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
«1

Comments

  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 68,416 Founders Club
    interesting stuff, thanks
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    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: 113,886 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: 16,419
    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: 16,419
    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
  • Southerndawg
    Southerndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,346 Founders Club
    TheGlove said:

    stats are for loosers (c)

    TheGlove

    Normally I'd give the obligatory FO,G response, but I couldn't agree more. Raw stats are for losers (AND loosers (c) .. abundance).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    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?
    Next year's OOC slate

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    dnc 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?
    Next year's OOC slate

    Next year's OOC slate IS four schools of the blind.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SweatpantsGeneral
    SweatpantsGeneral Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,154 Founders Club
    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.
    Are you kidding? Stanford just faced the TUFFest Defense in the country!!1!!1!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Fire_Marshall_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 25,623 Standard Supporter
    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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Passion
    Passion Member Posts: 4,622
    Fire_Marshall_Bill 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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    Well, they kicked the shit out of wazzu...who beat us last year. Just sayin'.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Fire_Marshall_Bill 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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    Playing Army >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Playing Idaho State.

    Die in a fucking fire.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mohun
    Mohun Member Posts: 32
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    Fire_Marshall_Bill 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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    Playing Army >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Playing Idaho State.

    Die in a fucking fire.
    Crisped that up for you. You're welcome.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Southerndawg
    Southerndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,346 Founders Club
    Passion said:

    Fire_Marshall_Bill 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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    Well, they kicked the shit out of wazzu...who beat us last year. Just sayin'.
    They made ASU look like pumpchumps too.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    According to Sagarin, UW's SOS is 40, Stanford's is 41. Oregon's is 104, UCLA's is 130, ASU 10, WSU 17.

    UW is doing quite well in the stats but Oregon and Stanford have been so far ahead in their games that they had deep backups giving up yards and points in the second half. Otherwise, they'd be 1-2 in D categories with UW 3rd instead of 1st.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited September 2013
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    According to Sagarin, UW's SOS is 40, Stanford's is 41. Oregon's is 104, UCLA's is 130, ASU 10, WSU 17.

    UW is doing quite well in the stats but Oregon and Stanford have been so far ahead in their games that they had deep backups giving up yards and points in the second half. Otherwise, they'd be 1-2 in D categories with UW 3rd instead of 1st.

    UCLA is 130!? Plunger raping Nebraska on their own turf after being down 21-3 is the best win the Pac 12 has had all year.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    edited September 2013
    CollegeDoog said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    According to Sagarin, UW's SOS is 40, Stanford's is 41. Oregon's is 104, UCLA's is 130, ASU 10, WSU 17.

    UW is doing quite well in the stats but Oregon and Stanford have been so far ahead in their games that they had deep backups giving up yards and points in the second half. Otherwise, they'd be 1-2 in D categories with UW 3rd instead of 1st.

    UCLA is 130!? Plunger raping Nebraska on their own turf after being down 21-3 is the best win the Pac 12 has had all year.
    New Mexico State is #189 in Sagarin's ratings.

    Personally, I think his ratings are flawed when comparing the FBS dreck versus the good teams in FCS. My guess is that NMSU won't finish that low in his rankings.

    He's got NDSU at #29 overall. I know they are good, but there's no fucking way a team with 63 scholarships could hang week to week playing FBS teams.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    Computer rankings are worse than human rankings this early in the season. There's just too small a data sample to achieve meaningful results.

    Give it another three or four weeks and the computers will be much more meaningful than the humans.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_Lover
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 32,289 Founders Club
    Fire_Marshall_Bill 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?
    Stanfraud really has not played anyone out of conference either. They had a hard time with US Military-West Pt.-Army or whatever they're going by this week for a while.
    Last I checked, in terms of college football, USMA simply goes by Army and has been doing that for quite some time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ToiletSeat
    ToiletSeat Member Posts: 150
    Probably referencing the uniforms Army wore last Saturday:
    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_Lover
    CFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 32,289 Founders Club
    ToiletSeat said:

    Probably referencing the uniforms Army wore last Saturday:
    image

    That makes sense.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    I like UW in this one.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,137
    CollegeDoog said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    According to Sagarin, UW's SOS is 40, Stanford's is 41. Oregon's is 104, UCLA's is 130, ASU 10, WSU 17.

    UW is doing quite well in the stats but Oregon and Stanford have been so far ahead in their games that they had deep backups giving up yards and points in the second half. Otherwise, they'd be 1-2 in D categories with UW 3rd instead of 1st.

    UCLA is 130!? Plunger raping Nebraska on their own turf after being down 21-3 is the best win the Pac 12 has had all year.
    The same Nebraska that gave up 600 yards to Wyoming? It was a good win, but Nebraska looks like they suck. Oregon's plunger rapes of Tennessee and Virginia were equally, if not more, impressive. ASU over Wisconsin is a better win too, even if it was bullshit.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,886 Founders Club
    The take away from the Nebraska game was the defense
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter