WiseKwacker

It took my 24 hours to recover from that gut punch yesterday, but now I'm back on this great site. (Thankful at the end of this holiday weekend for Charles Fischer's diligence in maintaining this great site.) Count me among those who feel like we snared a future great one in Coach Dan Lanning. Yeah, the Duck defense was a disappointment this year as they certainly didn't meet my preseason expectations. The offense, though, was a HUGE positive surprise this year. And, despite yesterday's debacle, the special teams were much improved this season compared to the past few. Really, the offense was unstoppable until Bo hurt his ankle in the Husky game. As far as I'm concerned, if Bo had stayed healthy in that game, the Ducks would've won it. Likewise, with a healthy Bo Nix, I think the Beavers would've been too far behind yesterday to win that game. I bring this up only to point out that the team was on track to securing a possible CFP spot when their most valuable player went down. Yesterday, Lanning again gambled and lost on a 4th down in Duck territory. Both the Husky game and Beaver game 4th down gambles might've gone better with a healthy Bo Nix. Since the Ducks didn't have that in those instances, it's fair to question the wisdom on the call. On the other hand, the Ducks' punt team had a blocked punt and a fumbled punt, so Lanning's confidence in that unit couldn't have been lower. In addition, the Beavers were absolutely gashing the Duck defense with run after run. Thus, I don't think his call to "go for it" was as horrible or illogical as many are making it out to be. And, as others have said here, recruiting is a key. I'm of the opinion that recruiting is both an art and a science. The science part is what you get with player measurables, accolades and ratings. That's all important. But, there's also the art of recruiting. That's what gets you guys like the Beavers have, who are not 4-star or 5-star guys but still develop into beasts who knock the snot out of you and make great open-field tackles. I think Mario was a master of the science. I have a feeling Dan Lan will be a master of both the science and the art. Time will tell.

1. Platypus Punch-Out 2. Battle Between Two Usually Civil Alumni Groups 3. Uncivil War 4. Civility War 5. Bucky Ducky Bowl

Nailed it--again--Darren. Fun read, and I was harmonizing with you from my easy chair on that Whittington slide. (I think I was screaming louder on that first offensive offensive play of the second half, though. My F-bomb may have broken a few windows in the neighborhood.) There was a lot of negative talk about the Ducks' defense following the UW loss. Frankly, after watching Penix dissect the Beavers' strong secondary at the end of their game, I had a pretty good idea going in that the Ducks' secondary wouldn't be able to stop the Huskies' passing game. They couldn't, and we saw why the Huskies have one of the top 2-3 passing games in the country. So, the defense "bounced back" with a solid game against the Utes. Well, Rising clearly wasn't 100%. Beyond that, his receivers dropped numerous throws that were catchable. My take: the Duck defense is not as bad as it looked against the Huskies and probably not as good (at least from a "points allowed" perspective) as it looked against the Utes. As to any criticism of Lanning and/or Dillingham vis-a-vis lack of back-up quarterback readiness, I can't agree on that point anymore. I have NO opinion on Butterfield, other than to say he seems like a very positive cheerleader on the sidelines. Thompson? Body language and facial expressions--both in the game and on the sidelines--say it all. I think the Ducks need to hit the transfer portal for a QB next year while seeing what Moore turns out to be. This week's game in Corn Valley promises to be a dogfight. Can't wait. Bring on the Platypus Punch-Out!!

Nice article, David. Count me among those at the start of the year who were clamoring for more chances to see either Thompson or Butterfield on the field in the second half of games. I'm over that now. Watching Thompson come in for mop-up duty has become painful to watch. There's something about his demeanor and body language--on the sidelines and in the games--that appears to be 180 degrees different that Bo's. Nix appears to be supremely confident, relaxed and in charge; Thompson... On the general subject of back-up QBs getting playing time when a game is out of reach, I guess what I was hoping for this year would be what we saw at the end of the Cal game. That kid, Kai Millner, came in to the game and really showed what appeared to me to be a Division 1 skillset. I realize that there's a different approach to what plays you call when you're waaaay behind versus when you're waaaaay ahead. Beyond that, though, Millner showed that he clearly had a handle on their offense. I haven't seen that yet from Thompson.

OMG!!!

The Adam Stack story is one cautionary tale about highly-rated kickers. Another could have been the Camden Lewis story. He, too. was rated "five star" coming out of high school. His first couple of years as a Duck kicker were just short of a nightmare for me. His knuckleball kicks were horrific to watch as they either missed or barely made it. Quietly, though, the kid has turned it around and has become a very reliable kicker () for the Ducks now. Seems to me that it's pretty hard to look at a high school position player and guarantee success in college. Quarterback--with the position's demand for mental as well as physical development--seems to be consistently the most difficult to predict. Kicker has to be right up their with quarterback, though. Hard to run tests on a guy's ability to focus and shut out distractions.

Sorry! I...can't...hold...back...

Sorry to weigh in a bit late on this one. Haven't spent much time here the past few days as I've been scurrying around outside my house, trying to finish a number of projects before the weather turns. My two cents: You've got THE BEST website covering all things Ducks I can imagine. The reason it's so fabulous is directly related to all the work you've done to 1) establish rules of civility, 2) communicate those rules to everyone who uses the site, and 3) enforce those rules--through clear communication to the rule breakers--when there are violations. Bravo, Charles. So, as a former teacher, here's how my thinking evolved vis-a-vis establishing "classroom rules." (Not saying you haven't done this already, just restating things in my words.) I started out trying to list all the violations that would be breaking the rules. Every time I thought I'd built the definitive list of violations, some kid came up with a new variation. I finally realized there were an infinite number of potential violations of the rules. Instead, then, I wrote the rules according to what kids SHOULD be doing. For example, one rule was that all students should be "safe" in their behaviors. So, when any of the myriad of "unsafe" behaviors occurred, the kid was reminded by me that he/she was violating the classroom rules. Other rules related to kids being kind and respectful. Thus, when I had to look at a problem situation, I only needed to ask the kid, "Was your behavior respectful?" Upon a few seconds--maybe minutes--of reflection, most would admit that their behavior wasn't. Clearly, you're dealing with adults here. And, you're dealing with adults who are often writing comments in a moment of passion. As a result, I guess it's understandable that many would be offended when you challenge them. Seems to me, your standards are clear and fair. When you've challenged a comment I've made in the past, my reaction was one of embarrassment. I felt I needed to apologize to you for having to waste your time contacting me about it. So, if someone gets so bent that they quit this site over a flagged comment, good riddance. Just one more thought, Charles. You have put in so much effort to make this site as outstanding as it is, you MAY suffer a bit with being too close to things to have the perspective that some of us outsiders do. To your credit, I think that's why you posted this in the first place. With that preamble, I'm trying to delicately suggest that you may be trying to look for specific reasons the three examples above either are or are not in violation of the rules. Sometimes, I think you need to throw out the "science" part of the process and just go with what your gut tells you. I trust your gut, Charles.

I really like this kid from what I've heard from him. Hope he has a great year leading this team.

Yes. Rumor has it that he mainly wants to be able to give an Ole Miss coffee mug to his great uncle, who's an Ole Miss fan.

Was not impressed with ANY of the committee of running backs in game #1 against Georgia. I was prepared for a season of mediocre offensive football. Whoops! As a former boss told me frequently over the years, "Withhold judgment until evaluation is complete." While evaluation is not yet complete, I've seen enough in weeks 2-5 to know that my initial impression of Irving (and Whittington, to a lesser degree) was premature. Irving is the real deal.

Another nice article, Darren. Those were some REALLY BAD memories, but excellent reminders of the troubles the Ducks have had with the Wildcats over the years. I only have one quibble with what you've written. From my perspective, the phrase, "...the legendary Brent Musburger," is an oxymoron. I think it goes back to the guy's coverage of the NBA while constantly referring to Bill Walton as "mountain man." On the other hand, that 2009 game was one of my all-time favorite Duck games. Thanks for putting in that link.

Predictable? You mean like when they put Sean Dollars in, they're gonna throw to him? I'm far from an expert football analyst, but come on, Kenny. And, Haywarduck, you nailed it on the Cougs "Couging it." Once the Ducks had the game in the bag, I found myself actually feeling sorry for the fans they showed in the stands. The Cougs HAD THAT GAME, and THEY EARNED IT. The Ducks' defense was frustrating to watch, to say the least. Too many missed tackles and AGAIN the inability to stop short passes which often turned into first down passes. And, Dilly's offense was really great until they got inside the red zone. Then, it was really frustrating to watch. As far as I'm concerned, the Mauigoa interception was on Dilly for calling the same play two times in a row. The Cougs knew what to expect when they kept Dollars in for two plays in a row. Okay, in spite of the negativity, I'm very happy the Ducks came out of this one with a win. Hopefully, it's a big learning experience for all involved.

