting to hear a player say it. Practice reps are a focus, as Taylor said they'd be.

* Roush said that the pace is a lot more comfortable now and that based on muscle memory the players can just see the signal (folks ready for sideline signals more like other teams?) and line up and know what to do instinctively. I certainly hope that is the case. From the Byham interview it's possible Roush is on the more comfortable and instinctive side. He called the offense "pretty intuitive and quick," so that's probably the case he's on the more comfortable side, though he did also cite that Holt had only been there a week or two and was picking it up. I think I'll really believe the offense is second nature once we stop hearing about tempo from our players (in fairness it wasn't Roush who raised it here) and we're hearing it from opponents instead, but for now it's good to hear players sounding like they're getting the knack of it.

* Roush talked about everybody battling for their spots (an echo of how Byham talked about the competition) but how they also want each other to succeed. That's the needle the coaches want to thread in terms of competition, competitive but not combative as they say.

* He said Byham's main points of emphasis are making plays and being consistent, getting the job done in blocking and in the pass concepts. Pretty generic.

* Also very generic answer on the QB competition and all of them battling, and kept to the generic answers even when asked a follow-up on the newer QBs. Not the most expansive answers in general. He must have got that Crash Davis media training from somewhere.

* Opened up a bit when asked about Holt, repeating the praise of Holt's quick pick-up of the playbook and revealing that Holt has gotten in a bit during team reps. Roush said Holt is driven and learning on his own but that Roush is there to help with blocking or anything else and has helped out with footwork.

* Really have to credit Ben's professionalism and slogging through with the interview to break through for some insights, as the next question may have elicited the most interesting response when Roush talked about how in the run game he's focused on calming down and doing his job and not trying to do too much. Listening to this I thought about how at times last year Roush looked frenetic and eager to do something, and then the comment took on even more poignancy after I saw the Byham interview's praise of the work Roush is doing in the run game right now. Putting the interviews together, it sounds like Roush has made strides not only in physical preparation but in terms of having a consistent mentality, which is to calm down before run plays and focus on doing his job and to look to make a big play in the passing game. Hopefully this pays dividends.

* Refused to take the bait on if he has a favorite uniform color, though it's a response near and dear to my heart ("I'm not big into all that"). He did say he supports whatever his teammates want to wear, a reminder that sometimes when college teams wear certain uniforms it's reflective of team preferences.

* All the players are understandably excited about the start of the season but I liked how Roush emphasized that there's still camp left and he's keeping his mindset on that. His coaches will be proud of that answer!

Byham:

* Byham has been the member of Taylor's staff I've been most skeptical about. I didn't see as much appeal from his resume as I did for the others and it was a relatively high bar to improve on the prior position coach given Morgan Turner's track record. I get good vibes from Byham but he doesn't strike me as a detailed technician. For example, it's been nice that Ben has asked the points of emphasis question to so many people, and what both Byham and his TEs said in this and the two player interviews struck me as much more generic (be good at the parts of being a TE) than what we've heard from some other groups. It's the earliest days, but just being honest that Byham has tended to impress me less than his peers. [I swear that I had this view before my wife walked out on the patio and asked who I was watching, saying "he's cute." By the way, yes, good looking dude. What an awful profile picture.] In any case, I've long felt that TE coaches (like RB coaches) need to bring value in recruiting, ideally in addition to their own position group, so a lot of what I will ultimately judge Byham on has yet to be seen. Way too early to cast any negative or positive judgment, just sharing some musings.

* As with all the coaches, unfailingly upbeat assessment of how things are going. I don't know if it's that Taylor hires optimistic sunny people or they see tactical value in putting on a brave face/no upside to being grouches or they are drinking the Kool-Aid and are in for a rude awakening on how far there is to come or we're about to shock the world.

* Byham talked about there being six TEs, all scholarship guys and all competing for a spot. This is confirmation that Hawkins has moved back to TE and that Shield Taylor found a home there following the abolition of the fullback position. This idea of competing for a spot is probably a theme in the TE room as Roush used similar language. I like that sense of competitiveness. Obviously we don't want things to get toxic, but players on a college football team should know that there are limited spots to go around and some players win and some lose when it comes to "spots."

