[washingtonismoney]

One last note: we are, in some ways, comparably explosive on offense as Oregon:

Average per game long passing plays: 4.11
Average per game long running plays: 2.11

Oregon has 6.5 explosive offensive plays per game, we have 6.22 explosive offensive plays per game. I suspect that's within the margin of error.

[washingtonismoney]

One last note: we are, in some ways, comparably explosive on offense as Oregon:

Average per game long passing plays: 4.11
Average per game long running plays: 2.11

Oregon has 6.5 explosive offensive plays per game, we have 6.22 explosive offensive plays per game. I suspect that's within the margin of error.

[fullmetal]

Maybe they've scored so quickly and their defense has improved such that they have more offensive series per game.  It doesn't make sense to say that the Oregon offense has regressed.  With the injuries to LMJ and Darron Thomas, and with the loss to LSU, I can easily see how 0.2 plays per game (total of 18 more plays) have been added to the season thus far.

I surely hope their offense has regressed, but they pass my eye test for an explosive offense.

How that relates to their defense dealing with our tempo (slow and grinds you down) is not clear to me :p  In fact, the question is more likely "how will they deal with our time of possession?"  We force them to be perfect and run power as much as we can...in the mud...the very, very slow mud...

[fullmetal]

Maybe they've scored so quickly and their defense has improved such that they have more offensive series per game.  It doesn't make sense to say that the Oregon offense has regressed.  With the injuries to LMJ and Darron Thomas, and with the loss to LSU, I can easily see how 0.2 plays per game (total of 18 more plays) have been added to the season thus far.

I surely hope their offense has regressed, but they pass my eye test for an explosive offense.

How that relates to their defense dealing with our tempo (slow and grinds you down) is not clear to me :p  In fact, the question is more likely "how will they deal with our time of possession?"  We force them to be perfect and run power as much as we can...in the mud...the very, very slow mud...

[Roberton3]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=4847.msg34892#msg34892 date=1320883590]
I haven't watched an entire Oregon game this season, but in the chunks of game I've seen, they don't seem to be running the hurry-up offense as much. Is this just an odd concidence in my viewing? Or is it really down?

This year CFBstats.com has Oregon running 619 plays in 9 games, meaning about 69 plays per game.

Last year they ran 1024 plays in 13 games, roughly 79 plays per game.

So yes, there might be something to that theory. By contrast, we actually run more plays per game this year than Oregon--exactly 71 plays per game. HOW WILL OREGON DEAL WITH OUR TEMPO?
[/quote]

If we're talking tempo, then the relevant number isn't the number of plays, it's the average number of seconds per play (i.e., time of possession divided by plays).  So here's that number:
Oregon 2011: 23:52 time of possession for 68.67 plays = 20.86 sec/play
Oregon 2010: 27:54 for 78.77 plays = 21.25 sec/play
Stanford 2011: 33:17 for 71 plays = 28.13 sec/play

In other words, Oregon's plays/game are down, as WIM pointed out, but their time of possession is also down quite a bit.  So their time per play is pretty much the same (slightly faster, but not significantly).  Stanford runs more plays, but with a lot more time of possession, so the time per play is quite a bit higher -- a slower tempo.

The interesting remaining question is why Oregon is running so many fewer plays per game than last year.

(Note: edited to correct typo)

[Roberton3]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=4847.msg34892#msg34892 date=1320883590]
I haven't watched an entire Oregon game this season, but in the chunks of game I've seen, they don't seem to be running the hurry-up offense as much. Is this just an odd concidence in my viewing? Or is it really down?

This year CFBstats.com has Oregon running 619 plays in 9 games, meaning about 69 plays per game.

Last year they ran 1024 plays in 13 games, roughly 79 plays per game.

