I think your lists are accurate. It is interesting how Cristobal was disliked for being over the top too conservative and now Lanning is being criticized for being too reckless and not conservative enough! Is there a middle ground for an Oregon head coach?

We are probably saying the same thing in different ways, but while perhaps not a + or a - I think there is a deserved list of what Lanning needs to improve upon. Let me begin by saying only 7 years ago he was a GA at Alabama. He held ONE DC position at Georgia and because they won a National Championship he was deemed a "great defensive coach." He is clearly not.

*You have to coach the "big games" differently whether that is your philosophy or not and for Oregon those are the uw and osu games...both of which were grossly mismanaged this season. One of the first things Saban said yesterday in his press conference is how important it is to win the Iron Bowl against Auburn for players and fans. I don't think Lanning coached with that mindset against arguably Oregon's two biggest rivals.

*Sometimes you have to go outside our comfort zone or preferred style to MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE TEAM. Lanning is clearly not a screamer, clipboard thrower or rip off the headset kind of guy...but I tell you, if Saban had been the Oregon head coach yesterday...he would have gone ballistic on players and coaches after osu's first "comeback" TD. Part of being a good head coach, I believe, is making people around you uncomfortable from time to time...Lanning always appears to me as a pat on the back, "it is okay buddy" kind of person. 

*Stop "thinking" what you feel will work and go with what you NEED to do. I have noticed his typical reply to a botched "trick play" almost always starts, "Thought we..." Duh...of course you did but those work best when they are the exception and not part of a routine.

As a side note I hope by now he has told the punter if that situation ever happens again DO NOT fall on the ball on the 1-yard line...throw or kick it out of the end zone but take a safety because 2 points is better than an almost certain 6 or 7.

Otherwise...

Every coach should get 4-years, if reasonable, to create "their team" with recruits and transfers. Lanning like all first-year head coaches is working with a majority of players he inherited.

So while I am disappointed, frustrated and upset at Lanning right now, certainly not going to bail on him(like I have a choice in the matter as to his employment status). It is funny to read Ohio State message boards...Ryan Day is 45-5 as head coach of the luckeyes and now having been rolled in consecutive years by Michigan(YAY!) fans are calling for him to be fired! Ridiculous? Of course BUT it speaks to my point above about coaching the big games differently.

Last edited by DucksReign (11/27/2022 8:19 am)

oldretiredguy wrote:

Good points JJ. To call out Lanning because our defense sucked ignores the fact he isn't the DC, plus as a first year HC, he had plenty to do besides coach the D. 

Disagree 1000%

Cristobal got blamed for everything...why not Lanning?

While the defense perhaps needs a makeover on many different issues, let's not ignore the fact that Lanning's decisions in the last 3 game put the defense in very difficult situations...onside kick, going for it on 4th downs, a reverse against Utah to start the second half, not punting from your own 29-yard line and so on. It is actually quite a list when you think about it. Those were not Lupoi's decisions.

Yes there may be better options than Lupoi but to blame him when far too many key situations in the last 3 games came down to the head coach making decisions(some perhaps in conjunction with Dillingham) which put unnecessary pressure on the defense is to ignore reality. Lanning is the head coach and just like Cristobal, his fingerprints are all over what happened the last 3 games and he deserves the overwhelming amount of the blame whether it is his first year or 10th year. Maybe if Lanning's decision-making improves so will the defense?

DucksReign wrote:

oldretiredguy wrote:

Good points JJ. To call out Lanning because our defense sucked ignores the fact he isn't the DC, plus as a first year HC, he had plenty to do besides coach the D. 

Disagree 1000%

Cristobal got blamed for everything...why not Lanning?

While the defense perhaps needs a makeover on many different issues, let's not ignore the fact that Lanning's decisions in the last 3 game put the defense in very difficult situations...onside kick, going for it on 4th downs, a reverse against Utah to start the second half, not punting from your own 29-yard line and so on. It is actually quite a list when you think about it. Those were not Lupoi's decisions.

Yes there may be better options than Lupoi but to blame him when far too many key situations in the last 3 games came down to the head coach making decisions(some perhaps in conjunction with Dillingham) which put unnecessary pressure on the defense is to ignore reality. Lanning is the head coach and just like Cristobal, his fingerprints are all over what happened the last 3 games and he deserves the overwhelming amount of the blame whether it is his first year or 10th year. Maybe if Lanning's decision-making improves so will the defense?

How did you like the onside kick against the Bruins? I never blamed MC the way so many have..he won a lot of games here and 2 PAC-12 championships plus a Rose Bowl win. Lanning is the HC, not a coordinator, but sure, it falls on him. We are 9-3, with some great memories, having finally seen an offense. I get it, fan boards right now are full of melting down "fans"...it's just nuts. My glass is half full, and we'll see what Coach Lanning does moving forward.
 

Hopefully Dilly will NOT stay as OC for the bowl game.

I believe he checked out last night and he's already mentally moved on from Oregon. We should move on also. Let Adams run the offense.

 

oldretiredguy wrote:

DucksReign wrote:

oldretiredguy wrote:

Good points JJ. To call out Lanning because our defense sucked ignores the fact he isn't the DC, plus as a first year HC, he had plenty to do besides coach the D. 

Disagree 1000%

Cristobal got blamed for everything...why not Lanning?

While the defense perhaps needs a makeover on many different issues, let's not ignore the fact that Lanning's decisions in the last 3 game put the defense in very difficult situations...onside kick, going for it on 4th downs, a reverse against Utah to start the second half, not punting from your own 29-yard line and so on. It is actually quite a list when you think about it. Those were not Lupoi's decisions.

Yes there may be better options than Lupoi but to blame him when far too many key situations in the last 3 games came down to the head coach making decisions(some perhaps in conjunction with Dillingham) which put unnecessary pressure on the defense is to ignore reality. Lanning is the head coach and just like Cristobal, his fingerprints are all over what happened the last 3 games and he deserves the overwhelming amount of the blame whether it is his first year or 10th year. Maybe if Lanning's decision-making improves so will the defense?

How did you like the onside kick against the Bruins? I never blamed MC the way so many have..he won a lot of games here and 2 PAC-12 championships plus a Rose Bowl win. Lanning is the HC, not a coordinator, but sure, it falls on him. We are 9-3, with some great memories, having finally seen an offense. I get it, fan boards right now are full of melting down "fans"...it's just nuts. My glass is half full, and we'll see what Coach Lanning does moving forward.
 

Onside kick against UCLA was a completely different situation. In that case Oregon had just taken a 17-10 lead and there were nearly 11 minutes remaining in the second quarter.

Contrast that with the uw where Oregon had played poorly for most of the first half and were behind the entire time until they tied the score at 10-all with 4 minutes remaining in the second quarter.. Plus they were going to get the ball to start the second half. Made absolutely no sense and sure enough uw kicked a FG to take the lead.