Why Was Oregon’s Defense More Successful Against Utah?

[lownslowav8r]

I’m curious what the community thinks. More effort? Coaching adjustments? Limits of Utah’s offense (don’t have the weapons to attack our weaknesses)? Good for the defense but is this a one off that can’t be reproduced?

[olcodgerduck]

Something I noticed during a sideline huddle was Lanning talking over Lupoi. He was fired up, and Lupoi just kind of hung his head and stared at his clip board (my impression).  I think Coach Lanning may be realizing that for this defense to work, he is going to have to be more personally involved.  Just an observation.

 

Go Ducks!!

[HappyToBeADuck]

I was reading an article covering what the Utes HC said after the game. His words may be the best compliment any opposing coach could give without giving it.

 

He told the media/press that he expected to win the game on their last 2 offensive possessions. But their offense couldnt get it done. Losing the game never crossed his mind.

 

WHAT HE DIDN'T SAY:

 

The Ducks D shut them down and preserved a hard fought victory. The better team won the game.

[Mic]

On 11/20/2022 at 7:55 AM, lownslowav8r said:

I’m curious what the community thinks. More effort? Coaching adjustments? Limits of Utah’s offense (don’t have the weapons to attack our weaknesses)? Good for the defense but is this a one off that can’t be reproduced?

Matchups.  There wasn't enough time to completely re-make the Defense or completely re-scheme it.  And, I'll probably get beat up for this, Cam Rising wasn't "on" last night.  That's partly due to some hands-up last night deflecting passes (at least two INT's were cause by that) and partly because his receivers dropped a couple balls at very crucial times.

 

Not to take anything away from the Defense - they did step up last night.  But they also matched up against Utah's receivers a whole lot better than they did against UW's.

[Triphibius]

Good points have been made by all. In addition, let me add or elaborate on these, in so doing comparing not only to last week but last year: 

 

1. Oregon matched up much better with Utah than Washington. Oregon is fairly good run defense team led by a capable run-stuffing linebacker, that  can struggle against the pass. Utah is a power running team that does not the wideouts Washington and USC have, and relies on the run to set up the pass. 

 

2. Last year, Oregon's staff inexplicably failed to match personnel groups when Utah went with "jumbo packages" with additional linemen or tight ends. This gave the appearnace the Utah was better at the line of scrimmage, but was a schematic not a personnel advantage. I assumed that Lanning would not let the gain such an edge. 

 

3. Casey Rogers looked like an all conference player last night, and his teammates, even if they could not get to the QB, got their hands up. Rogers credited their position coach for teaching different and more effective techniques than Oregon was using last year. 

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:37 AM, Triphibius said:

Oregon matched up much better with Utah than Washington.

That, and Penix is so much better than most fans realize, IMHO.  Nothing UW did surprised me in scoring, and we needed to outscore them...and should have.

 

While it was a tremendous defensive effort vs. Utah, I do have my first "Critical Analysis" of the coaching staff coming out on Tuesday.  It will be interesting to see if anyone agrees with my contentions.

[EastBayDuckDad]

It was apparent that Lanning was more involved with in game coaching of the defense than we've seen previously. There were more pre play adjustments and personnel shifts then I remember seeing in other games.

 

Whether he had reduced Lupoi's role as some have suggested, or just took more active formation and play calling input, the effect was significant. I personally don't think Lupoi was demoted.

 

A few post game analysts noted that the defense limited Utah to 17 points. Not true. It was better than that. The Oregon D allowed only 10 points. The offense gifted them the other 7.

 

 

 

[David Marsh]

Oregon's defense strength this year has been run defense. the defense did just that against the Utes. 

 

The defensive line showed out and got some pressure on the quarterback and more importantly got their hands up... Two pass deflections that led to two interceptions. 

 

I think they may have changed up how some of the coverages worked.... The defenders played a lot closer than they have been making some of those passes Rising threw a bit more difficult. 

 

Our defense isn't good... But this game really felt like everyone really understood what they were doing. The linebackers, namely Sewell, was everywhere and making plays. 

 

We match up better to a more traditional run-pass balanced offense. Washington is effectively an air raid offense and that is something the Ducks haven't been good dealing with. 

 

We don't have the personel this year to run Lanning's scheme... But we're going to get there. 

 

I also feel we match up defensively well against Oregon State and how they need to run their offense to be successful. 

 

[David Marsh]

On 11/20/2022 at 11:30 AM, Charles Fischer said:

Nothing UW did surprised me in scoring, and we needed to outscore them...and should have.

We would have barring the Nix injury... 

 

Or if they called targeting for the tackle dealt to him. Hill got a targeting call for making contact somewhere other than the head... So I say that was a missed call. 

 

The ducks get a first down there... Even Thompson could hand a ball off to Irving or Whittington to let them score at that point. 

[AnotherOD]

On 11/20/2022 at 12:19 PM, David Marsh said:

 

We don't have the personel this year to run Lanning's scheme... But we're going to get there. 

 

 

I've read this all season; and, I think it has been one generally accepted explanation or reason contributing to the struggles of the Duck defense.

 

At this point, I'm starting to wonder what exactly is being meant with this view?

 

Obviously Georgia is loaded on defense. Their 40 or so scholarship defensive players are probably rivaled in talent only by Alabama, and quite possibly higher than Alabama.

 

So, when we say Lanning needs to get his guys for his defense to work, are we saying yes he needs to get his guys and train them in his system; but, primarily and simply the only way this defensive scheme is likely to work is to compile that rare elite amount of high four star and five star kids or else it likely is going to continue to really struggle?

 

Because even with Duck recruiting being pretty strong (and possibly better years to come) it appears to be a big ask to get to THAT level of recruiting (at least without getting a National Championship).

 

If the scheme is going to struggle until we get there, is this a risky scheme for this simple reason?

 

I am far from a football expert (and my lack of understanding is likely going to show); but, I thought I'd ask this question and maybe some might have some insight I am missing?

 

First thing is this defense doesn't seem massively different than the one the Ducks have been recruiting to the last several seasons. It's 3-4 or 2-4-5 (with an extra DB or "star" or whatever) that primarily uses a lot of zone and hopes for consistent pressure just rushing its front.

 

Just from basic athletic profile, at DE, Dorlus at 6-3 and 290 seems to look a lot like Walthour at Georgia who is 6-3 and 280.

 

Georgia tends to use a big NT in Logue (6-5 295) or Stackhouse (6-3 320); but, Oregon has a couple big bodies there in Riley (6-5 325) and Taimani (6-3 320).

 

Oregon doesn't have a Jalen Carter at DT (6-3 300); but, not too many teams have one either. Ware-Hudson (6-2 280) is steady; and, I think Rogers (6-5 285) has quietly been pretty good.

 

Lots of talk about Georgia having smaller and speedy LBs; but, their roster only lists one starter at MAC Mondon at 6-3 and 220 (which would be comparable to Bassa (6-2 215).

 

The other spots have Beal (6-4 250), Dumas-Johnson (6-1 245) and Nolan Smith (6-3 235) and Sherman (6-2 250).

 

The Ducks mix in DJ (6-4 270), Sewell (6-2 250), Flowe (6-3 220), and Funa (6-3 255). All four were Top 80 national recruits (and before we get too far saying they aren't "Georgia LBs", I think one of the first things DL said when he came to Oregon was Georgia was all over trying to recruit Sewell and Flowe).

 

Georgia has a bigger "lock down" type CB in Ringo (6-2) and Oregon has Gonzalez (6-2). The second CB has been a sore spot for Oregon, but it does have a "five star" kid there it does play some in Manning, a spot I believe Georgia is rotating a sophomore and a true freshman.

 

Both teams have 5-11/6-1 and 190-205 type safeties; and, both mix in a similar sized fifth DB in Ballard at Georgia and Williams at Oregon.

 

When we say Oregon just wildly doesn't have players to "fit" this scheme, it actually seems to have a group of guys who on profile seem to fit fairly well into the spots?

 

No Jalen Carter or Nolan Smith (and I actually think he unfortunately got knocked out for the season); but, plenty of guys on recruiting profile that were well above average in athletic profile.

 

So Oregon isn't going to be 90% to 95% of Georgia's D in it's first year? Of course not. 75% maybe? Maybe 70%?

 

70% would be very acceptable but I'd say overall it's been more like 50% or less, with at least 3 games (Georgia, UCLA, Washington) where the D barely managed to stop a single scoring drive.

 

Tennessee beat Alabama and rolled into the Georgia game dropping bombs on everyone on their way to being the top scoring and yardage offense in the country (in what most consider the toughest conference); and, Georgia got after them and shut them down. Post game Kirby was asked about the game and he said, "We didn't come here today to take shots, we came here to deliver them."

 

Is "DL doesn't have his guys" code for "the 40 or so scholarship Duck defensive players just aren't very good -- and represent both a statistically unlikely pool of poor recruiting evaluations -- and total lack of player development"? Or may there be some problem with the approach if you aren't completely loaded with top 80 defensive kids?

 

Because I kinda still believe the Ducks aren't that overmatched. Oregon State can put together a solid D with a bunch of kids Oregon didn't recruit or offer; and, the UW can roll into town with a pair of "three star" rush ends (Trice, ZTE) who managed to wreak havoc on a Duck OL that has been excellent all year, yet the Ducks can't  find a way to wrinkle the Washington QB's jersey?

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by AnotherOD

[Flaps2]

Styles make fights. 

[idontrollonshobbas]

On 11/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, AnotherOD said:

 

I've read this all season; and, I think it has been one generally accepted explanation or reason contributing to the struggles of the Duck defense.

 

At this point, I'm starting to wonder what exactly is being meant with this view?

 

Obviously Georgia is loaded on defense. Their 40 or so scholarship defensive players are probably rivaled in talent only by Alabama, and quite possibly higher than Alabama.

 

So, when we say Lanning needs to get his guys for his defense to work, are we saying yes he needs to get his guys and train them in his system; but, primarily and simply the only way this defensive scheme is likely to work is to compile that rare elite amount of high four star and five star kids or else it likely is going to continue to really struggle?

 

Because even with Duck recruiting being pretty strong (and possibly better years to come) it appears to be a big ask to get to THAT level of recruiting (at least without getting a National Championship).

 

If the scheme is going to struggle until we get there, is this a risky scheme for this simple reason?

 

I am far from a football expert (and my lack of understanding is likely going to show); but, I thought I'd ask this question and maybe some might have some insight I am missing?

 

First thing is this defense doesn't seem massively different than the one the Ducks have been recruiting to the last several seasons. It's 3-4 or 2-4-5 (with an extra DB or "star" or whatever) that primarily uses a lot of zone and hopes for consistent pressure just rushing its front.

 

Just from basic athletic profile, at DE, Dorlus at 6-3 and 290 seems to look a lot like Walthour at Georgia who is 6-3 and 280.

 

Georgia tends to use a big NT in Logue (6-5 295) or Stackhouse (6-3 320); but, Oregon has a couple big bodies there in Riley (6-5 325) and Taimani (6-3 320).

 

Oregon doesn't have a Jalen Carter at DT (6-3 300); but, not too many teams have one either. Ware-Hudson (6-2 280) is steady; and, I think Rogers (6-5 285) has quietly been pretty good.

 

Lots of talk about Georgia having smaller and speedy LBs; but, their roster only lists one starter at MAC Mondon at 6-3 and 220 (which would be comparable to Bassa (6-2 215).

 

The other spots have Beal (6-4 250), Dumas-Johnson (6-1 245) and Nolan Smith (6-3 235) and Sherman (6-2 250).

 

The Ducks mix in DJ (6-4 270), Sewell (6-2 250), Flowe (6-3 220), and Funa (6-3 255). All four were Top 80 national recruits (and before we get too far saying they aren't "Georgia LBs", I think one of the first things DL said when he came to Oregon was Georgia was all over trying to recruit Sewell and Flowe).

 

Georgia has a bigger "lock down" type CB in Ringo (6-2) and Oregon has Gonzalez (6-2). The second CB has been a sore spot for Oregon, but it does have a "five star" kid there it does play some in Manning, a spot I believe Georgia is rotating a sophomore and a true freshman.

 

Both teams have 5-11/6-1 and 190-205 type safeties; and, both mix in a similar sized fifth DB in Ballard at Georgia and Williams at Oregon.

 

When we say Oregon just wildly doesn't have players to "fit" this scheme, it actually seems to have a group of guys who on profile seem to fit fairly well into the spots?

 

No Jalen Carter or Nolan Smith (and I actually think he unfortunately got knocked out for the season); but, plenty of guys on recruiting profile that were well above average in athletic profile.

 

So Oregon isn't going to be 90% to 95% of Georgia's D in it's first year? Of course not. 75% maybe? Maybe 70%?

 

70% would be very acceptable but I'd say overall it's been more like 50% or less, with at least 3 games (Georgia, UCLA, Washington) where the D barely managed to stop a single scoring drive.

 

Tennessee beat Alabama and rolled into the Georgia game dropping bombs on everyone on their way to being the top scoring and yardage offense in the country (in what most consider the toughest conference); and, Georgia got after them and shut them down. Post game Kirby was asked about the game and he said, "We didn't come here today to take shots, we came here to deliver them."

