Triphibius

I am still in denial, I have not reached anger yet. I had a nightmare last night that Oregon turned the ball over three times in the first half inside their own thirty, spotting Indiana 21 points. Funny, how your drowsy mind plays tricks on you. What time is the game today, anyway?

Thanks for your thought-provoking assessment. Why did the Ducks play no better or worse in the second game in these three cases. I am going case by case, and draw conclusions empirically. The score was nearly identical in the second game against UW because the Huskies were a good offensive team that made it to the final, because we had kicking issues, and because of injuries in our secondary. I also thought the play calling on crucial downs left something to be desired. Ohio State had an abundance of talent, and was problem for everyone when they played their best game. I do think their coaches got the best of us on both offense and defense, but the injury to Stewart, who was critical to our previous success, was damaging. Oregon had the bye, which was a curse of death until IU broke through. I thought Oregon was winning on first down on both offense and defense early in the game. Without the turnovers, it looked as if the game would have been competitive. Our QB was responsible for the first and third. He took responsibility for the second, but that may have been good character. (Possibly the mistake was Hill's.) We did not have a bye, but our two coordinators were both burdened with their new duties. It is plausible that this affected practice and preparation. Oregon did look sharp on the successful early drive, however. I think the loss of control at the line of scrimmage may have been caused by the demoralization induced by the repeated offensive errors. In each case, there were confounding factors: injuries, the bye, and the departure of the coordinators. An alternative explanation would be that Oregon was good, but the opponents were better. a. In Washington's case, better because of our injuries at corner and our kicker's struggle. b. In Ohio State's: their receivers were better than our secondary; and their DL and LB Downs were better than our relatively good OL. c. In Indiana's: their QB may or may not be more talented, but he is more highly developed; our corners were close to their receivers but defeated by ball placement; one of our safeties was beaten repeatedly; Geoff Schwartz suggested on X that our tackles this year were not championship caliber (my phrase not his). Apart from QB play, Lanning needs to recruit safeties who can defend championship quality receivers (the incoming guys look promising) and OL men who can play together for more than a year to build teamwork. Again, the recent recruits look promising. Thanks to anyone who persevered for your patience in reading this.

I always appreciate Solar's comments. I have been thinking along the same lines. The reasons for last year's fiasco and this year's are different. DL "can't win the big one" is simplistic. Early in the game, the Ducks were winning on first down on offense and defense. Mendoza is so good at converting on third down, that sometimes that was not enough. His ball placement defeated good coverage. However, Wyatt's strip and sack was very encouraging. If this had been sustained, we would have had a reasonable chance of winning. The reason that it was not sustained was turnovers, which not only led to easy scores but eventually demoralized our defense. The miscue with Hill was the turning point, and I don't know if that was Dante's fault. It may be that Hill did not do enough reps because of the RB situation. Regarding the OL, Duck Territory said that Iuli was playing hurt. I also noticed that World disappeared (a rather bizarre concept) and was replaced by Crader at some point. Longer term, I wonder whether it would be better to develop our OL in house rather than plugging in portal guys every year, allowing them to play together more than one year, even if there are some growing pains. The incoming linemen may be multi-year starters. I expressed some thoughts on Dante in another thread. PS Solar's advice yesterday was good. Be grateful for the 13 wins.

I, too, like Dante as a young man, and wish him the best. However, on a discussion forum like this, perhaps a question ought to be raised. By analogy, is he Justin Herbert, Dennis Dixon, or Ty Thompson? Herbert? "The NFL is not a developmental league," one pundit says. On the contrary, a good QB coach (with the Chargers, not Mario's Ducks) developed Justin, and he is now a pro-bowl player. Dixon? An introvert prone to self-doubt, a bit of an ugly duckling, but one who somehow transformed into a Heisman quality player in his senior year. Thompson? Dante has some good personal qualities in addition to his physical gifts. However, the ability to speak well, or for that matter to do theoretical physics, does not guarantee that one can determine where to pass a football in 2.5 seconds.

I understand why even devoted fans feel that they need to take a break, that it is too emotionally exhausting to deal with repeated disappointment. I deal with disappointment by attempting to analyze what happened. Those who just want to flush it can stop reading here. So, what happened and why? IU was given three touchdowns in the first half. Once they had that large a lead, they could play the game on their terms. If they had not been given those gifts, what would have happened? Joel Klatt's analysis seems right in retrospect. One key to victory was winning on first down. Oregon was winning on first down on both sides of the ball early in the game. On offense, the Ducks had manageable third down conversions, and Stein had appropriate plays to accomplish that. On defense, the Ducks brought in Wyatt as a speed rusher on third and long he had immediately created havoc. If that could have been sustained, we had a good chance of success. Dante responded fairly well after the first interception. My recollection is that the miscue with the running back was the backbreaker. Did this result from the running back injuries, or because Stein was exhausted by multi-tasking? Was it just random bad luck? Was it simply the Hoosiers' year? There is much more to be said, but those are some preliminary thoughts.

Hythloday at Addicted to Quack, who does not lack confidence, is not infallible. Whatever one thinks of his methodology, he studies a lot of film and provides much information and analysis. Here are two pertinent observations I took from his article today. IU's original defensive ends both suffered season ending injuries. Their replacements, he says "aren’t liabilities but they simply don’t grade out as plus values like the starters at their positions do." IU uses a strict "boundary/field" system in their secondary. Hythloday thinks that one side (field, I think) is not nearly as good as the other. His statistical analysis fits Mike West's argument. They are a good defense, but, relatively speaking, their greatest weakness is yielding explosive passing plays.

My thanks for your article and for your responses to my various inquiries in the past few days. In cautious support of the more optimistic case, let me add or expand on two points. According to the computations in one article (I believe at CBS line) in the first game against IU the OL was providing on average 2.5 seconds of time to Dante, who was taking on average about 3.0 seconds to throw. Will the OL provide more time on Friday? Will Dante make quicker and better decisions? His teammates say that Dante has progressed. IU is said to disguise its coverages very well. We will soon see. Pregnon, Poncho and Iuli all received post-season accolades. Solar pointed out that if it looked like they were playing against Texas Tech like they just rolled out of bed, it was because that was essentially what they were forced to do. That game began at 9:00am Eugene time. The IU game, also in the eastern time zone, will begin at 4:30pm Eugene time. Do we think our interior linemen will play more of the way the have throughout the season? Furthermore, although Davison's loss is unfortunate, Duck Territory was reporting this morning that Jay Harris is going to play, and that Stein is talking as if he intends to use him. Before we saw Jordan Davison, we used to think that Harris was pretty effective in some situations.

Very informative article. Thank you.

Alex's prediction of a game played in the twenties seems plausible, considering how well both defenses played in their previous games. Defending Indiana is a different and greater challenge than defending Texas Tech, however. There has been much discussion of Oregon's offense on another thread. It seems to be me that more discussion of the challenge facing our defense might be worthwhile. Indiana still runs a RPO (run-pass option) offense. What I was able to glean from a quick survey online is that the QB typically reads one opposing defender, usually a LB or safety. The concept is to put the defender in a dilemma: if he plays pass, the box is too light; if he plays run, the short passes are open. There are various ways to defend it, but it appears to me the decision-making of the LB or safety is crucial. I am hoping that Thienemann is the player who is read, but Cig may not oblige us in that way. Often the player read is the weak side LB, which I believe would be Mixon. One Indiana website noted that Indiana's RPOs are much less effective in third and long situations, because the run option threat is not convincing. Joel Klatt also noted that Indiana is good on third down because they are good on earlier downs. To use a baseball analogy, it is important to throw a first pitch strike to this hitter. I am interested to know what the coaches, players and other experts have to say, if anyone has the time.

Thanks for your article and ongoing commentary, which is always informative. Here are three points for consideration. First, IU’s top run defender, Staley, is out, as I understand it. We ran the ball effectively last time with Staley on the field, at least until Stein inexplicably stopped doing so. We have one of the best guards in college football in Pregnon, a powerful center, and a much improved right guard in Iuli. I would expect the Ducks to have some success running the ball, assuming that IU does not crowd the box. Second, IU’s defensive linemen may be good, but probably not of the caliber of Texas Tech’s. My understanding is that much of their success in rushing Dante last time was through the use of “simulated pressures.” Unless I am missing something, this is new jargon for what used to be called “zone blitzes.” A team cannot blitz without creating a vulnerability somewhere. What about keeping one or both TE at the line of scrimmage to chip, then releasing them into short routes in the areas vacated by the blitzers? I am assuming that IU disguises what they do so well that Dante may need to adjust during the play rather than decide before the snap. In any case, dealing with their simulated pressures seems to me to be an important part of the Ducks’ preparation. Third, my deduction from DL’s comments is that IU is primarily a zone defense team. I am no football savant, but I thought the best way of attacking a zone is running routes along the “seams” between zones. Our TEs could be highly effective in that way, if Dante has time to throw.

That is no doubt the right perspective. We ought to be grateful for all the team and staff have accomplished this year, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming game. That said, I am curious to know what the Ducks need to do better to defeat the only team who defeated them this year. Four things occur to me: 1. Reestablish the running game after sub-par performances not only against Texas Tech but Washington, and stick with it if it is working. 2. Find someone in addition to Finney who can defend their receivers. 3. Improve recognition of and preparation for their pressures. If their success was based more on scheme than personnel (not the case with Tech), improvement is conceivable. 4. Better recognition and poise from our QB. He, too, is young, and may be farther along in his development than last time.

Congratulations to the Ducks, especially the defenders, on the win against a worthy opponent. That said, I would like to see DL adjust to the game in his decision-making. Specifically, it seemed apparent at some point that Tech was going to have a very hard time scoring unless assisted by Oregon. The pick thrown by Dante nearly let them back into the game. Given that Tech statistically struggled to drive the length of the field through the season and was certainly struggling against the Ducks, it would have been better to punt the football.

If the short routes are there, why not take six yard completions the rest of the half?

Yes, Santa Rosa. I also noticed that when Tech played a six man box, Whittington had a nice run. That is taking nothing from their linemen.

My compliments to Mario Cristobal. I am sure that he is proud of the performance of his offensive line. The much-maligned Carson Beck played very well. I thought Mario did mismanage the game at the end of the first half, but luck was with Miami. OSU benefited from two dubious calls on long passes. I was surprised at how fast the game passed. Miami's unspectacular but efficient ground and short passing game allowed them to deny OSU much time of possession. How much did the layoff affect OSU? Without the interception return and missed field goal, this would have been a much different game.