AnotherOD

A not especially informed fan opinion? Keep an eye on non-west coast kids who have been around a season or two (or three) and don't have a near guaranteed path to 3/4 of snaps on either side of the ball next season. If you think you are going to sit, why do it way across the country? It is always interesting to follow. I will suggest the number of (fairly) highly rated kids who have left early without making much of a UO mark? Mostly haven't gone on to their next step and blown the doors off the thing. That said, hanging onto DJ James instead of having him go to Auburn, probably would have meaningfully helped the defense. DT Jayson Jones as well; but, you are gonna win some and lose some.

I agree that college football players get a lot of benefits. But is being taunted, cursed, and belittled by mob seconds after a game part of the deal? I would say unless players specifically agree to receive this specific sort of abuse as part of their compensation, it actually is not part of their compensation. If I agree to work as a cashier at a store, am I agreeing to be cursed, belittled, or taunted by any customer that decides to? I mean I am getting a wage right? Am I expected to stand there helplessly if the crazy comes around the counter and gets in my face? I am sure the first thought is the situations are different, but are they really that different? Both take place inside a society with expected simple rules of behavior. It goes to the right to be treated with at least a modicum of dignity by the people whom the individuals actually just performed a job, or in this case a sporting event (for their entertainment). Probably 99% of fans who rush the field understand that. I don't feel any need to apologize for the crazy 1% who make the choice to cross the line, and behave in a manner outside of what is reasonably expected. Do NBA millionaires get rushed and insulted on the court a minute after the game by drunk and surly fans? Baseball players? NFL players? They certainly are nicely compensated and abuse by an unruly mob on the field or court doesn't appear to be in their contracts. Yes fans in the stands. Not on the court or on the field. No one is suggesting the player should have resorted to violence. In terms of doing risky thing more often having consequences than not doing risky things, sure, "deciding to roll the dice".

This may not be a completely popular opinion. < usually not a good way to start a post > So, I will first say in no way are the actions of the player acceptable. But.. it was the comedian Bill Burr who said, "Do you know how absolutely obnoxious I would be without the threat of being punched in the face?" Rushing the field seem (for a few) to be a signal to some that rules of normal social interaction are suspended. If you watch the video, the Beav fan walks by and appears to put his hand in the Ducks players face, and makes some kind of comment directly to him. My guess it wasn't "You played a great game thanks for coming." People rarely walk past an upset random individual and put their hand in their face and make a derogatory comment directed at them in regular society. Rushing the field creates an artificial environment where people think they are allowed to behave differently and I'm surprised we don't see it more often. I believe there was a similar incident after the Alabama/Tennessee game. College football allows for such an environment yet appears stunned when there is an incident. I will again say as a player you absolutely can't do that. Part of playing the game is accepting the outcome and fans are going to be fans. But just as their is a penalty for a violent response, I wish maybe we could add a small penalty for stupid as well? You taunt a disappointed and possibly upset 6-5 270 pound individual who can run a 4.7 and bench 400 pounds and plays defensive line -- essentially fighting -- as his gig? After he has just spent 3 and 1/2 hours in a contest that is nothing but physical contact? Why not wait until an MMA fighter is exiting the arena after a loss and go up and slap the Gatorade cup right out of his hands while telling him how poorly he performed? You are kind of choosing to roll the dice yourself.

Have to agree. If you feel comfortable going for it, I fell you should be comfortable with at least a half dozen play calls -- and not just rely on the safest most obvious play call -- that the opponent usually is selling out to stop. Also, all go-for-it situations are not the same. Read the room. Your OL is getting knocked back, you are having trouble consistently running between the tackles, your QB is injured and can't run; and, momentum has completely swung... Might not be the same as doing it when your OL is firing, you are running the ball consistently, you have a real QB threat on QB reads, and momentum is at least even if not on your side Part of me thinks this is youth and inexperience showing and another part of me says it is just something a good coach understands (and isn't something that takes years to learn). It just happened in a key spot with a poor outcome, no?

Probably going to be a topic for the off-season; but, the bigger question may be -- to bring in a bigger class should we be expecting a fairly sizable group entering the portal? I can't see how the answer isn't yes? I count the Ducks hitting 85 starting the season and with 23 additions, that's will be up to 108. I count 11 guys who have no more eligibility (Cota, Chapman, McCormick, Battles, Bass, Walk, Aumavae-Laulu, Forsyth, DJ, Riley, and Bennett Williams -- I think Chapman might be able to get another year if he chooses but we'll keep him here for now). Seven leaving also adds a spot to get to 12. I've got 4 more names of guys who more than likely will go into the draft (Nix, Gonzalez, Sewell, Dorlus). Popo and Casey Rogers likely will have the option of return, for the sake of the calculation, we'll say one of the two returns (I think guys right now like Flowe, Jones, and Funa, guys who might have been thinking draft, look more likely than not to return). That's 108-17=91. Right now that is 6 over. The Ducks appear to be in good shape with Fano (OL) and Bowens (DL) and both probably would be automatic takes. There are probably at least 5 guys who the staff appears to really be after who would also be automatic takes: Hicks, Proctor, Robinson, Uiagalelei, and Pleasant. It doesn't appear the Ducks clearly currently lead but assume there are at least 3 more commits by LOI day (there may be another WR mixed in as well so 3 seems safe). That gets it back to 9 over. I am gonna assume the staff brings in at least 5 portal guys (could be more?). That brings it back to 14. I've been on other forums where there is speculation about guys who might be in the "likely portal group" (I don't want to go there); but, I can probably think of maybe 4 names that make some sense? So, I would say we are looking at as many as 14 probable departures among scholarship guys (who could return) and possibly as many as 10 who aren't fairly obvious candidates. Again, an interesting spring. My math maybe off, or I'm forgetting someone, or possibly not understanding it correctly, but that's what the numbers are looking like to me?

Dillingham I believe has said in interviews wants to be a head coach one day. Last year Florida State was 73rd in scoring offense and there was bit of questioning KD (FSU fans seemed to want to hang onto him, but primarily for recruiting, and not OC stuff). Oregon is 4th in scoring offense this year and he's hot. If you want to be a head coach, I would say it's probably smart to move when you are hot as long as it isn't reaching for any job -- but a spot you think can win. ASU is in the Pac-12 so you aren't going to have to jump over Georgia, Alabama, and LSU each year, it seems to have resources, a big fan and huge alumni base, sunshine; and, is in an area where a solid core of a recruiting class could be put together each year if their in-state kids were sold on staying home. I doubt the NCAA is going to hit anyone too hard anymore, maybe a few scholarships, but even something like a "bowl ban" isn't what it used to be. ASU isn't likely to be in the playoff in the next 3 years anyway. A lot of suggestions that better jobs are on the horizon (and they probably are); but, a lot could happen by this time next year, especially if Oregon is running out a first year starting QB behind a rebuilt OL next season. The storyline in 12 months might be "What happened to Kenny Dillingham's offense?" (not that I think it will be, just the possibility). People point out the risk associate with taking the wrong job but KD is young enough that even if ASU doesn't work out, he could go somewhere and rehabilitate (like a Kiffin or Sark) and be the next big name a second time around, all while still in his late 30s or early 40s, with about $25 million ASU $ in the bank. I can see the logic. He could stay easily at Oregon as well (I believe both the OC and DC stuck around at Clemson despite getting mentioned for jobs for several years, Aranda at LSU as well, so it happens).

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?