Kurt Rambis

Tempting, but my wife says we have plans that day.

Hey, now, let's be fair: it's pretty hard to compete with traditional powers like Liberty, Western Kentucky, Louisiana Tech, Toledo, and Arkansas State, all ranked above them. But especially with Campbell. I mean, those Camels are for real!

As has USC - and probably 3x or 4x in the recruiting area. I expect some epic Pac-12 battles coming up between these two programs.

The sadder truth is that of the remaining 98% at each level, probably another 20 - 30% are fully convinced they're future stars. I played HS basketball and soccer but knew well enough that I wasn't making it to the next level.

I'm not a scout (obviously) so I'm not going to claim any knowledge of which are actually the best players or project to be the best players. I'm looking at a combination of three things: Rating Area of need Location (want to get guys out of major recruiting areas to establish relationships and pipelines) That said, I'm going with: Christian Miller (5 star, GA pipeline, always need DL) Josh Conerly (5 star, take him from UW, always need OL) Broussard or James (we badly need RB depth, James is from GA, one is higher rated but the other is proven) Terrell or Florence (CA vs. TX, both very highly rated) Probably Iuli, but Broadingham also looks appealing I won't claim knowledge I simply don't have by trying to break down Broussard/James or Terrell/Florence based on YouTube highlights. But a 5-star DL from SEC country? Yes, please.

Absolutely agree - they've discussed this on The Dan Patrick Show and have the same opinion. Coaches most often get let go at the end of the season, and the early signing period is within a couple of weeks. Imagine the chaos of thinking you're signing with Cristobal at Oregon, then finding out Cristobal will be in Miami and a whole new staff with whom you have no connection will be at Oregon. Do you follow the coach to Florida? Stay with Oregon with an unknown staff and scheme? Or suddenly start reconsidering schools you've not contacted in months because you shut your recruiting down? Not good for coaches, schools, or kids.

Yeah, no one was terribly excited about Herbert, Mariota, or Chung either. Sometimes you just have to hope that the recruiters see something in a guy that no one else is seeing. And with the way things are today, if he doesn't develop and can't get on the field, he'll transfer out anyway and we'll have the scholie back..

Ah. Since I tend to avoid Adam Sandler movies like I avoid Baltimore Ravens fans, I didn't even know that.

It's a little like running a company with 150 employees. You always have someone whining, someone deserving of a promotion but there's no place higher for them to go, someone leaving, someone applying, someone out sick, etc. Talented people who don't want to work hard, hard workers who don't have that much talent, someone who puts hard work and talent together and then leaves for "greener pastures," someone you invest in and train who then leaves for another dollar an hour. Get used to it - it ain't gonna get any better or any less confusing.

As for football movies, it's gotta be the original The Longest Yard. Burt Reynolds when he was cool.

Over the Hanson brothers? Never! Slap Shot all day long...

When there is a coaching change, it's a total game-changer for recruits. Some kid was being recruited by Miami but he didn't vibe with the coach, and he liked MC. Now MC is the coach at Miami, so suddenly that program looks good. Some other kid felt he was a great fit for the scheme at Miami, but doesn't like the scheme MC brings to the program, so now he's no longer interested in Miami. Same with coaches - I'm sure there are guys MC was pressing hard for that Lanning looked at and said, "Meh - next." And probably guys Lanning wanted that the new DC in Georgia won't be excited about. It's not just a new head coach, but new assistants, new schemes, new priorities, new trainers, new attitude. With the transfer portal, even some new teammates. And undoubtedly there's also uncertainty, like will Lanning be a good HC and how will the team look in three years and what O and D schemes will they run. So when a coach leaves, I have no problem with that coach "taking" recruits elsewhere.

Huh. I just hope the Ducks are going to get good return on the Dollars. And this time, no change. I'll stop now...

Too bad it looks like he won't stay a greenback...

Love to see the connection with the past. My only quibble with the article is that it says Mullens opted not to go for a coach with Oregon ties. It appears Wilcox opted that for him. LaMike is still my all-time favorite Oregon RB.

https://www.oregonlive.com/recruiting/2022/01/sam-taki-taimani-washington-huskies-starting-defensive-lineman-commits-to-oregon-ducks.html Huge DL starter Taki Taimani transfers to Oregon. From Washington. That's gonna leave a bruise.

I'm just not too worried about stuff like this. The Ducks, being an incredibly young team, can afford one awful recruiting year more than most other programs. And with what is written about virtually every assistant coach ("top recruiter"), it shouldn't last for long. If we're back in the top 15 next year, or better yet top 10, all this turmoil will be forgotten. Frankly, my much greater concern is whether the program has hired recruiting over coaching. When all we keep reading about is what a great recruiter each of the assistants is, I hope we're not in for a repeat of "great recruits who don't get developed" and/or "great recruits who lose to Stanford."

