Did oregon try not to run it up on us?
- Thread starter redwine65
- Start date
LOL! Are you Fing serious??? They dropped 77 on Southern Utah last week. I'm sure they would have been just fine hanging 80 on us. Give the team some credit for fighting.
Yes!!!! They wanted to get out with a W. threw 6 or 7 times the 2nd have. Once in the 4th. Could have juiced us hard.
We didn't scare them until the end. Same as last year. If they kick the extra points they win.
They are superior.
It looks more impressive to hang 80 on Nebraska than it does 40 with a 7 point win.
To think Oregon was content with 42 points is laughable
They were saving their offense for Wyoming next week....lol.
well if it was an adjustment by NU at half, why wouldn't this adjustment been made during the first 21 points?
One was off of a short field due to an interception, the other was due to a short field because we converted a 4th down on a 4th and 1, but DPE got flagged for a false start and killed the drive. So instead of 1st and 10, we had to punt. Both TD's late in the first half, IMO, were more on the poor play of the Offense than on the defense.
Honestly I think they should have adjusted sooner. And this is my rub with Diaco. I HATE when DCs are in the booth. IMO, if he brings energy to practice he'll bring it to the sideline, and more than that, I think there is a HUGE disconnect between the booth and the sideline. Moreso than offensively. Why? I don't know, but I think DCs are better off on the sidelines discussing with players. I think the adjustement could, and would, have happened faster if Diaco could have been on the sidelines with the defense huddled around a white board. But he's in the booth.
IMO, the defense certainly could have been better in the first half. Especially the 1st quarter. But honestly, they played lights out the 2nd half and put us in position to win. The offense just didn't convert when they needed to.
Number one...we made some nice changes that especially showed in the third.
In the 4th quarter we still played well knowing what was coming. They didn't do anything but try and run clock. It wasn't their offense. They ran 17 plays and passed the ball one time.
In the 4th quarter we still played well knowing what was coming. They didn't do anything but try and run clock. It wasn't their offense. They ran 17 plays and passed the ball one time.
We've seen it hundreds of times, a team with all the momentum comes out in the second half and goes cold, the team getting beat down gets hot and comes back to make a game of it and even win.
And they dropped over half of that on Nebraska in the first half. Riley seemed pleased with the 2nd half victory. Face it, Riley is not the future.
Yes, they went conservative to avoid any chance of turnover and to run the clock out. But hey, Riley id happy with the loss.
So the halftime interview where Taggart says we will not take our foot off the gas meant nothing?
Probably because they didn't have time to make it before the offense gave them the ball right back.
They have a different head coach this year and he's a lot more conservative than the last 2.
Exactly the opposite of what you said was true. The best seat in the house is in the booth, the worst is the sideline. I have been in both at the HS level. On the sideline you are asking players what they are seeing and putting it all together. While in the booth the coaches are asking what a certain player is doing, slanting, stunting, etc. I would want my D coordinator up high seeing everything at all once in real time, not being gathered over time. Yes, he can't bring the " energy" you speak of but what good is that if you don't know what to do or what changes to make? You can always talk to players on headsets as well.
The natural thing is to let down with a lead like that. That first half, everything was going their way and they were riding big MO. That only lasts so long and you are back to reality but they built such a huge lead, the coaches and players didn't feel like the win was in question. Had the late INT not happened it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if we scored. MO would have changed significantly.
Umm, someone forgot to tell Oregon that Taggart was so conservative when they played Southern Utah.
It's Southern Utah. I've never even heard of that school and half of fbs schools could have put up that score.
Also post game when he said they didn't get conservative and ran the same plays they ran in the first half.
I don't necessarily think they took their foot off the gas as much as they knew they had it won so they just tried to burn the clock keeping it on the ground. It's easier to stop the run when you KNOW they are more than likely GOING to run. It would have been stupid to continue to throw the ball as much and risk stopping the clock. Yes, NU adjusted at halftime....but knowing that it made it easier to key in on the rb.
And a coach always tells the truth in an interview? Just look at the plays they ran and that's all the evidence you need to see that they played a lot more conservatively in the second half.
They played a lot more conservatively in the 4th quarter. Not so much in the 3rd.
This is the about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The impulse among some people to deny us credit for anything is so strong among some people that they'll come up with any ridiculous comment. Heaven forbid we'd give our defense credit for playing much better in the 2nd half.
Our defense did play better in the second half and I think we are a good team at stopping the inside run. However, we didn't make many adjustments, if any, at half. We're going to struggle against the pass all year, especially against spread teams.
Having Bobby in the sky or on the sideline would have been a HUGE benefit for Diaco and our defense this year. Instead he's coaching with God's team. We really don't have a guy with that kind of experience to be able to help implement during action adjustments.
Similar threads
