AnotherOD

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?

I would tend to agree, and if Oregon was ranking at maybe 64 (where TCU is currently), I could probably get behind "it is sort of working as planned". Doesn't 126 out of 131 suggest the D is trying to do some things - and it's success rate - is still below target? When teams decide to run the ball on third, the scheme seems to be holding its own.

NCAA Third Down Defense: 125. Northern Illinois (2-7) 0.48 126. Oregon (8-1) 0.48 127. Arizona (3-6) 0.49 128. Florida International (4-5) 0.50 129. Florida (5-4) 0.50 130. ASU (3-6) 0.511 131. Colorado (1-8) 0.518 Since I imagine the Ducks are running a similar scheme: 4. Georgia (9-0) 0.272 The current top 5 in the college football playoff ahead of Oregon in 3rd down 😧 Georgia 4 Ohio State 10 Michigan 9 TCU 64 Tennessee 31 Oregon 126 (So it probably can be seen as teams playing from behind gobbling up 1st throwing against teams almost always ahead) It was a bit harder to find, but last year (10-4), ended at: 0.459. So, not entirely a lot better. It probably of course has something to do with: 2022 Pass Efficiency Defense: 93. Oregon (8-1) 138.09 2022 Pass Yards Allowed 117. Oregon (8-1) 276.6 And the random unofficial stat that Oregon has allowed 123 first down by the pass (126th most) but only 55 by rush (tied 15th fewest). Overall, College football F+ has Oregon's defense ranked a respectable 51st, so, what are we thinking is going on with 3rd down? The obvious target is the pass defense but it seems like it's got two probable NFL guys in Gonzalez and Williams and a pair of top 150 recruits in Addison and Stevens (and a five star in Manning and a guy who has played a lot in Hill)? "Bend but don't break" maybe explains a bit, but "bend but don't break" is all over college football (with less breaking). I took a look at some of the numbers, and I'm sort of at a loss. I guess a second question is will it be a backbreaker at some point? I see F+ currently has Oregon #2 in offense this year, ahead of everyone but Ohio State (#1), followed by Tennessee (#3), USC (#4), UCLA (#5), Georgia (#6), Alabama (#7), TCU (#8), North Carolina (#9), and Michigan (#10). Is it going to be the offense taking the season as far as it can, and the defense just contributing anything it can? If Oregon fortunately finds itself against a top team, or even final games against top Pac-12 competition, will it bite the team eventually? I suppose getting into a new scheme might be bumpy at first then show some signs of improvement, but the struggle there seem to ongoing? Is there just something about 3rd down defense 125 out of 131 FBS college teams have figured out better? Curious about thoughts and not trying to be negative (and understand the point Oregon is doing great and to enjoy the ride - so no disagreements there).

Absolutely. The theory requires both Oregon and Georgia to win out, LSU or Mississippi can't win the SEC.

Ducks need to just keep winning (Georgia too). If we are talking playoff spots: I think Texas takes down TCU next week at home. If not they still have at Baylor then Iowa State, then probably Texas (or Baylor, or Kansas State) in their Championship game. The ESPN talking heads tonight agreed Oregon likely sits at 6 Tuesday, a TCU loss gets them to 5. Ohio State and Michigan play, and one will lose and drop and that gets them to 4. I think tOSU is the team Duck fans should pull for, as the B10 hasn't looked so great this year, and Michigan's favorable OOC schedule will do them no favors with a single loss. If Michigan wins, a one loss tOSU perhaps is a bigger obstacle (but in that case they miss their championship game and I think likely still slip a spot below the Ducks). Assume Ohio State gets revenge this year. Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon, and probably Tennessee (unless the committee opts for Michigan). What am I missing? Things seem to be lining up pretty nicely. The story at #4 may not be will a one-loss Pac-12 Champion get in -- but rather which one loss team who missed their conference championship (Tennessee and Ohio State/Michigan loser) gets in. Ducks and Georgia need to keep winning (Georgia in theory could face and need to beat a one loss Old Miss if Mississippi is able to finish the year by beating Alabama, Arkansas, and MSU to reach the SEC final to keep them out).

