[82lsju]

from the AD

long on words (lots of 2022 stats) and short on details (e.g., no depth chart)

Taylor did say on his press conference today that we would not say who the starting QB would be

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/...Hawaii.pdf

[82lsju]

from the AD

long on words (lots of 2022 stats) and short on details (e.g., no depth chart)

Taylor did say on his press conference today that we would not say who the starting QB would be

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/...Hawaii.pdf

[82lsju]

from the AD

long on words (lots of 2022 stats) and short on details (e.g., no depth chart)

Taylor did say on his press conference today that we would not say who the starting QB would be

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/...Hawaii.pdf

this version now has a depth chart on page 21

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/..._Final.pdf

QB - three "or"
RB - four "or"
3 WR - each with two "or"

[82lsju]

from the AD

long on words (lots of 2022 stats) and short on details (e.g., no depth chart)

Taylor did say on his press conference today that we would not say who the starting QB would be

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/...Hawaii.pdf

this version now has a depth chart on page 21

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/..._Final.pdf

QB - three "or"
RB - four "or"
3 WR - each with two "or"

[CardinalSagehen]

this version now has a depth chart on page 21

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/..._Final.pdf

QB - three "or"
RB - four "or"
3 WR - each with two "or"

Despite the -OR-'s, we have:
Humprehys, then Raines.
Reuben, then Bachmeier.
E.J. Smith, then Filkins and the rest.

and... Ashton Daniels, then Lamson and Patu?

-OR- it's just a ruse to avoid exposing the QB choice.

[CardinalSagehen]

this version now has a depth chart on page 21

https://gostanford.com/documents/2023/8/..._Final.pdf

QB - three "or"
RB - four "or"
3 WR - each with two "or"

Despite the -OR-'s, we have:
Humprehys, then Raines.
Reuben, then Bachmeier.
E.J. Smith, then Filkins and the rest.

and... Ashton Daniels, then Lamson and Patu?

-OR- it's just a ruse to avoid exposing the QB choice.

[Spiny_Norman]

True frosh Simi Pale starts at RG.

The only other true frosh listed on the 2 deep are Irvin at RB, Bachmeier at WR and Flintoft at punter. No frosh on defense on the 2 deep.

[Spiny_Norman]

True frosh Simi Pale starts at RG.

The only other true frosh listed on the 2 deep are Irvin at RB, Bachmeier at WR and Flintoft at punter. No frosh on defense on the 2 deep.

[SkiBum80]

On the depth chart, I'm not that bothered by the many "Or"s.
I assume this is Coach TT's call and that he intentionally left it vague, either to keep his flexibility open right up til last minute, or to make harder for UH to prepare.
Think of the complications to UH defense of not knowing if to face an in the pocket QB, or a scrambling QB, or a spread bunch of receivers ,or a tight up the middle run formation, or any extreme swing of one to the other on subsequent plays.
I don't begrudge Coach doing whatever approach and strategy he feels gives the best chance to win this sure-to-be highly scrutinized first game of his Stanford career.
We may have a hard time perceiving the plan in advance, but more importantly we'll soon see if he was able to get our players on board with the plan.

[SkiBum80]

On the depth chart, I'm not that bothered by the many "Or"s.
I assume this is Coach TT's call and that he intentionally left it vague, either to keep his flexibility open right up til last minute, or to make harder for UH to prepare.
Think of the complications to UH defense of not knowing if to face an in the pocket QB, or a scrambling QB, or a spread bunch of receivers ,or a tight up the middle run formation, or any extreme swing of one to the other on subsequent plays.
I don't begrudge Coach doing whatever approach and strategy he feels gives the best chance to win this sure-to-be highly scrutinized first game of his Stanford career.
We may have a hard time perceiving the plan in advance, but more importantly we'll soon see if he was able to get our players on board with the plan.

[msqueri]

Reactions:

* I think it's clear that media savvy, transparency, and helpful information flow are not hallmarks of Stanford football under Taylor so far. Some have made the fair point distinguishing the SID folks from the football folks, but in real life there is a hierarchy and tone and just general "head man in charge" tone with any major college football head coach. I think it's naive to say Shaw wasn't or Taylor isn't responsible for the media side. They're responsible for everything. And beyond all the evidence we're not dedicating much attention to football media these days, there is also the evidence of Taylor's own secrecy - continuing to have closed practices, treating Spring Game just like a practice (which I am fine with), highly unusual (by his peers' standards) coyness about the QB competition, this cute over-use of OR in several places on the depth chart, etc.

* There can be a rationale for secrecy and coyness. If Taylor thinks a lack of clarity on QB and RB gives us even the slightest edge against Hawaii, he's going to be inclined to take it and it's hard to begrudge that. Depth charts, especially at a school with as few fans and media attention as Stanford, are a minor curiosity, not something very important at all. Ok, our couple hundred fans who care will know a bit less and a CBS Sports Network broadcast like 75K people watch will be a bit less crisp.

* It strikes me that the coyness is highly concentrated in the QB/RB/WR rooms that are nearest and dearest to Taylor's heart and that are led by Sacramento State coaches. That suggests that the coyness is coming directly from Taylor or his mini-mes. Everything else on the roster looks normal on the coyness spectrum.

* Taylor's comments in the press conference make it even more obvious the QB thing is coming from him. He doesn't want people to know the starter or if we're playing two QBs or three QBs or even if we have a plan until the game starts. I think it's pretty cute to say "OR" for all three when he keeps talking about separation. This seems to be about tactical advantage. In terms of tea leaf reading, I don't know if Daniels as the first among equals is notable. Could just be alphabetical, though other OR situations aren't alphabetical. Could be misdirection of Lamson actually first among equals. Could be an actual first among equals because Taylor wants to be coy but Daniels really is 1A and it would undermine him too much to list him after others. We'll know more Friday.

* The RB depth chart is so cute. There is no way we have a four way tie at RB. That being said, it may have some kernels of insight. In particular, we may be in for much more of a committee than any of us have been anticipating. Taylor and Agnew had the committee of all committees in 2021, with a situation I'm not sure I even knew was possible, four RBs among the top 35 in snaps on the entire roster. Maybe without a bell cow and with the injury histories of Smith and Filkins we are going to have a consciously, extremely Swiss Army knife/interchangeable RB room. I think this very well may be the case. Also, this depth chart and Taylor's press conference remarks make it obvious Irvin is in line for immediate playing time.

[msqueri]

Reactions:

* I think it's clear that media savvy, transparency, and helpful information flow are not hallmarks of Stanford football under Taylor so far. Some have made the fair point distinguishing the SID folks from the football folks, but in real life there is a hierarchy and tone and just general "head man in charge" tone with any major college football head coach. I think it's naive to say Shaw wasn't or Taylor isn't responsible for the media side. They're responsible for everything. And beyond all the evidence we're not dedicating much attention to football media these days, there is also the evidence of Taylor's own secrecy - continuing to have closed practices, treating Spring Game just like a practice (which I am fine with), highly unusual (by his peers' standards) coyness about the QB competition, this cute over-use of OR in several places on the depth chart, etc.

* There can be a rationale for secrecy and coyness. If Taylor thinks a lack of clarity on QB and RB gives us even the slightest edge against Hawaii, he's going to be inclined to take it and it's hard to begrudge that. Depth charts, especially at a school with as few fans and media attention as Stanford, are a minor curiosity, not something very important at all. Ok, our couple hundred fans who care will know a bit less and a CBS Sports Network broadcast like 75K people watch will be a bit less crisp.

* It strikes me that the coyness is highly concentrated in the QB/RB/WR rooms that are nearest and dearest to Taylor's heart and that are led by Sacramento State coaches. That suggests that the coyness is coming directly from Taylor or his mini-mes. Everything else on the roster looks normal on the coyness spectrum.

* Taylor's comments in the press conference make it even more obvious the QB thing is coming from him. He doesn't want people to know the starter or if we're playing two QBs or three QBs or even if we have a plan until the game starts. I think it's pretty cute to say "OR" for all three when he keeps talking about separation. This seems to be about tactical advantage. In terms of tea leaf reading, I don't know if Daniels as the first among equals is notable. Could just be alphabetical, though other OR situations aren't alphabetical. Could be misdirection of Lamson actually first among equals. Could be an actual first among equals because Taylor wants to be coy but Daniels really is 1A and it would undermine him too much to list him after others. We'll know more Friday.

* The RB depth chart is so cute. There is no way we have a four way tie at RB. That being said, it may have some kernels of insight. In particular, we may be in for much more of a committee than any of us have been anticipating. Taylor and Agnew had the committee of all committees in 2021, with a situation I'm not sure I even knew was possible, four RBs among the top 35 in snaps on the entire roster. Maybe without a bell cow and with the injury histories of Smith and Filkins we are going to have a consciously, extremely Swiss Army knife/interchangeable RB room. I think this very well may be the case. Also, this depth chart and Taylor's press conference remarks make it obvious Irvin is in line for immediate playing time.

[msqueri]

* The OR in between Humphreys and Raines made me gag. That cannot be serious. Unfortunately, I think it is such an incredible and unsupportable choice that it makes me think it's probable Humphreys is hurt and one of those game-time decisions Taylor mentioned. If not, the disrespect is shocking. Jayson Raines?!!?! The alternative explanation is that at WR generally we have OR situations across the board, so it would have undermined the coyness/misdirection to have one of the three WR positions clear and the others opaque, so maybe Humphreys notionally took one for the team on a document that really doesn't matter very much. By the way, this notation has six WRs as possible starters, but it seems to me a top four is a much more coherent top group than a top six. I really hope we don't see six guys get meaningful snaps against Hawaii. Perhaps it's possible in a hockey line change/keeping guys fresh with the tempo kind of way, but I don't think there's any way WR5 and WR6 on any roster will be close to as good as WR1 and WR2.

* Most interesting thing on the depth chart is Leyrer being absent and Pogorelc ahead of Anderson. Leyrer is obviously hurt. This is a big problem. Pogorelc ahead of Anderson is something reporting on TOS foreshadowed but I'm still quite intrigued to see it. On the one hand Pogorelc has age and physical development on his side, on the other Anderson had loomed as one of our on-paper most talented offensive players. Pogorelc is a fourth year guy who has never seen the field for one single solitary snap, even on special teams. That's heady stuff. Some shades of Derek Hall but Pogorelc is a year younger. If we do roll with this starting OL, that means we have a line with one returning starter who is playing a new position, a right tackle with 42 career offensive snaps, and three guys who have never played a single down of major college football, two who haven't played beyond high school. I had a different tone on this OL when I thought Anderson and especially Leyrer were starting, but without Leyrer this OL is in egregious shape. I hope his injury doesn't set him back too much or cause him to miss much time.

* I take Lytle being listed as OR before Tafiti as confirmation, unfortunately, that Tafiti is one of the banged up game-time decisions.

* I'm way less harsh than some about listing guys as Edge or listing based on a base nickel defense. Either could conceivably be an honest notation in potential contrast to the offensive depth chart. In football these days "edge" really is the term de rigueuer. Our players and coaches have been saying it with decent frequency even after the coaching change. Ultimately I don't think whether we say "edge" or "OLB" matters that much. I can even make a case that this better reflects our true base defense. It was always an open question whether we would play more 4-2-5 nickel or more 3-4 ostensible "Wisconsin base." Even at Wisconsin there was a lot of nickel, and now our coaches are in the Pac-12 with a roster that isn't deep at DL. I think it very well may be (and I kind of hope is) the case that nickel is our real base and this is an honest depth chart. I always hated it when Shaw put 12 positions on a depth chart so as not to exclude fullbacks or to avoid a choice between what base defense to list. This depth chart could be actual honesty on defense.

* Buckey over Armitage is a very notable development. There have been multiple tea leaves indicating this but I'm still surprised to see it on paper.

* I am very intrigued by Aybar OR Cooper as well as how much Aybar got mentioned by players in interviews the last two weeks. Aybar could be a breakout candidate I'm sleeping on. I just like our other OLBs/edge so much (other than Lytle, don't really get him) and feel Aybar has been a tease, but he was a big recruit and it's a new staff. Maybe we should think of him as just as much in the mix as the other guys.


* LB depth chart is no surprise at all. RIP Ese Dubre as a former favorite recruit of mine. Arrows on him have been all negative for years now. Bummer. Won't completely rule out a jump next year with more opportunity (presumably Sinclair and Jorgensen gone) and the Wisconsin crew's track record of late career emergences, but arrows are so negative.

* Moderately surprised by Terian Williams as backup nickel but not all that surprised. Interested to see if his playmaking translates. Slocum is the only player on offense or defense to be double counted. That makes it crystal clear that we have a top four at corner. It's probably not a stretch to think it indicates that if multiple injuries required us to shuffle Williams would get in at nickel with Slocum sliding to corner before a fifth corner got in the pecking order. Big caveat here is depth charts can fall apart like tissue paper once they come into contact with reality and I find that to especially be the case at DB. Nobody will be held to this depth chart, it's just modestly interesting tea leaves for us (and most importantly a cheat sheet for game announcers, which is why the way we list eligibility years is so maddening).

* Porter is a big exclusion on defense. Wonder if he's one of the banged up guys or got passed by Edwards and Leigber. While I cannot imagine Leyrer's absence being on merit, I can with Porter. It would really not surprise me if Edwards and Leigber have surpassed him

* The class year thing drives me mad, as always. Why would Lamson be a sophomore but Patu a junior? Why would almost everybody be listed by academic year except the transfers and, bizarrely, Gilman? I see two possibilities. First, it may be a continuation of the clueless, media and fan-disdaining (and/or just incompetent) practices of the Shaw regime. Second, it could be a sign that the transfers and Gilman have made clear they are availing themselves of redshirts and plan to play fifth or even sixth years (hello, Bank and Lytle as "junior"). The second possibility would really disturb me because there are a whole hell of a lot of other players whose retention I care more about than these guys.

* Really big news: Bailey Parsons isn't the long snapper. I had caught wind of this previously but didn't want to say anything until it was acknowledged. I hope this isn't a problem on punts.

* Clarity in the return game is really surprising to me. That would have been a place I would have expected liberal use of OR. Farrell and Filkins on kicks, same duo on punts but with order flipped. Filkins could be a very good punt returner and I think putting a fragile guy from a fragile position room there could be a reason for the possible RB committee I mentioned above. Hope Farrell has been working on his one trait, speed, and can break some big ones.

[msqueri]

* The OR in between Humphreys and Raines made me gag. That cannot be serious. Unfortunately, I think it is such an incredible and unsupportable choice that it makes me think it's probable Humphreys is hurt and one of those game-time decisions Taylor mentioned. If not, the disrespect is shocking. Jayson Raines?!!?! The alternative explanation is that at WR generally we have OR situations across the board, so it would have undermined the coyness/misdirection to have one of the three WR positions clear and the others opaque, so maybe Humphreys notionally took one for the team on a document that really doesn't matter very much. By the way, this notation has six WRs as possible starters, but it seems to me a top four is a much more coherent top group than a top six. I really hope we don't see six guys get meaningful snaps against Hawaii. Perhaps it's possible in a hockey line change/keeping guys fresh with the tempo kind of way, but I don't think there's any way WR5 and WR6 on any roster will be close to as good as WR1 and WR2.

* Most interesting thing on the depth chart is Leyrer being absent and Pogorelc ahead of Anderson. Leyrer is obviously hurt. This is a big problem. Pogorelc ahead of Anderson is something reporting on TOS foreshadowed but I'm still quite intrigued to see it. On the one hand Pogorelc has age and physical development on his side, on the other Anderson had loomed as one of our on-paper most talented offensive players. Pogorelc is a fourth year guy who has never seen the field for one single solitary snap, even on special teams. That's heady stuff. Some shades of Derek Hall but Pogorelc is a year younger. If we do roll with this starting OL, that means we have a line with one returning starter who is playing a new position, a right tackle with 42 career offensive snaps, and three guys who have never played a single down of major college football, two who haven't played beyond high school. I had a different tone on this OL when I thought Anderson and especially Leyrer were starting, but without Leyrer this OL is in egregious shape. I hope his injury doesn't set him back too much or cause him to miss much time.

* I take Lytle being listed as OR before Tafiti as confirmation, unfortunately, that Tafiti is one of the banged up game-time decisions.

* I'm way less harsh than some about listing guys as Edge or listing based on a base nickel defense. Either could conceivably be an honest notation in potential contrast to the offensive depth chart. In football these days "edge" really is the term de rigueuer. Our players and coaches have been saying it with decent frequency even after the coaching change. Ultimately I don't think whether we say "edge" or "OLB" matters that much. I can even make a case that this better reflects our true base defense. It was always an open question whether we would play more 4-2-5 nickel or more 3-4 ostensible "Wisconsin base." Even at Wisconsin there was a lot of nickel, and now our coaches are in the Pac-12 with a roster that isn't deep at DL. I think it very well may be (and I kind of hope is) the case that nickel is our real base and this is an honest depth chart. I always hated it when Shaw put 12 positions on a depth chart so as not to exclude fullbacks or to avoid a choice between what base defense to list. This depth chart could be actual honesty on defense.

