The CardBoard
Bloomgren article on Rivals - 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: Bloomgren article on Rivals (/thread-4854.html)


Bloomgren article on Rivals - OutsiderFan - 02-21-2013

Did anyone read it?  Great insight into how Stanford appears to have become one of the top destinations for football coaches to learn and grow.  Also very interesting comments on the OL, the development of specific guys and who might play where in 2013.

It is a premium story on another site, so I'm not going to say anything specific until given the OK to do so.

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - washingtonismoney - 02-21-2013

Both Bloomgren (http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1474550) and Snaford (http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1474102) interviews are non-premium, actually. And very good.

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - OutsiderFan - 02-21-2013

(02-21-2013, 08:48 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Both Bloomgren (http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1474550) and Sanford (http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1474102) interviews are non-premium, actually. And very good.

Oh yes, it is a FREE article.  So I suppose it can be discussed here!

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - 97fan - 02-21-2013

Thanks for the links. In these off-season interviews with coach, I feel like who's not mentioned is often as important as who is mentioned, so it worries me somewhat that none of the inexperienced WRs were discussed other than Devon Cajuste.

For the record, I disagree with the idea that we should censor, or self-censor, any discussion of the premium content at Rivals. Across the Internet, articles that are behind pay walls get discussed in free forums all the time. I don't see why we should be any different.


Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - Extra Point - 02-21-2013

"Oh yes, it is a FREE article.  So I suppose it can be discussed here!"

What is the board policy on this? I think it is a copyright violation to paste any article, or significant portion of one, without permission in all cases. But, some people have pasted stuff out of the Mercury and Chronicle in the past. Is this because free articles posted on the internet are public domain? Likewise, why would talking about the nature of an article behind a pay wall be a problem? Information cannot be copyrighted, just the verbiage that expresses it. And, what about quoting a few sentences in a pay wall article? I don't think this is copyright violation either? What is the policy?

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - yvonne - 02-21-2013

No, articles posted on the Internet are NOT public domain. They belong to the copyright holders, whether they be the individuals who wrote the articles or the publications those writers have given the rights. When I see the

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - StannyBoy - 02-22-2013

dude you can link to an article and discuss it if it isn't behind a paywall. You just can't copy it and post it on another website. That is copyright infringement.

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - yvonne - 02-22-2013

You cannot cut and paste an article even if it's not behind a pay wall

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - washingtonismoney - 02-22-2013

Fair use clearly allows some quoting/discussion; the question is how much. Anyway, there's also, I guess, a politeness issue -- it's nice to support Drukarev as he's the best we've got.

Not sure I buy that Cajuste was the starting "X" in training camp. Over Owusu?

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - OutsiderFan - 02-22-2013

Well, without copying and pasting anything from the Bloomgren story, here are some things that stood out to me and some thoughts on their implications.

There are two ways to maintain a great coaching staff.  The first is to pay top dollar to make sure assistants stay.  The second is to be a place that has an established track record of providing coaches upward mobility and in so doing, to attract the best and brightest up and coming coaches.  To me, Stanford has firmly established itself as the latter.  Look at the careers of Harbaugh, Shaw, Taggert, Hamilton, Tarver, just to name a few.  All have advanced their careers by coaching at Stanford.  Losing Crook probably isn't what Shaw wanted, but he took a promotion to go back to his home state, and the track record suggests Shaw will find a perfectly fine replacement.

When Bloomgren indicates guys like Hogan and Fleming are not the starters, that they have to earn their jobs... wow.  You can't have guys bought in to the program more than by having this "competition rules" mentality ingrained in the program.  Everyone, including walk-ons knows they have a chance to play if they prove themselves, so that makes everyone work that much harder and push everyone that much more.

It's cool how Stanford has created extra OL positions, to give more OL opportunities to play.  Don't earn a starting spot at T, G, or C, you might be the starting Jumbo Wing as they call it, the position Bonnell played last year, that he has to win again, for example.

I don't know how much the pundits and voters pay attention to the internal dynamics of teams when assessing them.  My guess is they look at things like returning starters, experience at QB, etc., but when Shaw says they have success because of their process, it may be as if not more important to consider this in your Stanford football ranking as any other factor.

Yes, some very good talent has been recruited, but how many programs are Top 5 in the country with the equivalent of two walk-ons at 2/3 starting DL positions?  I know Gardner was a 2 star recruit, but he may as well have been a walk-on, and Parry was.  This  reality is a symptom of what makes Stanford football so good.  Between the S&C program, the physicality the team plays with, and the culture of competition pervading the program, it almost doesn't matter who the guy is.  When they say next man up, it really is.  And that's because of how the players develop, how they are coached, and how it all keeps their team dynamic strong.

It seems very safe to say Stanford football is no longer just a few good teams.  It is now a football program, with the foundation in place to be sort of the De La Salle of college football.  It's not ever going to have the armada of elite athletes other top programs will put on the field, but the discipline, toughness, and competitiveness the team plays with will make up for most shortcomings on the athlete side of the ledger.  It might not be too crazy to think about playing for a crystal football.






Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - yvonne - 02-22-2013

(02-22-2013, 06:14 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Fair use clearly allows some quoting/discussion; the question is how much. Anyway, there's also, I guess, a politeness issue -- it's nice to support Drukarev as he's the best we've got.

Not sure I buy that Cajuste was the starting "X" in training camp. Over Owusu?

I agree with this. Occasionally, a poster will post all or almost all of an article. I include a link back to the original site for the sake of page views at the original source.

I do like the custom of not quoting material behind a pay wall. Go ahead and link to those stries, but indicate when they are behind a pay wall 

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - washingtonismoney - 02-22-2013

(02-22-2013, 06:58 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It seems very safe to say Stanford football is no longer just a few good teams.  It is now a football program, with the foundation in place to be sort of the De La Salle of college football.  It's not ever going to have the armada of elite athletes other top programs will put on the field, but the discipline, toughness, and competitiveness the team plays with will make up for most shortcomings on the athlete side of the ledger.  It might not be too crazy to think about playing for a crystal football.

We'll say for sake of argument that you're correct -- I would like the conclusion to be true and there seems to be a decent enough chance it is. The key thing, in this scenario, concerns competition -- to avoid teams like Alabama, which have all of the qualities you describe plus the convoy of elite athletes.

So that's the danger when looking at a U.S.C. Fun aside, I'm not so sure Kiffin is quite the disaster he's been made out to be -- his 2011 season was almost as good as his 2012 season was bad. But one thing I'm certain of is that he'll never reach that Saban or Carroll-esque blend of elite talent with elite development -- which gives us space to thrive. If they fire Kiffin and replace him with Gary Patterson (to take one hypothetical), well...

Re: Bloomgren article on Rivals - ChicagoCard - 02-22-2013

Maybe they'd have been better off replacing him with Kennedy Polamalu.