09-25-2023, 08:40 AM
Next season better be better, for the reasons mentioned above. Degree of difficulty goes way down in all respects - ownership of the hangover, building a culture, strength of schedule, mass attrition of key contributors.
That said, I think it's too early to know either the baseline we're improving from (I still think it's in play for the 2023 team to be anywhere from roughly 80th to 115th, a big range that will have big impacts on our morale/self-confidence/retention/etc.) or the clay the coaches have to work with next year.
There are two fundamental thing that should be better and, as a result, make a big difference, and a third thing that is just as fundamental but I'm not yet sure how much better it will be. First is more Taylor ownership of the culture. The veteran players buying in and supporting the new staff is a very important part of coaching transitions, but even more important is cycling those guys out and replacing them with players who match the ethos and skill sets desired by the new coaches. If we have mass attrition again this off-season we'll probably hear a lot of hand-wringing about that, but it pumps new blood into the program and puts the team another year closer to being molded in Taylor's image rather than Shaw's. Given Taylor's success at Sacramento State and the lowly place Shaw left us, the fundamental bet we are making in this coaching transition is that that is a good thing. So embrace one more year of big roster turnover. It serves a purpose.
The second thing is a year of familiarity and experience with the new systems, namely Taylor's fast tempo spacing-oriented offense, April's Wisconsin defense, and Deatrick's tightly regimented strength and conditioning. All three of these are learning curves and, if there is substance to them, getting another year along the learning curve should make a difference.
The third thing is greater competitiveness in the trenches. Football starts up front and what Shaw bequeathed was not competitive where it matters the most. On offense, our five starting linemen include three guys four years out of high school, one guy three years out, and one guy one year out. Given recent trends in linemen not staying five years at Stanford, we may need to be on pins and needles regarding what McLaughlin, Rogers, and Mayberry decide to do. None of them are world-beaters, but it's those credible but not studly linemen who most need fifth years and can finally use their strength and savvy to be competitive. Think about what Harbaugh and early Shaw teams got out of Muth, Marinelli, Hall, Phillips, Schwartzstein, Wilkes, and Danser. Now think about what our OL looks like next year if we are replacing 2-3 starters. There could be salutary effects of, in a year that will likely be another rebuilding year anyway, moving on to a younger cohort (for instance, one can imagine a youth movement oriented around Pale, Baklenko, Anderson, etc.); one can also imagine a 2024 OL with fifth year Mayberry, fourth year Leyrer, second year Pale and Anderson, and either fourth year Uke or third year Maikkula (not to mention many other permutations, just speaking notionally)....that would be a group more or less on par with this year's in seniority but with an uptick in experience and cohesion. In other words, depending on retention OL may or may not be more competitive next year, it may or may not be another bridge year, etc. On defense, we currently are anchored by fourth year Phillips, third year Franklin and Buckey, and second year Moi. That seems more cut and dry that next year should be more competitive and could be a really major strength. The thing to really watch is Phillips, arguably the most important retention priority on the entire roster.
The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football. This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate. You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. When we talk about looking at retention as a barometer of Taylor's effectiveness or of his culture taking root, I don't think we should be thinking about this abstractly or in terms of overall numbers returning. We need fourth year players to leave en masse to create room for the incoming class and to cycle that new blood in. Frankly, it doesn't matter (and may even be harmful) if EJ Smith or John Humphreys come back (and definitely would be harmful if Silas Starr or Omari Porter do). This is a very clear litmus test: stars (which is really only Yurosek and Karty and I'm resigned to them leaving unfortunately) and currently contributing trench guys. We want Yurosek, Karty, Phillips, McLaughlin, and Rogers back and to avoid outbound transfers of key guys in the younger classes. Otherwise, bring on the roster turnover!
That said, I think it's too early to know either the baseline we're improving from (I still think it's in play for the 2023 team to be anywhere from roughly 80th to 115th, a big range that will have big impacts on our morale/self-confidence/retention/etc.) or the clay the coaches have to work with next year.
There are two fundamental thing that should be better and, as a result, make a big difference, and a third thing that is just as fundamental but I'm not yet sure how much better it will be. First is more Taylor ownership of the culture. The veteran players buying in and supporting the new staff is a very important part of coaching transitions, but even more important is cycling those guys out and replacing them with players who match the ethos and skill sets desired by the new coaches. If we have mass attrition again this off-season we'll probably hear a lot of hand-wringing about that, but it pumps new blood into the program and puts the team another year closer to being molded in Taylor's image rather than Shaw's. Given Taylor's success at Sacramento State and the lowly place Shaw left us, the fundamental bet we are making in this coaching transition is that that is a good thing. So embrace one more year of big roster turnover. It serves a purpose.
The second thing is a year of familiarity and experience with the new systems, namely Taylor's fast tempo spacing-oriented offense, April's Wisconsin defense, and Deatrick's tightly regimented strength and conditioning. All three of these are learning curves and, if there is substance to them, getting another year along the learning curve should make a difference.
The third thing is greater competitiveness in the trenches. Football starts up front and what Shaw bequeathed was not competitive where it matters the most. On offense, our five starting linemen include three guys four years out of high school, one guy three years out, and one guy one year out. Given recent trends in linemen not staying five years at Stanford, we may need to be on pins and needles regarding what McLaughlin, Rogers, and Mayberry decide to do. None of them are world-beaters, but it's those credible but not studly linemen who most need fifth years and can finally use their strength and savvy to be competitive. Think about what Harbaugh and early Shaw teams got out of Muth, Marinelli, Hall, Phillips, Schwartzstein, Wilkes, and Danser. Now think about what our OL looks like next year if we are replacing 2-3 starters. There could be salutary effects of, in a year that will likely be another rebuilding year anyway, moving on to a younger cohort (for instance, one can imagine a youth movement oriented around Pale, Baklenko, Anderson, etc.); one can also imagine a 2024 OL with fifth year Mayberry, fourth year Leyrer, second year Pale and Anderson, and either fourth year Uke or third year Maikkula (not to mention many other permutations, just speaking notionally)....that would be a group more or less on par with this year's in seniority but with an uptick in experience and cohesion. In other words, depending on retention OL may or may not be more competitive next year, it may or may not be another bridge year, etc. On defense, we currently are anchored by fourth year Phillips, third year Franklin and Buckey, and second year Moi. That seems more cut and dry that next year should be more competitive and could be a really major strength. The thing to really watch is Phillips, arguably the most important retention priority on the entire roster.
The elephant in the room for me is whether we can move on from fifth years becoming so rare. That's not the way to run a football team. Anybody who talks about college being four years or business being complete when your degree is complete or it being rational for players to move on is not serious about football. This is a disease Taylor needs to eradicate. You can't develop the Tobin Phillips and Connor McLaughlins of the world for four years and then just shrug as they move on before reaching their potential. When we talk about looking at retention as a barometer of Taylor's effectiveness or of his culture taking root, I don't think we should be thinking about this abstractly or in terms of overall numbers returning. We need fourth year players to leave en masse to create room for the incoming class and to cycle that new blood in. Frankly, it doesn't matter (and may even be harmful) if EJ Smith or John Humphreys come back (and definitely would be harmful if Silas Starr or Omari Porter do). This is a very clear litmus test: stars (which is really only Yurosek and Karty and I'm resigned to them leaving unfortunately) and currently contributing trench guys. We want Yurosek, Karty, Phillips, McLaughlin, and Rogers back and to avoid outbound transfers of key guys in the younger classes. Otherwise, bring on the roster turnover!