Grading the Game - Oregon
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 9:45 AM PST
Email
Print
We all hoped and prayed that the Oregon nightmare would end last night and once again it didn't happen.
One small piece of solace we all can share is that it wasn't a blow out, we were in the game most of the night, and honestly there simply aren't more than a handful of teams out there that can beat the Ducks this year.
Call out to all the great people we watched the game with at the Westin Villa's Sports Bar in Maui. The Huskies out numbered the Duck fans which made things pretty tolerable. The Duck fans that were there were all nice and pretty fun to watch the game with too!
Lots of Boise State folks in the audience...they were all cheering on the Dawgs!
Quarterback - Three years from now when we try to remember our best Keith Price moment this won't be one of them. He didn't react well to the constant pressure and blitzing...but in his defense who does? He was sacked six times on the evening and hurried the rest which is a direct reflection on an offensive line which was completely over-matched. The two interceptions which powered Oregon in the first half were all on Price who was doing his best Jake Locker imitation by throwing off his back foot which allowed the ball to sail on him. He blamed the mistakes on bad reads...I blame it on pressure, lack of experience, and not getting his feet set. How about that Nick Montana...pretty nice toss for a guy coming in cold off the bench...I would have left him in the game. - Grade C
Running Back - Chris Polk had 24 carries for 80 yards which is about half the production UW needed from him to win the game. He was hit early and hard because his offensive line was incapable of sustaining blocks. He led the team with 6 receptions which is another indication of just how good this kid is. - Grade B Plus
Receivers - The worst performance of the season from these guys. I counted at least four drops including one by a wide open Kevin Smith in the end zone which could have turned around the game. This group didn't do Keith Price any favors with the way they were running their routes. ASJ just disappeared from this game. The Oregon secondary owned these guys the entire evening. - Grade D
Offensive Line - Terrible performance by this unit. The obvious guy that sticks out like a sore thumb is Koehler who was responsible for sack after sack. He is definitely the new Cody Habben. That being said the entire group stunk it up. I guess the only explanation is that we have a bunch of true second year players who still need to mature to be able to take on an elite squad like Oregon. - Grade F
Defensive Line - The Huskies didn't get a sack or get much pressure off the edge. Ta'amu had one tackle for the evening. Not a terrible performance by these guys but they are still not performing as well as we thought they would at the onset of the season. - Grade C
Linebackers - Too many missed tackles by the young guys who are still improving. Cort Dennison was his usual stud like self. He led the team with 10 tackles...this defense will really miss Cort next season. Overall this group did a pretty good job against a great opponent - Grade B Plus
Secondary - This was one of the better games of the year by this group. With the exception of the back breaking Paulson reception these guys did a pretty nice job. Looks like Will Shamburger has taken over the free safety position. Grade B
Special Teams - De Anthony Thomas seems to break a big one every game and he continued that habit against Washington. Coverage wasn't bad when you consider how much faster Oregon is as a team. The return game was a serious disappointment. It is much better to start drives at the forty than the 25. - Grade B Minus
Coaching - Hats off to Coach Holt who put together a plan that was good enough to win the game. His defense continues to improve every week. They weren't perfect but they held the Ducks under 40 points and 400 yards which should have been enough for the win.
Sark didn't have an answer for the Oregon blitz and that was where the game was lost. Like he said after the game it really wasn't a scheme thing...they just got beat up front and he never saw it coming.
Give Chip Kelly and his staff a lot of credit in this one they out coached Sark and that doesn't happen every day.
Grade C Plus
259 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very disappointing game!!!!
I expected the D to be the problem not the O.
Even with the D letting Paulson to get free they kept us close.
The D did their job...
I never dreamed that our offensive line would stink it up that much…terrible.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Sadly the chucklehead in front of me...
was blaming everything on the Defense and spouting his Fire Holt crap the whole game. It was really annoying, especially since he never did his job as a supposed Husky fan and actually make some noise.
That was a tough game for the offense (and ugly for the O-line) and we definitely had some ugly drops. I think Keith missed James Johnson out there but he started to get some chemistry with Kasen.
I was also disappointed in the special teams. I figured they would spring DeAnthony at least once, but I though we would be able to get better kickoff returns.
"The same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry." Ray Lewis
by Carne Guisada on Nov 6, 2011 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
Special Teams
I’ve had this thought for several years now that Sark should hold a tryout to see if someone on the team can consistently can kick touch backs instead of what we’re watching now.
Short Kicks
Unless there is a strong wind at our backs, we just don’t see many kickoffs even make it to the 5. Way to make kick-offs have the returns starting at the 10-15, and not any too much hang-time either.
Under these circumstances, I think our kick-off coverage team has been doing relatively great this year.
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 6, 2011 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
-Holt did his job and didn’t give up the home run
-We may need to look at some of the assistants as we still have to many missed asssignments in the secondary
-Ivan Lewis needs to break out Plyo’s on these guys because we just don’t look explosive at all.
-Really disappointed in Sark. This is the second game (Stanford) were the other team ran blitz after blits and we never had an answer
-We need to take a close look at Cozzeto as well. Oregon’s Josh Kuddo said they disguised their blitzes and UW never new where they were coming from. Why?
-Polk is a war daddy but got little help
-I can’t believe Sark can’t find a way to get the ball to ASJ 6+ times a game.
Blitz after blitz...
What is the answer to that when you aren’t blocking well?
Double tight ends…two step drops?
Cozzetto? Blame Willingham!
We have three second year players starting on the offensive line…we have two second year TE’s…all very talented but in reality they are starting only because the cupboard was bare when Sark arrived…ideally linemen should never start until year three or four.
ASJ…watch the film…Oregon took him out of the game.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
There are sophmores on other BCS schools who are blocking well – including the center for the ducks. The simple answer is coaching. These guys have too many starts under their belt to look that bad.
It isn't lack of coaching
This team is going to win eight or nine games this season…that is because of coaching.
Losing to Oregon is simply a matter of depth, talent, speed, and experience.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
I understand where your coming from John
it just get’s a bit frustrating to watch players on our team not perform well and it gets tagged as “youth”. I watch other teams, like Oregon who have young players as well and I don’t see them struggling as bad as ours. I work in Portland and all week they were talking about how UW was going to take advantage of UO’s young corners. Their corners played well.
Ya...I am frustrated too
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
Any ideas you have are welcome, but you need to be a tad more specific than "coaching" as a way to stop the blitz.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 6, 2011 1:38 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
haha. that is true.
Some thoughts.
First, Keith and Drew need to take a little time to get studied up. They each need to ask themselves before each snap where the pressure is going to come from and make some calls/decision at that point. Keith, in particular, needs to get a plan in place. He missed too many opportunities to throw to where the blitzes were coming from.
Second, we need to bring back the screen game. It has disappeared.
Third, we need to utilize the TE in deep routes to create space underneath for the receivers – especially with the zone blitzes. I know that there is a temptation to keep the TE in. HOwever, I believe that when you do that, you allow the zone to collapse down on the outlet/hitch receivers who are the hot reads on a zone blitz. Putting ASJ out deep forces to the safeties to drift back and should open up the slants and hitches in the middle.
my opinions, at least.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
we ran one screen early...
Oregon had it sniffed out from the get go…..then I don’t think I saw another one the entire game.
I think we gave up on it a little to early. Especially given that the ducks d-linemen were so stinking far up the field every play, we could have had some success I think.
But we can't do many deep routes until we can protect the QB
for at least 3 – 4 seconds
by HuskyInExile on Nov 6, 2011 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
1. Are you implying that they don’t study that sort of thing? Oregon blitzes on almost every play, and they do a tremendous job of disguising who is coming. Your point is basically that the QB and center need to recognize the blitzes better. Oh. Add in that the line and backs need to block better, and you’ve pretty much got it covered.
2. Agree. And not just the basic stuff. A quick middle screen to a back or tight end would’ve been great against that blitz. Or a receiver screen to the outside from a trips set.