* I found it somewhat interesting that across the three TE room interviews, three names came up (Yurosek, Roush, Holt) and three didn't (Hawkins, Ungar, and Taylor). I don't want to read too much into it but it is something I'm noting. In any coaching transition there will always be some guys coaches like more or less than the previous staff did and that might happen here. Heck, we already know with pretty high certainty that Holt was a guy who didn't clear the football evaluation bar of the previous staff but did with the new staff. Hawkins is a guy I've had high hopes for based on my analysis of him as a prospect and then the early returns last year, but the main data point we have on him so far with the new staff is that they changed his position before aborting that mission. Changing a guy's position is usually not a brobdingnagian vote of confidence in his projection, and then changing it back is definitely not a vote of confidence in the alternative projection. I think it's possible Hawkins was more of a Harbaugh/Shaw era big target and in the Taylor era other skill sets may come to the fore more. We'll see. Not going to give up on a sophomore but I've been surprised to not hear more about Hawkins the last six months. I've never had confidence Ungar can stay healthy/be a football player. Shield Taylor faces an uphill climb to relevance with the new staff.

* Byham talked about mixing a lot of different personnel packages, playing multiple positions, and bumping around across the pass game/pass protection/run game responsibilities. This is always the life of the TE and hearing from a TE coach always has a similar flavor because that versatility is such a hallmark of the position. I may judge Byham a little bit for focusing on the obvious there, but I also may be too harsh because this is what being a TE is and the versatility he makes a point of emphasis is what you'll typically hear from TE coaches. For what it's worth, the watchword in Byham's room is being "problem-solvers."

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

* I noted that "running' is the word both Byham and Taylor in a previous interview used to describe Yurosek. It's both Yurosek's most obvious skill but also it sounds like his injury was such that he wasn't running in the spring. Byham mentioned Yurosek's hips twice, so I wonder if the surgery was in that part of the body. I don't recall anything specific about Yurosek's injury history but it seems like he's usually nursing something in the off-season. Beyond the running, Byham really extolled Yurosek's body control, hands, and concentration. We know Yurosek is a weapon. I'm looking forward to seeing him in Taylor's offense.

* Byham's comments on Roush started with the work Roush has put in and crediting him with having the most reps (because of health) of anyone spanning spring and camp, which suggests to me that there have been health issues in the room. Byham mostly seemed to be commenting in terms of Roush's comfort with the offense. This has been a theme across coaches, highlighting players that do (and sometimes players that don't) stand out in terms of adapting to the new schemes. That's important to them. How much of it is something you focus on when you're installing versus an enduring thing that gives Roush and advantage, we'll see. But the big thing that really stood out in Byham's comments on Roush was the emphasis he gave to saying Roush is competing in the run game. This sounds like a growth area Roush has impressed in (and in the Roush interview there were interesting insights into adjustments he's making mentally). For what it's worth, PFF (and my eyes) did not like Roush at all last year as a receiver or run blocker (he did fine as a pass blocker) so growth is the watch word for him.

* In making the run blocking point, Byham implied it's impressive because of the degree of difficulty going up against our "really great" OLBs (and ILBs, which he added in a way that seemed notable not to exclude them but less front of mind than the OLBs). There was another mention at the end of the interview about wanting to see the TEs continue to battle with the OLBs (and ILBs, said the same way) in the run game, and a comment on the physicality of practice that referenced the way our ILBs come downhill and the way our OLBs set the edge. Taken together, this is another data point that the coaches think the OLBs are good (no surprise) and like the ILBs more than many of us probably feared. Again, we're going up against ourselves and off-season thoughts on a group's quality have been off many times before, but nice to hear the coaches like these groups.

* Byham talked about setting a high standard in the TE room. What I found most interesting is he said we've had great TEs and will continue to bring in great TEs, which he used to say we just brought in another great TE in Holt. That was interesting to get the high praise for Holt totally unsolicited and, frankly, in a context in which it's a bit aggressive to bring him up. It feels to me like Holt looms like an unusually prominent player as far as true freshmen or transfers or 3-star recruits go. He seems like an archetypal (and certainly first TE) Taylor recruit and a Taylor/Byham guy in the sense that Holt is important to what they're building but also in the sense that he literally wouldn't have been here under Shaw/Turner. I don't know if it means anything, but Byham had a bit of a cartoonish googly eye/pouted lips when Ben asked a follow-up on Holt. The tidbit that we had a head start on the transfer machinations because Stanford had the transcripts due to the old staff recruiting Holt is interesting to me because it reinforces my sense Holt was not a Shaw/Turner guy if they had his academic information squared away and still didn't offer. In context the exaggeratedly positive reaction seems like it may be signifying "we wanted another TE and got so lucky one fell in our laps via the transfer portal so late in the year." Perhaps most notably, Byham was extraordinarily detailed in praising Holt's play: said he can really run, looks skinny at 228 pounds and will get big, great hips, great body control, with the body control part the part that jumped out to me as unusual with two detailed blow-by-blow descriptions of catches the day of the interview and the day before). Arrow up on a player for sure when the coach says such nice things two weeks in. Byham said Holt will be a "playmaker" and keep our TE tradition alive. All this another data point in me wondering if maybe Hawkins is on the less favored end of the spectrum if there's a new kid in town the coaches talk about like this.

* Byham said in that discussion that we were looking to bring in a TE. This shouldn't be a shock as we lost two TEs at the end of the 2023 class (though only one immediate matriculator) but I do think it's notable. As I look at the roster, Yurosek seems highly likely to move on to the NFL after this year, Ungar seems wholly undeserving of being asked back for a fifth year, and Taylor could be a possibility for transfer if the lack of true position becomes demoralizing or something the coaches would rather not have on the roster. One would assume we'll likely lose two TEs on the roster. Easy to see hoow getting Holt in this class and Black in the next one could be part of the plan.

* Nice to hear Byham talk about how fun it is to be involved in seeing the offense evolve and how the players are now playing with confidence. This is a big part of what we're hoping to click. Also a fun description at the end (which I already referenced above) on the physical collisions/iron sharpening iron against the OLBs and ILBs. Byham seems pretty struck by the physicality, which I wonder if it's more a function of really notable physicality or his prior frame of reference being Albany.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Yurosek:

* Yurosek talked about camp being competitive, intense, and lots of reps. Sounds familiar.

* Acknowledgement that he's coming back from surgery. One thing I know about college football is many more players have off-season surgery than most fans realize. In the long-ago past years when I either knew a lot of people on the team or was close with player parents the glimpse I got into the number of surgeries was really eye-opening. Yurosek seems like a guy who has always used off-seasons for rehab but everything we're hearing from him and his coaches is that he's fully a go for the fall.

* Looking forward to seeing Yurosek out there in the new offense. As a reminder, aside from Karty Yurosek is the only proven all-conference player on our roster. In addition to Yurosek, the list of Pac-12 WRs or TEs who have had 35+ yards per game receiving on a qualifying amount of playing time two years in a row are Washington's Rome Odunze (first team preseason All-American), Cal's Jeremiah Hunter, Washington's Jalen McMillan, Utah TE Dalton Kincaid (now on the Buffalo Bills), Stanford's Elijah Higgins (now on the Miami Dolphins), USC's Tahj Washington, and Washington State's De'Zhaun Stribling (now on Oklahoma State). Utah TE Brant Kuithe got hurt last year but reached this mark in all three of the years prior to that. It's not a novel thought but Yurosek is the second highest profile TE in the Pac-12.

* Yurosek views the offense as fun and fast-paced (shocker) and seems to have faith in Taylor, referring to the coach's resume and past offensive success.

* Positive words on Deatrick and the level of conditioning, as we hear from everybody.

* It was interesting to hear Yurosek talk about Byham as tough and demanding, as Yurosek says it should be given the expectations for the room. Byham says the same thing about himself but for some reason I'm not sure I totally bought it as our coaches have such an outward sunniness (and some could say softness) to them. This is a reminder that we only see one, carefully presented side. I find it interesting Yurosek sees Byham as tough and demanding, and "very honest" was the other thing mentioned.

* Yurosek says he's been focused on "stance and obviously the run game." For all of Yurosek's receiving exploits, he hasn't quite broken through as a complete TE. According to PFF, among Pac-12 TEs with 100+ blocking snaps Yurosek graded #25 of 27 in run blocking #23 of 27 in pass blocking last year, and the year before #27 of 28 in run blocking and #2 of 28 in pass blocking (interesting outlier). That's a lot of data points of weak blocking. If he can develop that part of the game he becomes a much more complete player. Yurosek also mentioned the importance of connecting with all the QBs, a chemistry point that's certainly important for our most proven offensive weapon, but what was also interesting was that even after saying that Yurosek again repeated that stance and the run game (by the way, I think he may have been saying "stance in the run game" rather than "and") is his main focus. Good to know your weaknesses and work to mitigate, if not correct, them. That being said, we know what Yurosek's strength is and he's not in there for his blocking. Notable that Byham didn't even bother with blocking when talking about Yurosek. When talking about his ability to make contested catches Yurosek came across as the alpha he is as far as the college game goes.

* As I mentioned earlier, the TE interviews mentioned Roush and Holt rather than Hawkins, Ungar, and Taylor. I don't know if that's meaningful but I think it might be. Usually I'd write off the Yurosek interview data point as a function of what he was asked, but Yurosek calling Roush a "special player" who is "doing a great job" as somebody who feels like a third year player because of the early enrollment in 2022 sounded like it may have been notable praise. The most interesting part of this answer, though, was Yurosek saying he hopes there are a lot of two TE sets where they both can be out there. I'm sure that would be win-win from the TE perspective and may also appeal to Yurosek as he'd presumably be more the weapon and Roush more the blocker. I also feel like I detected the slightest edge to the comment, which sounded like a sincere hope rather than a prediction. Like us, he is yet to see game day personnel decisions in action. Taylor talks a lot about how much he likes the ability to use two TEs afforded by Stanford's recruiting, but that's not how Taylor has operated in the past. I wonder if Yurosek and Roush are wondering how many opportunities there truly will be for them to play simultaneously. I've predicted previously in a longer analysis that I predict that anybody hoping for TE usage like 2017 Stanford (34 percent of skill position snaps), 2018 Stanford (37 percent), or 2022 Utah (35 percent) will almost surely be disappointed but I could see Taylor responding to his relatively higher TE quality this year by having a breakdown very similar to what Shawvita did the last three years (23 percent most recently, three year median of 25 percent).

* Some real bite to Yurosek's characterization of the offense compared to Shawvita ("yeah, I think it's a complete 180" with some bite to the tone, and not the first time he has said 180). He elaborated "you can look at, as I said before, (Coach Taylor's) resume and see the difference." This was explicitly a comparison question, Yurosek took it this way, and it's not hard to read between the lines. It's interesting to hear apparent bitterness about Shaw's offense from someone who ate so prodigiously in it, but it's not that shocking when you think about Yurosek as an alpha not getting his due or the team accomplishments he would have wanted because the overall offense was less than the sum of the parts. Our players knew that was the case and while we don't hear "you can look at the resume and see the difference" very often, I am sure a lot of WRs and TEs from recent years think similarly.

* Once he got through making that statement, he noted that a lot of the TE versatility, "split flow" (new one for me, apparently H-back moving in a different direction than the RB to block), and motion from last year is what they're doing again. Maybe TE has less fundamental differences than WR. I wonder if the optionality of the route tree Osborne has talked about applies to TEs too. Given Yurosek's role as our leading weapon I'd kind of assume/hope so. After all that, Yurosek said the main difference from last year is....fast pace. I swear, after everything we're hearing if we don't break 75 offensive plays per game I'm going to feel misled.

* Yurosek had nice things to say about Holt, but it was mostly about how crazy it is to come so late in the year and how well Holt has handled that.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

* Most interesting saved for near the end, Yurosek's impressions on defensive individuals. At safety he highlighted Gilman, Porter, and Edwards, which is a really interesting omission of Wyrick. It seems to me we actually haven't heard a ton about Wyrick (though I haven't watched the safety room interviews yet so watch this be speaking too soon). Because of Wyrick's solid 2021 I've assumed he has to be penciled in on the starting defense, but we should keep in mind safety is a different position than nickel (and maybe there's legitimate competition involving Wyrick at nickel). Plus, of course, players rise and fall with new coaches. Anyway, looking forward to consuming those safety data points. In the front seven, Bernadel, Sinclair, Bailey, and Keneley got mention as "great reps." I am finding the buzz around ILBs somewhat thrilling. The coaches and players seem to like that duo much more than I would have imagined and now Yurosek shouts out them out. It would be great if Anderson scheme and ILB coaches were so horrendous that we immediately get good ILB play. Bailey and Keneley we would have expected but it's nice to hear. In a camp of Tafiti buzz and Bailey questions, this is perhaps a corrective that Bailey is still a (or at least a potential) dude.

RE: Starting QB? - SkiBum80 - 08-23-2023

Thanks msqueri for great notes and analysis.
As alumnus and football fan I remain convinced Coach TT and Co were a great hire for us.
And I remain optimistic, somewhere between cautiously and wildly, that this will be a better season than the recent past.
What will constitute better is not necessarily wins, though they are far better than performance ribbons.
It will be competitiveness.
Feeling competitive.
It's not entirely objective.
I know what it isn't.
It is not getting only 5 or 10 minutes into a game and thinking "there is no way we will win this game".

RE: Starting QB? - Maple Leaf - 08-23-2023

Bob Whitfield (sp) started the first game of his freshman season (Denny Green's first year as head coach).

RE: Starting QB? - terry - 08-23-2023

Epic series of posts! Great info!

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-23-2023

Gregory:

* This is the terse, crusty ol' ball coach vibe I'm used to with Gregory, right from the first answer of saying camp is about teaching fundamentals and scheme and figuring out who can do what and who needs to get better at certain things, and then giving just a brief, almost grudging answer on how camp is going ("we're hanging in there, we're doing pretty good"). Still, as with prior interviews, the substance of how he says we're doing is positive.

* He says we have some of the best specialists in our league, which I hope is an understatement. We know Karty is reputed to be the best kicker in America. It's interesting he said we have "outstanding long snappers, Bailey Parsons being one of them" as it's kind of unusual to have mention of more than one long snapper (the others are Chavez and, interestingly, Northwestern transfer Warford) or to have as many as we have. Most newsmaking, though not surprising, is crowning Weselman the punter. I think we all penciled that in, but Flintoft was a good recruit too. Gregory says he feels really good about our specialists. Given all the scholarships we expend, the academic profiles of specialists generally, and other factors, this should be a major advantage.

* I would really like for Karty to have an awesome year. I was peeved the Niners drafted Moody because we've been fortunate enough to see what the cream of the crop actually looks like. I'd love for Karty to win the Groza Award this year. Some have speculated that Taylor may not be a kicker friendly coach, but I don't know that will be the case. It's interesting that Taylor's two years at Utah were the two sublime years of one of the best kickers in Pac-12 history, Matt Gay, though decisions on letting Gay kick were presumably Whittingham's. I hope we get in field goal range enough to let Karty eat. Watching him kick long ones and go for records/awards could be pretty high on our list of excitement for the year. Didn't love Gregory talking about feeling pretty good about getting three points if you don't score in the red zone and the ball being put where you want it on kickoff....coach, we're talking about much more than 37 yards range and much more of a weapon than neutralizing kick returns! I partly jest, but it was an odd comment for the best kicker in the country and part of me still does wonder if Karty may not be in a situation to be showcased. Gregory did say Karty is as good of a kicker as he's ever been around, so that's nice. I'm aware of Gregory coaching one NFL kicker, Tristan Vizcaino, who bounced around the NFL for a few years and made a handful of field goals but was nowhere near the college kicker or pro prospect Karty is.

* Gregory wasn't very verbose (never is) but reiterated that he thinks Weselman will be one of the top in the league. Sanborn was generally regarded as one of the best in the league too (PFF ranked Sanborn the #8 punter in the country last year after being #13 the year before) but in looking at our net punting and in tracking Sanborn situationally I thought he was competent but not dominant. Considering Weselman was a big recruit and has had a few years to develop his strength and technique, I'm pretty optimistic. With the offense expected to be as bad as it is, the punting game will be very important for us.

* Gregory is consistent when talking about points of emphasis for safeties, saying in both this interview and the spring one I watched that we have to be physical. He also have to be assignment and mistake free and that we're heading in that direction. It comes through that he's more of a defensive coach generally than a safeties coach specifically. I wonder if that could have both benefits and potential drawbacks for us. He was an awfully good coordinator at Cal and has a ton of experience that is a nice perspective to have on the staff, but he hasn't coached safeties in almost a quarter of a century. It's an interesting fit there.

* Very generic answer about technique and fundamentals being key on special teams. As I've said before, we'll see if the decision to have special teams coordinated by a position coach rather than a dedicated coordinator hurts special teams but I'm thrilled we're finally dividing DBs into two groups. As for special teams, in the five years he coordinated Washington's special teams, the Huskies were top 22 in Special Teams FEI three times (though oddly 120th or worse the other two times). Petersen's teams had great special teams before Gregory had that role, but that also indicates that somebody from this tree/pedigree understands the importance of special teams and has been deeply involved in a culture that nourishes it. It's an open question for me whether Stanford's special teams sustain/improve upon/regress from the level in recent years. Alamar had some great years but we seemed to be regressing in the later years aside from standout individuals when we had Bailey punting or Karty kicking.

* I've noticed that Gregory is very straightforward, more than any other coach, about the depth chart. No exception here: he outright named Gilman and Wyrick as starters. This was in the context of being asked about Gilman and Porter, so while Gregory said Porter is making strides, the thrust of the comment was unmistakably to say Porter is behind clear starters. He said we feel pretty good about our safeties. On paper it seems like a mediocre position, but let's see what Gilman and Wyrick are ready to do in this defense.

* Gregory says he likes all the things you get to do in this scheme - zone, man, pressure, make a lot of checks. I'm not sure how this differs from defenses generally. It kind of sounded like a generic "I like defense" answer. That being said, we've heard from others about pressure and it is certainly possible there are things about this defense that will be dynamic and fun to coach.

* He says Williams is as good of a coach as he's been around, which is very high praise considering the quality of Cal, Boise State, and Washington defenses over the years. I think in particular about Washington's DB play in the late 2010s and the work Jimmy Lake did there. Gregory talked about what a good secondary coach Williams is in general (i.e., safeties too) and how he's learning from Williams every day. This is something I've thought about, that it's possible Williams is a better corners and safeties coach than Gregory. But my view is that the specialization and attention you get by breaking up the DBs is well worth it. Both Williams and Gregory when asked about this hit on the same thing and I agree with them it's key - you can be so much more detailed when you split corners and safeties, and with today's offenses' complexity that is a benefit.

* Said the same thing about April, "as good of a coach as I've been around." The repetition of the compliment does somewhat lessen its credibility. Still, we've heard all the defensive coaches say glowing things about each other. At the very least, they think they have a great staff. Gregory's compliments for April were specific - really smart, very energetic, holds everybody accountable (coaches, staff, team) - and he called April a rising star. From one good former defensive coordinator's lips to God's ears in terms of this testimonial on what we hope April can be as a coordinator.

* Interesting to hear him talk about how it's about the journey and the process and that being the fun of coaching. I think Taylor seeks out and attracts coaches like this. They all seem to want to take it one step of the process at a time and eventually be proud of the progress but really the point is the journey. Fans will of course want tangible results but I like this mentality. Certainly it's a consistent mentality across our staff.

RE: Starting QB? - Spiny_Norman - 08-24-2023

Thanks for all of the great reports, Matt! I guess I should have said that I have seen next to nothing of substance from Stanford's official social media channels about developments in fall camp. They are doing little to generate buzz for the season. Really appreciate learning about Ben Parker's interviews. It's great to hear from the athletes and coaches directly.

RE: Starting QB? - cardcrimson - 08-24-2023

(08-24-2023, 08:10 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I guess I should have said that I have seen next to nothing of substance from Stanford's official social media channels about developments in fall camp. They are doing little to generate buzz for the season.

When, in the last decade or so, have they done anything to generate buzz? They had three deserving H-man candidates and did little to generate buzz around them. Rose Bowl teams, too. At least we can't blame Shaw for this, can we? They must not teach marketing at the GSB.

RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-24-2023

(08-24-2023, 08:10 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Thanks for all of the great reports, Matt! I guess I should have said that I have seen next to nothing of substance from Stanford's official social media channels about developments in fall camp. They are doing little to generate buzz for the season. Really appreciate learning about Ben Parker's interviews. It's great to hear from the athletes and coaches directly.

Yes, you're right about that. It's been pretty pathetic by major program standards. As just one example, the college football season starts in two days and Stanford's season starts in eight days and it appears we still don't have an updated, accurate official roster. What I will give Taylor/SID credit for is allowing all of these post practice interviews. That's kind of a bare minimum, but there appear to be no limitations on players or coaches to interview. But practices are still closed aside from small media windows.

I do have some sympathy for anybody responsible for marketing Stanford football. Only so much blood you can squeeze out of a turnip. We simply don't have very many fans or that many people who care about us. ESPN's lack of coverage for us and the official Stanford efforts getting so little traction aren't due to bias or incompetence (or at least not largely so) but because the demand signal is so low.

RE: Starting QB? - fullmetal - 08-24-2023

Matt, thanks for the amazing write-ups full of detail, context, and insight. Great way to stoke the excitement before the last season of Pac-12 Power 5 football.

RE: Starting QB? - qwerty49 - 08-24-2023

Matt, you rock as usual and those of us who don’t visit the other boards are grateful.

On one hand, the implication that we might not get to see Karty kick much concerns me. He might be one of the best PKs in the nation.

OTOH that means TT is going to go for it on 4th down a bit. So maybe more exciting.