Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor)

Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Football Coach Search Master Thread (Troy Taylor) (/thread-23811.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

RE: The Great Mentioners - washingtonismoney - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 06:58 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Hey, WIM, I have a question. Did the Shaw displacement lead to a re-engagement with the Cardboard? I know you were one of the more prolific posters here, then curtailed quite a bit during the Shawpocalypse, but now are back initiating threads and participating in discussion once he announced his departure. Coincidence?

Not really, no. I got really busy and non-WBB Stanford athletics weren't terribly busy, so priorities are what they are.

RE: The Great Mentioners - lex24 - 11-28-2022

(11-27-2022, 10:05 PM)winflop Wrote:
(11-27-2022, 06:48 PM)gocard14 Wrote: Peterson is the home run hire.

Not sure I agree. I think a lot depends on what Stanford is going to do about NIL & portal, and I think those things need to be solidified before talking to any coaches. I expect every candidate for the job to ask Muir what he's doing about them, and if he doesn't have a clear answer I would be a lot less interested in the job.

Time for Bernie to get off his tuckus, pronto.

I doubt the portal and/or NIL is Muir’s call. He can and should lobby. But I suspect it goes higher up for any ultimate decision.

(11-28-2022, 07:23 AM)Phogge Wrote: God, not Bill O’Brien.

Agree. As for Roman, he’s been an OC in NFL since ‘11. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him mentioned as an HC candidate. Anywhere. Certainly could have missed it. But to me, that would be a warning sign.

What about Brennan? He’s done a terrific job at SJS.

RE: The Great Mentioners - winflop - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 07:47 AM)lex24 Wrote:
(11-27-2022, 11:00 PM)needle Wrote: Would you rather have someone who loves Stanford but has to be talked into coaching in this era of CFB, or someone who loves coaching college football but has to be sold on Stanford?

The latter. To me, that’s an easy call.

Same here, and I would add that they have to have some serious EUTM

RE: Stanford Football moving on - winflop - 11-28-2022

(11-27-2022, 01:07 PM)paloalto Wrote: https://www.cornnation.com/2022/11/27/23480525/report-nebraska-football-head-coach-matt-rhules-contract-will-pay-72-million-over-its-eight-years

"...total would average out to $9 million per year over the full term of the contract."

Stanford will probably have to pay the going rate for a top coach.

This points me more toward the likelihood of hiring a G5 or FCS head coach than a P5 (or NFL) coordinator. I can't imagine Stanford shelling out more for a new HC than they were paying Shaw.

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - winflop - 11-28-2022

(11-27-2022, 08:07 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (1) Been reading the CardBoard posts for many years, regarding the StanU Football Program (just recently signed up for an account); Thanks in Advance to the Moderators for hosting this Board. Sorry for any Typos or Grammatical errors.

I love 'OutsiderFan's posts about Stanford Football, & often find myself being absolutely grateful for his 'refreshingly innovative posts about Stanford Football' & I often find myself subvocalizing 'Yeah, that's what Im talking about !' after reading some of OutsiderFan's posts about Stanford Football.

I am sure BostonCard will find some subset/cube of empirical longitudinal data to refute the hypotheses & cause and effect conclusions I infer & draw, but that is welcome as well.

(2) As an Alum, & As someone stated earlier in this thread, I think its time to think "Outside The Box", and select a Head Football Coach, who is not 'directly in the Stanford Family' & who is not entrenched in the 'Stanford Way'.

(3) Coach Harbaugh was just that; Yes his father did some coaching for StanU for 1 year as DC, but for all intents and purposes JimHarbaugh's biography & career as a Player & Coach was not intertwined with Stanford & its sometimes lukewarm passion for BigTime College Football. He was Midwestern & Big10 in his Roots & DNA, and so therefore 'BigTime College Football was a Non Negotiable Prerequisite for Life' (and there is nothing wrong with that). We need someone who wants to Eat, Sleep & Breathe BigTime CollegeFootball, & who will want to embrace all that comes along with wanting to Consistently Win at the Highest Levels of BigTime College Football (e.g Relentless YearRound Recruiting, Transfer Portal, Total Overhauling of Offensive & Defensive Schemes within a Season if necessary, Versatile Swiss-Army Knife Positionless Players, NIL, Innovative Approaches to LoadManaging Players Courseloads within Season, Innovative Approaches to retaining Talented 5th Year players, and More & More, etc, etc)

(4) Then as far as the 'Style of Play':

I am sure we have all noticed that in the last 10 years, (with the exception of Alabama) its largely the teams that play 'Fast MisDirection Checkers' with an UpTempo Offense, & a Legit Superstar Athletic Dual-Threat QB that have risen to dominate Modern Power5 College Football.

Look No further than the teams at the Top this year:

USC, Caleb Williams (Mobile Dual threat)
TCU, Max Duggan (Mobile Dual threat)
Michigan, JJ McCarthy (Mobile Dual threat)
Ohio State, CJ Stroud (Mobile Dual threat)
Georgia, Stetson Bennett (Mobile Dual threat)
UCLA, Dorian Thompson Robinson (Mobile Dual threat)
Oregon, Bo Nix (Mobile Dual threat)

...so we want the Next StanU Head Football Coach to be well versed in "Utilizing an Athletic Dual Threat Mobile QB & an UpTempo Offense !"

(5) I would go so far as to say, that when we moved from Having Athletic Dual Threat QBs AndrewLuck & Kevin Hogan, to Less Mobile QBs like KJ Costello & Tanner McKee, this was 1 of the Reasons our Win Loss fortunes dipped.

(6) So in Conclusion, 2 of the Important Characteristics of the. Next StanU Football Coach need to be:

(A) This Coach is Not from the "Lukewarm about BigTime CollegeFootball Stanford Milieu"
(B) This Coach is well versed in "Utilizing an Athletic Dual Threat Mobile QB & an UpTempo Offense !"

I like a lot of what you say, but I'm not aligned with your assessments of Shaw's QBs. Luck and Hogan were first and foremost pocket passers, even with Luck having arguably the greatest scramble in school history when he made Cattouse a verb. Costello was more mobile than either of them - mobile enough for Leach to take him as a transfer and start him. And it's hard to assess McKee's mobility when he's been under siege pretty much his entire time at Stanford.

And while I'd love the have the type of offense that utilizes an athletic dual threat mobile QB & uptempo offense, I'm not sure that Stanford can recruit the types of athletes you need for that. It's not just the QB who needs to be athletic & mobile for that offense to work. You need speed at WR and at RB that we haven't seen (with rare exception) in a long time. But above all else, Stanford needs to rebuild an OL to suit the offense the new coach brings in, and that will not happen overnight.

RE: The Great Mentioners - BostonCard - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 06:58 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: On the topic of media pundits opining about Stanford Football HC candidates, we need to keep something in mind. Stanford operates in about as much secrecy as any program there is. Big programs can't keep secrets because there is too much interest. Programs like Cal are like open books because it runs such a loose ship. Stanford OTOH, doesn't leak and there just isn't a visible booster presence that filters down to even people like BobK, who seem to be the most plugged in source on this board. IOW, any poster on here speculating is likely to be as informed about what Stanford might be doing as Jon Wilner.

1) Matt Squerri anticipated this very scenario. I don't think it was based on any inside information (other than general Stanford football obsessiveness, and Matt, correct me if I am wrong, if you are at liberty to say), but if you read his many Sunday postmortems, he described exactly what happened: that Shaw would retire on his own volition, as he got tired of losing and/or did not want to further sully his legacy.

2) At least two posters here had news of Shaw's decision while the players were still in the locker room; ditto TOS.

3) Multiple of the younger posters are recent alums and have direct contact to players on the team or recent graduates from the program.

4) Multiple people on this board have friends in the athletics department; sometimes people exert discretion and don't post stuff that they know to an anonymous open board, because, duh.

If you read the board enough, you know who knows and who is talking out of their butt.

BC

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - msqueri - 11-28-2022

I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - BostonCard - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote: I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

Great point.

BC

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - lex24 - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote: I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

Agree. And I certainly don’t think up-tempo is the right way to go. Stanford always has depth issues.

Stanford had a model for success: a dominant offensive line. A strong front 7 on defense. Physical complimentary football.

You want a winner that has successfully used that model - Paul Chryst. My only question is why was he fired. Was there something besides a blip in on field performance?

Or, what’s Mark D’Ontonio doing these days? NVM. 66 is a bit too not young…

RE: The Great Mentioners - washingtonismoney - 11-28-2022

CBS's Dennis Dodd has the usual names but throws in Duke's Mike Elko: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/stanford-coaching-candidates-chris-petersen-bronco-mendenhall-among-leading-options-to-replace-david-shaw/?fbclid=IwAR2OlP8j81xIn_MT0nZjOm3Y8uN57JO9lT-RF70zAheRHHm3hZy4dIBZsy4

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - StanUSwagU - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 08:19 AM)winflop Wrote:
(11-27-2022, 08:07 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (1) Been reading the CardBoard posts for many years, regarding the StanU Football Program (just recently signed up for an account); Thanks in Advance to the Moderators for hosting this Board. Sorry for any Typos or Grammatical errors.

I love 'OutsiderFan's posts about Stanford Football, & often find myself being absolutely grateful for his 'refreshingly innovative posts about Stanford Football' & I often find myself subvocalizing 'Yeah, that's what Im talking about !' after reading some of OutsiderFan's posts about Stanford Football.

I am sure BostonCard will find some subset/cube of empirical longitudinal data to refute the hypotheses & cause and effect conclusions I infer & draw, but that is welcome as well.

(2) As an Alum, & As someone stated earlier in this thread, I think its time to think "Outside The Box", and select a Head Football Coach, who is not 'directly in the Stanford Family' & who is not entrenched in the 'Stanford Way'.

(3) Coach Harbaugh was just that; Yes his father did some coaching for StanU for 1 year as DC, but for all intents and purposes JimHarbaugh's biography & career as a Player & Coach was not intertwined with Stanford & its sometimes lukewarm passion for BigTime College Football. He was Midwestern & Big10 in his Roots & DNA, and so therefore 'BigTime College Football was a Non Negotiable Prerequisite for Life' (and there is nothing wrong with that). We need someone who wants to Eat, Sleep & Breathe BigTime CollegeFootball, & who will want to embrace all that comes along with wanting to Consistently Win at the Highest Levels of BigTime College Football (e.g Relentless YearRound Recruiting, Transfer Portal, Total Overhauling of Offensive & Defensive Schemes within a Season if necessary, Versatile Swiss-Army Knife Positionless Players, NIL, Innovative Approaches to LoadManaging Players Courseloads within Season, Innovative Approaches to retaining Talented 5th Year players, and More & More, etc, etc)

(4) Then as far as the 'Style of Play':

I am sure we have all noticed that in the last 10 years, (with the exception of Alabama) its largely the teams that play 'Fast MisDirection Checkers' with an UpTempo Offense, & a Legit Superstar Athletic Dual-Threat QB that have risen to dominate Modern Power5 College Football.

Look No further than the teams at the Top this year:

USC, Caleb Williams (Mobile Dual threat)
TCU, Max Duggan (Mobile Dual threat)
Michigan, JJ McCarthy (Mobile Dual threat)
Ohio State, CJ Stroud (Mobile Dual threat)
Georgia, Stetson Bennett (Mobile Dual threat)
UCLA, Dorian Thompson Robinson (Mobile Dual threat)
Oregon, Bo Nix (Mobile Dual threat)

...so we want the Next StanU Head Football Coach to be well versed in "Utilizing an Athletic Dual Threat Mobile QB & an UpTempo Offense !"

(5) I would go so far as to say, that when we moved from Having Athletic Dual Threat QBs AndrewLuck & Kevin Hogan, to Less Mobile QBs like KJ Costello & Tanner McKee, this was 1 of the Reasons our Win Loss fortunes dipped.

(6) So in Conclusion, 2 of the Important Characteristics of the. Next StanU Football Coach need to be:

(A) This Coach is Not from the "Lukewarm about BigTime CollegeFootball Stanford Milieu"
(B) This Coach is well versed in "Utilizing an Athletic Dual Threat Mobile QB & an UpTempo Offense !"

I like a lot of what you say, but I'm not aligned with your assessments of Shaw's QBs. Luck and Hogan were first and foremost pocket passers, even with Luck having arguably the greatest scramble in school history when he made Cattouse a verb. Costello was more mobile than either of them - mobile enough for Leach to take him as a transfer and start him. And it's hard to assess McKee's mobility when he's been under siege pretty much his entire time at Stanford.

And while I'd love the have the type of offense that utilizes an athletic dual threat mobile QB & uptempo offense, I'm not sure that Stanford can recruit the types of athletes you need for that. It's not just the QB who needs to be athletic & mobile for that offense to work. You need speed at WR and at RB that we haven't seen (with rare exception) in a long time. But above all else, Stanford needs to rebuild an OL to suit the offense the new coach brings in, and that will not happen overnight.

***********
To WinFlop:

I think we are mostly in agreement.
I don't want to make this too much of a back & forth, but I will just point out a few things:

(1) KJ Costello WAS NOT more mobile than KevinHogan or AndrewLuck.

(Lest we forget KevinHogan taking it 60 yards to the house at an AwayGame at WSU some years back on a rainy Halloween Weekend Night Victory & His 'Instinctive ability to run the ZoneRead Keep inside the RedZone' like he did vs Oregon and Iowa & AndrewLuck's running ability was underutilized, but nearly every time he 'kept on the zone-read' it was a 6+yd gain. To give him his just due, KJ Costello was a competitor & fighter of the highest intensity, but 'mobile athletic running dual-treat qb' was not part of his repertoire, at least not at StanU)

(2) As far as 'Stanford's ability to recruit these types of Athletic Dual threat QBs & Athletes' I would say 3 things (a,b,c):

(a) These athletes are out there to be recruited (See NotreDame and UCLA) & these athletes always consider StanU as 1 of their possible destinations

(b) We need a HeadCoach who is Charismatic & Dynamic enough to interact with those YoungProspects & who can attract & interest those athletes in coming to Stanford (and who puts a premium on Dual-Threat QB recruiting); it is no coincidence to me that Charismatic EUTM JimHarbaugh successfully recruited AndrewLuck & KevinHogan.

( c ) Once you get a Charismatic, Energetic Head Coach, & a Legit Athletic Dual-Threat QB, ... 'the other 4/5 star position players you refer to WRs, OL, RBs' ...will be much more attracted to come to your program.

(3) I conclude by saying, Winflop:
-We are both on Team StanU (I have read many of your posts over the years, and find them extremely insightful).
-I agree with you that 'we need to have a holistic approach to this re-imagining of StanU Football' & so of course, besides the 'Athletic Dual Threat QB & UpTempo Offense' ...one needs to be 'strong & deep in both the OL & DL', which I have ideas on how to accomplish as well.

**********

RE: The Great Mentioners - needle - 11-28-2022

I’ve never found Dennis Dodd to be insightful.

Pete Thamel seems to have good sources when it comes to coaching hires generally, but not sure if that extends to the Stanford search.

RE: The Great Mentioners - Phogge - 11-28-2022

Cut to the chase and hire one of Harballs guys at Big Blue.

I can't imagine The Pirate at Stanford but boy would he break The Stanford Man mold. It would be phenomenal.

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - msqueri - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 09:06 AM)lex24 Wrote:
(11-28-2022, 08:40 AM)msqueri Wrote: I resist the notion we need an offensive-minded head coach at all. That could be a good model, but so could a defensive-minded head coach who hires a good offensive coordinator or a CEO-type head coach not known for Xs and Os wizardry at all. Multiple ways to skin the cat. I think fans of all teams are way too focused on the offensive whiz model. That was popular in college football in the 2000s and in the NFL the last few years, but it's not the only model and, tellingly, not where college football teams have found the most success in recent years. The way to find success in recent years is to get somebody who is already a winning head coach.

Agree. And I certainly don’t think up-tempo is the right way to go. Stanford always has depth issues.

Stanford had a model for success: a dominant offensive line. A strong front 7 on defense. Physical complimentary football.

You want a winner that has successfully used that model - Paul Chryst. My only question is why was he fired. Was there something besides a blip in on field performance?

Or, what’s Mark D’Ontonio doing these days?

A brain fart inspired by your post and an answer on Chryst.....

Brain fart: Among the top coaches there's a mix between offensive and defensive backgrounds. Fans gravitate to offense but I don't think that should necessarily be the case. Saban, Smart, Kelly, Whittingham, Narduzzi, Mendenhall, and Klieman are all defensive guys. The latter three on this list would be plausible/attractive candidates for Stanford, as would up and coming guys like Leonard and Minter.

Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants. I think Chryst would be an extremely plausible candidate for Stanford, just flagging that if fans want to move on from a coach being overly loyal/set in his ways/etc. Chryst has some baggage.

RE: The Great Mentioners - SamuelMcF - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 07:59 AM)winflop Wrote:
(11-28-2022, 07:47 AM)lex24 Wrote:
(11-27-2022, 11:00 PM)needle Wrote: Would you rather have someone who loves Stanford but has to be talked into coaching in this era of CFB, or someone who loves coaching college football but has to be sold on Stanford?

The latter. To me, that’s an easy call.

Same here, and I would add that they have to have some serious EUTM

Agreed, but even more so for RECRUITS than for a coach. I want tough, nasty SOBs who happen to be smart enough and need to be sold on coming here. No more team full of 85 "self selecting Stanford Men." We saw the difference.

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - BostonCard - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 10:00 AM)msqueri Wrote: Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants. I think Chryst would be an extremely plausible candidate for Stanford, just flagging that if fans want to move on from a coach being overly loyal/set in his ways/etc. Chryst has some baggage.

As you yourself frequently quote Heraclitus, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man", and while it is possible to become complacent and set the "second time around", it is also possible to learn from prior mistakes. I have no idea of Chryst is capable of such; it would be something that should be asked if he is a serious candidate and is invited to interview.

BC

RE: The Great Mentioners - msqueri - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 09:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Cut to the chase and hire one of Harballs guys at Big Blue.

I can't imagine The Pirate at Stanford but boy would he break The Stanford Man mold. It would be phenomenal.

Minter intrigues me. Will try to dig into him and other Harbaugh assistants soon. One initial thought though: I'm not sure the Harbaugh magic is a playbook/skill set/mentality that can be taught/passed down. So much of what makes him him is ineffable, or at least personal to his style. He's had an incredible track record getting assistants to move on to head coaching opportunities (Shaw, Durkin, Shafer, Taggart, Mason, Sanford, Polian) but those branches of his tree do not typically stay healthy (at least as head coaches). A hypothesis I could buy is that somebody like Saban is an outstanding coach who runs a program worthy of emulation (and/or that he mentors subordinates extremely successfully) whereas somebody like Harbaugh is an outstanding coach who runs a program that may have some elements worthy of emulation but also has a lot to do with his own personal secret sauce. As such, buyer beware on Harbaugh assistants.

RE: The Great Mentioners - BostonCard - 11-28-2022

Also, not all Saban hires were takes, which I suppose is to be expected when you have a coaching tree with as many branches as Saban does. But for every Kirby Smart, there is a Steve Sarkisian.

I suspect that you would have to evaluate each member of Harbaugh's staff on his own merits and decide whether he is capable of being successful at Stanford. I agree that "hire Harbaugh's assistants" in the hope that some of his magic rubs off on them, as a blanket statement, is not a greta heuristic, though their success merits a look.

BC

RE: The Great Mentioners - Phogge - 11-28-2022

Greta heuristic? My dad worked with Garbo but I've never heard of this Heuristic babe.

RE: P5 coach on the market with Stanford connections - Goose - 11-28-2022

(11-28-2022, 10:00 AM)msqueri Wrote: Chryst: I think there's a through line to some degree between Chryst, Shaw, Mendenhall, Cutcliffe, and others - lots of success but when things faltered very low appetite to change ways. Oftentimes this manifests in a loyalty/refusal to let go of under-performing assistants.

Most (all?) coaches have a low appetite to change ways when things are going well. I think when things are going poorly it is often not that the head coach is adverse to replacing under-performing assistants but rather 1) they are not of the opinion the assistant is "under-performing". They simply don't know what the problem actually is, and 2) their personnel network is not such that they have candidates ready at hand the think would be better. Many times the shuffling of assistant coaches isn't based on a belief that a particular guy is under-performing but rather the fact the results aren't good on the field. Something has to change and often it is the assistants. If you want to look at an example of that not working just look at Cal and Wilcox's offensive coordinators. If you want to look for an example where it did work, look at ND when the HC was forced to fire everybody.

I don't think it is some kind of loyalty or friendship issue that keeps coaches from firing assistants, at least in most cases. Coaches are not sentimental. They replace one athlete with another at the blink of an eye. It is most often (IMO) they resist the idea of replacing somebody when you can't point to exactly how they are deficient other than saying their unit isn't very good. It seems illogical to get rid of somebody when you can't articulate what they are doing "wrong". It often is, but coaching isn't a science, it is an art. Many coaches resist that idea because it reminds them they too are subject to arbitrary dismissal.