Stein's offense statistics.

** Data below includes both conference and non-conference games:

** Data below includes only conference games:

Some might say, "But let's not count the two bad weather games." I disagree with excluding these games, but for fun, if I only count conference games and exclude the Wisconsin/Iowa games, the average "Off. Points per Game" is 31.8 ppg. Still less than prior year.

I'll not make any conclusions, but welcome the OBD Forum's comments.

The big thing that jumps out to me is QB experience.

Oregon’s defense is also better in 2025 by almost every meaningful statistic:

PPG: 14:9 (vs. 16.2)

Total YPG: 249 (vs. 284)

TO: 16 (vs. 16)

Sacks: 39 (vs 39)

Perhaps Coach Lanning wanted Coach Stein to be more conservative given the first year QB and better defense?

Limit turnovers = higher probability of winning.

Coach Stein has done a tremendous job of developing Dante Moore. While he’s not a finished product, he is so much better than he was at UCLA and even earlier this season.

Edited yesterday at 08:37 PM1 day by OregonDucks

4 hours ago, DrJacksPlaidPants said:

The big thing that jumps out to me is QB experience.

That’s a good observation. Experience/time in the system definitely impacting things.

13 hours ago, WTD25 said:

That’s a good observation. Experience/time in the system definitely impacting things.

Bo and Dillon were also 5-6 year vets by the time they got into Stein's system. They had played a lot of football.

It took me a minute to figure out what this chart is trying to do. The colors make it a bit confusing.

If the team averaged 310, 309, and 308 yards rushing in three consecutive season, one would be good, one would be so-so, and one would be bad. 300+ yards rushing is just good in all three years. Suggesting 310 would be a good year but 307 bad seems silly (as does highlighting dropping from 310 to 307 as significantly notable).

I'd enjoy a chart with the same data that used generally accepted averages of good, average, and poor in each category and used colors to see how the offenses has done under Stein against those.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by AnotherOD

2 hours ago, AnotherOD said:

It took me a minute to figure out what this chart is trying to do. The colors make it a bit confusing.

If the team averaged 310, 309, and 308 yards rushing in three consecutive season, one would be good, one would be so-so, and one would be bad. 300+ yards rushing is just good in all three years. Suggesting 310 would be a good year but 307 bad seems silly (as does highlighting dropping from 310 to 307 as significantly notable).

I'd enjoy a chart with the same data that used generally accepted averages of good, average, and poor in each category and used colors to see how the offenses has done under Stein against those.

Each column is a comparison against itself, with green (good), yellow/orange (middle), and red (bad/worst).

But as you noted, those colors are relative to each other, and not necessarily "good" or "bad" in general. Your example could go the other way as well. If rushing yards per game was 101, 100, and 99, then the 101 would be highlighted green for "good".

That said, what I wanted to presented was to see how Stein's offenses did relative to each other.

I'll present the full data table in my next post that compares all coaches back to 2007, or so. That will give a better indicator of actual "good, middle, bad".

@AnotherOD