Mike West

It is extremely difficult to win a Natty. Can't do it without talent and depth. Lanning has the chops. It takes every person in the organization to win a Natty. Players, staff, administration, all have to be damn near flawless. Margins for error are extremely thin. And I mean extremely. One play can and has decided a Natty. One. OBD have the best opportunity we have ever had. I can't say for sure we'll win a Natty. I do believe OBD will appear in another title game though.

I'll try to be brief as I tend to write novels when I post. Chip Kelly inherited fertile land. We have seen Chip's results since he left this program. Chip elevated the program. Helfrich maintained it briefly - but players and coaches still wanted to come to Oregon despite the abysmal meltdown. It's not the tenure I'm talking about. It's the impact. For all his blemishes, that Natty appearance carried the torch for this program. Unlike several coaches that inherited enough talent to reach a Natty- Helfrich did. Impact. Not legacy. Helfrich pulled the trigger on Mariota. Helfrich is the coach of the only other Oregon team to reach a Natty. Helfrich put his stamp on this program. Look at Nebraska. Look at Tennessee. Look at Auburn. Look at Florida. Only one of them had a coach that succeeded a title winner ( at that) and led them back to the Natty. Not one of them have the stature Oregon presently has. And they all have titles. Helfrich kept us on the map. Never forget that.

I believe this post truly started due to ALL the changes going on in college football today. Recruiting has somewhat been shady for decades given plenty of teams "bend the rules". Now that it is no longer a secret college football is a major industry all in itself, it is understandable why some are just pining for simpler days. I'm more concerned with the effect the sport is having on other sports. If and when the football players start sharing revenue, it is going to dramatically alter scholarship sports overall. Not to mention, tough I don't watch much G5 action, I think it is totally awesome those kids get TV exposure too. I'm hoping for the best, and I completely get the angst over what has evolved in college football the past five years. The issue is valid. It just happened to be mentioned when Lanning pulled in Oregon's best class ever.

Not sure we're where we are without them. Sure, they showed some serious flawed judgement, given both of them recruited their way to actually winning a Natty ( too short sighted to recognize what they had right in front of them). Both absolutely slaughtered the narrative you can recruit elite talent to Eugene. Hence, every year since Willie Taggart was named HC, recruiting has been stellar. Especially during the mayhem of abandoning what they built. Who cares what they did, they started a legacy that led us to exactly where OBD are today. Thank goodness they came and left. As for Helfrich and his staff: they lifted OBD to new heights, but the game literally passed them by live and in person. They left a good legacy as well- that Oregon football was a force no one could ignore. We all benefitted in the long run from all three coaching staffs.

Going to Georgia after that statement quelling rumors about A&M? Talk about ruining any integrity you have! As for coaching in the NFL? Kirby has it way better than any challenge the NFL provides. Just ask Spurrier, Saban and the old Chipper. The best NFL coaches start and develop in the NFL.

Not in my opinion. Execution matters, and I saw plenty of execution flaws- especially in Vegas. DL does not have the personell on defense he wants or needs. That was especially evident at the safety position, and both games featured understaffed talent at corner. Losing by three with gaps like that tells me he is on point. But that's just me.

He we go again with me posting an unpopular opinion in a thread. I want to share with you some experiences... I was a traitor and spent my first two years of college in Fuskyland (I wanted to get away from home, got lonely despite being associated with literally hundreds of people, and came back to Eugene and I'm a proud Duck alum). Outside of the extremely tight academic rigors (if you didn't seriously study, you were seriously up for getting kicked out of UW), playing football is a full time job. I met quite a few players. Steve Pelleur was one of them (great human being). Almost all of them complained heavily about being exploited- to the number. They literally spent four to five hours a day at the football facilities, not including practice. Again, not including practice. From weight lifting to getting ankles taped, to film study, it was brutal. I left the school with a 3.0 average, and let me tell you, that was forty hours a week for real. I would've flunked out of school trying to play football, and I wasn't up for that. This doesn't include kids that couldn't even afford to breathe financially because of the restrictions placed in them to earn enough money to buy clothes and trivial things (it was against the rules to have a job). Add insult to injury, an Olympic medalist was kicked off his football team because he earned endorsements for his prowess AS A SKIER. Tyrell Pryor couldn't sell his Jersey, but Ohio State could. Future Buckeye players couldn't play in a bowl the following year because of it. That spelled out exactly how universities and colleges felt about their athletes earning money while they raked in Billions of dollars. The hypocrisy stunk so bad you could smell it from Pluto. Thus, the moniker student athlete in 1980 was already a joke. Kids weren't close to graduating even then. Not to mention, as we now know, Don James cut corners just to stay nationally competitive. This doesn't include what is now considered NIL "contributions" to highly rated recruits. USC used to sign players just to keep them off teams like UCLA and UW. College Football has been professional for decades, and the NFL gave them quite the assist by lobbying Congress to ensure kids couldn't enter the league before their third year of college. I doubt anyone who avidly followed college football then actually believed in the amateur aspect of college football. It's simply a myth. A well propagandized myth at that. There is no Innocence to college football in my eyes. About two thirds of football players graduate nationwide. As I said, that wasn't for me and I was talented enough to play college ball. After the 1978 NFL strike, it was clear money was going to be huge in the NFL. College players that wanted to excell just as a college athlete had to train, study and live like an NFL athlete. It was already that way in 1980. There is no "walk on the field and play at an elite level" in college football. You sacrifice just to stay on the team. In the 90s I used to argue with a friend about this. Back then, Troy Aikman and Rodney Pete jerseys were donned all over LA. I always asked him, if college football is really student athlete driven, then why aren't there Jerseys with the number 0 worn all over LA? It's because marketing is player driven, not student driven. The universities were exploiting the kids, and they absolutely didn't give them six or seven year scholarships so they could graduate (which is far more realistic). So excuse me for wanting to puke when the institutions want to claim their sport is purely about academic integrity and amateurism. It has not been for nearly my entire lifetime. Do I like NIL? Not really, but I do see the generous players spread the love to make sure their teammates get rewarded too. Do I like the NFL style "trading aspect" of college football? Nope, but I guarantee you Alabama will hog every player if the other teams don't compete in that market. Most kids are not going to play in the NFL. Why shouldn't they get paid? The schools rake in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. That is 1,000 MILLION. Individuals and institutions want their alma maters to succeed. This is America, the only country in the world that absolutely fosters individual liberty and prosperity. And don't forget, some of these kids just aren't good enough to play for elite teams, and want to play period. Kids aren't any more loyal than the schools are to them. Alums have the right to assist their cherished institutions to thrive in football, and kids have the right to prosper during what is truly the most difficult time in their lives to thrive financially. Now I get the sentiment. It stinks that money drives the sport. Just look at conference realignment. However, amateurism doesn't pay the bills. It is best left for high school football (it's expensive to run at that level also). Still, I get it: the love of money is the root of all evil. Let's hope evil doesn't creep too far into the sport. By the way, love the campus in Seattle, but the fans...I'll never forget the Rose Bowl chants when those Fuskies used to slay us. I'm forever a Webfoot.

I wonder what the By-laws actually say. I wonder if there is any context behind them. Does the contract actually say you must stay in the conference the final year, and you will not get paid? Was that the intent when USC and UCLA moved on ( that they would not get a dime for any revenue they generated for the conference)? I want to see the contract.

Again, I'm going to post an unpopular opinion here. In the first Fuskie game, the only decision I criticize is the first FG. The Fuskies we're prepared for that play. They weren't the other two. That was our execution- namely Nix rushing his throws and deciding too quickly where he wanted to throw the ball ( I love Nix, but that was the case those two plays...better execution, game over). I took a video of one of the third quarter drives in Allegiant during the second game. We scored on that drive, but inside the ten, a player missed a key block that might have , and only might have, sprung a TD. That was typical of the night. The secondary jumped on the short passes that required blocking, which did not happen. Again, execution issues. Now granted, I didn't like the game plan on defense, as I thought the Fuskies we're going to run it to control the ball. And I certainly would have dropped press coverage on the WRs as it wasn't working. I would've copied Arizona and OSU and forced the Huskies to drive the field. Thus, my concern is Lupoi seemed too bent on forcing his defense on any given offense ( this year). I'm more of a " draw me a philosophy for the game, script ten plays for it, them use your head and adjust to what is going on during THIS game. Keep in mind what they usually do, but shut down what the ARE doing first. Stein also tends to stay on the short passing game too long. Overall, I like how much he adapts, because OBD were never out of it despite it looking pretty grim in both games. My concept of a HC is to monitor the flow of the game , especially what my opponent is trying to do. I believe Lanning is getting better at that, however, there are times I believe he needs to change what is going on by directing Lupoi to deal with the weaknesses DeBoer was exploiting ( particularly this year, and hopefully next year). Lanning is the right guy for OBD. He is learning the difference between taking over, and allowing his coordinators autonomy. He still needs more elite players, but he has a good enough group of players to do damage to all but the very elite. He's building depth which is critical. OBD can't win without a dominant defense. Good enough to slow down dominant offenses. Lanning is building that. Awesome QB play- particularly CLUTCH play- is also necessary. Cannot win without a QB that can erase double digit deficits, AND take over a game when the chips are down. We had the QB, but not quite the defense. Lanning will need better talent , as in top seven classes for at least three more years, and depth from the portal ala the NFL style of talent acquisition. Lanning clearly knows how to do to that. We might go 9-3 next year, but 10-2 is the goal. We may get there, depending on talent acquisition and EXECUTION. The defense wasn't clutch enough this year. And we had too many hiccups on offense at the wrong time. It was both coaching and execution in summary. I believe Lanning will learn how to eliminate those issues.