I almost turned this game off at about 9:00 to go. How the HECK did the Ducks win this game?!?!? Happy with the resilience, but MAN are there some things to fix. I'm not down on Dilly, but the Cougs' OC really out-coached him. And, how many missed tackles did the Ducks have? Yikes! Incredibly relieved to come out of this with a win. Kudos to Bo Nix.

The first college football game I attended was the 1967 game between OSU's "Giant Killers" and the O.J. Simpson-let Trojans. I was a high school sophomore. My buddy's dad took us; he was an OSU alum. It was a cold, drizzly fall day with a muddy field. Even though I was a Duck fan by that time, I rooted hard for the Beavs. Their defense played great, and they never let The Juice turn the corner on the numerous end sweeps the Trojans ran that day. Simpson just kept running out of bounds near the line of scrimmage on those plays. Afterwards, my buddy persuaded me to storm the field with all the college kids--even though I worried about getting my Converse sneakers all muddy. I forgot all about that once we were out there celebrating with everyone else. I was a Beaver Believer on that day. I'm rooting for them to do something similar today. BTW, I didn't attend a Duck football game until my first year in Eugene as a student. The student section was always only half full in those days--at least at the end of the games.

The two backs that I've been most impressed with are Sean Dollars and Byron Cardwell. Cardwell is slower to the hole than the others, and, when there's nothing there, he can look particularly bad. Then, the next time there's no hole where it should be, he'll see that and bounce left or right to a place where there IS a hole. He has really good vision and some great moves once he's got a little opening. Dollars is my favorite of the RB group. Clearly, the coaching staff sees him as the best receiver among the RBs, as he's consistently in there on passing downs. Beyond that, though, he's quick and fluid as a running back. To my eye, he's been consistently effective as a runner during his brief opportunities. Irving and Whittington have been pretty solid. I just haven't seen anything special about either one so far. Hopefully, we'll get more clarification with the BYU game.

Never argue with an old coot who watched waaaay too much television in his youth...

I watched "Game of Thrones" when it debuted years ago. After about season 2 aired, I retired and devoured the books as one of my first "tasks" as a retiree. The books, in my view, were better than the TV series as is often the case. I was anxious for Martin to write the final two books in the series after reading the five he's written. Waiting...waiting...waiting. Word was he was not likely to ever complete the book series once the TV writers used his outlines to complete the story. Now, I read that he may in fact be returning to the task of completing the book series. I guess I'll believe it when I have a copy of Book 6 in my hands. As to the new 'House of the Dragon" series, I also had trouble hearing much of the dialogue. I didn't have captioning on, though, as I usually do for most things I watch. I'll have to watch it again with captions on--it's a great help for my well-worn ears. Gotta go. My family's fantasy football draft is tonight, and I gotta lot of prep work to do. My nephew's won the league the past two years. Gonna kick his a$$ this year...maybe.

Another excellent discussion starter, Confucius. I'm with you on the 3-game "leash." Frankly, I can't visualize a scenario where the Ducks' defense isn't stellar at the start of the season with good health and excellent depth. So, if the team goes 1-2, I think it will mean that the offense has sputtered. I think the coaching staff will be ready, in that case. to change the trigger man at QB. As others have already mentioned, if they DON'T make a change in QB then, it will be an ominous sign about the perceived readiness of the two underclassmen. Personally, I'm optimistic the record will be no worse than 2-1. And, if a change in QB happens, it will be because of the positive development of Thompson or Butterfield. Fun to speculate at this point in lieu of actual game action.

Wow! That would be a great add.

Thank you...thank you...thank you! I will print it out immediately. I wish the GO DUCKS website listed this info on the roster page. Oh, that's where this came from, and I see they have now added that info. I guess I was just a bit impatient. So, sue me.

Fun read, Confucius. Somebody hit the "fast forward" button to get me to September...PRONTO! As you note, the D-line has to make us all drool a bit, thinking about the potential and depth there. Then, there's the LB group; can't wait to see these guys wreak havoc on our opponents. For me, the key is the DBs. I'm glad we snagged Gonzalez with his game experience and obvious skillset. It'll be good to get Williams back on the field. And, as for the rest of the group, I hope they mature quickly and begin to realize their potential. And, I hope we've seen the end of the soft cushion form of coverage. Watching opponents march down the field by throwing a continuous stream of 8-10 yard passes just kills me.