I'm a simpleton who relies on my eyes far too much when making evaluations.
A few thoughts: for "robustness," I think PPG (by the offense) and YPG are good metrics, assuming (as we all should till further notice) that Stanford will never employ a gimmicky/hurry up offense. Does the offense move the ball and does it score points? Pretty basic, perhaps not "advanced metrics" enough, but it still provides great data.
The idea that Stanford doesn't "run the ball more on first down this year than in year's past" is almost beside the point. Running the ball encompasses a lot of possibilities (sweeps, reverses, draw plays, counters, etc.). My eyes tell me we saw an inordinate number of pitch backs to the RB or straight handoffs to the RB designed to go between the tackles. Throw on top of that the no-split heavy formation, and that covers the vast majority of Stanford's running plays. Very little variety in approach or attack.
Another indicator of a robust offense. How often does the play calling result in a player being wide open/running free? We almost never saw that. (Maybe the fake run in bunch formation and throw to an open TE?). A robust offense will give you that sometimes - perhaps not regularly, perhaps not even once a game - but occasionally.
Finally, any offensive YPG stat that starts with a 2 is just pathetic. Period. I remember asking if 425/game was too much to ask. In far too many instances under this regime, the answer has been yes.
Again - and coloring all of these opinions - is the belief that Stanford has very good to excellent players on O. It's all about maximizing the talent on the field (which is why I am more forgiving on the D side of the ball - think those guys did well on that front, a couple notable lapses in the CCG notwithstanding).
A few thoughts: for "robustness," I think PPG (by the offense) and YPG are good metrics, assuming (as we all should till further notice) that Stanford will never employ a gimmicky/hurry up offense. Does the offense move the ball and does it score points? Pretty basic, perhaps not "advanced metrics" enough, but it still provides great data.
The idea that Stanford doesn't "run the ball more on first down this year than in year's past" is almost beside the point. Running the ball encompasses a lot of possibilities (sweeps, reverses, draw plays, counters, etc.). My eyes tell me we saw an inordinate number of pitch backs to the RB or straight handoffs to the RB designed to go between the tackles. Throw on top of that the no-split heavy formation, and that covers the vast majority of Stanford's running plays. Very little variety in approach or attack.
Another indicator of a robust offense. How often does the play calling result in a player being wide open/running free? We almost never saw that. (Maybe the fake run in bunch formation and throw to an open TE?). A robust offense will give you that sometimes - perhaps not regularly, perhaps not even once a game - but occasionally.
Finally, any offensive YPG stat that starts with a 2 is just pathetic. Period. I remember asking if 425/game was too much to ask. In far too many instances under this regime, the answer has been yes.
Again - and coloring all of these opinions - is the belief that Stanford has very good to excellent players on O. It's all about maximizing the talent on the field (which is why I am more forgiving on the D side of the ball - think those guys did well on that front, a couple notable lapses in the CCG notwithstanding).