Stanford vs Oregon

[seahawk2k]

Nebraska didn't have any undefeated seasons during that titleless window, and FSU had one undefeated season in all of Bowden's time there, the epic Chris Weinke, Peter Warrick season. If you are talking about undefeated regular seasons, then yes, you are correct.

I'm not just talking about you, I'm talking about most of the Husky fans on here. The constant eagerness to demean Oregon smacks of insecurity.

 

[Tical21]

JSeahawks nailed it

Be proud of your tradition. Just don't use it as some argument as why this run Oregon has been on means anything less. Idk how many times I've seen Husky fans bring up the early 90's and use it as some kind of argument against this current Oregon team. It's dumb comparing teams 25 years apart.

Ultimately what matters right now is what the teams have done lately. And between the two it isn't even close. It's actually closer between Oregon and Oregon State than it is between Oregon and Washington.

The good times in the 90's were great, but at some point you have to start making more history, and how you play in rivalry games DOES MATTER. Losing 10 in a row is damning.

Small man's syndrome much? You called out Husky fans for being haters and enjoying when Oregon loses. All I did was point out that for most of my life, Oregon fans were the exact same way, probably even worse. Show me where I brought up previous Husky success as a way to bring down the current Oregon run? All I did was point out hypocritical logic.

Oregon is annoying as heck,and losing to them every year churns my stomach unlike anything else can in sports, but I don't worry about them in the grand scheme. They'll have their cute little run, their offense will get solved, and they'll be right back to mediocre for most of the rest of your life. Right where they've almost always been. As JSeahawks eloquently pointed out, they're Oregon, after all.

 

[JSeahawks]

Just remember, if UO's offense gets solved, that means UW's offense is solved as well.

 

[fenderbender123]

You called out Husky fans for being haters and enjoying when Oregon loses. All I did was point out that for most of my life, Oregon fans were the exact same way, probably even worse.

This.

And even when the Huskies weren't good and went 0-12, I recall waves upon waves of Duck and Cougar fans on the Husky forums making fun of it.

I think it's one of the best aspects of sports. Develop a rivalry or some sort of hatred of a team...and you just found a new team to root for every week, which is their opponent.

 

[JSeahawks]

Can't believe the horrible Pac 12 officials never caught Stanford with illegal formation or too many men on the field penalties.

 

[Tical21]

Just remember, if UO's offense gets solved, that means UW's offense is solved as well.

I never liked you.

 

[Hawkman80]

I'm a new member here. I am shocked that Stanford beat Oregon. However, what I don't like is the Huskies losing to both teams, especially Stanford. So close, but yet so far. Had they beat both teams, they'd be sitting pretty at the top of the North Division in their conference, with a possible ranking at 15 - 20. Had they beat Arizona State, that would've been 10 - 15.

At any rate, good luck to the Duck fans the rest of the season - the Rose Bowl is still up for grabs.

 

[HawkWow]

JSeahawks nailed it

Be proud of your tradition. Just don't use it as some argument as why this run Oregon has been on means anything less. Idk how many times I've seen Husky fans bring up the early 90's and use it as some kind of argument against this current Oregon team. It's dumb comparing teams 25 years apart.

Ultimately what matters right now is what the teams have done lately. And between the two it isn't even close. It's actually closer between Oregon and Oregon State than it is between Oregon and Washington.

The good times in the 90's were great, but at some point you have to start making more history, and how you play in rivalry games DOES MATTER. Losing 10 in a row is damning.

It's only damning as far as the last 10 years go. I'm afraid you're missing the point in all of this rivalry stuff bro. It's not about today's team.. or even yesterday's team. It's about two schools fighting for ultimate, historical supremacy. This is why Dawg fans continue to have the upper hand in the series. We've beat UO more times than UO has beat us. We've won 2 Nattys, UO, none.

I bet when Alabama fans get in arguments with Auburn fans they're not talking about the Bear Bryant era. When Ohio State fans get into arguments with Penn State or Michigan fans I bet they're not bragging about the Woody Hayes era. And they have way more history then Washington does.

Personally I couldn't care less what the all time series is between Oregon and any other school. I want Scoreboard in the here and present. I'm assuming that Oregon has a better history then Oregon State does but I've never once talked to a Beaver fan about it when talking Civil War smack, because it doesn't matter to me what happened 20 years ago.

I mean, I guess I cant speak for everybody, but i'd much rather be a fan of the team having the current success then be a fan of the team that relies on ancient history.

Fair enough JSea...but your current history is no rival to our past. No matter how you look at it. That's my point. You're getting into some age sensitive material that diminishes the very culture of college football. It would be practically impossible for today's young OSU fans to share memories of Hayes. But the older fans? Of course they still speak of Hayes (Bryant and Bo). I'm not a kid, so of course I think of James when I think U-Dub football. I would rather remember riding my first wave than remember the first time I slammed my thumb in a car door. LOL. The ability to do so allows our species to both survive and evolve. Go Dawgs.

 

[JDSeahawks]

Good lord, the duck honks in this thread and their excuses...

First, NO, if UO makes a play or two early they don't win going away. Stanford flat out dominated the ducks on both lines of scrimmage all game long. It was mentioned if DAT would have not fumbled the game totally changes, but in reality, at that time it was already 14-0 Stanford, scoring there would have hardly thrown Stanford off its power running game.

The reality is, Oregon was shut down and pretty lucky to get a blocked FG return and onside kick recovery leading to points. Both of those are VERY rare and lucky events.

Don't try to give the ol' Bellotti spin and excuses duck fans...they got dominated pretty much all game. Oregon was lucky to get some late points to make the game seem closer than what it was. Otherwise, it would have been around a 26-7 final score.

 

[JSeahawks]

Good lord, the duck honks in this thread and their excuses...

First, NO, if UO makes a play or two early they don't win going away. Stanford flat out dominated the ducks on both lines of scrimmage all game long. It was mentioned if DAT would have not fumbled the game totally changes, but in reality, at that time it was already 14-0 Stanford, scoring there would have hardly thrown Stanford off its power running game.

The reality is, Oregon was shut down and pretty lucky to get a blocked FG return and onside kick recovery leading to points. Both of those are VERY rare and lucky events.

Don't try and spin and give excuses...the Ducks got dominated all game. Oregon was lucky to get some late lucky points to make the game seem closer than what it was. Otherwise it would have been around a 26-7 final score.

First of all, I don't see any Duck honks making excuses. I see them mentioning how it might have gone differently but acknowledging that we got our asses kicked.

Forget the DAT fumble. The Ducks lost the game long before that. You're telling me if the Ducks were up 14-0 (they had easy scoring opportunities on both of their first 2 drives but didn't execute... mariota underthrew Huff on a potential TD the first drive, Addison turned over the wrong shoulder on 4th down the 2nd drive. Neither of those had anything to do with Stanfords D dominating them) that it wouldn't have been a completely different game?

If the Ducks are up 14, as they very easily could have been, then Stanfords domination in the trenches is completely negated and its a completely different style of football game. They would no longer have been able to just pound away as they did. This game was lost by the Ducks skill players not executing available plays, it was not lost by the guys in the trenches getting dominated (although they did and will every time if Stanford is allowed to play that style of game with the lead).

 

[JDSeahawks]

Good lord, the duck honks in this thread and their excuses...

First, NO, if UO makes a play or two early they don't win going away. Stanford flat out dominated the ducks on both lines of scrimmage all game long. It was mentioned if DAT would have not fumbled the game totally changes, but in reality, at that time it was already 14-0 Stanford, scoring there would have hardly thrown Stanford off its power running game.

The reality is, Oregon was shut down and pretty lucky to get a blocked FG return and onside kick recovery leading to points. Both of those are VERY rare and lucky events.

Don't try and spin and give excuses...the Ducks got dominated all game. Oregon was lucky to get some late lucky points to make the game seem closer than what it was. Otherwise it would have been around a 26-7 final score.

First of all, I don't see any Duck honks making excuses. I see them mentioning how it might have gone differently but acknowledging that we got our asses kicked.

Forget the DAT fumble. The Ducks lost the game long before that. You're telling me if the Ducks were up 14-0 (they had easy scoring opportunities on both of their first 2 drives but didn't execute... mariota underthrew Huff on a potential TD the first drive, Addison turned over the wrong shoulder on 4th down the 2nd drive. Neither of those had anything to do with Stanfords D dominating them) that it wouldn't have been a completely different game?

That fade was a bad 4th down call and really not close to being a TD. Yes, Ducks could have had a FG there to maybe make it 10-0 if Mariota makes the earlier pass.

Even if they might have got it to 14-0, Stanford was not about to go off its power run game that early, you are delusional if you think so. They dominated both lines, so Stanford still would have gone ahead and controlled the game from then on.

 

[Tical21]

Dude, are you trolling yourself? What is going on here?

 

[HawkWow]

Not piling on UO here (cuz I know they would never pile on our Dawgs, cough), but this idea of Sark's, to copy UO, is just dumb and dumb for obvious reasons. UO, thus far, have not been able to win against more physical opponents. Why TF are we copying that? Let's copy the Dawgs of old, then we beat UO and match up well against the SEC. Why is this so difficult for Sark to grasp? Get us some damn linemen, Sark...or go elsewhere.

It sickens me to listen to the pundits talk like Shaw is some football genius with his smashmouth brand of play. There's a word for what he's doing and the word is not "innovative", the word is FOOTBALL.

 

[JSeahawks]

Not piling on UO here (cuz I know they would never pile on our Dawgs, cough), but this idea of Sark's, to copy UO, is just dumb and dumb for obvious reasons. UO, thus far, have not been able to win against more physical opponents. Why TF are we copying that? Let's copy the Dawgs of old, then we beat UO and match up well against the SEC. Why is this so difficult for Sark to grasp? Get us some damn linemen, Sark...or go elsewhere.

It sickens me to listen to the pundits talk like Shaw is some football genius with his smashmouth brand of play. There's a word for what he's doing and the word is not "innovative", the word is FOOTBALL.

Russell Wilson's Wisconsin team was plenty physical. Andrew lucks Stanford teams were plenty physical and we beat them twice, scoring over 50 both times.

I agree with your general premise that if sarks goal was just to beat Oregon he went the wrong direction though. I think it probably had more to do with masking a weak o'line which is probably the same reason Oregon initially started running the offense.

 

[cesame]

Don't forget the Ducks drubbing USC in 2009 when they were still coached by Pete Carroll.

They beat them in 2007, too, which was Chip's first year as OC.

 

[HawkWow]

Not piling on UO here (cuz I know they would never pile on our Dawgs, cough), but this idea of Sark's, to copy UO, is just dumb and dumb for obvious reasons. UO, thus far, have not been able to win against more physical opponents. Why TF are we copying that? Let's copy the Dawgs of old, then we beat UO and match up well against the SEC. Why is this so difficult for Sark to grasp? Get us some damn linemen, Sark...or go elsewhere.

It sickens me to listen to the pundits talk like Shaw is some football genius with his smashmouth brand of play. There's a word for what he's doing and the word is not "innovative", the word is FOOTBALL.

Russell Wilson's Wisconsin team was plenty physical. Andrew lucks Stanford teams were plenty physical and we beat them twice, scoring over 50 both times.

I agree with your general premise that if sarks goal was just to beat Oregon he went the wrong direction though. I think it probably had more to do with masking a weak o'line which is probably the same reason Oregon initially started running the offense.

Good solid wins, but neither Wisconsin or Stanford are on the level of Bama, and that is who we all will ultimately need to beat. And you are correct, Sark has spent much energy masking our lack of a quality O-line. We won't beat Bama, or UO, without one. And if the trend continues, Sark has to go and we need to get someone that can identify, then secure linemen if we are to have success.

Csame's example of UO beating Carroll's USC team is impressive. But UO has not beaten teams like this with consistency. Not knocking UO with that comment. Hard to beat such types when you reside in the pac and face few annually. I'm still stunned UO lost to Stanford. I am not knocking your team in saying this, but I was disappointed in them and thought they were better equipped, at this time, to beat such programs. Hate to say it, and I am not being an a-hole, but maybe it's a good thing you didn't get Bama (this year).

JSea will tell you I do admire much about UO football...but again, I am disappointed with that loss to Stanford, from the coaching on down. I don't think pathetic is too harsh of a term and I only use that ugly word because of how flat and uninspired the Ducks played in such a critical game at the farm. I also think the trainers should have taken Huff to the locker room sooner. He only added to the problem. His inability to focus on the task at hand very well may have cost UO the game. I'd have no time for that on my team and he'd be sitting the next game out if I were in charge.

 

[seahawk2k]

It's possible to play physical football in the spread offense, look at Baylor, the blocking schemes are powerful, as well as the fundamentals that they teach. Oregon's offensive line teaches technique over physicality, and the scheme isn't built around power. I think perhaps Oregon should take a little from what Baylor has done and implement a bit of a power game to their offensive style. Run some powers and traps, it can still be run at a breakneck pace.

Washington does pull guards in the running game, but I don't like how they pull. Its pull and read, rather pull and seal. You don't need highly ranked recruits to teach physicality, Stanford proved that. Oregon is a great program, an elite program, but as I believe I mentioned early in this thread, many elite programs go decades before breaking through and winning National Titles(Florida State). Its up to Oregon to adjust while still maintaining the soul of what they do.
Look at UW in the late 80's, they realized that the game was becoming increasingly built around speed, so they figured out that if you can't jump, you can't run, recruited speed, built a physical, fast aggressive style of play, and went to three straight Rose Bowls. Nebraska, who got clubbed by UW in consecutive years and got shut down by Miami realized they needed to recruit speed to win and tore off that stretch from 93-97 where they lost one regular season game, played for four titles and won three.

Oregon needs to gravitate in the other direction just a little bit, or else they will always run into these issues of getting slowed down and beaten up by bigger and stronger teams. There aren't that many left, so they will still win 10 games a year still.

 

[Gap Filler]

The resident hall monitor around here said Oregon can't recruit those big 300 pound lineman.

Stanford seems to have no problem doing it though.

I better leave now though or dad will ban me for "trolling".

Thank god for the SEC! and SEC Talk! A place where we can joke about each others team without the threat of being banned :thirishdrinkers:

 

[HawkWow]

It's possible to play physical football in the spread offense, look at Baylor, the blocking schemes are powerful, as well as the fundamentals that they teach. Oregon's offensive line teaches technique over physicality, and the scheme isn't built around power. I think perhaps Oregon should take a little from what Baylor has done and implement a bit of a power game to their offensive style. Run some powers and traps, it can still be run at a breakneck pace.

Washington does pull guards in the running game, but I don't like how they pull. Its pull and read, rather pull and seal. You don't need highly ranked recruits to teach physicality, Stanford proved that. Oregon is a great program, an elite program, but as I believe I mentioned early in this thread, many elite programs go decades before breaking through and winning National Titles(Florida State). Its up to Oregon to adjust while still maintaining the soul of what they do.
Look at UW in the late 80's, they realized that the game was becoming increasingly built around speed, so they figured out that if you can't jump, you can't run, recruited speed, built a physical, fast aggressive style of play, and went to three straight Rose Bowls. Nebraska, who got clubbed by UW in consecutive years and got shut down by Miami realized they needed to recruit speed to win and tore off that stretch from 93-97 where they lost one regular season game, played for four titles and won three.

Oregon needs to gravitate in the other direction just a little bit, or else they will always run into these issues of getting slowed down and beaten up by bigger and stronger teams. There aren't that many left, so they will still win 10 games a year still.

Great analysis and very informative. Your Nebraska example nailed it. What's funny is the fact there is more great athletes out there than ever before, despite Nintendo. Players are not getting smaller. They're getting bigger, faster, stronger. But today's younger, "more innovative" coaches can't get the oooo's and awwwwwws from 330 lb linemen clearing the way for a a running attack..."hello...boring". No, they prefer gadgetry and finesse. That's how they want to be defined. "Best play caller in the nation"...my ass.

Saban is running circles around these guys while playing the same brand of football Bear Bryant played 1000 years ago. I'm sick to F'n death of "cute". Scrap this new breed of trail blazing hipsters and get us a guy that preaches physicality and recruits accordingly. I don't mind starting over, I don't care if we lose 10 more straight to UO, if that's what it takes to get us back to UW football. In the last 16 hrs, 100 times I've muttered "F'n Dawgs"...only to contradict myself immediately. This latest year of sub-par UW football had little to do with the players, IMO. We have some very real talent...wasted talent. It was another year of piss poor schemes, negligent recruiting and a lack of discipline from the top, down. I won't be crushed if we lose to Wazzu again this year. I may even root for Wazzu. Whatever it takes to bring change. And to hell with romancing Mora. I'd like for UW to open the pocket book and pay Pinkel whatever it takes to get him and his staff to Seattle. YMMV.