Morning Quack Fix: 4.17.09
by jtlight on Apr 17, 2009 7:16 AM PDT
in Morning Quack Fix
Email
PrintIt's a beautiful day here in Chicago, as things are finally starting to warm up. And that quack just makes it better:
- John Neal checks in on the UO coaches blog, and talks about the young secondary getting a lot of reps, and Neal is gaining confidence in all the players, and we're seeing some nice depth. Also, congratulations to Neal on becoming a grandfather!
- It's been a tough year on George Horton, a competitor who hates losing. And it got tougher with the near death of one of his former players, Jon Wilhite, who was injured in the car crash that took the life of Nick Adenhart. With how difficult this season has been, these events will always put things in perspective.
- Also, in case you missed it, BLOG FIGHT! Moseley teed off on the athletic department on Tuesday for not being upfront with the Bo Thran injury situation, and then posting the info on goducks.com. Andy Mac claims he made a mistake with his post, and of course, Paul Buker couldn't resist sucking up to the OSU athletic department (nothing like journalistic objectivity, I tell you what!).
Moseley summed up the situation yesterday, and while the original issue may have been a mistake, there are potential issues still in play, namely the conflict of interest in the media services office, which controls access to the athletic department, but also can make money off that news through the website. Because of this, I'm glad we have a real journalist like Moseley at the RG, that is constantly pushing for news and info, and does a spectacular job. Bravo Rob!
GO DUCKS!
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My favorite line from the John Neal post...
“The defensive staff was visiting TCU…”
Texas Christian ranked first in total defense and second in scoring defense last season. TCU doesn’t face the greatest competition in their conference, but we in the Pac-10 are in no position to badmouth the Mountain West right now. I’m guessing USC (#2) probably doesn’t invite UO coaches for a visit.
As a constant critic of our defensive scheme and lack of in-game adjustments, I’m pleased to see this kind of proactive approach being taken. Can’t play defense? Go pick the brains of a program that can.
Imagine the possibilities if Oregon (#82 in total defense) can develop a defense on par with OSU (#23), Arizona (#24), Boise St. (#20) or Cal (#26). Or – perhaps more realistically, given Oregon’s offensive scheme – even ASU (#44) or UCLA (#47).
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
Don't forget about pace
I agree with you about our defense. But when looking at total defense numbers its important to think about how our offense hurts our defense. We score fast and we score often, putting our D on the field more with less rest. I dont have it in front of me but I believe our TOP was one of the lowest in the nation. Any team is going to give up yards when they are on the field so much. I like looking at those numbers with a grain of salt.
I love you point though, learn from TCU.
Ducks Go!
RIP CITY!
the thing that will help our defensive numbers the most is depth. fresh legs will mean better overall production. do we have that yet? no. is it attainable? absolutely.
It's spelled "T-A-K-I-M-O-T-S-C-H-M-O-E."
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.
“Or – perhaps more realistically, given Oregon’s offensive scheme…”
Agree our scheme impacts our defensive stats. Still, there’s plenty of room for improvement. Scheme or not, there were times last year when our defensive was a sieve, and it wasn’t always just late in games when defensive personnel were tired (Boise State, Purdue, Arizona, OSU, the other OSU).
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
The only game where the defense fell truly apart was against Boise State and USC. Against Purdue, they gave up 26 points and 408 yards, on 95 plays, despite 4 turnovers. That was impressive.
In the last three games of the season, we faced three good offenses, that had the ability to exploit our weaknesses, and in the Arizona game in particular, the onslaught did not happen until the 2nd half, when the defense was on the field for almost the entire game.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I can’t say I agree our defense was impressive versus Purdue, but I’ll buy your point. I don’t buy the Arizona game, at least not the third quarter. The defense was fresh. We played like crap and didn’t adjust well…yes, in the fourth the Ducks were probably gassed.
I’m not willing to resign to the fact that because we run a fast-break offense we’re destined to be eighth or lower in the conference for total defense and scoring defense. If we fall apart against USC and Boise State again this year, we’re right back to something other than a BCS bowl. Not bad, but not where the program’s trying to get to. I’ve said it before – I’m not asking for miracles here. I’d just like to see Oregon drop their average points against from 28 to about 24.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
First of all, Arizona had only one score in the 3rd quarter. Also, UA held the ball in the 3rd quarter for over 12:30. They then held the ball for essentially the next 7 minutes of the 4th quarter. That is absolutely unacceptable. The Arizona comeback didn’t really kick into gear until that insane amount of time and plays caught up with the defense. Arizona didn’t score their 2nd score of the half until the first play of the 4th quarter. I think the blame for this lies almost entirely on the fact that our offense went three and out about 7 times in a row, and also fumbled a kickoff.
Also, why should it matter where we’re ranked in total defense or scoring defense. What matters is points per play, success rate, etc. and how our offense stacks up in comparison.
I also just don’t get the whole adjustment thing. What adjustments would you like to see? Last year the coaching staff did an excellent job of changing drastically the defensive alignments after the USC game.
But really, what were the reasons that we went from giving up 23.6 ppg to 28.2? Was it really adjustments? I don’t think so. I think it was the fact that our 3rd down defense jumped by 7% and our red zone defense got measurably worse as well. It’s interesting to note that yards per play actually dropped from 2007 to 2008… I just don’t see what adjustments should have been made. I think we just ended up really missing Matthew Harper.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Also, why should it matter where we’re ranked in total defense or scoring defense. What matters is points per play, success rate, etc. and how our offense stacks up in comparison.
Paul Westhead would love you.
In all seriousness, there is an old cliche out there….“Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships.” and I think that is very true. We may be an offensive minded team but we do need to have a defense that can make timely stops. As you pointed out, our 3rd down defense and red zone defense wasn’t nearly as good this year as it was previously. Now if its true that we just didn’t have the talent at certain positions to bring those statistics more in line, that is a good reason why adjustments couldn’t be made. However, JConant’s point about the Arizona game was well taken. Why did Arizona win the time of possession battle so clearly in the 3rd quarter? Their defense adjusted to our offense and got stops. Our defense either did not adjust to the changes Arizona made at halftime or we suddenly had a talent shortage.
We did end up missing a true Free Safety and that may account for being killed in the passing game last year but if another team adjusts and starts to exploit a weakness you have, you need to adjust as well if you have the talent.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Antolin scored from 3 yards out 4 seconds into the fourth. That deal was sealed in the third.
I don’t exactly have AZ game film to break down…and I don’t dare try to do it from a 41-year-old memory bank. I recall wondering who was supposed to be covering the fullback out of the backfield and why we weren’t employing more bracket coverage on TE Gronkowsi. Maybe I’m wrong about adjustments – wouldn’t be the first time.
As for rankings, we don’t necessarily disagree. I believe that our ranking last year was not reflective the team’s talent – or at least perceived talent. Maybe that’s a preparation problem? I do think injuries played a big part, maybe even more than we know. I’m just leery of a mindset where we simply outscore everyone, because good defenses happen and Mother Nature happens. As such, I’d like to see our stats improve, and I believe the rankings at least serve as a measuring stick.
I guess I’m still of the old school mindset that defense wins championships. It has for USC. Evidently at Oregon we’re trying to prove otherwise. Some people are okay with that. I’d prefer the Duck be bad asses on both sides of the ball and we put an end to this USC domination…regardless of our amazing offense.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
Well, the question you need to ask and look at is, did the problems in the Arizona game have anything to do with defensive alignments. I don’t think they did. Oregon did well for most of the 3rd quarter, but the defense was on the field for 12:30 of that, and the next 7 minutes of the 4th. This was partially due to not making stops (though they did stop Arizona on 2 of the first 3 3rd quarter drives, so execution was OK there). But the offense simply failed to execute. They went 3 and out over and over again. I think it’s pretty unreasonable to think that any defense would excel when put in that situation. On top of that, the kick return team fumbled, giving them another possession after a score.
As far as Gronkowski, he killed us in the 3rd quarter. However, I don’t blame the formations for this. He made some absolutely ridiculous plays that 95% of players don’t make. There just isn’t much you can do sometimes, especially when on defense.
Also, to both you and Dominic, I think that we need a good defense, but I don’t think that defense wins championships, especially in this day and age. And I would also say, USC won their last championships due to stellar offenses that could take over a game. They haven’t had that the past few years, and have blown games because of that.
I mean, I think we both want the defense to get better. But at this point, I don’t know how that happens. I think that over the course of the year, the defensive coaching staff did an excellent job making adjustments to put the whole team in a position to win football games.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I’m pretty sure with a fast-pace, quick strike, no huddle offense, you can’t judge or compare defenses by allowed yards.
There is a causation by having your defense out on the field more per game than any other team.
Oregon was dead last last year in TOP. Interestingly enough, TCU is on the top of the list – and this one too.
Defenses definitely contribute to championships, but the best defenses are usually the ones that lead in takeways, and when you get an offense that can minimize giveaways – you’re usually in good shape for a championship.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
You both make many excellent points.
How the defense gets better?
1) Increased talent at as many positions as possible – I think we’re seeing that come to fruition through solid recruiting and the addition of some key JC guys.
2) Also, increased depth to help deal with the crazy number of plays on the field – we’ve heard the Oregon coaching staff talk about that both in the defensive backfield and at linebacker.
3) The coaching staff doing exactly what we heard today…not being satisfied with status quo, being proactive in looking for ways to improve.
My point being this: if we can improve even a little, look out for the Ducks. If if Oregon’s best defense is an offense capable of scoring 49 a game (Chip says he wants one more TD a game), well maybe that’s okay too.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
I’m sensitive to the argument that the Ducks offense makes it difficult for the defense because our TOP is so low.
But the statistic you threw out, 12:30 TOP for UA, is indicative of our defensive problem. If the defense would stop teams, 3 and out, or even 6 and out, they wouldn’t be on the field that long. Sure, the defense is good at not giving up a score. But they generally let other teams drive 40 or 50 yards before they stand up and make a play. In essence, they tire themselves out.
That can definitely be a big problem. In many cases (at least last year) it was due to scheming to stop the long plays that killed us early on.
However, the defense made plays early in the quarter. They gave the offense great chances, and the offense did nothing with that. The ball got rolling and the defense couldn’t carry that large a load. I don’t think that either our offense can carry total ineptitude, or the defense carry total ineptitude, and that’s what we saw in the 2nd half of the UA game.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Momentum was key in that game. When AZ’s offense got it in the second half it became really hard for the Oregon D to get off the field. Most of us probably played the game at some level – I can clearly remember times on offense where we just got that “feeling” that everything was clicking. When that happens even a decent defense can be at an offense’s mercy. AZ got some things going in the 3rd, then got a turnover and momentum was with them until late in the game.
Maybe what I saw as less-than-great defense was more Arizona’s offense, led by a quality QB, an all-world TE making ridiculous plays and an O-coordinator calling exactly the right plays to catch Oregon’s defense off balance. And – maybe up 45-17 at half our guys let up. No doubt the coaches warned against that, but the coaches can’t go make the plays.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
Vs. Purdue
What is impressive about that game defensively is that 20 of their 26 points came in the first half, and Ropert (sic) had something to do with those. I’m certainly no Aliotti apologist, but adjustments seem to have worked in that contest.
I would say that the media access issue down in Eugene is just an undesirable side effect of being on the “cutting edge” of media/advertising/marketing… With information moving the way it does online and the increasing value put on that very information organizations are going to struggle with what to do, what to charge, how to disperse it. There are growing pains in this process and as you try to innovate, well, you f*ck up, make people mad and turn people off. It happens.
Say what you will about Buker’s comments but I have no doubt that they are true, albeit a less inflammatory extent. The information/marketing machine at uo is more mature and better funded, perhaps to its own fault sometimes. It doesn’t make Chip Kelly the devil. It doesn’t make the players bad people.
It does, however, make Joe Giansante an asshat.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
I wouldn’t have a problem with Buker’s comments (which I won’t disagree with, OSU is most likely much more open than UO) if he had any shred of objectivity in his writing.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I think we can all stop holding our breath waiting for that. He treats his blog as an opportunity to make friends online. Amazingly enough Beav O-Live trolls still hate him. I do like his actual coverage though. He’s on par with anyone else in the state. Hunt is good too though he hasn’t really figured out the whole blog thing. It seems the RG is a better source for news of the fowl persuasion.
