Happy Labor Day Monday,

Lots has already been discussed about the BSU game but I do believe this will be the x-factor the Ducks will need to take advantage of this season.

The Ducks Need to Unleash the Vertical Passing Game

Oregon survived Boise State a team that seems to bring out the worst in the Ducks.

Thank you, David.

Lasso the Cowboys!

Those behind the line side passes fail most of the time and receivers are usually tackled before the line of scrimmage.

Why do coaches insist on using them?

4 minutes ago, 1Ducker1 said:

Those behind the line side passes fail most of the time and receivers are usually tackled before the line of scrimmage.

Why do coaches insist on using them?

They are an extension of the run game. Getting a player into space with the ball in their hands. It worked fantastic for Chip and company but defenses have know how to defend in space and if they can tackle in space then it's easy to slow down an offense..

It also felt like there were some missed blocking assignments on the perimeter on Saturday as well. Lock down those assignments and I think they work better.

But open up the vert passing game and the defense can't play so close to the line of scrimmage.

I'm not advocating getting rid of short passes because sometimes getting small chunks is all you can get... But those vertical passes were deadly and we need to see more of them.

38 minutes ago, David Marsh said:

Happy Labor Day Monday,

Lots has already been discussed about the BSU game but I do believe this will be the x-factor the Ducks will need to take advantage of this season.

The Ducks Need to Unleash the Vertical Passing Game

Oregon survived Boise State a team that seems to bring out the worst in the Ducks.

Excellent article. Thank you.

If our O Line figures it out and can give DM a little time, we will be making a lot of teams pay with 25+ yard strikes downfield this season.

David, an element that could help unleash the vertical passing game is what Scott Reed brought up in his analysis today. Once Jordon Davison got going in the ground game, the Broncos had to defend the box better, which left one on one coverage by the Boise State defensive backs.

So getting Davison involved earlier might actually open up the vertical game as you suggest.

And I completely agree with you!

Great points by all.....

Some of the basic keys to a successful, high scoring offense:

A defense that gets the

ball back to their offense

(Come on D, more 3rd

down stops)

Keeping the opposing

defense off balance and

on their heels.

An offensive line that

opens holes for the RB's,

pass protects for the QB

and fires off the ball.

And a QB who is a threat

to run the ball to keep

the defense honest.

(Only when playing

USC, tOSU, Udub and

in the playoffs.)

These are obvious comments. The more the Ducks handle these basic moves as a team, the more points go on the board.

Go Ducks....open a can of but kick on the Cowboys.

Anyone with two brain cells can understand Dante's arm talent and our fast high possession receivers means the greatest success passing will be a down field attack.

The problem is Kenny Dillingham designed a high efficiency offense around Bo Nix' strengths, and Dan Lanning has been smitten by that play calling approach ever since.

If Dillingham were our OC today he would have designed a very different offense for the players we have now. But Dan doesn't think like that. We know that because the very first season with the wrong players for the system that Kirby ran at Georgia, he ran that system anyways.

It's honestly impressive to see that MC at Miami has finally let go of his offensive philosophy and let the OC cook. Hopefully Dan gets there quicker than Mario.

If Mehringer is truly a data driven mad scientist then he'll evaluate the success rates he is having, regardless of execution perfection and come to his own conclusions about what works best with players he has, not the players he wishes he had.

Finally got to watch the game and from the looks of it this game would look very different if it wasn't for one blatant missed call and a couple really stupid penalties.

3 hours ago, Solar said:

Anyone with two brain cells can understand Dante's arm talent and our fast high possession receivers means the greatest success passing will be a down field attack.

The problem is Kenny Dillingham designed a high efficiency offense around Bo Nix' strengths, and Dan Lanning has been smitten by that play calling approach ever since.

If Dillingham were our OC today he would have designed a very different offense for the players we have now. But Dan doesn't think like that. We know that because the very first season with the wrong players for the system that Kirby ran at Georgia, he ran that system anyways.

It's honestly impressive to see that MC at Miami has finally let go of his offensive philosophy and let the OC cook. Hopefully Dan gets there quicker than Mario.

If Mehringer is truly a data driven mad scientist then he'll evaluate the success rates he is having, regardless of execution perfection and come to his own conclusions about what works best with players he has, not the players he wishes he had.

Yet, under Dan and his assistants, the Ducks' record is 49-8 (.860).

Solar, my friend, let the sunshine in. 😁

Would the record be better under Dilly? Perhaps. But other than a first-season loss to Oregon State, Dan and friends have lost only to quality teams.

Boise State is a nemesis, not just to Dan, but to the Oregon program. Check out Alabama's record vs Georgia and Kirby Smart, and Michigan's record vs Ryan Day. Stuff happens.

A close win in Week 1 will not matter come the PO committee's Top 25 reveal on 12/6/26. I think Boise State will finish in the Top 25 and be the PO G6 representative.

Love your posts and comments, and congrats on the Week 1 prediction contest.

8 hours ago, David Marsh said:

They are an extension of the run game.

Maybe so but its not the same as running between the tackles. Its not phyical and does not ware the defense.

10 hours ago, 1Ducker1 said:

Those behind the line side passes fail most of the time and receivers are usually tackled before the line of scrimmage.

Why do coaches insist on using them?

I usually agree. This time, it was AWESOME tackling... Both saved TDs in my opinion.

10 hours ago, David Marsh said:

They are an extension of the run game. Getting a player into space with the ball in their hands. It worked fantastic for Chip and company but defenses have know how to defend in space and if they can tackle in space then it's easy to slow down an offense..

It also felt like there were some missed blocking assignments on the perimeter on Saturday as well. Lock down those assignments and I think they work better.

But open up the vert passing game and the defense can't play so close to the line of scrimmage.

I'm not advocating getting rid of short passes because sometimes getting small chunks is all you can get... But those vertical passes were deadly and we need to see more of them.

Very good article David. As was the quick synopsis after the game.

I've been looking for the vertical game since we took down the Buckeyes in Eugene. Not to mention that is Moore's most decisive throw. He releases that ball well before he's pressured.

I also believe the slots and TEs can force the safeties to pick their poison

Did anyone see Merringer pull out Max Protection? He did call a very good game. My first impression of the game was " here we go". My second look was " oh we've got this in the bag".

Sans mistakes the game was a sure blowout. Gotta give Boise credit- it was their Superbowl.

7 hours ago, Charles Fischer said:

David, an element that could help unleash the vertical passing game is what Scott Reed brought up in his analysis today. Once Jordon Davison got going in the ground game, the Broncos had to defend the box better, which left one on one coverage by the Boise State defensive backs.

So getting Davison involved earlier might actually open up the vertical game as you suggest.

And I completely agree with you!

I thought the same. And I believe the TE/RB/WR booking will be key to springing an explosive running game this year. The OL isn't agile enough to handle some of the Elite Front Seven groups they'll face. They're going to need help.

Some missed blocking assignments?

Boise State's D was coached to expect many short passes; nevertheless, the WR blocking on the short throws was MIA.

In their blocking assignments, the WRs looked to be a step slow, but I expect the blocking will improve in Week 2 and as the season continues.

There are no CFB preseason games. Opening against a No. 28 preseason-ranked and top-ranked G6 opponent is more difficult than the competition most of the preseason Top 25 teams faced in Week 1.

This season, Boise State has a good chance of finishing 12-1.

The Portland State Vikings need the money. And until CFB goes to a 24-team PO, start every season against Portland State in Autzen Stadium.

Rob Mullens has Oregon's athletic department in the black, huzzah! But last Saturday, Autzen would have been packed for a game against Linfield.

12 hours ago, Solar said:

The problem is Kenny Dillingham designed a high efficiency offense around Bo Nix' strengths, and Dan Lanning has been smitten by that...

Tend to agree what we have been seeing is Dan's preferred offensive approach.

I asked Google to define "efficiency based offensive philosophy" and it came up with I think a pretty decent summary that does sound a lot like Oregon under Lanning to date:

"An efficiency based offensive philosophy prioritizes maximizing the success rate of every single play to consistently move the chains, sustain drives, and stay "on schedule." Rather than relying on explosive, high-risk plays, efficiency offenses focus on minimizing mistakes, staying out of third-and-long situations, and using data-driven decision-making to exploit defensive weaknesses. Core principles:

• Staying on schedule: An offense is on schedule when it gains enough yards on early downs to make the next down highly manageable. A standard efficiency metric dictates gaining at least 4 yards on 1st down, half of the remaining yards on 2nd down, and converting on 3rd down.

• Success Rate > Yards Per Play: coaches care deeply about success rate, the percentage of plays that gain necessary context-dependent yardage. A 4-yard run on 3rd-and-3 is deemed highly successful, whereas a 12-yard pass on 3rd-and-15 is a failure.

Limiting Negative Plays: Sacks, penalties, and tackles for loss are drive killers. Efficient offenses use quick-release passes and screen games to neutralize aggressive pass rushes (or OL deficiencies).

• High-Percentage Passing: Teams substitute traditional, low-percentage running plays with "extension of the run game" passes, such as quick slants, hitches, and RPOs.

• Characteristics in college game:

(1). spread the defense horizontally across the wide college field, forcing defenders out of the box and creating easy pre-snap reads, (2). QBs read a single conflict defender on an RPO (or read-option) to quickly hand off or throw, (3). designing plays specifically to avoid negative plays, (4). snapping the ball rapidly to tire out the defense (and prevent them from subbing packages or disguising coverages).

Summary: The shift toward efficiency is heavily driven by advance analytics, win-probabilities, and tracking metrics like expected points added (EPA). Data proved that staying ahead of the chains yields a significantly higher probability of scoring than hunting for big plays or deep balls."

Initial two-cents thoughts:

• I imagine the appeal of an efficiency based offense increase as talent level rises. If you have a talent advantage over 90% of your opponents, rather than try to win by hitting consistently on lower percentage/riskier "big plays", win by summing up the benefit of numerous smaller wins in lower risk plays over the course of a game.

• Efficiency based offenses would seem to be easier for DC to diagnose and gameplan against, as they have prescribed sets of plays for down, distance, and field position. They might also allow for greater ease for defenses to prepare for. The screens, for example, ask any Duck fan about its team's offenses over the last four years, I am sure nearly all will eventually get to mentioning the horizontal screen component. If every Oregon fan knows them well, I am sure every team Oregon plays now spends a lot of time during the week before a game preparing for them. An opponent doesn't need Connor Stalions on the sideline to sniff out when, and be well prepared for, Oregon's 4-6 screens per game.

• If you are following an efficiency based approach, and get a solid 4 yard gain on 1st down. Taking a 15-30 yard downfield shot on second down might seem like a strong play placement opportunity to fans; but, it is a lower percentage throw that could result in an incompletion, interception, holding penalty, or even a sack. All those outcomes get an offense off schedule.

A horizontal screen that only goes for three yards still sets up a 3rd and 3. Further, if you trust you have the athletes in space to eventually get more yards after catch over the course of a game, the safer playcall fits the strategy even more. That sort of thing. Not saying I love it; but, I can see the logic (especially to a more conservative minded coach).

My guess, pure guess, is advanced statistics still consider throwing vertically, even with strong talent at the QB and receiver position, as a risky proposition. Here we may find an internal conflict between trying to lean on your strengths versus the number one rule of your underlying philosophy ("stay on schedule"). 🤷‍♂️

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by AnotherOD

4 hours ago, AnotherOD said:

Tend to agree what we have been seeing is Dan's preferred offensive approach.

I asked Google to define "efficiency based offensive philosophy" and it came up with I think a pretty decent summary that does sound a lot like Oregon under Lanning to date:

"An efficiency based offensive philosophy prioritizes maximizing the success rate of every single play to consistently move the chains, sustain drives, and stay "on schedule." Rather than relying on explosive, high-risk plays, efficiency offenses focus on minimizing mistakes, staying out of third-and-long situations, and using data-driven decision-making to exploit defensive weaknesses. Core principles:

• Staying on schedule: An offense is on schedule when it gains enough yards on early downs to make the next down highly manageable. A standard efficiency metric dictates gaining at least 4 yards on 1st down, half of the remaining yards on 2nd down, and converting on 3rd down.

• Success Rate > Yards Per Play: coaches care deeply about success rate, the percentage of plays that gain necessary context-dependent yardage. A 4-yard run on 3rd-and-3 is deemed highly successful, whereas a 12-yard pass on 3rd-and-15 is a failure.

Limiting Negative Plays: Sacks, penalties, and tackles for loss are drive killers. Efficient offenses use quick-release passes and screen games to neutralize aggressive pass rushes (or OL deficiencies).

• High-Percentage Passing: Teams substitute traditional, low-percentage running plays with "extension of the run game" passes, such as quick slants, hitches, and RPOs.

• Characteristics in college game:

(1). spread the defense horizontally across the wide college field, forcing defenders out of the box and creating easy pre-snap reads, (2). QBs read a single conflict defender on an RPO (or read-option) to quickly hand off or throw, (3). designing plays specifically to avoid negative plays, (4). snapping the ball rapidly to tire out the defense (and prevent them from subbing packages or disguising coverages).

Summary: The shift toward efficiency is heavily driven by advance analytics, win-probabilities, and tracking metrics like expected points added (EPA). Data proved that staying ahead of the chains yields a significantly higher probability of scoring than hunting for big plays or deep balls."

Initial two-cents thoughts:

• I imagine the appeal of an efficiency based offense increase as talent level rises. If you have a talent advantage over 90% of your opponents, rather than try to win by hitting consistently on lower percentage/riskier "big plays", win by summing up the benefit of numerous smaller wins in lower risk plays over the course of a game.

• Efficiency based offenses would seem to be easier for DC to diagnose and gameplan against, as they have prescribed sets of plays for down, distance, and field position. They might also allow for greater ease for defenses to prepare for. The screens, for example, ask any Duck fan about its team's offenses over the last four years, I am sure nearly all will eventually get to mentioning the horizontal screen component. If every Oregon fan knows them well, I am sure every team Oregon plays now spends a lot of time during the week before a game preparing for them. An opponent doesn't need Connor Stalions on the sideline to sniff out when, and be well prepared for, Oregon's 4-6 screens per game.

• If you are following an efficiency based approach, and get a solid 4 yard gain on 1st down. Taking a 15-30 yard downfield shot on second down might seem like a strong play placement opportunity to fans; but, it is a lower percentage throw that could result in an incompletion, interception, holding penalty, or even a sack. All those outcomes get an offense off schedule.

A horizontal screen that only goes for three yards still sets up a 3rd and 3. Further, if you trust you have the athletes in space to eventually get more yards after catch over the course of a game, the safer playcall fits the strategy even more. That sort of thing. Not saying I love it; but, I can see the logic (especially to a more conservative minded coach).

My guess, pure guess, is advanced statistics still consider throwing vertically, even with strong talent at the QB and receiver position, as a risky proposition. Here we may find an internal conflict between trying to lean on your strengths versus the number one rule of your underlying philosophy ("stay on schedule"). 🤷‍♂️

A lot of this comes down to using a strong run game to set up the vertical passing game. The Davison is a beast an averaged close to 6 yards per carry last year. First down run the ball for 6 makes second and 4. Taking a deep shot and a higher risk play on second down is now less risky because 3rd and 4 isn't bad. Obviously the better first down goes the more options open up.

Gotta get this run game rolling too... but strangely the vertical passing game can open up the run as defenses have to decide where to place their safeties.

17 hours ago, Jon Joseph said:

Yet, under Dan and his assistants, the Ducks' record is 49-8 (.860).

Solar, my friend, let the sunshine in. 😁

Would the record be better under Dilly? Perhaps. But other than a first-season loss to Oregon State, Dan and friends have lost only to quality teams.

Boise State is a nemesis, not just to Dan, but to the Oregon program. Check out Alabama's record vs Georgia and Kirby Smart, and Michigan's record vs Ryan Day. Stuff happens.

A close win in Week 1 will not matter come the PO committee's Top 25 reveal on 12/6/26. I think Boise State will finish in the Top 25 and be the PO G6 representative.

Love your posts and comments, and congrats on the Week 1 prediction contest.

Thanks John.

I apologize for coming across so grouchy.

At the end of the day efficiency is the most important metric, so philosophy focused on that is good. But seeing how efficient we can be with explosive passing plays, focusing on a high risk reward isn't the worst idea.

But how efficient is taking a TFL on 60% on bubble screens? Maybe with better execution we can get that up to only 30% against a top 5 defense, but is that good enough?

Perhaps the numbers advantage isn't the whole story. As a former DB I'd much rather take on a blocker in space who doesn't know exactly where his own ball carrier is coming through, and a ball carrier not looking at me that I can track based on his sideways movement and the trajectory of a pass, rather than going against no blocker and a ball carrier running at me with speed in the open field.

It's easier to juke the clueless blocker, and use my upfield speed to corral the ball carrier who has little upfield momentum of his own and only has a split second to locate me and avoid my tackle. I wish Mehringer would just talk to our secondary to get a similar take.

On paper the triple option has a superior numerical advantage and should be unstoppable, but numbers ain't everything.

Just now, Solar said:

Thanks John.

I apologize for coming across so grouchy.

At the end of the day efficiency is the most important metric, so philosophy focused on that is good. But seeing how efficient we can be with explosive passing plays, focusing on a high risk reward isn't the worst idea.

But how efficient is taking a TFL on 60% on bubble screens? Maybe with better execution we can get that up to only 30% against a top 5 defense, but is that good enough?

Perhaps the numbers advantage isn't the whole story. As a former DB I'd much rather take on a blocker in space who doesn't know exactly where his own ball carrier is coming through, and a ball carrier not looking at me that I can track based on his sideways movement and the trajectory of a pass, rather than going against no blocker and a ball carrier running at me with speed in the open field.

It's easier to juke the clueless blocker, and use my upfield speed to corral the ball carrier who has little upfield momentum of his own and only has a split second to locate me and avoid my tackle. I wish Mehringer would just talk to our secondary to get a similar take.

On paper the triple option has a superior numerical advantage and should be unstoppable, but numbers ain't everything.

Oh, I believe our record would likely be the same with Dilly to this point, perhap we beat Indiana once or twice last year, and we are more at risk this year. Dilly is a bit of a QB whisperer and the personnel are a bit different now that I would be much more confident in Dilly getting the most out of the players we have now.

4 hours ago, David Marsh said:

First down run the ball for 6 makes second and 4. Taking a deep shot and a higher risk play on second down is now less risky because 3rd and 4 isn't bad... gotta get this run game rolling too... but strangely the vertical passing game can open up the run as defenses have to decide where to place their safeties.

Interesting in trying to track this "efficiency" approach, ATQ found some interesting offensive numbers in its regular season review (only non-garbage time snaps excluding all FCS games).

• Oregon rarely takes shots on 2nd and short. In 29 counting plays, it rushed 15 times and threw 14 times. It completed only 3 passes of 10 or more yards on 2nd and short, yielding just 5.85 adjusted ypp.

• Oregon was much more likely to throw for big plays on 3rd and short (probably already deciding to go on 4th if necessary). In 38 counting plays, it ran 24 times and threw 14 times. It completed 6 of those 14 passes for 10 or more yards, yielding 14.4 adjusted ypp.

• While overall successful on 58% of offensive plays, screen passes were only successful 42% of the time with only a 2% explosive rate and only 4.88 adjusted ypp, compared to overall a 17.5% explosive rate and 7.3 adjusted ypp. Good news maybe is its overall use of all types of screens was down in 2025 from 2024 to 9.5% of offensive snaps (which was about average in FBS football).

Bad news was screens in 2025 were even worse in success rate than 2024. This does seem to lead to some credence to the fan idea that while efficiency offense might call for these type plays in certain downs and distances, opponents seem to be sniffing them out and sitting on them