|
Post by korculabeav on Oct 10, 2021 12:48:12 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf.
I am bewildered.
|
|
nksuwu
Freshman
Longtime Beaver fan...especially WBB
Posts: 75
|
Post by nksuwu on Oct 10, 2021 12:53:51 GMT -8
I also agree with Canzano. The run game was near unstoppable.
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Oct 10, 2021 14:26:19 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. bennyshouse.com/thread/19004/48-hrs-chill-out
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on Oct 10, 2021 14:42:03 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. Probably thought he could throw it because they were successful all week in practice against our secondary.............. Go Beavs!!
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Oct 10, 2021 18:53:30 GMT -8
Thing is, the run was getting stuffed much of the time cuz they stacked the box. Yes, we broke off many chunk plays, but their defense adjusted. Our passing game was unable to take advantage. If we couldve had a more balanced approach, this thread, and that article dont exist.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 10, 2021 21:50:41 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Oct 10, 2021 22:48:24 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it.
... What? We had the ball on the WSU 28 with 2:00 left and two timeouts. You have your entire playbook open to you at that point. Lack of time was not an issue yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 10, 2021 23:15:23 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it. With a 1st at the 14 and 2 (maybe 3 TOs) there is plenty of time to run the ball. As for a post further up, "most" runs were not "stuffed". Averaging almost 7 per carry and over 300 yds pretty much destroys that line of thinking! Stretch plays are "reads". Oversimplification, the OL reaches and blocks to play side, the RB reads and sees color and gaps. Those outside dashes were blocked well and astutely read. Past pro was an issue. But, without going on a coaching diatribe OSU was, and is, going to have issues pass protecting vs smaller/quick DLs. OSU's OL can manhandle smaller, athletic DLs in a run game (except when a TE allows a guy to cross his face for an easy play on Jack!). QB and D are the issues. No matter how well you run the ball if your D can't stop the pass you are prob in trouble. Most run 1st teams lose if they don't have a strong D. If the pass isn't a consistent threat, running the ball is much tougher. Nolan is an athlete playing QB at this point. He reminds me more of Collins than any QB mentioned after the SC win. Will he improve? I'm sure of it. How much? Better be 60-65% with quicker reads and awareness of uncovered check downs... and then actually throw a catchable ball. Defense... the DL isn't the real issue. A bunch of talent there? Nope. But, if you expect a scheme of mainly (2) DL, (2) rush LBs to consistently beat (5) OL and maybe a max pro TE or chipping RB, not going to happen. Tibs isn't even playing a 3-4 most of the time. OSU has 10-12 bodies on the DL roster. DL take up space, occupy bodies to allow better blitz gaps. His scheme is even more ludicrous when wanting to play soft zone (or man under). Someone will be wide open vs any back 6 or 7 with 3.5 seconds+. Want more effective edge rushers and blitzes try occupying OL. Cancrappo was right on, sorry to say. It's been pretty basic since Tibs has been here. The D puts a huge amount of pressure on the O to have to score on 75% of their possessions. It's just not sustainable week in and week out. And, just maybe part of the reasoning behind the "risk" taking calls from the offense at times?! The talent level is better by leaps and bounds. If fans only want to see outcomes, 4-2, great. But, if you look behind the "scenes" the process is very sketchy and has a clear weak link IMHO. FBS teams average about 315 (?) passing yds per game vs this scheme. WSU scored with ease the 2nd half and the DC couldn't make any on the field adjustments. No wrinkles in the playbook? No other 3 or 4 man pressure fronts? Not really any twists, loops, exchanges? Nothing? Makes the run D look good to analytic types I guess. There's a bigger picture than 4-2 and silly comparisons to 2013. JS will be fine as long as his loyalty doesn't blind him. You don't have to fire a DC to change a defective concept/scheme. Send him to "school" this offseason, shake up his routine, get him thinking outside his "box" that's not been effective. Point blank, OSU has better players on D than "Tibsaurus Less's" schemes allow.
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Oct 10, 2021 23:48:19 GMT -8
Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it. With a 1st at the 14 and 2 (maybe 3 TOs) there is plenty of time to run the ball. As for a post further up, "most" runs were not "stuffed". Averaging almost 7 per carry and over 300 yds pretty much destroys that line of thinking! Stretch plays are "reads". Oversimplification, the OL reaches and blocks to play side, the RB reads and sees color and gaps. Those outside dashes were blocked well and astutely read. Past pro was an issue. But, without going on a coaching diatribe OSU was, and is, going to have issues pass protecting vs smaller/quick DLs. OSU's OL can manhandle smaller, athletic DLs in a run game (except when a TE allows a guy to cross his face for an easy play on Jack!). QB and D are the issues. No matter how well you run the ball if your D can't stop the pass you are prob in trouble. Most run 1st teams lose if they don't have a strong D. If the pass isn't a consistent threat, running the ball is much tougher. Nolan is an athlete playing QB at this point. He reminds me more of Collins than any QB mentioned after the SC win. Will he improve? I'm sure of it. How much? Better be 60-65% with quicker reads and awareness of uncovered check downs... and then actually throw a catchable ball. Defense... the DL isn't the real issue. A bunch of talent there? Nope. But, if you expect a scheme of mainly (2) DL, (2) rush LBs to consistently beat (5) OL and maybe a max pro TE or chipping RB, not going to happen. Tibs isn't even playing a 3-4 most of the time. OSU has 10-12 bodies on the DL roster. DL take up space, occupy bodies to allow better blitz gaps. His scheme is even more ludicrous when wanting to play soft zone (or man under). Someone will be wide open vs any back 6 or 7 with 3.5 seconds+. Want more effective edge rushers and blitzes try occupying OL. Cancrappo was right on, sorry to say. It's been pretty basic since Tibs has been here. The D puts a huge amount of pressure on the O to have to score on 75% of their possessions. It's just not sustainable week in and week out. And, just maybe part of the reasoning behind the "risk" taking calls from the offense at times?! The talent level is better by leaps and bounds. If fans only want to see outcomes, 4-2, great. But, if you look behind the "scenes" the process is very sketchy and has a clear weak link IMHO. FBS teams average about 315 (?) passing yds per game vs this scheme. WSU scored with ease the 2nd half and the DC couldn't make any on the field adjustments. No wrinkles in the playbook? No other 3 or 4 man pressure fronts? Not really any twists, loops, exchanges? Nothing? Makes the run D look good to analytic types I guess. There's a bigger picture than 4-2 and silly comparisons to 2013. JS will be fine as long as his loyalty doesn't blind him. You don't have to fire a DC to change a defective concept/scheme. Send him to "school" this offseason, shake up his routine, get him thinking outside his "box" that's not been effective. Point blank, OSU has better players on D than "Tibsaurus Less's" schemes allow. I sure wish you were at Smith's presser tomorrow to ask quality questions instead of the dopes in the media who'll fire off a 'how's the team doing' dud.
