Now that we’ve covered the numbers, let’s discuss reality: the unexpected happens.

I remember growing up a New York Met fan. It was 1988. The Mets had won 15 straight against the Dodgers during the regular season. Then came the NL playoffs. Needless to reminisce (it still hurts), the Dodgers handled the Mets easily and eliminated them from the playoffs. How? Orel Hershiser. One man took over the game, the series, and the season.What’s the point of this anecdote? Fans and media alike enjoy predictions. If the prediction is right, it makes the prognosticator feel special, superior, important. I do it sometimes to arrouse discussion. Predictions are based on numbers, “what if” scenarios, and what “should” happen, but what should happen rarely does. Not just in sports. Look around.

• My gut tells me the Oregon Ducks should win 38-17.
• My gut tells me Chip Kelly is another in a lineage of alpha-male-uber-aggressive-coach-on-steroids that seems to be riddling the pac-10, which means the Beavers won’t have to stop the Ducks for 3 downs, but many times for 4.
• My gut tells me Canfield isn’t ready for this stage and will throw at least one heart-breaking interception.
• My gut thinks the Duck’s confidence is founded in talent, and the belief that their scheme can’t be stopped is a belief that makes them doubly dangerous.

The funny thing is my gut told me the same things about the New York Mets in 1988.

And for the life of me I can’t shake this clandestine yet burgeoning feeling that a magical, historical script is in the process of being written, and the penultimate (the Civil War) in this particular story is more important than the prize (Rose Bowl). That’s what makes this story fascinating. It simply can’t be a blowout; legendary scripts don’t end that way.

Now, let me relay another anecdote: one of my best friends, let’s call him “Brady”, has practically never lost at basketball despite being a mere 5’8. If you had never seen him play, you’d pick him last to join your squad, and even if you witnessed his game, you’d see his short, stocky frame and simply assume he was losing until the bell tolled and he was left smiling. Brady had some talent–he was a deadly outside shooter-but mostly he won with heart. He simply wanted it more than you did; he took advantage of every opportunity presented to him; and in the end, the sum of those parts raised him above his natural ability. How? By refining every part of his game, from the mental to the physical to intangibles like his competitive desire.

As far as Thursday night, I don’t know what’s going to happen. My gut says 38-17, Ducks. But my heart says this Beaver team has a little bit of Brady in them. As fans, we can only hope to have a fair shot and let our players decide the outcome. We cross our collective fingers that there are no injuries, good officiating, fair bounces, and good sportsmanship. And in the end we can only hope that on this aforementioned (somewhat utopian) level playing field, the team that combines talent with heart wins the game. If that happens, something will smell rotten in the state of Pewgene.

The pick: pick ’em.

The #24 passing attack faces the #29 pass defense. What gives?

Well, unfortunately, I think the Beavers lose this match-up as well. Yes, they will get yards, but the Ducks excel in two key areas: turnovers gained (24 total) and red zone defense (18th nationally). Additionally, Oregon ranks 18th in holding opposing QBs to the lowest passer efficiency. The Ducks also trump the Beavers in sacks with 30, and tackles for a loss with 69. People say I am too critical of the Beaver’s walk-on offensive linemen. Well, we’ll see how they hold up Thursday night.

Back to the analysis:

So for all the talk of the Beavers passing game keeping them in this thing, I think the opposite is true. They’ll have to run for about 200 yards to win this game because with the pass will come turnovers and (settling for) FGs against the Ducks. And this is not something solely backed up by stats; watch the Ducks play, it’s a “bend but don’t break” style with key turnovers at critical junctures.

What this Angrybeaver sees is OSU racking up a good yardage total, but the Ducks getting takeaways at crucial moments. Sean Canfield seems nervous in pre-game interviews. This, too, is foreboding. Sean has never played in Autzen, despite being a 5th year senior. Nor has Sean ever played in a game this big in his life. He seems more flappable than the cocky Masoli.

The bottom line is that the Ducks have a better defense than the Beavers. A statement backed up by practically every defensive state, but also backed up by the eye test. We know the Ducks have a better offense. So what edge does that leave for the Beavers?

Well, special teams, for one. I do think the Beavers kick coverage is better than the Ducks, so I could see James Rodgers doing something on returns. Conversely, while Barner is a great returner, I think he’ll be bottled up for the most part (maybe expect a return or two to the 38 yard line, but I don’t see the Beavers giving up a big return). The Beavers need to get their punt return game going this game. That will be huge. If Kavanaugh is back there fair-catching or getting 5 yards a return we’re in trouble. But you don’t know what you’re getting from that facet; punt returns have been erratic all season. Kahut is what he is…makes your heart race, but the great think about him is he doesn’t seem to let misses disrupt him at all. Maybe more so than any Beaver kicker in history. The downside of Kahut is short kickoffs. Again, the coverage team must help him here. Both punters are erratic and a wash. It would be nice to see Johnny Hekker throw a pass on a punt fake, as he was a QB in high school.

Now…on to the pick…

For all the flash and modernism that surrounds the Duck’s program, for them the game will come down to one of the oldest axioms in football: the team with the better running game wins the game.

The Ducks are ranked 8th in the nation in rushing, averaging 232 yards per game. However, Oregon State only yields 98 yards per game to opponents. So what gives? To answer that question, I had to look through the Beaver’s body of work to determine if that average of 98 yards is legit, or if it’s a matter of teams passing on the young, untested secondary.

Game 1: Portland State does not have a DI back, and they run a pass-first offense.77 yards rushing.

Game 2: See above. 82 yards rushing.

Game 3: Cincinnati was all over the secondary (especially #28). There are only so many yards to gain in game, and when you give up 332 in the air that only leaves 76 on the ground. It’s not that the Beavers stopped Cincy; it’s that Cincy wanted those yards via the pass.

Game 4: This was the first real test for the rushing defense. Arizona is definitely a run first offense with a good DI back. They also run a spread. The Beavers gave up 134 yards rushing on 33 attempts. If you remember, Foles was throwing bubble screens much of the game, keeping the Beavers around the line of scrimmage. I’d say 134 yards is an average day and does not suggest a top 15 rushing defense.

Game 5: Sun Devils. This was a dominating performance by the Beavers. 31 carries for 68 yards. They gave up 338 yards through the air, however, suggesting that when they sell out to stop the run their secondary becomes vulnerable.

Game 6: 149 yards to the 11th best rushing offense in Stanford. That’s pretty good. However…

Game 7: 227 yards to USC, the 40th best rushing offense is horrendous.

Game 8: UCLA is ranked 98th in rushing. The Beavers gave them 51 yards, less than half their average. That is dominating.

Game 9: 31 yards to a very good Cal rushing attack. However, Best was injured early so this game sheds little light.

Game 10: 30 attempts for 121 yards. Most notable is that Locker was held to -13 rushing on 6 attempts with a long of 16 yards. Locker is probably the QB most similar to Masoli.

Game 11: 59 yards to Washington State. The Cougars pad all numbers.

So, how good is the Beavers rush defense? I’d look at 3 games–Arizona, USC, and Stanford–to find the answer to that question. There’s no reason to consider the Cal game because Best was injured and the Bears did not try to run the ball after that.  In those 3 games, the Beavers gave up a combined 510 rushing yards on 98 carries for a 5.2 average. That is not very good. Additionally, in the same 3 games the Beavers had 7 tackles for a loss resulting in -23 yards rushing, meaning the Beavers actually give up 5.4 yards per carry versus competent rushing attacks. Why does this number matter? It paints a more accurate picture than the 5.2 average because the Ducks have only give 12 sacks all year and the Beavers have only earned 15 sacks, so you have to figure the Beavers will have no tackles for a loss or sacks.

The bottom line is that the Beavers run defense numbers have been inflated by bad opponents (Portland State, UNLV, Washington State), teams with injuries (e.g. Cal), or teams electing to pass and take advantage of the secondary (e.g. Arizona, Cincy, Arizona State, UCLA). Having watched almost every play of every game this year, I can say with confidence that this is a very erratic and average run defense. It just goes to show you how stats can paint a picture, yet when you dig deeper you reveal a scene entirely different.

The Beavers do have an edge in the passing game, but is it enough to overcome the Ducks advantage in the running game? Stay tuned–tomorrow I will analyze that match up…