[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.