So yes, there might be something to that theory. By contrast, we actually run more plays per game this year than Oregon--exactly 71 plays per game. HOW WILL OREGON DEAL WITH OUR TEMPO?
[/quote]

If we're talking tempo, then the relevant number isn't the number of plays, it's the average number of seconds per play (i.e., time of possession divided by plays).  So here's that number:
Oregon 2011: 23:52 time of possession for 68.67 plays = 20.86 sec/play
Oregon 2010: 27:54 for 78.77 plays = 21.25 sec/play
Stanford 2011: 33:17 for 71 plays = 28.13 sec/play

In other words, Oregon's plays/game are down, as WIM pointed out, but their time of possession is also down quite a bit.  So their time per play is pretty much the same (slightly faster, but not significantly).  Stanford runs more plays, but with a lot more time of possession, so the time per play is quite a bit higher -- a slower tempo.

The interesting remaining question is why Oregon is running so many fewer plays per game than last year.

(Note: edited to correct typo)

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe they've scored so quickly and their defense has improved such that they have more offensive series per game.  It doesn't make sense to say that the Oregon offense has regressed.  With the injuries to LMJ and Darron Thomas, and with the loss to LSU, I can easily see how 0.2 plays per game (total of 18 more plays) have been added to the season thus far.

I surely hope their offense has regressed, but they pass my eye test for an explosive offense.

How that relates to their defense dealing with our tempo (slow and grinds you down) is not clear to me :p  In fact, the question is more likely "how will they deal with our time of possession?"  We force them to be perfect and run power as much as we can...in the mud...the very, very slow mud...

Except we're not saying it regressed--it clearly hasn't--but we're wondering how quickly they run their plays. Entirely separate questions.

[washingtonismoney]

Maybe they've scored so quickly and their defense has improved such that they have more offensive series per game.  It doesn't make sense to say that the Oregon offense has regressed.  With the injuries to LMJ and Darron Thomas, and with the loss to LSU, I can easily see how 0.2 plays per game (total of 18 more plays) have been added to the season thus far.

I surely hope their offense has regressed, but they pass my eye test for an explosive offense.

How that relates to their defense dealing with our tempo (slow and grinds you down) is not clear to me :p  In fact, the question is more likely "how will they deal with our time of possession?"  We force them to be perfect and run power as much as we can...in the mud...the very, very slow mud...

Except we're not saying it regressed--it clearly hasn't--but we're wondering how quickly they run their plays. Entirely separate questions.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=4847.msg34886#msg34886 date=1320881859]
If I was Stanford, I would go with a 3-3-5 defense all game long, and spy MT3 on Darron Thomas. 

Stanford hasn't used a 3-3-5 all year long. It seems like a bad idea to try to use an unfamiliar defense in a game like this.
[/quote]

It's just a nickel defense.  You aren't really suggesting Stanford hasn't played a nickel defense this year.  I believe they even played dime (six DBs) against WSU at times. 

I'm in part basing the suggestion on the fact the defense Cal used last year to stymie Oregon was a 3-3-5.

People associated with the Stanford football team say the greatest strength of their team is that the players are smart and pick up things really quickly.  But, as Trevor Matich said, the key to Cal's defense was that is was simple.  Saying it won't work because Stanford doesn't have the players to execute is one thing, but suggesting Stanford players can't pick up a new way to play on defense in one week is a bit incredible to me.

Moreover, given what I have gleaned from interviews, it sure sounds like Stanford has been preparing for Oregon all season long, so they very well may be employing a new defense for this game.  Keep in mind, Cal played Oregon after Stanford did last year.  And I don't think any other team Oregon has played this year plays with a 3 man front. 

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=4847.msg34886#msg34886 date=1320881859]
If I was Stanford, I would go with a 3-3-5 defense all game long, and spy MT3 on Darron Thomas. 

Stanford hasn't used a 3-3-5 all year long. It seems like a bad idea to try to use an unfamiliar defense in a game like this.
[/quote]

It's just a nickel defense.  You aren't really suggesting Stanford hasn't played a nickel defense this year.  I believe they even played dime (six DBs) against WSU at times. 

I'm in part basing the suggestion on the fact the defense Cal used last year to stymie Oregon was a 3-3-5.

People associated with the Stanford football team say the greatest strength of their team is that the players are smart and pick up things really quickly.  But, as Trevor Matich said, the key to Cal's defense was that is was simple.  Saying it won't work because Stanford doesn't have the players to execute is one thing, but suggesting Stanford players can't pick up a new way to play on defense in one week is a bit incredible to me.

Moreover, given what I have gleaned from interviews, it sure sounds like Stanford has been preparing for Oregon all season long, so they very well may be employing a new defense for this game.  Keep in mind, Cal played Oregon after Stanford did last year.  And I don't think any other team Oregon has played this year plays with a 3 man front. 

[unclechuck]

I know some nice, sensible Ducks fans with whom I share a mutual respect for their teams. But, by and large, Duck fans have completed one of the fastest transformations from plucky underdogs to entitled dicks I've seen in a fan base. They do realize that they sucked in the not-so-distant past, correct?

It's the young internet savy 10% as it is on most boards. They know nothing of UO football before 2001. The 30+ somethings with jobs & families don't check in and there's no Cardboard equivalent. Most of those folks remember 2009 and Toby running over their undersized DL & LBs, plus Luck's pinpoint passing. They're plenty worried about that. However, they scored 42 in 2009, the week after a max effort in beating USC, and they put up 51 in 2010 so they're not dismissive of Stanford's D, but they're confident they will put up points.

Re the game: the metrics folks are citing are mostly irrelevant because they're compromised by significant backup play during blowouts: prevent defenses and conservative offense. The UO offense is different in the details from 2010, and from early 2011 (more DeAnthony Thomas now) but it is no less potent. The defense may be better and is still improving.

Matchup advantages are @ safety where Boyette (5'10") is a great ball hawk and Pleasant (5'11") is a big hitter, but our TEs have a major size edge. Also, the CBs are young (both RSFr) due to Glidon's injuries and Harris', you know. Whalen is the only guy I see with an opportunity here based on work so far, but Montgomery has size on the CBs and Terrell has those great hands, so if Luck is hot there is opportunity there.

UO defense relies on stunts & blitzes plus speed and depth to make up for lack of size. If we can neutralize the stunts & speed with fastidious blitz pickups, power running and controlled passing we can burn clock and score consistently. Both essential.

UO's OL is slightly larger & more athletic than last year but had 3 starters to replace including the center who makes the line calls for blocking adjustments. Their unit inexperience was shown against LSU but they have continued to improve during the season. Seems about the same as Stanford's improvement from say, 2nd Q of the Duke game. Difference is that UO has been able to get lots of backups experience so they have 6+ Olinemen with significant playing time, hence they can press the pace and substitute without much drop off.

Creating negative plays early in series will be essential to getting them out of the run game and forcing QB Thomas to beat us with the pass. UO WRs are excellent blockers but not the pass catching threat of last year. Like our situation with Montgomery & Terrell, there is potential with Josh Huff (slowed by injuries) and Tuieni (great blocker, but trouble getting separation) but they have been inconsistent to date. Tougher to defend are DeAnthony Thomas, who really is something, and TE Paulson. They have to be tightly covered or they'll slip into a seam and be 30-40 yards down the field.

QB Thomas is still hampered with leg woes and is not really a running threat, so spying him would be a waste. If he runs much he'll be knocked from the game. I dont' think they'll risk that. Thomas has been inconsistent in passing, throwing a beautiful 20 yard out on the money and then floating a 8 yarder five feet over the receiver's head. He has not shown he can throw the long ball this year. Short passes turned into long plays, yes, but rarely anything 30-40 yards in the air.

Re the tempo point earlier; Thomas was not running as much as 2010 even before he was hurt (ASU game). Most observers feel the Ducks are pausing to get last second play changes from the bench far more frequently than in 2010. That does seem to change tempo, but they can change gears instantly if they sense a team starting to fatigue (3Q UW) and go with the old super speed. They're more like a pitcher changing speeds now. Rather than going with the 95 mph heater all the time, they'll bring the heater when they see opportunity.

Look, James ran for 150+ on 20 some carries last week against UW who was primed to stop him so he's back to 90+%. Barner & DeAnthony spell him as needed. If we don't get them off the field they will score, and score. Disciplined assignments on lanes, sure tackling, and opportunistic blitzing to create favorable down & distance situations will be needed for four full quarters.

Grind them down and score on offense.

That's it.

[unclechuck]

I know some nice, sensible Ducks fans with whom I share a mutual respect for their teams. But, by and large, Duck fans have completed one of the fastest transformations from plucky underdogs to entitled dicks I've seen in a fan base. They do realize that they sucked in the not-so-distant past, correct?

It's the young internet savy 10% as it is on most boards. They know nothing of UO football before 2001. The 30+ somethings with jobs & families don't check in and there's no Cardboard equivalent. Most of those folks remember 2009 and Toby running over their undersized DL & LBs, plus Luck's pinpoint passing. They're plenty worried about that. However, they scored 42 in 2009, the week after a max effort in beating USC, and they put up 51 in 2010 so they're not dismissive of Stanford's D, but they're confident they will put up points.

Re the game: the metrics folks are citing are mostly irrelevant because they're compromised by significant backup play during blowouts: prevent defenses and conservative offense. The UO offense is different in the details from 2010, and from early 2011 (more DeAnthony Thomas now) but it is no less potent. The defense may be better and is still improving.

Matchup advantages are @ safety where Boyette (5'10") is a great ball hawk and Pleasant (5'11") is a big hitter, but our TEs have a major size edge. Also, the CBs are young (both RSFr) due to Glidon's injuries and Harris', you know. Whalen is the only guy I see with an opportunity here based on work so far, but Montgomery has size on the CBs and Terrell has those great hands, so if Luck is hot there is opportunity there.

UO defense relies on stunts & blitzes plus speed and depth to make up for lack of size. If we can neutralize the stunts & speed with fastidious blitz pickups, power running and controlled passing we can burn clock and score consistently. Both essential.

UO's OL is slightly larger & more athletic than last year but had 3 starters to replace including the center who makes the line calls for blocking adjustments. Their unit inexperience was shown against LSU but they have continued to improve during the season. Seems about the same as Stanford's improvement from say, 2nd Q of the Duke game. Difference is that UO has been able to get lots of backups experience so they have 6+ Olinemen with significant playing time, hence they can press the pace and substitute without much drop off.

Creating negative plays early in series will be essential to getting them out of the run game and forcing QB Thomas to beat us with the pass. UO WRs are excellent blockers but not the pass catching threat of last year. Like our situation with Montgomery & Terrell, there is potential with Josh Huff (slowed by injuries) and Tuieni (great blocker, but trouble getting separation) but they have been inconsistent to date. Tougher to defend are DeAnthony Thomas, who really is something, and TE Paulson. They have to be tightly covered or they'll slip into a seam and be 30-40 yards down the field.

QB Thomas is still hampered with leg woes and is not really a running threat, so spying him would be a waste. If he runs much he'll be knocked from the game. I dont' think they'll risk that. Thomas has been inconsistent in passing, throwing a beautiful 20 yard out on the money and then floating a 8 yarder five feet over the receiver's head. He has not shown he can throw the long ball this year. Short passes turned into long plays, yes, but rarely anything 30-40 yards in the air.

Re the tempo point earlier; Thomas was not running as much as 2010 even before he was hurt (ASU game). Most observers feel the Ducks are pausing to get last second play changes from the bench far more frequently than in 2010. That does seem to change tempo, but they can change gears instantly if they sense a team starting to fatigue (3Q UW) and go with the old super speed. They're more like a pitcher changing speeds now. Rather than going with the 95 mph heater all the time, they'll bring the heater when they see opportunity.

Look, James ran for 150+ on 20 some carries last week against UW who was primed to stop him so he's back to 90+%. Barner & DeAnthony spell him as needed. If we don't get them off the field they will score, and score. Disciplined assignments on lanes, sure tackling, and opportunistic blitzing to create favorable down & distance situations will be needed for four full quarters.

Grind them down and score on offense.

That's it.

[fullmetal]

Darron Thomas's backup is said to be even better (just faster, or faster and more accurate?) than Thomas by some.  Here's hoping Howell makes those ball-catchers pay over the middle.  If the offense is to attack the edges with deep routes, Luck needs to figure out whether these Duck CBs have the same sort of closing speed the OSU CBs did in which they made up 3-4 steps just to get a hand on the ball.  (IT'S A TRAP!)

[fullmetal]

Darron Thomas's backup is said to be even better (just faster, or faster and more accurate?) than Thomas by some.  Here's hoping Howell makes those ball-catchers pay over the middle.  If the offense is to attack the edges with deep routes, Luck needs to figure out whether these Duck CBs have the same sort of closing speed the OSU CBs did in which they made up 3-4 steps just to get a hand on the ball.  (IT'S A TRAP!)

[washingtonismoney]

Darron Thomas's backup is said to be even better (just faster, or faster and more accurate?) than Thomas by some.

Better runner for sure, much more naive passer.

[washingtonismoney]

Darron Thomas's backup is said to be even better (just faster, or faster and more accurate?) than Thomas by some.

Better runner for sure, much more naive passer.

[unclechuck]

Yep, Bennett is a much better runner who's smooth & effective with ball fakes but he's RSFr. They'd lose half their playbook.

WIM put it well with naive passer, though he does throw a sweet ball, effortlessly.

[unclechuck]

Yep, Bennett is a much better runner who's smooth & effective with ball fakes but he's RSFr. They'd lose half their playbook.

WIM put it well with naive passer, though he does throw a sweet ball, effortlessly.

[Treebound]

UncleChuck, you bring up a very good point regarding Oregon's OL.  They have 6 guys with significant playing time.  They push the pace and last year we had trouble keeping up.  This year it often seems like our D is still getting signals from the staff and are slow to get into their positions for the snap.  I'm sure the staff has been prepping for the speed of play, but I am concerned that we will be caught out of position on quick snaps in their no huddle.  I haven't seen as many Oregon games this year and they seem a bit slower in their no huddle, but still a concern for me given the D's pace this year.    Again, outside "Contain" is going to be key to keeping the big play factor under control.

[Treebound]

UncleChuck, you bring up a very good point regarding Oregon's OL.  They have 6 guys with significant playing time.  They push the pace and last year we had trouble keeping up.  This year it often seems like our D is still getting signals from the staff and are slow to get into their positions for the snap.  I'm sure the staff has been prepping for the speed of play, but I am concerned that we will be caught out of position on quick snaps in their no huddle.  I haven't seen as many Oregon games this year and they seem a bit slower in their no huddle, but still a concern for me given the D's pace this year.    Again, outside "Contain" is going to be key to keeping the big play factor under control.

[unclechuck]

Treebound - actually I had a typo on the Oline: meant to write 6-8 with significant # of snaps so even more daunting than presented.

Teams that have been successful in keeping UO from getting multiple first down drives have been able to blunt that depth advantage. However, it usually manifests in the 2nd half as defensive fatigue causes assignment discipline or tackling to break down.

Even in the oft cited C.al game of 2010 (15-13 Ducks) UO burned up the last 9:25 of the fourth quarter with an 18 play drive (1 pass, 15 rush, 2 kneel downs) that ended on the C.al 13 yard line as time expired. The Bares defense was completely gassed.

The Cardinal has also been dominant in the 2nd half so that test of collective wills should be fascinating.

[unclechuck]

Treebound - actually I had a typo on the Oline: meant to write 6-8 with significant # of snaps so even more daunting than presented.

Teams that have been successful in keeping UO from getting multiple first down drives have been able to blunt that depth advantage. However, it usually manifests in the 2nd half as defensive fatigue causes assignment discipline or tackling to break down.

Even in the oft cited C.al game of 2010 (15-13 Ducks) UO burned up the last 9:25 of the fourth quarter with an 18 play drive (1 pass, 15 rush, 2 kneel downs) that ended on the C.al 13 yard line as time expired. The Bares defense was completely gassed.

The Cardinal has also been dominant in the 2nd half so that test of collective wills should be fascinating.

[needle]

I went back and looked at the Ore.-LSU box score.

Oregon went very pass heavy in the first quarter, with 15 pass plays compared to 7 runs. I'm sure the staff probably looked at that as a mistake, though they moved the ball OK and ended the quarter with six points (two field goals).

I'm not sure what they were thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if they employ a similar unbalanced ratio, only with twice as many runs as passes.

[needle]

I went back and looked at the Ore.-LSU box score.

Oregon went very pass heavy in the first quarter, with 15 pass plays compared to 7 runs. I'm sure the staff probably looked at that as a mistake, though they moved the ball OK and ended the quarter with six points (two field goals).

I'm not sure what they were thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if they employ a similar unbalanced ratio, only with twice as many runs as passes.

[unclechuck]

Needle - IIRC LSU played 8 in the box to stuff the run right from the get go. Ducks got stuffed early and had to resort to the pass to try to get the LB's & safeties to move back from the line.

The combination of LSU's exceptional CBs plus deep and physical DL versus Oregon's 2 new WRs and 3 new OL starters made it tough for the Ducks.

Stanford may use this approach but the Ducks have fully integrated in DeAnthony Thomas since the LSU game for slot or RB wheel routes, so the risk is increased significantly. More chess match stuff.

[unclechuck]

Needle - IIRC LSU played 8 in the box to stuff the run right from the get go. Ducks got stuffed early and had to resort to the pass to try to get the LB's & safeties to move back from the line.

The combination of LSU's exceptional CBs plus deep and physical DL versus Oregon's 2 new WRs and 3 new OL starters made it tough for the Ducks.

Stanford may use this approach but the Ducks have fully integrated in DeAnthony Thomas since the LSU game for slot or RB wheel routes, so the risk is increased significantly. More chess match stuff.

[terry]

[quote author=terry link=topic=4847.msg34897#msg34897 date=1320885509]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=4847.msg34886#msg34886 date=1320881859]
If I was Stanford, I would go with a 3-3-5 defense all game long, and spy MT3 on Darron Thomas. 

Stanford hasn't used a 3-3-5 all year long. It seems like a bad idea to try to use an unfamiliar defense in a game like this.
[/quote]

It's just a nickel defense.  You aren't really suggesting Stanford hasn't played a nickel defense this year.  I believe they even played dime (six DBs) against WSU at times. 

I'm in part basing the suggestion on the fact the defense UC East Bay used last year to stymie Oregon was a 3-3-5.
[/quote]

Stanford's nickel defense is a 4-2-5 alignment. The nose tackle (Stephens) goes out, and the two outside LBs (Chase Thomas and Murphy/Lueders/Vaughters) drop down to DE positions. Stanford has used that defense a lot. I don't recall Stanford using a 3-3-5 for any significant period. I guess they might have used it at some point, with one of the OLB/DEs dropping into coverage, but they certainly haven't used that much.

[terry]

[quote author=terry link=topic=4847.msg34897#msg34897 date=1320885509]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=4847.msg34886#msg34886 date=1320881859]
If I was Stanford, I would go with a 3-3-5 defense all game long, and spy MT3 on Darron Thomas. 

Stanford hasn't used a 3-3-5 all year long. It seems like a bad idea to try to use an unfamiliar defense in a game like this.
[/quote]

It's just a nickel defense.  You aren't really suggesting Stanford hasn't played a nickel defense this year.  I believe they even played dime (six DBs) against WSU at times. 

I'm in part basing the suggestion on the fact the defense UC East Bay used last year to stymie Oregon was a 3-3-5.
[/quote]

Stanford's nickel defense is a 4-2-5 alignment. The nose tackle (Stephens) goes out, and the two outside LBs (Chase Thomas and Murphy/Lueders/Vaughters) drop down to DE positions. Stanford has used that defense a lot. I don't recall Stanford using a 3-3-5 for any significant period. I guess they might have used it at some point, with one of the OLB/DEs dropping into coverage, but they certainly haven't used that much.