| Author |
Message |
    
Millertime
Username: Millertime
Registered: 12-2008
Posted From: 65.183.198.118
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 11:25 am: | |
After watching the Ducks destroy Skippy's Bruins last night I am amazed at the speed of Oregon's offense. Not just how quick their players are but the speed at which they get to the ball and run the next play. They are very disciplined, rarely making mistakes and getting any sort of false start or illegal formation penalties. The plays they run aren't anything fancy, just old school option football. Darron Thomas might be a better quarterback than Dennis Dixon. He seems to be a more accurate passer. I think the only way the Ducks lose this year is if they kill themselves with turnovers. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 04:01 pm: | |
Much as we hate to admit it, Oregon is scary good right now. Who would be favored against them? The nasty secret is that their defense is underrated - it's very good.
Even if they turn the ball over, they're no lock to lose. Ask Stanford, the second-best Pac-10 team this year.
Damn. |
Zoner
Username: Zoner
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 166.205.142.165
| | Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 05:45 pm: | |
They looked awesome. You can't be a football fan and not appreciate what they're doing. But let's get a big win this week and then get closer to a duck slaughter. Go Dawgs! |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Saturday, October 23, 2010 - 02:46 pm: | |
I absolutely agree, they are the best team I've seen
in the country this season. Very few weaknesses,
although I will say the Bruins and others have moved
the ball on them some this season. Bruins shot themselves
in foot several times, and their defence simply could
not stop Oregon's passing attack. The Duck's speed on
both sides of the ball is just amazing!
I think they have two legitimate shots at losing one
this season though ... USC and Oregon State, both
road games. The only way they lose is if somebody
can outscore them ... a 100+ point game!
(I think UCLA only punted once!)
It would be the shocker of year if the Dawgs were
able to do that, and they would likely have to do
much of that on the ground, up the middle.
I'd love to see two western non-BCS teams go at it
in the championship game, but the system would never
allow it. It could come down to Oregon against
one of those teams though. (TCU, Boise St. or Utah)
The eastern media would still be frowning, which is
fine with me! :-) |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 12:31 am: | |
Hmmm ... on second thought the system is even worse
than I thought. I can see Auburn jumping over
Boise and TCU (maybe!), but Oregon? I'm no Duckie
defender ... but the human polls got it right. Anyone
with a brain could see Oregon was far more impressive
than Auburn was on Saturday ... and for the season
so far for that matter. I predict Auburn and Mich.
State will lose at least once, they've been lucky
too many times. Law of averages ... |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 72.102.170.199
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 12:53 am: | |
Your right. Auburn has to play Alabama and Ducks play the Dawgs. Could Oregon run the table in the SEC against LSU,Auburn,Bama,South Carolina, Florida and Miss State? IF Auburn beats Bama and then South Carolina, bet on Auburn. I will.
Boise State killed the ducks last year.Only two Boise starters graduated. The Ducks look good against weak competition. I know you don't like the SEC, but the last four years the SEC has been very strong. I think, after watching the different teams they are still very strong.
No one, except the SEC, want a playoff because one loss lets in Oregon, TCU, Utah, etc.
We need an 8 team playoff so that you who dislike the SEC and I who think the SEC is very strong could be proven right or wrong. Until then, our mouths are flapping.
I think Dawgs could win this week.
Go Dawgs. |
Dawgvader
Username: Dawgvader
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 75.165.190.72
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 09:04 am: | |
this is simple see what the score between Tenn and Auburn is |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 09:58 am: | |
That would be simple Vader ... if they played at
Knoxville.
Oldawg, I know you don't like Oregon, Hell, neither
do I. But Auburn just has not been as impressive
as Oregon, I don't believe the BCS poll is fair or
accurate. It does not see teams in action, nor does
it take into account margin of victory. And I hate
to bring up non-conference schedules again, the Pac
Ten's is much tougher.
What I think will happen with undefeateds' ...
Mizzu has only played one road game at Texas A&M,
and has four remaining, including at Nebraska.
A loss for them is nearly certain.
Michigan State's toughest games remaining are both
on the road, at Iowa and Penn State. They have not
been an overwhelming team, so it's possible they
lose both.
Auburn has been unimpressive in many of it's wins,
save for coming back against Arkansas. They will
lose at Alabama.
Oregon as I said earlier has two tough road games
left, at USC this week and at Oregon State. So one
or two losses are possible there, but not likely.
TCU and Utah look to run the table depending on the
outcome of their head to head ... at Utah. That's
going to be a biggie! Toss-up there I'd say.
Boise State ... they will take care of business up
until Nevada on the road. A close game, but I still
favor Boise. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 02:22 pm: | |
I always say the SEC is both the best and the most overrated conference. This year, however, I think the Pac-10 is better. By a fair margin.
Oregon, then Alabama, then Stanford, then Auburn. Then a big mix of mid-level teams: Oregon State, USC, Arizona, UCLA, Cal, Washington, and Arizona State; versus Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina. WSU beats Duke.
It's not a blowout, but the Pac-10 is better at the top, through the middle, and at the bottom. That's this year, I still say that year-to-year the SEC is tougher. But not right now. Add Utah to the Pac-10 and it's less close.
My take. |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.196.23.203
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 02:41 pm: | |
I still hate Oregon and it clouds my judgement. If they play in the BCS championship and Boise wins 49-7, that would be sweet. |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.196.23.203
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 02:49 pm: | |
PS I was/am in the Emerald city, and the family took me down to my haunting grounds for Chinese food at 7th and King. The chow is even better than I remembered. |
Millertime
Username: Millertime
Registered: 12-2008
Posted From: 65.183.198.118
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 05:09 pm: | |
Oregon is the only school where I totally dislike the fans and the media surrounding them. I don't get it. For some reason they have this arrogant, better than you, know-it-all, and condescending attitude. I see bandwagon Oregon fans all over SW Wa. I know they know nothing of where the team has come from. All they know is the flash and dash Nike crap.
I like Oregon football. I hate Oregon fan. |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Monday, October 25, 2010 - 11:30 pm: | |
Yeah, I think that would be sweet too Olddawg ...
again I don't like the green pukes and will never
set foot in Autzen Stadium again, but I do think
they are the best team in country. Maybe as dominant
as our '91 Dawgs, the difference being their offence
is better but our defence was likewise.
And I agree of course djohnson, this year the Pac
Ten is tops, despite our under-representation in
the polls. I'm wondering in the weeks to come how
many one-loss teams from eastern conferences will
leap-frog the undefeateds or one-loss teams out west?
(in the B.S. poll that is, especially if the ducks
are upset) |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.27.57
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 12:17 am: | |
HOSER, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THESE DUCKS COULD NOT COMPARE WITH THE 1991 PUPPIES.
That team had 13 drafted into the NFL.One who did not get drafted (Baily) was AA.
Now the Sagarin ratings ALL-TIME have the 91 Dawgs at 6th at 109.55. The Ducks right now are 92.59.
So, if you were to ask the bookie at Vegas the spread would be Huskies -17 on a neutral field.
This is one area that is not subjective. AND, if by chance the Ducks play Bama the spread would be Oregon -3 at this time. I would put my money , at least $750 on the Tide.That is a promise.
Your point about media prejudice is well taken. But, they don't favor the SEC. The BIG 10, ND, Connecticut are favored by the NY, East coast, Chicago media.
The question about which conference is better in the last decade is fun to argue. I watch the PAc Ten and SEC and in my opinion, Oregon is the only team that could compete in the SEC in 2010. Maybe Arizona. Don;t confuse the argument talking about UCLA, Vandy, Kentucky or the Cougs.
The WSJ had an interesting article about two months ago, comparing the star rating of the recruits in high school for each conference. The average star rating was 3.57 for the SEC and the PAC TEN was second at 3.06. Now this is huge. I know one can point out an over-achiever, but overall if your team is all 5 star kids and mine is two star, you will win.(Trivia the Heisman winner last year, Ingraham, was a three star in HS)
The state with the most NFL players,per capita,
is Louisiana, followed by Mississippi, Hawaii, and Alabama in that order. Why? I could only speculate and my conclusions could be in error so I won't.
It is a fun discussion, but the 91 Dawgs are better in many ways.
This week I think our pups have a chance to beat Stanford. They have a good offense, but their defense is not as good as AU. |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.27.57
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 03:24 am: | |
Trivia for you in case your interested:I found it on a NEBRASKA site, that is why NEBRASKA is capitalized.These are the top Sagarin teams of all time. Notice the Big Twelve has nine teams in the top 27.
Those two top Nebraska teams were really tough.The loss Ole Miss had in 1959 was the famous loss to LSU 7-3 when Billy Cannon ran 95 yards at the end of the game for LSU.Ole Miss was playing conservatively. However, they got their revenge in the Sugar bowl replaying LSU and this time it was a 21-0 win.
1956-2008
Year W-L-T Sagarin*
1. NEBRASKA 1995 12-0-0 117.05
2. NEBRASKA 1971 13-0-0 116.47
3. Mississippi 1959 10-1-0 109.74
4. Oklahoma 1971 11-1-0 109.68
5. Ohio State 1973 10-0-1 109.56
6. Washington 1991 12-0-0 109.55
7. Oklahoma 1973 10-0-1 109.40
8. Miami, Fla. 2001 12-0-0 108.70
9. Oklahoma 1974 11-0-0 108.19
10. Southern Cal 1972 12-0-0 107.66
11. NEBRASKA 1972 9-2-1 106.96
12. Oklahoma 1972 11-1-0 106.50
13. Florida St. 1987 11-1-0 106.44
14. Oklahoma 1986 11-1-0 106.33
15. Notre Dame 1966 9-0-1 106.32
16. Notre Dame 1970 10-1-0 106.09
17. Texas 2005 13-0-0 106.03
18. Penn State 1994 12-0-0 105.82
19. Florida State 1993 12-1-0 105.28
20. NEBRASKA 1997 13-0-0 104.99
21. Alabama 1971 11-1-0 104.61
22. Miami, Fla. 1988 11-1-0 104.33
23. Texas 1970 10-1-0 104.22
24. Syracuse 1959 11-0-0 104.13
25. Notre Dame 1988 12-0-0 103.86
26. Miami, Fla. 1987 12-0-0 103.79
27. NEBRASKA 1970 11-0-1 103.58 |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.27.57
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 03:29 am: | |
DJ: Duke is in the ACC. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 08:38 am: | |
Olddawg, you'd take Alabama over Oregon? Boy, I don't know. Well, let me give you this: somebody out there is going to be fast enough and good enough at tackling that Oregon isn't going to run up and down the field at will. But here's where this Oregon team is different.
Their defense is better than Alabama's offense (I think, I'm not sure), and they don't get discouraged anymore. They were down 21-3 against Stanford and they came back and crushed a very, very good Cardinal team. They were in a tight game with Tennessee at halftime and they came back and crushed Tennessee, too -- in Tennessee.
You don't think Stanford or Oregon State could compete in the SEC? Hm. Maybe you mean they couldn't *win* the SEC, with which I agree. But surely they'd be competitive. Those are top-25 teams, they can compete with anybody.
Sounds like we disagree a bit! Good stuff.
I like that tops-of-all time list. Nebraska has had some great teams. Those mid-90s Cornhuskers were some of the best I've ever seen. But I always have this nagging thing about Nebraska because they're schedule was always so pathetically weak. How would they have done playing a Pac-10 schedule? I'm not saying Nebraska would not have been in the best team in the country still, but they'd have been a lot less likely to be undefeated.
Somebody calculated the odds of various teams going undefeated this year. Forgive me for not having the numbers straight, but Boise State was something like 13 times more likely run the table than Oregon - yet Oregon had a higher (assumed) power ranking. That's what strength of schedule does for you. If you're a 10:1 favorite in all your games you have about a 30% chance of being undefeated. If your odds drop to 4:1, still a major favorite, the probability of being undefeated falls to 3%.
Playing a tough schedule is tough.
How did we get on this? |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.117.19
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 04:48 am: | |
You may have a point as I LOOK AT THE sAGARIN RATINGS this year. The Pac Ten does have a tough schedule.
I don't know the BCS math, but Auburn vaulting up so fast was the win over LSU. Now, Bama has LSU, Auburn and South Carolina. If they win all three and they should, then it may be Bama and Oregon.The Sagarin predictor ratings (on the far right hand have Oregon and Bama one-two.
You think the offense lacks? Two AA tailbacks and three receivers as good as they come.
The big problem this year is that 6 teams scheduled byes ahead of the Bama game.
Tennessee has not won a game yet in the SEC so that victory by Oregon is not earth shattering.
I am in Vegas as I write this, and have talked with fans from all over while playing black jack.
The TCU folks think the deck is stacked. ditto Boise State.The two Oregon fans I talked to tonight were not representative. They appeared to be nice people and worried about USC. They all question how Auburn jumped to number one in the BCS standings. I really don't know.
Oregon will probably beat Auburn if it comes to that scenario.
We need a four team playoff, Better still an 8 team showdown.
Watch bama play LSU and tell me the offense is weak.
I am betting on Dawgs this week. Maybe it is hope that clouds judgement. |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 09:26 am: | |
That was my point, Auburn ooc's schedule wasn't that
great. Neither was Oregon's as it turns out, with
Tennessee basically sucking ... but the Ducks have
destroyed most of their opponents this season. Things
change as the season goes on as well, teams that
were not good at the beginning of the season are
better now, and vise-versa. Boise knows this well,
a big deal was made out of Virginia Tech. losing
to a D2 team the week after their game, but look
at the Hokies now. Or the SC win over Hawaii being
downplayed ... they will give Boise all they can
handle in a couple weeks.
The problem with the BCS rating is that it doesn't
take margin of victory into account, as well as other
intangibles.
Bottom line ... you're right Olddawg we need an
8 team playoff. I hate this system ... certain teams
are assured from the beginning of the season they
will NOT have a shot at the national title, and that
stinks. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 12:21 pm: | |
Duke's in the ACC? Who knew. I was thinking of Vanderbuilt, I suppose. Ah, well.
One final disagreement, Olddawg. Why would you want a playoff? Isn't all this uncertainty and subjectivity what makes it all so interesting? I LOVE arguing with people from the south about the SEC. If I was from there, I'd probably feel just like they do. I'm not, so I think it's overrated. They think the Pac-10 is a bunch of wusses. But we can drink beers and complain about Michigan or Notre Dame with no problem. It's a beautiful system just the way it is. |
Millertime
Username: Millertime
Registered: 12-2008
Posted From: 65.183.198.118
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 05:11 pm: | |
No the system sucks. I'm all for a playoff. I hope you're not afraid of a playoff DJ and truly enjoy this present BS. I'm wondering if there's folks out there who fear the SEC would dominate the playoffs and win the most championships? |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010 - 05:41 pm: | |
Afraid of a playoff? Why? I'm afraid it will make college football less interesting. Does that count? Why is everybody so obsessed with the SEC? Most days I don't even think about it. |
Millertime
Username: Millertime
Registered: 12-2008
Posted From: 65.183.198.118
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 - 08:49 am: | |
I think people talk about the SEC so much because their fans are so arrogant and brash. Bragging about how great their conference is. You don't hear that crap from other conferences. I like to see people get put in their place, and I think the only way to shut those jackasses up is to kick their asses on the field. |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 - 02:12 pm: | |
Exactly right Miller ... except add the media factor
to that as well. The SEC's crap doesn't stink to
these people, and neither does the Big Ten's for
that matter. I am absolutely sick of hearing it every
year without fail ... I hope Larry Scott is successful
in stemming this! I like this guy so far.
Speaking of that ... what do you guys think of the
divisional alignment recently announced? Yes, no,
maybe? I like it ... preserves the rivalries, gives
the Washington and Oregon schools a decent recruiting
shot at California, and gives us the Oregon schools
every year. I also like the fact the championship
game will be played on someone's home field, it
gives the standings more meaning and will be better
for attendance than a neutral field. |
Millertime
Username: Millertime
Registered: 12-2008
Posted From: 65.183.198.118
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 - 05:20 pm: | |
I think it's a good alignment and a nice way of rewarding the team with the best record to host the champ game. The rivalries are intact and the Dawgs get to play in So Cal every other year. They did that quite a few years back before there were nine conference games anyhow. |
Zoner
Username: Zoner
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 63.225.162.83
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 - 05:47 pm: | |
I'm okay with a playoff... but I still think there's huge value in the social aspect sports, a healthy debate whether Team A or Team B was better -- without having to have it fully, fully, finally resolved. Kinda' like umpires in baseball. Since technology can and would be a better measure of balls & strikes, shouldn't we be using it instead? (Rhetorical) |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.246.29
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2010 - 11:44 pm: | |
Yea your right. Let us cut out the World series. Also March madness, also the world cup, also the Volleyball playoffs. Let us cut out all championships and then we can debate if Seattle U is really better than Kentucky in basketball.
Gimme a break. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 - 09:09 am: | |
Olddawg, I don't get your point.
Are you saying that not wanting a college football playoff is equivalent to wanting to do away with March Madness or the World Series? It's not. There are substantial differences between those sports that make playoffs more or less workable. Besides, just because it's good for one sport doesn't mean it's good for every sport. What about tradition? Is everybody just a bunch of conformists or is there a little cussedness out there we can draw on?
Are you saying that playoffs actually establish which is the best team? They don't. They establish which team won a particular game, and they can lead to a "champion" as a purely definitional issue. But that's hardly the same thing. College football, with its huge population and short season, is particularly poorly suited for a playoff. In fact, you could argue that the voting system is much MORE likely to identify the team that is truly the best because it could, theoretically, overlook an upset. (That's what an upset is, of course. When the worse team wins. That doesn't make Washington better than USC, it means Washington upset USC.)
What a playoff does is not end debate but stifle it. There were still be just as much uncertainty over who the best team is. Maybe even more uncertainty than now. But there will always be an argument that says, "Well so-and-so won the tournament, so they must have been the best team." That's a non sequitur, but it does tend to shut down the discussion. How is that better?
I detected a little sarcasm in your response to Zoner, which was possibly intended for me. But you should at least give those of us who don't want playoffs (maybe I'm the only one) the benefit of the doubt: it's not a gratuitous thing to say. In fact there are other arguments against a playoff that don't have anything to do with identifying a champion. It's a bad idea, in my opinion. But it's probably inevitable.
Can you get the game today in your neck of the woods? Hope so. |
Sundodger
Username: Sundodger
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 76.28.221.162
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 - 09:59 am: | |
The divisional alignments absolutely suck. The concessions the rest of the conference gave to USC and UCLA are terrible. UCLA especially got a screamin' deal. UCLA is generally second in the conference in TV revenue, but only because they are in LA. Even with that huge built-in advantage, their revenues are far closer to the UW's, Cal's, etc. than they are to USC's, who lap the field.
If the new TV deal isn't huge, and by huge I mean substantially bigger than the deal ESPN just gave the ACC, UCLA and USC get $2 million extra per year. There's no gaurantee that the new Pac 12 deal will meet the $170 million threshold, especially when you consider that the biggest player involved (ESPN) likely won't drive up the bidding the way they have in the past.
The newbies (the Arizona schoos, Colorado, and Utah) got a tremendous bossts. Using 2008 revenues, the UW would actually end up giving money back to the conference with the equal revenue sharing. If the threshold for paying off the LA schools isn't met, the UW is the only school that would actually make less money with the new plan relative to the rest of the conference (I understand that the total payday will be far greater, but everybody else would realize a bigger benefit than the UW).
The UW is the only school that loses relative to everybody else in the conference, both in money and live exposure in the LA market. The only saving grace is that the Pac 12 will likely be the Pac 16 before the decade is through.
Djohnson, I disagree with you about the playoff stifling debate. Right now, the BCS crowns a "champion" that has the same sort of bragging rights that would come with a playoff. The difference is that only two teams even have opportunity to enter that debate, and it's a computer-generated top two. The debate is only stiffled if you allow it to be. |
Zoner
Username: Zoner
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 166.205.141.113
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2010 - 12:57 pm: | |
Not being sarcastic at all. Of people want a playoff, knock themselves out. I think it's a waste of motion. It quite arguably may identify the best team, but adds net zero to the game. I'm actually one of those people who can make a reasoned argument against the excessive instant replay. There's much to be said for the qualitative aspects of the game without trying to quantify performance in a playoff. I'm not impressed with them --- |
Olddawg
Username: Olddawg
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 75.211.86.150
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 02:27 am: | |
Well Dj, I settled in to watch the Dawgs at the Mirage sports bar. Placed three bets: Oregon, Auburn and the Dawgs. At half time I was SICK.
This is not the team that played ND or Cal last year. The defense is non-existent. Stanford could have scored more. The offense is the thing that makes me cry. What has gone wrong?
Right now it appears we will be competitive against the Cougs. Maybe...
The other discussion about the polls and voting etc. First of all the polls are not accurate, and many people know it. For example, Iowa was playing Michigan State. The Spartans were about ten places higher and yet Iowa was favored by 7.
The mindset , in my opinion, of the poll voter should be to rank the teams in his/her opinion that are number one, number two etc.They don't do that.
Teams move up or down depending how they did, not ranking them by their potential.Thus an undefeated team (Utah, TCU) will move up each week. If Oregon had lost to USC this weekend, the Ducks would have slipped below TCU/Utah.But, in my mind, Oregon would be the better team, win or lose, over TCU and Utah.
Right now I believe that Oregon and Bama are the two best teams and I hope they play for the championship. But, the folks at TCU, Auburn and Boise State would not agree with me. They all deeserve a chance. Now DJ, we both like statistics and use them everyday in our other world.I will readily admit that if there was an eight team playoff and the winner was ABC that if we did the mix a second time XYZ may prevail.However, that is better than voting like the pollsters do now. IN my opinion.
Notice I did not talk about the Dawgs and next week. I am avoiding that scenario in my mind. Maybe it will go away. Maybe the Duck team will get arrested and be incarcerated for a week. I don't even want to think about next week and the Dawgs. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 06:16 pm: | |
Yeah, that was a major blowout. All those cliches about the game being won in the trenches were on display Saturday. Four true freshman (2 OL, 2 DL) started on the lines, and you just can't win that way.
A guy sitting next to me pretty well summed it up: this is what happens when a fully mature program (Stanford) bumps up against one still scrambling to get our of a deep hole (Washington). Stanford is a legit top-10 contender. They'll most likely finish with one loss. The Huskies aren't at that level by long shot.
Hugh Millen pointed out on the pregame show that Stanford is playing football is a way similar to how the Dawgs played in the Don James era. Interesting. |
Hoser
Username: Hoser
Registered: 06-2010
Posted From: 98.247.208.86
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2010 - 11:52 pm: | |
Olddawg, my only question concerning next week's
game is; "Will Oregon even NEED a punter?" Stanford
punted just once, and their offence is not as good
as Oregons ... AND they were playing on road in
a 'hostile' environment, in weather that used to
favor us! I would be shocked if the Husky defense
held Oregon to less than 60 points, honestly.
We simply got pounded in every aspect of the game,
our defense looked like frightened children and
the offense may be the worst in the conference right
now. A 70-0 score is quite possible next Saturday.
I was throwing crap at the TV when I saw the defense
continually playing a VERY soft zone coverage ... 5 to 10
friggin' yards off their receivers the entire night,
with little adjustment. Or getting beaten by the
same play TWICE, a Luck keeper to the left side, one
of which went for a long TD. Or the complete lack
of pressure on Luck, the guy could have had lunch
back there in the pocket. Some of this is being
physically outmanned, but the majority is coaching
IMO. I mean WTF was Trufant doing back there playing
10 yards off his man most of the night? Holt ...
what are teaching these guys eh?
But the offense was suppose to be the strength of
this team, however they are simply abysmal right now!
Sure ... the turmoil on the OL can be faulted, but
the "skill" players (including Locker!) are equally
as culpable.
I think we will lose our remaining games, including
the Apple Cup since it's a road game in late November.
A pretty clear picture of the Pac Ten emerging ...
1. Oregon
2. Stanford
3. Arizona
4. Oregon State
5. USC
6. Arizona State
7. UCLA
8. California
9. Washington
10. WSU
Give or take a spot here and there. |
Djohnson
Username: Djohnson
Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 24.17.13.140
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2010 - 07:30 am: | |
Hoser, what we're seeing is the same defensive strategy we saw from our previous two or three defensive coaches. The Huskies are weak on both the defensive line and the defensive backfield. So what do you do? Well, you'd like to play tight coverage just as a general statement, but that means you've got to be able to pressure the QB. Since we aren't able to get pressure, the DBs have to cover for longer - which they can't do. You have two choices: blitz, which increases the pressure somewhat but also increases the likelihood of a big play. Or play soft and hope the offense makes a mistake before they work their way down the field to score.
At least three coordinators in a row have chosen the later option. We can debate whether it's really the best choice, but it's clearly a defensible, mainstream one.
The real issue, as with just about everything else, is personnel. The Dawgs started two true freshmen on the defensive line, and it looked like it. They got pushed around and bullied by Stanford's offensive line of full-grown men the whole game. Their athleticism, which is good, was not nearly enough to compensate for their lack of experience, conditioning, and strength.
Meanwhile, our defensive backs include Trufant, who I admit has not played as well as he should, Quentin Richardson, who works hard and plays solid but really doesn't have the speed for the position. Our nickle back is Sean Parker, another true freshman and also a safety rather than a corner. Our safeties hit hard but do not have good pass-coverage instincts generally.
It's still a mess on defense, guys. Unfortunately, it's getting worse as it gets better. There are good guys out there, they're just too young still. I question whether coaching has anything to do with it. Anything at all. Baer, Donnatel, and Holt are all legitimate, experienced defensive coaches. None of them has had the players they need to play Pac-10 defense. Blame Tyrone Willingham (I certainly do), who was a terrible recruiter. (Another helping of crow for me, please. Hold the sour-grape sauce.)
But, while all that is being said, remain optimistic. The one area we can be sure Coach Sarkisian and his new staff are having immediate and outsized success is in recruiting. They pulling top-twenty recruiting classes to a school whose past several years have included six, six, one, two, five, four, zero, and five wins. That means these current players were around ten years old the last time the Dawgs had a winning record. This recruiting is a meaningful thing, and it destines the Huskies for improvement - just not right away. |
|