Sunday, November 05, 2006

A closer look at an ugly loss

The boards over at Dawgman are pretty cranky, and don't expect the anger to subside this week. This was the worst game the Huskies have played all season, they were dominated for four full quarters, and the only reason it stayed close for three was because the Duck's made the type of mistakes which keep the underdog in the game. Let's take a closer look at what happened yesterday.

Carl Bonnell was 15-34 for 125 and two touchdowns.

I didn't think Carl played badly, he obviously lost effectiveness when Oregon didn't have to worry about the run anymore after going up by 17. Bonnell's biggest problem today was that his receivers kept dropping the ball, and his TB couldn't pick up many yards. I counted 8-10 balls that should have been caught yesterday in addition to what he completed. Dropped balls kill drives. A couple of dropped balls took points off the board. Cody Ellis needs some stickum, either on his hands, or on his butt to stick him on the bench.

Louis Rankin had ten carries for 33 yards.

Lappano said they tried hard to establish the run, they tried inside and outside. Ten carries by your TB's is trying to establish the run?

Shelton Sampson

"Maybe we should take a look at him," said UW offensive coordinator Tim Lappano of Sampson. You are down to two eligible running backs and it is obvious that you have had no intention of letting Sampson play this year even though it has been evident since James went down in the 1st quarter against Cal that Rankin couldn't do the job. What are they seeing that we aren't seeing? I have seen Sampson carry the ball before, and hands down he can do a better job than Rankin has the past three games.

UW was whistled for seven penalties, resulting in a season-high 72 penalty yards.

Special teams racked up how many game killing penalties yesterday? Maybe it is a good time to evaluate Bob Simmons status as a special teams coach because it certainly is an area of the team that is not improving. UW was never in any type of synch yesterday, the Husky defense was called for two uncharacteristic person fouls.

Oregon dominated both lines of scrimmage

We were manhandled from the outset on both lines. If you can bear to watch the film you can see Oregon running backs cruising through the line untouched, brushing by Husky DL who were totally locked up by the men in front of them. On offense are tackles just imploded, Bonnell was flushed out of the pocket most of the day. Taj Bomar was never a factor today. If you are going to play nickel all day you need a bigger, and faster presence anchoring the middle.

Why was Baer in the nickel from the outset?

The game plan was pretty simple for the Huskies, they expected rain, lots of rain and they wanted to slow down Oregon's spread early, then when the rain came stuff the run. The rain never came. Using the nickel kept the Oregon passing game in check all day, in fact the interceptions resulted in two offensive scores which kept the Huskies in the game. What went wrong is our DL could not get off our our blocks, and with only two LB's Oregon was able to run into the secondary picking up 5-9 at a crack. UW never made any adjustments to the nickel choosing to slow down the Duck's by having them run than letting them throw and score more quickly. The point is the defense only gave up 27 points yesterday which is enough to beat Oregon if your offense is clicking.

What is wrong with the offense?

Stanback masks a lot of problems, but even he as we saw against Oregon State can't win a game by himself if his lineman aren't blocking, and his receivers are dropping balls. The biggest culprit yesterday was dropped balls by the receivers, it resulted in three and outs all day. The next culprit was not getting many yards on first down. 2nd and ten doesn't yield a lot of opportunities.

How did Lappano do yesterday?

He called a crappy game that only was made worse by his team dropping catchable balls. His refusal to insert Sampson and continue with Rankin shows that he still is trying to put square pegs in round holes.

Why didn't Baer put 8 in the box to stop the run?

Oregon would have scored a lot more, and a lot quicker if we had sold out on the run. Still you have to wonder why he didn't at least try to mix it up at times? I guess you would have to ask him why he didn't make many adjustments. One of the biggest factors yesterday effecting the defense was that they were on the field all day long because the offense was three and out all day.

How did depth effect Washington?

The Dawgs are very thin almost everywhere. On one particular series the absence of Wallace, Well's, and Ala was pretty apparent. Not having IS, and Kenny James is crippling. Nothing against Carl, but IS is way more difficult to defend and prepare for. Case in point was Oregon who has a similar QB in Dixon was very average when Leaf came in to play QB. Stanback , and James mask a lot of Washingtons problems.

Time of Possession

I haven't seen anything this one sided in years. Oregon had the ball 35.08 to Washington's 24.52. Tree and out will do that to you. The best defense against Oregon is keeping the ball out of their hands.

Rushing Yardage

Washington had 21 total carries for 13 yards. Rankin had 33 on then carries. Oregon had 54 carries for 316 yards.

What about effort?

I didn't see anything to indicate that a single person quit out there. Oregon put together their best game of the year which coincided with Washington's worst. Strength at the line of scrimmage was a huge advantage for Oregon. Defensively the Duck's aren't special, but Washington never took advantage of anything they were given. Not to say that they were ever given enough to win the game, but the offensive performance was pathetic.

What about the coaching staff?

They were outcoached, out motivated, out planned, and out prepared, simple as that. These are the types of games that get coaches fired, and this staff is very aware of it. Oregon obviously had a home advantage, and a significant talent advantage, but so did USC, and Cal, you could also say that OSU, and ASU have a lot more talent than UW. That being said we played those teams to the last snap, this one was over early because we simply never found a way to be effective in any area of the game.

How good is Oregon?

The Ducks have top ten talent and have been slowed by injuries and turnovers this year. When they are on they can beat anyone in the country. The Oregon offensive line is the best I have seen all year. Add in a Heisman type RB, and some high draft choices at receiver and you have a pretty good offensive team. Dixon is talented, but he also can self destruct, Oregon did the safe thing, and that was to put the game in Stewarts hands. If they had done that against Cal they would have fared much better.

Can we beat Stanford?

We are going to kill Stanford.

Can we beat WSU?

I would have said no until Arizona handed it to them today at home. Now I am back to thinking it is a winnable game.

6 comments:

BLAZER PROPHET said...

I felt Oregon brought their 'B' game and Washington their 'C-' game.

IMHO, UW should have run more early on. Their's gaps to be found in the UO defense, but a team needs to be patient and find them. Why UW was passing early was a mystery to me. They did a very good job getting turnovers.

Another mystery is how UO did their standard zone blocking and UW's corners and saftey didn't come up and disrupt it.

To be sure, UW wasn't sharp, but they also didn't seem very well prepared and it appeared the UW coaching staff didn't do their homework.

hairofthedawg said...

I don't know...B game? Maybe at times during the first three quarters, but that running game was was an awfully nice B game.

I think they need stickum on the numbers on their jerseys. Your other idea isn't bad though.

One thing that makes this team far different from my favorite Husky teams is the lack of quick hitters from the fullback. Maybe the talent isn't there, but long rumbles by fullbacks are nice in many ways. Then again, I can't remember if I saw a fullback.

I remember Sampson breaking off some nice runs until being tackled. I can't speculate as to what's going on with him, but if he's going to get an opportunity, next weekend is about as good a time as any, I hope.

The penalties called on the punts were just weird.

Lots of other good observations John and BP, enjoy the rain.

BLAZER PROPHET said...

Well, yes, the running game was very good, but a couple of things. The first is that Oregon had few long runs- mostly medium runs. The second this is that UO had a lot of slow developing runs that UW seemed too slow to come up and stop. I just feel the plays were there to be made, but the defense wasn't adequately prepared.

Health Insurance Expert said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Health Insurance Expert said...

Blazer, I would say they brought their B plus game,no way can you give them an A with the turnovers that turned into points.

Washington did bring a C-game, they just didn't seem prepared for what the Duck's decided to bring to the table. Stewart and your offensive line brought their A plus game. Dixon brought down the overall grade.

Hair, I really miss the fullback too, we did plan to use it more, but you can't do it in 3rd and long.

Blazer, from the film Oregon did have slow developing runs, but the blocking on the offensive line was the best I have seen all year. We weren't slow reacting, we just couldn't get off the blocks. Our middle linebacker had his second straight bad game. We have a frosh starter (Butler)who is going to be pretty good that was out last week.

I think Lappano called a crappy game, and our execution all day was sloppy on offense. Defensively giving up only 27 to the Ducks was good enough to win. the nickel wasn't as much of a factor as the time spent on the field because our offense was inefficient.

BLAZER PROPHET said...

Well, it was fun. Good luck the rest of the year. I hope you get things straigtened out.

For what it's worth, I don't think much of Ty or his staff overall. I think you'd be better served with a different coach.