Triphibius

Yes, thanks for the post EveryDay, and my compliments to everyone in the thread. My thoughts: 1. AB probably does give Oregon "a better chance to win" than Ty Thompson, who was unimpressive when pressed into service a few weeks ago. He does not appear to be readly. 2. MC has said that Ashford is not yet at the same level of performance as the other two. 3. How about Butterfield? He looked very good the spring game. The issue (for Moorhead) may be that he does not have the physique to run the ball as required in the current offense. This may not be a long-term problem if he can add some muscle as Herbert did, and Moorhead can modify the offfense to suit his talents. 4. I admire AB as a young man, for all the reasons EveryDay mentioned. That said, why is he here at all? Shough, based on his performance this year prior to his injury, had more potential. I wonder whether Moorhead, who did not recruit Shough, did not undermine his confidence by signing AB, thereby creating the problem Oregon now faces.

A painful defeat, much like the loss to Iowa State in the bowl game last year. What do those two games have in common? Granted, AB did not play well, but when a team is beaten this soundly all the blame cannot be attributed to the QB. Utah executed their plan better, and seemed both more passionate and more poised. Perhaps they are just a more mature football team, with players who are not necessarily more talented, but who are a good fit for their system and more experienced. Not to make excuses, but the injuries were certainly a factor. Schematically: 1) on offense, Utah went with two or maybe three tight ends or spare offensive lineman, as Stanford often did in their glory years against Oregon. Thibodeaux was neutralized by double-teams. Oregon usually had five men on the line of scrimmage and two linebackers. Utah was gaining yardage even when there was no hole simply by pushing the scrum. Their lead running back was not flashy, but powerful. 2) on defense, Utah consistently had seven men in the box, with a four man front and three linebackers. Quite sensibly, they decided to make Anthony Brown not Travis Dye beat them. Moorhead elected not to run against this formation, but rather to establish the pass to enable the run. We all saw the results. I admit that I have a tough time being analytical watching a game on TV that is going this badly, but Oregon's staff did not seem to make effect adjustments to what their opponents were doing. Are there no counter-measures to these schemes?

One addendum to my previous statement. The "Pac12 after dark" phenomenon is not helping, either. Is seems absurd that a contending team is playing repeatedly at a time when most people in the United States are already in dreamland.

Well said. The same thought occurred to me: we lose to Auburn and we're out; we win at OSU, and we are still out. However... 1. Oregon has reached the playoffs twice. It can be done. Perhaps the Ducks are no longer darlings of the talking heads, but that may not matter too much to the committee. 2. The bigger problem is the nine-game conference schedule. If the committee will not adopt a strength of schedule measure that rewards this, the Pac-12 needs to change it. 3. A secondary problem is officiating. Midwest fans complain that B1G officials "protect" Ohio State. I am not asking for "protection" for Oregon as they standard bearer for the Pac12, but I do think the league officials ought to do more to ensure that officials with a track record or bias or ineptitude do not derail the Pac12's leading contender. 4. If Oregon wins out (a big if, since the Utes and Beavs are not pushovers), then Alabama loses but still goes to the playoff in place of Oregon, we have a legitmate complaint. I will give the committe the benefit of the doubt until this happens.

No doubt a university of Washington's academic prowess will have no difficulty attracting qualified candidates.

The recognition is much deserved. I hope he wins, and recovers quickly from his injury.

I suggest that the U Dub elevate their long snapper to Offensive Coordinator.

How about Mark Helfrich?

Does anyone remember Mike Gundy's "I'm a man" rant? He was sticking up for his player. I think Coach was doing the same. This is not about Cristobal being thin-skinned. The boos, as I understand it, were directed at Anthony Brown. Cristobal, to his credit, is being loyal to his players. It is hard to see how booing helps to motivate the players or encourages recruits to come to the U of O.

"I hate those speckled uniforms."

I was not at the game. I viewed with the sound muted from the eastern time zone, where I was increasingly blearly-eyed as the game continued. Admittedly, I do not know the full context. In general, I believe Oregon fans ought not to boo anyone in Green and Yellow (or black, silver, mauve, off-white, whatever). These are my reasons. 1. The players are still primarily amateur athletes, who must attend college classes. NIL is not going to increase Ryan Walk's net worth, nor that of the vast majority of players. Amateur athletes ought not to booed unless they are guilty of a conspicuous lack of effort or poor sportsmanship. Anthony Brown is by all accounts a good young man who competes hard, accepts responsibility when he performs poorly, and enjoys the respect of his teammates. He deserves better, even when he does not play as well as we would like. 2. Perhaps the boos are not directed at him but the coaches, but how are the players to know? The boos are a blunt instrument, and seem as likely to demoralize the players as inspire them, and possibly to disgust prospective players. (Side note: yet another top flight recruit joined the fold over the weekend.) 3. Many here are frustrated by the lack of any downfield passing threat, which seems likely to cost the Ducks one or more games going forward this year. (Of course we don't see the QBs in practice, and I don't know the fine points of quarterback play, but I know what I saw from Butterfield during the spring game.) Certainly, Coach Cristobal's decision to stick with QB Brown can be questioned, but have we reached the point at which we want the coach gone? Is that the message fans want to send? Do fans think U of O football would be better off if for example Cristobal were to take the LSU job? I side with Hayward on this. Be careful what you wish for. 4. I was told by a Florida fan that they would never accept Will Muschamp because they not only wanted to win, they wanted to win in style. I see a parallel with our own situation. The undertone here is one of deep nostalgia for the Chip Kelly years. Chip is not walking back back through the door, however. I mean this literally and figuratively. Literally, if he wanted to come back, and I am not sure I would want him, with all his faults. Figuratively, opposing coaches have had years to scheme against the spread, to recruit personnel to defend it, and to train their athletes to compete against it. It is probably not possible to win in the manner we did at the heighth of the Kelly years, regardless who is coach. Our current running game is fairly healthy. Personally, I love watching Travis Dye run, and the coaches and linemen are creating good opportunities for him. If Cristobal and Moorhead could couple that with an effective downfield passing attack, the offensive would both highly effective and entertaining to watch. I still think this will happen when (not if) Thompson or Butterfield takes over at quarterback, whether this year or more likely next.

I do not want to deny all credit and ascribe all blame to Anthony Brown, and I don't want to overreact to one frustrating but unlucky defeat. That said, Caleb Williams, a freshman, came off the bench to lead an Oklahoma comeback against Texas yesterday. Apparently, Lincoln's Riley's well-respected offensive system is not too complex for at least one freshman to operate. (Spencer Rattler also started as a freshman, if I recall correctly.) Our offense, by contrast, is said to be too complicated for true freshman Ty Thompson and second year QB Jay Butterfield, both of whom have shown the ability to throw the deep ball, unlike the current Oregon incumbent. Granted, I don't see them in practice, but it is not as if QB Brown is constantly making perfect reads in the run game. I am not a coach, but I understand that Moorhead's system requires the QB to make a difficult read on nearly play. I was encouraged by his hire, but perhaps there is a downside to it that we are now seeing.

My apologies if I am repeating points made previously. I am getting to this discussion a bit late. Despite the absences of Morehead, Forsyth and Bennett Williams, despite the spotty play of QB Brown and despite the unsuccessful 4th down play at the goal line in the first half, according to ESPN Oregon had a 99.9% chance of victory with about 2:30 minutes remaining in the game. The 0.1% chance came to pass because of three things working in conjunction: 1. The two false start penalties in a quiet stadium that left Oregon facing a 1st down and 20 situation with about 2:15 remaining. 2. The incomplete pass thrown on second and seventeen in that sequence. 3. Three calls by the officials within the last 90 seconds, any one of which would have be considered highly questionable. Conclusion: the game was not a masterpiece, but Oregon played well enough to win under anything resembling normal circumstances. This was a painful defeat, but I think that we ought to be cautious about drawing sweeping conclusions at this stage.

In my view, the term "irrelevant" has become a cliche and an obstacle to thought. That said, I have third observations about Joel Klatt's statement. First, Klatt is a Colorado alumnus. I understand why Colorado people would be frustrated that their undefeated squad was passed over in favor of a two-loss Oregon team. However, Oregon did win the game, as the northern division representative nearly always has. The game's outcome surely provides some evidence that the powers that be were not wrong to include the best available team from the northern division. If Klatt things that Colorado would have been selected for the playoff if the Buffalos had defeated USC in the championship game, I think he is delusional. Second, the Covid-19 virus was a far important cause of the league's "irrelevance" that aforementioned issue. Before the virus, Oregon had many promising young players and few established stars. Once Covid-19 hit and practices were curtailed, the young players lost the chance to develop and most of the stars and leaders opted out. As a result, Oregon had no realistic chance of competing for a playoff spot. Third, the Pac-12's response to the Covid-19 virus was to delay the season, costing Oregon and all the members the chance to round into form against weaker opponents. The shortened and disrupted season diminished the quality of play, making it even more diffcult for Pac-12 teams to pass the "eye test," which would quite reasonably be applied in comparing a team playing a six or seven game season to one playing a full season. That decision, as I understand it, was made by the Presidents, not by Larry Scott. It may or may not have been the right decision, but there is no reason to think it was done for dubious motives. This has been an unusual if not unprecedented year. It may be premature at this stage to draw sweeping conclusions about the future of the Pac-12 and Oregon's role in it.