[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.