|
|
Post by treasurevalleybeav on Oct 25, 2016 19:21:42 GMT -8
Will the defense show up in the first half?
There's been a lot to be proud of on that side of the ball this year. BUT....when we played other really strong teams (Colorado, Boise St and Udub) we had given up staggering amounts of yards and points by halftime. Great improvement resulted in the 2nd half of all 3, although less so at Boulder...but some good adjustments obviously occurred.
So what do you think the keys are to focus on so Wazzu isn't going into the locker room w 350 yards and 30 points? And is our best DB going to play?
|
|
|
|
Post by zebraworks on Oct 25, 2016 23:57:48 GMT -8
that might hinge a bit on whether Decoud plays saturday. Since he is questionable I am a bit worried whether we have a shot at winning if he doesn't play
|
|
|
|
Post by treasurevalleybeav on Oct 26, 2016 6:55:44 GMT -8
Gotta agree w ya in that
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Oct 26, 2016 8:04:37 GMT -8
I think we'll find out just how good our secondary really is this week. I would've assumed we would find out against Cal, but Davis Webb was clearly not right. We played well against Utah, but passing was really tough that day (ask Garretson). We've picked off 5 passes this year, but four of them were against Idaho State. Utah Colorado and Washington passed early and often with great success, until they didn't need to pass anymore.
I think we've done a much better job than last year on that side of the ball (obviously), but this game will really show me where we're at. I know we're not going to stop Luke Falk, but if we can hold him somewhat in check (UCLA "held" him to 58.3 completion percentage, 261yds and no TDs and still lost), I'll be impressed.
Also, does anyone know what happened to DeCoud? I was unaware that he got dinged against Washington. Never saw that anywhere until the injury report came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by obf on Oct 26, 2016 9:19:45 GMT -8
I think the Cal game showed us that the coaching staff CAN game plan to start a game, and they are certainly good at putting a game plan and adjustments in at half time... If there is one place I would like to see the COACHES improve it is in first half game planning. Hopefully we will see that this game... Regardless of Webb being dinged or not they had a good plan for Cal to start the game. For WSU we cant do the same thing, because WSU will happily go to the run way before Cal did, and they have seen our film against Cal now (plus I think Cal went vanilla in the first half thinking they would steam roll, hopefully WSU will do the same) It sure would be sweet to see us put together a COMPLETE game... 4 quarters where offense, defense, special teams AND COACHES / GAME PLAN are all on point  If we do we win this game! Go beavs! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 26, 2016 9:27:42 GMT -8
I think the Cal game showed us that the coaching staff CAN game plan to start a game, and they are certainly good at putting a game plan and adjustments in at half time... If there is one place I would like to see the COACHES improve it is in first half game planning. Hopefully we will see that this game... Regardless of Webb being dinged or not they had a good plan for Cal to start the game. For WSU we cant do the same thing, because WSU will happily go to the run way before Cal did, and they have seen our film against Cal now (plus I think Cal went vanilla in the first half thinking they would steam roll, hopefully WSU will do the same) It sure would be sweet to see us put together a COMPLETE game... 4 quarters where offense, defense, special teams AND COACHES / GAME PLAN are all on point If we do we win this game! Go beavs! So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. I'll say OL play far outweighed any game planning. We need a REAL OC... |
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Oct 26, 2016 10:07:26 GMT -8
I think the Cal game showed us that the coaching staff CAN game plan to start a game, and they are certainly good at putting a game plan and adjustments in at half time... If there is one place I would like to see the COACHES improve it is in first half game planning. Hopefully we will see that this game... Regardless of Webb being dinged or not they had a good plan for Cal to start the game. For WSU we cant do the same thing, because WSU will happily go to the run way before Cal did, and they have seen our film against Cal now (plus I think Cal went vanilla in the first half thinking they would steam roll, hopefully WSU will do the same) It sure would be sweet to see us put together a COMPLETE game... 4 quarters where offense, defense, special teams AND COACHES / GAME PLAN are all on point If we do we win this game! Go beavs! So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. We need a REAL OC...You in another Thread, posted about Consistency. I am curious how you feel bringing a new OC would help consistency within the offense? A new OC would be OSU's 5th in 5 years. That IMO is absurd. An offense can't be consistent if you're changing OCs every year.
I think is pretty easy to see that the offense is struggling due to QB play. And before you launch into its the coaches job to coach up the players with proper technique, footwork etc. Everyone has a ceiling. You can only "coach'em up so far." McGiven also mentioned this week that while the new o-line is doing well in run blocking, they are still limited in their pass protection and what they can call for pass plays. Which limits what they can truly do on offense.
So we have QBs who at their worst are HORRIBLE and at their best (thus far) are mediocre. Which limits what the OC can do. Not mention due to injuries and player performance OSU has had 4 different starting QBs in 19 games. And 5 seeing significant action. You can't have consistency with that. We have an O-Line who is making holes in the run game, but still having issues in pass protection. Which again, limits what the OC can do. And we have some WRs, who look good on paper, but aren't catching the balls thrown their way consistently. If we aren't moving the ball, its hard to get into a rhythm.
As pointed out in another thread in which fans were clamoring for Jonathon Smith to come be OSU's OC. UW fans wanted Smith out for some of the very same reasons you've pointed out. Yet, UW gets a solid QB play and all of a sudden Smith is looking good as an OC.
I am by no means a patient person, so its Ironic to me that I keep preaching patients here. But you and a few others seem to think a new OC will solve some issues. IMO, I don't see yet another OC coming in, bringing in new terminology, new schemes, a new approach, etc. and this offense taking off. That's going to hurt more than help. Let the current coaches develop the talent they've recruited to run their system. And hopefully one of the six QBs on the roster can step up and provide the spark the team needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by obf on Oct 26, 2016 10:14:35 GMT -8
I think the Cal game showed us that the coaching staff CAN game plan to start a game, and they are certainly good at putting a game plan and adjustments in at half time... If there is one place I would like to see the COACHES improve it is in first half game planning. Hopefully we will see that this game... Regardless of Webb being dinged or not they had a good plan for Cal to start the game. For WSU we cant do the same thing, because WSU will happily go to the run way before Cal did, and they have seen our film against Cal now (plus I think Cal went vanilla in the first half thinking they would steam roll, hopefully WSU will do the same) It sure would be sweet to see us put together a COMPLETE game... 4 quarters where offense, defense, special teams AND COACHES / GAME PLAN are all on point If we do we win this game! Go beavs! So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. I'll say OL play far outweighed any game planning. We need a REAL OC... I am mostly talking about the defense, and I said we made good adjustments in the other, NON-Cal games, or meant to. Vs. Cal we finally had a game plan go right in the first half and so DIDN'T make half time adjustments and THAT was the problem in that game. But yes vs. BSU, CU (yes even the buffs, they only scored 10 pts in the second half), UU and UW (yeah yeah they took the foot off the gas, but not until the 4th quarter at least) the defense really stepped up and made great adjustments and played much better in the second halfs of those games. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 26, 2016 10:24:33 GMT -8
So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. We need a REAL OC...You in another Thread, posted about Consistency. I am curious how you feel bringing a new OC would help consistency within the offense? A new OC would be OSU's 5th in 5 years. That IMO is absurd. An offense can't be consistent if you're changing OCs every year.
I think is pretty easy to see that the offense is struggling due to QB play. And before you launch into its the coaches job to coach up the players with proper technique, footwork etc. Everyone has a ceiling. You can only "coach'em up so far." McGiven also mentioned this week that while the new o-line is doing well in run blocking, they are still limited in their pass protection and what they can call for pass plays. Which limits what they can truly do on offense.
So we have QBs who at their worst are HORRIBLE and at their best (thus far) are mediocre. Which limits what the OC can do. Not mention due to injuries and player performance OSU has had 4 different starting QBs in 19 games. And 5 seeing significant action. You can't have consistency with that. We have an O-Line who is making holes in the run game, but still having issues in pass protection. Which again, limits what the OC can do. And we have some WRs, who look good on paper, but aren't catching the balls thrown their way consistently. If we aren't moving the ball, its hard to get into a rhythm.
As pointed out in another thread in which fans were clamoring for Jonathon Smith to come be OSU's OC. UW fans wanted Smith out for some of the very same reasons you've pointed out. Yet, UW gets a solid QB play and all of a sudden Smith is looking good as an OC.
I am by no means a patient person, so its Ironic to me that I keep preaching patients here. But you and a few others seem to think a new OC will solve some issues. IMO, I don't see yet another OC coming in, bringing in new terminology, new schemes, a new approach, etc. and this offense taking off. That's going to hurt more than help. Let the current coaches develop the talent they've recruited to run their system. And hopefully one of the six QBs on the roster can step up and provide the spark the team needs.
Never mentioned new OC and consistency together. We need a real D1 OC not P5 inexperienced co-OCs. Consistent performance by players can begin to happen under any circumstances with good coaching and coachable talent. You can't keep throwing away years to keep the band together. And being a great OC is a full time managerial job let alone trying be a full time position group coach. Earlier this Fall GA's were doing a lot more in practice.as Woods was trying to assume part of OC duties. Not sure we have the talent level ir can recruit enough in the next 2 years to allow OCs to grow into the role. I'm betting the "co" disappears this year which would be a good 1st step. But... my main concern is that GA has surrounding himself more with "friends" than proven quality coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Oct 26, 2016 10:25:42 GMT -8
So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. I'll say OL play far outweighed any game planning. We need a REAL OC... I am mostly talking about the defense, and I said we made good adjustments in the other, NON-Cal games, or meant to. Vs. Cal we finally had a game plan go right in the first half and so DIDN'T make half time adjustments and THAT was the problem in that game. But yes vs. BSU, CU (yes even the buffs, they only scored 10 pts in the second half), UU and UW (yeah yeah they took the foot off the gas, but not until the 4th quarter at least) the defense really stepped up and made great adjustments and played much better in the second halfs of those games. Understood! Thx |
|
nsh03
Freshman
Posts: 129 
|
Post by nsh03 on Oct 26, 2016 11:29:58 GMT -8
I think is pretty easy to see that the offense is struggling due to QB play. And before you launch into its the coaches job to coach up the players with proper technique, footwork etc. Everyone has a ceiling. You can only "coach'em up so far." McGiven also mentioned this week that while the new o-line is doing well in run blocking, they are still limited in their pass protection and what they can call for pass plays. Which limits what they can truly do on offense.
I can't speak for baseba111, but for me, the biggest reason I want to see a new OC is not the scheme or the inability to "coach up" the QB, it's the play calling. It's absolutely horrendous. It's interesting that McGiven would throw the OL under the bus for their pass protection... a couple weeks ago, I was watching some of the offensive linemen come off the field throwing helmets and yelling, "RUN THE BALL!" after multiple run-pass-pass-punt/pass-run-pass-punt offensive series. Look at what we did after that run by Pierce where they moved the pile for 22 yards- we threw an incomplete pass on 1st down, got behind on down and distance, and effectively killed the drive. Is it any wonder those guys are frustrated with the play calling? It's a total morale killer, which has to be a contributing factor to their poor pass protection. It should have been pretty clear after the Cal game what our offensive identity should be, yet we came out against Utah with a pass/run ratio that would have made Danny Langsdorf blush. In the wind and rain, no less. I don't think anyone disagrees that our offense would be better if we were not limited in the passing game (be it by QB play, WRs dropping passes, OL play, or whatever else might be detracting from it), but the play calling ought to be geared toward doing what we CAN do well (namely, running the ball) rather than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole as a pass-happy offense. If our current OC can't adapt his play calling to best utilize the players he has (not the players he wishes he has), I want one who can. |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Oct 26, 2016 11:34:19 GMT -8
So you thought we adjusted at half vs Cal? To what? To allow them to run up and down the field and tie the game? Not sure I see your 2nd half positives in that game. As for the first half I saw basically the same plan that was executed better vs an inferior D. There was really no major adjustments other than the OL owning Cal's D front 7. It actually continued some vs UW. Execution always makes the game plan look better. But, the play calling/sequencing is still very suspect. We need a REAL OC...You in another Thread, posted about Consistency. I am curious how you feel bringing a new OC would help consistency within the offense? A new OC would be OSU's 5th in 5 years. That IMO is absurd. An offense can't be consistent if you're changing OCs every year.
I think is pretty easy to see that the offense is struggling due to QB play. And before you launch into its the coaches job to coach up the players with proper technique, footwork etc. Everyone has a ceiling. You can only "coach'em up so far." McGiven also mentioned this week that while the new o-line is doing well in run blocking, they are still limited in their pass protection and what they can call for pass plays. Which limits what they can truly do on offense.
