Triphibius

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.

Bo Nix. Many of our plays are his audibles, anyway. This way we get to keep him another year, and save some money on the OC's salary (Just kidding)

Duck Tape: Statistical Review of Week 13, 2022 at Oregon State WWW.ADDICTEDTOQUACK.COM There is a stark dividing line in this game for both teams’ statistical performances. It happens with about 8 and a half minutes left in the 3rd quarter, when Oregon State fumbled the ball for... I am recommending Hythloday's analysis of the game for those of you who bear thinking about this for another ten minutes. His method is to score plays as successes and failures (both on offense and defense) then tabulate the percentages. He concludes that Oregon was doing well on both sides of the ball until the fumble. After that point, Oregon was unable to run the ball or stop the run. Hytholoday admits to some puzzlement about this reversal, which does not seem to be related to any personnel or schematic changes. My explanation: the special teams errors, especially the kickoff returns, handcuffed an offense that had been rolling, which gave the Beavers hope. OSU played hard most of the game, and once their emotions were engaged again, emotion was the big equalizer. I have to give the opponent some credit, but the door was left open by our failed kickoff returns. I understand players who try and are beaten by better or luckier athletes. I am less sympathetic regarding mental mistakes that provide opportunites to opponents who down by several touchdowns. Although I am still in Lanning's corner, I do wonder why a better decision makers (such as Bucky Irving) was not fielding those kicks. Thank you for your patience. I expect many are sick of the topic.

After the OSU debacle, the coach who ought to be on the "hot seat" is the special teams coach. Also, as I believe Fishduck may have said, it is not clear that the decision to rely so heavily on the Cover 2/prevent defense was made by Lupoi.

I have a proposal. I say this as someone who has been in the Butterfield camp in the ongoing backup discussion. Think of the situation like a world series game in which you are down 3 games to 2. Your goal is to win the series, but you must win the first game to get to the second. How can this be done? If the staff prefers Ty to Jay, then consider starting Ty and staying with him as long as the offense is performing well enough to achieve a victory. I estimate that Oregon will need about 28 points to win. This is assuming that the defense plays almost as well as against Utah, but that a few breaks go against us. The advantages of the approach: 1) the threat of QB runs (only of the prudent sort, Mr. Fishduck) restores dynamism to the run game; 2) if the run game is working, Ty is set up for success in the passing game via play action; 3) if successful, Bo can rest for the USC game; 4) if initially unsuccessful, Bo can be brought in from the “bullpen.” I am not entirely convinced about the wisdom of this, but I am concerned about our ability to move the football consistently if OSU can stop the run as Utah did. This plan would be more appealing if is Alex Forsyth is available.

Good points have been made by all. In addition, let me add or elaborate on these, in so doing comparing not only to last week but last year: 1. Oregon matched up much better with Utah than Washington. Oregon is fairly good run defense team led by a capable run-stuffing linebacker, that can struggle against the pass. Utah is a power running team that does not the wideouts Washington and USC have, and relies on the run to set up the pass. 2. Last year, Oregon's staff inexplicably failed to match personnel groups when Utah went with "jumbo packages" with additional linemen or tight ends. This gave the appearnace the Utah was better at the line of scrimmage, but was a schematic not a personnel advantage. I assumed that Lanning would not let the gain such an edge. 3. Casey Rogers looked like an all conference player last night, and his teammates, even if they could not get to the QB, got their hands up. Rogers credited their position coach for teaching different and more effective techniques than Oregon was using last year.

Hats off to the players and coaches for a gritty win. That said, words can barely express my disapproval of that gadget play. The one thing you cannot do up 17-3 is make some bonehead play that lets the opponent get back in the game. Oregon looked like the better team at that point. If you are the better squad, trust your players and your scheme, and offer your opponent no gifts. This is not complicated.

