While I understand that the point spread, and the relative positions of the two teams were highly discussed and pronounced--I think another ancilairy element may have played a big part in all of this.

Dan Lanning in FOUR YEARS has NEVER lost to an unranked opponent.

This wasn't any non-ranked opponent...this was an opponent who had not won in a long time versus a P4 team, and just lost to TULSA for crying-out-loud? The fans, the coaches, and the team knew that Lanning never loses to an unranked opponent. They knew we would easily take care of business, and they were mentally on cruise-control.

Now add it being 140 degrees on the field....who wants to be in that game with a such a lowly opponent, and dealing with such vicious heat?

EVERY coach loses games he shouldn't, and we have been spoiled with HOW we have lost, when we lost to great teams. Good-gosh....Cristobal beats Ohio State in Columbus and then goes and loses to like a 4-win team at Stanford? Mario lost a bunch of those, and lost two games with unranked opponents just last year.

So until now....Lanning had never lost to such an unranked opponent, and I think this team was simply not ready mentally from a variety of angles.

OK. Lanning just lost his first game he should not have lost. He, the coaches, and the team will be better as they just passed a negative milestone, but an important mental one that will help them for years.

I was thinking about Rick Neuheisel's famous comment that most Duck fans are familiar with: "It's not the X's and the O's, but the Jimmies and the Joes that make the difference." Seeing how we had a clear talent advantage with our Jimmies and Joes last Saturday, perhaps "The Weasel's" comment needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Nowhere was this more apparent than along the defensive front. I'm flabbergasted that the Cowboys were able to do what they did to the NFL-quality talent we have assembled on our defensive line. The upperclassman group you'd expect to create havoc was rendered absolutely ineffective. This is all the more befuddling when you compare last year's Oregon/OSU game to this year's (211 yards of total offense vs. almost 600).

Which leads me to question: Is it still the Jimmies and the Joes that make the difference, or has today's game morphed to where a schematic shift in philosophy can gain an advantage over even the most talent-loaded opponents? (Last year OSU ran a traditional spread offense; this year they installed a simpler Air Raid approach).

I'm no expert when it comes to X's and O's, but I'm guessing our coaches are probably installing some new schemes for our Jims & Joes this week!

100%, They thought they were playing the same team as last year. Surprise! This loss is 85% on the coaches. Maybe it helps them the rest of the season maybe were going to do a Penn State.

8 minutes ago, John Charles said:

I was thinking about Rick Neuheisel's famous comment that most Duck fans are familiar with: "It's not the X's and the O's, but the Jimmies and the Joes that make the difference." Seeing how we had a clear talent advantage with our Jimmies and Joes last Saturday, perhaps "The Weasel's" comment needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

The Jimmies and Joes were the only reason the game was close in the fourth quarter... or at any point in the game.

Jackson putting their QB out of bounds on a long QB run saved a touchdown and the defense held them to a field goal. Jackson's pick six actually put Oregon up 7-3. Uiagalelei's interception enabled the Ducks to get a quick touchdown for 14 points right there.

Stewart and Dak Moore both had long TD catches... there's 14 points there.

There's 28 points that came strictly off talent.

This isn't a talent problem ... its a teamwork and mentality problem.

"Dan Lanning Doesn't Lose to Unranked Opponents."

The team and the coaches were mentally weak going into this game, as the upset had just never happened to Oregon under Lanning. We will see a very different team and coaches the rest of the season!

That's what I have been saying, they are soft. If they beat PSU 100-0 won't change anyone's mind about that

55 minutes ago, Log Haulin said:

That's what I have been saying, they are soft. If they beat PSU 100-0 won't change anyone's mind about that

It's not about if they beat PSU by 100 points or whatever... it's about how they do it. Regardless they will not prove anything.

But it could be a sign of hope if they go out there and just play physical and disciplined that is a step in the right direction.

1 hour ago, Log Haulin said:

That's what I have been saying, they are soft. If they beat PSU 100-0 won't change anyone's mind about that

They were soft...in that game. I believe they will much stronger in the next two weeks, and progressively stronger as the season continues.

1 minute ago, Charles Fischer said:

They were soft...in that game. I believe they will much stronger in the next two weeks, and progressively stronger as the season continues.

I think that is accurate. I also think this was a wake up call. I expect them to come out angry and inspired the rest of the way.

Dan accepts the blame for the loss at OK State. Kudos to Dan.

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/dan-lanning-accepts-blame-says-a-lack-of-leadership-led-to-oregons-shocking-loss-to-oklahoma-state-124328718.html

A historic win for OK State and a historic loss for OBD -

https://duckswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/ducks/football/2026/09/12/oregon-football-ducks-oklahoma-state-5-takeaways/91730812007/

Dan, the Schwartz is With You -

Oregon Ducks On SI

Former Oregon Duck Geoff Schwartz Sounds Off Against Dan...

The hours and days after a loss are typically tough for a college football teams' fanbase. For the No. 21 Oregon Ducks, their historically dismal 39-31 loss on

4 hours ago, Charles Fischer said:

The fans, the coaches, and the team knew that Lanning never loses to an unranked opponent. They knew we would easily take care of business, and they were mentally on cruise-control

The term I heard and saw written more often than any other to describe Oregon’s mental state was ‘sleepwalking’. It must have been in the air because I remember thinking the same thing.

I've had moments after many games that I questioned Dan's decisions, but never have I had the thoughts that I did after this game. Not just overly aggressive, but borderline idiotic IMO.

That said, Dan has built a lot of equity via many good wins and an obvious recruiting and cultural shift...

Point being that while this game definitely tarnished the halo a bit, Dan deserves the grace and benefit-of-the-doubt that he's earned. One game does not mean the sky is falling. Let's see what the season holds. Dan deserves that, at the very least.

And... with all of the returning player talent I think we glossed over the coordinator changes a bit. That's a huge deal. They need a learning curve too.

I'll be curious to see how we feel at season's end... Will we be in the dumps, or will we laugh at the knee-jerk reactions of present-day us ...?

I guess we'll see.

I think too much of the analysis of this loss has been to lay blame on OBD and how WE LOST a game that WE should've won. Of course that's what we do on an OBD fan forum. But I think the Cowboys deserve a ton of credit for playing hard and not letting up. THEY DID WIN against a top-10 team and their QB was IMO much more heisman-worthy than ours, for example...

Edited September 16Sep 16 by DuckFan93

It’s not the loss that bothered me the most, it’s how we lost.

The real question for the coaches and players are how they are going to bounce back? The margin of error is gone.

Edited September 16Sep 16 by OregonDucks

They lost because they didn't respect themselves or the opponent. To compete at a high collegiate or professional level you must(well except for the insanely talented)respect yourself and put in an intentional mental effort. This in turn shows respect to your opponent. They had two weeks in a row of lazy entitlement. Anyhow I predict them to beat USC by 10+ points.

On 9/15/2026 at 2:14 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Lanning just lost his first game he should not have lost.

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say he just lost the first game that he ABSOLUTELY should not have lost.

There are a couple of ewe dub games in which we were favored, '23 and the first one in '24, that even though those teams went on to have good seasons, a couple of learning curve decisions may have factored it.

Agree 100% on the mental complacency thinking you're coming down after a massive challenge from Boise St - even though you should never relax on the road against a P4 opponent.

It seemed like a perfect storm that revealed each weak spot of the Oregon football program - entitlement, schematics, discipline, and an ongoing gap in our ability to self scout. Once you notice the patterns and they prove right after a few plays, then your confidence soars and you can just pin your ears back and go. Offensive plays don't develop, because defenders don't have to account for multiple scenarios - just one.

I have a sneaky feeling this may still be happening on both sides of the ball. Remember, after the Rose Bowl against Ohio St., they said our defense had tells and they had plays ready for us.

All of these things can be fixed and I'm confident there's a lot of soul searching going on. The one weak spot that can't be corrected is talent and we have plenty of it. So much talent, I'm afraid this year is our golden opportunity to finally cash in with a national championship. If I were Oregon, I'd bring in every "advisor" available to get the most out of this team. And I hope Dante Moore develops a lot more attitude really quickly.

Win the next two games and all will be forgiven.

12 minutes ago, Desert Duck said:

Win the next two games and all will be forgiven.

We need 9 out of 10 to be forgiven by the PO committee.

Not sure that we should be gazing ahead to what we need for the playoffs at this point. And this is a bad point for a cupcake game as this Saturday will tell us very little. We should take every substantive game thereafter as a substantial challenge to demonstrate that we are not the same team that lost in Stillwater. I say substantial challenge because perhaps we are not as talented as everybody seems to think we are. Guys, get the hell out there, grind every week, and begin to demonstrate that you are an aggregation worthy of all the lofty preseason kudos (aka rat poison) the sporting press has bestowed on you. The fan base deserves no less to keep believing in the Green and Gold.

I always thought the whole “X’s and O’s / Jimmies and Joes” line was attributed to Lou Holtz, not Rick Neuheisel. Maybe I’ve had that wrong all these years 😬

I’m just hoping this serves as a wake-up call. “Oregon always plays poorly against Boise State” gave them an out for week 1, but this game either gets your attention and refocuses you or it defeats you the rest of the season.

10 hours ago, Steven A said:

We need 9 out of 10 to be forgiven by the PO committee.

Don't get me wrong, win the next two games, and all will be forgiven.

Start playing like crap and losing after that, and I'll likely be raining down law and judgement.

Well, just about everyone believes the Ducks have talented players. What we didn't have in that Oklahoma State game is a talented team. Which is what we'll need to put on the field each and every week going forward or the playoffs ain't going to be happening for us.

Unless, unless ... all this has been nothing but a clever plot to lead USC to believe the Ducks will be a pushover in two weeks. If so, expect a narrow victory over Portland State as part of a rather elaborate and clever set-up of Riley.

25 minutes ago, tee duke said:

Well, just about everyone believes the Ducks have talented players. What we didn't have in that Oklahoma State game is a talented team. Which is what we'll need to put on the field each and every week going forward or the playoffs ain't going to be happening for us.

Unless, unless ... all this has been nothing but a clever plot to lead USC to believe the Ducks will be a pushover in two weeks. If so, expect a narrow victory over Portland State as part of a rather elaborate and clever set-up of Riley.

Thanks, T Dee.

I question the talent, especially on the O-line. Young players under the aegis of quality O-line coach A'Lique Terry are not playing up to their recruiting rankings. They're losing one-on-one battles to guys who weren't considered big-time recruits. Is this a lack of effort, or a lack of talent?

With the young D-line talent lost in the portal, is there anyone capable of pushing the experienced D-line starters? How seriously did they take conditioning in the off-season? Did they read about being the best D-line in CFB and believe talent alone would produce this result?

I don't see anyone on the roster, including a 5* TE recruit, ready to fill in for Johnson. I wish we had Cal's Kingston Lopa at safety. Meanwhile, the SC 5* TE recruit and other highly rated recruits are balling out.

In today's CFB, roster management is a witch. And with the lack of depth as a result of NIL and mostly unregulated free agency, any loss of a starter is magnified. It looks like no one is capable of replacing TE Johnson.

Perhaps the new OC and DC are not as good as the guys they replaced, but do they have the same talent at hand as Tosh and Stein did?

When it comes to the talent on the roster, I certainly hope you are right, and I am overreacting to a close win over a G6 team and a historic loss at OK State. I don't think we'll learn much on Friday night, but Week 4 in LA?

14 hours ago, Krsmqn said:

I always thought the whole “X’s and O’s / Jimmies and Joes” line was attributed to Lou Holtz, not Rick Neuheisel. Maybe I’ve had that wrong all these years 😬

I am pretty sure it wasn’t new weasel!

The exact origin of the phrase "It's not about the X's and O's, it's about the Jimmies and Joes" is unclear, though it is a widespread football idiom often attributed to legendary college coach Darrell Royal.

I am totally without reservation pro Dan Lanning! We should thank him for the success he has brought us.

He is a young coach and still learning. If he needs better coordinators, I trust him to realize it and get them. Id rather have him to guide us through these new times than all or at least most anyone out there.

Go Ducks! I hope still this is the year, but if not there will be more.

On 9/16/2026 at 12:43 PM, Utki said:

They lost because they didn't respect themselves or the opponent. To compete at a high collegiate or professional level you must(well except for the insanely talented)respect yourself and put in an intentional mental effort. This in turn shows respect to your opponent. They had two weeks in a row of lazy entitlement. Anyhow I predict them to beat USC by 10+ points.

Yes I am currently patting myself on the back.

On 9/16/2026 at 4:17 PM, Steven A said:

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say he just lost the first game that he ABSOLUTELY should not have lost.

There are a couple of ewe dub games in which we were favored, '23 and the first one in '24, that even though those teams went on to have good seasons, a couple of learning curve decisions may have factored it.

I'm sorry Steven, I completely disagree. If there EVER was a defining moment-it was those very decisions he made. And I recall very intently how much the entire football world jumped on Lanning after that game. Duck Nation had a virtual meltdown. This forum literally had a post questioning Dan Lanning as a Head Coach (not to criticize or put anyone down-but that is a concrete fact-we as a group went literally nuclear because of those decisions).

Let me explain again why I felt Lanning's decisions were not only spot on, but demonstrated some coaching chops people ignored at the time. The first thing Lanning said after the game when questioned was this "we were very prepared to call those plays in that situation". I will explain in as few words as I can why that was extremely significant. People discount the fact the Kalen DeBoer has ten years experience on Dan Lanning as a Head Coach. Two of the three plays were WIDE OPEN. Let me say that again- on one of the plays, a lessor elite player raised his hands just before running into the end zone with nobody near him for almost ten yards. Bo Nix threw his pass to a guy he knew and favored as a target. He locked in on the guy he wanted instead of reading the play.

On the second play TWO WRs were open. This one was to seal the victory. Again, Nix looked exclusively to his left and neglected both receivers that were open at two separate times on the play.

That is called POOR EXECUTION.

It goes further than that. Though Will Stein said he got out coached, he did not.

Nobody on God's Green Earth contemplated that the more experienced Kalen DeBoer also planned for those very situations. Both coaches absolutely knew the game in Seattle was going to come down to plays that had to be converted in order to win. I have not seen one expert, coach, fan or even the angels mention that fact. But it is a substantial fact.

The implications of that fact demonstrated Dan Lanning and Will Stein called plays that countered exactly what they believed DeBoer and his staff were going to throw at them in defense of those plays. Lanning and Stein won both of those battles. In fact, they went 2-1 in those key situations despite having ten years less experience.

So while everyone lost their minds and experts, pundits and former coaches loudly questioned Lanning's decision making, I was sitting there thinking "this guy is miles ahead as a coach". He just outcoached a guy that has ten years on him. His players failed to execute. And if they had, Lanning would have been called a genius, well ahead of his time (another fact nobody can seriously refute).

Furthermore, Lanning also pointed out the decisions didn't effect the game in the manner people believed it did. He is correct. Because quite frankly, had he converted any of those first two, the complexion of the game would have changed. Losing by 3 points didn't happen because Dan Lanning chose two 4th down calls instead of earning 6 points. Both DeBoer and Lanning would have called every single play after both of those Non-decisions completely differently had he even kicked one of those field goals. Again, not one soul mentioned or acknowledged that-and that is another fact people overlooked.

Dan Lanning CLEARLY has proven that those decisions that day was a pretty damn good indication of the type of coach he is. I know Millions will disagree. But I not only believed that, I said it at the time. In that very thread that questioned Lanning's decision making ability and his future as a coach.

Given how successful Lanning has been, I have even been surprised. The guy finds ways to win. He gets the most out of a group that does outlandish things to lose, and often enough is not as "talented" as we consider them (in my eyes performance is a key indication of talent-execution is a demonstration of talent as much as the capacity of the players playing the game). That sounds like an oxymoron, but let me tell you, Lanning hasn't had one linebacker half as "talented" at Oregon that he had at Georgia. NOT ONE. And he still wins.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this-Lanning takes risks. Not in ways we prefer, but he is aggressive. He is unapologetic about it. And he has delivered. And he delivered again-and trust me-I had my doubts yesterday.

Dan Lanning proved in that loss he was a very elite coach. And just about EVERYBODY MISSED IT.