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)
+- 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)
RE: Starting QB? - midnight21 - 08-24-2023
This is incredible detail- thank you, Matt! I'm all for fiery QBs and swaggy CBs. Let the season begin!
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-24-2023
Porter:
* Something I'm interested by is that Stanford has five DBs who've had 99+ (Manley's exact number in the COVID-shortened year, would have been misleading to exclude it) snaps in a season - Gilman in both 2022 and 2021, Manley in both 2021 and 2020, Porter in 2022, Wyrick and Slocum in 2021 - and three of them are playing different positions than where they broke through for playing time under the prior staff. Slocum and Porter switched - Slocum had been a safety and is now a corner/nickel whereas Porter had been a corner but is now a safety (or at least Porter played corner in games...he was listed as a safety on the roster). Wyrick started extensively as our nickel in his true freshman year but now is a safety. Akina didn't fall off a turnip truck so these kind of moves aren't things where you'd automatically assume they're improvements just because the new staff did it, but hopefully we're putting people in the right roles. Seems like an unusual, or at least an interesting, amount of flips among these guys, who appear to be five of our six top DBs going into the season.
* Since Porter is at a different position than last year and with a different coaching staff, I hesitate to put much stock into last year. He effectively rode pine for two and three quarters seasons before being forced into action for the last three games last year. In PFF's views, he was mediocre against Utah in 42 snaps, good against Cal in 18 snaps, and horrific against BYU in 34 snaps. Again, this was as a corner and we have him at safety this year. It must feel like a new page for him in several respects. I don't know how much he'll play against Hawaii (Gregory made it pretty clear Porter was behind Gilman and Wyrick and it's dicey whether we can even get to garbage time against anybody this year) but it would be nice for Porter to get some opportunities to wipe the taste of the BYU game out of his mouth. PFF blamed Porter for missing three tackles in that game, quite a feat of incompetence for a then CB. PFF didn't think Porter missed any tackles in the other games, so hopefully BYU was just a horrible nightmare and not a sign of tackling problems for one of our top backups.
* A somewhat unusual note to start this interview with Porter talking about the team getting off to a little bit of slow start in camp getting ready to practice and play football as a team together. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe it was just a quirk in the way he framed the progress story arc that was his main point and similar to what everybody says. Maybe as one of the relatively few veteran guys on the team he is a bit more wizened and wasn't going to be overly impressed by the initial energy and didn't think the first days of camp were anything to write home about. Maybe we hadn't heard the whole story until now and camp hasn't been all sunshine and rainbows. Probably not an important data point, just interesting to hear a different kind of comment.
* Porter said it's funny now being the oldest. I get what he's saying and this is a common theme for players once they get to the fourth year like Porter. Frankly, it's especially a common theme for players like Porter who have had more of a grind and less significant of a playing career, as performance builds leadership credibility and it therefore doesn't feel as weird to most starters to find themselves the old guy. So it's a common and understandable sentiment. Still, him talking about being the oldest did make me think that Gilman has been around exactly as long (and played a lot more and is always mentioned by coaches so would presumably be far more likely to be a team leader) and while Edwards has been around only half as long he was the same high school class as Gilman and Porter if we're talking about age.
* Speaking of age, something to watch across the whole roster is retention/attrition following this season. Based on scholarship math I'd assume Porter and Gilman are pretty good candidates to be gone after this year. Way too early to say who will be back and what that means for the safety room, just a dynamic to watch I was thinking about as Porter talked about being the oldest.
* Porter talked about being a tight-knit bunch. This is something we hear from a lot of players but what was different here was saying they always have been and crediting the guys who came before, especially Jon McGill. This is at least the second time this camp a player has shouted McGill out unprompted. Given he was our team captain that's not all that surprising but did register with me as an interesting shout out. We've heard some apparent resentment from players about the guys who left (how nuts is it that college athletics this year have four 2022 Stanford captains playing elsewhere - McGill at SMU, Nugent at Michigan, Damuni at Utah, and Miezan at Virginia lacrosse), but it's never the DBs. They worship McGill.
* Fun to get a glimpse into the social life and bonding of the players. I was interested to hear him talk about hanging out at the dorms. I wonder if that is a summer reference or if things have changed a lot since my days. It used to be that by the time players got anywhere near Porter's point they were living off campus with other players. I'm sure renting hasn't gotten any easier over time, so maybe more players live on campus now? Of course the main fun exchange was on the FIFA video game competition (Filkins and Uke apparently the best). Really fun they set up a World Cup style bracket for that.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-24-2023
* Porter praised Gregory and cited being a defensive coordinator at Washington as a credential showing what a good coach Gregory is. That made me feel old. Gregory was only DC at Washington for one year. It was what Gregory was doing at Cal when Porter was a toddler that was really impressive. But of course I get why recent experience for such a good recent defense as Washington will be the salient point in Porter's mind and why he wouldn't get caught up on a detail like Gregory being DC one of the eight years there.
* On points of emphasis from Gregory, it's toughness, physicality, being sure tacklers, and making plays. Always noteworthy when Ben asks a coach and one of his players the same question and they answer the same, in this case physicality. I do wonder if Gregory is built more for coaching the tackling part of safety than for coaching the coverage part. That's what his resume and the interviews so far would suggest to me.
* Another thought I have is that emphasizing physicality and the other things Porter mentioned may be Gregory trying to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers. To be polite, our safety room lacks athleticism. Wyrick had the slowest 200 meters and 110 meter hurdles I've ever recorded among Stanford players. Every track time I saw for Gilman was abysmal, including one I want to refuse to believe is now starting at DB for Stanford, a 12.06 100. The one track mark I have for Porter was a heinous 18' 8.5" long jump that among all Stanford players I've ever tracked only beat out a linebacker and a kicker. We are challenged in the back end. I am trying to put on a brave face about this because our coaches are, but my guess is the coaches know they have to play with the cards that are dealt to them and they have to make the most of this group until they can get better guys in via recruiting. Our lot in the back end this year may be massive vulnerability but at least we can try to coach up toughness, physicality, and sure tackling. The problem with that is that our guys are slow and unathletic but they're also tiny: 5'9" 194 for Gilman and 5'10" 183 for Wyrick (and remember roster heights and weights are always inflated rather than understated). It really would be pretty shocking if our safeties aren't a liability.
