Quarterback Controversy? (And other football notes)

by Addicted to Quack on Aug 20, 2008 11:18 AM PDT in Football Comment 29 comments

We've all kind of figured since spring ball that Nate Costa was the starting quarterback. In spite of Justin Roper's great bowl performance, Costa just always seemed to have more tools (namely, a pair of legs) that fit our offense. That the coaching staff called him the 'heir apparent' did little to quell those thoughts.

So what are we to make of this?

Roper has apparently 'closed the gap' on Costa, and a decision will be made by the end of the week? And he may even try to use Chris Harper, too?

My gut tells me that its still Costa's job to lose, and that this is to serve as a bit of motivation. And, hell, if Roper wins the job and is the starter, I don't have a huge problem with that, either.

But if MB decides that he's unsure, and goes with the ol' two-QB system, I'm going to vomit. Between the disaster of the Holiday Bowl, and letting Jason Fife leech playing time way too long, I've seen enough of the two QB system. Pick a guy, and stay with him. If he really sucks, go to the other guy. But PLEASE don't rotate QBs in and out every other possession.

As for Harper, please redshirt him. In talking with Jared, he mentioned the possibility of using Harper as a RB in trick plays where you can make him throw. If that's all you want him for, use Crenshaw. But wasting the redshirt this year strikes me as akin to putting Dixon in against Oklahoma "to see what he can do." Without that, Dixon is our starting quarterback right now.

In other notes:

Could there be a controversy at punter as well? I think this is just public praise for Taylor. Syria is the best punter in a decade at Oregon, no way he's not the starter (though nice to hear that the future is doing so well).

Also, no Drew Davis for the Washington game as he just had a tonsillectomy. Get well, Drew.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave (addictedtoquack@gmail.com)

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My thoughts on QB situation

First, I still believe Costa is the leader and will be named the starter as soon as Bellotti decides to announce it. With Costa missing out on spring drills, we all knew that there would be a “competition” to replace Dixon. The fact that Bellotti is set to make the decision known prior to kickoff is a good sign, in my opinion.

Two QB system? Ugh. Absolute worst-case scenario.

As for redshirting Harper, I think it comes down to the fact that one of the freshmen QBs will redshirt this year (along with Masoli) leaving the other to travel as the 3rd string. Neither Thomas nor Harper has shown the passing touch needed to compete in the Pac-10, but Harper has skills that will get him onto the field and able to contribute. I have no problem if he sees some action this season.

by ntrebon on Aug 20, 2008 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No split time QBs.

It hasn’t worked well. It’’s always been a rebuilding aka bad year when we’ve done that (Clemens/Fife; Dixon/Leaf).
I’m not going to assume to know what the outcome would have been, but in the Holiday Bowl, Dixon was hot, and then they cycled in Leaf, and we had a string of three-and-outs. It was like we were competing in a race, and the emergency brake was pulled.

I love to know that Roper is being a good competitor, and is pushing Costa. That should only make them both better. Personally, I would rather fit Costa into the mix, and have Roper be a closer for blow out games (To protect Costa from injury).

I can see some use for putting Harper on the field, but I wouldn’t object to both freshmen red shirting either.

Sucks about Drew Davis. We really could use him. Get better, Drew!

Go Duckies!

by JShufelt on Aug 20, 2008 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You got it backwards

The ’05 Holiday Bowl consisted of like 12 straight 3 and outs by the Dixon-run offense, while Brady led us to 3 successful drives in the 4th quarter, the last ending with the most athletic interception ever at the 8 yard line.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope...

That was all later in the game.

No, the turning point of the game was after Dennis had led the team on a very strong TD drive, and he was pulled in favor of Brady, who did nothing.

Dixon was brought back in during the second, and moved the ball better until the half, only to get pulled again at the start of the 3rd quarter. After that, he was in constant horribly field position.

It was horrible QB mismanagement for the first 3 1/2 quarters. It was this mismanagement that got us into the position we were in during the 4th quarter.

On top of this, the play calling in the 3rd was horrendous. Instead of sticking with the plays that worked (and eventually brought us back), the screens, etc. Crowton did all sorts of other crap, effectively out-thinking himself. That guy tried to outsmart everyone, and ended up sucking.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eff Crowton

There’s no way you can say that the turning point in the game was at 2 minutes left in the 1st quarter. Though I’ll agree putting in Brady after Dennis got success early on was stupid, that was not the end of the game there.

And lookey here to see Brady’s 4th quarter, while lookey here to see Dennis’ 3rd. As you can also see, Dennis’ drives were the bare minimum in length with no success and seemingly no urgency, while Brady’s were lengthy, plentiful, and in pressure. See all the 3rd and longs and 4th down conversions? Either he sucked on 1st and 2nd, or he could keep his balls above water just in time everytime. I’m in favor of balls paying off over 3-and-out after 3-and-out after 3-and-out, etc.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First...

Yes, the main turning point was the first quarter…after that, there was zero momentum.

Second, the play calling SUCKED in the middle of the game. It was truly awful.

If you look at the plays run by Leaf and Dixon, neither of them played a particularly good game. Niether could execute a long or even mid-range passing game. However, this is what was mostly dictated to them. Screens and the running game were mostly abandoned until the late 4th, and look what happened, the QB could move the ball! Either QB could hav executed those plays. Dixon did earlier, and then it was abandoned.

The fact is, there was a rhythm, and it was ruined. Coupled by atrocious play calling in the 3rd and early 4th quarters, and those were the two main factors to lose the game.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And god dammit Jared

Making me defend Brady Leaf? Why I oughtta…

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

but Jared’s right. That game was blown the first time Dixon came out. He was rolling, and all the momentum was lost.

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by Addicted to Quack on Aug 20, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but... but...

That was my point!

::sniff::

Go Duckies!

by JShufelt on Aug 20, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was rolling

And it was a stupid, stupid decision by coaches to disrupt that.

But my point is, that game was not over until the Leaf interception in the 4th.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

But that go without saying.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Jared

game was lost by putting Ryan Leaf’s brother in, no question.

by coolconman on Aug 20, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This shouldn't surprise anyone

I thought the two QB system was all but expected this year. It is plainly obvious how much this system sucks, but Mike Belotti IS still the head coach, so two quarterbacks seems inevitbale this year.

by coolconman on Aug 20, 2008 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Eh...

We only really saw the 2 QB system in its worst forms in 2005, after Clemens went down. For the most part, that didn’t matter until the Holiday Bowl, when it finally bit us.

Even in previous years, we’d only see multiple QBs if niether guy could pull it togehter, and that has happened multiple times: Akili/Maas (97), Feely/Harrington (99), Clemens/Fife (03, though Clemens was the main starter by the end of the year), and Dixon/Leaf (05-06, though 2 QBs wasn’t seen until Dixon completely fell apart in 06).

And besides the Holiday Bowl, I don’t know that I would have done too much differently. For the most part, these battles happened because the #1 QB wasn’t all that great, and the #2 challenged them. In certain cases, the #2 asserted themselves, and in some cases not. In a few of the cases Bellotti seemed to even show an affinity towards younger sophmores over the upperclassmen (Harrington and Clemens), which was the right decision.

So, for this year…I’m not worried about a 2 QB system. I think Bellotti learned from his lesson of 2005. And that lesson is this: DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TAKE YOUR NUMBER ONE QB OUT IF HE IS DOING AN ABOVE AVERAGE JOB.

Worst case scenario is that Costa sucks. And then Roper gets his chance, and he sucks as well. Then we will be in fact plagued with a 2 QB system, and end up going nowhere fast. If any person asserts themselves (and I see Costa doing that), this will all become a moot point.

We are the power. We are the flower. We are the awesome blossom.
--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When I was a freshman (2003)

at my buddie’s house, there was a wall on which was written “wall of things better than Fife.” On it, among many other pieces of junk, hung a rusty bike chain, an old shoe, and big fat girl’s panties.

by coolconman on Aug 20, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will always believe that it was our offense that let the team down in that year...

The defense had a few bad games, sure, but the offense was supposed to be the strength of the team, and couldn’t do jack squat.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can't reshirt them all

Other than Costa and Roper there are 3 newbie QB’s that all show promise in the future. I think that Belloti is not going to reshirt Harper because he will eventually get a new position(maybe RB or WR) By having him on the travel team he gets some experience on the road in the Pac-10. Next year all 5 guys will have another year in the system plus the possibility of another high rated frosh QB(Forcier) That leaves alot of talent in a position that only puts one guy on the field at a time.
Harper will move to another skill position and Masoli/Thomas will be the backup(sorry Roper). This will give us another offensive threat on the field that the defense has to account for.

GO DUCKS!!!!

by DuckinNC on Aug 20, 2008 12:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Harper can easily cycle through those 3 positions

He wouldn’t have to be, you know, “relegated” to another position, per se.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey, look, a reply button

That was directed to DuckinNC. My bad.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dual threat requires a passer

Harper shows every promise of being a great athlete and contributor. But you have to have the threat of being able to make accurate passes, to make the dual threat spread work. I hope he gets that part of his game together….then watch out!!!

In my mind it was the passing improvement that made Dixon great, he was always a fast runner.

by DuckAndRun on Aug 20, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Harper is basically a running threat who can get the ball off his arm right now

His mechanics are so bad, everytime I’ve seen him live, he throws hospital balls to the WR’s feet. And man does that get old quick in a QB.

Your friendly neighborhood placekicker.

by qrsouther on Aug 20, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We've got a new OC

Previously, when we’d do the 2 QB thing

- I think MB would often paint himself into a corner via making a public commitment to try both guys (Akili/Maas, Feely/Harrington, Clemens/Fife and Dixon/Leaf).

Now, I’m guessing that he’s learned from this mistake and has advised CK accordingly.

Further, I get the sense that MB really trusts CK with the Offense and specifically – the commitments made (or not made) to the QB’s.

This is a new era, with more talent than we’ve ever enjoyed and I trust both MB and CK – they both seem to evolve.

Hang on tight, no matter who’s in the driver seat – it’s going to be another fun ride.

by Coach Brooks on Aug 20, 2008 5:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I get the feeling Kelly likes Costa way more...

Bellotti is much more open than Kelly over the QB situation. Kelly always seems to temper any excitement for Roper (rightfully so), and sticks with Costa.

--www.AddictedToQuack.com

by jtlight on Aug 20, 2008 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could

Play Harper some this year, and redshirt him next year. Then use DT in Harper’s role next season. After last season I believe when need 3 QB ready at all times.

by teedawg on Aug 20, 2008 6:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LOL at this

http://www.buildingthedam.com/2008/8/20/597926/more-good-news-for-beavers
"oregon is obviously well-known for utilizing the chop block as part of their general blocking scheme. Their coaching staff feels that they have to play dirty in order to compensate for the lack of talent that they generally have on their offensive line (oregon’s 2007 offensive line only had 3 total scholarship offers out of high school between the 5 starting players).

It’s gotten to the point that opposing teams will invent specially designed drills for their linebackers to be prepared to encounter the 5th place ducks’ illegal blocking practices in order to avoid career ending knee injuries!!!!"
-CV300

by dougall5505 on Aug 20, 2008 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs