Sacramento State week press conference reactions - 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: Sacramento State week press conference reactions (/thread-24418.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: Sacramento State week press conference reactions (/thread-24418.html)
Sacramento State week press conference reactions - msqueri - 09-13-2023
Taylor:
* I don't know what to make of Taylor not making an opening statement. I think there's a read in which it's just a ball coach lacking artifice and looking to get right down to business, but it's pretty odd. It's a press conference, dude. People (the very few paying attention right now) are there to write stories about the team. The whole point of it is for you to give them quotes. I'm starting to get a picture of Taylor's view of the media being similar to the Mark Wahlberg theory on feds from The Departed: they're like mushrooms, feed 'em shit and keep 'em in the dark. [Heck, when Taylor gets asked about who is going to play QB at this point he might as well say "Maybe, maybe not, maybe $%#% yourself."] I'm mostly amused and don't think it's a big deal at all not to give an opening statement, just an interesting choice and seems to be part of a consciously, intentionally non-marketer self-conception.
* In that vein, terse answer on Daniels' status: "yeah, he's cleared to go" with no further explanation. This reinforces the impression from the post-game press conference that the injury was not serious. This makes it seem like Taylor was eager to get a look at Lamson and didn't see the point in seeing more Daniels in a game he biffed. That in turn supports what Taylor and others have been saying, that the QB competition was genuinely close. The way Daniels played at Hawaii let him hold on to the job for the next week, but it may have been a less definitive icing of the QB1 job than many of us assumed. When Troy Clardy (by the way, I was very harsh on his enabling and sycophancy last year but in this press conference he was consistently the guy who asked the most salient depth chart and injury kind of questions) followed up on the QB situation, Taylor said both Daniels and Lamson have shown promise and he's not ready to commit to one or the other. I joked above about Taylor as Dignam but I think while there does seem to be a strain in Taylor that likes secrecy and tactical advantage, especially at QB, it just as fundamentally could be the case that he's telling us the truth that he's not ready to pick one or the other. This is a bit hard to square with the previous talk of "separation" but I also hear it in the context of something else I've talked about, which is Taylor as a first year coach potentially being highly responsive to week-to-week in-game performance in allocating playing time. Indeed, as Taylor said all off-season, QBs are like tea bags and you don't know what you have with them until you put them in hot water. These initial honest-to-goodness real games are invaluable for evaluating the QBs and he appears loath to crown one until he has more to go off of. In other words: QB controversy. These last two weeks have been a roller coaster at QB and we perhaps should expect that to continue a while longer. Beats me how much longer, or even who gets the nod Saturday and if said guy gets an opportunity to play the whole game if he doesn't falter. My wild guess is Daniels starts and will be entrusted to keep the reins if he can handle them like against Hawaii, but may have a short leash if he looks bad like he did against USC. But that's just a low confidence guess.
* Taylor acknowledged that playing his old team makes him feel like he knows the opponent's personnel and scheme better as he prepares for the game. An obvious point, but it's interesting to think about the Troy Taylor vs. Andy Thompson chess match in which they each know each other so well. This is most true when Stanford has the ball as Taylor and Thompson will both be coaching against what they've played against in practice the last few years, and what Thompson is still playing against in practice to a certain degree. They should both know each other extremely well. I don't have any deep thoughts about what this could mean strategically, just interesting to think about the chess match. The information disadvantage, if there is one, would presumably go against Bobby Fresques and Kris Richardson in orchestrating the Hornet offense, as Taylor brought April in to import a different defense whereas April gets to square off against a duo highly identified with the Taylor offense and that Taylor is very familiar with. On the other hand, coaches always talk about focusing on your own game so maybe it can be overblown how much coaches are trying to get in the head of the other side (or how helpful it would be to try). Plus Taylor gives April an extremely wide berth (total ownership it seems) to April in running the defense, so I'd imagine Taylor's advice was essentially limited to some early part of the week brainstorming and information sharing and the defensive game planning is mostly up to April.
* Taylor's answer on that seemed equally focused on personnel as scheme. I get an inkling that he does think having recruited and coached the majority of Sacramento State's players does give him an informational advantage. I don't know how this translates but maybe we're going to be aggressively targeting certain tendencies or weaknesses or trying to account for certain strengths.
* One other observation on the chess match is that Taylor's talk about all the mutual familiarity adding another layer to the preparation gave me a feel that even more than trying to exploit what he knows about Sacramento State, he is acutely cognizant of the need to game plan and play call on offense against a coach who knows him so well. I actually think that Thompson's knowledge of Taylor is what's really front of mind.
* In addition to asking salient depth chart questions, Clardy also asked the closest thing to a critical question (in his neutral to positive way of course) when he asked how Taylor would assess the passing game so far. I say that's critical because it seems pretty clear the passing game is a weakness so far, propped up only by Yurosek. Stats this early are a bit silly, but for what it's worth we're #103 in yards per attempt, #105 in passer rating, and #105 in passing yards per game. Obviously the passing game is not going great. Taylor's answer was we need to grow in all areas and that in the passing game it all starts with protection, where we've been hit or miss. I got PTSD when he talked about football being the ultimate team game and needing all 11 guys (implying one person messing up in protection can stymie you, which was the 2002-2007 Groundhog Day nightmare of watching Stanford offense). Taylor didn't let the QBs off the hook but kind of glided over their role in the passing game other than to lump them in with everybody else who needs to get better. [For what it's worth, so far PFF grades Stanford #88 in passing, #131 in pass blocking, and #62 in receiving, so they'd certainly agree that it all starts with protection, though would consider Taylor far too polite in saying there have been many hits with pass protection.]
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - msqueri - 09-13-2023
* Taylor of course had nice things to say about Andy Thompson, saying he's really smart, really bright, does great preparation, has good feel for the game, gets his guys to play hard, and schematically he creates a lot of challenges (for instance by bringing pressure from a lot of different areas and disguising pre-snap). Taylor said that how hard Thompson got the defense to play was a big part of Sacramento State's success (which I heard wistfully in light of the shocking lack of effort we saw in defensive pursuit on USC's touchdowns) and agreed with the question's premise that Thompson was a deserving hire, as Taylor thinks the way he thinks, deals with people and how smart he is prepare him well. For what it's worth, the rest of this paragraph is my write-up on Thompson from the day we hired Taylor: Occam's Razor to me seems to be Thompson staying in Sacramento as he's got less Taylor tie and is in good standing there, while Taylor may face pressure to keep Lance Anderson on staff and/or bring in a defensive coordinator who answers a perceived relative weakness in Taylor's resume (though as I said above the Taylor/Thompson/et al partnership's defensive performance has been heavily instrumental in Sacramento State's success. For what it's worth, Thompson was previously the defensive coordinator at Northern Arizona for a decade. In that span his median scoring defenses were #60 and #69, though with a disturbing fall-off in his last four years. After he left the Lumberjack scoring defense medians have been #71 and #81. Coupling that experience with his much more impressive Sacramento State resume I think it is reasonable to think he's a competent coordinator. But he doesn't knock your socks off, and has never done it at the FBS level. Considering Taylor has been a Utah coordinator, the defensive coordinator situation is a much bigger question mark. It may make sense for Taylor to try to upgrade this position now that he's moving up.
* Taylor's talk about the Pac-12 was interesting to me mainly because he rightly hit on why the Pac-12 is so good this year: QBs. Further, Taylor opined that the new wave in college football is QBs coming back for another year. This was interesting to me on several levels. Taylor is one of the few Power Five coaches and very few Pac-12 coaches without a proven QB. Stanford is one of the few programs that had a QB leave early for the NFL last year. And maybe Taylor is thinking ahead to hoping he can find a great QB1 and eventually reap the multi-year rewards of that. I don't think it is at all lost on Taylor that Stanford's QB1 bailed without a degree and with multiple years of eligibility remaining while the conference we're competing in is dotted with fifth and sixth year QB1 studs (Rising, Penix, Nix), not even to mention guys like Uiagalelei and Ward who would have been just as plausible early NFL entrants as McKee.
