SB Nation User Blog: Addicted to Quack

Fire Aliotti. Reason #1.

Addicted to Quack — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:32:37 -0000

Mike Bellotti in August, per the Daily Emerald:

At Monday's press conference, Oregon head football coach Mike Bellotti said that he considers his cadre of defensive backs among the best secondary units in the nation.

Oregon's pass defense through week six:

111 Oregon

One hundred and eleventh. Behind such talent-laden secondaries as Buffalo, Washington, Navy, Syracuse, Rice, and Florida International.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave (addictedtoquack@gmail.com)

Week Six Pac-10 Roundtable

Addicted to Quack — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:54:39 -0000

What's Bruin, Dawg? hosting this week:

1. Every week we take a look at the Pac-10 scoreboard, and every week it just seems to get worse for the teams at the bottom of the conference. Just how bad is the bottom of the conference this year? In historical terms, can you name a year in which there were so many poor teams at the bottom of the Pac-10? What do you think is the primary factor for this huge drop-off between last season and this season in the conference?

Can we just call it the Pac-8? The State of Washington does not deserve to be represented by a Division 1 football team. UW and WSU are epically bad, but that's not the worst of it. The worst is that, in spite of many bad seasons in a row, they've actually regressed, and are years away from making any noise in the conference. UW will be 0-11 going into the Apple Cup, and WSU will be 1-10, though its worth noting that the Cougars only won a game because they played 1-AA creampuff Portland State.

UCLA, while bad, is much, much better than the Washington Schools. Injuries are unavoidable plus, they already have their proven coach in place, so they get more of a pass for this year. But the Washington schools would have a tough time winning the Big Sky, let alone competiting in the Pac-10.

What's the primary reason? A lack of talent. Other than Jake Locker, name one player on either of these teams that anyone should fear. Oh, and Locker may miss the rest of the season. There are many reasons for the lack of talent (bad coaching, poor facilities, etc.). But, the fact of the matter is that neither Washington school is even remotely close to being competitive.

2. Coming in to the season, many people thought Arizona State would be a dark-horse contender in the Pac-10. Things haven't exactly gone according to plan so far in Tempe. What does Arizona State have to do to get back on track, and can Erickson replicate the same sort of success he saw last year with the team?

Arizona State's problem is that they don't have an offensive line and, couple that witht the fact that their quarterback is about as mobile as Mark Mangino after a Big Mac binge, then you can start to see why they have problems.

I'll let the MSM answer this one:

With six players, including sophomore left tackle Jon Hargis, in their first season on the offensive line depth chart, ASU is 110th of 119 nationally in rushing offense and 97th in sacks allowed.

That's a recipe for losses right there. And, no, there's no reason to suspect Erickson will turn it around this year. Unless a bunch of 300 lb. skilled lineman magically appear on the ASU campus.

3. Well, so much for the other Oregon school beating USC. Does USC's erratic nature open the door for any other teams to surprise the Trojans the rest of this year, or do you think USC's got it out of their system at this point? Out of the Trojans' remaining opponents, which team do you feel will give USC the most trouble, and why?

Who knows? USC will likely lose another game, because they almost always do, but I don't have any idea to whom. Last year they lost to the worst team in the conference (Stanford), and the one that, for most of the season, was the best (Oregon). I could see them struggling with a Cal, or an Arizona, or even a UCLA if the conditions are right. They won't lose to a Washington school, though. I promise you that.

4. Answer: 2. 5. 10. Question: The number of years it will take for UCLA to challenge for the Pac-10 title. Discuss.

There are so many variable that who knows how long it will actually take. However, I think a better question is "In how many years could UCLA compete for a Pac-10 title? The answer is two.

The coach is in place, and that's really the key vis-a-vis, for example, the Washington schools. There's actually some talent there, too, although most of it is hurt. But in Los Angeles, with the Weasel at the helm, they'll be able to recruit. And, once you start getting players, its just a matter of time.

