(04-29-2022, 11:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(04-28-2022, 08:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: This year should provide a good insight in disaggregating the results between the OL and the running backs. With all of the OL back from last year, and Matt’s analysis that it should be a good but not great line (roughly third or fourth in the PAC-12 based on returning talent, if I remember his post) and promising, but inexperienced running backs, if Gould can’t get something from Smith and Filkins this year, we probably have a problem in the RB position coach.
I’m not expecting dominance, but it is reasonable to expect an above-average ypc from our running game.
BC
Gould has had too much success to conclude that he forgot how to coach
I tend to agree he knows how to coach running backs. I am not sure how much he has to do with recruiting, but so far we haven't got great results from "his" recruits. Given the OL problem, harder to know what that means. It is possible for a very good coach who still can teach backs to not be able to recruit them. Generational change and so on. I don't know if that is in play here. To me, E.J. Smith coming to Stanford was a vote of confidence, but he came as a receiver, ostensibly. Let's see what happens this year.
(04-29-2022, 11:55 AM)lex24 Wrote:(04-28-2022, 04:03 PM)Goose Wrote: I had forgotten Speights. Realistically speaking, Scarlett was done by the time he got a chance to be the #1 back. He wasn't a real fast guy to begin with, but he fit the mold and was fast enough to be effective. After he got hurt, he was not. Hard to put this on Gould. Speights also got hurt, sitting out his senior year with an "undisclosed injury". He went to Notre Dame where he was medically retired. Again, hard to put on Gould. Sione Lund just wasn't a fit for Stanford or for football it appears. He had serious personal problems. Too bad, because he sure looked like the right guy in the right place. Wedington ended up playing wide receiver, so hard to say Gould's coaching was the issue AFAIK. Jones showed pertty well during the Covid year, fell off after that IMHO.
I wouldn't agree at all that in the last five years Stanford's OL has been "good to slightly sub-par". At run blocking they have been very sub-par the entire time. Even in Bryce Love's great year, they were sub-par. Love was great enough that as Shaw said, "give him a crease and he is gone". Sub-par sort of "worked" because of the greatness behind it. Last year was a new low, but the run blocking was never "good" IMHO. Stalemate at the LOS with an edge guy running down the line and making the tackle was the rule.
Gould was arguably a victim of bad injury luck with Scarlett and Speights. I thought Scarlett was a good back and you could see the frustration where he would make a good cut and then just couldn't outrun the defender he had faked out. Before he got hurt, he often could. If I were going to question Gould's career at Stanford, it would be the recruiting of Jones and Lund. I am not sure anybody could have known that Lund would have the problems he did. Football wise, he seemed a great prospect. I am not sure I can actually blame Gould for that one. I must admit I never had much confidence in Jones. It seemed to me he was just too small. I know he played at 190-195 most of the time, which isn't tiny. However, he always seemed to play smaller than he was. The 4* ranking is to me an indicator. It is not definitive. Lots of guys play better than their ranking and even more (from what I have seen) don't live up to their ranking. Good coaches know the difference, and maybe that is a problem.
I do think our really awful OL play makes it hard to know what Gould did or didn't cause, but for sure he didn't produce backs that offset that problem. I do agree that Gould's guys aren't making yards after contact, moving the pile, or wearing people out. The wearing people out part isn't their fault. You can commit to the run only when you can run. The other two arguably are a running back issue, and therefore on Gould's plate.
Not sure what you mean by 4* being an indicator. Of what?
It indicates that the back should probably be an above average/worst case average contributor at the P5 level. Presumably, he is not an "elite" back but the next tier down from that. This indication is pretty weak because we all know the rating system isn't all that predictive or precise. It often moves with the level of buzz the player is generating independent of performance. Some 5* guys totally don't make it, some 4* guys turn out to be elite. Four star backs should not produce the worst rushing yards/game in the PAC-12, but again with our OL it is hard to accurately "fix the blame".