|
Post by nabeav on Nov 7, 2016 8:54:39 GMT -8
OSU FG% by year:
2004: 77% (Alexis Serna 17-20, John Dailey 0-2) 2005: 82% (Alexis Serna 23-28, Groza Award, 1st Team All Conference) 2006: 76% (Alexis Serna 22-29, 2nd Team All Conference) 2007: 67% (Alexis Serna 18-27, 2nd Team All Conference) 2008: 65% (Justin Kahut 16-24, Sean Sehnem 1-2) 2009: 82% (Justin Kahut 22-27) 2010: 67% (Justin Kahut 8-12) 2011: 68% (Trevor Romaine 15-22) 2012: 89% (Trevor Romaine 16-18) 2013: 70% (Trevor Romaine 14-20) 2014: 86% (Trevor Romaine 8-9, Garrett Owens 11-13) 2015: 73% (Garrett Owens 11-15) 2016: 59% (Garrett Owens 10-17)
Bruce Read was on staff the years in bold.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 7, 2016 8:59:00 GMT -8
I had a great weekend (game result excluded), so I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Here are the positives I see: - Victor Bolden. He is this decade's Matt Moore. Blasted by the fan base, redeemed himself to be a fantastic player. I get excited every time the ball is thrown or kicked in his direction.
- Turnovers. We've already forced as many as we did all last season with three games to play. So while we the yardage numbers may not be that much different from last season, and we're still getting beat by an average of two touchdowns, we're at least putting ourselves in a position to capitalize when other teams make a mistake. That will bode well for when we are actually able to stop people.
- Marcus McMariyon - The fact that he's the only healthy horse is allowing him a pretty good stretch here to get comfortable. It could give him the confidence he needs to win the job outright next season and help keep the offense trending in the right direction. He's never going to be 300 ypg guy, but I feel like he at least makes the D respect the pass a little bit.
- Artavis Pierce - Given the fragility of Ryan Nall, having a solid RB to put in there is a good thing. I really don't know that we lose a whole lot when he comes in....especially now that he's had almost a full year to adapt to college football and learn to anticipate schemes and where holes are going to open up.
- Xavier Crawford - I'm not savvy enough to know how he's doing in coverage, but he's tenacious out there. If you're not more talented than the other guy, you better out work him, and I feel like he's one guy that does.
Gotta wonder how Bolden's career arc goes if he had a Mannion type the last couple years. He really has had some unfair treatment from fans. Yeah, he has had a couple drops in his career... but so has Cooks, Wheaton, Hass, Stroughter... everybody. Same can really be said for Villy too.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 7, 2016 9:12:24 GMT -8
Thanks @beaverfever. Never even occurred to me that I could be spelling his name wrong.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 7, 2016 9:51:17 GMT -8
I had a great weekend (game result excluded), so I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Here are the positives I see: - Victor Bolden. He is this decade's Matt Moore. Blasted by the fan base, redeemed himself to be a fantastic player. I get excited every time the ball is thrown or kicked in his direction.
- Turnovers. We've already forced as many as we did all last season with three games to play. So while we the yardage numbers may not be that much different from last season, and we're still getting beat by an average of two touchdowns, we're at least putting ourselves in a position to capitalize when other teams make a mistake. That will bode well for when we are actually able to stop people.
- Marcus McMariyon - The fact that he's the only healthy horse is allowing him a pretty good stretch here to get comfortable. It could give him the confidence he needs to win the job outright next season and help keep the offense trending in the right direction. He's never going to be 300 ypg guy, but I feel like he at least makes the D respect the pass a little bit.
- Artavis Pierce - Given the fragility of Ryan Nall, having a solid RB to put in there is a good thing. I really don't know that we lose a whole lot when he comes in....especially now that he's had almost a full year to adapt to college football and learn to anticipate schemes and where holes are going to open up.
- Xavier Crawford - I'm not savvy enough to know how he's doing in coverage, but he's tenacious out there. If you're not more talented than the other guy, you better out work him, and I feel like he's one guy that does.
Great post nabeav
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 7, 2016 11:31:34 GMT -8
OSU FG% by year: 2004: 77% (Alexis Serna 17-20, John Dailey 0-2) 2005: 82% (Alexis Serna 23-28, Groza Award, 1st Team All Conference) 2006: 76% (Alexis Serna 22-29, 2nd Team All Conference)2007: 67% (Alexis Serna 18-27, 2nd Team All Conference) 2008: 65% (Justin Kahut 16-24, Sean Sehnem 1-2) 2009: 82% (Justin Kahut 22-27) 2010: 67% (Justin Kahut 8-12) 2011: 68% (Trevor Romaine 15-22) 2012: 89% (Trevor Romaine 16-18) 2013: 70% (Trevor Romaine 14-20) 2014: 86% (Trevor Romaine 8-9, Garrett Owens 11-13)2015: 73% (Garrett Owens 11-15) 2016: 59% (Garrett Owens 10-17) Bruce Read was on staff the years in bold. Weird, I could've sworn I put this in a thread about kickers that I don't seem to see anymore.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 11:49:44 GMT -8
OSU FG% by year: 2004: 77% (Alexis Serna 17-20, John Dailey 0-2) 2005: 82% (Alexis Serna 23-28, Groza Award, 1st Team All Conference) 2006: 76% (Alexis Serna 22-29, 2nd Team All Conference)2007: 67% (Alexis Serna 18-27, 2nd Team All Conference) 2008: 65% (Justin Kahut 16-24, Sean Sehnem 1-2) 2009: 82% (Justin Kahut 22-27) 2010: 67% (Justin Kahut 8-12) 2011: 68% (Trevor Romaine 15-22) 2012: 89% (Trevor Romaine 16-18) 2013: 70% (Trevor Romaine 14-20) 2014: 86% (Trevor Romaine 8-9, Garrett Owens 11-13)2015: 73% (Garrett Owens 11-15) 2016: 59% (Garrett Owens 10-17) Bruce Read was on staff the years in bold. Weird, I could've sworn I put this in a thread about kickers that I don't seem to see anymore. A lot of people were down on Read, while he was here. (I think that a lot of that had to do with recruiting, though.) But the absence of a dedicated special teams coach has produced some very obvious and terrible special teams play. Jake Cookus does not appear to be helping.......at least on field goals.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 11:56:17 GMT -8
So... you ask if we had better players like CM and LF would we be better??? Those two mentioned aren't just "good" players, one is an outstanding QB that is probable as tough as you'll find, and the other was a 2nd place finisher in the Heisman race as a soph. Pretty sure we'd have different results. Isn't that what were hoping GA can do? Bring in better players? Glad you could pick up on my point-- If we had Zombie Jesus and a bunch of laser kittens play both ways for 60 minutes, we would have won both games by 60 points. Easy. Ryan Nall is a better running back for this offense than CM. If Oregon State had CM and Stanford had Nall, Stanford probably wins by more. The key is at quarterback. If we had a quarterback that could compete at this level, we could have won the Minnesota, Boise, Utah, Wazzu, and Stanford games. It is too bad that we did not have a Big Five Conference-level quarterback on roster, when CGA came in. You would think that that is someone that CGA would hold onto and not run off into the Swamp. But that's why I am not paid the big bucks.
|
|
|
Post by gzrbvr on Nov 7, 2016 12:19:25 GMT -8
Glad you could pick up on my point-- If we had Zombie Jesus and a bunch of laser kittens play both ways for 60 minutes, we would have won both games by 60 points. Easy. Ryan Nall is a better running back for this offense than CM. If Oregon State had CM and Stanford had Nall, Stanford probably wins by more. The key is at quarterback. If we had a quarterback that could compete at this level, we could have won the Minnesota, Boise, Utah, Wazzu, and Stanford games. It is too bad that we did not have a Big Five Conference-level quarterback on roster, when CGA came in. You would think that that is someone that CGA would hold onto and not run off into the Swamp. But that's why I am not paid the big bucks. You may be right about if we had CM and Stanford had Nall, but that is not what I said. I said if they had a regular skill running back which Nall isn't by a long shot.
I agree with you that we could (not would) have had a better chance to win those games with a quarterback that is better than what we have seen so far.
As far as the dead-horse subject of running players is concerned I really don't want to get into the subject of Del Rio except to throw out a couple thoughts that have crossed my mind looking back at the situation. I wonder what the real story was just like everyone else. Del Rio came here to play under the Riley "develop-quarterback-for-the-next-level" plan. The new staff had another road in mind. I know there is an argument that has been made that the new staff should have adjusted to the assets on hand. That is one way to go, but was not the way that they decided to go. I distinctly remember a practice where Jack Del Rio was on the field at Corvallis. My guess is that was the "summit" meeting where the subject was faced--My guess is that Del Rio Sr said (in effect), "If you are not going to run a "pro-development" program then we are out of here."
Again, I have no idea what really went down, but this would be my guess.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 7, 2016 12:50:25 GMT -8
If we had Zombie Jesus and a bunch of laser kittens play both ways for 60 minutes, we would have won both games by 60 points. Easy. Ryan Nall is a better running back for this offense than CM. If Oregon State had CM and Stanford had Nall, Stanford probably wins by more. The key is at quarterback. If we had a quarterback that could compete at this level, we could have won the Minnesota, Boise, Utah, Wazzu, and Stanford games. It is too bad that we did not have a Big Five Conference-level quarterback on roster, when CGA came in. You would think that that is someone that CGA would hold onto and not run off into the Swamp. But that's why I am not paid the big bucks. You may be right about if we had CM and Stanford had Nall, but that is not what I said. I said if they had a regular skill running back which Nall isn't by a long shot.
I agree with you that we could (not would) have had a better chance to win those games with a quarterback that is better than what we have seen so far.
As far as the dead-horse subject of running players is concerned I really don't want to get into the subject of Del Rio except to throw out a couple thoughts that have crossed my mind looking back at the situation. I wonder what the real story was just like everyone else. Del Rio came here to play under the Riley "develop-quarterback-for-the-next-level" plan. The new staff had another road in mind. I know there is an argument that has been made that the new staff should have adjusted to the assets on hand. That is one way to go, but was not the way that they decided to go. I distinctly remember a practice where Jack Del Rio was on the field at Corvallis. My guess is that was the "summit" meeting where the subject was faced--My guess is that Del Rio Sr said (in effect), "If you are not going to run a "pro-development" program then we are out of here."
Again, I have no idea what really went down, but this would be my guess.
I have heard that he was told that he was not going to play, because Baldwin wanted to run spread option. It did not work.......at all. CGA began phasing out that offensive nightmare in the 2015 Colorado game. CGA has indicated that he is going to implement a spread passing attack, instead, which the quarterback in the Swamp would have been perfect for. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 7, 2016 13:06:43 GMT -8
What I would like to see in defensive stats when making team to team comparisons is total score to total number of drives to average starting field position (something that takes into account the defense starting in a hole at any rate). My take on it that when you have two teams who surrender 30 points and 480 yards, you could have two completely different levels of effectiveess between the defensive squads if one had to deal with more drives and a shorter field. Except it could be a vicious cycle. If a D is giving up 480 yds it likely is also causing the offense field position issues with deep drives, punts that pin them deep, and starting from the 25 after kick off/touch backs, etc. Prob not a good team either way though. On the vicious cycle thing, that is a possibility, but.... it seems to me that OSU has had it's share of maligned defenses over the years that were stuck defending drives that started on our own 35-40 multiple times a game more often than the other way around. It's tough to blame defenses for offensive turnovers or three and outs followed by bad punts - if you are defending a drive that begins inside your own 35-40 one of these two things probably occurred. I can see one or two a game due to turnovers or a good punt return, but there have been years over the last few decades (not so much in the Riley and Erickson years) it seems the D is stuck with defending a short field on a far too regular basis. I'd argue that a defense that has to defend 14-16 short field drives and manages the same stats as a defense that only has to defend 12 drives, just might be a better defense than the latter defense.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 7, 2016 14:25:28 GMT -8
I hadn't been following Luke Del Rio's season since, well, he's playing for a different team in a different league. After seeing this post and following the link to the article, I went to a Florida message board to see what they were saying. It appears that the general consensus, before the injury, was that Del Rio is an "ineffective, limp-armed QB". While not happy to see the injury (because all fans seem impressed with how hard Luke has been working for them), many of the Florida fans are glad that they will now try a different QB. Sounds familiar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 14:35:14 GMT -8
Thanks @beaverfever . Never even occurred to me that I could be spelling his name wrong. Stay lazy.lol
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 7, 2016 16:27:52 GMT -8
I hope we're talking about Juke El Trio because that other guy is banned here!!
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Nov 7, 2016 17:50:51 GMT -8
I hope we're talking about Juke El Trio because that other guy is banned here!! That's my guy! I walk with J.E.T.!!!!
|
|