[CTcard]

Actually, I think this game demonstrated that they were NOT OK in run blocking. We got down big early, which did influence the play calling. But a "normal" Stanford approach to having two important defensive backs hurt would be to keep the ball away from Washington, dominate the time of possession, run, run, and run some more. 
...
I hate to quote a now-departed ןɐɔ coach, but sometimes you do need to be able to run the ball when everyone in the building knows you are going to run the ball. For Stanford, that has been on most downs. Normally, we can, at least most of the time, and even against "good" teams. This year, we couldn't. I don't think anybody would suggest we didn't have talented backs. What does that leave?

While that has been the standard theme in describing Stanford's offense in recent years, using that idea in such a blanket fashion obscures how Stanford has controlled the ball. What Stanford actually has usually done is run on first and second downs to where we have a manageable third down, and then convert by some kind of play from the quarterback. [Though that is somewhat simplified. In fact Stanford has run very heavily on first down, but has a reasonably strong tendency to pass on second down and run if possible on third down. That sequence is similar, and also collapses with a sack on second down.]

The problem vs many teams last year was that the formula was more like run on first and second downs to create a manageable third down and then get sacked.

So, McCaffrey (while injured) averaged 4.08 yds/carry vs UW and 4.38 vs WSU. But in neither game did he have nearly enough carries (12 and 8). That was partly because we fell behind and started passing, partly because McCaffrey was injured and wasn't the guy we really know, and partly because we couldn't convert on third downs to keep drives alive so we simply didn't run many plays - especially while the game was still undecided.

In 2015, McCaffrey averaged 3.48 yds/carry vs und, 2.9 yds/carry vs UCF, 4.42 yds/carry vs $C. Those range from worse to about the same as his bad games in 2016. However, we won the three games listed because that was good enough running to complement that pass game - and in fact those were some of our better passing games as those teams were selling out to stop the run.

It is also worth remembering that we basically did not have a healthy running back in our three worst running games in 2016: vs UW, WSU, and Colorado. The run game struggled those games. That was important and contributed to the losses and was indeed partially due to the OL's substandard performance. But, that happens over the course of a season - and against good defenses; and given the health situation was not completely due to the OL.

Another interesting data point is the $C game. That was probably the last time over the first half of the season that the team was reasonably healthy. $C was the third best run defense in the Pac 12, second best we faced (in the Pac 12 - KSU was a better run defense overall). We rolled over those guys. 302 yards rushing, 6.29 yds/carry. That was awfully good; almost certainly the team's best performance of the year. No complaints about the run game there.

Where I think you are correct is that it is rather artificial to talk about the run game and the pass game as two completely different things. Each support the other. You cannot really be competent if you fail completely on one. 

[CTcard]

Actually, I think this game demonstrated that they were NOT OK in run blocking. We got down big early, which did influence the play calling. But a "normal" Stanford approach to having two important defensive backs hurt would be to keep the ball away from Washington, dominate the time of possession, run, run, and run some more. 
...
I hate to quote a now-departed ןɐɔ coach, but sometimes you do need to be able to run the ball when everyone in the building knows you are going to run the ball. For Stanford, that has been on most downs. Normally, we can, at least most of the time, and even against "good" teams. This year, we couldn't. I don't think anybody would suggest we didn't have talented backs. What does that leave?

While that has been the standard theme in describing Stanford's offense in recent years, using that idea in such a blanket fashion obscures how Stanford has controlled the ball. What Stanford actually has usually done is run on first and second downs to where we have a manageable third down, and then convert by some kind of play from the quarterback. [Though that is somewhat simplified. In fact Stanford has run very heavily on first down, but has a reasonably strong tendency to pass on second down and run if possible on third down. That sequence is similar, and also collapses with a sack on second down.]

The problem vs many teams last year was that the formula was more like run on first and second downs to create a manageable third down and then get sacked.

So, McCaffrey (while injured) averaged 4.08 yds/carry vs UW and 4.38 vs WSU. But in neither game did he have nearly enough carries (12 and 8). That was partly because we fell behind and started passing, partly because McCaffrey was injured and wasn't the guy we really know, and partly because we couldn't convert on third downs to keep drives alive so we simply didn't run many plays - especially while the game was still undecided.

In 2015, McCaffrey averaged 3.48 yds/carry vs und, 2.9 yds/carry vs UCF, 4.42 yds/carry vs $C. Those range from worse to about the same as his bad games in 2016. However, we won the three games listed because that was good enough running to complement that pass game - and in fact those were some of our better passing games as those teams were selling out to stop the run.

It is also worth remembering that we basically did not have a healthy running back in our three worst running games in 2016: vs UW, WSU, and Colorado. The run game struggled those games. That was important and contributed to the losses and was indeed partially due to the OL's substandard performance. But, that happens over the course of a season - and against good defenses; and given the health situation was not completely due to the OL.

Another interesting data point is the $C game. That was probably the last time over the first half of the season that the team was reasonably healthy. $C was the third best run defense in the Pac 12, second best we faced (in the Pac 12 - KSU was a better run defense overall). We rolled over those guys. 302 yards rushing, 6.29 yds/carry. That was awfully good; almost certainly the team's best performance of the year. No complaints about the run game there.

Where I think you are correct is that it is rather artificial to talk about the run game and the pass game as two completely different things. Each support the other. You cannot really be competent if you fail completely on one.