Triphibius

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.

Four quick observations on this continuing topic: 1. Thompson is being asked to run an offense in garbage time whose main purpose is to avoid running up the score on opponents. I admire Coach Lanning's sportsmanship, but it is hard for Thompson and his teammates to make much of an impression doing this. 2. Carm25 is right to caution us drawing conclusions about Thompson's demeanor from a distance. Dennis Dixon looked confused (but not dazed!) for several years, then began playing at a high or even Heisman level as a senior before his injury. Not everyone needs to be Tim Tebow. Introverts can succeed, if they can play the position. 3. An article I read about six months ago (perhaps linked here) stated that the star grades given to high school QBs are based almost entirely on "measurables" such as arm strength and foot speed. What is not assessed, at least not with much precision, are factors such as the ability to read defenses and to throw accurately. Given the importance of these abilities in QB performance, I suspect that the Oregon fans' expectations about Ty Thompson may have been somewhat unrealistic. 4. Of course, I do not watch the practices. That said, Butterfield looked very good during the spring game. He was a four star recruit, with respectable arm strength and some mobility in the pocket, whose father was a coach. He also seems to have an excellent rapport with Bo Nix.

Perhaps my eyesight was affected by the late hour in the eastern time zone, but the team I saw yesterday on television did not look like a playoff caliber team. However, I expect their concentration and execution will improve when facing more challenging opponents, such as UCLA.

Not disagreeing with the other contributors to the thread, but some things concern me: 1. The puzzling ineptitude in the red zone in the first half. Some credit is due to the Cougars, of course, but the playcalling did not seem inspired. Moving the ball between the twenties accumulates pretty statistics, but does not with games unless the drives are completed with TDs. It appeared to me that Oregon's OC was outcoached by WSU's DC in the first half. 2. The disappointing lack of discipline on the part of experienced players that nearly lost the Ducks the game. 3. The often porous pass defense. This could be serious issue against teams like Washington, OSU, Arizona, Utah and USC if the Ducks eventually face them.

Thanks for joining us, OST8. I am leaning towards what I would term a merger with the Big 12. In addition to revenue, my concerns with this are two: 1) respecting the lives of student-athletes in all sports, which means not imposing travel schedules on them appropriate only for pro athletes; 2) bringing into the new league or organization our long-time rivals and partners: WSU, Cal and our local OSU. Some issues I foresee: 1) What to do with UCF and West Virgina, which are quite distant from Eugene, Oregon; 2) What to do about the total number, which would be 22 I believe if everyone now or soon to be affiliated with each league remained. Others no doubt know the revenue numbers better, but that is what I want. I am very much open to persuasion at this point, not that Messieurs Kliavkoff and Mullen are likely to consult me.

From Jon Wilner, cited IN Duck Territory: Source: “I’d be stunned if Washington and Oregon go to the Big Ten. The Big Ten will sit back for two years, then try to get Notre Dame” Growing reality is the Ducks and Huskies have to 1) make it work in the #Pac12 or 2) join the Big 12. My guess: 1) is their preference. What are your thoughts?

Thank you both for your responses. I am not as informed about the financial issues as others on this site, so bear with me. I assume that from the TV networks perspective, the point is to get as many eyeballs staring at the screen on Saturday afternoon as possible. With that in mind, what incentive would people in Houston have to tune into a WSU versus OSU game? Would there not have to be some inter-divisional play to interest folks in the Big 12 Land in the games involving west coast teams? The best system for me is one in which you play everyone in your division and a few teams from the other division, as we have done recently in the Pac 12. Again, that would be unwieldy if some of the current 22 teams were not removed. Happy Fourth to all.

I am going to approach this by stating first the criteria or principles according to which the conference restructuring ought to be done. Criteria: 1. To enable the U of O to be competitive nationally, to maintain and if possible, elevate the programs’ competitiveness. 2. To maintain traditional rivalries and partnerships, especially with the northwest and Bay Area universities. 3. To treat the student-athletes and fans of all collegiate sports with respect, not burdening them with a travel schedule appropriate only for professional athletes. Alternatives: 1. Enter the former Big 10, possibly forming a Western pod with former PCC schools. 2. Some sort of merger with the former and soon to become Big 12. 3. Expand the former Pac 12 to return to 12 teams, possibly with SDSU and Boise State. Discussion: 1. I view the Big 10 as morally discredited, too distant, and probably not favorable to our competitiveness. If most of the games are within our pod, this may not be as bad as I feared initially. It certainly means throwing Cal, WSU, and Beavers under the bus. 2. The current membership of the Pac 12 is ten, and the membership of the Big 12 is to return to 12 with the addition of the new members. This would be cumbersome if all 22 are admitted to the league. In a game of musical chairs, someone is not going to get a seat, possibly the same trio I mentioned above. Moreover, traveling to Morgantown and Orlando violates the third criterion. This might be acceptable as a “hostile takeover” in which we can dictate the terms. This would mean creaming off the most attractive programs from the Big 12 and casting the others adrift. I don’t know if we have that kind of bargaining leverage, and I do not feel great about it, although UCF does not belong in the league traditionally or geographically. 3. Meets the second and third criteria, possibly not the first. The implicit standard might be that Oregon has to run the table in what would be deemed the weakest conference to be considered for a four-team playoff. I am still cogitating. This is presented simply for the purposes of discussion.

If the B1G wants the U of O, I would be reluctant to join. The best option seems to me to merge with the some or all of the Big-12. It could be a better league than the ACC, if needed the ACC survives. The Greedy Ten's detachment of Nebraska accelerated the disintegration of the Big-12 and all the traditional regional leagues. USC may have initiated contact, but they accepted, which is in my view the most odious, treacherous act of villainy in the whole sorry history. Finally, does no one feel any regret about leaving behind longtime competitors and colleagues such as Oregon State, California, and Washington State? If Mrs. Bowerman had not owned a waffle iron, the U of O might now be the same position. There but for the grace of God go we. I suppose that I will turn the television on come fall, but I am repelled by the uncontrolled greed that is destroying traditional college football.

I thought Butterfield looked better than Thompson in the spring game. Thompson was not consistently impressive during the season. No disrespect to the former staff, but I am not assuming that they evaluated talent at QB accurately.

I am deeply grateful as a fan for all that Kelly accomplished at the U of O. However.... 1. He, too, left for greener pastures. 2. He left a mess, by cutting corners with recruiting. 3. He is arrogant, and annoys the press and boosters. 4. He is not a dedicated recruiter. 5. The system that he used here (not only scheme but nutrition and training) is no longer a novelty. Why would we expect better results than he achieved in Westwood?

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?