Glad To See Chumps Like Patterson, and Peterson Exposed

[Dawgs0]

Nobody said that Tebow wasn't, but JSeahawks was talking about styles and being able to throw.
Masoli led the Ducks to the Rose Bowl in a pretty down year for the Pac 12. The conference now is way ahead of what it was in 2009. USC had a rough year, Stanford was pretty good, was Oregon's only conference loss if I remember correctly. He was a good player but not on the same level as Mariota. And he lost to Boise twice.

Who cares if you're a great thrower, if you're able to get the job done? Tebow and Masoli got the job done. In college it's about wins and you don't need to be a great passer to get wins. That's why Tebow and Masoli were successful. It's why Mariota will have more success on the next level. But, it doesn't change what they did in college. They were very successful in college. Tebow obviously more so, but Masoli was successful as well.

Is USC great now? Stanford is still pretty good. Not a lot has changed since 2009. There aren't a lot of elite level teams. Stanford and Oregon. UW and UCLA may be, though. We'll see. But, Mariota doesn't face a lot more challenges than Masoli did. If you replace Mariota with Masoli, do you believe the outcome would have changed against Boise? I don't know. It was a team loss.

 

[cesame]

Team loss? Boise St only scored 19pts. The defense held their own. Kellen Moore had a really average game.

It was the woeful offense that lost it. Masoli was 14/27 for 141 yards and an interception. He was terrible. Not even close to the same level passer as Thomas and Mariota.

The offense sucked in that game because Masoli couldn't complete simple passes, plus the fact Blount was the starter and LaMichael James hadn't started his dominance yet. It was not the same Duck team that we've seen the past 2-3 years. They were still good, but they're clearly not as good as the Thomas and Mariota teams. I've already proven that with the offensive numbers. IT WAS NOT OREGON AT THEIR BEST.

Keep arguing against something that's not really debatable, though.

 

[Dawgs0]

Team loss? Boise St only scored 19pts. The defense held their own. Kellen Moore had a really average game.

It was the woeful offense that lost it. Masoli was 14/27 for 141 yards and an interception. He was terrible. Not even close to the same level passer as Thomas and Mariota.

The offense sucked in that game because Masoli couldn't complete simple passes, plus the fact Blount was the starter and LaMichael James hadn't started his dominance yet. It was not the same Duck team that we've seen the past 2-3 years. They were still good, but they're clearly not as good as the Thomas and Mariota teams. I've already proven that with the offensive numbers. IT WAS NOT OREGON AT THEIR BEST.

Keep arguing against something that's not really debatable, though.

So, it was all on Masoli? You remind me of the people who blamed Keith Price when UW lost last year. The o-line or receivers or running game couldn't have been a factor? All Masoli? SMH. No credit to Justin Wilcox (Husky D-coord), who beat UO twice at Boise and shut down your offense?

 

[cesame]

Team loss? Boise St only scored 19pts. The defense held their own. Kellen Moore had a really average game.

It was the woeful offense that lost it. Masoli was 14/27 for 141 yards and an interception. He was terrible. Not even close to the same level passer as Thomas and Mariota.

The offense sucked in that game because Masoli couldn't complete simple passes, plus the fact Blount was the starter and LaMichael James hadn't started his dominance yet. It was not the same Duck team that we've seen the past 2-3 years. They were still good, but they're clearly not as good as the Thomas and Mariota teams. I've already proven that with the offensive numbers. IT WAS NOT OREGON AT THEIR BEST.

Keep arguing against something that's not really debatable, though.

So, it was all on Masoli? You remind me of the people who blamed Keith Price when UW lost last year. The o-line or receivers or running game couldn't have been a factor? All Masoli? SMH. No credit to Justin Wilcox (Husky D-coord), who beat UO twice at Boise and shut down your offense?

A large part of the loss was on Masoli, yes. Is that what you needed to hear to finally understand it?

Fact is, that 2009 Oregon team isn't on the same level as the teams in the following years, with QB play being a big reason why. That's just a fact that you can't refute.

 

[cesame]

At the end of the 2009 season Oregon was the 11th ranked team in the country

Since then they haven't finished out of the top 5

I'm sure this will be lost on you, though.

 

[Dawgs0]

At the end of the 2009 season Oregon was the 11th ranked team in the country

Since then they haven't finished out of the top 5

I'm sure this will be lost on you, though.

Who has denied that the teams have been better? They have been better. All I'm saying is that QB play isn't the only reason for that. Your teams have gotten better as well. Put Masoli on last years team and it's probably not much worse. It's still a contender. That's all I'm saying.

You're acting like the only difference between those teams is the QB position. Just so laughable. Do you really believe the rest of your team hasn't gotten better since then? DAT and some other great players weren't on that team. You've improved as a team, not just one position.

 

[cesame]

At the end of the 2009 season Oregon was the 11th ranked team in the country

Since then they haven't finished out of the top 5

I'm sure this will be lost on you, though.

Who has denied that the teams have been better? They have been better. All I'm saying is that QB play isn't the only reason for that. Your teams have gotten better as well. Put Masoli on last years team and it's probably not much worse. It's still a contender. That's all I'm saying.

You're acting like the only difference between those teams is the QB position. Just so laughable. Do you really believe the rest of your team hasn't gotten better since then? DAT and some other great players weren't on that team. You've improved as a team, not just one position.

So you agree that Oregon wasn't at their best in 2009. That was always my main point here, proving to you the Ducks weren't at their best when Boise St beat them.

And yes, the biggest difference in those teams is still the QB play. Again, not really debatable.

 

[Dawgs0]

At the end of the 2009 season Oregon was the 11th ranked team in the country

Since then they haven't finished out of the top 5

I'm sure this will be lost on you, though.

Who has denied that the teams have been better? They have been better. All I'm saying is that QB play isn't the only reason for that. Your teams have gotten better as well. Put Masoli on last years team and it's probably not much worse. It's still a contender. That's all I'm saying.

You're acting like the only difference between those teams is the QB position. Just so laughable. Do you really believe the rest of your team hasn't gotten better since then? DAT and some other great players weren't on that team. You've improved as a team, not just one position.

So you agree that Oregon weren't at their best in 2009. That was always my main point here, proving to you the Ducks weren't at their best when Boise St beat them.

And yes, the biggest difference in those teams is still the QB play. Again, not really debatable.

Do you deny that the Ducks should have beaten Boise, as the Ducks were a Rose Bowl team? Do you deny the Ducks were a great team in 2009?

The Ducks have added players like DAT and you believe the biggest diff is QB play? Masoli was good enough to get you where you wanted to go, if you had better pieces around them. I mean he got you to a Rose Bowl. Even Mariota (as a better player) hasn't managed that yet.

 

[cesame]

I certainly do deny the Ducks were a great team in 2009. They were pretty good, but not quite great, no.

They were fortunate to even get to the Rose Bowl in 2009. They played some pretty close games and almost lost to Oregon State at Autzen and went to OT to an unranked Arizona team on the road. They were by no means a great team.

Since then? Yeah, great teams. Darron Thomas threw to essentially the same receivers Masoli did, but put up way better numbers and took the Ducks to the NC. There was no De'Anthony Thomas that season. Darron Thomas, throwing to the same receivers, had a 30/9 TD/INT ratio. Masoli with the same group the previous year? 15-6. And Darron Thomas only had 50 more passing attempts that season, too.

The Ducks went to the next level when they were able to add a better passing attack to their awesome run game, and have been a regular in the top 5 ever since. QB play makes all the difference in football.

 

[Dawgs0]

I certainly do deny the Ducks were a great team in 2009. They were pretty good, but not quite great, no.

They were fortunate to even get to the Rose Bowl in 2009. They played some pretty close games and almost lost to Oregon State at Autzen and went to OT to an unranked Arizona team on the road. They were by no means a great team.

Since then? Yeah, great teams. Darron Thomas threw to essentially the same receivers Masoli did, but put up way better numbers and took the Ducks to the NC. There was no De'Anthony Thomas that season. Darron Thomas, throwing to the same receivers, had a 30/9 TD/INT ratio. Masoli with the same group the previous year? 15-6. And Darron Thomas only had 50 more passing attempts that season, too.

The Ducks went to the next level when they were able to add a better passing attack to their awesome run game, and have been a regular in the top 5 ever since. QB play makes all the difference in football.

IMO, most great teams have close games. Any team that goes 10-3 and wins the PAC and goes to a Rose Bowl has to be called a great team. It's a great accomplishment to go to the Rose Bowl. They weren't outstanding or legendary, but they were great.

BTW, players get much better over a year of college football. An example is the UW receiving corps' and offensive line's improvement since last year. I'd bet that those receivers got a lot better over the year and after the change from Masoli to Thomas.

The QB change does make a huge difference, but those receivers likely got a lot better. There are many factors in a QBs play. His ability is not the only factor. The talent around him is a huge factor. Keith Price's performance drop from '11 to '12, was not all his fault. His weapons got worse. Thomas' weapons were likely better.

If Thomas was a better QB then why didn't he start in 2009, instead of redshirting, after playing as a true freshman in 2008? You can't tell me Chip Kelly redshirted the QB he knew was better. Chip is much better than that. He would have started Thomas as a sophomore, if he knew he was better.

 

[JSeahawks]

Yea, i'm going to be pretty pissed if Louisville somehow gets into the BCS title game this year. Bridgewater is pretty damn good though. I would take any Pac 12, Big 12, SEC one loss team over an undefeated Louisville.

Be prepared to be pissed. I think this is the last year the Big Least, and Louisville, has that BCS shoe in. Bridgewater is good. I just want him tested. I was laughing at their schedule. The last week I think they play Cinci who is marginal. I heard over half the teams they play this season lost week 1 lol.

I always enjoy talking to you, good luck to the Ducks. I mean that. Mariota is no joke, the more I learn about him I like. And I like the Ducks schedule this year. Virginia, and Tennessee are quality unlike last years non conference. Tennessee is down right now, but Oregon couldn't have seen that coming.

I think Louisville will definitely be in a BCS bowl game, but hopefully they won't be in the BCS title game. The sad thing is, if you look at Ohio State's schedule, its not much tougher then Louisvilles, and Ohio State probably will be in the title game if they go undefeated.

 

[SharkHawk]

This is officially sad. Is this where ESPN's former posters are creeping to? It's going to be a looooong season.

 

[Scottemojo]

The SEC. Almost all the best athletes. And none of the quarterbacks. Great to watch, but still kinda sucks.

 

[cesame]

I certainly do deny the Ducks were a great team in 2009. They were pretty good, but not quite great, no.

They were fortunate to even get to the Rose Bowl in 2009. They played some pretty close games and almost lost to Oregon State at Autzen and went to OT to an unranked Arizona team on the road. They were by no means a great team.

Since then? Yeah, great teams. Darron Thomas threw to essentially the same receivers Masoli did, but put up way better numbers and took the Ducks to the NC. There was no De'Anthony Thomas that season. Darron Thomas, throwing to the same receivers, had a 30/9 TD/INT ratio. Masoli with the same group the previous year? 15-6. And Darron Thomas only had 50 more passing attempts that season, too.

The Ducks went to the next level when they were able to add a better passing attack to their awesome run game, and have been a regular in the top 5 ever since. QB play makes all the difference in football.

IMO, most great teams have close games. Any team that goes 10-3 and wins the PAC and goes to a Rose Bowl has to be called a great team. It's a great accomplishment to go to the Rose Bowl. They weren't outstanding or legendary, but they were great.

BTW, players get much better over a year of college football. An example is the UW receiving corps' and offensive line's improvement since last year. I'd bet that those receivers got a lot better over the year and after the change from Masoli to Thomas.

The QB change does make a huge difference, but those receivers likely got an lot better. There are many factors in a QBs play. His ability is not the only factor. The talent around him is a huge factor. Keith Price's performance drop from '11 to '12, was not all his fault. His weapons got worse. Thomas' weapons were likely better.
J
If Thomas was a better QB then why didn't he start in 2009, instead of redshirting, after playing as a true freshman in 2008? You can't tell me Chip Kelly redshirted the QB he knew was better. Chip is much better than that. He would have started Thomas as a sophomore, if he knew he was better.

I'm starting to get the feeling you didn't actually watch the Oregon teams I've brought up. You using wiki was my first clue, but I let it go. Now it seems pretty obvious.

Basically all you've done is make assumptions. You've really brought nothing to the table and you're pretty much just talking out of your ass. The only thing you're good at is ignoring basically anything I posted that shows the Ducks went to the next level after Masoli. Good job on that I guess.

 

[Stoned Cold]

The SEC. Almost all the best athletes. And none of the quarterbacks. Great to watch, but still kinda sucks.

Haters gonna hate. Honestly what conference has more QB talent than the SEC? Manziel, Murray, Mettenberg, and McCarron?

You must like that spread, dink and dunk football. You and Sheldon Richardson need to get together and form an anti old man football group. See how that works out for you when the SEC front lines mash you. Turn you into a pass predictable team and jam you on the line. Yeah, that kinda sucks.

 

[HawkWow]

Unsure how much of this should be put on Peterson. Re-watching the game, BSU was constantly positioned for success, but the players just failed to execute. Too many dropped passes and / or passes just off the mark. That game could have been much closer with just a couple more conversions (or stops).

I felt the officials were also very friendly to us Sat night. They let our DBs play like Kam and Browner out there. That went both ways, but I believe we benefitted more.

I am tempering my hopes right now. BSU had some ridiculously long drives that stalled just inches from pay dirt. Wilcox has done a fantastic job with this D, but we need to get better...especially against the run, if we are going to continue up the ranks.

I can't wait to see ASJ in this offense. Price is really spreading the ball around, but I could still see 900 yds & 12 TDs for the future Hawk.

 

[Scottemojo]

The SEC. Almost all the best athletes. And none of the quarterbacks. Great to watch, but still kinda sucks.

Haters gonna hate. Honestly what conference has more QB talent than the SEC? Manziel, Murray, Mettenberg, and McCarron?

You must like that spread, dink and dunk football. You and Sheldon Richardson need to get together and form an anti old man football group. See how that works out for you when the SEC front lines mash you. Turn you into a pass predictable team and jam you on the line. Yeah, that kinda sucks.

Sorry. I meant guys who are going to be good in the NFL.

 

[DTexHawk]

Sorry. I meant guys who are going to be good in the NFL.

Let's see, there are 300 or so college QB's every year, roughly 75-100 become eligible for the NFL, and probably less than 5 ever play in the NFL.

A college coaches/recruiters job is to find an 18 year old who can excel and win at the college level within the parameters of their team.

How many can project what an 18 year old will do 4-5 years later in the NFL?

 

[Scottemojo]

Sorry. I meant guys who are going to be good in the NFL.

Let's see, there are 300 or so college QB's every year, roughly 75-100 become eligible for the NFL, and probably less than 5 ever play in the NFL.

A college coaches/recruiters job is to find an 18 year old who can excel and win at the college level within the parameters of their team.

How many can project what an 18 year old will do 4-5 years later in the NFL?

You are not wrong. I'm just trying to irritate that guy.

 

[DTexHawk]

You are not wrong. I'm just trying to irritate that guy.

I thought that was my job.