There's running back by committee and then there's this - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: There's running back by committee and then there's this (/thread-5509.html)

---

There's running back by committee and then there's this - yvonne - 08-20-2013

Several here have expressed doubt about not having a "proven" running back on the team, even though few were questioning that approach two years ago. Nevertheless, I think even the biggest doubters would take our position over UCLA's.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/60250/uclas-backs-embracing-committee

---

Re: There's running back by committee and then there's this - terry - 08-20-2013

Stanford is not starting from scratch at RB. We have two running backs with a good amount of experience --

Gaffney -- 156 attempts, 791 yards, 5.1 avg, 12 TDs
Wilkerson -- 195 attempts, 914 yards, 4.7 avg, 7 TDs

---

Re: There's running back by committee and then there's this - yvonne - 08-20-2013

That's what I was trying to say, more or less. There has been some grousing about "no returning skill players," but I think we'll be fine at RB. It's the receiving corps that has me worried.

---

Re: There's running back by committee and then there's this - stupac2 - 08-20-2013

(08-20-2013, 04:09 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:That's what I was trying to say, more or less. There has been some grousing about "no returning skill players," but I think we'll be fine at RB. It's the receiving corps that has me worried.

That's where I've been ever since I started thinking about this season, and especially after Gaffney came back. I think anyone worried about our RB production is a serious pessimist.

---