Assistant Coaches - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Assistant Coaches (/thread-23862.html)
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-01-2023
(01-01-2023, 05:54 PM)martyup Wrote: Do we know that the slow mesh wasn't Tavita's brainchild? After all, he was the OC.
Reading between the lines at what Sam has posted, the answer is a resounding no. To hear him tell it, Tavita was the OC in name only, and even though by giving up the title of OC, he is getting a demotion in terms of title, it sounds like he is not getting much of a demotion in terms of responsibilities.
Sam, is that accurate?
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - old spanish trail - 01-01-2023
Iirc, there was an article before the USC game talking about how Shaw was "giddy" heading into the game because he had a new offensive package. After the game, it was revealed that he was totally impressed by the Wake Forest slo mesh. Over the summer, he visited Wake's coach and was given a bunch of film. The rest, I guess, is history. It was a terrible fit for our talent, especially McKee. I suppose it could have been more successful if Smith hadn't been injured because he would have had quickness to break away from the mesh. It still would have limited McKee's strengths. In any event, it should have been dumped when Smith went down. So....no, this wasn't Pritchard's idea.
RE: Assistant Coaches - SamuelMcF - 01-02-2023
(01-01-2023, 06:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-01-2023, 05:54 PM)martyup Wrote: Do we know that the slow mesh wasn't Tavita's brainchild? After all, he was the OC.
Reading between the lines at what Sam has posted, the answer is a resounding no. To hear him tell it, Tavita was the OC in name only, and even though by giving up the title of OC, he is getting a demotion in terms of title, it sounds like he is not getting much of a demotion in terms of responsibilities.
Sam, is that accurate?
BC
Indeed, the only responsibility Tavita is giving up is scripting our first drives. (There's a reason they looked better and more creative.)
RE: Assistant Coaches - OutsiderFan - 01-02-2023
I don't understand everyone asserting Pritchard needs to move on from Stanford to grow. Do y'all appreciate just how different the Stanford offense is going to be under Taylor than Shaw? It's the equivalent of going to work for Mike Leach. What difference does it make if he can have such a different experience without having to leave Stanford?
The employer may be the same, but there are going to be so many differences the change from Shaw. Who knows, Taylor - and this is my sense - may be a lot more willing to let Pritchard have input and autonomy than Shaw gave, while being able to learn a totally different offensive philosophy than he has been steeped in to this point. Maybe Taylor welcomes keeping some previous Stanford offense concepts in the repertoire?
Pritchard gets to expand his career knowledge and doesn't have to move himself and family. For all we know his wife has a sick parent she doesn't want to move away from at the moment.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-02-2023
There are lots of important skills for a coach to learn beyond just offensive scheme.
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-02-2023
(01-02-2023, 10:32 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I don't understand everyone asserting Pritchard needs to move on from Stanford to grow. Do y'all appreciate just how different the Stanford offense is going to be under Taylor than Shaw? It's the equivalent of going to work for Mike Leach. What difference does it make if he can have such a different experience without having to leave Stanford?You might note that in a previous post I said Pritchard didn't leave for a new job, the new job came to him :-). I think this could indeed be a good opportunity for him. Even if it doesn't work out in the end and he has to move on, he will get a shot at a different program with different challenges. I am also pretty sure he realizes that it isn't guaranteed he will be retained indefinitely and it would be appropriate to continuously evaluate his options. Under Shaw, that almost assuredly was not the case.
The employer may be the same, but there are going to be so many differences the change from Shaw. Who knows, Taylor - and this is my sense - may be a lot more willing to let Pritchard have input and autonomy than Shaw gave, while being able to learn a totally different offensive philosophy than he has been steeped in to this point. Maybe Taylor welcomes keeping some previous Stanford offense concepts in the repertoire?
Pritchard gets to expand his career knowledge and doesn't have to move himself and family. For all we know his wife has a sick parent she doesn't want to move away from at the moment.
RE: Assistant Coaches - winflop - 01-02-2023
(01-01-2023, 06:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-01-2023, 05:54 PM)martyup Wrote: Do we know that the slow mesh wasn't Tavita's brainchild? After all, he was the OC.
Reading between the lines at what Sam has posted, the answer is a resounding no. To hear him tell it, Tavita was the OC in name only, and even though by giving up the title of OC, he is getting a demotion in terms of title, it sounds like he is not getting much of a demotion in terms of responsibilities.
Sam, is that accurate?
BC
IIRC, Shaw said he got the idea from talking to the Wake Forest HC who's apparently a good friend. So I won't blame Pritchard entirely for it. But I have to believe Shaw ran the idea by him and he didn't say "No, it's not a good fit for our immobile and injury-prone QB who doesn't have any quality backups." I maintain my position that keeping Pritchard was a TERRIBLE decision
(01-01-2023, 09:04 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-31-2022, 11:19 PM)winflop Wrote: Jack West taking a single snap in a game against anyone other than a creampuff is why Pritchard should have been among the first to go. Yes it was ultimately Shaw’s call but there’s no way he did so without input from the position coach who worked with them every day in practice
Add in that none of the current qb’s looks anywhere close to being starting quality and that’s just icing on the cake for me. The cherry on top is that Pritchard has never played nor coached in an offense anything like Taylor’s. It feels like as bad of a mismatch as the RPSlow was for McKee
Taylor appears to have made some very good hires but this was a TERRIBLE decision
He also can help Taylor as he works to “get” Stanford. He’s not going to be game planning or calling plays. He’s going to be working with QB’s. And quite honestly, you don’t know what kind of a QB coach he is. Not unless you’ve been there, seen his instruction etc. As for the performance of Stanford QB’s, it’s been fine. No running game. Poor protection. Tough to get much production.
I suspect Taylor wanted a bridge of sorts. Pritchard a logical choice.
You're right I don't know what kind of QB coach he is, but I do see the results of his coaching and I don't think they are worthy of continued employment, even in a reduced/focused role. But I guess he'll get one year to prove me wrong - smells a lot like giving Haase another year. The track record is plenty long on which to make a decision and it's not a good one.
There were other better choices of continuity - Turner and Alamar are the two that I think were significantly better coaches who've been here quite a while and "get" Stanford too.
RE: Assistant Coaches - SamuelMcF - 01-02-2023
(01-02-2023, 09:49 PM)winflop Wrote: There were other better choices of continuity - Turner and Alamar are the two that I think were significantly better coaches who've been here quite a while and "get" Stanford too.
Turner said "no thank you" to Brock Bowers.
I like Alamar, but in this day and age a dedicated STs-only coach is rare and takes away from another probably-more-important position. Glad he's staying on staff as a senior analyst.
RE: Assistant Coaches - winflop - 01-03-2023
(01-02-2023, 11:25 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(01-02-2023, 09:49 PM)winflop Wrote: There were other better choices of continuity - Turner and Alamar are the two that I think were significantly better coaches who've been here quite a while and "get" Stanford too.
Turner said "no thank you" to Brock Bowers.
I like Alamar, but in this day and age a dedicated STs-only coach is rare and takes away from another probably-more-important position. Glad he's staying on staff as a senior analyst.
Don't have to keep him in the same role, just need to keep him on the staff, which Taylor thankfully did. Special teams coaches interact with more players on the roster than any other assistant other than the coordinators, and in particular given how many starters are being lost to the portal likely has more interaction with the remaining players than any assistant including the coordinators.
Sorry but I just don't get the need to nor the value in keeping Pritchard. Hope I'm proven wrong.
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-03-2023
I don't think there was a "need" to keep Pritchard on the staff but I'm fine with it. There are plausible reasons for it (recruiting continuity, continuity of knowledge/relationships across the roster, solid track record getting QBs to the NFL, financial considerations of a multi-year contract, keeping on a somewhat legendary Stanford Man may buy some goodwill with the administration, etc.). I also think there are others on staff with more dubious credentials (Byham comes to mind). That's not to say I'm thrilled about Pritchard being back (I want as clean a break from Shaw as possible in many respects) but I think it's fine.
In general, I think Pritchard is a better coach than many fans allow. As a QB coach, his charges have not developed great but they've developed at least average. QB development is much harder than fans assume, even for blue chip prospects like Chryst, Costello, Mills, and McKee. Pritchard's track record getting guys to the NFL is a feather in his cap. Like Morgan Turner at Arkansas, I think Pritchard could get a position coach job at major programs, but why would he consider that preferable to doing it at his beloved alma mater? As an offensive mind, we actually do have some evidence (first series of the game, some situational/red zone packages, evolution in the offense over time) that Pritchard was far more dynamic than Shaw. Because Shaw owned the offense ultimately I don't think we can say with any confidence how good of an offensive mind Pritchard is, but the balance of evidence doesn't point any stronger to bad offensive mind than to good offensive mind IMHO. The bottom line is there's no way for us to know how good/bad Pritchard is in certain respects.
Former NFL QB, Cal/Utah QB coach, offensive-minded but above all else QB-minded Troy Taylor thinking Pritchard is good enough for his staff is a strong testimonial. But it's also worth noting that fans shouldn't over-emphasize the importance of this slot on the staff. Taylor will be heavily involved. Harbaugh’s first staff didn’t have a QB coach as Harbaugh handled himself (in fact, Andrew Luck was quite vocal at the time about then-teammate Tavita Pritchard being a primary mentor). Taylor’s Sacramento State staff had Bobby Fresques, a former Sacramento State QB without coaching credibility independent from being under Taylor’s wing.
I think Pritchard in this role is fine. My big hope is that he can be re-energized and/or really pushed by Taylor to plunge his considerable charm and credibility into being a dynamo recruiter. As for QB coaching, Pritchard got his guys to the NFL at a solid clip and I think we’ll be amazed how much better everybody on offense looks with a real offensive coordinator.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 08:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: As for QB coaching, Pritchard got his guys to the NFL at a solid clip and I think we’ll be amazed how much better everybody on offense looks with a real offensive coordinator.Has TT named an offensive coordinator? I must have missed that. I thought he was doing it himself??
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 09:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(01-03-2023, 08:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: As for QB coaching, Pritchard got his guys to the NFL at a solid clip and I think we’ll be amazed how much better everybody on offense looks with a real offensive coordinator.Has TT named an offensive coordinator? I must have missed that. I thought he was doing it himself??
He is. I'm referring to him as the real offensive coordinator.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BostonCard - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 08:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: I think Pritchard in this role is fine. My big hope is that he can be re-energized and/or really pushed by Taylor to plunge his considerable charm and credibility into being a dynamo recruiter. As for QB coaching, Pritchard got his guys to the NFL at a solid clip and I think we’ll be amazed how much better everybody on offense looks with a real offensive coordinator.
Completely agree. I do think there would have been some benefit to Pritchard from spreading his wings, but he doesn’t want to, and Taylor, who we would hope knows what he is doing, gave him a vote of confidence (something he didn’t do to pretty much all of the rest of the staff other than Alomar).
And I agree that Pritchard can be a very dynamic recruiter, with the upside that he knows how to navigate Stanford admissions, one thing that pretty much no other school’s staff has to worry about.
BC
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 09:02 AM)msqueri Wrote:You mean like Shaw was :-). At least TT is openly affirming that is the case. I don't think this is a bad approach, and there is every reason to believe TT has the skills to do it. I just want to point this out so when there is a rough patch (and there will be, no matter who the coach is) we won't immediately hear calls for TT to "Hire a real offensive coordinator". Probably asking too much though.(01-03-2023, 09:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(01-03-2023, 08:16 AM)msqueri Wrote: As for QB coaching, Pritchard got his guys to the NFL at a solid clip and I think we’ll be amazed how much better everybody on offense looks with a real offensive coordinator.Has TT named an offensive coordinator? I must have missed that. I thought he was doing it himself??
He is. I'm referring to him as the real offensive coordinator.
No matter what organizational model the coach chooses, it will have it's advantages and disadvantages. When the head coach is deeply involved in one aspect of the game, it will occupy lots of his time. OTOH, it frees up an assistant coaching slot that may free him from concerns he feels are less amenable to his talents. Some think the "CEO" head coach is a better model. Programs have had success with many different models so absolutely rejecting any of them is impossible.
RE: Assistant Coaches - StanfordMatt - 01-03-2023
Paul Williams from Wake will coach corners per Thamel.
RE: Assistant Coaches - terry - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 11:42 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: Paul Williams from Wake will coach corners per Thamel.
Paul Williams bio -- https://godeacs.com/sports/football/roster/coaches/paul-williams/943
RE: Assistant Coaches - msqueri - 01-03-2023
Paul Williams certainly seems credible. [Hardest thing for me is that his name is Paul Williams, as another Paul Williams, The Punisher, was one of my favorite athletes of the last 25 years, so it's weird for me to see another, albeit a very common name.] It's hard for outsiders to really know a position coach's quality and in any case much comes down to specific alchemy/fit in a new role. But on paper it's a credible pick. In case of interest, here are Stanford and Wake Forest CB PFF grades for 200+ snap guys from 2020-2022 (Wake Forest players bolded):
2022 Caelen Carson - 74.3
2022 Jonathan McGill - 73.7
2021 Caelen Carson - 73.4
2021 JJ Roberts - 73.0
2022 Ethan Bonner - 70.7
2022 DaShawn Jones - 69.1
2020 Ja'Sir Taylor - 68.0
2021 Gavin Holmes - 67.9
2022 Jermal Martin Jr. - 67.2
2021 Kyu Blu Kelly - 66.9
2021 Nicolas Toomer - 66.5
2022 Gavin Holmes - 66.3
2021 Zahran Manley - 65.6
2020 Caelen Carson - 65.2
2022 Isaiah Wingfield - 65.1
2021 Jimmy Wyrick - 64.4
2022 Kyu Blu Kelly - 62.4
2020 Salim Turner-Muhammad - 61.8
2021 Ethan Bonner - 61.5
2020 Jonathan McGill - 61.2
2021 Jaden Slocum - 61.2
2022 JJ Roberts - 58.5
2020 Kyu Blu Kelly - 58.0
2021 Ja'Sir Taylor - 55.3
2022 Nicolas Toomer - 54.3
2022 Salim Turner-Muhammad - 51.2
2021 Zion Keith - 47.5
This representation makes the difference between Wake Forest and Stanford CB play pretty stark. Seven of the top ten are Wake Forest and seven of the bottom ten are Stanford.
This would seem to be an upgrade for Stanford. Personally, I think a big reason for that is entering modern football with regard to specialization at DB. Akina is a legendary position coach but became an anachronism. Williams is more in keeping with modern football practices in that he's specialized as a corners coach at both Wake Forest and Houston.
Welcome news.
RE: Assistant Coaches - Goose - 01-03-2023
(01-03-2023, 01:19 PM)msqueri Wrote: Paul Williams certainly seems credible. It's hard for outsiders to really know a position coach's quality and in any case much comes down to specific alchemy/fit in a new role. But on paper it's a credible pick.Totally agree.
RE: Assistant Coaches - BobK - 01-03-2023
I was worried Paul Williams the 5 foot 2 songwriter
Williams announced
https://gostanford.com/news/2023/1/3/football-williams-set-to-coach-corners.aspx
RE: Assistant Coaches - CTcard - 01-03-2023
(12-30-2022, 10:45 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: We do know. It was all the time. TP's only "play calls" were our scripted first drives. Shaw had final say on every single play call after that.
I for one think we'll be shocked at how much better our QBs look in an offensive system that doesn't actively suck and doesn't take 3 years to "master."
Final say on a play call is one thing, influence on the offense overall is another.
It appears to me that TP as OC had a tremendous effect on the nature of what the Stanford offense tried to do. At any rate, there is no question that the nature (and quality) of Stanford's offense changed drastically once TP became the oc. The question is only whether that was actually due to TP or merely coincidence.
TP came in talking about how he wanted to open up the offense, throw the ball around the field, etc. And things definitely changed.
While the nature of Stanford's run game changed a lot over the years, Stanford remained a run-first, run downhill team from 2008-2017. TP became OC for 2018. Stanford rather abruptly quit trying to run the ball, became bad at running the ball, started passing a lot, and was occasionally okay at that - but inconsistently and never great.
Year % Run Plays yds/carry % Run Yards
2015 65.7% 5.13 51.3%
2016 63.1% 5.20 56.9%
2017 56.9% 5.90 52.1%
TP becomes OC
2018 47.5% 3.65 28.3%
2019 43.8% 3.66 28.7%
2020 47.1% 4.02 31.6%
2021 46.6% 3.22 28.8%
2022 45.6% 3.43 29.7%
There's more, but that's the most obvious.