Arizona State Running Back
The Complexities of Arizona State’s Running Back Situation: A Critical Examination Arizona State University (ASU) has long been a program defined by its explosive offense, with the running back position serving as a cornerstone of its identity.
From legends like Woody Green to modern standouts such as Eno Benjamin, the Sun Devils have relied on dynamic ball carriers to fuel their attack.
Yet, in recent years, the position has been mired in inconsistency plagued by injuries, recruiting misses, and schematic shifts under multiple coaching regimes.
This investigative piece delves into the complexities surrounding ASU’s running back room, scrutinizing its struggles, evaluating systemic factors, and questioning whether the program can reclaim its historical dominance on the ground.
Thesis Statement While Arizona State has produced elite running backs in the past, recent challenges including coaching turnover, inadequate development, and flawed roster construction reveal deeper systemic issues that threaten the program’s ability to sustain success in an increasingly competitive Pac-12 landscape.
Recruiting Woes and Developmental Gaps Arizona State’s struggles begin with recruiting.
Despite the program’s reputation for offensive firepower, its running back acquisitions have been inconsistent.
Under Herm Edwards, ASU prioritized versatile athletes but often failed to land elite high school prospects.
Instead, the Sun Devils leaned heavily on transfers like Rachaad White (JUCO) and Xazavian Valladay (Wyoming), who delivered short-term production but underscored long-term developmental deficiencies.
Data from 247Sports shows that between 2018 and 2023, ASU signed just one four-star high school running back (DeaMonte Trayanum, who later transferred to Ohio State).
Meanwhile, rivals like Oregon and USC consistently secured top-tier talent.
This gap raises questions about ASU’s ability to evaluate and develop homegrown players.
Injury Misfortunes and Depth Concerns Even when talent is present, injuries have derailed ASU’s backfield.
The 2022 season exemplified this: lead back Daniyel Ngata battled nagging injuries, while transfer Tevin White (a former four-star recruit) left the team mid-season.
The lack of reliable depth forced ASU to rely on walk-ons and undersized options, crippling offensive efficiency.
Medical research from the suggests that high-volume rushing attacks increase injury risk, particularly in spread offenses that emphasize speed over power.
ASU’s reliance on a committee approach without a true bell-cow back may exacerbate wear and tear, leaving the unit vulnerable.
Scheme and Coaching Instability Scheme fit further complicates matters.
Under former OC Zak Hill, ASU utilized a pro-style system that favored downhill runners, but Kenny Dillingham’s 2023 arrival brought a tempo-based spread, demanding backs with elite receiving skills.
This philosophical whiplash left some players mismatched evident in the struggles of power back George Hart III, who saw minimal snaps in the new system.
Coaching turnover compounds the issue.
Since 2017, ASU has had four offensive coordinators, each with distinct philosophies.
A analysis of coaching stability found that programs with frequent staff changes average 15% fewer rushing yards per season a statistic that aligns with ASU’s decline from 19th nationally in rushing in 2020 to 68th in 2023.
Contrasting Perspectives: Optimism vs.
Realism Some analysts argue that ASU’s recent transfer additions (like Utah’s Chris Curry) and the emergence of freshman Kyson Brown signal a turnaround.
Proponents point to Dillingham’s track record with backs like Oregon’s Bucky Irving as evidence of developmental upside.
However, skeptics counter that ASU’s reliance on transfers reflects a stopgap culture.
Dr.
John Vrooman, a sports economist, notes in that programs overly dependent on the portal often lack sustained success because they “prioritize quick fixes over foundational growth.
” Broader Implications and Conclusion The running back dilemma mirrors ASU’s larger identity crisis.
In an era where elite programs invest heavily in position-specific development, the Sun Devils’ ad-hoc approach risks relegating them to mediocrity.
While flashes of individual brilliance (like Rachaad White’s 1,000-yard season) offer hope, systemic flaws in recruiting, development, and scheme continuity must be addressed.
If ASU is to revive its ground game, it must commit to long-term roster building, stabilize its coaching staff, and adapt its scheme to its personnel not the other way around.
The running back room isn’t just a position group; it’s a microcosm of the program’s trajectory.
Without meaningful change, the Sun Devils may find themselves stuck in the Pac-12’s middle tier, forever chasing past glory.
Sources Cited - 247Sports Recruiting Rankings (2018–2023) -, “Injury Risk in High-Volume Rushing Offenses” (2021) -, “The Impact of Coaching Turnover on Rushing Production” (2022) -, “The Transfer Portal Trap: Short-Term Gains, Long-Term Costs” (2023).