Why I Have No Problem With the Last 4th-Down...

[Charles Fischer]

My philosophy of game management at the end-game is, "first downs at the end of the game are as important as touchdowns earlier in the game. Without both you don't win."

 

So to me--whether you turned the ball over to Penix at mid-field, or his own 10 yard line...it didn't matter.  With over three minutes left and using four downs every series--there is no doubt in my mind that he would have had the Huskies scoring.

 

So we try to win it by burning two more first-downs, thus we do what it takes to win at the end.  I am quite OK with Dan's decision there, and it actually gave us time to come back at the end were it not for precious time wasted.  (Another time)

 

FishDuck Observations:

Washington's defense was much better than I thought they would be going into the game.

Oregon's defense was not as good as I thought.

The inexperience of Will Stein showed up on 4th downs, but this is his first rodeo at this level.

Oregon is not even in this game, where it not for what Dan Lanning has built at Oregon. He is special, and I want him long term at Oregon.

To me, Dan's weak spot last year was 4th down decisions, but he is incredibly smart, so no-way he did not learn from that last year?

Nope; Dan Lanning has lost three games in two years due to passing up field goals, and failing on 4th down.

 

How many times does it take?

 

[The Kamikaze Kid]

I think critical 4th down plays NEED to allow some options including running for Bo. The worst part of the play calling on the roll out, is the lack of options for Bo if the play is not working. I would have preferred he stay in the pocket giving him a scramble option if the receivers are covered, give him a dump off option to a tail back and that's three options Bo has to figure out the best way to get it done.

[Jon Joseph]

Charles, great take. My problem is not with the 4th down attempt from near mid-field. My problem is having James and not Bucky, carrying the ball on 3rd and 2. 

[Log Haulin]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:15 AM, Charles Fischer said:

The inexperience of Will Stein showed up on 4th downs, but this is his first rodeo at this level.

This is a great point. I think both Stein and Lanning will have some conversation about this. 1%. 

 

I think this loss could be a great win. I don't know what would be harder if these two teams meet in the conf title game, beating Wash twice or beating Oregon twice.  

[HappyToBeADuck]

Great take Charles......

 

Will DL learn? Only time will tell....

 

He is the right coach for Oregon and will do some great things. The brand will be even more elevated in the BIG.

 

How many coaches have we had that gets a 4/5 star D line player to commit during hated husky week?

 

With Penix on the field, in the same situation, DeBoer would have gone for it.....so no criticism toward DL for the call.

 

Its the predictable play calls in those situations that is frustrating.

 

Personally, i think DL and Stein wasted the fake punt play by Casey Rodgers in a game earlier this season. When the game wasnt on the line.

 

If DL was okay with risking a turn over on downs at midfield then that fake punt may have beem better utilized against the dogs.

 

That fake punt was an isolated play call that willnot be covered by 8 in the box . One good block and its a first down.

 

Its waterr under the bridge now. Let's regroup and get a rematch in the PAC title game.

[Charles Fischer]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:35 AM, HappyToBeADuck said:

How many coaches have we had that gets a 4/5 star D line player to commit during hated husky week?

Absolutely, as I am counting my blessings with what he is doing.

 

As I wrote in another thread, Cristobal blew a game or two each year to teams we should not have lost to. Lanning is doing the same thing, only via a different method.

 

How many times does it happen before he learns?  All experienced coaches know....YOU TAKE THE DAMN POINTS!

 

[HappyToBeADuck]

I agree!

 

On the road, TAKE THE POINTS!

 

The half time mood and attitude may have bern different if the Ducks had put 3 on the board.

 

Why?

 

You reward the D for a getting a turnover by putting 3 free points on the board.

 

The Duck O doenst leave the field empty handed going into halftime.

 

You dont reward the Husky D and crowd before halftime by giving them a chance to make a great play.

 

I feel it carried over early into the 3rd quarter.

[OregonDucks]

Although not traditional, I agree with the decision to go for it on 4th and short at the end of the fourth quarter. 

 

Oregon's odds of picking up the first down (and running out the clock) were probably higher than the odds of stopping Penix & Washington from scoring a go-ahead TD, which was proven when they scored in 2 plays and 30-something seconds.  It also preserved some time for Oregon to have the final possession to tie or win the game.

 

The only 4th down decision that didn't make sense to me was the second 4th and short.  A field goal there would have made it a one possession game (TD + 2 point conversion), which is much better than a 2 or 3 possession game in the second half.

Edited October 15, 2023 by OregonDucks

[Jon Sousa]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:49 AM, Charles Fischer said:

As I wrote in another thread, Cristobal blew a game or two each year to teams we should not have lost to. Lanning is doing the same thing, only via a different method.

 

Cristobal blew games we should not have lost to. (Ranked 3 in the NATION and lost to Stanford when they were way down???????).

 

Losing to UW who is one of the best teams in the nation right now is NOT in the same category.

 

DL just lost a game that we were confident he would win... but in fact was a toss-up in their house. Everyone says that they consider home field advantage worth 3 points.  Hmmm. It was!

[DanLduck]

It's hard not to be critical of coaching decisions when plays don't work. 

Especially the obvious ones.

But the truth is we outplayed UW, we just didn't outscore them.

 

Time of possession 

Yards passing  yards rushing 

1st downs

That magnificent goal-line stand

 

Our coaches had a good game plan.

 

We don't want to admit it, but UW is a really good football team. And that Penix kid was nothing short of spectacular. We pressured him, hurried him, even got some good hits on him, and he still threw accurate balls.

 

In a game with many great plays, this game was won and lost by only a few plays. Unfortunately for us, our guys weren't the ones who made them. This time. There is no shame in losing to a good team.

I'm looking forward to the rematch. 

Hopefully that will be on 12/1 in Vegas.

 

For me, calling those plays we are questioning, shows how much Lanning & co believe in his players. I have no problem with that.

[HDuck]

Would UW/Penix been able to score from 90 yds instead of 53?   Maybe.  But, starting from 90 yds away creates a different mind set on play selection, and the additional yardage creates an opportunity for more offense screwups such as interceptions, fumbles, sacks allowed, offensive holding, false start.

 

Saving the fake punt?  The surprise element against Colorado was due to field position and Colorado setting up for a return.  If it had been run in that last 2:16 situation the dawgs would have been coming with a lot of guys trying to block it which would have meant more tacklers in the area of the punter and upback.

[Solar]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:44 PM, HDuck said:

Would UW/Penix been able to score from 90 yds instead of 53?   Maybe.  But, starting from 90 yds away creates a different mind set on play selection, and the additional yardage creates an opportunity for more offense screwups such as interceptions, fumbles, sacks allowed, offensive holding, false start.

Their mindset would not have changed because of the extra yardage, because there was no reason for it to change. More than enough time left on the clock.

 

I know it's hard to swallow, but there is only a sliver of a increased chance we were going to stop Penix in his last drive of 90 yards vs 50 yards with the reasons you mentioned, vs 45% chance of ending the game if we got the first down.

 

That doesn't even take into account the time management. If they are going to score, let it happen quick, so you have solid chance for a final score. The more yards they go, the more time it would have eaten up.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

H Duck - great take. But I think it is more likely that Penix would have had 80 yards or less to go. Not 90.

 

Keeping a punt inside the opponent's 20-yard line from your own 47-yard line is a big ask. And if it was the 20-yard line where UW started, you are 'gaining' but 33 yards instead of having a chance to ice the game.

 

I'm down with going for it on 4th down but not down with the 3rd and 4th down play calls. Especially when seeing the catch Ferguson made down the middle to give UO the chance to take the game into overtime.

 

The inexperience of 2 young coaches showed up in this game.

[Brian]

Excellent assessment as usual Charles.  Thanks!

 

I have a couple of comments that I haven't heard expressed much yet:

 

First, both teams had two weeks to prepare for this game.  It had the feel of a bowl game.  Oregon never got the Washington D off balance, and that's probably a result of an extra week of preparation.  Washington often appeared that it knew what Oregon was going to do at the point of the snap.  I think Oregon did a better job in the second half to disguise their plays.

 

Second, I have to take exception to the fourth-down play with two minutes left.  I was yelling at the TV for Oregon to punt the ball, and for many of the reasons noted above.  Also, Penix was banged up at that point, and one more hit may have put him out of the game.

 

Third, fourth down calls.  I encourage coach Lanning to be aggressive, and trust his players, and win first downs.  That being said, the next step is to have a plan, a strategy.  What typically happens on key fourth-down plays, is a coach calls time out, discusses the call with his coaches, lines up, and runs a play that is usually designed to allow the D to catch their breath, rotate players, and stack the box.  Unfortunately, I believe that scenario puts the odds back in the D's favor.

 

What Oregon needs is a reliable system that puts the odds in their favor.  Chip was the first Oregon coach to take on the philosophy of 'going for it on fourth down', and a master of in-game momentum.  However, he had a system of playing fast and wearing out a defense.  By the time the Ducks either went for it on fourth down, or got deep in the red zone, the defense was so gassed (and didn't have time to rotate players) that Oregon could just run through arm tackles.  Coach Lanning doesn't understand this, and coach Helfrich didn't either.

 

I really like coach Lanning and believe he's doing a tremendous job!  Oregon went on the road to face a very good team, with a hostile crowd, and put themselves in position to win.  Oregon was and is the better team.  The stats are impressive!