forums

Finally Admit Lanning > Mario

TitansHope said:
the thing about this is that the "trust the process" people and the mopes both had legitimate facts to point to regarding mario's first couple of years here. he did a really good job of building the trenches from the moment he stepped in the door, recruiting overall took a significant step up, and our record improved every year. however, he also made some genuinely awful coordinator hires that he was lucky to get second (and third!) chances on, and obviously had some bad (and one horrendous) game management moments.

the reality is that both camps were right in some respects, but what's happened is that mario is no longer the same coach he was when we hired him. he's grown and changed just like a player might have, and we're better for it. but acknowledging that instead of just continuing to snipe at each other is beyond the capacity of many of the mouth breathers on this board.
Click to expand...

We Dont Do That Here Black Panther GIF


PICK A SIDE
 
Pearson704 said:
Focusing on the 40% who left while ignoring the 60% who stayed is grasping at straws--especially since a significant part of Dan Lanning’s early success rested on the offensive line, which was comprised of players Mario Cristobal recruited and developed.

Your response--in effect--acknowledges Lanning was standing on Mario's shoulders.
Click to expand...
My response acknowledges that Lanning came into a better situation at Oregon than Mario did at Miami, and that he flipped 40% of the roster right off the bat. By your logic, then Mario completely failed in year 1 because he took Manny’s 7-5 roster, flipped close to the same amount as Lanning and immediately went 5-7.

Therefore, the criticism was plenty warranted in years 1 and 2.
 
RVACane said:
This is a statement some of you guys like to make and it’s not reflective of what actually happened and @Rellyrell has provided the information previously.

It’s true, Mario left Oregon with a better roster than Manny left at Miami, however, Lanning flipped Mario’s roster quickly and at a large clip… I think 40% in year 1 - actually more than Mario flipped at miami in year one but Relly can confirm if that’s correct.

The premise that Lanning was only successful initially at Oregon because of Mario’s roster is not supported by the makeup of the Oregon roster during those times.
Click to expand...


Yes, but Lanning didn't "flip" Mario's roster out of necessity (like Neon Deion did at Colorado), he did so because a number of Oregon players left.

And I don't think anyone is saying that Lanning was "only successful initially" because of Mario's roster. But it helped.

Per 247, in early 2021 (the beginning of Mario's final year at Oregon), the Ducks lost 12 players to the Portal.

In late 2021/early 2022, the Ducks lost 17 players to the Portal and brought in 11. So the Portal losses under Lanning (Year 1) were not really out of line for what happened the year before, when Mario was the head coach.

Of those 17 Portal losses:

5 went to Nevada (2021 Oregon DC took the HC job at Nevada)
2 went to FSU
2 went to Auburn
2 went to UCLA
2 went to Miami
1 went to Southern Cal
1 went to Mizzou
1 went to Brigham Young

That doesn't seem like a bunch of guys who weren't good enough to be at Oregon (except maybe the 2 losers who went to FSU). Just my 2 cents.

And for the record, you may have confused the roster flip AFTER Lanning's first year (heading into his second year) when 34 Oregon players entered the Portal.
 
Last edited:
Pearson704 said:
Focusing on the 40% who left while ignoring the 60% who stayed is grasping at straws--especially since a significant part of Dan Lanning’s early success rested on the offensive line, which was comprised of players Mario Cristobal recruited and developed.

Your response--in effect--acknowledges Lanning was standing on Mario's shoulders.
Click to expand...


The "40%" who left Oregon entered the Portal AFTER Lanning's first year, not the year that Mario left for Miami.

17 Oregon players entered the Portal the year that Mario left. 34 Oregon players entered the Portal after Lanning's first year.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes, but Lanning didn't "flip" Mario's roster out of necessity (like Neon Deion did at Colorado), he did so because a number of Oregon players left.

And I don't think anyone is saying that Lanning was "only successful initially" because of Mario's roster. But it helped.

Per 247, in early 2021 (the beginning of Mario's final year at Oregon), the Ducks lost 12 players to the Portal.

In late 2021/early 2022, the Ducks lost 17 players to the Portal and brought in 11. So the Portal losses under Lanning (Year 1) were not really out of line for what happened the year before, when Mario was the head coach.

Of those 17 Portal losses:

5 went to Nevada (2021 Oregon DC took the HC job at Nevada)
2 went to FSU
2 went to Auburn
2 went to UCLA
2 went to Miami
1 went to Southern Cal
1 went to Mizzou
1 went to Brigham Young

That doesn't seem like a bunch of guys who weren't good enough to be at Oregon (except maybe the 2 losers who went to FSU). Just my 2 cents.

And for the record, you may have confused the roster flip AFTER Lanning's first year (heading into his second year) when 34 Oregon players entered the Portal.
Click to expand...

TheOriginalCane said:
The "40%" who left Oregon entered the Portal AFTER Lanning's first year, not the year that Mario left for Miami.

17 Oregon players entered the Portal the year that Mario left. 34 Oregon players entered the Portal after Lanning's first year.
Click to expand...
IMG_4195.gif


You’re mixing up portal exits with total roster turnover. Only 17 entered the portal during the transition, but 48 of the 123 players on Oregon’s 2021 roster were gone by Lanning’s first season, which is 39%.

Also, 52 players on Lanning’s 127-man roster were newcomers, which is about 41%. The 34 portal exits after his first season were a separate event. Saying Lanning personally pushed out 40% would be wrong, but the roughly 40% roster turnover in Year 1 is still accurate.

Again, nobody is claiming Lanning and Mario inherited identical situations. Oregon was coming off a 10-4 season with the No. 9 talent composite, while Miami was 7-5 and ranked No. 13. Oregon was clearly the better starting point.

But the idea that Mario inherited an empty cupboard is nonsense. His first Miami roster still ranked No. 12 nationally in talent, started the season ranked No. 16 and returned TVD - yes remember Mario called him the best QB in the country??? Going 5-7, including home losses of 45-31 to Middle Tennessee and 45-21 to Duke, cannot simply be blamed on Manolo.

Lanning inherited the better situation, but he also did considerably more with it. Both things can be true.
 
RVACane said:
This is a statement some of you guys like to make and it’s not reflective of what actually happened and @Rellyrell has provided the information previously.

It’s true, Mario left Oregon with a better roster than Manny left at Miami, however, Lanning flipped Mario’s roster quickly and at a large clip… I think 40% in year 1 - actually more than Mario flipped at miami in year one but Relly can confirm if that’s correct.

The premise that Lanning was only successful initially at Oregon because of Mario’s roster is not supported by the makeup of the Oregon roster during those times.
Click to expand...

This argument depends on what players were left after the purge. It could be that that 40 or 50% were the ones that drove the direction of the program. That’s something that somebody can look into. I’m not interested enough to do that.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
This argument depends on what players were left after the purge. It could be that that 40 or 50% were the ones that drove the direction of the program. That’s something that somebody can look into. I’m not interested enough to do that.
Click to expand...
I’ve looked up enough. I’m just tired of the repeat offender dead horse beaters - not you obviously.
 
Back
Top