So we have QBs who at their worst are HORRIBLE and at their best (thus far) are mediocre. Which limits what the OC can do. Not mention due to injuries and player performance OSU has had 4 different starting QBs in 19 games. And 5 seeing significant action. You can't have consistency with that. We have an O-Line who is making holes in the run game, but still having issues in pass protection. Which again, limits what the OC can do. And we have some WRs, who look good on paper, but aren't catching the balls thrown their way consistently. If we aren't moving the ball, its hard to get into a rhythm.
As pointed out in another thread in which fans were clamoring for Jonathon Smith to come be OSU's OC. UW fans wanted Smith out for some of the very same reasons you've pointed out. Yet, UW gets a solid QB play and all of a sudden Smith is looking good as an OC.
I am by no means a patient person, so its Ironic to me that I keep preaching patients here. But you and a few others seem to think a new OC will solve some issues. IMO, I don't see yet another OC coming in, bringing in new terminology, new schemes, a new approach, etc. and this offense taking off. That's going to hurt more than help. Let the current coaches develop the talent they've recruited to run their system. And hopefully one of the six QBs on the roster can step up and provide the spark the team needs.
Not disagreeing that we don't have much at QB right now, but the most frustrating thing for me with the OCs is that they often don't call plays accordingly. We suck at throwing the ball - always - yet way too often a drive has been killed with a stupid passing play on 1st or 2nd down when we've been running effectively. Einstein's definition of insanity is on full display in Reser - trying the same unsuccessful garbage over and over and expecting it to work "this time". Sometimes they seem to lack much football IQ with the selections. When they called a pass play on 3rd and too long for our horrid long passing game at the end of the quarter against Utah (staring into a very brisk wind) with 7 seconds left, the incompletion meant we punted into said brisk wind on the last play of that quarter. The long snapper zipped a 35 harder - wind-aided - over the punter's head, and we give up a safety to end the quarter. Sometimes with the OCs, I'd just love to see signs of intelligent life with those decisions! |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Oct 26, 2016 12:20:40 GMT -8
Yeah that would really be a great first step. Woods has done a very good job with the O-Line, IMHO, so I say make him full time Oline and QB coach and make McGiven the full time OC. Not sure if losing the "co" would be a slap in Woods' face though...
On No.... we had 10 years of people complaining about Riley's cronyism... please do we have to start this again?!?!? EVERY coach IN THE WORLD has a coaching tree, and they choose their assistants from it, that is just how it works! GOOD Trees get pruned it is true, either by elimination by succession or failure... But the whole, "He only want to play with his friends, or his recruits" tripe is way over played. It was for Riley and it will be for Andersen.
Totally agree here... I can't TELL you how many times in both the Utah and the Cal game I was screaming, "JUST RUN THE #$%@*! BALL!!!" The folks next to me even started making fun of me for it... Even in the UW game I was a little mystified that we tried to be cute to start the game by running to the edges when we clearly should have been going dive counter dive... sure enough, in the second half a steady dose of Cook won us the half and the TOP battle...
I still would rather not go with a brand new OC next year, it would be like Andersen's thirds straight "first year" on offense. Mike Parker is already banding about the "This is Coach A's Reshirt freshman year" excuse, which is silly. A third OC will just be another built in excuse.
The Nuanced view, in my opinion, is that YES the play calling has been poor but the OC is learning and improving as much if not more as a "Young coach" just like the young players are. And that YES the QB play, the Line play and the lack of over all talent is limiting / making the play calls look worse than they are. My hope is that next year Both are improved and thus McGiven looks like this years Johnathan Smith.
|
|
|
|
Post by zebraworks on Oct 26, 2016 14:15:35 GMT -8
haha was it last year or year before Johnathan Smith was husky fan punching bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Oct 26, 2016 14:47:52 GMT -8
haha was it last year or year before Johnathan Smith was husky fan punching bag? Yes and Petersen stuck with him because he knew his potential. Petersen has been and been around enough successful OC's to recognize one when he sees one. Can we say the same with GA? His first OC hire at OSU didn't go so well and maybe in big part because he didn't really have full OC power. If he was allowed to install and run the offense he ran at Colorado States things may have gone much better and IMO our talent on hand was much more suited towards having success with just such an offense. |
|
If we do we win this game!
