I think Moorhead is going to bring to Oregon's offense what is needed and just at the right time.  With Herbert and other offensive players leaving, it's a good time to bring in a proven OC.

Moorhead's record was okay.  I don't think it was worthy of being fired.  However, Leach doing much better there . . . but, it could be entertaining to watch him integrate himself into SEC. 

I'm still not sure how much of what happened as far as a tutor taking exams for players at Mississippi State had to do with Moorhead, but the more I think about it, I think he's the right person at the right time.    Unfortunately, if Moorhead does well, I see him leaving with 2-3 seasons.

KONA808 wrote:

MadDuck wrote:

KONA808 wrote:

I see all his credentials repeated over and over again—impressive. Now I’d like for him to come out and explain why he was so abruptly fired from MSU.

There is plenty of information about this, pretty much everywhere on the web if you’re really interested in finding out what happened at MSU. Do you think he’s going to magically have an explanational presser just for our fans? Doubtful. From everything I’ve read, (and I’ve read a lot) it was a combination of a bad personality fit with the fan base, and ridiculous expectations of what MSU football should be.

Thanks for giving me a kick in the pants. I found this link and know more now.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.clarionledger.com/amp/2805624001

FTR, not trying to bust your chops. I just knew there was a lot out there abut it. I read a lot. and while I understand some of the rhetoric, I also know that often there is a lot going on we don't see or hear about. We also know how media (local and regional) can sometimes infer things that in fact are far, far from the truth.

I think that a lot happened that was in motion within the athletic department before Coach was even there, embedded in the athletic department culture that was present when he got there. he didn't arrange for the tutors that caused NCAA violations, but he had to pay the price, interestingly, it's my understanding that those same players were supposedly involved in the incident leading to the injury to the quarterback 

In any event, I've read nothing that gave me any concern about this hire, in fact: I think that MSU's handling of this led to firing a coach who had pretty impressive success for that program in the SEC West.

MadDuck wrote:

FTR, not trying to bust your chops.

I get that.

DucksReign wrote:

It is a cliche because it is true...defense wins championships.

The average score in the 6 CFP Championship Games played to date has been 39 to 25. After scoring a TD around the 10 minute mark in the 2nd quarter; Clemson scored 1 TD the rest of the game against LSU. The year previously, Alabama took the lead 16-14 over Clemson in the 2nd quarter and never scored again. 

Oregon averaged 35 points per game this year. It will be interesting to see what Moorhead does with the offense; who will be the starting QB, etc. but the key for Oregon to win a National Championship will be on the defensive side of the ball. Go Ducks!

"Defense wins championships." This might be worthy of a thread, all of its own. I've never fully bought into that idea.

I've always believed what wins championships is having the combination of a better offense and defense that is superior to that of your opponents. You win regardless if you're on top when the final score is either 100-99 or 3-2. For example, this year it was no coincidence that the 4 playoff teams were ALL in the top 5 statistically in offense. Defensively, the 4 playoff teams ranked #1, #6, #31 and #38 overall. LSU was ranked #31. But they also had the #1 ranked offense.

I've seen other years when those stats could be flipped. So does defense win championships? Yes. Does offense win championships? Yes. Both can be true. And that's why the most important event of the past few months for Oregon football fans was probably the hiring of Joe Moorhead as the OC.

Most defenses can't hold a team down for an entire game.  Your offense may not score a lot, but if they don't, they at least need to move the ball enough so your defense isn't playing 45 minutes.  

Basically, you have to be either very good on both sides of the ball or dominant on one side and at least competent on the other.  

A dominant offense puts the opposing offense under pressure, they make mistakes, and your defense looks better than it really probably is.  We saw that in the Chip Kelly years.  A dominant defense gets you great field position and makes your offense look better.  So you can't necessarily say that points allowed or scored is indicative of whether or not a team is winning with offense or with defense.  It might be that low points allowed means you've got a great defense, but it might just mean your offense is good enough to help the defense a lot.

Championship teams score more points than their opponents.  That, you can count on.