Triphibius

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.

If you can take a day trip, I would drive to Heceta Head near Yachats on the coast, and possibly stop for a chowder in Florence. That stretch of the coastline is beautiful. McKenzie Pass is spectacular, but it is closed for the winter. A drive beyon Harrisburg is also pleasant, but be careful not to drift too far north or you will end up in Corvallis.

Report from southern california: The new defensive coordinator, Sha Na Na, will be installing his new "doo wop" defensive scheme. As part of the this exciting transition, the current eleven starters on defense will be replaced by traffic cones.

I think some upsets will happen. OSU has the easiest road, but they do get an improved Rutgers on the road. They seem to play one flat game every year. Michigan plays Penn State and Maryland on the road before OSU. Texas has Iowa State and OK State (both one-loss teams) on the road, then Texas Tech at home. FSU has Mario's lads next week, a rivalry game against the Gators, and probably Louisville in their championship game. Three of Oregon's last four are at home, but the trip to the desert is always treacherous. I would be more surprised if the favorites win all of these games.

Brian's comment reminds me of another aspect of Kelly's tenure: the read option. It was unstoppable on fourth down because in the Pete Carroll days no one knew how to defend it, and Masoli was willing and able to take the contact. Chip may have had "big ball," but he also had a play no one could defend well. What bothered me most was not the decision to go for it, but the peculiar play calls. The commentary by Joel Klatt was convincing. Why roll Bo out twice when all we needed was two or three yards? Why eliminate Franklin from the play at midfiedl by rolling away from him?

Monday Measure: Did Dan Lanning make the right decisions in Oregon's loss to Washington? SPORTS.YAHOO.COM Oregon's coach was aggressive the whole game. Was it always the smart play? Also in this edition: Deion Sanders and Colorado have taken their lumps after an embarrassing few weeks but far... Here is another discussion of the game decisions, if you all are not weary of it.

I appreciate the perspective. Oregon can still achieve its goals this year. However, to be not "among the best" but a champion, two things need to happen: 1. Oregon needs to win against contending teams on the road. 2. Oregon needs to make the right calls and the right plays at the right time in competitive games.

The decision at the end of the first half? I would have kicked it. Oregon would have entered halftime with the lead ready to receive the ball at the start of the second half. Given the way the first half had gone, this would not have been a bad outcome. Why did DL try to score a touchdown instead? Perhaps he lacked confidence in his defense's ability to limit the UW. Florence was not having much success (apart from the INT); Khyree may not have been in good health. The defense had not achieved many stops between the first series and the interception. He may have applied the adage "you can't beat an explosive offense kicking fieldgoals." The decision at midfield at the end? I agreed with the decision. My problem was with the playcall or execution. Franklin had single coverage to the right, but not appear to the the primary read. Our two receivers on the left side appeared to run to the same spot. Curious. The third decision to "go for it"? Honestly, I can't recall, and I do not have the heart at this point to watch the game in review.

I hope this line of chatter is of some interest. It seems to me in retrospect that on the last drive the Ducks were trying to run into a crowded box too often. I would trust Bo at this point to do play action and a short pass. Regarding the decision to go for it at midfield, despite the defense's effort, I do not like the idea of putting the ball back in Penix's hands with nearly 3 minutes left, even at the 15 yard line.

Both teams played hard and well, but it feels at this moment that a good effort by Oregon on both sides of the ball was wasted. Camden is a good young man who had an all-conference year last year. If he had made the kick, it was still a 50/50 propostion. Oregon ought not to have been in that position. Mike West made a good point a ways back in this thread. It looked to me at the time that Penix threw into double-coverage and that our defenders did not fine a ball that could have been intercepted. My question is not about the decisions to go for it, but the play calls. I suppose it always seems this way if the plays do not work, but the plays seemed rather uninspired. I fancy that Chip Kelly, Mark Helfrich, or even Joe Morehead would have devised something more deceptive or imaginative. On the fourth down at midfield, it looked to me that two of our receivers ran to the same area, while Troy Franklin (who was alone with a defender on the opposite side) was not the first read. Puzzling. Perhaps the injury to Ferguson limited their options.

The "Gang Green" defense of 1994 (?) was one of the best ever, or at least the most celebrated. I do not know the statistics, however.

Jonathan Smith does not need to "ask the Great Pumpkin for a new battle plan." His plan is working. Just ask the Utes. (Allusion to "Snoopy versus the Red Baron" by The Royal Guardsmen) The Beavers will be my team in the new Pacific Mountain conference, in which I wish them every success. Sincerely.

Thanks. I had the suspicion that I was forgetting someone. Yes, it was Grasu. I am staying humble.

Disclaimer: I have a fan's not a coach's level of expertise. One consideration ought to be what our offensive line is best able to do. The tackles appear to be reliable pass blockers. They also had impressive moments as run blockers against Hawaii. On the Whittington touchdown coming off the tight end heavy formation to the right, the left side was completely sealed, presumably by Conerly. There was one long run where Cornelius collapsed the entire defensive line on his side. Those were specific plays. I do not have access to the PFF grades. I was surprised by JPJ's speed. Twice he was able to sprint to the boundary to lead the runner. I do not recollect a center running as well since Max Unger. Perhaps the Ducks ought to incorporate more outside runs to exploit his ability. If I recall correctly, he also sprung one of our backs for a touchdown with a devastating block on a middle linebacker. My questions are at the guard slots. I do not want to call out individual players unless there is a lack of effort or discipline, but I am not sure how good the run blocking is going to be from those positions. If Aguilar is not panning out, and "Poncho" is not ready, that would be an argument for a more pass-oriented offense. The running game seemed more diversified and interesting against Hawaii. Possibly Stein is going to utilize more outside runs and fewer inside zone reads, partly to protect Bo. This may also be a better fit for the offensive line personnel. These are guesses. I have certainly not done the flim study to confirm any of this. One last note. I just read Hythloday's analysis of the Texas Tech game. He attributes much of the difficulty in the run game to the ability of Tech's defensive tackles, which he deems "NFL quality."

Thanks to DNC for introducing this topic, and to all for the lively discussion. My observations, for what they are worth: 1. PFF grades (as reported by 24-7 sports) were good for JPJ and the tackles. 2. My sense as I watched was that De Ruyter had achieved some sort of schematic advantage, to which Stein adjusted somewhat belatedly but effectively with the swing passes. DL later confirmed this. 3. My impression is that the tackles performed very well in pass protection. 4. Some of the problems with the run game were caused by the frequent penalties. Conerly admitted to being nervous. He is talented, but 19-20 years old. Experience will bring improvement, most likely. Tentative conclusions: 1. Offensive line play takes time to develop, and it is still early. 2. Stein may have been outcoached for much of the game, but did eventually make a schematic adjustment. 3. If the current starters are not delivering enough push, it may be time to give "Poncho" a shot.

No comment on Wilcox for now. Regarding the defense: 1) Tech is a good offense. 2) Shough played hard and well. He will be spending considerable time today in the ice bath. 3) The Ducks did generate 4 turnovers, most of them "forced," not a result of Tech's errors. TOs may be a better measure of success than yardage, especially against a capable offense. 4) The secondary covered well at times. DL's description of the PIs seemed constructive and fair. 5) Linebacker play may be improved. Bassa seems better; Boettcher is a promising addition; we have not yet seen Jacobs. I agree, that effort would not be good enoough against USC or UW. The coaches and players do have some time to improve, however.

Granted, Shough and Tech played well, the venue was loud, and it was hot. Perhaps the penalties can be cleaned up. Oregon did show grit in pulling out the victory despite everything that had gone wrong. The U of O is fortunate that Camden Lewis persevered through the trials early in his career. That said, two things concern me. I would welcome rebuttals or explanations from those with greater expertise. 1. After the first few series, the offensive line was not effective in run blocking. It seemed as if Tech's linebackers were running free much of the game. It appeared that De Ruyter was outcoaching Stein during the middle of the game, but that Stein did eventually adapt by abandoning the run in favor of short passes to the backs. Does this indicate a problem with scheme or personnel? If Aguilar is not panning out, is it time to experiment with "Poncho" to get more push? If Oregon cannot run the ball against a mid-tier defense, it is worrisome. 2. Thanks to Nevada Duck for his discussion of the receivers' routes. Honestly, I cannot see too much on TV with the restricted camera angles. My memory is that Bo attempted few intermediate passes. I would think that Franklin could get open on such routes. Where was Bryant? Why did Ferguson, who is such a weapon, receive so few targets? When the long passes misfire, and Oregon cannot rely more than a couple of yards running on second down, that puts us frequently in 3rd and long.

