It's another Monday with Marsh, as Jon Joseph was so kind to put it. Here is my latest as today we talk about runningbacks.

https://open.substack.com/pub/marshduck/p/should-oregon-move-away-from-runningback?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8foswi

Thanks, David, for another terrific article.

Forget the Mamas and Papas; if it's a Monday with Marsh on the Forum, I can trust that day. 😁

Oh, the irony. In the Orange Bowl, Oregon was roughed up by a terrific and nasty Red Raiders D. After the first series, where Mendoza was sacked twice, Indiana blew out a 'soft' Alabama team. A Tide team that finished the season in the same fashion it opened the season with a no-show against FSU.

And a 12-2 BYU team had to watch a post-Rose Bowl loss 11-4 Bama team go down not with a bang, but a whimper. (Peach Bowl? Sorry, I have no recollection).

You covered the pluses and minuses of RB by Committee from top to bottom. In today's world of pay-for-play and every player, whether realistic or not, certain of making an NFL roster, I wonder if there is any dialogue regarding save your legs for the NFL and make more CFB bank with fewer carries?

To win a title today means playing 16 or 17 games in the season. This in an NIL era where it is close to impossible to stack a roster.

It would be so nice to be in Las Vegas on 1/25/27 with all Ducks on deck.

Thanks again.

I don't mind the RB by committee approach but I would like to see it as more of a per drive basis. Way to many stalled drives on RB changes mid drive.

I see the value of the "hot-hand" at crucial junctures in the game, but those games we have in hand--I'd like to see the depth chart utilized to get the young-guns reps and experience.

A massively overlooked aspect of the offense going into this fall is the how the emphasis on the passing game could open up many one-on-one matches in the flat between Dierre Hill and a linebacker. I believe he will have his jukes refined this year after seeing what game-speed at the highest level is.

Explosion Plays Coming!

70-30 to 60-40ish. I don't know how you limit Hill. The guy flashed "elite" as a true freshman. When the game is still in Question, imo, you gotta thin the heard to Hill and Davison.

Hopefully Mehringer can recognize the hot hand quicker than Stein showed. Or risk simply being known as Meh'.

I feel pretty comfortable knowing Davison is in the backfield early. He can alleviate a ton of pressure of this young O line as they work some kinks out.

The concerns fans have about this team are really good problems to have. It is good to be a Duck.

I think it depends upon the committee. Is it one RB mainly for rushing plays and one mainly for passing plays? That doesn't work as you are telegraphing tendencies. Or a 60/40ish split between two RBs?

I like the fact that, I think starting with the 2027 class, the five to play five rule takes effect. That way in blowouts you get to see the depth. Also, not necessarily a blowout, but a game truly in hand, we would get to see more of the rotation as we are no longer worried about the redshirt rule.

I am also not sure of the hot hand category. If a team is weaker with their run D, then Davidson will seem to be the hot hand although maybe Hill might be just as successful if given the carries. Definitely if a player has the drops or fumblitis then move on for the rest of the game.

55 minutes ago, Log Haulin said:

Or risk simply being known as Meh'.

I do see the benefit of running by committee per David's main points (keeping legs fresh during a long season, limiting opportunities for injury, keeping players from transferring through playing time, etc.) and I think it should stay that way with one caveat: more recognition by coaches to leave the "hot hand" in instead of cycling him out as a matter of procedure. If it's a critical/difficult game like with Indiana where Davidson was the only one making headway, leave him in. Not sure if the position coach or the OC makes those calls when it comes to substitutions but one or the other should take that into more consideration.

Since Lanning's arrival, there has not been 1 offensive leader in RB or WR. Yet we have had the 2nd most explosive offense in CFB in that time.

Seems to me things are working pretty well. Why change up?

I like spreading the ball.

RB by committee seems just fine to this ol' Duck fan.

I believe in quality, not quantity.

Edited July 6Jul 6 by DanLduck

Thunder, lightning, and clean up, is what I see happening.

On average, the Ducks will run the ball around 30 times/game. A “feature back” with this running back room is averaging 12 to 15 carries. I like the idea of having a feature back, but you have to keep an eye on the run of games we have late in the season, and limit the wear and tear.

We know what we have in Davison, and Hill. I am curious to see who steps into the reliable clean up role.