* Porter says the defense is a lot more Cover 3 and not as much quarter quarter half (new term for me....evidently combo of Cover 2 and Cover 4). I don't know much scheme but as I understand it Cover 3 is seen as more conducive to guarding against the deep ball (because the deep guys get to divide into thirds rather than halves or in the case of quarter quarter half one guy taking half and the other two dividing half the field) and is also a run defense-friendly alignment because it allows for a heavy front. Considering what we know about our safeties' lack of speed, it makes sense we'd try to protect them with more deep coverage. Considering what we know about the Wisconsin defense and stopping the run, it makes sense that there would be coverages that facilitate run defense. Just giving this a moment's of thought, it seems plausible to me that Cover 3 would make sense given our personnel. That being said, I don't feel like we know enough to say what things are likely to look like this fall (and to be honest I'll need somebody else to tell me if patterns do emerge). We've mostly heard from other DBs and coaches about the variety of coverages rather than Cover 3 above others, and Porter's comment somewhat contradicts Manley saying the new defense "is kind of the same in terms of Cover 3/man" (which Wright made a similar point). But I do note Manley mentioned Cover 3 twice and Wright also mentioned Cover 3, so maybe we have an insight here. In closing the answer, Porter talked about there being a lot of variations on Cover 3 and single high safety looks. As I understand it single high safety is Cover 1. So maybe this isn't that divergent from Manley and Wright. Maybe it's just not as much Cover 2 as they suggested? As I go down this rabbit hole I can feel myself overthinking this. Maybe somebody can tell me what it looks like against Hawaii....and then maybe it will look different against USC.
* However best to characterize the coverage schemes, Porter said it's been great because the defense is sending pressure every chance they can get, which is nice because it gives safeties less time to cover. Chalk up another data point to pressure.
* Porter says it's been difficult to defend our quarterbacks' deep balls. Per my above reflections on the athleticism limitations in the safety room, I think this is going to be a vulnerability this year. But as with all practice reflections, failure by one group is success by the other (and vice versa), so we can hope this is saying nice things about the QB deep balls.
* Didn't bite on "quarterback of the defense" and said guys at all levels of the defense are making calls. I do wonder if this is truly spread out in the April defense, which we've heard relies heavily on communication, or if responsibilities are concentrated in a few guys. From the way coaches and Porter now talk about it it kind of seems to me like a lot of guys have to be able to make calls. Where Porter really wanted to take this question was in talking about safeties being the last line of defense. One notable comment was that because safeties are the last line of defense they have to make sure they don't have mental busts/errors/missed assignments, an echo of Gregory.
* Porter talked about how he feels everybody on the team is getting antsy and want to get out there and play somebody else rather than ourselves. I'm getting this sense too. I'm sure it happens with all teams at this part of the calendar. But I do wonder if there's an additional element in a rebuild of wanting to get out there and show the world they don't know the real you, and, a bit more pessimistically, an element of wanting to get out there and see if all the enthusiasm and energy from recent months amounts to something. Taylor talks about legitimate confidence and I think it's such an important phrase to understand a rebuild. Right now none of our confidence is legitimate. They haven't earned it yet. Last time they were on a football field when it counted they were getting embarrassed. I bet our players are indeed antsy to prove the world wrong....and to see where they are.
* I'm usually not one to be all "oooh oooh look at our players' academics" but how can you not with a Bioengineering major who can talk about his lab experience engineering E. coli to detect staph? It looks like Porter made the honor roll two years ago and not last year, but there's no way I would have gotten good grades in this.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-24-2023
Gilman:
* I know we've seen a lot of Gilman the last two years (not a lot of players on our team with 500+ snaps) and can also see his listed size on the roster, but man is he small. Just kind of jarring after watching all these interviews with others. As I've talked about previously and don't need to belabor, it's an alarming combination of being tiny with being slow. The coaches talk him up so I very much hope he can punch above his weight. His brother, of course, famously did so at Notre Dame and now with the Chargers. I'd really like it if Gilman emerges as a player I've written off too readily and has a great year.
* That being said, my profound pessimism doesn't come out of thin air. Last year, among 200+ snap Pac-12 safeties Gilman graded #29 of 32. The year before it was #39 of 40. And safety is not a position where one typically sees big year-to-year jumps. I think Gilman is maybe a Pac-12 backup/Group of Five level safety who happens to play on a team with no other options. What I've been hoping for is that somebody like Leigber would prove better, but apparently not. At this point our greatest hope probably lies in the true freshman Ojarikre, but I don't know how much hope we should put in that either. Realistically, for 2023 I think Gilman is one of our key players and we just have to ride or die with that. When people around the program talk there is really no doubt Gilman is not only a starter for us but a leader on the defense. I just have to hope he's better than I fear. What I really think is we just don't have anybody else.
* Similar comments on camp as what we hear from everybody, didn't feel like there was particular new insight.
* Another person really touting April's football IQ ("mastermind" in Gilman's words). I just hope the football mind dials up the right things as he gets used to coordinating a defense for the first time. I really didn't think Lance Anderson showed that he knew what he was doing and I think there's a real chance a Rex Ryan/Jim Leonhard protege understands defensive football a lot better. But it will be anxious until we actually start seeing this new defense in action (and probably even then! Offense isn't going to make it easy on them)
* It's nice to hear about April knowing how to put guys in position. I ruminated on this a lot in my reactions to the Porter interview and it seems to me like alignments and calls could play a big role in both melding our personnel with the Wisconsin defense and in showcasing our strengths/mitigating our weaknesses. I seriously doubt our safeties are as negative on themselves as I am on them, but when I hear Porter talk about how pressure lets them cover for less time or Gilman talk about putting guys in position, I hear a little bit of self-awareness that coaching matters. In their experience, bad defensive coaching exposed them and, hopefully, good defensive coaching will hopefully protect them.
