[Hulk01]

I like Shaw’s characterization of an excellent offense:  It’s efficient and explosive.

i’ll start with explosive because it’s easier to define and measure.  An explosive offense has a high percentage of running plays of over 15 yards and pass plays of over 20 yards.  And you want to be explosive, of course, because it’s hard to work your offense down a field constantly having to convert third downs.  Look into the number of Stanford drives over the years—-or indeed any team’s drives—in which the team converted on third down three consecutive times in a single drive.  Not common; 45% x 45% X 45% on average: A one-in-eleven event.

This year’s Stanford team was undeniably explosive.  Love was the key, of course, but Costello/AW/Smith contributed significantly in the second half of the season. 

“Efficient” gets more complicated, if only because there are more measures for it.

I think “third down avoidance” is one.  How often do you get first downs on first and second down? 

“First down proficiency” is another.  Shaw measures it as the consistency/frequency with which we gain at least four yards on first down—call it “four or more yards on first down percentage”:  I might be tempted to deduct from it plays that went for no or negative yards.

“Average yards left on third down” is another.  Unless you have Andrew Luck or his rare equal as your college team’s quarterback, you’re not going to be effective on third and seven or more.  As an alternative to this, you might calculate “percentage of third downs of three yards or less.”  Or, if you want to highlight inefficiency with the stat, “percentage of third downs of seven yards or more.” 

Fearing I’ve gone on too long, I’ll leave it here. I can supply some numbers from this year.  I will add, to the surprise of many, that this year’s team did not run more often on first down than past Stanford teams.  In fact, only one Stanford team since 2008 ran less often on first down.

Wait, more thing. "Fragility" might be a different thing, even entirely different.  But it does sound at least very close to "consistency."  There did seem a high degree of variability in Stanford's performance this year.  But that seemed true, or more true than any year than I can recall, in the Pac-12 generally.  And I wonder if the tv-pushed scheduling, with short rests/bad starting times/away games that ended near midnight didn't make every team look more 'fragile" and inconsistent.

[Hulk01]

I like Shaw’s characterization of an excellent offense:  It’s efficient and explosive.

i’ll start with explosive because it’s easier to define and measure.  An explosive offense has a high percentage of running plays of over 15 yards and pass plays of over 20 yards.  And you want to be explosive, of course, because it’s hard to work your offense down a field constantly having to convert third downs.  Look into the number of Stanford drives over the years—-or indeed any team’s drives—in which the team converted on third down three consecutive times in a single drive.  Not common; 45% x 45% X 45% on average: A one-in-eleven event.

This year’s Stanford team was undeniably explosive.  Love was the key, of course, but Costello/AW/Smith contributed significantly in the second half of the season. 

“Efficient” gets more complicated, if only because there are more measures for it.

I think “third down avoidance” is one.  How often do you get first downs on first and second down? 

“First down proficiency” is another.  Shaw measures it as the consistency/frequency with which we gain at least four yards on first down—call it “four or more yards on first down percentage”:  I might be tempted to deduct from it plays that went for no or negative yards.

“Average yards left on third down” is another.  Unless you have Andrew Luck or his rare equal as your college team’s quarterback, you’re not going to be effective on third and seven or more.  As an alternative to this, you might calculate “percentage of third downs of three yards or less.”  Or, if you want to highlight inefficiency with the stat, “percentage of third downs of seven yards or more.” 

Fearing I’ve gone on too long, I’ll leave it here. I can supply some numbers from this year.  I will add, to the surprise of many, that this year’s team did not run more often on first down than past Stanford teams.  In fact, only one Stanford team since 2008 ran less often on first down.

Wait, more thing. "Fragility" might be a different thing, even entirely different.  But it does sound at least very close to "consistency."  There did seem a high degree of variability in Stanford's performance this year.  But that seemed true, or more true than any year than I can recall, in the Pac-12 generally.  And I wonder if the tv-pushed scheduling, with short rests/bad starting times/away games that ended near midnight didn't make every team look more 'fragile" and inconsistent.