The Head Coach is Brilliant...When?

[Charles Fischer]

The Coach is Brilliant...When it WORKS?

 

I cannot tell you how many times over the years I shake my head at a play-call that worked...and wondered what the fan reaction would be if it did not work.  We think the coach is smart when it works, but there are tons of variables that come into the success of a play beyond the play-call itself.

 

Successful onside kick vs. UCLA:

 

Brilliant!  Gutsy, and caught them off-guard and got Oregon another possession!

 

Bad onside kick vs. Washington:

 

Poor timing, and gave the Huskies a short field...bad decision.

 

Successful Trick Play vs. Colorado:

 

So smart!  Wide open and great for the young men!

 

 

Unsuccessful Trick Play vs. Washington:

 

Bad call, poor timing of it's use, and we blew the winning points!

 

Running Bo Nix on 4th Down vs. UCLA:

 

He was met by two defenders and cut through them both!  So much guts, and what a way to keep a drive going...great call!

 

Running Bo Nix vs. Washington:

 

You know the drill here...

 

So many of the complaints I see all just come down to..."did it work?"
 

Not a 'dis at anyone, because I am the same way--I am a severely dysfunctional Oregon FAN.  And that is what a forum is for; we always second-guess the coaches, and it is fun.  It is just an observation I've noticed over the years...

[Mic]

Bingo.

 

[PittDuck]

Spot on.  We applaud brilliancy when it works, but cry lunacy when it fails.

 

Any loss hurts, but a loss to the purple curs is just worse.  There were a lot of little things that took down OBD last night, and they were mostly self inflicted.  It happens, sometimes the better team comes up short on the scoreboard.

 

We still control our own Destiny.  Win out, and OBD are Rose Bowl Champions, which is far better than the #4 seed that becomes cannon fodder for Georgia.

Edited November 14, 2022 by PittDuck
Spelling

[EzDucksIt]

Charles,

 

You are so correct!  Had me laughing because it is so true.  Was such an exciting, emotional game for both sides.  Games like these are WHY I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL!  

 

I have to believe, that Dan Lanning will figure it out and we will be much more happier in the long run.  Already a big change with the players and now fix what you have to fix and get back to work.  Utah is coming to Oregon's House.  And just remember, we have it better than Mario.  Go Ducks, fly like I know you can.

[Charles Fischer]

cartm25....that is the perfect football flow-chart for what to say about a coach!  I have not seen it before, and LOVE it.

 

[Tandaian]

I have always been a more conservative approach guy.  Always take the 3 in the first half, especially on the road.  Rarely go for it on 4th down on your own half of the field.

 

Dan Lanning and company are not along those same lines.  As mentioned above, if I cheer for the successful gambles, I have to take the gambles that missed.  The coach is the same, the philosophy is the same, only the outcome is different.  The Ducks are very good at 4th down conversions.

 

4th Down conversion rate.

NCAA College Football FBS current team Stats | NCAA.com

WWW.NCAA.COM

---

Discover the current NCAA FBS Football leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

 

We have definitely seen where the Ducks can improve for next year.  This is only year 1 for the Duck coaches.  Most of the kids are not "their" kids, so they have to make do.  I think they have made do really well.  After last season, I know I didn't think the Ducks were ever going to be in the CFP conversation.

 

Making the Rose Bowl was my best-case scenario for this year.  Year 2, with more of their kids, hopefully we can see improvements in the areas needed.  It would be nice if the coaches could flip a switch, but rarely is it as simple as that.

 

 

[kirklandduck]

I have to disagree with the onside kick.  That's a surprise that might work once in a blue moon but if you've already done it, teams like UW who will over-prepare for the Oregon game will have definitely noticed and be ready for it.  In this case, it was absolutely a bad decision.

[latracey]

The big exception to the above was the decision to go for it on 4th down, deep in Duck territory, in a tie ball game with around a minute left on the clock. All of the successful trick plays, with the exception of the on side kicks, were attempted with the starting QB at the helm, which greatly increased their likelihood of success. Few of the successful ones were attempted with the game on the line. 
 

The fact that TT has proven to be a one dimensional QB meant that Washington knew what was coming, stacked the box, and were in position to stop our running back even if he hadn’t slipped. 
 

A better decision would have been to call a time out to carefully consider the situation and the options available; one of which included putting Nix back in the game to run the 4th down attempt. Hind sight is 20/20 and mistakes create the best learning opportunities. Lanning is very smart, and I’m sure he learned a lot from his mistakes on Saturday night.

[Annie]

Trick plays and gambles that work against inferior teams--Wow!

 

Trick plays and gambles that don't work against equal or superior teams--Ew!

[nw777b]

On 11/14/2022 at 9:47 AM, kirklandduck said:

I have to disagree with the onside kick.  That's a surprise that might work once in a blue moon but if you've already done it, teams like UW who will over-prepare for the Oregon game will have definitely noticed and be ready for it.  In this case, it was absolutely a bad decision.

Agree! And the kicker recovered it vs UCLA. Saturday, the kicker ran to the right, which is a different kicking motion.

 

As far as your comment, I also feel the coaches wasted the element of surprise using trick plays against Colorado. Saving those goal line plays for UW makes more sense.

[Jon Sousa]

I'm totally with you here Charles. I was thinking the same just reading the different thread titles. Glad you had the guts to say it, because I wasn't going to.

 

About the onside kick... Right off the bat with my surprise I thought it wasn't the best idea so soon after the UCLA game. I was glad that it was at least not the same exact kick (different direction, etc.).

 

But then another thought came as the announcers were discussing it.

  - Washington was moving the ball so well that whether or not they started on the 50 yard line or back at the 25, it didn't seem to make much difference... BUT...

  - Time was running out! If UW would have started on the 25 and we "bent-ed but not not broke-ed" we would have given up the 3 points with no time to score ourselves!

  - With the lost onside kick we effectively skipped the bending part so that we could get right into the not breaking part - with less field to defend... therefore coming up with a possession with more time on the clock. Time enough to score.

 

Did it all work out? No.  BUT, my point is that even if we lost the onside kick (the probable outcome), it may have still been the wisest decision.

 

And if we recover the onside kick... GRAVY! We get a possession with enough time to score without giving up the 3 points first!

 

Almost a win-win... but not, because we failed to score.

But did we really give up that much to UW by giving them the ball a little past midfield instead of back on the 25????

 

 

[DuckIt]

There's a lot of truth to what you wrote Charles.  I however cannot rationalize DL's decision for the onside kick and his decision to go for it on 4th down with your backup QB, who has failed to move the sticks practically the entire season.

 

If you pull off one onside kick in a season, consider your team damn lucky.  Attempting 2 within a 3 or 4 game span, especially when your opponents are watching and ready for it, is not a good decision, IMHO.  It's like betting against the house.  The more you bet and the longer that you gamble, the less favorable the odds that you walk away with anything, let alone your pants.

 

I want Lanning to be smart and take calculated risks, when the odds are in Oregon's favor.  QB sneak with Nix at the helm has been working all season, even on 4th down in Duck Territory.  So I don't have a problem with that call.  However, when you add TT to the equation, it makes zero sense.  Lanning should have realized the gravity of the situation and burned a timeout to insert Nix.

[Steven A]

This onside kick would have worked had it not been kicked so far.  The ewe dub defender seemed to backtrack more than the UCLA guys.  The ball just went almost 5 yards further.  I was Ok with it, since we weren't stopping them anyway.

 

The play Nix got hurt on, we were baited into that run.  They "showed" the same D to the same formation Nix scored on,  Hind sight indicates a Nix jump pass to a TE would have been nice to see there.  Just like a naked bootleg by TT on 4th.

[Threeputt]

Speaking of TEs, why only 1 pass to one?  3 yds to TFerg   

[Just Ducky]

 When he wins all the games he should win and beats the spread.

 

 When he wins the games he shouldn’t by any means necessary.

[Kurt Rambis]

I've seen a lot of reasons stated on this board why Oregon lost, mostly focusing on coaching decisions.  In my reasonably humble opinion, the Ducks had multiple opportunities to win this game - and missed most of them.  It's not one thing, but a variety of things.

 

The hands-to-the-face penalty cost us a first and goal from inside the 5 - that's potentially a four-point swing right there.

 

The snap miscue inside the red zone - that's another seven-point swing.  Just those two plays change the game entirely.

 

Penix played out of his mind - congrats to him.

 

The passing defense couldn't stop anything - no pressure on the QB and few stops by the DBs.  It's been a weakness all year.

 

The onside kick decision was questionable - as Charles points out, convert it and DL is a genius.  Fail at it, and...

 

Nix being lost at a critical time - bad luck and injuries happen.  It sucks, but it certainly won't be the last time.

 

The 4th-and-1 decision - going for it in the first place, the play call, and the decision with a backup QB in there.  

 

In short, yes, I believe we can question a couple of the calls.  We probably can in every game, and could have under previous coaches.  Yes, some players made key mistakes.  I've yet to see a game where no one screwed up.  Any one of those things could have been a killer.  A combination of them is what did the Ducks in Saturday.  I can't really blame Lanning, the DBs, the pass rush, the DC, the refs, bad luck, Forsyth, Powers-Johnson, or anyone else, because just as all of them have contributed heavily to the team's success this year, they all contributed to the loss Saturday.

 

This team (players and coaches) just isn't deep enough, talented enough, and/or experienced enough to have a bunch of problems in one game against a good opponent and overcome them.

 

Yet.