Now that spring practice for the Oregon State football team has concluded it’s time to take a look at what’s going on with the opponents for the coming season. They too have concluded their spring practices.
I’ll start with Oregon since the Ducks are the rivals and both fans love to bash each other. I’ll work my way up through the schedule and will end with the season-opener with TCU in Cowboys Stadium.
Feel free to discuss the opponents and all things OSU football on the blog. So here a quick view of the Ducks.
Returning offensive starters: (9) WR D.J. Davis, LT Bo Thran, LG Carson York, C Jordan Holmes, RG Mark Asper, RT C.E. Kaiser, WR Jeff Maehl, WR Lavasier Tuine, RB LaMichael James.
Returning defensive starters: (9) DT Brandon Bair, DE Kenny Rowe, OLB Eddie Pleasant, MLB Casey Matthews, OLB Spencer Paysinger, CB Cliff Harris, FS John Boyett, ROV Javes Lewis, CB Talmadge Jackson.
Returning specialists: (1) P Jackson Rice
Top players: James, Matthews, Paysinger, Bair, Thran, Maehl.
The Civil War: Dec. 4 in Reser Stadium
Overview
As long as the Ducks find a QB the offense should move the ball. They led the Pac-10 in scoring (36.1 ppg) last season. Oregon would have had an easy road to the conference title again if QB Jeremiah Masoli didn’t get suspended for a year for stealing a laptop.
He’s still with the team and will redshirt, coach Chip Kelly said. Kelly, however, has a track record of changing his mind on long-term discipline. If the Ducks drop the first two games, don’t be surprised to see Masoli back on the field.
For now, we’ll go with Nate Costa and Darron Thomas are battling it out to be the starter. They’ll be assisted by James, the Pac-10 Freshman of the Year last season, as a ball carrier. The defense should be strong, led by the three LBs.
I see the Ducks near the top of the conference again. They’ll be in the running for the Holiday Bowl and Alamo Bowl. Maybe the Rose because the Pac-10 is wide open this year.
Links
The GT on the QB battle here. The spring game report here. A look at the secondary here. ESPN Ted Miller’s take here.
24 comments
ElJefe says:
May 5, 2010
I don't recall the outcome of the legal issues with James, but I would think that choking and battering a woman were more serious things than stealing a laptop. Why is Masoli "suspended," but not James?
ckirkpatrick says:
May 5, 2010
James got a one-game suspension. There was questions why the difference in suspension, and I didn't read an answer.
ckirkpatrick says:
May 5, 2010
James got a one-game suspension. There was questions why the difference in suspension, and I didn't read an answer.
CoastalDuck says:
May 5, 2010
ElJefe – your IQ is showing – and it's not a pretty sight – skxawng. You should check first hand the police reports on James before you open your pie hole – no choking, no battering – he grabbed her collar (corroborated by the victim in court) – and held her against a car to keep himself from getting hurt by the crazy-ass chick – period.
Masoli won't be back this year – he lied to Coach K – dumb move and I agree with the year's suspension, but the Ducks will weather the storm and do quite well without JM. The only two questions of any consequence are who the QB will be and how will they do in conference play, and will our undersized DL be able to hold together against good, power-running teams.
With games against most of the contenders being away from home, I think a 9-3 record would be a reasonable expectation .
navspec says:
May 5, 2010
Well since you both seem so educated on the subject. The court documents detail a much different story. But god forbid you guys get your facts right first. And masoli lied to his coach thats why his getting suspended its not for the theft of the laptop. And if you honestly think he will ever see playing time again at qb your an idiot. What a joke. Oh and yea a track record for a one year coach that reinstated a player because he met academic and behavior standards and played in only one regular season game as a senior in the civil war. I guess you can call that a track record. We didn't even need blount and eventually it ended up hurting us in the rose bowl.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
Cliff, "Kelly, however, has a track record of changing his mind on long-term discipline. If the Ducks drop the first two games, don’t be surprised to see Masoli back on the field."____Seriously flawed logic on your part, must be fueled by ignorance and anger. You should seek conseling for this Cliff, life is too short to keep holding onto all that anger. I can understand being totally focused on the Beavs that you don't know much about the other Pac Ten teams, but then why write these articles?
ckirkpatrick says:
May 5, 2010
It's pretty naive to think that winning isn't most important thing. That's why good players get many chances. That's the way of the world of big money.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
Winning is the most important thing in College sports, but it isn't the only thing. If it was, Chip would have brought back Blount after the bye week, that would have been the perfect time. Plus he would have played him in the first two games after he brought him back, but he didn't. You don't think the Ducks could have used Blount in the overtime win at Arizona with the Rose Bowl on the line?
Masoli will not play a down next year regardless of how the Ducks are doing. You can take that to the bank.
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He would have brought back Blount if James didn't run for so many yards. It's easy to pretend you have discipline when the guy coming in for the suspended player does better than the suspended player.
That being said, I don't think Masoli plays, and it's because of Kelly's ego (the lies told to his face) not because of some moral ground or high road stance. The Ducks will win 8 games minimum because nobody has figured out how to stop the system. If Justin Roper can run it, then I think Costa or Thomas can too.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He would have brought back Blount if James didn't run for so many yards. It's easy to pretend you have discipline when the guy coming in for the suspended player does better than the suspended player.
That being said, I don't think Masoli plays, and it's because of Kelly's ego (the lies told to his face) not because of some moral ground or high road stance. The Ducks will win 8 games minimum because nobody has figured out how to stop the system. If Justin Roper can run it, then I think Costa or Thomas can too.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. After consulting with people he respected who thought he should put out the carrot for Blount to work for, Kelly reconsidered his stance. You don't think Kelly knew he was going to take a lot of heat for doing this. But he thought it was the right thing to do and so he did it. To me that shows a lot more moral fiber than sticking to something just because it is easier. You already stated that Oregon didn't need Blount with James and Barner running so well.
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
Right, they didn't need him, which is why he didn't play until the Civil War.
I think the reason you saw him that game was twofold:
1. Mostly, because Kelly thought he needed Blount to win the game.
2. But also because of recruiting. It was controversial, and therefore some recruits probably agreed with the ban and some didn't. To appease the latter, Kelly put him in for a few games to show he "gives second chances" and allows player to pursue NFL dream.
Everything the guy does is calculate–he's that type of personality. So the question is "why", and what I propose makes sense. I can't think of any other reason that makes sense.
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
I mean, Pioduck, what you are proposing is bad logic for this reason: Suddenly, in the 3rd quarter, Kelly decided he respected his buddies' opinions? It was when the game was still close (think the Beavs were actually winning when Blount came in). The big back came in and he softened the defense. That move was the turning point of the game. It makes so much more sense to see it that way than to spin this as suddenly in the 3rd quarter he had this revelation of his father or some lionized coach whispering words of morality in his ear and he suddenly "did the right thing"…come one. This is the University of Oregon and Chip Kelly it's not some Disney movie.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
I can think of another reason, he cares about his players and he felt that this was the right thing to do for Blount. But I know you won't accept this, you will from Mike Riley, but not Kelly.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
By your logic then why didn't Kelly play Blount against Arizona? We were in a worse position against Arizona then were against the Beavs, and he didn't play him. And it wasn't about playing, it was about working his way back onto the team. So it wasn't in the 3rd quarter that he suddenly did the right thing. It was back when he allowed Blount the possibility of working his way back onto the team. But once again you can't see this, only Blount running over your beloved Beavs.
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He didn't play in the Arizona game because James wound up being alright. Blount was reinstated right before that game if memory serves, and it was as a precaution in case James couldn't go. Once James went, Kelly sat Blount so he could take the high road and stand by his word. My counter question would be this: Do you think Blount sees the field in the Civil War if the Ducks are up 60-20? I don't.
And your lame cheap shot about Blount running over my beloved Beavs…that is an emotional reaction that you see from fans when their logic fails them. It's like calling someone ugly or stupid or punching them in the face in grade school because you can't come up with a quip that's tantamount to theirs.
