07-20-2022, 03:36 PM
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.
* 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.