[lex24]

To answer your questions, all of the plays were running plays.  I didn’t look at passing plays.  And, no, it is not broken down by type of play (between the tackles, versus outside the tackles).  My recollection, shared by others here, is that most of the plays were between the tackles, but I could be wrong.

BC

In order to fully understand the situation in 2016, I subjected myself to watching many (not all) of our 2016 games again. First of all, Stanford DID run lots of sweep action plays in 2016. CMac often didn't run very wide before he decided to turn up the field, but often he did run outside the tackle box. One really does get a sense of how good a back he is. He sort of trots along the LOS, then decisively cuts through a gap in the pursuit and is into the secondary. There are also at least two short yardage plays on which he broke a tackle in the backfield. He is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
However, what he is not is a power runner. His NFL career shows this Carolina ranked third from the bottom on third and 3 or less this year, converting on 50% of their attempts. Counting this may not be fair, because the statistics used previously are all college, but it is a data point. Every year is different and every OL is different, so it is tricky to compare stats over time. That said, I would have to admit that there is a good rationale to preferring CMac to Toby on third and three or less. I am not in that camp however. CMac can't make a hole where there is none.  I think a short-yardage back needs to be able to do that. Toby could.

One can clearly see in today's football a trend away from "playing in a phone booth". CMac certainly embodied that trend. I don't think there is any way back. It doesn't mean we will become/are a "finesse" offense. We need to control the clock and be efficient using a more "multiple" offense than we did under JH. We aren't going to have (most probably) a CMac who can live with less than stellar OL play. We still need the TWU. So "Intellectual Brutality" has to manifest itself in slightly different forms, but must not disappear.

I don’t think anyone said CMac is a “power runner”. They (I) did say he’s an excellent inside runner. Which he is. Thus, it was not, as you stated “ wishful thinking” for Shaw to call him a great inside runner.  It was accurate. He ran for just under 1,400 yards in the NFL last year.  With teams keying on him all year. Especially as the season wore on and it was obvious that the QB couldn’t play.  

But enough of that.  Moving forward I think we tend to over analyze things quite honestly. To me it’s quite simple. If they can get back to having a above average to dominate offensive line they’ll be able to run  the football and have at least an efficient offense. If they don’t get that line  play, they won’t run the ball and they will struggle.

Passing games are more important these days no question about it. And the rules help passing games. But the bottom line is this: to win consistently you have to effectively run the ball on offense and you have to be able to stop the run defensively. Stanford did neither the last couple years. When they were successful they did both. Therein lies the difference.

[lex24]

To answer your questions, all of the plays were running plays.  I didn’t look at passing plays.  And, no, it is not broken down by type of play (between the tackles, versus outside the tackles).  My recollection, shared by others here, is that most of the plays were between the tackles, but I could be wrong.

BC

In order to fully understand the situation in 2016, I subjected myself to watching many (not all) of our 2016 games again. First of all, Stanford DID run lots of sweep action plays in 2016. CMac often didn't run very wide before he decided to turn up the field, but often he did run outside the tackle box. One really does get a sense of how good a back he is. He sort of trots along the LOS, then decisively cuts through a gap in the pursuit and is into the secondary. There are also at least two short yardage plays on which he broke a tackle in the backfield. He is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
However, what he is not is a power runner. His NFL career shows this Carolina ranked third from the bottom on third and 3 or less this year, converting on 50% of their attempts. Counting this may not be fair, because the statistics used previously are all college, but it is a data point. Every year is different and every OL is different, so it is tricky to compare stats over time. That said, I would have to admit that there is a good rationale to preferring CMac to Toby on third and three or less. I am not in that camp however. CMac can't make a hole where there is none.  I think a short-yardage back needs to be able to do that. Toby could.

One can clearly see in today's football a trend away from "playing in a phone booth". CMac certainly embodied that trend. I don't think there is any way back. It doesn't mean we will become/are a "finesse" offense. We need to control the clock and be efficient using a more "multiple" offense than we did under JH. We aren't going to have (most probably) a CMac who can live with less than stellar OL play. We still need the TWU. So "Intellectual Brutality" has to manifest itself in slightly different forms, but must not disappear.

I don’t think anyone said CMac is a “power runner”. They (I) did say he’s an excellent inside runner. Which he is. Thus, it was not, as you stated “ wishful thinking” for Shaw to call him a great inside runner.  It was accurate. He ran for just under 1,400 yards in the NFL last year.  With teams keying on him all year. Especially as the season wore on and it was obvious that the QB couldn’t play.  

But enough of that.  Moving forward I think we tend to over analyze things quite honestly. To me it’s quite simple. If they can get back to having a above average to dominate offensive line they’ll be able to run  the football and have at least an efficient offense. If they don’t get that line  play, they won’t run the ball and they will struggle.

Passing games are more important these days no question about it. And the rules help passing games. But the bottom line is this: to win consistently you have to effectively run the ball on offense and you have to be able to stop the run defensively. Stanford did neither the last couple years. When they were successful they did both. Therein lies the difference.