Awesome Offense - A Closer Look

by gamedaytribe on Nov 9, 2009 11:59 PM PST Comment 18 comments

Enough with the handwringing, the headshaking, the shoethrowing (for those that were or are). On taking a closer look at the statistics, some forgotten details emerge from the dark afternoon of despair. For one, we have one damned impressive football team on offense who played quite an extraordinary game in absolute terms - whatever your burnt retinas might be trying to scream at you inside your head.

Just read (and re-read and re-re-read) the following.

For what it's worth (and it should be worth an eye opening or two):

1. Total Offense: 570 yards (Stanford = 505).

Yes, we outgained them. We. Outgained. Them. Let me say it again, because it needs to sink in.

We, in the name of all that's holy, outgained Stanford in our 51-42 loss.

2. Rushing Yards: 236 yards (Stanford = 254).

They had only 18 yards more of rushing than us. They outrushed us by 18 measly yards.

Our average was 6.9 rushing yards per play.

3. Passing yards: 334 yards (Stanford = 251)

We had close to a 100 more passing yards than Stanford. Our average:9.0 yards / play.

4. Time of Possession: 22:17 mins:secs.

So we were close to scoring at a rate of 2 points / minute.

Let me repeat that. Close to 2 pts/min scoring rate. And don't give me any grief about time mgt.

We put up 42 points and gained over 570 yards. Masoli went 21-37, 3 TD and 334 yards of offense and NO interceptions. That is a barnburning good day.

Give me that any day versus the single-digit offensive struggles of the Big10 and SEC. Football is a game whose goal is to score points. The Pac 10 knows how to play football. You heard right. The Pac 10 plays football, damn it, let's all remember that and raise our microbrews (not you, Pi, our 12 year old, you can raise your hot chocolate, kid).

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The fact that we statistically dominated on most facets of offense...

Makes the loss that much more painful

Defense, Im talking to you! You want to kill this Osweiler fella...Come on defense, FOCUS god dammit!

I respect you Juju, you and your gorgeous brilliance

by CaDuck on Nov 10, 2009 7:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Or makes it a reason not to panic ;)

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 7:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It can be both

Although I wouldn’t say that we statistically dominated by any stretch. Once you get over 500 yards of offense, it’s like comparing the size of your yachts – at the end of the day, it’s still a yacht.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

And bottom line, it was a yacht.

Our offense is doing fine. It’s what we’re doing on the other side of the ball that we have to really improve upon, else we’re not going to win our remaining games. We might not win any, for that matter. If we’re not able to step up the defense and stop the other team.

by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The upside – that was really the first chink in the armor the defense has shown.

The downside – there are actually multiple chinks, and they’ve been there for some time (undersized D-Line, inexperienced secondary), this was just the first time anyone had been able to take advantage of them

The questions – Now that those chinks have been exposed, will Aliotti be able to cover them up? Will the remainder of our opponents be able to take advantage of them?

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Was the secondary really that much of a chink? I mean, I know that Boyett was bad in the beginning, but Luck hit throws that no other QB we’ll see will make. Our corners had decent coverage for the most part. This wasn’t like the games in 2002 where our corners did not have a clue what was going on. They have a clue, Stanford just made some better plays.

The key was that our defensive line couldn’t get any rush, and even early blitzes did not create pressure.

I mean, just like the BSU defensive gameplan did not hold for our offense, I just don’t see the Stanford gameplan scoring a lot on our defense, because I don’t see any team being able to execute it that well.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it was, in my opinion

Boyett has been playing so well, we’ve forgotten he’s a redshirt freshman. He had a bad game and didn’t really make the adjustments he needed to make.

Javes Lewis was playing out of position as a corner. He was victimized a couple times by completed passes, once by a legitimate PI, and once by a bogus PI. But I don’t think we can stretch and call him good over there. He was out of position, and looked it on the first few drives.

We might have been able to fix that if we had depth at the corner position, but we don’t due to injuries. For whatever reason, Neal and Aliotti don’t trust Harris yet, which is another problem with inexperience. If Harris had another year under his belt, no question they put him out there and see if he can stop the bleeding.

Also, TJ Ward had his worst game of the season, but that’s not a problem with inexperience, that’s just a player having a bad game. TJ3 was fine; there wasn’t much he could do out there.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree, because though mistakes were made, if TJ can make a play or two on throws, it’s a totally different game.

Here’s why I also don’t think it’s a chink. Teams are gonna try and do the same thing, and I don’t think they’ll be successful 90% of the time. Also, we’re gonna get a better pass rush on just about every team we play.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess if you want to cover your eyes you can pretend that it’s not an issue that we have a safety playing corner, a redshirt freshman as our rover, and as our best backup corner a true freshman who wasn’t there for fall camp and who the defensive coaches don’t trust. Just because other teams haven’t taken advantage of it doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

No, no one else is going to do what Luck did. But Arizona and Oregon St. both have very good offenses where they can exploit mediocre secondary play. I think you’re trying a little too hard to explain it away. It’s a chink – every team has them, it’s okay. It doesn’t mean the defense is going to get torched every week. It’s just something to watch out for.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course there’s room for concern, there always it.

I just don’t think there’s a real reason for significant worry. Based on the circumstances (d-line and safety play falling apart), I thought our corner play was pretty darn good.

Do we have reason to believe that those areas will be similarly poor in the upcoming games? Not particularly, no.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Another issue though, was we didn’t get pressure on Luck at all. Even in our blitzing schemes. You can’t leave CBs on an island like that for very long. Especially with a guy that can pass like that.

It's spelled "S-H-U-G-O-T-F-E-L-T-U-P"

by JShufelt on Nov 10, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do agree that not getting a push up front was the biggest problem. Our D-Line got manhandled (remember all that back and forth we had about Stanford’s O-Line? I hate that I was right) and that meant our secondary had to make plays on both the run and the pass. They didn’t make them when they had the opportunity to do so.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Someone made a good note somewhere, Stanford had way more return yards than Oregon, and had much better field position, which could have significantly hurt their total yards. Then again, maybe it hurt our defense. You never know.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What's really frustrating

And I should really be over this by now, but I’m not – Stanford had the perfect game plan everywhere -

Offense – Establish the deep threat, then pound it between the tackles once the D is on its heels.

Defense – Don’t give up more than 4 yards a pop on the read option, make Masoli beat you with his arm, and once he gets warmed up, hang on for dear life

Special teams – Let Owusu do what he does, kick away from Barner and maintain position on kick coverage

They perfectly gameplanned every single aspect of the matchup to utilize their strengths and cover up their weaknesses. And then they executed that gameplan to near perfection. Ugh.

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t even think that Stanford’s defensive gameplan was that good. But they did what they are good at when they have a lead. I mean, Stanford gave up 8 yards per play, and 7 yards per rush.

But they also made a few plays here and there that proved to be very important.

Also, what’s important to remember, is that this gameplan does not work if ANYTHING goes wrong for Stanford. We get the ball back on that 3rd drive, and go up, they must adapt. They were not forced off their gameplan when they could have been.

--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog

by jtlight on Nov 10, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I mean about covering up their weaknesses. I think Stanford knew they were going to give up 40+ points. They were trying to limit the success of the read option (which they did, for the most part), and make Masoli beat them with his arm when they got a lead.

The defensive gameplan was only going to work if they had a lead, which they did. I don’t think they could have come up with a better defensive scheme; they were just outmanned on defense. And they did get key stops (see my other post – the end of the first half was HUGE for them).

Defending maligned chants since 2009

by Gorbachav5 on Nov 10, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do think we need improvement on defense everywhere

It seemed to me – and I’m not doing a detailed analysis of the defense and mistakes yet because I cannot get myself to sit through the game again (too soon, too soon) – that we were half a step slow on almost all fronts.

Game plan, half a step behind in adjusting. Too little, too late.
Secondary, half a step behind. Getting there late.
Line: pushed around. Again, half a notch below in intensity.

Just a little more on every front would have radically different results.

The large gap appeared because it was half a step behind so pervasively and consistently. Just my initial game perceptions.

by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs