09-13-2023, 08:06 PM
Taylor:
* I don't know what to make of Taylor not making an opening statement. I think there's a read in which it's just a ball coach lacking artifice and looking to get right down to business, but it's pretty odd. It's a press conference, dude. People (the very few paying attention right now) are there to write stories about the team. The whole point of it is for you to give them quotes. I'm starting to get a picture of Taylor's view of the media being similar to the Mark Wahlberg theory on feds from The Departed: they're like mushrooms, feed 'em shit and keep 'em in the dark. [Heck, when Taylor gets asked about who is going to play QB at this point he might as well say "Maybe, maybe not, maybe $%#% yourself."] I'm mostly amused and don't think it's a big deal at all not to give an opening statement, just an interesting choice and seems to be part of a consciously, intentionally non-marketer self-conception.
* In that vein, terse answer on Daniels' status: "yeah, he's cleared to go" with no further explanation. This reinforces the impression from the post-game press conference that the injury was not serious. This makes it seem like Taylor was eager to get a look at Lamson and didn't see the point in seeing more Daniels in a game he biffed. That in turn supports what Taylor and others have been saying, that the QB competition was genuinely close. The way Daniels played at Hawaii let him hold on to the job for the next week, but it may have been a less definitive icing of the QB1 job than many of us assumed. When Troy Clardy (by the way, I was very harsh on his enabling and sycophancy last year but in this press conference he was consistently the guy who asked the most salient depth chart and injury kind of questions) followed up on the QB situation, Taylor said both Daniels and Lamson have shown promise and he's not ready to commit to one or the other. I joked above about Taylor as Dignam but I think while there does seem to be a strain in Taylor that likes secrecy and tactical advantage, especially at QB, it just as fundamentally could be the case that he's telling us the truth that he's not ready to pick one or the other. This is a bit hard to square with the previous talk of "separation" but I also hear it in the context of something else I've talked about, which is Taylor as a first year coach potentially being highly responsive to week-to-week in-game performance in allocating playing time. Indeed, as Taylor said all off-season, QBs are like tea bags and you don't know what you have with them until you put them in hot water. These initial honest-to-goodness real games are invaluable for evaluating the QBs and he appears loath to crown one until he has more to go off of. In other words: QB controversy. These last two weeks have been a roller coaster at QB and we perhaps should expect that to continue a while longer. Beats me how much longer, or even who gets the nod Saturday and if said guy gets an opportunity to play the whole game if he doesn't falter. My wild guess is Daniels starts and will be entrusted to keep the reins if he can handle them like against Hawaii, but may have a short leash if he looks bad like he did against USC. But that's just a low confidence guess.
* Taylor acknowledged that playing his old team makes him feel like he knows the opponent's personnel and scheme better as he prepares for the game. An obvious point, but it's interesting to think about the Troy Taylor vs. Andy Thompson chess match in which they each know each other so well. This is most true when Stanford has the ball as Taylor and Thompson will both be coaching against what they've played against in practice the last few years, and what Thompson is still playing against in practice to a certain degree. They should both know each other extremely well. I don't have any deep thoughts about what this could mean strategically, just interesting to think about the chess match. The information disadvantage, if there is one, would presumably go against Bobby Fresques and Kris Richardson in orchestrating the Hornet offense, as Taylor brought April in to import a different defense whereas April gets to square off against a duo highly identified with the Taylor offense and that Taylor is very familiar with. On the other hand, coaches always talk about focusing on your own game so maybe it can be overblown how much coaches are trying to get in the head of the other side (or how helpful it would be to try). Plus Taylor gives April an extremely wide berth (total ownership it seems) to April in running the defense, so I'd imagine Taylor's advice was essentially limited to some early part of the week brainstorming and information sharing and the defensive game planning is mostly up to April.
* Taylor's answer on that seemed equally focused on personnel as scheme. I get an inkling that he does think having recruited and coached the majority of Sacramento State's players does give him an informational advantage. I don't know how this translates but maybe we're going to be aggressively targeting certain tendencies or weaknesses or trying to account for certain strengths.
* One other observation on the chess match is that Taylor's talk about all the mutual familiarity adding another layer to the preparation gave me a feel that even more than trying to exploit what he knows about Sacramento State, he is acutely cognizant of the need to game plan and play call on offense against a coach who knows him so well. I actually think that Thompson's knowledge of Taylor is what's really front of mind.
* In addition to asking salient depth chart questions, Clardy also asked the closest thing to a critical question (in his neutral to positive way of course) when he asked how Taylor would assess the passing game so far. I say that's critical because it seems pretty clear the passing game is a weakness so far, propped up only by Yurosek. Stats this early are a bit silly, but for what it's worth we're #103 in yards per attempt, #105 in passer rating, and #105 in passing yards per game. Obviously the passing game is not going great. Taylor's answer was we need to grow in all areas and that in the passing game it all starts with protection, where we've been hit or miss. I got PTSD when he talked about football being the ultimate team game and needing all 11 guys (implying one person messing up in protection can stymie you, which was the 2002-2007 Groundhog Day nightmare of watching Stanford offense). Taylor didn't let the QBs off the hook but kind of glided over their role in the passing game other than to lump them in with everybody else who needs to get better. [For what it's worth, so far PFF grades Stanford #88 in passing, #131 in pass blocking, and #62 in receiving, so they'd certainly agree that it all starts with protection, though would consider Taylor far too polite in saying there have been many hits with pass protection.]
* I don't know what to make of Taylor not making an opening statement. I think there's a read in which it's just a ball coach lacking artifice and looking to get right down to business, but it's pretty odd. It's a press conference, dude. People (the very few paying attention right now) are there to write stories about the team. The whole point of it is for you to give them quotes. I'm starting to get a picture of Taylor's view of the media being similar to the Mark Wahlberg theory on feds from The Departed: they're like mushrooms, feed 'em shit and keep 'em in the dark. [Heck, when Taylor gets asked about who is going to play QB at this point he might as well say "Maybe, maybe not, maybe $%#% yourself."] I'm mostly amused and don't think it's a big deal at all not to give an opening statement, just an interesting choice and seems to be part of a consciously, intentionally non-marketer self-conception.
* In that vein, terse answer on Daniels' status: "yeah, he's cleared to go" with no further explanation. This reinforces the impression from the post-game press conference that the injury was not serious. This makes it seem like Taylor was eager to get a look at Lamson and didn't see the point in seeing more Daniels in a game he biffed. That in turn supports what Taylor and others have been saying, that the QB competition was genuinely close. The way Daniels played at Hawaii let him hold on to the job for the next week, but it may have been a less definitive icing of the QB1 job than many of us assumed. When Troy Clardy (by the way, I was very harsh on his enabling and sycophancy last year but in this press conference he was consistently the guy who asked the most salient depth chart and injury kind of questions) followed up on the QB situation, Taylor said both Daniels and Lamson have shown promise and he's not ready to commit to one or the other. I joked above about Taylor as Dignam but I think while there does seem to be a strain in Taylor that likes secrecy and tactical advantage, especially at QB, it just as fundamentally could be the case that he's telling us the truth that he's not ready to pick one or the other. This is a bit hard to square with the previous talk of "separation" but I also hear it in the context of something else I've talked about, which is Taylor as a first year coach potentially being highly responsive to week-to-week in-game performance in allocating playing time. Indeed, as Taylor said all off-season, QBs are like tea bags and you don't know what you have with them until you put them in hot water. These initial honest-to-goodness real games are invaluable for evaluating the QBs and he appears loath to crown one until he has more to go off of. In other words: QB controversy. These last two weeks have been a roller coaster at QB and we perhaps should expect that to continue a while longer. Beats me how much longer, or even who gets the nod Saturday and if said guy gets an opportunity to play the whole game if he doesn't falter. My wild guess is Daniels starts and will be entrusted to keep the reins if he can handle them like against Hawaii, but may have a short leash if he looks bad like he did against USC. But that's just a low confidence guess.
* Taylor acknowledged that playing his old team makes him feel like he knows the opponent's personnel and scheme better as he prepares for the game. An obvious point, but it's interesting to think about the Troy Taylor vs. Andy Thompson chess match in which they each know each other so well. This is most true when Stanford has the ball as Taylor and Thompson will both be coaching against what they've played against in practice the last few years, and what Thompson is still playing against in practice to a certain degree. They should both know each other extremely well. I don't have any deep thoughts about what this could mean strategically, just interesting to think about the chess match. The information disadvantage, if there is one, would presumably go against Bobby Fresques and Kris Richardson in orchestrating the Hornet offense, as Taylor brought April in to import a different defense whereas April gets to square off against a duo highly identified with the Taylor offense and that Taylor is very familiar with. On the other hand, coaches always talk about focusing on your own game so maybe it can be overblown how much coaches are trying to get in the head of the other side (or how helpful it would be to try). Plus Taylor gives April an extremely wide berth (total ownership it seems) to April in running the defense, so I'd imagine Taylor's advice was essentially limited to some early part of the week brainstorming and information sharing and the defensive game planning is mostly up to April.
* Taylor's answer on that seemed equally focused on personnel as scheme. I get an inkling that he does think having recruited and coached the majority of Sacramento State's players does give him an informational advantage. I don't know how this translates but maybe we're going to be aggressively targeting certain tendencies or weaknesses or trying to account for certain strengths.
* One other observation on the chess match is that Taylor's talk about all the mutual familiarity adding another layer to the preparation gave me a feel that even more than trying to exploit what he knows about Sacramento State, he is acutely cognizant of the need to game plan and play call on offense against a coach who knows him so well. I actually think that Thompson's knowledge of Taylor is what's really front of mind.
* In addition to asking salient depth chart questions, Clardy also asked the closest thing to a critical question (in his neutral to positive way of course) when he asked how Taylor would assess the passing game so far. I say that's critical because it seems pretty clear the passing game is a weakness so far, propped up only by Yurosek. Stats this early are a bit silly, but for what it's worth we're #103 in yards per attempt, #105 in passer rating, and #105 in passing yards per game. Obviously the passing game is not going great. Taylor's answer was we need to grow in all areas and that in the passing game it all starts with protection, where we've been hit or miss. I got PTSD when he talked about football being the ultimate team game and needing all 11 guys (implying one person messing up in protection can stymie you, which was the 2002-2007 Groundhog Day nightmare of watching Stanford offense). Taylor didn't let the QBs off the hook but kind of glided over their role in the passing game other than to lump them in with everybody else who needs to get better. [For what it's worth, so far PFF grades Stanford #88 in passing, #131 in pass blocking, and #62 in receiving, so they'd certainly agree that it all starts with protection, though would consider Taylor far too polite in saying there have been many hits with pass protection.]