Charles Fischer

That is interesting Phunteratc, as the first one is the only one I dealt with and left the other two...but did not feel good about them. In fact things went so badly with the person who wrote the first one--that this person left the forum for good. I know I can't please them all, and don't really try to. But at times I don't think people cut me any slack for the difficult spot I am in trying to keep things civil. Thanks for your feedback!

I hope that many members will take the five minutes to read this, ponder it and give me feedback. Our rules have evolved nicely, but there is a grey area that I am having trouble with and will continue to over time. It has to do with criticizing current players and coaches, as we allow it and encourage it when it is pertaining to player performance and coaching decisions. We do not allow anyone to get personal in their posts toward players and coaches. (This only pertains to current coaches and players; everyone else in the world is fair-game) The thinking is that since we are a "high-brow" site, and parents do read stuff here about their sons as players....a line should be drawn, and I agree with that sentiment. Obvious Examples: "Lupoi is a Bonehead." "Something has always really bothered me about Moorhead. This guy has documented serious health problems and is obese. And he looks like he's 70 years old. Well, he just turned 48!" “Our basketball players have embarrassing low intelligence.” “Dan Lanning needs to get a good tailor. He looks sloppy during press conferences and games. Not anything like a leader of young men should look. Lanning looks like he should be selling insurance or maybe used cars.” “So Dillingham brought in a Dodo to lead a flock of Ducks, who are trying to be Eagles. Sounds about right. I wonder who is the bigger Dodo...the Dodo that brought in a Dodo, thinking he had an Eagle or the actual Dodo? Dillingham worked with Nix at Auburn." Above are actual examples of obvious violations where the OBD member got personal in his/her criticism, and we deleted the posts. (And the OBD members received a notification/reminder email from me) What is the Problem? It is the grey areas....as to how far members can go before we cross the line as personal? "I don't want to see Turnover-Thompson playing anymore." (I did not like having a label like that pinned on a player...but is it that bad?) "Please, please, please...Never play Ty Thompson again...Horrible." (This one is referring to player performance, but still makes me uncomfortable) "TT is like someone who has an UZI but doesn’t know when to pull the trigger and where to put the bullets." (This one is also referring to player performance, but doesn't it imply intelligence?) See what I mean? The three above are much tougher, as I get responses from OBD members who tell me that, "Charles, I can't write anything without being in violation! Can't I express my thoughts about a player doing poorly?" Look, I don't want to be blowing my time on trying to establish where the line is...and no matter what I do, someone gets bent-out-of-shape when they get an email from me. Leave the Benign Ones? Most would say that many of my violation emails sent are for benign offenses, and that is true. But I’ve learned the hard way that the analogy provided by NJDuck is true; you must pull a weed, (remove the violating post) even if it is small and benign. If you leave it, others on the forum will now see the “new low-bar” and begin doing the same behavior, thus I have more weeds to deal with. And the original one left alone feels emboldened and does the violation again, and thus I have a bigger weed to deal with. Pull them all, even if benign? If they break the rules, then it is a violation no matter how high or low the level? FishDuck Feedback please! How do you want this forum moderated as both someone who is posting and dealing with me, and as someone reading it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From the Rules: No. 26: Do not get personal in judgments of the current Players or Coaches: We allow commenting about the current players and coaches as that is what message boards and forums are all about. Second-guessing coaches and judging player performance is what everyone does, but we must not get personal or nasty toward them. Questioning a play-call or whether a tackle should have been made (Performance-related) is fine, and give your thoughts as to why in one direction or the other. Whether a coach should be retained or a player replaced is also fair-game because they know they are in the public sphere and that goes with the territory. Let's discuss, but Ad Hominem attacks on them are forbidden. (Former Oregon players and coaches do not have Rule 26 protections once they leave Eugene, as they sometimes do objectionable things that deserve to be called out.) No such rules with current or former coaches at other teams, their players, their fans, journalists or anyone other than current Oregon coaches and players. So go for it and have fun!

Very cool. This means that we are now favored versus Utah, when we were not before. Of course it all means nothing; we have to do it on the field.

I certainly believe that could be "a thing" with the way Dilly is turning into a QB whisperer and how much fun this offense would be to play in. The ultimate burn!

I am in agreement with that, but the perfect storm of it all coming together--as it has for Bo at Oregon with Dilly is very low-probability. In fact those who assert that what Dilly is doing is proof to the contrary of my axiom...are actually proving my point. Look what Dilly has done with Bo despite the odds, and yet Ty is not responding to it? What is it going to take with Ty? Greatness and weakness emerge early.

I am not taking offense...we just disagree. No big deal. I am not the only one who has seen enough of Ty to say that I want to see Jay get meaningful reps too.

Yes, this was in one of Drex's articles recently... Nasty Truth: Oregon No Longer Quarterback U, But Needs To Be FISHDUCK.COM We judge new head coaches by first-year wins and recruiting. But Duck fans need one more metric for Dan Lanning: show us your quarterbacks. Here'

If you want to invest five years--go for it. I'd rather find an Eagle up front... Most QBs are stuck with what occurred at Auburn, or with Mario, etc. Getting connected with a Dillingham is a low-percentage event, and not one that any of us predicted.

