Oregon Game Thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Oregon Game Thread (/thread-20815.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Oregon Game Thread (/thread-20815.html)
RE: Oregon Game Thread - 81alum - 11-08-2020
I have deliberately not followed our football team during COVID, and I think it foolish even to be having games at this point. But I tuned in to watch, taking time out for Harris and Biden.
I was very impressed by our offensive line play in the first half. It was a gigantic relief after all the problems they had last year. Our running backs are nowhere close to McCaffrey/Love levels, and so getting a running game going is going to be mostly on the strength of the line. O Lines often take a few games to "jell" and yet in our first game, with limited practice, it looked quite good to me. This is a positive that can be built on.
For a while our defense looked better than I expected--and as has been remarked, Oregon succeeded on some well covered plays. I thought our secondary would be much, much worse than it appeared to be
Offensively, with our starting QB out and a star kicker going 0/4, we can at least say we moved the ball. The offense did not look nearly as anemic as last year. We only punted twice, had no turnovers. The BIG problem was inability to convert on 3rd downs, leading in part to all those field goal attempts. And I have to believe that the inability to convert on 3rd down was directly related to the quarterback situation--the lack of experience on the field really shows up in such situations.
Similarly, our defense was good enough to force Oregon into a lot of 3rd down situations--something that has not always been true in the past. But letting them convert 9/11 third downs was atrocious. I'd be interested in other's impressions on what specifically was the weakness that prevented us from getting Oregon off the field on 3rd down, over and over again.
Finally, did I hear correctly at the beginning of the game that the COVID protocol would keep Mills out next week as well? If so, ugh.
As for the play calling, yes, it looked weird and self-defeating at times. The repeated FG attempts were probably the effort of the coach to give his kicker some confidence in a losing effort, but even that backfired. The repeated fade routes were probably something that had been part of the game plan with a different quarterback, and Shaw may have been trying to see whether the backups could handle the timing of them. He certainly got his answer.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Mick - 11-08-2020
(11-08-2020, 08:28 AM)81alum Wrote: I have deliberately not followed our football team during COVID, and I think it foolish even to be having games at this point. But I tuned in to watch, taking time out for Harris and Biden.
I was very impressed by our offensive line play in the first half. It was a gigantic relief after all the problems they had last year. Our running backs are nowhere close to McCaffrey/Love levels, and so getting a running game going is going to be mostly on the strength of the line. O Lines often take a few games to "jell" and yet in our first game, with limited practice, it looked quite good to me. This is a positive that can be built on.
For a while our defense looked better than I expected--and as has been remarked, Oregon succeeded on some well covered plays. I thought our secondary would be much, much worse than it appeared to be
Offensively, with our starting QB out and a star kicker going 0/4, we can at least say we moved the ball. The offense did not look nearly as anemic as last year. We only punted twice, had no turnovers. The BIG problem was inability to convert on 3rd downs, leading in part to all those field goal attempts. And I have to believe that the inability to convert on 3rd down was directly related to the quarterback situation--the lack of experience on the field really shows up in such situations.
Similarly, our defense was good enough to force Oregon into a lot of 3rd down situations--something that has not always been true in the past. But letting them convert 9/11 third downs was atrocious. I'd be interested in other's impressions on what specifically was the weakness that prevented us from getting Oregon off the field on 3rd down, over and over again.
Finally, did I hear correctly at the beginning of the game that the COVID protocol would keep Mills out next week as well? If so, ugh.
As for the play calling, yes, it looked weird and self-defeating at times. The repeated FG attempts were probably the effort of the coach to give his kicker some confidence in a losing effort, but even that backfired. The repeated fade routes were probably something that had been part of the game plan with a different quarterback, and Shaw may have been trying to see whether the backups could handle the timing of them. He certainly got his answer.
+1. Everything spot on, including the oddness of having football during a pandemic.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - lex24 - 11-08-2020
(11-07-2020, 07:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-07-2020, 06:43 PM)lex24 Wrote: Wilson has to catch that second and three pass. He had room.
Terrible PI call.
1. Um, why are you even passing it there?
2. And after the INC (and I agree he should have caught it), why not run it 2x more?
3. The same thing on next possession from inside Oregon 40. On 3rd and 8, you should try something short or medium (or even run the freaking ball) - instead, you try the hardest pass to complete (of course, INC).
Lex, this guy has no clue on how to run an offense in certain down-and-distance situations. Utterly clueless.
P.S. It's remarkable isn't it? Even with no fans to influence the refs, the zebras still screw the Cardinal.
P.P.S. Stanford had a chance in 1H . . . and of course, squandered it. That's what they do under Coach Squander.
Um, he was wide open with room to run. The call worked. Safe pass. It led to a wide open underneath receiver to one of their playmakers. He dropped it. They also had a wide open TD downfield on first drive they missed. Could have had 21 points in first 4 drives. I know you always want to put it on play calling (that seems to apply not just to Shaw). But sometimes it’s on the player. And execution matters.
Nothing wrong with passing second and three. (I mean going against tendencies once in a while is not a bad thing, right?). Wilson catches it he's probably gets it inside the 10. I would have run third and three and hoped I get the first or close. Then go on 4th.
And this is not a “defense” of Shaw. I’m sure there is plenty for you all to criticize. But the second and three call isn’t one of them.
I didn’t see second half. I thought they ran a bit too much first half. And I hated the punt from the 33. Jones looked ok. (Didn’t finish a couple runs and had a chance to break a long one but cut the wrong way) Peak looks better. And OL played well. Would have been nice to see that game with Mills. I think at least, it’s close.
Still throwing too many passes down the sidelines. They did hit Jones on a nice option route. Not sure they ever went back to it. Gotta use middle of field more.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 11-08-2020
That game sure was a Rorschach Test for the glass is half-full or half-empty for the Stanford Football team at the moment.
Putting aside all the things I saw that have been maddening to see in the past, manifested again, there was one overarching observation I had that struck me. The players wearing Stanford uniforms look to be much more physically developed and "look the part" of a legit football team.
Now if they can just get the legit game planning and in-game coaching to go with it. My gawd.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Phogge - 11-08-2020
Shaw has taken EUTM to DITH. First word is Deer.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - lex24 - 11-08-2020
(11-08-2020, 09:57 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: That game sure was a Rorschach Test for the glass is half-full or half-empty for the Stanford Football team at the moment.
Putting aside all the things I saw that have been maddening to see in the past, manifested again, there was one overarching observation I had that struck me. The players wearing Stanford uniforms look to be much more physically developed and "look the part" of a legit football team.
Now if they can just get the legit game planning and in-game coaching to go with it. My gawd.
Well, I suspect the game planned changed quite a bit without Mills. Don’t you?
They should have had 21 points in first 4 drives. Missed opportunities. Put some on the calls, some on the players (the missed TD pass and Wilson’s drop of an easy first with room to run)
And the one they didn’t is when he put McKee in on drive 3. After two good drives led by West. Obviously the plan was to make that move. But it should have been scrapped until later. Don’t change QB just to do it. Not when you are moving the ball.
Good to see the o line play well. With Mills....Darn. Not saying they win. But I think it would have been a close contest
RE: Oregon Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 11-08-2020
While it's possible the gameplay might have been different with Mills, I don't think so.
The fades to the End Zone are the embodiment of brain dead offensive game planning.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - oregontim - 11-08-2020
- Stanford lost to a very strong team. The ducks ran on all cylinders. Cristobal and his crew have out-recruited the rest of the Pac 12 for three years in a row; and speed, size, and strength showed up. The fresh offensive line came out big, strong, and well coached. Shough came through. Receivers, running backs, and linebackers looked very good. Ducks looked top 10 at least.
- I sympathize with Shaw on the Jet Toner disaster. Hindsight makes it look terrible, but Toner was really good before his injury, and there's history of kickers falling into slumps and kicking themselves out of them. Particularly the fourth attempt, the shortest, looked to me like a nothing-to-lose opportunity to beat the slump. At least he made that last extra point. Tough situation for all.
- So much uncertainty means extra benefit of the doubt. Mills out 90 minutes before the game, Wedington also out. Even though the whole conference suffered the on-and-off season, no spring season, no normal camps, everybody ought to get some kind of pass.
- We could still have a 5-2 or at least 4-3 season. This first game could be rewritten as an acceptable performance in a bad year, losing to a potential playoffs team.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - JohnR34231 - 11-08-2020
(11-08-2020, 12:30 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: While it's possible the gameplay might have been different with Mills, I don't think so.
The fades to the End Zone are the embodiment of brain dead offensive game planning.
I don't mind them occasionally, but when you are running the ball well and you have first down inside the 5?
Also it helps to have a JJAW.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - old spanish trail - 11-08-2020
Re the lob passes by McKee into end zone, I think I heard that McKee had had trouble during his limited reps with hand offs. Seems weird, I know, but he hasn't played in 2 yrs and hasn't had much practice. If true, passes were perhaps safer. But, he must have practiced at least one different route. The lack of practice hurts alot when your starter is clocked 3 hrs before game time. Also, wouldn't have hurt to sub West in to hand the ball off.
Anyone with better info re Mills' availability next week. It's a different game with him. Enuf to win? Dunno, but much closer. I'm afraid West can't throw anything longer than 10 yds on a line which limits the O too much. McKee should start if Mills can't go. Just give him 10 plays to rep this week. I think the OL is good enuf to pull that off.
DL looked better than last year on some running plays. Not much pass rush, however. Booker was excellent but no doubt wore down. As others have noted, DB's were better than expected. Good coverage and fairly good tackling.
Hope Miezan isn't hurt badly. He missed the angle on a couple runs, but was otherwise great. Is Damuni playing IL or OL? He at least has good hands. Really rooting for Robinson but he's still mia too often.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - teejers1 - 11-08-2020
(11-08-2020, 09:34 AM)lex24 Wrote:(11-07-2020, 07:37 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-07-2020, 06:43 PM)lex24 Wrote: Wilson has to catch that second and three pass. He had room.
Terrible PI call.
1. Um, why are you even passing it there?
2. And after the INC (and I agree he should have caught it), why not run it 2x more?
3. The same thing on next possession from inside Oregon 40. On 3rd and 8, you should try something short or medium (or even run the freaking ball) - instead, you try the hardest pass to complete (of course, INC).
Lex, this guy has no clue on how to run an offense in certain down-and-distance situations. Utterly clueless.
P.S. It's remarkable isn't it? Even with no fans to influence the refs, the zebras still screw the Cardinal.
P.P.S. Stanford had a chance in 1H . . . and of course, squandered it. That's what they do under Coach Squander.
Um, he was wide open with room to run. The call worked. Safe pass. It led to a wide open underneath receiver to one of their playmakers. He dropped it. They also had a wide open TD downfield on first drive they missed. Could have had 21 points in first 4 drives. I know you always want to put it on play calling (that seems to apply not just to Shaw). But sometimes it’s on the player. And execution matters.
Nothing wrong with passing second and three. (I mean going against tendencies once in a while is not a bad thing, right?). Wilson catches it he's probably gets it inside the 10. I would have run third and three and hoped I get the first or close. Then go on 4th.
Believe it or not, I agree with you 100% on this. There is nothing wrong with throwing on second and 3, if your intention is to run it the following two downs to get the first, if necessary. But if your plan/intention is to "kick a FG on fourth down if we don't get the first down" - which, sadly, it almost always is with Shaw, including in the situation we're discussing - then you have to run on second down. And third down, if necessary.
Unfortunately, Shaw is incapable of thinking like you or I (or any other person with a semblance of football knowledge would) in far too many basic game situations. I don't know if it's cluelessness, brain freezes, myopia or what have you. But whatever the problem, it's been going on for years. He repeatedly makes mistakes calling an O game that competent coaches should never make.
When someone repeatedly makes the same mistakes over and over and over and over again . . . you have to stop rationalizing it as a "player execution" issue, or the on-off brain fart. Shaw is a DISASTER as an offensive play caller, plain and simple.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Phogge - 11-08-2020
Sadly looks like the old refrain from a former poster here on Farrar and Miezen... "Crystal."
RE: Oregon Game Thread - fullmetal - 11-08-2020
(11-08-2020, 06:06 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: BTW here is the text of Shaw's remarks.
https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2020/11/what-david-shaw-said-about-stanford-lost-at-oregon.html
So this quote from Shaw:
Quote:I thought it was unfair to them to out too much pressure on them, but this year you see the variety we have back in our game. Inside zone, outside zone, some pin and pull schemes.
What's missing? Duo, which we were told was what Carberry installed last year, and power/counter/etc that were the staple plays of the Tunnel Workers Union. I mean, shoot, we have Peat as an effective runner too, why not install blocking schemes for Veer or triple-option? And why move away from Duo if you spent so much time installing that because the NFL runs it?
Also, yeah, I get that starting three freshmen on the OL was brutal last year, but if you didn't give them very much to work with in terms of blocking schemes, then their ceiling was artificially limited from the get go. Maybe try that with your QB playbook as well so that our backup QBs can call a variety of plays even if they don't have the full playbook in mind.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - lex24 - 11-09-2020
(11-08-2020, 12:30 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: While it's possible the gameplay might have been different with Mills, I don't think so.
The fades to the End Zone are the embodiment of brain dead offensive game planning.
Of course it would have been different. He’s a top flight QB. They would have thrown considerably more. Especially with the run game opening things up a bit.
I’m not talking about a couple in game calls. And I agree with you on the overuse of the goal line jump ball (I don’t consider them fades - which are passes thrown over the top to the back corner - think Plunkett to Vataha that the receiver runs under. Not jump balls where the receiver essentially posts up and tries to block out.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Phogge - 11-09-2020
These days you must have a QB who can run a bit. Not designed runs necessarily but the ability to avoid a rush and take off. Haven’t had that since Hogan.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - winflop - 11-09-2020
(11-09-2020, 09:22 AM)Phogge Wrote: These days you must have a QB who can run a bit. Not designed runs necessarily but the ability to avoid a rush and take off. Haven’t had that since Hogan.
Right now I'd settle for an OL that can block and RBs who can run. Looks like we have those.
Oh, and a coach willing to call running plays on 1st & goal inside the 5...doesn't appear we have that
RE: Oregon Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 11-09-2020
(11-09-2020, 10:17 AM)winflop Wrote:(11-09-2020, 09:22 AM)Phogge Wrote: These days you must have a QB who can run a bit. Not designed runs necessarily but the ability to avoid a rush and take off. Haven’t had that since Hogan.
Right now I'd settle for an OL that can block and RBs who can run. Looks like we have those.
Oh, and a coach willing to call running plays on 1st & goal inside the 5...doesn't appear we have that
Both TDs by Jones were run plays on 1st and goal inside the 5. (Notably, with West at QB both times. I think that made a difference. McKee's handoffs looked very clunky.)
Clearly Shaw was mailing it in with the 4th q fades. He thought we had already lost and was just giving the QB of the future some reps at that point. (And by thinking that we had lost, he ensured it.) This can be further evidenced by calling runs inside 8 minutes left in the 4th. Peat just happened to break one and we took advantage.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - BostonCard - 11-09-2020
I mean, can you blame him? I mailed it in as a fan for this season.
BC
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Papa John - 11-09-2020
(11-09-2020, 10:49 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: <snip>
Clearly Shaw was mailing it in with the 4th q fades. He thought we had already lost and was just giving the QB of the future some reps at that point. <snip>
I don't think it's clear at all that Shaw was mailing it in with the fades. He called the plays that, in his opinion, had the greatest chance of resulting in a TD given what Oregon's defense was showing. He was wrong. That's not the same as giving up.
RE: Oregon Game Thread - Phogge - 11-09-2020
BC, you’re not making millions from football coaching. And I hope you are not mailing it in despite all the crap that has happened in 2020. I will spare the quitter cliches.