Let me restate my point. I think Oregon's defense matches up much better with Utah than Washington. This is based primarily on the belief that Noah Sewell can closer to matching Tavian Thomas's power than anyone the Utes will face. I also think that Gonzalez may be able to neutralize their top wideout, and Rising does not throw often to the others. Yes, I am concerned about their tight end, but hopeful that Bassa will rise to the occasion, assuming that he has primary responsiblity. Regarding last week, two points. First, Washington had the number 1 passing offense in college football. No one was complaining when De Ruyter's defense gave up vast chunks of real estate to the OSU last year. Wasington was also good. Second, regardless of their struggles, the defense did make some stops in the red zone and get a takeaway. The game would have been won were it not for some bad officating, an errant snap by an outstanding player, and an injury. Sorry, that was old business, but I wanted to get it off my chest.

Sorry, I hit a key inadvertently, and would like to complete the thought. Rising tends to throws to 2 or 3 receivers and neglects the others. Hence, if Gonzalez can lock down or control Vele, the main issue is dealing with their tight end and sometimes their pass receiving running back. Bassa's play will be critical. If our linebackers play well in run defense and pass coverage, the defense may have a pretty good day.

Fine article. My compliments. Pertinent comment also by Happy. Regarding the defense, I want to report some conclusions from Hythoday's analysis, if that is permitted: 1. Tavian Thomas is a load, but if anyone has the personnel match up with him, it if Oregon: Noah Sewell. 2. Rising focuses on 2 or 3 receivers.

My apologies for not reading the entire threat, but I agree with Freddy's conclusion. If not for the bad snap, Oregon would have scored a touchdown, attained a two score and left little time on the clock. Lanning's approach in the fourth quarter was sound, whatever one says about his gambles at the end of the first half. The officials also did us few favors. Conclusion: Lanning was mostly unlucky.

I agree with you all. I made a similar observation right after the game. Jackson Powers-Johnson was given a penalty for touching an opponents helmet, an action that had no impact on the play, as the ball carrier had already run through the hole. The penalty was in effect a 35 yard penalty, which cost Oregon 4 points and provided the margin of victory. I am not saying that was the wrong call, but if the officials are going to punish contact to the helmet that severely, then spearing another player ought to be taken seriously, also, especially when it clearly affected the course of the game. This is the third instance that I can recall where a dirty hit cost Oregon the game. The others were, ironically, the hit on Justin Herbert in the game where Bo was Auburn's QB, and a hit on Masoli by Boise State's safety probably in Bellotti's last year. Frustrating.

I agree with Fishduck, except that I am a little angry. Dillingham has deserved the praise he has received, and I am grateful for his coaching. However, the quarterback run out of the spread formation was too predictable. It was his worst play call of the season, at the worst possible time. Nix left the game at a pivotal moment when the Washington tackler hit him on the knee or the thigh with his helmet. After all of the suspensions of Oregon players for targeting, the Huskies win the game with a dirty hit. That bothers me more than the questionable sideline call. A team ought not to gain an advantage by deliberately or recklessly endangering another player. Washington played well, but Oregon was the better team, especially at the line of scrimmage.

However, I would like to point out that Forsyth played an outstanding game. Oregon was in a position to win in large part because of the play of our offensive line, to which he contributed a great deal. He was playing with a bad shoulder, and I am sure that it was bothering him. I suspect it was the main cause of the bad snap. Oregon could have won despite that, but that is for another thread.

This is my best guess: Ty can make the runs in the RPO and passing games but cannot reliably make the reads in Dillingham's offense; and Jay can probably make most of the reads, but cannot make the runs. Ty's reads might improve; Jay cannot alter his body type (beyond a point). Jay was skinny when he arrived, and is still slight of built for a QB. He has displayed some mobility, but not enough to turn a routine keep on a read option into an explosion play, unlike Bo Nix. Jay may not be able to take or avoid the hits that come from running the football. Like like many of you, I would like to see more of Jay. Darren Thomas was not Lamar Jackson, either, but ran Chip's system very well. It is hard to tell whether Ty is just disengaged and has checked out already, or whether he just has a Dennis Dixon-type personality, and will never by able to lead expect by performance. We do not have much information, and I have confidence in these conclusions.

I am not. Pink stinks.