* There were comments near the end of the Porter interview about playing free that as I was listening I could tell were potentially interesting but I didn't have anything in particular to say about it. Now in this Gilman interview we get a very similar comment but with some additional explanation, namely that the defense is now less of an eye movement game and more of a feel game where players can make checks based on what they're seeing and feeling. Those who've read my analyses for years know my hobby horse (bete noire, really) that defense under Anderson required too much post-snap reads and decision-making and was deeply antithetical to just letting guys play. I'm hoping I'm not hearing what I want to hear from Gilman and over-reacting to this but it sounds like the best explanation I've heard yet of not just that the defenders will be able to play fast and free but why that will be the case. All fingers and toes crossed. Notably, Gilman says that the feel game fits the way he plays better than the eye movement game, so this could also be a legitimate reason to think the new staff is poised to unlock something in Gilman that looks different than the very bad results I talked about above. Fingers crossed on that too.
* Like Porter, Gilman talked about playing a lot of Cover 3. I tied myself in pretzels on that analysis in the last post, so just want to note the data point on more Cover 3. Gilman did say there's a lot of man coverage too, an echo of the corners talking about multiple coverages, and he said he's working on his man coverage as well as getting more range out of the post to help the corners (I imagine here range is challenged by athletic limitations....exactly what I was talking about in the Porter reactions about our vulnerability to the deep ball).
* When asked about balancing coverage with run defense, he said there are keys to pick up "especially against our offense." This kind of worries me. You spend all year practicing against your own offense and it seems natural to me that the defense would gear itself to stopping the offense it practices against. That could even mean developing shortcuts ("keys") designed around the tells and tendencies you see from your own offense. Maybe in some senses that can help against other offenses, but it seems to me that it could also be a crutch to "compete" in practice but not necessarily be transferrable against other offenses.
* Gilman talks about the coaches giving them as much information as possible to let them play fast. Ahhh, the tension I can never get my head around. Maybe I have too neanderthal a view of defense, but it has always seemed to me like fewer keys and less "information" the more you can react and just go. I'm sure in the real world it's a balance of providing information without leading to paralysis by analysis, but I do get nervous whenever I hear about "as much information as possible."
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-24-2023
* Gilman mentioned facing the tight ends a lot, especially in the nickel package. I assume this is because in the base defense it would be an OLB handling the TE coverage responsibility more. He called Yurosek a "monster" but also shouted out Roush and Hawkins (finally a mention). When he said "those guys inside there" it made me wonder if maybe, in the main, Yurosek is outside and Roush and Hawkins play in-line. It's also possible he was saying "those guys inside" about the TE position generally, but I think this may have been a tell that Yurosek is mainly split out whereas Roush and Hawkins are options at the traditional Y TE position.
* Humphreys got a shout out as a receiver who always shows up inside. We know Humphreys is Mr. Reliability, relatively speaking, so that's not a big shock. In terms of the "inside' reference I suppose I'm a bit confused, or at least unsure, on what receivers will be lining up where. Really interesting shout out to Jason Thompson. He struck me as one of the best walk-ons of all-time and then as a true freshman got thrust into punt return duties and looked like a total disaster, and then this off-season I've been waiting for indications that maybe as a receiver he has real opportunity in this new offense but have heard no buzz at all. As far as I know he is still not on scholarship despite his very scholarship-worthy high school profile. So to hear about him was very interesting to me. I won't overreact because it's the first I'm hearing of Thompson this off-season, but noting it.
* I've made myself very clear on the two DB coaching model. It's good! More time to work with players and not act like different positions are the same position!
* Taylor is "kind of a guy you can just walk up into his offense and chat with." Yep. No more of the imperial head coach. There are lots of models that work in college football, but I'm happy to try one where the head coach is approachable and makes the players feel loved. You can tell how much Shaw turned into the emperor removed from the hoi polloi. Minor but fun how much the players like Taylor singing/rapping/nodding along to the practice field music. Goofiness and levity can connect. Also an interesting parting comment about how Taylor "wants to win now." Maybe a sense Shaw didn't have urgency/ambition?
* It is so neat that Gilman gets to play at home in Hawaii. Really very special. (By the way, he talked about it as "starting the end of my college career back at home" so I think I was right in my post on the Porter interview that there's a very good chance this is Gilman's last year) I hope he has a game to really remember. Rooting for him hard in this one.
* Very fun questions Ben asks to close interviews on random personality things, in this case favorite music. Made me feel old hearing about Usher and Chris Brown as old soul kind of R&B, but of course I know they are, and Gilman showed reverence to the true oldies with Luther Vandross. Not sure about any of that as pregame music but I kind of dug the talk about local Hawaii reggae and how he's not bouncing off the walls but pretty chill. I've seen some good chill (and also some good head-banging) safeties, hope the music gets him playing to his best abilities this fall.
RE: Starting QB? - Stanfordindians1again - 08-25-2023
msqueri for president. Anyone with takes like that and great analysis could do our country some good :)
RE: Starting QB? - Spiny_Norman - 08-25-2023
Back to the original question that started this thread - if Lamson ends up as the starter for Stanford and depending on the outcome of UCLA's QB race, all 12 of the P12 starting QBs could be transfers. It should make news when a recruited QB actually starts.
Btw, Lamson will be wearing #8. I think we all remember the most recent QB to wear that jersey. He was the winningest QB in Stanford history.
RE: Starting QB? - OutsiderFan - 08-25-2023
Just watched Ben Parker's interview of Troy Taylor. BTW, he really needs more than 70 subscribers. And people wonder why Stanford Football has so little value. Anyway...
When asked if more than one QB could play in the opener, his response was "sure." He didn't make it out to be any sort of big deal that two guys would play. I like the relaxed nature of his answer and the seeming flexibility it conveyed about him. The trait that drove most of us so mad about Shaw was how rigid and stubborn he was. Taylor does not seem to be someone who will be too rigid and stubborn.
https://youtu.be/llOtVjy3Rvg?si=zibGeHCGPHnp-IOn
RE: Starting QB? - murky - 08-25-2023
You weren't lying about the volume on these analyses. Thank you for sharing here Matt, I see how out of touch I am by how unfamiliar I am even with the names of not only coaches, but players.
Of the 2 subscription sites, which would you recommend from a former long time Bootboarder.
I'm interested into insights about our players, team, coaching and to a lesser extent, recruiting. I don't really care about other teams other than the ones we are going to play.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-25-2023
(08-25-2023, 11:03 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Back to the original question that started this thread - if Lamson ends up as the starter for Stanford and depending on the outcome of UCLA's QB race, all 12 of the P12 starting QBs could be transfers. It should make news when a recruited QB actually starts.
Btw, Lamson will be wearing #8. I think we all remember the most recent QB to wear that jersey. He was the winningest QB in Stanford history.
Rashada is starting for Arizona State so there's a recruited guy (albeit one with a quintessential NIL era dramatic recruitment). [We probably don't talk enough about how Dillingham's wildly high beta approach/fit, coupled with Pyne getting hurt and Rashada starting, makes Arizona State a legitimate contender to beat us out for the conference basement. Legitimate four team race.] As you mention, Moore is a possibility at UCLA.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-25-2023
(08-25-2023, 11:04 AM)murky Wrote: You weren't lying about the volume on these analyses. Thank you for sharing here Matt, I see how out of touch I am by how unfamiliar I am even with the names of not only coaches, but players.
Of the 2 subscription sites, which would you recommend from a former long time Bootboarder.
I'm interested into insights about our players, team, coaching and to a lesser extent, recruiting. I don't really care about other teams other than the ones we are going to play.
For what you're looking for, I'd probably say Cardinal Sports Report (Rivals). I also like that it's one message board rather than a bunch of forums. It's enough for me to go to multiple sites, multiple forums within a site is too much for a school with communities/discussion as small as Stanford (to be honest I don't even visit the basketball board on 247, despite some excellent commentary, because I forget about it). I also like the layout/interface/search function on Rivals better. But they each have their pros and cons. 247 (formerly the Bootleg) has the best football practice/injury/etc. reports and the best network for recruiting coverage, though On3 is quickly gaining on that front. Cardinal Sports Report covers a range of sports and has good interviews, as well as somewhat more robust discussion.
I'll be blunt and immodest about what you are looking for: aside from the practice reports on 247 and interviews by the two sites, insights about our players, team, coaching, and recruiting come more from obsessive super fans like me and SamuelMcF and a handful of others on the two sites much more than from the site publishers. We're no longer in an era where site publishers cultivated deep sources and original reporting/scoops. Jackson at 247 probably comes the closest. One can hope that over time both he and Ben at Rivals can improve their networks, access to the Taylor staff, chops/instincts, etc.
Bottom line is Jackson reports on practices unlike anybody out there, Ben has a knack for interviews, all message boards have pros and cons, and to the extent what you're looking for is a community with a range of insightful voices on football Cardinal Sports Report may have the lead right now.
RE: Starting QB? - murky - 08-25-2023
(08-25-2023, 12:07 PM)msqueri Wrote:(08-25-2023, 11:04 AM)murky Wrote: You weren't lying about the volume on these analyses. Thank you for sharing here Matt, I see how out of touch I am by how unfamiliar I am even with the names of not only coaches, but players.
Of the 2 subscription sites, which would you recommend from a former long time Bootboarder.
I'm interested into insights about our players, team, coaching and to a lesser extent, recruiting. I don't really care about other teams other than the ones we are going to play.
For what you're looking for, I'd probably say Cardinal Sports Report (Rivals). I also like that it's one message board rather than a bunch of forums. It's enough for me to go to multiple sites, multiple forums within a site is too much for a school with communities/discussion as small as Stanford (to be honest I don't even visit the basketball board on 247, despite some excellent commentary, because I forget about it). I also like the layout/interface/search function on Rivals better. But they each have their pros and cons. 247 (formerly the Bootleg) has the best football practice/injury/etc. reports and the best network for recruiting coverage, though On3 is quickly gaining on that front. Cardinal Sports Report covers a range of sports and has good interviews, as well as somewhat more robust discussion.
I'll be blunt and immodest about what you are looking for: aside from the practice reports on 247 and interviews by the two sites, insights about our players, team, coaching, and recruiting come more from obsessive super fans like me and SamuelMcF and a handful of others on the two sites much more than from the site publishers. We're no longer in an era where site publishers cultivated deep sources and original reporting/scoops. Jackson at 247 probably comes the closest. One can hope that over time both he and Ben at Rivals can improve their networks, access to the Taylor staff, chops/instincts, etc.
Bottom line is Jackson reports on practices unlike anybody out there, Ben has a knack for interviews, all message boards have pros and cons, and to the extent what you're looking for is a community with a range of insightful voices on football Cardinal Sports Report may have the lead right now.
Thanks, I really appreciate the inside scoop. And what you say rings true from my experience at the Bootleg. It was about the members, and the last straw for me was when they killed the IMs with no way to recover the history. Even at its height, it was much more about the community contributions for me.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-26-2023
Lamson:
* The interview started with indication Lamson is of course happy to be back closer to home and his family and then near the end he reflected on his time at Syracuse. By all indications he seemed to enjoy his time at Syracuse, though the tone in this interview was more about learning about football and living on his own and not so gushing about Syracuse itself, though I've heard positive things about Syracuse in other interviews. I view this transfer as just too good an opportunity to pass up when it came to a slightly easier path to playing time, being closer to home, and getting the Stanford degree. Does not appear to have any bad thoughts about his Syracuse experience. In fact, this is a reminder that in this day and age of transfers outbound transfers don't necessarily indicate any dissatisfaction at all. It's a brave new world of low barriers to transfer, more cavalierly jumping around for slightly greener grass, low judgment for doing so, etc. This is going to be hard for Taylor to navigate but I hope he does it better than Shaw's "go forth, young man" blithe resignation to mass attrition.
* I think this is probably the most detail we've gotten on the arc of Lamson's relationship with Taylor - knowing who Taylor was basically from the cradle due to being a Sacramento legend/Folsom coach, working with him (presumably some kind of camp type event) at a super young age, being recruited to Sacramento State by the whole staff there. The main takeaway is just Lamson being happy to play for Taylor (duh). It goes without saying that the relationship and efficacy of Taylor-QB interactions will be one of the defining things for the program, for better or worse but Taylor's QB track record to date creates a good amount of confidence.
* Lamson talked about it being humbling to be the new guy, like being a freshman again, but said it's been really cool how accepting the guys are. More acknowledgement, which we'd already heard from Taylor, of an adjustment/getting to know you phase. Work in progress/transition vibes, which isn't a surprise at this stage. It does feel to me like Taylor and Lamson have both been waiting for something to click and are just putting in work, knowing that it's a process and we need to be patient. [By the way, Lamson gives very crisp, minimally revealing answers generally so there's a risk of over-interpretation on my end, but I am reacting to multiple data points, including multiple interviews with Lamson.]
* I really appreciated getting a chance to hear this interview with Lamson being so recent as I do think he opened up a bit more and was more confident to provide insights than some past interviews I've heard. One example is talking about the offense, which he describes as diverse and having a lot of 12 (two tight end), 11 (three receivers), 21 (two running backs), "anything you can imagine" in terms of personnel. I think this is the first I've heard that sentiment. One downside of how dominant a story the offense's pace has been is that other interviews aren't really shedding light on the what of the offense, just the how fast. Here we at least heard about some personnel alignments. It wasn't earth-shattering stuff as obviously we run different personnel alignments and that's hardly a style/personality to an offense, but to the extent I'm wondering how much 12 there will be it's interesting Lamson mentioned that first and 21 personnel is a bit surprising in light of not having a fullback. I wonder if this means a TE lined up out of the backfield (I'm sure it means this at least some of the time) or, intriguingly, some plays with two running backs on the field at the same time. I don't know if others recall what it looked like at Sacramento State, but when I look at snap counts for the Hornets it looks possible to me that there would be plays with two running backs on the field. In 2021 Taylor had four RBs with significant snaps and in 2022 the main RBs were seventh and 13th on the offense in snaps. Both of those data points seem like a lot of RB snaps to me. I'm hard-pressed to think of Stanford doling out RB snaps like that. The closest I can think of is 2016 with McCaffrey sixth on the offense in snaps and Love 15th. I think there's a pretty fair chance we see more RB snaps under Taylor, including plays with Filkins and Smith on the field simultaneously.
* Lamson was also revealing in saying they're still doing installs on Day 18 of camp. This is interesting to me on two levels. First, he said it with a note of wonder/incredulity, which just subjectively strikes me as showing his personality/reactions more than in some other interviews I've seen. Second, it's a reminder that this interview and a lot of the data points we've been getting on the QB competition have been in camp mode, with much of that still installing the offense. Being in install mode reminds that it's early days. While I've tended to think tea leaves have been pointing toward Lamson in the QB competition, we should keep in mind Taylor's rightful admonitions from the spring that a lot of what you need to evaluate at QB can't come until real games. It's still possible my early vision of multiple QBs getting a chance early in the season is where all this is going. That's where I'd be going if I were in charge.
* In another interview, Lamson very clearly did not want to go there in naming receivers he has chemistry with but, with presumably a few more days' comfort, answered the question on standout receivers. He highlighted John Humphreys and Silas Starr as veterans and Mudia Reuben and Elic Ayomanor as younger guys. Humphreys is obviously a lock to be a key contributor, as he was each of the last two years even with all the NFL WRs on the roster. Starr hasn't been getting much discussion in camp but should not be written off. I was surprised to remind myself that Starr and Bryce Farrell got significant snaps in 2021 with all the injuries we had. It's probably notable that nobody is talking about Farrell, but on the flip side Starr getting mentioned seems notable too. It seems clear Reuben and Ayomanor are in line for big steps up in how they're relied on (obviously so with Ayomanor as he was hurt for his first year). It may be a somewhat notable omission that Bachmeier wasn't mentioned. At the very least I think Starr may get some chances. Lamson felt bad starting to name guys because he'd be leaving people out, but I think that he even answered the question rather than dodging (as he's done elsewhere and as players/coaches often do with such questions) indicated some greater comfort.
* Lamson says he needs to work on being quicker and more decisive in his decisions. This is a commonality with another interview in terms of a point of emphasis. We've heard that before from Taylor and Lamson appears to be taking to heart the need to know who's going to be where and being on top of things. I do wonder a bit how much quick processing and decision-making is a muscle that can be trained versus an innate ability and I hope processing isn't a significant limitation for Lamson. If it is, we have some depth at QB and I'd like to see multiple guys get action with live bullets.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-26-2023
* The answer on how the OL is doing seemed like a good example of words that will read very positively on paper but based on body language it seemed like a safe, political answer without much conviction. Did not make me feel better that OL is in good shape. The part that seems noteworthy is "it's all about Levi Rogers, man, I think he's doing a great job of stepping up and just being a leader in that group." Reading between the lines, I think there have been a fair number of permutations on the line, not a lot of stability, and a lot of guys going through ups and downs trying to get settled, but Rogers is the constant. He is our only returning starter and has moved inside to anchor the line and follow in the footsteps of our sublime recent centers. Based on Rogers' performance last year at guard I will be shocked if he is anywhere near as good as Dalman and Nugent were, but I think the real point of Lamson's comment is Rogers is the leader and the stabilizing presence. Always nice to hear about guys who are stepping up.
* Smith, Filkins, Butler, and Barrow got shout outs at RB, which is interesting because the guys not mentioned were the freshmen.....yet we're picking up buzz from Taylor about Irvin. I keep wondering where Butler (I think missed time with injury) and Barrow are so was pleasantly surprised to hear them mentioned. I am finding it utterly fascinating that after a 2022 in which everybody was way-over-the-top in touting Smith as a potentially elite guy we are now having a 2023 in which he can't buy a compliment. Even here, with a question explicitly asking for praise of Smith and Filkins, Lamson turned it into a generic shout out to basically the whole room. Part of me wonders if Smith has not bounced back from injury well or if Lamson is taking cues from the coaches in not being impressed/overly effusive about Smith (as I've posted several times, Taylor strikes me as somebody who quite sensibly wants Smith to prove his reliability). Also interesting that Lamson says the backs "playing really physical" is what he's seen the most from them this season. That's nice (and maybe especially important with a line where they'll be fighting for yards), but physical isn't explosive. Just in general this has been an extremely quiet off-season for our RBs. Really quite interesting. One thing that occurs to me is that RB was the marquee position for Taylor at Sacramento State, the heart of his offense. Maybe we're making guys earn it or maybe the RB room is just not great.
* Lamson said "obviously it's tough" to be in a QB competition and balance the competitiveness with being supportive of everybody (the balancing part Ben's framing, Lamson just said "it's tough" and there are "ups and downs"). Lamson indicated he just focuses on himself, improving, and being a great teammate rather than what other guys are doing and who's doing better or worse than him. Reading between the lines this seems like an awkward dynamic. I bet Daniels and Patu (maybe particularly Daniels given indications of fieriness we've gotten about both Lamson and Daniels) might not be his best friends.....but who else is going to be a new QB's best friend other than the guys in his room?
* Lamson gave the typical answer about what he most enjoys at Stanford: the people. This is what almost everybody says, to the point it's odd when they don't, but it took on some poignancy for me for Lamson to say it just because we do have all these indications of his transition and being welcomed as the newcomer (if you're part of the family like an incoming recruit you don't have to be "welcomed"). "We have one of the best locker rooms in the nation" is a fantastic thing to hear in this context.
* Lamson mentioned they just finished camp and it's that time when it's exciting but they don't want to look too far ahead. Kind of endearing to hear him say he doesn't want to look too far ahead but they know the season is 10 days away (when this interview happened) and they'll be in Hawaii in 8 days. Easy for me as a fan to think of a game as just another game but to the players a Hawaii road trip is pretty cool. By the way, the anecdote about seeing a countdown that it was 10 days away was in the context of a special teams meeting. Lamson is playing special teams? Holder I assume?
* His favorite meal back home is his mom's tacos. As a taco lover myself, I was wondering if we're talking about the ubiquitous white person ground beef in a hard corn shell taco or something else? I'm not judging either way, lots of delicious ways to eat tacos. Hmmmm, I'm hungry.
* Ok, having watched the whole interview and some others with Lamson I'm going to say it: I keep looking for hints of where the QB competition stands and, with the camp portion of the summer now fully in the books I thought Stanford might have an announcement by now. I previously thought Taylor was waiting until the end of camp to crown Lamson just so it could be as earned as possible in the eyes of teammates, but if there hasn't been an announcement I am now wondering if insufficient separation happened to make an announcement. But if we're going to be in Hawaii in four days, something has to be conveyed to the team and, ideally fans. Even if it's Lamson and Daniels alternating series or splitting time in some way, we'll get some sort of announcement, no? All that said, I think there's also a possibility Lamson has won the job (or won the opportunity to be the main QB to start against Hawaii and go from there) and Taylor is just waiting for the right opportunity to announce it. Lamson was noticeably more comfortable and forthcoming in this interview than in some others I've seen. Maybe that's just experience giving interviews, but maybe with camp closing he got the nod he was looking for and Taylor just hasn't announced it yet. I haven't watched the latest Taylor availability yet and imagine that will further influence my picture.
RE: Starting QB? - cardcrimson - 08-26-2023
(08-26-2023, 01:08 PM)msqueri Wrote: All that said, I think there's also a possibility Lamson has won the job (or won the opportunity to be the main QB to start against Hawaii and go from there) and Taylor is just waiting for the right opportunity to announce it.
I think with all the buzz the Stanford Athletic Department's marketing department has generated about the upcoming football season, Taylor has had a tough time finding the right timing. I mean, the football team/season is the sixth story on Stanford's own Athletics website.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-26-2023
Taylor's last press availability of camp:
* It's interesting to go through the discipline of watching all these interviews and feeling like you pick up the mannerisms and attitudes of guys you watch a lot. I only met David Shaw in person once but after all the time I spent watching and dissecting him I felt like I had a PhD in Shawology. It will take me a while to get there with Taylor but I do feel like I'm getting a better sense. The thing that really struck me about this interview was that while Taylor is always his authentic self and never too high or too low and all that, this interview had a tension to it that has largely not been the case this year. It's very subtle and I'm not trying to say he was short with anybody or looked like a different person, but it just felt like a heavier weight on him than what we typically see. I would guess there are two factors and I woudn't hazard a guess on relative weight between the two. First, this conference realignment drama keeps dragging and that's a really big deal for the football program. Second, the season is approaching. I can feel him getting a bit more taut, maybe even a bit nervous (or at least eager to get that first one in the books).
* I'm pretty much at the point of disregarding Taylor's top-of-availability comments on how the day of practice went. I've joked that some players went to the Crash Davis school of interviews with their cliches, but if we're talking about vacuity every Taylor interview ever is "they did a good job, have gotten better, learned how to practice....we're not there yet but we're getting better." The positive spin is that this is just him practicing what he preaches of having an authentic sense of self, focusing one day at a time, focusing on day-by-day improvement as part of the process, and so forth. More negatively it's just a public-facing muscle memory of replaying the same talking points until you can get off the mic and back to the non-public stuff. Taylor talked about players being tired of playing against each other and the same is probably true for him with these interviews. Only so much you can say (or want to say) at this point. It may be more interesting to hear him when we get to game weeks than it is hearing the fourth version of this spiel.
* On the QB competition, it was odd to hear basically a repetition of what he said the previous week
(three guys, some separation), as if a week of practice didn't matter. However, he was very terse about it, not his usual style. I think it may have been a big tell that he said "I'm not ready to comment on it yet" and then shut up. This would be consistent with having made the decision but seeing only downside in saying much about the competition publicly because he isn't ready to talk publicly. Maybe the plan was to get through camp, break the news to the belligerents in the competition, let the news cycle through the team, and then announce publicly a decision only once it's not airing internal business publicly. If he hadn't had the requisite conversations with the losers of the battle (or maybe it's one QB1 and a QB2 still alive for snaps against Hawaii and only one loser), anything that could come out of this interview is just a headache. Now, if we do have a QB1 my personal preference might have been to let all that play out before this availability so that the news could break (and any associated media attention/drama can play out) before game week. Oregon State, Cal, Arizona State, Illinois, Houston, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Virginia, Georgia, etc. all took that tack and named their starting quarterbacks in the last 7-8 days. If we do have a QB1 I think it's annoying how long Taylor has waited. But there are other possibilities too, such as no clear winner. The fact that Taylor has now talked about separation several weeks in a row makes me think he's just waiting for the right time to make it public and that we will hear about a QB1 by Tuesday (but that's awfully close to the game! Hopefully team already knows). Haven't ruled out possibility it will be multiple QBs getting series against Hawaii, in some configuration.
* The follow-up on playing multiple QBs in the opener was interesting but it's easy to read too much into it. It was one of those tense, terse, answer the question and then shut up answers. All he said is he's not against playing two QBs in the opener. Answering this way helps him move on to other subjects. It may mean two QBs in the opener is a live possibility, but it also may just mean he isn't ready to comment publicly on the plan. In my mental accounting of the data points, it slightly increases the possibility of a time share against Hawaii but really only slightly. The way he answered is not inconsistent with a starter being named. It's all just somewhat awkward because the clock is ticking on a starter to be named. Six days out coach!
* Taylor went through the whole process of getting better as part of the spring-summer-camp cycle, but I'm not sure he really said anything. Obviously all teams go through this cycle. It's nice he says we're a different team than we were at the outset but not sure how much weight to put into that. This is also where he talked about how we're tired of playing each other. There does seem to be a camp fatigue that's set in, for him at least.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-26-2023
* The extended discussion of conference realignment (by the way, I was prepared to be annoyed at so many questions about realignment to a guy who is just watching from the sidelines like the rest of us, but the discussion wasn't bad) was one of the places where a wearier, less patient Taylor seemed to come through. He'll probably get less breezy and magnanimous dealing with this every week he has to get asked. He said he believed in our leadership, but "trust they'll do their work" sounded potentially like there could be a hint of question about whether they will or how effectively. "Hopefully it works out" is certainly a whole lot less confident than his posture in previous weeks. Patience is probably running thinner all the time. Some gallows humor for me in seeing Taylor look away from the one reporter asking conference realignment-focused questions after answering each of those questions only to have follow-up after follow-up yanking his head back in the other direction. Talk about body language of wanting to change the subject. Honestly, though, those questions may have been worth it. Taylor answered responsively. He was effusive about the ACC and clearly like the rest of us is praying for that lifeboat. He's realistic about the end of West Coast geographic Power Five football just like he was previously realistic about the role of tv money in all of this.
* When Ben pivoted to Hawaii game prep, I found it so interesting how forthright Taylor was that he's been watching "oh, a lot" of Hawaii film and has been for six months. On the one hand, ball coaches are gonna ball coach. On the other hand, it had the visceral feeling to me of a coach who is putting a lot into this game. That makes sense - this is his first ever game as a FBS head coach. I think he's putting a lot of emotional and physical energy into this game. He's thinking about the advantages Hawaii has getting to play first and the advantages we have getting to review that game film. My suspicion is that the game and the stakes of it - trying to get off to a good start, avoiding embarrassment against a frankly horrible program, setting the tone for the confidence building he has rightly emphasized for his players - is now so quickly approaching that that explains the tenser tone of this interview. I'm not sure whether to feel like being extremely focused against such a less talented program makes it extremely likely we win or like it's dangerous to be relatively tightly wound when that's not your normal mode. By the way, when I comment on Taylor's normal mode I'm guessing. I've seen him for the last nine months but for all I know he tends to be looser in offseasons than in-season and is not particularly tense right now in the way I'm picking up.
* Love that Ben was able to get reflections on standout true freshmen. Sedrick Irvin was an interesting name to hear. I've made no secret of how appalled I was by his high school trajectory and the indications of what kind of prospect he was by the time he signed, so it would be one of those fun eating crow moments if he proves me wrong. I do think there could be factors at play here that help explain it beyond Irvin being a stud, though hopefully he is. Most obviously, it might be a reflection on a poor RB room. We haven't heard much about the RB room for months, the Princeton transfer Butler apparently missed the earlier part of camp, and pretty much all of the returners have checkered track records with availability and reliability. Irvin could be standing out relative to the room, but if the room is worse than other rooms that could be a sobering partial explanation. Additionally, Taylor mentioned that Irvin "picked up on it really well" and I think there's at least a possibility that our coaches really prioritize guys absorbing the playbook and responsibilities. If so, Irvin could be standing out now in a way that will be less salient when ability to physically perform against Pac-12 opponents really starts separating guys (though we don't exactly have a lot of other RBs who would present as much better bets, so I kind of do lean to the grading-on-a-curve explanation here). Right now I'm penciling Irvin in as RB3, but I feel generally uncertain about how Taylor views the RB room. The big news, as we've discussed, is Simi Pale's emergence. Taylor's laugh in saying Pale has been incredible seemed like a wow/really lucked into this kind of thing. And I loved hearing about Tre Williams playing well. I liked Williams a lot as a recruit but the path at OLB is extremely difficult. It's nice to hear about the coaches recognizing good play even among guys who would likely take some time to break through for much playing time. [If Williams is good enough to get time ahead of Tafiti or Cooper....wow] The main thing with an answer like this is to register the great arrows up on the select few proactively mentioned, but one might also wonder about who wasn't mentioned. It's surprising Bachmeier wouldn't be mentioned. Maybe because of the early enrollment Taylor views Bachmeier in a separate category. Or maybe outsiders are somewhat overrating Bachmeier's likelihood for initial impact. (It kind of has a bit of a feel to me of the Reuben situation last year where the novelty of an early enrollee got a lot of bonus points but as things settle maybe there's more of a multi-year path than some initially assumed.) Also omitted was arguably the highest-profile recruit, JShawn Frausto-Ramos. In general, the corners (JFR and Aaron Morris) have been guys I've been watching to see if they can break through into a rotation and it's moderately interesting to note they weren't mentioned.
* When asked if there's anything from his Sacramento State turnaround he can take into year one with Stanford, Taylor said it's "a different scenario for sure." This differs from some past comments when he's talked about similarities and said that it can be possible for elements of a turnaround to take hold quickly. It sounds like he's oscillating (in the sense circumspect comments were frequent in the spring) back toward expectations management and an understanding of how steep the hill he has to climb is. He talked about trying to build confidence in the scheme, themselves, and each other; feeling out what will work here from what he did in the past; and how fast the players can process it all. However, he said he's doing all of that cognizant of this being a "really young team that has not played a lot of football." His upshot was that the process doesn't change but "it's definitely a different situation." In other words, don't hold your breath for a turnaround like at Sacramento State. All of this resonates with me intellectually but I'm finding it a somewhat bitter pill after a month of optimism. It's as if he started off in the winter and spring admiring the problem, built up optimism over the summer and camp, and now that real games are looming is reverting to a more cautious mode. It reins in hopes of any sort of immediate turnaround. At least on Thursday Taylor was in a mood to think that the inexperience makes it not very comparable to his Sacramento State situation.
RE: Starting QB? - msqueri - 08-26-2023
* I don't think it was prudent to lump Cooper and Bailey together in the question on edge rushers as there's not much evidence yet that Cooper is in line for a major role, but that makes it even more notable that Taylor answered the question how he did. He basically skated over Cooper and as soon as he mentioned Bailey's name said "David's an incredibly talented player, one of the most talented guys I've been around." Well that's some praise. To me this makes me hear earlier April comments about Bailey in a somewhat different light, more trying to hold the most talented guy to a high standard to get the most out of him than significant questions about Bailey. (Unless Taylor and April are somewhat misaligned, which is possible) Taylor did say "those guys are explosive and we've had trouble blocking them all camp" and "they're pretty special" and that could refer wholly and genuinely to both Cooper and Bailey, but it's hard to say because of how the question was framed. Taylor may have been referring to them as a package because that's how the question was asked and that's how you answer such questions. It's possible "special" is Cooper and Bailey separately or the two together or a comment on the position group, for which we should keep in mind the likelihood Keneley and/or Tafiti have as big or bigger of a role than Cooper. The other interesting thing here is another person, in this case the main person, saying we've had trouble blocking the OLBs. This is exciting about the OLBs but worrisome about the OTs.
* Interesting discussion about confidence, with Taylor saying he does think confidence took a hit with the failures of recent years (you think? glad he didn't evade that all, it's pretty obvious) but that the good thing about sports is that you can gain confidence back quickly. As he said, that comes from being successful. I like that he thinks about this and how to put players in positions to be successful. I think it can be a very positive force when guys do develop that confidence and, as we've seen, such a weight when they lose it. Similar to a comment in another recent interview, Taylor suggested that despite that desire to put guys in positions to be successful you also need to test them because there will inevitably be adversity during the season. Also interesting was a glimpse into his leadership philosophy in this regard, that he tries to be the same guy every day and treat players the same whether they're succeeding or failing and to go back each day and coach, hoping that each day it gets better and better. This fits into the process-oriented, stacking good days ethos that's clear with Taylor. To me the theory of the case is that stacking those days eventually makes things better so that guys have the success that breeds confidence. But the crucial step, of course, is that success needs to come. If you just toil without reward, you get what ended up happening to Shaw's program. Ultimately we have to hope that Taylor's approach starts leading to small and then bigger successes. Without some success I don't see this working.
* Praise for Yurosek as a playmaker, competitive, and having great composure, with it all adding up to being "pretty special." Taylor reiterated his line about TE being a brobdingnagian position in the offense. No doubt Yurosek will be a brobdingnagian part of the offense.
* As always, when asked with what he looks for in building the roster it's loving football and wanting to compete. Until we get a few classes in this will be hard to judge as more than words, but they're the right words.
* Taylor confirmed that the offense is the same as he ran at Sacramento State. We already knew this but when he talked about the concepts of philosophy of where you make tweaks it seems pretty clear that the similarities are greater than the differences. What I found interesting was that in addition to saying camp can help show where the personnel is good or less good with things in the offense (and help tweak things accordingly), Taylor pointed out the big role the first game can play in that regard. It's such a cliche that the biggest gains come between the first and second game, but it's notable that Taylor is cognizant that the Hawaii game will show him things that don't work and need to be changed. May be significant differences in the USC game as opposed to the Hawaii game, and since we're likely to get demolished by USC the Sacramento State game looms as a very interesting game insofar as being more representative of how the team is settling in than we may see in the first two games.
* Odd way to end the availability with an apparent SID employee ostensibly asking if there were additional questions and then, without waiting too long to see if there were, took the prerogative to ask his own question, asking another reporter to get out of the shot (so clearly they needed the video and not just the audio) and then asking a planted question about what the Eddie Robinson Award (an FCS honor Taylor won in 2019) and Eddie Robinson mean to Taylor. This is obviously a video promo Stanford plans to submit to the Eddie Robinson Award banquet organizers (if it were for the 2021 award banquet that would have been honoring Coach Prime), I would imagine the remarks will be spliced in with other past recipients in a video montage or something. Nothing wrong with content like this, just seemed kind of strange to use a post-practice availability for it. It's like the SID needed to do it this way to economize on Taylor's time. I wonder if Taylor doesn't suffer things like this lightly and it was easier to just fit it in as the last question of the press availability than getting a few minutes on his schedule to record a video. In any case, his answer was gracious but also plausibly the kind of thing that might have been based on some provided talking points/reminder he should do this as a thing on the to do list. I will reserve, for now, snarky comments about the SID answering requests for an FCS award banquet (which I assume isn't until January) rather than generating marketing materials for our imminent 2023 season.