Paths for success for 2025 - 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: Paths for success for 2025 (/thread-25372.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: Paths for success for 2025 (/thread-25372.html)
Paths for success for 2025 - msqueri - 12-28-2024
In Taylor's first year we were the #101 team in the country. In his second we are currently #101 again, though possible to go down given the abysmal ACC bowl season performance (perhaps Syracuse handling a Washington State team lacking their QB and coach and more could put some misleading lipstick on the pig). We are not yet seeing any sign we are on a path to success. To my mind this sets 2025 up as pretty crucial. I think if we are going to have hope in this staff getting anything going 2025 has to be a breakthrough. As far as I can tell, there are four leading theories for how that could happen:
(1) Comprehensive Improvement: The immediate hope when we hired Taylor was that we were reviving a moribund program with a coaching staff that would reverse the profound atrophy and enervation of the program. The idea was that we would see comprehensive improvement due to a fresher, more credible, and more fit for purpose culture, strength and conditioning regime, approach to roster management, position coaching, scheme.....everything. Hopes for this vision have declined each year the staff has been here as presumably if this were the case there would have been evidence of it, especially inheriting a program at the depths they did. But I am sure there are still some out there holding out hope that the first two years were the equivalent of a flush and a courtesy flush and the real test starts now.
(2) Roster Replacement: Things got so bleak at the end of the Shaw era that many of us felt like the best thing that could happen would be to get his players out of the program and new players in. No offense to the Stanford Men of recent vintage, but if you've never won it's hard to know good habits, model good habits for incoming players, inculcate a winning culture, and so forth. And to the extent that the theory of the case for a new staff was about culture, you want players identified by and nurtured by the purveyors of said culture. The idea went that the quicker the program could have Taylor's imprint on it the better. There is some hope that next year could take a decisive step in this direction. Looking at our current "winter roster" and adding the 19 incoming scholarship freshmen and five public transfer commitments and we will be looking looking at 67 (more if a couple of the transfers I think of as walk-ons should be counted differently) of approximately 86 scholarship players having only played for the current regime at Stanford. Approaching 80 percent of the roster never even played for Shaw, and with more transfers in the coming weeks we will likely move past that mark even more. As far as I can tell 100 percent of the roster will have played as much for Taylor as for Shaw. The roster replacement is almost complete and to the extent we thought that would be transformative we should see that manifest next year. This is potentially attenuated by the aforementioned lack of comprehensive improvement and by the lackluster recruiting we've seen from this staff. In other words, it's good we are cycling out the players of a failed program but are we replacing them with something better? On paper, I don't believe the 2025 roster will look better than any roster of recent vintage as we continue to hemorrhage former 4-star talent without recruiting incoming guys reputed to be as blue chip. The harm of subpar recruiting like Taylor has had while at Stanford is that you don't get to benefit from roster replacement anywhere close to how you should. If we do benefit from roster replacement it will have to be about evaluation and development, which is speculative and yet to be proven.
(3) Offensive Line Improvement: Football starting in the trenches is a truism for a reason and we've all seen enough football to know what a difference the offensive line makes. It's very easy to imagine Stanford looking fundamentally different if the offensive line can be even mediocre and not even like the same team if the line could somehow be good. Heading into the offseason it seemed like the program's - coaches and fans alike - mind was fixated on transforming the line via the transfer portal. This briefly looked promising with the Ruffins and Prongos news and hopes for more to come, but as of August 28 things are looking sobering, with Ruffins committing to Cal and a number of the others we had hoped for being connected elsewhere. We can assess the OL landscape more fully at a later point in the offseason but if we are going to head into 2025 with a line with zero guys who have ever been above-average Power Four linemen (Maikkula being top 62 percent in 2023 is the closest any of our guys have come) there should probably be somewhat measured expectations. On the other hand, I have ranted (and voluminously provided evidence for) for years about the overriding importance of age at the offensive line and if we go into 2025 with a starting line of Prongos, Leyrer, Maikkula, Pale, and House that would be a three guys in their fourth or fifth years (Leyrer in his fifth), a third year multi-year starter, and a second year guy. That might be ok. I think much here depends on the quality of the strength and conditioning and coaching. I was a lot more optimistic earlier in the Taylor tenure but I haven't given up on next year's line. Sheer age should make it better.
