- Ted Miller, ESPN Staff Writer
- 0 Shares
I am he as you are he as you are me.
And this is the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter by clicking here and following the easy-to-read instructions.
To the notes.
Clarence from Cincinnati writes: Stanford is 4-9 against Oregon since the turn of the millennium. Stanford's superstar, Andrew Luck, was 1-2 against Oregon (with both losses in the years he was runner-up for the Heisman). Those two losses were lost in an Oregon-dominant fashion (2010: 52-31 at Autzen; 2011: 53-30 at Palo Alto). The 2010 loss was especially critical as it was Stanford's only loss that season. Listening to fans and analysts, one would think that Stanford has dominated Oregon for years, when they have just recently figured out the Oregon puzzle. Is Stanford in the midst of dominating Oregon for years to come, or is it just that Stanford is a solid program that has been able to beat a rival two consecutive times? (As a cross-sport comparison, the Los Angeles Clippers hold two consecutive Pacific Division titles.
Ted Miller: Wait. Are you accusing the media of over-hyping an angle instead of taking a more measured perspective? I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED! that you would say such a thing.
You probably think I'd drop a completely irrelevant reference to the Washington-Oregon rivalry and how Washington-Oregon is so much COOLER just to get a rise out of folks. Of course, I would never do that, though you well know that Oregon-Washington is SO much COOLER. (I used my best Eric Cartman voice while typing that.)
First of all, 4-9 since 2001 is irrelevant. The present incarnation of Oregon-Stanford starts with Jim Harbaugh vs. Chip Kelly in 2009, a Stanford upset, by the way, that leaves the relevant count at 3-2 Stanford.
Second, call it fair play. We once wrote -- endlessly, from the Stanford perspective -- on Stanford's "Oregon Problem." So after consecutive Stanford victories in the series and resulting Pac-12 North titles, it only seems fair we reverse our position and give Oregon a Stanford problem.
Further, it's the related nature of both "problems" -- the Stanford defense. In the Ducks' wins in 2010 and 2011, they scored 105 points combined. In their losses the past two seasons, they scored 37 points combined. I can't help but feel those numbers are meaningful.
When Luck lost two in a row to Oregon in his prime, the problem was the Ducks' style and speed, not to mention Kelly's "oh no he didn't!" aggressiveness -- recall that audacious onside kick that transformed the 2010 game. The Ducks seemed to have the Cardinal's number, something that David Shaw didn't deny or hide from, which struck me as a smart coaching move.
Enter Derek Mason. There's a reason he's now the head coach at Vanderbilt. He figured out a defensive scheme that contained the Ducks and didn't allow them to dictate the game's tempo. But it wasn't only about some mystical scheme. Much of the squeeze Stanford put on Oregon's offense wasn't terribly complicated. Mason emphasized containment, winning one-on-one battles, tackling in space and then convinced his defense they were the unstoppable force of nature, not the Ducks.
The buy-in in 2012 in Autzen Stadium was tremendous. And stunning. That carried over to 2013, though I am -- sorry, Stanford fans -- one who believes a healthy Marcus Mariota would have made that game much different.
The reality is these are two elite programs whose annual matchup is even more fun because of the contrast of styles, though the idea that Oregon doesn't play physical football is inane.
Do I believe Stanford will dominate Oregon for years to come? No. I picked Oregon to win the Pac-12 this year -- I picked Stanford last year -- and I think the Ducks will take care of business in Autzen Stadium on Nov. 1.
Jim from Los Angeles writes: I'm curious why you repeatedly state that Taylor Kelly was better than Brett Hundley last season? Yes, I realize that ASU won the South, and that Kelly took second-team honors, but Hundley had the better passer rating (153.7-139.6) and total QBR (82.3-74.9). Factor in UCLA's offensive line injuries and that no UCLA receiver was as good as Jaelen Strong and I think Hundley was noticeably better last year.
Ted Miller: Well, the two main reasons you stated: 1. Kelly was named second-team All-Pac-12 over Hundley by the Pac-12 coaches; 2. He outplayed Hundley in their head-to-head matchup in the Rose Bowl, a game that decided the South Division.
While Hundley's efficiency numbers were better, Kelly passed for more yards per game (259.6 vs. 236.2), produced more yards of total offense per game (303.1 vs. 293.8) and was responsible for more touchdowns (37 vs. 35). The Sun Devils also averaged more points per game (39.7 vs. 36.9).
That said, I think I used the word "nipped" more than a few times to describe any distinction between the two. Both had fantastic seasons with comparable numbers.
Further, you might have noticed this: We rated Kelly No. 5 and Hundley No. 3 in our preseason countdown of the Pac-12's top-25 players.
Hundley is a tremendous talent who still was a little raw last year. I think it's fair to rate Kelly's 2013 season as better, just as I think it's fair to project Hundley to do more this fall. And probably in the NFL, though I've also learned not to count Kelly out.
GQ from Los Angeles writes: Ted, you must be a baseball writer also and vote for the Hall of fame. Regardless of what you think about a person, you cannot ignore a person's accomplishments. As bad a person that O.J. Simpson turned out to be, ignoring what he did on the football field makes this conversation a farce. It's like saying Hitler wasn't a great politician. Sports are based on statistics and many sports writers are not qualified to make social judgments. That is not what they were hired to be.
Ted Miller: Wow. Steroids. Alleged murder. Hitler.
I wrote about 400 words on this, then cut it and came up with this briefer conclusion: I am qualified to make the social judgment on this blog that O.J. is out. If you wish to celebrate O.J., start your own blog.
SirTrojan from Camas, Washington, writes: Ted, Please pass this on to Ms. Jennings. Her piece on music choices for Pac-12 coaches was, on the whole, amusing and well thought-out. However I have a major beef with her selection for USC's music. What would happen if Arthur Bartner were to read that column and become inspiried to incorporate "Let It Go" into the band's repertoire? With the penchant the Spirit of Troy has for playing a singular song over and over and over and over and over (you get the clue) I would swear off all allegiance to USC immediately! You see, I have a 2 1/2-year-old girl whose singing makes Rosanne Barr sound like Michael Bublé. Can you guess her favorite song that assaults my ear drums morning, noon and night? This could quickly spiral downward. Please don't let me end up homeless in Fargo, N.D.
Ted Miller: SirTrojan wins the award for note that made me grin this week.
No. 1, I bet your wife would give you a frowny face for writing: "... I have a 2 1/2-year-old girl whose singing makes Rosanne Barr sound like Michael Bublé." The rule I've found with moms and their child's singing is it sounds like an angelic chorus, at least until we dads are officially advised otherwise... and best to get that in writing.
No. 2, I knew my 5-year-old was truly my son when "Let It Go" came on the radio -- briefly -- and he went, "Gaaaaaaa... Dad, I hate this song.... change it. Oh, the horror... the horror..."
(The "Heart of Darkness" reference may be an embellishment on my part.)
I am he as you are he as you are me.And this is the mailbag.Follow me on Twitter by clicking here and following the easy-to-read instructions.To the notes.