|
Post by Coach JR on Jan 12, 2011 7:31:47 GMT -6
Cb you coach for Oregon or something? You seem to be getting pretty defensive about this I do have a couple issues with that "they knew what they were doing and who are we to question them defensive stance" though. Youre right in that they had a long time to prepare but maybe that is why they were having problems as was mentioned above, and it was also pretty obvious, to some who watch Oregon more than I do, that the ducks had added some wrinkles to the game plan, but at some point you've got to use the counters to your base offense that got you into that game in the first place. Isn't that we're supposed to do at it's basest form run our plays, if they stop them, run our plays off those plays and if they stop those dig into our playbook/game plan at halftime (or earlier or later for some) and figure out how to counter their counter? But then again maybe it was just the "pucker effect" that affects some coaches and players in the biggest games on the biggest stage? Not saying that's what it was, but since we're all speculating here... Nahh, I honestly didn't care about either team. But, I'd sell my first born child to get a chance to coach at that level. Guess I better start having kids then. I don't like hearing people question play-calls and game planning because, as an HC, I don't like it when people do it to us. As coaches, we're the ones that watched all of the film, set and ran all of the practices and game planned. I wondered why Oregon didn't have some GT Counters and Traps in place to handle Auburn's DL when they were flying upfield on the option. But, Oregon has had success with their Zone Read, Veer and Midline all year long and I haven't seen them run any complimentary kick-out schemes. So, to me, it wouldn't make any sense for them to take time to install those blocking schemes and rep them. They do have stuff like Speed and Shovel Option to handle fronts like that and it's worked for them. But, the OL just didn't get it done against Auburn up front. And, honestly, a GT Counter or Trap looks really good on paper but it's still up to the OL to execute and get the job done. When you think about it, they came in with the best game plan an option team can have. They accounted for Fairley by trying to option him but it just didn't work because the cat can friggin run. I don't think it would have mattered if they had trapped him because now the rest of the OL is blocking 1-1 and they weren't executing well anyway. Oregon obviously had a Plan B; their short passing game. They ran that stuff well and it was obvious that it was part of their game planning process because of their no-huddle scheme. They had to come into that game with the quick game play-call cards ready to go so it wasn't like they were just adjusting on the fly. I have read and heard how some of the Oregon fan base, and the, know it all media have questioned Kelley's game plan. They say he should have used the lay off time to come up with new things on offense. Why would the top offense in the nation discard what had gotten them to the NC game, or even try to install "new concepts"? I mean I guess, especially in hindsight, it's easy to say that they should have seen on film what they had to deal with, but on film is different than for real, and I suspect they'd seen what they thought was a stout DL some time this season..or a stud 3 Tech. You do what you do if it's working to the point of being 12-0 and playing for a NC? Do you not?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 12, 2011 7:40:49 GMT -6
I have read and heard how some of the Oregon fan base, and the, know it all media have questioned Kelley's game plan. They say he should have used the lay off time to come up with new things on offense. Why would the top offense in the nation discard what had gotten them to the NC game, or even try to install "new concepts"? I mean I guess, especially in hindsight, it's easy to say that they should have seen on film what they had to deal with, but on film is different than for real, and I suspect they'd seen what they thought was a stout DL some time this season..or a stud 3 Tech. You do what you do if it's working to the point of being 12-0 and playing for a NC? Do you not? Two things someone can always do better... 1) call plays 2) drive
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2011 8:37:50 GMT -6
