10-28-2020, 08:50 PM
Oh, I forgot to add a new offensive coordinator. What could possibly go wrong ??!?
2020 Stanford at Oregon Prediction Thread
10-29-2020, 01:56 AM
(10-28-2020, 11:52 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: In addition to its secondary losses, Oregon also lost its DB coach.
What the...what is this, MSU players fleeing a sinking pirate ship??
The non-graduation secondary losses comprised two starting safeties and a starting CB, all three of who have declared for the draft. Our WRs will have some chances to get separation.
(10-28-2020, 11:52 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: In addition to its secondary losses, Oregon also lost its DB coach.
What the...what is this, MSU players fleeing a sinking pirate ship??
The non-graduation secondary losses comprised two starting safeties and a starting CB, all three of who have declared for the draft. Our WRs will have some chances to get separation.
10-29-2020, 03:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2020, 03:46 AM by JohnR34231.)
(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2020, 03:46 AM by JohnR34231.)
(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
10-29-2020, 10:15 AM
(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
10-29-2020, 12:10 PM
(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
I didn't say anything about our defence...ILB, secondary are brobdingnagian concerns. Mind you, no one is playing defense this year anyway, so who knows?!?
(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
I didn't say anything about our defence...ILB, secondary are brobdingnagian concerns. Mind you, no one is playing defense this year anyway, so who knows?!?
10-29-2020, 12:47 PM
(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
No harm putting a bit of a positive spin on things heading into the game.
There will be plenty of time to hurl brickbats at Shaw and the program if things don't go well.
(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
No harm putting a bit of a positive spin on things heading into the game.
There will be plenty of time to hurl brickbats at Shaw and the program if things don't go well.
10-29-2020, 03:08 PM
(10-29-2020, 12:47 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
No harm putting a bit of a positive spin on things heading into the game.
There will be plenty of time to hurl brickbats at Shaw and the program if things don't go well.
Without question. And despite my "down on Shaw as offensive mind" posts, I, too, am again suffering from the annual pre-season affliction: optimism. I agree with those who say that returning-talent-wise on offense, Stanford is tops (or the near the top) of the conference. Thus, even with the Shaw Discount, Stanford should be at least pretty good on O.
On D, I'm hearing (i) front line has gained "good weight," (ii) ILB corps returns to health and Miezan will be a Holy Terror out there, (iii) this is the year it "clicks" for OLB recruited talent, and (iv) the secondary, while a soft spot, won't be as bad as some predict. Hey . . . maybe Stanford can compete with Oregon . . .
We'll see.
(10-29-2020, 12:47 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 10:15 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(10-29-2020, 03:28 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)standfan Wrote:(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)pcgoode Wrote: Don’t have a score in mind yet, but considering that the Ducks are breaking in a new QB and will have five new starters on their OL, I’m having trouble believing that the Ducks will have a high octane offense from the first whistle. Oregon also lost a lot in their secondary, whereas we have as much talent in our receiving corps as I can recall in many years, a returning QB and a nucleus of talent returning on our OL.I'll have what pcgoode's drinking and make it a double. Stanford 37, Oregon 31
I feel a little bit about this game the way I felt going into the 2012 game with the Ducks. A win is unlikely, but not impossible. Hey, we all know what happened then.
However, given that U$C, UCF, and Wazzu all had new quarterbacks against us last year and put up points galore, I can't muster too much excitement about the fact the Ducks are going to have one.
Heck, reading this thread leads one to ask: how can Stanford possibly lose against such an undermanned and undercoached Ducks team??
No harm putting a bit of a positive spin on things heading into the game.
There will be plenty of time to hurl brickbats at Shaw and the program if things don't go well.
Without question. And despite my "down on Shaw as offensive mind" posts, I, too, am again suffering from the annual pre-season affliction: optimism. I agree with those who say that returning-talent-wise on offense, Stanford is tops (or the near the top) of the conference. Thus, even with the Shaw Discount, Stanford should be at least pretty good on O.
On D, I'm hearing (i) front line has gained "good weight," (ii) ILB corps returns to health and Miezan will be a Holy Terror out there, (iii) this is the year it "clicks" for OLB recruited talent, and (iv) the secondary, while a soft spot, won't be as bad as some predict. Hey . . . maybe Stanford can compete with Oregon . . .
We'll see.
10-29-2020, 07:31 PM
Cardinal, 20
Duckies, 17
Defense easier to play than offense. Teams have had limited practice. COVID casualities a question mark. Cr@p, let's be realistic.
Duckies, 17
Defense easier to play than offense. Teams have had limited practice. COVID casualities a question mark. Cr@p, let's be realistic.
Pax et Bonum
Cardinal, 20
Duckies, 17
Defense easier to play than offense. Teams have had limited practice. COVID casualities a question mark. Cr@p, let's be realistic.
Duckies, 17
Defense easier to play than offense. Teams have had limited practice. COVID casualities a question mark. Cr@p, let's be realistic.
Pax et Bonum
10-30-2020, 05:21 AM
Given Oregon's woes (covid and other) I have updated my prediction from a 0-45 embarrassment to a 25-24 squeaker of a win. How did I get 25 you ask? Shaw tries for a two point conversation out the gate and gets it. We also tack on a field goal.
Given Oregon's woes (covid and other) I have updated my prediction from a 0-45 embarrassment to a 25-24 squeaker of a win. How did I get 25 you ask? Shaw tries for a two point conversation out the gate and gets it. We also tack on a field goal.
10-30-2020, 11:38 AM
Wilner’s take - new QB, new OL, 3/4 new DB’s = Cardinal victory. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/28/o...hotline-nl
Wilner’s take - new QB, new OL, 3/4 new DB’s = Cardinal victory. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/28/o...hotline-nl
11-02-2020, 02:31 PM
Tyler Shough and Anthony Brown, Jr. Do you know either of these names (no peeking!)? I thought not. One of these two gentlemen will be starting QB for UO on Saturday, and Coach Cristobal has not announced which one. Whoever it is, Stanford wins the turnover battle and gains an upset.
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Tyler Shough and Anthony Brown, Jr. Do you know either of these names (no peeking!)? I thought not. One of these two gentlemen will be starting QB for UO on Saturday, and Coach Cristobal has not announced which one. Whoever it is, Stanford wins the turnover battle and gains an upset.
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(11-02-2020, 02:31 PM)Papa John Wrote: Tyler Shough and Anthony Brown, Jr. Do you know either of these names (no peeking!)? I thought not. One of these two gentlemen will be starting QB for UO on Saturday, and Coach Cristobal has not announced which one. Whoever it is, Stanford wins the turnover battle and gains an upset.
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
For the record I know who both are, but that's because I'm a massive CFB junkie. Brown was solid at Boston College.
If Phogge were to be believed, Jay Butterfield would be starting over both and lighting the world on fire as a freshman.
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2020, 02:58 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(11-02-2020, 02:31 PM)Papa John Wrote: Tyler Shough and Anthony Brown, Jr. Do you know either of these names (no peeking!)? I thought not. One of these two gentlemen will be starting QB for UO on Saturday, and Coach Cristobal has not announced which one. Whoever it is, Stanford wins the turnover battle and gains an upset.
Stanford 31
Oregon 20
For the record I know who both are, but that's because I'm a massive CFB junkie. Brown was solid at Boston College.
If Phogge were to be believed, Jay Butterfield would be starting over both and lighting the world on fire as a freshman.
11-02-2020, 04:33 PM
Cristobal making a mammoth mistake not starting Butter the Second, who will win a couple of Tamerlane Awards.
11-02-2020, 05:05 PM
If you haven't named a starting QB by Monday before your season opener, then you don't have a top-notch QB. It's fine to list other positions as "or" on the depth chart in order to foster competition, but training camp is over and someone needs to take the reins at QB. Cristobal also declined to discuss injuries or other players who will potentially miss Saturday's game.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
If you haven't named a starting QB by Monday before your season opener, then you don't have a top-notch QB. It's fine to list other positions as "or" on the depth chart in order to foster competition, but training camp is over and someone needs to take the reins at QB. Cristobal also declined to discuss injuries or other players who will potentially miss Saturday's game.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
11-02-2020, 05:23 PM
The AP story that I saw was from October 28. Cristobal said today that he was not declaring a starter.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
The AP story that I saw was from October 28. Cristobal said today that he was not declaring a starter.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
11-02-2020, 05:36 PM
(11-02-2020, 05:14 PM)BobK Wrote: AP story says Shough announced as starter with praise from Chrisobal
Oregon depth chart shows Shough or Brown (page 18 at the link)
https://goducks.com/documents/2020/11/2/...f?id=27198
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(11-02-2020, 05:14 PM)BobK Wrote: AP story says Shough announced as starter with praise from Chrisobal
Oregon depth chart shows Shough or Brown (page 18 at the link)
https://goducks.com/documents/2020/11/2/...f?id=27198
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-02-2020, 06:24 PM
(11-02-2020, 05:05 PM)Papa John Wrote: If you haven't named a starting QB by Monday before your season opener, then you don't have a top-notch QB. It's fine to list other positions as "or" on the depth chart in order to foster competition, but training camp is over and someone needs to take the reins at QB. Cristobal also declined to discuss injuries or other players who will potentially miss Saturday's game.
Maryland and Taulia Tagovailoa say hi. I've seen Anthony Brown play in person when he played against Virginia a few years ago. He torched Virginia's D. I hope Slough starts for Oregon.
(11-02-2020, 05:05 PM)Papa John Wrote: If you haven't named a starting QB by Monday before your season opener, then you don't have a top-notch QB. It's fine to list other positions as "or" on the depth chart in order to foster competition, but training camp is over and someone needs to take the reins at QB. Cristobal also declined to discuss injuries or other players who will potentially miss Saturday's game.
Maryland and Taulia Tagovailoa say hi. I've seen Anthony Brown play in person when he played against Virginia a few years ago. He torched Virginia's D. I hope Slough starts for Oregon.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »