Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I am thinkin undefeated this season....YEAH, I SAID IT.....Now, lets help make it happen...GOOOOO DUCKS....

RuhlandAsherBestEver wrote:If blount gets hurt we will be in for a long season. Everything
else will be fine except for our depth at RB.

Or maybe LaMichael James steps in and runs for 1000+ yards on the season?

I agree though, Blount is really the only seasoned back we have right now, and he's a core piece. Losing him would be detrimental to this team.

Don't forget Crenshaw.

Steele said: 'Last year their were 5 teams with less than 22 starts between their OL. Of those, four didn't make a bowl game and 1 barely made a bowl game. Oregon has 20 starts (or 18 something like that). He expects us to win 6 or 7 games this year.'

My question is: How did he come up with 22 starts as the magic number? Did a few teams with 23 starts make bowls and have good records? Did any of those teams run the spread with such great skill position players surrounding the young OL?

I can see how the OL makes such a big difference in the NFL, because everyone plays so fast and is so talented that any weakness will be exploited continuously and relentlessly. However, the only teams that MIGHT have that kind of talent at the college level would be USC and maybe Cal. And Cal doesn't have a good enough qb to really run away with the game. Arguably, neither does USC at this point.

Boise State is too small. Our young O-line will be able to hold them off long enough to get the ball in the hands of the play makers. Purdue has way too many ?'s, plus new coach and new qb and new OC. Utah has new young qb's, new OC, new DC, lost a lot of their defense and offense. Washington State can barely field a team. Washington should be improved, but come on, seriously, we will not be one of their 4 or 5 wins (I think Locker will make that much difference along with better attitudes). ASU will give up more sacks in one game than we do all season, and they have a new qb. Arizona barely made a bowl with a 5th year qb, expecting a bit of a backslide. UCLA, please, no qb, no rb, no wr's. yeah defense wins championships, but you have to score at least one point to win.

Stanford and OSU (if they can stay healthy til the end) will be tough.

Here's my picks:

1. Oregon 12-0 or 11-1.
2. USC 11-1 or 11-2.
3. Oregon State 9-3.
4. Cal 9-3.
5. Stanford 8-4.
6. Arizona 7-5 or 6-6.
7. Washington 4-8 or 5-7.
8. UCLA 5-7.
9. ASU 5-7 or 4-8.
10. WSU 1-11 or 2-10.

Not sure if those numbers add up right to actually happen, but that is how I see the Pac 10 order and approximate regular season w/l.

RuhlandAsherBestEver wrote:If blount gets hurt we will be in for a long season. Everything
else will be fine except for our depth at RB.

Losing Blount would suck, but I think we'd still be okay. Crenshaw is a decent back and the coaches were raving about the skills of LaMichael James before he injured his shoulder. He's completely healed now. Also, Kenyon Barner played very well in the spring game and could be moved over to running back in a pinch. We'd definitely take a step back, but we'd still have good talent and a lot of experience in Crenshaw.

Let's just hope that doesn't happen.

Whats funny is I saw Oklahoma lost 4 starters on the oline, yet no one is using that against them.

spinseeker wrote:Steele said: 'Last year their were 5 teams with less than 22 starts between their OL. Of those, four didn't make a bowl game and 1 barely made a bowl game. Oregon has 20 starts (or 18 something like that). He expects us to win 6 or 7 games this year.'

My question is: How did he come up with 22 starts as the magic number? Did a few teams with 23 starts make bowls and have good records? Did any of those teams run the spread with such great skill position players surrounding the young OL?

I can see how the OL makes such a big difference in the NFL, because everyone plays so fast and is so talented that any weakness will be exploited continuously and relentlessly. However, the only teams that MIGHT have that kind of talent at the college level would be USC and maybe Cal. And Cal doesn't have a good enough qb to really run away with the game. Arguably, neither does USC at this point.