 

Is "DL doesn't have his guys" code for "the 40 or so scholarship Duck defensive players just aren't very good -- and represent both a statistically unlikely pool of poor recruiting evaluations -- and total lack of player development"? Or may there be some problem with the approach if you aren't completely loaded with top 80 defensive kids?

 

Because I kinda still believe the Ducks aren't that overmatched. Oregon State can put together a solid D with a bunch of kids Oregon didn't recruit or offer; and, the UW can roll into town with a pair of "three star" rush ends (Trice, ZTE) who managed to wreak havoc on a Duck OL that has been excellent all year, yet the Ducks can't  find a way to wrinkle the Washington QB's jersey?

 

Thank you for articulating what I couldn't.....I have had the same train of thought this season, tried posting some questions to get at it but fell short of your much more thorough analysis and framing.

 

FWIW, from another guy whose only expertise is watching the Ducks for 40 years, one of the main answers is faulty recruiting rankings....specifically overrating West Coast players.  Mariø, whose coaching and development chops have been questions, relied on these rankings to gain fanfare, publicity and brand awareness for the team based on a Duck fan base who was convinced that our only barrier to a Natty was blue-chip ratio.

 

I am hopeful that Lanning is a better "coach" who can identify, develop and scheme in addition to recruiting well.  Because that is what it takes to go from a perennial Top 10 to Top 4.   Go find those under the radar 4 stars from the South and Midwest that make up the backbone of the Top 4's and seem to have a bigger development upside.  In other words, I want to trust coaches more than website staff journos whose incentives are clicks, not wins.

[AnotherOD]

I've read that argument and I'm not quite sure what to do with it as most of the "highly ranked" kids Mario would have been chasing to build up recruiting rankings -- end up being mostly kids who the rest of Pac-12 (and usually a bunch of other top national programs) also recruited.

 

What we would need would be basically top 300 kids pumped up by the rankings that weren't also pursued by a bunch of other top programs, which doesn't appear to be a very clear or large list. Now, we could argue a lot of other programs are doing the same thing, and that's part of how these recruits build up their national ranking (by building up their offer list); but, if it is a widespread practice among FBS programs, it sort of defeats the point of it being a specific Mario criticism.

 

Maybe there is something say to the idea that maybe Oregon might have 8 highly rated top WR prospects in its main recruiting footprint (that it felt it could land); and, Mario would offer all 8 and take whoever committed first, possibly without taking further time to find the three or four it felt were not only highly rated but both fit the best in the Duck offense and also had the most upside to develop as college players; but, that sort of gets into a complex (possibly subjective) sort of argument.

 

For kicks, to take the other side of the argument, in Mario's purported area of expertise (OL), Mario took a fair amount of OL recruits ranked between 500-1000 nationally, not "star chasing" per say -- maybe instead turning over rocks and stones and finding good prospects being underrated.

 

Yet, with the exception of Marcus Harper (730), the list of: Cody Shear (951), Christopher Randazzo (822), Justin Johnson (903), Logan Sagapolu (614), Jaylan Jeffers (532), Jalen Smith (808), and Faaope Laloula (804 still may contribute) more seems to just show a simple lower than average success rate (even in the "developmental type prospect" pool).

 

[JDuck]

We matched up better, but still zero sacks yets 3 picks.  Our Run D gave some up to Utah but that is more Utah's bread and butter and they have a really good RB.  Overall, no cutesy play calling and a healthy Bo and I bet we win that 42-10

[Mic]

An inspired team with the wounded but game Bo Nix struggling to get thru it.  AND, much better matchups with their WR's.  Sans TE Duncan Kincaid this game wouldn't have been this close.  Lanning has Oregon playing much more physical than the self-declared  "Master of Physicality" Mario Cristobal ever did.        Just my lousy 2 cents worth.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Mic

[AnotherOD]

I recalling being happy to see Utah continue to run the ball as the Oregon D has been generally ok against the run most of the year.

 

In the second half, on non-Rising rushes (and excluding the 18 yard WR rush), Utah went rush by yards: 6, 3, -2, 3, -1, 4, 2, 8, 7, 1, 7, 1, 8, 4.

 

While Utah found some success, Oregon's run D slowed them enough to get Utah into passing situations. While Utah was 8-15 on 3rd down, it did only go 1-4 on 4th; and, of course, the 3 interceptions. As mentioned, Oregon (for a change) matched up well against their WRs, and only 3 Utah WRs caught a combined 8 passes for 65 yards. Kincaid had a good game; but, I think Oregon had a plan there and did enough to limit that damage. I think Rising had an unexpected off game. To the extend Oregon State mirrors Utah, I think helps the matchup Saturday.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by AnotherOD

[dtroxel23]

As it has been said a few times already, I feel Lanning was more involved. I saw Lanning using hand signals on a few downs, as if he were relaying the calls. Tosh is a good positional coach and fantastic recruiter, but he's just not a Coordinator. 

[LADuck]

I think the Oregon D turned a corner and we are going to see a continuation of this excellent play against the Beavers. In the book Mastery the author talks about how improvement many times does not come gradually but makes a sudden leap forward. My take is this is what took place with the Ducks and they are getting the feel for playing together in this new defense. The Ducks have a lot of talented players that have bought into learning and they will continue to reap the rewards of their hard work.

 

 Next in line after the Beavers is USC.  An impressive showing against a prolific SC Offense will have elite recruits lining up to play for Lanning. Man the future looks bright for this program.

 

[idontrollonshobbas]

On 11/20/2022 at 5:36 PM, AnotherOD said:

I've read that argument and I'm not quite sure what to do with it as most of the "highly ranked" kids Mario would have been chasing to build up recruiting rankings -- end up being mostly kids who the rest of Pac-12 (and usually a bunch of other top national programs) also recruited.

What if the recruiting sites have a logic fallacy built into their methodology?   They start from the premise of a Top 300 5-stars every year, with regional sites dependent upon a geographical distribution to keep their subscriber base paying for 12 months of updates.

 

From my cynical view, I suspect that every year most of the Top 300 come from a narrow geographical spread that is most likely not conducive to generating ongoing interest in following recruiting across the widest possible subscriber base.

 

I further suspect that total talent is not consistent from year to year.  So, by limiting yourself to 1-5 star scaling and an annual Top 300 and a need for the business model to "spread around" the clickbait, it would be easy to understand how a Haloti Ngata was really worthy of 10 stars, for example.  While in another year maybe 5 different 3-star DE's from Florida might be equivalent to a 5-star DE from California in a year with more than average DE quality.

 

Basically, what I am saying is that I don't trust the recruiting site and blue-chip ratio as much as many others do.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by idontrollonshobbas

[AnotherOD]

On 11/20/2022 at 7:00 PM, idontrollonshobbas said:

What if the recruiting sites have a login fallacy built into their methodology?   They start from the premise of a Top 300 5-stars every year, with regional sites dependent upon a geographical distribution to keep their subscriber base paying for 12 months of updates.

 

From my cynical view, I suspect that every year most of the Top 300 come from a narrow geographical spread that is most likely not conducive to generating ongoing interest in following recruiting across the widest possible subscriber base.

 

I further suspect that total talent is not consistent from year to year.  So, by limiting yourself to 1-5 star scaling and an annual Top 300 and a need for the business model to "spread around" the clickbait, it would be easy to understand how a Haloti Ngata was really worthy of 10 stars, for example.  While in another year maybe 5 different 3-star DE's from Florida might be equivalent to a 5-star DE from California in a year with more than average DE quality.

 

Basically, what I am saying is that I don't trust the recruiting site and blue-chip ratio as much as many others do.

 

 

Very well said.

 

Maybe a bit of a different topic but it was touched upon over the summer; and, one of the interesting things that came up was the composition of NFL draft picks by state for the last four years (2019-2022).

 

If you look at the top 100 high school recruits on the west coast in any given year, it will be dominated by California (and Southern California), with a bit from Arizona and Washington, then maybe a couple (probably in the middle of bottom) from Utah, Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada.

 

In the NFL Draft list California dominated -- but I doubt not nearly as much as the recruiting rankings would have predicted; and, Oregon produced about the same amount of future NFL draft picks as states like Arizona, Washington, and Utah.

 

2019-2022 Western States NFL Drafted Players:

 

California - 86 (56%)

Utah - 17 (11%)

Washington - 14 (9%)

Oregon - 13 (8%)

Arizona - 12 (8%)

Nevada - 7 (5%)

Colorado - 5 (3%)

 

If I ever get the time I might look up the top 100 rated recruits from these states in rankings and see how it roughly compares to kids who after their college is over are picked for the next level. I imagine the ratings will show some bias towards California (and to a lesser extent Arizona and Washington).

 

A quick look at just the top 30 west coast recruits listed this year shows California and Arizona with 80% of the listed players:

 

California - 20 (67%)

Arizona - 4 (13%)

 

Washington - 2 (7%)

Nevada - 2 (7%)

Utah - 1 (3%)

Idaho - 1 (3%)

Oregon - 0

Colorado -0

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by AnotherOD

[KCDuck1]

On 11/20/2022 at 4:58 PM, AnotherOD said:

If the scheme is going to struggle until we get there, is this a risky scheme for this simple reason?

 

I am far from a football expert (and my lack of understanding is likely going to show); but, I thought I'd ask this question and maybe some might have some insight I am missing?

AnotherOD, Those are excellent questions; those are excellent points you make as you lead into those questions. Flaps2 adds "styles make fights", that starts to address your question as to whether this defensive scheme and "style" -  stopping the run first, does not incur a greater amount of risk than say another similar style that defends the pass, and tries to stop the run, second. Perhaps that style would be more effective and incur less risk. You have used Georgia as your comparative yard-stick - well done. I will use the NFL for a brief comparative.

 

The NFL has [probably] as much three star-rated talent playing as the many five and four star talents playing (or a close equivalence numbers-wise). But wait, they are three stars, and not five stars. Perhaps they were mis-rated, or their coaches developed them (3 stars), or they studied, learned and developed themselves, or most likely , a combination of the above. The point is they are playing. How could they? Someone or a combination of people developed them and they proved themselves.

 

I don't believe our previous staff were effective developers; the current Duck coaching staff is very development-oriented, and they tell recruits and their families they are so. They must prove it every season/year, or the coaches (against whom they recruit and coach) and current players will show them to be liars. 

 

If one compares heighth, weights of players, and the stars by which they are rated, how do we measure the difference? If could be by a schools' name; or it could be by the players' heart, dedication and determination, willingness to learn and apply, and their undeveloped athleticism/quickness, and quick-twitch fiber (that the coaches recognize). I believe that's what fans are generally describing and talking about. However, perhaps they are just snookered and have repeated a story (like W/our previous staff). The current coaching staff on defense have a ways to go, but are getting there. Our HC will coach them up, and they will learn from him.

 

What about our recruits? Perhaps we will sign a phenomenal class of players! We very possibly might, but even the five-star rated players must show up ready to learn and apply (and be in great physical condition). I like our coaches' attitudes, our players' attitudes and our recruits. They have made learning and hard teamwork fun. Although I like the "stop the run" scheme, the coaches must address the "air-raid" attack counters. If Coach Lanning is HC, I believe he will, and more (such as risk). He doesn't seem to let much grass grow between his toes.

 

You are on-track with your thinking and questions. Don't stop now! None of us want to be lemmings running mindlessly off the cliff. Success is all about thinking!

 

 

[Dave23]

I tend to think personnel would make a huge difference. Gonzalez is great but he has no help on the other side of the ball. Had Wright or James stayed everything would be different. Bridges would be at safety where his abilities would better suit the position and be an upgrade to our current situation.

 

In the past the Ducks have always had at least one amazing safety that helped the backend put it all together. McKinney, Holland, Ugo, Breeze, Dargan, Patterson, Boyett, Pleasant, Ward, and Chung etc. I would certainly take any one of these guys over our current safeties.

 

The lack of playmakers in the secondary has made the linebacker core essential to pass coverage and they just don't seem to have the instinct for it. Personally I blame constant turnover in coaching as teams like Georgia have had plenty of time to install a culture not just a scheme.

 

 

Give it time we have some very fast LB's with coverage skills coming up thru the ranks. Not to mention some very promising CB's coming up. Still not sure who is going to step up and be the man at safety but I think Bridges could be that guy if given the chance.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Dave23

[Tandaian]

Two 5 Star LBs aren't the same.  Two 4 Star safeties are not the same.  Two 3 star DL aren't the same.  The Ducks are also on their 3rd defensive coordinator in 3 years.  Every defensive coordinator recruited kids for their defense.  Sewell and Flowe are downhill LBs there to stop the run.  They are absolutely not LBs to cover TEs or RBs. 

 

This roster is made up of a hodgepodge of kids for 3 different defensive schemes.  Yes, they are highly talented kids, but it is a bit like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  I think this defense has underperformed on the season, but I think consistency is going to do wonders for the kids.

[Mic]

Here's my un-imaginative answer:  " Because of Bo Nix's bravery and refusal to quit even when hurt."  

 

How does a young man, playing on the same team with a guy like Bo Nix NOT want to give it his all when he sees his leader give it his All - plus more?  This team believes (with good reason) they can win any game they play with Bo QB-ing the team.   (And I think their opponents do too).