AnotherOD

It does look like a pretty simple formula to possibly maximize views to a national audience?: 1. Predicted Best SEC Team 2. Predicted Best ACC Team 3. Predicted Best Big 10 Team 4. Predicted Best Big 12 Team 5. Predicted Best Pac-12 Team 6. Predicted Second Best SEC Team 7. Predicted Second Best Big 12 Team 8. Predicted Second Best ACC Team 9. Predicted Second Best Big 10 Team I guess the only "upset" would be not having the Second Best Predicted Pac-12 Team (presumably USC) at number 10 and instead having NC (some intern must have screwed that one up). I would guess the "usual" probably would generate less views nationally - and will wait until closer to the season? 1. Best SEC Team 2. Best ACC Team 3. Best Big 10 Team 4. Second Best SEC Team 5. Best Big 12 Team 6. Third Best SEC Team 7. Notre Dame 8. Second Best ACC Team 9. Second Best Big 10 Team 10. Fourth Best SEC Team Ok maybe a bit cynical. It actually will be interesting to see Alabama, Clemson, and tOSU all (basically) breaking in a new starting QBs. All have highly rated next guys, but given how college football sometimes goes, there might be some vulnerability to each in the early part of the season: Alabama has Miami and @Florida in its first 3, tOSU opens up @Minnesota then Oregon, and Clemson has Georgia in Charlotte NC in their opener.

I'm far from wanting to get overly wrapped up on TOP; but, the top 25 teams in TOP were 145-70 and the bottom 25 teams in TOP were 71-134. So, it's suggestive of something. I guess my point was something along the lines, if you are gonna play "field position, conservative, smash mouth" football, you probably aren't succeeding regularly if your opponents are out TOP you 34-26 and running 15+ more plays per game than you are.

I'd have to agree with Charles. If one wanted to argue Oregon's reputation of "coaching up" players has taken a bit of a hit the last 3 seasons, I'd at least listen; but, under Bellotti and Chip (and even Helfrich), I'd suggests it is hard to support.

I've been critical as well, but if you look at yards per play according to Sports ReferenceCFStats: 2. Alabama: 7.8 7. Ohio State: 7.3 13. Clemson: 6.7 34. ND: 6.2 12. Oregon: 6.8 That's with a hurt starting RB and a QB sliding into the tank (5.4 yards per play last 3 games according to Team rankings.com). So, some signs of life? It seemed to be: quick drive for a score, 3 and out, or a turnover, all year. "Bend but don't break" rarely got itself off the field. TOP was #119 out of #127. Few love TOP; but, the bottom 20 teams in TOP had two teams with (barely) winning records (Oregon and Central Florida), one 6-4 and one 4-3. I'd be all in for a shift to a new, more interesting and aggressive offensive approach (and hand the keys over to JM), but from what we have seen, that just appears somewhat unlikely. If MC loosens it up just a bit, the team just needs to be BETTER at the 50% of the offense MC is likely gonna do. That and get off the field more on defense, not turn the ball over, and get better QB play. I imagine that will be the emphasis, rather than any kind of overhaul. If you are gonna' wanna play like Wisconsin (#1 TOP), Utah (#16 TOP), or Stanford (#23 TOP), you better figure out how to actually do, what you are trying to do.

Looking back, I'm honestly not sure what to make of the offense in 2020. It seems like it couldn't stay on the field and the defense couldn't get off the field. It seemed like the offense would either score pretty quickly, go 3 and out, or turn the ball over. 61 offensive snaps per game in this age of college football is pretty low. I guess one could argue it was "smash mouth, field position, ball control" football, but our opponents averaged 76 snaps. In the final five games, Oregon gave up something like 17 drives of 10 or more plays, and only had like 5 such drives themselves. In the old favorite, time-of-possession stat, Oregon ranked #118 out of #127 teams listed. For reference, the 9 teams that finished lower than Oregon in TOP finished a combined 15-45 (all with losing records). Teams that fit the way MC has expressed he appears to want to play like? Maybe Wisconsin? Stanford? UW? They finished #1, #27, and #26 in TOP. I think I mentioned in another thread, it possibly hasn't just been the philosophy of the offense, it's perhaps just as much, that the team has been relatively poor at it. It might work, if the team gets a whole lot better at it. It might be much easier actually just to embrace something a little different (that is, based on the results so far, if the offense is to improve, it just might be much easier to become something Penn State 2016-2017-like than to continue to try to become something Wisconsin-like).

