kearly wrote:Sarlacc83 wrote:kearly wrote:I mean this as a serious question, is Oregon's offense really that much better than UW's right now? Because UW is nearly the top offense in the country, and they've played (IMO) a much tougher defensive schedule than Oregon has to this point.
I think Oregon's offense is better, but I think it's very close. I think UW's defense is better, but it's close. The game is at Washington with that new stadium that can get pretty loud. UW could have, and arguably should have, beaten Stanford in their house last week. Stanford won, but I honestly came away from that game feeling that UW was the better team.
I think this game is almost a coinflip. I think if they played 100 times Oregon wins just a little over 50 of them. I don't get where the blowout predictions are coming from. UW is a much tougher and better team than I think some people here realize.
UW has done very well this season against hurry up offenses. Obviously, Oregon's is the gold standard, but I'd be surprised if they broke 50.
Also, I don't think this is necessarily Oregon's best season. They haven't played anyone yet. Those other Oregon teams destroyed inferior competition every bit as the the current team is.
Oregon fans are confident about this game because our team beat the crap out of a good Tennessee team (the one that took #6 Georgia to OT). I also think that the Huskies are overestimating their abilities because they played a bunch of nobodies (including an over-ranked Boise St. team and a middling Illinois team) just like you're saying Oregon did. That point doesn't fall in your favor because when the Huskies played a somebody, they lost.
Another reference point (the only one I can bring up for apples to apples comparison) is that Stanford scored 31 points on Washington (sort of) whereas a 'worse' Ducks defense held them to 17 points last year. I'm confident the UO defense is much better this year (possibly better than Stanford's D even), and I'm not sold that your defense will be successful against the blur.
I do agree that the homefield advantage will play into the final score, but I'm not worried that it's the deciding factor. The imitation isn't beating the original. This isn't an Oreo/Hydrox situation. This will be an Oregon win.
Boise State was a ranked opponent, and are a better team than you give credit for. The final score did not indicate the way the game was played. They beat UW in the trenches more than Stanford did.
You don't think one of the nations higher ranked defenses can hold Oregon to 42 points at home?
Tennessee isn't a good football team. That game was in Oregon too, across the country. Who didn't expect a pasting there? I like Georgia, but they have been erratic week to week for years. Sometimes they are giant killers. Sometimes they lose to teams they have no business losing to. I like them. But they make for a poor measuring stick. Especially if we're talking about a measuring stick for a measuring stick, which is flawed logic to begin with.
The Huskies scored 28 points and racked up around 500 yards at Stanford. They lost, because of special teams and officiating. You watched the game, right? Them losing does not change how eye opening the performance was.
I hope that didn't read too hostile. Apologies if it did. Also, thanks for having my back a few posts up.
I think what you've said is totally fair.
1) I didn't have the time to watch the UW - Stanford game hence the 'sort of' comment. I understand the Huskies played well, and I also know it took a few special teams gaffes. But since the Ducks consider special teams integral and they have just as much speed on ST as Stanford does (if not more) where they can get 7 easy points, don't you think that's going to hurt UW? Also, what if UW just matches up really well with Stanford like last year but they don't matchup well with Oregon like last year? That, too, is in the back of my mind. Maybe they played the game of their lives like Tennessee did against Georgia.
2) I don't what else I can use for a measuring stick right now as the two haven't played a common opponent. I do have to make some educated guesses for better or worse. I mean, I did expect a pasting of Tennessee, but I didn't expect it to be almost 40 points. I think you have to be fair and give them credit for that because it's not like they played Nicholls State a second time. Yes, there are matchups issues as mentioned in 1, but I did cite it as a reason to be excited, didn't I? I didn't make it a guarantee of victory but I think that, besides, Stanford, the 'preseason' schedules weren't that disparate.
3) I don't expect the UW D to hold down the Oregon offense. Why would I? Innocent until proven guilty.
4) I hate Boise State so my opinion on them is always dour, but I don't put stock in pre-season rankings because they're really just guesses (and in BSU's state, based on previous successes). Petersen's a pretty good defensive coach, but I don't consider them half as talented now as they were in the Kellen Moore years on the offensive side of the ball, so holding them to 6 points doesn't impress me. Maybe I'm wrong there. Obviously the LoS is a big deal tomorrow.
5) I don't think UW is a pushover. Maybe my opinion of Oregon will get dashed tomorrow. I, and a lot of other Ducks fans, think they're better than they were during the 12-1 season. Obviously it's a big measuring stick for us. I, reasonably or unreasonably, think you're underestimating them.