[msqueri]

Reactions: 
 
* Vibes are relaxed. Same Taylor as always. No need to retread ground on why he's unbothered and what the theory of the case is. Groundhog Day sense to these press conferences, which is unsurprising given his M.O. (and how little is happening for us this season, let's be honest).
 
* The three focuses of the bye were getting healthier, improving, and recruiting. Sounds sensible. Don't know much about how healthy we are precisely (more below), improving is coach happy speak, and it's hard to evaluate the bye week recruiting from this vantage but they're unobjectionable things to focus on. Some may want to credit recruiting effort but I don't think we have enough evidence. Taylor mentioned getting out on the trail Friday and that strikes me as the bare minimum you can do during a bye. I hope there was also plenty of tape/transcript/etc. evaluation of 2025 and 2026 recruits and other aspects of recruiting. 
 
* Taylor didn't take the bait in singling out any offensive units as playing better than the others. I can't tell whether the focus on the OL as being super inexperienced and battling was a polite way of saying they're the worst (which I would consider harsh but it's a possible read) or a way to say that because the OL has struggled there's no way to fully evaluate anybody. Not to say Taylor isn't evaluating everybody, but I do think it's possible he's giving a bit of a pass right now as the OL builds experience. We pretty much know he does this to a degree at QB, maybe it's a more general mentality. 
 
* I know where Taylor was coming from but kind of an odd comment in saying that Yurosek and a couple of the RBs (obviously referring to Smith and Filkins) were the only offensive players with experience. He quickly caught himself on Rogers and threw him in there, albeit in a way that seemed a bit underselling a year as a starter. But no mention of Humphreys (I suppose a tell Humphreys is out indefinitely/not really part of the picture). I also note that technically Roush and Leyrer had more experience coming into this year than Smith. Clearly Taylor doesn't count Ivy League - or at least wants to manage expectations on the OL by not considering Mayberry as somebody with experience. Anyway, we know it was extremely little experience and Taylor isn't wrong about that. 
 
* The rest of that answer was the more interesting part. The way Taylor talked about not being surprised, adjusting to the players and what they do well or not so well, and knowing who we are all struck me as a very obvious "we suck and knew that and this year is about getting through it." None of this is new either but I do think it's noteworthy to observe when the coach is so clear-eyed, albeit diplomatically.
 
* Daniels playing is not a real surprise but is newsworthy. I imagine he starts and we see the same Daniels passing/Lamson running look like usual, at least until somebody gets hurt. Against a crappy (and I mean crappy - worse than us in Defensive FEI, SP+, and F+ and pretty much dead even with us in scoring defense) defense, it would be nice for one of the QBs to show a higher ceiling than we've seen. Later in the press conference Taylor was forthright that separation at QB has to come in games rather than practice and we'll play both unless one separates in games. Hope springs eternal, but I do think Taylor is realistic about this QB room.
 
* I'm doing these reactions quicker than normal because of the way the week played out and lack of time on my end, but if I had more time I bet I could plumb the two answers on Coach Prime/different models in college football for lots of thoughts. Really interesting window into Taylor's thinking in several respects, not all of which I'll cover. One thing I'll note is it's very interesting Taylor is so non-judgmental of Coach Prime's approach and in fact seems pretty genuinely supportive of coaches doing what they can within the constraints and personalities of their institutions to adjust to the new landscape. There was definitely some admiration and maybe a bit of envy. Perhaps a modest clue that Taylor will have his eye on the prize and not be shy about making calculated decisions to improve the program even if they deviate from the genteel, deontological approach of our former coach. Or not. Obviously it won't be anything like what Coach Prime did but I think one of the key parts of this answer was Taylor's nods to the nature of different institutions. I think Stanford's place in college athletics, limits on our ability to shop in the transfer portal, and things of that sort will be what constrains him, not a different moral compass than Sanders. The really money quote here for me was "at the end of the day our job is to graduate players, hope they have a great experience, and win football games" which he followed by saying that there are different ways and different philosophies but both he and Sanders are attempting to do that. Taylor said "graduate players" because he's attuned to the constraints and personalities of institutions, but the real takeaway here is he knows why college football coaches have their jobs and that there's a connection between the student-athlete experience and winning. I am pretty optimistic Taylor's eyes are on the prize and he knows this is about winning. Coach Prime is much more object of envy than cautionary tale. 
 
* Music to my ears that Taylor emphasized that the one mainstay, despite changes in the environment and perhaps different philosophies on how to succeed, is that you need good players. It sounded like he heard the question as hinting at Jessies and Joes vs. Xs and Os and wanted to be clear it always is most about the players (though his reference to coaching as well probably indicates a healthy understanding it's not totally binary, and perhaps was also a nod to his assistants insofar as he might have wanted to throw in a line so as not to diminish them). Good to hear him recognize reality, especially as in the context of our current struggles it suggests his mind is on improving the quality of players coming into our program. 
 
* In terms of how you get those players, he was clear we're going to build through high school recruiting rather than the transfer portal. I don't view this as news or much different from how he's talked ever since arriving. It's just reality. Maybe we can stay in the mid to high single digits in transfers annually but it's tough to see it going above that, for a variety of reasons. The interesting part of this answer was the theme of it being a slower build our way. This is more of the expectations management I've been observing whenever he talks. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is whether he means a slow build to rebuild or whether we'll always be at a disadvantage because we can't reload more through transfers. I could see it either way. Also interesting discussion here about leaning into your strengths, the paradox of strengths being weaknesses and weaknesses being strengths, and so forth. More interesting than I can do justice here as I'm more or less stream of conscious in this week's reactions. 
 
* Two unsurprising but nonetheless insightful answers at different points being pretty straightforward that lack of passing game opportunities for RBs and TEs is a function of needing to be focused on protection right now. Taylor even said we're "limited" and "kind of weak in protection." Fundamentally I continue to think we aren't seeing the real Taylor offense this year (he talked about how he's been part of teams that can get "five man protection" and send everybody else out....talk about a difference). We don't have the personnel, experience, or ability for it just yet. Open question to me whether we will next year.
 
* It's sobering to think about how much of those answers and Taylor's approach this year is about avoiding giving up a lot of sacks and yet we are. Only so much scheming you can do, I guess. To the extent folks are looking for improvement over the course of the season (as I've said I think that's overrated and we should have measured expectations), modest steps in protection may be a place to look. 
 
* Nothing new to me per se since I've heard so much from Taylor but a pretty good breakdown of "practicing fast," both in terms of practicing fast whistle-to-whistle despite lack of contact/game conditions (and how much the 49ers have mastered that) and in terms of what we've tended to talk about in the Taylor era of practicing with tempo so young players can get as many reps as possible.

[msqueri]

Reactions: 
 
* Vibes are relaxed. Same Taylor as always. No need to retread ground on why he's unbothered and what the theory of the case is. Groundhog Day sense to these press conferences, which is unsurprising given his M.O. (and how little is happening for us this season, let's be honest).
 
* The three focuses of the bye were getting healthier, improving, and recruiting. Sounds sensible. Don't know much about how healthy we are precisely (more below), improving is coach happy speak, and it's hard to evaluate the bye week recruiting from this vantage but they're unobjectionable things to focus on. Some may want to credit recruiting effort but I don't think we have enough evidence. Taylor mentioned getting out on the trail Friday and that strikes me as the bare minimum you can do during a bye. I hope there was also plenty of tape/transcript/etc. evaluation of 2025 and 2026 recruits and other aspects of recruiting. 
 
* Taylor didn't take the bait in singling out any offensive units as playing better than the others. I can't tell whether the focus on the OL as being super inexperienced and battling was a polite way of saying they're the worst (which I would consider harsh but it's a possible read) or a way to say that because the OL has struggled there's no way to fully evaluate anybody. Not to say Taylor isn't evaluating everybody, but I do think it's possible he's giving a bit of a pass right now as the OL builds experience. We pretty much know he does this to a degree at QB, maybe it's a more general mentality. 
 
* I know where Taylor was coming from but kind of an odd comment in saying that Yurosek and a couple of the RBs (obviously referring to Smith and Filkins) were the only offensive players with experience. He quickly caught himself on Rogers and threw him in there, albeit in a way that seemed a bit underselling a year as a starter. But no mention of Humphreys (I suppose a tell Humphreys is out indefinitely/not really part of the picture). I also note that technically Roush and Leyrer had more experience coming into this year than Smith. Clearly Taylor doesn't count Ivy League - or at least wants to manage expectations on the OL by not considering Mayberry as somebody with experience. Anyway, we know it was extremely little experience and Taylor isn't wrong about that. 
 
* The rest of that answer was the more interesting part. The way Taylor talked about not being surprised, adjusting to the players and what they do well or not so well, and knowing who we are all struck me as a very obvious "we suck and knew that and this year is about getting through it." None of this is new either but I do think it's noteworthy to observe when the coach is so clear-eyed, albeit diplomatically.
 
* Daniels playing is not a real surprise but is newsworthy. I imagine he starts and we see the same Daniels passing/Lamson running look like usual, at least until somebody gets hurt. Against a crappy (and I mean crappy - worse than us in Defensive FEI, SP+, and F+ and pretty much dead even with us in scoring defense) defense, it would be nice for one of the QBs to show a higher ceiling than we've seen. Later in the press conference Taylor was forthright that separation at QB has to come in games rather than practice and we'll play both unless one separates in games. Hope springs eternal, but I do think Taylor is realistic about this QB room.
 
* I'm doing these reactions quicker than normal because of the way the week played out and lack of time on my end, but if I had more time I bet I could plumb the two answers on Coach Prime/different models in college football for lots of thoughts. Really interesting window into Taylor's thinking in several respects, not all of which I'll cover. One thing I'll note is it's very interesting Taylor is so non-judgmental of Coach Prime's approach and in fact seems pretty genuinely supportive of coaches doing what they can within the constraints and personalities of their institutions to adjust to the new landscape. There was definitely some admiration and maybe a bit of envy. Perhaps a modest clue that Taylor will have his eye on the prize and not be shy about making calculated decisions to improve the program even if they deviate from the genteel, deontological approach of our former coach. Or not. Obviously it won't be anything like what Coach Prime did but I think one of the key parts of this answer was Taylor's nods to the nature of different institutions. I think Stanford's place in college athletics, limits on our ability to shop in the transfer portal, and things of that sort will be what constrains him, not a different moral compass than Sanders. The really money quote here for me was "at the end of the day our job is to graduate players, hope they have a great experience, and win football games" which he followed by saying that there are different ways and different philosophies but both he and Sanders are attempting to do that. Taylor said "graduate players" because he's attuned to the constraints and personalities of institutions, but the real takeaway here is he knows why college football coaches have their jobs and that there's a connection between the student-athlete experience and winning. I am pretty optimistic Taylor's eyes are on the prize and he knows this is about winning. Coach Prime is much more object of envy than cautionary tale. 
 
* Music to my ears that Taylor emphasized that the one mainstay, despite changes in the environment and perhaps different philosophies on how to succeed, is that you need good players. It sounded like he heard the question as hinting at Jessies and Joes vs. Xs and Os and wanted to be clear it always is most about the players (though his reference to coaching as well probably indicates a healthy understanding it's not totally binary, and perhaps was also a nod to his assistants insofar as he might have wanted to throw in a line so as not to diminish them). Good to hear him recognize reality, especially as in the context of our current struggles it suggests his mind is on improving the quality of players coming into our program. 
 
* In terms of how you get those players, he was clear we're going to build through high school recruiting rather than the transfer portal. I don't view this as news or much different from how he's talked ever since arriving. It's just reality. Maybe we can stay in the mid to high single digits in transfers annually but it's tough to see it going above that, for a variety of reasons. The interesting part of this answer was the theme of it being a slower build our way. This is more of the expectations management I've been observing whenever he talks. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is whether he means a slow build to rebuild or whether we'll always be at a disadvantage because we can't reload more through transfers. I could see it either way. Also interesting discussion here about leaning into your strengths, the paradox of strengths being weaknesses and weaknesses being strengths, and so forth. More interesting than I can do justice here as I'm more or less stream of conscious in this week's reactions. 
 
* Two unsurprising but nonetheless insightful answers at different points being pretty straightforward that lack of passing game opportunities for RBs and TEs is a function of needing to be focused on protection right now. Taylor even said we're "limited" and "kind of weak in protection." Fundamentally I continue to think we aren't seeing the real Taylor offense this year (he talked about how he's been part of teams that can get "five man protection" and send everybody else out....talk about a difference). We don't have the personnel, experience, or ability for it just yet. Open question to me whether we will next year.
 