5. So, does Cal's rotating quarterback bingo have any chance of succeeding during the rest of the year? Can Tedford continue to alternate Riley and Longshore on a game-to-game basis, and perhaps more importantly, do you think he will?

Yeah, I think I'm qualified to speak on the subject of two QB systems (Harrington/Feeley, Fife/Clemens, Dixon/Leaf).

No, it won't work. It never does. Its the dumbest idea in the history of mankind. Jason Fife sucked and still played, and it cost us untold numbers of games. Brady Leaf sucked and still played, and it cost us a Holiday Bowl. In both cases, the QBs that we all knew were better to begin with (Clemens, Dixon), ended up being the respective starters. We saw it coming from a mile away.

With respect to the Cal situation, here's the bottom line. Nate Longshore sucks. His well documented crush on Jessica Simpson shows that he has terrible judgment and should never be trusted, and his on field play backs this up. If you look up Nate Longshore in a thesaurus, it will say "Jason Fife."

If Cal's quarterback of the future is on the roster right now, its Kevin Riley. There is no reason to hinder his development. If you look at Cal right now, you cannot tell me that playing Longshore over Riley at all will have any appreciable effect on their records. This being the case, playing Longshore over Riley can only hurt Riley's development, thus hindering Cal's future records. It'd be a foolish decision to keep playing him.

6. Don't look too closely, but Mike Stoops may actually be in the process of saving his job out there in Tucson. What do the Wildcats need to do in order to continue their early conference success?

Keep playing teams with a combined four wins on the season. This is not a good football team. And once they start playing anyone with a pulse, they will be exposed. Mike Stoops is still Mike Stoops. His anvil is waiting.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave (addictedtoquack@gmail.com)

Aliotti throws players under the bus

Addicted to Quack — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:52:05 -0000

This is a few days old, but:

You know, I watched that game four times. Because you check your own hole card first. There’s always some things that you can do better, do a little bit different. We’ve got to get our eyes trained a little bit better. I don’t want to put it all on the kids, but we’ve got to get our eyes trained a little bit better. We’re looking at the backs in the backfield at times when we should be looking at our keys, and then we’re getting fooled. We’ll correct that. We’ve got a good group of kids. They’ll work to get it right, and we’ll work with them to get it right. We’re going to probably have to simplify some things a little bit more. And SC’s a good football team. They’re a good football team. There were times that I don’t have an answer for a guy running a comeback on Walter Thurmond, and he’s on him, and the guy comes back and makes the catch, or they run by us, things like that. But no excuses. Unfortunately it was a bad loss. Whether you loss 24-23 or 44-10, whatever it was, it’s still a loss. But it was a bad loss. We could play a lot better. We will play a lot better. I trust that these kids will rally back. If we work hard and rally back and guys practice and we read our keys and do the things that we all know we can do, we can be 5-2 and 3-1 in the league, and get a little rest and start the second half of the season. I think it’s a key game. I think it’s key that we play well, and then get a chance to get healthy a little bit. But first we’ve got to get through and play.

I don't want to put it all on the kids, but I'm going to put it all on the kids.

The truth of the matter is that you run your corners in single coverage with the safeties playing up. That means that they can't try to make a play on the ball because if they get beat, its going for six. All they can do is let them catch it, wrap, and tackle. Meanwhile, you're so overplaying the run that any type of play action completely fakes everyone out.

The players are playing your scheme. Your scheme just sucks. It seems that you would have discovered this in the myriad of years that our passing defense has royally sucked this decade.

God, please quit. Soon.

Jersey Contest: Week 7 Picks

Addicted to Quack — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:57:17 -0000

Sorry for the lateness. Busy, crappy week.

Here they are:

Texas v. Oklahoma @Dallas

Michigan State at Northwestern

LSU at Florida

Penn State at Wisconsin

Arizona at Stanford

Some Things Never Change

Addicted to Quack — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:39:36 -0000

Some Things Never Change

losers.

Fire Aliotti.

Addicted to Quack — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:54:00 -0000

I've put up with too much of this crap for far too long.

We've had good defenses in '00, '01, '05, and '07. However, '02, '03, '04, and '06 were atrocious. '08 is quickly joining the ranks of the latter four seasons. Aliotti's scheme puts his secondary in a position to fail, and only with amazing talent has our defense been any good. And this year we have the talent, so what's the excuse.

Aliotti has a 50% success rate in creating a good defense in this tenure with the Ducks. 50% is an F. It doesn't cut the mustard.

I tired of watching the defense flail around against play action like they've never seen it before. I have too many bad memories of 3rd and long being a guaranteed first down.

We cannot get where we want to be as a program with the current defensive scheme. Aliotti has shown a fundamental unwillingness to change the scheme to make it work for the personnel.

If you're not working to solve the problem, then you ARE the problem.

In sports as in politics, its time for a change.

--Dave

Open Thread: Ducks v. Trojans

Addicted to Quack — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:58:49 -0000

5:00 PT, ABC

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

Is SC ready for some Blount Force Trauma? Chat it up about the game here.

Jersey Contest: Blogger Picks

Addicted to Quack — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:07:59 -0000

Hey, I'm nowhere near the cellar right now. Better start rectifying that. On a quick note, Nick couldn't compete with Jared and I, so he fled to a bunker in Japan this week. Time constraints demand that he only offer picks, no rationale.

Kentucky at Alabama

Dave: Kentucky

I know I'm going way against the mold here, and am likely to pay for it dearly. But Alabama is a super young team--just the kind of team that will blow a game when they start to buy into their hype. Plus, I just can't pick Nick Saban twice in a row.

Jared: Alabama

We know very little about Kentucky, while Alabama has been the most impressive (and surprising) team in the nation. Alabama shouhld win this one fairly easily, dominating the trenches in a rout.

Nick: Alabama

Arizona State at California

Dave: Cal

Most people are having pleasant thoughts while lying on their backs. Rudy Carpenter thinks "Dear God, I've just been sacked again. Arizona State's lack of an offensive line will hurt them big.

Jared: Cal

I have zero faith in the lines of ASU. I think Cal can dominate both lines, and thus, the game. If ASU can't establish a run, and there is little reason to think they will, they will have problems all game long.

Nick: Arizona State

Florida State at Miami

Dave: Flordia State

Now, that's what I'm talking about! You come into our house, you should get your behind kicked! You don't come into the OB playing that stuff Oh, wait, the Canes don't play in the OB anymore? Yeah, they aren't any good anymore, either.

Jared: After a tough loss to Wake, Florida State played a good game against an above average Colorado team. Miami has not been too inspiring, and their home field advantage is kind of a joke.

Nick: Miami

Auburn at Vanderbilt

Dave: Auburn

Dammit, its still Vanderbilt. And, until I have reason to believe otherwise.....

Jared: Auburn

Vandy has been outgained in 3 of it's games (including against Rice), but have gotten very fortunate. While's Auburn's offense is fairly atrocious, they should shut down Vandy pretty well, enough to pull out a victory.

Nick: Auburn

Ohio State at Wisconsin

Dave: Wisconsin

It is unfathomable to me how the Badgers lost to a putrid Michigan team last week. But Ohio State not a great team this year. I think Wisconsin can control the game on the ground and not give OSU's mediocre offense enough chances. Badgers take this one.

Jared: Ohio State

Beanie Wells and Terelle Pryor make for a lethal running combination, and play to the strengths of the offensive line. While the Ohio State defense hasn't been all that impressive, they should be able to contain Wisconsin enough to come out with the victory.

Nick: Wisconsin

There you have it. Let's see what happens.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave (addictedtoquack@gmail.com)

Week Five Pac-10 Roundtable

Addicted to Quack — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:32:46 -0000

Conquest Chronicles hosted the roundtable this week. I'm tardy, as usual, getting my reply up, but here it goes:

1. Let's start off with a conference wide question. With USC's loss to Oregon St. on Thursday, is the myth (which I never believed) of USC and the 9 Dwarves finally shattered? Does this game help give the Pac-10 more credibility nationally? If not, why are those anti-Pac-10 bigots wrong?

I think that the story has been "USC has fallen" instead of "The Pac-10 is better than we thought it was." We all know that USC isn't the same as SC teams of old. Many of their games have been competitive. They've lost to Stanford at home. They've lost their last three trips to the state of Oregon, twice to the Beavers and once to the Ducks. But, here's the thing: they still win the conference in the end. That is really what's driving the national perception here.

The fact of the matter is that not since the 2002 season has someone besides USC been a BCS participant from the Pac-10. From 1996-2002, we had every Pac-10 school except Cal and Arizona in a BCS Bowl. From 2003 on, its been only USC. And, regardless of the results of a few individual games, until that changes, it'll still be seen as just SC and everybody else.

2. Now that we are 5 weeks into the season, everyone should have a pretty good feel of how their team is performing. Tell us one or two things (good or bad, on offense or defense) that you're seeing that has surprised you about the performance of your team.

I don't think any of the positives have been surprising. We knew that the run game and the play on both lines would be very, very good. The only real positive surprise to me has been the play of Terrance Scott.

But there have been two surprises that have been very, very bad. One is the play of the secondary. An awful lot of receivers have been open and we lost the BSU game in large part due to their inability to adjust to the play action pass. For a unit that we were touting as maybe the best in the country, they really need to step up and show us more.

Also, the QB situation. Who would've though that we'd be decimated by injuries, playing a fifth string quarterback for the second year in a row. We'll never be anything more than mediocre without consistency from the quarterback position.

2a. More important, how much more of a snapshot do you need to really see where your team is headed this season?

I think I answered that here.

3. As evidence of Thursday night's big Oregon St. win, it's pretty clear that the Beavers have USC's number up in Corvallis. Who's got your team's number in the conference, and why?

Arizona has inexplicably beaten us twice in a row. However, unlike Cal and Oregon State, who've done the same, Arizona has no talent, which makes it much more improbable and infuriating. Plus, they've knocked out our stud starting QB two of the last three seasons (Clemens and Dixon). If I saw Mike Stoops drowning in a river, I'd toss him an anvil.

4. Everyone has a bad loss so far this year, even if it's just one. What did that one loss expose about your team, and how has your team bounced back?

It wasn't so much that the team we lost to was bad, as much as our play was putrid. Some of that we couldn't help. Masoli getting knocked out early left us with a fourth string situational QB and a fifth string redshirt freshman. Our offense predictably struggled. However, the secondary getting roasted and toasted by play action struck fear in us because that was supposed to be the strength of the team. Our team bounced back by pounding WSU, which tells us absolutely nothing. This weekend against SC will be a much better assessment of where we stand.

5. 5. To me, play-calling from play to play is over emphasized, when adjustments over the course of the game are key. How are your coaches doing throughout the course of games? Are they doing an adequate job of making the necessary adjustments, or do you feel they are hampering the players in their efforts?

That's hard for me to answer, because I think its somewhat of a mixed bag. Offensively, I feel like we usually make good adjustments. For all the crap MB and CK took over the BSU game, that situation was hardly their fault. Ditto the Arizona game last year. I think that the second half adjustments have been very good under Kelly, one only need to look to Crowton's second year, or any year under Ludwig, to see how bad they once were. The SC game in '05 is the quintessential example.

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave (addictedtoquack@gmail.com)

Make sure you're registered to vote

Addicted to Quack — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:49:33 -0000

Registration ends soon in most states, Oct. 14 in Oregon (click here to check registration deadlines for your state). If you're unsure whether you are registered, or if your information is up to date, the Obama website can tell you (and I'd bet the McCain one could tell you as well).

Do your civic duty.