He has the face of a stone cold killer.

I think that was their plan.

I appreciate the work and the erudition put into these Nasrallah articles. 

A criticism: when one is a hammer, everything looks like the head of a nail.  Every Ramzy article is psychodramatic, ponderous  narrative formation.  

I get the "angle": apply tale-spinning to a sports subject to get some deeper human perspective.  I think it would be great to branch out in a different direction, though. 

It is still good work and still great effort, but it's time to change up the formula.  

Lanning is a punk coach of a spitting, quasi-cheating team.  Michigan wanna-be's.

I never thought I'd say this, but compare this classless clown to James Franklin who stopped his team from planting a flag and stating they have respect for USC.  That's pretty darn classy of JF.

Dan Lanning will never be a great coach with his bush-league poor sportsmanship.  He'll get his, and I'll be happy to see it. 

Why is a Penn St loss more scary than a loss to Northwestern?  

We needed to win them all.

If we couldn't do that, we needed to win the rest of them.

If we lose again, we need to win the rest of them.

If we lose yet again, we need to win the rest of them.

What's the point?

Meh, get back to me after the season's over.  

I'll make a prediction: Oregon gacks one away, and then we beat their asses to boot.

The "leave no doubt" thing is pretty weak.

If we were to "leave no doubt" we'd win by two scores, everytime.  While that's a good goal, there are going to be one-score games, and single incidents can affect a single score.

It's a goal that can only be acheived if we can 1. beat the other team, 2. beat the bad bounces inheirent in football, 3. beat bad officiating.   We'd have to be heavily superior to the other team.

I hope it makes them angry.  

This

Yeah, Oregon is trash.

I blame Lanning plenty.

The "kick the ball into a up man" on an onsides kick is clever enough.

The "intentional penalty exploitation of a loophole" is cheating.  It's gaming the system.  It's crap.

I would not be proud of our team if we exploited a loophole.  It IS like what Michigan does.  

So I hate Lanning, and while Oregon is not worthy of Clemson or Michigan hate, they're now worthy of disgust.  So I can't wait to pound their faces later.

Can't beat us fair and square, Danny?

Root for mayhem.

This D-line couldn't get any pressure from four men.  

The fact ^^.

The answer?  

a. more blitz and gamble more?

b. rotate more?

c. better stunts and that kind of stuff?

d. better pre-game scouting?

Crap D-line will severely limit the D's ability to get off the field.  Caleb Downs is a baller and Igbinosen seems to hold his own but unless Burke gets his act together, our secondary is not going to be able to shut down good passing teams alone.

This has to be on gameplanning.  I think Day and Kelley and Knowles underrated Oregon, as did I.   Their skill position players (QB and receivers) were excellent.  

We ultimately had needed to be more aggressive and less contain-y.  In retrospect we should have taken a few more deep shots.

It's clear our team has crazy talent, but Oregon played as well as they could have.  Kudos.  I hate them.

We need to fix the Simmons loss (can't be fixed, but papered over) and be sure Denzel's head or body is still working.

But no more listening to our own press and no more underestimating the opposition.  It's a dogfight and there are some good teams in this conference that are going to bring it.

I'm waiting for someone who really knows football to explain, but it seems that we gameplanned the wrong way, in retrospect.  

I don't think we gave Oregon their due, and I know I didn't expect them to be as good as they were.

Our D gameplan was to protect the short stuff, it seems, and use our D-line talent and CB talent to just go man on man, all night.  Without adjustment!

Our O gameplan was to run the short stuff...not throw downfield enough, possibly because of Will's weaknesses.

If even one or the other would have worked...we win.  We practically did, anyway.

The probable conclusion: Jim, you have to take some chances in these big games.  Yes, we can get burned for being too aggressive, but we can get burned by not being aggressive enough.

Chip: same conclusion.

We kinda played not to lose last night, and ran into a very good team that lived up to their early-season hype, and didn't play like the clunker team we had been seeing.  They were better than expected.

Name checks out.

Guy was a good actor, too.

He's got a lot to prove right now.  Like, RIGHT NOW.

I didn't love the O game plan and the D plan straight up failed and there was little adjustment that I saw.

Losing to Oregon once is embarrassing.  Twice is infuriating.  

We should never lose to an Oregon.  But they were better tonight, with their big plays.  

It's not crippling to take this loss.  I wanted undefeated.  I wanted to not lose to a fake team (but Oregon proved to be legit).

If we don't lose again "all our goals are in front of us".

I hope Oregon gacks away their next game to Purdue.  But their schedule is looking pretty easy, except for the Berts.  

I'm putting a lot of this on Knowles, too.

One one hand, he was aggressive enough to do a lot of man coverage (and man, we stunk) and yet he wasn't aggressive enough to blitz (more than once).  I guess he was trying to protect the short middle and maybe he achieved that, but we got burned in the process.

I'm not faulting the O too much but I think Chip needs to stop protecting Will from making deep ball mistakes.  We needed that aspect of the game tonight, and we did too many bubble screens and quick outs.  We needed to loosen them up downfield.

Raiola and Allar?  I doubt it.  

Dillon's shorter than I thought.