[old spanish trail]

Also, good point on Jones. Absent data that points to a demotion, I don’t think the mere fact that he transferred should be read as evidence that a demotion was imminent.

My conjecture was based on the fact that at the end of the season Shaw at least twice stated that they wanted to get E. J. and Filkins more reps, while not mentioning Jones or Peat. That seemed noteworthy to me, as Shaw generally tries to mention just about everybody in a position group even when there is a known pecking order. It tracked the idea that at the very least there was an open competition in the RB room. Further, as Phogge often points out, Jones last year seemed to be very easy to tackle. The extremely poor performance of our offensive line made it hard to judge the performance of the backs, but clearly what we had wasn't working. That makes a change reasonable, particularly since this year our defensive line probably will be sub-standard. Going with younger players to get them ready for 2023 may make more sense than playing guys who will be gone by then. This "wisdom" I got from the Cardboard. Not sure I agree, but it is plausible.

A coach would be nuts to tell his returning starter that the team was going in a different direction.  More so when the guys who would come in spent a lot of the last year injured.

Unless it is the truth and there is no point in them sticking around. I obviously don't know if that is what they were told, but at the very least there were signs that the incumbent was going to lose reps.

Unless Jones asked Shaw for a guarantee that he would be starter next year, and Shaw demurred (along the lines of, “you will have to earn it”, I just don’t see it). Any number of things could have led to his transfer, some of which may be personal, some of which may be team related. I do consider the fact that *both* Jones and Peat left, particularly in a year where the running game floundered and our commitment to the run was questionable at best, does suggest something more systemic.

BC

We know that Shaw at a minimum said the younger guys were going to get more reps, so I think your hypothetical above, or something even stronger, is probable. We of course only know what the players said about their reasons, which isn't much AFAIK. However, even if one puts playing time aside, your point about the running game floundering and our commitment to the run being questionable is possibly enough reason for any upperclassman to leave. He isn't going to put up big numbers next year unless there is a quantum improvement. Younger guys can hang their hat on things turning around, but when it is now or never, one can't. Add to that any doubt about the confidence the coach has in you and it is a recipe to look elsewhere IMHO. Obviously, for Stanford's football fortunes to improve, we have to run the ball better. Going with new personnel may be necessary for that to happen. This may not be to the advantage of incumbents at any position, including the OL.

Though he doesn't seem the type to involve himself in coaching decisions, I've wondered whether Emmit Smith may have asked what Shaw had in mind for his son. Also, there appears to be increasing criticism of the rb coach, which is interesting because he coached alot of future NFL rb's at Cal and has previously been described as a prince of a guy. What happened?

[old spanish trail]

Also, good point on Jones. Absent data that points to a demotion, I don’t think the mere fact that he transferred should be read as evidence that a demotion was imminent.

My conjecture was based on the fact that at the end of the season Shaw at least twice stated that they wanted to get E. J. and Filkins more reps, while not mentioning Jones or Peat. That seemed noteworthy to me, as Shaw generally tries to mention just about everybody in a position group even when there is a known pecking order. It tracked the idea that at the very least there was an open competition in the RB room. Further, as Phogge often points out, Jones last year seemed to be very easy to tackle. The extremely poor performance of our offensive line made it hard to judge the performance of the backs, but clearly what we had wasn't working. That makes a change reasonable, particularly since this year our defensive line probably will be sub-standard. Going with younger players to get them ready for 2023 may make more sense than playing guys who will be gone by then. This "wisdom" I got from the Cardboard. Not sure I agree, but it is plausible.

A coach would be nuts to tell his returning starter that the team was going in a different direction.  More so when the guys who would come in spent a lot of the last year injured.

Unless it is the truth and there is no point in them sticking around. I obviously don't know if that is what they were told, but at the very least there were signs that the incumbent was going to lose reps.

Unless Jones asked Shaw for a guarantee that he would be starter next year, and Shaw demurred (along the lines of, “you will have to earn it”, I just don’t see it). Any number of things could have led to his transfer, some of which may be personal, some of which may be team related. I do consider the fact that *both* Jones and Peat left, particularly in a year where the running game floundered and our commitment to the run was questionable at best, does suggest something more systemic.

BC

We know that Shaw at a minimum said the younger guys were going to get more reps, so I think your hypothetical above, or something even stronger, is probable. We of course only know what the players said about their reasons, which isn't much AFAIK. However, even if one puts playing time aside, your point about the running game floundering and our commitment to the run being questionable is possibly enough reason for any upperclassman to leave. He isn't going to put up big numbers next year unless there is a quantum improvement. Younger guys can hang their hat on things turning around, but when it is now or never, one can't. Add to that any doubt about the confidence the coach has in you and it is a recipe to look elsewhere IMHO. Obviously, for Stanford's football fortunes to improve, we have to run the ball better. Going with new personnel may be necessary for that to happen. This may not be to the advantage of incumbents at any position, including the OL.

Though he doesn't seem the type to involve himself in coaching decisions, I've wondered whether Emmit Smith may have asked what Shaw had in mind for his son. Also, there appears to be increasing criticism of the rb coach, which is interesting because he coached alot of future NFL rb's at Cal and has previously been described as a prince of a guy. What happened?

[SamuelMcF]

Though he doesn't seem the type to involve himself in coaching decisions, I've wondered whether Emmit Smith may have asked what Shaw had in mind for his son. Also, there appears to be increasing criticism of the rb coach, which is interesting because he coached alot of future NFL rb's at Cal and has previously been described as a prince of a guy. What happened?

I won't comment too much, but will leave it at this.

"Prince of a guy" equals RB coach that got results at Cal (undeniable) and probably a good guy in general.

"Prince of a guy" DOES NOT equal nice to the players he's coaching. And when the results don't follow? ...

[SamuelMcF]

Though he doesn't seem the type to involve himself in coaching decisions, I've wondered whether Emmit Smith may have asked what Shaw had in mind for his son. Also, there appears to be increasing criticism of the rb coach, which is interesting because he coached alot of future NFL rb's at Cal and has previously been described as a prince of a guy. What happened?

I won't comment too much, but will leave it at this.

"Prince of a guy" equals RB coach that got results at Cal (undeniable) and probably a good guy in general.

"Prince of a guy" DOES NOT equal nice to the players he's coaching. And when the results don't follow? ...

[BobK]

Be nice if we had an OL that blocked.
Plus I though love was pretty good
I know what have you done lately

[BobK]

Be nice if we had an OL that blocked.
Plus I though love was pretty good
I know what have you done lately

[msqueri]

Be nice if we had an OL that blocked.
Plus I though love was pretty good
I know what have you done lately

Bryce Love had two seasons with 7.1+ yards per carry while Ron Gould was still coaching at Davis. When Gould came on board, Love immediately had an immaculate season. After a full year of Gould's instruction, Love then had a nightmare. Overall, I don't think Love is an example of Gould doing a ton for Stanford. Gould's reputation is really based on his incredible run at Cal a long, long time ago. His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star. But yes, you are right that the offensive line plays a big role here.

[msqueri]

Be nice if we had an OL that blocked.
Plus I though love was pretty good
I know what have you done lately

Bryce Love had two seasons with 7.1+ yards per carry while Ron Gould was still coaching at Davis. When Gould came on board, Love immediately had an immaculate season. After a full year of Gould's instruction, Love then had a nightmare. Overall, I don't think Love is an example of Gould doing a ton for Stanford. Gould's reputation is really based on his incredible run at Cal a long, long time ago. His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star. But yes, you are right that the offensive line plays a big role here.

[Goose]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

[Goose]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

[Phogge]

Love's nightmare was at least partially playing most of the season on one leg. I don't think Gould was responsible for the chronic ankle injury in 2018. Other than that I don't know anything about Gould because I never covered him.

[Phogge]

Love's nightmare was at least partially playing most of the season on one leg. I don't think Gould was responsible for the chronic ankle injury in 2018. Other than that I don't know anything about Gould because I never covered him.

[msqueri]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

[msqueri]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

[Goose]

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

[Goose]

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

[old spanish trail]

Sam and Square,,,Have either of you, or anybody else for that matter, learned what the changes are for the OL this season that "fits the players we have, not some desired scheme"?

[old spanish trail]

Sam and Square,,,Have either of you, or anybody else for that matter, learned what the changes are for the OL this season that "fits the players we have, not some desired scheme"?

[needle]

Stanford had 7 offensive linemen drafted from 2012-16.

Over the next five NFL drafts, Stanford had 2 OL taken (one of whom, Walker Little, barely played).

The underperforming unit is the OL, 100%, though I'd lay the blame much more on the coaching staff than the guys in uniform. Might be debatable.

[needle]

Stanford had 7 offensive linemen drafted from 2012-16.

Over the next five NFL drafts, Stanford had 2 OL taken (one of whom, Walker Little, barely played).

The underperforming unit is the OL, 100%, though I'd lay the blame much more on the coaching staff than the guys in uniform. Might be debatable.

[GK3]

Stanford had 7 offensive linemen drafted from 2012-16.

Over the next five NFL drafts, Stanford had 2 OL taken (one of whom, Walker Little, barely played).

The underperforming unit is the OL, 100%, though I'd lay the blame much more on the coaching staff than the guys in uniform. Might be debatable.

Smith also provides another sure handed receiver who has speed and can make people miss.  A guy who can turn short passes into long passes and touchdowns.

[GK3]

Stanford had 7 offensive linemen drafted from 2012-16.

Over the next five NFL drafts, Stanford had 2 OL taken (one of whom, Walker Little, barely played).

The underperforming unit is the OL, 100%, though I'd lay the blame much more on the coaching staff than the guys in uniform. Might be debatable.

Smith also provides another sure handed receiver who has speed and can make people miss.  A guy who can turn short passes into long passes and touchdowns.

[BostonCard]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

[BostonCard]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

[Goose]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Totally agree. Of course, our OL could be great and mess up the de-correlation. I expect we would accept that result. One somewhat confusing thing about E.J. Smith is that originally he was classified as a "tweener", perhaps a Deebo Samuel type. It now appears he will be used as a running back. He certainly has shown bursts where he was a special runner, but nothing consistent yet. I wonder what his feelings about the switch are? Maybe he sees it as a change of emphasis and not a change of plan. Receivers have longer careers, usually. Also, being a running back and being his father's son carries expectations. Naturally, we all hope it works out well for everybody!

[Goose]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Totally agree. Of course, our OL could be great and mess up the de-correlation. I expect we would accept that result. One somewhat confusing thing about E.J. Smith is that originally he was classified as a "tweener", perhaps a Deebo Samuel type. It now appears he will be used as a running back. He certainly has shown bursts where he was a special runner, but nothing consistent yet. I wonder what his feelings about the switch are? Maybe he sees it as a change of emphasis and not a change of plan. Receivers have longer careers, usually. Also, being a running back and being his father's son carries expectations. Naturally, we all hope it works out well for everybody!

[SamuelMcF]

Sam and Square,,,Have either of you, or anybody else for that matter, learned what the changes are for the OL this season that "fits the players we have, not some desired scheme"?

No idea.

[SamuelMcF]

Sam and Square,,,Have either of you, or anybody else for that matter, learned what the changes are for the OL this season that "fits the players we have, not some desired scheme"?

No idea.

[fullmetal]

It may not be up to the RB coach to determine how often an RB gets a pass out of the backfield (see: offensive coordinator...sigh).  

Gould gets a pass from me due to massive OL underperformance (compared to their recruiting hype).  I think we need to see massive performance improvement at QB coach and OC (for the last few years!).  LB coach is too recent of a hire...most everyone else gets a pass for now unless someone can suggest a replacement with better WAR, borrowing from baseball terminology.  WR/TE/ST have done their job, imo.  Akina was okay with CBs but *needs* to produce some good safeties.  Lance needs to hit a few recruiting home runs.  

Most of all, we need better strength coaches and athletic trainers who can pre-hab/rehab our OL into tip-top shape well before the season starts.  Guys missed the spring game for injuries, and it should be unacceptable that, within reason, they are not back to 100% before fall camp.

Re: OL scheme change...did Heffernan try to implement a new scheme last season in his first year?  Or did he work with Carberry's Duo philosophy to ease his transition?  Whatever he does...it had better work.  OL's been the litmus test for this team, and Shaw wouldn't have it any other way.

[fullmetal]

It may not be up to the RB coach to determine how often an RB gets a pass out of the backfield (see: offensive coordinator...sigh).  

Gould gets a pass from me due to massive OL underperformance (compared to their recruiting hype).  I think we need to see massive performance improvement at QB coach and OC (for the last few years!).  LB coach is too recent of a hire...most everyone else gets a pass for now unless someone can suggest a replacement with better WAR, borrowing from baseball terminology.  WR/TE/ST have done their job, imo.  Akina was okay with CBs but *needs* to produce some good safeties.  Lance needs to hit a few recruiting home runs.  

Most of all, we need better strength coaches and athletic trainers who can pre-hab/rehab our OL into tip-top shape well before the season starts.  Guys missed the spring game for injuries, and it should be unacceptable that, within reason, they are not back to 100% before fall camp.

Re: OL scheme change...did Heffernan try to implement a new scheme last season in his first year?  Or did he work with Carberry's Duo philosophy to ease his transition?  Whatever he does...it had better work.  OL's been the litmus test for this team, and Shaw wouldn't have it any other way.

[Goose]

It may not be up to the RB coach to determine how often an RB gets a pass out of the backfield (see: offensive coordinator...sigh).

And the OC may have to keep the back in to pass block so the QB doesn't get killed. I hope next year that will be needed less often, but I also hope our backs can pass block. 

Gould gets a pass from me due to massive OL underperformance (compared to their recruiting hype).  I think we need to see massive performance improvement at QB coach and OC (for the last few years!).

What has been lacking in our QB performance and how can those problems be fixed? IMHO QB is a spot from which we have received a pretty good performance. Mills certainly did very well. I liked what we saw from McKee last year, although after he got hurt he perhaps was a bit less effective. Anything there you see and don't like? I know the QB coach is also the OC, but here I am asking about the QB hat.

[Goose]

It may not be up to the RB coach to determine how often an RB gets a pass out of the backfield (see: offensive coordinator...sigh).

And the OC may have to keep the back in to pass block so the QB doesn't get killed. I hope next year that will be needed less often, but I also hope our backs can pass block. 

Gould gets a pass from me due to massive OL underperformance (compared to their recruiting hype).  I think we need to see massive performance improvement at QB coach and OC (for the last few years!).

What has been lacking in our QB performance and how can those problems be fixed? IMHO QB is a spot from which we have received a pretty good performance. Mills certainly did very well. I liked what we saw from McKee last year, although after he got hurt he perhaps was a bit less effective. Anything there you see and don't like? I know the QB coach is also the OC, but here I am asking about the QB hat.

[lex24]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach.

---

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

As for moving the pile, YAC etc - difficult to do when defensive line is consistently penetrating into the backfield. Hard to move a pile or make a guy miss when you get one step and are then plastered by the 2 or 3 defensive lineman that penetrated.

I know the NFL keeps stats on this. Not sure it’s available in College Football, but there certainly is a correlation between moving the pile/making people miss and defensive penetration.

At the end of the day, either the o-line improves significantly or the running game will (again) be dismal. No matter who the RB’s are and no matter who (or how good) the RB coach is.

It is, to me, the same with the defensive backfield. Akina was at one time a darling of this community. And a guy with tremendous previous success. Now he’s blasted. Why? First, the talent level has dropped. Second, the QB generally has more time to throw then Kenny Stabler did back in the day when
Shell Upshaw and Co would stone the defensive line and the Snake would just stand straight up in the pocket for as long as he needed.

I don’t care how good your db’s and safeties are. If you don’t pressure the QB, they are going to get torched. Particularly today, when the best athletes on the field are wideouts.

