[Velodoc]

We should have won by 2 to 3 TD's. 
Last night was a great victory. Legendary really.  But it should have been routine.  

When you say or write these things I've got to wonder what game you were watching. Oregon played lights out, probably as well as they can play. We didn't play well (on O or D) in 1H but took their best shot and got a couple of really lucky breaks late. Complaints about the 4th and 1 are justified, certainly, but our O was dominant in the 2H...and the D matched it in crunch time. 31-7 in the 2H.

Wonder no more:

Our passing game has been effective all year, save a mistake filled first quarter vs. UCD.  Our running game, not so much.  If we move offensively via air early in Oregon game, it's my position (a theory really because we've yet to see this offensive strategy) then the run game will subsequently open up, and we will see less punting prowess from Jake Bailey.  In other words we, at the very least, match Oregon score for score.  

And then the whole game changes.  The D can play more aggressively.  And the Oregon "lights out" O needs to take more chances (look what happened in OT--when their great "lights out" QB had to perform under pressure).  The decibel level at Autzen predictably decreases.  We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

This is all fantasy but it is what I believe.  I think the whole game changes if we utilize our strengths (effective receiving corps, a pretty darn good QB, adequate pass protection) to move early and effectively in the first half--especially when it becomes obvious (as it has in every game thus far) that our run game can be neutralized by the appropriate defensive strategy (a strategy that would be forced to change with early and often passing).   It's tough to play from behind, especially on the road, and especially in hostile environments like Autzen.  Saturday was a great victory, but we got some big breaks and our players made some great plays to capitalize on those breaks. 


My point:  If we match Oregon score for score in first half, the game changes.  An established passing game wears out the Oregon DL and forces a change in defensive strategy.  Then we  run more effectively and wear them down as per our previous MO.  And we win 41-17.  No drama. No heroics.  Maybe less to talk about. But easier on blood pressure.  

Of course this is just a theory, as I have seen no evidence of any change in our offensive approach through 4 games.

[Velodoc]

We should have won by 2 to 3 TD's. 
Last night was a great victory. Legendary really.  But it should have been routine.  

When you say or write these things I've got to wonder what game you were watching. Oregon played lights out, probably as well as they can play. We didn't play well (on O or D) in 1H but took their best shot and got a couple of really lucky breaks late. Complaints about the 4th and 1 are justified, certainly, but our O was dominant in the 2H...and the D matched it in crunch time. 31-7 in the 2H.

Wonder no more:

Our passing game has been effective all year, save a mistake filled first quarter vs. UCD.  Our running game, not so much.  If we move offensively via air early in Oregon game, it's my position (a theory really because we've yet to see this offensive strategy) then the run game will subsequently open up, and we will see less punting prowess from Jake Bailey.  In other words we, at the very least, match Oregon score for score.  

And then the whole game changes.  The D can play more aggressively.  And the Oregon "lights out" O needs to take more chances (look what happened in OT--when their great "lights out" QB had to perform under pressure).  The decibel level at Autzen predictably decreases.  We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

This is all fantasy but it is what I believe.  I think the whole game changes if we utilize our strengths (effective receiving corps, a pretty darn good QB, adequate pass protection) to move early and effectively in the first half--especially when it becomes obvious (as it has in every game thus far) that our run game can be neutralized by the appropriate defensive strategy (a strategy that would be forced to change with early and often passing).   It's tough to play from behind, especially on the road, and especially in hostile environments like Autzen.  Saturday was a great victory, but we got some big breaks and our players made some great plays to capitalize on those breaks. 


My point:  If we match Oregon score for score in first half, the game changes.  An established passing game wears out the Oregon DL and forces a change in defensive strategy.  Then we  run more effectively and wear them down as per our previous MO.  And we win 41-17.  No drama. No heroics.  Maybe less to talk about. But easier on blood pressure.  

Of course this is just a theory, as I have seen no evidence of any change in our offensive approach through 4 games.