Nations Top JUCO LB STILL visiting the Ducks

[duckfbfan15]

Hotchkins was horrible last year.. The guy was a big disappointment.

[Groundswell]

I don't know about that. I think people are slotting Dye to move inside in a 3-4 and Swain really came on at the end of the year.

I'm almost positive Johnson would start. Swain, at best, was just competent.

Rarely do Jucos make a splash right off the bat. Jonah Moi and AJ Hotchkins were both really, really good Juco linebackers, and they've taken their lumps. Even Joe Walker had a rough first year.

Starting is very different from making a splash. And he would have to beat Simms, Hotchkins, and Swain for playing time. Simms could be something, but we just don't know yet. Swain was bad until the last few games last year, and he still is mistake prone. AJ...

[woundedknees]

One has to wonder, how much of that was a coaching failure?

Obviously, there is a learning curve, but but the last few years have seemed to be abject failures in the player development department.

[Groundswell]

We all know our defensive coaches have been bad. But those dudes have/had years of coaching experience. Some very successful years. They were certainly terrible, but I don't think we have very good talent either. It's not like those players weren't being coached on basic positioning and tackling. It's not like they weren't being drilled on gap integrity. Most of them just aren't capable. You don't have the worst defense in Division I two years running without having a lack of talent.

PS. I know we weren't dead last in either year, but I'm pretty sure over a two year average we were dead last.

[Phenom]

I disagree about Swain. He is talented.

[karlhungis]

We all know our defensive coaches have been bad. But those dudes have/had years of coaching experience. Some very successful years. They were certainly terrible, but I don't think we have very good talent either. It's not like those players weren't being coached on basic positioning and tackling. It's not like they weren't being drilled on gap integrity. Most of them just aren't capable. You don't have the worst defense in Division I two years running without having a lack of talent.

PS. I know we weren't dead last in either year, but I'm pretty sure over a two year average we were dead last.

Our defenses have always been bad without upperclassmen. Our coaches were never able to simplify things for younger players. That was an issue with Aliotti and Pellum seemed to carry on the tradition. I still firmly believe that our defensive woes were way more coaching related than player related.

[uostudent]

Hotchkins was horrible last year.. The guy was a big disappointment.

Agree - Hotchkins is terrible. Swain has the potential to be a solid LB and is a smart kid. Keith Simms is a guy to watch too (though he'll likely play outside).

[Groundswell]

When folks talk about the defense, you'll notice that nobody can decide if our defensive backs were worse, our linebackers, or our d-lineman. And the arguments are pretty compelling for each group. Sure, there's "some" talent. But most these guys are second stringers on a quality defense. Depth guys. And some just plain dead weight. I almost never see guys making explosive plays. Never. Not even bad coaching can remove that from a good player. I'm sure a lot of these guys will improve under the new coaches, but the Seniors and Juniors have proven to not be dudes. Would be great if the new coaches prove all our problems were on the coaching. I'd love that.

[pezsez1]

When folks talk about the defense, you'll notice that nobody can decide if our defensive backs were worse, our linebackers, or our d-lineman. And the arguments are pretty compelling for each group. Sure, there's "some" talent. But most these guys are second stringers on a quality defense. Depth guys. And some just plain dead weight. I almost never see guys making explosive plays. Never. Not even bad coaching can remove that from a good player. I'm sure a lot of these guys will improve under the new coaches, but the Seniors and Juniors have proven to not be dudes. Would be great if the new coaches prove all our problems were on the coaching. I'd love that.

This is pretty much where I stand.

I've said many times that our D last year was as much of a result of "lack of talent" as coaching issues. And while I usually use the term "lack of talent," what I should be saying with regularity is "lack of playmakers."

Our defensive personnel kinds of reminds me of a mediocre NBA team, with "talented" guys who are capable of getting to the playoffs but will almost certainly be swept out of the first round.

It's not that our roster on D isn't talented. But compare it to the offensive side of the ball, which is laden with talented depth guys AND actual playmakers, and it's a pretty striking imbalance. Our only real defensive playmakers last year were Dye and Schooler, and Schooler only made so many plays because all the other guys in front of him couldn't.

Growth and coaching are wonderful things, and I'm sure our guys will be in better positions this year to achieve better results. Heck, maybe our new scheme will play better to our roster's strengths. And some of these incoming recruits might make immediate impacts as Dye and Schooler did -- it's totally possible. Last year, though, our D just lacked legit playmakers other than a pair of freshman, and that's a bad recipe for success no matter who is running practice.

[UofDuck]

When folks talk about the defense, you'll notice that nobody can decide if our defensive backs were worse, our linebackers, or our d-lineman. And the arguments are pretty compelling for each group. Sure, there's "some" talent. But most these guys are second stringers on a quality defense. Depth guys. And some just plain dead weight. I almost never see guys making explosive plays. Never. Not even bad coaching can remove that from a good player. I'm sure a lot of these guys will improve under the new coaches, but the Seniors and Juniors have proven to not be dudes. Would be great if the new coaches prove all our problems were on the coaching. I'd love that.

I understand your premise, but disagree with it. We don't have SC talent, but we have plenty to be competitive. I've lived in Boise for 12 years now and get to see what they do with less year after year after year. They get leftovers, and turn out aggressive and explosive defenses. That has to be a product of superior coaching AND strength and conditioning. You can't always find diamonds in the rough. You make diamonds from the rough by great coaching. Leavitt did the same at CO. Coach Pete is now working with 4* kids and is now getting UW to the playoffs. If he took over at O, he'd adopt the very same players and they'd play MUCH better. What I see are kids that come to Oregon don't change much physically, or improve much in technique. They are simply not reaching their potential. Kids being hospitalized after workouts last week screams that we have had issues in getting players ready to compete. I'm so excited about our future.

[Duckenstein]

IMO, desire to be great, willingness to work hard, and self-discipline always trump talent.

You can have all the talent in the world and show up flat, unprepared, and you end up losing.

This team, pre Taggart, was undisciplined, unmotivated and didn't care about winning.

The coaches may have failed with scouting, player development and coaching fundamentals, but if the coaches allowed the players to run the team, mouthing off and exercising poor judgment, doing what they wanted and skipping the rest, than none of the other stuff matters.

Nick saban and Chris Peterson couldn't coach our players to victory until they changed the me-first, lazy self entitled culture

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Groundswell]

I appreciate all the points about coaching. We certainly had serious coaching issues. I'd be thrilled if that was our only issue. But film is film. Tape is tape. I don't see talent. Not among the upperclassmen. I see guys starting who wouldn't see the field on a major defense. Our best players might not even see the field if they played for Alabama or Clemson. Sure Boise State and Colorado under Leavitt did more with less. But lots of those kids are still 3 stars. Knowing what type of player to recruit and to see potential is something we failed at miserably after Nick A. left. Some of our players will blossom under the new coaches, but the seniors don't have enough time, and the juniors are running out of time. Boiled down:

1. Hopefully our offensive changes can help the defense some.
2. Hopefully the new coaching can improve the discipline and technique of all players.
3. Hopefully all of the freshmen and sophomores turn out to be ballers.
4. Hopefully we start improving the caliber of player brought in under the new coaches.
5. Hopefully new strength and conditioning will better develop players.

This is a major overhaul. The defense won't be very good this year. The year after is when real improvement will be easy to measure. But I'd guess that if our new defensive coaches were being candid, they'd want to replace the vast majority of our defensive roster with other 3 stars.

[Handsome Dan]

Are you sure you are properly distinguishing talent and skills? The coaching was so bad it's difficult to think game film from last year is really indicative of their true innate ability to play football.

This is a major overhaul. The defense won't be very good this year. The year after is when real improvement will be easy to measure. But I'd guess that if our new defensive coaches were being candid, they'd want to replace the vast majority of our defensive roster with other 3 stars.

This fits nicely into my speculation about progression if the coaching staff is adept as we think lol.

[Groundswell]

On the difference between talent and skills, I believe so, Dan. Film backs my opinion up. Talented players make plays. Talented players blow up the dudes in front of them. Even with bad coaching. Sure they'll succeed less often with bad coaching. Yes, when watching film you see all the mistakes and poor coaching. But when your d-lineman can't get pressure on the qb in one-on-one situations, it's talent. Those are basic football moves that kids have been taught since high school. When your front 7 is getting driven off the ball the vast majority of plays, it's not bad coaching alone. All our defensive coaches have/had years of experience. They just weren't recruiting well, among other things. Basic fundamentals are not something foreign to these kids. Sure, we had schematic issues, sure we had bad coordinators, sure we had breakdowns due to mentally confused players. All affect our total defense. But watch one-on-one and we got beat constantly on the LOS. Watch linebackers try to fill holes and get crushed.

I know I'm being hard on players. These are all kids "talented" enough to get PAC 12 offers. But we just haven't recruited well on the defensive side of the ball.

I was hard on the coaches from the 2015 Utah game on. Took a lot of heat on the boards because of it. I couldn't be happier that they are gone. All of them. But it's not like they weren't drilling basics to kids. To hear some people talk now, all's Rad did was have kids do yoga, and all the old coaches did at practice was talk about schemes that were too complicated and had the kids play patty-cake with each other. Maybe they couldn't get kids to play hard, or whatever, but a bad dude is a bad dude. How many bad dudes we got on defense?

[Duckenstein]

How many bad dudes we got on defense?

One if you count Troy Dye


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk