The CardBoard
Looks Like It's Tavita - 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: Looks Like It's Tavita (/thread-15214.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Looks Like It's Tavita - Red State - 12-10-2017

Should be official tomorrow morning.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - Langdude - 12-10-2017

Shavita?
Shawvita?
Tavishaw?

-m.


Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - CTcard - 12-10-2017

Well, not what I was expecting.
Tip of the hat to those who did.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - Phogge - 12-10-2017

Davita

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - dabigv13 - 12-10-2017

At 30, he'd be the same age as Lane when he took over as OC at SC in 2005. He set some records as I recall. So let's aim for that, minus the alcoholism and controversy (but with the Twitter game, if possible).

But yeah, I'm mildly concerned and a little disappointed. I think some fresh blood would be worthwhile.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - qwerty49 - 12-11-2017

Does it matter? I think Shaw will continue to evade transparency as to who makes the calls.

Let’s hope for the best.


Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - JohnR34231 - 12-11-2017

Yep, despite the screaming and yelling and predictions of gloom and doom by a few, Shaw isn't going to fix what he doesn't think is broken.
It would take a couple of 4-8 years for that to happen, which I don't think many of us are hoping for.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - 81alum - 12-11-2017

If people are right that Shaw has been the real offensive coordinator all along, then this could open up a slot for a new quarterbacks coach without worsening the play calling.

So now we wait for a new offensive line coach and a new quarterbacks coach--both absolutely critical positions for us.  That is, unless Tavita becomes QB/Offensive coordinator.

I share the sentiment that some fresh blood from outside might be helpful.  As an fan there is little evidence for us to see what Tavita has done or how successful he has been or what his potential might be.  Have our quarterbacks over or under performed?  Hard to know, really.  Maybe Tavita has offered penetrating offensive insights at meetings.  But he may not be calling the plays, anyway.  What I imagine every offensive coordinator does is create the offensive gameplan--which means studying defenses for weaknesses.  As a former QB I hope he is experienced at that.  Then again, Shaw does not really like to adjust to defenses all that much--I can hear him saying "It's all about what we do." 

Otherwise, one would expect the offense to open up a bit if transferred from someone with an offensive lineman's perspective to someone with a quarterback's perspective.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - FarmBoy - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 03:01 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Yep, despite the screaming and yelling and predictions of gloom and doom by a few, Shaw isn't going to fix what he doesn't think is broken.
It would take a couple of 4-8 years for that to happen, which I don't think many of us are hoping for.

Where's the evidence of this? I'm trying to think of an aspect of the team that has been "broken" for more than a season and can't think of one except perhaps the QB play that was poor all of 2016 and only improved in the later part of 2017.

Shaw is clearly more patient than the fanbase at large, but there's no evidence that he doesn't "fix problems" faster than the timeframe you're referencing.

In Shaw we trust (all others must pay cash)


Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - JohnR34231 - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 06:11 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=18341.msg217873#msg217873 date=1512986468]
Yep, despite the screaming and yelling and predictions of gloom and doom by a few, Shaw isn't going to fix what he doesn't think is broken.
It would take a couple of 4-8 years for that to happen, which I don't think many of us are hoping for.

Where's the evidence of this? I'm trying to think of an aspect of the team that has been "broken" for more than a season and can't think of one except perhaps the QB play that was poor all of 2016 and only improved in the later part of 2017.

Shaw is clearly more patient than the fanbase at large, but there's no evidence that he doesn't "fix problems" faster than the timeframe you're referencing.

In Shaw we trust (all others must pay cash)
[/quote]

Good question, but if you are familiar with this board I'm sure you know whom to ask.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - gasdoc51 - 12-11-2017

I'm OK with the new offensive coordinator as long as the new offensive brain trust 3 years down the road isn't being called Sh-ita!

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita ==> Shaw-stablishment - ADPATERSON - 12-11-2017

Shaw-Think: 
"I was just selected Coach of the Year by my peers, and made it to the Champ game after starting 1W-2L. 
My RB was a Voldemort finalist; how many coaches are saying that?  I'm in the Top Ten active NCAA coaches at 73-20.
Every year now, Stanford gets the #1 or #2 Tight End in USA.  [Fleener, Ertz, Hooper, Schultz, K.Smith, Parkinson...]
In Feb we bagged the top TWO OTs in America (Little, Sorrel), plus a 5star QB from GA (Mills) -- what is broken?"

If Bryce Love returns, that would be a big vote in favor of Shaw-stablishment. 
And Love gave a lotta praise to RB Coach Gould. 

Shaw calls the plays -- who designs them?  Don't know. 
Agree that "DAVITA" = OffCO.  But, we do need some new juice on play design that a QB coach could bring in.
I think Shaw might be licking his chops now that Costello has matured, and the other NFL caliber QBs are leaving.
Shaw believes he has 5star QBs lined up in the pipeline through 2023. 

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/WinningestActiveCoachesIA.htm


Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - Hulk01 - 12-11-2017

Tavita took over the QB coaching in Hogan's third year.  In Hogan's final year, he ranked in the nation's top five for both QBR and pass efficiency and ran the offense that ranked second in the nation for effectiveness/efficiency.  That belongs in Tavita's resume, whatever it may mean. 

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - stupac2 - 12-11-2017

I've had this kicking around in my head for a few days, this seems like as good a place to put it as any.

What do you want from an offensive coordinator in college football? Here's my list:

1) Analyze the team's collective strengths and the opponent's collective weaknesses and put the team in the best place to succeed (and the opponent in the best place to fail).

If you gave me a potpourri of traits and had me pick one and only one, it would be this. The other stuff down the list is nice, but ultimately what you want is someone who can design a gameplan (and make in-game adjustments, though you might call that a separate talent) that puts the team in the best possible spot. Note that this is sometimes nontrivial, IIRC we switched from man to zone blocking along the OL after the Northwestern debacle in 2015 and it worked out pretty well. It would've been nice to be able to make that call before the season, but it is what it is.

The problem here is that this is going to be nearly completely opaque to outsiders. Gameplanning is a team effort, and it's going to get lost in a blizzard of more readily observable things (ie the reverse that gets stuffed in Q1 but leads the MLB to bite on a fake in Q4 for a big gain). Nonetheless, I think this is the most important thing.

2) Developing/coaching talent to its fullest potential.

Closely related to #1, good coaches don't just get the best out of their players, they help them to improve on their best. This is going to be split up between position coaches and the OC, but the OC needs to be able to teach the scheme and get players to where they don't have to think, because thinking is slow. There are going to be many different ways to accomplish this, but you want to see players getting better over their tenure, rather than staying the same or regressing. (And, by and large, I believe we see this.)

3) Recruit

I don't follow recruiting closely, but getting the best possible players onto campus is obviously incredibly important. That said, a good coach can beat more talented teams by out-scheming and out-developing the opponent (ie Petersen at Boise).

4) Call good plays

You might say that this is just #1, but I don't think so. I think there's a difference between playcalling and gameplanning, akin to being a good tactician or a good strategist. Tactics are important, for sure, but a great tactician is going to lose a lot of battles if he's a poor strategist. Similarly, you might catch an opponent off-guard with a clever playcall, but there are only so many clever playcalls. It's more important to know the weaknesses you're trying to exploit, and the strengths you're playing with. Playcalls flow from that, but there are many different ways you could use that analysis to attack the enemy, and I don't think that choosing the exact play in a given moment is as important as choosing the right set of plays to focus on that week.

I think people tend to overrate this because it's visible, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But that's a separate discussion.


You could sum this up as time periods:

1) During the season, Sunday-to-Friday.
2) Spring/Fall camps.
3) Summer/winter when not with the team.
4) 3 hours on Saturday.




How well does Prichard fit these criteria? I have no idea. How well does any other coach fit them? I have no idea. I think no one else has any idea either. I find it interesting, on this board but more so on reddit, how completely confident fans are that a given coordinator is a schlub because... reasons. He just is. They just know. It strikes me as hubris.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - Hulk01 - 12-11-2017

Outstanding post, stupac.  May try to cheat and hit the plus sign multiple times.




Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - winflop - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 09:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:1) Analyze the team's collective strengths and the opponent's collective weaknesses and put the team in the best place to succeed (and the opponent in the best place to fail).

No clue how Pritchard does at this, but my guess is Shaw does

1a. In-game adjustments

You forgot to mention making in-game adjustments which IMnsHO has been the biggest shortcoming of the Stanford offense since Shaw has been HC. It is clearly on the OC who is sitting upstairs not on the sideline to make the observations, but it's also on the HC to accept what the OC is saying and execute when the HC is calling plays. Similar to 1, no clue how Pritchard does at this, but I am disappointed that Shaw is not looking for some fresh perspective on 1 and 1a.

(12-11-2017, 09:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:2) Developing/coaching talent to its fullest potential.

I have a lot of question marks here, but I don't think this should be #2. Player development is largely on the position coaches, and with the 10th coach the OC will not have any position coaching responsibility.

If anything, I think this gives Shaw the chance to go hire the Duane Akina of QB coaches. The record on Pritchard is mixed at best.

(12-11-2017, 09:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:3) Recruit

No clue how Pritchard is at recruiting. What responsibilities has he had to date and who has he brought to the farm? What's for sure is that his recruiting responsibility and impact are going way up with the move to OC. He'd better be damn good at this. I'd argue this should be #2.

(12-11-2017, 09:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:4) Call good plays

Not really relevant here since Shaw has one the majority of the play calling and I expect that percentage to increase with a new OC.

The reason I question this decision is that Pritchard is a relatively unknown quantity on much of this. When you are one of the top programs in the country - and make no mistake Stanford is just that - you should have the pick of the litter when it comes to a position like this. In addition, I think the Stanford offense is in need of a fresh perspective from outside the program. I'm genuinely disappointed in this decision. I hope Shaw makes better decisions on QB & OL coaches.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - washingtonismoney - 12-11-2017

Would've liked some fresh blood -- maybe that'll come in with hires for OL and WR. (Tavita...will probably be the QB/OC coach). But my view is that offensive coaching has been pretty solid, so while less fun than alternatives, I'll give deference to Shaw.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - terry - 12-11-2017

(12-11-2017, 10:24 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:maybe that'll come in with hires for OL and WR. (Tavita...will probably be the QB/OC coach).

Yes, I think that seems most likely -- if Pritchard is the OC, he probably will continue as QB coach, with a new WR coach and a new OL coach.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - Goose - 12-11-2017

I have wondered for some time when Tavita would be pushed out of the nest and go to another program, college or NFL, in order to fill out his resume. So my concern here isn't so much whether he will make a good OC, because I have no way of knowing, but rather whether it is good for him. His entire coaching experience is at Stanford. If he ever needs to go get another job, (with coaches, it's not if, it's when) his experience is going to be greatly discounted. It would be better for him to become the OC at Boise St., Indiana or even SJSU for that matter.

Re: Looks Like It's Tavita - terry - 12-11-2017

I'm keeping an open mind about Pritchard. I think he has a chance to be a good offensive coordinator.

Pritchard has coached several offensive positions (QB, WR, RB). Going back to his volunteer assistant days, he now has 8 years of coaching experience. He helped mentor two of the statistically highest-rated QBs in Stanford history (Luck, Hogan). He has worked not only with Shaw and Bloomgren, but also with Jim Harbaugh, Greg Roman, Pep Hamilton, Willie Taggart, Mike Sanford, and Ron Gould. So even though he hasn't worked elsewhere, he has learned from other coaches with a variety of backgrounds. He has coached at Stanford during some of the most productive offensive seasons in Stanford history (2010, 2011, 2015). He has worked with strong passing offenses (the Luck years), and has worked with strong running offenses. He's well-spoken and comes across well in person.

I'm going to reserve judgment, with cautious optimism.