Lanning Plays With Fire, Duck Fans Get Burned

[FishDuck Article]

I should have written this article a month ago when I first felt strongly about it, but at the time I did not want to be a buzz-kill for Oregon fans. Coaches Dan Lanning and Kenny Dillingham have done some wonderful things at Oregon, and I believe in their upside…but they are making some reckless in-game decisions. Oregon fans along ...

 

Lanning Plays With Fire, Duck Fans Get Burned

FISHDUCK.COM

---

I should have written this article a month ago when I first felt strongly about it, but at the time I did not want to be a buzz-kill for Oregon fans.

 

[Log Haulin]

Good article. On the flip side, oregons 8 game run was, in part, due to Nix ability to be a running threat. 

 

Nix was injured because a Fusky lowered his head and launched himself into Bo's legs with the crown of the helmet. No flag?

It was dirty and cheap, typical Fusky move.

 

Doesn't discount your point though. This staff takes unnecessary risk. But I like the overall performance of this staff offensively.

 

Fingers crossed Bo gets to 90% this week. It's an ankle so probably not 

[Charles Fischer]

An offense that can score a ton of points can be designed without running the quarterback so much, as evidenced by what we see at many other schools.

 

Oregon has the talent, and the tools in the coaching staff to be innovative, as proven, to score boatloads without taking so much risk, in my view.
 

For those that read the article, please look to see that I’m NOT against running the quarterback, as I list the plays, (a ton of them) where it makes sense.

[Quackanadian]

Great article Charles.

 

What also sucks about the W game, is the RBs were running well for most of the game. So why bother with the silly play call?

 

Also, the 4th and 1 call to go for it with Ty in.... just put Bo in for 1 play if that's the case and ice the game... 

 

Me thinks Danny L was guilty of "Cristoballin" in this game, as well as the Utah game. Over thinking. Too cute. 

 

Cheers.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Charles, you showed a great deal of restraint in waiting to share your feelings on this subject. Whether its excessive QB runs or trick plays the reward will not always exceed the risk. Handing a team free 7 points warrants criticism and thank you for speaking out......

 

You are correct that there are multiple play options available with less QB risk. I also wonder how many times Bo has audibled into calling his own number?

 

All this season the coaches and players have worked to fix mistakes and overcome weaknesses. Personal and team growth has been their mantra. Being 9-2 is the result and they all are to be commended.

 

IMHO, they should be 10-1 and ranked 5th, poised for a CFP invite. Now i will not discount the dirty, cheap shot by a putrid dog on Bo. As well has the no targeting call on that play. With Bo's injury there was plenty of time for a review. Should hsve been 1st and goal from the 2 yard line.

 

However, the putrid dogs were waiting for Bo. Plenty of game film to know the play was coming. But execution or lack of is part of football. Which leads me to my biggest complaint of DL and staff.

 

Having a backup QB prepared to run the #1 offense.........

 

It was 4th and 1 in the redzone. The Ducks have one of, if not the best O Lines in all of college football. Yet they do not have a QB capable of executing simple plays. I don't blame Ty! DL and Dilly had multiple games thru the season that Ty could have run basic plays with the first team players. Entire 4th quarters in a few games.

 

Granted, I am not at practice to see how Ty or Jay perform. But i do see that neither QB has been given enough opportunity to build confidence or create timing and tempo with the ones.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

GO DUCKS. No season is a success without a win over the Beavs......

[Haywarduck]

I like what you said about percentages, and risks, two things which need to be taken in consideration. Agree completely, youth look at those two items completely differently. One of the life lesson I taught my boys, and they have survived their teen years mostly intact, is when somebody says 'watch this' get away, get out of the car, and run as fast as possible.

 

I almost expect to be able to lip read Lanning and Dilly saying these two most dangerous words a young person can hear before each play mentioned, 'watch this!' I get it some pretty cool things happen when people do stupid things. It can be inspiring, funny, and memorable, but it doesn't need to happen on the football field with our Ducks.

 

We all hope we don't read about one of those college football player moments, off the field, when someone says watch this. Unfortunately we are seeing a few on the field, by our coaches.

 

It is time to consider the percentages a bit more, and evaluate the risks reward equation like a seasoned veteran coach would. There is no reason the team can't have fun, not the issue. As smart as Lanning is I see this happening soon, I just hope it happens soon enough.

 

 

[Smith72]

I can agree with everything you wrote.  Good points to ponder and discuss.  The high risk decisions have given the Ducks a lot of upside, but there has been some ugly "Why are you doing that?" moments.

 

I feel our favorite Sheldon High School quarterback is playing for a similar young head coach of the Chargers.  It's been an interesting season for Justin!

 

However, football is always evolving.  Thank goodness we aren't stuck in the old Woody Hays era of 3 yards and a cloud of dust.  Oops, sorry, I forgot about the Prevent Offense of Mari.

 

New head coaches push the envelope looking for an edge.  The forward pass was a risky endeavor at one time.  Now look, 400 yards passing in a game happens all the time.

 

I can only hope that the evolving of our beloved Duck coaches comes with less downside and more experience of the upside.

 

Thank you Charles for your analysis and concern.  Let's hope our Ducks can dam the Beaver offense and scorch their defense!  Go Ducks!

[Tandaian]

I'm not sure what to think yet.  Lanning's and Dillingham's aggressiveness is part of who they are as coaches.  My personal preference is not to be as aggressive.  The UW game definitely solidified the coming back to the mean in success rate.  Their aggressiveness/cuteness cost us the game in my opinion. 

 

I think the Ducks only need to do two plays different and they win.  1, don't do the onside kick.  2, don't do the swinging gate on 3rd & 1 and fumble at the UW 4-yard line.

 

I'm a fan of analytics, but I'm also not one to only follow analytics.  I get the Ducks have had a high success rate on 4th and short, but you have to know the time and place.  With a banged up QB, you have to punt your own 33 with less than 90 seconds to go.

 

Nobody is perfect, so unfortunately with their style of coaching we will have to endure coaching mistakes.  Hopefully, they truly learn from them.

 

 

[Darren Perkins]

Totally agree. Reminds me of my article 5 years ago after Herbert got hurt. And, in 2017, my 2019 prognostication here wasn't too far off. haha. And, I love that Mel Brooks scene I posted in this. 

 

Ducks' Season Becomes One Big "What Might Have Been"

FISHDUCK.COM

---

The Oregon Ducks played solid defense but, without star quarterback Justin Herbert, didn't have the offensive power to match the Washington State Cougars.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Darren Perkins

[jrw]

When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.

 

 - Anonymous, falsely attributed to Mark Twain.

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:05 AM, FishDuck Article said:

I should have written this article a month ago when I first felt strongly about it, but at the time I did not want to be a buzz-kill for Oregon fans. Coaches Dan Lanning and Kenny Dillingham have done some wonderful things at Oregon, and I believe in their upside…but they are making some reckless in-game decisions. Oregon fans along ...

 

Lanning Plays With Fire, Duck Fans Get Burned

FISHDUCK.COM

---

I should have written this article a month ago when I first felt strongly about it, but at the time I did not want to be a buzz-kill for Oregon fans.

 

Pretty much sums things up Charles.  There are a lot of fans talking about this, if what I caught in conversations at the last several tailgate gatherings  are any indication.  And too many of them involve a huge disappointment of a backup QB.

[JDuck]

The bark ratts seem to run lots of reverses and semi-trick plays.  Hopefully our D is ready, and for our offense...quit doing the "cute" plays and do our thing...we can put up 600 yds on the rodents in their woodpile.  Bo doesn't need to run much to make it happen

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:39 AM, JDuck said:

The bark ratts seem to run lots of reverses and semi-trick plays.  Hopefully our D is ready, and for our offense...quit doing the "cute" plays and do our thing...we can put up 600 yds on the rodents in their woodpile.  Bo doesn't need to run much to make it happen

That one very risky run for the last 1st down Saturday may pay off in huge dividends.  

 

OSU must now anticipate this and scheme for it even if he never does it again.  But I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess he will run a few times; if only to keep them guessing and committing.  It's risky for a QB in his condition but this kid and his coach are risk-takers.  See Charles article above if you haven't already.

[Drake]

Nobody likes to lose. However, as a fan I don’t feel burned by DL and his staff. As a matter of fact they have breathed life back into a program that wanted Justin Wilcox as HC. 

 

Not to throw water on JW abilities, but this staff can recruit circles around JW and his staff. To consistently compete at a top level you need to recruit at a top level. 
 

The staff is trusting the players to execute plays and the football is fun again for both players and fans. As a fan I don’t want to lose any games. However, I do know that individuals (players and coaches) make mistakes during games, and you try to overcome those mistakes as a team. 
 

Sometimes the team doesn’t overcome those mistakes. 

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:57 AM, Drake said:

Sometimes the team doesn’t overcome those mistakes. 

Like against Washington?  Yeah, it comes with the territory - everyone fears the risk-takers except when the risks pay off.  Then they love them.  

 

But as Charles recaps, some risks just have too little up-side potential to justify the down-side risk.  Like that mistake of a fly-sweep inside the Red Zone, with a cold QB with little experience.  With Bo at the helm, the defense either gets read correctly (and a audible calls O out of it) or it works because Bo make a better fake at keeping the ball and taking off with it. Or, it doesn't work at all because it was a mistake to call it in the 1st place.

[DUCati855]

I agree that running your Heisman-ish QB into the gut of the defense is reckless and overly aggressive. But, Bo does not become a Heisman hopeful QB without taking chances.

 

We all have known that Bo has been running on a razors edge all year (between reckless and brilliance). It is this edge that has given the Ducks the advantage over every team that had to prepare for them. We must accept that football IS and ALWAYS has been a dangerous sport. Injuries happen. It sucks. But, it is all part of the game we all love. Bo accepts this... as does everyone of those players in the green and yellow (etc.) uniforms. We ALL wanted an exciting offense again. We have it. Now, we must accept that having this offense comes with some inherit risks.

 

We as fans need to remember the situation this coaching staff inherited. We put enormous pressure on this staff to compete. Not just for wins. But, for National Championships. That does not happen without pushing limits of body and mind. This staff has done that better than any of us could have honestly expected and did so right out of the gate. As Charles stated in his article of Lanning and Dillingham "Both know a ton more football than I (us) ". They did this by taking risks and wrapping them into schemes.

 

I'm a 53 year old man who lives life far safer than in my youth. It warms me to see younger people still willing to take risks. Especially, when they are doing it as a Duck and for the Duck faithful.

 

Dan Lanning will learn from this. But, I hope that he never looses that edge that allows him to take risks. Even if from time to time they seem ill advised to us fans.

[Autzen Magic]

As an almost 54 year old life long Duck fan, I appreciate and understand the premise of Charles' article that an injured QB can derail a season.  Lots of examples, but Dennis Dixon is Exhibit A.  

 

However, I firmly believe that every team should play to win, not play not to lose.  I've been a basketball coach for almost 3 decades and practice what I preach.

 

While I agree that running a QB between the tackles has a higher degree of risk, and should not be used repeatedly, if it gives the Ducks an advantage in the game I think it is incumbent on the coaches to use that advantage.  I'm also in favor of taking reasonable risks on 4th downs. It's worked most of the season, with the exception of the late 4th down attempt against the Fuskies (which I believe should have been a sneak by Ty under center).  Nothing works all of the time, but I am in favor of keeping the pedal to the mtetal and putting pressure on the opposing D as much as reasonably possible and I hope coach Lanning never loses his aggressive tendencies.

 

My $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

 

Go Ducks!!!

[Charles Fischer]

It would be one thing if I was warning everyone a month ago that running your QB between the tackles is foolhardy--and all of you would be telling me that the risk has been worth the return.  But events have proven my contention...

 

Again...running a Zone Read down the backside of a defense where the QB can slide or go out of bounds, running outside as designed for Cal and Arizona and running scrambles as against Stanford is enough risk.  Purposely exposing your QB to being smashed from a safety coming up in front, or from a linebacker going at the knees from the side on a regular basis is just not high-percentage and smart.

 

And just as I stated five years ago in 2017...it has been proven correct.  We have all the tools in players and coaches to be averaging over 40 points a game without running the QB between the tackles.

 

 

I hope this coaching staff does not have to learn everything the hard way?  That could take a while...

[Desert Duck]

They remind me a bit of the 39 year old Los Angeles Chargers head coach Brandon Staley in regard to allowing themselves to, at times, make some bat-crap crazy decisions. 

 

All three of these coaches clearly have ridiculously high football IQs. Unfortunately, IQ has never-ever been a replacement for wisdom. And wisdom is gained by experience... which is always gained over time. 

 

The #1 thing I look for when hiring someone is: "Are they coachable?" I don't care what the position is or how old or how young the person is. I want to know if they are teachable and coachable.

 

I think our coaches are coachable, want to be the best at their trade, and are willing to learn from those who know more than they do.

 

I believe we have some very fine coaches who are in the process of becoming exceptional coaches. And hopefully, as they continue learning, their education does not come back to bite us in the backside. 

 

And holy crapoly... In their first year, we are 9-2!

[Steven A]

I agree with your premise, but . . . 

 

I think De Boer is mistaken when he said they were ready for the onsides kick.  We I saw the replay, the closest husky was backpeddling.  Had the ball not gone 15 yards, then maybe we we recover.  Plus, this was a game like UCLA where we needed to steal possessions.  Was a 25% chance just as good as watching Penix carve up our non-D on the day?

 

Gambling was Chip's DNA and resonated with recruits.  So, I think these young coaches aggressiveness will do so also.

 

And, as you said "I understand they are open about being in a “learning-mode,” this is a very good sign to "know when to hold 'em".

[Kurt Rambis]

There are many, many risks in life.  Some are smart risks; some are dumb risks.  Playing the stock market with intelligent help and/or substantial research is a risk - but at an average return of 8% a year over the past 90-something years, it's a smart risk.

 

Playing the stock market by throwing darts at stock listings is a dumb risk.

 

I like seeing coaches take smart risks.  Running your QB in certain situations is a smart risk.  Some trick plays (including onside kicks) are smart risks.

 

IMHO, going for it on 4th down at your own 34 with a backup QB in the game is not a smart risk.

 

I'm thrilled with what I've seen from Lanning and staff so far, and I like the fact that they are willing to take some risks, but I agree that they need to be a little smarter with some of the risks they take.  

 

 

[Kurt Rambis]

On 11/22/2022 at 7:12 PM, cartm25 said:

I was so shocked at the 25% success rate in college football stat you cited that I had to look at the link; seemed very high to me.

The vast majority of onside kicks are desperation moves when the opposition knows you're going to do it (e.g. down by 6 with 45 seconds left in the game).  Surprise onside kicks not done in desperation, I would assume, have a different success rate.  I would love to know the success rate of "expected" versus "unexpected" onside kicks - might tell a very different story for all we know.

[Mic]

There's a reason why the military drafts 18-year olds and the whole entire structure is manned by mostly 40-somethings or younger.  Risks that seem foolish to us older adults seem like "good ideas" to them because they're naturally much more aggressive and confident.  "Bullet-proof" is what they call it in the military - the thinking no one can hurt you or stop you due to that natural blush of youth.  

 

There's also a reason why most Admirals and Generals are 50's-somethng.  Better decision making and risk assessments.  Or, one hopes.  Dan Lanning should only get better and better at being a H.C. but if he's starting off at this high a level, we have a lot to look forward too in the coming years.

[CalBear95]

I was waiting for someone to write this article because analytics are a rorshach test in most cases and I was curious how it would play on this forum specifically the decision to go for it on 4th and 1 vs punting 

 

The 4th and 1 decision vs punting was 100% correct and I would hope DL decides to go for it every time he faces that situation.  You might not have liked the play call but the decision was entirely correct 

 

Here is the key thing on analytics: in almost all cases a punt is a turnover (and therefore, almost always the wrong decision).  You might think that’s crazy or that I am wrong but the math bears it out.  This is by far the hardest thing for a lot of people to wrap their heads around because it runs counter to everything we ‘know’ about football strategy 
 

Going on 4th was the best decision because punting just gives the Dawgs a high probability of scoring but with no time left.  Better to either keep the ball via conversion or let the Dawgs get their points but with time left on the clock for the Ducks to execute AND with perfect information on what was needed score wise 

 

I actually would have gone for the conversion to try and go up by 11.  Be curious to see what the math says on that. 
 

DL and co have been too aggressive, for sure.  No argument here.  But I would rather have a coach who needs to dial it down while still embracing analytics than one who has to be coaxed to do so and thinks ‘pinning them inside the 20’ is ever a good strategy 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by CalBear95

[JDuck]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:55 AM, Mic said:

That one very risky run for the last 1st down Saturday may pay off in huge dividends.  

 

OSU must now anticipate this and scheme for it even if he never does it again.  But I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess he will run a few times; if only to keep them guessing and committing.  It's risky for a QB in his condition but this kid and his coach are risk-takers.  See Charles article above if you haven't already.

Of course I read the article, that's why I commented...and I agree with Charles.  I've posted several times about what many of us call "cute" plays...and early in the season and against easier opponents, they worked better.  It could also be like Chip's funky 2 point conversions...they worked sometimes, then opponents caught on.  BUT...opponents then had to waste time in practice that week on Oregon's funky 2 point conversions. 

 

The onside kick against sUCLA was another one.  The mutts were ready, but may have had to waste time in practice that week.  But it paid off unfortunately for us.  They have a place and keeps opponents on their toes.  Just don't over-use them and go 0-3 like we did against the Utes.

 

GO DUCKS, quiet down taco stadium early and often

[Desert Duck]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:44 AM, Charles Fischer said:

"... all of you would be telling me that the risk has been worth the return."

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully, I disagree with this comment.

 

There are some really good football minds in this forum and I think many knew/know that everytime you run your QB between the tackles, the risk to your QB goes up exponentially. And I think almost all of us know that repeatedly going to that well, might just cost you your season. 

 

 "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." And as President Bush once so eloquently added (and im slightly paraphrasing, "Fool me three times... well, there just ain't gonna be a third time."

 

I think Bo's third run between the tackles was the Huskies cheap-shot way of saying, "well, there just ain't gonna be a third time."

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Desert Duck

[CalBear95]

For those curious on the math, this the paper that started the whole perspective shift (Cal prof obvs)

 

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/nber9024.pdf

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:55 AM, Steven A said:

Gambling was Chip's DNA and resonated with recruits.  So, I think these young coaches aggressiveness will do so also.

 

I was wondering when people would bring up Chip.

 

Chip did NOT run his QBs between the tackles...even at the height of Oregon football in that era.

 

He stated often that he "wanted the running backs to be running the ball." 

[Desert Duck]

On 11/22/2022 at 8:52 AM, Tandaian said:

I'm not sure what to think yet.  Lanning's and Dillingham's aggressiveness is part of who they are as coaches. 

 

 

 

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with your statement, and few would want it any other way.

 

But to Charles article, we can be very aggressive without running our QB multiple times per game, on high risk injury plays, straight up between the tackles.

 

Particularly when our amazing O-line is opening up such great holes for our impressive running backs on short gain plays.

 

 

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:17 PM, cartm25 said:

Thank you for articulating this. This is exactly what Joel Klatt (I believe it was him) argued and it swayed my original thinking about the 4th and 1 decision.

I suppose at this point in the game going for it on 4th and 1 inside your own 35 "might" have made sense because 1) your QB was playing hurt at <100% and 2) Little Oregon had done to that point showed they could stop Penix from scoring.  There was probably no one on the Duck sideline who wanted to play for O.T. and we were, at that point, tied if I remember correctly.  Everyone wanted O to be the last one to score but not getting the 1st gave the Huskies just that as it turned out.  Yeah, our D did have a stop left but our O didn't have any scores left. 3-point loss.

[nw777b]

When your backup QB is in and hasn't gotten a first down in several games punting is NOT a turnover.  

 

It's an opportunity to flip the field and get a stop or turnover and make the other team work harder to score, if they score AND use more clock.

 

Compare yards per play with Bo in vs the backup and I'll bet the odds of the backup getting that first down are much lower.

 

I realize we all have 20/20 vision now, but even Lanning admits it was the wrong call in THAT situation. 

 

Otherwise, if the average yards per play is 3 or more, then why punt, ever?

[CalBear95]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:39 PM, Mic said:

I suppose at this point in the game going for it on 4th and 1 inside your own 35 "might" have made sense because 1) your QB was playing hurt at <100% and 2) Little Oregon had done to that point showed they could stop Penix from scoring.  There was probably no one on the Duck sideline who wanted to play for O.T. and we were, at that point, tied if I remember correctly.  Everyone wanted O to be the last one to score but not getting the 1st gave the Huskies just that as it turned out.  Yeah, our D did have a stop left but our O didn't have any scores left. 3-point loss.

It would have made sense regardless.  
 

This is a much longer discussion but suffice to say, I’d be probably OK with the decision at almost any other part of the game. 

 

Let me approach this in an entirely different scenario.  You are down 15 points and you score a touchdown. Do you go for 2?  Does your answer change based on some threshold of time remaining that needs to be crossed (e.g., only if under 10 minutes in the 4th quarter?)?

 

You should always go for 2 regardless of when in the game this scenario presents itself.  Announcers always say “too early to chase points” which gets back to the problem with punting.  Football is a game of possessions, namely how many you will get.  
 

Knowing how many possessions you need to tie or win is the most valuable piece of information.  So, here you need to know if you are down two scores or one as you coach differently based on the answer. 
 

Anyhow, don’t fear 4th down

[CalBear95]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:28 PM, nw777b said:

When your backup QB is in and hasn't gotten a first down in several games punting is NOT a turnover.  

 

It's an opportunity to flip the field and get a stop or turnover and make the other team work harder to score, if they score AND use more clock.