* Buckey over Armitage is a very notable development. There have been multiple tea leaves indicating this but I'm still surprised to see it on paper.

* I am very intrigued by Aybar OR Cooper as well as how much Aybar got mentioned by players in interviews the last two weeks. Aybar could be a breakout candidate I'm sleeping on. I just like our other OLBs/edge so much (other than Lytle, don't really get him) and feel Aybar has been a tease, but he was a big recruit and it's a new staff. Maybe we should think of him as just as much in the mix as the other guys.


* LB depth chart is no surprise at all. RIP Ese Dubre as a former favorite recruit of mine. Arrows on him have been all negative for years now. Bummer. Won't completely rule out a jump next year with more opportunity (presumably Sinclair and Jorgensen gone) and the Wisconsin crew's track record of late career emergences, but arrows are so negative.

* Moderately surprised by Terian Williams as backup nickel but not all that surprised. Interested to see if his playmaking translates. Slocum is the only player on offense or defense to be double counted. That makes it crystal clear that we have a top four at corner. It's probably not a stretch to think it indicates that if multiple injuries required us to shuffle Williams would get in at nickel with Slocum sliding to corner before a fifth corner got in the pecking order. Big caveat here is depth charts can fall apart like tissue paper once they come into contact with reality and I find that to especially be the case at DB. Nobody will be held to this depth chart, it's just modestly interesting tea leaves for us (and most importantly a cheat sheet for game announcers, which is why the way we list eligibility years is so maddening).

* Porter is a big exclusion on defense. Wonder if he's one of the banged up guys or got passed by Edwards and Leigber. While I cannot imagine Leyrer's absence being on merit, I can with Porter. It would really not surprise me if Edwards and Leigber have surpassed him

* The class year thing drives me mad, as always. Why would Lamson be a sophomore but Patu a junior? Why would almost everybody be listed by academic year except the transfers and, bizarrely, Gilman? I see two possibilities. First, it may be a continuation of the clueless, media and fan-disdaining (and/or just incompetent) practices of the Shaw regime. Second, it could be a sign that the transfers and Gilman have made clear they are availing themselves of redshirts and plan to play fifth or even sixth years (hello, Bank and Lytle as "junior"). The second possibility would really disturb me because there are a whole hell of a lot of other players whose retention I care more about than these guys.

* Really big news: Bailey Parsons isn't the long snapper. I had caught wind of this previously but didn't want to say anything until it was acknowledged. I hope this isn't a problem on punts.

* Clarity in the return game is really surprising to me. That would have been a place I would have expected liberal use of OR. Farrell and Filkins on kicks, same duo on punts but with order flipped. Filkins could be a very good punt returner and I think putting a fragile guy from a fragile position room there could be a reason for the possible RB committee I mentioned above. Hope Farrell has been working on his one trait, speed, and can break some big ones.

[Langdude]

Some surprises for sure!

Jason Thompson, who was returning both punts and kicks for us last year as a true freshman walk-on. It is true that this was in part due to injuries, but he is now not in the two-deep for either.

I'm mildly surprised that Bryce Farrell is not starting at one of the three wide receiver spots.

Really surprised that James Pogorelc is starting over Fisher Anderson!

Also surprised that Omari Porter is not even on the depth chart for safety.

Finally, it is really odd that Bailey Parsons, our scholarship long snapper, is only snapping for kicks, and Alejandro Chavez, who is doubtlessly talented but is still just a walk-on, is snapping for punts.

Anyway, those were my initial surprises.

-m.

[Langdude]

Some surprises for sure!

Jason Thompson, who was returning both punts and kicks for us last year as a true freshman walk-on. It is true that this was in part due to injuries, but he is now not in the two-deep for either.

I'm mildly surprised that Bryce Farrell is not starting at one of the three wide receiver spots.

Really surprised that James Pogorelc is starting over Fisher Anderson!

Also surprised that Omari Porter is not even on the depth chart for safety.

Finally, it is really odd that Bailey Parsons, our scholarship long snapper, is only snapping for kicks, and Alejandro Chavez, who is doubtlessly talented but is still just a walk-on, is snapping for punts.

Anyway, those were my initial surprises.

-m.