What Went Wrong in Oregon's 34-31 Loss to Washington in the Pac-12 Title Game

[Annie]

https://www.si.com/college/oregon/football/what-went-wrong-in-oregons-34-31-loss-to-washington-in-the-pac-12-title?fbclid=IwAR1FpH1neCCtxc8xKhgy7K1gZMiErntV932ZvlDRJy2H2dZUfR8oZ9-Seks#gid=ci02cfd8faa000240c&pid=2-key-starters-banged-up

[DrJacksPlaidPants]

Another question to ponder is did the coaching staff change up the play calling signals? They already played this year so if WA got a feel for their signals then all’s fair. The reason I mention this is they always seemed to be one step ahead of the Ducks.

[Annie]

I'll be interested to read Ken Woody's article in a couple of days to see if he mentions pad levels (as he sometimes does). Both the D-line and O-line seemed not quite up to usual standards.

[1Ducker1]

The sad thing is that Oregon played a bad game and still only lost by 3. Its a shame.

[Haywarduck]

I think this photo reveals what went wrong. Anyone notice what is wrong in this picture?

 

One team came out on their toes and ready to play, another team come out....

[Utki]

I have no idea if this is reality or not but it most certainly appeared UW WANTED to win and the urgency was reflected by their energy levels.  Whereas Oregon seemed like they EXPECTED to win.  Couple that with Bo probably being too amped up was not a good combo.  Also, did the O and D lines seem way off in intensity?  What a darn letdown.  As a former D1 middle-distance runner I simply can't comprehend not giving your best in terms of mental focus especially against a rival that beat us 2 years in a row.  And the ref blocking the pass and that guy coming out from out of bounds were two very odd plays.  All in all that sucked.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Utki

[Log Haulin]

Bottom line in my opinion... line play. The Ducks got smoked on both sided of the ball in the trenches. They played soft and got beat. Thats been the narrative for years and thats what lost this game. 

 

Penix did what he wanted most playes. Had all day in the pocket. Huskies possessed and controled the ball a whole Q longer than the Ducks.

 

Huskies came to play and thats what they did. Huskies are 13-0 and conference champs because they wnated it more. This game wasn't as close as the scoreboard shows.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

Lose both LOS and you lose the game.

 

Great comeback wasted by bad run D we haven't seen all season. 

 

And 3 and out on the 1st 2 drives? Bo seeming to press in the passing game? Bucky was ineffective running the ball, where was JJ in the 1st half, and not an over-the-top Bird Bomb the entire game.

 

But even with all that, the Ducks came back and took the lead before the D, reminiscent of last year's game vs. the Beavers, could not stop UW's run game. 

 

Onward and upward. Tough to miss the PO by 3 points in a loss to your rival but with the way DL is recruiting compared to DeBoer, the tables will turn. Especially with Penix and some quality receivers leaving Seattle.

[mikethehiker]

I’d love to see analysis on the contrast of defensive back play throughout the game which I saw as a huge disadvantage for us mostly in the screen game. 
 

Duck DB’s simply couldn’t get off blocks, waited vs attacking ball carriers, and consistently took wrong angles in 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 situations. 
 

Conversely, Washington DB’s attacked our screen game running and tackling downhill like no one else has this year. WRs and TEs missing blocks. Tight coverage and Nix throwing across Troy Franklin and not letting him go up.

 

Husky DB’s came to play and our DB’s were physically no match. 

[Just Ducky]

 Wow where do you start?

 

 On a positive note Cam was not the goat this time and TF kept us in the game with two great catches on poorly thrown balls.

 

 There are so many negatives in this game but a glaring one was giving up over 150 rushing yards to a single running back while our to backs got basically nothing. Proof that neither line was ready for this game.

 

 What can you say about Bo. He had a look on his face, after the mutts first drive, that I haven’t seen before and it was obvious by all the errant throws that he was shook up. Not to mention the fact that we couldn’t block their D line.

 

 Dorlus had a tough night. The Mutts, except for one play, pretty much took him out of the game. No tackles.

 

 The list goes on but I will stop and finish by saying it was a memorable season and we are all sad by the way it finished. It was tough for it to end like this.
 

 It will be a hard transition to the B1G next year against physical teams and several really good coaching staffs. Future looks bright but we have a ways to go to get where we need to be. Good luck to our might Ducks. 

[Jemangi]

 We were not the better team yesterday.  

 Very surprised to see us mashed on both lines, but then it does bring memories of last yr.

 

I was worried about the loss of Jahlil Forence all week, then to lose Burch in first series or so was large.

So goes football. Judging by what I saw yesterday, we may still have a step to reach the top. ( or is WA really good?)

 

Play calling is above my grade, but did seem pretty pretty dull

Nonetheless, if you can't stop them, You can not beat them.

