Oregon Ducks Sports Message Board Forum
https://ducksattack.com/forum/
This is kind of a funny response. Yes, it happened to work out exactly the way Coach Lanning drew it up, but that is not evidence that he did it right because of your hypothetical evidence about if he would have brought Raiola in sooner? You mention the USC game but completely forget about the more recent UCLA game - a game that far more resembled this one vs Nebraska? I don't know what would have happened if he had brought Raiola in after the half, I only know that what he did worked and he also stuck with Brock as long as possible. I am not talking about the state of the offense in general, or the player development problems, or offseason hires, or any of the other laundry list of complaints people are having. I am saying that given the issues in the first half with not being able to move the ball, Lanning engineered a great response and it not only worked, but it resurrected Raiola's mental state while to some degree preserving Brock's. I'm glad about how that turned out. The general offensive woes are a separate issue.dthomas=ddixon wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2026 3:00 pm
This only makes sense because it happened to work out. The fact that Oregon won doesn’t mean waiting until the fourth quarter was the optimal decision.
Exactly. Next couple weeks are gonna be super interesting… no clue what to expect.dthomas=ddixon wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2026 3:12 pmUnfortunately I have to agree. Who cares how hard you worked on a terrible game plan? That’s the whole problem! Working extra hard on something that clearly isn’t working isn’t admirable, it’s stupid.UOducksTK1 wrote:The post game interview might be the most scariest part of last night.
Nebraska is not that great of a team, and who cares what Brock and Raiola’s attitudes were that whole game.
Not talking about how terrible the offense was and taking some responsibility for that is wild.
It’s scary because it feels like Lanning is out of touch with magnitude of the situation.
I agree that it was the worst offensive three quarters we have seen at Oregon in a long time - we were trying to figure out since when earlier in this thread and I came up with the 2nd half of the Alamo bowl after Vernon Adams got injured. The rest of your post is just hyperbole. The payroll is not 50m, Nebraska is not mediocre - they almost beat Indiana the week before and won five in a row before that. Lanning owned the bad offense in his interviews, and he is not completely lost. He's 4-2 despite having to play ranked team after ranked team with backup quarterbacks. Most prognosticators and fans had him at 5-1 at this point in the season with a loss to USC - and that was assuming a healthy Dante. It isn't the end of the world. Not yet at least.dd10snoop28 wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2026 12:45 pm Lanning came out of this looking good? In what universe.
That was the worst 3 quarters of offense I have ever witnessed and keeping the same QB for those 3 quarters is probably the most unbelievable decision by a head coach I’ve ever seen.
His interviews are what I would expect of the coach of Washington state. Happy that our QB’s had a good attitude and resilience of barely beating a mediocre team at home while playing the worst offensive game in the past decade on a 50m payroll.
He is completely lost. Feel sad for him
Spot onPhalanx wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:38 amI agree that it was the worst offensive three quarters we have seen at Oregon in a long time - we were trying to figure out since when earlier in this thread and I came up with the 2nd half of the Alamo bowl after Vernon Adams got injured. The rest of your post is just hyperbole. The payroll is not 50m, Nebraska is not mediocre - they almost beat Indiana the week before and won five in a row before that. Lanning owned the bad offense in his interviews, and he is not completely lost. He's 4-2 despite having to play ranked team after ranked team with backup quarterbacks. Most prognosticators and fans had him at 5-1 at this point in the season with a loss to USC - and that was assuming a healthy Dante. It isn't the end of the world. Not yet at least.dd10snoop28 wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2026 12:45 pm Lanning came out of this looking good? In what universe.
That was the worst 3 quarters of offense I have ever witnessed and keeping the same QB for those 3 quarters is probably the most unbelievable decision by a head coach I’ve ever seen.
His interviews are what I would expect of the coach of Washington state. Happy that our QB’s had a good attitude and resilience of barely beating a mediocre team at home while playing the worst offensive game in the past decade on a 50m payroll.
He is completely lost. Feel sad for him
I can feel frustrated about the offense while still appreciating that Coach Lanning's in-game strategy achieved a favorable result. He didn't start Raiola for a reason - the guy had basically given up the week before in an historically bad performance and was getting hammered by the media all week. Coach is trying to figure out how to get him back on the horse and not transfer out - he was supposed to be sitting and learning in a low-pressure environment this year, not getting fed to the wolves. Simultaneously, he is trying to salvage anything positive for Brock, who was almost the hero in the UCLA game. Fans want to kick both of these guys to the curb, but this is what Lanning has to work with while he waits for Dante to heal up, and he wants both guys to develop. So I watched his timing and thought it worked really well. He waited until Brock at least got a chance to lead a field goal drive, which is maybe all Raiola would have been doing if he came in a bit earlier. Then with the score 7-6 in the third quarter, Brock threw a pick off of a deflection and Nebraska scored the second TD. So he put in Raiola in a situation where the team was already behind and the pressure was a lot less. If he puts him in at the half, the potential loss becomes his fault. Coach is giving him a chunk to bite off instead of just laying it all at his door for the second week in a row.
Oh, and by the way, just a small little detail...IT WORKED. They won the darn game. Sheesh.
Except you don’t know that’s exactly how Lanning drew it up. Your explanation of his intentions is post-hoc speculation.Phalanx wrote:This is kind of a funny response. Yes, it happened to work out exactly the way Coach Lanning drew it up, but that is not evidence that he did it right because of your hypothetical evidence about if he would have brought Raiola in sooner? You mention the USC game but completely forget about the more recent UCLA game - a game that far more resembled this one vs Nebraska? I don't know what would have happened if he had brought Raiola in after the half, I only know that what he did worked and he also stuck with Brock as long as possible. I am not talking about the state of the offense in general, or the player development problems, or offseason hires, or any of the other laundry list of complaints people are having. I am saying that given the issues in the first half with not being able to move the ball, Lanning engineered a great response and it not only worked, but it resurrected Raiola's mental state while to some degree preserving Brock's. I'm glad about how that turned out. The general offensive woes are a separate issue.dthomas=ddixon wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2026 3:00 pm
This only makes sense because it happened to work out. The fact that Oregon won doesn’t mean waiting until the fourth quarter was the optimal decision.
I don't know how to put the cookies on a lower shelf for you here. Lanning wants to win. He did the thing that helped the team win. You opine that he should have done that thing sooner and then he would have winned harder or something. I opine that if he had, maybe Raiola would have cracked under the pressure the same as he did seven days prior. We can have an epistemological conversation for a long time if you want, I guess. It seems dumb to tell someone on a message board 'how do you know anything' or 'your comments are post hoc'. I know you saw me make the comment in tempore that I thought Lanning was making a good decision and setting Raiola up to be the hero, and you can scroll back several pages to review that if you want. The rest, I agree, is speculation based on years of watching football and living among humans. Feel free to disagree and insist forever that Lanning should have done it your way and he sucks as a result. Heck, maybe someone else will say that Brock would have won the game if he stayed in. Nobody knows anything for sure except that man is born for trouble as the sparks fly upward.dthomas=ddixon wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 8:04 am
Except you don’t know that’s exactly how Lanning drew it up. Your explanation of his intentions is post-hoc speculation.
Putting Raiola in while losing, with only one quarter to take the lead, isn’t nearly as clean of a scenario as you’re making it out to be. We were losing to his former team, there was enormous pressure on Raiola.
And how do you know it preserved Brock’s confidence? That’s more speculation. Letting him struggle for three quarters, fall behind, and eventually throw an interception before pulling him doesn’t exactly seem like a confidence builder to me.
i’m glad it worked out, no one’s arguing that it didn’t. I agree that Lanning had good reason to do what he did but the outcome doesn’t retroactively prove the timing was optimal or part of some perfectly orchestrated plan, which were your initial claims.
Fair enough, man. My disagreement has been with your repeated claim after the game that the timing was perfect. I’ve never disputed that the substitution worked or that you anticipated it working.Phalanx wrote:I don't know how to put the cookies on a lower shelf for you here. Lanning wants to win. He did the thing that helped the team win. You opine that he should have done that thing sooner and then he would have winned harder or something. I opine that if he had, maybe Raiola would have cracked under the pressure the same as he did seven days prior. We can have an epistemological conversation for a long time if you want, I guess. It seems dumb to tell someone on a message board 'how do you know anything' or 'your comments are post hoc'. I know you saw me make the comment in tempore that I thought Lanning was making a good decision and setting Raiola up to be the hero, and you can scroll back several pages to review that if you want. The rest, I agree, is speculation based on years of watching football and living among humans. Feel free to disagree and insist forever that Lanning should have done it your way and he sucks as a result. Heck, maybe someone else will say that Brock would have won the game if he stayed in. Nobody knows anything for sure except that man is born for trouble as the sparks fly upward.dthomas=ddixon wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 8:04 am
Except you don’t know that’s exactly how Lanning drew it up. Your explanation of his intentions is post-hoc speculation.