Riley’s personality is also more than likely intoxicating to the point that anyone in the region is going to go gaga over a coach who’s personality is so accessible and down to earth. The criticisms I hear of any other coach in this market are the exact opposite—guarded, cocky, etc. Doesn’t make him a better coach or a better person—just a different kind of coach and different kind of person.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
I’m not sure he claims to be objective or if he even should. He writes for the O-live Beaver Blog. It seems like he is catering to his audience. This whole Moseley-Mac blog fight got seriously blown way out of proportion. The number of changes in media access to the players is very small and mostly revolve around the best interests of the student athletes. I can understand Moseley being upset about the “screwup” on the injury information but using that as a springboard to blast the athletic department? Seemed way overkill on something that could have been handled with a phone call
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
I agree on the Moseley/Mac thing…
Disagree on Buker, and here’s why: It’s not like he’s Rickert, who simply has a blog hosted by the site. Buker runs the “Behind the Beavers blog” and is a beat writer. Just compare that to the Behind the Ducks blog, and there is no comparisson, because that blog is written by real journalists.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Agreed on Buker
Also, another apples to apples comparison is the Behind the Blazers beat and Jason Quick. Quick treats his subject with objectivity for the most part; Rickert is essentially a mouthpiece for OSU. I’ve never read a negative piece by Buker. And the fact that he calls the UO “UOwned” whenever he gets the chance is beyond bush league.
I’ve never read a negative piece by Buker. And the fact that he calls the UO "UOwned" whenever he gets the chance is beyond bush league.
Wow, seriously? I have never seen that but would love to see a link to an example
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
I can appreciate someone being biased in a blog but resorting to that? The equivalent is Rob Moseley calling them OSEwe or Open Seats.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
As a former newspaper guy who knows other newspaper guys (and gals), I feel comfortable saying this...
Almost every newspaper writer who isn’t a nationally syndicated columnist is currently writing to save his or her job right now. Most of them won’t make it another three years. And, yes, writing like Buker’s is a perfect example of a guy trying to invent himself a niche and a loyal following. We saw a glaring example of this recently by the Coug lover who writes for the Seattle paper (sorry, I forget his name and don’t frankly care).
Readership at almost every level of the print media is down. The new magic metrics for writers are visits and comments on their blogs.
It’s crap. Buker knows it. We know it. He’s just praying to God that someone is willing to eat it up just a little longer.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
The funny part is that he’s a UO graduate. So either the joke’s on us and he’s pandering big time to the knuckle dragging OLive community (we can all agree on this, yes?) from both schools (ie—piss off ducks, buddy up to beavs) or he has some sort of beef with the school…
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
I didn't know that about Buker
And knowing that, I think you’re probably dead-on that he’s cynically pandering to his audience. Not that he loves his alma mater—maybe he does have issues—but the extent to which he cheerleads for OSU suggests he’s playing some game.
Dunigan, Crittle, Williams Plead Guilty to shooting at birds with BB guns. More details at this RG link
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/updates/12086135-55/story.csp
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
30 Hrs is a little light. At least they made them give up their guns, hehe. Was that really up for debate? “So gentlemen, that’s the sentence, go ahead and pick up your guns on the way out.”
Hopefully it’s 30 hours of hard work. It sounds like Ernie and Co. have more punishment in store.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
I’m guessing these guys will be running lines like they’ve never run lines before.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
While Kent fires a BB gun at them.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
Seems fair. I don’t recall if Ernie was a good shooter or not. Probably decent.
You cannot hide from our weapons of Masoli destruction.
It could really help Kent blow off some steam as well… everyone wins.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
- from Quick's Behind the Blazers Locker Room Door, 4/16/09
Then Dunlap could be there in the background telling Ernie to increase his rate of fire, and introducing him to his trigger finger.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Dear Joevan, Develop motor skills. Love, ATQ.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