Boise State is too small. Our young O-line will be able to hold them off long enough to get the ball in the hands of the play makers. Purdue has way too many ?'s, plus new coach and new qb and new OC. Utah has new young qb's, new OC, new DC, lost a lot of their defense and offense. Washington State can barely field a team. Washington should be improved, but come on, seriously, we will not be one of their 4 or 5 wins (I think Locker will make that much difference along with better attitudes). ASU will give up more sacks in one game than we do all season, and they have a new qb. Arizona barely made a bowl with a 5th year qb, expecting a bit of a backslide. UCLA, please, no qb, no rb, no wr's. yeah defense wins championships, but you have to score at least one point to win.

Stanford and OSU (if they can stay healthy til the end) will be tough.

Here's my picks:

1. Oregon 12-0 or 11-1.
2. USC 11-1 or 11-2.
3. Oregon State 9-3.
4. Cal 9-3.
5. Stanford 8-4.
6. Arizona 7-5 or 6-6.
7. Washington 4-8 or 5-7.
8. UCLA 5-7.
9. ASU 5-7 or 4-8.
10. WSU 1-11 or 2-10.

Not sure if those numbers add up right to actually happen, but that is how I see the Pac 10 order and approximate regular season w/l.

buckmarkduck wrote:Whats funny is I saw Oklahoma lost 4 starters on the oline, yet no one is using that against them.

Yeah, but Oklahoma has so far reloaded and recruited better than the Ducks. I hate them just as much as the next Duck fan, but you can't deny the fact that they sure have a lot of talent, both now and lined up.

freedjr wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Whats funny is I saw Oklahoma lost 4 starters on the oline, yet no one is using that against them.

Yeah, but Oklahoma has so far reloaded and recruited better than the Ducks. I hate them just as much as the next Duck fan, but you can't deny the fact that they sure have a lot of talent, both now and lined up.

Max Unger would like to tell you recruiting stars don't matter.

Oregon's seemed to have a strong OL ever since the Joey era.. I really don't think the OL will be a liability this season. It might take them a couple games to get going, but I'm still not overly concerned.

spinseeker wrote:Steele said: 'Last year their were 5 teams with less than 22 starts between their OL. Of those, four didn't make a bowl game and 1 barely made a bowl game. Oregon has 20 starts (or 18 something like that). He expects us to win 6 or 7 games this year.'

I wonder which teams had less than 22 starts and whether or not any of them were spread offenses.

Also, as you point out, that is not a very compelling set of data. There could have been all kinds of other factors when you're just looking at 5 teams in one year. Did they also have inexperienced QBs? Were they losing programs to begin with?

UOducksTK1 wrote:

freedjr wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:Whats funny is I saw Oklahoma lost 4 starters on the oline, yet no one is using that against them.

Yeah, but Oklahoma has so far reloaded and recruited better than the Ducks. I hate them just as much as the next Duck fan, but you can't deny the fact that they sure have a lot of talent, both now and lined up.

Max Unger would like to tell you recruiting stars don't matter.

Oregon's seemed to have a strong OL ever since the Joey era.. I really don't think the OL will be a liability this season. It might take them a couple games to get going, but I'm still not overly concerned.

Except for 2004, the year before we moved to the spread. O-Line couldn't block for s***.

I can't believe some of you agreed with Steele. That guy sounded like a complete buffoon when he was on Tannen's show. He gave one reason for us being a 6 or 7 win team this year. He said we had only one returning starter on the O-line....uhh that's wrong. We have 4 guys who started at least one game & I know, 3 of those started at least 2 games. 2 of them started all year.

And something I'd really like to ask Steele, does the coach of that position not matter? Greatwood won Assistant Coach Of The Year, is he not able of coaching these guys up? Even if we had only one returning starter, I would put my faith in Greatwood.

