[CTcard]

I go away for awhile and this board starts turning into the Bootleg (at least parts of this thread). Not good.

But, there are themes here that interest me.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations.
...  ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings.

Without checking any chart of tendencies versus anyone else, I think it is true that formation is more closely correlated with play call for Stanford than average. That is largely built-in to the design of the offense.

For an extreme, compare to Oregon under Kelly.
They basically had one offensive formation and about five plays.
They rarely changed personnel between plays, and when they did sub it was mainly to give someone a rest but the sub was plugged into the same role in the same formation.
This was all done for maximum tempo. The response to the defense was primarly through post-snap decisions by the QB using the built in options for the play.

Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too. 

I did the math not long ago.  We run on first down 2/3 of the time and gain an average of 5.8 yards per carry.  Yes, the number is skewed by a bunch of 50+ Yard Bryce Love runs, but at this point it is a feature of the offense.  We pass the football on about 1/3 of first downs and gain about 5 yap.  Note that the run numbers are slightly inflated because dropbacks that result in a sack count as rushing yards, so they take yards away from rushing and inflate the denominator.

Interesting.
I think Hulk is correct, though of course it is difficult to just how often the average fan thinks we run on first down.
BC - I think you have a typo in there. The pass numbers are inflated and the run numbers deflated by counting sacks as runs.
For the season, the numbers on first down were:
Run  67.6%; 6.41 yds/att
Pass 32.3%; 5.45 yds/att      PER = 104

While I would think that is a high percentage of runs on first down, it's hard to have a feel without a comparison. To do this with every team is too much, but a few selective choices are:
Bama - 72.6% runs
Oregon - 72.4%
Michigan - 67.1%
U$C - 62.2%
UW -  60.7%
TCU - 58.4%
cal - 52.2%
WSU - 34.7%

Stanford is high on the percent of runs on first down, but not out of the box high.

Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess. 

A few others:
Chryst
1st:  46.8%, 5.34 ypa
2nd: 65.3%, 7.27 ypa
3rd: 51.1%, 7.33 ypa

Rosen
1st: 66.2%, 9.12 ypa
2nd: 64.9%, 7.96 ypa
3rd: 52.0%, 7.01 ypa

Darnold
1st: 65.2%, 8.40 ypa
2nd: 64.6%, 9.80 ypa
3rd: 58.7%, 7.63 ypa

Browning
1st: 72.1%, 8.47 ypa
2nd: 67.6%, 8.02 ypa
3rd: 60.8%, 7.11 ypa

Don't know what to make of this, but since both Chryst and Costello seem notably bad on first down, I have to wonder if we are calling particularly poor or low percentage passes when we pass on first down.

Someone can correct my math on this but I'm tempted to look at the 2nd down numbers and conclude that with 9+ ypa and only 36% 1st downs that our first down play is either incomplete or getting stuffed about 64% of the time.  And I'm not surprised if that indeed is true.

Definitely not doing the math correctly, though perhaps your overall point holds.
With these numbers there is no direct way to calculate a stuff rate on first down.

Football Outsiders does run a stat called "Stuff Rate" (under Offensive Line stats). It is runs that go for zero or fewer yards, with no adjustment for strength of opponent. It is not broken down by down, and it is for runs only.
Stanford has been "stuffed" on 21.8% of run plays (far from 64%). That is 105th out of 130 teams.
But it is worth noting that the actual rate on this stat doesn't vary a whole lot. The #30 team is at 17%.

That is an indicated of the all or nothing nature of our run game this year, which has been commented upon extensively.

[CTcard]

I go away for awhile and this board starts turning into the Bootleg (at least parts of this thread). Not good.

But, there are themes here that interest me.

We do have a predictable offense. The predictability comes in the personnel groupings and formations.
...  ran a certain set of plays from specific formations and personnel groupings.

Without checking any chart of tendencies versus anyone else, I think it is true that formation is more closely correlated with play call for Stanford than average. That is largely built-in to the design of the offense.

For an extreme, compare to Oregon under Kelly.
They basically had one offensive formation and about five plays.
They rarely changed personnel between plays, and when they did sub it was mainly to give someone a rest but the sub was plugged into the same role in the same formation.
This was all done for maximum tempo. The response to the defense was primarly through post-snap decisions by the QB using the built in options for the play.

Stanford pretty much does the opposite.
Stanford substitutes massively, trying to optimize the the personnel for each play.
The hope is to overpower the D with bigger stronger blockers on power-run plays and overwhelm the defense with receivers on pass plays, etc. The hope is to catch the defense with personnel they cannot match up with either for a given play or overall because some personnel sets the defense just doesn't have.
So, yes, Stanford tends to run out of the no-receiver sets and tends to pass out of the empty backfield sets.

It's a different approach - much more the traditional NFL approach that features match-ups over tricking the defense. I am not sure that it is inherently better or worse, but it certainly has its trade-offs.

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too. 

I did the math not long ago.  We run on first down 2/3 of the time and gain an average of 5.8 yards per carry.  Yes, the number is skewed by a bunch of 50+ Yard Bryce Love runs, but at this point it is a feature of the offense.  We pass the football on about 1/3 of first downs and gain about 5 yap.  Note that the run numbers are slightly inflated because dropbacks that result in a sack count as rushing yards, so they take yards away from rushing and inflate the denominator.

Interesting.
I think Hulk is correct, though of course it is difficult to just how often the average fan thinks we run on first down.
BC - I think you have a typo in there. The pass numbers are inflated and the run numbers deflated by counting sacks as runs.
For the season, the numbers on first down were:
Run  67.6%; 6.41 yds/att
Pass 32.3%; 5.45 yds/att      PER = 104

While I would think that is a high percentage of runs on first down, it's hard to have a feel without a comparison. To do this with every team is too much, but a few selective choices are:
Bama - 72.6% runs
Oregon - 72.4%
Michigan - 67.1%
U$C - 62.2%
UW -  60.7%
TCU - 58.4%
cal - 52.2%
WSU - 34.7%

Stanford is high on the percent of runs on first down, but not out of the box high.

Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess. 

A few others:
Chryst
1st:  46.8%, 5.34 ypa
2nd: 65.3%, 7.27 ypa
3rd: 51.1%, 7.33 ypa

Rosen
1st: 66.2%, 9.12 ypa
2nd: 64.9%, 7.96 ypa
3rd: 52.0%, 7.01 ypa

Darnold
1st: 65.2%, 8.40 ypa
2nd: 64.6%, 9.80 ypa
3rd: 58.7%, 7.63 ypa

Browning
1st: 72.1%, 8.47 ypa
2nd: 67.6%, 8.02 ypa
3rd: 60.8%, 7.11 ypa

Don't know what to make of this, but since both Chryst and Costello seem notably bad on first down, I have to wonder if we are calling particularly poor or low percentage passes when we pass on first down.

Someone can correct my math on this but I'm tempted to look at the 2nd down numbers and conclude that with 9+ ypa and only 36% 1st downs that our first down play is either incomplete or getting stuffed about 64% of the time.  And I'm not surprised if that indeed is true.

Definitely not doing the math correctly, though perhaps your overall point holds.
With these numbers there is no direct way to calculate a stuff rate on first down.

Football Outsiders does run a stat called "Stuff Rate" (under Offensive Line stats). It is runs that go for zero or fewer yards, with no adjustment for strength of opponent. It is not broken down by down, and it is for runs only.
Stanford has been "stuffed" on 21.8% of run plays (far from 64%). That is 105th out of 130 teams.
But it is worth noting that the actual rate on this stat doesn't vary a whole lot. The #30 team is at 17%.

That is an indicated of the all or nothing nature of our run game this year, which has been commented upon extensively.