[lex24]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach.

---

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. They're one of the worst run games in the Pac-12 every year (literally four years in a row for a coach who has been with the program for five years).

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

As for moving the pile, YAC etc - difficult to do when defensive line is consistently penetrating into the backfield. Hard to move a pile or make a guy miss when you get one step and are then plastered by the 2 or 3 defensive lineman that penetrated.

I know the NFL keeps stats on this. Not sure it’s available in College Football, but there certainly is a correlation between moving the pile/making people miss and defensive penetration.

At the end of the day, either the o-line improves significantly or the running game will (again) be dismal. No matter who the RB’s are and no matter who (or how good) the RB coach is.

It is, to me, the same with the defensive backfield. Akina was at one time a darling of this community. And a guy with tremendous previous success. Now he’s blasted. Why? First, the talent level has dropped. Second, the QB generally has more time to throw then Kenny Stabler did back in the day when
Shell Upshaw and Co would stone the defensive line and the Snake would just stand straight up in the pocket for as long as he needed.

I don’t care how good your db’s and safeties are. If you don’t pressure the QB, they are going to get torched. Particularly today, when the best athletes on the field are wideouts.

[Goose]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach

I tend to agree he knows how to coach running backs. I am not sure how much he has to do with recruiting, but so far we haven't got great results from "his" recruits. Given the OL problem, harder to know what that means. It is possible for a very good coach who still can teach backs to not be able to recruit them. Generational change and so on. I don't know if that is in play here. To me, E.J. Smith coming to Stanford was a vote of confidence, but he came as a receiver, ostensibly. Let's see what happens this year.

---

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

It indicates that the back should probably be an above average/worst case average contributor at the P5 level. Presumably, he is not an "elite" back but the next tier down from that. This indication is pretty weak because we all know the rating system isn't all that predictive or precise. It often moves with the level of buzz the player is generating independent of performance. Some 5* guys totally don't make it, some 4* guys turn out to be elite. Four star backs should not produce the worst rushing yards/game in the PAC-12, but again with our OL it is hard to accurately "fix the blame".

[Goose]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.

I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.

BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach

I tend to agree he knows how to coach running backs. I am not sure how much he has to do with recruiting, but so far we haven't got great results from "his" recruits. Given the OL problem, harder to know what that means. It is possible for a very good coach who still can teach backs to not be able to recruit them. Generational change and so on. I don't know if that is in play here. To me, E.J. Smith coming to Stanford was a vote of confidence, but he came as a receiver, ostensibly. Let's see what happens this year.

---

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.

I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.

Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.

I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

It indicates that the back should probably be an above average/worst case average contributor at the P5 level. Presumably, he is not an "elite" back but the next tier down from that. This indication is pretty weak because we all know the rating system isn't all that predictive or precise. It often moves with the level of buzz the player is generating independent of performance. Some 5* guys totally don't make it, some 4* guys turn out to be elite. Four star backs should not produce the worst rushing yards/game in the PAC-12, but again with our OL it is hard to accurately "fix the blame".

[Mick]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

I understood that OLs were the smartest position group, arguably behind quarterbacks.  If that's the case -- and we've had quite a few very strong offensive linemen in Stanford's storied history, Beeler, Garnett, DeCastro, Peat, etc. -- why haven't we been able to recruit and train recently?

[Mick]

His Stanford track record has been somewhat troubling, especially in light of how many big-time running back recruits he's had in his room since Love without really getting any of them to star.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the big-time running back recruits we have had post Love. Scarlett was a potential star, but he simply wasn't fast enough after he got hurt. In Jones and Peat it seems we had guys who wanted to be Bryce Love but simply didn't have his speed. Very few do. So who else was there that we didn't get what was expected? Granted, the very poor OL play has made it difficult for all the backs to shine. Even Bryce Love in his best year was home run or loss of one. I would argue that if anything Gould hasn't brought in guys that could make yards after contact, move the pile, and wear people out. That may not be what Stanford is trying to do these days, but if you can't make a first down on third and one most of the time, that is a big problem.

Cameron Scarlett, Trevor Speights, Sione Lund, Connor Wedington (although we played him at WR), and Austin Jones were all 4-star recruits, Jones a very high 4-star. None of them were a star at Stanford. That's a horrible track record with 4-5 high-profile guys in his position room. The blame for that isn't just, or perhaps even primarily, on Gould as OL play has a lot to do with it. Our average line yard ranks in Gould's years on staff have been #74 (Love's 2017 was truly spectacular to excel behind a shaky line), #114 (Love's tragic year), #58 (Scarlett's turn in the spotlight), #23 (Jones' turn in the spotlight), and #126 (the recent disaster). Folks may have other opinions, but I think three of the five years being good to slightly sub-par in run blocking is enough to cast a jaundiced eye at the inability to turn 4-5 top 400 backs into a single star turn.

In the last four years, we have had a top six Pac-12 running back one time. That was 2020, the weird pandemic-shortened season. In that four year stretch we have not been better than tenth in the conference in yards per carry even once. Our run game has been really bad for years now. Again, OL has something to do with that but has mostly been in the good to slightly sub-par range. A good case can be made, therefore, that Stanford's RBs have been worse over the last half decade than Stanford's OL has been.

I understood that OLs were the smartest position group, arguably behind quarterbacks.  If that's the case -- and we've had quite a few very strong offensive linemen in Stanford's storied history, Beeler, Garnett, DeCastro, Peat, etc. -- why haven't we been able to recruit and train recently?

[lex24]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.



I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.



BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach

I tend to agree he knows how to coach running backs. I am not sure how much he has to do with recruiting, but so far we haven't got great results from "his" recruits. Given the OL problem, harder to know what that means. It is possible for a very good coach who still can teach backs to not be able to recruit them. Generational change and so on. I don't know if that is in play here. To me, E.J. Smith coming to Stanford was a vote of confidence, but he came as a receiver, ostensibly. Let's see what happens this year.

---

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.




I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.




Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.




I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

It indicates that the back should probably be an above average/worst case average contributor at the P5 level. Presumably, he is not an "elite" back but the next tier down from that. This indication is pretty weak because we all know the rating system isn't all that predictive or precise. It often moves with the level of buzz the player is generating independent of performance. Some 5* guys totally don't make it, some 4* guys turn out to be elite. Four star backs should not produce the worst rushing yards/game in the PAC-12, but again with our OL it is hard to accurately "fix the blame".
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification.  I disagree on it being difficult to place the “blame”. When backs are consistently getting hit at or behind the line due to penetration from the d-line, there  isn’t a whole lot they can do.  And perhaps my recall is suspect- but I remember a ton of times when the back would get the handoff take one step and get plastered. Defensive line penetration destroys a running game.

[lex24]

This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs.  With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.



I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.



BC

Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach

I tend to agree he knows how to coach running backs. I am not sure how much he has to do with recruiting, but so far we haven't got great results from "his" recruits. Given the OL problem, harder to know what that means. It is possible for a very good coach who still can teach backs to not be able to recruit them. Generational change and so on. I don't know if that is in play here. To me, E.J. Smith coming to Stanford was a vote of confidence, but he came as a receiver, ostensibly. Let's see what happens this year.

---

I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.




I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.




Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.




I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.

Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator.  Of what?

It indicates that the back should probably be an above average/worst case average contributor at the P5 level. Presumably, he is not an "elite" back but the next tier down from that. This indication is pretty weak because we all know the rating system isn't all that predictive or precise. It often moves with the level of buzz the player is generating independent of performance. Some 5* guys totally don't make it, some 4* guys turn out to be elite. Four star backs should not produce the worst rushing yards/game in the PAC-12, but again with our OL it is hard to accurately "fix the blame".
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification.  I disagree on it being difficult to place the “blame”. When backs are consistently getting hit at or behind the line due to penetration from the d-line, there  isn’t a whole lot they can do.  And perhaps my recall is suspect- but I remember a ton of times when the back would get the handoff take one step and get plastered. Defensive line penetration destroys a running game.