"Oregon In Pac-10 Title Race:" Not!
For the eighth straight year, the Oregon Ducks football team has proven it isn't ready for prime-time.
I've seen ducks look better with buckshot in them than the team that played Boise State. If it isn't too much to ask, could someone take the Duck running back, who committed the crime of battery, to jail?
Maybe that's the way you act in Oregon, but it's against the law everywhere else.
I had a reader write to me about how a coaching staff doesn't matter, because only the players play the game.
That is one of the most absurd statements one can make.
Doesn't it matter what type of parents raise a child? Would a good teacher be better than a poor one? Do you think it's better to have good leaders in your military than bad ones?
Is it important to have a solid planning department, design people and supervisors to make a product?
Of course it is and it is foolish to think it's not.
Oregon proved that they didn't have the coaches that Boise State did.
A coaching staff must first decide on the needs for their team. They plan on who they want to recruit for certain positions. They then seek them out out and recruit them.
There is still more to a coaching staff.
When the recruit arrives, the coaches discuss which positions the recruit should play, regardless of what they had done in high school.
The coaching staff then plan their practices, team meetings and various methods of coaching. Then they plan for the game, but that's still only part of it.
The most important item to all of the above is how good the coaching staff is. There are books to read to tell you how to go from one item to another. However, how good are the coaches?
How much experience and what type has it been?
Oregon's staff is bad. The huge crowd screamed "overrated" as the Ducks waddled out of the stadium. The Duck's coach looked helpless and his team appeared lost.
I wrote that neither CAL nor Oregon will threaten USC's bid to win their eighth straight PAC-10 Title.
I read the predictions that Oregon's quarterback was going to be the best in the PAC-10. I noted how Rivals ranked Oregon higher than USC at almost every position.
Rivals also rated Arizona State's quarterback ahead of Sanchez last year. In fact, they rated Sanchez as one of the worst in the PAC-10.
There's an old saying, "You can fill a newspaper with what they don't know." The newspapers and magazines do that every year.
I have read several articles in b/r about how USC has lost first-team players to injuries and they have weaknesses everywhere.
I will only say to those who believe the above that you are wrong. Writing such articles demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the depth chart at USC and the players on the team.
The best way to know about the team is to go to the practices and watch how they play. Don't listen to rumors or a news report, because they are normally wrong.
I do not write about how good a team is or isn't if I haven't seen it several times in practices and have done the above. How would I know?
I might write that Florida hasn't played an OOC game west of the Mississippi River in over two decades, but I'm not going to write on how good their players are. How would I know?
Restricting your writing to a team does not a homer make. It's an acknowledgement of not having the deep facts that's required.
I'm looking forward to the Alabama/VT game.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?