Steele gave one reason then went on & on about how accurate he is every year & how his magazine is the best selling college mag out there....which has zero bearing on whether the Ducks will be good or not. To me he sounded like an arrogant jerk who has let the success of his predictions get to his head. He was so mad that Duck fans would dare question him. I really couldn't care less what his opinion of the Ducks is, we WILL NOT barely make a bowl & win only 6 or 7 games like he said. Even my beevur fan friends laughed at that prediction.

dthomas=ddixon wrote:I can't believe some of you agreed with Steele. That guy sounded like a complete buffoon when he was on Tannen's show. He gave one reason for us being a 6 or 7 win team this year. He said we had only one returning starter on the O-line....uhh that's wrong. We have 4 guys who started at least one game & I know, 3 of those started at least 2 games. 2 of them started all year.

And something I'd really like to ask Steele, does the coach of that position not matter? Greatwood won Assistant Coach Of The Year, is he not able of coaching these guys up? Even if we had only one returning starter, I would put my faith in Greatwood.

Steele gave one reason then went on & on about how accurate he is every year & how his magazine is the best selling college mag out there....which has zero bearing on whether the Ducks will be good or not. To me he sounded like an arrogant jerk who has let the success of his predictions get to his head. He was so mad that Duck fans would dare question him. I really couldn't care less what his opinion of the Ducks is, we WILL NOT barely make a bowl & win only 6 or 7 games like he said. Even my beevur fan friends laughed at that prediction.

I hate it when these pundits say that having a new coach will adversely affect Oregon this year. It's not like it's a completely new coach; Kelly was on the staff last year and will still be calling plays this year. I say that Oregon is more than likely going to be at least an 8 win team with 10 being a possibility if the O-line can gel fast enough, no major injuries, and the defense is decent.

swagnatic101 wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

freedjr wrote:
Yeah, but Oklahoma has so far reloaded and recruited better than the Ducks. I hate them just as much as the next Duck fan, but you can't deny the fact that they sure have a lot of talent, both now and lined up.

Max Unger would like to tell you recruiting stars don't matter.

Oregon's seemed to have a strong OL ever since the Joey era.. I really don't think the OL will be a liability this season. It might take them a couple games to get going, but I'm still not overly concerned.

Except for 2004, the year before we moved to the spread. O-Line couldn't block for s***.

I'll give you that, but in general I don't stress too much about our OL.

For those who are concerned about our offensive line, I can understand the initial concern that we have big holes to fill. That being said, I don't think anyone is giving Steve Greatwood enough credit for what he does with this unit year in and year out. This line has been rebuilt before under his watch, and I don't see any reason for them not to succeed this year as well. Keep in mind, The American Football Coaches Association named Greatwood the 2008 National Offensive Line Coach of the Year. I, for one, am not remotely concerned about our offensive line.

Whenever we've had holes to fill in the past, Greatwood has put the right players in the right positions to facilitate an effective offense. If you think that going from Ludwig's pro style offense to Crowton's spread to Kelly's spread is tough on the skill players, consider how difficult that task is for the line, a unit that has made those transitions seem easy as they've graduated to more and more complex systems between 2003 and now. This is a well-coached, extremely disciplined unit, and aside from new faces and new numbers standing at the line of scrimmage, I don't expect anything to change from a performance and productivity standpoint.

greenyellow wrote:I hate it when these pundits say that having a new coach will adversely affect Oregon this year. It's not like it's a completely new coach; Kelly was on the staff last year and will still be calling plays this year. I say that Oregon is more than likely going to be at least an 8 win team with 10 being a possibility if the O-line can gel fast enough, no major injuries, and the defense is decent.

I'm annoyed by that argument as well. It's true that there is a correlation between coaching changes and down years. However, that's because usually, a team has been doing badly under a coach and they are changing to a new one to fix the problem.

That wasn't the case at Oregon. We just came off a great season and most of the key coaching positions will remain unchanged. Just about every coach under Belotti has said that he was very hands off and let them call their own shots. Assuming that Kelly does the same at least to a degree, they should be able to do the same job as before.