|
Post by RenoBeaver on Nov 28, 2016 10:58:19 GMT -8
We won four games people. That's a pretty low sky to fall from. 100% increase in wins. That may be low but it is headed in the right direction. Another 100% increase in 2017 and we have 8 wins. It is doable. I like the exponential win increases. 2018 16 wins and national championship. 15 will do but just in case we fit Hawaii on the schedule
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 28, 2016 11:01:17 GMT -8
We won four games people. That's a pretty low sky to fall from. 100% increase in wins. That may be low but it is headed in the right direction. Another 100% increase in 2017 and we have 8 wins. It is doable. I think you guys are seriously underestimating how difficult 8 wins is to get. Minnesota finished 8-4. Colorado State finished 7-5 and blasted 9-3 SDSU 63-31 on the road in their last game. We swap out UCLA for USC. Every Pac-12 team we beat this year (teams that combined to go 6-21 in conference play), we will play on the road next season. Six is a reasonable, solid expectation for growth next season. I would be happy with six.
|
|
|
Post by ElBeavoLoco on Nov 28, 2016 11:03:27 GMT -8
Next year I think 6-7 wins. Bowl game.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Nov 28, 2016 11:13:02 GMT -8
Next year I think 6-7 wins. Bowl game. One thing that I like about next year is how the season opens up for us schedule wise. To build a winning culture..well.. you kind of need to actually win some games. Yeah, I know...#rocketscience If we come out and build off of this November, take care of business in those first 2 weeks vs PSU and Minnesota at home - that gives us a modest little 4 game win streak before heading off to Colorado State. Just win baby.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Nov 28, 2016 11:18:36 GMT -8
100% increase in wins. That may be low but it is headed in the right direction. Another 100% increase in 2017 and we have 8 wins. It is doable. I think you guys are seriously underestimating how difficult 8 wins is to get. Minnesota finished 8-4. Colorado State finished 7-5 and blasted 9-3 SDSU 63-31 on the road in their last game. We swap out UCLA for USC. Every Pac-12 team we beat this year (teams that combined to go 6-21 in conference play), we will play on the road next season. Six is a reasonable, solid expectation for growth next season. I would be happy with six. I didn't say it would be easy. It's possible and realistic. 8 wins. I'll be satisfied with 10 wins.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Nov 28, 2016 11:41:56 GMT -8
100% increase in wins. That may be low but it is headed in the right direction. Another 100% increase in 2017 and we have 8 wins. It is doable. I think you guys are seriously underestimating how difficult 8 wins is to get. Minnesota finished 8-4. Colorado State finished 7-5 and blasted 9-3 SDSU 63-31 on the road in their last game. We swap out UCLA for USC. Every Pac-12 team we beat this year (teams that combined to go 6-21 in conference play), we will play on the road next season. Six is a reasonable, solid expectation for growth next season. I would be happy with six. You are probably right, in fact, that's my bench mark for next season. But take a look at 2015 Colorado, when they finished 4-8, but with only one Pac 12 win. Going through their schedule, it looks very comparable to 2016 OSU...few blowouts, some competitive losses. Despite the poor Pac 12 record, they were clearly showing signs of improvement. A 3 pt loss to USC. 4 pt loss to UCLA. 6 pt loss to Utah. Without a doubt Colorado had exception QB play this year and tons of senior leadership. So that's why I point to 2018 being a break-out year. But I also will not be surprised of OS finished the Pac 12 next year with a winning record assuming everyone stays healthy and we continue to see the growth we've seen over the course of the past 6 weeks. Nor would I be surprised if OS finishes at 5-7 for the reasons you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 28, 2016 12:54:41 GMT -8
Maybe we'd have another win or two if 3M had been the starter from day 1? That is possible, of course. Then again, it may have turned out the same or worse. We'll never know for sure but here the best reasons I can come up with for why it may not have helped: 1) Maybe the coaches had some clue what they were doing at the beginning of the season, just as they may have had some clue what they were doing when they didn't take 3M out of a game for a single play even after Blount was seemingly back from injury. 2) 3M definitely improved as he started more games and it is possible/likely that he would not have improved on the 25-for-40 for 228 and 3 TDs with 0 Ints that we got from our QB in the Minnesota game. So, probably wouldn't add a win there. 3) Maybe we had the right QB in the Cal game for their defense and the 105 yards rushing from the QB, including the game winning TD, was just what we needed to win that game. And the best reason I can come up with: 4) We almost never make it through the season without our QB going down with injury for a while. What if 3M had been the starter from week 1 and had gone out with injury prior to the Civil War? Would we still win that game?
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 28, 2016 14:27:19 GMT -8
Maybe we'd have another win or two if 3M had been the starter from day 1? That is possible, of course. Then again, it may have turned out the same or worse. We'll never know for sure but here the best reasons I can come up with for why it may not have helped: 1) Maybe the coaches had some clue what they were doing at the beginning of the season, just as they may have had some clue what they were doing when they didn't take 3M out of a game for a single play even after Blount was seemingly back from injury. 2) 3M definitely improved as he started more games and it is possible/likely that he would not have improved on the 25-for-40 for 228 and 3 TDs with 0 Ints that we got from our QB in the Minnesota game. So, probably wouldn't add a win there. 3) Maybe we had the right QB in the Cal game for their defense and the 105 yards rushing from the QB, including the game winning TD, was just what we needed to win that game. And the best reason I can come up with: 4) We almost never make it through the season without our QB going down with injury for a while. What if 3M had been the starter from week 1 and had gone out with injury prior to the Civil War? Would we still win that game? You just added a whole bunch more hypothetical questions, Mike. (I did have a question mark after my statement, so I feel like I implied that it could not be known) I also want to point out that 228 yards on 40 pass attempts (plus two sack/lost fumbles on pass plays) isn't technically a very good day passing.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Nov 28, 2016 16:40:26 GMT -8
The most winnable game that we didn't get was the Utah one - had Nall been healthy, we win that game. His one run went for 35+. We were down 5 and had 1st and goal in the 4th when DG broke his ankle. Watching their game versus Colorado yesterday, it amazes me that after all this time, Whittingham still cannot field much of an offense. My biggest fear about Andersen is that we'll be saying the same thing in 5 years. He is Whittingham's BFF, after all...
Andersen struck gold with inheriting a freshman Ryan Nall on his roster, and I fully expect him to ride that horse as long as he can (and I am truly looking forward to the results of that!). It will be a lot of fun, no doubt. But a game-changing player like that can cover up a lot of offensive coaching deficiencies, and I am still not convinced that this staff doesn't have their fair share. I fully expect an Andersen love fest over the next 2 years (and I will probably join in), but once Ryan uses up his eligibility I will be watching carefully at what our offensive production looks like.
GO BEAVS!
I agree, the rugged Dfense is great and all, but the Offense is pretty cringy, at least we OSU isn't playing the worst defenses in the country.
|
|