cartm25

This might drop Oregon’s class out of the top 10

Nearly 10 years since he played his last game, DAT's influence is still being felt. How fortunate were the Ducks to have the likes of LaMichael James, Kenyon Barner, and DAT?? (rhetorical question)

Well, I managed to fit the entire question in the title, but I'll restate with a few more words: Would you rather the Ducks go for the Holiday Bowl win by having Bo Nix play, OR take on a higher chance of losing, but get to see what they have in Ty Thompson in a full game with meaningful minutes? I've heard very reasonable arguments about the need for the Ducks to win a bowl game, get momentum, etc. In this case, I'd rather the game be used to showcase Ty Thompson; it would be very informational. And the Ducks could still win . . . That would be a Win, Win!

Bad news for the Ducks:

He will exceed recruiting expectations for Colorado.

We've seen articles about potential candidates, now I'm curious to know who YOU would pick! Be as specific as possible (i.e., name, or very specific characteristic / scenario). My answer may appear to be a cop-out, but for reasons that will be apparent, I don't have a name. I want the next OC to be a young, under-the-radar, star-in-the-making, coach I've never heard of . . . Like Dillingham was.

My wife often says I'm always critical. I think that's in part because my entire professional life has consisted of constant reminders of areas of improvement and growth, while celebrating accomplishments only once a year (performance reviews) or further spaced out promotions. I point out things that can be improved reflexively and without emotion behind them; purely observational. I tend to do the same at home and with the Oregon Ducks, "This, this, this, and this could be better." I fail to acknowledge all that great things. With Thanksgiving still in the air, what are you thankful for about OBD? Here's my non-exhaustive list: 1) The Oregon Ducks logo "O" is a thing of beauty. Simple, bold, and recognizable. Makes wearing Duck apparel easy. 2) Love that the Ducks were back to scoring ~40 ppg. It was exciting to watch again. 3) The uniforms (except the brown ones, and the cookies and cream ones) . . . enough said. 4) The only thing that really gets me on the phone with my brother is "talkin' Ducks". Grateful for how the Ducks improve (or maintain) my familial relations 5) This one hurts to write, but I'm glad that at least the teams we lost to this year were ACTUAL good teams; not the bottom-dwellers that MC would lose to every year. Another silver lining of the losses is that I still believe the Ducks were/are the better team; OBD just had a bad day. 6) Happy to have Dan Lanning as HC 7) Grateful that the Ducks' defense can only get better from here, haha

PERFECT POST!! In both their losses the Ducks scored enough points to win the game . . . if they had a competent defense. With a 34-17 lead at the beginning of the 4th quarter, Dilly should have been able to give his play sheet to his assistant and say, “Finish this thing off. My work is done. I’m hitting the hot tub early.”

I wasn’t fair to Mullens. He’s the accountant AND the HR background check (i.e., veto power in EXTREME circumstances). He should make sure assistant coaching hires work financially and that they pass a background check; no more, no less. Mullens SHOULD NOT be the assistant coach talent and fit evaluator/selector. The AD/President hire the Head Coach to RUN the DAY-TO-DAY operations of the program. You rightly point out Mullens’ involvement in vetting. VETTING and SELECTING are different. Dan Lanning SELECTS the candidates and the Pres./AD/HC VET the candidates. Check to make sure they aren’t criminals or slime-balls that will embarrass the University. BUT, if Mullens approaches Dan Lanning and either rejects DL’s OC candidates, or provides a handpicked list of his own for DL to choose from, so he can give DL a “mentor” (i.e., babysitter), IMO, that’s insulting and backwards. Dan Lanning’s first OC hire was a home run and he should be trusted to make another great OC hire. Where DL truly deserves some heat is for the Ducks’ defensive performance; the foundational reason the Ducks aren’t 11-1 right now.

Over the spring/summer there was a lively debate about whether or not a stronger PAC-12, specifically teams like USC, UW, Utah, etc., was good for Oregon. Many argued it was good for the conference, but I’m NOT asking if this is good for the PAC-12. After what transpired this year, is a stronger USC, UW, Utah, and now Oregon State, good for Oregon?

The "Rumor Train" has been heating about Dan Lanning's involvement with the defense (see 2 videos below). See the video below at the 9:45 minute mark where he was asked directly. My interpretation of his answer: "I don't want to create division in the staff or team so that was DEFINTELY at "team" effort, but YEAH, that was me." Since this one is only ~5 minutes, I suggest watching the entire thing, but he starts to discuss Lanning being more involved at the 2:00 minute mark.

I see a lot of heat aimed at Dillingham after this game, but I saw nothing but amazing things from the offense. We were all preparing ourselves to gloat about an 11-minute touchdown drive to seal the win against UW until a bad snap and a fluke injury. Outside of the GA game, KD has been a maestro. We are 10 games in, and I’ve not seen a noticeable improvement on defense. I realize Lanning didn’t give himself the defensive “genius” title, but I’ve heard it applied to him enough by national and local media, that I expect him to get that side of the ball figured out. At LEAST improve it some, right!? How about ONE 3-and-out!!? Just ONE! How about consistent pressure on the opposing QB? Hell, I’ll settle for semi- consistent. How about a SPECK of “havoc”? How about not having to bite my nails when the Ducks’ defense is facing a 3rd and 15+ to get off the field? I noticed Nick Aliotti watching from the end zone. HE would have come up with a way to create some havoc. I don’t particularly like James Crepea’s reporting, but his last question to Lanning was on point and brutal, paraphrasing: ”Dan, with the defense having season-long issues . . . 3rd downs, lack of pass rush, deep passes . . . What is there to see in film now that these have been issues all season?” Dan Lanning: “We’ll have to look. We’re playing with the same group and same scheme.”

I’m nervous about the matchup between UW’s passing attack and UO’s pass defense. That said, GO DUCKS!!

With 3 more games left, here's the latest on how the current Ducks stack up to Ducks' offenses of the past. I added two new efficiency categories on the far right: OTD% and Points per Possession. "OTD %" = What percentage of offensive possessions result in a touchdown. LOOK AT DILLINGHAM'S EFFICIENCY!!! He is beating the best offenses Ducks' history has to offer.

HEAR ME OUT!! I realize it's heresy, at this point, to even question Dan Lanning and the job he's done (FANTASTIC), but the Topic title is not as much click-bait as you might assume. Let me pose the question differently: If you were an AD looking for a new head coach, would you prefer that the head coach be an Offensive Genius or a Defensive Genius? Listening to Colin Cowherd, he makes a great point about the direction of football . . . Offense is king! All the rules and regulations favor the offensive side of the ball. Offense is sexy; it's what attracts the best QBs and best skill position players. We hear it all the time as reported by the last few Ducks head coaches: "We go into recruits' houses and they constantly tell us that Oregon is their dream school." Those recruits remember OFFENSES led by Chip Kelly and executed by the likes of Masoli, LaMichael James, Kenon Barner, MARIOTA, DeAnthony Thomas, Royce Freeman, Thomas Tyner, Mael, Darron Thomas, etc. For whatever reason, the Cosmos chose Oregon to have the offense of a century for 4-6 years starting when they landed Chip Kelly, and the lasting image of the Ducks' blur offense is still paying dividends on the recruiting trail today. Even now, thinking about those Chip Kelly years brings me nostalgia I cannot repress. Nothing was more fun than running to take a 30-second bathroom break, only to realize that the Ducks had scored ANOTHER touchdown in that time. What if Kenny Dillingham is one of those offensive geniuses that come along 1 in every 4-5 years? Painful to see him go, right? Questions and Points to Ponder: - In my opinion, what I've seen so far from Kenny Dillingham is the best offense I've ever seen at Oregon. My "soon-to-be-released" offensive stats updates shows KD's offense as more efficient than 2017 (with only Taggert/Herbert games), 2014, and 2010. - Prepare yourself emotionally, because Kenny Dillingham will only be here one more year, max. - As a defensive HC, Dan Lanning has to get the OC right every 1-3 years. It's hard to strike gold every time you pick a new OC. - What happens to key offensive skill positions players (QB being the most important position, by far) when a stud OC leaves? Better chance of retaining the 5-star QBs when the offensive genius is the head coach. - If Kenny Dillingham is the key relationship with 5* Dante Moore and KD bolts for, let's say, ASU, with the promise of playing in KD's incredible offense, does Dante Moore follow KD, or roll the dice with the next OC? - As we've seen the past few years, constantly changing OCs and offensive philosophies, IMO, have stunted the growth and development of blue chip QB recruits languishing on Oregon's bench. There's a setback in a QB's development every time they have to reset and learn a new scheme and terminology. - Look no further than Riley and DeBoer as an example of the advantage of having an offensive genius as HC. Those teams have ~40 ppg built-in every year until those coaches decide to leave, regardless of how many OC's cycle through. - In the AP Top 25, only Alabama and Georgia are led by "Defensive Geniuses". They benefit from having near-NFL players on their entire roster, including the bench. If Nick Saban and his current staff were suddenly USC's staff, would USC be averaging ~40 ppg competing for a playoff spot? I think not. ** This is not a call for getting rid of Lanning, but more of a thought experiment in what you'd prefer a head coach specialize in for the best long-term prospects: offense or defense. BUT if you knew you had an offensive genius OC, does it give you pause? Does it at least make you consider making a crazy, bold move to ensure he doesn't get away, even if you have a "Defensive Genius" HC who's having a fairytale start?

We have two weeks to talk about it, so we might as well talk about it. The last time UCLA legitimately beat Oregon was in 2004* * Asterisk because technically UCLA beat Oregon in 2017 when a generational QB in Justin Herbert was out injured and, instead, UCLA had to face the "mighty" Burmeister. UCLA also beat Oregon in 2007, in the Ducks' first game after Heisman frontrunner, Dixon, went down. In that game, UCLA had to battle the "daunting", inexperienced trio of Kempt, Leaf, and Roper. Oregon doesn't lose those games if they have their starting QB. This upcoming game with UCLA has me nervous because of one primary factor: DTR (Dorian Thompson-Robinson) What scares me is how consistently DTR is playing this year. In years past, you could count on DTR to be very streaky; unstoppable one quarter, and then horrendous the next. Now, he looks good all the time. A consistent, good decision-making QB that can run paired with Chip Kelly is a dangerous thing (reminds me of Mariota). Here's some DTR stats, and be prepared for some wild improvement: Not predicting a loss, but it sure feels like a coin toss at this point. What are your thoughts, keys, feelings about the game?

Now that we're about 1/3 of the way through the season, thought I'd post an update of how the Lanning/Dillingham offense is doing compared to other coaches/years. For now, the offense seems middle of the road (caveat, the GA game is weighing heavily on these stats) with the exception of the passing game. Ducks are producing in the passing game the likes we've not seen since Helfrich/Mariota teamed up in 2013/2014.

Question: "What's wrong with Tyler? That's not the guy we've ever seen last season in this offense. Any rhyme or reason why he's struggling right now?" Answer by MC: "Scheme change, you know. It's different." What's incredible is that MC gives the CORRECT answer. His scheme IS the problem in and of itself, but he can't/won't recognize it. He thinks the problem is that the QB isn't proficient enough in his scheme, rather than his offensive (emphasis on "offensive") philosophy is the Heisman hopeful QB destroyer. Also, I've noticed a change in MC. Anyone else see it??: