[washingtonismoney]

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/9/...tats-recap

I find a couple things interesting about the game:

1) Field position was not as decisively won by Stanford as is typical for the team. The Husky punter was so valuable.
2) Stanford's success rates were interesting. (Connelly defines success rates thusly: 50% of needed yards on 1st down; 70% on second; 100% on third and fourth)

Stanford's success rates of 33% when running is 10% below the national average...whereas its 52% rate when passing is 10% above the national average. Perhaps we should be focusing on the running game? (Or is the fault the hidden incompletions from Hogan scrambles?)

[washingtonismoney]

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/9/...tats-recap

I find a couple things interesting about the game:

1) Field position was not as decisively won by Stanford as is typical for the team. The Husky punter was so valuable.
2) Stanford's success rates were interesting. (Connelly defines success rates thusly: 50% of needed yards on 1st down; 70% on second; 100% on third and fourth)

Stanford's success rates of 33% when running is 10% below the national average...whereas its 52% rate when passing is 10% above the national average. Perhaps we should be focusing on the running game? (Or is the fault the hidden incompletions from Hogan scrambles?)