[Renaissance Man]

I don't mind the committee approach as much as the fact that the personnel on the field tells me, and, by extension, the opposition, what play we are about to run. We do not use the backs interchangeably.

[Renaissance Man]

I don't mind the committee approach as much as the fact that the personnel on the field tells me, and, by extension, the opposition, what play we are about to run. We do not use the backs interchangeably.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I don't mind the committee approach as much as the fact that the personnel on the field tells me, and, by extension, the opposition, what play we are about to run. We do not use the backs interchangeably.

Agreed. Our packages and player formations are too predictable.

[PrinceLightfoot]

I don't mind the committee approach as much as the fact that the personnel on the field tells me, and, by extension, the opposition, what play we are about to run. We do not use the backs interchangeably.

Agreed. Our packages and player formations are too predictable.

[CTcard]

I've seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is the most talented receiver and ball carrier of all the RBs.  He's got the best hands and body control of any of them. 

I have also seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is not the most talented receiver and ball carrier (and blocker) of all the RBs. He doesn't hit the hole with authority (Young looks best at this), he is clearly slower than Young and probably Wright, and doesn't transition from catching to moving with the ball as well as Wright. Wright appears to me to clearly be the best blocker, despite the chop block penalties. [In fact on the first of those, Wright made a very good and legal play and the call was horrendous. The second I didn't see as well, but does look like he made a mistake.]

So, now that we have a difference of opinion, where do we go if we cannot refer to something more objective, like numbers (which really means actual results on the field).

[I am actually not particularly negative on Sanders, but I think I now see why he wasn't the coaches' initial pick as the main running back - which I had thought he would be.]

The fact his season YPC is the best among all of them is just anecdotal evidence to this reality, not a statistically provable reality.  But when you factor in that he has had the fewest carries, and that he hasn't had nearly as many chances to "get in a rhythm by playing so many consecutive snaps,"  ...

I would note that the most important issue to factor in around Sanders' yds/carry statistic is that most of his carries came against Army and Davis (16) rather than the better defenses of S.-C., UW, and u.n.d (8 total).

and the offense is struggling, it is the combination of an educated guess and a "let's see if this works because nothing else is" that makes advocating more carries for Sanders a justifiable position.

It's justifiable - but really only if you think he is the best back.

If the coaches cannot do better than "let's just try things to see if they work" then we do have some issues of generic conpetence.

I worried from the get go that Sanders was not a fit for Stanford's power running system.

As far as I can tell, Stanford's run game problems are not so much that the RBs don't fit the system but

1. that the OL is not allowing the system to work well enough (see CI and others), and

2. our coaches, surprisingly, don't seem to trust the system.

We have our three main RBs averaging 5.5 yds/carry.
2013 Gaffney averaged 5.2 yds/carry.
2012 Taylor averaged 4.8 yds.carry.
2011 Taylor averaged 5.5 yds/carry (Gaffney more, Wilkerson less).
2010 Taylor averaged 5.1 yds/carry (Gaffney and Wilkerson less).
2009 Gerhart averaged 5.5 yds/carry.

But we are only averaging about 21 carries per game from the RBs.

That compares to about 32 carries per game last year, 2012=29.5, 2011=33.3, 2010=30.3, 2009=33.7.

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

If they can't run power as preferred because they don't have that power RB, then don't run power or go with jumbo sets.  The coaches should have realized this in the Spring, but it seems they really felt the OL would be so good that they could even run power effectively without a true power RB. 

If the coaches really thought "the OL would be so good" then there is grounds for accusations of gross incompetence. The OL clearly struggled in the spring and fall scrimmages and at the moment it's probably the weakest position group on the team. Even if they each individual is strong, you almost never have an OL that is "so good" when you have four new starters - there is just too much synchronization needed. And that synchronization is one of the issues with the line right now.

[CTcard]

I've seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is the most talented receiver and ball carrier of all the RBs.  He's got the best hands and body control of any of them. 

I have also seen all the RBs play and it is clear from my observations that Sanders is not the most talented receiver and ball carrier (and blocker) of all the RBs. He doesn't hit the hole with authority (Young looks best at this), he is clearly slower than Young and probably Wright, and doesn't transition from catching to moving with the ball as well as Wright. Wright appears to me to clearly be the best blocker, despite the chop block penalties. [In fact on the first of those, Wright made a very good and legal play and the call was horrendous. The second I didn't see as well, but does look like he made a mistake.]

So, now that we have a difference of opinion, where do we go if we cannot refer to something more objective, like numbers (which really means actual results on the field).

[I am actually not particularly negative on Sanders, but I think I now see why he wasn't the coaches' initial pick as the main running back - which I had thought he would be.]

The fact his season YPC is the best among all of them is just anecdotal evidence to this reality, not a statistically provable reality.  But when you factor in that he has had the fewest carries, and that he hasn't had nearly as many chances to "get in a rhythm by playing so many consecutive snaps,"  ...

I would note that the most important issue to factor in around Sanders' yds/carry statistic is that most of his carries came against Army and Davis (16) rather than the better defenses of S.-C., UW, and u.n.d (8 total).

and the offense is struggling, it is the combination of an educated guess and a "let's see if this works because nothing else is" that makes advocating more carries for Sanders a justifiable position.

It's justifiable - but really only if you think he is the best back.

If the coaches cannot do better than "let's just try things to see if they work" then we do have some issues of generic conpetence.

I worried from the get go that Sanders was not a fit for Stanford's power running system.

As far as I can tell, Stanford's run game problems are not so much that the RBs don't fit the system but

1. that the OL is not allowing the system to work well enough (see CI and others), and

2. our coaches, surprisingly, don't seem to trust the system.

We have our three main RBs averaging 5.5 yds/carry.
2013 Gaffney averaged 5.2 yds/carry.
2012 Taylor averaged 4.8 yds.carry.
2011 Taylor averaged 5.5 yds/carry (Gaffney more, Wilkerson less).
2010 Taylor averaged 5.1 yds/carry (Gaffney and Wilkerson less).
2009 Gerhart averaged 5.5 yds/carry.

But we are only averaging about 21 carries per game from the RBs.

That compares to about 32 carries per game last year, 2012=29.5, 2011=33.3, 2010=30.3, 2009=33.7.

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

If they can't run power as preferred because they don't have that power RB, then don't run power or go with jumbo sets.  The coaches should have realized this in the Spring, but it seems they really felt the OL would be so good that they could even run power effectively without a true power RB. 

If the coaches really thought "the OL would be so good" then there is grounds for accusations of gross incompetence. The OL clearly struggled in the spring and fall scrimmages and at the moment it's probably the weakest position group on the team. Even if they each individual is strong, you almost never have an OL that is "so good" when you have four new starters - there is just too much synchronization needed. And that synchronization is one of the issues with the line right now.

[stupac2]

Would a Sanders by any other name receive so many calls for additional playing time?

[stupac2]

Would a Sanders by any other name receive so many calls for additional playing time?

[Rally]

Would a Sanders by any other name receive so many calls for additional playing time?

Probably not.  I have thought so from the beginning.  I hope I have been wrong.

[Rally]

Would a Sanders by any other name receive so many calls for additional playing time?

Probably not.  I have thought so from the beginning.  I hope I have been wrong.

[CornFed]

Probably not; so that undermines the validity of those calls I guess!

[CornFed]

Probably not; so that undermines the validity of those calls I guess!

[Mick]

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

FWLIW, I've thought the same thing, particularly given the youth and inexperience of the line.

My idle thought...I wonder how many times Hogan has audibled from a run to a pass and vice versa?

[Mick]

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

FWLIW, I've thought the same thing, particularly given the youth and inexperience of the line.

My idle thought...I wonder how many times Hogan has audibled from a run to a pass and vice versa?

[BostonCard]

As far as I can tell, Stanford's run game problems are not so much that they RBs don't fit the system but

1. that the OL is not allowing the system to work well enough (see CI and others), and

2. our coaches, surprisingly, don't seem to trust the system.

We have our three main RBs averaging 5.5 yds/carry.
2013 Gaffney averaged 5.2 yds/carry.
2012 Taylor averaged 4.8 yds.carry.
2011 Taylor averaged 5.5 yds/carry (Gaffney more, Wilkerson less).
2010 Taylor averaged 5.1 yds/carry (Gaffney and Wilkerson less).
2009 Gerhart averaged 5.5 yds/carry.

But we are only averaging about 21 carries per game from the RBs.

That compares to about 32 carries per game last year, 2012=29.5, 2011=33.3, 2010=30.3, 2009=33.7.

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

The second caveat is that the running stats are heavily influenced by our two games against clearly overmatched opponents, Army and Davis.  Now, we have overmatched opponents every year, but they don't typically make up 40% of our schedule, and Davis, remember is not FBS.

BC

[BostonCard]

As far as I can tell, Stanford's run game problems are not so much that they RBs don't fit the system but

1. that the OL is not allowing the system to work well enough (see CI and others), and

2. our coaches, surprisingly, don't seem to trust the system.

We have our three main RBs averaging 5.5 yds/carry.
2013 Gaffney averaged 5.2 yds/carry.
2012 Taylor averaged 4.8 yds.carry.
2011 Taylor averaged 5.5 yds/carry (Gaffney more, Wilkerson less).
2010 Taylor averaged 5.1 yds/carry (Gaffney and Wilkerson less).
2009 Gerhart averaged 5.5 yds/carry.

But we are only averaging about 21 carries per game from the RBs.

That compares to about 32 carries per game last year, 2012=29.5, 2011=33.3, 2010=30.3, 2009=33.7.

I'm not quite sure what to take from this, but I am leaning towards thinking that we are not using our RB-based run game enough this year based upon the actual production it has had.
[And no, I don't expect that will be a popular position.]

Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

The second caveat is that the running stats are heavily influenced by our two games against clearly overmatched opponents, Army and Davis.  Now, we have overmatched opponents every year, but they don't typically make up 40% of our schedule, and Davis, remember is not FBS.

BC

[CTcard]

Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

I wouldn't quite call that a caveat. Getting the defense to do something out of it's base, like stacking 8 in the box, can be an end in itself. That is the sort of thing that allowed our deep passing game to be so effective last year. It's part of the point - run enough to suck up the defenses (which are already thinking they should do so for Stanford) then the passing game opens up a lot.

It's also not exactly true. Taylor in 2010, 2011, with Luck in his college-prime, did not see 8 in the box very often.

The second caveat is that the running stats are heavily influenced by our two games against clearly overmatched opponents, Army and Davis.  Now, we have overmatched opponents every year, but they don't typically make up 40% of our schedule, and Davis, remember is not FBS.

True, but the effect of the two very weak opponents was not as drastic as you might think, or at least as I might think.
Yards/carry by our 3 main RBs:
Davis  6.0
S.-C.  5.3
Army  8.3
UW    4.6
u.n.d.  3.4

[CTcard]

Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

I wouldn't quite call that a caveat. Getting the defense to do something out of it's base, like stacking 8 in the box, can be an end in itself. That is the sort of thing that allowed our deep passing game to be so effective last year. It's part of the point - run enough to suck up the defenses (which are already thinking they should do so for Stanford) then the passing game opens up a lot.

It's also not exactly true. Taylor in 2010, 2011, with Luck in his college-prime, did not see 8 in the box very often.

The second caveat is that the running stats are heavily influenced by our two games against clearly overmatched opponents, Army and Davis.  Now, we have overmatched opponents every year, but they don't typically make up 40% of our schedule, and Davis, remember is not FBS.

True, but the effect of the two very weak opponents was not as drastic as you might think, or at least as I might think.
Yards/carry by our 3 main RBs:
Davis  6.0
S.-C.  5.3
Army  8.3
UW    4.6
u.n.d.  3.4

[OutsiderFan]

My appreciation for Barry Sanders as a football player is primarily based on seeing his high school vids.  There were few more impressive ones in his class.

He's shown flashes of those abilities displayed in his high school vids at Stanford, but just hasn't had enough opportunities to show any consistency.

[OutsiderFan]

My appreciation for Barry Sanders as a football player is primarily based on seeing his high school vids.  There were few more impressive ones in his class.

He's shown flashes of those abilities displayed in his high school vids at Stanford, but just hasn't had enough opportunities to show any consistency.

[JohnR34231]

He gets an opportunity every single day in practice. Unless the coaching staff is just crazy, it doesn't appear he's looking brilliant there, either.

Yep, given the fact that he doesn't get many touches you'd have to come to one of two conclusions.

1. Our coaches are a bunch of idiots.
2. Sanders isn't as good as we fans like to think he is.

[JohnR34231]

He gets an opportunity every single day in practice. Unless the coaching staff is just crazy, it doesn't appear he's looking brilliant there, either.

Yep, given the fact that he doesn't get many touches you'd have to come to one of two conclusions.

1. Our coaches are a bunch of idiots.
2. Sanders isn't as good as we fans like to think he is.

[StanFan88]

I think 2 is the magic number, and of the four I think Wright & McCaffrey are the right pair.

Wright is clearly better than Young between the hashmarks, and isn't that far behind him to the edges.  He's also the best pass blocker which is needed on 1st & 2nd down especially for play action.

McCaffrey is a great 3rd down back because he can be a checkdown (if Hogan could ever find him), he can slip out in the flat for a screen/flare, he has fantastic speed to the edges, and as we saw he can also be a quality receiver who is likely to be overlooked.

