Game Thread: UCLA @ Oregon

[Tidefan1]

Notre Dame looked like a real powerhouse in the BCSCG when they came up against their first real opponent of the season.

To be fair, Notre Dame did beat the team that beat Oregon last year...

 

[bamabelle1991]

Really? It would be the least satisfying of the four, IMO. Texas and Notre Dame are traditional powerhouse programs with multiple NC's and LSU has been one of the best teams in the SEC for the last decade also with multiples NC's. Oregon is just Oregon.

Yes, Oregon is JUST Oregon, but they are obnoxiously obsessed with their "trendy" team. Being able to shut them up will be magical. We have heard for the last 4 years how good they are and it's time to show them their true colors.

 

[oregonbltzkrieg]

Yes, Oregon is JUST Oregon, but they are obnoxiously obsessed with their "trendy" team. Being able to shut them up will be magical. We have heard for the last 4 years how good they are and it's time to show them their true colors.

Bring it on, lol. It's time for Draco Malfoy to rise to the occasion and prove he's more than a second rate wizard.

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

All I know is that in the modern era, since Oregon's had their present "high octane" identity (basically since Chip Kelly joined the staff as offensive coordinator in 2007), Oregon's played 4 SEC teams. In those 4 games, they've beaten a 6-7 Tennessee in 2010, lost to an average at best defense in Auburn in 2010, lost soundly to a very good team and defense in LSU in 2011, and beat another bad Tennessee team this year (currently 4-4).

Looking at outcomes from their other pairings against quality physical teams who play good defense, we can look at Stanford since 2010, when Derek Mason was brought on as defensive coordinator. Since then, Oregon's 2-1 vs Stanford, winning in '10 and '11, and losing last year.

In those 7 games, they've compiled a 4-3 track record with an average score of 39-24. There's nothing in that 4-3 track record that indicates to me that they are an elite program that can favorably compete on a consistent year-in, year-out basis against quality opponents with good physical defenses.

If we throw out 2010 Tennessee (bad team), 2010 Auburn (bad defense), and 2013 Tennessee (bad team), we're left with a 2-2 record with an average score of 37-30 against 2010 Stanford, 2011 Stanford, 2011 LSU and 2012 Stanford. 2-2 against solid competition doesn't make you elite. Competitive? Yes. Good even? Yes. But elite? No.

Of course, all of that is history. That's not this year's team. But we really don't know anything about this year's team vs. a good, physical opponent with good, sound defense since they haven't yet played that opponent. Maybe we'll find out next week vs. Stanford.

But it bears noting that the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '10 also lost to Auburn the same year, and the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '11 also lost soundly to LSU in the same year. That's to say: Stanford alone is not a complete measuring stick. But it's the best we've got for now.

Bring 'em on. It's time to show them what they're made of.

 

[TideFan in AU]

Notre Dame looked like a real powerhouse in the BCSCG when they came up against their first real opponent of the season.

Most teams from other conferences usually look like this when they face SEC teams in NC games. The SEC is 9-0 in BCSNCG's.

 

[TideFan in AU]

All I know is that in the modern era, since Oregon's had their present "high octane" identity (basically since Chip Kelly joined the staff as offensive coordinator in 2007), Oregon's played 4 SEC teams. In those 4 games, they've beaten a 6-7 Tennessee in 2010, lost to an average at best defense in Auburn in 2010, lost soundly to a very good team and defense in LSU in 2011, and beat another bad Tennessee team this year (currently 4-4).

Looking at outcomes from their other pairings against quality physical teams who play good defense, we can look at Stanford since 2010, when Derek Mason was brought on as defensive coordinator. Since then, Oregon's 2-1 vs Stanford, winning in '10 and '11, and losing last year.

In those 7 games, they've compiled a 4-3 track record with an average score of 39-24. There's nothing in that 4-3 track record that indicates to me that they are an elite program that can favorably compete on a consistent year-in, year-out basis against quality opponents with good physical defenses.

If we throw out 2010 Tennessee (bad team), 2010 Auburn (bad defense), and 2013 Tennessee (bad team), we're left with a 2-2 record with an average score of 37-30 against 2010 Stanford, 2011 Stanford, 2011 LSU and 2012 Stanford. 2-2 against solid competition doesn't make you elite. Competitive? Yes. Good even? Yes. But elite? No.

Of course, all of that is history. That's not this year's team. But we really don't know anything about this year's team vs. a good, physical opponent with good, sound defense since they haven't yet played that opponent. Maybe we'll find out next week vs. Stanford.

But it bears noting that the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '10 also lost to Auburn the same year, and the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '11 also lost soundly to LSU in the same year. That's to say: Stanford alone is not a complete measuring stick. But it's the best we've got for now.

Bring 'em on. It's time to show them what they're made of.

I agree. I don't think Stanford is an accurate measuring stick at all really. They haven't even played a good SEC team yet, so I don't know why everybody automatically assumes they are a measuring stick of how good Oregon is, or worse yet, how they would fare against us. Stanford may be the most SEC-like team in the Pac-12, but I don't believe they are good enough to an elite SEC team.

For the record, I think Oregon is a better team than Stanford this year, and I expect them to beat them.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

Something that I just remembered: Davis Wade Capacity > Autzen. We are dealing with a real powerhouse here boys.

 

[BigBama76]

Hay guise what did I miss??? Oh. I know I'm an opposing team fan here so I'm not trying to troll, just put in my 2 cents. I know it gets annoying but from what little I've seen here, there's only a couple Duck fans posting that I know of. I know I respect the hell out of Alabama, and I think the other Oregon people here do as well, and we should. As for the idiots wearing "We Want Bama" T-shirts after week 3 (!!) against Tennessee...ugh. Those people made me cringe. Lot of football left to play.

The thing about the argument that Oregon gets shut down by elite defenses is...well, doesn't anybody get shut down by elite defenses? Not trying to be obtuse here. That's the reason why you're elite...because you limit what great offenses can do. So if an offense is truly elite, it has to prove that it can generate just enough points to overcome the elite D. It takes both defense and offense to win. You can have a high-flying offense but unless you have an excellent defense to back you up when you eventually sputter against a top opponent, you're not going to make it all the way.

I like what I'm seeing from the top 3 teams right now. So far, they've all been doing what they were supposed to do - beating up on lesser opponents and rising to the challenge against higher quality opponents. When Oregon's offense struggled yesterday, our defense did what it was supposed to do. The tackling certainly didn't look great at times in the first half, but the D made adjustments, tightened up and shut out UCLA in the 2nd half. We shall see how Oregon handles Stanford after the bye and if the Ducks are really as advertised, hopefully they win out. And if UCLA's any good, they'll beat the rest of the teams they play. If they faceplant, well, then the #12 ranking was undeserved and Oregon may have a lot to prove. As for Bama and Florida, I don't see either of them losing the remainder of their schedules. The iron bowl could be interesting...for a half. I think Alabama runs away with it. I think Miami has scraped by mediocre teams and will be exposed against FSU. But I could be wrong (I'm wrong a lot! haha)

I love what Alabama does. I love what Oregon does. I love that we have more than one style of football to watch, because it's interesting to see what each team does with it. Maybe if I'd grown up with SEC football I'd view it differently, but that's how I feel about it right now. We are fans, we have no control over what the teams do, but it can be fun to speculate about the "what-ifs."

I'm a superstitious fan and don't like to assume anything about the team I support. However, if we made it to the NCG and I had a choice of teams in the top 5 I thought we had the best chance of beating it would be Oregon.

As a player I was on both sides of blowouts as the winner and loser. They don't mean as much as fans would like to believe. Also, all blowout victories are not equal. A first half blowout is more meaningful than a second half blowout.

Blowouts against truly inferior opponents are basically meaningless and blowouts against relatively equal teams have more to do with the other teams mentality and motivation than either teams actual abilities.

 

[oregonbltzkrieg]

All I know is that in the modern era, since Oregon's had their present "high octane" identity (basically since Chip Kelly joined the staff as offensive coordinator in 2007), Oregon's played 4 SEC teams. In those 4 games, they've beaten a 6-7 Tennessee in 2010, lost to an average at best defense in Auburn in 2010, lost soundly to a very good team and defense in LSU in 2011, and beat another bad Tennessee team this year (currently 4-4).

I know how much you all hate the barn and won't admit that maybe, just possibly, they were actually good that year. So I won't go there.

Looking at outcomes from their other pairings against quality physical teams who play good defense, we can look at Stanford since 2010, when Derek Mason was brought on as defensive coordinator. Since then, Oregon's 2-1 vs Stanford, winning in '10 and '11, and losing last year. In those 7 games, they've compiled a 4-3 track record with an average score of 39-24. There's nothing in that 4-3 track record that indicates to me that they are an elite program that can favorably compete on a consistent year-in, year-out basis against quality opponents with good physical defenses.

The BCS disagrees with you, 4 consecutive years in a row.

If we throw out 2010 Tennessee (bad team), 2010 Auburn (bad defense), and 2013 Tennessee (bad team), we're left with a 2-2 record with an average score of 37-30 against 2010 Stanford, 2011 Stanford, 2011 LSU and 2012 Stanford. 2-2 against solid competition doesn't make you elite. Competitive? Yes. Good even? Yes. But elite? No.

No disrespect, but you can't throw out teams here and there and cherry pick based on 2 or 3 teams we've played and draw such broad conclusions. You all have played a very talented Texas A&M team so far this year, but who else? After you get through the gauntlet of LSU you will have a more impressive resume to talk about this year. We compete year in and year out and have been in 4 straight BCS bowls. If that doesn't qualify as elite, what does? We aren't Notre Dame, Kansas State, Texas, etc. We don't make big games then drop clear off the map the very next year. We've been among the best for several years now.

Of course, all of that is history. That's not this year's team. But we really don't know anything about this year's team vs. a good, physical opponent with good, sound defense since they haven't yet played that opponent. Maybe we'll find out next week vs. Stanford
But it bears noting that the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '10 also lost to Auburn the same year, and the same team that soundly beat Stanford in '11 also lost soundly to LSU in the same year. That's to say: Stanford alone is not a complete measuring stick. But it's the best we've got for now.

This paragraph is the only part of your post I can agree with.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

Bring it on, lol. It's time for Draco Malfoy to rise to the occasion and prove he's more than a second rate wizard.

I got a dog named Sirius Black.

 

[BigBama76]

No disrespect, but you can't throw out teams here and there and cherry pick based on 2 or 3 teams we've played and draw such broad conclusions. You all have played a very talented Texas A&M team so far this year, but who else? After you get through the gauntlet of LSU you will have a more impressive resume to talk about this year. We compete year in and year out and have been in 4 straight BCS bowls. If that doesn't qualify as elite, what does? We aren't Notre Dame, Kansas State, Texas, etc. We don't make big games then drop clear off the map the very next year. We've been among the best for several years now.

I think in hindsight we'll find that 3 of our first 4 games were against pretty good opponents. Even though VT lost Saturday they're still a good team, especially defensively. The team nobody right now is giving us much props for beating is Ole Miss. They played in succession Bama, Auburn, A&M and LSU. Now, that's a gauntlet for any team, but they played Auburn to the wire after losing to us then lost to A&M on a last second field goal and beat LSU the same way.

Ole Miss has a good chance of winning 10 games this year even with one of the toughest schedules of any FBS team. Had they played Oregon's last 8 opponents I'd have little doubt believing they'd be 8-0 right now as well.

The timing of our game with A&M also gets overlooked for people without a clue. Playing run-around-tackle with Johnny Football and his gang of misfits in 110+ degree Texas heat and winning is a BIG deal. Had Oregon played that game they'd probably have to forfeit after the first half for lack of players able to make it back on the field.

 

[oregonbltzkrieg]

I think in hindsight we'll find that 3 of our first 4 games were against pretty good opponents. Even though VT lost Saturday they're still a good team, especially defensively. The team nobody right now is giving us much props for beating is Ole Miss. They played in succession Bama, Auburn, A&M and LSU. Now, that's a gauntlet for any team, but they played Auburn to the wire after losing to us then lost to A&M on a last second field goal and beat LSU the same way.

Ole Miss has a good chance of winning 10 games this year even with one of the toughest schedules of any FBS team. Had they played Oregon's last 8 opponents I'd have little doubt believing they'd be 8-0 right now as well.

The timing of our game with A&M also gets overlooked for people without a clue. Playing run-around-tackle with Johnny Football and his gang of misfits in 110+ degree Texas heat and winning is a BIG deal. Had Oregon played that game they'd probably have to forfeit after the first half for lack of players able to make it back on the field.

Ole Miss is a good team if they can hang with the elite in your conference. We know the frustration. Just like people discount a Washington team that had to play Stanford, Oregon then AZ State. Two of those teams are in the top 5, the other team isn't all that bad. But I wouldn't say Ole Miss would be 8-0 in our conference. They would have two guaranteed losses, to us and Stanford. And there are a handful of other teams (UCLA, WA, AZ State, maybe even OSU) that are capable of beating them.

 

[TideFan in AU]

I know how much you all hate the barn and won't admit that maybe, just possibly, they were actually good that year. So I won't go there.

I don't think anybody is saying AU wasn't a good team in 2010, but the truth is that they just had a very average defense. They were ranked 54th in scoring defense and in total defense.
The allowed 26 to Arkansas State, 24 to Clemson, 27 to South Carolina, 34 to Kentucky, 43 to Arkansas, 31 to Ole Miss, 27 to Alabama, and 24 to Chattanooga.

They only had 4 other games out of 14 where they gave up less than the 19 points that Oregon scored on them.

Oregon was was averaging 47 PPG and 530 YPG that year, and they were shut down by an average SEC defense.

Of the 11 teams SEC teams since 1992 to win the NC, AU's 2010 defense was by far the worst unit of any of them. That's just the plain, documentable truth. It has nothing to do with our hate for AU.

That is one of the biggest reasons I'm skeptical about Oregon's style of offense until I see otherwise. You are guys are going to have to beat an elite SEC team to make me believe it.

 

[oregonbltzkrieg]

That is one of the biggest reasons I'm skeptical about Oregon's style of offense until I see otherwise. You are guys are going to have to beat an elite SEC team to make me believe it.

Fair enough. Hopefully we win out and get the chance.

 

[BigBama76]

Ole Miss is a good team if they can hang with the elite in your conference. We know the frustration. Just like people discount a Washington team that had to play Stanford, Oregon then AZ State. Two of those teams are in the top 5, the other team isn't all that bad. But I wouldn't say Ole Miss would be 8-0 in our conference. They would have two guaranteed losses, to us and Stanford. And there are a handful of other teams (UCLA, WA, AZ State, maybe even OSU) that are capable of beating them.

I compared Ole Miss playing your last 8 opponents, which obviously doesn't include Oregon or Stanford. I haven't seen AZ State but from what I've seen of the others you mentioned I'd have no problem talking Ole Miss straight up with them. UCLA and WA have not impressed me at all.

 

[kyallie]

Test.
I couldn't post on the game thread or pro sports, my son disabeled Whilokii, an adware program bundled with Fire Fox, weird.