And yet Mario and Miami received the surprise commit this week from (five star) top CB prospect in the nation (Cormani McClain) who the 247 composite has rated as the number 2 overall prospect. Obviously a pretty large NIL likely was dropped (the kid was thought to be like 95%+ Florida or Alabama in the lead up). So Mario delivering the recruiting goods for a kid who likely has several NIL opportunities and still chose Mario's rebuild. Recruiting often is its own kinda rollercoaster.

Maybe there was a more productive way to make the argument? I would say the argument: that Oregon is playing better for sure but a big chunk of that is returning to the safety of the generally weak Pac-12 and while it has looked fantastic at times it isn't quite the massive improvement some Duck proponents seem to be suggesting (and not that it isn't good - its still good). Something like: Pro Duck side: 80% Ducks improving / 20% schedule A decent portion of the college football world outside the Pac-12 footprint and a lot of the college football punditry: 20% Ducks improving / 80% playing Pac-12 teams My guess is it is something like: 60% Ducks improving / 40% getting to beat up the Pac-12 And I think 60% is fantastic because I felt these Ducks on paper should have been pretty good game one. The main point being I would say a big yet to be seen piece of evidence is missing. Again, not the team's fault all we have is Georgia, slumping BYU, and Eastern to this point.

Not trying to be a contrarian; and, I understand the enthusiasm for the Ducks (especially on the offensive side of the ball); BUT, Before we have Lanning heading to Alabama and Dillingham to Ohio State... Maybe we should wait and see how things work outside the Pac-12? We saw the Georgia game. Since then BYU has gone in the tank, WSU has gone in the tank, everyone is mostly beating up on Stanford and Arizona... UCLA was great... but it still was UCLA who hasn't been much of a player in football since Donahue left in 1995. Utah, Oregon State, and possibly USC will tell us some more... BUT, it is still the Pac-12, which hasn't been great in football in a loooong time. The conference seems to be up a tick this year; but, one sort of wonders how much of that is a net positive influx of transfer talent, especially QB, maybe some positive coaching moves, and pretty much the same thing we have been watching the last several seasons (a conference arguably at or near the bottom of the Power 5 conferences). Recall The great 46-7 run under Chip Kelly? Great but mostly some OOC patsies and the Pac-12. Now the Pac-12 did have a few good teams over those years, so not skipping over that; BUT, Against half-decent or better programs not in the Pac-12, Chip was: 4-4 2009 Boise State (L) 2009 Utah (W) 2009 Ohio State (L) 2010 Tennessee (W) 2010 Auburn (L) 2011 LSU (L) 2011 Wisconsin (W) 2012 Kansas State (W) It all very well right now; and, you can only play your schedule; but, I'd say before we go off the rails in enthusiasm, maybe we pump the breaks a tiny bit until we see some more OUTSIDE the Pac-12. Not wanting to bang on Pac-12 football unnecessarily; but, maybe it is a point that still needs to be recognized.

My thought is there are quite possibly more articles than ever; but, the amount of "nothing-burger" articles is at an all time high. My guess is that it is part of the new media landscape; and, it is something that is gonna be here a while, that is, a lot of (relatively) low pay media producing content to produced nickels based on page hits rather than dollars based on established media platforms producing product to sustain their more established media positions. Just the nature of media today in the phone and internet era.

It is sort of interesting. I've read a number of Auburn fans (some Georgia fans and some SEC fans) suggest Bo isn't really much different this year than before. They suggest Bo always was good against the "weaker" competition, and all we are really seeing now is the same QB beating up on weak Pac-12 defenses. It's not my thought, but it is out there.