Nahh, I honestly didn't care about either team. But, I'd sell my first born child to get a chance to coach at that level. Guess I better start having kids then. I don't like hearing people question play-calls and game planning because, as an HC, I don't like it when people do it to us. As coaches, we're the ones that watched all of the film, set and ran all of the practices and game planned. I wondered why Oregon didn't have some GT Counters and Traps in place to handle Auburn's DL when they were flying upfield on the option. But, Oregon has had success with their Zone Read, Veer and Midline all year long and I haven't seen them run any complimentary kick-out schemes. So, to me, it wouldn't make any sense for them to take time to install those blocking schemes and rep them. They do have stuff like Speed and Shovel Option to handle fronts like that and it's worked for them. But, the OL just didn't get it done against Auburn up front. And, honestly, a GT Counter or Trap looks really good on paper but it's still up to the OL to execute and get the job done. When you think about it, they came in with the best game plan an option team can have. They accounted for Fairley by trying to option him but it just didn't work because the cat can friggin run. I don't think it would have mattered if they had trapped him because now the rest of the OL is blocking 1-1 and they weren't executing well anyway. Oregon obviously had a Plan B; their short passing game. They ran that stuff well and it was obvious that it was part of their game planning process because of their no-huddle scheme. They had to come into that game with the quick game play-call cards ready to go so it wasn't like they were just adjusting on the fly. I have read and heard how some of the Oregon fan base, and the, know it all media have questioned Kelley's game plan. They say he should have used the lay off time to come up with new things on offense. Why would the top offense in the nation discard what had gotten them to the NC game, or even try to install "new concepts"? I mean I guess, especially in hindsight, it's easy to say that they should have seen on film what they had to deal with, but on film is different than for real, and I suspect they'd seen what they thought was a stout DL some time this season..or a stud 3 Tech. You do what you do if it's working to the point of being 12-0 and playing for a NC? Do you not? That is what every one of my posts has revolved around.
|
|
ndoc
Sophomore Member
Posts: 211
|
Post by ndoc on Jan 12, 2011 9:00:28 GMT -6
So we are upset with Oregon because they lost to a team who had some guys that they weren't able to block? I'm no genius, but isnt that what is supposed to happen when 2 teams play? The more amazing thing is how close they came to actually winning despite these issues. JMO
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2011 9:13:03 GMT -6
So we are upset with Oregon because they lost to a team who had some guys that they weren't able to block? I'm no genius, but isnt that what is supposed to happen when 2 teams play? The more amazing thing is how close they came to actually winning despite these issues. JMO Yeah, pretty much. I've been crying about it for two days now.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 12, 2011 11:01:03 GMT -6
During the game, Chris Mortensen of ESPN had a message on twitter saying that all the NFL guys he knew were singing the praises of Chip Kelly, as they only identified three or four guys on Oregon's team who "could start for Auburn." I don't know if that's totally accurate but I think Kelly did a great job and he has a great team. Definitely don't mean to knock him. I thought it was an interesting game because it wasn't just go-go-go-offense it all comes easy. You saw how some top coaches had to deal with talent and things not going their way. You can say you might do stuff different; if I was Kelly I definitely would have been doing midline stuff on Fairley and would have had my lunch taken from me too.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 12, 2011 12:11:15 GMT -6
I think that the extra time to prep played a big role in this game. As great a player as Fairley is I'm not sure that he could handle the midline stuff as well as he did if they'd only had a week to prep him.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2011 12:22:14 GMT -6
I think that the extra time to prep played a big role in this game. As great a player as Fairley is I'm not sure that he could handle the midline stuff as well as he did if they'd only had a week to prep him. I agree with this. But, Oregon was also having a hard time setting him up with the rest of their rushing attack. It's tough to force that confusion and frustration in the DL if they're just mauling blocks all day long. Reading him on midline just mean that he was getting through the LOS a split second faster. But, that dude is a friggin monster; SEC OLs had a hard time blocking him. So, it wasn't just an "Oregon sucks" deal.
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jan 12, 2011 17:06:29 GMT -6
Oregon sucks - LOL!
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jan 12, 2011 17:06:30 GMT -6
Let me qualify everything I'm about to say and everything I've said with this: I watched the game, one time, late into the evening with one too many brown pops on Monday.