3. It’s tough to get deep when you can’t protect. But instead of the tight end opening things up for the receivers, it’s got to be the other way around. The problem with that is that you’re expecting a true freshman to make in-play recognitions of where he should be going. That’s a lot to ask.
Where’s my money?
As a Duck fan about 1990 (bill musgrave era), I’m still thankful for each victory no matter who it’s against. Non-Humble Duck fans confuse me. That said, we are good because of our depth. We can go up tempo and that is very hard to prepare for in college due to all the practice restrictions. Our coaching has also developed playmakers – some have been highly recruited (DaT) while most have not (pleasant, LMJ, etc).
The more players that can execute your game plan – on short weeks w plenty of college distractions – w more confidence allows you not to think. UW players seem to be thinking too much. That hesitation vs the Ducks will cost you a few plays which is all we need. Chip Kelly has brought many positive things to our program. The 2 best things are his ‘win the day’ philosophy and his strange mix of arrogance and humble-ness. The players have supreme confidence but also don’t get lazy in their preparation.
I don’t follow Sark close enough to know what he brings everyday at practice but he scares me – he’s a great coach. Id guess this PAC 12 North will be decided by the Duck/UW game for the next decade if both these coaches stick around.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Nov 6, 2011 11:00 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions 3 recs
Excellent post
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed, Snostrebla,
I watched a very young, physically overmatched OSU team battle toe-to-toe with Stanford yesterday….before the Trees wore the Beavs down and pulled away in the second half.
OSU has nowhere near the overall talent (in my opinion) of UW, yet played much tougher, smarter and faster than we did against Stanford. Their linebackers plugged holes, their DB’s were all over Stanford’s receivers and their OL gave their QB time to throw. The Beavs have 10 true freshmen and numerous second-year players in their rotation, yet they continue to improve week-by week, which is a trademark of Riley’s teams.
That said, I see little week-to-week improvement from this season’s Husky team.
Well - kinda - but each different opponent with a different style exposes a new area that requires improvement...
…but that doesn’t mean improvement isn’t happening. We were competitive in that game the whole way (unlike Neb and Stan)
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 6, 2011 1:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Grassu?
Grassu was getting dominated by Ta’amu all night. Every time they left him to block ‘Meda solo, he got driven back like he was on skates. If anyone else on the D-line had come to play last night we might have actually put together a really good game defensively, because Ta’amu had has best game since the Holiday Bowl.
great recreating tactic
Our O line showed the HS prospects they could come in and play right away!
by sdhuskyfan on Nov 6, 2011 10:07 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions
great "recruiting"tactic? I see your point perfectly....
hope it works…now.
thanks iPhone for the autocorrect
by sdhuskyfan on Nov 6, 2011 10:48 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Playing time vs. wins
After listening to the 91 team all week, I’m still a firm believer that a winning program with a chance to win championships is a better tool. They emphasized depth and competition being key to making them better, and many of them when asked said they chose UW over other programs b.c of the winning tradition. If a recruit wants playing time, I want him to earn it by beating the guys in front of him, not by a coach giving it to him. If they have the confidence to come in and beat out the winners in front of him, they will compete daily and the whole team will get better.
Duck hunting season has officially begun.
by S_o_Smith on Nov 6, 2011 1:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Kasen doesn't get a D for sure..
But, overall as a group? right on the grade. Fix it!
Kasen
Break out game for the kid…look for him to get a lot of playing time the rest of the year. James Johnson=Wally Pipp.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
I meant..."Fix it coaches"!
Put the “Fun” back into “Fundamentals”! Or, “Fun! (da!) Mental”!
Going for it on 4th down rather than kicking the field goal.
Seemed stupid to me. We were down by 3 scores, we’ll need that field goal eventually. Get it now on a 4th down, don’t force us to get another possession later in the game. Doesn’t matter if you score the 7s first or the 3, you need them all in the end. The time on the clock would have still allowed a (miracle) win at that point.
by Northwest Purple on Nov 6, 2011 10:28 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
situation: in the 4th quarter there was just under 7 minutes left
at 4th and 10 from ~ the 27…..
the “and 10” part makes me a little cautious, but the flipside is both that the team’s gotta execute at some point, and the Oregon 4 minute offense is deadly. In fact, the next Oregon drive they took 6 minutes off the clock just pounding the ball.
If we were down by 14 I'd agree with you.
But we were down by 17. We needed a 3rd score eventually. Take the field goal when the opportunity cost is lowest… such as on a 4th and 10 from the 27.
Getting a TD vs. a field goal puts us in essentially the same position, still needing 2 scores. But turning over on downs ends the game right there.
by Northwest Purple on Nov 6, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
U only kick a field goal if your 100% sure the other team will not score again.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Nov 6, 2011 11:04 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
If they scored again we would have lost anyways. Obviously we had to hold them to have a chance to win the game.
I agree that kicking the field goal there and extending the game would have been the right move.
I also would have advocated for a “surprise” onside kick after making the FG. By surprise I mean lining up as if you’re kicking it deep and then kicking it onsides.
by UW11Bowdown on Nov 6, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
nope
Sark made the right call. Kicking FG’s was not how we were going to beat Oregon last night, and not at that point. We needed to get some 7’s. Not sure it was the greatest play call, and definitely not well executed by the OL or Price, but going for it? It was the right decision.
You need to factor in the situation.
To extend the game we needed 17 points. Getting 3 TD’s would be nice but it didn’t matter much. A field goal and a TD both would have made it a 2 score game and given us a chance to either win or send it to OT. I would agree that early in the game going for TDs over FGs would be a good idea, but at that point in the game we need to do whatever we could to even the score.
Think of it this way, if that was our last possession and we were down 3 (lets say time is not an issue) would you say we had to go for it or that we should kick the FG to tie it. It is the same situation. We needed a FG, TD, and TD, we got stopped, so we had to take the FG first. Not the greatest situation, but we were still in the game if we kicked it. After we kicked the FG there we obviously would have had to go for it the rest of the game.
That's assuming Oregon doesn't score again.
Not a wise assumption.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Doesn't matter much. If they get another TD at that point it's game over.
Maybe it hurts you if they get another FG, but that’s what happens to you when you get stopped on 3rd down, they forced you to take the FG and stop them the rest of the game.
Not a good chance of converting 4th and 10, and not a huge benefit if you do.
no, it's not the same situation
In the situation at hand, we were down 17. In the situation you describe, we’d be down 3. Not even remotely the same scenario.
Oregon is an explosive scoring team. You need TD’s to catch and surpass them. You’re over-thinking it with the 2 TD’s + 1 FG deficit – that’s assuming Oregon doesn’t score again, which is highly questionable.
I'm with Kirk on this...
… and, keep in mind, I’m generally a “take the points” kind of guy.
There was no point not trying to get the first down there. We needed to possess the ball and we needed seven points.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I disagree, we didn't need to "possess" the ball, we needed points.
Obviously if we were down 14 at that point you go for it, down 17 you just take the FG and accept that you won’t win in regulation and go for the tie. In terms of getting possession back, I think if we scored the FG we should have gone for the onside kick.
I was pissed that we punted on 4th down from the 50 or so earlier in the quarter, what are your thoughts on that one?
There were 12 minutes left at the time, how could we possibly catch up in that amount of time if they scored again?
Keeping them from scoring was obviously needed at that point in the game.
We were down 17 points, 3 scores. That means we needed a score, a stop, a score, and a stop, and another score in order to tie/win the game. If all the scores are TDs you win, if you get a FG in there then you tie and play in OT. We had 12 minutes to do this. By going for it and failing we needed an extra stop and still needed a score, essentially 3 stops and 3 scores. If you kick a FG you only need 2 stops (or onside kicks) and 2 scores.
Say we score a TD there, if they then score a TD we have lost the game. If they score a FG, then instead of needing another TD and a FG, we need 2 TDs.
Getting a TD over a FG provides us almost no benefit. The only benefit is that if they then score a FG we are still down only 2 scores. I don’t think that benefit is worth trading one of our 3 needed scores for.