While Sanders clearly has his old man's moves he doesn't have his old man's speed.  You need both.

[StanFan88]

I think 2 is the magic number, and of the four I think Wright & McCaffrey are the right pair.

Wright is clearly better than Young between the hashmarks, and isn't that far behind him to the edges.  He's also the best pass blocker which is needed on 1st & 2nd down especially for play action.

McCaffrey is a great 3rd down back because he can be a checkdown (if Hogan could ever find him), he can slip out in the flat for a screen/flare, he has fantastic speed to the edges, and as we saw he can also be a quality receiver who is likely to be overlooked.

While Sanders clearly has his old man's moves he doesn't have his old man's speed.  You need both.

[FarmBoy]

OutsiderFan - I've gleaned from bits and pieces of your posts that your a Ca'l alum/former Ca'l fan. Is that correct? Why did you stop rooting for Ca'l and starting rooting for Stanford? With Ca'l's performance this year, do you see yourself going back to rooting for Ca'l? What would cause you to switch teams again?

Just curious.

[FarmBoy]

OutsiderFan - I've gleaned from bits and pieces of your posts that your a Ca'l alum/former Ca'l fan. Is that correct? Why did you stop rooting for Ca'l and starting rooting for Stanford? With Ca'l's performance this year, do you see yourself going back to rooting for Ca'l? What would cause you to switch teams again?

Just curious.

[OutsiderFan]

Fair enough.  I've told the tale on the Scout board, but maybe not here.  Let me get back to y'all on this. 

[OutsiderFan]

Fair enough.  I've told the tale on the Scout board, but maybe not here.  Let me get back to y'all on this. 

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10838.msg101579#msg101579 date=1412903805]
Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

I wouldn't quite call that a caveat. Getting the defense to do something out of it's base, like stacking 8 in the box, can be an end in itself. That is the sort of thing that allowed our deep passing game to be so effective last year. It's part of the point - run enough to suck up the defenses (which are already thinking they should do so for Stanford) then the passing game opens up a lot.

It's also not exactly true. Taylor in 2010, 2011, with Luck in his college-prime, did not see 8 in the box very often.

[/quote]

What I mean is that while Gaffney gained his yardage against eight-in-the-box formations, the current crop of running backs are gaining their yardage against formations not explicitly trying to stop the run.  As such, those yards ought to be easier to come by than the yards gained by our previous running backs against stacked fronts.

Also, I disagree about Taylor in 2011.  Go back to the 2011 Orange Bowl.  Here's the formation on Jeremy Stewart's first touchdown run:



You can plainly see eight in the box.  And here is the other big run play by Taylor:


That one was against nine in the box.  The reason those two plays stick in my mind is that the announcers noted that because V Tech crammed so many players into the defensive front, once the running back broke through, there weren't any defensive players ahead.  The eight-in-the box defense is also the reason that VTech had so much trouble against the play action pass; they were trying to cover Coby Fleener in man coverage.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10838.msg101579#msg101579 date=1412903805]
Two caveats to that analysis, CTCard.  The first is that in prior years, Gerhart, Taylor, and Gaffney had to run against defenses that stacked eight in the box on rushing downs.  Now, most defenses are playing us straight up to counter the fact that we are passing more than in the past.

I wouldn't quite call that a caveat. Getting the defense to do something out of it's base, like stacking 8 in the box, can be an end in itself. That is the sort of thing that allowed our deep passing game to be so effective last year. It's part of the point - run enough to suck up the defenses (which are already thinking they should do so for Stanford) then the passing game opens up a lot.

It's also not exactly true. Taylor in 2010, 2011, with Luck in his college-prime, did not see 8 in the box very often.

[/quote]

What I mean is that while Gaffney gained his yardage against eight-in-the-box formations, the current crop of running backs are gaining their yardage against formations not explicitly trying to stop the run.  As such, those yards ought to be easier to come by than the yards gained by our previous running backs against stacked fronts.

Also, I disagree about Taylor in 2011.  Go back to the 2011 Orange Bowl.  Here's the formation on Jeremy Stewart's first touchdown run:



You can plainly see eight in the box.  And here is the other big run play by Taylor:


That one was against nine in the box.  The reason those two plays stick in my mind is that the announcers noted that because V Tech crammed so many players into the defensive front, once the running back broke through, there weren't any defensive players ahead.  The eight-in-the box defense is also the reason that VTech had so much trouble against the play action pass; they were trying to cover Coby Fleener in man coverage.

BC