Triphibius

Although Dana Altman lent some credibility to the thesis of Zach Neil's article, I respectfully disagree. Tracey and Rigsby made significant contributions with their defense, and occasional offensive plays. Shelstad did not have his shooting touch, but he handled the ball well, and played hard and fairly successfully on defense. It would have been nice if Evans or Shelstad had provided more scoring, but the former played like a nervous freshman and the latter's inconsistency is nothing new. Oregon could have and probably would have won despite the dependence on Dante and Cousinard had it not been for Shelstad's injury. His presence on the floor in the last two minute and overtime would have made a big difference. Shelstad's absence meant: 1) Cousinard had to be the primary ball handler, which contributed to his exhaustion and no doubt affected the play selection; 2) Evans lost the best target for the crucial inbound pass; 3) Creighton's point guard scored ten points in the overtimes when he was no longer being guarded by Shelstad. If I remember the video replay correctly, Shelstad was off balance and vulnerable to the being injured because the opposing guard pushed him. No foul was called. My thanks and compliments to the players and coaches for all they have overcome and achieved this season, despite the many obstacles and setbacks. .

I am happy for the players and coaches. Considering the injury situation, this was a considerable achievement. I share Coach Altman's regret and nostalgia about the end of the league. However, winning the last Pac-12 tournament was satisfying. What a wonderful ending! Regarding Oregon's prospects in the NCAA tournament, a few random thoughts. 1. Few teams will be able to match up with Dante, especially in the early rounds. 2. However, I wonder what will happen if opponents simply collapse around Dante, perhaps in a zone, challenging Oregon to beat them from the outside. At present, Oregon has no consistent shooter from 3-point range. Shelstad comes close, he has had off nights. 3. As Coach Altman and Tommy Lloyd both noted, Oregon's defense was much improved. They got their hands on many passes in both games, leading to TOs, which were the difference, especially against the Buffs. . 4. Guard play matters, especially in the NCAA. Cousinard did not shoot it well last night, but he was superb in setting up Dante.

. Miami - Will it translate to the field of play? In Harford, Hereford and Hampshire, Hurricanes hardly ever happen. -- Henry Higgins

I remain a Pac-12 supporter. Hence: Great Success: OSU, WSU, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Arizona Qualified Success (less than UO): UW, UCLA Indifference: ASU Embarassment: The Loud One Disaster on the Scale of the Hindenburg: USC

News Item: Oregon's men's basketball team won a closely contested game against the University of Washington last night in Prichardsville, formerly known as Seattle.

Interesting observation, Critical. I thought the early struggles had more to do with play calls that seemed predictable and inappropriate given the defensive alignment. (Specifically, running into a crowded box, a la Cristobal.) I have assumed that he was not allowed to alter the (bad) play that was called. Of course, I could be wrong on one count or the other. I don't see how the UO could block seven men with six unless the QB is a threat to run. Bo played very well later in the game. The TD pass to Ferguson was "Heisman quality," IMHO. That does not mean you are wrong about the first quarter. I have not seen the game on replay, that was only my recollection.

Interesting report on the UO's emotional state in Las Vegas. The number of seniors participating suggests that they may be ready for this one. As I live in Georgia, I had the opportunity to observe Paul Johnson's tenure at Georgia Tech. His triple option offense gave teams a lot of trouble during the regular season, but Tech had less success in bowl games when their opponents had more time to prepare for it. If DL and his staff are as good as we like to think, perhaps that will be the case here.

One nugget buried in the analysis: DL observing that "we did not have a good plan" against UW. My suspicion, also. Analysis forthcoming?

I live in SEC country, and I am weary of hearing how wonderful their league is. The rematch between Alabama and LSU still annoys me. (This does not applly to the UGA fans who contribute here. They are a class act.) Given that this is the PAC-12's last year, I would like to see Washington defeat Texas. If UW wins that game and meets Alabama, I hope they win. Saban has enough trophies. If UW meets Michigan, I may be neutral.

If Moore can "make all the throws," will be learn which throws to make?

Why do these bad things happen to such nice people?

12 recruits a-signing 11 defenders tackling B1G opponents losing 9 coaches coaching 8 cheerleaders cheering (with bare midriff) 7 linemen swim-moving 6 Huskies lying (on the ground, having been pancaked) 5 championship rings 4 blitzing ‘backers 3 tight ends 2 receivers with gloves And a FishDuck in a Douglas Fir tree

Or perhaps move the more experienced but less powerful Harper to center and insert Poncho at one of the guard spots, depending on how other OLmen develop?

Although I regret what happened to Ty, I trust the coaching staff's decision on Gabriel. I am skeptical regarding Moore, for these reasons: 1. He backed out of his commitment to the UO. 2. He was a turnover machine at UCLA. 3. He must have been recruited by Dillingham, not Stein. Based on past experience, we are probably better off sticking with protegees of the current OC. 4. Physical gifts are a prerequisite but not a guarantee of success. Ty was also physically gifted, but apparently never developed sufficiently to win the trust of the staff.

I do not disagree. It just a matter of emphasis. Yes, both sides of the ball and special teams ought to be discussed. Considering that UW was playing well on offensive and that the UO offense was #1 in college football before the game, I think the bigger failure for the Ducks was on offense. In other words, the game could have been won with the defensive effort that was made if the UO had performed close to its season's average on offense. DL does not want to make excuses, but the loss of Burch was a blow, and there was turnover in the secondary, also. That said, I do have a questions about defense, proposed with the usual humility, as I am not a coach. (Though I did have some success in grad school as a receiver in intramurals.) The basic idea is this. If the MINT defense was designed to stop spread offenses, what happens when it has to defend an offense like the Stanford teams under Harbaugh that combines a punishing ground game with a dangerous downfield passing attack? Maybe LBs who are converted safeties (selected because they can run horizontally and vertically) do not have the bulk and strength to stop a power run game. Dillon Johnson made half his yards after contact, I would guess. The problem was not that he had huge holes, but that we could not get him on the ground. The UO could have used Noah Sewell or even Keith Brown Friday. (I am not saying Jacobs played badly. I have not seen the film.) All I remember is Johnson dragging three ducks with him for more yards, over and over. At this point, I am just tossing out hypotheses. I am eager to hear what Fishduck makes of it all in the upcoming article.

Thanks. I look forward to seeing it. While you are working on it, one more thought. It is hard to tell on TV, but if the UW was committing a safey and CB to Franklin, it is puzzling that we did not see more throws to Tez. If DL was concerned that the OL could not block Trice for 3+ seconds, they could have been short slot receiver type routes, which would have gained the five yards we could not seem to get on the ground. It appeared early on that they could not match up with him. (No disrespect implied, as no one else has.) It is hard to find much fault with Bo, but through the season he has not utilized Holden as well as he might have done. As we saw, Holden can contribute. He is bigger and harder to jam, but can still run. Holden has been so desperate to be targeted before the UW game that the only way he could record a catch was by intercepting a ball thrown by Ty to another receiver. Maybe folks just want to "flush it," but before I move on I want to understand. Oregon's defense did not play that badly, especially considering how well the UW offense performed. I would have thought Oregon could score 33 points on that UW defense in view of the statistics and what we had seen through the year.

Well, at least that is an explanation, even if a rather mundane one. I want to thank you for addressing the question of what happened in this and another thread. I would like to hear others' thoughts. People may not be clamoring to hear mine, but here is one. The UW lined up with four down linemen and three linebackers close behind them on what they thought were running downs. The UO obliged them by running into that dense collection of seven with what must have been only six blockers. During the impressive series of victories after the loss to UW, Bo has often audibled the offense out of bad plays. Friday, it looked as if Oregon ran repeatedly into an obviously crowded box. Why? Perhaps there will be some analytical articles to come?

I was not at the game and I am not a coach. That said, I am inclined to agree with Akubra. My kudos also to Mike West for his various comments. The UW came to play. If the UO was a bit flat at the outset, let's give them some credit for a spirited and nearly successful comeback. Dorlus was a split second from changing the game's outcome. What went wrong? Beginning with the first series, the UW frequently lined up on defense with four defensive linemen and three linebackers in a line four yards behind them and the UO repeatedly ran into that mass of bodies for a minimal gain. In previous games, Bo would have looked at the formation and changed the play call. Not this time. My assumption was that Bo was under instructions not to call audibles. At times, I thought Mario Cristobal was in the booth calling our plays. If I am not mistaken, this alignment would have been vulnerable to almost any sort of intermediate route taking advantage of the edge in speed we had at two ot the three receiver positions. Will Stein deserves much credit for the nation-leading statisfical performance of the UO offense this year. However, the lack of adaptation to the opponent's defensive plan is puzzling. My tentative conclusion is that the UW staff is still outperforming the inspiring but young Oregon staff. That was the crucial difference.

Perhaps Washington's Penix is suffering from projectile dysfunction. On a more serious note, East Bay is probably correct. I assume that UW will play their best football in the championship game. regardless what their issues are. That said, is it possible that opponents are beginning to understand how to defend UW? Considering how prolific the offense was in the first half of the season, the results against ASU, OSU. and WSU are suprising. If their offense is based on timing, perhaps playing tight man to man (and risking being beaten badly by Odunze) lengthens the time Penix has to hold the ball, making them more vulnerable to a pass rush. The receivers other than Odunze made very little contribution in the last two games. Perhaps the solution is, as they say in basketball, to :"let him (Odunze) get his points" but clamp down on all the others. A related point. I gather that the UO usually does not move defenders from side to side, and I do not know whether it is feasible to modify schemes at this point. I would be tempted to put Kyree Jackson on Odunze full time and play them straight up. Florences's absence strengthens the case for this, I think. DL and the staff certainly do not need any help from me. I am just curious whether a better approach than the one in Seattle is possible.

It is surprising how long this thread is, considering how much else there is to discuss now. Two quick points. 1. I respect Ty's loyality. It ought a point in his favor, not an argument against him. I was in the Butterfield camp before, but admire his perseverence, and respect his talent. The throw to Casey Kelly against ASU was impressive. 2. I rarely disagree with Mr. Fishduck, but I respectually do in this case. At the QB position, greatness does not always appear early. It took Dennis Dixon two or three years of struggle before he put together (prior to his injury) a Heisman-level performance. Justin Herbert was, according to one supposed expert, "going to get some GM fired" if drafted. Finally, Bo Nix himself had a distinctly mixed record before arriving in the Emerald Empire last year. Let's give some recognition to "late bloomers," and hope that Ty is one.

Chip deservers much credit as an innovator, in two senses. First, the read option that he perfected (with the assistance of outstanding assistants such as Greatwood) could not be defended by the usual defensive schemes. Recall Pete Carroll explaining that "we let the opposing QB run, then hit him." Masoli was not intimidated. Carroll, with impressive experience as a defensive coach, was completely befuddled by Chip's offense, as were many others. Second, Chip introduced new training and nutrition methods that enabled his players to continue to run one play after another while their opponents were vomiting on the turf. The players also deserve much credit. Unfortunately, there are no patents in football. Eventually, defenders learned how to defend his plays and opposing coaches (led by the now descredited Les Miles) copied Oregon's training methods. Most of us are fortunate to conceive good idea is life. Chip had two. Once opponents adjusted, he was just what he was before: a quirky and at times disagreeable man poorly suited for recruiting, media relations, and the cultivation of donors.

Ditto Fishduck's call. I like what I have seen this year from Ty. I am not impressed with what I have seen this year from Moore. I say that as someone who was firmly in the Butterfield camp when he was still here. If Oregon must chase a portal QB, find one with more maturity and a record of success.

I am grateful for the win, as well as for the turnaround in the Ducks' fortunes brought by DL and his staff. That said, there is also room for improvement in DL's game management. 1. If you are the better team, gimmicks are unnecessary and pose undue risk. Kick the extra points, or as Dana Altman says, "make the simple play." 2. When Oregon got the ball back with about 3:00 remaining in the first half, my first thought was "make sure USC does not touch the ball again before half time." Oregon failed to do this, and allowed USC to score again. 3. If USC had not fumbled, and had recovered the bad snap at the goalline, the Ducks could have been in serious trouble. Why were we in the shotgun at our own 1 yard line?

After seeing the tape of the Washington game, this game looks more dangerous than I thought. If Williams can keep plays alive for 6 seconds, they have a chance to score on every possession, even against a good defense. I would love a blowout, but I will be happy with a win in which Oregon has "control" for the last 40 minutes or so.

My recollection is that Utah was driving to what looked like a score that would tie the game. One of their rushers put a late hit on Barnes, who had to leave the game temporarily. Utah lost momentum. Either Barnes or his replacement threw an interception shortly thereafter. UW was lucky, and won once again with a dirty play. Perhaps this all works to the Ducks' benefit, but it made me sick to watch it.