[Row80Critic]

Any word on who is winning the starting QB job?

[Row80Critic]

Any word on who is winning the starting QB job?

[TriangleTree]

Any word on who is winning the starting QB job?

Heard Taylor say in his press conference that he has seen clear separation, but that he wouldn’t disclose yet. 
Good news IMO
He addressed a specific question on Lamson, made me think it wasn’t him.

[TriangleTree]

Any word on who is winning the starting QB job?

Heard Taylor say in his press conference that he has seen clear separation, but that he wouldn’t disclose yet. 
Good news IMO
He addressed a specific question on Lamson, made me think it wasn’t him.

[Spiny_Norman]

I have seen next to nothing of substance on social media about developments in fall camp. We'll learn more once the first depth chart is posted for next week. For now, this appears to be the most recent meeting between Coach Taylor and the press. Has anyone seen/heard anything from the assistants? I would really like to hear from Bobby April, the DC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xAlmWLjfBA

[Spiny_Norman]

I have seen next to nothing of substance on social media about developments in fall camp. We'll learn more once the first depth chart is posted for next week. For now, this appears to be the most recent meeting between Coach Taylor and the press. Has anyone seen/heard anything from the assistants? I would really like to hear from Bobby April, the DC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xAlmWLjfBA

[msqueri]

There have been tons of interviews with players and coaches. That I can recall it includes at least four interviews with Taylor as well as ones with most of the assistants (April, Talamaivao and Netter, Osborne, Byham, Kolodziej, Williams, Gregory) and lots of players (Rogers, Anderson, Phillips, Moi, Humphreys, Starr, Yurosek, Roush, Wright, Manley, Porter, Gilman, Armitage, Lamson, Reuben, Pale, Bachmeier). And that's just what I've consumed, may be more out there. For each interview, as is my obsessive style, I do a 10,000 character deep dive analysis of everything each said, supplemented by empirical research projects on whatever I find interesting from those observations. I have learned a lot about Stanford football in the last three weeks. I connected with one of the site publishers asking if I could take my analysis of interviews he did and post elsewhere to stimulate further discussion and he said that violates site policy.

There are things this message board community offers but it is profoundly not the place to be for a Stanford football fan. I find the discussions intelligent and entertaining so I've been posting here recently and am happy to engage in football talk, but just being honest this is not a place for information or news on Stanford football. There is a lot out there elsewhere.

P.S. Something I did feel comfortable posting was my thoughts on the depth chart based on various things I'm picking up but people didn't seem to want to discuss that in the thread I posted it in. For what it's worth I think signs point to Lamson as QB1.

P.P.S. I just heard back from the other site publisher and he was all for me posting my analyses. So if folks are interested in them (I'm warning you it's a lot of words) I can do that for the ones based on Rivals content. Part of the reason it's kosher for me to do that, by the way, is that the Rivals interviews are published on Ben Parker's YouTube channel, so happily the response to Spiny_Norman is a lot of great interviews are publicly accessible. Check Ben's stuff out:

https://www.youtube.com/@slamdunk406

[msqueri]

There have been tons of interviews with players and coaches. That I can recall it includes at least four interviews with Taylor as well as ones with most of the assistants (April, Talamaivao and Netter, Osborne, Byham, Kolodziej, Williams, Gregory) and lots of players (Rogers, Anderson, Phillips, Moi, Humphreys, Starr, Yurosek, Roush, Wright, Manley, Porter, Gilman, Armitage, Lamson, Reuben, Pale, Bachmeier). And that's just what I've consumed, may be more out there. For each interview, as is my obsessive style, I do a 10,000 character deep dive analysis of everything each said, supplemented by empirical research projects on whatever I find interesting from those observations. I have learned a lot about Stanford football in the last three weeks. I connected with one of the site publishers asking if I could take my analysis of interviews he did and post elsewhere to stimulate further discussion and he said that violates site policy.

There are things this message board community offers but it is profoundly not the place to be for a Stanford football fan. I find the discussions intelligent and entertaining so I've been posting here recently and am happy to engage in football talk, but just being honest this is not a place for information or news on Stanford football. There is a lot out there elsewhere.

P.S. Something I did feel comfortable posting was my thoughts on the depth chart based on various things I'm picking up but people didn't seem to want to discuss that in the thread I posted it in. For what it's worth I think signs point to Lamson as QB1.

P.P.S. I just heard back from the other site publisher and he was all for me posting my analyses. So if folks are interested in them (I'm warning you it's a lot of words) I can do that for the ones based on Rivals content. Part of the reason it's kosher for me to do that, by the way, is that the Rivals interviews are published on Ben Parker's YouTube channel, so happily the response to Spiny_Norman is a lot of great interviews are publicly accessible. Check Ben's stuff out:

https://www.youtube.com/@slamdunk406

[murky]

Yes, please post what you are willing and able too.

[murky]

Yes, please post what you are willing and able too.

[msqueri]

Ok, I will go through it chronologically and you can go through the journey with me. You can look at Ben Parker's YouTube channel for a better sense of when interviews were conducted (figure a several day lag from time of interview to time of posting and then another several days until I have time to dissect). As a reminder, due to subscription site policies I am posting reactions to interviews that have been posted online and not to those only available on the 247 site, which includes some good ones (per the question above, that includes April). First up, Taylor's first press availability of camp:

* One still gets the sober, patient, process-oriented, culture-building vibe from Taylor as from previous interviews. There were aspects where I wasn't sure if the tone had subtly shifted from earlier comments now that the season is fast approaching and things are getting a bit more real, but it also occurs to me that I'm still getting to know Taylor's tics and tells. While we've seen a fair amount of him by now, this is the first preseason camp and I don't want to read too much into verbiage, body language, and tone. That's especially the case as, this being a process-oriented coach and this being the first day, a lot of the substance of what he said was banal coach speak about good energy and being where you'd expect on the first day.

* The spiel about still getting to know the players and the players getting acclimated to the culture and the system is a reminder about how new all of this is. There may be a temptation among fans to view the acclimating as having taken place over the last 8-9 months and wanting to see progress and the real Taylor team in action but we should probably resist that urge. It's still very early days and the culture builder in chief doesn't feel like he or his players are acclimated yet. Him being who he is I imagine he'll never sound like he/we have fully arrived but this was something different, a clear sense he doesn't yet feel like he knows his players or that they know his system.

* The discussion of how fast it takes for a team to grasp what they're doing was interesting. I think I can detect a hopefulness but uncertainty in Taylor's comments that the team can turn that corner quickly. He noted that "it can definitely happen in the first year" but also implicit was that it doesn't always and some teams are slower in turning around than others. The substance of the subsequent comments focused on trained instinct and being able to play without thinking. That part of the interview left me thinking that Taylor thinks there's a chance but that there's still work to do and he's not sure how quickly things can click.

* It's always somewhat interesting when somebody answers a question they think they hear and/or want to answer rather than what was answered. An example of that was Ben's question about points of emphasis and groundwork/foundation, which for some reason Taylor started with a reflection on depth compared to the spring. To me that reinforces (recall many, many spring data points to this effect) that Taylor didn't feel he had a real team this spring and is looking forward to coaching with more than one RB/seven OL. It seems to me Taylor answered this way because for him points of emphasis/groundwork/foundation all starts with lots and lots of practice reps, and to date we haven't been able to practice (especially on offense, which is his natural focus) with the kind of depth that facilitates what he wants to do.

* That being said, the rest of the answer to that question wasn't a dodge but rather matter of fact reiteration of coach speak (and cliches are cliche for a reason....I think he was being straightforward about the key points of emphasis not really changing) that it's about execution, mentality, and confidence. I think he focused first on depth unlocking a better situation for practice reps because that is the key variable from the spring whereas the real answer to Ben's question is that the answer on points of emphasis doesn't change for this patient, process-oriented, culture-building coach: execution, mentality, and confidence. If there was anything that jumped out as insightful from this answer it would be the confidence part. He really focused on that and gave it unique emphasis, leaving the clear impression that this is aspirational and not something we yet have. He used the phrase "legitimate confidence." This strikes me as one of the big things the last 4-5 years (which means everybody on our team) stole from the program (Shaw even reflected frequently on it in his post-mortems). We've been down to the point where the players need to rebuild a sense of legitimate confidence. I think Taylor knows this will have to come with actual on-field progress. By the way, this speaks to my most ambitious hope for the season, which is that an incredibly easy first half of the schedule could build confidence individually and collectively such that maybe this team can heal from Shaw's theft of confidence (con game?) pretty quickly.

[msqueri]

Ok, I will go through it chronologically and you can go through the journey with me. You can look at Ben Parker's YouTube channel for a better sense of when interviews were conducted (figure a several day lag from time of interview to time of posting and then another several days until I have time to dissect). As a reminder, due to subscription site policies I am posting reactions to interviews that have been posted online and not to those only available on the 247 site, which includes some good ones (per the question above, that includes April). First up, Taylor's first press availability of camp:

* One still gets the sober, patient, process-oriented, culture-building vibe from Taylor as from previous interviews. There were aspects where I wasn't sure if the tone had subtly shifted from earlier comments now that the season is fast approaching and things are getting a bit more real, but it also occurs to me that I'm still getting to know Taylor's tics and tells. While we've seen a fair amount of him by now, this is the first preseason camp and I don't want to read too much into verbiage, body language, and tone. That's especially the case as, this being a process-oriented coach and this being the first day, a lot of the substance of what he said was banal coach speak about good energy and being where you'd expect on the first day.

* The spiel about still getting to know the players and the players getting acclimated to the culture and the system is a reminder about how new all of this is. There may be a temptation among fans to view the acclimating as having taken place over the last 8-9 months and wanting to see progress and the real Taylor team in action but we should probably resist that urge. It's still very early days and the culture builder in chief doesn't feel like he or his players are acclimated yet. Him being who he is I imagine he'll never sound like he/we have fully arrived but this was something different, a clear sense he doesn't yet feel like he knows his players or that they know his system.

* The discussion of how fast it takes for a team to grasp what they're doing was interesting. I think I can detect a hopefulness but uncertainty in Taylor's comments that the team can turn that corner quickly. He noted that "it can definitely happen in the first year" but also implicit was that it doesn't always and some teams are slower in turning around than others. The substance of the subsequent comments focused on trained instinct and being able to play without thinking. That part of the interview left me thinking that Taylor thinks there's a chance but that there's still work to do and he's not sure how quickly things can click.

* It's always somewhat interesting when somebody answers a question they think they hear and/or want to answer rather than what was answered. An example of that was Ben's question about points of emphasis and groundwork/foundation, which for some reason Taylor started with a reflection on depth compared to the spring. To me that reinforces (recall many, many spring data points to this effect) that Taylor didn't feel he had a real team this spring and is looking forward to coaching with more than one RB/seven OL. It seems to me Taylor answered this way because for him points of emphasis/groundwork/foundation all starts with lots and lots of practice reps, and to date we haven't been able to practice (especially on offense, which is his natural focus) with the kind of depth that facilitates what he wants to do.

* That being said, the rest of the answer to that question wasn't a dodge but rather matter of fact reiteration of coach speak (and cliches are cliche for a reason....I think he was being straightforward about the key points of emphasis not really changing) that it's about execution, mentality, and confidence. I think he focused first on depth unlocking a better situation for practice reps because that is the key variable from the spring whereas the real answer to Ben's question is that the answer on points of emphasis doesn't change for this patient, process-oriented, culture-building coach: execution, mentality, and confidence. If there was anything that jumped out as insightful from this answer it would be the confidence part. He really focused on that and gave it unique emphasis, leaving the clear impression that this is aspirational and not something we yet have. He used the phrase "legitimate confidence." This strikes me as one of the big things the last 4-5 years (which means everybody on our team) stole from the program (Shaw even reflected frequently on it in his post-mortems). We've been down to the point where the players need to rebuild a sense of legitimate confidence. I think Taylor knows this will have to come with actual on-field progress. By the way, this speaks to my most ambitious hope for the season, which is that an incredibly easy first half of the schedule could build confidence individually and collectively such that maybe this team can heal from Shaw's theft of confidence (con game?) pretty quickly.

[msqueri]

* The most interesting parts were probably the discussions of running backs. I'm not expecting a ton from Ryan Butler but it's notable he more readily/seemingly enthusiastically got praise than our returning backs. Taylor also mentioned the true freshmen unbidden (though it took him a few seconds to remember Irvin's name, which probably isn't a great sign). Taylor had to be explicitly prompted on Smith, and never mentioned Filkins. My read is that Taylor is approaching this room like most rational people would - being from Missouri on Smith and Filkins and not letting hopes get too high until they can show some reliability. The comments on Smith when drawn out reinforced that to me. Taylor measured his response by couching it in terms of Smith looking reluctant in the spring coming back from injury and looking more confident now though still not being 100 percent mentally and needing a full summer working with Deatrick and the S&C staff, and Taylor continues to talk mostly theoretically about Smith (e.g., seeing some flashes at the end of spring of what everybody is so excited for) rather than as a coach confident in the player. When Taylor was further prompted by a THIRD consecutive question, there was a bit of a head shake/eye roll that may have had at least a little bit of fatigue with answering so many questions about such a theoretical player but even if that wasn't anywhere near Taylor's mind I think the alternate (probably somewhat more likely) explanation is that the question invited Taylor to think about what a healthy Smith would mean for the offense and Taylor's reaction indicated that IF that could happen it would be big. "He's perfectly fit for that position" (that being a RB position in Taylor's offense that is asked to be versatile and run routes) struck me as a genuine compliment that Taylor came around to on the third RB question because it allowed him to answer it in the hypothetical of what Smith could mean for the offense. I think Taylor understands better than anybody that Smith could be a really good weapon in this offense but we need to see it to believe it.



* When asked about defensive philosophy, Taylor immediately shifts ownership to April and his staff. I think it's clear that Taylor views himself as the culture guy and offensive coach but that defense is about hiring good people and letting them do the job. I never get any sense of micromanaging (or even much sense of ownership) from Taylor when it comes to defense. It comes across as confident, trust-oriented management and I'm glad to see it, just observing that it's interesting that Taylor always and immediately shifts ownership of the defense to April. As for the substance of what Taylor said about defense, it's what we've heard about an odd structure (i.e. 3-4 base) that plays a lot of nickel, is aggressive, and gives a lot of looks. We are also hearing more and more about the mental side of the defense, in this case needing to know your stuff and be able to make the right pre- and post-snap reads rather than just lining up and going. I have some PTSD from all our years of hearing about reads and fits under Anderson's defense and have welcomed indications of less complexity, and it's fair to wonder whether the defense will actually be any less complex. But even if it isn't I have much greater confidence that the complexity will be for a useful purpose as April hopefully knows what he's doing. That being said, it's interesting that in separate interviews several of our non-Wisconsin coaches (Taylor here, Paul Williams previously) have clearly emphasized the defense's complexity.



* The answer on how the offense looked struck me as minimally insightful, as Taylor previewed in saying he can't really know before going back and reviewing the tape. The upshot, for what it's worth, was that for the most part we knew what we were doing but it's still a little sloppy.



* Also didn't think we learned much from the question on being picked last. He just seemed to think it was irrelevant (if anything it seemed like a somewhat unnecessarily loquacious answer to just dismiss the importance.



* Still talking about the players' drive and focus, which is good (although a slight nit is he said they give everything you ask for, which seemed to be a conscious effort not to say they give everything they have....maybe he just thinks the latter is cliche/hyperbolic).



* Amusing moment when Ben's diplomatically phrased question about there being a lot of possible OL combinations elicited a self-aware laugh of recognition from Taylor. The bottom line seems to be we don't really know what we have yet and need to see the OL, especially the freshmen and Bank, move around. Taylor had an interesting comment alluding to how he and his staff didn't actually recruit this class (the way he put it was they haven't had a chance to see them in person). Again Taylor focused on having more depth at OL than in the spring, clearly very much at the forefront of his thinking.



* Taylor pivoted very quickly from talking about how the dearth of returning starters puts more pressure on those few to a general reflection about how our lack of experience is an opportunity for everybody. If one were to read anything into it (which may or may not be sound), it might be that seniority holds little stock and everybody has an opportunity. Of course, that wouldn't be very illuminating as there's scant seniority to even prioritize.



* I loved the way the QB competition question was framed (how are you handling the reps at QB). As camp moves on there will hopefully be other opportunities to ask specific questions about each guy, plans for the opener, etc., but for now a snapshot on how reps are being handled is as illuminating as anything. One of big takeaways from this interview is that Lamson, Patu, and Daniels (for thosee following such things, that was the order Taylor mentioned them) got mentioned separately from Jackson in Taylor's discussion of relatively even reps at this stage. I think this could be read either as Jackson not being on the same footing in the competition (or even outside of the competition at the moment) or as Jackson being settled in more slowly since he's just a freshman. I don't think we know enough to say right now. Also interesting that Taylor said that situation of relatively even reps for the older guys and working Jackson in would be the case for this first week and then we'll see from there. It will be very interesting whether than means narrowing down to a tighter focus, bringing Jackson on more even footing to make it an even more open competition, or potentially a little of both (e.g., if one of the older three gets removed from the competition).

[msqueri]

* The most interesting parts were probably the discussions of running backs. I'm not expecting a ton from Ryan Butler but it's notable he more readily/seemingly enthusiastically got praise than our returning backs. Taylor also mentioned the true freshmen unbidden (though it took him a few seconds to remember Irvin's name, which probably isn't a great sign). Taylor had to be explicitly prompted on Smith, and never mentioned Filkins. My read is that Taylor is approaching this room like most rational people would - being from Missouri on Smith and Filkins and not letting hopes get too high until they can show some reliability. The comments on Smith when drawn out reinforced that to me. Taylor measured his response by couching it in terms of Smith looking reluctant in the spring coming back from injury and looking more confident now though still not being 100 percent mentally and needing a full summer working with Deatrick and the S&C staff, and Taylor continues to talk mostly theoretically about Smith (e.g., seeing some flashes at the end of spring of what everybody is so excited for) rather than as a coach confident in the player. When Taylor was further prompted by a THIRD consecutive question, there was a bit of a head shake/eye roll that may have had at least a little bit of fatigue with answering so many questions about such a theoretical player but even if that wasn't anywhere near Taylor's mind I think the alternate (probably somewhat more likely) explanation is that the question invited Taylor to think about what a healthy Smith would mean for the offense and Taylor's reaction indicated that IF that could happen it would be big. "He's perfectly fit for that position" (that being a RB position in Taylor's offense that is asked to be versatile and run routes) struck me as a genuine compliment that Taylor came around to on the third RB question because it allowed him to answer it in the hypothetical of what Smith could mean for the offense. I think Taylor understands better than anybody that Smith could be a really good weapon in this offense but we need to see it to believe it.



* When asked about defensive philosophy, Taylor immediately shifts ownership to April and his staff. I think it's clear that Taylor views himself as the culture guy and offensive coach but that defense is about hiring good people and letting them do the job. I never get any sense of micromanaging (or even much sense of ownership) from Taylor when it comes to defense. It comes across as confident, trust-oriented management and I'm glad to see it, just observing that it's interesting that Taylor always and immediately shifts ownership of the defense to April. As for the substance of what Taylor said about defense, it's what we've heard about an odd structure (i.e. 3-4 base) that plays a lot of nickel, is aggressive, and gives a lot of looks. We are also hearing more and more about the mental side of the defense, in this case needing to know your stuff and be able to make the right pre- and post-snap reads rather than just lining up and going. I have some PTSD from all our years of hearing about reads and fits under Anderson's defense and have welcomed indications of less complexity, and it's fair to wonder whether the defense will actually be any less complex. But even if it isn't I have much greater confidence that the complexity will be for a useful purpose as April hopefully knows what he's doing. That being said, it's interesting that in separate interviews several of our non-Wisconsin coaches (Taylor here, Paul Williams previously) have clearly emphasized the defense's complexity.



* The answer on how the offense looked struck me as minimally insightful, as Taylor previewed in saying he can't really know before going back and reviewing the tape. The upshot, for what it's worth, was that for the most part we knew what we were doing but it's still a little sloppy.



* Also didn't think we learned much from the question on being picked last. He just seemed to think it was irrelevant (if anything it seemed like a somewhat unnecessarily loquacious answer to just dismiss the importance.



* Still talking about the players' drive and focus, which is good (although a slight nit is he said they give everything you ask for, which seemed to be a conscious effort not to say they give everything they have....maybe he just thinks the latter is cliche/hyperbolic).



* Amusing moment when Ben's diplomatically phrased question about there being a lot of possible OL combinations elicited a self-aware laugh of recognition from Taylor. The bottom line seems to be we don't really know what we have yet and need to see the OL, especially the freshmen and Bank, move around. Taylor had an interesting comment alluding to how he and his staff didn't actually recruit this class (the way he put it was they haven't had a chance to see them in person). Again Taylor focused on having more depth at OL than in the spring, clearly very much at the forefront of his thinking.



* Taylor pivoted very quickly from talking about how the dearth of returning starters puts more pressure on those few to a general reflection about how our lack of experience is an opportunity for everybody. If one were to read anything into it (which may or may not be sound), it might be that seniority holds little stock and everybody has an opportunity. Of course, that wouldn't be very illuminating as there's scant seniority to even prioritize.



* I loved the way the QB competition question was framed (how are you handling the reps at QB). As camp moves on there will hopefully be other opportunities to ask specific questions about each guy, plans for the opener, etc., but for now a snapshot on how reps are being handled is as illuminating as anything. One of big takeaways from this interview is that Lamson, Patu, and Daniels (for thosee following such things, that was the order Taylor mentioned them) got mentioned separately from Jackson in Taylor's discussion of relatively even reps at this stage. I think this could be read either as Jackson not being on the same footing in the competition (or even outside of the competition at the moment) or as Jackson being settled in more slowly since he's just a freshman. I don't think we know enough to say right now. Also interesting that Taylor said that situation of relatively even reps for the older guys and working Jackson in would be the case for this first week and then we'll see from there. It will be very interesting whether than means narrowing down to a tighter focus, bringing Jackson on more even footing to make it an even more open competition, or potentially a little of both (e.g., if one of the older three gets removed from the competition).

[msqueri]

* Ben asked specifically about Lamson and Jackson so of course we fans will parse those answers for clues. Taylor talked about Lamson as a tough kid, very competitive, accurate, and football is important to him. It's interesting that these traits all related to makeup except for one skills trait that happens to be the one Taylor has said he prioritizes. Taylor talked about Jackson as the ball coming out really nice, having great anticipation, and seeing the field really well. As Taylor explicitly said, a lot of what stands out with Jackson are the kinds of things you can't teach. I have to believe that when Taylor gives concrete compliments in his most watched/prized room we should understand that he is, naturally, comparing them to each other. I take this as evidence that Lamson may stand out in makeup compared to one or both of Patu and Daniels (though I must say I didn't pick up warm and fuzzies as Taylor was saying it and we don't have any reason to know one way or another how well Lamson's personality meshes with Taylor's) and also probably stands out in accuracy compared to one or both of them. What's most interesting to me is that if one just looked at what Taylor said about the two (or at his body language when saying it) you might give Jackson the edge. Those are pretty big/salient compliments to be giving the freshman. We'll know more once we start getting data points on Patu and Daniels too but I really appreciate getting a bit of a glimpse into Taylor thinking on Lamson and Jackson.

* I am very disappointed nobody asked a question about if any players are being held out or if anybody is going to miss the opener. Come on guys!

[msqueri]

* Ben asked specifically about Lamson and Jackson so of course we fans will parse those answers for clues. Taylor talked about Lamson as a tough kid, very competitive, accurate, and football is important to him. It's interesting that these traits all related to makeup except for one skills trait that happens to be the one Taylor has said he prioritizes. Taylor talked about Jackson as the ball coming out really nice, having great anticipation, and seeing the field really well. As Taylor explicitly said, a lot of what stands out with Jackson are the kinds of things you can't teach. I have to believe that when Taylor gives concrete compliments in his most watched/prized room we should understand that he is, naturally, comparing them to each other. I take this as evidence that Lamson may stand out in makeup compared to one or both of Patu and Daniels (though I must say I didn't pick up warm and fuzzies as Taylor was saying it and we don't have any reason to know one way or another how well Lamson's personality meshes with Taylor's) and also probably stands out in accuracy compared to one or both of them. What's most interesting to me is that if one just looked at what Taylor said about the two (or at his body language when saying it) you might give Jackson the edge. Those are pretty big/salient compliments to be giving the freshman. We'll know more once we start getting data points on Patu and Daniels too but I really appreciate getting a bit of a glimpse into Taylor thinking on Lamson and Jackson.

* I am very disappointed nobody asked a question about if any players are being held out or if anybody is going to miss the opener. Come on guys!

[msqueri]

Rogers and Anderson:


* As others have noted the size difference between these two is eye-popping. Come to think of it, one of the themes of Jackson's practice report on TOS was how some of the OL are really not very big (including the incoming transfers). Perhaps something to address over time through recruiting and S&C.

* It's a subjective thing that's hard to describe, and certainly I'm influenced by his recruiting profile and initial positive buzz his first year on campus, but Anderson looks like a guy you'd expect to play in the NFL, which I realize is an odd thing to say for a guy who has done nothing good in college.

* It's big news to hear Rogers introduce himself as playing center. That had been one of the biggest lineup uncertainties on the roster. Rogers is the third most experienced player on the entire roster (Yurosek far and away most experienced, followed by Humphreys and then Roogers, Phillips and Sinclair the next tier, Wyrick and Filkins the next tier after that), but practically all of the experience was at right guard. It makes sense that we'd have the anchor of our line be at center but to hear it definitively from the horse's mouth (with no hemming and hawing, just "I play center") is quite notable. Cross off one question on what our lineup looks like. I still have questions about how he'll play at center given that it's a new position. With Anderson, it's interesting that he said "left and right tackle." There was less uncertainty regarding his position because he's obviously a tackle, but in his case the introduction tells us that he's practicing at both and it's uncertain which tackle spot he'll slide into.

* It's a seemingly small thing but Rogers introducing himself as a senior while Anderson introduced himself as a redshirt freshman is a perfect microcosm of the deeply damaging Shaw culture of viewing players based on academic years and, I hope, with Anderson's self-description a ray of hope that our younger players will start thinking of themselves as football players again. In a serious football culture Rogers would have introduced himself as a junior and would be viewing this year as only his penultimate one. I have no idea whether Rogers intends for this to be his last year at Stanford, but I would have been a lot more confident if he introduced himself based on his football eligibility year. Introducing himself this way makes him sound like the parade of Stanford players before him the last several years who view Stanford as a four year way station on the path to a degree and further personal advancement afterward. I know some think I overdo this lamentation but it really is sad to me. You can't compete in major college football without fifth year players like Rogers and we developed a culture that made what should be standard operating procedure a rarity. This is not the way it has to be. Taylor said this spring that we don't have any seniors but I'm not sure players who played under Shaw have gotten that memo yet. [Don't want to read too much into body language of somebody I don't know at all but did notice Rogers looked down/had a bit of a reaction when Anderson said the "redshirt" part, so maybe there's a bit of recognition by Rogers that academic year does not equal football year and he could have introduced himself differently. Crossing all fingers and toes that this is not Rogers' last year at Stanford.]

* Very good to get the player perspective on the two-headed OL coaching monster. It's no surprise they'd talk about it as a good thing and that the comments would mirror what Netter and Talamaivao say, but it's good to hear nonetheless. The idea that multiple perspectives would be helpful is intuitive on some level and there's a logic that multiple coaches would be a boon for that room (in the way I argue is the case for DB too). The big worry would be avoiding incompatibility or mixed signals. To that end, it was great to hear Rogers talk about what Netter and Talamaivao do in their free time is talking about what technique to coach. It's very nice to hear from Rogers that "everything matches up." We're going to have to see this in action but I'm cautiously optimistic that it's an innovative approach, enabled by a coach who doesn't need a QB coach as much as most coaches would, that will pay dividends, especially in the crucial developmental time for the OL in our 2022-2024 classes.

* Rogers said the main points of emphasis are communication and working together. It's always good to get some insight into coaching points of emphasis. I don't think I have any frame to opine whether these points of emphasis are any more or less encouraging to hear about than any other. Certainly communication is a big part of what an OL has to do. One thing that is a challenge is that the real synergies one hopes for come when the OL is working as a unit....and we're seemingly far from knowing who the OL unit will be, or even if we'll have a cohesive, stable OL this year. I suppose you can practice general communications tactics regardless of who is next to you, but it seems like real cohesion requires some stability.

* Anderson talked about speed of play. Interestingly, he also alluded to playing fast and often solving a lot of the mistakes that will inevitably happen. This is something I harped on for years in frustration with Shawfense, that playing with tempo can give the offense initiative, keep defenses on their toes (maybe less solid footing a more apt metaphor?), and when you've got talent/initiative/etc. give more bites at the apple to overcome mistakes. Sounds like Anderson is being indoctrinated into some of the advantages of tempo and views getting to the ball quickly as a point of emphasis.

* It was fun to see Rogers light up when talking about for how both him and Anderson the mentality is one by one (one play at a time/getting the next play right). It kind of feels like somebody for whom that simple mantra has helped unlock a new level of focus and he's excited about that. Similarly fun to see Rogers' comments and Anderson's affirming body language about the energy and juice inside the program. Really does seem like a sea change and the players being excited about putting in the work.

* It was also illuminating to see Anderson expound on that, at first talking about how playing one play at a time and not worrying about the play that just happened is a big thing for Taylor, then acknowledging that Shaw wasn't different in that regard, but then implying that it lands differently with the players because with Taylor he's been "really diligent with bringing enthusiasm into everything we do." It sure sounds like Anderson thinks it's easier to be focused and mindful when you are having fun and playing with energy. Not a surprise to hear this but perhaps a glimpse at the dynamic we hope is happening across the roster.

[msqueri]

Rogers and Anderson:


* As others have noted the size difference between these two is eye-popping. Come to think of it, one of the themes of Jackson's practice report on TOS was how some of the OL are really not very big (including the incoming transfers). Perhaps something to address over time through recruiting and S&C.

* It's a subjective thing that's hard to describe, and certainly I'm influenced by his recruiting profile and initial positive buzz his first year on campus, but Anderson looks like a guy you'd expect to play in the NFL, which I realize is an odd thing to say for a guy who has done nothing good in college.

* It's big news to hear Rogers introduce himself as playing center. That had been one of the biggest lineup uncertainties on the roster. Rogers is the third most experienced player on the entire roster (Yurosek far and away most experienced, followed by Humphreys and then Roogers, Phillips and Sinclair the next tier, Wyrick and Filkins the next tier after that), but practically all of the experience was at right guard. It makes sense that we'd have the anchor of our line be at center but to hear it definitively from the horse's mouth (with no hemming and hawing, just "I play center") is quite notable. Cross off one question on what our lineup looks like. I still have questions about how he'll play at center given that it's a new position. With Anderson, it's interesting that he said "left and right tackle." There was less uncertainty regarding his position because he's obviously a tackle, but in his case the introduction tells us that he's practicing at both and it's uncertain which tackle spot he'll slide into.

* It's a seemingly small thing but Rogers introducing himself as a senior while Anderson introduced himself as a redshirt freshman is a perfect microcosm of the deeply damaging Shaw culture of viewing players based on academic years and, I hope, with Anderson's self-description a ray of hope that our younger players will start thinking of themselves as football players again. In a serious football culture Rogers would have introduced himself as a junior and would be viewing this year as only his penultimate one. I have no idea whether Rogers intends for this to be his last year at Stanford, but I would have been a lot more confident if he introduced himself based on his football eligibility year. Introducing himself this way makes him sound like the parade of Stanford players before him the last several years who view Stanford as a four year way station on the path to a degree and further personal advancement afterward. I know some think I overdo this lamentation but it really is sad to me. You can't compete in major college football without fifth year players like Rogers and we developed a culture that made what should be standard operating procedure a rarity. This is not the way it has to be. Taylor said this spring that we don't have any seniors but I'm not sure players who played under Shaw have gotten that memo yet. [Don't want to read too much into body language of somebody I don't know at all but did notice Rogers looked down/had a bit of a reaction when Anderson said the "redshirt" part, so maybe there's a bit of recognition by Rogers that academic year does not equal football year and he could have introduced himself differently. Crossing all fingers and toes that this is not Rogers' last year at Stanford.]

* Very good to get the player perspective on the two-headed OL coaching monster. It's no surprise they'd talk about it as a good thing and that the comments would mirror what Netter and Talamaivao say, but it's good to hear nonetheless. The idea that multiple perspectives would be helpful is intuitive on some level and there's a logic that multiple coaches would be a boon for that room (in the way I argue is the case for DB too). The big worry would be avoiding incompatibility or mixed signals. To that end, it was great to hear Rogers talk about what Netter and Talamaivao do in their free time is talking about what technique to coach. It's very nice to hear from Rogers that "everything matches up." We're going to have to see this in action but I'm cautiously optimistic that it's an innovative approach, enabled by a coach who doesn't need a QB coach as much as most coaches would, that will pay dividends, especially in the crucial developmental time for the OL in our 2022-2024 classes.

* Rogers said the main points of emphasis are communication and working together. It's always good to get some insight into coaching points of emphasis. I don't think I have any frame to opine whether these points of emphasis are any more or less encouraging to hear about than any other. Certainly communication is a big part of what an OL has to do. One thing that is a challenge is that the real synergies one hopes for come when the OL is working as a unit....and we're seemingly far from knowing who the OL unit will be, or even if we'll have a cohesive, stable OL this year. I suppose you can practice general communications tactics regardless of who is next to you, but it seems like real cohesion requires some stability.

* Anderson talked about speed of play. Interestingly, he also alluded to playing fast and often solving a lot of the mistakes that will inevitably happen. This is something I harped on for years in frustration with Shawfense, that playing with tempo can give the offense initiative, keep defenses on their toes (maybe less solid footing a more apt metaphor?), and when you've got talent/initiative/etc. give more bites at the apple to overcome mistakes. Sounds like Anderson is being indoctrinated into some of the advantages of tempo and views getting to the ball quickly as a point of emphasis.

* It was fun to see Rogers light up when talking about for how both him and Anderson the mentality is one by one (one play at a time/getting the next play right). It kind of feels like somebody for whom that simple mantra has helped unlock a new level of focus and he's excited about that. Similarly fun to see Rogers' comments and Anderson's affirming body language about the energy and juice inside the program. Really does seem like a sea change and the players being excited about putting in the work.

