This week in opponents: Week 1

This week in opponents: Week 1 - 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: This week in opponents: Week 1 (/thread-18012.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - d4cohn - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 09:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Let me count the ways.  With a 15 point lead, he had drives of 1:31, 2:32, and 1:31.  Like he couldn’t take some time off the clock with a lead like that. There’s the fact that he pissed away two time outs, and with a lead went for it on fourth and one from midfield with a backup QB, when he could have pinned Auburn deep. With about five minutes left, Oregon was snapping the ball with ten seconds left. They could have left auburn with virtually no time on the clock... but no. In a little over two seasons, Oregon has pissed away two 15-point leads.  I wonder how many 15-point leads Stanford has given up in Shaw’s entire tenure.

Thanks BC for the great summary. Yeah, Outsider Fan, this is some of what I was referring to (particularly the 4th and 1 fiasco that blew two timeouts and still didn't yield a conversion and gave Auburn the ball near midfield).

I would add to this summary the decision to start a true freshman at PK over a solid upperclassman option, and the freshman promptly misses a chip-shot, leading
Cristobal to turn back to the junior who should have been starting all along.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - ChicagoCard - 09-01-2019

Last year against Stanford there was the near TD for Oregon and then Alfieri's fumble return. In this game did anyone notice when Oregon almost had a punt return TD that the runner went out of bounds pretty easily? How about make the guy tackle you. Seems momentum would have gotten him right about to the goal line. And sure enough, they fumbled on the next play or two and Auburn returned it nearly for a TD, settled for a FG.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2019

d4cohn Wrote:
BostonCard Wrote:Let me count the ways.  With a 15 point lead, he had drives of 1:31, 2:32, and 1:31.  Like he couldn’t take some time off the clock with a lead like that. There’s the fact that he pissed away two time outs, and with a lead went for it on fourth and one from midfield with a backup QB, when he could have pinned Auburn deep. With about five minutes left, Oregon was snapping the ball with ten seconds left. They could have left auburn with virtually no time on the clock... but no. In a little over two seasons, Oregon has pissed away two 15-point leads.  I wonder how many 15-point leads Stanford has given up in Shaw’s entire tenure.
 Thanks BC for the great summary. Yeah, Outsider Fan, this is some of what I was referring to (particularly the 4th and 1 fiasco that blew two timeouts and still didn't yield a conversion and gave Auburn the ball near midfield).

I would add to this summary the decision to start a true freshman at PK over a solid upperclassman option, and the freshman promptly misses a chip-shot, leading
Cristobal to turn back to the junior who should have been starting all along.

Meh, I don’t know. Cristobal is trying to get over a hump in terms of his team’s physical toughness. Now, a play action pass or bootleg with Herbert on 4th and 1 might have been better, but sometimes the competition comes down to “you know what we’re doing and we know you know what we’re doing, let’s see who’s better.”

As for the kicker, Auburn’s Senior kicker missed a makable FG as well.

I think you guys are nitpicking. Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.

lex24 - lex24 - 09-01-2019

Roasted duck. Best enjoyed with a good Pinot.

RE: lex24 - Goose - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 06:24 AM)lex24 Wrote: Roasted duck. Best enjoyed with a good Pinot.

Burgundy, not Oregon Pinot.

(09-01-2019, 05:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.

As a coach, your job is to beat the other team even if they are good. The Oregon team, with all their problems, was ahead near the end of the game. If the coaching staff does even a halfway competent job of coaching, Oregon could have made it very difficult for Auburn to have enough time to recover. Said staff did the opposite. The idea that you get your team "over the hump" by doing something stupid is an interesting concept, but I don't think many would recommend it. If you need to go for it because you are behind, that is a different case. Then a statement attempt makes sense. But if you are ahead and you can make them go 80 yards with little time left, you do it. This is especially true when you are having problems running the ball. Playing to your own weakness in that situation isn't necessary. Being stupid is being stupid, not macho. Good coaches win games when their team may not be, by some objective measure, the "best" team. Last year, Stanford got lucky and Oregon fumbled on what was nominally a "safe" play. That play call was perhaps arguable, but it wasn't blatantly stupid. This call against Auburn, and not running the clock as much as possible on all offensive possessions, was undeniably stupid. Auburn may have been able to win anyway, but it would have been quite unlikely, "better" team or not.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2019

Fresno outgained SC both on total yards and yards per play. Obviously has an asterisk given the JT Daniels situation, but Daniels didn't make the SC defense give up 5.8 yards per play.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - Goose - 09-01-2019

At the risk of overkill, take a look at https://www.yahoo.com/sports/on-the-clock-how-oregons-mario-cristobal-blew-it-against-auburn-061017917.html The Oregon staff is taking some real hits. This isn't good optics for recruits or for Mr. Knight. I would expect there will be some 'splaining to do on Monday. I don't think the Stanford game last year was entirely, or even mostly, on the Oregon staff. We got lucky. Yes, you can argue that taking a knee was safer than running the ball. However, by how much? Probably a mistake, but not a big one, and it is at least arguable. This year, no arguments. The staff blew it.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - BostonCard - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 07:37 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote: Fresno outgained SC both on total yards and yards per play. Obviously has an asterisk given the JT Daniels situation, but Daniels didn't make the SC defense give up 5.8 yards per play.

