Stewart Mandel of si.com isn't buying the Ducks. He likes Boise State, and says the reason he favors them over Oklahoma, Auburn and Oregon is that these top teams in the BCS lack an elite defense. He cites last year's 19-8 win over Oregon as evidence of why Boise State's defense would hold Oregon's offense in check, and picks the Ducks to go to the Rose Bowl, not Glendale, anticipating they'll have a loss in conference play.
Which might turn out to be true, but there's a huge flaw in his argument. This year's Oregon team is much better than the one that lost 19-8 in Boise. That was an opening night game in a hostile stadium, with a retooled offensive line, an erratic quarterback and a standup power back carrying the ball. And Oregon has a much better defense now than the one who held the Broncos to 19 on the blue turf.
The Broncos caught lightning in a bottle twice against Oregon, and it has gone a long way toward building their reputation. In neither game did they get Oregon's best game, or face a jelled Oregon team. In the 2007 meeting the Ducks played three different inexperienced quarterbacks, Boise State taking out the starter with a late hit, and the second was Chip Kelly's first as head coach.
The Broncos have built a towering reputation manhandling poor competion in a weak conference. They rarely venture outside their blue comfort zone, and don't have their depth and focus to be tested by a weekly grind like the SEC or PAC-10. The Smurfs are a notch below Oklahoma, Oregon and Auburn. Stewart Mandel is flat wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment