Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

UW vs. stanford by the numbers.

Passion
Passion Member Posts: 4,622
in Hardcore Husky Board
From the Seattle Times Husky Blog:

OFFENSIVE STATISTICS
Pac-12 ranks (National rank in parenthesis)

Scoring
Pac-12 leader: Oregon, 59.8 (National leader: Baylor, 69.7)
6. Stanford, 41.3 (21)
7. Washington, 39.8 (27)

Rushing offense
Pac-12 leader: Oregon, 332.5 (National leader: Oregon)
3. Washington, 288.8 (11)
6. Stanford, 218.0 (33)

Passing offense
Pac-12 leader: Oregon State, 420.6 yards per game (National leader: Baylor, 444.3)
8. Washington, 285.3 (32)
10. Stanford, 221.3 (79)

Total offense
Pac-12 leader: UCLA, 614.3 (National leader: Baylor, 751.3)
3. Washington, 574.0 (5)
8. Stanford, 439.3 (50)

Red-zone conversions
Pac-12 leader: Colorado, 100% (1 TD, 4 FGs in 5 tries)
3. Stanford, 93.3% — 14 of 15 scores with 9 TDs + 5 FGs (20)
6. Washington, 87% — 20 of 23 scores with 17 TDs + 3 FGs (44)

Sacks allowed
Pac-12 leader: Washington/Stanford/Oregon, 3 total (National leader: Nebraska/Navy, 2)

Long scrimmage plays (of 10 yards or more)
Pac-12 leader: Oregon State, 86 (National leader: Marshall, 84)
5. Washington, 75 (31)
10. Stanford, 54 (96)

DEFENSIVE STATISTICS

Scoring defense
Pac-12 leader: Washington/Oregon, 10.8 points per game (National leader: Louisville, 6.8)
T1. Washington, 10.8 (4)
5. Stanford, 19.5 (34)

Rushing defense
Pac-12 leader: Colorado, 91.3 (National leader: Florida, 53.5)
3. Stanford, 105.0 (21)
5. Washington, 132.0 (43)

Passing defense
Pac-12 leader: Washington, 156.8 (National leader: Michigan State, 130.5)
1. Washington, 156.8 (9)
8. Stanford, 238.5 (78)

Total defense
Pac-12 leader: Washington, 288.8 (National leader: Michigan State, 188.8)
1. Washington, 288.8 (14) — 3.80 yards per play (3)
7. Stanford, 343.5 (36) — 4.64 yards per play (23)

Red-zone defense
Pac-12 leader: Washington, 60% (National leader: Baylor, 44.4%)
1. Washington, 60% — 6 scores in 10 opponents’ attempts with 4 TDs + 2 FGs (5)
11. Stanford, 90% — 9 scores in opponents’ 10 attempts with 7 TDs + 3 FGs (98)

Sacks
Pac-12 leader: Utah, 3.75 per game (National leader: Memphis, 4.33)
2. Washington, 3.25 (10)
6. Stanford, 2.25 (33)

Long scrimmage plays allowed (of 10 yards or more)
Pac-12 leader: Washington, 29 (National leader: Baylor/Michigan State, 28)
1. Washington, 29 (3)
4. Stanford, 46 (27)

Penalties
Pac-12 leader: Arizona State, 3.5 per game (National leader: Boston College, 2.0)
3. Stanford, 4.8 per game, for 38.5 yards per game (28)
12. Washington, 10.8 per game, for 92.5 yards (125 out of 125)

INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS

Passing yards
Pac-12 leader: Sean Mannion, OSU, 403.6 yards per game (National leader: Mannion)
8. Keith Price, Washington, 261.0 per game (31); 9 TDs, 2 INT, 72.3% completion rate
10. Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 208.0 per game (63); 10 TDs, 3 INT, 63.2% completion rate;

Passer rating
Pac-12 leader: Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 174.6 (National leader: Bryce Petty, Baylor, 239.53)
1. Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 174.6 (11)
2. Keith Price, Washington, 173.6 (12)

Rushing
Pac-12 leader: Bishop Sankey, Washington, 151.8 yards per game (National leader: Sankey, 151.8)
1. Bishop Sankey, Washington, 151.8 (1); 104 carries for 607 yards, 5 TDs; 5.84 ypc
5. Tyler Gaffney, Stanford, 96.25 (30); 73 carries for 385 yards, T TDs; 5.27 ypc

Receiving
Pac-12 leader: Paul Richardson, Colorado 162.3 yards per game (National leader: Richardson)
9. Ty Montgomery, Stanford, 81.8
13. Kevin Smith, Washington, 67.3
15. Kasen Williams, Washington, 63.8
16. Devon Cajuste, Stanford, 61.0
20. Jaydon Mickens, Washington. 53.5
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«134

Comments

  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 69,850 Founders Club
    interesting stuff, thanks
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,855
    Confirms what we already knew about the offense - racking up tons of yards, need to commit to FINISHING.

    Usually teams that rack up lots of yards are eventually going to score lots of points. My guess is this offense will do a better job of punching it in, but mostly because they can't really do much worse.

    It will be interesting to see how the defensive stats hold up now that the varsity schedule begins.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,609 Founders Club
    We win this one
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Passion said:

    From the Seattle Times Husky Blog:

    OFFENSIVE STATISTICS
    Pac-12 ranks (National rank in parenthesis)

    Scoring
    Pac-12 leader: Oregon, 59.8 (National leader: Baylor, 69.7)
    6. Stanford, 41.3 (21)
    7. Washington, 39.8 (27)

    Rushing offense
    Pac-12 leader: Oregon, 332.5 (National leader: Oregon)
    3. Washington, 288.8 (11)
    6. Stanford, 218.0 (33)

    Passing offense
    Pac-12 leader: Oregon State, 420.6 yards per game (National leader: Baylor, 444.3)
    8. Washington, 285.3 (32)
    10. Stanford, 221.3 (79)

    Total offense
    Pac-12 leader: UCLA, 614.3 (National leader: Baylor, 751.3)
    3. Washington, 574.0 (5)
    8. Stanford, 439.3 (50)

    Red-zone conversions
    Pac-12 leader: Colorado, 100% (1 TD, 4 FGs in 5 tries)
    3. Stanford, 93.3% — 14 of 15 scores with 9 TDs + 5 FGs (20)
    6. Washington, 87% — 20 of 23 scores with 17 TDs + 3 FGs (44)

    Sacks allowed
    Pac-12 leader: Washington/Stanford/Oregon, 3 total (National leader: Nebraska/Navy, 2)

    Long scrimmage plays (of 10 yards or more)
    Pac-12 leader: Oregon State, 86 (National leader: Marshall, 84)
    5. Washington, 75 (31)
    10. Stanford, 54 (96)

    DEFENSIVE STATISTICS

    Scoring defense
    Pac-12 leader: Washington/Oregon, 10.8 points per game (National leader: Louisville, 6.8)
    T1. Washington, 10.8 (4)
    5. Stanford, 19.5 (34)

    Rushing defense
    Pac-12 leader: Colorado, 91.3 (National leader: Florida, 53.5)
    3. Stanford, 105.0 (21)
    5. Washington, 132.0 (43)

    Passing defense
    Pac-12 leader: Washington, 156.8 (National leader: Michigan State, 130.5)
    1. Washington, 156.8 (9)
    8. Stanford, 238.5 (78)

    Total defense
    Pac-12 leader: Washington, 288.8 (National leader: Michigan State, 188.8)
    1. Washington, 288.8 (14) — 3.80 yards per play (3)
    7. Stanford, 343.5 (36) — 4.64 yards per play (23)

    Red-zone defense
    Pac-12 leader: Washington, 60% (National leader: Baylor, 44.4%)
    1. Washington, 60% — 6 scores in 10 opponents’ attempts with 4 TDs + 2 FGs (5)
    11. Stanford, 90% — 9 scores in opponents’ 10 attempts with 7 TDs + 3 FGs (98)

    Sacks
    Pac-12 leader: Utah, 3.75 per game (National leader: Memphis, 4.33)
    2. Washington, 3.25 (10)
    6. Stanford, 2.25 (33)

    Long scrimmage plays allowed (of 10 yards or more)
    Pac-12 leader: Washington, 29 (National leader: Baylor/Michigan State, 28)
    1. Washington, 29 (3)
    4. Stanford, 46 (27)

    Penalties
    Pac-12 leader: Arizona State, 3.5 per game (National leader: Boston College, 2.0)
    3. Stanford, 4.8 per game, for 38.5 yards per game (28)
    12. Washington, 10.8 per game, for 92.5 yards (125 out of 125)

    INDIVIDUAL STATISTICS

    Passing yards
    Pac-12 leader: Sean Mannion, OSU, 403.6 yards per game (National leader: Mannion)
    8. Keith Price, Washington, 261.0 per game (31); 9 TDs, 2 INT, 72.3% completion rate
    10. Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 208.0 per game (63); 10 TDs, 3 INT, 63.2% completion rate;

    Passer rating
    Pac-12 leader: Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 174.6 (National leader: Bryce Petty, Baylor, 239.53)
    1. Kevin Hogan, Stanford, 174.6 (11)
    2. Keith Price, Washington, 173.6 (12)

    Rushing
    Pac-12 leader: Bishop Sankey, Washington, 151.8 yards per game (National leader: Sankey, 151.8)
    1. Bishop Sankey, Washington, 151.8 (1); 104 carries for 607 yards, 5 TDs; 5.84 ypc
    5. Tyler Gaffney, Stanford, 96.25 (30); 73 carries for 385 yards, T TDs; 5.27 ypc

    Receiving
    Pac-12 leader: Paul Richardson, Colorado 162.3 yards per game (National leader: Richardson)
    9. Ty Montgomery, Stanford, 81.8
    13. Kevin Smith, Washington, 67.3
    15. Kasen Williams, Washington, 63.8
    16. Devon Cajuste, Stanford, 61.0
    20. Jaydon Mickens, Washington. 53.5

    Disagree
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Homebrew_Dawg
    Homebrew_Dawg Member Posts: 1,652
    Forecast is for sunshine and mid-80's. Will Sark be in shorts and a visor?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    dnc said:

    Confirms what we already knew about the offense - racking up tons of yards, need to commit to FINISHING.

    Usually teams that rack up lots of yards are eventually going to score lots of points. My guess is this offense will do a better job of punching it in, but mostly because they can't really do much worse.

    It will be interesting to see how the defensive stats hold up now that the varsity schedule begins.

    That our non-conference slate was comparatively difficult (notwithstanding ISU) makes those statistics all the more impressive. Hmmm.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Gladstone said:

    dnc said:

    Confirms what we already knew about the offense - racking up tons of yards, need to commit to FINISHING.

    Usually teams that rack up lots of yards are eventually going to score lots of points. My guess is this offense will do a better job of punching it in, but mostly because they can't really do much worse.

    It will be interesting to see how the defensive stats hold up now that the varsity schedule begins.

    That our non-conference slate was comparatively difficult (notwithstanding ISU) makes those statistics all the more impressive. Hmmm.
    Comparatively difficult to what? Playing schools for the blind?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BennyBeaver
    BennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    stats are for loosers (c)

    TheGlove
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    Gladstone said:

    dnc said:

    Confirms what we already knew about the offense - racking up tons of yards, need to commit to FINISHING.

    Usually teams that rack up lots of yards are eventually going to score lots of points. My guess is this offense will do a better job of punching it in, but mostly because they can't really do much worse.

    It will be interesting to see how the defensive stats hold up now that the varsity schedule begins.

    That our non-conference slate was comparatively difficult (notwithstanding ISU) makes those statistics all the more impressive. Hmmm.
    Comparatively difficult to what? Playing schools for the blind?
    While overrated, BSU isn't a pushover and we also played a B10 team at a neutral-hostile site. Stanford and Oregon have yet to face teams that can punch them back a little bit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Gladstone said:

    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    Gladstone said:

    dnc said:

    Confirms what we already knew about the offense - racking up tons of yards, need to commit to FINISHING.

    Usually teams that rack up lots of yards are eventually going to score lots of points. My guess is this offense will do a better job of punching it in, but mostly because they can't really do much worse.

    It will be interesting to see how the defensive stats hold up now that the varsity schedule begins.

    That our non-conference slate was comparatively difficult (notwithstanding ISU) makes those statistics all the more impressive. Hmmm.
    Comparatively difficult to what? Playing schools for the blind?
    While overrated, BSU isn't a pushover and we also played a B10 team at a neutral-hostile site. Stanford and Oregon have yet to face teams that can punch them back a little bit.
    None of the teams UW has faced would have been a challenge for Stanford or Oregon either.

    Arizona State is better than anyone UW has faced, and Stanford boatraced them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter