AnotherOD

Very well said. Maybe a bit of a different topic but it was touched upon over the summer; and, one of the interesting things that came up was the composition of NFL draft picks by state for the last four years (2019-2022). If you look at the top 100 high school recruits on the west coast in any given year, it will be dominated by California (and Southern California), with a bit from Arizona and Washington, then maybe a couple (probably in the middle of bottom) from Utah, Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada. In the NFL Draft list California dominated -- but I doubt not nearly as much as the recruiting rankings would have predicted; and, Oregon produced about the same amount of future NFL draft picks as states like Arizona, Washington, and Utah. 2019-2022 Western States NFL Drafted Players: California - 86 (56%) Utah - 17 (11%) Washington - 14 (9%) Oregon - 13 (8%) Arizona - 12 (8%) Nevada - 7 (5%) Colorado - 5 (3%) If I ever get the time I might look up the top 100 rated recruits from these states in rankings and see how it roughly compares to kids who after their college is over are picked for the next level. I imagine the ratings will show some bias towards California (and to a lesser extent Arizona and Washington). A quick look at just the top 30 west coast recruits listed this year shows California and Arizona with 80% of the listed players: California - 20 (67%) Arizona - 4 (13%) Washington - 2 (7%) Nevada - 2 (7%) Utah - 1 (3%) Idaho - 1 (3%) Oregon - 0 Colorado -0

I recalling being happy to see Utah continue to run the ball as the Oregon D has been generally ok against the run most of the year. In the second half, on non-Rising rushes (and excluding the 18 yard WR rush), Utah went rush by yards: 6, 3, -2, 3, -1, 4, 2, 8, 7, 1, 7, 1, 8, 4. While Utah found some success, Oregon's run D slowed them enough to get Utah into passing situations. While Utah was 8-15 on 3rd down, it did only go 1-4 on 4th; and, of course, the 3 interceptions. As mentioned, Oregon (for a change) matched up well against their WRs, and only 3 Utah WRs caught a combined 8 passes for 65 yards. Kincaid had a good game; but, I think Oregon had a plan there and did enough to limit that damage. I think Rising had an unexpected off game. To the extend Oregon State mirrors Utah, I think helps the matchup Saturday.

I've read that argument and I'm not quite sure what to do with it as most of the "highly ranked" kids Mario would have been chasing to build up recruiting rankings -- end up being mostly kids who the rest of Pac-12 (and usually a bunch of other top national programs) also recruited. What we would need would be basically top 300 kids pumped up by the rankings that weren't also pursued by a bunch of other top programs, which doesn't appear to be a very clear or large list. Now, we could argue a lot of other programs are doing the same thing, and that's part of how these recruits build up their national ranking (by building up their offer list); but, if it is a widespread practice among FBS programs, it sort of defeats the point of it being a specific Mario criticism. Maybe there is something say to the idea that maybe Oregon might have 8 highly rated top WR prospects in its main recruiting footprint (that it felt it could land); and, Mario would offer all 8 and take whoever committed first, possibly without taking further time to find the three or four it felt were not only highly rated but both fit the best in the Duck offense and also had the most upside to develop as college players; but, that sort of gets into a complex (possibly subjective) sort of argument. For kicks, to take the other side of the argument, in Mario's purported area of expertise (OL), Mario took a fair amount of OL recruits ranked between 500-1000 nationally, not "star chasing" per say -- maybe instead turning over rocks and stones and finding good prospects being underrated. Yet, with the exception of Marcus Harper (730), the list of: Cody Shear (951), Christopher Randazzo (822), Justin Johnson (903), Logan Sagapolu (614), Jaylan Jeffers (532), Jalen Smith (808), and Faaope Laloula (804 still may contribute) more seems to just show a simple lower than average success rate (even in the "developmental type prospect" pool).

I've read this all season; and, I think it has been one generally accepted explanation or reason contributing to the struggles of the Duck defense. At this point, I'm starting to wonder what exactly is being meant with this view? Obviously Georgia is loaded on defense. Their 40 or so scholarship defensive players are probably rivaled in talent only by Alabama, and quite possibly higher than Alabama. So, when we say Lanning needs to get his guys for his defense to work, are we saying yes he needs to get his guys and train them in his system; but, primarily and simply the only way this defensive scheme is likely to work is to compile that rare elite amount of high four star and five star kids or else it likely is going to continue to really struggle? Because even with Duck recruiting being pretty strong (and possibly better years to come) it appears to be a big ask to get to THAT level of recruiting (at least without getting a National Championship). If the scheme is going to struggle until we get there, is this a risky scheme for this simple reason? I am far from a football expert (and my lack of understanding is likely going to show); but, I thought I'd ask this question and maybe some might have some insight I am missing? First thing is this defense doesn't seem massively different than the one the Ducks have been recruiting to the last several seasons. It's 3-4 or 2-4-5 (with an extra DB or "star" or whatever) that primarily uses a lot of zone and hopes for consistent pressure just rushing its front. Just from basic athletic profile, at DE, Dorlus at 6-3 and 290 seems to look a lot like Walthour at Georgia who is 6-3 and 280. Georgia tends to use a big NT in Logue (6-5 295) or Stackhouse (6-3 320); but, Oregon has a couple big bodies there in Riley (6-5 325) and Taimani (6-3 320). Oregon doesn't have a Jalen Carter at DT (6-3 300); but, not too many teams have one either. Ware-Hudson (6-2 280) is steady; and, I think Rogers (6-5 285) has quietly been pretty good. Lots of talk about Georgia having smaller and speedy LBs; but, their roster only lists one starter at MAC Mondon at 6-3 and 220 (which would be comparable to Bassa (6-2 215). The other spots have Beal (6-4 250), Dumas-Johnson (6-1 245) and Nolan Smith (6-3 235) and Sherman (6-2 250). The Ducks mix in DJ (6-4 270), Sewell (6-2 250), Flowe (6-3 220), and Funa (6-3 255). All four were Top 80 national recruits (and before we get too far saying they aren't "Georgia LBs", I think one of the first things DL said when he came to Oregon was Georgia was all over trying to recruit Sewell and Flowe). Georgia has a bigger "lock down" type CB in Ringo (6-2) and Oregon has Gonzalez (6-2). The second CB has been a sore spot for Oregon, but it does have a "five star" kid there it does play some in Manning, a spot I believe Georgia is rotating a sophomore and a true freshman. Both teams have 5-11/6-1 and 190-205 type safeties; and, both mix in a similar sized fifth DB in Ballard at Georgia and Williams at Oregon. When we say Oregon just wildly doesn't have players to "fit" this scheme, it actually seems to have a group of guys who on profile seem to fit fairly well into the spots? No Jalen Carter or Nolan Smith (and I actually think he unfortunately got knocked out for the season); but, plenty of guys on recruiting profile that were well above average in athletic profile. So Oregon isn't going to be 90% to 95% of Georgia's D in it's first year? Of course not. 75% maybe? Maybe 70%? 70% would be very acceptable but I'd say overall it's been more like 50% or less, with at least 3 games (Georgia, UCLA, Washington) where the D barely managed to stop a single scoring drive. Tennessee beat Alabama and rolled into the Georgia game dropping bombs on everyone on their way to being the top scoring and yardage offense in the country (in what most consider the toughest conference); and, Georgia got after them and shut them down. Post game Kirby was asked about the game and he said, "We didn't come here today to take shots, we came here to deliver them." Is "DL doesn't have his guys" code for "the 40 or so scholarship Duck defensive players just aren't very good -- and represent both a statistically unlikely pool of poor recruiting evaluations -- and total lack of player development"? Or may there be some problem with the approach if you aren't completely loaded with top 80 defensive kids? Because I kinda still believe the Ducks aren't that overmatched. Oregon State can put together a solid D with a bunch of kids Oregon didn't recruit or offer; and, the UW can roll into town with a pair of "three star" rush ends (Trice, ZTE) who managed to wreak havoc on a Duck OL that has been excellent all year, yet the Ducks can't find a way to wrinkle the Washington QB's jersey?

No cute. No cute. Yikes.

Oh my goodness

Liked the Thornton play more, I think it was (almost) there. Not really thrilled 3rd and 10 and you throw a one yard pass hoping to get 9, when you have already ran it 63 times in the game.

Need to shift gears and find a way to attack the middle portion of the field. Utah is taking everything else away and betting they can hold up against the Duck WRs (and TEs).

I saw it. I didn't like it. Yet, it was worse than I could have imagined. Did we not learn about getting too cute last week?

Did Miami really have 6 first downs and 98 yards of total offense against Clemson today?

Flowe drilling the TE after the tip (one guy who wasn't going to get it).

I think I see Steven Jones in there at guard?

The Kellen Clemens one is a bit weird. The Ducks did go into a tailspin in 2004, losing their last 3: Cal and UCLA, then getting drilled by the Beavers (21-50), to finish 5-6; but, Clemens wasn't hurt (and actually played pretty well against Cal but not so much in the final 2). The 2004 Cal game being the infamous loss where Oregon led (10-2) Cal 27-14 in the second quarter to only lose in the 4th on an Aaron Rodgers 19 yard TD to Geoff McArthur (27-28). That loss is sort of viewed as being one the team doesn't recover from (finishing with a losing record for only one of the two seasons post-1994). Clemens gets hurt in the 2005 Arizona win; but, Dennis Dixon and Brady Leaf fill in and the Ducks finish 3-0. In Duck football lore, the QB rotation probably falls apart in the 14-17 loss to Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl (where both QB seem to be effected by the odd rotation).

A pep talk? How about asking him if we can suit him up and sneak him into the game?

It's going to be interesting with DJ Johnson and Dorlus (likely) leaving, with Popo's status up in the air, and the possibility of Sewell entering the draft (and even possibly Funa departing if he doesn't take his extra COVID year) in regards to the pass rush (and DL in general). While QB pressure hasn't been especially notable, the DL has been pretty solid against the run. On paper with guys possibly moving on, maybe Ma'ae, Rogers or Taimani, Ware-Hudson, and Swinson plus the ILB?

I remain a bit baffled. I understand putting in a new defense but aren't there nearly as many situations like Jim Knowles (new DC at Ohio State) where a turnaround can happen quickly as major rebuilds? Maybe Trent Bray as well?

I know "bend but don't break" has become a bigger part of college football; and, in my limited viewing, seems to be creeping more and more into the NFL as well; but, I still think there is plenty of room for pressuring the QB. It absolutely is preferable if done by 3 or 4 guys who can get home (Jalen Carter, Jordan Phillips, Myles Murphy type kids); but, not too many teams have those kind of dudes and there are other ways to do it. Sure those increase risk, but getting picked apart regularly playing coverage can't be called not risky either. Do we know predictably dropping 7-8 into coverage actually is actually always a higher percentage play? From a math perspective it makes sense - as who wouldn't want more guys defending the pass - but it also ignores the fact that QB play is generally worse the greater the pressure; and, generally OLs will have more trouble the more guys they have to block. More guys to block should mean more pressure which MAY mean poorer QB play than what you get with the QB instead having to sort through more guys in a zone and no rush. I haven't ready any study, any "analytic", that clearly shows playing coverage always generates predictively better outcomes. I would further speculate the "safe scheme" quickly generates poorer results the better throwing QB the team faces. Guys like Pennix, Stetson Bennett, DTR, Rising, Hendon Hooker are less and less likely to get confused by the extra bodies. In the Oregon case, if we wanna forget veteran Washington QB Pennix, veteran Georgia QB Bennett is interesting to recall as he went: 25-31 for 368 and two TDs against Oregon. Pressure obviously is far from about defenders always getting to the QB. It is making them hurry. It is getting them off their spots and making them uncomfortable. It's about not letting down field routes develop. It's about hurrying a QB so they don't even see open receivers. It's about occasionally (within the rules) hitting the QB (the more the better). It about throwing a big wrench into the offense's carefully laid out plans. Percentages would say dropping into coverage should have at least limit explosion plays. You at least get that. It certainly failed to do that tonight (and at other times during the year). So what statistic or odds are being served when it fails to do even that? And finally I would ask, why exactly are the Ducks so handicapped they must play this way? Is the Duck defense against Washington basically Oregon playing with Portland State talent? Dorlus was a bit of a developmental kid; but, was committed to Virginia Tech and reportedly had at least 28 other offers including Florida (where he visited), Clemson, Auburn, and Baylor. I think most see him as one of the defense's best players. Bridges was a bit of a developmental kid; but, was a member of the ESPN 300, set the Alabama high school record for interceptions, was three time Alabama all-state, and had a reported 22 offers, including Florida, Florida State, LSU, and Oklahoma. Bennett Williams was a freshman All-American, left Illinois, was a JC All-American, and was the #2 JC safety prospect and #14 overall JC prospect at San Mateo before Oregon. And these are Oregon's lowest rated defensive starters. The rest are five stars, four stars, and top 250 national prospects (some coveted top 80 prospects), with offers all over the Pac-12 and other FBS top-25 schools. Yet this defense is limited in what it "can and cannot" do and has to play one way because anything else isn't feasible? I understand defense in college football isn't easy right now; but, Oregon State seems to be doing much better (including better against the UW at Washington) with a bunch of kids Oregon didn't recruit very hard (in most cases not at all). While Oregon has a defense full of kids Oregon State likely would have likely taken commits from in a second. I thought a less mentioned factor in the game was the UW's two ends ZTE and Trice. Trice was a "three star" and ranked #458 and ZTF was a "three star" and ranked #811, yet they seemed to be getting pressure most of the game against a Duck OL that has played well all year. Yet Oregon can't find a few kids who the staff can turn into impact front 7 guys? I guess what I am missing is the idea that the "D" just isn't very talented and the secret I'm missing is everyone else is finding nice ways not to directly say it? Well, Gonzales and Sewell have been mentioned as possible first or second round NFL guys, I think Dorlus is seen as a draftable guy, same with Williams, and despite some struggles, the NFL remains aware of Flowe, and that by itself is almost half the starting defense.

What is pretty painful was the pass rush tonight (actually what is possibly even more painful is wondering where the pass rush is going to come from next year?). I was kinda upset when it was absolutely and painfully obvious dropping 7-8 against Pennix (and the solid pass blocking UW OL) was not going to work - that the defense didn't try some pressure. Send some guys. Force a couple quick throws, maybe a bad throw or turnover, maybe get off the field. Not falling into the trap of doing over-and-over what is obviously failing (the infamous definition of you know what). If not, what do you lose? Dropping eight into a baby soft zone was not going to stop them. Pennix has thrown all over pretty much everyone this year; and, it quickly became apparent Duck defensive "Plan A" wasn't going to work. Even Bennett Williams - a veteran and about as solid as the Ducks have at safety - got badly toasted twice for long TDs. Our best CB appeared to be playing a solid game, and the defense still gave up giant chunks of passing yards. The only chance the D had all night was maybe defending a short field just because it is easier to maybe hold em to a FG. In another thread, someone suggested on-side kicking to UW everytime was actually a sound decision. The only shot at stopping them was either a red zone error or a FG, so why not just go ahead and get on with it? And if the on-side kick worked once? Would steal a possession and overall be a more sound strategy. I think it was a joke? Then I realized, the Ducks didn't pressure, because I don't think they have that as part of their defense. They don't have the guys so I don't believe they even have the defensive blueprint to try it. We aren't Georgia but we have a Georgia coach, and Georgia watched people sit back and get thrown all over by Tennessee and decided they weren't going to be the next in line, and they got after the Tennessee QB. What did Kirby say after the game? "We didn't come here to take shots. We came here to deliver them." Ok maybe we aren't Georgia, but is the UW Tennessee? ASU took down the UW with their backup QB. People will say DL needs to get more of his guys, fair enough. But it sure seems like Oregon State can manage to field a defense with 11 guys I imagine Oregon didn't recruit very heavily (if at all).

If you can't cover, you might as well pressure. I'm guessing the staff doesn't have a pressure card in their back pocket this year?

Past time to take a shot down field.

No pass rush pressure yet. I'm sure the Huskies are happy to see a 3 and 4 person rush. Dropping 8 tends to be less a problem for a crafty veteran QB with an arm.

To look at the bright side, we can only drop 4 more spots nationally with 3rd down defense!

Points per possession is an interesting (newer) stat (as well as points allowed per possession). I'm just wonder if the Duck offense will be: 4.25 per possession against defenses ranked 81-131 in points allowed per possession 3.25 per possession against teams ranked 25-80 in points allowed per possession 2.25 per possession against teams ranked 6-24 in points allowed per possession 1.75 per possession against teams ranked 1-5 in points allowed per possession If it's going to be a 10 possession game each against a top defense, that 17.5 points. At that point might you be looking for some D to stay in there?

Not to go all "SEC fan" here, but looking at points allowed per drive, it could probably be argued the Pac-12 defenses have been pretty favorable for its opponents this year. National Ranking: WSU (#29) Oregon State (#36) Utah (#57) Oregon (#82) UCLA (#85) Cal (#93) USC (#100) Washington (#104) Stanford (#117) ASU (#124) Colorado (#128) Arizona (#129) It will be interesting to see come post-season how this shakes out for a Pac-12 most see as improved this year. If the Ducks are going to score on every possession, I'll happily agree the D can be de-emphasized. However, much like Oregon found out in game one, Tennessee found out last week, what (sometimes) can happen to even an offense on a huge roll, when it gets to team at the top of that defensive list.

I have never really understood the regular pairing of high powered offenses with "bend but don't break" defenses. Aren't you pretty much assuring your high powered offense spends more time on the sidelines, as your opponent methodically gobbles up yards (and clock)? Aren't you intentionally keeping what you feel is your weaker unit on the field more? If you have the superior offense, why play a game where each team has 7-9 possessions each per game? Wouldn't your offensive superiority be more likely to show itself up in a game with 12-14 possessions each? Let's say your offense is averaging like 3.4 points per drive and your opponent 3.1 points per drive. In an 9 possession game it's an expected 2.7 point advantage, in a 13 possession game, it's a 3.9 point advantage. According to BCS Toys, this year Oregon is averaging 4.12 points per drive (#1) and is giving up 2.35 points per drive (#82). The advantage would seem with the offense on the field. It would be interesting to see a high pressure/shut down defense paired with a high scoring offense. Sure you might give up a few more explosion plays (and scores) but that means you high powered offense is right back on the field (with time on the clock). You might also get more turnovers, 3-and-outs, and short fields - which might regularly break a game open. Once the game is broken open, only then maybe you switch to a "more safe" mode. My guess is maybe many of these coaches play "bend but don't break" because they don't trust their D to play any other way?