* It's sobering to think about how much of those answers and Taylor's approach this year is about avoiding giving up a lot of sacks and yet we are. Only so much scheming you can do, I guess. To the extent folks are looking for improvement over the course of the season (as I've said I think that's overrated and we should have measured expectations), modest steps in protection may be a place to look. 
 
* Nothing new to me per se since I've heard so much from Taylor but a pretty good breakdown of "practicing fast," both in terms of practicing fast whistle-to-whistle despite lack of contact/game conditions (and how much the 49ers have mastered that) and in terms of what we've tended to talk about in the Taylor era of practicing with tempo so young players can get as many reps as possible.

[msqueri]

* Taylor's respect for the coaching job Coach Prime and his staff have done is palpable, which is appropriate. Noted the team's resilience and finding a way to win in the close ones, which obviously contrasts with us. 
 
* Also very complimentary of Shedeur Sanders. I am a Shedeur fan and think he's quite good but there are a few things to keep in mind about him. The scary thing is he's looking like one of the best passers in the sport, a top 10 overall draft pick talent. The reassuring thing is he's one of the worst players of all time at avoiding sacks and truly may be the very worst in history at avoiding BIG sack yardage (about ONE HUNDRED yards more than the next most allowed in the nation). Just absolutely running backwards out there. That completely neutralizes any ability he has as a running QB and then some and then some and then some (what it does not neutralize is his ability to push the ball upfield as a passer). He's well in the negative on rushing yards for the season. Like, think about this: Stanford is 10th in the Pac-12 in sacks allowed, hardly keeping QBs clean (something Taylor talks about a lot as an issue for our offense) and yet Daniels and Lamson average 37 yards rushing per game while Sanders averages negative ten yards rushing per game. We need to have this be a get right game for our pass rush. 
 
* I mentioned that Colorado's defense sucks. It's interesting that when asked about Colorado's defense Taylor started by saying we need to keep their offense off the field by maintaining drives and scoring touchdowns when we get to the red zone, as well as getting big plays of our own. On one level this is the usual thing of worrying first about ourselves rather than our opponents, but there may also be a degree of knowing that since offense is Colorado's strong suit the pressure is on our offense to do something against the relative weak link. The subsequent talk about Colorado's defense was pretty classic damning with faint praise, basically just saying they play hard and fly around. 
 
* I highlight the discussion of option plays just to observe that it's fun to hear Taylor's thought process on offensive football and the pros and cons of different looks. Analytical mind. 
 
* I've noted before that our red zone challenges are just a microcosm of our challenges all over the field, and Taylor alluded to that in saying you have to make plays all over the field. Here too though it was interesting to hear the analytical offensive mind (for instance talking about needing to run more because of constrained windows and how at around the 16 yard line the field becomes the same width and length). 
 
* Unsurprised to hear Taylor say he's given up on having opinions on whether byes are well timed or not (in addition to the unpredictability he mentioned, also seems like one of those only worry about things you can control things). But also unsurprising to hear him say in the next breath that it seems like a pretty good time in terms of getting guys healthy and fresh. Que sera sera but with an optimistic inclination. 
 
* The answer on adjusting to altitude struck me as somebody analytical enough to acknowledge there's some science behind effects on athletes and to try to draw on his own experience for relevant data points but somebody who is fundamentally pretty uninterested in the subject. Shaw always seemed like a coach acutely sensitive to environmental factors like altitude, jet lag, crowd noise, and the like and Taylor seems much less interested in that stuff. Even with altitude he kind of has the attitude that all you can do is train hard and keep an eye on players to give them a breather if they need it. I just get the sense Taylor thinks this is miscellaneous and not worth worrying much about. He's given the same vibe in the past about travel distance and jet lag. I think there are pros and cons to this. On the hand, the Taylor approach seems much better suited to keeping the main things the main things and treating each week the same. The process-oriented coach we've seen all along. On the other, there could be risk that lack of preparation for environmental factors could bite us. For instance, if we're playing ACC opponents next year with 9am start times and not doing anything to try to adjust routines, maybe we come out even more sluggish than a Shaw team (relatively good playing back east by our standards) would have been. [Byham interview had an even more interesting reflection on this that corroborates that this is the staff's attitude and even further mused that even making altitude a focus point could have a counterproductive placebo effect. Very interesting point]
 