Given the state of the Pac-12 this year, I'm not sure leading the league in anything is all that impressive. In my limited ability to watch extended highlights, I still saw a guy who took off pretty fast out of the pocket, who missed a bunch of throws, and who did a lot of checkdowns. Was the receiver not in the right place? Did the line not give him the extra half second the pattern needed to develop properly? Not watching the all-22 so no clue how much of the performance was Brown, coaching, line, injuries, receivers, etc. But I didn't see anything overwhelmingly impressive in what little I did see - stats or no stats. In total offensive production, this team was far below where the talent suggests it should have been. 17 points in two games against Utah? 24 against Stanford and Cal? 26 against a putrid Washington team? Ugh. That's absolutely not all on the QB, and I'm not sure even the majority of it should be...but at least some. Maybe I'm being completely unfair, but I'm betting Thomas, Mariota, Dixon, and some of our other recent guys in the same system would have done more.

I've got a daughter in high school. AP courses may not be what they used to be, but then student achievement in general is not what it used to be, so there's still a pretty good gap between AP and a typical student. Sadly.

Yeah, but how many mid-level players THINK they're stars? We see guys all the time in football and basketball declare for the draft and then end up a very low-round draft choice or go entirely undrafted. As for having players take AP courses, some of these guys will barely qualify for school and then barely be able to stay in school. Realistic for some, but probably not for a lot.

Are we sure about that? Given how conservatively this staff played things, I wouldn't be surprised if they went with the vet just out of fear of what mistakes a freshman might make, not because Brown was clearly the best player. I would suggest amending the statement to "No one in the QB room in 2021 was good enough to beat out Brown in the eyes of the staff." I find it easy to believe that all the scouting services totally missed on one of these 4-star guys and he'll never be any good. I find it hard to believe all the scouting services totally missed on all three of them.

Guess maybe it shows what other forums tend to be like (looking at you, Oregon Live, when you still had a forum) - but I didn't notice any comments that were potentially offensive or rude. So count me as unoffended. Not to mention pretty hard to offend overall.

Just a few random thoughts in response to various posts... I'm sure fans of most schools think they are a better brand, opportunity, etc. than they really are, including USC, Oregon, Miami, Oklahoma, etc. So no surprise that a Miami fan thinks his school is a better brand than Oregon, or that most on this board would disagree. And both sides can make valid points to back up their assertion. Not an argument either is going to win, and I don't really see it as "picking a fight." A coach's record is important, but mitigating circumstances have to be taken into account. No number by itself explains everything. Is a 3-loss season a great season? Not in Alabama, but certainly in Corvallis or Berkeley. MC took over a moribund program and turned it respectable, even if he didn't leave with a winning record. And I've yet to hear any coach say, "Sure, I would leave Oklahoma if I got $10 million more from USC" or "Yeah, I don't really like living in Eugene and want to go back home" or whatever. Any more than any one of us here, if asked by his boss, would say, "Yeah, I've been mailing out resumes - if I get an offer from Microsoft, I'm gone." Most of us who get upset when a key player decommits or transfers, or a coach leaves, would jump at any job offer that's better for us (more money, better position, better area to live in, whatever). So I just can't agree with comments about snakes or backstabbing or disloyalty or whatever. He felt the move was what he wanted to do, just like Lanning felt leaving UGA and all the players and incoming freshmen he recruited was what he wanted to do. Every single new coach coming to Eugene is leaving a school, players, and recruits to take a job with the Ducks. It's just the way things work.

Sadly, this is where college football is headed. Mercenary coaches. Players transferring left and right. Guys preparing for the draft choosing not to play. Guys with injuries that in the past might have been "Suck it up and play" sitting out of meaningless bowl games. The bowl games will become even more meaningless once we have a 12-team playoff and the "big" bowl games are a matchup of #18 vs. #32. And of course currently we add in COVID. It's just a huge mess. Hopefully COVID will not influence future seasons, but the rest of the stuff is just going to get worse...

...if allowed to, and if the cream is developed to the point it CAN rise. My concern with not playing any of the younger QBs this year was that Brown had a clear ceiling, both through his talent/performance and because of the fact he was a one-year rental. Is it better to play a decent-but-not-great QB, or a QB who is inexperienced and right now might not be as good, but given a few games has strong potential to be better, and will be around at least another year or two? When the Dux beat tOSU, I was all for staying with Brown because I felt his experience and lack of big mistakes could help the team reach the playoffs. As the year went on, we lost to Stanford and almost lost to other teams, it became clear to me that this team was not CFP-bound. At that point, I wanted to see what Ashford, Thompson, and/or Butterfield had, at least for some short stretches of games. To me, high level programs should be doing one of two things each year: either 1) seriously competing for the national title, or 2) preparing to compete next year for the national title. By not playing any of the younger guys even for short stretches, we failed to accomplish either one.