I read this article on Brandin Hardin a few days ago and nearly lost my hot cocoa. In short, our cornerback coach, Keith Heyward, is an idiot. For those who don’t like to read, here’s a summary of Heyward analyzing Hardin:

1. “He brings more,’’ said Heyward, “in terms of run support.’’

Yet, Tim Clark is starting vs Stanford, a team with a power run game. On top of that, I’d argue Hardin adds more in terms of pass support.

2. Paul Buker of oregonlive.com acknowledges Hardin’s frustration with playing time and then writes, “The frustration went both ways.”

“He’s had a passive attitude, and I don’t mean that as a negative,’’ said Heyward.

So, Heyward is frustrated that Hardin is passive, yet, he doesn’t mean that as a negative. Okay, Keith. So being passive is a positive then? Okay, so then what are you frustrated about, and why isn’t Hardin starting?

There were obvious follow up questions, and as is its wont, the Oregon media did not do its job.

3. “We use the word ‘dominate’ out there,’’ said Heyward.“If you want to ‘dominate’ you’ve got to show that in your actions.’’

This is ridiculous. So any guy who acts the part plays? Is that why we wound up with #28 getting burned for 4 TDs in the 3 games before he took the bench, because he’s a poseur who hoots and hollers in practice? This is how Heyward judges corners? Anyone with both the eyes and brain necessary to process photons can see that Hardin has played better than any other CB this year, and like last year, continues to be a stalwart on special teams.

I didn’t like the Heyward hiring when it happened–saw it as a blown opportunity to hire a great recruiter. Riley went the “family” route (of course) to the detriment of the program. All I can say is that after reading about Heyward’s analysis process and personality, it’s clear I my first impression was right. This was a bad hire. And for a guy who has landed us one recruit in 3 years (a re-recruit in Reggie Dunn, who will likely never see the field), I think he’s the one who is too passive and needs to ‘dominate.’ Good God, how is this clown our CB coach?

I’ve seen The Tree a lot. Everyone knows about their RB, but they’re pretty formidable on the offensive line as well. An area they excel every game is special teams, specifically kick returns. So, how do the Beavs match up?

1. QB–Luck is as good as Canfield and 3 years his junior. Scary. But experience gives us a slight edge here. Advantage, Beavs.

2. RB–Gerhart is great, our DL and LBs are average. Quiz is very good, but our o-line is below average. Advantage, Tree.

3. WR–Unlike in the past, Stanford has skill here. But, in terms of route-running, blocking, etc. Advantage, Beavs.

4. OL–This one’s as clear as a limpid pond: Advantage, Tree.

5. DL–Tree has the advantage here, too, from what I’ve seen. They were getting after Skinner in the Wake game. They have 11 sacks, which is 23rd in the nation. We have 3, which is 8th worst. Advantage, Tree.

6. LBs–Roberson and Kristick are better than anything Stanford has. Advantage, Beavs.

7. CBs–Mitchell is better than anyone in Stanford’s secondary. With Hardin coming on strong I actually like our unit slightly better. Advantage, Beavs.

8. Special Teams–Stanford excels here, average 41.1 yards per kick return. The WR who returns kicks for them is a very good all around playmaker, both receiving and returning (3td). Much like James Rodgers. Stanford’s kicker is 5-7 and Kahut is 7-9. That’s a wash. Both punters are shaky, that’s a wash as well. I think our kick coverage is better than Stanford’s, but overall we’re just shaky on special teams (missed extra points, not fielding punts, shanking punts at inopportune times, etc). Advantage, Tree.

9. Home field–This should be a no-brainer, but with the lame crowds of late who knows. Still: Advantage, Beavs.

The key to this game is the Beaver offensive line. Stanford’s weakness is at LB…if the road graders can pave the way, Quiz will scamper past the LBs and into the secondary early and often, controlling the clock, sustaining drives, and keeping the ball from Gerhart. Will that happen? No. While the OL took a step forward last week, it’s more likely that we’ll continue to have key false starts and other frustrating penalties. Further, I don’t see us touching Luck–his offensive line is just too good. I’d like to believe the defensive pressure in Tempe wasn’t just a byproduct of ASU’s line, but I just can’t convince myself that is true. Stanford converts 3rd downs at a 48% rate against teams with a pass rush…if this week’s fans are anything like those at the Cincy game, a couple conversations and their backs will be broken and their butts in their seats.

27-20, Stanford.

First of all, I predicted a loss because I’ve been wrong the past few weeks, noticed the streak,  and prayed that streak would continue. Luckily, it did. In short, I’m predicting loses the rest of the season.

The good: some diversity in the play calling. Sweeps, vertical passing, etc. The offensive line blocked better. I still see Grant Johnson and Mike Remmers missing blocks left and right, but at least none of them killed us in this game.  On defense, I liked what I saw–in limited time, granted–from Taylor Henry. Good edge rush, good speed, got the lone sack of the game. Also, Hardin looks excellent in coverage. Not just the interception but all around coverage. Another player who stood out at times was Lagrone. There were plays where he was completely over-matched, but at other times he was very disruptive.  I think a DL of Henry, Terry, Paea and DT2 (whoever it may be, they’re all equally ineffective) would be the best combination moving forward. A CB lineup of Clark and Hardin with Dockery as a nickle back would be ideal as well. Collins was definitely better than #28 in coverage tonight, but like most of you saw, he isn’t a great player at this point. Lance Mitchell again showed that he is the best player on this defense.

The Bad: Yes, more diverse play calling, but the sweeps and deep balls still went to the Rodgers brothers. There were times where it was clear as a limpid pond that the ball was going to be a handoff to Quiz, a bubble screen to James, or a fly sweep. I sat here, drinking wine out of the bottle, dribbling down my shirt-less chest, saying to myself, “here comes play xyz”…sure enough…even the Canfield int was predictable. The Beavs lose focus for a quarter each game. Tonight it was the 3rd quarter. Usually they come out strong, and it’s the 2nd and 3rd quarters where they suddenly get worse ADD than a young Japanese boy playing Super Famicon. But, they fought through it. A minor peeve of mine was hanging off twice to Quiz before halftime. The guy does not need to take the brunt of those meaningless caries–it’s why we have backups. Riley’s choice to go for the 53 yard FG was also terrible coaching. Otherwise, solid if not glamorous game.

On deck: Stanford.