[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure you want to filter out other rushing plays.  Some of them, like the Skov touchdown were short, but would be considered successful.  Others like the Marx stuff were short and unsuccessful, but it's not like we didn't have similar situations last year.  The biggest "other" rushed after the top three is Hogan.  He was the third leading rusher (after Gaffney and Wilkerson) last year, and the second leading rusher two years ago.  Many of those rushes were scrambles (and of course, the sacks), but we also have used him in read option and even conventional (pitch) option plays

I think it's fair. I spotlighted it not to filter, per se -- those other plays are real rushing plays, as you say -- but to spotlight. As in, it looks to me that with Stanford's most effective running backs, we're in decent-to-good shape. The question is whether we can increase the percentage of runs allocated to them, which your response gets at.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure you want to filter out other rushing plays.  Some of them, like the Skov touchdown were short, but would be considered successful.  Others like the Marx stuff were short and unsuccessful, but it's not like we didn't have similar situations last year.  The biggest "other" rushed after the top three is Hogan.  He was the third leading rusher (after Gaffney and Wilkerson) last year, and the second leading rusher two years ago.  Many of those rushes were scrambles (and of course, the sacks), but we also have used him in read option and even conventional (pitch) option plays

I think it's fair. I spotlighted it not to filter, per se -- those other plays are real rushing plays, as you say -- but to spotlight. As in, it looks to me that with Stanford's most effective running backs, we're in decent-to-good shape. The question is whether we can increase the percentage of runs allocated to them, which your response gets at.