Oregon vs Ohio state

[JSeahawks]

right, my initial point being that the point of attack is something that Oregon, or any of the Pac 12 schools, will ever be able to control against these big SEC and Big Ten (OSU at this point) schools. This is recruiting (which we agree on). Why its recruiting is something we seem to differ on.

Oregon obviously can recruit outside the state. why talented o-linemen choose somewhere else isnt just about location, its about what opportunities it brings those players. this has been true of college football players for decades. Nebraska used to have the best power running program in the nation. did the state suddenly stop producing elite linemen?

bemoaning the "advantages" one college has in recruiting while stocking your roster with a high number of players from throughout the country just because of your name brand is a bit disingenuous.

You obviously dint follow oregon recruiting very closely. Yea we get guys from around the country but if we go into ohio were not beating ohio stAte in recruiting battles. When we go to Southern California we rarely win head to head recruiting battles against USC or ucla (we actually seem to do better against USC for some reason. It seems like Oregon pursued ucla's entire roster), we pick from their leftovers. I'm sure it's the same for Arizona state, who I believe is your team if I remember correctly.

 

[Seahawks1983]

right, my initial point being that the point of attack is something that Oregon, or any of the Pac 12 schools, will ever be able to control against these big SEC and Big Ten (OSU at this point) schools. This is recruiting (which we agree on). Why its recruiting is something we seem to differ on.

Oregon obviously can recruit outside the state. why talented o-linemen choose somewhere else isnt just about location, its about what opportunities it brings those players. this has been true of college football players for decades. Nebraska used to have the best power running program in the nation. did the state suddenly stop producing elite linemen?

bemoaning the "advantages" one college has in recruiting while stocking your roster with a high number of players from throughout the country just because of your name brand is a bit disingenuous.

You obviously dint follow oregon recruiting very closely. Yea we get guys from around the country but if we go into ohio were not beating ohio stAte in recruiting battles. When we go to Southern California we rarely win head to head recruiting battles against USC or ucla (we actually seem to do better against USC for some reason. It seems like Oregon pursued ucla's entire roster), we pick from their leftovers. I'm sure it's the same for Arizona state, who I believe is your team if I remember correctly.

Bingo.

The best of the best still aren't choosing Oregon. They likely never will, either.

 

[Uncle Si]

right, my initial point being that the point of attack is something that Oregon, or any of the Pac 12 schools, will ever be able to control against these big SEC and Big Ten (OSU at this point) schools. This is recruiting (which we agree on). Why its recruiting is something we seem to differ on.

Oregon obviously can recruit outside the state. why talented o-linemen choose somewhere else isnt just about location, its about what opportunities it brings those players. this has been true of college football players for decades. Nebraska used to have the best power running program in the nation. did the state suddenly stop producing elite linemen?

bemoaning the "advantages" one college has in recruiting while stocking your roster with a high number of players from throughout the country just because of your name brand is a bit disingenuous.

You obviously dint follow oregon recruiting very closely. Yea we get guys from around the country but if we go into ohio were not beating ohio stAte in recruiting battles. When we go to Southern California we rarely win head to head recruiting battles against USC or ucla, we pick from their leftovers.

and yet you are the winningest team in college football over the last 5 years?

i fully understand how recruiting works, and its regional attractions. but the "whoa is us" card is complete BS. Oregon has just about its pick of nearly any player west of the Mississippi. out of the 105 players listed on your roster (via UofO's website), 23 of them are from Oregon..youve managed to create a west coast dynasty filling 75% of your roster from other states and yet you're picking leftovers? hell, 43 of them are from California? how do you keep beating SC, Stanford, UCLA and Cal if you're picking up the players they dont want? when SC and Washington were winning national titles with west coast players how did they do it?

all we keep hearing about is the genius of Oregon football and its ascension to the national stage and superiority over its regional rivals. you guys get your ass handed to you by a midwest team and now you cant get the best players?

jesus christ, you guys are full of it.

 

[JSeahawks]

right, my initial point being that the point of attack is something that Oregon, or any of the Pac 12 schools, will ever be able to control against these big SEC and Big Ten (OSU at this point) schools. This is recruiting (which we agree on). Why its recruiting is something we seem to differ on.

Oregon obviously can recruit outside the state. why talented o-linemen choose somewhere else isnt just about location, its about what opportunities it brings those players. this has been true of college football players for decades. Nebraska used to have the best power running program in the nation. did the state suddenly stop producing elite linemen?

bemoaning the "advantages" one college has in recruiting while stocking your roster with a high number of players from throughout the country just because of your name brand is a bit disingenuous.

You obviously dint follow oregon recruiting very closely. Yea we get guys from around the country but if we go into ohio were not beating ohio stAte in recruiting battles. When we go to Southern California we rarely win head to head recruiting battles against USC or ucla, we pick from their leftovers.

and yet you are the winningest team in college football over the last 5 years?

i fully understand how recruiting works, and its regional attractions. but the "whoa is us" card is complete BS. Oregon has just about its pick of nearly any player west of the Mississippi. out of the 105 players listed on your roster (via UofO's website), 23 of them are from Oregon..youve managed to create a west coast dynasty filling 75% of your roster from other states and yet you're picking leftovers? hell, 43 of them are from California? how do you keep beating SC, Stanford, UCLA and Cal if you're picking up the players they dont want? when SC and Washington were winning national titles with west coast players how did they do it?

jesus christ, you guys are full of it.

We win because of the system and better coaches. Go back and look at recruiting rankings. It's all on the Internet. Oregon does not get great recruiting classes.

No woe is me from me. I'm happy with where the program is. But to pretend being in Eugene is not a disadvantage to being in southern cal, Ohio, Texas or Florida is just silly.

 

[Uncle Si]

the same system that was just run over by OSU?

recruiting rankings mean f--- all until the players play. you're smarter than that. thats the same thing as a draft grade from Mel Kiper

players go where they will get the most exposure. again, it wouldnt take much to go back and repost your incessant back patting threads on the greatness of UO football. now its coaching and system? OSU gets talented O-linemen because the system makes them better. so where is the disadvantage? all this seems like are excuses to the question at hand.

Anyways, that was my point to begin with. that system wont win a national championship.

 

[cesame]

Acting like recruiting isn't a big reason why the Ducks can't get over the hump is an ignorant take.

If they were to win last night, they would have been the only team since the start of the BCS era to win a NT and not regularly recruit in the top 10. That's quite the stat.

Recruiting matters.

 

[Uncle Si]

Acting like recruiting isn't a big reason why the Ducks can't get over the hump is an ignorant take.

If they were to win last night, they would have been the only team since the start of the BCS era to win a NT and not regularly recruit in the top 10. That's quite the stat.

Recruiting matters.

and yet, again, theyve won more games than any team in college football over the last 5 years.

seriously, which is it?

either they didnt belong in the top 4 and were gifted it because the west coast is just bad at football while the rest of the nation is beating the crap out of each other and taking two losses... or they are recruiting just fine.

ignorance indeed.

Oregon has the 10th most players currently active in the NFL. USC is 1, Miami 2, LSU 3, Alabama 4, etc.

again, you're getting the players you want. they just arent the players to win a national championship.

 

[cesame]

Acting like recruiting isn't a big reason why the Ducks can't get over the hump is an ignorant take.

If they were to win last night, they would have been the only team since the start of the BCS era to win a NT and not regularly recruit in the top 10. That's quite the stat.

Recruiting matters.

and yet, again, theyve won more games than any team in college football over the last 5 years.

seriously, which is it?

either they didnt belong in the top 4 and were gifted it because the west coast is just bad at football while the rest of the nation is beating the crap out of each other and taking two losses... or they are recruiting just fine.

ignorance indeed.

They recruit better than a lot of the teams they play. Oregon has only lost 3 times since 2009 to teams ranked lower than them in recruiting. (Arizona 2x, Boise State)

But when it comes to the true elite in college football (LSU, Auburn, Ohio State) those teams recruit better than Oregon and have better athletes. That's not up for debate. Oregon does not have a good record against teams that recruit better than them.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Acting like recruiting isn't a big reason why the Ducks can't get over the hump is an ignorant take.

If they were to win last night, they would have been the only team since the start of the BCS era to win a NT and not regularly recruit in the top 10. That's quite the stat.

Recruiting matters.

and yet, again, theyve won more games than any team in college football over the last 5 years.

seriously, which is it?

either they didnt belong in the top 4 and were gifted it because the west coast is just bad at football while the rest of the nation is beating the crap out of each other and taking two losses... or they are recruiting just fine.

ignorance indeed.

Oregon has the 10th most players currently active in the NFL. USC is 1, Miami 2, LSU 3, Alabama 4, etc.

again, you're getting the players you want. they just arent the players to win a national championship.

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

 

[JSeahawks]

Acting like recruiting isn't a big reason why the Ducks can't get over the hump is an ignorant take.

If they were to win last night, they would have been the only team since the start of the BCS era to win a NT and not regularly recruit in the top 10. That's quite the stat.

Recruiting matters.

and yet, again, theyve won more games than any team in college football over the last 5 years.

seriously, which is it?

either they didnt belong in the top 4 and were gifted it because the west coast is just bad at football while the rest of the nation is beating the crap out of each other and taking two losses... or they are recruiting just fine.

ignorance indeed.

Sometimes team is better then individual. You can't honestly tell me that you think oregon has more talent on its roster then USC. If you believe that then this conversation isn't even worth having.

Yes, Oregon has been great because they have a great system and put their players into position to succeed on the field. Yes, when oregon plays the best if the best they've physically gotten their asses kicked by bigger, better athletes.

I'm not looking for pity, not making excuses, it's just a fact.

 

[Uncle Si]

J, understand what you're saying about team and system. but again, if they cant recruit better than those teams, than how are they in the national championship. By the rankings, Oregon was 26th last year. yet they beat 5 teams who were ranked higher than them last year. so recruiting didnt matter against those teams? why would it matter against OSU?

i dont understand the arguments being made to support Oregon here. On the one hand the forum is inundated with the awesomeness of UofO football. and yet this thread has turned into an excuse why they cant compete.

recruiting "stars" are speculation on high school football players. lets not make more of that than it is. Oregons success has proven that. are you telling me that Notre Dame's 10th ranked recruiting class means that they are better than Oregon? ASU? Miami? USC? (to your example) you wouldnt like your matchup with those recruiting juggernauts? Is Oregon's roster better than those teams? you cant pick and choose when it works

again, which is it?

the point was that their offensive system isnt a matchup for the way SEC and OSU play. And I wonder if that will impact the rest of the conference. you can extrapolate selected data to support your rationale for Oregon's loss.

 

[Uncle Si]

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

Oregon sucks... basically

kidding

i just dont believe that Oregon's "talent level" is as far behind as some are making it. Because if it was, how are they able to be so good? it cant just be coaching and system.

i feel like last night's game was the end of an era in the Pac 12. or atleast the beginning of one. does that make sense? just a feeling that other Pac 12 schools may start drifting back to the way their programs were developed in the 80s and mid 90s

(and it most certainly is a d--- move to do it the day after they lose... so i will stop)

 

[JSeahawks]

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

Oregon sucks... basically

kidding

i just dont believe that Oregon's "talent level" is as far behind as some are making it. Because if it was, how are they able to be so good? it cant just be coaching and system.

i feel like last night's game was the end of an era in the Pac 12. or atleast the beginning of one. does that make sense? just a feeling that other Pac 12 schools may start drifting back to the way their programs were developed in the 80s and mid 90s

(and it most certainly is a d--- move to do it the day after they lose... so i will stop)

Putting oregom tecruiting aside, USC will be the case study in a few years. Sark is running a lot of the same principles that Oregon uses but he'll be doing it with elite talent. Luckily for the rest of the PAC 12 I think he's a crappy coach. The PAC 12 has definitely swung in favor of the spread... 5 years ago oregon was the only one running it, now basically everybody except Stanford and Oregon state run some version of it. With the current crop of PAC 12 coaches I don't see it going anywhere.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

Oregon sucks... basically

kidding

i just dont believe that Oregon's "talent level" is as far behind as some are making it. Because if it was, how are they able to be so good? it cant just be coaching and system.

i feel like last night's game was the end of an era in the Pac 12. or atleast the beginning of one. does that make sense? just a feeling that other Pac 12 schools may start drifting back to the way their programs were developed in the 80s and mid 90s

(and it most certainly is a d--- move to do it the day after they lose... so i will stop)

I'm not an Oregon fan so I don't really care or get offended by the timing of the conversation.

That said, Oregon is a great program, but they are not on the same level as the blue bloods of the sport. They are probably the top team in that next tier, but the blue bloods will always be a step up from them. The level of parity in college football is pretty small. In any given year, only 1 out of 8-10 chosen schools can actually expect to win a championship. Schools outside of this group have come close, but always seem to hit the glass ceiling (Oregon, Virginia Tech, etc.)

 

[Seahawks1983]

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

Oregon sucks... basically

kidding

i just dont believe that Oregon's "talent level" is as far behind as some are making it. Because if it was, how are they able to be so good? it cant just be coaching and system.

i feel like last night's game was the end of an era in the Pac 12. or atleast the beginning of one. does that make sense? just a feeling that other Pac 12 schools may start drifting back to the way their programs were developed in the 80s and mid 90s

(and it most certainly is a d--- move to do it the day after they lose... so i will stop)

Putting oregom tecruiting aside, USC will be the case study in a few years. Sark is running a lot of the same principles that Oregon uses but he'll be doing it with elite talent. Luckily for the rest of the PAC 12 I think he's a crappy coach. The PAC 12 has definitely swung in favor of the spread... 5 years ago oregon was the only one running it, now basically everybody except Stanford and Oregon state run some version of it. With the current crop of PAC 12 coaches I don't see it going anywhere.

WSU was running a version of the spread when Dennis Erickson showed up in 1987. He won a national title with it at Miami in 1989 and 1991.

 

[Sports Hernia]

And the riots are on in Columbus. Honest question, was there any rioting in Seattle after we won it last year? I honestly can't remember.

http://oregon.247sports.com/Bolt/Buckey ... n-34698957

Nothing major. Pretty mellow for the most part. Most of us were just drunk and happy walking around with perm-a-grins for the next 3 months. XLVIII still is my happy place, nothing but great memories.

 

[Uncle Si]

Am I the only person who is completely lost on what this guy is arguing?

Oregon sucks... basically

kidding

i just dont believe that Oregon's "talent level" is as far behind as some are making it. Because if it was, how are they able to be so good? it cant just be coaching and system.

i feel like last night's game was the end of an era in the Pac 12. or atleast the beginning of one. does that make sense? just a feeling that other Pac 12 schools may start drifting back to the way their programs were developed in the 80s and mid 90s

(and it most certainly is a d--- move to do it the day after they lose... so i will stop)

Putting oregom tecruiting aside, USC will be the case study in a few years. Sark is running a lot of the same principles that Oregon uses but he'll be doing it with elite talent. Luckily for the rest of the PAC 12 I think he's a crappy coach. The PAC 12 has definitely swung in favor of the spread... 5 years ago oregon was the only one running it, now basically everybody except Stanford and Oregon state run some version of it. With the current crop of PAC 12 coaches I don't see it going anywhere.

and i think thats what I was trying to get at... OSU, Bama, the SEC's power running approach has led to national titles. Even USC's Carroll teams were heavy on the run.

I wonder if the Pac 12 coaches adjust. I dont expect Oregon to, but would a UW or ASU adjust their set up seeing that it has its benefits against spread offenses?

One thing is for sure, while offensive philosophies change and new, innovative plans run up the scoreboard, basic power football still seems to be winning the majority of championships

 

[CPHawk]

Ohio State defense= basically the college version of the Seahawks.

No. Any D will look great vs a team missing it's top OL, top 3 WR and top TE. At some point it was going to catch up to UO, and it did. Nothing against OSU, the running game destroyed our D, but don't put this win on the OSU D. OSU was the beter team, but come on man.

 

[Uncle Si]

complete hypothetical for Duck fans:

how do you think your team fares against:

Bama?
TCU?

different teams, different strengths, different problems?

 

[JSeahawks]

complete hypothetical for Duck fans:

how do you think your team fares against:

Bama?
TCU?

different teams, different strengths, different problems?

I think we would have scored more on bama then we did on Ohio state, they seem to have problems again fast paced spread offenses and I don't think this years Alabama team was as good as their usual teams. I'm guessing we would have had a hard time stopping them as we'll though. I think it might have been a high scoring, last team with the ball wins type situation.

Cant really comment on tcu as I didn't see enough of them to know what they're all about, though I know they were damn good this year. My impression is that they're a better version of ucla, who's style we usually do really well against.