[msqueri]

Just a few walks (car crashes?) down memory lane:

October 23, 2004: Edwards sacked three times in his first 11 drop backs, injuring his left shoulder and hand and knocking him out, after which Ostrander got sacked seven more times. This game foreshadowed the distress Edwards would be placed under during his career but was also the chickens coming home to roost after Edwards persevered behind a line with four underclassmen and Brian Head all year. Edwards' QBR rating declined in each of the first five games of the season playing behind that line before he had another bad game in the sixth game and then this seventh game that knocked him out.

November 6, 2004: Arizona State got to that shoulder and knocked Edwards out of commission for the rest of the season (two and a half games). Ostrander got sacked 11 times in the last two games against Oregon State and Cal.

September 17, 2005: UC Davis sacked Edwards on the second series of the game and knocked him out for the duration. As all know, we lost the game in one of the all-time low points for Stanford football.

October 1, 2005: After a bye to lick the UC Davis wounds, Oregon sacked Edwards four times. After the last one he didn't come back in for the last series, on which Ostrander was sacked on the second play.

October 29, 2005: In what will always be one of the all-time most gutting losses for me, UCLA sacked Edwards five times in the 30-27 loss that was the difference in making a bowl. (Some may recall this as the Maurice Drew game)

November 12, 2005: Oregon State injured Edwards' thumb and Ostrander held on in relief for one of the best road wins of that sad era.

November 19, 2005: Edwards ran for his life in arguably the game that most encapsulated his career. He was sacked five times and scrambled seven other times, meaning he had almost as many runs (12) as pass attempts (14) before he could take the beating no more and was knocked out on the fifth sack, the fourth play of the second half. This was the third ruined Big Game for Edwards, as 2003 was the one with the thigh bruise and internal bleeding that hospitalized him/almost killed him and 2004 was the aforementioned absence due to injury. After Edwards got knocked out in this one, Ostrander got sacked four more times.

November 26, 2005: No rest for the weary as this time he got knocked out on the second play of the second half against Notre Dame when he got sacked for the third time, aggravating one of his many injuries and mercifully ending his season. Ostrander then got sacked four more times as the Cardinal dropped the other heartbreaker that kept us out of a bowl in a year in which we really battled.

September 23, 2006: Washington State sacked Edwards seven times and Ostrander once in garbage time.

September 30, 2006: UCLA sacked Edwards six times and Ostrander once in garbage time.

October 7, 2006: After totaling eight sacks in the previous five games, Notre Dame sacked Edwards five times.

October 14, 2006: After handing off the ball the first two plays against Arizona, Edwards scrambled on third down, was stopped short of the first down marker, injured his foot, and never came back out for the rest of the game. That was his last play at Stanford, with Ostrander QB1 for the last six games of the worst season in Stanford history.

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

[msqueri]

Just a few walks (car crashes?) down memory lane:

October 23, 2004: Edwards sacked three times in his first 11 drop backs, injuring his left shoulder and hand and knocking him out, after which Ostrander got sacked seven more times. This game foreshadowed the distress Edwards would be placed under during his career but was also the chickens coming home to roost after Edwards persevered behind a line with four underclassmen and Brian Head all year. Edwards' QBR rating declined in each of the first five games of the season playing behind that line before he had another bad game in the sixth game and then this seventh game that knocked him out.

November 6, 2004: Arizona State got to that shoulder and knocked Edwards out of commission for the rest of the season (two and a half games). Ostrander got sacked 11 times in the last two games against Oregon State and Cal.

September 17, 2005: UC Davis sacked Edwards on the second series of the game and knocked him out for the duration. As all know, we lost the game in one of the all-time low points for Stanford football.

October 1, 2005: After a bye to lick the UC Davis wounds, Oregon sacked Edwards four times. After the last one he didn't come back in for the last series, on which Ostrander was sacked on the second play.

October 29, 2005: In what will always be one of the all-time most gutting losses for me, UCLA sacked Edwards five times in the 30-27 loss that was the difference in making a bowl. (Some may recall this as the Maurice Drew game)

November 12, 2005: Oregon State injured Edwards' thumb and Ostrander held on in relief for one of the best road wins of that sad era.

November 19, 2005: Edwards ran for his life in arguably the game that most encapsulated his career. He was sacked five times and scrambled seven other times, meaning he had almost as many runs (12) as pass attempts (14) before he could take the beating no more and was knocked out on the fifth sack, the fourth play of the second half. This was the third ruined Big Game for Edwards, as 2003 was the one with the thigh bruise and internal bleeding that hospitalized him/almost killed him and 2004 was the aforementioned absence due to injury. After Edwards got knocked out in this one, Ostrander got sacked four more times.

November 26, 2005: No rest for the weary as this time he got knocked out on the second play of the second half against Notre Dame when he got sacked for the third time, aggravating one of his many injuries and mercifully ending his season. Ostrander then got sacked four more times as the Cardinal dropped the other heartbreaker that kept us out of a bowl in a year in which we really battled.

September 23, 2006: Washington State sacked Edwards seven times and Ostrander once in garbage time.

September 30, 2006: UCLA sacked Edwards six times and Ostrander once in garbage time.

October 7, 2006: After totaling eight sacks in the previous five games, Notre Dame sacked Edwards five times.

October 14, 2006: After handing off the ball the first two plays against Arizona, Edwards scrambled on third down, was stopped short of the first down marker, injured his foot, and never came back out for the rest of the game. That was his last play at Stanford, with Ostrander QB1 for the last six games of the worst season in Stanford history.

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

[CowboyIndian]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

[CowboyIndian]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

[Maple Leaf]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

[Maple Leaf]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

[msqueri]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

[msqueri]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

[Goose]

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

2008 was far from a "clean" year though. Against TCU Pritchard carried the ball 9 times for -21 yards. Possibly one of those was a planned run, the others were not. He did gain 14 yards on one run. Sacks are one statistic, but running for your life is another. On top of that, the number of times he got hit while throwing were non-trivial. Undoubtedly this one game contributed mightily to the 1.75 sacks/game. One of his passes literally went straight up in the air. Having a Toby Gerhart and an improving line was a great synergy. Gerhart's running ability made a big contribution to the small number of sacks in 2009.

[Goose]

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

2008 was far from a "clean" year though. Against TCU Pritchard carried the ball 9 times for -21 yards. Possibly one of those was a planned run, the others were not. He did gain 14 yards on one run. Sacks are one statistic, but running for your life is another. On top of that, the number of times he got hit while throwing were non-trivial. Undoubtedly this one game contributed mightily to the 1.75 sacks/game. One of his passes literally went straight up in the air. Having a Toby Gerhart and an improving line was a great synergy. Gerhart's running ability made a big contribution to the small number of sacks in 2009.

[msqueri]

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

2008 was far from a "clean" year though. Against TCU Pritchard carried the ball 9 times for -21 yards. Possibly one of those was a planned run, the others were not. He did gain 14 yards on one run. Sacks are one statistic, but running for your life is another. On top of that, the number of times he got hit while throwing were non-trivial. Undoubtedly this one game contributed mightily to the 1.75 sacks/game. One of his passes literally went straight up in the air. Having a Toby Gerhart and an improving line was a great synergy. Gerhart's running ability made a big contribution to the small number of sacks in 2009.

TCU was a great defense in 2008. They were #2 in the nation in sacks and #8 in tackles for loss. By and large, 2008 was a clean year for us. We were #49 in sacks allowed even though we played four of the top 11 sack demon defenses in America (TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State). We were #48 in tackles for loss allowed. Sure we faced some challenges, but compared to how other teams did against these defenses we were blocking well by 2008. And you make it sound like Gerhart wasn't around to help in 2008, but he rushed for 95 yards per game that year and was the #3 back in the Pac-10 after Jahvid Best and Jacquizz Rodgers. I think you're right about the synergies but 2008 is when it arrived. It wasn't as spectacular as it would become, but Stanford's line play was good in 2008 once you adjust for playing TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State. What held us back that year was our defense and, to a slightly lesser extent, Pritchard.

To be blunt, 2008 was still in an era of Stanford football in which our DBs were not anywhere close to Power Five level. We were starting Wopamo Osaisai, Kris Evans, Sean Wiser, and Bo McNally. That is what was not clean about our team. Harbaugh had the rest of it shaping up nicely by 2008.

[msqueri]

Yes, indeed. At the beginning of that season Ostrander got sacked four times by UCLA, once by San Jose State, three times by Oregon, SEVEN times by Arizona State, and then the seizure in between that beating and USC. In the Greatest Upset Ever Pritchard got sacked four times. We went a long time without being able to keep a QB clean. Then in 2008 the Tunnel Workers Union started to show up and we got sacked 1.75 times per game. In 2009 we had arrived. In Luck's first year starting: eight sacks in 13 games. The worst team at protecting the QB in America from 2004-2007 had become #2 (#1 in Power Five) behind only Boise State.

2008 was far from a "clean" year though. Against TCU Pritchard carried the ball 9 times for -21 yards. Possibly one of those was a planned run, the others were not. He did gain 14 yards on one run. Sacks are one statistic, but running for your life is another. On top of that, the number of times he got hit while throwing were non-trivial. Undoubtedly this one game contributed mightily to the 1.75 sacks/game. One of his passes literally went straight up in the air. Having a Toby Gerhart and an improving line was a great synergy. Gerhart's running ability made a big contribution to the small number of sacks in 2009.

TCU was a great defense in 2008. They were #2 in the nation in sacks and #8 in tackles for loss. By and large, 2008 was a clean year for us. We were #49 in sacks allowed even though we played four of the top 11 sack demon defenses in America (TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State). We were #48 in tackles for loss allowed. Sure we faced some challenges, but compared to how other teams did against these defenses we were blocking well by 2008. And you make it sound like Gerhart wasn't around to help in 2008, but he rushed for 95 yards per game that year and was the #3 back in the Pac-10 after Jahvid Best and Jacquizz Rodgers. I think you're right about the synergies but 2008 is when it arrived. It wasn't as spectacular as it would become, but Stanford's line play was good in 2008 once you adjust for playing TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State. What held us back that year was our defense and, to a slightly lesser extent, Pritchard.

To be blunt, 2008 was still in an era of Stanford football in which our DBs were not anywhere close to Power Five level. We were starting Wopamo Osaisai, Kris Evans, Sean Wiser, and Bo McNally. That is what was not clean about our team. Harbaugh had the rest of it shaping up nicely by 2008.

[Goose]

TCU was a great defense in 2008. They were #2 in the nation in sacks and #8 in tackles for loss. By and large, 2008 was a clean year for us. We were #49 in sacks allowed even though we played four of the top 11 sack demon defenses in America (TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State). We were #48 in tackles for loss allowed. Sure we faced some challenges, but compared to how other teams did against these defenses we were blocking well by 2008. And you make it sound like Gerhart wasn't around to help in 2008, but he rushed for 95 yards per game that year and was the #3 back in the Pac-10 after Jahvid Best and Jacquizz Rodgers. I think you're right about the synergies but 2008 is when it arrived. It wasn't as spectacular as it would become, but Stanford's line play was good in 2008 once you adjust for playing TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State. What held us back that year was our defense and, to a slightly lesser extent, Pritchard.

Agree 2008 was when the "synergy" arrived. Never intended to minimize that fact. At the beginning of the year we didn't quite yet know "who we were". Took a while to figure that out. The TCU game was game 4 of the year and we already had 2 losses. Toby rushed for 45 yards. Yes, TCU had a great defense, but we weren't fully there yet. Our OL couldn't handle a high-quality defense at that time. TCU totally dominated the LOS. It was worse than the final score indicated. By 2009 our OL could play with anybody, and rode Gerhart for all he was worth. Replacing Pritchard with Luck made a big difference too, especially because Luck could throw it further faster. The fact everybody had to concentrate on Gerhart helped Luck score a lot of points. Pritchard couldn't do that.

To be blunt, 2008 was still in an era of Stanford football in which our DBs were not anywhere close to Power Five level. We were starting Wopamo Osaisai, Kris Evans, Sean Wiser, and Bo McNally. That is what was not clean about our team. Harbaugh had the rest of it shaping up nicely by 2008.

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

[Goose]

TCU was a great defense in 2008. They were #2 in the nation in sacks and #8 in tackles for loss. By and large, 2008 was a clean year for us. We were #49 in sacks allowed even though we played four of the top 11 sack demon defenses in America (TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State). We were #48 in tackles for loss allowed. Sure we faced some challenges, but compared to how other teams did against these defenses we were blocking well by 2008. And you make it sound like Gerhart wasn't around to help in 2008, but he rushed for 95 yards per game that year and was the #3 back in the Pac-10 after Jahvid Best and Jacquizz Rodgers. I think you're right about the synergies but 2008 is when it arrived. It wasn't as spectacular as it would become, but Stanford's line play was good in 2008 once you adjust for playing TCU, Oregon, Oregon State, and San Jose State. What held us back that year was our defense and, to a slightly lesser extent, Pritchard.

Agree 2008 was when the "synergy" arrived. Never intended to minimize that fact. At the beginning of the year we didn't quite yet know "who we were". Took a while to figure that out. The TCU game was game 4 of the year and we already had 2 losses. Toby rushed for 45 yards. Yes, TCU had a great defense, but we weren't fully there yet. Our OL couldn't handle a high-quality defense at that time. TCU totally dominated the LOS. It was worse than the final score indicated. By 2009 our OL could play with anybody, and rode Gerhart for all he was worth. Replacing Pritchard with Luck made a big difference too, especially because Luck could throw it further faster. The fact everybody had to concentrate on Gerhart helped Luck score a lot of points. Pritchard couldn't do that.

To be blunt, 2008 was still in an era of Stanford football in which our DBs were not anywhere close to Power Five level. We were starting Wopamo Osaisai, Kris Evans, Sean Wiser, and Bo McNally. That is what was not clean about our team. Harbaugh had the rest of it shaping up nicely by 2008.

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

[SamuelMcF]

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

What "one should notice" is that the 14 yard "game" was on only 2 carries before an injury, the 21 yard "game" was on only 8 carries before an injury, and the 45 yard game was against the #1 rushing defense in the country in TCU which allowed just 1.7 YPC all year. (Gerhart averaging 3 YPC against that defense is thus very good in context.)

Anthony Kimble had 100+ yard games in relief of Gerhart in both of the supposed "clunkers" where he went out.

How was "lots of that OL play?"

[SamuelMcF]

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

What "one should notice" is that the 14 yard "game" was on only 2 carries before an injury, the 21 yard "game" was on only 8 carries before an injury, and the 45 yard game was against the #1 rushing defense in the country in TCU which allowed just 1.7 YPC all year. (Gerhart averaging 3 YPC against that defense is thus very good in context.)

Anthony Kimble had 100+ yard games in relief of Gerhart in both of the supposed "clunkers" where he went out.

How was "lots of that OL play?"

[msqueri]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote. When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.

No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

[msqueri]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote. When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.

No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

[JohnVernon]

Another contributing factor to the outrageous number of sacks taken by Edwards and Ostrander was the offensive play calling during that era.  I recall that we did not incorporate the concept of a "hot read" that would allow the QB a quick release.  When asked why the offense never seemed to use a "hot read", Edwards (I think) said that it was not a part of the passing offense.

[JohnVernon]

Another contributing factor to the outrageous number of sacks taken by Edwards and Ostrander was the offensive play calling during that era.  I recall that we did not incorporate the concept of a "hot read" that would allow the QB a quick release.  When asked why the offense never seemed to use a "hot read", Edwards (I think) said that it was not a part of the passing offense.

[BobK]

Kenny Margerum said that at a Chalk Talk
Incredible

[BobK]

Kenny Margerum said that at a Chalk Talk
Incredible

[Goose]

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

What "one should notice" is that the 14 yard "game" was on only 2 carries before an injury, the 21 yard "game" was on only 8 carries before an injury, and the 45 yard game was against the #1 rushing defense in the country in TCU which allowed just 1.7 YPC all year. (Gerhart averaging 3 YPC against that defense is thus very good in context.)

Anthony Kimble had 100+ yard games in relief of Gerhart in both of the supposed "clunkers" where he went out.

How was "lots of that OL play?"

Well, in the last two I could say that they allowed him to get hurt but I agree that is not a fair evaluation. However, I was at the TCU game and nothing about it was good in any context :-). My point all along is that the 2009 line was significantly better than the 2008 one was. IMHO the 2009 line would have handled those guys and if Pritchard had any time at all there were plays to be made. TCU was blasting off the line and misdirection was working. The problem was they stiffed the plays before they started.

[Goose]

Yes, the pieces were there, as was subsequently demonstrated. However, what one notices is that Gerhart  had 3  "clunker" games (45, 14, and 21 yards) in 2008 and none in 2009 (worst was 82). Lots of that was OL play. The defense doesn't affect those stats much.

What "one should notice" is that the 14 yard "game" was on only 2 carries before an injury, the 21 yard "game" was on only 8 carries before an injury, and the 45 yard game was against the #1 rushing defense in the country in TCU which allowed just 1.7 YPC all year. (Gerhart averaging 3 YPC against that defense is thus very good in context.)

Anthony Kimble had 100+ yard games in relief of Gerhart in both of the supposed "clunkers" where he went out.

How was "lots of that OL play?"

Well, in the last two I could say that they allowed him to get hurt but I agree that is not a fair evaluation. However, I was at the TCU game and nothing about it was good in any context :-). My point all along is that the 2009 line was significantly better than the 2008 one was. IMHO the 2009 line would have handled those guys and if Pritchard had any time at all there were plays to be made. TCU was blasting off the line and misdirection was working. The problem was they stiffed the plays before they started.

[winflop]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

[winflop]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

[msqueri]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren was OC/OL starting in 2013. The 2013 offense was #21 in Offensive FEI and the 2015 offense was #2, one of the top two or three offenses in Stanford history. The offensive decline happened many years after Bloomgren became OC and, really, happened after he left. His 2017 offense, his last one at Stanford, was #17. Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently, but I think your narrative about offensive decline being tied to him being OC is just wrong.

I definitely agree that our OL performance dropped off over time but I am having trouble seeing facts line up that tie it to Bloomgren's coaching. We were bullies most years when he was the OL coach, and in the years we weren't (2014 and 2016) those were the years in which we had young lines.

Coaches and fans alike don't like to think that the causal story is as mechanical as "how old are the starting linemen" but that's been the main story of our OL performance drop off, not whether Bloomgren had an OC title or not.

[msqueri]

While this post is about Edwards and the horrible situation he was in, Ostrander certainly gets honorable mention for the beatings he took. In addition to the 2004 Oregon State and Cal games and 2005 Cal and Notre Dame games in which Ostrander got the Edwards treatment, after Edwards' career ended Ostrander was then sacked six times by Arizona, four times by Washington, five times by Oregon State, and four times by Cal. All in all, in 2006 we gave up 50 sacks. 50!

And I'm sure you recall that the reason Tavita started in The Greatest Upset Ever was because Ostrander had taken a beating the previous week and had a seizure the following night at the Grolsch (sic?) brewery while dining with his parents.

The two quotes above are more than enough justification to make having the oline coach be the number one assistant on the staff and that oline recruiting comes first.

And to never again double up your OL coach by making him OC. When Bloom got promoted and wore both, OL performance started to drop off and it hasn't recovered (enough) since despite all the highly-rated recruits coming in the door.

Bloomgren was OC/OL starting in 2013. The 2013 offense was #21 in Offensive FEI and the 2015 offense was #2, one of the top two or three offenses in Stanford history. The offensive decline happened many years after Bloomgren became OC and, really, happened after he left. His 2017 offense, his last one at Stanford, was #17. Bloomgren's lack of OL recruiting for an unhealthy chunk of time deserves a lot of the blame for what happened subsequently, but I think your narrative about offensive decline being tied to him being OC is just wrong.

I definitely agree that our OL performance dropped off over time but I am having trouble seeing facts line up that tie it to Bloomgren's coaching. We were bullies most years when he was the OL coach, and in the years we weren't (2014 and 2016) those were the years in which we had young lines.

Coaches and fans alike don't like to think that the causal story is as mechanical as "how old are the starting linemen" but that's been the main story of our OL performance drop off, not whether Bloomgren had an OC title or not.

[lex24]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote. When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.

No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

In what is a pass happy era, running the ball effectively and defending the run well are still major keys to a teams success.  And IMO, for Stanford, they are THE keys.  Win the LOS and good things happen.  But another way, if given a choice between a great o line with average skill position players and a mediocre offensive line with very goof skill position players, I’ll take the former.  Admittedly a generational QB changes the mix a bit. 


 I realize that’s obvious.  But I think it gets lost at times.

[lex24]

Much we agree on in this exchange but I'm perplexed by the idea defenses don't affect how many rushing yards a running back can have.

TCU gave up 1.72 yards per carry and 47 rushing yards per game that year. The #2 run defense in the country that year was Alabama, which gave up 2.65 yards per carry and 74 rushing yards per game. That TCU run defense was a contender for the greatest in history. If you look at the 13 years since then, the most epically, historically dominant run defenses were 2016 Alabama (2.01 yards per carry, 64 rushing yards per game) and 2021 Wisconsin (1.99 yards per carry, 61 rushing yards per game). I'm not aware of any run defense in modern football history as good as 2008 TCU. Surely that has bearing on how Gerhart did? TCU had lead opponent backs that year who rushed for 9, 0, 23, 5, 30, 29, 19, 28 yards. Here's the really salient fact: NFL Offensive Player of the Year and three-time Pro Bowler DeMarco Murray had 23 yards against the Horned Frogs. That run defense was maybe the greatest ever. Boise State superstar Ian Johnson had 28 yards. The guys who did "better" than Gerhart were Wyoming and New Mexico backs padding stats in blowouts. For Stanford to rush for 71 yards and Gerhart for 45 was, believe it or not, a statement that the Tunnel Workers Union and Gerhart had arrived. Oklahoma, with future best offensive lineman on the planet Trent Williams blocking, future best running back on the planet DeMarco Murray running, and that year's Voldemort Trophy winner Sam Bradford taking pressure off the run game, rushed for 25 yards as a team. We did 2.84 times better than they did!

This is just illustrative of how much impact a great run defense has on a run game. Countless examples over an essentially infinite amount of football history would make the same point. The quality of your opponent matters, a lot. The enemy gets a vote. When you adjust for competition, our 2008 run game was great.

No doubt there was an improvement in OL play in 2009 as DeCastro and Martin in particular made their presence known. But that means we went from a very good OL to an elite OL. Our 2008 OL play was already quite formidable for opponents to deal with, as TCU learned. Nobody else challenged them like we did up front. Not even a line with Trent freaking Williams, the first lineman in the history of Planet Earth to get a perfect Madden grade at the NFL level! Blocking for NFL Offensive Player of the Year DeMarco Murray!

In what is a pass happy era, running the ball effectively and defending the run well are still major keys to a teams success.  And IMO, for Stanford, they are THE keys.  Win the LOS and good things happen.  But another way, if given a choice between a great o line with average skill position players and a mediocre offensive line with very goof skill position players, I’ll take the former.  Admittedly a generational QB changes the mix a bit. 


 I realize that’s obvious.  But I think it gets lost at times.

[msqueri]

Lex, you and I have always agreed on that. It all starts up front.

That's why I'm relatively bullish on our 2022 offense. I realize the offensive line had its struggles last year, but Rouse, Bragg, and Nugent are legitimately solid linemen by Pac-12 standards and to have that trio with an extra year of seniority is a big deal. In general, having five of the top six linemen be fourth year players and the third a third year player is such a massive improvement over what we've had recently. I worry about Hinton as a weak link but we have the nice luxury of a good sixth man if need be, plus a highly-regarded class of backups now in their third year. We need to pull Hinton if he hasn't improved substantially.

But it's also why the transfers of Austin Jones and Nathaniel Peat bummed me out so much. We went from one of the deepest running back rooms in the conference to one of the most shallow. We go from the former Pac-12 scoring leader, who is the only Stanford player to average over 100 yards of scrimmage per game in the last four years (Jones averaged 117.7 in 2020, next closest on our last four teams was Fehoko at 95.5 and next closest among running backs was Cameron Scarlett at 90.0, dramatically behind Jones) to a back we have high hopes for but who is halfway into his college career, has never had more than 62 yards in a game (and second best is 32), and wasn't even a good running back in high school. These are body blows to our running back situation. I do take some solace in the fact that running back isn't the most fundamental factor for the run game, offensive line is. But the ceiling on this offense is lower than it would have been with a proven running back and with some depth at running back.

[msqueri]

Lex, you and I have always agreed on that. It all starts up front.

That's why I'm relatively bullish on our 2022 offense. I realize the offensive line had its struggles last year, but Rouse, Bragg, and Nugent are legitimately solid linemen by Pac-12 standards and to have that trio with an extra year of seniority is a big deal. In general, having five of the top six linemen be fourth year players and the third a third year player is such a massive improvement over what we've had recently. I worry about Hinton as a weak link but we have the nice luxury of a good sixth man if need be, plus a highly-regarded class of backups now in their third year. We need to pull Hinton if he hasn't improved substantially.

But it's also why the transfers of Austin Jones and Nathaniel Peat bummed me out so much. We went from one of the deepest running back rooms in the conference to one of the most shallow. We go from the former Pac-12 scoring leader, who is the only Stanford player to average over 100 yards of scrimmage per game in the last four years (Jones averaged 117.7 in 2020, next closest on our last four teams was Fehoko at 95.5 and next closest among running backs was Cameron Scarlett at 90.0, dramatically behind Jones) to a back we have high hopes for but who is halfway into his college career, has never had more than 62 yards in a game (and second best is 32), and wasn't even a good running back in high school. These are body blows to our running back situation. I do take some solace in the fact that running back isn't the most fundamental factor for the run game, offensive line is. But the ceiling on this offense is lower than it would have been with a proven running back and with some depth at running back.

[old spanish trail]

Peat, I can understand, but Jones is baffling. Is SC without good rb's? I'm not familiar with their rb roster, but that would be a big surprise. I imagine Peat and Jone talked so they both must have concluded to leave independent of the other. There's some discussion here re rb coach no longer a giant among men, but with possible big improvement in OL and good QB, why leave for what's usually an overstocked roster position? Was there a big falling out? Did Shaw indicate Smith was going to be #1?

[old spanish trail]

Peat, I can understand, but Jones is baffling. Is SC without good rb's? I'm not familiar with their rb roster, but that would be a big surprise. I imagine Peat and Jone talked so they both must have concluded to leave independent of the other. There's some discussion here re rb coach no longer a giant among men, but with possible big improvement in OL and good QB, why leave for what's usually an overstocked roster position? Was there a big falling out? Did Shaw indicate Smith was going to be #1?

[msqueri]

On the other site months back there was spirited discussion on this and it seemed to me various pieces of information/speculation/interpretation, so I start with the caveat that mileage may vary on the explanation. Here's what I think happened:


* Notions that Jones transferred due to playing time strike me as patently absurd. He transferred to one of the most talented offenses in America, one that had incoming a whale RB and was aggressively shopping the transfer portal across America, including Oregon superstar Travis Dye. As it's played out, Dye is the prohibitive expectation to be RB1 for USC. Heading into this season, SportsPac12 ranks Jones as the #8 RB in the Pac-12 and Dye #2, Duckswire has Jones #5 and Dye #1, and WestCoastCFB has Jones #10 and Dye #3. The point is there are many programs in America at which Jones could have been RB1 but USC wasn't one of them. Compare that to Stanford where the coaches' revealed preferences say all you need to know: he's been the bell cow for multiple years, with EJ Smith and Casey Filkins not even coming close to threatening Jones' in the coaches' estimation, despite being two years into their career (a point by which good RBs essentially always emerge). Smith and Jones both played (i.e., were healthy) in ten games and in those games Smith was deemed good enough to get 26 carries while Jones was deemed good enough to get 123 carries. Our coaches clearly, massively favored Jones. For anybody who says it's about age and experience, historically that is not how running back coaches at Stanford or anybody else operate (see: Austin Jones immediately leap-frogging Dorian Maddox, Trevor Speights, and Justus Woods just one year before Smith got to campus). In any case, we're talking about one year of experience at the position where experience means the least. That doesn't explain why Jones was five times more relied upon by Shaw and Gould than Smith was in their time overlapping on campus. Bottom line: Jones transferred out for less playing time, so there must be other explanations.



* Jones and Peat are famously best friends and it's probably a mistake to think about one transfer in isolation from the other. If Jones were transferring, Peat would know it and know what an opportunity that would open up at Stanford. Both transferring indicates some degree of likemindedness. Given the transfers to situations that don't necessarily augur more playing time (and in Jones' case definitely doesn't), Occam's Razor is mutual discontent. There can be various theories of what caused the discontent but that there were discontented seems beyond dispute.



* The one I believe there's the most logic/smoke behind is that Jones and Peat weren't fully clicking with Gould and/or our offense generally and went seeking greener pastures when it became clear neither the coaching nor the offense was going to change fundamentally. Fans have railed ad nauseum about problems with our offense, and we know from Emmitt Smith's public comments on Twitter that those close to the RB aren't immune from those gripes. Jones was a big-time recruit who picked Stanford with a vision of Tunnel Workers Union and all-purpose dominance that didn't come to fruition aside from a tease in 2020 when he got to run behind Dalman and was one of the top backs in the Pac-12. The bulk of Jones' time at Stanford was an endless exercise in taking the bloom off the rose. Jones and Peat staying at Stanford may have been contingent on some dynamism and change in the offensive coaching staff and when they saw none they were out.



* Meanwhile, Ron Gould is - sorry - an aging position coach with a reputation as a ball-buster who had one of the most incredible position coaching resumes in the sport....in the 2000s. Since then, Gould became a head coach, was fired as a head coach, returned to position coaching, and had nine years elapse. That's a lot of time and life events for somebody to get stale, or jaded, or focused on different priorities, or any number of other things. Like the rest of us, coaches can age like fine wines or go in other directions. The Ron Gould who coached Arrington and Lynch is not the Ron Gould who is coaching EJ Smith and Casey Filkins. No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. What has Gould done at Stanford to justify his reputation? The one thing post-UC Davis that he has to hang his hat on is Bryce Love's 2017 season. That's not much at all considering that while Gould was the UC-Davis coach Love averaged 7.2 yards per carry and was a clearly excellent back waiting his turn until McCaffrey left. It seems extremely dubious to give Gould a ton of credit for the 2017 performance in just Gould's first year on staff. Some credit, sure, but Love was already great. Since then? Yikes. Austin Jones is the only back we've had in the last four seasons to be one of the Pac-12's best. And those struggles in the RB room have coincided with having so many 4-stars ( Scarlett, Speights, Lund, and Jones, not even counting Wedington since we used him as a WR but there's another big recruit) with none of them being a superstar. I'm the first to point out that OL play has a lot to do with this but that doesn't change that Gould's resume is built entirely on yesteryear.



* It's also possible that Jones knew/believed he was the best our RB room had to offer yet there were signs Smith's role was going to increase. I don't think this is the same thing as thinking Smith was going to supplant Jones/relegate Jones to the bench. Some have speculated that Obnoxious Dad/RB Legend Emmitt Smith has either an overt or subconscious impact on our coaches and the sense in the program was that Smith's playing time was going to significantly increase in 2022, notwithstanding how little he has played or distinguished himself to date. I don't rule that out. The way Shaw talks about EJ Smith has always seemed very thirsty and disconnected from actual evidence on the field.



 * We don't have to limit ourselves to guesswork on this subject as Austin Jones has spoken to the media about the transfer. In particular, right after the fact he gave a long interview to 247. In particular, he said “I'd say for me, I felt like there were different ways that I could be used and I felt the coaches are great coaches and everything like that, but I just felt like I wasn't really fitting in with where the offense was going."  This added credence to the idea he may have felt he was losing some spotlight to Smith. This strikes me as absolutely crazy that we'd telegraph this to Jones immediately on the heels of a final month of the season in which Jones played 173 snaps and Smith played 36 snaps, but I can't rule out that it happened. If we think Smith is anywhere close to as good why didn't he play more? If Jones was still the bell cow but we thought Smith's skillset warranted being more in the game plan for 2022 what kind of epic malpractice was it to convey to your RB1 that he didn't fit in with where the offense is going? The situation left me pretty perplexed. Regardless, I think a very reasonable read is that Jones' quote to 247 was a combination of genuine insight and politely declining to burn bridges. There probably are things in Stanford's offensive vision he didn't love, but this is also a graceful way to answer the question if the real answer is you don't trust David Shaw to coach a good offense or don't want to spend another practice/film session with Ron Gould.

[msqueri]

On the other site months back there was spirited discussion on this and it seemed to me various pieces of information/speculation/interpretation, so I start with the caveat that mileage may vary on the explanation. Here's what I think happened:


* Notions that Jones transferred due to playing time strike me as patently absurd. He transferred to one of the most talented offenses in America, one that had incoming a whale RB and was aggressively shopping the transfer portal across America, including Oregon superstar Travis Dye. As it's played out, Dye is the prohibitive expectation to be RB1 for USC. Heading into this season, SportsPac12 ranks Jones as the #8 RB in the Pac-12 and Dye #2, Duckswire has Jones #5 and Dye #1, and WestCoastCFB has Jones #10 and Dye #3. The point is there are many programs in America at which Jones could have been RB1 but USC wasn't one of them. Compare that to Stanford where the coaches' revealed preferences say all you need to know: he's been the bell cow for multiple years, with EJ Smith and Casey Filkins not even coming close to threatening Jones' in the coaches' estimation, despite being two years into their career (a point by which good RBs essentially always emerge). Smith and Jones both played (i.e., were healthy) in ten games and in those games Smith was deemed good enough to get 26 carries while Jones was deemed good enough to get 123 carries. Our coaches clearly, massively favored Jones. For anybody who says it's about age and experience, historically that is not how running back coaches at Stanford or anybody else operate (see: Austin Jones immediately leap-frogging Dorian Maddox, Trevor Speights, and Justus Woods just one year before Smith got to campus). In any case, we're talking about one year of experience at the position where experience means the least. That doesn't explain why Jones was five times more relied upon by Shaw and Gould than Smith was in their time overlapping on campus. Bottom line: Jones transferred out for less playing time, so there must be other explanations.



* Jones and Peat are famously best friends and it's probably a mistake to think about one transfer in isolation from the other. If Jones were transferring, Peat would know it and know what an opportunity that would open up at Stanford. Both transferring indicates some degree of likemindedness. Given the transfers to situations that don't necessarily augur more playing time (and in Jones' case definitely doesn't), Occam's Razor is mutual discontent. There can be various theories of what caused the discontent but that there were discontented seems beyond dispute.



* The one I believe there's the most logic/smoke behind is that Jones and Peat weren't fully clicking with Gould and/or our offense generally and went seeking greener pastures when it became clear neither the coaching nor the offense was going to change fundamentally. Fans have railed ad nauseum about problems with our offense, and we know from Emmitt Smith's public comments on Twitter that those close to the RB aren't immune from those gripes. Jones was a big-time recruit who picked Stanford with a vision of Tunnel Workers Union and all-purpose dominance that didn't come to fruition aside from a tease in 2020 when he got to run behind Dalman and was one of the top backs in the Pac-12. The bulk of Jones' time at Stanford was an endless exercise in taking the bloom off the rose. Jones and Peat staying at Stanford may have been contingent on some dynamism and change in the offensive coaching staff and when they saw none they were out.



* Meanwhile, Ron Gould is - sorry - an aging position coach with a reputation as a ball-buster who had one of the most incredible position coaching resumes in the sport....in the 2000s. Since then, Gould became a head coach, was fired as a head coach, returned to position coaching, and had nine years elapse. That's a lot of time and life events for somebody to get stale, or jaded, or focused on different priorities, or any number of other things. Like the rest of us, coaches can age like fine wines or go in other directions. The Ron Gould who coached Arrington and Lynch is not the Ron Gould who is coaching EJ Smith and Casey Filkins. No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. What has Gould done at Stanford to justify his reputation? The one thing post-UC Davis that he has to hang his hat on is Bryce Love's 2017 season. That's not much at all considering that while Gould was the UC-Davis coach Love averaged 7.2 yards per carry and was a clearly excellent back waiting his turn until McCaffrey left. It seems extremely dubious to give Gould a ton of credit for the 2017 performance in just Gould's first year on staff. Some credit, sure, but Love was already great. Since then? Yikes. Austin Jones is the only back we've had in the last four seasons to be one of the Pac-12's best. And those struggles in the RB room have coincided with having so many 4-stars ( Scarlett, Speights, Lund, and Jones, not even counting Wedington since we used him as a WR but there's another big recruit) with none of them being a superstar. I'm the first to point out that OL play has a lot to do with this but that doesn't change that Gould's resume is built entirely on yesteryear.



* It's also possible that Jones knew/believed he was the best our RB room had to offer yet there were signs Smith's role was going to increase. I don't think this is the same thing as thinking Smith was going to supplant Jones/relegate Jones to the bench. Some have speculated that Obnoxious Dad/RB Legend Emmitt Smith has either an overt or subconscious impact on our coaches and the sense in the program was that Smith's playing time was going to significantly increase in 2022, notwithstanding how little he has played or distinguished himself to date. I don't rule that out. The way Shaw talks about EJ Smith has always seemed very thirsty and disconnected from actual evidence on the field.



 * We don't have to limit ourselves to guesswork on this subject as Austin Jones has spoken to the media about the transfer. In particular, right after the fact he gave a long interview to 247. In particular, he said “I'd say for me, I felt like there were different ways that I could be used and I felt the coaches are great coaches and everything like that, but I just felt like I wasn't really fitting in with where the offense was going."  This added credence to the idea he may have felt he was losing some spotlight to Smith. This strikes me as absolutely crazy that we'd telegraph this to Jones immediately on the heels of a final month of the season in which Jones played 173 snaps and Smith played 36 snaps, but I can't rule out that it happened. If we think Smith is anywhere close to as good why didn't he play more? If Jones was still the bell cow but we thought Smith's skillset warranted being more in the game plan for 2022 what kind of epic malpractice was it to convey to your RB1 that he didn't fit in with where the offense is going? The situation left me pretty perplexed. Regardless, I think a very reasonable read is that Jones' quote to 247 was a combination of genuine insight and politely declining to burn bridges. There probably are things in Stanford's offensive vision he didn't love, but this is also a graceful way to answer the question if the real answer is you don't trust David Shaw to coach a good offense or don't want to spend another practice/film session with Ron Gould.

[qwerty49]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

[qwerty49]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

[Maple Leaf]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

In 2010 and 2011 Taylor was the starting RB, but Stanford played four other backs those two years (Gaffney, Stewart, Wilkerson, Amanam) so the issue of playing any number of RB's should have been known to all of the RB's (Jones, Peat, Smith, Finks).  I think both Jones and Peat wanted a chance to have more success which was not going to happen based up losing 7 games in a row with three being blowouts.

[Maple Leaf]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

In 2010 and 2011 Taylor was the starting RB, but Stanford played four other backs those two years (Gaffney, Stewart, Wilkerson, Amanam) so the issue of playing any number of RB's should have been known to all of the RB's (Jones, Peat, Smith, Finks).  I think both Jones and Peat wanted a chance to have more success which was not going to happen based up losing 7 games in a row with three being blowouts.