(4) Quarterback Improvement: The most straightforward path to improvement is if the most important position ceases being a liability. Total QBR judged Daniels to be 58th of 66 qualifying power conference QBs. PFF was more positive, 47th of 66 (when filtered to be the same number as the Total QBR qualifiers, filtered differently it was, for instance, 51st of 80). Either way that's a liability. Troy Taylor is a lifelong QB/QB coach who played in the NFL and has been the the college coach of numerous college superstars as well as a future NFL Pro Bowler (albeit a quirky/comical selection) plus the most dominant high school QB of all time (who was also prolific in college and is still in the NFL all these years later). In the time it took Shaw to coach one all-conference QB, Taylor coached the Big Sky Co-Offensive Player of the Year, a guy who became first team all Pac-12 the first year post-Taylor, another Big Sky Offensive Player of the Year, and a third Big Sky all-conference guy. In short, when we hired Taylor we had legitimate reason to think he was a bona fide great QB coach (or at least architect of offenses in which a QB can excel) and we shouldn't give up on that after two seasons, especially considering that the raw material Taylor had to deal with in that period (Daniels, Lamson, injured first year Brown) was not something anybody objective would consider Power Four material. IMHO the most logical hope we can have for a light switch to go on for this program in Taylor's third season is that Taylor can turn a non-Daniels QB into something mediocre or even good. The offense would look a lot better if that can happen. We don't know yet whether a transfer QB may be brought in to the competition but even if it's just Brown and Bachmeier there's a reasonable hope we can do better than the 58th (or more charitably 47th) best Power Four QB. There's also a good chance the level of QB play could be comparable or even worse. But for my money this is the path to success we can put the most stock in for 2025.
How do others think I've pegged this? If you have hope for 2025 (I hope you do but would understand if not), where is your hope coming from?
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - needle - 12-28-2024
We've seen genuine improvement on the defense side of the ball. April knows how to scheme against pass-happy teams with a dominant rusher on his side, so hopefully/maybe this will develop into a genuine team strength if any of the secondary transfers are actually good and we see some of this past year's frosh take a leap forward.
Consider the probability that Stanford's offense remains largely ineffective and the possibility that the defense can actually be good against the pass. Then, will the front seven play against the run at a level that's not embarassing? It's a leap of faith, but we also have what's hopefully a coaching upgrade with Thompson. Anyway, I'd put my hopes on that side of the ball rather than the offense reaching any kind of consistency with young QBs and undoubtedly--barring any transfer portal miracles--porous O-line play (to say nothing about the coaching on that side of the ball).
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - msqueri - 12-28-2024
(12-28-2024, 03:30 PM)needle Wrote: We've seen genuine improvement on the defense side of the ball. April knows how to scheme against pass-happy teams with a dominant rusher on his side, so hopefully/maybe this will develop into a genuine team strength if any of the secondary transfers are actually good and we see some of this past year's frosh take a leap forward.
Consider the probability that Stanford's offense remains largely ineffective and the possibility that the defense can actually be good against the pass. Then, will the front seven play against the run at a level that's not embarassing? It's a leap of faith, but we also have what's hopefully a coaching upgrade with Thompson. Anyway, I'd put my hopes on that side of the ball rather than the offense reaching any kind of consistency with young QBs and undoubtedly--barring any transfer portal miracles--porous O-line play (to say nothing about the coaching on that side of the ball).
I think you're being somewhat generous in saying we've seen genuine improvement on the defensive side of the ball. It looks like improvement compared to the worst defense in the history of the school, which is what April's first year defense was, but I need to see a lot more before talking about genuine improvement. Our three year trajectory (most recent/salient season that you are calling genuine improvement listed last/bolded):
SP+: 103, 116, 108
FEI: 88, 115, 91
Points Per Non-Garbage Drive: 124, 132, 125
Yards Per Play: 125, 126, 119
Scoring: 112, 132, 116
Total Defense: 114, 132, 108
Pass Efficiency Defense: 89, 132, 125
Run Defense (per carry): 129, 100, 67
Our Year Two defense was better than the Year One defense, but that is too low of a bar to clear to be meaningful. Based on what we returned, the SP+ algorithm spit out that our 2024 defense would be #84 and in reality it turned out #108 by their measures. Compared to the awful state our defense was in at the end of Anderson's time here, what we put out there in 2024 is pretty indistinguishable. Just cannot get behind saying the defense has showed improvement.