* It was also illuminating to see Anderson expound on that, at first talking about how playing one play at a time and not worrying about the play that just happened is a big thing for Taylor, then acknowledging that Shaw wasn't different in that regard, but then implying that it lands differently with the players because with Taylor he's been "really diligent with bringing enthusiasm into everything we do." It sure sounds like Anderson thinks it's easier to be focused and mindful when you are having fun and playing with energy. Not a surprise to hear this but perhaps a glimpse at the dynamic we hope is happening across the roster.

[msqueri]

* The part I know most will focus on in that answer is Anderson saying how cool it is to see the vibe and energy in the locker room and how "everyone has bought in because the guys who don't want to be here aren't here." A bit of an edge to the comment compared to the fluff you usually hear from student-athletes. If he and his teammates are using it as fuel great. I have to admit that with the news that has transpired in recent days I am nervous about how sustainable this buying in will be, but I hope (and think it's possible) we can weather it. By the way, Rogers kind of earnestly/determinedly nodded along when Anderson made the sharper comment, though the way he glanced back at Ben did make me wonder if part of the reaction was seeing how the sharper comment landed.

* I know I'm repeating myself in observing how it's fun to see Rogers light up, but it happened again when he talked about how awesome it is and how fired up he is to be part of the new era of Stanford football. I think this interview is the most visible we've yet been able to see the effect on the players of the pall being lifted following the former regime. They really do seem fired up. I also noted Anderson saying how they look at the pictures on the wall of the first teams for other new coaches and want to be part of changing things. This resonated with me because I compare this 2023 team so often to our 2007 team and it's interesting Anderson has the exact same thing in mind.

* Always interesting to get a glimpse into the mantras/approaches of the staff and here we got a Deatrick-ism: "Confidence without preparation" is arrogance. I hear this in tandem with Taylor's comment Tuesday about "legitimate confidence" and feel like I'm starting to get more of a picture of how the staff motivates and what they're trying to build.

* Anderson also revealed that Deatrick has brought up the predictions of a last place finish as a way to motivate the players. Rogers' words and Anderson's body language indicated that the players don't think about the pundits until somebody brings it up but when it is brought up it's extra motivation. Nothing surprising here. Actually what I found most interesting from the exchange was Anderson's body language when he was listening to Ben and then waiting for Rogers' answer; kind of a bull in front of the matador's cape feel to his clapping of the hands (though don't want to single this portion out too much as the taut/nervous energy was present throughout much of it). I think Anderson may have some fire/chip on his shoulder. [Again, when I watch him I see a guy who seems like a future NFL player, which I'm saying despite having proved squat on the football field.]

* Unsurprising (because Dalman is a stud) that Rogers would point to Dalman as the standard he worked toward and he wants to be that kind of standard young players would strive for, but it's still an interesting reference because Nugent was a much more recent and also very good center. I think it speaks to the extra credibility that comes with being awesome rather than merely very good. You can't replace having players who play at NFL level. It also may speak to more intangible leadership qualities/differences between Dalman and Nugent, though I can't speak to that. It also may speak to the current OL feeling burned/having a chip on their shoulder about the guys who didn't stay. Maybe Nugent is just kind of persona non grata for having left for Michigan, or if not PNG at least not "the standard" because he didn't finish his business at Stanford (though I'd argue Dalman, Little, and Sarell didn't either). It also could be partly a function of looking more up to players when you're a freshman than a junior so Dalman naturally had more of a role model function for Rogers than Nugent.

* Anderson was literally taken aback when Ben referred to him as a veteran in the room (after 12 months on campus), pretty funny. But Ben, say "redshirt freshman" (not "sophomore") with me! Anderson talking about veteran being a learning experience based on starting was an interesting discussion and he noted last year was a learning experience for him (PFF would agree, thinking very poorly of his 57 snap cup of coffee) and he has a long way to go to earn a starting spot. Good mentality I think. Regarding his prospects of starting, Leyrer would seem to be our most likely starting tackle and I'd figure Anderson vs. McLaughlin is a battle, with all three having a shot and nobody guaranteed.

* At the risk of belaboring, so crystal clear that Anderson views guys who transferred as having left their brothers behind. Yes, it was quite sharp for him to say that Rouse and Hinton were good players but not leaders for him to look up to, and then to explicitly contrast that with Rogers having Dalman to look up to. This is quite a statement. To me it's all about Anderson's conception of team/loyalty defining it as the brothers who stayed and those who left are kind of dead to him. Rouse in particular was not a generic player who left no impact/set no standard - I think he may be the all-time record holder for most starting OL snaps in the history of Stanford football, certainly top few, and he was good enough to get a big money NIL transfer to Oklahoma. I think it's pretty harsh to throw this much shade at Rouse but I absolutely love to see it because it shows that one of the most important players on Stanford's roster for the next four years does not buy in to the culture of leaving. I've gotten the impression from literally dozens of Stanford players over the last half decade that the mentality had been one of shared understanding that you have to look out for number one, football is transactional, 40 year decisions are what really matters, and your brothers will support you if you leave early for the NFL or transfer to a better opportunity for you. This mentality is corrosive to team but the deontological, altruistic, high-and-mighty-and-wanted-people-to-see-him-that-way David Shaw encouraged it. One of Taylor's big challenges is to get players to have more of a team mentality and to not leave their best football years on the table. It is thrilling to me too see indication that a player like Fisher Anderson does not buy into the prior mentality and harbors grudges against those who don't want to be at Stanford. If his classmates and the incoming freshmen feel the same way we could be on our way to the culture shift we need.

* All that being said, it's also interesting that, at least in Anderson's mind, he wasn't hearing or seeing the things from Rouse and Hinton that he would have wanted to as a freshman and he wants to create a culture of leadership where players are learning from the actions/example of others (and, he didn't say this, but presumably the cycle becomes virtuous). It's impossible for me to know if the previous guys did not set a good example, Anderson is retroactively applying a narrative based on his pique they left, or if it's really an issue that our culture was broken writ large and nobody was really setting a good example because they were so beaten down and weren't getting leadership from their coaches. I lean toward a combination of all three but mostly the last explanation. I don't view it so much as Rouse was a schmuck (I kind of think Hinton was), more like it's a new era in Stanford football and we need to cleanse ourselves of the bad habits and mentalities of years, so Anderson is part of setting a new culture of leadership. While the way Anderson talked in this interview was bracingly candid (even a bit rude to his former teammates), ultimately this is just what a football rebuild is and this kind of mentality is exactly what we're hoping for/counting on in being able to turn the page.

[msqueri]

* The part I know most will focus on in that answer is Anderson saying how cool it is to see the vibe and energy in the locker room and how "everyone has bought in because the guys who don't want to be here aren't here." A bit of an edge to the comment compared to the fluff you usually hear from student-athletes. If he and his teammates are using it as fuel great. I have to admit that with the news that has transpired in recent days I am nervous about how sustainable this buying in will be, but I hope (and think it's possible) we can weather it. By the way, Rogers kind of earnestly/determinedly nodded along when Anderson made the sharper comment, though the way he glanced back at Ben did make me wonder if part of the reaction was seeing how the sharper comment landed.

* I know I'm repeating myself in observing how it's fun to see Rogers light up, but it happened again when he talked about how awesome it is and how fired up he is to be part of the new era of Stanford football. I think this interview is the most visible we've yet been able to see the effect on the players of the pall being lifted following the former regime. They really do seem fired up. I also noted Anderson saying how they look at the pictures on the wall of the first teams for other new coaches and want to be part of changing things. This resonated with me because I compare this 2023 team so often to our 2007 team and it's interesting Anderson has the exact same thing in mind.

* Always interesting to get a glimpse into the mantras/approaches of the staff and here we got a Deatrick-ism: "Confidence without preparation" is arrogance. I hear this in tandem with Taylor's comment Tuesday about "legitimate confidence" and feel like I'm starting to get more of a picture of how the staff motivates and what they're trying to build.

* Anderson also revealed that Deatrick has brought up the predictions of a last place finish as a way to motivate the players. Rogers' words and Anderson's body language indicated that the players don't think about the pundits until somebody brings it up but when it is brought up it's extra motivation. Nothing surprising here. Actually what I found most interesting from the exchange was Anderson's body language when he was listening to Ben and then waiting for Rogers' answer; kind of a bull in front of the matador's cape feel to his clapping of the hands (though don't want to single this portion out too much as the taut/nervous energy was present throughout much of it). I think Anderson may have some fire/chip on his shoulder. [Again, when I watch him I see a guy who seems like a future NFL player, which I'm saying despite having proved squat on the football field.]

* Unsurprising (because Dalman is a stud) that Rogers would point to Dalman as the standard he worked toward and he wants to be that kind of standard young players would strive for, but it's still an interesting reference because Nugent was a much more recent and also very good center. I think it speaks to the extra credibility that comes with being awesome rather than merely very good. You can't replace having players who play at NFL level. It also may speak to more intangible leadership qualities/differences between Dalman and Nugent, though I can't speak to that. It also may speak to the current OL feeling burned/having a chip on their shoulder about the guys who didn't stay. Maybe Nugent is just kind of persona non grata for having left for Michigan, or if not PNG at least not "the standard" because he didn't finish his business at Stanford (though I'd argue Dalman, Little, and Sarell didn't either). It also could be partly a function of looking more up to players when you're a freshman than a junior so Dalman naturally had more of a role model function for Rogers than Nugent.

* Anderson was literally taken aback when Ben referred to him as a veteran in the room (after 12 months on campus), pretty funny. But Ben, say "redshirt freshman" (not "sophomore") with me! Anderson talking about veteran being a learning experience based on starting was an interesting discussion and he noted last year was a learning experience for him (PFF would agree, thinking very poorly of his 57 snap cup of coffee) and he has a long way to go to earn a starting spot. Good mentality I think. Regarding his prospects of starting, Leyrer would seem to be our most likely starting tackle and I'd figure Anderson vs. McLaughlin is a battle, with all three having a shot and nobody guaranteed.

* At the risk of belaboring, so crystal clear that Anderson views guys who transferred as having left their brothers behind. Yes, it was quite sharp for him to say that Rouse and Hinton were good players but not leaders for him to look up to, and then to explicitly contrast that with Rogers having Dalman to look up to. This is quite a statement. To me it's all about Anderson's conception of team/loyalty defining it as the brothers who stayed and those who left are kind of dead to him. Rouse in particular was not a generic player who left no impact/set no standard - I think he may be the all-time record holder for most starting OL snaps in the history of Stanford football, certainly top few, and he was good enough to get a big money NIL transfer to Oklahoma. I think it's pretty harsh to throw this much shade at Rouse but I absolutely love to see it because it shows that one of the most important players on Stanford's roster for the next four years does not buy in to the culture of leaving. I've gotten the impression from literally dozens of Stanford players over the last half decade that the mentality had been one of shared understanding that you have to look out for number one, football is transactional, 40 year decisions are what really matters, and your brothers will support you if you leave early for the NFL or transfer to a better opportunity for you. This mentality is corrosive to team but the deontological, altruistic, high-and-mighty-and-wanted-people-to-see-him-that-way David Shaw encouraged it. One of Taylor's big challenges is to get players to have more of a team mentality and to not leave their best football years on the table. It is thrilling to me too see indication that a player like Fisher Anderson does not buy into the prior mentality and harbors grudges against those who don't want to be at Stanford. If his classmates and the incoming freshmen feel the same way we could be on our way to the culture shift we need.

* All that being said, it's also interesting that, at least in Anderson's mind, he wasn't hearing or seeing the things from Rouse and Hinton that he would have wanted to as a freshman and he wants to create a culture of leadership where players are learning from the actions/example of others (and, he didn't say this, but presumably the cycle becomes virtuous). It's impossible for me to know if the previous guys did not set a good example, Anderson is retroactively applying a narrative based on his pique they left, or if it's really an issue that our culture was broken writ large and nobody was really setting a good example because they were so beaten down and weren't getting leadership from their coaches. I lean toward a combination of all three but mostly the last explanation. I don't view it so much as Rouse was a schmuck (I kind of think Hinton was), more like it's a new era in Stanford football and we need to cleanse ourselves of the bad habits and mentalities of years, so Anderson is part of setting a new culture of leadership. While the way Anderson talked in this interview was bracingly candid (even a bit rude to his former teammates), ultimately this is just what a football rebuild is and this kind of mentality is exactly what we're hoping for/counting on in being able to turn the page.

[msqueri]

Netter and Talamaivao:

* Subjectively they seemed a bit more settled/relaxed than when Jackson interviewed them on TOS during the spring, especially Talamaivao. That would make sense.

* I'm always trying to see if there's any hierarchy/power dynamic/rivalry/friction between the two and there continues to be not much sign of that. If one felt it necessary to pick out an alpha there are probably more signs pointing to Netter, but really it seems pretty even.

* Not much new ground broken on the co-coaching dynamic, just reiteration that it's an asset to give more resources, drill time, meeting time, etc. to the players. Talamaivao saying it's similar to the pro model was interesting. That model has a hierarchy and, of course, different assignments (no recruiting)/restrictions on number of coaches than the college model (where a model like ours is unusual). I assume Talamaivao is referring more to the fact of multiple coaches giving pointers and supervising practices/meetings. In the Rogers/Anderson interview there was a mention of how having a grad assistant made it like having three coaches. Now with Vavae Malepeai on board we again have two coaches plus additional support for OL instruction. Incidentally, it's interesting a recent USC running back would work with our OL. This probably speaks to OL being a more complex/important unit to coach than RBs and to Malepeai being a Talamaivao associate rather than Agnew associate. Hopefully it will be helpful to get a RB perspective in the mix in our OL instruction.

* I'm glad I got a chance to hear about Talamaivao's philosophy since he kind of dodged that in the last interview I saw. He highlighted detail, discipline, work ethic, and attitude worthy of Stanford and said it's built on a culture of toughness and physicality. What jumped out to me is that being detail-oriented was in both Talamaivao's answer here and Netter's previous answer a few months ago and the discussion on physicality builds on similar comments I've heard both of them make. To the extent repetition is the mother of learning it's nice to see they're consistent about what they're focusing on.

* Netter emphasizes his and Talamaivao's prodigious college and modest NFL experience and how recent their playing days were as important in terms of their ability to relate to the players and what they're being taught in terms of technique. This is the spin you'd expect from young coaches and hopefully is indeed an asset.

* I most enjoyed Talamaivao reiterating that the camaraderie and chemistry is good and talking about the "gigantic strides" the players have made since spring in terms of technique and tempo (which he noted is important because Taylor wants to play fast, which we already knew but is interesting to keep hearing about). The strides being so gigantic can be understood as a commentary on how bad we were, how good we are now, or a bit of both. After hearing all the coaches spend all spring seemingly managing expectations downward, it was eye-opening to hear Talamaivao say he think the OL is "shaping up to be pretty good." That's not the expectation fans have and if it's the case will be a very big deal for our competitiveness. I don't rule it out. The current notional starting line has two former 4-stars, a third guy who had a big-time late breaking recruitment in which we beat out a bunch of great offenses (Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, USC, etc.), a fourth guy who had a late-breaking recruitment in which we beat out some notables (USC, Texas, etc.), and only one guy who isn't a third year player or older (and he's one of the 4-stars). That's actually a lot of talent and a passable amount of age. What it's lacking is major college football experience (1028 combined major college football snaps across the five) and depth (only need a few injuries to be relying on freshmen). It wouldn't be crazy if this line actually turns out to be good, but I do think it would shock our fans. Potential upside to hope for with the offense.

* Netter side-stepped the question about different combinations for the starting line and how to sort that out with some coach-speak about constant never-ending improvement and competition. Nothing wrong with that, exactly what we want to hear, just don't think one can draw much from the comment.

* Talamaivao said the players have a chip on their shoulders to strive toward the standard in the Stanford OL room. I certainly thought I detected a bit of a chip from Anderson in that interview. I found Talamaivao's smile when saying coaching to live up to the standard is "challenging, to say the least" a bit enigmatic. Not sure what he means by that. Maybe a glimpse into the pressure he feels in his first full coaching job and that he puts that pressure on himself because Stanford has had some great lines in the last 15 years?

* I appreciated the question trying to get a better sense of division of responsibilities/specialization in our two-headed OL coaching monster. I believe this interview is the first we've heard of Netter having more "natural expertise" with tackle given his background and Talamaivao having more of that expertise at interior OL given his background. [Very odd, and maybe revealing, that Netter had at the tip of his tongue the stats of himself starting 52 games at tackle and Talamaivao starting 44 games at interior OL. That kind of college achievement score-keeping is an unusual thing to hear from a major college coach.] That being said, the bottom line of the answer was just what we've heard before, that they make a point of splitting everything and there are certain days and certain drills where Netter is with interior OL and Talamaivao is with tackles. On balance it really feels more like team coaching rather than a division of responsibilities. I think there's a reason Netter isn't ostensibly the tackles coach with Talamaivao ostensibly interior.

* Talamaivao's answer on what he likes about Stanford was kind of fun in terms of his understated listing off of a bunch of things, leaving the impression of a seemingly endless list. Just kind of a matter of fact "what's not to like" that I imagine is reflected in his recruiting pitches. Not to say Netter's answer wasn't also great (certainly more eloquent). Seem like good representatives of the school/ambassadors on the recruiting trail.

[msqueri]

Netter and Talamaivao:

* Subjectively they seemed a bit more settled/relaxed than when Jackson interviewed them on TOS during the spring, especially Talamaivao. That would make sense.

* I'm always trying to see if there's any hierarchy/power dynamic/rivalry/friction between the two and there continues to be not much sign of that. If one felt it necessary to pick out an alpha there are probably more signs pointing to Netter, but really it seems pretty even.

* Not much new ground broken on the co-coaching dynamic, just reiteration that it's an asset to give more resources, drill time, meeting time, etc. to the players. Talamaivao saying it's similar to the pro model was interesting. That model has a hierarchy and, of course, different assignments (no recruiting)/restrictions on number of coaches than the college model (where a model like ours is unusual). I assume Talamaivao is referring more to the fact of multiple coaches giving pointers and supervising practices/meetings. In the Rogers/Anderson interview there was a mention of how having a grad assistant made it like having three coaches. Now with Vavae Malepeai on board we again have two coaches plus additional support for OL instruction. Incidentally, it's interesting a recent USC running back would work with our OL. This probably speaks to OL being a more complex/important unit to coach than RBs and to Malepeai being a Talamaivao associate rather than Agnew associate. Hopefully it will be helpful to get a RB perspective in the mix in our OL instruction.

* I'm glad I got a chance to hear about Talamaivao's philosophy since he kind of dodged that in the last interview I saw. He highlighted detail, discipline, work ethic, and attitude worthy of Stanford and said it's built on a culture of toughness and physicality. What jumped out to me is that being detail-oriented was in both Talamaivao's answer here and Netter's previous answer a few months ago and the discussion on physicality builds on similar comments I've heard both of them make. To the extent repetition is the mother of learning it's nice to see they're consistent about what they're focusing on.

* Netter emphasizes his and Talamaivao's prodigious college and modest NFL experience and how recent their playing days were as important in terms of their ability to relate to the players and what they're being taught in terms of technique. This is the spin you'd expect from young coaches and hopefully is indeed an asset.

* I most enjoyed Talamaivao reiterating that the camaraderie and chemistry is good and talking about the "gigantic strides" the players have made since spring in terms of technique and tempo (which he noted is important because Taylor wants to play fast, which we already knew but is interesting to keep hearing about). The strides being so gigantic can be understood as a commentary on how bad we were, how good we are now, or a bit of both. After hearing all the coaches spend all spring seemingly managing expectations downward, it was eye-opening to hear Talamaivao say he think the OL is "shaping up to be pretty good." That's not the expectation fans have and if it's the case will be a very big deal for our competitiveness. I don't rule it out. The current notional starting line has two former 4-stars, a third guy who had a big-time late breaking recruitment in which we beat out a bunch of great offenses (Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, USC, etc.), a fourth guy who had a late-breaking recruitment in which we beat out some notables (USC, Texas, etc.), and only one guy who isn't a third year player or older (and he's one of the 4-stars). That's actually a lot of talent and a passable amount of age. What it's lacking is major college football experience (1028 combined major college football snaps across the five) and depth (only need a few injuries to be relying on freshmen). It wouldn't be crazy if this line actually turns out to be good, but I do think it would shock our fans. Potential upside to hope for with the offense.

* Netter side-stepped the question about different combinations for the starting line and how to sort that out with some coach-speak about constant never-ending improvement and competition. Nothing wrong with that, exactly what we want to hear, just don't think one can draw much from the comment.

* Talamaivao said the players have a chip on their shoulders to strive toward the standard in the Stanford OL room. I certainly thought I detected a bit of a chip from Anderson in that interview. I found Talamaivao's smile when saying coaching to live up to the standard is "challenging, to say the least" a bit enigmatic. Not sure what he means by that. Maybe a glimpse into the pressure he feels in his first full coaching job and that he puts that pressure on himself because Stanford has had some great lines in the last 15 years?

* I appreciated the question trying to get a better sense of division of responsibilities/specialization in our two-headed OL coaching monster. I believe this interview is the first we've heard of Netter having more "natural expertise" with tackle given his background and Talamaivao having more of that expertise at interior OL given his background. [Very odd, and maybe revealing, that Netter had at the tip of his tongue the stats of himself starting 52 games at tackle and Talamaivao starting 44 games at interior OL. That kind of college achievement score-keeping is an unusual thing to hear from a major college coach.] That being said, the bottom line of the answer was just what we've heard before, that they make a point of splitting everything and there are certain days and certain drills where Netter is with interior OL and Talamaivao is with tackles. On balance it really feels more like team coaching rather than a division of responsibilities. I think there's a reason Netter isn't ostensibly the tackles coach with Talamaivao ostensibly interior.

* Talamaivao's answer on what he likes about Stanford was kind of fun in terms of his understated listing off of a bunch of things, leaving the impression of a seemingly endless list. Just kind of a matter of fact "what's not to like" that I imagine is reflected in his recruiting pitches. Not to say Netter's answer wasn't also great (certainly more eloquent). Seem like good representatives of the school/ambassadors on the recruiting trail.

[msqueri]

Phillips and Moi:

* No surprise, but this reinforced the sense we're getting from everything else that the team morale/excitement/energy is in a good place....at least before everything hit the fan with conference realignment. Phillips and Moi seem excited about playing and this new era.

* As with Rogers, Phillips introduced himself as a senior. In football terms he is a junior. It is probably not good for Stanford football if this is the last year for Phillips. We'll see what happens.

* Both Phillips and Moi introduced themselves as defensive tackles, which I noted because Kolodziej talked in the spring about finding guys versatile enough to play all five positions, which I guessed (but did not know) to mean 0 (nose), 2i (inside shoulder of the guard), 3 (outside shoulder of the guard, 4i (inside shoulder of the tackle), and 5 (outside the tackle). When Kolodziej and April talk about the base defense and its "Tite Front," they're referring to three down linemen including a 0 technique and two ends in a 4i. It's interesting both Phillips and Moi, presumed to be two of our top three DL, would both introduce themselves as tackles. My guess is this isn't much of a revelation and that one or both will play plenty of 4i. Moreover, part of this distinction may relate to the (I expect very high, given the conference we're in) frequency of playing in the nickel, in which case I am assuming we will have two of Phillips, Moi, Franklin, and Armitage on the field both as "defensive tackles" in a 2-4-5 nickel (or 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 depending on how you want to render the OLBs in the nickel). So this likely isn't that interesting. But I did notice they said "defensive tackle" rather than "defensive end." I wonder if Franklin and Armitage would refer to themselves as one of those or DL.

* I don't think Phillips' description of a "smooth transition" was the operative part of that answer, or at least it's only half the story. First he said it was a big change at first coming from Reynolds to Kolodziej and only after that did he say they adapted well and Kolodziej had a good plan that he taught well. I'm hearing this in tandem with Kolodziej's interview talking about building up from scratch in terms of fundamentals and having a blank slate. Putting these interviews together I think it was a real transition. We can hopefully take Phillips at his word that based on how well it was taught and how well players adapted now things are "smooth," but I think the August 3 (or whenever this interview occurred) is different from what it would have been four months ago. Phillips also mentioned later that learning a new playbook is an adjustment, that spring helped, and that they're still installing. I wouldn't be surprised if DL is one of the rooms with a pretty big adjustment, though fundamentally I think this coaching transition is a big adjustment for everybody.

* Moi referred to Kolodziej as high energy, fun, passionate, and high intensity. This was interesting to me on two levels. First, in the Kolodziej interview he made a comment that I wondered if it implied that the rest of the staff is so high energy that it motivates him to be higher energy than he might otherwise be. Second, I can't help but compare with Reynolds, who always presented as an NFL coach who would rather be coaching pros (certainly more than he wanted to be recruiting). It's impossible to say whether Moi, who only had a few months with Reynolds as his coach, was consciously or subconsciously comparing the two or just saying things he likes about Kolodziej. Either way, Moi lit up when making these comments.

* Phillips talked about how playing so much last year gives you that much more confidence this year. I think this is a big deal and is part of the perennial dynamic at DL, one of the quintessential grown man positions. We should expect big strides from the returning linemen. At the same time, part of the reason for that is that there isn't much room to go anywhere but up. Among 43 starting-level (200+ snaps) DL in the Pac-12 last year, PFF had Phillips graded at #40 and Moi graded at #41 with practically identical grades. Moi's can be explained as being a true freshman thrown into the deep end on a terrible defense. Phillips is a bit harder to wave away as he was a third year player. In both cases, it's a strong bet they'll be better this year. The question is how much better. Taylor has talked about legitimate confidence and I think that's a big deal for all of our players. Phillips may be a prime case. He says playing so much last year gives him that much more confidence and I'm sure that's true, but his experience is in being manhandled. True confidence will come when he can, hopefully, start succeeding and building off that.

* Phillips also talked about the new defense starting new bringing so much excitement to the team and defense. This seems to be the overarching theme right now. So nice to have players excited to play. Been a long time. Phillips followed up on this by saying later than he can feel the difference Taylor has made in instilling passion and love for the game. This sounds so basic but it was so lacking in recent years. Let's have some fun and want to be here!

* Moi had a very understated and short answer about how playing last year showed him what to expect coming into this year. I'd be surprised if he yet has the confidence that he hopefully ultimately will. His trial by fire last year was a tall order. Among those 43 starting-level DL, Moi was one of only three true freshmen (Arizona's Taitai Uiagalelei was #27 and Cal's Nate Burrell was #39). Stanford's had three NFL DL in the PFF era and among those three Solomon Thomas redshirted, Harrison Phillips played graded a bit better than Moi on many fewer snaps as a true freshman, and only Thomas Booker clearly had a better true freshman year. It's really a grown man's position and I don't take Moi's play last year as anything other than an indication he was ready to bang bodies as a true freshman, which for DL typically means an eventual all-conference college player and NFL player.

* Moi ended that answer with a quiet remark (pretty soft-spoken guy) about how the DL wants to prove people wrong and show them what we can do. Add to the Fisher Anderson interview in terms of data points from the rising second year class indicating chips on their shoulders.

[msqueri]

Phillips and Moi:

* No surprise, but this reinforced the sense we're getting from everything else that the team morale/excitement/energy is in a good place....at least before everything hit the fan with conference realignment. Phillips and Moi seem excited about playing and this new era.

* As with Rogers, Phillips introduced himself as a senior. In football terms he is a junior. It is probably not good for Stanford football if this is the last year for Phillips. We'll see what happens.

* Both Phillips and Moi introduced themselves as defensive tackles, which I noted because Kolodziej talked in the spring about finding guys versatile enough to play all five positions, which I guessed (but did not know) to mean 0 (nose), 2i (inside shoulder of the guard), 3 (outside shoulder of the guard, 4i (inside shoulder of the tackle), and 5 (outside the tackle). When Kolodziej and April talk about the base defense and its "Tite Front," they're referring to three down linemen including a 0 technique and two ends in a 4i. It's interesting both Phillips and Moi, presumed to be two of our top three DL, would both introduce themselves as tackles. My guess is this isn't much of a revelation and that one or both will play plenty of 4i. Moreover, part of this distinction may relate to the (I expect very high, given the conference we're in) frequency of playing in the nickel, in which case I am assuming we will have two of Phillips, Moi, Franklin, and Armitage on the field both as "defensive tackles" in a 2-4-5 nickel (or 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 depending on how you want to render the OLBs in the nickel). So this likely isn't that interesting. But I did notice they said "defensive tackle" rather than "defensive end." I wonder if Franklin and Armitage would refer to themselves as one of those or DL.

* I don't think Phillips' description of a "smooth transition" was the operative part of that answer, or at least it's only half the story. First he said it was a big change at first coming from Reynolds to Kolodziej and only after that did he say they adapted well and Kolodziej had a good plan that he taught well. I'm hearing this in tandem with Kolodziej's interview talking about building up from scratch in terms of fundamentals and having a blank slate. Putting these interviews together I think it was a real transition. We can hopefully take Phillips at his word that based on how well it was taught and how well players adapted now things are "smooth," but I think the August 3 (or whenever this interview occurred) is different from what it would have been four months ago. Phillips also mentioned later that learning a new playbook is an adjustment, that spring helped, and that they're still installing. I wouldn't be surprised if DL is one of the rooms with a pretty big adjustment, though fundamentally I think this coaching transition is a big adjustment for everybody.

* Moi referred to Kolodziej as high energy, fun, passionate, and high intensity. This was interesting to me on two levels. First, in the Kolodziej interview he made a comment that I wondered if it implied that the rest of the staff is so high energy that it motivates him to be higher energy than he might otherwise be. Second, I can't help but compare with Reynolds, who always presented as an NFL coach who would rather be coaching pros (certainly more than he wanted to be recruiting). It's impossible to say whether Moi, who only had a few months with Reynolds as his coach, was consciously or subconsciously comparing the two or just saying things he likes about Kolodziej. Either way, Moi lit up when making these comments.

* Phillips talked about how playing so much last year gives you that much more confidence this year. I think this is a big deal and is part of the perennial dynamic at DL, one of the quintessential grown man positions. We should expect big strides from the returning linemen. At the same time, part of the reason for that is that there isn't much room to go anywhere but up. Among 43 starting-level (200+ snaps) DL in the Pac-12 last year, PFF had Phillips graded at #40 and Moi graded at #41 with practically identical grades. Moi's can be explained as being a true freshman thrown into the deep end on a terrible defense. Phillips is a bit harder to wave away as he was a third year player. In both cases, it's a strong bet they'll be better this year. The question is how much better. Taylor has talked about legitimate confidence and I think that's a big deal for all of our players. Phillips may be a prime case. He says playing so much last year gives him that much more confidence and I'm sure that's true, but his experience is in being manhandled. True confidence will come when he can, hopefully, start succeeding and building off that.

* Phillips also talked about the new defense starting new bringing so much excitement to the team and defense. This seems to be the overarching theme right now. So nice to have players excited to play. Been a long time. Phillips followed up on this by saying later than he can feel the difference Taylor has made in instilling passion and love for the game. This sounds so basic but it was so lacking in recent years. Let's have some fun and want to be here!

* Moi had a very understated and short answer about how playing last year showed him what to expect coming into this year. I'd be surprised if he yet has the confidence that he hopefully ultimately will. His trial by fire last year was a tall order. Among those 43 starting-level DL, Moi was one of only three true freshmen (Arizona's Taitai Uiagalelei was #27 and Cal's Nate Burrell was #39). Stanford's had three NFL DL in the PFF era and among those three Solomon Thomas redshirted, Harrison Phillips played graded a bit better than Moi on many fewer snaps as a true freshman, and only Thomas Booker clearly had a better true freshman year. It's really a grown man's position and I don't take Moi's play last year as anything other than an indication he was ready to bang bodies as a true freshman, which for DL typically means an eventual all-conference college player and NFL player.

* Moi ended that answer with a quiet remark (pretty soft-spoken guy) about how the DL wants to prove people wrong and show them what we can do. Add to the Fisher Anderson interview in terms of data points from the rising second year class indicating chips on their shoulders.

[msqueri]

* Another commonality from the Anderson interview is Moi's comment that everybody here could have left but chose to stay. Methinks there's a theme developing in terms of the remaining players' tight-knit attitude and sense of solidarity reinforced by a little bit of a sense of grievance toward those outside the tent. It's coming across in these comments from the rising second year players but may be a broader attitude - Phillips was forcefully nodding along to this comment.

* Moi also talked about it feeling like family, which I long felt Shaw did not facilitate. Far too professional of a mindset, too much of a focus on the aspirations and life goals of the individuals as opposed to the collective, and too aloof/imperial of a leadership philosophy. I think Taylor is going to be a big difference in this regard and I hope it leads to more player satisfaction, better retention, and more of a team ethos. Could make a big difference.

* Phillips said the defense is now focused around get-off, penetration, and disrupting in the backfield. Kolodziej also mentioned get-off in the spring. Moi added to the focus on being explosive and disruptive by saying they're focusing in on their keys so they can get little hints about what the OL will do to try to get a step ahead. It seems apt that the younger guy would focus on this mental aspect, potentially more of a learning curve there. And chalk up another data point on keys being important to the defense.

* Body language got a lot less comfortable when Ben asked about what they learned playing under Shaw. It was the one part of the interview Phillips broke concentration and needed the question repeated (though it seemed there was cross-talk off camera judging from Moi's nod/smile off camera) but more tellingly the whole time Phillips was talking Moi looked a bit more stressed and like he was thinking about what to say. A lot of eye movement, looking down, mouthing words.....think he calculated that answer. Don't want to overstate this as they both came up with good, insightful answers, just kind of felt like these are guys who've turned the page and are very excited about a fresh start with something completely different and it required some mental energy to transport themselves back to worse days. In terms of the substance, the Phillips answer was absolutely on the nose and the perfect answer describing who Shaw was, what he focused on, and to some degree why he failed: instilling professionalism and molding Stanford Men. Shaw treated college young men as professionals, which had its benefits for a while but ultimately created an environment bereft of passion, joy, and commitment to team. College should be passionate, fun, and a bit messy. [By the way, when I talk about Shaw's pro mindset I'm talking about degrees, obviously Taylor also tries to act professionally and as Moi said Taylor too talks about daily habits befitting a professional.] Shaw also thought he was running a citizenship/leadership finishing school or something and took so much pride in his players treating people with respect and dignity and carrying themselves well off the field...but none of that wins football games. Moi's answer was actually somewhat moving in terms of embracing everybody and encouraging players to be themselves (e.g., the nerdy selves that are why they went to Stanford). I'm glad Moi's takeaway is that you can have two different personalities (on field/off field) as we definitely need to hope our on-field persona going forward reflects Shaw's niceness and high-mindedness as little as possible. As Ben noted, it's also telling that both answers were all about Shaw as a molder of men and had nothing to do with football. This is where we were under Shaw and the players know it. Much more exciting to be coached by somebody who's here for football but nonetheless is also a good man modeling good life lessons. By the way, great little knowing joke/reaction from the players when Ben time traveled back to the present.

* Phillips talked about the defense being a lot faster and a lot more key-oriented. I'm no coaching guru (and some of our defensive coaches are) but I wonder how this works. It's always seemed to me like the more you ask players to do mentally the harder it is to let them play fast. Aspiration is one thing but when it counts these are humans dealing with physical and mental limits. Moi supplemented the answer by saying there's a lot more movement, which sounds to me partly an extension of the keys concept where we'll be adjusting to the offense's looks and moving around to get better matchups. Moi contrasted this with how much the DL had to take on double teams last year and how this year the idea is they'll move around to be freed up so they can make impact and be disruptive. As a fanatic of the Party in the Backfield DL days and uber-skeptic of whatever the hell our front seven coaches were trying to do the last six years, I like the sound of this.

* Phillips' talk about loving being a game-wrecker and ruining an offense's plan, as well as loving silencing a crowd, is something I'll prefer hearing about if our DL is able to do some damage. Right now it's been quite some time since we walked any kind of walk and I'm really tired of it. I so want the players' excitement to translate into something. Stanford hasn't been top 70 (SEVENTY!!!) in the nation in tackles for loss per game a single goddamn time in the last eight years. Lance Anderson was such a ludicrously awful defensive coordinator. As a result, it rings so hollow for me to hear our fourth year anchor of the defense loving to wreck game plans. When have we ever wrecked game plans? I so badly want for this year to turn the page in that regard. As I keep reminding folks, this was actually the first meaningful on-field thing Harbaugh (via Shafer) changed when he got to Stanford. I think we have the personnel on defense to be a lot more disruptive than we have been these last eight years and I want to start seeing it in the worst way.

* All of us lovers of defense like hearing about physicality and Moi went right there, saying it's been one of the main points of emphasis and that what he loves about defense is being physical and if you have a bad day you can express it/let out that aggression on the field. May he and his teammates do that on their good and bad days alike!

[msqueri]

* Another commonality from the Anderson interview is Moi's comment that everybody here could have left but chose to stay. Methinks there's a theme developing in terms of the remaining players' tight-knit attitude and sense of solidarity reinforced by a little bit of a sense of grievance toward those outside the tent. It's coming across in these comments from the rising second year players but may be a broader attitude - Phillips was forcefully nodding along to this comment.

* Moi also talked about it feeling like family, which I long felt Shaw did not facilitate. Far too professional of a mindset, too much of a focus on the aspirations and life goals of the individuals as opposed to the collective, and too aloof/imperial of a leadership philosophy. I think Taylor is going to be a big difference in this regard and I hope it leads to more player satisfaction, better retention, and more of a team ethos. Could make a big difference.

* Phillips said the defense is now focused around get-off, penetration, and disrupting in the backfield. Kolodziej also mentioned get-off in the spring. Moi added to the focus on being explosive and disruptive by saying they're focusing in on their keys so they can get little hints about what the OL will do to try to get a step ahead. It seems apt that the younger guy would focus on this mental aspect, potentially more of a learning curve there. And chalk up another data point on keys being important to the defense.

* Body language got a lot less comfortable when Ben asked about what they learned playing under Shaw. It was the one part of the interview Phillips broke concentration and needed the question repeated (though it seemed there was cross-talk off camera judging from Moi's nod/smile off camera) but more tellingly the whole time Phillips was talking Moi looked a bit more stressed and like he was thinking about what to say. A lot of eye movement, looking down, mouthing words.....think he calculated that answer. Don't want to overstate this as they both came up with good, insightful answers, just kind of felt like these are guys who've turned the page and are very excited about a fresh start with something completely different and it required some mental energy to transport themselves back to worse days. In terms of the substance, the Phillips answer was absolutely on the nose and the perfect answer describing who Shaw was, what he focused on, and to some degree why he failed: instilling professionalism and molding Stanford Men. Shaw treated college young men as professionals, which had its benefits for a while but ultimately created an environment bereft of passion, joy, and commitment to team. College should be passionate, fun, and a bit messy. [By the way, when I talk about Shaw's pro mindset I'm talking about degrees, obviously Taylor also tries to act professionally and as Moi said Taylor too talks about daily habits befitting a professional.] Shaw also thought he was running a citizenship/leadership finishing school or something and took so much pride in his players treating people with respect and dignity and carrying themselves well off the field...but none of that wins football games. Moi's answer was actually somewhat moving in terms of embracing everybody and encouraging players to be themselves (e.g., the nerdy selves that are why they went to Stanford). I'm glad Moi's takeaway is that you can have two different personalities (on field/off field) as we definitely need to hope our on-field persona going forward reflects Shaw's niceness and high-mindedness as little as possible. As Ben noted, it's also telling that both answers were all about Shaw as a molder of men and had nothing to do with football. This is where we were under Shaw and the players know it. Much more exciting to be coached by somebody who's here for football but nonetheless is also a good man modeling good life lessons. By the way, great little knowing joke/reaction from the players when Ben time traveled back to the present.

* Phillips talked about the defense being a lot faster and a lot more key-oriented. I'm no coaching guru (and some of our defensive coaches are) but I wonder how this works. It's always seemed to me like the more you ask players to do mentally the harder it is to let them play fast. Aspiration is one thing but when it counts these are humans dealing with physical and mental limits. Moi supplemented the answer by saying there's a lot more movement, which sounds to me partly an extension of the keys concept where we'll be adjusting to the offense's looks and moving around to get better matchups. Moi contrasted this with how much the DL had to take on double teams last year and how this year the idea is they'll move around to be freed up so they can make impact and be disruptive. As a fanatic of the Party in the Backfield DL days and uber-skeptic of whatever the hell our front seven coaches were trying to do the last six years, I like the sound of this.

* Phillips' talk about loving being a game-wrecker and ruining an offense's plan, as well as loving silencing a crowd, is something I'll prefer hearing about if our DL is able to do some damage. Right now it's been quite some time since we walked any kind of walk and I'm really tired of it. I so want the players' excitement to translate into something. Stanford hasn't been top 70 (SEVENTY!!!) in the nation in tackles for loss per game a single goddamn time in the last eight years. Lance Anderson was such a ludicrously awful defensive coordinator. As a result, it rings so hollow for me to hear our fourth year anchor of the defense loving to wreck game plans. When have we ever wrecked game plans? I so badly want for this year to turn the page in that regard. As I keep reminding folks, this was actually the first meaningful on-field thing Harbaugh (via Shafer) changed when he got to Stanford. I think we have the personnel on defense to be a lot more disruptive than we have been these last eight years and I want to start seeing it in the worst way.

* All of us lovers of defense like hearing about physicality and Moi went right there, saying it's been one of the main points of emphasis and that what he loves about defense is being physical and if you have a bad day you can express it/let out that aggression on the field. May he and his teammates do that on their good and bad days alike!

[msqueri]

Kolodziej:

* It's fun to see these interviews with coaches now after having had the chance in the spring to see the interviews on TOS, both to compare substance and to compare vibes. As with Talamaivao, to me Kolodziej seems to be more comfortable and relaxed than he did before. Just a subjective sense I get of them settling in more, which makes sense.

* At the early stage of camp (Day 3) the interview occurred it's hard to draw any conclusions and Kolodziej didn't offer any. At this stage it's all about process and trying to do each day the right way until it adds up to something. Kolodziej reflects Taylor's attitude in this respect, which we might expect. If we hear any first two weeks of camp interviews that don't sound like that I'd be surprised.

* Similarly, Kolodziej didn't take the bait when asked if anybody has jumped out, unsurprisingly saying that three days with only one in pads is far too early to make judgments. One thing that was interesting about this answer was the comment that football is "a battle of attrition, the last man - the toughest man - left standing." That's different than saying it's too early to judge because we haven't seen enough of the guys in pads. It seems more like saying he's not going to be impressed by anybody based on what they do in August at all and the premium for him is toughness and how you play in November and December ("that's when it really matters"), including being available and playing with the same effort and consistency as early in the season. Rather than building up or breaking down his guys too much it seems like he's very much about a steady, workmanlike approach. The emphasis on toughness echoes the predominant theme of his previous interview. One thing I don't worry about is this guy being his genuine self and having a point of view in how he coaches/what he wants to instill in his charges. I also don't worry much whether we've improved our DL coaching. It would be shocking if we haven't.

* As a sign of how unwilling Kolodziej was to give any insight into particular players, he took the question on Moi and Phillips and answered it generically to cover both of them, not even mentioning their names. It was as if they were one person, or even that he was talking about the room generally. To me that limits the amount we can read into the comments. I don't doubt the comments on being great guys, doing the right things, doing extra, taking care of their bodies, and coming prepared, but any compliments would apply somewhat differently to different individuals. If you say something nice about a whole team, for instance, that doesn't apply equally to all individuals. It's a generalization. A generalization for a subset of two is more insightful but still has limits. The comment also lost some credibility when he referred to both as veteran guys that take their leadership roles very seriously....Moi is a year into being in the program. That being said, I don't want to dismiss the comments too much. It is a nice testimonial on Kolodziej's take on two of the leaders of his DL room, and in football playing time and experience builds credibility with your teammates and is a big part of leadership, so it's probably true Moi is a leader even though he's only been around a year. It was interesting that Kolodziej said nary a word about skill sets, role in the defense, or anything beyond the intangibles. I don't necessarily view that as a negative commentary on their skills because I do think Kolodziej, like the coaching staff generally, is a very process-oriented, work ethic and mentality-focused coach. When he says "they've done an outstanding job in terms of the physical and mental preparation this offseason, so really excited about what they're going to bring to the defense this fall" I think that's genuine and capturing what he really cares about. The optimism is also noteworthy. Coach interviews in the spring seemed to assiduously avoid getting hopes up but some of the more recent interviews sound more like the coaches think their charges could be decent.

* I don't know if Kolodziej meant it quite as starkly as it sounded (kind of think he did!) but it was really interesting to hear him talk about how the scheme, structure, and expectations of the defense will never change based on personnel. He gave lip service to every year being a rebirth and renewal, but the crux of that comment was the Wisconsin defense is the Wisconsin defense and that identity doesn't change. The coaches have to take the personnel and fit it into the defense and make sure players can adapt to best fit within their roles in the scheme, but the way we play is non-negotiable. This contrasts sharply with coach speak one often hears from other coaches about adapting to the personnel. No way, no how. We have a defensive identity and will fit players into it. Again, this is a coach with a point of view. I am very excited about having a defensive identity for the first time in a long time. Maybe the single thing I'm most excited about with Stanford football.

* The specifics about how we play that Kolodziej talked about being "non-negotiable" are worth some focus because they are the exact same words in the exact same order he used in the spring: "smart, tough, dependable." When I talk about his point of view that crystallizes it as well as anything. Really cannot emphasis enough how much this guy strikes me as anchored in instilling work habits and a mentality of steady, workmanlike effort. Diron Reynolds, if he had a calling card, seemed to be more about technique. I have no idea who understands and teaches technique better between Reynolds and Kolodziej, but it may end up being beside the point. Kolodziej's theory of the case is that he will push his players to have the mentality that shows up late in games and late in seasons. Given how much better Wisconsin DL play has been than Stanford's in recent years, it's hard not to be excited to see this in action.

* Yet more talk of a "fairly communicative defense that is going to require smart guys to execute it." We are hearing this so much that I think we have to believe it. I've made no secret of my bias that defensive football isn't rocket science and I like defenses that let athletic players play instinctively and fast. I also amassed a lot of evidence from the Anderson years, in my opinion, of making defense more complicated than was effective. But we've got new sheriffs in town and who am I to know better than the stewards of the vaunted Wisconsin defense. Really hopeful.

* By the way, there is good reporting by Jackson on TOS that breaks the story of camp so far and I won't repeat out of respect for the paywall, but it's a depth chart development reportedly based on players' differential ability to handle the mental side of the defense. If this holds (and maybe even if it doesn't) the complexity and communicativeness of the defense may end up being a major story for us.

[msqueri]

Kolodziej:

* It's fun to see these interviews with coaches now after having had the chance in the spring to see the interviews on TOS, both to compare substance and to compare vibes. As with Talamaivao, to me Kolodziej seems to be more comfortable and relaxed than he did before. Just a subjective sense I get of them settling in more, which makes sense.

* At the early stage of camp (Day 3) the interview occurred it's hard to draw any conclusions and Kolodziej didn't offer any. At this stage it's all about process and trying to do each day the right way until it adds up to something. Kolodziej reflects Taylor's attitude in this respect, which we might expect. If we hear any first two weeks of camp interviews that don't sound like that I'd be surprised.

* Similarly, Kolodziej didn't take the bait when asked if anybody has jumped out, unsurprisingly saying that three days with only one in pads is far too early to make judgments. One thing that was interesting about this answer was the comment that football is "a battle of attrition, the last man - the toughest man - left standing." That's different than saying it's too early to judge because we haven't seen enough of the guys in pads. It seems more like saying he's not going to be impressed by anybody based on what they do in August at all and the premium for him is toughness and how you play in November and December ("that's when it really matters"), including being available and playing with the same effort and consistency as early in the season. Rather than building up or breaking down his guys too much it seems like he's very much about a steady, workmanlike approach. The emphasis on toughness echoes the predominant theme of his previous interview. One thing I don't worry about is this guy being his genuine self and having a point of view in how he coaches/what he wants to instill in his charges. I also don't worry much whether we've improved our DL coaching. It would be shocking if we haven't.

* As a sign of how unwilling Kolodziej was to give any insight into particular players, he took the question on Moi and Phillips and answered it generically to cover both of them, not even mentioning their names. It was as if they were one person, or even that he was talking about the room generally. To me that limits the amount we can read into the comments. I don't doubt the comments on being great guys, doing the right things, doing extra, taking care of their bodies, and coming prepared, but any compliments would apply somewhat differently to different individuals. If you say something nice about a whole team, for instance, that doesn't apply equally to all individuals. It's a generalization. A generalization for a subset of two is more insightful but still has limits. The comment also lost some credibility when he referred to both as veteran guys that take their leadership roles very seriously....Moi is a year into being in the program. That being said, I don't want to dismiss the comments too much. It is a nice testimonial on Kolodziej's take on two of the leaders of his DL room, and in football playing time and experience builds credibility with your teammates and is a big part of leadership, so it's probably true Moi is a leader even though he's only been around a year. It was interesting that Kolodziej said nary a word about skill sets, role in the defense, or anything beyond the intangibles. I don't necessarily view that as a negative commentary on their skills because I do think Kolodziej, like the coaching staff generally, is a very process-oriented, work ethic and mentality-focused coach. When he says "they've done an outstanding job in terms of the physical and mental preparation this offseason, so really excited about what they're going to bring to the defense this fall" I think that's genuine and capturing what he really cares about. The optimism is also noteworthy. Coach interviews in the spring seemed to assiduously avoid getting hopes up but some of the more recent interviews sound more like the coaches think their charges could be decent.

* I don't know if Kolodziej meant it quite as starkly as it sounded (kind of think he did!) but it was really interesting to hear him talk about how the scheme, structure, and expectations of the defense will never change based on personnel. He gave lip service to every year being a rebirth and renewal, but the crux of that comment was the Wisconsin defense is the Wisconsin defense and that identity doesn't change. The coaches have to take the personnel and fit it into the defense and make sure players can adapt to best fit within their roles in the scheme, but the way we play is non-negotiable. This contrasts sharply with coach speak one often hears from other coaches about adapting to the personnel. No way, no how. We have a defensive identity and will fit players into it. Again, this is a coach with a point of view. I am very excited about having a defensive identity for the first time in a long time. Maybe the single thing I'm most excited about with Stanford football.

* The specifics about how we play that Kolodziej talked about being "non-negotiable" are worth some focus because they are the exact same words in the exact same order he used in the spring: "smart, tough, dependable." When I talk about his point of view that crystallizes it as well as anything. Really cannot emphasis enough how much this guy strikes me as anchored in instilling work habits and a mentality of steady, workmanlike effort. Diron Reynolds, if he had a calling card, seemed to be more about technique. I have no idea who understands and teaches technique better between Reynolds and Kolodziej, but it may end up being beside the point. Kolodziej's theory of the case is that he will push his players to have the mentality that shows up late in games and late in seasons. Given how much better Wisconsin DL play has been than Stanford's in recent years, it's hard not to be excited to see this in action.

* Yet more talk of a "fairly communicative defense that is going to require smart guys to execute it." We are hearing this so much that I think we have to believe it. I've made no secret of my bias that defensive football isn't rocket science and I like defenses that let athletic players play instinctively and fast. I also amassed a lot of evidence from the Anderson years, in my opinion, of making defense more complicated than was effective. But we've got new sheriffs in town and who am I to know better than the stewards of the vaunted Wisconsin defense. Really hopeful.

* By the way, there is good reporting by Jackson on TOS that breaks the story of camp so far and I won't repeat out of respect for the paywall, but it's a depth chart development reportedly based on players' differential ability to handle the mental side of the defense. If this holds (and maybe even if it doesn't) the complexity and communicativeness of the defense may end up being a major story for us.

[msqueri]

* If anybody wants to get a sense of Kolodziej, listen to the answer to Ben's question on points of emphasis, which prompted a second much more detailed reflection on "smart, tough, dependable." Sums it all up. I can't capture Kolodziej better than that so won't try.

* As with the spring interview, some smirks and pride in reminiscing about his role in really putting it on the Stanford offense in the Rose Bowl. The Ron Dayne reminiscence doesn't tell us anything relevant to us other than a fondness for a style of football that I know @BBMB60 wants to see but we're unlikely to see with our current offensive coaching staff.

* Interesting reflection on how there are people who can play but can't really communicate on two levels. First is the obvious in direct response to Ben's question, that being able to play does not give sufficient skills to be a good coach and you need more than that (which he implied was communication and leadership). The second one requires more reading between the lines but was what most interested me, which was his aside comparing this observation to "just like I ask of my guys." To me that's a telling aside that he asks DL to do things physically but also to communicate and both are important, and the way he said it made it sound like the communication part won't get short shrift. All coaches have philosophies and vagaries that lead them to make playing time decisions other coaches might not, and it sounds from Kolodziej plus Jackson's reporting that our front seven coaches may particularly prioritize some of the mental/communication side.

* Got a fun sense of Kolodziej as a teacher in the answer about building culture from the ground floor. He's really excited to get to teach a new defense from the ground floor where it's new for everybody and, as he put it, all players have to come to him as the sounding board (as opposed to veterans who have an inherent advantage in knowledge of the scheme or head start on their teammates). In expounding on the thought, he also noted that it being so new means that you have to dial in to fundamentals and build it back from scratch. It's interesting to think about how there are different parts to a coaching life cycle and how at Wisconsin, with an entrenched defensive scheme and culture, he had to coach in different ways/emphases whereas you have to get back to fundamentals in this kind of situation. It clearly appeals to him as a teacher. Now, for fans' sake, I very much hope he and his fellow coaches succeed enough to get us to different parts of the coaching life cycle and it eventually feels more like how he had to coach at Wisconsin. By the way, "build it back from scratch" in the context of fundamentals is a bit of a yikes comment. Not encouraging if Reynolds' fundamentals and techniques were so different or even incompatible with Kolodziej's. On one level it could mean there's room for lots of growth if Reynolds wasn't teaching good things but on the other it could mean it will take longer to build up DL fundamentals and we'll have to be patient with that.

* The most exciting part of the interview was Kolodziej's emphasis and impressed eye roll in saying "it's a ridiculous staff, I mean it's an unbelievable group of men and certainly football coaches and a lot of them were great players in their own right, so I have a ton of respect for this staff." The one grain of salt I'd take with it is the 45 game Wisconsin starter putting a lot of credence in how good of football players his peers were; I view that as an interesting feature of this staff (that I've remarked about several times previously.....really quite unusual how good of football players our coaches were) but as Kolodziej himself said a few minutes earlier there isn't guaranteed transference between playing ability and coaching ability. He is almost certainly reacting to this staff having an extreme outlier amount of good former football players compared to what he's used to and my view is that may or may not be a good thing. But certainly Kolodziej's overall opinion that it's a "ridiculous" staff is super exciting. This is a guy who spent eight years as a DL or strength coach at one of the top 15-20 programs in the country. This is a guy who has Dave Aranda, Justin Wilcox, and Jim Leonhard as his defensive coordinators. For him to be so impressed with this staff is extremely exciting, not just because it reinforces my impressions so far that it's a really good staff, but because he has played and coached in Rose Bowls (strength coach for three New Year's Six games, in fact), gave the compliment with extremely obvious earnestness, and could have said anything when asked the question he was asked (what it's like to work with Troy Taylor).

* He searched for words a bit more when talking specifically about Taylor (as opposed to how grateful he is for the opportunity to coach at an incredible place and with a ridiculous staff) but circled to how it's a tremendous opportunity to learn from Taylor on how he goes about his daily business, structures the team, builds culture, and creates accountability. That just reinforced my sense Kolodziej truly thinks it's a great staff and the program is being led the right way. There's always a honeymoon phase and we shouldn't read too much into this, but I really did like how deeply Kolodziej feels it's a great staff.

* Hearing about Kolodziej's views of the opportunity to learn from Taylor also reinforced my sense Kolodziej really views himself as a teacher and leader. I love when people talk about their own growth and Kolodziej hit my leadership G spot there with "it fires me up every day because I get to be challenged to learn and to meet or exceed their own intensity they bring." [While this was mostly an insight into Kolodziej as a teacher/leader, I wonder if "their own" and "intensity they bring" refers to the Sacramento State guys specifically and if maybe Kolodziej is temperamentally lower energy than Taylor, Agnew, and Osborne and Kolodziej is talking about that. I think that's possible.]

* Every time players and coaches talk about what they like about Stanford it's always two things: weather/location and being surrounded by world class individuals. It's nice for me to hear these things, especially with visuals of one of my favorite places on the planet (the practice field/Avery/Maples/Sunken part of the campus) in the background. I need it in weeks like these when being a Stanford fan from afar and seeing the way Stanford acts as an institution doesn't make me like it very much. I love these interviews because it makes me feel more connected. Fires me up to try to get to campus this fall.

[msqueri]

* If anybody wants to get a sense of Kolodziej, listen to the answer to Ben's question on points of emphasis, which prompted a second much more detailed reflection on "smart, tough, dependable." Sums it all up. I can't capture Kolodziej better than that so won't try.

* As with the spring interview, some smirks and pride in reminiscing about his role in really putting it on the Stanford offense in the Rose Bowl. The Ron Dayne reminiscence doesn't tell us anything relevant to us other than a fondness for a style of football that I know @BBMB60 wants to see but we're unlikely to see with our current offensive coaching staff.

* Interesting reflection on how there are people who can play but can't really communicate on two levels. First is the obvious in direct response to Ben's question, that being able to play does not give sufficient skills to be a good coach and you need more than that (which he implied was communication and leadership). The second one requires more reading between the lines but was what most interested me, which was his aside comparing this observation to "just like I ask of my guys." To me that's a telling aside that he asks DL to do things physically but also to communicate and both are important, and the way he said it made it sound like the communication part won't get short shrift. All coaches have philosophies and vagaries that lead them to make playing time decisions other coaches might not, and it sounds from Kolodziej plus Jackson's reporting that our front seven coaches may particularly prioritize some of the mental/communication side.

* Got a fun sense of Kolodziej as a teacher in the answer about building culture from the ground floor. He's really excited to get to teach a new defense from the ground floor where it's new for everybody and, as he put it, all players have to come to him as the sounding board (as opposed to veterans who have an inherent advantage in knowledge of the scheme or head start on their teammates). In expounding on the thought, he also noted that it being so new means that you have to dial in to fundamentals and build it back from scratch. It's interesting to think about how there are different parts to a coaching life cycle and how at Wisconsin, with an entrenched defensive scheme and culture, he had to coach in different ways/emphases whereas you have to get back to fundamentals in this kind of situation. It clearly appeals to him as a teacher. Now, for fans' sake, I very much hope he and his fellow coaches succeed enough to get us to different parts of the coaching life cycle and it eventually feels more like how he had to coach at Wisconsin. By the way, "build it back from scratch" in the context of fundamentals is a bit of a yikes comment. Not encouraging if Reynolds' fundamentals and techniques were so different or even incompatible with Kolodziej's. On one level it could mean there's room for lots of growth if Reynolds wasn't teaching good things but on the other it could mean it will take longer to build up DL fundamentals and we'll have to be patient with that.

* The most exciting part of the interview was Kolodziej's emphasis and impressed eye roll in saying "it's a ridiculous staff, I mean it's an unbelievable group of men and certainly football coaches and a lot of them were great players in their own right, so I have a ton of respect for this staff." The one grain of salt I'd take with it is the 45 game Wisconsin starter putting a lot of credence in how good of football players his peers were; I view that as an interesting feature of this staff (that I've remarked about several times previously.....really quite unusual how good of football players our coaches were) but as Kolodziej himself said a few minutes earlier there isn't guaranteed transference between playing ability and coaching ability. He is almost certainly reacting to this staff having an extreme outlier amount of good former football players compared to what he's used to and my view is that may or may not be a good thing. But certainly Kolodziej's overall opinion that it's a "ridiculous" staff is super exciting. This is a guy who spent eight years as a DL or strength coach at one of the top 15-20 programs in the country. This is a guy who has Dave Aranda, Justin Wilcox, and Jim Leonhard as his defensive coordinators. For him to be so impressed with this staff is extremely exciting, not just because it reinforces my impressions so far that it's a really good staff, but because he has played and coached in Rose Bowls (strength coach for three New Year's Six games, in fact), gave the compliment with extremely obvious earnestness, and could have said anything when asked the question he was asked (what it's like to work with Troy Taylor).

* He searched for words a bit more when talking specifically about Taylor (as opposed to how grateful he is for the opportunity to coach at an incredible place and with a ridiculous staff) but circled to how it's a tremendous opportunity to learn from Taylor on how he goes about his daily business, structures the team, builds culture, and creates accountability. That just reinforced my sense Kolodziej truly thinks it's a great staff and the program is being led the right way. There's always a honeymoon phase and we shouldn't read too much into this, but I really did like how deeply Kolodziej feels it's a great staff.

* Hearing about Kolodziej's views of the opportunity to learn from Taylor also reinforced my sense Kolodziej really views himself as a teacher and leader. I love when people talk about their own growth and Kolodziej hit my leadership G spot there with "it fires me up every day because I get to be challenged to learn and to meet or exceed their own intensity they bring." [While this was mostly an insight into Kolodziej as a teacher/leader, I wonder if "their own" and "intensity they bring" refers to the Sacramento State guys specifically and if maybe Kolodziej is temperamentally lower energy than Taylor, Agnew, and Osborne and Kolodziej is talking about that. I think that's possible.]

* Every time players and coaches talk about what they like about Stanford it's always two things: weather/location and being surrounded by world class individuals. It's nice for me to hear these things, especially with visuals of one of my favorite places on the planet (the practice field/Avery/Maples/Sunken part of the campus) in the background. I need it in weeks like these when being a Stanford fan from afar and seeing the way Stanford acts as an institution doesn't make me like it very much. I love these interviews because it makes me feel more connected. Fires me up to try to get to campus this fall.

[msqueri]

Second Taylor availability:

* I always like the cut of Taylor's jib and think he has a good way about him in navigating these kind of interviews. It is awkward to want to focus on football when everybody else is only focused on the conference realignment drama, but he is enough of an adult and professional to appreciate why that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and to answer magnanimously at a time of great tumult for Stanford. I have to imagine he's feeling adrift in all this uncertainty like the rest of us but if I were to try to discern signs of that I'd be guessing and projecting. This press availability was just a professional answering the questions and gracefully getting off the stage (practice field turf).

* Taylor's first thought on the conference realignment drama (keep in mind this was on Tuesday, several days after Judgment Day for the Pac-12 but also at this point almost a week ago from when I'm writing this) was like most people I've seen on the message boards and in real life: sadness and disappointment. He grew up a Pac-10 fan and played in the Pac-10 and it seems undeniable this is the end of that era. These aren't his words but rather mine, but I don't even know how you say Pac-X without USC and the majority of the most major programs in the region. Seems like a cruel, pathetic joke.

* His second thought was Stanford has a major brand and will be alright. He came back to this several times in the interview and I personally don't think he has much of a choice but to think this way and don't think he knows anything in particular about where or how Stanford is going to land. Certainly Tuesday afternoon Taylor doesn't know any more than what we all know now. It doesn't bring me pleasure to say this, but I put zero stock into Taylor's optimism in this press availability. He's a good soldier speaking in the fog of war about the stakes of a battle that holds him and his troops in the balance. He's going to say we're going to be fine, but that doesn't mean we're going to be fine. As he said himself, he said he's looking forward to finding out Stanford's landing spot just like the reporters questioning him and that he's not involved at all in the discussions. When he says he can't imagine anything else than Power Five football, I take it more as it being unthinkable Stanford would fall so far than there not being a scenario in which it could happen.

* He acknowledged that people in the big recruiting class want to know what's going on and he tells them to be patient. As he said later in the interview, people come to Stanford to play Power Five football and not playing Power Five football would be a big deal. There's no way that he doesn't know that how these weeks' transpire will fundamentally affect his recruiting and retention. They wouldn't be the football players we want and need them to be if they could just shrug off going from major to minor. All fingers and toes crossed we can find a way to stay major.

* Taylor made a comment about the recruits trusting Stanford's brand and why they picked Stanford. I think he meant it in terms of optimism that everything will turn out in terms of conference status, but in that comment I also think about the extent to which recruits pick Stanford for Stanford. As I've said a few times, I do think Stanford would retain more players than a program like Cal/Oregon State/Washington State would because I think Stanford's brand is a bigger reason/playing in a power conference is a relatively lesser reason than matriculation decisions are for a lot of recruits elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I think relegation to a lower level profoundly impacts us, but we do have more of a buffer than the other Pac-4 remnants.

* Revealing chuckle from Taylor when he talked about having that day's practice as he was saying how you have to keep moving forward. It was the demeanor of somebody who knows this situation is crazy and a brobdingnagian distraction but understands you can only control what you can control and fundamentally there really is no choice but to keep putting one foot in front of the other and acting like things are normal even though they aren't. What was he going to do, not show up for practice? I think he knows putting everything into the daily routines of getting ready for the season is on one level an absurdity when something existential is hanging over the program, but it's his job and what he can control right now.

* Positive face on where the team is right now. The first things he mentioned were that the players understand the tempo better and understand the schemes better. If it weren't already clear that tempo would be a sea change this season (it was), add another data point. It will be a fundamental difference to how we play. He also said with some emphasis that we definitely aren't ready to play, so anybody worried about expectations getting out of whack worry not. He knows we are a work in progress. Indeed, the answer in general sounded like his usual process/no such thing as a finished product self. We should also take it at face value that there's a lot of work to do the next three weeks. All that said, the tone about the team is generally positive and the comment on not being ready to play sounded kind of like an obligatory caveat/homage to the woof gods.

[msqueri]

Second Taylor availability:

* I always like the cut of Taylor's jib and think he has a good way about him in navigating these kind of interviews. It is awkward to want to focus on football when everybody else is only focused on the conference realignment drama, but he is enough of an adult and professional to appreciate why that's sucking all the oxygen out of the room and to answer magnanimously at a time of great tumult for Stanford. I have to imagine he's feeling adrift in all this uncertainty like the rest of us but if I were to try to discern signs of that I'd be guessing and projecting. This press availability was just a professional answering the questions and gracefully getting off the stage (practice field turf).

* Taylor's first thought on the conference realignment drama (keep in mind this was on Tuesday, several days after Judgment Day for the Pac-12 but also at this point almost a week ago from when I'm writing this) was like most people I've seen on the message boards and in real life: sadness and disappointment. He grew up a Pac-10 fan and played in the Pac-10 and it seems undeniable this is the end of that era. These aren't his words but rather mine, but I don't even know how you say Pac-X without USC and the majority of the most major programs in the region. Seems like a cruel, pathetic joke.

* His second thought was Stanford has a major brand and will be alright. He came back to this several times in the interview and I personally don't think he has much of a choice but to think this way and don't think he knows anything in particular about where or how Stanford is going to land. Certainly Tuesday afternoon Taylor doesn't know any more than what we all know now. It doesn't bring me pleasure to say this, but I put zero stock into Taylor's optimism in this press availability. He's a good soldier speaking in the fog of war about the stakes of a battle that holds him and his troops in the balance. He's going to say we're going to be fine, but that doesn't mean we're going to be fine. As he said himself, he said he's looking forward to finding out Stanford's landing spot just like the reporters questioning him and that he's not involved at all in the discussions. When he says he can't imagine anything else than Power Five football, I take it more as it being unthinkable Stanford would fall so far than there not being a scenario in which it could happen.

* He acknowledged that people in the big recruiting class want to know what's going on and he tells them to be patient. As he said later in the interview, people come to Stanford to play Power Five football and not playing Power Five football would be a big deal. There's no way that he doesn't know that how these weeks' transpire will fundamentally affect his recruiting and retention. They wouldn't be the football players we want and need them to be if they could just shrug off going from major to minor. All fingers and toes crossed we can find a way to stay major.

* Taylor made a comment about the recruits trusting Stanford's brand and why they picked Stanford. I think he meant it in terms of optimism that everything will turn out in terms of conference status, but in that comment I also think about the extent to which recruits pick Stanford for Stanford. As I've said a few times, I do think Stanford would retain more players than a program like Cal/Oregon State/Washington State would because I think Stanford's brand is a bigger reason/playing in a power conference is a relatively lesser reason than matriculation decisions are for a lot of recruits elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I think relegation to a lower level profoundly impacts us, but we do have more of a buffer than the other Pac-4 remnants.

* Revealing chuckle from Taylor when he talked about having that day's practice as he was saying how you have to keep moving forward. It was the demeanor of somebody who knows this situation is crazy and a brobdingnagian distraction but understands you can only control what you can control and fundamentally there really is no choice but to keep putting one foot in front of the other and acting like things are normal even though they aren't. What was he going to do, not show up for practice? I think he knows putting everything into the daily routines of getting ready for the season is on one level an absurdity when something existential is hanging over the program, but it's his job and what he can control right now.

