How We Go: Oregon needs to get its run on
A few week ago, Stanford came into the Washington game with one of the stingiest running defense in the nation.
That'll happen when the schedule consisted of Duke, San Jose State, Arizona, Washington State, and Colorado. At 6-0, the only marginally competent running team Stanford had faced was UCLA, who had nearly 150 yards and five yards a carry against them. The rest of those teams were utter garbage.
Since that stretch? Washington had 201 yards and 6.6 yards per carry. USC? 6.8 yards per carry. Sure, OSU only had two yards a carry on the Cardinal, but the Beavers haven't been competent running the football all year.
The secret on Stanford is slowly getting out. They've played three marginally competent running teams, and six garbage ones, and all of the marginally competent ones have shredded them. Their best defensive play (Shayne Skov) is out. Another (safety Delano Howell) is questionable after missing three games. They have little speed on the defensive side of the football. You see Stanford's 2.98 yards per carry against, and then you see that its come against one of the worst schedules of any BCS team.
Don't buy the hype. Stanford's run defense is vastly overrated.
Stanford's path to victory isn't shutting down the Oregon offense, they simply don't have the personnel to do that. Stanford's path to victory is the same as it was two years ago, which is to try and win a shootout, which they have the players on offense to do.
Oregon needs to do what Oregon does best: run the football. Stanford does not have the size or talent on the defensive line to do what LSU did earlier in the year, or Auburn and Cal did last year. Get the ball to LMJ, Kenjon, and DAT in space, and watch them gash the Cardinal defense for big gains. The Cardinal are disciplined, so we will see some negative plays, but Stanford doesn't have the speed to catch the Oregon backfield once they get going. Further, the only decent offensive line Stanford has played was USC, who just shredded the Cardinal. Oregon's line isn't going to be giving up significant penetration.
Darron Thomas will also be key to this game. Darron doesn't have to go out and win the game--our running game will do that. What Darron has to do is keep the defense honest by throwing good balls to the receivers. He struggled at times to do this against Washington, but came on as the game progressed. Huff and Tuinei can get separation against the Stanford secondary, and so long as Thomas can get them the ball, and they can catch it, it will really have the Cardinal going in every direction (this will necessitate that the law firm of Murphy and Hawkins be nowhere near the field of play). Once we get both the run and pass going, then we can turn up the pace and wear Stanford out, just like last year.
Of course, all kinds of nasty things can throw a wrench into this plan, such as turnovers and such. But, should the plan be executed, then its up to our defense. And when I compare those units, I really like our chances.
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Everybody is talking about how we will stop the great Andrew Luck,,,, LMJ ran for 257 yards last year, I would think he is the dangerous player in this game.
They both are
Our secondary can’t give Andrew an open target to throw too because if he does he is deadly accurate. You can’t really compare stats between QB and RB, especially when Stanford is a run first offense.
ssshhh....
I think it's more accurate to say that we can't let Andrew Luck sit in the pocket.
If we can get good coverage initially and then force him to throw on the run or under pressure, we limit how effective he can be. If he has time, he completes 70+% of his passes and they will score scads of points.
"It’s great with these group of guys. There is no panic in them." --Chip Kelly, Clearly NOT talking about members of ATQ.
@jblair26
by M. Fletcher on Nov 10, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
This.
I watched the Furd game from last year, and we brought a lot of pressure on Luck that made him less accurate. The key to beating Luck is making him play outside the pocket (see: Game, USC). Sure he’s a good runner, but Luck beating you with his legs and not his arm is something I’m not worried about.
Allioti needs to set up his blitzes and the front 7 need to do a good job disguising where and when they are coming after Luck. If we get pressure in the backfield, he won’t have time to let his slower receivers find an open spot and he’ll have a few more 3 and outs or turnovers.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
Our d-line is going to need to collapse the pocket. Luck is simply amazing on the run, and he can really extend plays. I’m not worried about him beating us with his legs, I’m worried about him extending plays with his legs.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
The trick is to bring pressure with 4
He loves to make teams pay for blitzing 5 or more.
¡Me gustan las tortugas!
And Cliff Harris was like, "VRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
by DuckUntilDeath on Nov 10, 2011 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not so sure I agree.
They just did an analysis of Luck throwing outside the pocket this year. He’s essentially just as good. I’ll try to find the article again. Last year was last year, is what I’m saying though.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Nov 10, 2011 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Meaning "just as accurate as within the pocket."
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Nov 10, 2011 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Luck is the best player in the game
But we have like 7 of the next 8 or 9 best on our team.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
The Good Thing Is
that our qb doesn’t have to be as good as Andrew Luck. He just has to be better than the Stanford D. And our D has to pressure Luck.
The above sounds like I’m stating the obvious, but my point is that Stanford is going to get its points. It’s a matter of just shutting them down a little more and then edging them out in the second half. And scraping together every advantage via special teams and field position to make them really work for it, and take time off the clock.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
I think that DeCastro and Martin might disagree...
by The Graduate on Nov 11, 2011 7:40 AM PST up reply actions
Yeeehh, so what if they disagree.
/areyouatroll?
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
by Famous Duck on Nov 11, 2011 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
"law firm of Murphy and Hawkins"
I loled
PAC-12 refs: "Where the bad officiating doesn’t stop when the whistle blows."
Have you been involved in a derp?
Would you like us to derp someone for you?
¡Me gustan las tortugas!
And Cliff Harris was like, "VRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
by DuckUntilDeath on Nov 10, 2011 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Fun with stats
Stanford’s run defense against their better rushing opponents (Ucla, Uw, USC):
78 Carries for 461 yards or 5.9 yards / carry
Oregon’s run defense against their better rushing opponents (LSU, Nevada, Cal, ASU, Uw)
197 Carries for 853 yards or 4.3 yards / carry
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
To be fair
We’ve not faced particularly elite running offenses either. Not on the level of Stanford. Best comparison is probably LSU. That being said, LSU didn’t exactly have a ton of success running the ball against us.
I don’t see Stanford being better at running than they were with Gerhart or even last year. I think we can bottle them up like we did last year and like we did against UW. It’ll be up to whether Luck can really walk on water and whether or not we make a lot of mistakes.
Anyone else find it funny that everyone is focusing on
how Oregon’s defense stops Andrew Luck and the workmanlike program of Stanford? Yet no one is really talking about how the hell Stanford has any chance of stopping Oregon? Yet Oregon is the more prolific offense in the conference?
I think everyone is assuming that Stanford is going to have their way on offense and IF Oregon can shut them down they have a chance. Personally, I think it’s the other way around, in order for Stanford to have a chance they HAVE to shut down Oregon.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
by Matt Daddy on Nov 10, 2011 10:56 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. We have a much better chance of stopping Stanford than they do of stopping us.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Maybe not in Oregon, but in the Bay Area just about everyone is talking about how tough its going to be for Stanford to deal with Oregon’s offense.
People talk about Luck and co. a lot because of his NFL future, but I think its a little crazy to say nobody is talking about the Oregon offense.
long live the jd.
That makes sense
Should be a hell of a game though.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
I'm in the Bay Area and I haven't seen/heard a lot, but I don't watch the local news
An article on the Texas Caveman was on the front page of the SF Chronicle’ sports section yesterday. I didn’t add it to the comments section because it didn’t include any new information.
¡Me gustan las tortugas!
And Cliff Harris was like, "VRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
by DuckUntilDeath on Nov 10, 2011 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
Sure they are:
“Stanford is big and physical.” That’s about all they feel they need to say.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Nov 10, 2011 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
And What's His Name
DT needs to include What’s His Name in the passing game.
Herbie is explaining that now...
I was so pissed after the game last year; all the pre-game hype about the match-up between Luck and LMJ. And then the results.
LMJ runs for 257, Luck gets intercepted twice, gets outplayed by Whats His Name, Stanford loses the game and Luck advances in the Heisman voting. What a CROCK of SHIT.
/ScentofaWoman/LtColSlade
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
by Famous Duck on Nov 10, 2011 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
How come when you run all over a team it's always "shredded?"
Why not ripped?
Or sliced?
Or grated?
Minced?
Chopped?
Hacked?
Severed?
Hewn?
Slashed?
Lopped?
Sliced?
Lacerated?
I
Sometimes it's "steamrolled".
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
Or "picked apart".
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
Though the one I'd like to catch on is "eviscerated".
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
You know what hasn't caught on?
Stupid gamerish.
"I don't do well with pain medicine."
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Nov 10, 2011 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
That's my fault for not using it enough.
There’s still time for it though.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
Throttled
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Nov 10, 2011 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
See, that sounds like a verb for the defense.
"If you type two spaces after a period, you're doing it wrong."
Well, yeah, because it means the opposite of all the others
Antonyms for the win!
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Tonight's the Night'd?
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Nov 10, 2011 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
We have to do everything well, without the usual quota of derps
I think our offense will be able to score on them. I think our defense can wear them down in the 4th quarter. The only real concern I have are self-inflicted wounds. If we don’t turn the ball over and shine on special teams, we’ve got a really good shot at winning this game.
1. Darron has to be sharp! Biggest factor.
2. No turnovers, no turnovers, no turnovers
3. Field position, field position, field position (don’t give them good FP). Jackson Rice, bring your A game.
4. No stupid penalties when we have them on 3rd and long
5. Don’t let Daryle Hawkins anywhere near the field. Rcvr core, please channel the ghost of Jeff Maehl.
6. Pressure, pressure, pressure Andrew Luck*
- Why do we not have a derogatory, mocking nickname for Andrew Luck? Candidates?
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
Um, have you SEEN Andrew Luck?
He doesn’t need a silly nickname. His silly face speaks for itself.
Got the shoes. Got the jersey. And finally, got football. Go Ducks.
(Good call, Daisy)
by lovemyducks81 on Nov 10, 2011 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Well, there is that
But I’d like something to chant (or rather, type) mockingly. Athletic endeavor tends to bring out the malicious 8 year old in me.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
"Ugly Neck-Beard" (clap, clap, clapclapclap).
Aaaaand repeat.
Got the shoes. Got the jersey. And finally, got football. Go Ducks.
(Good call, Daisy)
by lovemyducks81 on Nov 10, 2011 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
Me likey!
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 11, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
We could rehash how he has a strong arm
and throws the snot out of it.
Warning: This is gross.
Taxes don't kill jobs.
Gross quotient = A
Derisive chantability* = D
- = it should be a word.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
The problem is he's just goofy
enough to not be Jesus (Tebow). He hasn’t screwed up badly enough to get the 420 treatment, and he’s too nice and respectful to really get nasty with him. He’s hard to make fun of.
Jerk.
Taxes don't kill jobs.
I know. I like him. It's imperative that I find something to ridicule him with.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Andrew Suck?
It’s so stupid it works.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Nov 11, 2011 7:23 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
admittedly kindergarten-ny, but satisfying, you have to admit
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 11, 2011 7:54 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Anyone else think it'll be a blow out either way?
Because the two teams are so different, I don’t see a close game either way. If one team wins, it will be for 2+ TDs?
If our team can’t stop them from nickel and diming down the field and we end up having 2 or 3 quick three and outs (which we have had quite a few almost every game this year), i see us getting blown out.
If our offense clicks from the get go and our D can force a couple TOs, I think we blow them out.
Don’t know why I feel this way but I feel a blowout this Saturday.
I don't think they blow us out, personally.
It’s possible we blow them out, if our defense really gets going in the second half and we click offensively. Just less likely.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 10, 2011 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
I agree. We haven't been blown out of a game since usc '08
The talent level between us and stanford is nowhere near what it was between us and that ’08 usc team
by NICKPAPAGEORGIOTHEDUCK on Nov 10, 2011 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
I find it humerous...
that we’re the back-to-back champs and yet…“OH MY GOD HOW ARE WE GOING TO STOP LUCK!!!” At least, that’s what the media seems to think. I don’t get it. How is Stanford going to stop us? I shouldn’t be surprised by the media’s selective memories (does no one remember last year or the schedule Stanford has faced this year?) , but it does seem odd that we’re one of the rare teams that had won back-to-back conference champs, yet we don’t get the old. “They’re the champs until somebody beats them” title the media loves so much. The media REALLY wants to Stanford to win this game, and it’s fogging their objective view of just how awful Stanford’s D is.
This is why I appreciated Miller’s articles this week.
Anyway…I really don’t see how Stanford stops us unless we stop ourselves.
"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do" -- John Wooden
by kolson82 on Nov 10, 2011 9:54 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Well, I agree least with the idea that last year and history doesn' t matter
it’s about this year’s team. So back-to-back champs is irrelevant. Last year’s players aren’t here to help us (Obligatory sigh that we miss Jeff Maehl).
This year Stanford is still unbeated and ranked #4, and we lost to LSU and are #7, so most “gurus” who don’t really follow the teams closely are just going to go by current superficial indicators like that. However, I’ve seen a few national sports columnists and personalities pick us, so it’s not all one way. I have to agree that we have not looked very impressive this year, and aren’t racking up the style points like we did last year.
Ted Miller: Oregon (35 – 30
Steven Lasson (Athlon Sports) — Oregon 38 – 34
Rob Mosely — Oregon 48 – 38
Mark H (Rivals Sports) — Oregon
Gerry A (Rivals Sports) — Oregon
Jason Suscanic (sp?) (The Fan) — Oregon
Bruce Feldman — Oregon
Stewart Mandel (CNN/SI) – Stanford 38 – 34
Doc Saturday (Yahoo Sports) — Stanford 41 – 33
Aaron Fentress (OLive) - Stanford 37 33
Dennis Dodd — Stanford
Ducks Territory — Stanford
4 CBSSPORTS people — Stanford
Vegas oddsmakers — Stanford
Salt Lake Tribune — Stanford 40 – 27
Bob Condotta (Seattle Times) — Stanford 44 – 38
HuffPo — Stanford 38 – 32
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Nov 11, 2011 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
Not yet. Give Colonel Kelly 24 hours. They'll come flapping back.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY

by 

















