pezsez1 wrote:
My only real complaint about the game was the return of Bad Lanning calling that fake FG instead of just kicking it. I mean dear god man, just kick the damn ball, take the 3 pts, and trust your D to not allow a touchdown. Thankfully, that gaffe didn't send us into OT, where things could have gotten really scary given Oregon's struggles with.
“Bad Lanning” wouldn’t have taken the first half field goals. 3 or 6 doesn’t matter in the last two minutes, a touchdown still wins. The odds that a senior tight end makes a single block to get the first down is far more likely than assuming they make a 30+ yard kick and really really hoping it doesn’t get blocked.
The only argument is whether to run the fake (which should have worked) or just leaving the offense on the field.
"Come back with your shield or on it"
This is who Dan is and how he wants to coach. He's made adjustments as you've said, but he recognized the value in the conversion at that point for winning the game, not just getting a lead and for that it's hard for me to find fault with the decision since the reasons why are clearly evident. It's hard to even gripe about the Fake FG vs 4th down offense because whatever they saw on film to have the confidence to make that call almost paid off, no more than a great play design that gets batted down on the throw.
As the team says, they'll take their medicine tomorrow and get back to work and last night was a good reminder that from here on out, every team wants to beat us in order to make it the highlight of their season.
So the cut block call was not as bad as it is made out to be. When I first saw it I saw the UW runningback go low on the double team block and Caldwell's right leg fly into the air. A classic cut block. On the replay it looked like the RB shoulder was at the waist which would not be too low but his upper arm took Caldwell's leg up. Not sure if that would constitute a cut but my point is when I saw it live speed I would have made the same call; without the benefit of replay the RB bent low on his block and Caldwell's leg shot up.
Yesterday #6, 7, 16, 18, 19 and 22 were all upset and a 9-0 team lost to a sub 500 opponent. Week before #3, 4, and 17 were upset and with a 9-0 top 5 team losing to an unranked team. Things get tough at the end of the year.
I like idea of the fake FG, but hate that they appeared to decide to do it before 3rd down and wasted that down to set it up. They put all 11 player between the hashes and and ran up the middle to sell they were playing for the field goal. Would have loved to see them run a play designed to pick up 5 yards and then fake if that failed. You have to use the regular holder for that play or you give it away, but if he had stretched he would have made it as it was one yard short with the ball being at his chest when he went down.
Last edited by GrandpaDuck on Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
DuckFan4Life pointed this out, as have a few others but anyone have a theory on why Herbert has regressed so much? He’s doing things this year (fumble vs Boise St, blown assignment against UW on fake FG) that we’ve never seen him do before. He’s always been a very sound reliable blocker and he’s a little more athletic than people give him credit for.
But that was an absolute whiff by him on the fake. He jumped outside and ran upfield and then at the last second realized he was in the wrong spot and kind of swerved back and chips his man right into James, allowing a shoestring tackle 1/2 yard short.
It blows my mind. You used to be able to set your watch to Herbert executing when needed.
After his postgame blowoff of Lanning, I think Fickell is kind of in the mold of the Mario & Vrabel meathead/secret douchebag. (I actually think Mario is a very intelligent guy and a decent person but I think he feels like he has to act a certain way to project an image)
bdkipe wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:44 pm
After his postgame blowoff of Lanning, I think Fickell is kind of in the mold of the Mario & Vrabel meathead/secret douchebag. (I actually think Mario is a very intelligent guy and a decent person but I think he feels like he has to act a certain way to project an image)
Firing his OC seems on-brand for him.
Mario would struggle with any standardized test of intellect. Especially if one of the word problems was about how to use 3 timeouts with time winding down.
Felt about twice the size of Eugene/UofO in every way. Lots of bar and restaurant options, fairly spread out between downtown and Camp Randall. Vibe is frankly not all that different than Eugene and Portland. You won't struggle to find a coffee shop with comfortable furniture and tattooed baristas. Just take your picture of those two cities and add fried cheese curds.
The fans, by and large, were on par with Nebraska fans as the nicest fans I've encountered. The exception was the younger fans postgame who were clearly pretty butthurt about the outcome. Relatively speaking, they were nicer, quieter, and less passionate than Oregon fans. 76k people and the absolutely loudest points in the game were on par with some of the quieter times at Autzen. Like Nebraska, my group got nasty looks from the home fans simply for yelling while Oregon was on defense. Our norms of being loud throughout the game at Autzen just aren't shared by Midwest fanbases.
I'd comment on the nightlife, but I think I had my first Spotted Cow (a Wisconsin staple not found outside the state) at 9am, and it just wasn't in the cards to wait in bar lines and stay out past midnight.
Overall, a fun experience. Seven Big Ten campuses down. Next up: Piscataway, I think.
OregonFan4Life wrote:I rewatched the fake kick, it was actually a great call. Patrick Herbert completely missed his block and if he makes that block it’s a touchdown. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a duck player regress as much as Patrick Herbert this season. At this point he simply should not be on the field.
Yeah he went little wide on left side. If he just straight up block, it would been first down or so.
I get that the fake FG attempt "made sense" in that the play was well-scouted and just poorly executed.
It was still a dumb call.
You go up by 6 right there and you've virtually put it on ice. There was no way in hell Wisconsin was going to go all the way down the field and score a TD on our defense. But could Wisconsin have completed a single deep bomb to get into long FG range? Absolutely.
I'm all for aggression. I've loved the vast majority of Lanning's gambles this season regardless of outcome. This was just a bad call though. Totally ignored the circumstances of the game. Just take the 3, trust your D to not allow a TD, and walk away with the win.
I love the "how do you want to die" quote but really that should apply more toward going for it on 4th at the start of the 4th. That was aggressive. It made sense. Smart play. That right there is playing to win as opposed to playing not to lose.
Going up by six with like a minute left against an offense that's barely moving the ball is also playing to win. Faking a FG there is what I'd expect from an underdog team either trailing or tied and desperate for a spark. The Ducks are better than that.
I also thought it was a dumb call. Take the 3, out D was playing lights out. I guess it’s good he’s aggressive, but he needs to have someone in his ear as a devils advocate. One of these ill advised gambles is going to bite us big.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine
pezsez1 wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2024 12:32 am
I get that the fake FG attempt "made sense" in that the play was well-scouted and just poorly executed.
It was still a dumb call.
You go up by 6 right there and you've virtually put it on ice. There was no way in hell Wisconsin was going to go all the way down the field and score a TD on our defense. But could Wisconsin have completed a single deep bomb to get into long FG range? Absolutely.
I'm all for aggression. I've loved the vast majority of Lanning's gambles this season regardless of outcome. This was just a bad call though. Totally ignored the circumstances of the game. Just take the 3, trust your D to not allow a TD, and walk away with the win.
I love the "how do you want to die" quote but really that should apply more toward going for it on 4th at the start of the 4th. That was aggressive. It made sense. Smart play. That right there is playing to win as opposed to playing not to lose.
Going up by six with like a minute left against an offense that's barely moving the ball is also playing to win. Faking a FG there is what I'd expect from an underdog team either trailing or tied and desperate for a spark. The Ducks are better than that.
I agree with George Wrightser on the end of game scenarios. Teams do tend to get conservative in scoring range when down 3 compared to when they must score a TD. They already had 1 deep pass connect against us so I understand the reasoning behind maintaining possession in that point of the game.