I was in Los Angeles at a convention over the weekend. It was on a screen across from the LA Convention Center, which is a block south of the basketball arena. It was alternating with an advertisement featuring Sabrina Ionescu.

The news of Oregon's departure to the Big 10 (or whatever it will now be called) broke just as I was leaving on a trip to Europe. I expressed my deep regret in my post, but was not able to follow much of the discussion afterward. Perhaps everyone is weary ot the topic, but I want to get something off my chest. I am bothered by three things. The first is the plight of student-athletes in non-revenue sports. Chip Kelly is not a perfect man, but I think he has integrity of a certain sort. He was right about this. This will make the lives of volleyball and tennis players much worse. The second is what this is doing to college football. The traditions and rivalries defined the sport. As Mr. Fishduck has noted, few or none of the fans anywhere wanted this outcome. College Football as we have known it for decades is being sacrified to add dollars to the budgets of athletic departments. Many OBD participants have a busines background, which I do not. I must defer to their expertise about some things, but I remain highly skeptical that the financial gain is worth what is being lost. Is this increased revenue going to be used to lower ticket prices? Or will it simply boost the already enormous salaries paid to coaches and administrators, or eventually find its way into the hands of athletes, who will cease being students in any meaningful sense? College Football may become a less interesting version of professional football. The third is my regret about what is happening to OSU and WSU. They have competed very well considering their location and resources. Jonathan Smith and the WSU coaches have my respect. They deserve better than this.The reaction of their fans may not be fair or reasonable, but fans will be fans. I would not expect them to be grateful. It is only "by the grace of Good Gosh" that the U of O is not in the same position. Were it not for some fortuitous hires (such as the ex-Beaver Rich Brooks, or Chip Kelly) and the odd combination of circumstances that led to the birth Nike, the U of O would be yet another small market team doomed to "relegation" to the MWC, as they would call it in the UK. Most of the time, the desire for profit leads to socially desirable results. In this case it has not. FOX and ESPN have destroyed something unique and beaufiful. That is their legacy.

Excuse me, Mr. President, but if you had "prioritized the long-held traditions" you would not be leaving a conference in which your university had participated for over 100 years; you would not be betraying our long-time partners, rivals and fellow Northwesterners; and you would not be sacrificing the interests of your fans and student-athletes to enrich television executives who care nothing for those traditions I am disgusted. Is there any chance that a petition can be organized? Mr. Fishduck made the observation a few days ago that very few fans anywhere favor these realignments. Why not speak out?

A streaming road Apple?

I recall that in Eric Boles' analysis it was stated that in one of Stein's standard RPO plays the second option (used if the player who is "read" commits to the inside run) is a pitch or throw to the H=back/Tight End, not a keep by the QB. This kind of play design should reduce risk and wear & tear to Bo. Of course, these plays always look good in Mr. Boles' diagrams.

Todays Sports Quiz: Two quarterbacks played hurt against Utah in 2022. One of them won the game; one of them lost. Which received the Heisman Trophy?

Brooks Robinson is the best third baseman I ever seen play. Interesting anecdote.

I do not mind the post. A provocation can stimulate thinking. Of course, whether the thinking that it provoked is of any value is for readers to judge. 1. Considering the favorable schedule, the capable and experienced offensive line, the presence of at least three star quality players on the defense, and the surprising performance of Bo Nix, I think some optimism was in order. 2. Most championship teams have some close calls and need a little luck. The narrow escape at Pullman does not bother me. 3. DL's strategy for the U of W game was sound. The ground attack was crushing the Huskies until the errant snap. However, I do think the call on the next play, in which Nix was hurt, was too predictable. That said, the hit on Nix was unsportsmanlike, and was not punished. 4. As I said in another thread, the costliest plays against the Beavs were the failures on kick returns that left us with poor field position. The returner ought to have been under strict orders to take a fair catch. I fault DL for that much more than his going for it on fourth down later. As others have pointed out, our defense could not stop OSU's runs at that point, anyway. Good play by our opponents and bad luck played large role in these losses, but the coaches' decision were also a factor. I remain hopeful about DL as a coach, but I do think he and his staff bear some responsilbity for the two losses, both of which were games the Ducks probably ought to have won.