WiseKwacker

Time will tell. Time will tell.

From my perspective, when Duck fans continually focus on the Fuskies with their hatred, it only reinforces the notion that Duck fans view themselves as the "little brothers." To me, it's much like the seething hatred I get from so many Beaver fans. I prefer to take the tack of, "Huskies? Which ones?"

You know, with all the recent discussions about players opting out of "meaningless" (to them, maybe) games, I think it's only a matter of time before schools/wealthy donors begin paying players on a per-game-basis to "opt in."

Love everything about Will's game EXCEPT his lack of quickness. That was never more apparent than in the Houston loss earlier this season. (Sadly, John Wooden used to say that basketball was "first and foremost a game of quickness.") I also really like what I've seen so far this year from Jacob Young--aggressive defense and smooth offensive player. Frankly, I've not been particularly impressed so far with Guerrier or Harmon. And, I've never been particularly excited about Williams, either. Hoping Dante and Kepnang continue to get playing time and develop; they can combine to give the Ducks a solid core to their defense. Among the bench players, though, I've been most impressed with Soares' all-around skills, hoping he develops a bit like Duarte. And, Biddle is beginning to show his 5-star talent. I'm hoping his minutes continue to creep up because you can see flashes of his star potential when he plays. I hope Don McLean is right about this being the starting point of what this team can do. With Coach Altman, there's always faith and hope that he can coach up players to get the maximum out of their talent.

He was a heady, ball-hawking PLAYER. He'll be missed. Not nearly as talented as Jevon Holland, but I think he'll make it as a pro.

Nice one! I'm laughing through gritted teeth.

"Danimal!" That made me laugh out loud. Reminds me of a nickname from a movie, but, for the life of me, I can't recall the specifics. Anyway, Googling the name only got me to this:

Nailed it.

Okay, here goes. I hate to be that old guy who's El Groucho, but... After reading that article--thanks for posting, Charles--I've gotta vent a bit. I agree with Neel in the feeling that the deep ball was there last night as a result of somebody else being absent. (Hint: his initials are M.C.) In addition--although I have no data to back me up--it seemed to me that the offensive play calls, and subsequent snaps, came in more quickly than in past games. While we can all acknowledge that the rapid-fire offenses of Chip from 10 years ago are no longer the weapon they once were, I'd argue that the extremely slow use of the play clock on just about every play under MC's leadership robbed the Ducks' offense of "flow" and, oftentimes, momentum. Now, a different point about what we saw last night. For much of the year, the primary criticism I've read about QB Brown has been his accuracy on long throws. I would argue that his primary shortcomings lie in several other areas that are interconnected. Addressing the long ball, yes, he missed on numerous long throws early in the season. Realistically, though, long throws are completed BY EVERYBODY at the lowest percentage of all throws. And, I think a factor in Brown's long-ball inaccuracy with the infrequency Moorhead/Cristobal included those plays in the playbook. The "shortcomings" I've been most concerned about are 1) his accuracy on short passes, and 2) his throwing motion. Throughout the season, Brown has been woefully inaccurate on crossing routes run 10-15 yards downfield. Last night, we saw several of these, including the interception that Andre Ware seemed to blame on Thornton. From what I saw, the ball was poorly thrown whereby Thornton had to reach for it. Brown has also missed badly at various times this season on short passes behind the line of scrimmage to wide receivers, tight ends and backs. These are the kind of passes that are usually simple flip passes for most quarterbacks. In both of these types of passes that Brown struggles with, I think his throwing motion is largely to blame. A.B. has a strong arm, but has a long windup before he throws. Virtually every top quarterback has not only a strong arm but a quick throwing release; Brown's release affects his accuracy. In addition, his footwork and pocket awareness aren't very good, either. But, I'll say it again: once he gets out of the pocket and decides to run, he's a damned effective runner. Having said all that, I watched that game AGAIN in frustration, waiting for the coach to put Thompson into the game for several series. At the start of the second half, the announcers even "teased" the idea that we would likely see Thompson play some in the second half. And, of course, if questioned, I'm sure McClendon would say that he kept Brown in the game because the Ducks had a chance to win the game with a comeback. No, they didn't. OU drove the ball down the field relentlessly, and only punted twice during the game, sandwiched around 8 consecutive scoring drives. Watching Stoops coach with a free-and-easy demeanor on the OU sideline, I wish Mullins would have done what the OU AD did. When Mike Bellotti offered to step in as the "honorary" head coach of the Ducks for this game, he should have said "yes." I'm betting Bellotti would have stuck Thompson in for a few series after that 30-3 halftime deficit. Oh, well. On to next year. It'll be interesting to see which kids--if any--choose to enter the transfer portal in the coming weeks.