The one area that showed absolutely clear improvement was run defense, so I am confused with you calling that embarrassing. We held TCU, Cal Poly, Syracuse, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Cal, and San Jose State under their season averages per carry (and we were close against Wake Forest). We were generally good against the run.
Think it's a very big leap of faith to think Thompson is a coaching upgrade over D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio has a good FBS track record whereas Thompson has literally no FBS track record (literally has never played or coached for an FBS team ever in any capacity). D'Onofrio is coming off of coaching arguably our best position unit while Thompson is coming off a catastrophic crashing and burning as Sacramento State's head coach. D'Onofrio had been part of the front seven coaching trifecta with April and Kolodziej not just these last two years but at Wisconsin as well, which is the chemistry/synergy we had hoped would be the most attractive aspect of our entire coaching staff (a pretty low bar since Taylor brought in an entire offensive coaching staff with zero combined days as major college football assistant coaches) while Thompson's chemistry/synergy is with the head coach, who professes to not be involved on defense. This coaching switch is a horror that reportedly led to revolt on the team requiring major damage control to avoid transfers. It seems exceedingly likely to be petty office politics and/or a power grab and moves jarringly away from the concept Taylor has unfailingly sold in public that April owns the defense and is trusted with the defense. I mean, if anybody believes the defense is improving, it is an abomination to then demote April by bringing in an "assistant head coach/co-defensive coordinator" who has never worked with April and whose credential is being Taylor's buddy. This should be a red flag, not a cause for optimism.
I am still left thinking QB is the least Pollyana-ish/imaginative path to the 2025 team being better.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - needle - 12-28-2024
(12-28-2024, 04:02 PM)msqueri Wrote:(12-28-2024, 03:30 PM)needle Wrote: We've seen genuine improvement on the defense side of the ball. April knows how to scheme against pass-happy teams with a dominant rusher on his side, so hopefully/maybe this will develop into a genuine team strength if any of the secondary transfers are actually good and we see some of this past year's frosh take a leap forward.
Consider the probability that Stanford's offense remains largely ineffective and the possibility that the defense can actually be good against the pass. Then, will the front seven play against the run at a level that's not embarassing? It's a leap of faith, but we also have what's hopefully a coaching upgrade with Thompson. Anyway, I'd put my hopes on that side of the ball rather than the offense reaching any kind of consistency with young QBs and undoubtedly--barring any transfer portal miracles--porous O-line play (to say nothing about the coaching on that side of the ball).
I think you're being somewhat generous in saying we've seen genuine improvement on the defensive side of the ball. It looks like improvement compared to the worst defense in the history of the school, which is what April's first year defense was, but I need to see a lot more before talking about genuine improvement. Our three year trajectory (most recent/salient season that you are calling genuine improvement listed last/bolded):
SP+: 103, 116, 108
FEI: 88, 115, 91
Points Per Non-Garbage Drive: 124, 132, 125
Yards Per Play: 125, 126, 119
Scoring: 112, 132, 116
Total Defense: 114, 132, 108
Pass Efficiency Defense: 89, 132, 125
Run Defense (per carry): 129, 100, 67
Our Year Two defense was better than the Year One defense, but that is too low of a bar to clear to be meaningful. Based on what we returned, the SP+ algorithm spit out that our 2024 defense would be #84 and in reality it turned out #108 by their measures. Compared to the awful state our defense was in at the end of Anderson's time here, what we put out there in 2024 is pretty indistinguishable. Just cannot get behind saying the defense has showed improvement.
The one area that showed absolutely clear improvement was run defense, so I am confused with you calling that embarrassing. We held TCU, Cal Poly, Syracuse, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Cal, and San Jose State under their season averages per carry (and we were close against Wake Forest). We were generally good against the run.
Think it's a very big leap of faith to think Thompson is a coaching upgrade over D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio has a good FBS track record whereas Thompson has literally no FBS track record (literally has never played or coached for an FBS team ever in any capacity). D'Onofrio is coming off of coaching arguably our best position unit while Thompson is coming off a catastrophic crashing and burning as Sacramento State's head coach. D'Onofrio had been part of the front seven coaching trifecta with April and Kolodziej not just these last two years but at Wisconsin as well, which is the chemistry/synergy we had hoped would be the most attractive aspect of our entire coaching staff (a pretty low bar since Taylor brought in an entire offensive coaching staff with zero combined days as major college football assistant coaches) while Thompson's chemistry/synergy is with the head coach, who professes to not be involved on defense. This coaching switch is a horror that reportedly led to revolt on the team requiring major damage control to avoid transfers. It seems exceedingly likely to be petty office politics and/or a power grab and moves jarringly away from the concept Taylor has unfailingly sold in public that April owns the defense and is trusted with the defense. I mean, if anybody believes the defense is improving, it is an abomination to then demote April by bringing in an "assistant head coach/co-defensive coordinator" who has never worked with April and whose credential is being Taylor's buddy. This should be a red flag, not a cause for optimism.
I am still left thinking QB is the least Pollyana-ish/imaginative path to the 2025 team being better.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think the 2024 run defense was embarassing; my worry is that 2025 ends up more like the 2023 run defense (or, given what I perceive as a lack of depth on the defensive line, possibly even worse should an anchor like Franklin get hurt).
Of course, the optics are horrible with the Thompson hire, but the linebackers could have voted with their feet and left the program. April also could have left, as I'm pretty sure his reputation is intact (based almost entirely on his time at Wisconsin, but intact nonetheless). Instead, the team's best defensive guys (so far) have stayed, which to me suggests Thompson has something going for him.
Compare to the offense, where anchor guys Baklenko and Daniels decided their futures looked better elsewhere, and it's just another data point that TT's offense will *never* amount to something even average at the P4 level.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - old spanish trail - 12-28-2024
(12-28-2024, 04:02 PM)msqueri Wrote:(12-28-2024, 03:30 PM)needle Wrote: We've seen genuine improvement on the defense side of the ball. April knows how to scheme against pass-happy teams with a dominant rusher on his side, so hopefully/maybe this will develop into a genuine team strength if any of the secondary transfers are actually good and we see some of this past year's frosh take a leap forward.
Consider the probability that Stanford's offense remains largely ineffective and the possibility that the defense can actually be good against the pass. Then, will the front seven play against the run at a level that's not embarassing? It's a leap of faith, but we also have what's hopefully a coaching upgrade with Thompson. Anyway, I'd put my hopes on that side of the ball rather than the offense reaching any kind of consistency with young QBs and undoubtedly--barring any transfer portal miracles--porous O-line play (to say nothing about the coaching on that side of the ball).
I think you're being somewhat generous in saying we've seen genuine improvement on the defensive side of the ball. It looks like improvement compared to the worst defense in the history of the school, which is what April's first year defense was, but I need to see a lot more before talking about genuine improvement. Our three year trajectory (most recent/salient season that you are calling genuine improvement listed last/bolded):
SP+: 103, 116, 108
FEI: 88, 115, 91
Points Per Non-Garbage Drive: 124, 132, 125
Yards Per Play: 125, 126, 119
Scoring: 112, 132, 116
Total Defense: 114, 132, 108
Pass Efficiency Defense: 89, 132, 125
Run Defense (per carry): 129, 100, 67
Our Year Two defense was better than the Year One defense, but that is too low of a bar to clear to be meaningful. Based on what we returned, the SP+ algorithm spit out that our 2024 defense would be #84 and in reality it turned out #108 by their measures. Compared to the awful state our defense was in at the end of Anderson's time here, what we put out there in 2024 is pretty indistinguishable. Just cannot get behind saying the defense has showed improvement.
The one area that showed absolutely clear improvement was run defense, so I am confused with you calling that embarrassing. We held TCU, Cal Poly, Syracuse, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Cal, and San Jose State under their season averages per carry (and we were close against Wake Forest). We were generally good against the run.
Think it's a very big leap of faith to think Thompson is a coaching upgrade over D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio has a good FBS track record whereas Thompson has literally no FBS track record (literally has never played or coached for an FBS team ever in any capacity). D'Onofrio is coming off of coaching arguably our best position unit while Thompson is coming off a catastrophic crashing and burning as Sacramento State's head coach. D'Onofrio had been part of the front seven coaching trifecta with April and Kolodziej not just these last two years but at Wisconsin as well, which is the chemistry/synergy we had hoped would be the most attractive aspect of our entire coaching staff (a pretty low bar since Taylor brought in an entire offensive coaching staff with zero combined days as major college football assistant coaches) while Thompson's chemistry/synergy is with the head coach, who professes to not be involved on defense. This coaching switch is a horror that reportedly led to revolt on the team requiring major damage control to avoid transfers. It seems exceedingly likely to be petty office politics and/or a power grab and moves jarringly away from the concept Taylor has unfailingly sold in public that April owns the defense and is trusted with the defense. I mean, if anybody believes the defense is improving, it is an abomination to then demote April by bringing in an "assistant head coach/co-defensive coordinator" who has never worked with April and whose credential is being Taylor's buddy. This should be a red flag, not a cause for optimism.
I am still left thinking QB is the least Pollyana-ish/imaginative path to the 2025 team being better.
Though I think I give higher marks to Daniels than you do, I agree re QB position a reason for optimism. But, YIKES, you confirmed my speculation around the Thompson hire. It may fulfill historical promises which should never have been made. Hopefully we will make better choices next year and down the road before the program goes under.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - drnoodleman - 12-29-2024
(12-28-2024, 05:46 PM)needle Wrote:Several thoughts here to consider. Was Andrew Luck in his GM position when this hire was announced? Did he sign off on it? Maybe April realized he was in over his head and requested? a co defensive coordinator addition? Why were the players upset? Is there anyone who can reach out to the coaches/players involved for explanations? In my experience with this forum and Ben Parker's group it appears that Matt, Samuel, Jackson Moore and Ben are the people who, at times, have information/contact sources within the athletic dept. to help us understand the why of the what. I always like to look at motive for these decisions. Last thought: Maybe Stanford does not WANT ME to know?(12-28-2024, 04:02 PM)msqueri Wrote:(12-28-2024, 03:30 PM)needle Wrote: We've seen genuine improvement on the defense side of the ball. April knows how to scheme against pass-happy teams with a dominant rusher on his side, so hopefully/maybe this will develop into a genuine team strength if any of the secondary transfers are actually good and we see some of this past year's frosh take a leap forward.
Consider the probability that Stanford's offense remains largely ineffective and the possibility that the defense can actually be good against the pass. Then, will the front seven play against the run at a level that's not embarassing? It's a leap of faith, but we also have what's hopefully a coaching upgrade with Thompson. Anyway, I'd put my hopes on that side of the ball rather than the offense reaching any kind of consistency with young QBs and undoubtedly--barring any transfer portal miracles--porous O-line play (to say nothing about the coaching on that side of the ball).
I think you're being somewhat generous in saying we've seen genuine improvement on the defensive side of the ball. It looks like improvement compared to the worst defense in the history of the school, which is what April's first year defense was, but I need to see a lot more before talking about genuine improvement. Our three year trajectory (most recent/salient season that you are calling genuine improvement listed last/bolded):
SP+: 103, 116, 108
FEI: 88, 115, 91
Points Per Non-Garbage Drive: 124, 132, 125
Yards Per Play: 125, 126, 119
Scoring: 112, 132, 116
Total Defense: 114, 132, 108
Pass Efficiency Defense: 89, 132, 125
Run Defense (per carry): 129, 100, 67
Our Year Two defense was better than the Year One defense, but that is too low of a bar to clear to be meaningful. Based on what we returned, the SP+ algorithm spit out that our 2024 defense would be #84 and in reality it turned out #108 by their measures. Compared to the awful state our defense was in at the end of Anderson's time here, what we put out there in 2024 is pretty indistinguishable. Just cannot get behind saying the defense has showed improvement.
The one area that showed absolutely clear improvement was run defense, so I am confused with you calling that embarrassing. We held TCU, Cal Poly, Syracuse, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Cal, and San Jose State under their season averages per carry (and we were close against Wake Forest). We were generally good against the run.
Think it's a very big leap of faith to think Thompson is a coaching upgrade over D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio has a good FBS track record whereas Thompson has literally no FBS track record (literally has never played or coached for an FBS team ever in any capacity). D'Onofrio is coming off of coaching arguably our best position unit while Thompson is coming off a catastrophic crashing and burning as Sacramento State's head coach. D'Onofrio had been part of the front seven coaching trifecta with April and Kolodziej not just these last two years but at Wisconsin as well, which is the chemistry/synergy we had hoped would be the most attractive aspect of our entire coaching staff (a pretty low bar since Taylor brought in an entire offensive coaching staff with zero combined days as major college football assistant coaches) while Thompson's chemistry/synergy is with the head coach, who professes to not be involved on defense. This coaching switch is a horror that reportedly led to revolt on the team requiring major damage control to avoid transfers. It seems exceedingly likely to be petty office politics and/or a power grab and moves jarringly away from the concept Taylor has unfailingly sold in public that April owns the defense and is trusted with the defense. I mean, if anybody believes the defense is improving, it is an abomination to then demote April by bringing in an "assistant head coach/co-defensive coordinator" who has never worked with April and whose credential is being Taylor's buddy. This should be a red flag, not a cause for optimism.
