08-23-2023, 07:02 PM
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.
* 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.