[slide]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=10838.msg101466#msg101466 date=1412859634]
http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/20...ford-back/

Just give Sanders a quarter and see what happens.  Run the whole offense with him in the game. What is there to lose?

That's a poor piece:
1) Why do we know tailback by committee is holding the team back? It cites little to no evidence to believe that's the case. Do tailbacks by committee perform worse, or better, in general? If they do, why would that change in Stanford's case? The article merely appeals to intuition, which seems like a faulty guide.
2) It also cites little evidence to believe Sanders is the best back rather than the alternatives. Yeah, there's yards per carry...but that's heavily influenced by Sanders's Army game, and specifically his 44 yard run.* Take that run out and you're left with a back that isn't much different that the rest, statistically.

Of course, teams with one dominant back probably do perform well. But that's because you have *one really good back,* not because you've given him all the carries. It gets the causality exactly backwards. Given that the Stanford backs seem to be OK-at-best, it's not clear that anointing one or the other will help much.

* (and in fact I'd argue that 44 yard run was a sign of poor, rather than good, quality. A good back finishes that run and scores a touchdown. Not being able to outrace Army DBs is disturbing.)
[/quote]

do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Sanders being run down from behind by Army showed the lack of a top gear.  it really surprised me.

[slide]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=10838.msg101466#msg101466 date=1412859634]
http://blog.sfgate.com/stanfordsports/20...ford-back/

Just give Sanders a quarter and see what happens.  Run the whole offense with him in the game. What is there to lose?

That's a poor piece:
1) Why do we know tailback by committee is holding the team back? It cites little to no evidence to believe that's the case. Do tailbacks by committee perform worse, or better, in general? If they do, why would that change in Stanford's case? The article merely appeals to intuition, which seems like a faulty guide.
2) It also cites little evidence to believe Sanders is the best back rather than the alternatives. Yeah, there's yards per carry...but that's heavily influenced by Sanders's Army game, and specifically his 44 yard run.* Take that run out and you're left with a back that isn't much different that the rest, statistically.

Of course, teams with one dominant back probably do perform well. But that's because you have *one really good back,* not because you've given him all the carries. It gets the causality exactly backwards. Given that the Stanford backs seem to be OK-at-best, it's not clear that anointing one or the other will help much.

* (and in fact I'd argue that 44 yard run was a sign of poor, rather than good, quality. A good back finishes that run and scores a touchdown. Not being able to outrace Army DBs is disturbing.)
[/quote]

do you have an example of a non-option team where a 3 RB by Committee works?  tandems yes, but 3 or more?

Sanders being run down from behind by Army showed the lack of a top gear.  it really surprised me.