Good enough

Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1

User avatar
OregonFan4Life
All-American
Posts: 12362
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:32 pm

Re: Good enough

Post by OregonFan4Life »

StevensTechU wrote:With more and more highly rated recruits who are three-and-done or transfer when they don't pan out, being young should be expected as a new normal.
I’m not saying Oregon isn’t young, more so it doesn’t seem like a valid excuse.
Image
User avatar
GoDucksTroll
Sophomore
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:34 am

Re: Good enough

Post by GoDucksTroll »

I’m not a big fan of the youth excuse due to years of hearing it from Washington fans. Made me think Ponce de Leon should have been searching around Puget Sound.

There is some validity to it. You play the best available players, and you could win with a two deep that is heavy with underclassmen. But a 22-23 year old with time in the program benefiting from coaching, nutrition, the weight room, etc will have a big advantage over a younger player as long as size and talent aren’t overly disproportionate. As a coach you’d prefer the player has experience.

Even Alabama and Clemson have depth charts that favor upperclassmen for those reasons. Youth isn’t a problem, but when you’re literally the youngest team it can be. Relying on true freshmen or even sophomores too much isn’t ideal.
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10565
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Good enough

Post by buckmarkduck »

OregonFan4Life wrote:
StevensTechU wrote:With more and more highly rated recruits who are three-and-done or transfer when they don't pan out, being young should be expected as a new normal.
I’m not saying Oregon isn’t young, more so it doesn’t seem like a valid excuse.
I saw a tweet a couple weeks ago, showing UO had the youngest roster in college football.
User avatar
Zyme
All Pac-12
Posts: 5396
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:35 pm
GM: New York Knicks GM

Re: Good enough

Post by Zyme »

buckmarkduck wrote:
OregonFan4Life wrote:
StevensTechU wrote:With more and more highly rated recruits who are three-and-done or transfer when they don't pan out, being young should be expected as a new normal.
I’m not saying Oregon isn’t young, more so it doesn’t seem like a valid excuse.
I saw a tweet a couple weeks ago, showing UO had the youngest roster in college football.
I know that was the case on the offensive line. It was something like 1 start across the whole thing to start the season.
DASL1 Rings: '93, '94

K's HOF:
Mark "Wholly Mammoth" Eaton | Retired 2002, age 44: 24 min/8pts/8reb/1stl/2.5 blks/1 TO
Michael "Sweet Home" Ansley | Retired 2007, age 42: 33 min/16pts/8 reb/1.5stl/.5 blks/.5 TO Lifetime .550 shooting %
Gheorghe "Ghiţă (Ghitza, Little George)" Mureșan | Retired 2008, age 36: 35Min/16.2pt/12.2reb/2.1ast/1.6stl/2.9blk/1.3TO (.461/.715/.000)
User avatar
UofDuck
Senior
Posts: 3776
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Good enough

Post by UofDuck »

And throw in the fact that our boys were told early on the season was canceled - while other teams were playing. It had to act as demotivation. We need to keep holding on until we get our rhythm back AND START TACKLING. We could have taken UCLA out of 3 of there scoring drives if there weren’t some horrible tackling on 3rd and reasonably longs. We start tackling well and everything changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10565
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Good enough

Post by buckmarkduck »

Zyme wrote:
buckmarkduck wrote:
OregonFan4Life wrote:
StevensTechU wrote:With more and more highly rated recruits who are three-and-done or transfer when they don't pan out, being young should be expected as a new normal.
I’m not saying Oregon isn’t young, more so it doesn’t seem like a valid excuse.
I saw a tweet a couple weeks ago, showing UO had the youngest roster in college football.
I know that was the case on the offensive line. It was something like 1 start across the whole thing to start the season.

The one I saw was specifically youngest rosters. UO was 1 and Stanford was 3 i think.
Post Reply