* Taylor went right out and said it in comparing this game to when his Sacramento State team went into Colorado State and got a win (he didn't say how handily they got the win). He knows better than to think Sacramento State is a big underdog, or even much of an underdog at all, and expects a very challenging and tough game. One can view this as a diplomatic answer but I don't think so. I think he knows from experience that the Sacramento State program he bequeathed to Thompson was stronger in many respects than what he inherited from Shaw. This is a very good FCS team with a winner's mentality facing a very bad FBS team with a loser's mentality. Dog fight. Buckle up.
* I can never quite tell how warm or not Taylor's relationship with his former Sacramento State mates is. He speaks about it all very positively but at times it seems more rote than heartfelt. It certainly was eye-opening that all of his top assistants decided to stay at Sacramento State (with the three top ones not even seeming to have to think twice about it, even before knowing which of them would get the head coach job, with Taylor's long-time right hand/Folsom co-head coach Richardson among them). This press conference is more of the vibes I could see going either way. One interesting tidbit is that Taylor claims to talk to Thompson every few weeks, just not recently. I have some lingering (probably always to be unanswered) curiosity whether the coaches who did or didn't come with Taylor to Stanford were fully Taylor's decision, fully the assistants' decisions, or mutual. To me it's more than a totally idle curiosity as I think the crux of Taylor's theory of victory, at least how he portrays himself, is the culture of love, yet I think there have been mixed signals over the years about how much affection and loyalty Taylor inspires (or reciprocates). I only have the most tentative, superficial sense of the man but I kind of think the answer is he's complex, like all of us, and isn't all love and mindfulness. What I want to know is, whatever man he is, what it means for Stanford football culture, fun, recruiting, retention and, ultimately and most importantly, winning. Will have to keep watching over years to get those answers.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - msqueri - 09-13-2023
* Taylor was of course effusive about Sacramento State QB Kaiden Bennett, noting that they first crossed paths when Bennett was about 14 and started participating in Taylor's QB school, Taylor recruited Bennett to Sacramento State, and calling Bennett an exceptionally athletic dual threat guy and a competitor. Taylor said Bennett is confident, teammates believe in him, and (because of the Folsom days) has been in a system similar to Taylor's for a really long time. The two themes that seemed most prevalent were that Bennett is playing with confidence and swagger and that he's a dual threat. The former sounds to me like Taylor's film review makes him feel Bennett has turned a corner and is looking like a different QB than when Taylor coached him. The latter strikes me as what we really are focused on game planning to address. Taylor mentioned Bennett's big success at Folsom but left unsaid was all the interesting subtext that contributes to an interesting storyline Saturday: Bennett won the Sacramento Bee Player of the Year the year before Justin Lamson did and was the two-time state champion QB high school legend Ari Patu transferred to Folsom in hopes of replacing before Patu failed to win the starting job. And when Taylor says he "recruited" Bennett to Sacramento State, the final matriculation was not right out of high school, as this is Bennett's third college. I'd love to be a fly on the wall of Taylor's inner self and know where he thinks Bennett would rank in the Stanford QB room. Through two weeks, PFF grades Bennett as the top graded player on the Hornets' roster (QBs in the Taylor system typically grade well). In conventional stats, Bennett is 14th in FCS in total offense, 6th in yards per attempt, 12th in passing efficiency, and 53rd in rushing yards per game (4th among QBs). He is averaging 9.2 yards of total offense per play. Obviously this is a dominant FCS player.
* I found it subtly, subjectively (but only slightly, as it's probable it means nothing) unsettling that Taylor's eyes got a bit shifty when he said he hopes we'll be resilient and bounce back from the USC game. Mostly the answer on what the lesson from the USC game has been was kind of a typical riff on how you always learn, need to move on to the next game win or lose, improve and get better, blah blah. Said all the right things and seemed to believe it. This is the kind of thing I want to judge on results though. We'll see how resilient we are over time based on the results and if we're able to (not overnight but over time) make the need to be resilient less frequent by failing less.
* Taylor talked about the frequency of his two running back sets and that's something I noticed against USC (and something I predicted months ago would happen when I dug into his offensive player snap counts and was startled at the RB usage). Where was Taylor when we had McCaffrey and Love on the roster together? Oh well. It's interesting Taylor would use this schematic feature as a rationale for why we're playing a RB committee (in his telling it's about developing depth). Taylor had times at Sacramento State of high degrees of spreading snaps around among RBs (the 2021 stat of four RBs in the top 18 in offensive snaps still blows me away) and times of going with a bell cow (Skattebo had 748 snaps last year, second of any non-OL), so to me the depth thing is more a convenient rationale. If he had a bell cow I bet he'd play that guy more than we're seeing. I think the comment about each of our four RBs being different but all bringing something pretty much says it: the mix of attributes and utility among these four is more attractive than giving one or even two guys extensive run. The mention of Irvin being less experienced but also talented seemed like an acknowledgement that it's a top three right now more than a top four, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Irvin get more run at some point.
* The question on grading the defense's execution and effort was a fine question, especially since Taylor eschewing an opening statement and nobody else asking about defense led to a ridiculously long time before defense was discussed. Something that needs to be asked so can't be mad at the question. But if it was intended to get insight into the quite evident problems with defensive effort against USC, there was no hope of that. Too broad and neutral of a question and there's no way Taylor was going to answer a question like that with critical insight when it gives him such an easy out to get off the stage with the generic and positive comments he prefers. Obviously to those of us who've seen the horrifying clips of the horrendous effort and lack of pursuit on USC's touchdowns, "the effort was really good" is an annoying if not disturbing comment. But I don't read too much into it. I think in context it's clear Taylor is talking about effort across the game, not effort within plays. It made a big impression on him that we battled enough in the second half not to have the score widen. In such a miserable game he has little to cling to as positives (and I think he will always want positives in his teaching moments, a compliment sandwich kind of guy like many of us are) and not folding in the face of an onslaught is what he clung to this week. The pathetic pursuit on numerous plays strikes me as a big concern if it suggests the lack of fire and consistency it seems to, but that's probably more of a question for April than Taylor.
* I think it's really disappointing that Taylor's answer on defensive execution was almost all about how good USC's offense is with then an obligatory comment about how there are things we need to do better and not make it so easy for USC. Yes, USC's offense is good. But we were worse against them than San Jose State. We gave up 49 points in the first half. I think this answer needed to be an acknowledgement we were awful and didn't execute when it mattered, on both sides of the ball. It's fine being a compliment sandwich guy and not wanting to kick the team when they're down and not wanting to expect things that are impossible from a pretty limited roster, but there's a point where all of that goes too far and you're tolerating something that's unacceptable. If Taylor won't be fiery about defensive incompetence when we give up 49 in a half, when will he? And if we're not holding our team to a high standard, how are we going to get better? I am confident Taylor intuits the balance on these questions better than I do but it just struck me as off to be quite as nonchalant and excuse-making as he was. Yes, Caleb Williams is going to be the #1 pick. But we looked worse than San Jose State and definitely a lot worse than a decent Power Five defense. Shouldn't that fall below the line of what we think is acceptable? Need to mention here that of course Taylor may deliver different messages in private than in public. I hope so.
* When Taylor says there were some individuals who really stepped up, it's not obvious who he's referring to in the plural, but I'm sure he has Bernadel's game-to-game improvement in mind and may also be thinking of non-Slocum corners.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - msqueri - 09-13-2023
* Interesting question on contrasting Daniels and Lamson as runners, especially in light of Lamson's surprisingly effective running against USC. The answer made sense, that Daniels has more speed in the open field but they're both physical runners, big, strong guys who are more similar than different as runners. The USC game announcers really wanted to play up Lamson as the better passer, but unless they heard something pointed to that effect from Taylor or Osborne in meetings, which I very much doubt, I think that was typical Brando bloviating. I think the reality is these guys both have things to bring to the table as both passers and runners and Taylor will keep looking at actual in-game performance to differentiate.
* Taylor said Wyrick is progressing but we'll see once practices get going this week. It sounds to me like trending toward playing. Wyrick at nickel, Edwards at safety, and Slocum off the field might be our best personnel right now, so hopefully we have a full complement Saturday. I've tended to view all "game time decision" comments as a player being doubtful, but this seems more optimistic than that. Maybe a pure "questionable" at worst.
* Easiest question of the press conference was if any WR has emerged as the leader of the room. Of course he was going to say Humphreys. Seems like a throw away question, and if the question was intended to probe at lackluster WR play generally there was probably another way to ask. Now that we're seeing live games, Taylor's favorite phrase of "it's so important to them" is starting to sound to me like damning with faint praise. The subtext: these guys try and are good guys but.....kind of that whole why criticize people for things they're not capable of thing. (By the way, I'm talking here about the 2023 roster, which is how Taylor pivoted part of the question, rather than a comment on Humphreys, who I think genuinely stands out in the room even if some of the limitations/faint praise stuff applies to him too.)
* I do not understand at all a follow-up question about Jayson Raines. What? This is just a random player on our roster, in fact one of the least important scholarship players on the entire team, a third year player who has one career catch in college. This is like asking about Ese Dubre or Lukas Ungar. Ok, maybe a slight exaggeration. The closest snap count comparison to Raines is Farrell, but Farrell has clearly been more focal to the game plan and would have made more sense to ask about. I suppose asking about Raines is like asking about Alec Bank or Spencer Lytle. Please, no more questions about 10 snap a game players. There are only so many questions and so many press conferences. If you're going to ask a random question about a player make it a traveling true freshman or a player who's graded well but hasn't been discussed or something. I'm glad Taylor was able to give an insightful, substantive answer about Raines, but if he can do it about Raines I'm sure he can do it about Farrell or Ayomanor or Roush.
* End of the press conference gave very good insight into Taylor and his consciously non-marketer self-conception: "The thing that we can do as a program to rejuvenate the fan base is to put together a really good product and play good football. We're working towards that every single day. In terms of marketing, that's not my expertise. At Sac State, we just won games and I think were fun to watch, and we'll do the same thing here. I've found that if you're successful people will come." I think he's basically right about that. We've talked ad nauseam on these boards for decades about how Stanford needs to market itself better to the community but I think ultimately a) our limitations in terms of fan interest are structural/size-based/geographic/sociological and to a large degree unsolvable and b) to the extent we can actually do something about it by far the thing to do is to have a fun, winning product. That's Taylor's job and it's what really matters/he has some control over. I kvetch about the bush league incompetence and missed opportunities of some of our media/marketing operations and I do want us to get better in all phases of the program just like we need to get better on all phases on the field, but that's not the main thing or Taylor's main job. I think he knows what that is and I hope he can do it.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - Mick - 09-13-2023
Well, their attendance definitely improved as the season went on and victories piled up...and they played more exciting opponents; e.g., 24k+ for UC Davis in a stadium that nominally fits 21,195, though the attendance more than cut in half for the first round of the playoffs.
You noted "* I can never quite tell how warm or not Taylor's relationship with his former Sacramento State mates is. He speaks about it all very positively but at times it seems more rote than heartfelt. It certainly was eye-opening that all of his top assistants decided to stay at Sacramento State (with the three top ones not even seeming to have to think twice about it, even before knowing which of them would get the head coach job, with Taylor's long-time right hand/Folsom co-head coach Richardson among them). "
Is it possible that they weren't asked or considered? If you look at their resumes objectively, does it suggest that they would be capable FBS coaches?
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - Jamesy - 09-13-2023
(09-13-2023, 08:09 PM)msqueri Wrote: * Interesting question on contrasting Daniels and Lamson as runners, especially in light of Lamson's surprisingly effective running against USC. The answer made sense, that Daniels has more speed in the open field but they're both physical runners, big, strong guys who are more similar than different as runners. The USC game announcers really wanted to play up Lamson as the better passer, but unless they heard something pointed to that effect from Taylor or Osborne in meetings, which I very much doubt, I think that was typical Brando bloviating. I think the reality is these guys both have things to bring to the table as both passers and runners and Taylor will keep looking at actual in-game performance to differentiate.