A TD there, and you can afford to give up a field goal to the Ducks.
Kick the field goal, and Oregon can virtually win the game with one of their own.
You’ve got to maximize the quality of your possesions when you’re down by 17 points. Kicking a field goal doesn’t really do that.
That's the only argument for getting a TD instead of a FG.
I just think the likeliehood of converting the 4th and 10 is low enough (probably under 40% or so) that it is too risky to go for it when not getting it means you lose.
Your second point is actually wrong. You don’t need to “maximize” your possesions, you need to score 17 points. Kicking a FG gets you a part of the way there.
I never said maximize your possesions – I said quality of possesions.
Even if kicking the field goal has a higher expected value (I’m not sure either way), the situation dictates going for it.
Expected value actually doesn't factor into it as much here since time was such a big factor.
When I said maximize I used it with your original meaning, didn’t mean to mis-quote you or anything.
Do you agree that if we don’t get the first down there we lose?
We needed at least a FG and 2 TDs, why not take the FG when we got stopped and then try to stop them twice and score 2 TD’s. It seems to me like that would give us the best chance to win. Could you go into a bit more detail about why you think the situation dictated going for it, because I really don’t see it and you obviously think there is something big that makes going for it the right choice.
Because at that point you give up on winning
three TD’s and a stop gives you a victory. Allowing a FG still wins it with three TD’s. Allowing a TD with three 2 point conversions will tie it. Scoring a TD changes the landscape of the game as you are close enough to potentially alter the play calling of the other team and perhaps force a pass or a sideline play.
At which point do you give up winning? I'm not sure what you're reffering to.
There’s no way we would have gone for 2 if we got a TD, so that scenario doesn’t matter.
Why are you all so concerned about the possibility of giving up a FG? It’s like you don’t think our defense can completely hold them, but you also think that it’s likely we can hold them to just a FG the rest of the game.
Because the moment you kick that FG
you are giving up on a win. In the ABSOLUTE best case scenario, you tie with two TD’s. That’s an awful strategy, although slightly more excusable at 4th and 10. I like the balls and the mentality Sark carries in his playcalling.
I wouldn't say going to OT is giving up. I think it's smart and that if we had made it to OT we would have had a great chance.
I also like Sarks agressivenes, but not in this case. Why did we punt earlier in the quarter?
When faced with the decision to play for overtime or play for a win
I’ll take the win every single time.
So on the last play of a game down 3 on the 20 yard line you would throw to the endzone instead of kick a FG?
Glad you’re not our coach…
I'm just extending your logic.
I agree that it’d be stupid, I proposed it to illustrate how your argument that you would go for the win “every single time” was pretty dumb and that you don’t actually think that.
How about 1 second left 4th and goal from the 10? That’s more like the situation here. I’d definitely kick it, especially at home.
But that's a 27 yarder, which is >90%
and you’re guaranteed OT if you make it. You’re guaranteed nothing if you make the 44 yarder.
I think he's giving up if he plays to just hang in there
You think he’s giving up if he decides the game with 8:00 to go.
Yes, I agree.
But I’d also argue that they lose even if they make the field goal.
There would’ve been about 6:45 on the clock after the field goal and kickoff. At that point, the Dawgs have to stop the Ducks at least twice and most likely drive 70+ yards twice. The last time, they’d be doing it with at best a couple of minutes on the clock and probably would’ve had to use their timeouts on D. Even if it takes more time to score the TD than kick the field goal, I’d like the Dawgs’ chances much better of driving 40 yards in 50 seconds and no timeouts than driving 70 yards in 2 minutes with no timeouts.
It was a 44 yard field goal. That’s not a gimme. High percentage, yes, but not a gimme.
Scoring the TD gives the team momentum. Kicking the field goal doesn’t really do that.
It was a big boy call. It’s exactly the kind of call that Willingham wouldn’t have made. It’s the sort of play that has to be made if you’re going to win a game like that.
This is the key
It’s the sort of play that has to be made if you’re going to win a game like that.
Playing for ties is for pussies…and I really hope I never have to call anyone involved in the program that, ever again.
Oh, so if he kicked that FG when down 3 at the end of our final drive he'd be a pussy?
That logic just doesn’t follow.
No, not at all
because the odds are better of hitting a 44 yarder than driving 27 yards in the final seconds. It’s not a chip shot from the 3 yard line and the 3 is not guaranteed. I suppose I can see the logic, I just feel it’s a totally gutless decision to take away the chance for a win when the odds are the same and you can be in position to win.
Eh, maybe
the extra 4:00 to play complicates things a bit. I do wish the urgency would be a little more consistent, but with more than 10:00 to play it’s probably not the right play. Also consider they were in Oregon territory and it was 4th and 12.
They were right around the 50 weren't they?
We were down 3 scores, and only ended up getting 2 more possesions. We needed to get points on that drive. I couldn’t believe it when Sark punted.
Oregon 47
and you’d need 2 first downs to get into position to get points. I’d rather go for it and go that route with 12:00 to go than with 8:00. I also think that’s contradictory to say we needed to score then. If we don’t convert, the game ends with a FG (they went 21 yards on their next drive FWIW).
That didn't come out right
it’s flip floppy. You’re okay with huge balls and playing to win then but you’re content to just hang around with less time to play.
But you aren't just hanging around if you kick the FG.
You’re putting yourself in position to tie the game.
I'm sorry, but all of the actual arguments you said apply to scoring a TD too.
You still need to stop them twice (one stop could be letting them score a FG) and score twice more.
Scoring a FG would have given momentum too, we’d have been down 2 scores and still been in the game.
You honestly think kicking a field goal...
…gives the same lift as picking up 4th and 10 and scoring a TD?
Really?
I think getting within 2 scores gives the same lift no matter how it happens.
A TD would have been great, they stopped us, so we should have kicked the FG and stayed in the game.
That's the point
the odds are the same if you make the FG or get the TD. A 44 yarder is not a gimmie and you still need the cards to fall the same way even if you make it. So, why take away the chance at a win? The momentum is 10x greater from a TD there and the effect on the game is as well. When you’re up by less than two TD’s with more than 5:00 to go, you can’t afford to just piss away clock, you need to put together a drive.
If you think the odds are the same if you make the FG or get the TD then it comes down to which is more likely, hitting a 44 yard FG or scoring a TD (which includes a 4th and 10 conversion)
In that case the argument is over, the 44 yard FG is way more likely than converting the 4th down and scoring a TD.
I think its closer than you're willing to admit
44 yard FG’s in Husky Stadium are not automatic. Also, as I said below, 10 yard plays are far from impossible. The down holds no bearing on the likelihood of converting.
Let's compare what we actually think the percentages were.
I’d say kicking the FG is about a 75% success rate at least. Folk has been solid from within 45, and the conditions were as good as they get in HS.
I’d put our chance of getting 10 yards when Oregon knows a pass is coming to be around 25% to 30%. They got a ton of pressure all night and we hadn’t done much in the passing game.
But the downside of going for it is that if you don't get it then you essentially gave Oregon that field goal and lost the game right there.
It seems to me that you guys are overvaluing the ability to let Oregon score another FG. Converting on 4th and 10 is a pretty low probability.
In addition, if we kick the FG, we can onsides kick. I think those have around a 30% success rate when the other team expects it, about the same chance of converting the 4th down.
That's not a valid comparison.
You need at least 1 stop and two more scores even if you get the 4th down.
It is because you're faced with the same mountain ahead of you either way
but instead of going ahead with momentum and a lead that can actually effect things, you limp to the finish line hoping for the same miracle just to tie.
But getting the 3 pts is very likely if you kick, getting the TD was very unlikely at that point.
You can’t argue that you have to do the same thing whether you get the FG or the TD and then argue that going for the TD was the right choice. If you’re faced with the same mountian either way, which I completely agree with, you have to go for the higher percentage of getting within 2 scores, which is kicking the FG.
You are really undervaluing going to OT. We aren’t hoping for a tie like some weak soccer team, we’re trying to get to OT so we can then WIN THE GAME.
I don't see the point
You mentioned taking the 3 and going for an onside kick. That is far less likely than converting a 10 yard play. I hate the extending the game idea. It’s like the offenses version of a prevent defense. Just dink and dunk and keep it alive; don’t get beat on a ballsy decision. I like the gusto, and the faith he showed in the offense to go win that game. It shows faith in the defense too. If we get that TD, it’s a totally different ball game. IF we make that FG (and again, it’s not a gimmie), it’s exactly the same.
No it isn't the same. That is just completely wrong.
If you get the TD it is a 2 score game. If you get the FG it is a 2 score game.
Those aren’t the same games, though. In one, you have to score two TD’s with a short clock and can’t afford a mistake on D. In the other, you can get a TD and field goal with a short clock.
The odds are that one of those scoring drives is going to have to come on a long field without timeouts. Would you rather be going for a TD or a field goal?
I'd rather have a chance at going for the tying TD because I kicked the FG earlier.
No way we had a greater than 40% chance of converting the 4th down, and if we didn’t we lose and nothing else comes into play.
we were down 17 in the middle of the 4th quarter to an explosive football team
Our chances of winning were already remote. May as well roll the dice on trying to continue the drive in the hopes of scoring a TD and gaining some real momentum. Getting a FG there doesn’t bring nearly the same emotional boost to the sideline that a TD would have.
I reiterate – I have ZERO problem with that call. It was ballsy, but it was also an admission of the situation – go big or go home.
I think you are overvaluing the "emotional boost' part of things.
You don’t think our players would have been pumped to be in the game again after getting a FG?
there's a sublte but important difference between getting a TD to close to 10 vs. a FG to close to 14
Obviously you don’t agree, and obviously neither one of us is going to change the mind of hte other.
Agreed that there is a difference. How could there not be?
That diferrence of 4 points is not worth the difference in the likelihood of making the FG and the probability of converting the 4th down and then getting the TD.
Not enough benefit for the risk involved.
What do you think the percentages were for converting the 4th down and hitting the FG?
I’d like to know, I posted mine above.
I'm really surprised by your lack of faith in folk.
That conversion rate for 4th and long seems awfully high. If our offense can get 10 yards on any play 40% of the time then we are vastly under performing the rest of the game.
At least now we know why we disagree.
The game
Was not expecting our offense to struggle so badly this game. Keith Price has come back to reality these last few games. It was impossible to keep up his pace but these early interceptions in games need to stop now. They are killing us and if they continue we might win only 1 more game this season.
Our defense did enough to win this game as John said. That 3rd down conversion the Ducks had on 3rd and 9 or whatever was a killer. We get a stop there and I think the game is different.
On a personal note. I sat behind your typical Duck fan. Your mid to late 20 year old fans who have only known the ducks as a winning program who did not graduate or even attend Oregon. They deserved to be punched and I was lucky I chose not to drink my last beer before I went in the game. The hatred for Duck Fans continues for me. I have no respect for any of their fans because time and time again when they have a chance to prove themselves I run into these fans. I know every fan base has these types of fans…
The problem with Duck fans is instead of those fans being a minority like in most fan bases, they are the clear majority!! Glad I bought my Oregon Sucks shirt.
Duck Fans
You would be really surprised…but there are a lot of Duck fans out there who are really tired and disgusted by the hooliganism and poor sportsmanship exhibited by so many of the…what do you call it…flock?
A great example of it is how many Duck fans chose to hang out here during the game rather than at ATQ…decent folk get turned off by the immature behavior.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
Exactly...
There is a fraction of their fan base who gets it because they know where the Ducks came from and how they were at the bottom of Pac 10 for so many years. The problem because the Ducks have no history except for the past decade the MAJORITY of their fan base is the 25-35 crowd who only started following the Ducks when they have been successful. The Ducks are the current Oregon pro team because they do not have an NFL team. As a result you get a majority of a fan base who is short sited, un educated, and who has no respect for anyone.
All I heard was 8 in a row.. which is fine by me. But if you are going to bring up 8 in a row to me then you are allowing history to come into an argument. They really do not appreciate when you point out to them that even in our worst time period and the Ducks best… we have won the same amount of BCS games. That is the best part. Our worst = their best!
Now that ‘our worst = their best’ argument is silly no?
You’re basically saying you’ll take 1 bowl game win over 15 yrs of a better record. Saw a stat yesterday that was: UWs record since 1994 – 101-106. Ducks record is 150-60. I’ll take those extra fall Saturday’s of happiness. You can have your Las Vegas/sun bowl victories.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Nov 6, 2011 11:38 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Sure it is..
All I am pointing out is that for as much success as your fan base claims to have, on paper it really does not add up to as great as you portray your program to be. BCS and bowl game wins is just an indicator of that. Sure you have a great record… but a lot teams in the history of sports have had great win loss records. For example the Seattle Mariners won 116 games but did not win a World Series. People do not remember then outside of Seattle because on paper they did not win anything. People remember teams by trophies and that is what the Oregon Ducks lack.
Unless you count PAC 10 banners. I’m different cuz I hate the bowl system. If you’re not in the NCG, none of the rest matter. So I guess I’m on your side cuz we have 0.
Life is about growth. People are not perfect when they're 21 years old. - Bill Walton
by NEP on Nov 6, 2011 11:46 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Playoff system is my preference
Exactly… I would throw BCS wins in that as well but of course do not compare to National Title game wins. But again that has its own problems as only 2 teams get a chance to play for it.
Black Uniforms
They’re being overdone. That’s twice in a row now at home, and presumably the bowl game again. Hopefully not the Apple Cup.
Are Husky fans really OK with a full quarter of our season spent in (dare I say “Oregon-esque”) black jerseys? Mighty are the men who wear the Purple and the Gold.
I can’t believe we saw out Husky Stadium and the ‘91 team in Nike U. jerseys. Let’s get traditional, bold, Purple and Gold uniforms out there. Find something that matches the iconic USC uniforms. We have uniforms like that in our history.
And please don’t say “whatever gets the W”. You wouldn’t let them out on the field in Green and Yellow or Crimson and Gray.
by Northwest Purple on Nov 6, 2011 11:28 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Players love the black.
So does Sark. So do recruits. They’re not going anywhere, so no sense complaining.
And why wouldn't they? The black uniforms look great.
I love the purple and gold too, but there’s nothing wrong with a bit of variety. The basketball blacks look great too.
Black sucks!
Only the immature players give a shyte how they look in black unis, vs. purple & gold. And when there guys grow up, it is the Purple & Gold that they will fondly recall as UW Alums.
The black uni thing is now way over-done. Dressing up in costume – leave that to the cheerleaders!
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 6, 2011 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Just so we're clear
It’s immature to care what color they wear, but only when they wear the particular one that you don’t care for. Got it.
by thecassino on Nov 6, 2011 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I Have A Lot Of Black Clothes
But as athlete that played for all my schools, I was, and am, proud to wear my school colors. It is an honor to be on the Team. Today’s kids are a big too selfish minded… all accross the board.
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 6, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
I love wearing the Purple
everyone has black
by CODawg on Nov 6, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How many players on the team do you personally know?
You’re making a broad generalization about people you’ve never met, and that’s not fair to them.
Wrong
They all care big time.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 3:24 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'm not a fan of the black jerseys
Nor am I a fan of the white pants. We’re the purple & gold, and I wish our kids took more pride in that.
That said, if they really want to wear black and the recruits find it appealing, I’ll concede. At least until we get to the point where we’re winning the conference on a regular basis, and then we can start playing the tradition card like Penn State, USC, Alabama, Texas, etc do. They don’t seem to feel the need to mess with their classic look (other than minor tweaks).
I’d add Michigan to that if they hadn’t trotted out those abominations a couple weeks ago…
Maybe we could play a tradition card if we hadn't changed our uniforms multiple times before adopting black jerseys
As it is, I love the way they look.
I would like to see a little more purple spashed on the black uniforms
From a distance you can’t tell who is playing.
