[Maple Leaf]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

In 2010 and 2011 Taylor was the starting RB, but Stanford played four other backs those two years (Gaffney, Stewart, Wilkerson, Amanam) so the issue of playing any number of RB's should have been known to all of the RB's (Jones, Peat, Smith, Finks).  I think both Jones and Peat wanted a chance to have more success which was not going to happen based up losing 7 games in a row with three being blowouts.

[Maple Leaf]

Smith reminds me of Sanders.  Some moves reminiscent of the old man, but at the end of the day, he's not the old man.

So here's one for us bleacher coaches to ponder:  Speculation is ultimately useless, but what if Shaw/Gould still thought Jones was the guy over Smith?  Would they have stood up to daddy?  And what would daddy have done?  Taken his boy and gone home?  And what would have been the harm in that?

But then again, evidence seems to indicate that none of that was the case, and that they ultimately did agree that giving Smith a larger role at the expense of Jones and Peat was the better decision. 

This whole thread seems to give me the feeling that for Stanford right now,  it's BOTH the x's and o's and the Jessies and Joes.

In 2010 and 2011 Taylor was the starting RB, but Stanford played four other backs those two years (Gaffney, Stewart, Wilkerson, Amanam) so the issue of playing any number of RB's should have been known to all of the RB's (Jones, Peat, Smith, Finks).  I think both Jones and Peat wanted a chance to have more success which was not going to happen based up losing 7 games in a row with three being blowouts.