Yeah, Fresno drove down to the SC 15 before throwing an interception.  A TD and 2-pt conversion would have tied it. BC

(09-01-2019, 05:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Meh, I don’t know. Cristobal is trying to get over a hump in terms of his team’s physical toughness. Now, a play action pass or bootleg with Herbert on 4th and 1 might have been better, but sometimes the competition comes down to “you know what we’re doing and we know you know what we’re doing, let’s see who’s better.”

As for the kicker, Auburn’s Senior kicker missed a makable FG as well. 

I think you guys are nitpicking. Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.

I’m not sure how not telling your QB to snap the ball with less than three seconds on the play clock is “tough”, it’s just stupid.  I can maybe understand the rationale for going for it on fourth down, but blowing two time outs because you don’t know the rules is stupid. I give credit to auburn for making some great adjustments, but even so, Oregon should have been able to hold on. Auburn never should have had as much time as they did on their game winning possession. BC

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - martyup - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 07:47 AM)Goose Wrote: The Oregon staff is taking some real hits.

From that article:

Quote:<meta charset="utf-8"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Yahoo Sans"; font-size: 17px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">This has become a trend for Cristobal, one that’s up to him to reverse. It’s time for him to use another timeout and rethink however he’s managing games, as late-game strategy is undercutting the program’s searing momentum.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - Mick - 09-01-2019

(08-31-2019, 07:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Clearly Oregon did the most in terms of going on the road against a ranked opponent and beating them solidly.

Washington did what it was supposed to against an overmatched opponent.

Utah looked pretty good against BYU.

I think our defense surprised to the upside today. Our offense hurt itself with penalties and failures to capitalize.  We probably should have been able to score in the 20’s given our total yards and turnover margin, but lots of places where we stepped in it; failure to convert a fourth and a couple, a punt from the 34, a partially blocked field goal.  This game would feel a lot better off it had finished 27-17 (NW also blew a few chances), even with the same margin. It wasn’t pretty, but NW is a legit P5 opponent, who will likely win 7+ games.

BC

Shaw said in his post-game on-field interview, effectively, that the game shouldn't have been close because we screwed up on three plays.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2019

What part of Auburn was better in the trenches isn't getting through? I'm a big Formula 1 fan, and come to realize the best car almost always wins. Even when they have early setbacks, the best car/driver/team can come back to win in the end. Some cars will get ahead by wearing out their tires to get a lead position, but in the end, the better car that wears tires more efficiently will win.   Oregon wasn't going to win that game by running more clock. They needed a better car that didn't wear out the tires to stay in front. Ultimately the better car eked out the victory at the end. You could second guess hundreds of things both teams did. Hell, if Nix was stopped 3 inches sooner, Oregon gets a 4th down stop and wins. We argue here routinely about Shaw going turtle vs. being aggressive at crunch time. But the reality is Stanford has to be good enough on O and/or D to win those games, no matter what option is chosen. Oregon wasn't good enough. It was very close and Oregon outplayed Auburn for several stretches, but again, the better team won in the end. Blame Oregon's coaches for losing to Stanford last year, but this was Auburn ultimately asserting its line of scrimmage superiority.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2019

I don't think Auburn was that much better in the trenches. Their offensive line wasn't that effective, and the Tigers QB covered up a lot of their issues with scrambling. I'd rate the Oregon OL - Auburn DL matchup about a draw. To me the weakness of the Oregon skill players on offense, and the decision to go with a less aggressive strategy on defense, cost them the game. (Along with Cristobal's aforementioned problems.)

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 09:49 AM)washingtonismoney Wrote: I don't think Auburn was that much better in the trenches. Their offensive line wasn't that effective, and the Tigers QB covered up a lot of their issues with scrambling. I'd rate the Oregon OL - Auburn DL matchup about a draw. To me the weakness of the Oregon skill players on offense, and the decision to go with a less aggressive strategy on defense, cost them the game. (Along with Cristobal's aforementioned problems.)