 

Compare yards per play with Bo in vs the backup and I'll bet the odds of the backup getting that first down are much lower.

 

I realize we all have 20/20 vision now, but even Lanning admits it was the wrong call in THAT situation. 

 

Otherwise, if the average yards per play is 3 or more, then why punt, ever?

You asked the exact right question: Why would you ever punt if that is the math?

 

Answer: You don’t.  
 

But that runs counter to conventional wisdom so it gets dismissed as wrong even though it is mathematically correct.

 

Your ‘flipping the field’ comment is a ‘aversion to loss’ mindset that Romer highlighted as why coaches fundamentally misjudge how to play 4th down (FWIW, studies have shown most people are wired to think this way and is why most people aren’t good at assessing risk)
 

I hope DL said it was the wrong decision in terms of play call because it wasn’t strategically.  

[HappyToBeADuck]

CalBear95, thank you for adding great comments and analysis to this thread. This thread is loaded with many solid and diverse thoughts. Grest article by Charles that gave the Forum much to ponder.

 

I agree with you that football is about how many possessions you get. May i simply add its equally as important as to what you do with those possessions. Like chew clock to take the air out of the ball. Or score points to put put the game out of reach. Or both.

 

The first televised game i saw was the NFL 1959 Title game. Previously had 2 years of Cougar radio broadcasts. So I am old school. When i team has a 10 minute drive in 4th quarter the usually win 

 

Never give a team a sure win from your 35 yard line. Also what do analytics say when your backup has no success as a back up? 

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:28 PM, nw777b said:

Otherwise, if the average yards per play is 3 or more, then why punt, ever?

Because, remember that slip by Whittingham on 4th down against UW?  Slip or not, UW had that played stopped, which is probably why Noah fell trying to change direction in front of a wall of on-rushing defenders. And the 3-pts. UW got ended up as the winning margin.

 

There's a time to go for it and there's a time not too.  And knowing the right time is what a Head Coach gets paid for.  OSU is UW & Utah-like defense-wise or better.  This will likely be a low-scoring affair and Oregon has the better FG kicker by far.  Get the TD's if they're there.  Kick the FG's if they aren't.  (Imo).

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mic

[Charles Fischer]

Got my first hate-email from my article!  Because I have dealt with SO MANY people over the years that I've banned, or writers that I've fired, (like one recently) who write just vile stuff to me--that I have not only become calloused to nasty insults, but I now look for new innovative epithets for entertainment.  Sadly, the fired writer and the hater who emailed me did not give me any new material.

 

Oh yeah...a couple of hundred people

made me that way!

[CalBear95]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:54 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:Also what do analytics say when your backup has no success as a back up? 

OK, this is so the same question I have.  
 

Base analytics are one thing but how do teams calculate their specific index (as well as those of the other team) both before and during the game?  My admittedly dorky dream is to sit with one of these gurus and ask how they do this.
 

Example: many people highlight TT being a reason to punt.  Implicitly this line of thinking says the probability of conversion is lower than the Ducks’ normal personnel set.  Seems fair.  Let’s set aside whether some plays are better than others and just go with an über EV

 

On the flip side, however, is the Husky offense.  Penix was out of his mind that night.  So whatever EV scenarios you had entering the game had to be plussed  up given the actual performance that night.  
 

At some point you have to conclude the most probable outcome if you give the ball back to the Dawgs via punt or downs was going to be points.  
 

So, TT wasn’t an ideal option at that point but it’s still better than punting and hoping your D outperforms it’s expected result (which, TBH, there was no rational reason for doing so.  Also, in an odd way I suspect giving the ball over inside the 35 increases the Ducks win % because DeBoer prioritizes burning the Ducks’ TOs and so becomes more conservative in turn tipping the stop probability in the D’s favor)

 

Math is fun.  

[CalBear95]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:10 PM, Mic said:

Because, remember that slip by Whittingham on 4th down against UW?  Slip or not, UW had that played stopped, which is probably why Noah fell trying to change direction in front of a wall of on-rushing defenders. And the 3-pts. UW got ended up as the winning margin.

 

There's a time to go for it and there's a time not too.  And knowing the right time is what a Head Coach gets paid for.  OSU is UW & Utah-like defense-wise or better.  This will likely be a low-scoring affair and Oregon has the better FG kicker by far.  Get the TD's if they're there.  Kick the FG's if they aren't.  (Imo).

Can’t the converse be true?  Playing a conservative Offense (take points when you can get them even if that decision isn’t maximalist EV) plays to the Beaver’s strength?

 

I’m not saying take stupid risk like running low probability plays in non ideal situations (e.g., the onside kick v UW or trickery to start 3Q v Utah).  But there must be some point threshold where the Beav’s win % collapses because of their anemic offense.  
 

I would play pedal to the metal EV all day long.  If kicking a FG gives me an EV of 2.8 points and going on 4th gives me 2.9 (or more), I’m going for it.  Put maximum pressure on the Beavs.  

[Mic]

On 11/22/2022 at 4:04 PM, CalBear95 said:

Can’t the converse be true?  Playing a conservative Offense (take points when you can get them even if that decision isn’t maximalist EV) plays to the Beaver’s strength?

 

I’m not saying take stupid risk like running low probability plays in non ideal situations (e.g., the onside kick v UW or trickery to start 3Q v Utah).  But there must be some point threshold where the Beav’s win % collapses because of their anemic offense.  
 

I would play pedal to the metal EV all day long.  If kicking a FG gives me an EV of 2.8 points and going on 4th gives me 2.9 (or more), I’m going for it.  Put maximum pressure on the Beavs.  

Can the converse be true?  Of course.  And there-in comes the in-game decisions that HC's have to make.  To go for it when and making it leaves the opponent already in scoring position without even having to make another 1st down, late in a very close game, with time running out, is a very  High Risk, Low Reward decision imo. 

 

Had Oregon been down 3 (or more) points, then the decision is totally different.  In a tie game I think Lanning now realizes it was not the best decision and probably cost them the game.  Oregon never got close enough to score again after UW made with their decision to kick the FG instead of trying for a 4th down conversion. 

 

Regardless, the decision was made, the game was played and everything is now water under the bridge.  

 

 

[DanLduck]

Last year our offense was so conservative, we named it a "prevent offense".

This year, we are being too "aggressive "

Are we a tough bunch to please, or what!

 

After Georgia, we all wanted TT to play.

Now many seem to want him to transfer.

We didn't want Bo to play, now we don't want Bo to go.

 

I haven't enjoyed watching the Ducks play for years. This year that has all changed. We're fun again!

Lanning & Co. have brought dynamism back to Autzen. I'm 100% all for that.

 

If that means taking risks, so be it.

We are 9-2. We can still play for  Pac-12 championship. 

I'm all in and enjoying Duck football the way we are playing. This is so awesome. 

 

Btw, Lanning took ownership of decisions in UW loss. He will learn from this. What more could we want?!

 

The hit on Bo was a cheap shot intended to cause injury. His running has been a huge part of our offense and I would argue integral. He has 14 rushing TD's!

 

Play calling of all types will always be critiqued when they don't work as planned, that will always be the purview of us arm-chair qb's.

 

I personally love how we continue to improve so, each week, I will endure gladly the few calls that fail.

 

One game left, let's go Beaver hunting!!

[Charles Fischer]

On 11/22/2022 at 4:46 PM, DanLduck said:

Are we a tough bunch to please, or what!

If you want an injured QB when you could still have high scoring without taking the risk--go for it.  I believe we can reach our goals, score over 40 points a game while being smarter and more measured than many of the decisions that have been made. 

 

Go for the same play with your Heisman-contending QB for the third time between the tackles?  With the playbook that Dilly has?  The odds caught up with Oregon...

 

My opinion anyway.

 

[HappyToBeADuck]

Its a good opinion Charles.

 

I believe the Forum would be very testy and more judgemental if we were 7-4 at this point. And we could have easily been 7-4.

 

I love DL and staff. Really do.....This has been a fun season with great energy and excitement.

 

But one or 2 more mistakes or failed risks and we are playing the beavs for the Vegas or Sun Bowl. Not for the Rose Bowl.

 

My experience with my own 8 grown children? They learn their lessons when they learn their lessons.

[CalBear95]

On 11/22/2022 at 4:25 PM, Mic said:

Can the converse be true?  Of course.  And there-in comes the in-game decisions that HC's have to make.  To go for it when and making it leaves the opponent already in scoring position without even having to make another 1st down, late in a very close game, with time running out, is a very  High Risk, Low Reward decision imo. 

 

Had Oregon been down 3 (or more) points, then the decision is totally different.  In a tie game I think Lanning now realizes it was not the best decision and probably cost them the game.  Oregon never got close enough to score again after UW made with their decision to kick the FG instead of trying for a 4th down conversion. 

 

Regardless, the decision was made, the game was played and everything is now water under the bridge.  

 

 

I’ll just leave it with this last set of thoughts.  In UW’s case, the FG was the right call because the most probable worst outcome of that decision was heading to OT.  

 

The Ducks’ calculus was totally different in that the most likely outcome of a punt was losing (I still argue punting carried a bigger hit to win % than going for it because UW plays to get into FG range and probably takes all time off the clock)

 

I go further and say if you are willing to go for it inside your own 35 you go for it inside their 10 because of the huge increase in win % but that’s a different conversation 

 

I would love to have someone that does this kind of calculation break down this very question of the go for it/punt debate 

[lownslowav8r]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:10 PM, Mic said:

Because, remember that slip by Whittingham on 4th down against UW?  Slip or not, UW had that played stopped, which is probably why Noah fell trying to change direction in front of a wall of on-rushing defenders. And the 3-pts. UW got ended up as the winning margin.

Lanning addressed this saying not calling a timeout was a mistake. UW’s defensive formation in that play gave UW an advantage. He said he should have called a timeout and run a different play. 

[ICamel]

On 11/22/2022 at 9:28 PM, CalBear95 said:

 

I would love to have someone that does this kind of calculation break down this very question of the go for it/punt debate

There are so many permutations involved in that type of calculation you might have to employ one of the University of California super computers to crunch the outcome(s).

[CalBear95]

Last comment I swear!

 

You are asked to make as much money as possible given two choices:

 

Choice 1: flip a coin where if you win you are paid $150 but if you lose, you get $0

 

Choice 2: Get paid $75.  
 

Which would you choose?  
 

This is a famous question about people’s ability to correctly assess risk.   If you have read my earlier posts you can probably guess the correct answer but absent that clue, what does your instinct tell you to do?

[Flaps2]

2017 Herbert runs and get's injured.

2018 and 2019 EVERYONE was complianing about Herbert not running. 

   

[Kurt Rambis]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:18 AM, Flaps2 said:

2017 Herbert runs and get's injured.

2018 and 2019 EVERYONE was complianing about Herbert not running. 

   

That's a great observation, but I don't think the options here are 1) run the QB or 2) not allow any running.  Any more than it is 1) always go for it on 4th down or 2) never go for it on 4th down.

 

It's a question of when and how to run the QB.  Runs where the QB gets outside and has a reasonably clear field, generally facing DBs or LBs at worst, and has an opportunity to slide or run out of bounds are one thing.  Running a QB between the tackles or into heavy traffic is another.  It simply adds a much higher level of risk to the equation. 

 

Russell Wilson vs. Josh Allen is a good example.  Wilson runs when he has to or there's a clear path, and rarely takes a hit (or at least that's how he played in Seattle).  Allen runs at will and often seeks out contact.  Allen hasn't gotten hurt yet, but that's probably coming.  Until he gets hurt, it's a tremendously effective strategy.  If he uses his arm and legs to get them to the Super Bowl, Bills fans will be elated.  If he separates his shoulder in the playoffs while getting extra yards or running in traffic, they'll be devastated (again - hey, it's the Bills).

 

Also in question is what the backup situation is like.  If you've got a good backup QB, maybe you can take a little more risk.  I think the jury is still out on whether we have any capable backup QBs.  We've seen nothing of Butterfield, and Thompson has done nothing at all in a very, very limited backup role.

 

It's pure risk-vs-reward.  I'm not sure there's a clearly right answer, but the more Nix runs, and the more traffic in which he's running, the greater the chances we'll see Thompson or Butterfield for a lengthy amount of time.

[nw777b]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:45 PM, CalBear95 said:

You asked the exact right question: Why would you ever punt if that is the math?

 

Answer: You don’t.  
 

But that runs counter to conventional wisdom so it gets dismissed as wrong even though it is mathematically correct.

 

Your ‘flipping the field’ comment is a ‘aversion to loss’ mindset that Romer highlighted as why coaches fundamentally misjudge how to play 4th down (FWIW, studies have shown most people are wired to think this way and is why most people aren’t good at assessing risk)
 

I hope DL said it was the wrong decision in terms of play call because it wasn’t strategically.  

Sorry, but that's flawed. There are way too many moving parts to leave that decision up to some limited algorithm. It's why insurance companies pay a LOT of money to Actuaries instead of relying on some formula. 

 

How gassed was the O line? 

 

How long did it take UW to score due to the short field?

 

How slick was the turf at that point in the game?

 

Aversion to risk is a good thing and it has to be a factor when making a decision. 

 

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to punt.

 

A punt is an offensive play.