[Rally]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13879.msg145510#msg145510 date=1449198535]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there.  Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.

What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.

Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.

Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]

Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG).  So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.

Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much.  You could say that Low APR U, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop Unbelievably Spoiled Children, since Literature's Most Famous Losers scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).

By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus Unbelievably Spoiled Children's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).

BC
[/quote]

Having (barely) passed statistics I take it the prediction I haven't made yet of 3 - 0 is unlikely?

[Rally]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13879.msg145510#msg145510 date=1449198535]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there.  Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.

What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.

Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.

Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]

Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG).  So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.

Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much.  You could say that Low APR U, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop Unbelievably Spoiled Children, since Literature's Most Famous Losers scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).

By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus Unbelievably Spoiled Children's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).

BC
[/quote]

Having (barely) passed statistics I take it the prediction I haven't made yet of 3 - 0 is unlikely?