What is interesting is the Ducks probably will be QB shopping in the portal again. What looked like a << fairly big >> Duck rebuilding year in 2023 is looking possibly a bit better, that is with another hit on a portal QB (and Bo Nix is gonna absolutely be a huge advertisement to those next 1-2 year QB guys). An OL with: Conerly-Jones-Jackson/Powers-Harper-Jaramillo isn't quite looking so bad and Popo plus maybe Flowe/LaDuke/Brown and Manning and Florence seems like a roster that might be able to make some waves - with a solid or better QB transfer - and the returning playmakers at RB, WR, and TE. I'm interested to see where the young LB crew (Bassa, Brown, Jackson, Taggart, quite possibly Flowe - maybe even Sewell - are in another year). It wasn't totally on the radar so much prior to this UCLA week, but I imagine Bo is gonna take his shot with the NFL, and QB (once again) maybe be that "roll the dice" sort of situation. I may be to be wrong but I just don't see (in today's college football environment) a top 10-ish program taking a huge rebuilding year risking the season on a kid at the QB spot that just hasn't shown a high likelihood of success in practice (and my quess is that is just where things are currently at). Good thing is Bo having this big year absolutely will attract attention for the highly sought after portal QBs.

I guess Texas A&M indefinitely suspended 3 members of it's first "twenty five million dollar" NIL class yesterday. That's after a couple of them already got into some trouble earlier in the season (including 4 one game suspensions) for for I guess (among other things): missing curfew, criticizing the coaching staff on Twitter, and posting crazy street racing videos taken inside a parking garage. Obviously it's one school, and details are just kind of leaking out a bit at a time, but it is starting to sound like a bit of a mess (the team hasn't appeared to have the season expected and the HC is definitely on the hot seat). It's almost like taking a team full of established players and dumping millions of dollars on 18-year old high school kids (who in most cases have already been lavished attention upon for several years in recruiting including like $50k+ recruiting weekends) who have never played a down of college football, might be a recruiting strategy with some downside?

One thing we can say, there is little chance Georgia's players, coaching staff, and fan base won't totally be overconfident if there was a rematch (even Kirby kind of dumped on the Duck players in his post game comments, not that they didn't deserve it, but I did find it a bit strange - the "DL knows he doesn't have the players we do so cut him some slack" comments). Would that make a measurable difference? Who is to say? If there were a rematch, I think the Ducks would have a tough time defending the things Georgia did well in the opener, I don't like saying it, but I think they just present some difficulties that won't easily be solved in a rematch. BUT I think the Ducks will be more together on offense (it isn't like Oregon's OL got blown up that day); and, if Oregon is scoring some points << perhaps >> the overall dynamic of the game is different ...

Not directed toward anyone (and not trying to stomp on anyone's takes) BUT Anyone who downplays "the pick" most likely just doesn't fully understand "the pick". I think maybe they just see a great play that beat a hated rival and helped turn around a season ... AND Not the total pivot point and change in direction of a long downtrodden program. That set into motion Oregon moving from a program battling to keep themselves out of the cellar of Power 5 - and playing 6-6 Tulsa in an Independence Bowl was a huge deal (that indeed broke a 25 year bowl drought) to a largely successful 28 year run (25 bowls) and what today is widely and regularly recognized as a top 5-15 program (just below the very "blue bloods" of the sport) that battles for many of the best recruits in the country and has won major bowls and played for National Championships. Rarely (maybe outside of the Florida schools rise in the 1980s) does this ever happen in the college football world, let alone can be traced not only to one game, but one play!

My thoughts are he's been solid. It probably is hard to factor in how much the departure of KT influences the rest of the DL spots (he just attracted a lot of attention and pushed the pocket - even on plays he didn't record any numbers). As well, seldom mentioned, Popo missing the season has impacted the DL as well. The guys playing there have done well (Riley seems to have had a couple very good games); but, Popo was both AP and PFF 1st team All-Pac-12 last year. So, essentially, BD has played this year without a pair of All-Conference running mates.

I think it is more of what one makes of it? I see the argument but it doesn't always totally compel me (and this may not be a totally popular opinion which I understand). While full-time at least used to be 12 credits (usually 4 classes) it was 9 credits and 3 classes for athletes (at least during the season). The few athletes I encountered generally saved a few of their easy classes for the term their sport was in season. Both OSU's Jaydon Grant and UO's Bo Nix have been interviewed this year on Portland radio and the host has talked to them on their class work and it has been mostly yoga, advanced yoga, ballroom dancing, or an odd online survey class. I think one of the two guys even dropped yoga for online yoga (however that works) because getting to yoga class a couple times a week just wasn't working. More difficult course work is saved for the rest of the year and the NCAA has some pretty strict rules about the amount of time a kid can spend doing anything sports related during those months. For example, I think the S&C coach is the only guy in the coaching staff that is able to talk to kids from like January to summer and over summer the coaches are limited to 8 hours a week. They do train and try to stay in shape and do voluntary summer work, but don't a lot of college age kids do something similar because in part it is a benefit to their health (and self-esteem) and to a degree it is considered something people enjoy and/or is social or otherwise see benefit in, rather than something just done as required for compensation)? I think it is fine to pay college athletes and always was surprised more "general expense" money wasn't a regular part of a scholarship (a pair of shoes, a movie, a trip home, dinner out, Netflix, a new phone); but, I still don't see it as close to working a job 40 hours a week year around. It still is playing a sport and practicing a sport. It isn't billing, or coding, or nursing, or delivery, retail sales, office work, or building roads and bridges. A lot of it is shooting hoops, playing ball, exercising, watching tape, and hanging out with your buddies.

Not entirely on topic but one has to wonder what the dynamic on campus will become? Imagine spending 8 years earning a PhD, then spending 10 or more years teaching and developing research to get tenure, then by age 40 working your way up to $140,000 a year (rough number from the American Association of University Professors) and seeing 18 year old high school kids walking on campus getting $1 million or more per year to play 12 games of football? How about the divide between the general student body at a place like Texas A&M where 25 recruits were given full scholarship and living expenses plus a reported million a piece for playing 12 games of football a year - against the rest of the student body who are reportedly playing up to $32,000 a year in-state: roughly $13k for full tuition, books, fees, and $19k for full living expenses and budget (and as much as $58,000 for out-of-state kids) according to CollegeCalc org. Not taking either side here particularly, just wondering the dynamic? It's been many years since my college days; but, while it was recognized they did have a bit of "special status" the athletes I knew generally didn't appear to have an experience dramatically different than the rest of the student body. With the money thrown around today, I wouldn't even see why a lot of these A&M kids don't just hire someone for a couple thousand a term to go to school for them? Wouldn't cut to much into that million and would free up a lot of time for football (and fun).

Lupoi absolutely is the Duck DC but I cannot see (or really fathom) a situation where Dan Lanning isn't involved in 97% if the defensive game planning (and even 3% might be a stretch). Will Chip school Lanning? Maybe but I don't see it as a lock. Chip had, at the time (and probably still true today), the longest prep time between the end of the season and the NC game and got pretty well schooled by Gene Chizik and Ted Roof. And the thing is both dudes just did what made Auburn successful the whole season and handled Chip's long months of preparation for long portions of that game (both guys probably cashed in some bank by doing nothing different than they did all season). Oregon only likely got itself back in it, when Chip abandoned what he spent months planning (thank you very much Chip trusting NA - and Nick probably having the very best feather in his cap - over his long career - getting after Newton all game long). Definitely some things to worry about heading into the game, but something that happened with Tosh and Chip like in 2009? I guess it could, but it would really, really surprise me.

I think... I think they said the ref saw a TO called in the middle of the interception, so since it "inadvertently" made the mistake of granting the TO, they allowed the clock to be stopped? You never get a timeout that stops the clock during a live play. That was much worse than the announcing team made it out to be. How about going for 2 and the win? I think most coaches at home take it to OT. Really enjoyed it.

The Pac-12 refs dig up that blindsided block (or at least work pretty hard to get there), but then miss a pretty obvious hold in the end zone. That's a safety and instead it's a USC first down. If you are gonna let the hold go, you let the borderline blindsided block go, or call them both.