My entire knowledge base of Oregon comes from watching them last year vs. Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and what clips I've watched on ESPN and sundry other websites. I am not an Oregon fan, nor have I ever claimed to be. DISCLAIMER OPEN***I do own one Oregon football shirt b/c my aunt lives there and she sent it to me***CLOSE but alas, I am no fan. I know next to nothing about their offense other than I recognized some of what we run in the clips and the one game I've watched of them in the last two years, prior to the NC game.
Having said that, I am not questioning how Oregon attacked Auburn's defense, only one aspect of what they did. If they had "more speed than the Bonneville flats" why did they continue to handicap themselves by not utilizing "more space" to the wide side of the field? CB offers that Auburn brought the zone blitz from the wide edge, but I counter with i think they did a good job with the sprint out pass, throwing into it and trying to attack the soft zone created by the dropper.
I also agree with CB that as a HC that, in this case, Tuesday morning QB's are all out in full effect and I'm with him. Hey, I didn't think Eric Mangini should have lost his job - that is until he kicked a FG down 14 to the Steelers in week 16, but that is a discussion for another board.
I never proffered that I had the answers; I simply posed a question that no one has yet to answer.
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jan 12, 2011 17:37:02 GMT -6
Spreadattack brought up Mort's quotes and here's something I have been saying for the last few weeks that I think everyone has forgotten about:
What if Jeremiah Masoli was still the QB for Oregon?
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jan 12, 2011 18:10:00 GMT -6
My thoughts;
- In general I thought Auburn had better athletes. Especially upfront. The big guy is a LOAD!
- Oregon's offensive execution errors were a result of Auburn's defense; scheme and personnel.
- Auburns offensive execution errors were more on them. Lot's of poor throws to wide open receivers. Oregon did force a key fumble late.
- I love Kelly, but I think his commitment to his "style' of spread, hurts them in short yardage. I think he needs to incorporate a "big" or "wildcat" style element in short yardage. When he runs spread in SYS it's easy for an athletic team to man up and run blitz all the fits. He loses the numbers game every time. In my mind this was a weakness that was made even more evident by the size and athleticism of Auburn.
Great, great football game. Incredible speed and athleticism on that field. Both teams were very well prepared.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2011 20:44:09 GMT -6
Let me qualify everything I'm about to say and everything I've said with this: I watched the game, one time, late into the evening with one too many brown pops on Monday. My entire knowledge base of Oregon comes from watching them last year vs. Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and what clips I've watched on ESPN and sundry other websites. I am not an Oregon fan, nor have I ever claimed to be. DISCLAIMER OPEN***I do own one Oregon football shirt b/c my aunt lives there and she sent it to me***CLOSE but alas, I am no fan. I know next to nothing about their offense other than I recognized some of what we run in the clips and the one game I've watched of them in the last two years, prior to the NC game. Having said that, I am not questioning how Oregon attacked Auburn's defense, only one aspect of what they did. If they had "more speed than the Bonneville flats" why did they continue to handicap themselves by not utilizing "more space" to the wide side of the field? CB offers that Auburn brought the zone blitz from the wide edge, but I counter with i think they did a good job with the sprint out pass, throwing into it and trying to attack the soft zone created by the dropper. I also agree with CB that as a HC that, in this case, Tuesday morning QB's are all out in full effect and I'm with him. Hey, I didn't think Eric Mangini should have lost his job - that is until he kicked a FG down 14 to the Steelers in week 16, but that is a discussion for another board. I never proffered that I had the answers; I simply posed a question that no one has yet to answer. Running sprint-out into it was a good response to the fire zones coming off of the edge. They were also throwing a lot of screens to the fire zone side as well. This seemed to be another part of the Plan B package. The Oregon staff gave their perimeter running game a shot and it just wasn't there. Their OL wasn't getting the job done and Auburn is very fast and very physical on defense. In my mind, they had to see that on film and came to the conclusion that sprint -out and screens were the best alternatives. I guess I am trying to make a simple point; Oregon didn't just out and start tinkering around when their run game was shut down. They had over a month to prepare and this was all something that was probably discussed on Day 1. "We might not be able to run the ball against this team the way we have been all year. Here are alternatives, let's go out there and start repping them in practice". Honestly, you have to give them a lot of credit with the way they adjusted to the game. I mean, Game Planning Point #1 would have been "Option The Hell Out Of Fairley" and that didn't happen at all. But, they had alternatives in place and didn't panic. Now, think about it this way: what if they had kept running their base option package? They would have run into a wall, the offense would have stalled and everyone would be screaming "they shoulda been throwing that football!!" "If they had thrown the football, they would have won the game!!". "They shoulda called Mike Leach at half time and gotten his playbook!!".
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jan 13, 2011 10:51:10 GMT -6
Coachsky, I agree completely with your post. I am an Auburn fan and I was at the game, so I am certainly not unbiased. Auburn was just better up front on both sides of the ball. That was the difference in the game. The rushing stats tell the story. Oregon with about 75 yards and Auburn with 250+. And the outcome was as one would expect based on that. I thought Kelly, overall, did a great coaching job to keep his team in the game considering that. I believe that a 37 day layoff is much more beneficial to the defense than the offense. The defenses have time to absorb the scheme and prepare (Including extra conditioning for an up-tempo opponent), while the offenses just end up out of their rhythm. Also, I thought that Auburn's offensive tempo (when they chose to go up-tempo) bothered the Oregon defense at least as much Oregon's tempo bothered Auburn. Having all that practice time for the scout team to run plays every 9-11 seconds (At least I know that's how Auburn practiced, and I would assume Oregon did the same)certain helped. Just one more reason why the layoff helps the defense more than the offense, for both teams. One last thing, I really believe that the Oregon speed was a myth. Were they fast? Yes. But unlike what ESPN and the other talking heads kept saying, they were no faster than Auburn and significantly smaller to a man. 3 days later I'm still exhausted and hoarse. My thoughts; - In general I thought Auburn had better athletes. Especially upfront. The big guy is a LOAD! - Oregon's offensive execution errors were a result of Auburn's defense; scheme and personnel. - Auburns offensive execution errors were more on them. Lot's of poor throws to wide open receivers. Oregon did force a key fumble late. - I love Kelly, but I think his commitment to his "style' of spread, hurts them in short yardage. I think he needs to incorporate a "big" or "wildcat" style element in short yardage. When he runs spread in SYS it's easy for an athletic team to man up and run blitz all the fits. He loses the numbers game every time. In my mind this was a weakness that was made even more evident by the size and athleticism of Auburn. Great, great football game. Incredible speed and athleticism on that field. Both teams were very well prepared.
|
|
|
Post by gunrun on Jan 13, 2011 12:03:58 GMT -6
Coachsky, good point about Oregon struggling in SY/RZ situations. Their best play in those situations had been Midline, but Fairley disrupted that very well. A heavy or wildcat package would have been helpful.
|
|
dania
Junior Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by dania on Jan 14, 2011 11:29:50 GMT -6
I thought oregon was terribly outmanned up front on both sides of the ball. Chip kelly and his staff outcoached auburn. and in my opinion badly outcoached them.
If you listened to Coach Gruden, all he talks about is Chip Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 14, 2011 11:55:35 GMT -6
Coachsky, good point about Oregon struggling in SY/RZ situations. Their best play in those situations had been Midline, but Fairley disrupted that very well. A heavy or wildcat package would have been helpful. But, the OL still has to execute and block Auburn's defensive front. And, they didn't do that at all. IMO, it isn't going to matter what kind of SY/GL package they install because they were getting their a--es kicked up front all night.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 14, 2011 11:59:32 GMT -6
I thought oregon was terribly outmanned up front on both sides of the ball. Chip kelly and his staff outcoached auburn. and in my opinion badly outcoached them. If you listened to Coach Gruden, all he talks about is Chip Kelly. I don't see how you can say that given the fact that Auburn completely took away Oregon's running game.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 14, 2011 12:22:01 GMT -6
To the person that mention they had defenders coming off the edge. That should not have deterred Oregon from doing what they do. Everyone knows to beat the bear front or a front with overhang you can run speed option at him, or even shovel. The funny thing is the first time they tried to run shovel. The Auburn player never moved because he was confused. He was trying to get down in his stance when the ball was snapped and seemed clueless. Does anyone know if they run the shovel as an option? It does look like because the EMLOS was just setting waiting on the shovel.
|
|
dania
Junior Member
Posts: 365
|
Post by dania on Jan 14, 2011 12:22:01 GMT -6
I thought oregon was terribly outmanned up front on both sides of the ball. Chip kelly and his staff outcoached auburn. and in my opinion badly outcoached them. If you listened to Coach Gruden, all he talks about is Chip Kelly. I don't see how you can say that given the fact that Auburn completely took away Oregon's running game. Exactly! and oregon still had multitude of chances to tie and win the game, without the ability to do what they do best. I dont believe it was a scheme problem,but a lack of talent problem.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 14, 2011 12:27:22 GMT -6
I dont believe it was a scheme problem,but a lack of talent problem. Well, duh - have yet to see a jockey carry the horse across a finish line in first place yet. Outcoached or not, Gene Chizik still had a better Tuesday morning than Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jan 14, 2011 12:34:06 GMT -6
I don't see how you can say that given the fact that Auburn completely took away Oregon's running game. Exactly! and oregon still had multitude of chances to tie and win the game, without the ability to do what they do best. I dont believe it was a scheme problem,but a lack of talent problem. I'll be honest, nothing you've said makes a lick of sense. Oregon throws for nearly 400 yards and yet they don't have the talent to compete and should have gotten blown out of the water? Both teams took advantage of the matchups that they had. Auburn in the run game and Oregon in the passing game. There are 22 guys out there on the field, and as important as the matchups in the trenches are, that's not all there is to it. You can't just look at it in a bubble. Frankly, I think this game played out just as I expected. Auburn was more physical up front, and the favorite. They were more conservative and pounded Oregon. Oregon was the underdog, and they took some chances. Some of those chances paid off, some didn't. Both teams were well coached, and the better team won. And won by exactly the spread, which according to Vegas was 3 points.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 14, 2011 14:38:34 GMT -6
I don't see how you can say that given the fact that Auburn completely took away Oregon's running game. Exactly! and oregon still had multitude of chances to tie and win the game, without the ability to do what they do best. I dont believe it was a scheme problem,but a lack of talent problem. So, Auburn's defensive staff deserves no credit?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 14, 2011 15:37:23 GMT -6
Why does someone always have to completely outcoach the other? Auburn took away Oregon's strength -- the run game -- and held them to like 70 yards despite the fact that they averaged over 300 a game for the season. The fact that Oregon threw as well as it did (largely on a few big plays) is a testament to good reaction, but let's not get overdramatic.
And Auburn's O came with fancy stuff early, but once they got the lead in the second quarter and saw how their defense was playing, they focused on wearing down the defense with a lot of zone and bubbles; they kept it simple and went away from the statue of liberty stuff, which seemed fully appropriate.
I thought both staffs gave the other their best shot, and the team that was more physical up front (Auburn) took the game by a very close margin -- hardly a big shock.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on Jan 14, 2011 16:35:30 GMT -6
i thought the old "read em if you can't block em" was a good adage until i saw Fairley blow up the mesh..that's why Demeo has a problem with reading the 3 tech if he's a super stud on zone read.you are bringing the mesh point closer to the read key and allowing a great 3 to do this and subsequently increase the chance for turnovers.versus with his gun triple, you are trying to widen out the dive key to make the read easier.
..easy for the announcers to say he should have left it in near the goalline but that is was a very tough read..how bout when he tackled them both at the mesh point? that was unreal. how'd you like to try and read that as a QB!
|
|