cartm25

I did not emphasize "realistic" in the topic title to imply that there's only one correct view. To satiate my curiosity for this discussion, I have a request of YOU: Please throw out your "highest hopes" AND "worst fears" for the Ducks next season, and tell us on the OBD Forum what you realistically expect regarding the following: - Win / Loss Regular Season Record (12 games) - Offense Points / Game - Bowl Game / P-12 Championship / CFP (or some combination of the three) - Defensive performance / improvement / regression - Offensive performance / improvement / regression - Wins / Losses against key P-12 competition (e.g., USC, Utah, UW, Beavers, etc.) Here's my take on the above. My realistic predictions account for the likelihood that some of the following may occur: injuries, bad games, inexperience at certain position groups, new coaches' scheme implementation and development, questionable coaching decisions etc. - 9-3 - The Ducks were .500 against the P-12 teams they played last year that finished with a winning record. Tough games are @ UW, @ Utah, USC, and Beavers. I think the Ducks will go 2-2 against those teams. I picked a 3rd loss to account for new OC/system, OL development, and potential injuries . . . or just a fluke, head-scratching game or coaching decision. - 35 PPG - I think there will be some expected growing pains from a new offensive system (though not completely different from KD's) and some OL development. - Bowl Game / P-12 Championship Appearance - I have a nagging feeling that all the teams I mentioned above will be better this year, and that the quality of teams in the conference will prevent a P-12 participant in the CFP. Given experience and continuity, I see USC and Utah as the frontrunners, again, for the P-12 Championship. - Just realized that 2 offensive topics above sort of overlap. One last comment here. I believe the offense will have some road bumps early on, but the Ducks' schedule lines up so their tough opponents are in the second half of the season. Should be able to work any issues out by then. - Defense will improve. - It can't get worse, right? I expect to see improvement now that Lanning has his guys, and with the investment in the DL, I anticipate more "havoc" and sacks. - Key Losses: UW and USC / Key Wins: Utah and Beavers

Apologies to @Charles Fischer, I won't be able to quote you perfectly from memory, but why are we still talking about Mario Cristobal? Because he's not a Duck anymore, it's fun, it's entertaining, and gosh darn it, it's really fun . . . Did I mention "fun" too many times? (FishDuck's quote goes something like that). Quick Reference: "Green" = better, "Red" = worse (Source ESPN): Even the metrics that were worse in 2021 were so close to 2022 as to be almost negligible.

After 2 seconds in a clean pocket, Bo Nix looks terrified. What is going on!? How does he look more panicked than the freshman QB on the other team?

I think these are pretty spot on.

@Mic I’m with you on this one! Two things can be true at once: It can be disappointing to not get an anticipated recruit, AND still be excited about the overall class. I don’t see anything negative here. The big 5* DLinemen have been the Ducks’ unicorn; always seems to elude them. I too would rather have Hicks than Moore. Here’s hoping the DLineman we just recruited turn into the next Armstead/Buckner!

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.