08-23-2023, 06:50 PM
* 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.
* 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.