[BostonCard]

Stanford
----------
A whole mess of teams
----------
Colorado
Oregon state

Trying to figure out which is best between Arizona, ASU, UCLA, USC, Utah, Cal, Oregon, Washington, and WSU is darned near impossible.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford
----------
A whole mess of teams
----------
Colorado
Oregon state

Trying to figure out which is best between Arizona, ASU, UCLA, USC, Utah, Cal, Oregon, Washington, and WSU is darned near impossible.

BC

[BostonCard]

Trying to make sense of that mess in the middle by looking at the games against one another (wins against OSU and Colorado don't count; losses against Stanford don't count):

WSU: Wins against Oregon and Arizona [and OSU], loss against Cal
USC: Wins against ASU (blowout) and Utah, loss against Washington [and Stanford]
Utah: Wins against Cal, ASU, and Oregon (blowout); loss against USC
UCLA: Wins against Cal (blowout) and Arizona (blowout), losses against ASU [and Stanford]
Cal: Wins against UW and WSU, losses against UCLA (blowout) and Utah
ASU: Win against UCLA, losses against Utah and USC
Oregon: Win against Washington [and Colorado], losses against WSU and Utah
Washington: Win against USC, losses against Cal and Oregon [and Stanford]
Arizona: Only wins are against bottom feeders; losses against UCLA (blowout), WSU [and Stanford]

Tough to separate them, but that's how I see it.  WSU so far has the best resume, though Oregon without Adams and Arizona are towards the bottom of the morass, and OSU sucks.  USC has soe nice wins, but the loss against Washington hurts.

Big games next week: Oregon at ASU on Thursday, USC at Cal, Stanford at WSU (a win and we pretty much clinch the North).  There's talk about college gameday being at WSU, which would make it crazy, but not many compelling matchups other than us at WSU and ND at Temple.

BC

[BostonCard]

Trying to make sense of that mess in the middle by looking at the games against one another (wins against OSU and Colorado don't count; losses against Stanford don't count):

WSU: Wins against Oregon and Arizona [and OSU], loss against Cal
USC: Wins against ASU (blowout) and Utah, loss against Washington [and Stanford]
Utah: Wins against Cal, ASU, and Oregon (blowout); loss against USC
UCLA: Wins against Cal (blowout) and Arizona (blowout), losses against ASU [and Stanford]
Cal: Wins against UW and WSU, losses against UCLA (blowout) and Utah
ASU: Win against UCLA, losses against Utah and USC
Oregon: Win against Washington [and Colorado], losses against WSU and Utah
Washington: Win against USC, losses against Cal and Oregon [and Stanford]
Arizona: Only wins are against bottom feeders; losses against UCLA (blowout), WSU [and Stanford]

Tough to separate them, but that's how I see it.  WSU so far has the best resume, though Oregon without Adams and Arizona are towards the bottom of the morass, and OSU sucks.  USC has soe nice wins, but the loss against Washington hurts.

Big games next week: Oregon at ASU on Thursday, USC at Cal, Stanford at WSU (a win and we pretty much clinch the North).  There's talk about college gameday being at WSU, which would make it crazy, but not many compelling matchups other than us at WSU and ND at Temple.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

This is as unsettled a conference has been in my memory, but here goes my take...

1. Stanford
2. ????
3. ????
4. ????
5. ????
6. ????
7. ????
8. ????
9. Arizona
10. Washington
11. Colorado
12. Oregon State

[OutsiderFan]

This is as unsettled a conference has been in my memory, but here goes my take...

1. Stanford
2. ????
3. ????
4. ????
5. ????
6. ????
7. ????
8. ????
9. Arizona
10. Washington
11. Colorado
12. Oregon State

[OutsiderFan]

OK, here's a real shot:

1. Stanford - Offense is championship caliber, but defense is a worry
2. USC - Sorry, but their three losses are forgivable, and when at their best they are better than the rest
3. Utah - Should be able to beat everyone else not named Stanford
4. ASU - Win over UCLA puts them here
5. UCLA - Already lost to 2/4 teams above them
6. Washington State - Big move for the Cougs, and they stay here if they are competitive against Stanford
7. Oregon - This seems pretty self-evident
8. Ca.l - Sinking fast
9. Arizona - I choose O and no D over D and no O
10. Washington - Solid D but not enough O
11. Colorado - This is pretty easy
12. Oregon State - Won't win a conference game

[OutsiderFan]

OK, here's a real shot:

1. Stanford - Offense is championship caliber, but defense is a worry
2. USC - Sorry, but their three losses are forgivable, and when at their best they are better than the rest
3. Utah - Should be able to beat everyone else not named Stanford
4. ASU - Win over UCLA puts them here
5. UCLA - Already lost to 2/4 teams above them
6. Washington State - Big move for the Cougs, and they stay here if they are competitive against Stanford
7. Oregon - This seems pretty self-evident
8. Ca.l - Sinking fast
9. Arizona - I choose O and no D over D and no O
10. Washington - Solid D but not enough O
11. Colorado - This is pretty easy
12. Oregon State - Won't win a conference game

[FarmBoy]

Should be able to beat everyone else not named Stanford

I don't like people implying that a team that's beaten Stanford the last two years can't do it this year.

I would revise this to say "Should beat everyone not named Stanford or SC"

SC isn't out of the South race. If they run the table, they will hold the tie breaker with UCLA. All they need is for Utah to lose to UCLA and one other opponent. Not very likely, but definitely in the realm of outcomes. They play @UW and @Arizona. Their home game against UCLA will be very interesting if they lose either of those games.

[FarmBoy]

Should be able to beat everyone else not named Stanford

I don't like people implying that a team that's beaten Stanford the last two years can't do it this year.

I would revise this to say "Should beat everyone not named Stanford or SC"

SC isn't out of the South race. If they run the table, they will hold the tie breaker with UCLA. All they need is for Utah to lose to UCLA and one other opponent. Not very likely, but definitely in the realm of outcomes. They play @UW and @Arizona. Their home game against UCLA will be very interesting if they lose either of those games.

[StanfordMatt]

SC isn't out of the South race. If they run the table, they will hold the tie breaker with UCLA. All they need is for Utah to lose to UCLA and one other opponent. Not very likely, but definitely in the realm of outcomes.

It's much more likely than that. Right now, SC has two conference losses and Utah has one. SC holds the tiebreaker with their win yesterday. If SC runs the table, they only need Utah to lose ONE more game.

For this reason, as dirty as I would feel about rooting for C.al next week, it would make strategic sense if the goal is to avoid SC in the PAC-12 Championship Game.

[StanfordMatt]

SC isn't out of the South race. If they run the table, they will hold the tie breaker with UCLA. All they need is for Utah to lose to UCLA and one other opponent. Not very likely, but definitely in the realm of outcomes.

It's much more likely than that. Right now, SC has two conference losses and Utah has one. SC holds the tiebreaker with their win yesterday. If SC runs the table, they only need Utah to lose ONE more game.

For this reason, as dirty as I would feel about rooting for C.al next week, it would make strategic sense if the goal is to avoid SC in the PAC-12 Championship Game.

[winflop]

WSU: Wins against Oregon and Arizona [and OSU], loss against Low APR U
Under Stanford Control: Wins against ASU (blowout) and Utah, loss against Washington [and Stanford]
Utah: Wins against Low APR U, ASU, and Oregon (blowout); loss against Under Stanford Control
UCLA: Wins against Low APR U (blowout) and Arizona (blowout), losses against ASU [and Stanford]
Low APR U: Wins against UW and WSU, losses against UCLA (blowout) and Utah
ASU: Win against UCLA, losses against Utah and Under Stanford Control
Oregon: Win against Washington [and Colorado], losses against WSU and Utah
Washington: Win against Under Stanford Control, losses against Low APR U and Oregon [and Stanford]
Arizona: Only wins are against bottom feeders; losses against UCLA (blowout), WSU [and Stanford]

BC

So WSU is at the top of this morass despite it's two best wins against two of the three teams you put at the bottom of it?

Stanford - head and shoulders above everyone else
Utah - as bad as they looked last night, that was still their first loss of the season.  They will go as far as Wilson takes them
University of Seventh Choice - coaching change may have righted the ship, but hard to build a good resume unless they run the table
UCLA - a good team but too flawed to contend for the crown.  At least one loss left on the schedule, maybe two
ASU - quality win over UCLA but otherwise highly mediocre
Low APR U - still lacks a quality win, but beat WSU
WSU - lost to Low APR U but like them still lacks a quality win.  Saturday will be nuts
Washington - a really good defense will only carry you so far you need to put points on the board to win
Oregon - Oh my how the mighty have fallen.  Not that I'm shedding any tears
Arizona - RichRod, your bus is waiting
Colorado - happy for Coach Mac, but Oregon State this year is as bad as Colorado was last year (or Low APR U the year before that)
Oregon State - losing at home to Colorado just about guarantees you the bottom rung

[winflop]

WSU: Wins against Oregon and Arizona [and OSU], loss against Low APR U
Under Stanford Control: Wins against ASU (blowout) and Utah, loss against Washington [and Stanford]
Utah: Wins against Low APR U, ASU, and Oregon (blowout); loss against Under Stanford Control
UCLA: Wins against Low APR U (blowout) and Arizona (blowout), losses against ASU [and Stanford]
Low APR U: Wins against UW and WSU, losses against UCLA (blowout) and Utah
ASU: Win against UCLA, losses against Utah and Under Stanford Control
Oregon: Win against Washington [and Colorado], losses against WSU and Utah
Washington: Win against Under Stanford Control, losses against Low APR U and Oregon [and Stanford]
Arizona: Only wins are against bottom feeders; losses against UCLA (blowout), WSU [and Stanford]

BC

So WSU is at the top of this morass despite it's two best wins against two of the three teams you put at the bottom of it?

Stanford - head and shoulders above everyone else
Utah - as bad as they looked last night, that was still their first loss of the season.  They will go as far as Wilson takes them
University of Seventh Choice - coaching change may have righted the ship, but hard to build a good resume unless they run the table
UCLA - a good team but too flawed to contend for the crown.  At least one loss left on the schedule, maybe two
ASU - quality win over UCLA but otherwise highly mediocre
Low APR U - still lacks a quality win, but beat WSU
WSU - lost to Low APR U but like them still lacks a quality win.  Saturday will be nuts
Washington - a really good defense will only carry you so far you need to put points on the board to win
Oregon - Oh my how the mighty have fallen.  Not that I'm shedding any tears
Arizona - RichRod, your bus is waiting
Colorado - happy for Coach Mac, but Oregon State this year is as bad as Colorado was last year (or Low APR U the year before that)
Oregon State - losing at home to Colorado just about guarantees you the bottom rung

[BostonCard]

Here's ESPN's list:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...es-to-no-1

They too have WSU third.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's ESPN's list:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...es-to-no-1

They too have WSU third.

BC

[winflop]

Here's ESPN's list:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...es-to-no-1

They too have WSU third.

BC

Actually ESPN has WSU #2 ahead of Utah, which IMnsHO is a complete loss of credibility.  Combined with thinking there are 3 players in the conference whose performances rated higher than McCaffrey, Kevin Gemmell is relegated to dufus-world, below Wilner

[winflop]

Here's ESPN's list:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...es-to-no-1

They too have WSU third.

BC

Actually ESPN has WSU #2 ahead of Utah, which IMnsHO is a complete loss of credibility.  Combined with thinking there are 3 players in the conference whose performances rated higher than McCaffrey, Kevin Gemmell is relegated to dufus-world, below Wilner

[BostonCard]

Gimmell picked one player on offense, one on defense, and one on ST.

Defense is easy: Camerons Smith (3 INT's, 1 of which was a pick-6) is a no-brainer
Special teams also is easy: Fairbairn kicked a 60 yard field goal and was 4/4.  Barring someone returning a couple kicks to the house, there is no competition

That leaves offense, where the contenders are:
Rosen 34/47, 399 yards, 8.5 ypa, 3 TD, 0 INT
Falk 47/62, 514 yards, 8.3 ypa, 5 TD, 0 INT
Marks 8 catches, 97 yards, 12.1 ypc,  4 TD
McCaffrey 23 carries, 109 yds, 1 TD; 5 rec, 112 yds, 1 TD, plus 79 return yards

Taking off my cardinal colored glasses, I'd probably have given it to Falk, or perhaps Rosen who was playing a tougher opponent.  Marks makes sense if you want to give it to a non-QB.  McCaffrey is defensible, but he got it last week.

BC

[BostonCard]

Gimmell picked one player on offense, one on defense, and one on ST.

Defense is easy: Camerons Smith (3 INT's, 1 of which was a pick-6) is a no-brainer
Special teams also is easy: Fairbairn kicked a 60 yard field goal and was 4/4.  Barring someone returning a couple kicks to the house, there is no competition

That leaves offense, where the contenders are:
Rosen 34/47, 399 yards, 8.5 ypa, 3 TD, 0 INT
Falk 47/62, 514 yards, 8.3 ypa, 5 TD, 0 INT
Marks 8 catches, 97 yards, 12.1 ypc,  4 TD
McCaffrey 23 carries, 109 yds, 1 TD; 5 rec, 112 yds, 1 TD, plus 79 return yards

Taking off my cardinal colored glasses, I'd probably have given it to Falk, or perhaps Rosen who was playing a tougher opponent.  Marks makes sense if you want to give it to a non-QB.  McCaffrey is defensible, but he got it last week.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I think you have to take the defense that offensive player is facing into account.  Anyone who goes for 100 on the ground and air against the best defense in the conference, is far more impressive than one who throws for whatever against arguably the worst defense in the conference.

[OutsiderFan]

I think you have to take the defense that offensive player is facing into account.  Anyone who goes for 100 on the ground and air against the best defense in the conference, is far more impressive than one who throws for whatever against arguably the worst defense in the conference.

[CTcard]

Trying to figure out which is best between Arizona, ASU, UCLA, Under Stanford Control, Utah, Low APR U, Oregon, Washington, and WSU is darned near impossible.

Which is the whole point/fun/interest in making a Power Ranking.
I mean, who will really be all that fascinated to read (or ready to argue) that someone ranks Colorado and OSU 11 and 12 and Stanford #1.

So, here it goes for me.
Somehow I feel that the Utah loss frees me a bit to rate the teams as how good I think they really are regardless of record, etc.

1. Stanford - Still scared of the defense against a good balanced offense. Still scared of what the offense might do against a DLine that can stand up to us - though UW performance should have erased a lot of the latter.
2. U$C - Good $C is the only team that seems to be a different option for the top spot. Obviously Bad $C is further down the list. But Good $C is can be scary good.
3. Utah - Probably other teams here (notably UCLA) whose ceiling is higher, but Utah is much more consistent and isn't going to just fold.
4. UCLA - A ton of talent, though much of it is in the hospital ward. Actually think the Nov. 4 showdown with WSU will be interesting.
5. Oregon - This rates the team with Vernon Adams. We'll have to be sneaky to figure out how to face their backup QBs along with all the others we've seen.
6. c.a.l. - It wasn't just getting clubbed by UCLA, it's also not seeing a defense that gets a stop without a turnover. 
7. UW - Their defense was pretty good and out OLine didn't manhandle their DLine as much as the past few opponents. They obviously need to find an offense and a QB, but their run game is showing signs of promise.
8. WSU - Well, they did beat Oregon, but that was the Adamless team. Their pass game still scares me for next week.
9. ASU - If I had seen them more often, they might be higher. Their wins are pretty good (UCLA, thrashing Colorado) but they also got thrashed by drunk Sarkisian.
10. Arizona - Interesting that with the leading offense in the conference (yds/game) that they benched their QB for the guy who played (not so well) against us.
11. Colorado - Wheee! They won a game.
12. OSU - The didn't ... and won't.

[CTcard]

Trying to figure out which is best between Arizona, ASU, UCLA, Under Stanford Control, Utah, Low APR U, Oregon, Washington, and WSU is darned near impossible.

Which is the whole point/fun/interest in making a Power Ranking.
I mean, who will really be all that fascinated to read (or ready to argue) that someone ranks Colorado and OSU 11 and 12 and Stanford #1.

So, here it goes for me.
Somehow I feel that the Utah loss frees me a bit to rate the teams as how good I think they really are regardless of record, etc.

1. Stanford - Still scared of the defense against a good balanced offense. Still scared of what the offense might do against a DLine that can stand up to us - though UW performance should have erased a lot of the latter.
2. U$C - Good $C is the only team that seems to be a different option for the top spot. Obviously Bad $C is further down the list. But Good $C is can be scary good.
3. Utah - Probably other teams here (notably UCLA) whose ceiling is higher, but Utah is much more consistent and isn't going to just fold.
4. UCLA - A ton of talent, though much of it is in the hospital ward. Actually think the Nov. 4 showdown with WSU will be interesting.
5. Oregon - This rates the team with Vernon Adams. We'll have to be sneaky to figure out how to face their backup QBs along with all the others we've seen.
6. c.a.l. - It wasn't just getting clubbed by UCLA, it's also not seeing a defense that gets a stop without a turnover. 
7. UW - Their defense was pretty good and out OLine didn't manhandle their DLine as much as the past few opponents. They obviously need to find an offense and a QB, but their run game is showing signs of promise.
8. WSU - Well, they did beat Oregon, but that was the Adamless team. Their pass game still scares me for next week.
9. ASU - If I had seen them more often, they might be higher. Their wins are pretty good (UCLA, thrashing Colorado) but they also got thrashed by drunk Sarkisian.
10. Arizona - Interesting that with the leading offense in the conference (yds/game) that they benched their QB for the guy who played (not so well) against us.
11. Colorado - Wheee! They won a game.
12. OSU - The didn't ... and won't.

[fullmetal]

Oregon is getting better as Vernon Adams takes more reps.  We will catch them when they're strong.

UCLA's injury replacements are learning on the fly--they'll get better barring any more attrition.

kal is surely getting better week-to-week, so we'll catch them at their strength.

South Bend's injury replacements are likewise learning and growing as the season progresses, and we'll catch them at their peak.

No easy games.

[fullmetal]

Oregon is getting better as Vernon Adams takes more reps.  We will catch them when they're strong.

UCLA's injury replacements are learning on the fly--they'll get better barring any more attrition.

kal is surely getting better week-to-week, so we'll catch them at their strength.

South Bend's injury replacements are likewise learning and growing as the season progresses, and we'll catch them at their peak.

No easy games.

[Hulk01]

Doesn't the "getting better" argument apply to Stanford, too? 

Won't we be better when we face all those teams that will be better, too?

[Hulk01]

Doesn't the "getting better" argument apply to Stanford, too? 

Won't we be better when we face all those teams that will be better, too?

[fullmetal]

I think we've already been through most of our learning curve.  It's a matter of avoiding injuries and refining blocking right now, imho.  I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops).  Even on well-blocked run plays, I think I generally saw UW canceling out our "numbers at the point of attack" advantage with defensive speed.

The next-men-up for teams ravaged by injuries have more improvement to gain than we do, ceteris paribus.  However...since they are backups, their ceilings may be lower.  /shrug

(This overly-verbose post brought to you by sleepiness.)

[fullmetal]

I think we've already been through most of our learning curve.  It's a matter of avoiding injuries and refining blocking right now, imho.  I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops).  Even on well-blocked run plays, I think I generally saw UW canceling out our "numbers at the point of attack" advantage with defensive speed.

The next-men-up for teams ravaged by injuries have more improvement to gain than we do, ceteris paribus.  However...since they are backups, their ceilings may be lower.  /shrug

(This overly-verbose post brought to you by sleepiness.)

[washingtonismoney]

I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.

[washingtonismoney]

I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the Stanford offense will have reached its potential until Trent Irwin is making plays routinely.  The UW game was a good sign Love has settled in. Now Irwin needs to get going.  And I don't think the defense has played its best game yet either.  Will it be better with Davis?  The secondary should get better and better too given how young so many rotation players are.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think the Stanford offense will have reached its potential until Trent Irwin is making plays routinely.  The UW game was a good sign Love has settled in. Now Irwin needs to get going.  And I don't think the defense has played its best game yet either.  Will it be better with Davis?  The secondary should get better and better too given how young so many rotation players are.

[stupac2]

Before our game UW was the #7 defense in the country per FEI, they're currently 26 per S&P and 22 on FPI, 36th in ypp, and 22 in points/game. I'm not certain that they're the best defense we'll face before our bowl, but the fact that we hung 31 on them and were way above their standard ypp tells me that we are pretty darn good.

[stupac2]

Before our game UW was the #7 defense in the country per FEI, they're currently 26 per S&P and 22 on FPI, 36th in ypp, and 22 in points/game. I'm not certain that they're the best defense we'll face before our bowl, but the fact that we hung 31 on them and were way above their standard ypp tells me that we are pretty darn good.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13337.msg137249#msg137249 date=1445893947]I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.
[/quote]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13337.msg137249#msg137249 date=1445893947]I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.
[/quote]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.

[washingtonismoney]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.

Sure. I'm a big fan of scoring myself. And we did more of it than UW has surrendered all year.

[washingtonismoney]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.

Sure. I'm a big fan of scoring myself. And we did more of it than UW has surrendered all year.