Quack Fix: Ducks prepare for place of evil, possible Civil War for roses, basketball starts season with sweep
by jtlight on Nov 16, 2009 7:25 AM PST
in Morning Quack Fix
Email
PrintIt was a good weekend for Oregon sports, with two huge football games coming up. Let's get to today's quack.
- It's time to head to Tucson, a place that has been very very unkind to the Ducks the last two visits. Rob Moseley has the early statistical breakdown of both teams. As for Arizona's weekend, SBNation's Arizona Blog Arizona Desert Swarm has a breakdown of Arizona's loss to Cal, which was closer than the score indicated, and turned on an inexperience mistakes by young QB Nick Foles. Arizona's offensive line had a rough night, which is encouraging for Duck fans.
- As for the always crazy Pac-10 race. If Oregon and OSU win this weekend, it'll be a Civil War for the Rose Bowl. As for other scenarios, well, I'll let new SBNation blog BCS Evolution describe the possibilities. I don't even want to think about a long week and a half of Civil War hype. I'm getting tired of it already. Thanksgiving will certainly be a nice break.
- However, no need to worry about OSU just yet. Chip Kelly and the Ducks have their sights set on Arizona, are not looking ahead, and are keeping the intense focus they have held all season.
- In basketball, the Oregon men won the BTI tournament (as expected) to start the season 3-0. Tajuan Porter set the Oregon career 3 point record over the weekend, and the Ducks showed quite a bit of promise. The athletic ability of the team was put on full display with quite a bit of pressure defense, though the team will need to improve inside, as they gave up 13 offensive rebounds to CSU.
- In recruiting news, the Ducks landed JC tight end recruit Brandon Williams. Though a bit under the radar, Williams has been very productive in college, and the coaching staff liked what they saw. Williams committed after visiting this weekend. Welcome, Brandon!
After the jump, we have a couple videos from the weekend, including KVAL's weekly Pac-10 breakdown, and Chip Kelly's postgame comments. GO DUCKS!
Inside the Pac
Chip Kelly postgame interview
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oregon is #115th in
Time of Possession. A shade away from being dead last. I mean a sliver away from being DEAD LAST out of ALL the teams that play college football in Div 1.
As expected
We WERE dead last last year.
Our offense scores so quickly TOP doesn’t matter. Even in our blowout wins, such as ASU, USC and Cal, its rare we come close to winning the TOP battle.
I always love it when people freak out about our TOP because it means jack.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Esp. in a game like Saturday
Where our drives did basically one of two things:
1. 3 and out.
2. Scored points.
Not a lot of drives in which we got even one first down but punted.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
I also had to explain to someone
That on Saturday we scored in the first 2 minutes despite not having the ball first and not forcing a turnover.
This person almost didn’t believe me til I showed them the tape (I DVR all the games I attend).
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
TOP does matter
For the rest of the time – the defense is on the field.
1. They get tired.
2. They get hurt.
3. Statistically, the other team will make plays and get opportunities to beat us.
4. The best defense is a good offense.
by gamedaytribe on Nov 16, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
But not for us
It really doesn’t matter. Our defense is so well conditioned it makes no difference.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
And a key reason our offense works so well
is precisely that it does go so fast. Defenses don’t get the usual time to regroup, or adjust, or think straight.
by HoodRiverDuck on Nov 16, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Watch the seocnd half of the USC or UW games
For perfect examples of that. The defense is flailing around tired while we’re putting up big numbers on them.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Exactly.
Look at Blount’s production last season; and when he was on the field. BAM! End of story.
There is a time and place for everything...But its always Juju time!
Chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-JU-JU
Currently initiating Eddie Pleasant BLITZkreig upon Nick Foles. Standby for further information.
You are the new Emeril tonight.
Cracking me up.
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, this really doesn’t matter. What’s much more important is number of plays run, which is much more even, though Oregon falls behind. TOP used to be a measure of who ran more plays and controlled the ball. That is no longer the case, so you really have to take it with a big grain of salt.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I wish there was a Time in the Defensive Position stat.
What I mean is because our offense gets to the line so fast it requires the D to hurry back into position (especially those big d-lineman) and get ready for the snap… this is exhausting on a defense and I believe wears them out more than T.O.P. stats.
When you get 20-30 seconds to stand breath deep and recover you are ready to fire off the ball a lot faster then if you have to squat in the push-up or ready position for 20-30 extra seconds each snap.
Kenny Wheaton #20; The Pick - 1994 v UW. Matthew Harper #20; The Pick #2 - 2007 v USC. John Boyett #20;...
Or a "their defense is tired to our defense is tired ratio"
ours spends more total time on the field in a less “active” fashion and sees some percentage more plays, theirs spends less total time and less total plays, but in a much more hurried fashion.
Get JuJu on quantifying this, s/he is the only one with the grasp of this 4th dimensional thinking.
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
(ps: I thoroughly respect your right to quantify or not quantify anything or nothing, as you see fit, your JuJu-ness)
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
I think the number of plays is pretty close
Ours just require more constant focused and physical attention.
Totally Anecdotal
I played basketball with a star quarterback in college and near the start of the bball season while we were doing conditioning we got done with a drill and he stated, “how out of breath he was.” I asked, “didn’t you just get done with football season? Shouldn’t you be in great shape?”
He said, “It’s a totally different conditioning when you get to rest in-between plays.” I think Kelly is exploiting this, by not letting them rest…
Kenny Wheaton #20; The Pick - 1994 v UW. Matthew Harper #20; The Pick #2 - 2007 v USC. John Boyett #20;...
In the words of LMJ, “Oh yes, most definitely!”
Oregon hasn’t ever focused so much on conditioning as they did this year. That’s why practice is so fast. They need to keep up that conditioning. With a face paced, no huddle, hurry up offense, you need to have both the offense and the defense be well conditioned.
It also helps with keeping up their awareness. When there is movement or shifting, you can see all the LBs and DBs signaling the coverage and adjust to the changes. Which is something that was not there against Boise State.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
Hmmm,
Sounds to me like you went to school with no other than Mr. Chubby Bubby himself…JaMarcus Russell
There is a time and place for everything...But its always Juju time!
Chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-JU-JU
Currently initiating Eddie Pleasant BLITZkreig upon Nick Foles. Standby for further information.
Yes, no doubt on that, matches my sports experience as well.
All different kinds of tired and different conditioning, strength, etc. required.
When are we putting the ATQ all star team together to challenge Chip’s boys?
Argagagaauuugff
Dammit, Pleasant, you have got to stop that crap.
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Deep Thoughts with Matt Daddy
One day I mailed a football to Bill…
he walked out to his mailbox and saw a nice sized package addressed just to him. He got all excited walk inside and started to open it. He saw the brand new Nike football inside and pulled it out, wide eyed and happy, and noticed a card at the bottom of the box.
Inside the card all it said was, “look out” and then BAM!!!! Eddie Pleasant came around the corner and tackled him stripped the football and ran off with it…
Kenny Wheaton #20; The Pick - 1994 v UW. Matthew Harper #20; The Pick #2 - 2007 v USC. John Boyett #20;...
Hey, "BAM" is Caduck's catch phrase.
Funny, I like the description of wide eyed joy, as if I were a child.
Hold on, I am.
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
I just know
I’ll be in the delivery room with my wife as our third son is born. The midwife will deliver the baby. She’ll look at me with a smile and tell me I have a healthy baby boy. Then she’ll cut the cord, wrap the infant in a blanket, and hand him to me. As I look down into the eyes of my newborn son for the first time, I see a blur out of the corner of my eye.
BAM! Eddie Pleasant strikes again.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
In reply to all on this thread to my point
Whaaaaaaaaaa???
OK, I completely agree with the need for our offense to hurry it up when we
want to score. Got it. Yep. Preaching to the choir here.
However, that’ cannot be all the time. We also have to respond to game situations, right?
Against weak, mediocre teams against whom our defense is doing a great job,
sure, that’s gonna work fine.
However, the tougher games we play, we can’t afford to give their offense
more plays to catch up. Statistically speaking, you’re giving them more
opportunities to win. This is Bill Bellichek thinking, I know. But there’s a good
reason some people think that way – it’s just those of us who do the math.
If we’re saying our D is conditioned enough to handle it and play D for a full
60 mins – that’s one thing. But it still leaves the D on the field, taking all those
hits, and risking a serious injury. Lord knows we have enough injuries in
Oregon’s past that have changed the course of a season (of course, the ones
I remember would be so contrarian-ly on offense, not defense).
I’m just saying, there are going to be games we want to control the clock
at the end, protect a lead, and make sure the other team doesn’t come back
on us. We have to be able to play that way, too, when the situation demands
it. I saw a bit of it during the last game against ASU. That was good to see.
But it was only a start.
by gamedaytribe on Nov 16, 2009 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there will be times we need to control the clock. However, looking at TOP only is a very bad reflection of this. And in fact, there have been plenty of games this year where we go into control the ball, run the clock mode. For instance, against USC, we only held the ball for about 10 minutes in the first half, but we held it that long during the 4th quarter.
Looking at TOP overall is not a good reflection on the ability to control the ball.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
This is all I was agreeing with.
It’s not TOP that controls
1. chances the other team has to score
2. increased probability per chance for the other team to score due to tiredness
3. chances you have for defensive injuries
4. “best defense is good offense”
It’s number of plays.
There is some correlation between TOP and number of plays, but it’s not really strong. If you run a lot of plays in a shorter amount of time, you start to make TOP irrelevant.
jtlight already made these points. We’re near dead last in D1 for TOP. We’re in the middle for number of plays on defense. The first sounds dire, but it’s the second that’s important.
Of course we can improve that and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who would suggest otherwise, it’s just not as dire as the average analyst would suggest when falling back on the old TOP statistic.
Also, note that the “chances for injury” claim is dubious, because the more plays you see on offense (and thus fewer on defense), the more chances for injury you see on that side of the ball, so decreased offensive possession simply trades the risk to the other side.
The important part is chances to score vs other team’s chances to score. Can we improve? Of course. Is the situation as bad as “near dead last in D1 for TOP” would suggest? No.
GEEEEEERHAAAAAAARRRT!!!!!!
(arms and eyes to sky, ala Stephen Colbert)
by Bill Musgrave on Nov 16, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
However, the tougher games we play, we can’t afford to give their offense
more plays to catch up. Statistically speaking, you’re giving them more
opportunities to win.
This argument only holds water if the monetary value of Oregon’s touchdown was less than the opponent’s. What Oregon lacks in time of possession, they make up for in scoring. If we score 35 points in the 6 minutes, I don’t care how much our defense is on the field. The defense may be tired, but they also get the benefit of a cushion provided by the offense.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com
Officially getting some more often than The VD Special since 2009.
Your game against Stanford comes to mind
You got a ton of yardage and put up a lot of points, but you also had trouble sustaining drives. In the end, the defense was so beat up over play action and Toby Gerhart you couldn’t get the defensive stops when you needed.
Defending Jacquizz against Jahvid since 2008.
by The VD Special on Nov 16, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think we had trouble sustaining drives at all.
We punted like twice the whole game. That game is on the defense and nothing else, period.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com
Officially getting some more often than The VD Special since 2009.
So stupid.
Most boneheaded mistake of the Belichick era.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com
Officially getting some more often than The VD Special since 2009.
Well, I had no problem that that call, and neither did some other very smart people…
But I was also referring to the last play of the 3rd quarter in the Stanford game, which was actually 4th and 3. So, the offense failed as well in the big moments.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Completely false
Check out the math
Belichick’s decision was correct
Quinn, you keep operating under this assumption that just because you CAN punt, you should. The likelihood of converting a 4th and 2 is 60%. And if he converts there, it’s like a 99% chance to win.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
And heck, even if you decrease the chance to convert to 45%, given that the defense is going to be playing tight and giving up low probability deep plays, going for it STILL gives the Patriots a better chance to win.
I can’t stand Belichick, but he made the right call. It just didn’t work.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I'm aware that I'm conservative when it comes to 4th downs.
I simply think that lining up your defense against a wall and putting an Uzi in the hands of a sociopath 10 feet away is less attractive and smart than punting it away and giving your defense a little breathing room. I’m aware that Peyton Manning is a machine, so for all I know it wouldn’t have mattered. I just think it’s a massive risk that were I a coach I would not take. Again, that’s just me. It’s even more egregious in this situation than it was last time had this argument, as he had it at his team’s own 28 yard-line. Never that deep in your own territory, with a lead no less, do you go for it. I wouldn’t even do that in NCAA ’09. Then again my Florida Atlantic defense sits atop the SEC in yards per play yielded…
Addicted To Quack [dot] com
Officially getting some more often than The VD Special since 2009.
Well, the math says that would be the incorrect decision. And the better you assume Peyton Manning is, the better a decision it is to go for it on 4th. His play call was extremely questionable (and even worse on 3rd down), but the actual decision to go for it was statistically sound.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Peyton Manning would have scored with two minutes left from anywhere on the field, especially with 4 downs.. You have to keep it out of his hands. It’s pretty much as simple as that. And the statistics back that up. People like to say it was a risk. It was no more a risk than punting the ball would have been.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
There’s about the same risk in the end, but there’s more risk in the analysis. One direction has its greatest risk being “Peyton drives 70 yards” and one has its greatest risk being “Peyton drives 30 yards.” And it’s well verified that people instinctively avoid the path which has the greatest risk in some intermediate component, even when it’s a bad idea to do so because the chance of that situation coming up is small enough.
You get different result if you ask people “Hey, 1000 people are sick, and we can either do Plan A which has a 50% chance to save them all and a 50% chance to save none, or Plan B which will definitely save 500 of them” or if you ask them “Hey, 1000 people are sick, and we can either do Plan A in which there’s a 50% chance they all die and a 50% chance none die, or Plan B in which case we know that exactly 500 of them will die.”
And not only are the results different, they’re not even close.
WHO DAT!
The football monopoly in Los Angeles *is* officially over.
by AllSaintsDay on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
But with slightly over two minutes left on the clock, and Indianapolis still having a time out left, the Patriots couldn’t just run a prevent defense. It’s a lot harder to defend 70+10 yards of field than it is 30+10 yards of field.
It's spelled "S-H-U-V-3-0-0-0"
Uhh…I agree with what you said. But I don’t quite see how it relates to my comment.
WHO DAT!
The football monopoly in Los Angeles *is* officially over.
by AllSaintsDay on Nov 17, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
Very, very misleading math - though Bellicheck was right
And terminally stupid to validate Bellicheck’s (or any coach’s)
decision if only based on some aggregate, rough order of magnitude statistics-based recommendation. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’d hope (and imagine that) Bellicheck did what he did because he evaluated 1. his offense 2. his defense 3. play on the field so far. 4. history of the specific players playing.
I checked out the stat guy – and he takes a whole lot of
shortcuts. I don’t know that I’d necessarily want my coach to
rely on that blindly.
I support Bellicheck’s decision ONLY because he’s the coach, he knows his teams, and he was trying to win. I think he fully believed he was making the higher probability play, even though I don’t think it actually was. But he has every right to. He’s the coach, and the person on the scene who knows the most. And it’s his prerogative.
You might have done things differently but you can’t berate him for doing what he thought was best for the team to win.
And all those talking heads on TV crying about how the defense had a right to feel aggrieved – good god, suck it up you highly paid millionaire tantrum-throwing crybabies. You’re paid to do your job. You don’t get to whine when the coach is trying to win the game.
I disagree with Bellicheck’s decision, but I fully support his right to make that call.
by gamedaytribe on Nov 16, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh. Belichick. Belichick. Belichick.
My brain swapped out Belichick for Bellicheck a few hours ago and I can’t spell it right to save my life anymore. This after following him for yeeeeeeeeears. Sigh.
by gamedaytribe on Nov 16, 2009 10:41 PM PST up reply actions
What statistics do you have to support that his decision was wrong? You can’t just toss years of statistical data out the window as irrelevant. It’s highly relevant.
Do I think Belichick knew those exact numbers? Probably not. But he knew:
1. His offense is good and has a very good chance to get two yards.
2. His defense was tired and underperforming and might be at a greater risk to give up a TD drive of 60 yards given that Manning would have 2 minutes left.
Both of those factors would further enforce his decision to go for it, but neither of them supercede the statistical data. They just modify it. Only in extremely rare cases where the external factors are so great (say, you are using a QB and a RB you just picked up off the street and are facing the greatest defense in NFL history) could you ignore how teams have historically fared in those situations.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I pray that Juju protect Masoli
Oh mighty Juju, you have been awesome to us this year. Please protect Masoli from the curse of Tucson. With your help, we shall win the day.
HAIL JUJU!
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Four things:
1) The Zona game wasn’t as close as the score indicated. It could’ve been a blowout if it weren’t for stupid mistakes in the redzone.
2) Please for the love of god beat Zona.
3) I made this fanpost over at CGB about Cal’s pass D. The last bit (titled Addendum) should interest Oregon fans.
4) When I was at Autzen for the Oregon v. Cal game I noticed a bunch of people from the band hold up a sign that said “Oski is a pedophile” with a picture of oski in the “free candy” van. Was that one of you silly folks?!
In other words, Go Bears!
IIRC, the sign said “Oski = pedobear”. Very different. ;-)
The Oregon Ducks: Sporting the single best fifth-string running back that college football has ever seen.
by ProbablyMonty on Nov 16, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
I could tell it wasn't that close
I was listening to it on XM radio on the ride down last week and Cal should have had at least one first half TD if not two.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Starting something new
to congratulate T-Duds on breaking the 3-pointer record.
Mostly though, to implore the ATQ community to pick up on the nickname my brother and I came up with for Tajuan when he was a freshman.
(That keloid on his ear looks just like a couple of Milk Duds.)
I’d call him that, but he hasn’t had the keloid for three years now. He had it chopped off after freshman year. I still maintain it was the source of his powers.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
It must be growing back...
Because his play has been anwhere from very good to spectacular in the games I’ve seen.
"KENNY WHEATON'S GONNA SCORE!! KENNY WHEATON!!--Jerry Allen, 1994"
by M. Fletcher on Nov 16, 2009 10:02 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
