All Activity

Yeah, you never truly know how the rest of the game would have played out if you could go back in time and change one of those decisions. The FG that was missed was by no means a gimme, but the 4th down yardage needed was much longer, I believe. I generally like Dan's aggressiveness. But the one I noted above felt like too much for me. PSU hadn't been able to do anything offensively at that point. The FG was a chip-shot, and would have made it a 2-score game. I was all about taking the points there. Good thing I'm not making the calls. And the thing we'll never know in the moment is how good they feel about a particular play in a particular situation that gives them the added confidence to go. That run by Davison was blocked perfectly and made it look easy.

You’d think intent would be the primary factor for a rule that has a word describing intent in its name.

What scares me the most is not the concussion risk, though it is more common with a blow to the head, but the risk of C-spine injury. Modern helmets are designed to absorb most of that concussive blow, but do not prevent the sudden flexion, extension or compression of the neck that can result in cord trauma. It was unnerving to see Lamar's head snap back from the impact knowing what was happening to the C-spine

Saw this on reddit and thought I should share:

When they start excusing it by saying, "well, that looked closer to hairline impact, rather than actual 'crown' of the helmet", methinks somebody is looking for a way to excuse...

Good sir, I concede your point as it further reinforces my premise that the Ducks have not rebuilt so much as reloaded. Dream on!

I believe that's what they sing after all of their top 10 losses, the Blues. 🤣

One other point. That's also irrelevant. I don't think the PSU player's action was malicious. He wanted to make a play and Limar was already low to the ground, he may have already been down. But intent has no say in the rule. There are some actions players take that it looks intentional and malicious and I do believe those should be punished more than incidental contact. The reality is that to make this rule really about player safety any helmet to helmet contact that takes place should result in all parties involved leaving the game to get checked out by a third party doctor/medical specialist to assess for concussion. Ejection from the game should only be enacted if the conduct appeared malicious which goes to intent which is always difficult to determine but somehow you just know it when you see it. I know players are no longer required to leave the stadium for targeting but are effectively suspended for 1 half of game play. I probably can write more on this topic and there is a lot more to get into but the rules are play right now are for show and frustrating.

If you ask me, it's targeting. There was helmet to helmet contact and the defender did seem to launch himself. Incidental contact is often something where the offensive player moves in a split second and there is no way for the defender to move. Also... The targeting rule is all about safety theatre not player safety. I wrote the article below a few years ago but I think it's still relevant to this. https://fishduck.com/2022/03/the-targeting-rule-is-not-about-player-safety/

Maybe they should try a Blue-Out?

I mean ... Dan opted to take the points earlier than going for it on fourth and that resulted on a missed field goal. Granted if that field goal was made then the game would have stopped the OT. Could have even resulted in Penn State not scoring that touchdown to put it into OT because that final drive of regulation was slow and methodical which is what Penn State needed. But force them to play faster could have resulted in some more bad plays from Allar with the pressure on.. In the end Dan is going to play aggressively.

Actually Lanning does both, he picks and chooses what statement he wants to make based on the opposing team and situation. Going for it on 4th down not only makes statment to our players but to the other team as well. Last night DL told JF we are going for broke--and you aint stoppin us!!

Unfortunately, it is probably going to take a player down for the count with a major concussion before they reverse these dangerous, hairsplitting rule changes.

I agree, pretty vanilla yesterday and it seems like they’re taking it slow with Sayin because they have that luxury with how well the defense is playing. Day really appears to be managing games so far this year. Maybe he spent some time with Jim Tressel in the offseason LOL

Not taking the points, but instead going for it is choosing program culture over game strategy.

That play to me shows the difference in coaches. Lanning seems to believe that you need to take the win from the opponent and Franklin seems to think playing it safe and staying inside the odds is the way to go. I must admit I’m more of a play it safe and staying inside in the side of the odds type of guy. Lanning seems more like a Han Solo “Never tell me the odds!” Type of guy. The safer coach has a reputation as a big game choker and the wild one is the hottest name in college coaching. Go figure.

We really need to have Allegiant Stadium be one of the bowl sites for the playoffs.

I respectfully disagree. I think they are BETTER than last year. They are shedding blocks better and applying pressure better. The whole defensive line last night did incredible. Bear read a play perfectly where he dropped to cover a runningback as an passing outlet while another rusher applied pressure to Allar. The ball was thrown badly and resulted in an incomplete. The teamwork seen this year so far on defense has been superb. And when the team plays well together all the pieces shine. Also... Talk about that secondary. Only a few breakdowns but didn't hear too many names getting called out last night which meant they did their jobs. Which meant the pass rush could I theirs.

#1 Because the player made a football move he wasn't defenseless, despite the fact he was been restricted by another tackler. This is a major oversight of the rule that can and should be fixed. #2. The region of his helmet that made contact was just outside of what is considered the crown of the helmet per the current rule. On a reddit game thread evn the PSU fans were asking about why it wasn't targeting. The rule is still a work in progress and I expect the Ducks football program is going give the B1G offices heck for fixing the rules so players don't get hurt in this situation that clearly meets the intent of what the rule is trying to prevent, yet rules it acceptable.

Dan Lanning had the attitude that he was playing with house money. Penn State had the returning stars, the bye week and the “white out”. I think his thought was if Oregon is going to steal this one then he needed to take some chances and make Franklin coach all four downs.

I've seen many plays flagged for targeting that seemed like incidental contact but the non call last night seemed like a text book example of it to me. Does anybody know how the replay booth could watch that in slow motion and say nope? That looked full force, head lowered for to create impact then crown to crown impact. If that wasn't targeting, then how does the less severe incidents get so regularly called? This call seems far from consistent.

I believe two things in regards to this... 1) We've lost more games by NOT taking the points, than the reverse. Granted it is not many losses under Lanning, and not recently, but the stats are the stats. 2) It does not matter what I think; Dano is going to continue to go-for-it, and the players love it.

I watched a full Ohio State game yesterday for the first time. They are good, but certainly didn't look unbeatable. The Huskies gave them everything they wanted and more for much of the game and the Huskies ain't the Ducks!

I vocalized my frustration when Dan didn't opt to take the FG on 4th and 2 while up 7 and with our defense thus far playing lights out. I imagined Charles yelling at his screen "TAKE THE D@%$# POINTS!" Then when Davison walked into the endzone I of course had to jokingly tell my family I was just kidding... Anyway, @Charles Fischer I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this and if it changes your mindset at all. I would have taken the 3 points, but in hindsight that might have very well cost OBD the game...

last week Ducks had 1 #1 vote in each poll. This week 16 in the AP and 6 in the coaches'. The Ducks are convincing people on the field.