I often hear about inferior teams, getting off to a good start or even an opening scoring drive because they have scripted their first drive.

Some say, this was the case with the Boise State game, (although I disagree that’s why they were successful).

Conversely, our success rate seems terrible on opening drives even against weaker teams. Is this an indication of poor coaching or lack of energy or execution by the players?

Just wondering if anybody else has noticed this?

8 minutes ago, Massduck said:

Conversely, our success rate seems terrible on opening drives even against weaker teams. Is this an indication of poor coaching or lack of energy or execution by the players?

I think this can be a two fold problem.

1. The Ducks haven't been ready to play. A slow start means poor execution. The other teams have been hyped to attack our offense out the gate and try and get the upset. The Ducks have a massive target on their backs because they're the Ducks and opponents want to embarrass us.

2. A scripted drive probably needs to be better drawn up and executed better. The run game has been non-existent and the passing game has had problems too. Finding something that gets the offense in rhythm is critical and that's designing an opening drive that works.

1 hour ago, David Marsh said:

I think this can be a two fold problem.

1. The Ducks haven't been ready to play. A slow start means poor execution. The other teams have been hyped to attack our offense out the gate and try and get the upset. The Ducks have a massive target on their backs because they're the Ducks and opponents want to embarrass us.

2. A scripted drive probably needs to be better drawn up and executed better. The run game has been non-existent and the passing game has had problems too. Finding something that gets the offense in rhythm is critical and that's designing an opening drive that works.

The O line has to get a whole lot better for any of this to come to pass.

51 minutes ago, 1Ducker1 said:

The O line has to get a whole lot better for any of this to come to pass.

You can scheme around less than elite O lines. But the QB has to be able to move and not tighten up when he gets pressured.

15 minutes ago, Log Haulin said:

You can scheme around less than elite O lines. But the QB has to be able to move and not tighten up when he gets pressured.

And that's a bit of a problem.

9 minutes ago, 1Ducker1 said:

And that's a bit of a problem.

Right, all the arm talent in the world is useless if you cant control your heart rate. How does Dante perform when stressed? I think most of us know.

We forget how many offensive plays were saved in the past because of QBs that could RUN or scramble to get valuable yardage.

It often seems like 1st quarters are defined by underdog teams taking the initiative (the idea being they have nothing to lose), and the favored team playing a waiting game of absorbing their best shots while zeroing in on match-up weaknesses.

As David points out, being the favored team and playing like it are two different things.

Kenyon Barner and Johnathan Stewart pointed out, on a recent podcast, that Coach Lanning’s Oregon teams have a history of slow starts (e.g., Rose Bowl game against Ohio State, the first playoff game last year, the Indiana game). You cannot continue to spot your opponent points right out of the gate and then play catch up.

Why don’t we script the opening plays better on offense? Are we being too conservative on defense trying to feel out how the opposing offense is going to attack us? Are the players not read mentally for the first snap?

Edited 48 minutes ago48 min by OregonDucks