I do believe both had much to do with his lack of progress. And I'm not happy about it. I believe he should have played more this season. I realize we were trying to maximize the eye test (for the CFP), and I believe that hurt TT. I still believe he is a bit passive overall. A solid character guy by all means. And it is obvious part of the problem is the new age of CFB is hurting QBs that aren't NFL ready from the beginning. I wish him the best, and I hope he thrives. He got better in the Spring Game, looked much better this fall. I want to see more sizzle from him. I want to see him make plays like the elite QBs do. I hope he gets that opportunity to show he has the chops to lead a program to major success. I will follow him for sure.

I do believe TT took too long to develop. He looked better this year. But the standard is high when it comes to reaching the playoffs and winning a title. Can we honestly say TT can make plays consistently, be clutch damn near all the time, and bring OBD back from 11 and 17 point deficits against a top five team? I just don't see that. I'm not quite sure he can even "jump in the F1 and drive it like a seasoned Indy car vet". He's got two years. Go somewhere like Texas Tech, Vandy, or SMU and do some damage? The guy would instantly be a TP wanna have his senior year. Same goes for the backups/formerly high rated recruits. I expect to see some sizzle and momentum come Spring. The bar is high, and since the guys want to be considered pros, they better perform like them. They sure are getting paid like them. One last thing: if you're getting paid as a highly ranked recruit ( like some are), you better have a QB guru. Otherwise, you're going to lose that money. Too bad I don't have the time or complete skills myself, I believe I could simply take some of the great takes from here and help a QB out lol.

I sure hope you're right my friend. You're usually on point, and I'm hoping we replace some top performers with top performers.

No offense. I sure hope you're wrong.

Lots going on. A former 5 star recruit at A&M spelled out their issue: they did not get millions (he even tweeted that). College football is too complex for all but the very ready to step into. Especially at QB. Even Dabo Sweeney has recognized this. Loyalty? It matters. So does being championship level for the blue bloods. DL inherited a challenge of major proportions. Lack of talent and depth. So he has to get some depth, while developing talent. TT is clearly not at an elite enough level, and frankly I don't believe in such a thing as a 5 Star QB anymore. You have it or you don't, and there really aren't many Justin Herbert caliber players anywhere in the country. Can you grow into that? Yes. Not as a freshman however as Dante Moore found out quickly. I believe FishDuck pointed out we lack experience on defense now (think talented players like Birch, and not enough Five Star Caliber talent on defense at any level to be considered as good as Georgia and the like- but we do have good talent). I believe the ACC and the Big12 are the conferences the four and "five" star QBs should go. They will shine enough to get nabbed quickly. In fact, that's how I would recruit right now, and I'd be brutally honest about it. Ninety percent of 4+ Star QBs will not start at a blue blood right now and perform at an elite level. Those two conferences are the "new college football". If you're awesome enough, you'll know in a month. If not, prepare to sit. That's reality. And kids should be told that- especially QBs. And I mean NFL ready. Not College ready. Which makes NIL and Portal strategy very interesting right now because kids don't want to hear that (and maybe being blunt is too much, but they SHOULD know). DL is pretty damn good, and I believe he will navigate this well. Remember 10-2 is the target. That's playoff bound. Which means you must win the games you're supposed to win, and look to steal one from elite level teams with enough media steam they nearly always get in. Right now that's tOSU, UM and Penn State. Again, I believe DL knows what he is doing, so we should be in the mix for everybody and another great year like 2023.

Glad you're willing to be the rock of Gibraltar on the stormiest of nights. While I don't stand with you, I share your sentiment. My first thought was he'll barely get touched, but man that's a risk. I hope the gameplan is score 28 by half, and the swan song blares into halftime. Certainly the subs will want to put their signature on the win as well. You get what you think about my friend. So let's think good tidings and play to win, not to avoid injury. All should be well. Time to make 2024's opening statement with some of 24's crew. With a little help from their friends.

So, ESECPN did it again. Along with Fox, destroyed the PAC12( with major help from the conference Presidents). Slotted a very undeserving ( but capable) Alabama into the CFP. Scheduled OBD with Liberty. The matchup is a great expose' for TT and the reserves. Horrible matchup for a NY6 bowl. Goes to show we will have to actually win a Natty before we'll be considered as a legitimate title contender. On to the BiG. I hope we shred em all and get a rematch with UW to show how much the PAC12 was disregarded.

We all felt it all week. There was a good possibility we would lose. And it wasn't because we would choke. A better team, actually a more complete team, defeated us twice. So, No, I don't feel in any way we were deceived, or the coaches pulled our chains. The force is powerful within us, but we are not Jedi yet. Darth Vader just cut off our arm. But the force is still with us. Never forget that. Will OBD ever win a Natty? I don't know. What I do want is what we saw all year: growing into being what it takes to win a Natty. That's why I can accept a loss like this. We aren't deep enough to win physically. We still fought back, after playing horribly. And though I disagreed with the strategy I saw last night, that coaching staff STILL got this team back in the game from a horrible start to the degree we forced them to take the game from us. That is a team I will always support. I understand the feelings though. It has been a roller coaster ride, playing these Fuskies. Not to mention the sheer surprise by most of us that we really looked good this year. Natty good. That's why it hurts so much...far away, so close.

It does tell the story actually. And I believe you were on track with your initial assessment. This matchup requires inserting explosive plays on every drive, not just when you have to. We weren't aggressive enough. Especially after the first drive when Nix came out too hyped. They can't stop our WRs any more than we can stop theirs. We didn't go after their secondary enough. We didn't force them out of their overall scheme until we had to. The sense of urgency to force them to take away our deep pass game wasn't there, not enough in my opinion. Sometimes you just have to draw up an explosive strategy on the fly, and keep it until they stop it. We did the same thing to USC. The difference between USC and UW is UW has more talent. But we ripped USC immediately. Then let off the gas. Can't do that to those type of teams (with explosive offenses). For all Washington's dominance, they sure couldn't salt the game could they. They had to play sixty full minutes- despite being in virtually complete control of the game. We can turn a game around in one play. Nobody but nobody can prevent that- and I'm saying the entire group of elite teams. I believe you will find out just how elite Washington is. And maybe you'll feel a bit better knowing we learned you can't turn off the jets just because you're escaping the stratosphere.

I believe there is one component missing in all of this. This is going to be an unpopular take. I believe the reason Washington looked so lethargic after we played them is they focused on their running game more. They actually looked decent running the ball against us ( my opinion) the first time we played them. I believe they realized they would need to run more effectively period. In order to win the Natty, they're going to have to run the ball well. They already have an elite passing offense. They will be tough to stop. Because now, you have to stop their running game. If you didn't notice it, they closed out the game running and passing effectively. We couldn't focus ( based on the formations we used in my opinion) on both very effectively. They correctly assessed, after our first game that they would need more balance in order to close out against us, AND the rest of the elite teams capable of winning the Natty. They looked out of sync the rest of the season because there were tinkering with their play mix. We are the same type of team. But we focus so much on balance that it takes a quarter for us to unleash our awesome downfield passing game (that's not our true focus). They made absolutely sure we would have to pass well on early downs if we wanted to win. It took Stein a quarter to find the right mix of plays to do that. Then he turned off the spigot at the beginning of the fourth quarter. That was a mistake. The same thing happened on the drive we decided to go for it ( on 4th down) in Seattle. In reality, we should have focused on scoring, not controlling the ball till the end ( which is what they expected us to do). There is no ball control strategy against an explosive offense like theirs and ours. The goal must be score TDs on every drive you can, with a heavy dose of explosive plays. Same with playing Georgia. You need to be extremely agressive. Especially when you have the personell, like we have. Washington is going to surprise people in the playoffs. People are going to assume the best defenses are going to shut them down. That's not going to happen. Even Georgia is going to have to decide how they're going to slow down both the run and the pass because the Fuskies showed they can handle a physical defense. I say a 5 man front is required to slow them down now ( five guys on the line of scrimmage that is, not five down lineman). In any event, there isn't a secondary that can contain Washington now that McMillan is back. We learned that the hard way. It will be interesting to see if Nix plays in the Bowl Game. It would be a great opportunity for TT to determine just how much work he has ahead of him if Nix doesn't. I don't believe TT has the freestyle ability Nix has. That is absolutely necessary in Will Stein's offense ) by the way I doubt Nix was given that choice this game based on the way it looked- Nix didn't audible much last night). Our future is bright everyone. Lots to self assess. I believe we have the right staff to do so. If they pay attention to us ( really laugh out loud folks. But know this, we have an astute forum here).

Great takes guys. Our future is bright. Win ten and you're always in the playoffs. Winning a title is going to take having an NFL caliber QB. Somebody mentioned one of the best things a Four or Five Star QB can do now is start and dominate in a lower conference. That's what Cam Ward did. I believe the ACC and Big 12 is the place potential four and five star QBs should go. Otherwise, you better be the real deal- and I mean absolutely Tua, Justin Herbert, and Peyton Manning material. Bryce Young and C.J. Stroud are other examples. Teams will not win a title unless they have a clutch QB. That should be obvious after last night. Without No Nix, we get run out of the building last night. I also believe too many defenses set up formations that can't beat a team like Washington this year, Alabama the year Tua played AND the year they lost to Georgia ( an injured elite WR going down changed the outcome of that game- and Georgia's vaunted defense was NOT stopping Bama before that). Explaining why is too detailed for this forum, and frankly requires writing a book about- having talked to Fishduck for years about shutting down Chip's early version- the back and forth really convinced me I could earn a doctorate if I write that book (lol). Anyways, we will consistently make the playoffs. Winning a title requires several variables that are difficult to control. But the days of the SEC dominating college football are over. Which means we have a solid chance to win a title if and only if we get NFL caliber QB play.

Guys, I could see all 22 players all game. The defense got beat because the formations they played Lent to mismatches. You could actually see some of that in the highlights. For instance, as I said last night, on third and goal at the two yard line, up 4, we lined up in a 5-2 I believe. They had 8 on the line of scrimmage. That is a natural mismatch. Before the play began I pointed that out and said Washington would easily score. Every time they ran outside, the side they ran to had a mismatch because we were stacking the other side of the formation ( the side with their TE). I didn't have a problem lining up on their TE side, I had a problem with the formation. Oregon State did the same thing but under center. The formation we used against Oregon State was what I - Mike West would do. I would have forced them to pass, go zone, and used the blitz packages that worked so well all year. I also believe the coaches were so worried about pass defense, they didn't respect their running game ( which the Fuskies actually focused more on after they played us- they correctly assessed they would need it against us- we miscalculated what they were going to do). Furthermore, it was obvious we couldn't press the WRs at the line of scrimmage, nor keep up with them down the field. That required immediate trashing of our game plan versus their scheme. I thought the CBs would play better, but with McMillan back, it was a clear mismatch. I (again this is just me, but I don't believe in a game plan that goes further than the first quarter, I believe you play " streetball- call what you are playing against". That's what those 287 plays in your playbook is for). When we trashed the game plan on offense, we scored. We only did that once in the fourth quarter on defense, and they called a fade route inside the ten yard line( we had the perfect formation to defend the run and pass on that play, then went back to a pass oriented formation they exploited). It was frustrating to watch. I believe the reason Lanning stuck to his guns is because everything worked all year- and worse, we lost by three both games. So I'm not sure strategy will change. I'm a firm believer you play to the tempo and flow of the game and adjust as you go. That calls for calling the first quarter based on what you believe will happen in the game, and call the rest of the game according to how the game flows. Coaches rarely do that. Ironically, Vince Lombardi's "Gentleman, this is a football" comes to mind for me. He taught fundamentals. Repeat the same play till you perfect it. I agree with the fundamentals part. Yet I believe you take what they give you, and you take away what they succeed at. For me, that requires knowing football beyond your own strategy and philosophy of the game. There's obviously more to it than that and that would require a ten thousand word essay no one would read. Overall, I'm disappointed, but I'm proud of this team. They didn't play well and they still only lost by three- and yes for me- the game was how it ended- it wasn't simply they dominated- we just didn't respect the conditions on the ground and still played well enough to lose by three.

It's formation related. They're choosing to yield one gap at the LOS.

Mike West rule number one:. NEVER RUN A REGULAR DEFENSIVE FORMATION AT YOUR OWN ONE YARD LINE. EVER.

This Stadium is awesome. How bout that for Duck commentary?

Defense is going to have to scrap man to man. I'm in the building and nobody is covering all. Time to go zone, and also scrap the 3-3-5. Not a good game plan on defense from what I've been looking at.