[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).