DuckInTheMountains wrote:

So, I'm interested in what you guys think on that last offensive play call.

We got the ball on our 25.  We have run 3 1/2 minutes off the clock and burned two of their 3 timeouts.  We've used running and short passing plays to move down to their 24, with 3 minutes left.  On the entire drive, we've never been behind on the yardage, the worst we had was 2nd and 6, and 3rd and 1.  We've effectively just marched down the field, never looking like we were going to struggle to make a first down.

But here, we only made one yard on first down, the first time we've been behind the markers on the possession.  To get ahead of the markers on this play we need at least 6 yards.  We only need to kill 3 more minutes.  If we run two running plays they will burn their third timeout and we will run the clock down to about 2 minutes before we have to snap the ball on fourth down.

A FG might be worth doing because then they will need a TD, with only 2 minutes to get it.  But we might also be in four down territory, so even though we are behind the chains we still have a decent chance of running or screen passes to get the first down.  And if we get the first down, we'll run out the clock, or so close as to give them no time.

But....

They'll be stacking the box.  We've got some fast receivers that could sneak behind them.  And in fact, that's what happened, the defense was beaten, it's just that it was underthrown.  But AB has been on fire and you wouldn't expect him to underthrow after the day he's had.  He hits the receiver and not only do you win the game, you send a message to opposing defenses for the rest of the year -- if you pack the box on us you might pay.  

If you run the ball on second down and don't make much, then they'll be at least partly expecting a throw.  But if you throw it now, on 2nd and 9, it's probably a surprise.

So, do you like the call or not?

Personally, I like it.  If there had been a minute less on the clock, I think I'd have wanted to go for killing as much clock as possible.  Run the ball, and if you have to give it back with a minute left and our defense, I'd take that.  But I wouldn't like giving the ball to a Chip Kelly offense with 2 minutes left, so I like trying to win the game.  And even though it didn't work, every D coordinator we face from now on will remember that play, and in a similar situation will be kept more honest as a result.

Obviously, I didn't like what happened, but I like the call.
 

I'm not sure that throw wasn't part of AB's choices. I think he had some options, and choose that one. We had been dinking down the field, and he had a shorter pass open in the right flat, but choose to try and get the TD. You're correct it would have sealed the win, but looking at all the blue jerseys, he should have either run or thrown it to a safer option. I'm a big fan of just running out the clock, but everything comes with risks. To me, it comes down to ABs decision making, but we hung on. I expect we'll see more passing against the Buffs, which I like...just make good decisions.
 

So I was wrong, that last throw was a called play. MC and Joe discuss it here.
https://247sports.com/college/oregon/Article/Mario-Cristobal-Oregon-Ducks-Ducks-Football-Joe-Moorhead-Anthony-Brown-173866257/

DucksReign wrote:

It may have been a called play but why would you have AB try to execute it? How many times this season has he thrown a pass over 20-yards to the end zone? It requires a different type of throw than simply launching a pass from your own 20-yard line.

Cristobal's belief system as it relates to play selection-clock management-remaining timeouts for the opponent is fueled by pure arrogance i.e. none of it matters...thus sometimes it works(UCLA) and sometimes it doesn't(Stanford). That is Mario-ball...it is what it is.

Not gonna disagree, but what I will say is I believe MC is evolving as a HC. A couple of years ago, there wouldn't have been any way he'd approve of that call. I know CJ is out, and this game seemed like the UCLA defense was allowing the pass more so than the run, but I see it as growth in his becoming a CEO...
 

Jiffy Jeff wrote:

My only thought was that if you are taking your shot at the end zone, you toss it high and at the back of it. Kinda like Montana to Clark…

Yeah, but my question was whether you like the play call, not whether you like the execution.  We all hated the execution. 

You NEVER want to underthrow on that play but then, we knew we didn't have a Heisman-winning QB....

FWIW here is Ken Woody's take on it from his RG column (paid subscription so I am doing a copy / paste of it.)

As you can tell he sees it through a much bigger filter than the call / pass...more about clock management...and I do agree with him that those two INT's gave UCLA an opportunity to steal the win when the passes were not necessary...

"Cristobal still needs to improve the offensive team’s clock management. Ahead 34-17 and threatening to make the game a rout, he either called or agreed to a call for quarterback Anthony Brown to throw two ill-advised, low-percentage passes that were intercepted and allowed the Bruins opportunities to steal the game from the Ducks. The second interception came on a second-and-9 situation with only three minutes left on UCLA’s 24-yard line and the Bruins having burned two of their three timeouts on plays before the pick — a good time to be safe and cautious.

One more run, or a higher-percentage pass, would have forced the third timeout and the Ducks could either get another first down or, if stymied, have gone for a field goal that would have left UCLA with having to score a touchdown to win and not a field goal to get the game to overtime. Does any of this sound familiar; like the Stanford debacle in Palo Alto three weeks ago?"

I'm not opposed to being aggressive. If we weren't aggressive earlier we wouldn't have been in the lead.

That being said it wasn't the greatest play call and AB made a bad throw. Moorhead said it wasn't a good call.

A number of other plays including passes with positive yardage that weren't going the endzone could've been called. 

I was happy with the offensive play calling as a whole. We were able to strike at UCLA's weakness of pass defense and use the run effectively to get the ball in and score when needed.