54 plays for 1 yard or less

[kchusker_chris]

There are a lot of reasons behind why McNeill wasn't targeted last year. I certainly agree with you that I hope we don't ignore Reed this year, though. He's a tremendous weapon that we cannot ignore.

fortunately this year we have other weapons in Turner/Bell, etc.

Honestly - I think this is the most tallent in the skill positions I have seen in years. Rex/Abdulla/Turner/Bell/Reed. That's a VERY solid 5. We've been lucky to have 1-2 the last few years. Add in Martinez and this offense has the potential to be very dangerous. Add in the OL and this offense fizzles. :bang

EDIT: Can't we just play without the offensive line? Have Green snap the ball into a backfield full of speedsters that go all playground on the defense. Might be fun to watch if nothing else.

 

[knapplc]

There are a lot of reasons behind why McNeill wasn't targeted last year. I certainly agree with you that I hope we don't ignore Reed this year, though. He's a tremendous weapon that we cannot ignore.

fortunately this year we have other weapons in Turner/Bell, etc.

Honestly - I think this is the most tallent in the skill positions I have seen in years. Rex/Abdulla/Turner/Bell/Reed. That's a VERY solid 5. We've been lucky to have 1-2 the last few years. Add in Martinez and this offense has the potential to be very dangerous. Add in the OL and this offense fizzles. :bang

I'm right there with you on the banging-my-head thing. We can even add Enunwa in there, who could play Dime if this whole WR thing doesn't work out after that hit he put on the FSU linebacker on Taylor's INT.

We gotta get that line solidified. We do that and this concern over 54 plays of 1 yard or less goes away.

 

[H2h]

Oregon's TOP is a bad comparison to most other teams in the country. It's like apples to oranges with their pace.

There average plays per game would be a much more relevant stat in my opinion. Oregon's offense doesnt just score fast in 1 big play, they consistently move the ball down the field, at a frenetic pace which exhausts the other teams defense, and scores fast. There is a significant difference in my opinion.

 

[knapplc]

Oregon's TOP is a bad comparison to most other teams in the country. It's like apples to oranges with their pace.

There average plays per game would be a much more relevant stat in my opinion. Oregon's offense doesnt just score fast in 1 big play, they consistently move the ball down the field, at a frenetic pace which exhausts the other teams defense, and scores fast. There is a significant difference in my opinion.

You're right, and it's not a great comparison. It's probably also not fair to use the #1 scoring offense, either. Oregon was the "Godwin's Law" example that everyone knows. It's also the brand/style/type of offense we're supposed to be moving towards. But is it a great comparison to an offense starting three underclassmen on the O Line, another at QB, and another at WR? No, you're right, it's not.

 

[Haspula]

Huskie fans are really confident they will win this one easily. :snacks:

 

[3rd and long]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Living on the big play will wear out your defense at some point. You are prone to many 3 and outs. We can't have our defense on the field the whole game.

I called this offense 'big play or bust' in October 2010 and took a little abuse. The two games this this year are deja vu as far as I'm concerned.

I hope I'm wrong, but the offense will be non existent several games this year.

 

[knapplc]

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that.

All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards.

Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team.

 

[3rd and long]

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that.

All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards.

Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team.

All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[tschu]

Huskie fans are really confident they will win this one easily. :snacks:

After seeing the collective sh#tstorm on this board the last week, I dont blame them

 

[NoDoubt]

Second game of a first year OC calling plays for the first time in a new offense with mostly underclassmen....I feel like we are moving in the right direction. I think we are improving from week to week and making adjustments during games.

The time of possession will come as we gel.

I'm very excited for us to reach our potential - especially with the limited speed I've seen in the Big Ten defenses this year.

 

[knapplc]

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that.

All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards.

Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team.

All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

The myriad of coaches over the years agree that to win, you need to outscore your opponent.

Yes or no - would you want Oregon's 2010 offense?

 

[bshirt]

I agree scoring points counts the most (by far) but TOP helps a lot. Until our Oline gels it'll be tough to get a decent TOP though.

Our wrs catching the ball would help. Tmart passing better would help. But no way around it.....we need a good OLine for a good TOP.

 

[zoogs]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

The big plays aren't the worrisome part. Its the 54 plays for 1 yard or less that is most alarming. And thats against Fresno and an FCS school.

Yes, the big plays are not the problem. It's the other 54.

Those big plays are liable to lessen some when we face stiffer competition, and can no longer get by on pure athletic talent.

Granted, 1-yard plays on 1st-and-goal, 2nd-and-1, or 3rd-and-1 situations are not negative. But if it isn't one of those situations, it's a big negative.

So far what something like this tells me is that we have the most misleadingly good statistics of probably any team in the nation. The averages are going to even things out, but the underlying story is that we struggle to get anything going at all, but then we hit the home run. Few would project the latter to continue happening at the rate it has been, and that is why this is something to worry about.

--

I was going to say I am not that worried about Reed, because McNeil was often the outlet/checkdown guy that Taylor never got to last year. And Reed is the deep threat.

But then I remembered the interception (0:28)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nXBkFXq2s&t=28s

 

[sd'sker]

this isn't good. it's not good for the offense and it's especially not good for the 'd'.