#19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1
- OregonFan4Life
- All-American
- Posts: 15385
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:32 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Great to see Jacobs practicing! Though I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see him until we play at Washington.
What sort of impact will Jacobs have on the defense once he’s healthy?
What sort of impact will Jacobs have on the defense once he’s healthy?

-
GrandpaDuck
- Senior
- Posts: 3312
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:48 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
So far I'm neutral on the defense this year. They haven't proven to be good or bad at this point because of the opposition and they have shown indicators both ways.
The one thing I have heard mentioned many times and not just on this board is the defense was hurt by the penalties, but were the penalties an aberration or a feature of this years team? Lanning has said this week he is going to bench players for stupid penalties. While benching Dorlus and Jackson might reduce the stupid penalties, wouldn't it weaken the defense in the drop-off from those players versus who would replace them? Will players be tentative if they fear the hook for over aggressiveness? Colorado State was certainly hurt by Kamara's penalties, but would they have even been in the game without him?
Thanks coach and I'll take my answer off the air.
The one thing I have heard mentioned many times and not just on this board is the defense was hurt by the penalties, but were the penalties an aberration or a feature of this years team? Lanning has said this week he is going to bench players for stupid penalties. While benching Dorlus and Jackson might reduce the stupid penalties, wouldn't it weaken the defense in the drop-off from those players versus who would replace them? Will players be tentative if they fear the hook for over aggressiveness? Colorado State was certainly hurt by Kamara's penalties, but would they have even been in the game without him?
Thanks coach and I'll take my answer off the air.
- Phalanx
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5220
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Lanning more or less got around that problem by saying that those penalties were not their fault (at least in JPJ's case), that it was a function of incomplete coaching.
- nogerO
- Senior
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:48 pm
- Location: Wyoming
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
He might bench them, but they'll be in the game pretty damn quickly. However one more screw up and Dorlus might sit for a longer spell.GrandpaDuck wrote:So far I'm neutral on the defense this year. They haven't proven to be good or bad at this point because of the opposition and they have shown indicators both ways.
The one thing I have heard mentioned many times and not just on this board is the defense was hurt by the penalties, but were the penalties an aberration or a feature of this years team? Lanning has said this week he is going to bench players for stupid penalties. While benching Dorlus and Jackson might reduce the stupid penalties, wouldn't it weaken the defense in the drop-off from those players versus who would replace them? Will players be tentative if they fear the hook for over aggressiveness? Colorado State was certainly hurt by Kamara's penalties, but would they have even been in the game without him?
Thanks coach and I'll take my answer off the air.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine
- Phalanx
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5220
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Just listening to Deion's presser. Deion loves Nike, he respects Oregon and wants to emulate them, particularly the uniforms, he respects the heck out of Lanning, nothing is personal, apparently. Mutual admiration society. My guess is Lanning called him and cleared things up.
Kinda wonder if it's only 'personal' when he has a prayer of winning the ball game.
Kinda wonder if it's only 'personal' when he has a prayer of winning the ball game.
- greenyellow
- Moderator

- Posts: 39345
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
- JIDuck97
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 998
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:42 am
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Ratings and eyes.Phalanx wrote:Just listening to Deion's presser. Deion loves Nike, he respects Oregon and wants to emulate them, particularly the uniforms, he respects the heck out of Lanning, nothing is personal, apparently. Mutual admiration society. My guess is Lanning called him and cleared things up.
Kinda wonder if it's only 'personal' when he has a prayer of winning the ball game.
-
dthomas=ddixon
- Moderator

- Posts: 8798
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:42 pm
- Location: McMinnville, Oregon
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Deion knows who butters his bread. Very little to gain and a lot to lose by getting into a pissing match with Oregon and Lanning. The game will generate a ton of hype and views all on its own.
Also, Lanning’s comments had nothing to do with Deion and this years team so him taking them personal initially was very contrived.
Also, Lanning’s comments had nothing to do with Deion and this years team so him taking them personal initially was very contrived.

-
ducks5ever
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:15 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
That said, Lanning's comments a few months ago were a bit uncalled for. I'm guessing he's not going to make such remarks ever again. Such comments are not productive no matter how you spin it.
Anyways, I'm glad the CU hype train made it to Eugene intact, and there will be plenty of eyeballs on us
Anyways, I'm glad the CU hype train made it to Eugene intact, and there will be plenty of eyeballs on us
- StevensTechU
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 7116
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:25 am
- Location: Hoboken, NJ
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
The comments were made while Oregon's future was most likely in the remainder of the PAC. So let's say you're Lanning and you've got a recruit questioning whether if he comes to Oregon will he even be playing in a "Power" conference and the latest news is Colorado is jumping ship. So you say, when prompted, how does Colorado leaving change anything at all?ducks5ever wrote:That said, Lanning's comments a few months ago were a bit uncalled for. I'm guessing he's not going to make such remarks ever again. Such comments are not productive no matter how you spin it.
Anyways, I'm glad the CU hype train made it to Eugene intact, and there will be plenty of eyeballs on us
He wasn't wrong. And it's only with hindsight that you can say there was no purpose or value in defending the PAC.
- Tray Dub
- Senior
- Posts: 4994
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
His comments were completely fine
- greenyellow
- Moderator

- Posts: 39345
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
-
buckmarkduck
- All-American
- Posts: 11017
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
StevensTechU wrote:The comments were made while Oregon's future was most likely in the remainder of the PAC. So let's say you're Lanning and you've got a recruit questioning whether if he comes to Oregon will he even be playing in a "Power" conference and the latest news is Colorado is jumping ship. So you say, when prompted, how does Colorado leaving change anything at all?ducks5ever wrote:That said, Lanning's comments a few months ago were a bit uncalled for. I'm guessing he's not going to make such remarks ever again. Such comments are not productive no matter how you spin it.
Anyways, I'm glad the CU hype train made it to Eugene intact, and there will be plenty of eyeballs on us
He wasn't wrong. And it's only with hindsight that you can say there was no purpose or value in defending the PAC.
I don’t believe UO was “most likely” to remain in the pac 10. Since SC left UO has been trying to leave the pac. There was no future, except that of a 2nd tier conference which would have a hard time recruiting top talent.
- StevensTechU
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 7116
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:25 am
- Location: Hoboken, NJ
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
At the time, both Lanning and Rob Mullens were both talking about their future in the Pac-12.buckmarkduck wrote: I don’t believe UO was “most likely” to remain in the pac 10. Since SC left UO has been trying to leave the pac. There was no future, except that of a 2nd tier conference which would have a hard time recruiting top talent.
- Phalanx
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5220
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Re: #19 Colorado @ #10 Oregon (Sept 23, Sat 12:30 PM ABC)
Lanning made the comments July 31. The Oracle (Ohio State insider) posted the plan to join the Big 10 the next day. I thought at the time Lanning was defending the Pac as well, but clearly he knew Oregon was leaving.StevensTechU wrote:At the time, both Lanning and Rob Mullens were both talking about their future in the Pac-12.buckmarkduck wrote: I don’t believe UO was “most likely” to remain in the pac 10. Since SC left UO has been trying to leave the pac. There was no future, except that of a 2nd tier conference which would have a hard time recruiting top talent.