Putting Raiola in while losing, with only one quarter to take the lead, isn’t nearly as clean of a scenario as you’re making it out to be. We were losing to his former team, there was enormous pressure on Raiola.
And how do you know it preserved Brock’s confidence? That’s more speculation. Letting him struggle for three quarters, fall behind, and eventually throw an interception before pulling him doesn’t exactly seem like a confidence builder to me.
i’m glad it worked out, no one’s arguing that it didn’t. I agree that Lanning had good reason to do what he did but the outcome doesn’t retroactively prove the timing was optimal or part of some perfectly orchestrated plan, which were your initial claims.
The only ones saying the phrase 'master plan' or 'perfectly orchestrated plan' are you and our friend who thinks Darron Thomas and Dennis Dixon are the same guy, or at least equal in some unspecified way. Maybe we should have an epistemological discussion about that, I don't know, but anyway, that isn't what I said or what I think. What I think is that Lanning started Brock Thomas because Brock Thomas had a more steady hand vs UCLA and Lanning likely observed/determined that Raiola - the better quarterback and next year's heir apparent- was still shell-shocked from his awful outing the week before. So he started Brock and thought that if Brock failed, he would at some point sub in Raiola (I was hoping to see some KJ, but I was probably wrong). The reports from the sidelines were that Raiola was seen warming up at various points throughout the game, ready to go in at any moment. That tells me Lanning planned to put him in if/when the time called for it. That is the only 'plan' I am referring to. It is possible that Raiola was always slated for the 4th quarter against his old team, but who knows. What I do know is that Lanning managed to take into account the situation and coach his way to an incredibly positive outcome: he won the game and did a lot to restore Raiola's confidence. So I give him a lot of credit for that, while you seem to be saying his coaching decisions were out of his hands.pezsez1 wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 12:44 pm I'm gonna have to go ahead though and continue to disagree that plugging in Raiola that late in the game was NOT part of some master plan. It seemed pretty obvious that Lanning only had Thomas in there to avoid turnovers. He'd lost faith in Raiola in that regard. But then suddenly we were trailing, and Brock was incapable of reaching the endzone against this D, and THEN he threw a pick. He kind of forced Lanning's hand. I don't think Lanning even makes the change if Brock doesn't throw that pick.
At that point, Lanning finally realized that he had no choice but to go with the QB who might be able to put a TD on the board, even if he might be more likely to turn the ball over. It definitely wasn't his master plan to wait that long.
WTF are you babbling on about?The only ones saying the phrase 'master plan' or 'perfectly orchestrated plan' are you and our friend who thinks Darron Thomas and Dennis Dixon are the same guy, or at least equal in some unspecified way. Maybe we should have an epistemological discussion about that, I don't know, but anyway, that isn't what I said or what I think.
What was my bad take exactly? Other than you trying to put words in my mouth, I mean.pezsez1 wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2026 2:37 pmWTF are you babbling on about?The only ones saying the phrase 'master plan' or 'perfectly orchestrated plan' are you and our friend who thinks Darron Thomas and Dennis Dixon are the same guy, or at least equal in some unspecified way. Maybe we should have an epistemological discussion about that, I don't know, but anyway, that isn't what I said or what I think.
You made a bad take about Dan Lanning and got properly called out for it. Deal with it and cut out the petty BS. Your takes on this are bad enough, you don't need to make things worse with a bunch of childish nonsense. And I know I'm not the only one who wants to say this. I'm just the one saying it.
My bad, that makes a lot more sense.P.S. For what it's worth, that bit you posted out of context (as is your wont) was me trying to make a joke out of the awkward situation of referring to someone as 'dthomas=ddixon'. Not intended to be insulting.