Will next year be better? - 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: Will next year be better? (/thread-24442.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: Will next year be better? (/thread-24442.html)
Will next year be better? - Row80Critic - 09-24-2023
Will the football team really be any better next year?
Assuming Stanford can't/won't fill the team with portal mercenaries over the summer, can one good but not great recruiting class make that big of a difference? How many current positions would be improved right now with a 3-star (or less plentiful 4-star) true freshman replacement? Not a rhetorical question....
RE: Will next year be better? - AlbanyCardinal - 09-24-2023
The key, I'd think, is keeping transfers out to a minimum. A strong incoming class would help, of course, but what would most help this team improve next season is continuity and development. The onus is on TT to convince his players that his program is on an upward trajectory. Tough to do with the cupboards so bare and other programs around him rebuilding so quickly with the transfer portal.
(09-24-2023, 09:56 AM)Row80Critic Wrote: Will the football team really be any better next year?
Assuming Stanford can't/won't fill the team with portal mercenaries over the summer, can one good but not great recruiting class make that big of a difference? How many current positions would be improved right now with a 3-star (or less plentiful 4-star) true freshman replacement? Not a rhetorical question....
RE: Will next year be better? - chrisk - 09-24-2023
The schedule next year will be a lot easier.
One more OOC game and the bottom half of the ACC is easier than the bottom half of the PAC-12.
RE: Will next year be better? - washingtonismoney - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 10:42 AM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: The key, I'd think, is keeping transfers out to a minimum. A strong incoming class would help, of course, but what would most help this team improve next season is continuity and development. The onus is on TT to convince his players that his program is on an upward trajectory. Tough to do with the cupboards so bare and other programs around him rebuilding so quickly with the transfer portal.
That's exactly it. Taylor simply has to retain almost everyone. If he does that he can certainly bet on having enough young players offensively that that side of the ball should improve by default.
RE: Will next year be better? - BobK - 09-24-2023
Take a look at our 2024 commits Are you thinking keep those on the roster turn away commits? Do a re count we don’t have room to keep too many from the current Sr class
RE: Will next year be better? - washingtonismoney - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 12:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Take a look at our 2024 commits Are you thinking keep those on the roster turn away commits? Do a re count we don’t have room to keep too many from the current Sr class
Not familiar with ins and outs on the math of the roster, but I'm thinking keep the actual young contributors while moving on from some of the older guys.
RE: Will next year be better? - 82lsju - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 01:38 PM)washingtonismoney Wrote:(09-24-2023, 12:47 PM)BobK Wrote: Take a look at our 2024 commits Are you thinking keep those on the roster turn away commits? Do a re count we don’t have room to keep too many from the current Sr class
Not familiar with ins and outs on the math of the roster, but I'm thinking keep the actual young contributors while moving on from some of the older guys.
I'd guess we see another year with a fair number of grad transfers out, Taylor needs to keep the other transfers out to a low number.
RE: Will next year be better? - chrisk - 09-24-2023
The extra COVID year eligibility will essentially be a non-factor going forward.
RE: Will next year be better? - SamuelMcF - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 01:47 PM)chrisk Wrote: The extra COVID year eligibility will essentially be a non-factor going forward.
There are 2 more seasons total where it will still be a factor, as there are plenty of seniors who came in as frosh in 2020 (Covid year freebie), redshirted in a subsequent year, and thus have 2 more years left to play after this one. Those are the last ones.
You're totally right that this is an unheralded yet massive contributor to the landscape (and our current detriment). There are 23-year-old grown ass men playing all over college football right now (as opposed to just at BYU/Utah) while our roster is incredibly young.
A big key for next season will be retaining offensive and defensive linemen, most of whom are underclassmen and don't have their degrees yet.
Related: For those wondering "why is Duke so good?" They have maybe the oldest starting 22 in the country, which especially matters upfront. All 5 OL starters are 4th/5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and they have 2 more grad transfer backups. All 4 DL starters are 5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and their key rotational nose tackle is a senior.
RE: Will next year be better? - chrisk - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 03:08 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(09-24-2023, 01:47 PM)chrisk Wrote: The extra COVID year eligibility will essentially be a non-factor going forward.
There are 2 more seasons total where it will still be a factor, as there are plenty of seniors who came in as frosh in 2020 (Covid year freebie), redshirted in a subsequent year, and thus have 2 more years left to play after this one. Those are the last ones.
You're totally right that this is an unheralded yet massive contributor to the landscape (and our current detriment). There are 23-year-old grown ass men playing all over college football right now (as opposed to just at BYU/Utah) while our roster is incredibly young.
