[LuckE2Bhere]

I'm certainly no expert, and this post may just prove me to be a starry-eyed homer, but while I'm confident that Oregon is a Top 10 program, I'm not so sure they should be at the very top of the pre-season rankings.  In a gross over-simplification, it seems to me that great coaches value "the guys in the trenches", while many casual observers (and sportswriters) myopically devote their attention to "skill players".

Take this AP story, for example: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oregon-move...ncaaf.html

The writer does (briefly) mention the departures of Jordan, Alonso and Boyette (as well as Barner), but much as everyone predicted that we'd suck post-Toby, post-Harbaugh and post-Luck, the article is clearly focused on the departure of Kelly and the return of Mariota and DAT (who I concede to be studs).  The discussion of their new facilities and incoming recruits (who rarely deliver an immediate impact) also seems classicly superficial to me.

CBSSports.com has the Quacks projected as a "comfortable No. 3 ahead of Stanford", but understanding that we don't have a lot of returning rushing or receiving yards, with the "return" of Gaffney and our depth at RB, great strength pretty much everywhere else save receivers, plus the fact that Team Nike returns just one LB (and no OGs), aren't we at least a relative value play here?

[LuckE2Bhere]

I'm certainly no expert, and this post may just prove me to be a starry-eyed homer, but while I'm confident that Oregon is a Top 10 program, I'm not so sure they should be at the very top of the pre-season rankings.  In a gross over-simplification, it seems to me that great coaches value "the guys in the trenches", while many casual observers (and sportswriters) myopically devote their attention to "skill players".

Take this AP story, for example: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oregon-move...ncaaf.html

The writer does (briefly) mention the departures of Jordan, Alonso and Boyette (as well as Barner), but much as everyone predicted that we'd suck post-Toby, post-Harbaugh and post-Luck, the article is clearly focused on the departure of Kelly and the return of Mariota and DAT (who I concede to be studs).  The discussion of their new facilities and incoming recruits (who rarely deliver an immediate impact) also seems classicly superficial to me.

CBSSports.com has the Quacks projected as a "comfortable No. 3 ahead of Stanford", but understanding that we don't have a lot of returning rushing or receiving yards, with the "return" of Gaffney and our depth at RB, great strength pretty much everywhere else save receivers, plus the fact that Team Nike returns just one LB (and no OGs), aren't we at least a relative value play here?