All I saw was purple
You should probably work on moving past this.
Write some letters to the AD or something, but the black uniforms aren’t going away. I think they look pretty good, and I can understand why our players like them. They aren’t even close to being like what Oregon does, their uniforms are mostly just ugly. The purple and gold aren’t going away, but I would expect the black uniforms to stick around for a game or two a year for the next few years at least.
Uniforms...
I think everyone thinks way to much about the whole uniforms. What combo they will wear, why dont they wear this instead of that etc.. I say as long as they do not have the 100 combos like Oregon does I am fine. They have 3. Black, Purple, White. I think that is fine. Let the kids choose what they want to wear, which is what they do. Times are different. We cannot live in the past and the fact of the matter is that the players enjoy the black look so why not let them decide what they want.
If it was up to me I would have like to see a retro uniform for the game but it did not happen. To be honest this is what happens when you lose a game. You find everything wrong and make it seem like it is a huge deal. The fact of the matter is that if we would have beat Oregon no one would have cared that we wore the black instead of Purple. Win games… that is the answer!
All about recruiting...
Whatever the kids want I want!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Again we agree...
People have to get on board. It’s all about the kids baby. I will just enjoy the ride!
Exactly
I don’t know why everyone is so upset at the black uniforms. They are still classy uniforms and the kids like them. They seem to be selling well too. At least we aren’t putting our state flag on our helmets, or doing those awful grey uniforms that many teams (esp. WSU) have played in.
I would like to see a thin gold line around the purple in the black uniforms so the purple pops out, but I like the black uniforms and “blackout” games.
"The same thing that will make you laugh will make you cry." Ray Lewis
by Carne Guisada on Nov 8, 2011 6:45 AM PST up reply actions
So would you all really be ok with them wearing Black every night?
If it’s “what the recruits want”? I’m ok/resigned to black every once-in-a-while, but if the team’s now voting before every game what to wear, when will they ever not choose black?
by Northwest Purple on Nov 6, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Of course not but it would never come to that...
But I could see it come down to Purple for day games and Black for night games. And yes I am okay with that.
It was a recruiting weekend
Of course they’re going to jazz it up for the kids. It’d be dumb not to.
With All Due Respect JB
You seem to be a guy who spoils his kids a bit too much. :-)
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 6, 2011 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
I agree.
Yes, yes. I know the kids might like them. But did you see Alabama and LSU wearing black or some other (Maryland/Oregon) abortion on Saturday?
No.
They wear their traditional uniforms and the students feel honored to wear them. Using gimmick uniforms to recruit kids is what gimmick schools like Oregon do. Real football powerhouses like USC, and (once upon a time) Washington, use the glory of their traditional uniforms to recruit.
Wearing black two games in a row (including on a night that was supposed to be all about tradition: the last game at the old Husky Stadium) isn’t the end of the world. But I sure hope they don’t start chasing after recruits with the fashion du jour. That’s a way to win for a few years, not a way to build the next Don James era. Roll them out occasionally, sure. And I had no issue with the flag helmets earlier this season. But people ought to be able to look at the screen and know in an instant who’s playing. No one else in 1-A college football has our colors. The closest (I guess) would be LSU, and they really look nothing like UW on the field.
If jersey choice is about making fans and alums happy, I think we would all prefer purple and gold. If jersey choice is all about getting recruits, I again assert that purple and gold is the smartest way to go. The black jerseys feel cheap. And if you think I shouldn’t care, you can bite me. What if they came out in neon green with pink highlights? Am I not supposed to care then, either? If you disagree with me, that’s fine. But it’s not a non-issue, no matter what you say.
Of course, winning is the biggest recruiting honey of all.
Kids really don't care
These kids are worried about getting laid and driving fast…if you think that more than a small fraction of them don’t like fancy uniforms, you’re kidding yourself.
Well said.
This is what it comes down to:
Yes, yes. I know the kids might like them. But did you see Alabama and LSU wearing black or some other (Maryland/Oregon) abortion on Saturday?
No.
They wear their traditional uniforms and the students feel honored to wear them. Using gimmick uniforms to recruit kids is what gimmick schools like Oregon do. Real football powerhouses like USC, and (once upon a time) Washington, use the glory of their traditional uniforms to recruit.
by Northwest Purple on Nov 7, 2011 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
Uniforms are about 156th on the list of issues with this team.
I’m not really a fan of them either, but the real problem with the game on Saturday, and with this team in general, is not winning enough games.
by Sundodger on Nov 7, 2011 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
this stat is from Bob Condotta's twitter feed; I wonder if this is a good metric for judging future success:
bcondotta Bob Condotta
UW has been outrushed 967-400 by Nebraska, Stanford and Oregon, the three ranked teams it has played this season.
being able to stop the run against ranked teams, indicating the development of a true physical edge
It shows the failure of....
Ta’amu, and Thompson to develop.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
I hear "youth" often, but looking up the DL roster, it rings true:
Pete Galbraith, Everette Thompson, Alameda Ta’amu being the seniors- not exactly the rocks of the defense this year.
Next year Talia Crichton and Semisi Tokolahi are seniors, supported by a whole bevy of current freshman and sophomores.
The lack o production from Talia and ET this year has been utterly shocking
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 6, 2011 1:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Big surprise
It is like they all regressed.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 3:21 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ta'amu was a beast last night
It was not Ta’amu’s fault that Oregon ran over us. He was consistently getting well into the Duck backfield. No, the problem was the 3T was rarely taking advantage of the big gaps Ta’amu was creating, and even worse was how poorly our ends and OLB’s played – Oregon sealed off the edge all game long. Rarely did Oregon get anything running up the gut – it was all about sealing off the edge and running toss sweeps and counters – they could always count on getting outside the tackles with no resistance.
I think it falls squarely on the linebackers...
Ta’amu job is to let the backers clean up. Your linebacking corp is very inexperienced. Oregon’s players may be new in the backing corp but Clay, Kaddu, Lokombo and Stuckey all had plenty of experience.
"I love Oregon's obsolete recruiting report on an unhealthy level. Just more proof how balla Chip Kelly really is." Dr. Saturday
You got it
The D line is to anchor in their assignment gap and squeeze it. The LBs are responsible for filling and tackling those gaps. Why do people find this confusing. It doesn’t mean DTs can’t tackle, but that is not their initial assignment, but it is for LBs.
All I saw was purple
Good work from a Maui bar, John
I wish I knew that before the game, I’m just up the road in Kahana. I knew we’re in trouble when the ducks scored before fox left the prior game.
So far we have still won all of the games when we are not a two TD underdog. I don’t know the spread for next week, but it’s time to grt our Kadashiern on and go after the u of sexual ballers.
Your grade for the secondary is too high
I think it was average. Simply because Oregon didn’t intend to beat us by passing the ball. They attacked us and scored on us by running perimeter. How many times did our CBs get blocked out of position to turn the run inside? How many times did our corners finally get our hands on a ballcarrier, only to watch the ballcarrier slip out of our hands for a healthy gain? What should’ve been tackles out on the perimeter on the L.O.S. or behind were lost for good 9 yard pick ups.
Secondary is responsible for run support. Oregon didn’t attack the middle nor did they run much between the tackles. They attacked us on the perimeter. We did a horrible job turning stuff inward where we had help.
I’m not calling for coach Holt’s job, but you aren’t going to be successful on defense unless you can tackle. Our secondary was killing us on perimeter.
All I saw was purple
I do not believe that you are correct on this. The secondary was pretty solid.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Do you have the game DVR'd?
Time after time our secondary got mugged by oregon receivers, LMJ’s early TD is a prime example. He got the corner and nobody was their to stop him. The secondary was solid in the passing game, but didn’t do anything in run support.
All I saw was purple
well, the stats would suggest otherwise.
… how many tackles did Shamburger and Parker combine for? 15?
On top of that, there were no home run rushes from Oregon – further suggesting that the secondary either stopped dangerous runs or the rushers never got to them.
What you think you didn’t see was in fact present.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I would suggest...
Most of those tackles were 9 to 12 yards down field. Sure they didn’t hit any homeruns. They didn’t have to because the perimeter was open all night and got 7 to 12 yards per carry out there. When our corners did make contact w/ ballcarriers on the L.O.S. out on the perimeter, they freed themselves from a possible no-gain tackle and turned it in for a 9 yard gain. I couldn’t believe we couldn’t tackle last night. No homeruns, but 9 yards off broken tackles tend to rack up fast and did it!
All I saw was purple
this
Perfect example of why relying just on tackle stats can be misleading. I see some people on the DM.com boards that harped on Ta’amu as not having a good game because he only had 1 tackle. Well, those people clearly weren’t watching the game closely, because he was getting terrific push all night long.
I will say that they did assert themselves in the third quarter. That was noticable.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
recruits got in late...
…and will be here late today. Probably won’t start getting trip reports until late tonight or tomorrow.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Beaver ends the games and publicly announces he’s committed, with a strong likelihood of Marsh joining him.
Honestly I thought the game was pretty good
It was far from perfect. I expected more from the offense but we held with Oregon for most of the game despite turnovers. Oregon is obviously way more talented than us in most areas but I think we made a game of it. Even though I hate Oregon, I’ll be cheering for them when they take on a good non-Pac12 team in their bowl game.
DL grades - Ta'amu A, the rest D-
I always focus on the middle of the line on plays (offense & defense). Ta’amu has not had a great year so far, but last night he was the best he’s been since the Holiday Bowl. He was frequently getting pressure on Thomas and consistently drove Grassu back 5 yards. Problem was, the rest of the front 7 couldn’t take advantage, and our edges were getting collapsed all night long. Re-watch the game and note how often and how easily the Duck RB’s were able to get outside the tackles with little resistance.
Our DE and OLB had a pretty tough time on the run
They just don’t seem big enough to take on a pulling guard or fast enough to cut off the edge. Compare their play vs. the LSU and Alabama defense. Imagining either of those defenses at UW makes me drool.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 6, 2011 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
I can understand a D for pass rush, but they weren't threatened up the middle all night.
Oregon didn’t run very much up the middle. If they did, it was to simply keep us honest. They did most of their damage running out on the perimeter and that is the responsibility of the corners and LBs. Oregon did run up the middle to score in the red zone, but that was after the damage was done on the outside.
All I saw was purple
they were collapsing the edge...
…meaning our DE’s weren’t doing much. Nor did I see much of any backfield penetration by whoever was lined up next to Ta’amu. He was given little support.
A question about Holt
Why does he prowl the sidelines? Shouldn’t he be up in the box where he can better see if his schemes are working?
If ya can't get your Dick Enright, get your Dick Harter!
that's the sort of thing I'm willing to go with a coach's decision on
I assume there’s tradeoffs both ways, having a better view of the plays develop vs. being able to personally talk to the guys/coach them up/rage/rage/rage
Traditionally
Most offensive coordinators are in the booth spying formations and blocking schemes. Traditionally D coordinators are on the sideline where they can get a feel for what’s going on on the field, and they have a postiion coach communicating what the opposing offense is doing.
All I saw was purple
He would destroy press boxes left and right in fits of rage and insanity
He just can’t be caged like that.
Overall Thoughts
Offense – Disappointed in the offensive line, but they are pretty young and Oregon’s defensive strategy was the perfect way to take advantage of that youth.
Defense – Not too bad. I really like the pressure that they brought on a pretty regular basis. Darron Thomas looked like a deer in headlights every time we brought enough pressure. I think we got away from that pressure during the first two drives in the third quarter and let Oregon drive down the field (not that the offense was doing much to help). Why is it, it takes us 2/3 of the season to realize that blitzing is the best way to disrupt an offense. Holt’s M.O.: 1st third of the season: super conservative. 2nd third of the season: conservative. 3rd third of the season: more aggressive.
Things that I REALLY get a kick out of: The same people who say that the defensive problems are youth related, are blaming the coaching staff for the offensive lines problems last night, but not the youth of the players. Hhmmm. . . . .
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Stanford vs. Oregon
If I’m Stanford, I’m blitzing ALL NIGHT LONG. Same thing can be said for USC too.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Then you are setting yourself up to get burned for...
multiple screen packages and hot routes. Not a wise move. You blitz when they don’t see it coming. The problem with blizing Lear is you have to disguise it so that it is effective. If it’s not disguised then the QB picks it up, checks out, and hits the receiver in the vacinity of where the blitzing LB was located. Nobody home = big play!
Our LBs: Dennison (Sr.) everybody else are true freshmen or redishirt freshmen. The hardest part about blitzing believe it or not is disguising your intentions. Are you coming or are you backing out in a base set? I don’t think we are disguising our blitz packages well and we are constantly getting burned when we do blitz. This would explain why Holt tendencies are the way they are. Early in the season super conservative because we aren’t selling anything. 2nd third of the season we are getting better and disguising our intentions. 3rd third of the season we know what we’re doing. It requires a lot of repetition for kids to learn.
All I saw was purple
Blah, blah, bablah, bablah, blah . . . . .
Funny thing, everything you just said didn’t do either team ANY good last night. When Oregon blitzed, Price was running for his life. When we blitzed, Thomas kept throwing wild ducks (pun intended) well over the sidelines.
Yes, there is risk to blitzing. Neither team showed they were able to handle a blitz, hence my comment.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
I'm not blaming Cozz - I agree a big issue is the youth on the OL
I don’t have a firm opinion of Cozz at this point – I tend to think he’s probably a net positive, but I don’t know for sure. But it’s clear that our line is pretty young with three 2nd year guys starting, something that was unheard of in our glory days.
I obviously didn’t like all the sacks given up, but our line hasn’t been very good in pass blocking this year. I was more surprised we couldn’t open up running lanes for Polk. The vast majority of his yardage was him finding something where very little existed.
Coz is a great coach
Let the kids mature…be patient…they will get there…he’ll…worse we will be this year is 8-4….not too shabby.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 6, 2011 11:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
True
Had you offered me 8-4 at the begining of the year I’d of took it in a heartbeat. We are beating the teams we should beat which is another step in the overall process.
I don't think the offensive line played as bad as some
I think they had a bad game but all of those sacks were Keith Prices (and I’m sorry to say this but…) Chris Polk’s. Polk was bulldozed on blitz pickup blocking. 3 sacks were a result of him getting ran right over. Keith also took unnecessary sacks where he had wide open checkdowns, but still he looked like a scared dog and took the sack. He really played poorly and I wish when Montana came in, we kept him in the game. I
The same people who say that the defensive problems are youth related, are blaming the coaching staff for the offensive lines problems last night, but not the youth of the players.
The offensive line is very young. I haven’t seen much here that’s blaming it on the coaching.
We need to take a close look at Cozzeto as well. Oregon’s Josh Kuddo said they disguised their blitzes and UW never new where they were coming from. Why?
There are sophmores on other BCS schools who are blocking well – including the center for the ducks. The simple answer is coaching. These guys have too many starts under their belt to look that bad.
it just get’s a bit frustrating to watch players on our team not perform well and it gets tagged as "youth". I watch other teams, like Oregon who have young players as well and I don’t see them struggling as bad as ours. I work in Portland and all week they were talking about how UW was going to take advantage of UO’s young corners. Their corners played well.
To be honest, your last quote is EXACTLY how I feel about our defense. You’ll quickly ask, why do I have issues with defensive coaching, but not offensive coaching? Simple, the offense has shown signs of brilliance, they’ve had great games, they have shown steady improvement, which makes it easier to overlook one bad game. The defense seems to be the same product and the same excuses three years later.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
The difference is that the D is starting several freshaman. The OL is starting one and he seems to be doing fine. It’s guys that started last year and again this year that look bad. By the time you’ve got 10+ starts under your belt you should start to improve. They should understand at this point how to pick up a blitz.
They should understand at this point how to pick up a blitz.
