Pad Levels

[Annie]

I thought Ken Woody would mention this in his write up about the PAC-12 Championship game and he did:

 

"Oregon’s offensive line looked anemic, rather than destructive, and Irving looked injured--it was a discouraging sight. The Ducks were getting punished in the trenches because the pad level of Washington’s offensive and defensive linemen was nearly always lower than Oregon’s. The old adage 'low man wins,' was never more appropriate and spoke to the superiority of the Huskies, all based on 'leverage.'"

 

[Triphibius]

Well, at least that is an explanation, even if a rather mundane one. 

 

I want to thank you for addressing the question of what happened in this and another thread. 

 

I would like to hear others' thoughts. 

 

People may not be clamoring to hear mine, but here is one. The UW lined up with four down linemen and three linebackers close behind them on what they thought were running downs. The UO obliged them by running into that dense collection of seven with what must have been only six blockers. During the impressive series of victories after the loss to UW, Bo has often audibled the offense out of bad plays. Friday, it looked as if Oregon ran repeatedly into an obviously crowded box. Why?

 

Perhaps there will be some analytical articles to come? 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Triphibius

[kirklandduck]

I get the feeling that Bucky was playing with an undisclosed injury. He just did not look like his dynamic self. Jordan James did ru more effectively but for reasons that escape me he wasn’t given more carries when Bucky was clearly struggling.

[Charles Fischer]

I have three reasons why for the subpar performance, and I am working on it for a FishDuck article.

[Marshall Lucky]

My analysis; Bad shrimp at the buffet.

 

Something wasn’t right with almost every position.

[Triphibius]

Thanks. I look forward to seeing it. 

While you are working on it, one more thought. 

 

It is hard to tell on TV, but if the UW was committing a safey and CB to Franklin, it is puzzling that we did not see more throws to Tez. If DL was concerned that the OL could not block Trice for 3+ seconds, they could have been short slot receiver type routes, which would have gained the five yards we could not seem to get on the ground. It appeared early on that they could not match up with him. (No disrespect implied, as no one else has.) 

 

It is hard to find much fault with Bo, but through the season he has not utilized Holden as well as he might have done. As we saw, Holden can contribute. He is bigger and harder to jam, but can still run. Holden has been so desperate to be targeted before the UW game that the only way he could record a catch was by intercepting a ball thrown by Ty to another receiver. 

 

Maybe folks just want to "flush it," but before I move on I want to understand. Oregon's defense did not play that badly, especially considering how well the UW offense performed. I would have thought Oregon could score 33 points on that UW defense in view of the statistics and what we had seen through the year. 

 

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

I think the defense could’ve played a ton better.
 

Washington only punted once, and our defense only made three stops the entire game.

[Utki]

We didn't win because we had far less desire than UW.  Pretty simple.  You  gotta want it not just expect it.

[Triphibius]

I do not disagree. It just  a matter of emphasis. Yes, both sides of the ball and special teams ought to be discussed. 

 

Considering that UW was playing well on offensive and that the UO offense was #1 in college football before the game, I think the bigger failure for the Ducks was on offense. In other words, the game could have been won with the defensive effort that was made if the UO had performed close to its season's average on offense. DL does not want to make excuses, but the loss of Burch was a blow, and there was turnover in the secondary, also. 

 

That said, I do have a questions about defense, proposed with the usual humility, as I am not a coach. (Though I did have some success in grad school as a receiver in intramurals.)  

 

The basic idea is this. If the MINT defense was designed to stop spread offenses, what happens when it has to defend an offense like the Stanford teams under Harbaugh that combines a punishing ground game with a dangerous downfield passing attack? Maybe LBs who are converted safeties (selected because they can run horizontally and vertically) do not have the bulk and strength to stop a power run game. Dillon Johnson made half his yards after contact, I would guess. The problem was not that he had huge holes, but that we could not get him on the ground. The UO could have used Noah Sewell or even Keith Brown Friday. (I am not saying Jacobs played badly. I have not seen the film.) All I remember is Johnson dragging three ducks with him for more yards, over and over. 

 

At this point, I am just tossing out hypotheses. I am eager to hear what Fishduck makes of it all in the upcoming article. 

 

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 12/3/2023 at 10:18 PM, Annie said:

I thought Ken Woody would mention this in his write up about the PAC-12 Championship game and he did:

 

"Oregon’s offensive line looked anemic, rather than destructive, and Irving looked injured--it was a discouraging sight. The Ducks were getting punished in the trenches because the pad level of Washington’s offensive and defensive linemen was nearly always lower than Oregon’s. The old adage 'low man wins,' was never more appropriate and spoke to the superiority of the Huskies, all based on 'leverage.'"

 

 

As my OL coach liked to say, "Gentlemen, it's about attitude and leverage."

 

Why Oregon came out flat with a chance for a revenge win and a path to the playoff is puzzling.

[Desert Duck]

On 12/4/2023 at 5:33 PM, Utki said:

We didn't win because we had far less desire than UW.  Pretty simple.  You  gotta want it not just expect it.

 

So, do you truly think the Ducks didn't 'want it' bad enough?

[Annie]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:39 PM, Desert Duck said:

 

So, do you truly think the Ducks didn't 'want it' bad enough?

I wonder too. I'd guess that they really wanted it, but for whatever reason got off on the wrong foot, caught up and went ahead, but just couldn't get the win. It was 3 points. That's so close.

[Jon Joseph]

On 12/4/2023 at 9:39 PM, Desert Duck said:

 

So, do you truly think the Ducks didn't 'want it' bad enough?

FWIW, Canzano, who was at the game in Seattle and in Las Vegas noted that the Ducks on Friday seemed to be far less emotional and fired up than before the game in Seattle. Almost listless in pregame warm-ups. 

 

Ever since the Seattle loss the Ducks were on PO thin ice with a lot to prove. Maybe they just ran out of gas?

 

And being a 9.5 dog had to rankle the puppies. DeBoer had to love this for motivational purposes. 

[Utki]

Yes I really think a good number of them felt a little too secure in their chances to win and never recovered.  UW spanked us around on a neutral field.  If Vegas it be believed UW basically outperformed by nearly two touchdowns.  Yes I think the Ducks didn't have the juice and once they were punched in the mouth they never were able to get it goin on the two lines.

 

I personally believe the Duck team that played OSU should have between UW by at least two scores.  Not let themselves be pushed around

[Charles Fischer]

On 12/4/2023 at 4:48 PM, Triphibius said:

I am eager to hear what Fishduck makes of it all in the upcoming article.

Oregon Craft Beer IPAs are always the heart of every analysis of games we lose.  I spent an hour and a half with DazeNconfused tonight haggling it out.  Fun and frustrating.

 

I will have an article about the three major issues that resulted in losing that game--in the future.  But I need more healing/beer first...

 

This is really good...       (And it has always been, and will always be FishDuck)