* Taylor said Wyrick is progressing but we'll see once practices get going this week. It sounds to me like trending toward playing. Wyrick at nickel, Edwards at safety, and Slocum off the field might be our best personnel right now, so hopefully we have a full complement Saturday. I've tended to view all "game time decision" comments as a player being doubtful, but this seems more optimistic than that. Maybe a pure "questionable" at worst.
* Easiest question of the press conference was if any WR has emerged as the leader of the room. Of course he was going to say Humphreys. Seems like a throw away question, and if the question was intended to probe at lackluster WR play generally there was probably another way to ask. Now that we're seeing live games, Taylor's favorite phrase of "it's so important to them" is starting to sound to me like damning with faint praise. The subtext: these guys try and are good guys but.....kind of that whole why criticize people for things they're not capable of thing. (By the way, I'm talking here about the 2023 roster, which is how Taylor pivoted part of the question, rather than a comment on Humphreys, who I think genuinely stands out in the room even if some of the limitations/faint praise stuff applies to him too.)
* I do not understand at all a follow-up question about Jayson Raines. What? This is just a random player on our roster, in fact one of the least important scholarship players on the entire team, a third year player who has one career catch in college. This is like asking about Ese Dubre or Lukas Ungar. Ok, maybe a slight exaggeration. The closest snap count comparison to Raines is Farrell, but Farrell has clearly been more focal to the game plan and would have made more sense to ask about. I suppose asking about Raines is like asking about Alec Bank or Spencer Lytle. Please, no more questions about 10 snap a game players. There are only so many questions and so many press conferences. If you're going to ask a random question about a player make it a traveling true freshman or a player who's graded well but hasn't been discussed or something. I'm glad Taylor was able to give an insightful, substantive answer about Raines, but if he can do it about Raines I'm sure he can do it about Farrell or Ayomanor or Roush.
* End of the press conference gave very good insight into Taylor and his consciously non-marketer self-conception: "The thing that we can do as a program to rejuvenate the fan base is to put together a really good product and play good football. We're working towards that every single day. In terms of marketing, that's not my expertise. At Sac State, we just won games and I think were fun to watch, and we'll do the same thing here. I've found that if you're successful people will come." I think he's basically right about that. We've talked ad nauseam on these boards for decades about how Stanford needs to market itself better to the community but I think ultimately a) our limitations in terms of fan interest are structural/size-based/geographic/sociological and to a large degree unsolvable and b) to the extent we can actually do something about it by far the thing to do is to have a fun, winning product. That's Taylor's job and it's what really matters/he has some control over. I kvetch about the bush league incompetence and missed opportunities of some of our media/marketing operations and I do want us to get better in all phases of the program just like we need to get better on all phases on the field, but that's not the main thing or Taylor's main job. I think he knows what that is and I hope he can do it.
Thanks for the insights. Sadly two of the key players you mentioned here, wyrick and Humphreys, won't be playing on Saturday.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - needle - 09-14-2023
Quote:If he had a bell cow I bet he'd play that guy more than we're seeing. I think the comment about each of our four RBs being different but all bringing something pretty much says it: the mix of attributes and utility among these four is more attractive than giving one or even two guys extensive run. The mention of Irvin being less experienced but also talented seemed like an acknowledgement that it's a top three right now more than a top four, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Irvin get more run at some point.
Or maybe, just maybe, you have a guy who, in fact, is a bell cow, but also had a major injury and wasn't needed against a G5 team. In the first half against SC, EJ Smith had six or seven touches/targets. Yurosek had five touches/targets over the same time period (and you'll never convince me the second half mattered one bit).
My opinion is that EJ will be one of two Stanford players drafted next year, so I think highly of the guy. There's another Stanford running back with over 140 carries and a pedestrian 4.5 ypc. He's had a nice start to the year, but feed EJ (career 6.2 ypc), please.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - msqueri - 09-14-2023
(09-13-2023, 10:18 PM)Mick Wrote: Well, their attendance definitely improved as the season went on and victories piled up...and they played more exciting opponents; e.g., 24k+ for UC Davis in a stadium that nominally fits 21,195, though the attendance more than cut in half for the first round of the playoffs.
You noted "* I can never quite tell how warm or not Taylor's relationship with his former Sacramento State mates is. He speaks about it all very positively but at times it seems more rote than heartfelt. It certainly was eye-opening that all of his top assistants decided to stay at Sacramento State (with the three top ones not even seeming to have to think twice about it, even before knowing which of them would get the head coach job, with Taylor's long-time right hand/Folsom co-head coach Richardson among them). "
Is it possible that they weren't asked or considered? If you look at their resumes objectively, does it suggest that they would be capable FBS coaches?
Yes, I think that is a very real possibility. I had that in mind when I referred to my "curiosity whether the coaches who did or didn't come with Taylor to Stanford were fully Taylor's decision, fully the assistants' decisions, or mutual." I think it's possible Taylor didn't want these three. Maybe he didn't think they were Power Five level coaches. Maybe he didn't get along with them as well as one would assume from their record. Maybe what they told the press about their and their wives' synergy together was evident to him and he knew they wouldn't want to leave Sacramento. Maybe in Thompson's case it was what I speculated that Taylor was leaving room for having Lance Anderson forced on him and/or being able to upgrade with a more Power Five credible defensive coordinator (arguably what we did). Maybe in Richardson's case it was a desire to bring in an NFL pedigree OL coach (recall Taylor brought in Klayton Adams before Adams bailed and Taylor was forced to scramble with this two OL coach arrangement), or maybe Taylor felt his odd high school model relationship/former co-head coaching with Richardson had run its course. Maybe in Fresques' case Taylor was leaving room for having Tavita Pritchard forced on him and/or preferring Pritchard (who does have a better resume than Fresques). All of this is plausible. At the same time, I've picked up on faint undertones of anti-Taylor vibes and/or subtle/complex relationships with regard to some of the former assistants, so I think there are other possibilities too.
Among the Sacramento State assistants who didn't come, I thought special teams coordinator/tight ends coach Jeremy LaPan and his extensive Utah special teams background was a pretty natural fit and I wouldn't have minded him being on staff rather than Byham, but LaPan was not part of the top three assistant/Taylor-tied triumvirate that is the main source of intrigue, and I have to believe Taylor consciously left LaPan behind. Otherwise, the assistant I was somewhat intrigued by was defensive passing game coordinator/cornerbacks coach Cherokee Valeria, but it totally makes sense Taylor would let the DC have input in the staff and we ended up with a guy, Williams, with a better resume.
(09-14-2023, 12:48 AM)needle Wrote:Quote:If he had a bell cow I bet he'd play that guy more than we're seeing. I think the comment about each of our four RBs being different but all bringing something pretty much says it: the mix of attributes and utility among these four is more attractive than giving one or even two guys extensive run. The mention of Irvin being less experienced but also talented seemed like an acknowledgement that it's a top three right now more than a top four, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Irvin get more run at some point.
Or maybe, just maybe, you have a guy who, in fact, is a bell cow, but also had a major injury and wasn't needed against a G5 team. In the first half against SC, EJ Smith had six or seven touches/targets. Yurosek had five touches/targets over the same time period (and you'll never convince me the second half mattered one bit).
My opinion is that EJ will be one of two Stanford players drafted next year, so I think highly of the guy. There's another Stanford running back with over 140 carries and a pedestrian 4.5 ypc. He's had a nice start to the year, but feed EJ (career 6.2 ypc), please.
LOL at the idea EJ Smith is a bell cow. The guy who has played in only 14 of the 32 games he's been on campus for? Who is in his fourth year and has had more than five carries in a game three times and only once has had more than 11 carries? Who is in his fourth year and is sitting at an almost irrelevant 565 career yards from scrimmage? Who the only time we've ever tried to make him RB1 fumbled more than practically any RB in history (think about how impressive it is to play less than two games in a season (knocked out late in the third quarter of the second game) and finish 12th in the nation among RBs in fumbles for the entire season)?
I think Smith has skills. I hope he has his best year this year. It's not a high bar to clear. But in no way can his health history, fumble history, high school usage, body, skill set, mentality, confidence level - a single thing - make him a bell cow. There's no world in which we just feed Smith like we would have with Austin Jones or Cameron Scarlett or certainly Christian McCaffrey or Bryce Love. He is what he always was, a talented and if healthy dynamic change of pace/third down/receiving-centric kind of option. I bet he can do some things this year, if he stays healthy and can take care of the ball, both big questions. But no, he's not a bell cow.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - cardcrimson - 09-14-2023
(09-13-2023, 10:18 PM)Mick Wrote: You noted "* I can never quite tell how warm or not Taylor's relationship with his former Sacramento State mates is. He speaks about it all very positively but at times it seems more rote than heartfelt. It certainly was eye-opening that all of his top assistants decided to stay at Sacramento State (with the three top ones not even seeming to have to think twice about it, even before knowing which of them would get the head coach job, with Taylor's long-time right hand/Folsom co-head coach Richardson among them). "
Is it possible that they weren't asked or considered? If you look at their resumes objectively, does it suggest that they would be capable FBS coaches?
Wasn't there a coach who changed teams and famously sent a private jet to pick up his former staff to join him at his new gig, but no one got on the plane? Wonder what that coach is up to these days. . . .
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - gailtate - 09-14-2023
Bernard Montgomery Muir and his merry pranksters are DAMNED LUCKY to have Taylor accept the position they offered him, to say nothing about the shambles of the program therein.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - 82lsju - 09-14-2023
(09-13-2023, 10:18 PM)Mick Wrote: Is it possible that they weren't asked or considered? If you look at their resumes objectively, does it suggest that they would be capable FBS coaches?
Quote:Taylor offered his coaching trio anchors from Sacramento State positions at Stanford, doing so because he views his great friends as “incredible people and coaches.”
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/article279299409.html#storylink=cpy
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - SamuelMcF - 09-14-2023
(09-14-2023, 05:37 AM)msqueri Wrote: LOL at the idea EJ Smith is a bell cow. The guy who has played in only 14 of the 32 games he's been on campus for? Who is in his fourth year and has had more than five carries in a game three times and only once has had more than 11 carries? Who is in his fourth year and is sitting at an almost irrelevant 565 career yards from scrimmage? Who the only time we've ever tried to make him RB1 fumbled more than practically any RB in history (think about how impressive it is to play less than two games in a season (knocked out late in the third quarter of the second game) and finish 12th in the nation among RBs in fumbles for the entire season)?
I think Smith has skills. I hope he has his best year this year. It's not a high bar to clear. But in no way can his health history, fumble history, high school usage, body, skill set, mentality, confidence level - a single thing - make him a bell cow. There's no world in which we just feed Smith like we would have with Austin Jones or Cameron Scarlett or certainly Christian McCaffrey or Bryce Love. He is what he always was, a talented and if healthy dynamic change of pace/third down/receiving-centric kind of option. I bet he can do some things this year, if he stays healthy and can take care of the ball, both big questions. But no, he's not a bell cow.
I remember your very prescient analysis of EJ Smith as a recruit: he's basically Connor Wedington (who, by the way, should've been a similar change of pace/receiving back) with a way more famous dad.
RE: Sacramento State week press conference reactions - chrisk - 09-14-2023
82lsju Wrote:Mick Wrote:Is it possible that they weren't asked or considered? If you look at their resumes objectively, does it suggest that they would be capable FBS coaches?
Quote:Taylor offered his coaching trio anchors from Sacramento State positions at Stanford, doing so because he views his great friends as “incredible people and coaches.”
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/college/article279299409.html#storylink=cpy
It doesn’t mention what type of positions were offered.