There are always exceptions or outliers to my philosophy. But they are low-percentage, and you cannot base a winning team on that IMHO. The examples I have, are so numerous. You can have the low-percentage, and I hope Coach Lanning looks at what reality is among the high-percentages results.

You have read what I've written many, many times over the 11 years of FishDuck sites, and it applies to the Ty Thompson discussion... "Greatness and weakness emerge early." "And weakness cannot be turned into greatness, as you work hard to just bring him up to average." This applies to players AND coaches, IMHO. You do not try to send Sparrows to Eagle School...it doesn't work. If you want Eagles, you go out and find (recruit) Eagles for your team. (Donte Moore) How many quarterbacks have stepped on the field at Oregon and you knew they were a future star? And how many has our coaching staffs over the years worked at, but to no avail?

I will allow anyone to post their opinions in all directions, and I personally will continue to make reference to Mario because: 1) It is fun, 2) It is entertaining. 3) It makes me grateful-as-hell that he is gone.

I think Jay Butterfield would do extremely well in the Jonathan Smith offense at Oregon State. I would like to see if he can run an offense while he is here before helping them...

I am in the middle of three projects at the moment, so I do not have the time to pull out the stats, but I can later. Cristobal wasted one of the best offensive lines at Oregon ever with four players who are in the NFL right now (When has that ever happened at Oregon?) that dramatically underperformed under Cristobal. Cristobal had rushing stats far below what occurred before his time at Oregon....and now after his time at Oregon. He recruited good offensive linemen, but only now are they reaching their potential under Klemm and in the Dillingham offense, IMHO. Jake Hanson, Green Bay Packers

This is true... Oregon's offensive system is developing into a juggernaut 247SPORTS.COM The Oregon offense is operating at a level we haven't seen since the days of Marcus Mariota, and it was on full display Saturday night at Arizona Stadium in Tucson. The

Ty does not have the "it" factor, IMHO.

I am grateful to Dazed for an article that gives us entertainment and perspective. I was sweating it last night as it was getting past 1:00 AM, and the pictures from the photographer I hired in Arizona had not come in yet. You always hope you made a good choice with who you hired, and it turns out he was awesome. Lots more pics coming for our writers, and they were the perfect complement to article Dazed gave us. Thanks for creating an article late in the evening after a game!

It is true. While we are averaging 42 points per game for the season...the five games since Georgia of 70,41,44,45,and 49 bring us to an average of 49.8 points per game! So we have an offense that is a Chip Kelly Redux, to face CK and we will need that offensive firepower to win that game. My friends, I hope this time around that people truly savor what is going on. At times I sensed that people took it for granted when we scored an average of 45 points a game for four years in a row, and I know that I am soaking this up while it it happening. So fun to watch, so interesting to break down and analyze. So very special...

This did not age well... Kirk Herbstreit picks against Oregon in late-night road matchup with Arizona SATURDAYOUTWEST.COM ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit explains why he likes Arizona as a 13-point underdog against Oregon. You KNOW he will bet on Chip...

Red Eddy Green! Actual game score of 49-22 Red Eddy Green: Prediction of 49-24 49-49 = 0 Difference 24-22 = 2 Difference Total Difference of 2! wounded knees: Prediction of 48-20 49-48 = 1 Difference 20-22 = 2 Difference Total Difference of 3 Log Haulin: Prediction of 48-20 49-48 = 1 Difference 20-22 = 2 Difference Total Difference of 3 Pretty darn impressive for all three! Thanks for playing and now...how to figure the score of Oregon vs. UCLA? Whew!

Video highlights from the Pac-12 Network...

OK, the game is over and let’s discuss in new threads in the forum!

I am going to get the party started with a concern...as last year after the big Ohio State win, Kirk Herbstreit predicted we would lose to Stanford...and he was not feeling good in GameDay about Oregon today. Crap!

Here we are my friends, the thread for discussing the actual game as it happens. Let's discuss before, and during the game! The vast majority of you are GREAT in this thread, but you must remember that this forum is different, as we require civilized discussion. Rule No. 31d covers GameDay thread conduct, and it is not hard for the vast majority of us--just a tiny few who need to reign it in. Let's Have Fun Posting During the Game!

Not me.

Hello my FishDuck Friends, I am going to follow the suggestion of OBD Member, Dr Hilarius to determine the finalists: Actual score of 45-27, Oregon over Stanford. Delta Analysis: EastBayDuckDad Ducks 48 (delta 3) Furd 27 (delta 0) total delta = 3 Mic Ducks 45 (delta 0) Furd 24 (delta 3) total delta = 3 FG Lumber Ducks 35 (delta 10) Furd 17 (delta 10) total delta = 20 Tiebreakers: **= winner/closest in that category Actual from the Game: Turnovers: 1 Sacks: 3 Passing Yards: 164 EastBayDuckDad Turnovers: 3 Sacks: 4 ** Passing Yards: 325** Mic Turnovers: 2** Sacks: 5 Passing Yards: 375 Winner by one tiebreaker category: EastBayDuckDad Congrats to him and thus beginning this week I will apply this new criteria to determining the winner. Thanks again to Dr Hilarius!