Based on his photo, I'm thinking the new wide receivers coach is going to be one helluva recruiter.

Wonderful article on a not-so-wonderful topic, Jon. Hmmm...is it too early in the day for some of that leftover Christmas eggnog?

I'll say this about the guy: he's an incredibly effective runner. In my view, his effectiveness as a runner almost defies explanation. He's not the biggest guy; he's not the fastest guy. Even so, it seems like he always falls forward at the end of his runs. And, he consistently squirts through for an extra 3-4 yards just when you think he's down. His passing, on the other hand...

I feel ya...right down the line on numbers 1-5. Even so, I'll be watching. And, I'll be hoping for a good showing--for Duck pride, if nothing else. I just hope the players are more enthusiastic than many of us fans.

You know he played for Ohio State, don't you?

I don't see this transferring out process as such a bad thing. Frankly, I think it's inevitable that some kids will transfer out when there's a coaching change. Sometimes, I'm sure an incoming coach will give a kid a lukewarm reception at their first meeting and subtly nudge the kid into the transfer portal. (Not saying this happened with Jones. I wasn't there.) Regardless, I see no reason for not wishing the kid "good luck" at his new location--so long as it's not Fuskieville. I've always been of the opinion that if a kid doesn't want to be around here, I'd rather get rid of him and find somebody who DOES want to be here to replace him. And, if we should meet up again in the future on the field of play, punish him (and his new team) with a sound thumping on the scoreboard.

"Merry Christmas, Duck fans," he yelled, staring out at us with his (green and) yellow eyes. He had (green and) yellow eyes! SO HELP ME GOD, (GREEN AND) YELLOW EYES!

It was great to see him finally get some meaningful action last game. And from what I've seen, the kid's got some skills. Here's hoping Moorhead let's it fly in the bowl game, and that Crocker is the recipient of some of those passes.

Thanks, I guess, for leaving up my post. If nothing else, a deletion would have resulted in me harboring resentment for having wasted about 30 minutes of my precious retirement life on a response to your posting. Frankly, I'm guessing you couldn't delete only part of my response, so you decided to leave the whole thing. Regardless, I'd like to explain why I trod on "dangerous ground" by stating a little background on the Civil War game name change. Basically, I couldn't figure out a smooth way of making the point of the need for the development of a more transparent process for making major decisions without using that bungled process as a clear example. Sorry if I sent your blood pressure up a notch. I certainly appreciate this forum.

Hah! Hope you're right. Reminds me of the old Seinfeld episode about Jerry dating the girl who's "two-faced." She's a hotty one time you see her, and then, in different light, she's a real stinker.

Charles, can't say I agree with you on this one completely. I DO agree with some you your points, however. For me, it gets down to this: process. In my view, the Duck administration--mainly Mullins, I guess--mishandled the process in each of those two decisions, primarily by not having a clear (or, at least a transparent) process. In the case of the renaming of the Civil War game, as one of the old coots, I think I'm with most fans of my generation in wondering what all the fuss is about. Frankly, I remember reading that the moniker, "Civil War," was given to the game by a journalist, as I recall, as a play on words. He was using the definition of the word, "civil," which means, "adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy." In other words, a heated "battle" that becomes "civil" again once the game is over. Thus, I don't find the term offensive, even though I understand that casual or new football fans might not know that history about the name's origin. My real issue with the name change, though, has to do with the lack of a process--or, at least, the lack of a transparent process--for making the decision to drop the name. (And, I don't consider this particular name change to be an anomaly in today's climate of social justice.) At any rate, when the perception is that a change was made because a few people--whether they are ex-players or current students--complained that the name made them feel uncomfortable, I think that's an attempt to correct a "wrong" with another "wrong." Instead of making a quick decision to drop the name--without any idea of what a suitable replacement name might be--just comes off as a knee-jerk decision. I would have advocated for the formation of a committee involving a wide variety of stakeholders (students, ex-players, journalists, alumni, donors, etc.) to explore how the name came to be in the first place, why it's offensive to some, and how--possibly--an education campaign might be put together to educate all viewers of the game as to its true meaning. And, if the group decides that such a task is just too difficult to accomplish, decide to change the name to a better alternative instead of just dropping the name and leaving the game as a nameless end-of-season clash. Likewise, with the coaching change, Mullins MAY have a small circle of advisors with whom he consults when a coach leaves--or needs to be fired--but, if so, it's a group that apparently doesn't include ex-athletes from the program involved. While I don't think ex-players should have outsized influence on the process, I think they should at least be part of Mullins' inner circle of advisors in such a process. Apparently, they weren't...until they kind of forced their way in. In that case, as we've seen, Mullins comes off looking reactive instead of proactive. Not a good look. In a nutshell, then, I guess I'm just advocating for a more transparent process in these matters. Obviously, you'll NEVER please everybody--even with the most transparent process imaginable--but I'm confident there would be much less anger and puzzlement over how a decision was reached if the process was more clear to everyone.

Hey, believe me, nobody has been more down on Brown than I have. And, I've been dying to see both Thompson and Butterfield get some meaningful minutes on the field. HOWEVER, I understand McClendon's decision to start Brown in this bowl game. The way I look at it is this: The 2021 Ducks earned this bowl game with a 10-3 record. Brown was the quarterback throughout the season for this team. Thus, he's earned the right to start this game. And, I feel the same for other players on the team who are playing their last games as Ducks; they've earned the right to start this game if they've been starters during the regular season. Having said that, I see no reason McClendon can't reasonably insert Thompson and/or Butterfield into the game as early as the 2nd quarter for a series or two. Hey, I remember good old Mike Price at WSU doing that on a regular basis with his quarterbacks. He'd give the 2nd string kid a series or two in the second quarter of games to give him some actual in-game seasoning. Knowing that Brown will be starting the game, I will be watching him closely. In my view, his main problem this season is that he's played "tight" most of the time. Not only has he struggled with the accuracy of his long passes, he's also struggled with accuracy on many easy short passes--either tossing an 8-foot pass at the feet of his receiver or sailing it well over his head. Common sense suggests that he hasn't played this way in practice or else he would've lost his starting job long ago. So, with just AB and Joe Moorhead working together in this game, maybe Joe will let it fly on offense and AB will loosen up and do the same. That prospect will ensure that I tune in for this game--at least for the first two series.

I remember his previous stint on the college football studio segments. The guy was a humorless stiff. I would think the networks would stay away from this toxic guy in light of all the stuff that's come out about him in recent months. Then again, Michael Vick is doing "insightful analysis" on TV these days, so who knows?

What we know is that Mullins apparently offered the job to Wilcox not once, but twice. What we don't know is why Wilcox turned it down. My guess is that he was aware of the letter that went--basically on his behalf--to Mullins by the former Duck players. Did he think that letter pressured Mullins into offering him the job by default? Had he paid any attention to Duck fan websites where support for him was lukewarm at best? Did the offer come with some "conditions" he didn't like? (You have to bring Musgrave with you. Or, you can't bring _____ with you.) What is his dad's relationship with Phil Knight? Phil attended Oregon several years before Wilcox, but you've gotta assume the two are well familiar with each other. Was that a factor in Wilcox saying, "no?" I doubt we'll ever know the answers to those questions. But, as each day passes, it truly becomes less and less important. My focus now is on what Dan Lanning is doing to move the Ducks ahead to the next level.

Yeah, Charles, I would've asked him, "Coach Lanning, on that 13-hour car drive, what kind of offense were you dreaming up?"