High Scoring or Great Defense: Which Would YOU Want?

[Charles Fischer]

The easy answer is both, but at present--that is not the reality.  But if YOU had to choose....would you rather have 1) a high-scoring offense where a typical score (Like in the past) is 52-31 (an example I always use) or would you want the lower scoring games where either, 2) we grind out a close win, or 3) we have a suffocating defense with a vanilla offense and win by NFL-type scores of 24-10?

 

It is an interesting question, as I've been told a ton of times that, "the days of high-scoring are over, and get used to it."  Is that true?  Should it be true?

 

It gets to a bigger question....what is YOUR vision of what you want to see Oregon football become?

 

[30Duck]

Great question!  It was interesting when on "Talkin' Ducks" a while back Joey Harrington asserted that the "Kelly- Mariota games were boring" They were done by halftime, no suspense. He's right. Those were great teams, but  the second halves did not have us on the edges of our seats.

 

Georgia is winning the other way this season. Their games are over at halftime too, usually because the other team hasn't  scored a point yet. Somewhere in the middle would be great. When you have a really good defense, punting is not a negative end to a possession. It allows you to put the opponent in bad field position, and your defense can  punish them.

 

My preferred score would be 35-14. This would indicate an offense that was efficient and productive; and a defense that controlled the game. Didn't shut the other team out, but the outcome was certain from start to finish.

[David Marsh]

Both! I want both... 

 

But since I can't have both... high scoring offense. It is typically more fun to watch. 

 

Granted under MC I have come to appreciate an OCCASIONAL defensive slugfest and it is refreshing to see us actually come out of those with wins. Though more points please! 

[UtahDuck]

Oh man this is a great question charles. personally I love to watch a stifling defense. a stifling defense paired with an efficient offense is a fun game to watch. I love seeing QB hurries, hits and sacks by the defensive front 7 and PBU's and INT's by the DB's. the problem is that this is not a full proof way to win games. 

 

When things go bad on the offense in these games you lose(most of the time). an offense that fails to perform puts added stress on the defense, increasing the likelihood of lapses in play and mistakes to occur. the issue with winning back 7-10 points is that it doesn't take much to lose by 3 points. 

 

So I think while I prefer to watch stifling defense, I would prefer to have an elite(explosive) offense. Elite offenses make up for underperforming defenses. elite defense will win most games but they will often fall short in a game or two. I think this is even more present as the game has consistently moved towards favoring the offense.

[kirklandduck]

I'd take offense any day.  I feel like it's easier to recruit great talent on the offensive side than on defense plus with all the innovative schemes going on, it's just so much harder to win with defense nowadays.  I'd love it if Oregon becomes a team with a good defense and a great offense.

[GODUCKS15]

High scoring offense. Back in the day Chip Kelly had most teams blown out by the half. That put pressure on the opposing team to need to

 

score fast. That made it easier for the Duck D to concentrate on the pass.

 

The more you score the more they have to score. 

 

[HappyToBeADuck]

Offense.... after this season I could take 13 games of BORING as we then prepare for the ESPN Invitational.

 

Must admit watching DTR get pounded all day in the UCLA game was fun to watch.

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/1/2021 at 10:23 AM, UtahDuck said:

Elite offenses make up for underperforming defenses

 

Something I forgot is that a high scoring offense obscures and overcomes too many turnovers, and keeps them from deciding games as much as they do.

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/1/2021 at 10:36 AM, kirklandduck said:

I'd love it if Oregon becomes a team with a good defense and a great offense.

 

This is the Nick Saban model and one that has worked for Clemson and Ohio State as well in the last five years. It is, to me, the most realistic goal we can achieve.

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/1/2021 at 11:18 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

That made it easier for the Duck D to concentrate on the pass.

 

Wowsa.  I forgot about how pass rushers would LOVE being on a high-scoring offensive team, because opponents are playing from behind and presents more sack opportunities.  Good one.

[Pocketchange]

Fast Hard Finish!
 

A high scoring offense-

  Helps the defense out by making the opposing offense to play a high scoring game.  Opposing offenses will try to “make things happen” by taking on risky plays and that creates opportunities for the defense

 

Good offenses can put 8 points on the board instead of 7

The best defense is another 7 or 8 points on the board until time becomes the enemy.

 

Offenses are easier to market… money matters

 

Offenses are more entertaining

Games over by the half are able to put 2and and 3rd stringers in giving them valuable experience while limiting injury risk to the starters

Offenses can overcome 3 & 10 or 2 & 20.  They can make mistakes and still score.

 

High scoring offenses are able to differentiate themselves through the score and pass the eye test more easily than the defensive teams. 
 

Do you think that we would be ranked behind Ohio if our offense finished with a statement in the first half of the season?  I don’t 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Pocketchange

[1Ducker1]

We are in an era where both are needed. Sometimes the O wont click and sometimes the D wont click. In those times you need one or the other to step up --especially if you're going to win a Championship.

[Haywarduck]

Within that offense should it be 50/50, 60/40 or 40/60 pass, run? I would like to see maybe about the same we have with more downfield passing, the long ball threat. 

 

With Chip Kelly we were a running offense, around 40% pass, sometimes less. With Mario we are throwing more around 45%, but less downfield. 

 

I suppose I would just like to be forced to see more of the field. Right now you can get away with just looking at around 20yds or less from the line of scrimmage.

 

To answer the question I just want a team you know is going to win the game. With the recruits we have it is hard for me to think we shouldn't dominate. In the past I always thought we were going to win, but thought it was going to be interesting. 

 

I think if we are playing inferior competition we should dominate both sides of the ball. If not I want the offense to win the day! With that I want the explosion play to become an integral part of the offense again.

 

I love the defenses aren't stacking the box waiting for the inevitable anymore. I now want the defense to be afraid of something exploding from anywhere on the field, once again.

[David Marsh]

On 11/1/2021 at 12:36 PM, Haywarduck said:

I would like to see maybe about the same we have with more downfield passing, the long ball threat.

A deep threat wont happen with Brown... and I am ok with that if he continues to play efficiently in the short to intermediate game. I would love to see a deep threat but I don't think we will see that happen this year. 

[Haywarduck]

On 11/1/2021 at 12:41 PM, David Marsh said:

A deep threat wont happen with Brown... and I am ok with that if he continues to play efficiently in the short to intermediate game. I would love to see a deep threat but I don't think we will see that happen this year. 

A deep threat probably wouldn't be the threat I would like to see, so I agree.

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/1/2021 at 12:36 PM, Haywarduck said:

Within that offense should it be 50/50, 60/40 or 40/60 pass, run?

 

Under the most explosive Helfrich offenses, (which I personally preferred) we had a 50/50 blend of plays, but the yardage came out to 60/40 passing.  Just the nature of it as the average yardage per passing play is always more than the average yardage of a running play.

[kirklandduck]

On 11/1/2021 at 11:56 AM, Charles Fischer said:

 

This is the Nick Saban model and one that has worked for Clemson and Ohio State as well in the last five years. It is, to me, the most realistic goal we can achieve.

Definitely.  To me the ideal scenario is if the defense performs like it's 2019 and the offense stays just as or close to the efficiency we saw this past weekend.

[Haywarduck]

I agree the pass play creates more yardage, like in the infamous Rose Bowl 2015, 338-301. The play calling by Helfrich was 45 runs and 36 passes and under Kelly, again run heavy. 

 

My research comes up with different results, but maybe I am wrong? Last week again passing created more yardage, but it was 50/50 pass to run.

[PittDuck]

Like most I would prefer BOTH! 
 

A high scoring offense is more fun to watch.  One that is close to 50% run and 50% pass, that keeps you guessing, but preferably at least 75% efficiency on 3rd down.

 

However, a dominating defense is more satisfying to watch, particularly when they continually pressure the opposing QB, get multiple sacks and picks, and at least one score per game!

 

With that as the criteria, I would rather see a suffocating Defense, with a D line that instills fear in opposing offenses and coaches, and a secondary that gets more picks and breakups per game than they allow receptions.

[Bob Rodes]

Whichever is more likely to win. These days, I'm leaning towards offense.

[Mike West]

I want what ever been seeing from the elite college and pro teams the last six years.  Clearly that is a dominant offense and a defense good enough to shut down very very good offenses. 

 

In other words, I want a title contender, not a pretender ( what we've been the last four years).  Ironically, outside of Braxton Burmeister, we had that in 2017. 

 

Does anybody note the irony the Snake choose his dream location over a title contending team? And Cristobal systematically destroyed that system.

 

I see so much talent right now that it is inexcusable we "play around and let teams beat us".  I haven't seen a conference team that has the ability to stop us or score on us.  I'm talking 35-7 halftime scores all year.  

 

We punished DTR, but let UCLA off the hook.  It's as if Cristobal loves close scores.  Colorado scoring 29 is disgusting to me.  Bama rarely let's Vandy breach 14.  

 

LSU and Auburn struggle to score 20, Georgia knew scoring  28 wasn't going to be easy, or enough to defeat the Crimson Tide.

 

THAT IS WHAT I WANT.  

 

Ohio State struggles to beat Clemson and Bama because they're just below that threshold.  And the Buckeyes are really, really good. 

 

There is a standard our there.  Recruits see it, avoid fans see it.  It doesn't matter what you believe, what is required is the only thing that matters.  

 

You need both.   It takes talent solid enough to draw the attention of the NFL every week.  And coaching that forces NFL GM managers to attend crappy matchups like the game we watched last weekend. 

 

I think Cristobal is smart enough, but is he determined enough?  Dominance forces Submission.  That's what his terms lack.  That is the missing piece. Chip even ignored this fact.  That's why Stanford was his ultimate nemesis.

 

It starts with looking at what it takes to beating the elite.  Colorado shouldn't even have the right to breathe in our presence.  USC should fear waking one the field to play us-even with all their talent.  Bama and Ohio State should scheme all year to beat us.  

 

NFL execs should complain about travelling to Eugene week to week.  We already have that kind of talent.  Time to put it together.