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Oct 11, 2021 6:33:58 GMT -8
With a 1st at the 14 and 2 (maybe 3 TOs) there is plenty of time to run the ball. As for a post further up, "most" runs were not "stuffed". Averaging almost 7 per carry and over 300 yds pretty much destroys that line of thinking! Stretch plays are "reads". Oversimplification, the OL reaches and blocks to play side, the RB reads and sees color and gaps. Those outside dashes were blocked well and astutely read. Past pro was an issue. But, without going on a coaching diatribe OSU was, and is, going to have issues pass protecting vs smaller/quick DLs. OSU's OL can manhandle smaller, athletic DLs in a run game (except when a TE allows a guy to cross his face for an easy play on Jack!). QB and D are the issues. No matter how well you run the ball if your D can't stop the pass you are prob in trouble. Most run 1st teams lose if they don't have a strong D. If the pass isn't a consistent threat, running the ball is much tougher. Nolan is an athlete playing QB at this point. He reminds me more of Collins than any QB mentioned after the SC win. Will he improve? I'm sure of it. How much? Better be 60-65% with quicker reads and awareness of uncovered check downs... and then actually throw a catchable ball. Defense... the DL isn't the real issue. A bunch of talent there? Nope. But, if you expect a scheme of mainly (2) DL, (2) rush LBs to consistently beat (5) OL and maybe a max pro TE or chipping RB, not going to happen. Tibs isn't even playing a 3-4 most of the time. OSU has 10-12 bodies on the DL roster. DL take up space, occupy bodies to allow better blitz gaps. His scheme is even more ludicrous when wanting to play soft zone (or man under). Someone will be wide open vs any back 6 or 7 with 3.5 seconds+. Want more effective edge rushers and blitzes try occupying OL. Cancrappo was right on, sorry to say. It's been pretty basic since Tibs has been here. The D puts a huge amount of pressure on the O to have to score on 75% of their possessions. It's just not sustainable week in and week out. And, just maybe part of the reasoning behind the "risk" taking calls from the offense at times?! The talent level is better by leaps and bounds. If fans only want to see outcomes, 4-2, great. But, if you look behind the "scenes" the process is very sketchy and has a clear weak link IMHO. FBS teams average about 315 (?) passing yds per game vs this scheme. WSU scored with ease the 2nd half and the DC couldn't make any on the field adjustments. No wrinkles in the playbook? No other 3 or 4 man pressure fronts? Not really any twists, loops, exchanges? Nothing? Makes the run D look good to analytic types I guess. There's a bigger picture than 4-2 and silly comparisons to 2013. JS will be fine as long as his loyalty doesn't blind him. You don't have to fire a DC to change a defective concept/scheme. Send him to "school" this offseason, shake up his routine, get him thinking outside his "box" that's not been effective. Point blank, OSU has better players on D than "Tibsaurus Less's" schemes allow. I sure wish you were at Smith's presser tomorrow to ask quality questions instead of the dopes in the media who'll fire off a 'how's the team doing' dud. Better yet I wish you could have a short sit down with Smith.
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Oct 11, 2021 6:55:18 GMT -8
Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it. With a 1st at the 14 and 2 (maybe 3 TOs) there is plenty of time to run the ball. As for a post further up, "most" runs were not "stuffed". Averaging almost 7 per carry and over 300 yds pretty much destroys that line of thinking! Stretch plays are "reads". Oversimplification, the OL reaches and blocks to play side, the RB reads and sees color and gaps. Those outside dashes were blocked well and astutely read. Past pro was an issue. But, without going on a coaching diatribe OSU was, and is, going to have issues pass protecting vs smaller/quick DLs. OSU's OL can manhandle smaller, athletic DLs in a run game (except when a TE allows a guy to cross his face for an easy play on Jack!). QB and D are the issues. No matter how well you run the ball if your D can't stop the pass you are prob in trouble. Most run 1st teams lose if they don't have a strong D. If the pass isn't a consistent threat, running the ball is much tougher. Nolan is an athlete playing QB at this point. He reminds me more of Collins than any QB mentioned after the SC win. Will he improve? I'm sure of it. How much? Better be 60-65% with quicker reads and awareness of uncovered check downs... and then actually throw a catchable ball. Defense... the DL isn't the real issue. A bunch of talent there? Nope. But, if you expect a scheme of mainly (2) DL, (2) rush LBs to consistently beat (5) OL and maybe a max pro TE or chipping RB, not going to happen. Tibs isn't even playing a 3-4 most of the time. OSU has 10-12 bodies on the DL roster. DL take up space, occupy bodies to allow better blitz gaps. His scheme is even more ludicrous when wanting to play soft zone (or man under). Someone will be wide open vs any back 6 or 7 with 3.5 seconds+. Want more effective edge rushers and blitzes try occupying OL. Cancrappo was right on, sorry to say. It's been pretty basic since Tibs has been here. The D puts a huge amount of pressure on the O to have to score on 75% of their possessions. It's just not sustainable week in and week out. And, just maybe part of the reasoning behind the "risk" taking calls from the offense at times?! The talent level is better by leaps and bounds. If fans only want to see outcomes, 4-2, great. But, if you look behind the "scenes" the process is very sketchy and has a clear weak link IMHO. FBS teams average about 315 (?) passing yds per game vs this scheme. WSU scored with ease the 2nd half and the DC couldn't make any on the field adjustments. No wrinkles in the playbook? No other 3 or 4 man pressure fronts? Not really any twists, loops, exchanges? Nothing? Makes the run D look good to analytic types I guess. There's a bigger picture than 4-2 and silly comparisons to 2013. JS will be fine as long as his loyalty doesn't blind him. You don't have to fire a DC to change a defective concept/scheme. Send him to "school" this offseason, shake up his routine, get him thinking outside his "box" that's not been effective. Point blank, OSU has better players on D than "Tibsaurus Less's" schemes allow. Nolan's inconsistent passing affected the run game negatively, down the stretch. Watching our D against wazzu in the second half reminded me of watching an early 2000's WAC game.....spread em out, up and down the field. Maybe we do need a a new DC with better X's and O's.....what we definitely need though, are the Jimmy's and Joes.
