Addicted To Quack: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Falcons Unable To Even Get A Pittance For Joe Horn Bar-right-arrows



Dave's Somewhat Provoking Analytical Thoughts

I have a few more analytical thoughts that I want to share regarding the Houston game.  After this, we will focus on Michigan.

As I stated yesterday, I was pretty happy with the offense, especially in the second half.  I've said over and over again that I want Oregon to run the ball, and they did so to the tune of 336 yards.  When you get almost seven yards a carry, its hard to complain.  I know that the lines for the RBs don't look sexy, but JJ and JStew combined for over 130 yards on 26 carries.  Even Stewart, who looked pretty bad out there, averaged 4.6 ypc.  He's just so hard to bring down that even when there aren't a lot of holes out there, he still drags guys with him for a couple of yards.  I don't think that it was a great game for the backs by any means, but it was solid enough to get the job done.

Ironically, as I took a quick look in the O-Live forum this morning, one of the things that people were complaining about was Dennis Dixon.  Color me confused, but what was there to complain about?  I know he had a rough start passing, but he finished completing 60% for 2 scores and no interceptions.  He was phenomenal with his legs.  And he made great decisions with the football--he reads were pretty good, and he knew when to pitch and when to keep.  He only made one bad read, which would have been a pick had it not been dropped, but this Dennis Dixon was 100% better than what we saw last year.  I hear complaints that we didn't throw the ball downfield.  That's really more of a playcalling issue than a Dennis Dixon issue, and, as it didn't prevent us from dropping 48 points.  On top of that, you can't help but think that Chip Kelly was holding something back in anticipation of Michigan next week.

Speaking of which, why were the fans at Autzen cheering the Appalachian State/Michigan score?  I know we all love upsets, but this was bad for the Ducks.  Before, we had nothing to lose and everything to gain in that game.  Now, we don't really have a whole lot to gain, and if we lose, it starts to look pretty bad.  And, rest assured, we will have Michigan's full attention.  And they're going to be pissed.  The crowd in general wasn't very good.  Lots of sitting down.  Not a lot of noise.  And I don't want to hear that "it would have been different for a top 25 opponent", etc.  Think that the folks in Auburn use that excuse?  Step it up, crowd.  I'll be there for the Fresno State game.  Maybe that'll help.

The real disappointment of the game has to be the defense, especially against the run.  I'm not one that calls for people's heads, but you really have to wonder about Nick Aliotti.  Its not has if the defense is a new problem, and I have a hard time believing that there is any difficulty in recruiting defensive players here.  Which means either a) the gameplan sucks, or b) player development sucks.  I have to think it's the latter.  You look at that game, and time and time again the players were in position, but couldn't tackle anything.  You look at those long plays by Alridge, and all of them had three, four, five missed tackles.  If you can't tackle, you have no business in Division 1 football.

And I know that people say "well, as bad as it looked, they only gave up 27 points."  That may be true, but look at the drive charts for Houston:

START    QTR    POSS.    YRDL    PLAYS    YARDS    RESULT

13:34    1    02:10    HOU 33    05    50    Fumble
11:24    1    03:34    HOU 20    09    55    Interception
06:15    1    00:07    HOU 20    00    00    Fumble
02:42    1    02:32    HOU 22    09    78    Rushing Touchdown
15:00    2    02:13    HOU 15    03    02    Punt
09:36    2    01:56    HOU 31    04    69    Rushing Touchdown
07:40    2    04:29    HOU 20    11    54    Field Goal Good
00:10    2    00:07    HOU 27    02    10    End of Half
15:00    3    04:52    HOU 35    12    49    Field Goal Good
10:08    3    00:57    HOU 34    12    56    Interception
03:30    3    00:52    HOU 20    03    04    Punt
02:36    3    00:46    HOU 24    01    76    Passing Touchdown
01:38    3    01:18    HOU 44    03    -4    Punt
10:19    4    05:46    HOU 07    15    76    Turnover on Downs

Houston would have had a few more scores had they not shot themselves in the foot with red zone turnovers.  Rest assured, USC and Cal won't make those mistakes.

You also have to wonder, given the defensive liabilities, if this is the best offense for this team.  The offense is quick, but they are often done with their drive in a couple of minutes, and then the defense is right back on the field.  On the other hand, it also means that we can shoot it out with the best of `em.  It looks like that's what we're going to have to do this year--hang 40-50 on people and hope its enough.

Lets hope that things improve from here.  After all, its only the first game.  And the defense played a lot better in the second half.  They're going to have to be better, or Mike Hart will put up 200 on them.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

My issue with Dixon
Was that until late in the second half Dennis would drop back, sit in the pocket for 8 or 25 seconds and then decide no one was open and try to run for it.  As much time as he had all game SOMEONE was open on almost every single play and he couldn't find them.  By the second half he was finding targets, and it is encouraging that he didn't let a poor first half performance affect the entire game.  I just wish I was more confident than encouraged.  

About the defense, the secondary was good.  Unfortunately 4 on 11 is really hard at the D-1 level.

by shenanigans on Sep 2, 2007 11:33 PM PDT   0 recs

Ya Know
I'd start Leaf for the next game.

by BLAZER PROPHET on Sep 3, 2007 9:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yes
I'm basing most of this on the second half.  You have to give him credit for the adjustments he made.  Even if he waited too long to find open receivers in the first half, at least he didn't try to jam it in to someone who was double covered, like he would have last year.

by Addicted to Quack on Sep 3, 2007 9:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hard to argue with
No turnovers.  Especially considering last year.  Ugh.  Just doesn't appear to be much of an improvement over last year as a team and that doesn't bode well for the rest of the season.  I'm going to squint while I watch and hope I don't have to close my eyes.

by shenanigans on Sep 3, 2007 9:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ouch my face hurts
Well, I opted to go to the game and sat all day with my right face exposed to the sun. still a fun game though.

Here's my thoughts:

  1. Our defense is consistently poor. I think its true Dave that our defense is on the field way too much. I think that the offense needs to slow it down a bit and run the ball for a while to give the defense a breather. Allioti is horrible. If he weren't old friends with Belloti then he would have been gone long ago. Can you imagine how good we'd be if we could consistently hold teams under 20 points?
  2. Don't take the buses to/from Autzen. We didn't get back to the car until 6. The game was over around 4:15. Ridiculous.
  3. Michigan losing takes some excitement out of this weeks game. I think there will be a lot of attention given to the game but if we win, the headlines are going to be all about the demise of Michigan and we won't get any credit.

by albanyduck on Sep 2, 2007 11:37 PM PDT   0 recs

Agree totally
  1.  If you look at our defensive stats since 2002, they have to be among the worst in the nation.  In '02, '03, and '04, it was largely our passing defense that was incompetent.  If its a talent issue, than Aliotti isn't a good recruiter given the resources at hand.  If its not a talent issue, that Aliotti is an incompetent strategist.  Either way, I think we're long overdue for a new DC.
  2.  Park in the lot behind Taylor's across from PLC.  Its a bit of a walk, but way better than the bus and there's not as much traffic on that part of campus.
  3.  Michigan losing was the worst thing to happen to us.  Now we have nothing to gain from that game.

by Addicted to Quack on Sep 3, 2007 9:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My 2 Cents
If we cannot learn to stop the run fairly well within 1 week and thereafter, we won't win more than 4 or 5 games. And it's not our personnel. It's coaching. Geez, we just blow.

Our DB's look pretty good. Hit hard, take risks...

As to our offense, Dixon is terrible. Sure, he can run against a Houston, but not against Michigan or most of the PAC-10 teams. He just floats too many passes. If I were Belotti, he'd be on one short leash for the next game.

Our running game was very poor. Forget about Dixon. Where were the extra carries for our HB's? Where were the ocassional pro sets we were going to power run from? I can only hop we were trying to play with a limited play book so as to show some new things to Michigan. If we play like we did this game, they'll hand out hats to us.

Really, it wasn't a very impressive win. Were it not for some stupid Houston turnovers, we would have lost.

All that said, a win is a win.

by BLAZER PROPHET on Sep 3, 2007 9:00 PM PDT   0 recs

hmmm...
you bring up a good point about the lack of occasional pro sets.  It was something I kind of forgot about, but they said they'd be there.  Where were they?

I made my point clear about the Houston turnovers in the post.  If the defense doesn't get significantly better, and there's no indication that it will, its going to be an awfully tough season this year.

by Addicted to Quack on Sep 3, 2007 9:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dave
With regard to Dixon, he was back to floating and/or telegraphing most of his passes. He should have had 4 or 5 interceptions- be THANKFUL we were playing Houston and not a better team. All of those are picks against Michigan.

He proved he is no field general. He doesn't seem to have any command of the game. Granted, he can scramble and run, but if he can't pass a ton better next week, we're going to see "containment" and get our fannies kicked all over the place.

If it were me, I'd start Leaf. Dixon just doesn't have "it".

by BLAZER PROPHET on Sep 3, 2007 9:09 PM PDT   0 recs

I think that we're going to have to agree
to disagree on this one.  He did float one pass that I remember on a play that should have been a TD to Johnson.  I'm not saying it was the greatest game by a QB I've ever seen, but it was improvement.  

We'll see what happens next week.  If Kelly follows Appy State's model of success, then he will open the playbook up to more passing.  If there is some flaw in Dixon's passing game that I'm not seeing, we'll know for sure by next week.

by Addicted to Quack on Sep 3, 2007 9:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog and fan community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Img_5862_small
Attention Chicago Ducks

Recent FanPosts

_h0u1326_small
My $0.02
Small
Not a Hoax
Quinnwarhol_small
No more BtD talk
Withdaddy4months3_small
Luke Jackson a Blazer?
0587_small
I need some local advice.
Quinnwarhol_small
Stevens ---> Center, again
Img_0608_small
New Oregon Football Torrents
77243094_small
By the Numbers; Pac-10 Red Zone Defense
Magazine_042706_small
Dixon
Duck_fan_small
So the Secondary wants a nickname?

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Withdaddy4months3_small Addicted to Quack

Oregon_small ntrebon

Img_0608_small jtlight

ad

Site Meter