08-23-2023, 06:52 PM
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.
* 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.