I am still left thinking QB is the least Pollyana-ish/imaginative path to the 2025 team being better.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think the 2024 run defense was embarassing; my worry is that 2025 ends up more like the 2023 run defense (or, given what I perceive as a lack of depth on the defensive line, possibly even worse should an anchor like Franklin get hurt).
Of course, the optics are horrible with the Thompson hire, but the linebackers could have voted with their feet and left the program. April also could have left, as I'm pretty sure his reputation is intact (based almost entirely on his time at Wisconsin, but intact nonetheless). Instead, the team's best defensive guys (so far) have stayed, which to me suggests Thompson has something going for him.
Compare to the offense, where anchor guys Baklenko and Daniels decided their futures looked better elsewhere, and it's just another data point that TT's offense will *never* amount to something even average at the P4 level.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - 82lsju - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 10:46 AM)drnoodleman Wrote: Several thoughts here to consider. Was Andrew Luck in his GM position when this hire was announced? Did he sign off on it? Maybe April realized he was in over his head and requested? a co defensive coordinator addition? Why were the players upset? Is there anyone who can reach out to the coaches/players involved for explanations? In my experience with this forum and Ben Parker's group it appears that Matt, Samuel, Jackson Moore and Ben are the people who, at times, have information/contact sources within the athletic dept. to help us understand the why of the what. I always like to look at motive for these decisions. Last thought: Maybe Stanford does not WANT ME to know?
Luck's position was announced on Nov 30, 2024
https://gostanford.com/news/2024/11/30/stanford-names-andrew-luck-to-football-general-manager-position
Thompson's hire was announced on Dec 06, 2024
https://gostanford.com/news/2024/12/6/andy-thompson-joins-football-staff
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - BobK - 12-29-2024
Did you miss Luck had t started then
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - msqueri - 12-29-2024
There's more info shared on the CSR premium board. Based on that my understanding is that the defensive coaching change was not run by Luck. There are some rumblings that there's an internal team dynamic where April is more popular than Taylor and this wasn't well-received. For what it's worth, I do not consider myself an insider, just somebody who follows closely, hears some things, and can do a pretty fair job assessing from the outside.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - MV72018 - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 12:10 PM)BobK Wrote: Did you miss Luck had t started then
Say WHAT?!
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - needle - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 12:22 PM)msqueri Wrote: There's more info shared on the CSR premium board. Based on that my understanding is that the defensive coaching change was not run by Luck. There are some rumblings that there's an internal team dynamic where April is more popular than Taylor and this wasn't well-received. For what it's worth, I do not consider myself an insider, just somebody who follows closely, hears some things, and can do a pretty fair job assessing from the outside.
I take the view that it's good that Luck didn't "meddle" with TT's unpopular(?) staffing decision. In my mind, TT is most probably gone after '25, and it will be a real challenge to bring in a good HC, who will certainly want full authority over all coaching staff hires.
Let it be known to that pool of potential candidates: the Stanford GM is not going to try to dictate to you who is on your staff.
RE: Paths for success for 2025 - drnoodleman - 12-29-2024
(12-29-2024, 12:22 PM)msqueri Wrote: There's more info shared on the CSR premium board. Based on that my understanding is that the defensive coaching change was not run by Luck. There are some rumblings that there's an internal team dynamic where April is more popular than Taylor and this wasn't well-received. For what it's worth, I do not consider myself an insider, just somebody who follows closely, hears some things, and can do a pretty fair job assessing from the outside.
As a former CSR member, I did not renew my subscription when it came due. I truly admire and respect your enthusiasm, your opinions, analysis and writing skills and quite frankly MISS YOU on the Cardboard! Please come back to this board more often! You are a voice that needs to be heard! Thank you for all your hard work!