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Oct 11, 2021 14:50:50 GMT -8
I sure wish you were at Smith's presser tomorrow to ask quality questions instead of the dopes in the media who'll fire off a 'how's the team doing' dud. Better yet I wish you could have a short sit down with Smith. can you imagine the kind of dough a coach could generate if allowed to have sit downs with highest bidders? Be kind of cool. We could donate to someone from Benny's house to represent us.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 11, 2021 15:52:30 GMT -8
He is adept at drawing out emotions in his readers. Sells the paper. But I reread his piece on the WSU disaster a 2nd time and realize he has a point. Why did the coaches completely go away from the run on the last drive? I can’t think of a logical series of thought why they thought that was a good idea given the insane success they were having at 7 ypg. It really rings of the poor play calling we would often see from Langsdorf. I am bewildered. Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it. We were first and 10 on the WSU 28 with 1:34 on the clock and two time outs. There was literally all the time in the world to run if we wanted to. We had our full playbook. First down, incomplete Second down Fenwick runs for zero... apparently this is where we got scared. 3rd down, incomplete 4th down, incomplete, bailed out on the PI. 1st down, Sack 2nd down, poorly conceived QB keeper by the looks of it, -1 yard 3rd down, incomplete 4th down, Lowe out of the backfield, still had to scoop down to even get it, 18 yards. Nolan in crunch time, 1 for 5, 18 yards, took a sack, rushed for -1 yards. Baylor whom to that point had rushed 18 times for 145 yards touched the ball zero times. Fenwick, whom to that point had rushed 15 times for 127 yards, got one touch. Canzano is 100% right, we betrayed ourselves at the end. This team has it's identity and it is running the damn ball. I REALLY take exception with the second set of downs, the first down sack we took. that should of been a Baylor run. 1:11 on the clock, one time out still. We are first and 10 on the 14, run that mother f%#*ing ball with either of the two dudes literally were averaging over 8 yards a carry all game. This call, this sack was an absolute killer. second point of absolute outrage, is the second down play where I believe it was a QB draw. come, f%#*ing, on. If you are going to run it, f%#*ing really run it with either of the two dudes that were murdering WSU all game. Or, if you are concerned with time, sure would of been a great time to break out a fly sweep that sprints towards the sideline making it easy for the runner to get out of bounds if the play is looking bottled up. We had options, we tried to put the game in Nolan's hands and he did not deliver.
|
|
|
Post by vhalum92 on Oct 11, 2021 16:32:18 GMT -8
Atown's synopsis reminded me of how the 2019 game ended at WSU...
"The final drive of the game came after the Washington State defense stopped Oregon State on a fourth-and-6 with 1:10 left in the game. Anthony Gordon then led Washington State on a 10-play, 58-yard drive, capped by Borghi's touchdown."
Too bad we didn't try it ourselves. A slightly shorter run... but even the pass happy Pirate new that running it in the red zone at the end of the game can get you a TD.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 11, 2021 17:20:09 GMT -8
Why? Because it was working. The first six plays went for 57 yards. Three pass plays and three running plays. But that took 3:11 off the clock. Oregon State's last eight plays were six pass plays and two running plays. The reason? There just wasn't enough time to run more running plays. Canzano is an idiot. He was not right. The coaches did what they could. If there was a little more time, they could have run more running plays. There just was not time to do it. We were first and 10 on the WSU 28 with 1:34 on the clock and two time outs. There was literally all the time in the world to run if we wanted to. We had our full playbook. First down, incomplete Second down Fenwick runs for zero... apparently this is where we got scared. 3rd down, incomplete 4th down, incomplete, bailed out on the PI. 1st down, Sack 2nd down, poorly conceived QB keeper by the looks of it, -1 yard 3rd down, incomplete 4th down, Lowe out of the backfield, still had to scoop down to even get it, 18 yards. Nolan in crunch time, 1 for 5, 18 yards, took a sack, rushed for -1 yards. Baylor whom to that point had rushed 18 times for 145 yards touched the ball zero times. Fenwick, whom to that point had rushed 15 times for 127 yards, got one touch. Canzano is 100% right, we betrayed ourselves at the end. This team has it's identity and it is running the damn ball. I REALLY take exception with the second set of downs, the first down sack we took. that should of been a Baylor run. 1:11 on the clock, one time out still. We are first and 10 on the 14, run that mother f%#*ing ball with either of the two dudes literally were averaging over 8 yards a carry all game. This call, this sack was an absolute killer. second point of absolute outrage, is the second down play where I believe it was a QB draw. come, f%#*ing, on. If you are going to run it, f%#*ing really run it with either of the two dudes that were murdering WSU all game. Or, if you are concerned with time, sure would of been a great time to break out a fly sweep that sprints towards the sideline making it easy for the runner to get out of bounds if the play is looking bottled up. We had options, we tried to put the game in Nolan's hands and he did not deliver. Having watched the game on DVR yesterday, I would only like to offer these counterpoints: 1) While Yogi Roth will never be confused with a D1 head football coach, he has certainly seen and analyzed more football than any of us (unless somebody on here is a paid analyst for football). He also has the advantage over most of us that he was the assistant QB coach at USC. So, my point is that he knows a thing or two. Going in to that final drive, he said that he felt that Nolan would need to complete 3 passes, just 3 passes, to lead a successful drive for a TD and the tie/win. Passes did help get us into the position of being on the 28 with 1:34 left. If not for passing, we might not have gained as many yards on the drive to that point and we might not have had 1:34 left. Up to that point in the drive, Nolan had completed two passes. 2) Just listing the remaining pass plays as "incomplete" is not doing the plays justice, any more than a well-blocked run play that goes for only 1 yard due to a tremendous shoestring tackle by the D is reason to mark the run game down as ineffective. Twice the ball was in a position to be caught by an OSU receiver for a TD. If that had happened, we would not be having this discussion. Twice the ball dropped in exactly where it needed to be for the receiver and the defender was occupying an arm or getting in the way just enough for the ball to be incomplete. In both cases it was a matter of inches that the ball was incomplete and was good D, not a bad throw or a bad catch or a bad play call. After watching the game again, I feel that the game was not a bad game by the Beavers, only a disappointing outcome. Those plays at the end could have worked and I agree with Yogi Roth that the pass was going to have to work in addition to the run on that drive. As I said, we were inches away from not having this conversation. As for the D, I had wondered over the course of the 4 games prior to WSU, where OSU had moved the ball when the other team *absolutely had to* stop the Beavers, if the fans for the other team were praising the OSU offense for continually being able to move the ball to answer or if they were simply decrying their own team's defensive inability. I think I know that they were not praising the Beavers (who are, after all, the team picked to finish last in the North). I think they could only see that their defense didn't stop the Beavers. Yes, our D should have found a way to limit WSU's ability to complete drives....just as the defense for teams we have played should have been able to do against the Beavers. Sometimes the offense wins.
|
|