Interesting comment during Wisky vs tOSU game

Oct 19, 2016 10:43:51 GMT -8 orangeattack said:

Oct 19, 2016 8:53:02 GMT -8 beavineugene said:

WOW, just WOW.

You're really good at nit picking stats to prove your points (ok, we all guilty of that!). Simonton lost how many starters vs. the 2000 team? Simonton "melted" in 2001 due to horrible O-Line Play, and the fact that the WRs Smith was throwing to went from Chad Johnson, TJ, and Robert Prescot. To Shawn Kitner, Seth Trimmer, and Josh Hawkins.  All teams had to do was "stop" Simonton and they shut us down. And he still damn near had his 1000 yard season. Its complete BS to say he melted. Its a minor miracle Simonton and Smith lead OSU to 5-6 with what they had around them on offense in 2001. And they damn near beat uo in the CW (we all know that Punt Return, was broke due to an illegal block in the back!). Not to mention in 2001 Simonton had some Freshman named Steven Jackson who got a lot of work and took carries away from Kenny.

Compared to Hass, well Hass had Bernard who has you noted put up a good year on the ground in 2005. Teams could not just load up on Hass and stop the Beavers. They had to respect the run as well. No one respected the 2001 Beavers passing attack.

Saying Simonton Melted in 2001 as the focal point is pure BS.

but... it is fair to say that his patient, shifty style and vision was not suited to the weaker offensive line in front of Simonton.  What happened instead is that his ypc shrunk to the lowest total of his career (4.1 ypc).  Jackson was getting a lot of work because he was averaging 5.3 ypc. 

Jackson also averaged 5.3 ypc as a soph and then averaged 4.4ypc as a junior behind what one NFL scout called the worst offensive line in the country.

Simonton was great when he had a niche that he could fit into, the right situation at the right time. You may object to the term "melted" but the fact is, when he had to carry the team, he didn't shine.  Jackson still did, by comparison, in the same, and worse, circumstances.

All what you said it true, but not really a counter to my point. The post I was referring to, referenced how Hass shined as the focal point, why Simonton Melted. You're comparing Simonton to Jackson.

My point to Hass vs Simonton comparison still remains the same. Hass had a RB that teams had to respect, thus it wasn't just stop Hass, stop the Beavs. Simonton had no WRs to take pressure off him and the run game. And yes, Jackson did avg more, but he also had less carries. Does he maintain 5.3 ypc if he has as many touches as Simonton? Plus teams had 3 years of film on Kenny. Jackson was a unknown True Freshman who was just an absolute beast!

I go back to my original point in response to Hass vs Simonton. They aren't comparable and IMO its not accurate to say Simonton melted.

Oct 19, 2016 13:46:58 GMT -8 wilkyisdashiznit said:

Starting in paragraph 4.  We can judge GA whenever.  The defense is this team's "strength," and I am not sold on it.  I sincerely doubt that Oregon State ever gets the linemen together to run a viable 3-4.  And no one will defend the use of a 3-4.  Look at last week.  A running back came out of retirement that was not quite fit and ran for 179 yards, 5.3 ypc.  He was backed up by a back-up wide receiver, who had 13 touches on the year, and was converted into a running back for the game.  He finished with 12 touches for 66 yards, 5.5 yards per touch.  The third-string running back was sixth-string running back and true freshman, Devonta'e Henry-Cole.  (Utah burned his redshirt for the game.  He played in his first game since high school.)

So Oregon State's defense went up against a formerly retired running back, a converted receiver, and a true freshman playing in his first game of the year.  58 rushes for 293 yards, 5.1 ypc.  Utah ran only 15 passing plays the entire game with four completions and still won, and it is all because the offense is even worse than the front 7, because of very questionable personnel decisions (running off anyone that might be actual able to play at a Pac-12 level) and very questionable coaching hires.  I want to be proven wrong, but this team is going nowhere right now. 

Eugene, clue us in.  The defensive backfield is improved, and Nall, when healthy, is a force.  But what else can you really point to to get us excited about the program's direction?  Fill in the blank.  You guys should get excited because ___________________.

Trying to get back to your point for a second, I do not believe that anyone here is calling for GA to be fired, and, if they are, I will back you up and strongly disagree with them.  I will even go so far to as to say, as long as GA does not completely lose the team, we should not even be having a conversation about whether GA should be fired or not until at least 2018.  However, I think that a lot of the heavy X and O crowd here is flummoxed by a lot of what this team is doing on the field.

Paragraph 1.  You agree that Erickson and Riley II were better than CGA.  Which means that you agree with the point.  You attempt to undercut it by arguing that Erickson and Riley II were coaching "programs on the rise."  Riley I created the Erickson "rise."  If 1999 Erickson decided to take the head coaching job next year, would this team be better or worse than Riley's 1998 team?  I would argue that it worse in pretty much every facet with the potential exception of Nall being a better back than Simonton (when healthy), potentially having a better defensive backfield this year than in 1998, and not having to replace Cortez in 2017.  (Erickson wound up going out and getting Cesca out of nowhere post-national signing day.)  And, more to the point, which team had more talent 1996 Oregon State or 2014 Oregon State?  And just to nail down the point, this is not to say that Oregon State does not go out and sign an amazing offensive coordinator next year and put up thousands of points.  This is to say that so far, who has taken more and done less with it?  The answer is unequivocally GA.  Which is why I say that Vydra is wrong.

Comparing GA to Riley I, if you want to throw out non-conference, that is fine.  Both started 1-11 in conference.  Looking in depth at those games, though, which you indicated would further your point, Riley's biggest loss was by 28 points.  GA has had five losses of more than 28 points.  GA lost to a 4-6 Washington team that finished with a losing record in conference in Corvallis by 45 points.  That is the biggest loss for an Oregon State team since 1993 and the biggest home loss since 1991 against national champion 12-0 Washington.  It is the worst team to defeat Oregon State that badly in Corvallis since a 1-7 Stanford team with John Elway at quarterback beat Oregon State 63-9 in 1981.  

GA has three 40-point losses.  Riley only had two in his 14 years.  Erickson had zero.  Pettibone had zero his final 3.5+ years.  That is to say that GA has amassed more 40-point losses in 18 games than the previous three coaches were able to collectively "achieve" in the previous 21.5+ years, 262 games.  Or to put it another way entirely, the rate of incidence of 40-point losses has increased 1361% since GA was hired.

I am hoping that GA hires an excellent OC next year and rights the ship.  I am not sold that the defense will ever work here, but we stand a chance of drastically improving offensively, if we can hire a hand-to-God OC.  And a good offense could negate the current desperate need for a killer defensive line, which, so far, has not aperated.

I still think that this team has at least one more win in them (three home games, after all), as they are, as a team, improved.  However, this is a very subpar team at present.  It is going to take a lot of work just to get this team back to mediocre.

Ok first off, impressive response. You did a lot of fact checking/looking up. Or you have an amazing memory. Either way, tip o the cap to you!  I will offer up some responses, but at the end of the day its not going to be as detailed as you offered. Because well, I think this horse is beat dead.

Here we go though...

I will start with the 40 point losses. Valid points. Counter argument. College Football of 2016 offensively is not even close to that of 1997. Teams are simply scoring points at a faster rate. In 1997-98 was anyone running a no huddle, spread system? I certainly can't argue with your facts, but I am not certain is a fair comparison either. Obviously in 2015 our defense was horrible. Some of that due to talent, some due to injuries/depth. Either way, it was easy for teams to put up points, and quickly on us. Six games into this year though, we've been competitive in 5 games (winning 2). And two loses were 7 points or less.  We've only had one true blow out this year. That's improvement though, is it not?  That's what everyone keeps asking for, improvement. Are we better 6 games into 2016 vs. 2015? Yes!

As for our defensive vs. the running backs of Utah. 1000% agreed. I could share with you some the texts I sent friends during the game to back that up, LOL. I am still not certain how we held them to only 19 points to be honest.

As to why I think you should be excited? Sure, I'll bite and offer up my thoughts. Most I already have, but lets go down that road again. GA was given free reign to rebuild the program how he saw fit. Has he made mistakes along the way? Hell yes. If he could do things over again, would he bring in a different coach. Perhaps do more to keep a player that opted to leave? I would hope so. At the end of the day though he had the green light to do what he wanted. And he did. He felt the whole program needed a culture change and he's in the process of changing that. Once again, I'll point out the off the field improvements. Team GPA, Up. Weight room results, improved. Player arrests, down (to zero). Players kicked off the team for rules violation, down. All that indicates to me that his players (and the Riley hold overs) respect him and the message he's sending.

I look at recruiting. In 2006, I sat at a Beaver Huddle in Eugene and listen to Riley explain his recruiting style. This is not an exact quote, but he essentially said they don't go after the 4/5* kids very often because they don't think they will come here. They prefered to go after the under developed kid, that they felt in 3-4 years cculd contribute. They went after the 2/3* and build them up. And we had very little interest from top recruits. And it did work, for the most part. Except that once a guy was hurt, we had no depth behind the player they spent years developing. GA however, goes after those top recruits. He gets them to come to Corvallis on official visits. Has it resulted in a bunch committing? No. But now with VFC done and kids can actually see the facilities, that I belive should help. Win a few games, that will help. IMO, I think GA will be able to recruit better talent to OSU and create better depth over time. Of course, just my opinon there. It certainly isn't there yet.

Also, GA brings a little more fire to sidelines. You pointed out the 40 point losses. Ever see GA crack a grin when its happening? I sure don't. He looks pissed!!!We all saw Riley grinning on the sidelines during blow outs. And it annoyed you, you know it did. GA wants to win (not that Riley didn't) and brings that intensity on and off the field. He's also more honest when it comes to talking to the media. Some of its coach speak, but its honest.

I don't expect to change the minds of the GA doubters. On field results aren't there. I am the first to admit that. I've stated quite a few times though, I am reserving judgment on GA until post CW 2017. That's when my patients with the process ends. Until then, I've seen enough to believe he has OSU pointed in the right direction. And while many here brush it off or claim they don't know about football. If you're on social media, you can see many staff within the AD have bought into GA and his process. And those people around GA, the players, the program more than any of us.

With that, I am out. I am not going to beat the dead horse any more. In 18 games, we can revisit the topic.