First--and this is not my main point--why did they not go for the field goal to get to 19-14 with about 1 minute left in the third.  16 minutes to outscore 'burn by a td was a reasonable approach.

Then, to my main point, the reason that Ducks didn't get the td at the goal line in that last minute of the third quarter (and why they should not have tried to get the six there).  And why they needed a great call (underneath shovel pass) to score their last six:  A one running back set is not good at the goal line, especially when, like us, your main running backs are light/non-power guys.

Even with two lightweight backs, you make the defense have to guess which running back will get it.  With only one running back, they know who's likely to get it (if not a qb keep).  Against a big/tough/strong/heavy d-line like Auburn's that don't work.  They pile on at the one running back.  It's gotta be heavily in such a defense's favor.

Same thing for us with our one-running back attack at tough yardage moments; less than optimal.

The defenders were already 'in the box.'  Giving them more things to defend--using the mental part known as coaching--could well make a difference.

I should charge for having to 'splain myself to those who lack their M.O.

Clue...get one.

Never said there was not a place, only that the game is changing and you do not have to have a fullback to have a successful running game.

They have very little creativity on offense this year. They are a dominate run oriented team, throwing is something they just do not do, they beat people, ala Coach Bryant and Coach Hayes style, they beat yoU becausevthey were better.

At some point something that you post must make sense.

For instance, not having a fullback is not a deficit in running the ball at the goal line?
Oregon showed little creativity on offense this year?
Oregon did not use the pass effectively this year?

Maybe the problem is that you don't have a television?  'cause you clearly did not see the title game or watch Oregon play any other games this year.

Oregon also LOST the National Championshipe game, I believe in part because they could not score from the three or four yard line in four tries, running the ball from the spread.  There is a time and place for a power running formation. 

Dear willing candidate for putz of the year:  On one hand you state that it was about personnel while on the other hand you deny that having a sizeable running back or size another way (two running backs) would have made a difference.

Oregon's offense didn't look different from almost every other team's to you?  Go back and watch Ducks vs. UCLA.  Go back and watch how exhausted teams were against them in the 4th quarter.  Go read the numerous stories about the oppo's defense not being able to hang with them in the 4th qtr due to their system ('Will you guys please slow down!').

The point isn't the 80 td's they scored (another sign that it was their scheme..since they ran, as you say, the same plays many other teams did yet scored much more).  The point, dear misser of forest for trees, is that they didn't have beef or two back deception at the goal line at the end of the third quarter, thereby getting no points there and pretty much losing the national title.

Keep it up.  As long as you can miss the obvious, I can correct.

I have never said that the fullback position was evil and serves NO purpose, but that the game is changing, and many teams do not use a fullback. Monroe if you really think one play lost a game you are proving to be the idiot I know you to be. In any game ther is 70 to 90 offensive plays, 70 to 90 defensive plays, and 10 to 20 scrimmage kicks and free kicks. To think that one play solely determines the outcome is ludicourious!! And beyond any coaching point ever made!

Also nice try trying to put words into my mouth, it is about personnel, I dont care what offense or defense you run! I never said big this or big that wins anything. You can have a big 270lb fullback but if he can't get his ass into the hole or if he is not smart enough or nimble enough to make an adjustment or shifty enough to keep his feet going through the hole, you have accomplished adding to the pile and creating obstacles.

If you really truly want to talk football feel free to PM me or any other numbers of football people on this board and you may actually learn something.

Also, if a fullback was so important why didnt Cleve and Lichty win more games, because they had a fullback on every play, and yet the couldn't score during Friday practice against air, but damn that fullback was a beast! Heck one year 89, we had an all MAC preformer at fullback, Mike Southers from Ironton Ohio! And we couldn't score!

Monroe, please don't give the Tea Party folks a bad name by implying that JCW is one of them.  Those guys just like to argue unimportant things like the meaning of the U.S. Constitution rather than sticking to the important things in our society like the evolution of college football formations and schemes.  Furthermore, let me point out, as you've already learned, there are at least two folks on this board who are always right and who you can never, ever, win an argument with -- the aforementioned Wannyman and the BobcatLoveMachine.  To paraphrase President Obama in his successful campaign for the presidency (who was quoting a movie): "If you bring a knife, they'll bring a gun."  Hard to win an argument with those odds.