I'm not going to go there–if you click my blog once you'll see I am all over the Beavs and give the Ducks credit all the time when they do the right thing.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
Blount was re-instated the game before the Arizona game, but he didn't play in that game either because when Chip Kelly brought him back he put him the bottom of the depth chart and made him earn his way back up to receive playing time.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
Blount was re-instated the game before the Arizona game, but he didn't play in that game either because when Chip Kelly brought him back he put him the bottom of the depth chart and made him earn his way back up to receive playing time.
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He would have brought back Blount if James didn't run for so many yards. It's easy to pretend you have discipline when the guy coming in for the suspended player does better than the suspended player.
That being said, I don't think Masoli plays, and it's because of Kelly's ego (the lies told to his face) not because of some moral ground or high road stance. The Ducks will win 8 games minimum because nobody has figured out how to stop the system. If Justin Roper can run it, then I think Costa or Thomas can too.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He would have brought back Blount if James didn't run for so many yards. It's easy to pretend you have discipline when the guy coming in for the suspended player does better than the suspended player.
That being said, I don't think Masoli plays, and it's because of Kelly's ego (the lies told to his face) not because of some moral ground or high road stance. The Ducks will win 8 games minimum because nobody has figured out how to stop the system. If Justin Roper can run it, then I think Costa or Thomas can too.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
He would have brought back Blount if James didn't run for so many yards. It's easy to pretend you have discipline when the guy coming in for the suspended player does better than the suspended player.
That being said, I don't think Masoli plays, and it's because of Kelly's ego (the lies told to his face) not because of some moral ground or high road stance. The Ducks will win 8 games minimum because nobody has figured out how to stop the system. If Justin Roper can run it, then I think Costa or Thomas can too.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
angrybeaver says:
May 5, 2010
Maybe you didn't see my blog in the first post. I bash Mike Riley all the time. I won't accept anything if it's a lie, no.
You're telling me that you are okay with the timing of substituting Blount? That nothing about him being inserted in the 3rd quarter of the Civil War with the Rose Bowl on the line is suspicious? That nothing about that timing says, "we need this guy to soften the D and win this game"? None of that crosses your mind? And instead you think, "He decided 3 quarters into the game that this was the best thing to do for his player"?
Okay, dude.
Pioduck says:
May 5, 2010
And you know when somebody is lying? Really? Our legal system and political system could use your talents.
To the point of Blount coming in the 3rd quarter I absolutely agree that Kelly thought he could help to win the game. But you are fixated on the 3rd quarter of the Civil War. The whole process was put in motion 5 or 6 weeks earlier when Kelly said that if Blount did certain things he could be re-instated. He wasn't thinking gee in 6 weeks we are going to need Blount in the 3rd quarter of the Civil War. Chip made him earn his way back onto the team and into the playing rotation. What is not clear about that.
Then you call me out for something you think is a lame cheap shot and then you respond with "Okay dude". Really?
angrybeaver says:
May 6, 2010
I don't know when someone is lying, but there's a point where a reasonable man can deduct it. You're being irrational because you're biased and have reason to believe your coach is a great man. Blount played because they needed him. Blount was reinstated because Kelly foresaw he might need him in certain games. The proof of this is clear if you see when and where Blount was first played.
I just want the truth and nothing more. As a Beaver fan I freely admit the Ducks are better at everything they choose to be better at and envy their aggressive, confident mentality. They have better coaches in every sport but basketball right now. It would also be nice if Duck fans would and could acknowledge the truth about their teams as well–that money has a lot to do with their success, that their head football coach is a confused, calculating, manipulative, brilliant weasel, etc. I'd take it all in a heart-beat over the classy blue collar reputation of my team. Just admit that is your schools m.o.
Any time a Duck tells me their teams are better I just say I know. There is no reasonable retort for it. So go on, create a strawman by reminiscing about them Beavers being run over and I'll nod if that's what you want to see.