WiseKwacker

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?"

Wow, the never-ending hatred for Canzano is pretty evident among many Duck fans. While he's not my favorite sports reporter, I appreciate the fact that he's out there digging for information to share. In the first place, I appreciate learning about this letter being sent by the ex-Duck players to Mullins. So, was Canzano "irresponsible" for putting out the story, or would he--as a journalist--be "irresponsible" if he didn't? I would submit that the latter is the case. So, did Canzano make up the existence of this letter? If not, how did he learn of it? Did he break into Rob Mullins' office to steal it? Did one of the ex-players share a copy with him? Did someone in the U of O athletic department share it with him? Whatever the case, if you're angry that this information came to light, shouldn't you blame the person who shared the information with Canzano, the JOURNALIST. Canzano is just doing what he's paid to do. And, after reading Canzano's article, I think James Crepea's follow-up article about the ex-players' reactions adds some clarity. I have no idea what Joey Harrington knew or had heard about the coaching search at the time he wrote that letter. Clearly, the letter was sent before some of the interviews were conducted and before any job offers were made. Did Wilcox learn about the letter at any point before he turned down Mullins' job offer? If so, did it's existence actually turn him off for some reason? We'll likely never know the details. I can live with that. What matters now is that we've got Lanning. I'm excited to see what this guy will do. And, at this point, I'm envisioning that the program will improve in EVERY area next season. As a matter of fact, I'm going on record predicting that we go undefeated next year. By the way, where is the "natty" being held in 2023? Are tickets available yet?

That was a good read, Charles. It's fun--at this point--to speculate on where we think we'll see improvements or maybe some slippage from the MC regime to the DL era. With Lanning as a first-time head coach, it's all just speculation at this point. One area where I would argue with the point you made is in the area of special teams. Yes, Camden Lewis overcame his first-year "yips" and began to fulfill his potential. And, yes, Tom Snee developed into an adequate punter. However, the return and coverage units really took a downturn in the Bobby Williams era. I think there's nowhere to go but up in this area. I had to laugh at your "rating" of game management and adjustments. At this point, we have no idea how Lanning will do in this area, since he's never been in the head coach position to make those decisions. On the other hand, as you point out, he just can't be any worse...we hope. Finally, I'm hopeful Lanning will actually be an upgrade on culture and PR. Apparently, Mario's sincerity consistently won over recruits. Maybe that's what it takes to bring today's kids into the fold. I certainly don't know from personal experience. However, I think we began to see some cracks in that "culture" over the past two years. And, when it comes to PR, Mario's no-nonsense "sincerity" began to wear on me over time. I mean, has the guy EVER said something even mildly funny? There's only one Pete Carroll, but I'd like to see some positive, happy emotion on the sideline from my coach once in awhile. Thanks, again, Charles, for giving us needy Duck faithful a place to ponder and pontificate.

Don Read, baby! 20-19 coaching up the PSU Vikings before leading the "kids" of Oregon. (Maybe not D-1, but he had a winning record--barely--as a college coach.)

I'm not here to pile on Moorhead, but I have to say that I've been disappointed with the offense of this "genius." It is very frustrating to see other teams move the ball down the field consistently and relentlessly against the Duck defense (nothing to do with Moorhead, of course) using quick slant passes over the middle of the field (Utah, WSU and others), and then to see the Ducks' offense fail to use that same strategy--particularly when faced with an opponent's effective pass rush. And, with a roster stocked with numerous outstanding--or potentially outstanding--tight ends, and frequently playing two of them at a time, fail to use them consistently as receivers in the 5-10 yard range. Puzzling to me to say the least. On the positive side of things, I think Moorhead was a marked improvement over Arroyo. So, there's that...

Once you hear it, you're sold. Henceforth, it shall be known as the "Platypus Punch-Out." You're welcome.

Sadly..."No Natty." (hiccup)

FishDuck, Just getting caught up on this forum after an extensive week of cleaning the house before hosting Thanksgiving dinner. Whew! Glad that's done for the year... Loved your take. And, just wanna say that, on this day of "thanks," I like to look at the posts like the one you reference and say to myself, "Man, I'm thankful I don't know THAT Duck fan..."

I guess the trend in college football now is to act immediately when a season spirals downward. In the cases of USC and LSU, I can MAYBE understand it. For TCU, though, you'd think Patterson deserved the grace of letting him finish the season as head coach and then giving him the chance to "retire" once the season ends. What was TCU football before he got there? Even with the ugly scene after the SMU game, this just seems wrong to me.