Related: For those wondering "why is Duke so good?" They have maybe the oldest starting 22 in the country, which especially matters upfront. All 5 OL starters are 4th/5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and they have 2 more grad transfer backups. All 4 DL starters are 5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and their key rotational nose tackle is a senior.
Northwestern, which is not so good, came back to upset Minnesota yesterday, led by a 6th year grad transfer QB from Cincinnati/EMU.
RE: Will next year be better? - SamuelMcF - 09-24-2023
By the way, Arizona's starting 3 DL and a key rotator/backup were all grad transfers from P5 programs (Georgia, Michigan, UCLA, Indiana). Grown ass men. 3 of those 4 weigh 315+.
RE: Will next year be better? - Mick - 09-24-2023
I think we'll be much better.
1) COVID no longer a factor.
2) Departing Shaw no longer a factor.
3) Tighter portal rules.
4) The players are a year older/better/faster/stronger.
5) The coaches are a year further into their big boy jobs, and will have worked out the kinks by then.
6) The ACC is a weaker football league. Had to say it.
I'm thinking 4-5 wins next year. 8-9 the year after.
Hope springs eternal...
RE: Will next year be better? - fullmetal - 09-24-2023
Hopefully the coaching staff is out there recruiting good linemen like crazy. "You have a shot at the starting job on Day 1 if you can earn it." Plus the 40-year decision.
I still think of this year's freshmen as (mostly) Shaw's recruits. Their quality eases the sting of everything surrounding his departure. Hopefully Taylor can continue the good things that the prior coaching staff was doing.
RE: Will next year be better? - Farm93 - 09-24-2023
Next year will be better for reasons noted by many.
The portal remains the concern especially since the season has a lot more Ls on the horizon. TT should be able to recruit as much as possible given Stanford admissions office restrictions because there will be a lot of departures after this season. There will be Shaw recruits that wanted to test TT, but will have realized a multi-year project and/or the new system are not best for them. Stanford is also likely to see some on the roster transfer away because of the Stanford Stadium environment and/or the limited appeal of a set of ACC opponents.
Next season will have 4 or more wins.
Beyond 2024 has a lot of uncertainty.
FWIW if 2025 is an 8+ win season, that almost certainly will mean the end of TT as the coach. He is not exactly a young coach, and going from ~2-10 to 9-3 in two seasons will generate higher profile, better paying opportunities.
RE: Will next year be better? - cardcrimson - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 05:44 PM)Farm93 Wrote: FWIW if 2025 is an 8+ win season, that almost certainly will mean the end of TT as the coach. He is not exactly a young coach, and going from ~2-10 to 9-3 in two seasons will generate higher profile, better paying opportunities.
I'm speechless. . . .
RE: Will next year be better? - SamuelMcF - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 05:44 PM)Farm93 Wrote: FWIW if 2025 is an 8+ win season, that almost certainly will mean the end of TT as the coach. He is not exactly a young coach, and going from ~2-10 to 9-3 in two seasons will generate higher profile, better paying opportunities.
LOL.
RE: Will next year be better? - chrisk - 09-24-2023
(09-24-2023, 03:08 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(09-24-2023, 01:47 PM)chrisk Wrote: The extra COVID year eligibility will essentially be a non-factor going forward.
There are 2 more seasons total where it will still be a factor, as there are plenty of seniors who came in as frosh in 2020 (Covid year freebie), redshirted in a subsequent year, and thus have 2 more years left to play after this one. Those are the last ones.
You're totally right that this is an unheralded yet massive contributor to the landscape (and our current detriment). There are 23-year-old grown ass men playing all over college football right now (as opposed to just at BYU/Utah) while our roster is incredibly young.
A big key for next season will be retaining offensive and defensive linemen, most of whom are underclassmen and don't have their degrees yet.
Related: For those wondering "why is Duke so good?" They have maybe the oldest starting 22 in the country, which especially matters upfront. All 5 OL starters are 4th/5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and they have 2 more grad transfer backups. All 4 DL starters are 5th years, 2 of whom are transfers, and their key rotational nose tackle is a senior.
Duke is hosting College Game Day for the first time this week as they host Notre Dame.
RE: Will next year be better? - fullmetal - 09-24-2023
Good luck to grad transfer Jake Hornibrook, starting RT for the Duke OL.
RE: Will next year be better? - Mick - 09-25-2023
The true tragedy in all of this is that, top to bottom, I firmly believe that the Pac-12 is the best football conference of the Power five. I know, railing against the injustice of it all is useless. Even with the East Coast media bias, the current AP Top 25 has four (4) Pac-12 teams in the Top 10 this week (Washington, USC, Oregon and Utah) and two more in the Top 25 (ironically WSU and OSU, the last two to find dates for the 2024 prom). Colorado and UCLA also received votes, they would have ranked #28 and #30.
Patsy conference Mountain West leader Fresno State debuted at #25 with road victories over Purdue and Arizona State. They'll probably have OSU and WSU in that conference next year.
Current cumulative conference win percentages (including in-conference games):
Pac 12, 75%
SEC, 72%
Big 10, 68%
ACC, 66%
Big 12, 60%
We're moving to a weaker football conference, one that has just one team in the Top 10 (FSU). Incidentally, Clemson (who'd voted against Stanford/Cal's entry to the ACC) is 2-2.
RE: Will next year be better? - msqueri - 09-25-2023
Next season better be better, for the reasons mentioned above. Degree of difficulty goes way down in all respects - ownership of the hangover, building a culture, strength of schedule, mass attrition of key contributors.
That said, I think it's too early to know either the baseline we're improving from (I still think it's in play for the 2023 team to be anywhere from roughly 80th to 115th, a big range that will have big impacts on our morale/self-confidence/retention/etc.) or the clay the coaches have to work with next year.
There are two fundamental thing that should be better and, as a result, make a big difference, and a third thing that is just as fundamental but I'm not yet sure how much better it will be. First is more Taylor ownership of the culture. The veteran players buying in and supporting the new staff is a very important part of coaching transitions, but even more important is cycling those guys out and replacing them with players who match the ethos and skill sets desired by the new coaches. If we have mass attrition again this off-season we'll probably hear a lot of hand-wringing about that, but it pumps new blood into the program and puts the team another year closer to being molded in Taylor's image rather than Shaw's. Given Taylor's success at Sacramento State and the lowly place Shaw left us, the fundamental bet we are making in this coaching transition is that that is a good thing. So embrace one more year of big roster turnover. It serves a purpose.
The second thing is a year of familiarity and experience with the new systems, namely Taylor's fast tempo spacing-oriented offense, April's Wisconsin defense, and Deatrick's tightly regimented strength and conditioning. All three of these are learning curves and, if there is substance to them, getting another year along the learning curve should make a difference.
The third thing is greater competitiveness in the trenches. Football starts up front and what Shaw bequeathed was not competitive where it matters the most. On offense, our five starting linemen include three guys four years out of high school, one guy three years out, and one guy one year out. Given recent trends in linemen not staying five years at Stanford, we may need to be on pins and needles regarding what McLaughlin, Rogers, and Mayberry decide to do. None of them are world-beaters, but it's those credible but not studly linemen who most need fifth years and can finally use their strength and savvy to be competitive. Think about what Harbaugh and early Shaw teams got out of Muth, Marinelli, Hall, Phillips, Schwartzstein, Wilkes, and Danser. Now think about what our OL looks like next year if we are replacing 2-3 starters. There could be salutary effects of, in a year that will likely be another rebuilding year anyway, moving on to a younger cohort (for instance, one can imagine a youth movement oriented around Pale, Baklenko, Anderson, etc.); one can also imagine a 2024 OL with fifth year Mayberry, fourth year Leyrer, second year Pale and Anderson, and either fourth year Uke or third year Maikkula (not to mention many other permutations, just speaking notionally)....that would be a group more or less on par with this year's in seniority but with an uptick in experience and cohesion. In other words, depending on retention OL may or may not be more competitive next year, it may or may not be another bridge year, etc. On defense, we currently are anchored by fourth year Phillips, third year Franklin and Buckey, and second year Moi. That seems more cut and dry that next year should be more competitive and could be a really major strength. The thing to really watch is Phillips, arguably the most important retention priority on the entire roster.
The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football. This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate. You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. When we talk about looking at retention as a barometer of Taylor's effectiveness or of his culture taking root, I don't think we should be thinking about this abstractly or in terms of overall numbers returning. We need fourth year players to leave en masse to create room for the incoming class and to cycle that new blood in. Frankly, it doesn't matter (and may even be harmful) if EJ Smith or John Humphreys come back (and definitely would be harmful if Silas Starr or Omari Porter do). This is a very clear litmus test: stars (which is really only Yurosek and Karty and I'm resigned to them leaving unfortunately) and currently contributing trench guys. We want Yurosek, Karty, Phillips, McLaughlin, and Rogers back and to avoid outbound transfers of key guys in the younger classes. Otherwise, bring on the roster turnover!