The CardBoard
Interview on Ducks' QB situation - 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: Interview on Ducks' QB situation (/thread-12175.html)


Interview on Ducks' QB situation - washingtonismoney - 06-15-2016

Their QB coach doesn't seem...totally excited about the situation? Maybe his natural mode, but I'd be panicking if David Shaw were so meh: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/100830/qa-oregon-qb-coach-david-yost

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - Hurlburt88 - 06-15-2016

I did not realize he is not only new to school but new to coaching QB's.  Maybe a bit wide-eyed right now.  And I personally panic if any of our people are less than "phenomenal" at this point. 

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - washingtonismoney - 06-15-2016

FWIW this writer (not affiliated with Oregon) is considerably more sanguine: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/6/15/11945870/is-oregon-about-to-unleash-another-overlooked-texan-qb-dakota-prukop

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - stupac2 - 06-16-2016

"He can run the read option pretty well at the FCS level" seems like a weak case to me.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - fullmetal - 06-16-2016

From what I read, it was more "he runs the Andrew Luck offense well at the FCS level" and "he might get to run the RG3 offense at Oregon."  Mildly worrisome.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - Spiny_Norman - 06-16-2016

Oregon plays 9 games this season before Stanford makes the trip to Eugene.  Why don't we hold off on Oregon QB talk until after we see what happens in those 9 games.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - washingtonismoney - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 10:34 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Oregon plays 9 games this season before Stanford makes the trip to Eugene.  Why don't we hold off on Oregon QB talk until after we see what happens in those 9 games.

If their QB situation is rocky or unstable they could play themselves out of the division race before the Stanford game. That basically happened in 2015.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - fullmetal - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 10:42 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=15204.msg165124#msg165124 date=1466098499]
Oregon plays 9 games this season before Stanford makes the trip to Eugene.  Why don't we hold off on Oregon QB talk until after we see what happens in those 9 games.

If their QB situation is rocky or unstable they could play themselves out of the division race before the Stanford game. That basically happened in 2015.
[/quote]

And then they beat us  ???

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - washingtonismoney - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 11:19 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:And then they beat us  ???

Yes, that's exactly my point. Spiny posits that, because the game is so late in the season, instability or inexperience doesn't matter. My argument is that, because every game counts the same, instability early serves our purposes just fine, even if Oregon hits its stride late in the season.

Now, aesthetically, I love to beat the Ducks. Still, in the context of our overall goals -- win the division, win the conference, go to a big bowl or playoff -- the whole season matters.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - Spiny_Norman - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 11:40 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Spiny posits that, because the game is so late in the season, instability or inexperience doesn't matter. My argument is that, because every game counts the same, instability early serves our purposes just fine, even if Oregon hits its stride late in the season.

WIM, my intended point was that we should wait for some actual data points before engaging in a productive discussion about Oregon's QB situation (stable, unstable or still tbd) or investing any emotion into the situation.  I know that off season speculation is the lifeblood of sports fans (and sports sites) everywhere.  But I try to ignore most of it.  FM's "Mildly worrisome" led me the make my comment.  I would save my mildly worrisome energy until I see that there is a reason for it.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - CowboyIndian - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 11:19 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:And then they beat us  ???

Actually, we beat ourselves IMO. Fewer than two fumbles in the 4th quarter and we win it.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - fullmetal - 06-16-2016

Those fumbles were likely "aided" by Oregon defenders who should have been flagged for disconcerting signals or mimicking cadence...oh well.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - JohnR34231 - 06-16-2016

I recall we spent a lot of time last year trying to convince ourselves the Ducks weren't going to be very good because Vernon Adams wasn't going to have enough time to learn the QB job, or their defense was going to be lousy, or whatever. Of course, when they got trounced by Utah, that left no doubt in our minds. Well, when we played them, guess what happened?
So, IMO, this preseason talk is harmless, but also pretty meaningless. Our game with them in Eugene will be a very tough one. You can take that to the bank.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - BostonCard - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 06:56 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Those fumbles were likely "aided" by Oregon defenders who should have been flagged for disconcerting signals or mimicking cadence...oh well.

Is that an actual penalty?  I've never seen it called.

BC

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - fullmetal - 06-16-2016

It is, but it was not called during that game.  I believe it was called the following week somewhere in the Pac-12?  It's rarely called in the NFL, but it's in the books.  I remember an Oregon defender alluding to such behavior in a post-game interview.

Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - CTcard - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 06:56 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Those fumbles were likely "aided" by Oregon defenders who should have been flagged for disconcerting signals or mimicking cadence...oh well.

Did you see something or are you speculating?
I don't remember noticing anything obvious at the time, but probably wasn't really looking either.


(06-16-2016, 08:14 PM)JPRI link Wrote:I recall we spent a lot of time last year trying to convince ourselves the Ducks weren't going to be very good because Vernon Adams wasn't going to have enough time to learn the QB job, or their defense was going to be lousy, or whatever. Of course, when they got trounced by Utah, that left no doubt in our minds. Well, when we played them, guess what happened?

So, IMO, this preseason talk is harmless, but also pretty meaningless. Our game with them in Eugene will be a very tough one. You can take that to the bank.

If we're not going to analyze football or other sports, what are we going to do here now that ripping each other over politics is out?
So, I'm going to go ahead.

At any rate, I don't remember much convincing of that sort, other than there are always a few who simply project everything possibly positive for the home team.

A year ago there was only a little reason to think Oregon might be bad, with their concerns at QB and the secondary.
Mariota had just won the H-man. While Adams seemed promising, hard to expect an FCS guy to come in and equal a H-man winner. In fact, when completely healthy he did a remarkably close job of just that.
The secondary had to replace 3 of 4.
On the other hand, they clearly had a lot of playmakers on offense and a stout front seven on defense that benefited from Buckner returning.

By my memory Oregon was a pretty much unanimous preseason pick to win the Pac 12, certainly the North, and preseason rankings had them 5th-7th in the country from what I can find now.


There is a significant contrast this year.
Oregon is coming off a season where they were very good with Adams healthy, and very bad (for them) otherwise. The total was a bad season for them.
This year's FCS QB transfer is also promising, but less heralded and from a system less similar to Oregon's.
Probably more importantly they lose 6 of their defensive front 7. They do return the secondary but it has to improve a lot. They also lose 3 of 5 OL (as we do).

An interesting development is that there are reports that Charles Nelson is going to full time defense. He didn't touch the ball a lot last year, but was a big play guy (20 yds/rush). Of course UO always has guys who can run with the ball while clearly defense needs support.
-------------
EDIT: Aaargh. I post one thing by pure memory and get it backwards. On the basis of what the Ducks have elsewhere on their roster, I would think the opposite switch would make more sense. The Ducks do have a lot of returning bodies in the secondary, but they were bad last year with perhaps Nelson the best of the group. Of course if he really excels on offense, he'd be more valuable there. We'll see.
Thanks Larkin
-------------

That all adds up to Oregon being picked in the 20s in most preseason rankings so far, and often as low as fourth in the North. We haven't seen that in a long time. Personally, I'm fairly skeptical UW and WSU will really pass them and see a lot of range in how good Stanford may end up, but can see the reasoning.




Re: Interview on Ducks' QB situation - larkinforever - 06-16-2016

(06-16-2016, 09:39 PM)CTcard link Wrote:An interesting development is that there are reports that Charles Nelson is going to full time defense. He didn't touch the ball a lot last year, but was a big play guy (20 yds/rush). Of course UO always has guys who can run with the ball while clearly defense needs support.

My understanding is that Nelson is switching to full-time WR for this upcoming season since they have several returning DBs with a lot of playing experience - I think he is currently on the depth chart as the 1st team slot guy. He's electric - whenever he touches the ball (whether on returns or from scrimmage) you have to hold your breath.