The numbers say Oregon averaged 2.7 YPC and less than 100 yards on the ground. Auburn averaged 4.8 YPC and over 200 on the ground.  Any time one team out-gains the other by 2+ YPC, that is superiority and usually results in a win.  Anything greater than +2.5 YPC is basically a guaranteed win. You can see from the numbers, no Pac-12 team other than OSU was dominated more in the trenches than Oregon. Granted, the competition was tougher for Ducks, but that's kind of the point. They were not good enough to win. No Pac-12 team lost this week that averaged more than +1.3 YPC:<span style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; display: inline !important; float: none;">- Washington (+2.6) - Colorado (+1.9)- Cal (+1.8)- WSU (+1.8)- Utah (+1.3) Every team lost that averaged at least - 1.8 YPC: - UCLA (-1.9)- Oregon (-2.1)- Oregon State (-2.3) Within +/- 1 YPC: <span style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; display: inline !important; float: none;">- ASU (+.7) <span style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; display: inline !important; float: none;">- Stanford (+.6)- Arizona (+.3)- USC (-.3)

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2019

But YPC can be a deceptive stat if what you're interested in measuring effective offensive line play. In a spread offense like Auburn's, you can have wideouts carrying the ball wide (which accounted for 2 carries, 43 yards of that total). And of course QB scrambles can pick up big yardage, as Nix was able to do on a few occasions. Auburn's running backs rushed for 3.76 yards per carry and Oregon got 7 TFL + 1 sack. That's a pretty darn solid effort, and would've been even better had Oregon showed any interest in holding the ball on offense and giving their boys a breather.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - martyup - 09-01-2019

Good teams beat better teams with better coaching.  Happens all the time.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - Goose - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 10:59 AM)martyup Wrote: Good teams beat better teams with better coaching.  Happens all the time.

For sure. On paper, U$C is nearly always the "better team", and has been for years, almost no matter who they are playing. Poorly coached, they haven't won nearly as much as their talent level would make one expect.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - mbdude - 09-01-2019

J.t. Daniel's,  USC, out for season. Torn acl, Meniscus

lex24 - lex24 - 09-01-2019

Good Pinot. Not Oregon Pinot.....

(09-01-2019, 06:37 AM)Goose Wrote: 
(09-01-2019, 06:24 AM)lex24 Wrote: Roasted duck. Best enjoyed with a good Pinot.

 

 Burgundy, not Oregon Pinot. 


(09-01-2019, 05:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Auburn outgained Oregon by 2-1 on the ground and won the LOS. I know everyone likes to blame others, but the reality is the better football team won.
 As a coach, your job is to beat the other team even if they are good. The Oregon team, with all their problems, was ahead near the end of the game. If the coaching staff does even a halfway competent job of coaching, Oregon could have made it very difficult for Auburn to have enough time to recover. Said staff did the opposite. The idea that you get your team "over the hump" by doing something stupid is an interesting concept, but I don't think many would recommend it. If you need to go for it because you are behind, that is a different case. Then a statement attempt makes sense. But if you are ahead and you can make them go 80 yards with little time left, you do it. This is especially true when you are having problems running the ball. Playing to your own weakness in that situation isn't necessary. Being stupid is being stupid, not macho. Good coaches win games when their team may not be, by some objective measure, the "best" team. Last year, Stanford got lucky and Oregon fumbled on what was nominally a "safe" play. That play call was perhaps arguable, but it wasn't blatantly stupid. This call against Auburn, and not running the clock as much as possible on all offensive possessions, was undeniably stupid. Auburn may have been able to win anyway, but it would have been quite unlikely, "better" team or not.

RE: lex24 - Mick - 09-01-2019



<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">

Quote:

As a coach, your job is to beat the other team even if they are good. The Oregon team, with all their problems, was ahead near the end of the game. If the coaching staff does even a halfway competent job of coaching, Oregon could have made it very difficult for Auburn to have enough time to recover. Said staff did the opposite. The idea that you get your team "over the hump" by doing something stupid is an interesting concept, but I don't think many would recommend it. If you need to go for it because you are behind, that is a different case. Then a statement attempt makes sense. But if you are ahead and you can make them go 80 yards with little time left, you do it. This is especially true when you are having problems running the ball. Playing to your own weakness in that situation isn't necessary. Being stupid is being stupid, not macho. Good coaches win games when their team may not be, by some objective measure, the "best" team. Last year, Stanford got lucky and Oregon fumbled on what was nominally a "safe" play. That play call was perhaps arguable, but it wasn't blatantly stupid. This call against Auburn, and not running the clock as much as possible on all offensive possessions, was undeniably stupid. Auburn may have been able to win anyway, but it would have been quite unlikely, "better" team or not.

Coach Shaw can give turtling lessons to the Ducks' coaching staff.

RE: This week in opponents: Week 1 - washingtonismoney - 09-02-2019

N.D. taking some body blows from Louisville -- Cardinal...s up 14-7 right now. Hard to say whether it's your typical underdog sugar high or not but I'd be a bit nervous if I were an Irish fan.