Oregon's Gimmick Offense Should Put Us On Notice

[jp1]

It was a scaled back version of Meyer's spread option you goof. The reason why? Because Chris Leak was a drop back passer and not a spread option QB. There was only one designed run play where Leak as QB was to keep the ball and that play happened to be a straight draw. Leak to use the words of one writer was "horrified" with the thought of being a running/spread option qb.

Good to see you lurking back in this thread and still avoiding the question. Tells me all I need to know.

 

[MikeVol44]

Yes I watched the game. Tell me what the time of possession was? How many plays did their offense run as compared to their average.


Uh...didn't avoid your question...it was not worth the effort to answer for the following reasons I'm about to give you below.

But learning some football and how to evaluate anything would help you a lot.....So here's some STARTLING news for you (and it did surprise me, too).

Oregon had 8 possessions in the game VS. Stanford's 11...(Stanford's last possession just ran out the clock)....Therefore--Oregon had the ball for 8 possessions during the game with the INTENT of scoring and Stanford had the ball for 10 possessions with the INTENT of scoring.

Is 8 offensive possessions a fair opportunity for Oregon's high-powered offense to score with the ball? They had more than enough opportunity to score--and the reason they didn't run as many plays is because they had to punt on 3 of their 8 possessions. Why punt? Because they got their butts handed to them by Stanford's DEFENSE.

Now--let us consider what each team did with their opportunities: And I'll only list Oregon's because it gives enough evidence to:

1) demonstrate that Oregon's offense had the opportunity to prove itself, and
2) Oregon's Offense had plenty of opportunities during the game to put points on the board but FAILED MISERABLY in doing so.

Therefore, as bad as Oregon's defense was dominated--their offense was EQUALLY dominated by Stanford's DEFENSE. Conclusion: Physical DOMINATION on both sides of the ball--which was obvious to anyone who watched the game.

However, for the sake of thoroughness:

1. Oregon 1st drive: 8 plays, 35 yds--punt
2. Oregon 2nd drive: 7 plays, 24 yds--1st and goal from Stanford 7 yds line and FAILED to score.
3. Oregon 3rd drive: 3 plays, -7 yds--punt
4. Oregon 4th drive: 10 plays, 80 yds--fumble
end of 1st half...

5. Oregon 5th drive: 12 plays, 43 yds--fumble
6. Oregon 6th drive: 3 plays, 0 yds--punt
7. Oregon 7th drive: 5 plays, 60 yds--TD
8. Oregon 8th drive: 10 plays, 57 yds--TD

Oregon had plenty of opportunities to put points on the board--and even started 1 drive (their second possession) at the Stanford 28 yd line with a 1st and goal at the 7 yard line--and got nothing.

ANY way you want to look at it--Oregon's high-flying, lightning fast Offense was DOMINATED by Stanford's Defense. Oregon's fast pace offense is predicated on being good enough to generate first downs--but Stanford's DEFENSE prevented that from happening 3 of 8 times--and Stanford's DEFENSE prevented Oregon from even gaining 7 yards to score a TD in 4 plays.

Oregon's OFFENSE is as much to blame for that loss as their DEFENSE--they got dominated on BOTH sides of the ball. I rest my case....:salute:

 

[Vol4life25]

The fact you think a shotgun read option is gimmicky is freaking retarded. It gives you 2 runners pre snap to execute the play. That is not gimmicky when the QB has to watch on defensive lineman to see who gets the play. Please explain how that is gimmicky or a trick play.

I think he is referring to the the speed they run their offense. Which I agree is gimmicky.

 

[jp1]

Yes I watched the game. Tell me what the time of possession was? How many plays did their offense run as compared to their average.


Uh...didn't avoid your question...it was not worth the effort to answer for the following reasons I'm about to give you below.

But learning some football and how to evaluate anything would help you a lot.....So here's some STARTLING news for you (and it did surprise me, too).

Oregon had 8 possessions in the game VS. Stanford's 11...(Stanford's last possession just ran out the clock)....Therefore--Oregon had the ball for 8 possessions during the game with the INTENT of scoring and Stanford had the ball for 10 possessions with the INTENT of scoring.

Is 8 offensive possessions a fair opportunity for Oregon's high-powered offense to score with the ball? They had more than enough opportunity to score--and the reason they didn't run as many plays is because they had to punt on 3 of their 8 possessions. Why punt? Because they got their butts handed to them by Stanford's DEFENSE.

Now--let us consider what each team did with their opportunities: And I'll only list Oregon's because it gives enough evidence to:

1) demonstrate that Oregon's offense had the opportunity to prove itself, and
2) Oregon's Offense had plenty of opportunities during the game to put points on the board but FAILED MISERABLY in doing so.

Therefore, as bad as Oregon's defense was dominated--their offense was EQUALLY dominated by Stanford's DEFENSE. Conclusion: Physical DOMINATION on both sides of the ball--which was obvious to anyone who watched the game.

However, for the sake of thoroughness:

1. Oregon 1st drive: 8 plays, 35 yds--punt
2. Oregon 2nd drive: 7 plays, 24 yds--1st and goal from Stanford 7 yds line and FAILED to score.
3. Oregon 3rd drive: 3 plays, -7 yds--punt
4. Oregon 4th drive: 10 plays, 80 yds--fumble
end of 1st half...

5. Oregon 5th drive: 12 plays, 43 yds--fumble
6. Oregon 6th drive: 3 plays, 0 yds--punt
7. Oregon 7th drive: 5 plays, 60 yds--TD
8. Oregon 8th drive: 10 plays, 57 yds--TD

Oregon had plenty of opportunities to put points on the board--and even started 1 drive (their second possession) at the Stanford 28 yd line with a 1st and goal at the 7 yard line--and got nothing.

ANY way you want to look at it--Oregon's high-flying, lightning fast Offense was DOMINATED by Stanford's Defense. Oregon's fast pace offense is predicated on being good enough to generate first downs--but Stanford's DEFENSE prevented that from happening 3 of 8 times--and Stanford's DEFENSE prevented Oregon from even gaining 7 yards to score a TD in 4 plays.

Oregon's OFFENSE is as much to blame for that loss as their DEFENSE--they got dominated on BOTH sides of the ball. I rest my case....:salute:

Sorry to revive a worthless thread, but I couldn't let this go. Are you tring to tell me the reason that Stanford won was because the defense "dominated" the Oregon offense? The stats you used show they only forced them to punt 3 times. Granted the did stop their 4th down play early in the game, but any other coach would have kicked the gimme FG.

As I will say again.....Stanfords offense keeping Oregons offense on the sideline was the key to the game. Anybody with a brain could see that. You even argued my point for me....stating Oregon only got the ball for 8 possessions.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Sorry to revive a worthless thread, but I couldn't let this go. Are you tring to tell me the reason that Stanford won was because the defense "dominated" the Oregon offense? The stats you used show they only forced them to punt 3 times. Granted the did stop their 4th down play early in the game, but any other coach would have kicked the gimme FG.

As I will say again.....Stanfords offense keeping Oregons offense on the sideline was the key to the game. Anybody with a brain could see that. You even argued my point for me....stating Oregon only got the ball for 8 possessions.

You're missing a big point. Even when Oregon had the ball they did nothing with it. Yes Stanford's offense kept Oregon off the field but their defense was equally as dominant. If not for their dominating defensive effort, Oregon blows them out.

 

[Flipdaddy]

I don't despise the spread type offenses but I hate ours. It kills me at some of the plays we run over and over. Example... pig in motion snap...pitch him the ball....two yard loss. The things I like that we do is the 5 wide seems to always produce positive pass plays. I really think we could run under center more with a fullback and tailback. I guess I just like seeing a running back get a full head of steam and hit the line of scrimmage with blunt force trauma. Kinda like bama does and we use to with graham Jamal henry Stephens. Main thing is we just need players. I hope Butch gets it turned around