[BostonCard]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

I would submit that yards per game is not a good metric to determine whether an offense is effective. We scored an average of 2.78 points every time our offense possessed the ball, which ranked 17th in the country (pre-bowl, but I don't think the Alamo bowl hurt our, since we scored 37 in 13 drives, 2.84 points per drive).  It is better than USC (2.76 points per drive), Notre Dame (2.75 points per drive), and every other Pac-12 team except Washington (3.21 points per drive).  It was better than teams like Clemson (2.56 ppd), Auburn (2.74), Wisconsin (2.58), TCU (2.56), and Harbaugh's Michigan (1.94 ppd).  We scored 56 touchdowns and 21 field goals in about 163 possessions.  It would be hard to characterize an offense as "mostly bust and some boom" when it produces points almost half the time.  We were second in the conference in red zone scoring percentage, which suggests that the offense was more than just Love scoring from the 50 on a big play (and no, they were not all field goals; we were fourth in the conference in touchdown percentage and points per red zone trip).  You might be surprised to learn that we were fourth in the conference in red zone trips at 4.21/game, a stat that seems inconsistent with a mostly bust offense; given that we run fewer possessions than most teams in the conference, on a per possession basis, we are probably near the top in red zone trips.

Our offense may have looked abysmal to you, but it was a less abysmal offense than every other team in the Pac-12, with the exception of Washington and maybe USC.  USC featured a likely first round draft pick NFL QB (Darnold) and an NFL caliber RB (Jones).  It would be hard to argue we have a talent advantage over them.  UW features a three-year starter QB (Browning) and RB (Gaskin).  Also tough to claim we have a talent/experience advantage here.

I think if we are looking for reasons for our 8-5 season (well, the "5" in the 8-5 season), I would look to the other side of the ball.

BC

[BostonCard]

So Lex, if the offense of running Love between the tackles was so successful, then why was Stanford's YPG so abysmal (or mediocre, if you think abysmal is too strong at term)?  Is it all pace of play?  Well, if it's a good offense, why not run it more? [Do you agree that it was a mostly bust and some boom kind of offense?].

Stated differently, I considered Barry Sanders a dynamic back for the Detroit Lions.  I never considered the Lions to have a good offense during his tenure.  Same thing with Stanford and Bryce Love this year.

I would submit that yards per game is not a good metric to determine whether an offense is effective. We scored an average of 2.78 points every time our offense possessed the ball, which ranked 17th in the country (pre-bowl, but I don't think the Alamo bowl hurt our, since we scored 37 in 13 drives, 2.84 points per drive).  It is better than USC (2.76 points per drive), Notre Dame (2.75 points per drive), and every other Pac-12 team except Washington (3.21 points per drive).  It was better than teams like Clemson (2.56 ppd), Auburn (2.74), Wisconsin (2.58), TCU (2.56), and Harbaugh's Michigan (1.94 ppd).  We scored 56 touchdowns and 21 field goals in about 163 possessions.  It would be hard to characterize an offense as "mostly bust and some boom" when it produces points almost half the time.  We were second in the conference in red zone scoring percentage, which suggests that the offense was more than just Love scoring from the 50 on a big play (and no, they were not all field goals; we were fourth in the conference in touchdown percentage and points per red zone trip).  You might be surprised to learn that we were fourth in the conference in red zone trips at 4.21/game, a stat that seems inconsistent with a mostly bust offense; given that we run fewer possessions than most teams in the conference, on a per possession basis, we are probably near the top in red zone trips.

Our offense may have looked abysmal to you, but it was a less abysmal offense than every other team in the Pac-12, with the exception of Washington and maybe USC.  USC featured a likely first round draft pick NFL QB (Darnold) and an NFL caliber RB (Jones).  It would be hard to argue we have a talent advantage over them.  UW features a three-year starter QB (Browning) and RB (Gaskin).  Also tough to claim we have a talent/experience advantage here.

I think if we are looking for reasons for our 8-5 season (well, the "5" in the 8-5 season), I would look to the other side of the ball.

BC