* I'm grateful to the few media who participate in these things and sometimes some of the questions are good but I did come out of this one somewhat frustrated at what wasn't asked. Odd for no one to ask about RB playing time decisions and/or EJ Smith specifically. Hearing about integrating RBs into the passing game is interesting but it's not the same as where Taylor and Agnew stand in evaluating and playing the RBs, which is not the same as asking if there's a reason Smith isn't playing more. I understand not wanting to ask awkward questions, especially in the first year of a rebuild, but even if one avoided that topic there's no real excuse to go through a college football press conference without asking about injury status, especially since Taylor himself emphasized that as literally the first thing out of his mouth in terms of the focus of the bye being getting guys healthy. I'd sure like to know if Pale, Wyrick, and Humphreys are "up." Granted, there was a question on Daniels' status and that was appreciated but going weeks without clarity on starters on both sides of the ball is pretty bush league.
 
* I'm admittedly a bit salty about the unasked questions because of what the last question was. Troy Clardy, a smart and clearly passionate man who also has shown the ability to ask useful questions, does this from time to time, beclowning himself with a question clearly intended to be jocular and funny and au courant rather than a journalist. What possible value does it have to ask a "hypothetical" question ridiculing Mario Cristobal and Miami making an inexplicable and inexcusable end of game play call? What would Taylor possibly say that sheds light? This is a funny joke to ask the coach in the hallway if you want to build rapport, I suppose, but when the cameras are rolling in the coach's 24 minutes of weekly media availability and nobody has asked about EJ Smith's playing time, Simi Pale's health, Travis Hunter's impact on a game plan, what Taylor's bye week recruiting actually looked like, anything about the Oregon game, if any more freshmen are pushing for playing time and might have a bigger role after the bye, and so forth....hard pass on this question for me. 
 
 
Not a press conference reaction, but I'm actually excited about tomorrow's game! After the last several years I don't take that for granted. Let's smoke these guys!

[msqueri]

* Taylor's respect for the coaching job Coach Prime and his staff have done is palpable, which is appropriate. Noted the team's resilience and finding a way to win in the close ones, which obviously contrasts with us. 
 
* Also very complimentary of Shedeur Sanders. I am a Shedeur fan and think he's quite good but there are a few things to keep in mind about him. The scary thing is he's looking like one of the best passers in the sport, a top 10 overall draft pick talent. The reassuring thing is he's one of the worst players of all time at avoiding sacks and truly may be the very worst in history at avoiding BIG sack yardage (about ONE HUNDRED yards more than the next most allowed in the nation). Just absolutely running backwards out there. That completely neutralizes any ability he has as a running QB and then some and then some and then some (what it does not neutralize is his ability to push the ball upfield as a passer). He's well in the negative on rushing yards for the season. Like, think about this: Stanford is 10th in the Pac-12 in sacks allowed, hardly keeping QBs clean (something Taylor talks about a lot as an issue for our offense) and yet Daniels and Lamson average 37 yards rushing per game while Sanders averages negative ten yards rushing per game. We need to have this be a get right game for our pass rush. 
 
* I mentioned that Colorado's defense sucks. It's interesting that when asked about Colorado's defense Taylor started by saying we need to keep their offense off the field by maintaining drives and scoring touchdowns when we get to the red zone, as well as getting big plays of our own. On one level this is the usual thing of worrying first about ourselves rather than our opponents, but there may also be a degree of knowing that since offense is Colorado's strong suit the pressure is on our offense to do something against the relative weak link. The subsequent talk about Colorado's defense was pretty classic damning with faint praise, basically just saying they play hard and fly around. 
 
* I highlight the discussion of option plays just to observe that it's fun to hear Taylor's thought process on offensive football and the pros and cons of different looks. Analytical mind. 
 
* I've noted before that our red zone challenges are just a microcosm of our challenges all over the field, and Taylor alluded to that in saying you have to make plays all over the field. Here too though it was interesting to hear the analytical offensive mind (for instance talking about needing to run more because of constrained windows and how at around the 16 yard line the field becomes the same width and length). 
 
* Unsurprised to hear Taylor say he's given up on having opinions on whether byes are well timed or not (in addition to the unpredictability he mentioned, also seems like one of those only worry about things you can control things). But also unsurprising to hear him say in the next breath that it seems like a pretty good time in terms of getting guys healthy and fresh. Que sera sera but with an optimistic inclination. 
 
* The answer on adjusting to altitude struck me as somebody analytical enough to acknowledge there's some science behind effects on athletes and to try to draw on his own experience for relevant data points but somebody who is fundamentally pretty uninterested in the subject. Shaw always seemed like a coach acutely sensitive to environmental factors like altitude, jet lag, crowd noise, and the like and Taylor seems much less interested in that stuff. Even with altitude he kind of has the attitude that all you can do is train hard and keep an eye on players to give them a breather if they need it. I just get the sense Taylor thinks this is miscellaneous and not worth worrying much about. He's given the same vibe in the past about travel distance and jet lag. I think there are pros and cons to this. On the hand, the Taylor approach seems much better suited to keeping the main things the main things and treating each week the same. The process-oriented coach we've seen all along. On the other, there could be risk that lack of preparation for environmental factors could bite us. For instance, if we're playing ACC opponents next year with 9am start times and not doing anything to try to adjust routines, maybe we come out even more sluggish than a Shaw team (relatively good playing back east by our standards) would have been. [Byham interview had an even more interesting reflection on this that corroborates that this is the staff's attitude and even further mused that even making altitude a focus point could have a counterproductive placebo effect. Very interesting point]
 
* I'm grateful to the few media who participate in these things and sometimes some of the questions are good but I did come out of this one somewhat frustrated at what wasn't asked. Odd for no one to ask about RB playing time decisions and/or EJ Smith specifically. Hearing about integrating RBs into the passing game is interesting but it's not the same as where Taylor and Agnew stand in evaluating and playing the RBs, which is not the same as asking if there's a reason Smith isn't playing more. I understand not wanting to ask awkward questions, especially in the first year of a rebuild, but even if one avoided that topic there's no real excuse to go through a college football press conference without asking about injury status, especially since Taylor himself emphasized that as literally the first thing out of his mouth in terms of the focus of the bye being getting guys healthy. I'd sure like to know if Pale, Wyrick, and Humphreys are "up." Granted, there was a question on Daniels' status and that was appreciated but going weeks without clarity on starters on both sides of the ball is pretty bush league.
 
* I'm admittedly a bit salty about the unasked questions because of what the last question was. Troy Clardy, a smart and clearly passionate man who also has shown the ability to ask useful questions, does this from time to time, beclowning himself with a question clearly intended to be jocular and funny and au courant rather than a journalist. What possible value does it have to ask a "hypothetical" question ridiculing Mario Cristobal and Miami making an inexplicable and inexcusable end of game play call? What would Taylor possibly say that sheds light? This is a funny joke to ask the coach in the hallway if you want to build rapport, I suppose, but when the cameras are rolling in the coach's 24 minutes of weekly media availability and nobody has asked about EJ Smith's playing time, Simi Pale's health, Travis Hunter's impact on a game plan, what Taylor's bye week recruiting actually looked like, anything about the Oregon game, if any more freshmen are pushing for playing time and might have a bigger role after the bye, and so forth....hard pass on this question for me. 
 
 
Not a press conference reaction, but I'm actually excited about tomorrow's game! After the last several years I don't take that for granted. Let's smoke these guys!

[needle]

Stanford coming off a bye week really should help. Colorado only plays intense games (well, Nebraska was a laugher); tough to sustain that week after week.

Will the Stanford offense be able to score more than seven points in a quarter? Hasn't happened since Hawaii.

It will be the defense that needs to truly make a leap in performance for Stanford to have a chance to actually win. I think keeping the Buffs under 35 points is going to be a must. I am not optimistic, but I will be watching.

[needle]

Stanford coming off a bye week really should help. Colorado only plays intense games (well, Nebraska was a laugher); tough to sustain that week after week.

Will the Stanford offense be able to score more than seven points in a quarter? Hasn't happened since Hawaii.

It will be the defense that needs to truly make a leap in performance for Stanford to have a chance to actually win. I think keeping the Buffs under 35 points is going to be a must. I am not optimistic, but I will be watching.