 

10-2 is a good year and we go to a high end bowl. Would be fun to play Alabama.

I have to call it a very good year, just happed to lose to the Good Gosh awful huskies 3 times in a row.

 

Next yr will be interesting for sure.  We are certainly recruiting well, no reason we should not compete with the best.

Dan Lanning is a great young coach and I trust him to do whatever is needed.

 

I am looking for to the bowl game.

 

 

Go Ducks! 

 

 

 

[Mike West]

Guys,

 

I could see all 22 players all game.  The defense got beat because the formations they played Lent to mismatches.  You could actually see some of that in the highlights.

 

For instance, as I said last night, on third and goal at the two yard line, up 4, we lined up in a 5-2 I believe.  They had 8 on the line of scrimmage.  That is a natural mismatch.  Before the play began I pointed that out and said Washington would easily score.

 

Every time they ran outside, the side they ran to had a mismatch because we were stacking the other side of the formation ( the side with their TE).  I didn't have a problem lining up on their TE side, I had a problem with the formation.  Oregon State did the same thing but under center.  The formation we used against Oregon State was what I - Mike West would do.  

 

I would have forced them to pass, go zone, and used the blitz packages that worked so well all year. I also believe the coaches were so worried about pass defense, they didn't respect their running game ( which the Fuskies actually focused more on after they played us- they correctly assessed they would need it against us- we miscalculated what they were going to do).

 

Furthermore, it was obvious we couldn't press the WRs at the line of scrimmage, nor keep up with them down the field.  That required immediate trashing of our game plan versus their scheme.  I thought the CBs would play better, but with McMillan back, it was a clear mismatch.  I (again this is just me, but I don't believe in a game plan that goes further than the first quarter, I believe you play " streetball- call what you are playing against".  That's what those 287 plays in your playbook is for).  

 

When we trashed the game plan on offense, we scored.  We only did that once in the fourth quarter on defense, and they called a fade route inside the ten yard line( we had the perfect formation to defend the run and pass on that play, then went back to a pass oriented formation they exploited).

 

It was frustrating to watch.  

 

I believe the reason Lanning stuck to his guns is because everything worked all year- and worse, we lost by three both games.  So I'm not sure strategy will change.  I'm a firm believer you play to the tempo and flow of the game and adjust as you go.  That calls for calling the first quarter based on what you believe will happen in the game, and call the rest of the game according to how the game flows.

 

Coaches rarely do that.  

 

Ironically, Vince Lombardi's "Gentleman, this is a football" comes to mind for me.  He taught fundamentals.  Repeat the same play till you perfect it.  I agree with the fundamentals part.  Yet I believe you take what they give you, and you take away what they succeed at.  For me, that requires knowing football beyond your own strategy and philosophy of the game.  

 

There's obviously more to it than that and that would require a ten thousand word essay no one would read.

 

Overall, I'm disappointed, but I'm proud of this team.  They didn't play well and they still only lost by three- and yes for me- the game was how it ended- it wasn't simply they dominated- we just didn't respect the conditions on the ground and still played well enough to lose by three.

[Santa Rosa Duck]

Well, I will say the unthinkable. The Huskies were the better team last night. Penix played very well, no sign of injury to me. Our DUCKS are top drawer but UW earned this win. If their next game is vs Michigan, the Huskies have a good chance to blow them out. JMHO.

[anyotherduck]

This wasn't the first game the Ducks basically 'phoned it in' for the first 20-25 minutes. Playing effective offense right before the half and then through the third quarter, only to fall back off over the fourth worked fine on everyone but the huskies. The 20-25 minute scoring plan clearly didn't fool WA.

 

Did Lanning and Stein really think that anything less than 60 minutes at 100% would get the job done?

 

The 31-34 score doesn't really tell the whole story, this game was a shellacking.

 

Onward and upward, Go Ducks!

[Steven A]

On 12/2/2023 at 9:50 AM, Jemangi said:

We were not the better team yesterday.

That is what makes this loss somewhat palatable. 

 

The coaches will need to learn why.  Of course Penix, Odunze, Polk and McMillian had a lot to do with that.

 

As stated above, recruiting will keep us in the hunt in the future.

[VegasDuck]

1. Worst start possible - bad play calling first 2 series. 

 

2. Defense could not stop the run - this is disastrous vs UW offense.

 

3. Again play calling. Whats with the roll out pass play that shortens the field to a tiny box? It worked on the goal line only because of a good pass and amazing catch by Ferguson. 

 

 

In the end the Ducks got out coached.  

Edited December 2, 2023 by VegasDuck

[1Ducker1]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:12 AM, Santa Rosa Duck said:

Well, I will say the unthinkable. The Huskies were the better team last night. Penix played very well, no sign of injury to me. Our DUCKS are top drawer but UW earned this win. If their next game is vs Michigan, the Huskies have a good chance to blow them out. JMHO.

Im going to watch just one more game and I hope who ever the Fuskies play beat them by 30.

[JDuck]

The "Red Zone Problem" article stood out.  In tight, inside the 5-10 yard range...predictable plays we smashed weaker teams with, but got stood up against better defenses all year.  

 

Stein needs to get more creative there.  I saw UW do it to us, I see other games where they do it, some one leaks out to the edge, easy score. Not us.

[GODUCKS15]

Where we the deep passes? Maybe I missed them? Franklin got hurt early and Tez was, except for a few plays a non factor. Bucky showed signs of season fatigue and JJ looked fresher and stronger. Why wasn't he given the ball more? Play calling seemed bland.

 

Hate to say but DL and staff have a KD and staff problem that may be there for a while. Kinda like when Pete was at USC. Not that the Ducks go dominated but they just made to many errors from coaching to execution. WA played as good a game as possible. 

 

More prepared and focused IMO. I have to admit the P12 officiating surprisingly seemed pretty fair. 

 

Penix, Oduze and McMillon were a load to handle last night. WA just might win it all in the CFP which will be tough to watch.

 

 

[Log Haulin]

On 12/2/2023 at 9:54 AM, Mike West said:

Guys,

 

I could see all 22 players all game.  The defense got beat because the formations they played Lent to mismatches.  You could actually see some of that in the highlights.

 

For instance, as I said last night, on third and goal at the two yard line, up 4, we lined up in a 5-2 I believe.  They had 8 on the line of scrimmage.  That is a natural mismatch.  Before the play began I pointed that out and said Washington would easily score.

 

Every time they ran outside, the side they ran to had a mismatch because we were stacking the other side of the formation ( the side with their TE).  I didn't have a problem lining up on their TE side, I had a problem with the formation.  Oregon State did the same thing but under center.  The formation we used against Oregon State was what I - Mike West would do.  

 

I would have forced them to pass, go zone, and used the blitz packages that worked so well all year. I also believe the coaches were so worried about pass defense, they didn't respect their running game ( which the Fuskies actually focused more on after they played us- they correctly assessed they would need it against us- we miscalculated what they were going to do).

 

Furthermore, it was obvious we couldn't press the WRs at the line of scrimmage, nor keep up with them down the field.  That required immediate trashing of our game plan versus their scheme.  I thought the CBs would play better, but with McMillan back, it was a clear mismatch.  I (again this is just me, but I don't believe in a game plan that goes further than the first quarter, I believe you play " streetball- call what you are playing against".  That's what those 287 plays in your playbook is for).  

 

When we trashed the game plan on offense, we scored.  We only did that once in the fourth quarter on defense, and they called a fade route inside the ten yard line( we had the perfect formation to defend the run and pass on that play, then went back to a pass oriented formation they exploited).

 

It was frustrating to watch.  

 

I believe the reason Lanning stuck to his guns is because everything worked all year- and worse, we lost by three both games.  So I'm not sure strategy will change.  I'm a firm believer you play to the tempo and flow of the game and adjust as you go.  That calls for calling the first quarter based on what you believe will happen in the game, and call the rest of the game according to how the game flows.

 

Coaches rarely do that.  

 

Ironically, Vince Lombardi's "Gentleman, this is a football" comes to mind for me.  He taught fundamentals.  Repeat the same play till you perfect it.  I agree with the fundamentals part.  Yet I believe you take what they give you, and you take away what they succeed at.  For me, that requires knowing football beyond your own strategy and philosophy of the game.  

 

There's obviously more to it than that and that would require a ten thousand word essay no one would read.

 

Overall, I'm disappointed, but I'm proud of this team.  They didn't play well and they still only lost by three- and yes for me- the game was how it ended- it wasn't simply they dominated- we just didn't respect the conditions on the ground and still played well enough to lose by three.

So you are saying Lanning has a Deboer problem? I agree with you . DeBoer is a top 5 coach and he coaches the huskys. Lanning is inexperienced and gets exposed by guys like Deboer. Lanning will get better in time. 

[Annie]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:45 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

... Bucky showed signs of season fatigue ...

 

 

I think Bucky was probably playing injured. Ordinarily he would plow through defenders and gain several yards more after first being hit, but not yesterday.

[Mike West]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:16 AM, anyotherduck said:

This wasn't the first game the Ducks basically 'phoned it in' for the first 20-25 minutes. Playing effective offense right before the half and then through the third quarter, only to fall back off over the fourth worked fine on everyone but the huskies. The 20-25 minute scoring plan clearly didn't fool WA.

 

Did Lanning and Stein really think that anything less than 60 minutes at 100% would get the job done?

 

The 31-34 score doesn't really tell the whole story, this game was a shellacking.

 

Onward and upward, Go Ducks!

It does tell the story actually.  And I believe you were on track with your initial assessment. This matchup requires inserting explosive plays on every drive, not just when you have to.

 

We weren't aggressive enough.  Especially after the first drive when Nix came out too hyped.  They can't stop our WRs any more than we can stop theirs.  

 

We didn't go after their secondary enough.  We didn't force them out of their overall scheme until we had to. 

 

The sense of urgency to force them to take away our deep pass game wasn't there, not enough in my opinion.  Sometimes you just have to draw up an explosive strategy on the fly, and keep it until they stop it. We did the same thing to USC. 

 

The difference between USC and UW is UW has more talent.  But we ripped USC immediately.  Then let off the gas.  Can't do that to those type of teams (with explosive offenses).

 

For all Washington's dominance, they sure couldn't salt the game could they.  They had to play sixty full minutes- despite being in virtually complete control of the game.  We can turn a game around in one play.  Nobody but nobody can prevent that- and I'm saying the entire group of elite teams.

 

I believe you will find out just how elite Washington is.  And maybe you'll feel a bit better knowing we learned you can't turn off the jets just because you're escaping the stratosphere.  

Edited December 2, 2023 by Mike West

[1Ducker1]

The Fuskies beat the Ducks the old SEC way----DEFENSE. the game was over in the 1st quarter. You want to win championships? You put the best players on defense. Simply take the opponent out of the game. Oregon made a valiant comeback but too little too late. Fuskies took Bo out of the game until it was too late.

[tee duke]

I don't pretend to be an expert. I hesitate to criticize the players who must feel awful after what happened on the field. Mike West pointed to a number of examples where the coaching made a huge, call it near-insurmountable, difference. And to lose by a mere 3 miserable points, that tells me that this team could have walked away the winner.

 

The first quarter brought back awful memories of the game against Georgia last year and that painful loss in what may have been the Alamo Bowl a few years back as the other team took the Ducks apart after we had an early lead. I'm sure some in the large national audience watching Friday's game might also have recalled those two games as they watched the Ducks' wheels fall off in that nightmare first quarter. It's a bad look that Oregon will have to shake going forward—in addition to winning.

 

 

[GODUCKS15]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:13 PM, 1Ducker1 said:

The Fuskies beat the Ducks the old SEC way----DEFENSE. the game was over in the 1st quarter. You want to win championships? You put the best players on defense. Simply take the opponent out of the game. Oregon made a valiant comeback but too little too late. Fuskies took Bo out of the game until it was too late.

It's never too late when you take back the lead.

[Just Ducky]

I too agree with ducker, even though the score was close I never thought we had a chance after the mutts first drive. Our inability to win the line of scrimmage reared its ugly head the whole game no mater what formation or scheme we were in. 
 

If it were not for a PI against the mutt near the goal, very questionable in my mind, and 2 great catches by Fergy we get blown out.

 

Bo was our leading rusher because of one play. Reminded me of Auburn’s games when Bo was the leading rusher.

 

TOP favored the mutts by nearly 15 minutes because of their domination in the run game.

 

 

[Solar]

Reasons I saw:

UW felt like, and played like the underdog that had play their hardest to win.

 

Our defensive players were reactionary instead of anticipatory in every facet the first 20 minutes. They were even slow reacting to the snap.

 

Bo turned into nervous Bad Bo for the first 2 series. Happy feet, poor reads and poor throws.

 

Poor first 20 minutes got our defense worn out hands on hips by the end of the first half.

 

Every UW route tree was specifically designed for our coverage schemes to generate blown coverages and mismatches with crosses and screening, jumbling our guys five yards off the ball.

 

Their run game plan was classic Chip Kelly. spread the DL horizontally and shoot a gap vertical when it opens.

 

We did not ride the hot hand James when Bucky was ineffective.

 

In short we played not to lose, and UW Coordinator's were two steps ahead knowing what we were going to do schematically, and our coaches didn't conceive that was possible.

 

What went right consistently?

Penalties didn't hurt too much.

Tez, Ferg and...

LEWIS -Dude came ready to play and kick a game winning field goal. Every kick was dead center with distance. Never got his chance for redemption.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Solar

[candyduck]

Haven't read all the comments so I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned.  Having a top NFL QB throwing to three NFL type receivers and a running back able to pick up blitzes and running hard is a pretty tough to overcome.  Remember McMillan wasn't at full strength in Seattle. 

 

Jackson was fine but cb by committee on the other side was just plain scary!  Just the way college football is.  If you have to go 3 and 4 deep from your 1st teamer is not a healthy recipe for a win.  Dub skill players were more superior than Ducks D imp.

 

Keeping the offense off the field for 10 minutes of playing time to begin the game didn't help either.  Deboer and staff were diabolical making the offense sit that long.  You know they were chomping at the bit to get going and just couldn't.