Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I'm not sure if we have a good defense but I think the question of if getting turnovers can be taught is answered.

We're in the 90's in most defensive metrics right now. It's not good. The zone D we're running simply isn't tight enough and today we didn't stop the run well and we clearly miss Justin Flowe from the first game.

Eventually teams will execute better against us and it's going to be ugly if that happens.

That said, we have a lot of young players and I think there's room to improve a bit.

Not sure how I feel about this scheme, but the turnovers are a positive.

Turnovers are flashier, but a 3-and-out accomplishes the same thing.

Personally, I hate the bend-don’t-break defense. I’d gladly exchange a few explosion plays for more 3-and-outs.

how come it seems no matter who the d coordinater is our d isn't that great. I don't know a lot about defensive, but over the years I thought we should blitz a lot more often then we do?

I don't see what you guys are seeing because this is one of the best defenses Oregon has had for years. The first game against Fresno St the defense made like 3 critical stops at the end to keep Oregon from losing that game. Ohio State is Ohio State holding them to 28 is pretty good in my opinion. Stony Brook only scored 7 points and I've seen Oregon give up 30 to D 2 teams before. This game Oregon held Arizona under 20 and the offense left them on the field the whole 3rd quarter and gave up a safety. The defense is so much better than a usual Oregon defense. I'm not sure I can remember a time they held the first 4 teams they played under 30.

duck023 wrote:I don't see what you guys are seeing because this is one of the best defenses Oregon has had for years. The first game against Fresno St the defense made like 3 critical stops at the end to keep Oregon from losing that game. Ohio State is Ohio State holding them to 28 is pretty good in my opinion. Stony Brook only scored 7 points and I've seen Oregon give up 30 to D 2 teams before. This game Oregon held Arizona under 20 and the offense left them on the field the whole 3rd quarter and gave up a safety. The defense is so much better than a usual Oregon defense. I'm not sure I can remember a time they held the first 4 teams they played under 30.

Agreed, plus the defense rotations have been all over the place due to injuries. Oregon’s defensive metrics would be far better had KT and Flowe never got injured, along with many others. This team has gone through a crazy amount of injures and guys we thought would be redshirting have started because of it. They’ll get better as the year goes on as they get healthy. Somehow just survive in a tough road game against Stanford then I think the bye week will do wonders for this team.

If there’s a position to complain about it’s the OLine.

When you are missing half your starters on the DL, and playing a walk on LB a ton. Stats get s screwed. We are still 3rd in pints allowed per game, even without our two best DL. Swinson imho will be a high level NFL player for years once he leaves UO. No one is even talking about his absence.

buckmarkduck wrote:When you are missing half your starters on the DL, and playing a walk on LB a ton. Stats get s screwed. We are still 3rd in pints allowed per game, even without our two best DL. Swinson imho will be a high level NFL player for years once he leaves UO. No one is even talking about his absence.

Agree Buck and I hope Swinson is back for Stanford cause they will need him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lmduck wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:When you are missing half your starters on the DL, and playing a walk on LB a ton. Stats get s screwed. We are still 3rd in pints allowed per game, even without our two best DL. Swinson imho will be a high level NFL player for years once he leaves UO. No one is even talking about his absence.

Agree Buck and I hope Swinson is back for Stanford cause they will need him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I expect David Shaw to run the ball at us all game until we prove we can stop them. We'll definitely need all hands on deck.

SuperDuck wrote:

lmduck wrote:

buckmarkduck wrote:When you are missing half your starters on the DL, and playing a walk on LB a ton. Stats get s screwed. We are still 3rd in pints allowed per game, even without our two best DL. Swinson imho will be a high level NFL player for years once he leaves UO. No one is even talking about his absence.

Agree Buck and I hope Swinson is back for Stanford cause they will need him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I expect David Shaw to run the ball at us all game until we prove we can stop them. We'll definitely need all hands on deck.

I think Stanford may have some injuries at RB and are a little thin at that position. I live in the Bay Area so will have to keep an eye on the news this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honest question. When the other team is third and long do you instinctually say "they've got us right where they want us now"
Everyone in my crews says the same thing and its because it's the truth. Honest answer please.

nogerO wrote:Honest question. When the other team is third and long do you instinctually say "they've got us right where they want us now"
Everyone in my crews says the same thing and its because it's the truth. Honest answer please.

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have we had an issue with physical non spread teams under MC? Stanford plays right into our strength.

lmduck wrote:

nogerO wrote:Honest question. When the other team is third and long do you instinctually say "they've got us right where they want us now"
Everyone in my crews says the same thing and its because it's the truth. Honest answer please.

No

Fair enough. In the Stanford game just pay attention to their third and longs.

Does anyone else buy that Thibs didn't reinjure his ankle? MC was putting a positive spin on his "load management" after the game, but it sure looked like Thibs came out of this a little worse off than how he came in.