Oregon’s blitz package is the best in the conference, and one of the best in the country. Better (and more experienced) players than Kohler and Porter have been beaten by it regularly.
By the time you’ve got 10+ starts under your belt you should start to improve.
Are you saying that Porter and Kohler aren’t any better this year than they were last year, or that they haven’t gotten any better as the year has gone on? And what’s the metric for this?
10+ starts as a true freshman and sophomore aren’t the same as 10+ starts as a redshirt junior and senior.
Kolher is playing a different position this year
he’s still only at 9 starts at RT. He played much better with protection around him last year, I think he should move to G and give Riva or Hatchie a trial.
Maybe he's at 10 total
I think he took over when Habben got benched for a game or two last year. Point still stands that he’s starting over at a position that he was remarkably inept at in the past.
Kohler seems destined for the interior
The hope is that Riva (or Charles) can step up enough to allow Kohler to slide inside, though there’s no guarantee he’d beat out Tanigawa. Long-term, seems like Porter might be a possibility to move to C when Schaefer is gone, which would open up a spot for Kohler at G.
That is my thought
Kohler as a guard is more comforting than Kohler as a tackle right now. Lets hope Riva and Hatchie both step up next year. At the least to provide some solid depth if Kohler can’t protect Price. Hopefully Kohler can step up as well, but it sure feels like he has had a tough year. Can’t seem to push an end out and appears to give up once the player turns the edge.
Benno
To be honest, your last quote is EXACTLY how I feel about our defense.
Oregon (and mature programs like them) mixes in young players with experienced ones. They aren’t doing it out of necessity. It’s a luxury that builds depth. It’s situational. Those guys aren’t starting (Oregon’s D, for example, started 5 seniors, 3 juniors, 2 sophs and 1 freshman and rotated the young guys in). That’s quite a bit different than having young guys backing up young guys.
Simple, the offense has shown signs of brilliance, they’ve had great games, they have shown steady improvement, which makes it easier to overlook one bad game.
They’ve had great games, they’ve had middling games, and they’ve had bad ones (Stanford, EWU, and Oregon). The improvement most definitely hasn’t been linear. And you give the offense full credit for throttling the weak competition, but use the quality of opponent as an excuse for dismissing what the defense does.
The young talent that plays on offense is simply better than the young talent on defense. That’s just the way it is right now. You seem to gloss over this point regularly.
The biggest difference between the offense and the defense, though, is that the offense has a singular stellar player that can make things happen on his own in Polk. You’re talking about a guy that’s in the conversation for the best at his position all-time at the UW, and the fact is that it’s one of the most impactful positions in football. The defense simply doesn’t have that guy, and it’s not close. I wonder what this d-line would look like if DeMarco Farr or Larry Triplett was lined up next to Ta’amu (never mind Emtman). All of the sudden everyone looks better.
Fly over!
Did anybody happen to see a Lear Jet fly directly over Husky Stadium around 6:10 PM yesterday evening??
If you did, that was yours truly on a visual approach to Boeing Field. It was a beautiful view of Husky Stadium and the Space Needle as we made the visual approach into Elliot Bay and Boeing Field. You’ll NEVER be able to find that in Eugene!!
P.S. – Yes, I even made it to the game in time for kickoff.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Just a couple of things...
The offensive line had a bad game, but they, or Kohler, were not the reason for the amount of sacks taken in that game. Keith Price and Chris Polk were the reason. Three times Keith took a sack, yet he had checkdowns wide open for first downs. One was with Chris Polk sitting on the first down marker with nobody 10 yards around him and sitting right in front of Keith. Still KP took the sack. Besides that Chris Polk missed on 3 blocks that resulted in sacks. The line didn’t do goo either but I think Keith and CP1 were more responsible for the majority of the sacks then anyone else.
Oregon’s D put a stop to the running game. I had no clue that they would be able to, but they suprised me. Chris worked hard for his yards and never did get loose. Credit Oregon for that.
Will Husky fans stop defending Jermaine Kearse? This guy is horrible in big games. Overall, his stats are great, but when it is a big game, he disappears. He drops pass after pass, dropped 4 in that game. He had two that were for touchdowns, one was inside the 5. It is time to let this guy move on, he is horrible! Kasen Williams was great again. He needs to be our number one receiver, not Kearse. I think the recruiting class of ‘08 just expects to lose. We can never be elite with dropping first down passes and td passes. Aguillar also dropped a first down pass which hurt us. Kevin Smith in the endzone was just as bad as Kearse’s drops.
Defense played good enough to win. That’s actually why I am a little disappointed in that loss. Our offense should not have lost that game. The way Keith Price and our receivers played was embarassing. If Keith doesn’t have a bounce back game against the Trojans, I will be calling for Nick to get a shot. I know it’s early but Keith needs to step his game up if he wants to be a starter.
What is the deal with Price?
It’s now been three poor games from him, and this one was his worst since the EWU game. Two poor interceptions leading to scores for the Ducks, and no real downfield threat the entire game. I realize that the O-Line protection was poor (Kohler just hasn’t shown much in his time at tackle), but he just isn’t playing at the same level as earlier in the year. Is it as simple as teams being better prepared for him, with six games of film they can watch? He seems more mobile at this time which wasn’t the case earlier in the year.
This isn’t to say there should be a QB controversy, but Price needs to step up in these last three games. Without him playing at a high level, this team will have problems beating USC and could struggle against OSU and WSU. 7 Wins would be a disappointment at this point.
Benno
Well, the competition has gotten consistently better for one thing.
And I’m sure the film available on him is an issue, as you mention.
As much as anything, though, he set the bar pretty high early on against some bad teams. Expectations have probably gotten a little out of whack.
I also think he was bound to hit a wall at some point.
Most sophomores do. He just needs to fight through it.
yeah, both are true
Quality of competition has increased quite a bit, there’s a lot more film on Price, and Price is still just a 1st year starter. Lets keep in mind that he’s still ranked #14 in passing efficiency, which is phenomenal for a RS-So. Expectations have probably gotten a little out of whack.
That said, if Nick Montana is closing the gap, all the better for us as fans – let the best man win the job.
If we went back to the start of the year and wrote down our expectations for him
He would have surpassed all of them even in his bad games. I can’t believe how well Price has played this year. He’s not perfect (we all knew this a few months ago but might have forgotten). I’m still super excited with what he has done so far and look forward to what he can do to finish out the year.
That said, Montana still intrigues me and I wish we got to see him play a little more.
by Edgar for Pres on Nov 7, 2011 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
Outsider Looking In
I am not a fan of either team, but as a college football fan with nothing else to watch late Saturday night (dont live on the West Coast), I decided to watch. Going for it on 4th was absolutely the wrong call. You are down 3 scores you have to get one there and the probability of making a 44 yard field goal far exceeds the probability of making a 4th & 10. You must, must, must extend the game. Furthermore, it disgusted me as a sports fan to watch the Washington Coaching Staff sit and watch the clock run out without calling a timeout. I wanted to puke. I can honestly say that I have never in my life seen a coach quit on his team like the way Steve Sarkisian did. When they didn’t make it on fourth down (which was an asinine call to begin with), he quit on his team. Never calling a timeout on defense told those players “I don’t believe you can stop them and give us a chance.” Then to make things worse, we he did get the ball back he ran the clock out. I guarantee you if I were a donor at this school, I would be raising hell. And to take it a step further, if I were the AD or on the board of regents I would be looking for a new coach. Those players played their hearts out and deserve to have a coach that will stay with them to the end.
Keeping the TO's pissed me off
but extending the game isn’t that likely. A 44 yarder in HS is probably somewhere around a 60% proposition. 10 yard plays aren’t that uncommon or unlikely. The down holds no bearing on the likelihood of converting. I’ll defend Sark till the day I die, because I’d rather live and die with balls (see: Cal 10’) than “extend the game” when presented the opportunity.
I think you’re contradicting yourself. You want him to show faith in his team to stop them, but you want him to neuter his options later in the game by playing it safe. He put it on his team to go win the game. I’ll never fault anyone for doing that. The fact that this debate is split close to 50/50 shows it was not “asinine”.
4th down has nothing to do with it
you need one 10 yard play. It’s no less likely than converting a 3rd and 10.
That's not true. On 3rd down the defense has to protect against giving up a 7 or 8 yard play to set up a 4th down conversion as well.
Even if I accept your premise, getting ten yards in one play isn’t easy, otherwise we would have done it on the other 3 downs :)
1st this was not a HS game...
and second you are not playing it safe. you are playing the odds. you kick a fg and you give your team more chances to stay in the game. bc once again odds of making a fg are much higher than getting 10 yds in one play. but that is not the reason i would be mad if I were a Washington fan. I would be mad because he quit and didnt call any timeouts.
Except 3 yards is obviously easier than 10
if they gave you 3 downs to get 10, you’d see a larger amount of 10 yard plays as the odds would require it.
Do you even know where Sark has brought the team from?
Granted there were some calls that could definitely be questioned … are you really calling for Sark’s head?
Formerly the fan known as Denvdawg.
"You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra
by Randall Floyd on Nov 7, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
probably not...
I probably overstated that a bit. And yes, I do know where he has brought this team from. I know that where I am from, our fans would have been ringing the phone lines and pounding down doors if this had happened. Good luck next week.
That is a good point about how we went for it and then didn't call TO's.
I didn’t even think about that while at the game. Guess he knew it was over once they didn’t get it, showing how bad the call to go for it really was.
It was
but what happens if Folk misses the FG? The game is still over, but there’s the hindsight of “if we convert, then it changes everything”. I like the idea of deciding it right there. I’d rather lose like that than lose after Oregon bleeds clock knowing we have to drive 60+ yards twice.
the reality is that was the game right there
Sark rolled the dice knowing it was a longshot either way. And yes, when we didn’t convert the game was almost certainly done.
Against an explosive scoring team like Oregon, you have to get TD’s. Sark knew it, most of us knew it.
At that point in the game you needed to get whatever you needed in order to win/extend the game. In this case a FG would do that.
In the first half I agree with you that you need to go for TDs, but you don’t seem to be thinking about this in terms of the number of scores and possesions we were behind at the end of the game.
Against an explosive scoring team like Oregon, you have to get TD’s
You say that like we were going to continue trading points with them. We couldn’t trade points further or we would lose.
Any assumption that Oregon would not score again . . .
or that we could/should/would keep them from scoring again is stupid. Down by 17 in the 4th quarter against one of the top offenses in the nation, you need 7’s not 3’s.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Would someone please give me something other than the cliche of "you need 7's not 3's"
How could we possibly win if Oregon scored again?
I understand that getting a TD would mean it’d be ok if they got a FG, but people seem to think if we got a TD we could then trade points with them. There were 7 minutes left in the game and we were down 17 points, we needed 3 scores and to hold them scoreless to have a chance.
Yes, I already acknowledged that.
Is that really so important that it’s worth taking a chance on something where 70% of the time we are going to lose the game?
The option is expecting near-perfection on both sides of the ball the remainder of the game.
You’d give that a greater probability, given the way things were going to that point on Saturday?
We needed near perfection either way. By kicking the FG we would have made it a 2 possesion game.
Greater probability than what? Even if you convert the 1st down you need to be nearly perfect the rest of the game, finishing the drive, getting 2 stops and 2 more scores.
In the first half I agree with you that you need to go for TDs, but you don’t seem to be thinking about this in terms of the number of scores and possesions we were behind at the end of the game.
And you don’t seem to be thinking about it in terms of time on the clock and how Oregon, even if stopped, was going to force the Dawgs into a long field with little time and likely no way to stop the clock.
Kicking the field goal was the conservative play that provides the facade that you’re in it to win it. But the likelihood of actually winning the game goes up drastically if down 10 instead of 14. Even to negate the difference in odds of converting the field goal versus picking up 10 yards on 4th down.
Could you please source this for me?
But the likelihood of actually winning the game goes up drastically if down 10 instead of 14.
It is not that dramatic of a difference, it is still a 2 score game.
Exactly.
I didn’t even have a problem with him not using the timeouts. Kelly was been a good sport by slowing down their pace and killing the clock. The defense gave Sark no reason, whatsoever, to use timeouts, piss off Kelly and have Oregon put their foot back on the gas. The game was over, Sark did the respectable thing and let it end.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing...
Think I’d take that quote off my profile if I were worried about respectable. Last thing I’m worried about is how bad did I get beat. as a coach I am going to give every effort to put my team in position to be successful and have a chance to compete. Bottom line, he did not.
There is something to be said for class
which we berated the Chipper about all week. Sark decided with the call, that he would trust his offense instead of his defense…they didn’t come through (he shoulders some blame with the call as well). The game was over at that point, so I’m not going to get too worked up about conceding defeat. Dragging it out wouldn’t have helped.
All that said, I was quite inebriated at the game and was not happy that we let the clock run down.
apparently neither was Beno Bryant
Supposedly tweeted a lot of anger over how Sark handled the game after that failed 4th down conversion.
I was a bit bothered by it at the time, but I also knew the game was over. In hindsight, I can see why a former player would be so upset about it, labeling it akin to giving up and sending the wrong message to the team.
I wonder if Sark thinks the same thing in retrospect.
a 44 yard fg should be more than a roll of the dice...
Once again, when you have tried 3 times to make 10 yds and failed… the probability of making it on a 4th try is very low…thus 44 yard fg much higher probablility.
That you've missed on the 3 previous downs...
…has absolutely zero impact on coverting on 4th down.
The difference in scoring opportunity is enough to negate the higher odds of converting the field goal.
disagree
If i run 3 plays and gain 0 yards, the probability of me gaining 10 yards on the next play dramatically decreases with each previously unsuccessful attempt. It’s simple statistics and probability.
Not really
because you’re not necessarily trying to get 10 yards with each of the first 3 plays. Typically you’re trying to get it in 3 plays, in this case you’re trying to get it in 1. Obviously the odds are less that you’re going to get 10 yards in one play than in 4, but that does not mean that it’s less likely because you didn’t get 4 on the first 3 tries.
If I flip a coin 10 times and need to get heads 5 times
and I flip tails on the first 3 tries, the odds of me getting to 6 are less, but the odds of me getting a heads on that next flip is still 50/50.
to put some clarity of the numbers...
The probablility of making a 44 yd fg is about 75%…the probablilty of making a 4th & 10 is well below 25% (the chart only went to 4th and 7)…its not a hard decision.
Not trying to cause trouble
Just thought I’d share my point of view as an outsider. Good luck to you guys and BEAT SC!!
Thanks for stopping by
dissenting opinions are always welcome. Even if they happen to be 100% wrong ;)
Looks like Sark might be regretting that call too...
“The bigger one for me looking back on it was the fourth and 10 in the fourth quarter and possibly kicking the field goal game and at least making it a two possession. Part of that might been frustration of a couple plays previous to that.”
Good effing lord. Let it go. For all that is good, just let it go
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Haha, is it really a dead horse?
It’s not like we came to a conclusion or anything. If those debating me aren’t interested anymore then they won’t respond and it will die. This was new and relevant information that Sark is questioning if that was the right call.
Why does anyone have a problem with a good, clean football debate?
When it becomes obvious that both sides aren’t going to give in then it becomes a dead horse. It just keeps going round and round and round….Sometines it’s best to just agree to disagree.
I'm not quite sure
but I feel like blaming Nick Holt for not kicking that field goal.
Formerly the fan known as Denvdawg.
"You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra
by Randall Floyd on Nov 8, 2011 8:24 AM PST up reply actions
Sure, we were getting to that point.
I guess I don’t understand the need of other people to tell us to stop talking about it.
don't stop talking about it
I just think some people, me included, were wondering why the debate seemed to find its way into each comment thread.
Formerly the fan known as Denvdawg.
"You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra
by Randall Floyd on Nov 8, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
Related FanShots on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