I would tend to agree, only trying to take off my "duck colored glasses" and look at it from an outsiders perspective. QB, schedule, and, well, losing to OSU, Cal, and a dud of a bowl effort ... I guess I could see someone making the argument. Not agreeing, just throwing it out there. Of the three points, the schedule would seem the strongest (if FBSchedules has it right, the Duck schedule isn't especially favorable).

Not to jump into the "hot take" category, I'd pick Oregon too, but, I could see an argument. Regardless of future trajectory, Washington should be decent next year, solid on defense, safe on offense. As for Oregon, I could see the argument, "until you have a QB, you don't have a QB". A QB at least that's going to lead the team through a 12 game schedule. From the outside, I could see the argument depending on a freshman QB is a lower percentage choice, and on paper it is set up for another Brown/Shough dance. Also, at least according to FBSchedules, Washington has a more favorable 5 game home schedule, with a number of their tougher games at home (Oregon, ASU, UCLA, Cal who they recently have struggled with). They also miss USC and Utah. Oregon has the 4 home game schedule and appears to have more difficult road games (at Utah, at UW, at Stanford, at UCLA). They do miss USC and ASU though.

I don't know. 247 at the bottom of the year-by-year commit page, has a top 25 all-time recruiting rating (since 1999): Everyone has their busts, but Oregon has done pretty well by their best commits. For comparison, USC has done pretty well, but some major flops, UW/UCLA top 25 is pretty hit-or-miss. Stanford, pretty well. Very recently, Oregon has done right by KT and Sewell (both look to be in place for a wonderful career and about $100 million dollars). Among the 25 highest rated commits since 1999, based on careers versus expectations, excluding guys who it is too early to evaluate, an eyeball look at it shows "success versus bust" rates of (roughly): Stanford: 71% Oregon: 67% USC: 58% UCLA: 36% UW: 32% Its subjective but applying a pretty loose standard: expectations based on rankings versus career.

Everyone looks good in a highlight tape but boy do TooToo's look good as both a true freshman and sophomore (against good competition). Just a play diagnosing, in the box, QB pressuring, space eating, run stuffing machine. Dye has great highlights too, some in the box but a lot of moving and play making in space. A Duck great. HTT is just a killer, vacuum cleaner, and impact guy in and around the LOS. Thinking back over the last 25 years as a Duck fan, not a lot to compare him to? Maybe a bit of Alonso, a bit of Simon, a bit of Mitchell, a bit of Ernest Jones? When he hit the portal, everyone at the top of college wanted him and it makes sense. One of the announcers suggests, "Shot out of a cannon". Linked his true freshman year highlights earlier, here is 2020.

I would agree that there probably isn't a ton of difference between maybe 3-8 in the final rankings. I tend to look at recruiting a bit less on absolute numbers and a bit more just on the general perception of what the staff's top targets appear to have been, and what percentage were landed. I don't really have a way to rate that, so depend upon a service like 247 or Rivals, to determine that for me. A secondary goal would be filling gaps, meeting needs, and managing the roster; but, to this point, the staff seems to be doing that pretty well (for example, it doesn't have 40 WR/DB types and no OL). Getting a high percentage of the top guys - who appears there was a good shot with - is IMO success. First one to throw out crazy, random grades? I probably don't follow it closely enough to do this, but just for fun: QB: A It appears TT was the top choice and the goal was one QB this cycle. RB: A Not a lot of RB offers this year by the Ducks. Offers are generally reported by kids - and its sometimes debatable which ones are immediately convertable and which ones conditional. I'd guess only about 6 offers were the former, and 3 were top national flyer offers (Shipley, Pryor, Edwards) that would have been automatic takes (regardless of the depth chart). After those, the Ducks got 2 of 3. It looks like RB wasn't a heavy priority, and will be next cycle (when the West region appears more loaded). WR: A- It was always likely going to be Franklin or Egbuka at the top. The Hudson-Ware decommit is notable (but its maybe interesting it doesn't appear the staff used that spot to go after another WR). Xavier Worthy sticking with Michigan probably goes as a notable "miss". TE: A Mataveo and Ferguson were top targets and 2-2. OL: A Foster at OG might go as a "miss". I'm not sure if Miller and Simmons were an "either/or", but landed one. Suamataiai, Walden, and Light appear to be 3 very top targets and the four together represent an elite group. DL/Edge: C Any season where you have 2 of the top 5 players nationally as west coast edge prospects considering Oregon, its hard to consider it a high grade if you go 0-2 (if JTT goes elsewhere, with him its a re-grade). Burkhalter decommitted, but there is an indication that was mutual. A spot were the staff probably had 30+ convertable offers out. One wonders a bit, with a new possible emphasis on a NT, if CA prospects like Toia or Vaka might have been more emphasized? Not sure where Armitage (Stanford) fell, Tilmon is an interesting athletic profile for sure, as well as Keanu Williams. LB: B The local kid Brown appears to be the big fish. It will be interesting to see where guys like Flowe, McNeill, and Buckner eventually fit in (all very highly rated kids by Oregon historical standards). I am not sure there were going to be more than about 3-4 LB taken, after the group last year. Guys like Davis, Calvert, and Simon were all offered early but there never seemed to be much momentum. DB: B- A bit thin at CB currently. I still see Dickerson as still petty big (and a re-grade with him). Personally, not quite as jazzed about filling up with nickel S types (an Avalos preference?). Amongst Davies, Barkins, and (hopefully) Dickerson, it will be pretty important a couple turn into quality Pac-12 corners (and soon). I've seen some different opinions on JC Perkins, but he sure seemed to blow up as a recruit, and probably goes as a "miss". There appear to have been 20+ legit CB offers out. CA kids Wright and Brown appear to have been top targets but never appeared close. Two S appeared the goal (and added two). Beavers was an early target and decommit, so that might qualify as a "miss".

No way that hypothetical Duck team is trailing the Huskies!

Its in the linked CFN article. I am sure it must be a sign of getting old and complaining about the "old days", but can't CollegeFootballNews give us one proof read through? Just one? (If not for grammar's sake just knowing what spell check can do).

Early, early, early thoughts, but, I could see USC struggle early and Clay strain to keep the wheels on (as calls for a new coach just get louder and louder). Slovis is a solid system guy, but they will need to rebuild 2/3 of the WR group and they really don't run the ball much (or show much desire to do so - last in the Pac-12 in ypg and ypc). They return most of the OL besides Vera-Tucker, but it was a group it seems many Trojans fans openly wonder if it will ever be especially good. The defense loses some key guys on the DL and in the secondary. Some young talent there, but I think Duck fans saw, even young talent often needs some time (even under even the best of circumstances let alone struggles). I haven't been one to jump on the Herm thing at ASU, but I think this has a chance to be a possible breakthrough year there. Probably tough to read too much into stats from this short season, but ASU managed to lead the conference in both scoring offense and fewest points allowed. Their season was probably also especially oddball, where they started the year almost beating USC, then had to take 3 weeks off, then came back and almost beat UCLA, then scored 116 points in their two wins. Only one home game. They ran the ball well, led the conference in rushing, and return all of a veteran defense, including on paper (dare I say) possibly one of the nation's better secondaries. I'd still probably give Utah the edge. Need to settle on a QB (and the unfortunate tragedy at RB) but look solid about everywhere else, including typical solid Utah OLs and front 7s, which has been a working recipe in the South in previous years. They also had a tough season, where they didn't get to kick their season off until nearly Thanksgiving (11/21), didn't have a great opener, then almost beat UW in Washington the next week, then finished with 3 wins. UCLA also showed signs of life at 3-4, and they really were right in all four losses (by 5 at Colorado, by 3 at UO, by 5 to USC, and by 1 in 2OT to Stanford). They lose a couple important guys, but I could see them similarly improved and in the mix again. Even Colorado has a shot to steal a game or two. I see the South beating each other up, and see something like: Utah, ASU, UCLA, USC, Colorado, Arizona. In the North, as was mentioned, UW still should be a decent defensive team, and is gonna play a style that keeps them in games. The wheels probably don't come all the way off unless the offense really implodes (which it is sort of designed to not to). Stanford maybe somewhat surprisingly finished with 4 wins after a slow start (they do lose a bit though). I'm not sure I'm ready to really see a huge breakout at OSU, probably a similar season to 2020, some signs of life, but not over the top yet. Do they wow anyone on either side of the ball yet? In the Pac, I believe they have the five road game season, and a pretty tough home slate (ASU, Stanford, Utah, UW), with trips to UO and USC as well. Oregon needs to find a QB, and overall be more interesting on offense. Not a great schedule either (at UW, at Stan, at Utah, at UCLA, at Colorado). Sounds more familiar but maybe: UO, UW, Stanford, OSU, Cal, WSU. Could be another season of the Pac-12 beating each other up, and the nation tuning the league out early. Optimistically, on paper, it still should be a good chance for Oregon to three-peat - and set up a possible window opening - to possibly do something interesting in 2022/2023. And, not to pile on, I must be getting old, and I understand spell check, but if you are going to publish something attempting to be at least semi-professional online, not at least one read through? "With the return of LB Ryan Bowman for another year, none defensive starters are projected to be back, too" "None starters"? Nine starters? "Tennessee transfer JT Shrout is coming in to battle with better Sam Noyer to do more to take the head off of Broussard." I had to read this like 3 times. "Better Sam Noyer"? Starter Sam Noyer? "Head off"? Heat off?

I would have to imagine there is specific language in the contract for just about any circumstance. Beyond optics, there is a pretty significant financial impact to the AD for carrying out one side of the contract without getting the return. I suppose a number of outcomes are possible, but I would imagine if game one happens, game two will as well, just possibly not until something like 2029 or 2030?

In defense of Shough, he worked behind arguably the weakest OL in the last four years. PFF had the following ratings among Pac-12 OL: OT: Jones #10, Aumavae-Laulu #12, Moore #20 OG: Walk #5, Bass #9 Center: Forsyth #2 In their December 3, 2020 rankings 1 to 127: 32. OREGON The fact that Oregon’s offensive line ranks this high is quite a surprise considering they lost all five starters from last year’s unit to the NFL, graduation and, in Penei Sewell’s case, an opt-out. Left tackle Steven Jones has yet to start a game this year but has proven he deserves to do so with his performance so far. Jones has logged 172 snaps despite not receiving a start, recording the fourth-best PFF grade among Pac-12 tackles (79.1). I believe they ended up ranking the 2019 OL #1 in their final rankings (Oregon-Georgia-Alabama-tOSU). Overall in 2020, maybe about what the consensus was? Solid, with room to grow. Not as successful as 2019, but, losing the top 6, pretty tough to duplicate .

In these new speculations, is ISM thought to be moving back inside? Seems like a guy who would be comfortable playing both near the LOS and dropping into a zone?

PFF had the following ratings among Pac-12 OL: OT: Jones #10, Aumavae-Laulu #12, Moore #20 OG: Walk #5, Bass #9 Center: Forsyth #2 Seems roughly consistent with what we saw this season from the OL? Solid, but room to improve. With a mostly 6 person rotation, Moore allows for a lot of flexibility. His return indeed is good news. Having a 7th OL emerge would seem a priority.

Sophomore year highlights? Recruiting is going to be pretty tricky if the summer camp and fall season are significantly interrupted.

Pass efficiency rating generally is high with a high yards per attempt number (every QB that averaged over 9 yards per attempt ended up with a pass efficiency rating over 160, and every QB over 160 was in the top 15 in the final NCAA pass efficiency list, everyone over 10 y/a at the top). TS was 9.3. I'm not a huge PFF guy, but they do appear to dig a bit deeper (and often better catch the complete picture). Their rating of QBs tracks (and rates) things such as: throws completed into tight windows, completion percentage under pressure, completion percentage from a clean pocket, big time throw percentage, creating outside structure, accuracy, turnover worthy play rate, completion percentage outside the pocket, QB fault/uncatchable throw rate, completions on throws of 10+ yards, decision making, accuracy, etc., etc. For 2020, they rated Shough 11th out of 12 starting QBs in the Pac-12, ahead of only Utah's Bentley. His overall just passing grade was 9th out of 12. This in a season where the Pac-12 didn't really seem overwhelmed with top QB play (Mills, Slovis, Morris at the top).

The Register Guard (Jan. 22) reported DeRuyter earned $825,000 at Cal in 2020. Initial articles just reported the contract's base of $400,000. Incentives brought that up (including $300,000 for retention).

The recruiting bo-bo at Notre Dame didn't seem too bad, anyone know what Todd Lyght's plans are?

As well, things appear to be heating up for another top four star (at a position of need), Avante Dickerson (national #121, CB #8). Snow College JC OL Jordan Moko (#6 JC, #1 OT) also I believe is a guy with a spot if he chooses. JTT of course (national #3, #2 SDE). Uncommitted four star S/WR from Hawaii Titus Mokiao-Atimalala (national #302, ATH #19) is another name that still seems in play.

I've read too it was just a preemptive move to try to keep Sirmon from leaving. Very similar to what the UW did with Kwaitkowski and Lake. Between Wilcox, DeRuyter, Sirmon, and DB coach Marcel Yates, Cal had 4 guys with recent DC experience, it was unlikely Cal could keep them all. I'd imagine TDR has no no more forgotten how to call defenses than Kwaitkowski did.