* Positive face on where the team is right now. The first things he mentioned were that the players understand the tempo better and understand the schemes better. If it weren't already clear that tempo would be a sea change this season (it was), add another data point. It will be a fundamental difference to how we play. He also said with some emphasis that we definitely aren't ready to play, so anybody worried about expectations getting out of whack worry not. He knows we are a work in progress. Indeed, the answer in general sounded like his usual process/no such thing as a finished product self. We should also take it at face value that there's a lot of work to do the next three weeks. All that said, the tone about the team is generally positive and the comment on not being ready to play sounded kind of like an obligatory caveat/homage to the woof gods.

[msqueri]

* Taylor talked about mixing up the QB reps to see QBs with different groups the second week after having pretty even reps the first week. He also opted not to give any clarity on individual places in the competition. However, the headline for me is Taylor saying "they're all a little bit different but I feel like they can all play. Typically what happens is somebody emerges and I would anticipate that happening, it always does, most of the time." To me this reinforces my sense we have a room with plenty of QB2s and Taylor has fairly high confidence in the depth. More interesting, though, is the totally unsolicited opinion that the competition will likely have a definitive winner. I feel like Taylor is preparing us and I think it's possible that by the time of this interview (one week into camp) the separation was starting to happen in his mind. Notably, there was none of his usual talk about how most of what you need to evaluate can't happen until games. It sounds like somebody warming up to make a definitive call. Coupling this with some depth chart reporting on TOS and a number of recent Taylor comments, I think signs are increasingly pointing to Lamson as QB1. Taylor answered very clearly that accuracy is the number one criterion in this offense, followed by decisiveness, taking care of the football, and being able to play at a fast tempo. Later in the interview when asked about Lamson, "very accurate" was one of the first things out of Taylor's mouth, though not the very first - "really competitive, knew he was tough" are the first mental associations that come to Taylor. Taylor's been asked about Lamson each of the first two weeks of camp and both times the first things are about toughness and competitiveness and then the next thing are about being very accurate. This time he also added having great anticipation and being athletic. Taylor has a picture in his mind of Lamson's attributes for sure, and it's notable that the physical attribute of note is the one Taylor prioritizes. We do have to acknowledge that part of the reason Taylor talks about Lamson is because reporters are asking specifically about Lamson, but I think signs are mounting.



* Taylor's reflection on it not being hard to tune out the conference realignment chatter was nice to hear and I believe him, but I do think the honest truth may be that it's different for a 55 year old man who literally practices and preaches mindfulness than it is for 20 year old college students. Taylor is focused on practices, film review, and the planned out schedule and we can hope the players are too. I think it's encouraging that Taylor says he hasn't sensed distraction from the players. But I don't view that as dispositive that this isn't or won't be an issue. We'll see what the situation looks like in the coming weeks but I think it's legitimate to wonder about a potential cloud hanging over the program. I think we have the right guy to navigate through this but the degree of difficulty could be high if limbo continues, we prepare for independence in 2024, or we bite the bullet and get relegated to a lower level. Any of those three are big distractions.



* The comments on Roush, Reuben, and Ayomanor were solicited so I don't put much, if any, stock into them. I'm sure if somebody asked about Hawkins, Humphreys, and Bachmeier the coach would say nice things too. Taylor said nothing specifically about Roush whatsoever. For Reuben it was heavily about progression and growth and I got the impression Reuben has a ways to grow. I am trying to get a mental model of what I'd expect from these guys going forward. A year ago this time Roush and Reuben were all the rage on this board, in large part due to the spring/spring game showing (which I perennially caution means almost nothing), and then had freshmen years that were notable for burning their redshirts and having a few catches but hardly eye-opening. One of my projects is to track the percentage of Stanford's passing offense every freshman WR and TE has had since 2002. Reuben's freshman year was in the 17-19 range among 42 WRs, most comparable to Francis Owusu and Silas Starr. To me he profiles as a fine second string guy on a roster that may not have enough better guys to keep him out of the lineup. Roush and Hawkins were in the 11-13 range among 26 TEs, most comparable to Erik Lorig. TEs quite often taking longer to make impact than WRs so I view their getting their feet wet as a bit more encouraging than Reuben's. I do not think Taylor's evasion/lukewarm response to the solicited question gives any sort of arrow up from my mental model.



* The Ayomanor answer was at least a little bit interesting because he spoke to a specific injury rehab and how it's going. Sounds like progress but a ways to go....similar in a sense to the mentality on Reuben for different reasons. On paper I don't think our WR room looks particularly good and so far my sense is Taylor is approaching it developmentally rather than any sort of sense that he hit the mother lode with his inheritance. I can't begrudge Mike Wilson heading off to the NFL, though wish he were still at Stanford, but Elijah Higgins is one where it's really too bad we didn't get to see a year of him with Taylor's offense.

[msqueri]

* Taylor talked about mixing up the QB reps to see QBs with different groups the second week after having pretty even reps the first week. He also opted not to give any clarity on individual places in the competition. However, the headline for me is Taylor saying "they're all a little bit different but I feel like they can all play. Typically what happens is somebody emerges and I would anticipate that happening, it always does, most of the time." To me this reinforces my sense we have a room with plenty of QB2s and Taylor has fairly high confidence in the depth. More interesting, though, is the totally unsolicited opinion that the competition will likely have a definitive winner. I feel like Taylor is preparing us and I think it's possible that by the time of this interview (one week into camp) the separation was starting to happen in his mind. Notably, there was none of his usual talk about how most of what you need to evaluate can't happen until games. It sounds like somebody warming up to make a definitive call. Coupling this with some depth chart reporting on TOS and a number of recent Taylor comments, I think signs are increasingly pointing to Lamson as QB1. Taylor answered very clearly that accuracy is the number one criterion in this offense, followed by decisiveness, taking care of the football, and being able to play at a fast tempo. Later in the interview when asked about Lamson, "very accurate" was one of the first things out of Taylor's mouth, though not the very first - "really competitive, knew he was tough" are the first mental associations that come to Taylor. Taylor's been asked about Lamson each of the first two weeks of camp and both times the first things are about toughness and competitiveness and then the next thing are about being very accurate. This time he also added having great anticipation and being athletic. Taylor has a picture in his mind of Lamson's attributes for sure, and it's notable that the physical attribute of note is the one Taylor prioritizes. We do have to acknowledge that part of the reason Taylor talks about Lamson is because reporters are asking specifically about Lamson, but I think signs are mounting.



* Taylor's reflection on it not being hard to tune out the conference realignment chatter was nice to hear and I believe him, but I do think the honest truth may be that it's different for a 55 year old man who literally practices and preaches mindfulness than it is for 20 year old college students. Taylor is focused on practices, film review, and the planned out schedule and we can hope the players are too. I think it's encouraging that Taylor says he hasn't sensed distraction from the players. But I don't view that as dispositive that this isn't or won't be an issue. We'll see what the situation looks like in the coming weeks but I think it's legitimate to wonder about a potential cloud hanging over the program. I think we have the right guy to navigate through this but the degree of difficulty could be high if limbo continues, we prepare for independence in 2024, or we bite the bullet and get relegated to a lower level. Any of those three are big distractions.



* The comments on Roush, Reuben, and Ayomanor were solicited so I don't put much, if any, stock into them. I'm sure if somebody asked about Hawkins, Humphreys, and Bachmeier the coach would say nice things too. Taylor said nothing specifically about Roush whatsoever. For Reuben it was heavily about progression and growth and I got the impression Reuben has a ways to grow. I am trying to get a mental model of what I'd expect from these guys going forward. A year ago this time Roush and Reuben were all the rage on this board, in large part due to the spring/spring game showing (which I perennially caution means almost nothing), and then had freshmen years that were notable for burning their redshirts and having a few catches but hardly eye-opening. One of my projects is to track the percentage of Stanford's passing offense every freshman WR and TE has had since 2002. Reuben's freshman year was in the 17-19 range among 42 WRs, most comparable to Francis Owusu and Silas Starr. To me he profiles as a fine second string guy on a roster that may not have enough better guys to keep him out of the lineup. Roush and Hawkins were in the 11-13 range among 26 TEs, most comparable to Erik Lorig. TEs quite often taking longer to make impact than WRs so I view their getting their feet wet as a bit more encouraging than Reuben's. I do not think Taylor's evasion/lukewarm response to the solicited question gives any sort of arrow up from my mental model.



* The Ayomanor answer was at least a little bit interesting because he spoke to a specific injury rehab and how it's going. Sounds like progress but a ways to go....similar in a sense to the mentality on Reuben for different reasons. On paper I don't think our WR room looks particularly good and so far my sense is Taylor is approaching it developmentally rather than any sort of sense that he hit the mother lode with his inheritance. I can't begrudge Mike Wilson heading off to the NFL, though wish he were still at Stanford, but Elijah Higgins is one where it's really too bad we didn't get to see a year of him with Taylor's offense.

[msqueri]

* The answer on travel was both amusing and somewhat revealing. Obviously there's the Louis CK echo and nonchalant, keeping things in perspective attitude. I also think it's a vision into wanting so fundamentally to compete in Power Five that anything else is just details, which is where I am too. Travel is such a manageable concern compared to the apocalypse of relegation. In terms of Taylor's minimizing of the impacts of travel, it's generally healthy to have a positive, can-do attitude and to only control what you can control, but I think he significantly understates the inevitably detrimental impact significant travel would have on competitive prospects, student-athlete balancing of responsibilities, and athletic department finances. I won't belabor points on that I've expounded on separately. One thing I will add now is that unless and until Taylor can prove otherwise I am going to be skeptical about his ability to win games traveling east with early start times. Willingham, Teevens, and Harbaugh all struggled with that and only Shaw, whether because of being in more of a bully era of Stanford football for a good chunk of his time or because of his paranoid (well, not paranoid if they really are out to get you) obsession with addressing potential disadvantages related to travel, did ok in those scenarios. Even he did a lot worse in those scenarios than less significant travel scenarios. If we do end up playing a lot of games in Big 10, Big 12, or ACC country I am not going to be assuaged by Taylor's nonchalance in this interview. He'd have some uphill battles and, hopefully, we'd think really hard about how to mitigate those challenges. This best be a brave public face rather than a true attitude that travel doesn't matter that much.

* It may seem like a minor thing, but I liked his matter-of-fact answer on how tv driving what we're seeing is just the way it is because you've got to pay the bills. It inspires confidence when your leaders are adults who see the world clearly for how it is and try to operate in the world accordingly. It seems like a minor thing to recognize reality but I wonder if Stanford would be in a better place right now if this were a more common trait in our ivory towers.

* Such a tease to get Taylor to smile and acknowledge there's no doubt some true freshmen have stood out but then not get any specifics. It piqued my curiosity big-time that Taylor seems to think some guys have definitely stood out and some guys are definitely lagging ("taking a little while longer" is how he put it). I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in the small scheme of these interviews I was livid to have that question rushed past/not followed up on by one of the reporters belaboring the point (despite saying "not to belabor the point") on conference realignment. Come on. Amateur hour. If you want to ask another question on something there have been eight questions on, fine, but wait until the other more novel line of questioning runs its course. If that question hadn't been rushed in there maybe Jackson or somebody else could have followed up with "any particular freshmen that are jumping out" or some other question that could have put Taylor on the spot to provide more insight, or at the very least kept him talking and gotten him to provide some perspective on position groups, competitive dynamics, or literally anything other than yet another conference realignment question....which, again, still could have been asked 30 seconds later. Ugh. Frustrating to learn absolutely zero about freshmen despite Taylor appearing to have very positive views on at least somebody. For what it's worth, that belabored question was about Stanford's viability as an independent. Taylor was right to demur and we didn't learn much.

[msqueri]

* The answer on travel was both amusing and somewhat revealing. Obviously there's the Louis CK echo and nonchalant, keeping things in perspective attitude. I also think it's a vision into wanting so fundamentally to compete in Power Five that anything else is just details, which is where I am too. Travel is such a manageable concern compared to the apocalypse of relegation. In terms of Taylor's minimizing of the impacts of travel, it's generally healthy to have a positive, can-do attitude and to only control what you can control, but I think he significantly understates the inevitably detrimental impact significant travel would have on competitive prospects, student-athlete balancing of responsibilities, and athletic department finances. I won't belabor points on that I've expounded on separately. One thing I will add now is that unless and until Taylor can prove otherwise I am going to be skeptical about his ability to win games traveling east with early start times. Willingham, Teevens, and Harbaugh all struggled with that and only Shaw, whether because of being in more of a bully era of Stanford football for a good chunk of his time or because of his paranoid (well, not paranoid if they really are out to get you) obsession with addressing potential disadvantages related to travel, did ok in those scenarios. Even he did a lot worse in those scenarios than less significant travel scenarios. If we do end up playing a lot of games in Big 10, Big 12, or ACC country I am not going to be assuaged by Taylor's nonchalance in this interview. He'd have some uphill battles and, hopefully, we'd think really hard about how to mitigate those challenges. This best be a brave public face rather than a true attitude that travel doesn't matter that much.

* It may seem like a minor thing, but I liked his matter-of-fact answer on how tv driving what we're seeing is just the way it is because you've got to pay the bills. It inspires confidence when your leaders are adults who see the world clearly for how it is and try to operate in the world accordingly. It seems like a minor thing to recognize reality but I wonder if Stanford would be in a better place right now if this were a more common trait in our ivory towers.

* Such a tease to get Taylor to smile and acknowledge there's no doubt some true freshmen have stood out but then not get any specifics. It piqued my curiosity big-time that Taylor seems to think some guys have definitely stood out and some guys are definitely lagging ("taking a little while longer" is how he put it). I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but in the small scheme of these interviews I was livid to have that question rushed past/not followed up on by one of the reporters belaboring the point (despite saying "not to belabor the point") on conference realignment. Come on. Amateur hour. If you want to ask another question on something there have been eight questions on, fine, but wait until the other more novel line of questioning runs its course. If that question hadn't been rushed in there maybe Jackson or somebody else could have followed up with "any particular freshmen that are jumping out" or some other question that could have put Taylor on the spot to provide more insight, or at the very least kept him talking and gotten him to provide some perspective on position groups, competitive dynamics, or literally anything other than yet another conference realignment question....which, again, still could have been asked 30 seconds later. Ugh. Frustrating to learn absolutely zero about freshmen despite Taylor appearing to have very positive views on at least somebody. For what it's worth, that belabored question was about Stanford's viability as an independent. Taylor was right to demur and we didn't learn much.

[msqueri]

Humphreys and Starr:



* No offense to Humphreys or Starr, but I hope younger guys like Reuben, Ayomanor, and Bachmeier make the older guys like mere mentors/bridges in the grander scheme. Humphreys strikes me as a good third receiver and decent second receiver, which is pretty faint praise for the guy we selected to represent us at Media Day (though that's not to say he won't be our top WR this year or that he won't have nice success in this offense, more a reflection of where he'd ideally fit on a depth chart), and Starr is a non-entity to me. For those who don't recall, Starr was an unfortunate early bloomer overrated recruit who at one point was ranked as the #62 overall recruit in the nation and then had the recruiting services cry mea culpa on their overheated evaluations unlike anything I reckon we've ever seen, to the point he ended up on the fringe of the top 1000. At Stanford he's played three years and had 71 total yards in those three years. It's a big problem for us if he's getting significant snaps for us this year. I hope he has a nice year as a WR6 or so (WR5 would also be fine by me, and if he's better than I think WR4 could be a cool story....more than that and I think that's really bad news) and then transfers down a level or gets on with his life.



* Because it's my obsession to note this: both said they were going into their senior years. By eligibility both have two years of eligibility left. I think it's far less important they return in 2024 than it is that trench guys do (and in Starr's case I do think it would actively hurt roster management) but I am trying to keep track of retention/attrition dynamics and how it differs from the end of the Shaw regime, if at all. My guess right now is this is the last year for both but we'll see.



* Starr noted he's a psychology major. Very unusual for players to cite their major unprompted. Perhaps a sighting in the wild of Shaw's proverbial Stanford Man. I hope Starr does great things in life.



* "Young energy" is how they both described Osborne, with Humphreys saying "relatable young energy." I generally believe the players are intending their compliments of their coaches to be about the current coaches rather than contrasts with the previous coaches. I've seen enough players go through Stanford football to know that any coaches will have players who like them and players who like them less, and even on a failed staff like our last one the former coaches will have some players who are affectionate about them. With Bobby Kennedy we also have plenty of evidence of a family environment in that room and effective position coaching compared to other positions. So I don't take comments as negative reflections on Kennedy. Still, it's interesting to hear what jumps out to players about their new coaches. In this case, it's about young energy and attention to detail. One worry one could have about Osborne is that as a younger coach and one with more of a QB background than WR background he might lack the specific knowhow and tradecraft Kennedy brought, so it's interesting Humphreys thinks Osborne's attention to detail is "on point" and Starr thinks Osborne is expanding their understanding of concepts. Obviously we would hope that across every room on the roster the players can learn from the new perspectives of the new coaches, but it's nice to hear it considering we're talking about a 20-something replacing a guy who has won national WR coach of the year honors.



* As always, a ton of emphasis on the fast pace. When Taylor came on board he talked about how there'd be some tempo and some huddle and we'd mix it up, but from what we're hearing it sounds more like a super fast no huddle offense. This is going to be interesting to see just how much faster it is. When we hired Taylor I observed that his median offense ran 76.5 plays per game compared to 66 for Shaw (last year relatively fast for us with 68.67). I wonder how fast Taylor can go. Lincoln Riley had the most plays per game in the Pac-12 last year with 75, which was also the case in 2021. For me, Starr in this interview nailed the whole point of this: using conditioning to your advantage, catching the defense off guard, and catching them while they're tired. I've harped on this for years. Offenses know what plays are coming and defenses don't. Offenses get to move forward whereas defenses have to move forward and backward and laterally and just generally reactively. Pace can be such an advantage for an offense.



* It's a minor data point compared to all the rest we're getting on the QB competition, but I noted that Humphreys' order in discussing the QBs is exactly the order I perceive being established as the hierarchy: Lamson, Daniels, Patu. I also noted that Humphreys' characterization of Lamson as a baller and gamer and fiery and competitive comports with how consistently "competitive" is one of the first words out of Taylor's mouth in discussing Lamson. A picture is developing for me. Fiery QB, got it. That was not a personality trait that seemed to be Shaw's favorite at QB, though I loved what Costello brought to us when he was healthy and had a supporting cast. It will be interesting to see such a new personality for our offense, in more ways than one. "He's putting the ball in the right spot" also sounds like a data point on Taylor's all-important accuracy criterion. Daniels got similar praise with more of an emphasis on what he brings in the run game, but the order and fulsomeness of praise gave me a sense of some separation in Lamson's favor. Patu praise seemed more obligatory but, for what it's worth, also focused on accuracy. Starr praised the leadership and energy of the QBs collectively as elevating everybody else's game, which is nice to hear as QB may be the least experienced group on the roster if not for any team in the nation.



* It's clear from this interview and the one with Osborne that releases are the main point of emphasis for the WRs. As usual, I don't feel equipped to judge coaching points of emphasis on technique but find it interesting to hear what we're focused on. Also as usual, it's obviously better than the alternative when players and coaches are on the same page regarding points of emphasis. I suppose if I wanted to reach for potential negatives it might be that such an overriding focus on one thing could detract from more balanced instruction, but no reason to think ill of our WR coaching at this point.

[msqueri]

Humphreys and Starr:



* No offense to Humphreys or Starr, but I hope younger guys like Reuben, Ayomanor, and Bachmeier make the older guys like mere mentors/bridges in the grander scheme. Humphreys strikes me as a good third receiver and decent second receiver, which is pretty faint praise for the guy we selected to represent us at Media Day (though that's not to say he won't be our top WR this year or that he won't have nice success in this offense, more a reflection of where he'd ideally fit on a depth chart), and Starr is a non-entity to me. For those who don't recall, Starr was an unfortunate early bloomer overrated recruit who at one point was ranked as the #62 overall recruit in the nation and then had the recruiting services cry mea culpa on their overheated evaluations unlike anything I reckon we've ever seen, to the point he ended up on the fringe of the top 1000. At Stanford he's played three years and had 71 total yards in those three years. It's a big problem for us if he's getting significant snaps for us this year. I hope he has a nice year as a WR6 or so (WR5 would also be fine by me, and if he's better than I think WR4 could be a cool story....more than that and I think that's really bad news) and then transfers down a level or gets on with his life.



* Because it's my obsession to note this: both said they were going into their senior years. By eligibility both have two years of eligibility left. I think it's far less important they return in 2024 than it is that trench guys do (and in Starr's case I do think it would actively hurt roster management) but I am trying to keep track of retention/attrition dynamics and how it differs from the end of the Shaw regime, if at all. My guess right now is this is the last year for both but we'll see.



* Starr noted he's a psychology major. Very unusual for players to cite their major unprompted. Perhaps a sighting in the wild of Shaw's proverbial Stanford Man. I hope Starr does great things in life.



* "Young energy" is how they both described Osborne, with Humphreys saying "relatable young energy." I generally believe the players are intending their compliments of their coaches to be about the current coaches rather than contrasts with the previous coaches. I've seen enough players go through Stanford football to know that any coaches will have players who like them and players who like them less, and even on a failed staff like our last one the former coaches will have some players who are affectionate about them. With Bobby Kennedy we also have plenty of evidence of a family environment in that room and effective position coaching compared to other positions. So I don't take comments as negative reflections on Kennedy. Still, it's interesting to hear what jumps out to players about their new coaches. In this case, it's about young energy and attention to detail. One worry one could have about Osborne is that as a younger coach and one with more of a QB background than WR background he might lack the specific knowhow and tradecraft Kennedy brought, so it's interesting Humphreys thinks Osborne's attention to detail is "on point" and Starr thinks Osborne is expanding their understanding of concepts. Obviously we would hope that across every room on the roster the players can learn from the new perspectives of the new coaches, but it's nice to hear it considering we're talking about a 20-something replacing a guy who has won national WR coach of the year honors.



* As always, a ton of emphasis on the fast pace. When Taylor came on board he talked about how there'd be some tempo and some huddle and we'd mix it up, but from what we're hearing it sounds more like a super fast no huddle offense. This is going to be interesting to see just how much faster it is. When we hired Taylor I observed that his median offense ran 76.5 plays per game compared to 66 for Shaw (last year relatively fast for us with 68.67). I wonder how fast Taylor can go. Lincoln Riley had the most plays per game in the Pac-12 last year with 75, which was also the case in 2021. For me, Starr in this interview nailed the whole point of this: using conditioning to your advantage, catching the defense off guard, and catching them while they're tired. I've harped on this for years. Offenses know what plays are coming and defenses don't. Offenses get to move forward whereas defenses have to move forward and backward and laterally and just generally reactively. Pace can be such an advantage for an offense.



* It's a minor data point compared to all the rest we're getting on the QB competition, but I noted that Humphreys' order in discussing the QBs is exactly the order I perceive being established as the hierarchy: Lamson, Daniels, Patu. I also noted that Humphreys' characterization of Lamson as a baller and gamer and fiery and competitive comports with how consistently "competitive" is one of the first words out of Taylor's mouth in discussing Lamson. A picture is developing for me. Fiery QB, got it. That was not a personality trait that seemed to be Shaw's favorite at QB, though I loved what Costello brought to us when he was healthy and had a supporting cast. It will be interesting to see such a new personality for our offense, in more ways than one. "He's putting the ball in the right spot" also sounds like a data point on Taylor's all-important accuracy criterion. Daniels got similar praise with more of an emphasis on what he brings in the run game, but the order and fulsomeness of praise gave me a sense of some separation in Lamson's favor. Patu praise seemed more obligatory but, for what it's worth, also focused on accuracy. Starr praised the leadership and energy of the QBs collectively as elevating everybody else's game, which is nice to hear as QB may be the least experienced group on the roster if not for any team in the nation.



* It's clear from this interview and the one with Osborne that releases are the main point of emphasis for the WRs. As usual, I don't feel equipped to judge coaching points of emphasis on technique but find it interesting to hear what we're focused on. Also as usual, it's obviously better than the alternative when players and coaches are on the same page regarding points of emphasis. I suppose if I wanted to reach for potential negatives it might be that such an overriding focus on one thing could detract from more balanced instruction, but no reason to think ill of our WR coaching at this point.

[msqueri]

* STRAIGHT INTO MY VEINS with Starr not even waiting for his turn and answering with just a name - "Collin Wright" - and a head shake when Ben asked about standout DBs and Humphreys started to answer. Then Wright was also the first name Humphreys mentioned. I don't think for the rest of my life I'll ever be as right about anything related to Stanford football as when I called from Richard Sherman's high school days and then doubled down his first fall on campus that Sherman was one of the best athletes and football players to ever set foot on our campus, but with each data point this summer it's sure sounding like my longstanding love affair with Collin Wright is going to end up looking very prescient. The buzziest player on our roster right now. Again, straight into my veins.

* Humphreys and Starr both seem to think very highly of the current DBs, noting they've played against good ones at Stanford and are comparing against that bar. This is something I've been saying all offseason: this actually looks like a good CB room with my love for Wright and with Manley being a very solid proven guy (which was nice to hear Humphreys reinforce as you never know what kind of impact all the time off could have). What is more surprising and nice to hear is these WRs appear to be sincere in applying the praise to the DB room generally, with Humphreys also mentioning Wyrick (proven solid guy in his own right to an extent, but I do wonder about playing a different position than he did in 2021 since it seems Wyrick may now be more safety than nickel), Gilman, Leigber, Porter, and Thompson, and Starr nodding along and also throwing in Edwards' name. I will caveat this, though, in saying that the more Humphreys turned it into basically naming most of the returning DBs the more worry crept in for me that it's a mediocre WR room feeling challenged by a mediocre DB group. Ultimately I think the main takeaway here is Wright is opening everybody's eyes and the rest may be some grade inflation. If there's a second takeaway it may be a reinforcing of my pro-CB room views since Humphreys paired the Thompson praise with the opinion that Williams has his room playing right....didn't say Williams and Gregory.

* Not sure I have anything to add but it was fun to hear both talk about the camaraderie and desire to sharpen one another they feel with the DBs.

* Very interesting to hear Humphreys talk about how practice under Taylor is "real football." He hemmed and hawed when pressed on whether that's in contrast to Shaw but I think we all know there are differences in how Taylor is running this railroad.

---

Osborne:

* Another coach where the theme is improvement since the spring. These don't appear to be hard ass, never satisfied coaches, nor coaches particularly worried about lowering expectations. All the interviews sound different than the ones in the spring. Seems to be an upbeat mindset of positive reinforcement and steady improvement.

* The point of emphasis was no surprise after hearing Humphreys and Starr: releases and route breaks to get separation. I am realizing that despite the reasons for optimism with the new offensive coaching staff I am psychologically not ready to expect/assume receivers will get separation. That's just been such a problem for so long. If and when we start seeing it consistently that will be so refreshing, and obviously hopefully conducive to more explosive offense.

* Tempo....drink!

* With regard to Humphreys, Osborne talked about leadership, steadiness, and consistency. That seems about right. A reliable, consistent player. As I said in another thread, the player that comes to mind for me is Trent Irwin. In terms of Humphreys' play on the field, Osborne talked about Humphreys making plays in practice that day with some contested catches. I think this may be illustrative. Contested catches strike me as more of a Shaw trait for a receiver whereas Taylor is more about releases, separation, and spacing, though it was encouraging to hear Osborne talk about Humphreys understanding "spacing and zones" to find open windows. I think it may be the case that Humphreys has a nice year given the more dynamic offensive scheme but nonetheless is not the true prototypical receiver for this offense. I don't know who is or if that player is in the program yet. And of course I go into all of this with a high degree of humility that things may look differently than I'm projecting.

* I keep trying to decide whether Ayomanor is Ben's version of trying to make fetch a thing or if Ayomanor is poised to be one of our big breakout players. I just don't know. I don't love solicited comments on players independent of coaches providing their own indication of separation in the competition but the comments on Ayomanor were positive and went on at some length (though Osborne also doesn't seem the terse type). It is interesting to hear Ayomanor willing to dish out some praise when Ayomanor had practiced so very little at the time of this interview. If he missed spring and was still rehabbing in the summer....we're talking like a week of solid data points. Given Ayomanor's injury history I am waiting with somewhat bated breath to see if he can be a real, reliable option, but given the raw athleticism, size/speed combo, and reputed work ethic he seems like one of the highest ceiling players on the roster. Having a breakout WR would be fun.

* We've talked in the past about the Taylor offense taking what the defense gives and how the WR route trees will have different options on given plays. It sounds like it will look very different from Shaw. Like the defensive scheme I can't wait to unwrap this present.

* Upbeat answer on the QBs and their rhythms with the WRs. I'm glad Osborne thinks the rhythm is getting there but it was a pretty generic answer that's hard to glean much from. One petty reaction: I chuckled when Osborne said the QBs "haven't really played a ton in college games specifically." Umm, coach, they haven't played a ton in high school games either.

* I was trying to get a sense of Osborne's reflection on coaching WRs because it's what Taylor had an open position for at Sacramento State. I can't quite tell if the takeaway is how fortunate that what he happened to interview for despite more of a QB background has been a position he's loved coaching or WR coaching is just a stop on his climb up the coaching ladder. Given his apprenticeships under Chip Kelly, Chris Petersen, and Taylor and now having numerous years working so closely with Taylor on QB/WR play and the spacing concepts in the Taylor offense, I wouldn't be surprised if he's an offensive coordinator in training.

[msqueri]

* STRAIGHT INTO MY VEINS with Starr not even waiting for his turn and answering with just a name - "Collin Wright" - and a head shake when Ben asked about standout DBs and Humphreys started to answer. Then Wright was also the first name Humphreys mentioned. I don't think for the rest of my life I'll ever be as right about anything related to Stanford football as when I called from Richard Sherman's high school days and then doubled down his first fall on campus that Sherman was one of the best athletes and football players to ever set foot on our campus, but with each data point this summer it's sure sounding like my longstanding love affair with Collin Wright is going to end up looking very prescient. The buzziest player on our roster right now. Again, straight into my veins.

* Humphreys and Starr both seem to think very highly of the current DBs, noting they've played against good ones at Stanford and are comparing against that bar. This is something I've been saying all offseason: this actually looks like a good CB room with my love for Wright and with Manley being a very solid proven guy (which was nice to hear Humphreys reinforce as you never know what kind of impact all the time off could have). What is more surprising and nice to hear is these WRs appear to be sincere in applying the praise to the DB room generally, with Humphreys also mentioning Wyrick (proven solid guy in his own right to an extent, but I do wonder about playing a different position than he did in 2021 since it seems Wyrick may now be more safety than nickel), Gilman, Leigber, Porter, and Thompson, and Starr nodding along and also throwing in Edwards' name. I will caveat this, though, in saying that the more Humphreys turned it into basically naming most of the returning DBs the more worry crept in for me that it's a mediocre WR room feeling challenged by a mediocre DB group. Ultimately I think the main takeaway here is Wright is opening everybody's eyes and the rest may be some grade inflation. If there's a second takeaway it may be a reinforcing of my pro-CB room views since Humphreys paired the Thompson praise with the opinion that Williams has his room playing right....didn't say Williams and Gregory.

* Not sure I have anything to add but it was fun to hear both talk about the camaraderie and desire to sharpen one another they feel with the DBs.

* Very interesting to hear Humphreys talk about how practice under Taylor is "real football." He hemmed and hawed when pressed on whether that's in contrast to Shaw but I think we all know there are differences in how Taylor is running this railroad.

---

Osborne:

* Another coach where the theme is improvement since the spring. These don't appear to be hard ass, never satisfied coaches, nor coaches particularly worried about lowering expectations. All the interviews sound different than the ones in the spring. Seems to be an upbeat mindset of positive reinforcement and steady improvement.

* The point of emphasis was no surprise after hearing Humphreys and Starr: releases and route breaks to get separation. I am realizing that despite the reasons for optimism with the new offensive coaching staff I am psychologically not ready to expect/assume receivers will get separation. That's just been such a problem for so long. If and when we start seeing it consistently that will be so refreshing, and obviously hopefully conducive to more explosive offense.

* Tempo....drink!

* With regard to Humphreys, Osborne talked about leadership, steadiness, and consistency. That seems about right. A reliable, consistent player. As I said in another thread, the player that comes to mind for me is Trent Irwin. In terms of Humphreys' play on the field, Osborne talked about Humphreys making plays in practice that day with some contested catches. I think this may be illustrative. Contested catches strike me as more of a Shaw trait for a receiver whereas Taylor is more about releases, separation, and spacing, though it was encouraging to hear Osborne talk about Humphreys understanding "spacing and zones" to find open windows. I think it may be the case that Humphreys has a nice year given the more dynamic offensive scheme but nonetheless is not the true prototypical receiver for this offense. I don't know who is or if that player is in the program yet. And of course I go into all of this with a high degree of humility that things may look differently than I'm projecting.

* I keep trying to decide whether Ayomanor is Ben's version of trying to make fetch a thing or if Ayomanor is poised to be one of our big breakout players. I just don't know. I don't love solicited comments on players independent of coaches providing their own indication of separation in the competition but the comments on Ayomanor were positive and went on at some length (though Osborne also doesn't seem the terse type). It is interesting to hear Ayomanor willing to dish out some praise when Ayomanor had practiced so very little at the time of this interview. If he missed spring and was still rehabbing in the summer....we're talking like a week of solid data points. Given Ayomanor's injury history I am waiting with somewhat bated breath to see if he can be a real, reliable option, but given the raw athleticism, size/speed combo, and reputed work ethic he seems like one of the highest ceiling players on the roster. Having a breakout WR would be fun.

* We've talked in the past about the Taylor offense taking what the defense gives and how the WR route trees will have different options on given plays. It sounds like it will look very different from Shaw. Like the defensive scheme I can't wait to unwrap this present.

* Upbeat answer on the QBs and their rhythms with the WRs. I'm glad Osborne thinks the rhythm is getting there but it was a pretty generic answer that's hard to glean much from. One petty reaction: I chuckled when Osborne said the QBs "haven't really played a ton in college games specifically." Umm, coach, they haven't played a ton in high school games either.

* I was trying to get a sense of Osborne's reflection on coaching WRs because it's what Taylor had an open position for at Sacramento State. I can't quite tell if the takeaway is how fortunate that what he happened to interview for despite more of a QB background has been a position he's loved coaching or WR coaching is just a stop on his climb up the coaching ladder. Given his apprenticeships under Chip Kelly, Chris Petersen, and Taylor and now having numerous years working so closely with Taylor on QB/WR play and the spacing concepts in the Taylor offense, I wouldn't be surprised if he's an offensive coordinator in training.