|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 24, 2016 11:55:12 GMT -8
I think most fans who played the schedule game before this season started had the Beavers winning 3-5 games. Some probably said 2 wins at most and some probably predicted 6 wins or more but I'd say the general consensus was in the 3-5 range.
When we did that, we looked at the best chances for wins coming in the first half of the season.
That was before the conference got turned on its head.
So far this year, we've played these league/division leading teams:
Boise State, currently 7-0, ranked #13, and tied for the lead in the Mountain West. Of course we all expected BSU to win the easy games on their schedule but I don't think we envisioned 7-0 and #13 at this point.
Colorado, currently 6-2 (4-1 in conference), ranked #23, and tied for the lead in the PAC-12 South. Only those paying careful attention predicted that Colorado was going to be quite good this season. Even those prognosticators probably didn't envision them being tied for the lead in the PAC-12 south with a 4-1 conference record at this point.
Utah, currently 7-1 (4-1 in conference), ranked #17, and tied for the lead in the PAC-12 South. Sure, we all knew Utah would be "OK". But, *this* OK? Even as recently as last week, Beaver fans were saying that Utah was a bad team after our hard-fought 19-14 loss to them. If they're a bad team, they have yet to prove it.
UW, currently 7-0 (4-0 in conference), ranked #4, and tied for the lead in the PAC-12 North. Other than Husky fans who had panicked when things didn't improve immediately, I think we all knew it was just a matter of time before Chris Petersen did what we were afraid he would do at UW. But, didn't we think they were still a year away? 7-0, #4, and being penciled into the playoffs? Seriously?
And now we have coming up...
WSU, currently 5-2 (4-0 in conference), just outside the rankings at #26, and tied for the lead in the PAC-12 North. We never know what to expect with Leach and WSU but didn't we look at this as one of our most likely wins after WSU opened with losses to Eastern Washington (FCS) and BSU (who we did not think was necessarily any good)? Now they come into Corvallis as 14-point favorites and looking to get into the Top 25 and stay tied for the lead in the North. Good Lord, what's the world coming to?
I'm going to the game hoping for a Beaver win, of course. But, man, who could have guessed that this would be our 5th game of the season against a league/division leading team already? Even Cal came in to Reser with a better record and bigger wins than many would have predicted (and they're still the only team to have beaten Utah). Strangely, the easier part of the schedule (on paper at least) is coming up after the WSU game. I'd say NOBODY would have predicted that when looking at the schedule before the season started (or even after the first couple of weeks of the season). The scary part is that easier doesn't necessarily mean we will get wins, especially on the road, but we have to believe that we'll have our chances.
Go Beavs!
Mike '84
|
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Oct 24, 2016 13:33:26 GMT -8
Minnesota isn't too shabby either. 4-2 losing at Penn State by 3, same margin tOSU lost at Penn State. Other loss was to Iowa 7-14.
Over on the Scout Beaver Blitz board there's a thread about P12's best defenses, we've played the top 3 already CU, UW and UU. According to the thread CU leads conference in total defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Oct 24, 2016 13:36:14 GMT -8
They aren't leading their division in the Big10, but Minnesota is 5-2.
To this point (and including this up coming Saturday) we have played some good to very good teams. And the fact that we were within 7 points or less in two of those losses, its progress. Not the progress some of the negative nelly's want to see, but compared to last year. This team is improved. Which is what most people wanted to see, or claim they want to see. Progress. We'll you're seeing it.
I look ahead to UCLA, Stanford, UA, and Hole. I get the impression some of those teams have quit, or at least not playing with the heart and passion our players have. Not likely, but this team could win 2-4 more games. The game 2 days after Thanksgiving is the one that really matters though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 13:58:22 GMT -8
 Time for a Dune quote: "Father...........the sleeper......has.........awakened!" |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 24, 2016 14:37:10 GMT -8
They aren't leading their division in the Big10, but Minnesota is 5-2. To this point (and including this up coming Saturday) we have played some good to very good teams. And the fact that we were within 7 points or less in two of those losses, its progress. Not the progress some of the negative nelly's want to see, but compared to last year. This team is improved. Which is what most people wanted to see, or claim they want to see. Progress. We'll you're seeing it. I look ahead to UCLA, Stanford, UA, and Hole. I get the impression some of those teams have quit, or at least not playing with the heart and passion our players have. Not likely, but this team could win 2-4 more games. The game 2 days after Thanksgiving is the one that really matters though! "Winning is not everything; it's the only thing."--Vince Lombardi. I would rather see 3 wins and 9 blowout losses than 2 wins and 10 moral victories. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, kids. This team is a better team than the 2015 version. Having said that, the 2015 version of this team was a train-wreck and the train was carrying noxious gases and gasoline. I remarked today that CGA is the smartest coach in America, because he used 2015 to set the bar so low. And here you are a couple of hours later, Eugene, to prove my point. The passing game is the worst passing game in the country. Just for fun: Worst passing teams by QBR: 124 Army -0.9 125 Bowling Green -1.9 126 Buffalo -2.6 127 Rutgers -2.9 128 Oregon State -5.2 These are the only five teams in the country with a negative passing rating. Oregon State is the worst passing team in the country, and they are worse than Rutgers by a greater difference than the difference between Rutgers and the fifth-worse team, the vaunted passing offense of Army. And Oregon State is running an offense that is predicated on having a very efficient passing offense, when it is called upon. Very bad. Oregon State finished 2015 at 0.4, 115th in the country. Worst passing QBR among any team with a positive QBR. 2014, Oregon State was 62nd. 2013, Oregon State was sixth. Progress! I will add in that the front 7 is still a mess. Another ho-hum 38-carry, 220-yard day (5.8 ypc) for a team squaring up against Oregon State. 3-4 is a great system, but I doubt that Oregon State can run it effectively, unless the coaching staff can start out-of-their-minds recruiting defensive linemen and ILBs. The offensive line play is greatly improved. The running back play is greatly improved. The defensive backfield is greatly improved. The special teams is not a whirling nightmare of awful. There are things that you can point to, but this team is in dire need of an offensive coordinator. Once that is in place, I am right with you and the other orange-tinted glass folks, pointing out the positives. Hopefully, the Beavers have enough in the tank to beat the two even larger train-wrecks making the trek to Corvallis from Tucson and Eugene at the end of the year. I doubt that Arizona and Oregon are as abysmal in 2017, so they present excellent opportunities for wins this year. If Oregon State wins three and gets to 5-7, I will wipe the egg off of my face. Until then...... Progress! |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Oct 24, 2016 16:34:58 GMT -8
Yet I believe we would beat all 4 of those teams pointed out above. Now THAT'S progress!
|
|
|
|
Post by zebraworks on Oct 24, 2016 17:12:10 GMT -8
what is the biggest reason we have the lowest QB rating? I don't think it is scheme so much as very inaccurate QB.
I feel bad for McM even Kerry's recent story totally ignores him when discussing QBs for 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 24, 2016 17:42:30 GMT -8
what is the biggest reason we have the lowest QB rating? I don't think it is scheme so much as very inaccurate QB. I feel bad for McM even Kerry's recent story totally ignores him when discussing QBs for 2017. Can't argue that, but we also can't overlook coaching (the footwork, throwing tech, etc has not improved), playing calls/sequencing and some terrible situations QBs have been but in. "Team" effort of ineffectiveness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 18:39:22 GMT -8
what is the biggest reason we have the lowest QB rating? I don't think it is scheme so much as very inaccurate QB. I feel bad for McM even Kerry's recent story totally ignores him when discussing QBs for 2017. Can't argue that, but we also can't overlook coaching (the footwork, throwing tech, etc has not improved), playing calls/sequencing and some terrible situations QBs have been but in. "Team" effort of ineffectiveness. IMHO we are in desperate need of receivers who can CATCH a football. We have a fair amount of talent at WR... they looked great on paper coming out of high school... they're fast, athletic, can jump out of the stadium, and run good routes to get open, BUT THEY CAN'T CATCH THE BALL with any kind of consistency. That needs to be our #1 thing from here on out when recruiting/evaluating receivers... can they catch. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 24, 2016 18:59:57 GMT -8
Can't argue that, but we also can't overlook coaching (the footwork, throwing tech, etc has not improved), playing calls/sequencing and some terrible situations QBs have been but in. "Team" effort of ineffectiveness. IMHO we are in desperate need of receivers who can CATCH a football. We have a fair amount of talent at WR... they looked great on paper coming out of high school... they're fast, athletic, can jump out of the stadium, and run good routes to get open, BUT THEY CAN'T CATCH THE BALL with any kind of consistency. That needs to be our #1 thing from here on out when recruiting/evaluating receivers... can they catch. For whatever reason the OL serms to be the most focused group and hence the most improved even with all the personnel changes. Besides maybe the RBs every other position group looks hesitant, uninterested, lacking technique, or combo of all. Not sure why. Over coaching, lack of talent (do not think some suddenly lost their hands), in the doghouse/not enough competitive reps, not understanding assignments??? Whatever the cause, it hasn't necessarily been corrected and continues to plague both sides of the ball. We just continue to NOT complete too many basic football plays. Until it improves neither side of the ball can become consistent and truly improve. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Oct 24, 2016 20:18:30 GMT -8
IMHO we are in desperate need of receivers who can CATCH a football. We have a fair amount of talent at WR... they looked great on paper coming out of high school... they're fast, athletic, can jump out of the stadium, and run good routes to get open, BUT THEY CAN'T CATCH THE BALL with any kind of consistency. That needs to be our #1 thing from here on out when recruiting/evaluating receivers... can they catch. For whatever reason the OL serms to be the most focused group and hence the most improved even with all the personnel changes. Besides maybe the RBs every other position group looks hesitant, uninterested, lacking technique, or combo of all. Not sure why. Over coaching, lack of talent (do not think some suddenly lost their hands), in the doghouse/not enough competitive reps, not understanding assignments??? Whatever the cause, it hasn't necessarily been corrected and continues to plague both sides of the ball. We just continue to NOT complete too many basic football plays. Until it improves neither side of the ball can become consistent and truly improve. I am not trying to be snide. I just found it hilarious that you are looking for consistency in the very sporadic game of football. Surely this season has shown that often what we expect to happen does not. It shows every week that almost any team can make another team look like a fool. So with the inconsistent nature of this football season I am satisfied that the team had at least average performances in every game minus the one. I almost choked on my drink when you said improvement could be only measured with much more consistency (my words not yours). From a different vantage point doesn't it sound ironic/humorous.  |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Oct 24, 2016 22:15:52 GMT -8
IMHO we are in desperate need of receivers who can CATCH a football. We have a fair amount of talent at WR... they looked great on paper coming out of high school... they're fast, athletic, can jump out of the stadium, and run good routes to get open, BUT THEY CAN'T CATCH THE BALL with any kind of consistency. That needs to be our #1 thing from here on out when recruiting/evaluating receivers... can they catch. It doesn't really make sense. The receivers group was universally considered our strong point when Andersen took over. Bolden and Villamin had just put up VERY respectable numbers in 2014, and there were others waiting in the wings who looked very promising (since departed). Additionally, the WR coach was the ONE holdover from the previous staff. The struggles of Bolden and Villamin are really mind-boggling. That said, I wonder how much of their struggles just come from not having very good/consistent passers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 8:28:21 GMT -8
IMHO we are in desperate need of receivers who can CATCH a football. We have a fair amount of talent at WR... they looked great on paper coming out of high school... they're fast, athletic, can jump out of the stadium, and run good routes to get open, BUT THEY CAN'T CATCH THE BALL with any kind of consistency. That needs to be our #1 thing from here on out when recruiting/evaluating receivers... can they catch. It doesn't really make sense. The receivers group was universally considered our strong point when Andersen took over. Bolden and Villamin had just put up VERY respectable numbers in 2014, and there were others waiting in the wings who looked very promising (since departed). Additionally, the WR coach was the ONE holdover from the previous staff. The struggles of Bolden and Villamin are really mind-boggling. That said, I wonder how much of their struggles just come from not having very good/consistent passers. As Hannibal Lector says: "Look at what they DO." Do the qbs and receivers throw and catch all practice long, whether it be in drills, or sevens, or against scout? With practices closed who knows, but i doubt it. The offense is zone read first, run schemes, all that good stuff. I like. It will pay off. But there is only so much time and if they are working on the run game they aren't emphasizing the pass game. That stuff takes timing, feel, trust and REPS.
Sat through enough Riley practices where chucking it is ALL they did, interspersed with Riley jumping in and circling everybody to tell one of his great stories. Yeah the Beavs had years where we could reliably chuck it for 300 ypg but no guarantees of red zone penetration or 3rd and 2 conversions. I like this better. I think as the running game starts to impose its will the Passing will get marginally better. But it helps if you have QBs who have touch and they get enough reps under their belt with the receivers to take advantage of boxed up defenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Oct 25, 2016 9:48:42 GMT -8
We are currently 126th in the nation in 4th down conversion percentage (.222), and 93rd in 3rd down conversions (.367)
I can't find rankings for last year, but our 4th down conversion rate was .177 and our 3rd down rate was .317
And while Riley's last season was bad for 3rd down rates (.317), the previous six years averaged around 40%.
On 4th downs, Riley was above 42% every year from 2008-2014 except for 2010 (30.7%) In three of those years, OSU converted on over half of their 4th downs.
I will give you Red Zone scoring percentage. We're currently converting 90% of our red zone chances into points. Problem is, we're on pace for 34 red zone opportunities this season. Last year, we had 31 (converted 83.87%) into scores. from 2008 to 2014, we averaged 54 red zone attempts. We converted 84.25% of those attempts into scores.
In looking at Coach Andersen's run at Utah State, they never had more than 51 red zone opportunities, and they converted 85.1% of those chances into points.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 25, 2016 21:56:38 GMT -8
For whatever reason the OL serms to be the most focused group and hence the most improved even with all the personnel changes. Besides maybe the RBs every other position group looks hesitant, uninterested, lacking technique, or combo of all. Not sure why. Over coaching, lack of talent (do not think some suddenly lost their hands), in the doghouse/not enough competitive reps, not understanding assignments??? Whatever the cause, it hasn't necessarily been corrected and continues to plague both sides of the ball. We just continue to NOT complete too many basic football plays. Until it improves neither side of the ball can become consistent and truly improve. I am not trying to be snide. I just found it hilarious that you are looking for consistency in the very sporadic game of football. Surely this season has shown that often what we expect to happen does not. It shows every week that almost any team can make another team look like a fool. So with the inconsistent nature of this football season I am satisfied that the team had at least average performances in every game minus the one. I almost choked on my drink when you said improvement could be only measured with much more consistency (my words not yours). From a different vantage point doesn't it sound ironic/humorous. Not snide or snide... "consistency" is the goal of every athlete/team no matter the sport. I'm not sure what sports or measuring stick you are used to using, but performing at a high level is one thing, to keep performing at a high level on a regular basis is the goal to become a successful/winning program... The goal is to not be made to look foolish... and unless you are consistent in your performance you AREN'T IMPROVING. Not really sure what your definitions of a improving team, but it surely isn't inconsistency?? Not at all choking here... You can't take 1 step ahead and 2 back... play a decent game versus inferior opponent, get blown out and look terrible the next. Improvement in a program is all about making marked improvements and becoming consistent is sustaining them no matter the sport... or business... or life. |
|
