1Funduck

There is so much more to recruiting these kids than one relationship. To be sure, Football is the primary reason. Developing into a League player is THE Goal. But, if Lanning starts telling these kids they are going to start for fear of losing them, then you have lost the team and just don't know it yet. Thats favoritism without reality. Herbert was a 3*. Herby can be a Hall of Famer. The point is that if the next kid shows up and beats out others in the respective room, then its up to the roster to get better and 'Earn' it. Bringing in Moore is a course correcting move for a program. We've seen what Bonix has done. Without him we might be 7-5. Might. Moore could take a 9-3 team to 11-1 or undefeated within 2 years. But, if the next QB is better than Moore in his 2nd year, do you bench Moore? Go Be Great!! That's to every player on the roster, even your replacement.

They failed miserably? People won't watch? Oregon lost by a total of 7 points. UW game was a game we should have won and played very well by a team putting together a new scheme by a new HC. We had a cheap shot delivered on our QB and that clearly affected the outcome. But, we still lost. I would say the Beavs game was more of a travesty. OSU was one dimensional and we couldn't stop them. We made a couple of poor coaching decisions and that clearly lost the game. This team, after so much turnover, was in the hunt for the Natty in November. In the hunt for the Rose Bowl in the very last game if the season. We lost by less than a TD. We root for our team to win it all, but we shouldn't forget that they play their hearts out. So do other teams. We can finish with a 10 win season. Is that a failure? Apparently, some aren't willing to watch and find out.

The QB roster room will have Juniors in it. No more excuses. We don't need anymore training. They are ready or they aren't.

I actually see the logic. If I was a kid that wasn't a superstar, guaranteed NFL bound, then my chances of cashing in on football are limited. You take every single year you can get paid. You only get 4 of them so you better get yours. Its over when your 22. Might as well get your car and a nice down payment on your house, maybe even a paid for house upon graduation.

There is NO way Bo goes to ASU, if he decides to continue his college career. ASU is a bowl team next year at best. 7-5. Oregon will have a 2nd year HC and an even better roster with more kids getting used to DL and his vision. While a real possibility of regression is possible, the opposite is true as well. Oregon has all the tools to be the PAC champion next year. With Bo of course.

A dead horse? Maybe. And yet this subject won't go away. We can be frustrated all we want and then ignore it. Does that change the fact that someone in position is going to name it and it will take on an official name eventually? Nope. I hate the fact that PC has overstepped its boundaries. I have loved 'The Civil War' moniker. But, if the powers that be refuse to use it, enter Largest Cocktail Party, then its a matter of time before it gets renamed. I will always call it the Largest Cocktail party, but the next generation won't even know what we are talking about. Same with the Civil War. I love calling it the Civil War, but if the official name has been removed then there is a vacuum. The Platypus Bowl feels like something I would scrape off my shoe. Beat a dead horse? Maybe. But someone is going to make that Dead Horse official, and what you dislike now may be what you despise later.

Much ado has been uttered about renaming the rivalry match up of Oregon and Oregon St. It has mustered up much emotion like a rivalry would, but it sure seems the elimination of the name 'Civil War' was done in haste. I'm not here to say we should keep it nor eliminate it. I have no authority nor would anyone listen. But, let's offer suggestions. I have one: 'The War on the Willamette' What suggestions do you propose?

One can't help themselves but be excited for the recruiting class coming in for 2023. We have 2 5* kids and a couple 5* kids on the lead as well. But looking at 2024, I am left wondering what kind of class we will secure. 5* players are important, but a complete roster of 4* is top 10 level and then some. My thoughts are specifically in reference to Ohio State and they only have 1 kid 3* or lower, yet their recruiting rank is 6th. So, what happens if we load the roster with no less than 4* with a sprinkling of 5* as well? There is no school that doesn't have at least 1- 3* that is ranked in the top 10. Getting these high ranked 4* kids is going to develop into a Monster of a Roster that will contend for Championships. Not only PAC but Natty as well.

They already have one around 8th and Willamette. Is there going to be another or is he buying the one already here?

The War that ended slavery is offensive.... to whom?

This whole story from the beginning made no sense to me. I'm well aware that Auburn is more rabid than Ile Miss, but Ole Miss is still in the SEC and is going to pony up and with a smidge more forgiveness than Auburn ingrates. Lame Kiffin could very well be a stalwart in the SEC and start winning conference trophy's right where he's at. Why move sideways for unreasonable ingrates? If you are THAT good, then the school will rise in win percentages. Don't move Lame Kiffin, its not worth it. Ole Miss will give you the rime and the reasonableness to rise to the top and be a force in your conference.

Ugly....interesting word, and yet, I can live with that. I'm leaning more towards 'Soul Searching' on this one. Oregon is missing key offensive linemen, a less than 100%(maybe 70%) QB, and the Defensive unit found it's Soul. Quite frankly, Oregon's offense did just about what one would expect against such an incredible defense. I'm reminded by where we are at in the season. Game 11, everyone is banged up across all of CFB. It's frigid and its to be expected that with an excellent opposing team having 10 games of film and keying on Oregon's Identity (the run), that this game should look abnormal in the box score. It did. In hindsite Oregon played just about how they should have. Aside from the cute play that cost Oregon some points, I am happy with our offense. The turnovers were painful though. It's tough to watch a dynamic offense be hobbled by fumbles and an INT. Thats got to be at least a 14 point swing one would think. However, I just want to ask, where in the world has 'That' defense been all year. They took Utah and put the Arizona(state) team in those Uni's. Completely changed their team. I suspect Oregon is going with Bo until Bo can't Go No Mo. The Defensive Monster has awoke. It's not mature for sure, but it has made an important step.

I understood what he meant with 'Stats are for losers' comment. However, I thoroughly disagree. Stats are for coaches. It's not the whole story, but it helps to identify tendencies that might be overlooked. 3rd down and distance? Completion percentages against specific defenses. Etc. Etc. Oregon's defense is porous. There is no way around that. We struggle with 3rd downs because we don't have the personnel. We don't have to boat race other teams like U$C in order to win because of our defense, but I would give us an average score in rating our defense. Like Coach Brooks said, the SEC is better because of their defensive players. The PAC'S offense is definitely good enough to hang with any conference. But, bring in the 'Big'ns for the D. That brings me to something I have been musing for a few weeks now and Coach DL addressed it again this week. DL is staying as long as Oregon will have him. He's going Nowhere. I'm salivating at the defensive prospects sure to come into the fold in the coming years. If you put an across the board 4 star defense with an ever-increasing quality of offensive player, Oregon should start to dominate at every level. I do believe we are witnessing a dynasty form. If you can take a glorified B1G offensive roster and turn them into a dynamic Offensive juggernaut, what happens when you get 5* offensive players? I believe it will take 3 years to get the defense to look SEC like. Then......Watch Out!!

I would heavily lean towards they Do want to be HC. Football at the Power 5 level is a full time job and then some. I can't see anyone wanting to move through the ranks from 'Volunteer' all the way to OC and not want to have the shot at seeing if you 'Have It'. Not to mention the pay is another digit to the salary. That's life changing right there. Getting your own guys and strategizing your scheme has got to be juice that flows through these guys veins. They think differently than most. They are A type personality's running at 100%. Its the mentality of the game. Its not lackadaisical the way they do things if they are successful.

Also, I don't believe Dan would leave or stay based on his staff. Success breeds Hungry programs coming to call on your staff. Thats normal and expected. I'm guessing that if Dilly goes, that DL has a nice long list of coaches that would fit his idea of what he's wanting to build here. I don't want Dilly to go but we aren't blind either. A Heisman hopeful with a 40+ point per game average screams that a lot of schools will be calling. We may get Dilly for another year, but I'm wondering if thats just wishful thinking.

THIS.... is why I thought that statement was bunk. It just smacked of a whitewashed statement with no substance. Secondly, DL has only been here 9 games with no Head coaching experience at the collegiate level. One would think that he would like to build a resume at a school that doesn't have a built in pressure cooker environment. I would give more credence to Dilly going for a HC job as he's got some experience at this level. Also, every OC wants a chance at HC. Dilly would be expected to answer the phone when schools come calling for a HC open position.

That is one of the most baseless claims I've ever read. No substance what so ever. 'he fits'??? 'Lanning is showing mutual interest'? What?

Oregon could very well be at 45+ by end of 3rd quarter. I wouldn't let off the gas till I had a 30+ point lead or start of 4Q, which ever comes later.

This is why I love CFB and WILL not like it as much in the coming years. 12 teams in the playoffs just screams 'Watered down'. A conference champion deserves a spot, but a 9-3 team that doesn't win their conference sneaks in over a, mid major, undefeated? Just Yuck!! 1 team per conference...Period! Your conference play is your playoff seeding. You get 8/9 conference games to prove whether you get to the next round. Why do you need one more potential conference game in the playoffs? You don't. 12 isn't needed. I could stomach 8. It forms out perfectly and gives the mid majors and Independents 3 slots to fill with Conference championships and top 12-15 ranked independents. It would/could be billed as 'The Playoff of Champions'. Prove It and leave It on the field. But, nobody asked me.

Hey Fish, I'm curious with your Large Brain acumen in analyzing Football. Much has been mentioned with Bo and his lackluster play at Au-tanned during his tenure. Bo has made mention that he was basically hamstrung in that offense by the coaching staff. Now Bo is making a run for the Heisman. Can you take a look and see how Bo was held back with such lackluster play? Sure, its a load, but I deeply respect your analysis along with other knowledgeable posters here. Has Bo always been this good and the Coaches didn't know how to use the tools in their tool box or.....?

I mentioned it would take 4 td's per game for the rest of the year including a 5'r in there to get Bo in the Heisman race. So far, it's been 5 and 6. No reason to not have 5 next week. Bo for Heisman if he goes 4+ each game from here

My head hurts. I'm left wondering, more and more as of late, did UCLA just make an incredibly poor decision in jumping from the PAC? Worse yet, did USC do the same? Why didn't USC and UCLA come to the table and ask for a larger slice of the pie if media is such a large factor? I get it, technically, there is more money in the B1G move. But, it's looking more and more like the disparity isn't nearly as much as the overall impact to the school and, more importantly, the kids. $30 million buys a lot of couch/shrink time for the student athletes. I think both USC and UCLA are crunching the numbers and it's not looking nearly as 'Rose'y as 6-9 months ago. What happens if Kliavkoff pulls that rabbit and gives Oregon and Washington 12.5% each? Would have UCLA and USC received the same? A tad bit more? With 12 schools, their pull might have been possibly 9-10% each. Those Southern Schools were incredibly short sighted. They, clearly, did not want to hold to tradition. Quite sad how a handful of administrators can affect hundreds, if not thousands, of Student Athletes in such a negative way. What do the SA's get? More? I don't think so. Just ...... sad.

I expect confidence from the Field General. However, this statement brings up a host of questions if we are to be fair. 1) Is Oregon's offensive line an equal or better match to Georgia's Defensive line. 2) Is Oregon's receivers an equal or better match to Georgia's defensive back field? 3) Is Oregon's defense an equal or better match to Georgia's offense? 1) yes, emphatically- no sacks and a raw team trying to gel. 2) yes, I would say they could compete on a somewhat equal footing 3) no. While we are getting better, our pass defense would pray that our offense could put Georgia on their heels and force Georgia into a, one dimensional, game. I guess I would conclude that the eyeball test says Georgia would be favored. Something like 41-31. But, then again, that's why they play the game right?

Quite a statement from Bo. Bo Nix Says Oregon Would Beat No. 1 Georgia If 2 Teams Played Again Today WWW.MSN.COM Oregon and quarterback Bo Nix continued to roll last week, handing UCLA its first loss of the season with a 45-30 win. The Ducks have a legitimate claim as the best team in the Pac-12, having scored...

That was beautiful article. Insightful and objective, loved it.