Triphibius

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.

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.