[washingtonismoney]

Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example 59ers the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

Sure, except it's a silly case. The question is, "which way does the causality run?" That is, are running backs good because they get a lot of carries? Or do good running backs naturally get a lot of carries? I'm not sure the question has even occurred to FitzGerald. Yes, obviously, offenses with dominant running backs who get a lot of carries do well. That doesn't at all establish that Stanford would be better served with arbitrarily selecting one of its currently-OK-ish running backs and making him the lead guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Alabama and Wisconsin largely rely on tandems of backs with a primary and then a secondary back, not a 3- or 4- or 5 headed RB by Committee approach.  even needle's Arkansas example 59ers the same relationship.  the absence of multiple triple headed RB by Committee success story is I think the answer FitzGerald was pointing to. 

Remound Wright commented about the lack of rhythm a couple of weeks.  he and you are onto something along these lines.

Sure, except it's a silly case. The question is, "which way does the causality run?" That is, are running backs good because they get a lot of carries? Or do good running backs naturally get a lot of carries? I'm not sure the question has even occurred to FitzGerald. Yes, obviously, offenses with dominant running backs who get a lot of carries do well. That doesn't at all establish that Stanford would be better served with arbitrarily selecting one of its currently-OK-ish running backs and making him the lead guy.