Oregon Ducks Sports Message Board Forum
https://www.ducksattack.com/forum/
Happiness is Lubbock in your rear view mirror.QuackininBama wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 4:01 pm If any TT fans are reading the boards, please do sign up and leave a post. We are pretty cool around here. Trust me, we are harder on each other than opposing fans!!! Tell us about your team!!!
I seem to recall something where the postseason is left more up to the equipment staff because it's uncertain where, if, home or away for these games.Greenblood wrote: Thu Dec 25, 2025 4:53 pm Yeah, I also would have liked to have seen them in their more traditional colors. I wonder how it's decided. A vote by the players? . . .
Kansas? Seems like a huge stretch to compare us to them. And UW? UW OL didn’t give up 60 sacks to subpar competition this year like Texas Techs didStevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 2:43 pmAs far as matching up to the "style" of the opponent, it's funny that you could say Oregon is facing a better version of washington, or that Texas Tech is facing a better version of Kansas.duckpoint wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 11:18 amAccording to CFB Stats https://cfbstats.com/2025/leader/25354/ ... ort01.html, That would be Kansas.StevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 7:42 am What's the best passing attack that Texas Tech faced this year?
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
345 211 61.2 2667 7.7 23 8 143.45 28.8 222.3
Oregon for comparison;
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
363 262 72.2 3274 9.0 29 8 169.89 27.9 251.8
Whose offense and defense do you think is most like ours in terms of approach of the teams TTU played? And vice versa?buckmarkduck wrote: Thu Dec 25, 2025 7:01 pmKansas? Seems like a huge stretch to compare us to them. And UW? UW OL didn’t give up 60 sacks to subpar competition this year like Texas Techs didStevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 2:43 pmAs far as matching up to the "style" of the opponent, it's funny that you could say Oregon is facing a better version of washington, or that Texas Tech is facing a better version of Kansas.duckpoint wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 11:18 amAccording to CFB Stats https://cfbstats.com/2025/leader/25354/ ... ort01.html, That would be Kansas.StevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 7:42 am What's the best passing attack that Texas Tech faced this year?
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
345 211 61.2 2667 7.7 23 8 143.45 28.8 222.3
Oregon for comparison;
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
363 262 72.2 3274 9.0 29 8 169.89 27.9 251.8
Where do you see that the Red Raiders gave up 60 sacks this year? Looks like they gave up over 20 (https://www.teamrankings.com/college-fo ... d-per-game), so I suppose that could be considered a bit of a weakness that the Ducks might be able to exploit. Had they given up about five sacks per game, it sure seems like that would be a major headline for this matchup, which at least I haven't seen.buckmarkduck wrote: Thu Dec 25, 2025 7:01 pmKansas? Seems like a huge stretch to compare us to them. And UW? UW OL didn’t give up 60 sacks to subpar competition this year like Texas Techs didStevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 2:43 pmAs far as matching up to the "style" of the opponent, it's funny that you could say Oregon is facing a better version of washington, or that Texas Tech is facing a better version of Kansas.duckpoint wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 11:18 amAccording to CFB Stats https://cfbstats.com/2025/leader/25354/ ... ort01.html, That would be Kansas.StevensTechU wrote: Wed Dec 24, 2025 7:42 am What's the best passing attack that Texas Tech faced this year?
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
345 211 61.2 2667 7.7 23 8 143.45 28.8 222.3
Oregon for comparison;
Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att TD Int Rating Att/G Yards/G
363 262 72.2 3274 9.0 29 8 169.89 27.9 251.8
TT does look very formidable from their stats and their performances in their schedule, but I think the key element that keeps getting overlooked when comparing to Oregon is the SOS. According to Sagarin, Oregon's SOS is 17 and TT's is 68. TT is very good to be sure, but if they played Oregon's schedule, I think they'd be a 3 loss team.Phalanx wrote: Fri Dec 26, 2025 2:08 am I look at Texas Tech's schedule, and it looks like they beat the snot out of everyone they played except ASU on the road. Everyone raves about their defense, but they also have the 5th highest yards/game in the country on offense. Oregon is 11th. Maybe they are overrated, but they might also be underrated. I don't like the game time, I don't like the location, and I don't like that Oregon is not only favored in the betting line, but also by the loudmouths on television who are already writing in Oregon vs Indiana on their stupid brackets. If I was anyone from the Texas Tech side, I would be pretty motivated and pissed that my conference and my team were getting disrespected. The good news for Oregon is they are used to traveling, and the Ducks did get that tuneup game while Tech has been sitting.
Here's hoping the Ducks can find that extra gear in the second half that has often been missing.
I’ve been trying to tell some of my friends this that are predicting multi score wins by Oregon, Texas Tech is better than a lot of duck fans think they are. This will be a battle and I think our offense needs to be precise and aggressive. If the offense that showed up against those games you mentioned show up in the Orange Bowl then our season will end Thursday.StevensTechU wrote:Bowl game results are making the case that Texas Tech should've been the #2 or #3 seed. Their lone loss was a game against Arizona State with their backup QB and they still almost won. In games against Houston (just beat LSU, will end the year ranked around 18th), Utah (#16), and BYU twice (will end the year ranked around 10th), the average game score 33-9. The most impressive part of that is that there is not a game or two skewing it. Each game ended within a stone's throw of that average result.
For comparison's sake, compare that to Oregon's games against Iowa, USC, washington, and Penn State.