|
|
Post by devildog on Nov 20, 2015 13:57:09 GMT -8
nabeav, I think your quarrel is with Smiley Riley, not Coach Andersen. Smiley deserted you, twice. Coach Andersen is trying his best to give Oregon State a winning football tradition. Just because you pine for Riley doesn't mean Andersen doesn't deserve our respect. Be a nice little boy, and try "http://www.cornnation.com/ for your Riley fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 20, 2015 14:09:07 GMT -8
I just want to make sure I understand everyone's position here: I question our coaching staff's methods, therefore I'm not an actual Beaver fan and need to go cheer for another team?
|
|
zzufrevaeb
Sophomore
Not beaverfuzz
hi
Posts: 1,500 
|
Post by zzufrevaeb on Nov 20, 2015 14:21:57 GMT -8
I just want to make sure I understand everyone's position here: I question our coaching staff's methods, therefore I'm not an actual Beaver fan and need to go cheer for another team? Yes, you're now a Vandal fan. Enjoy. Sitake is right about some undesirables still on the roster, and quite a few of them are not seniors. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 20, 2015 14:59:51 GMT -8
Well, I'm not sure how anyone could read or listen to some of the things Coaches Andersen and Sitake say and not feel like they are not throwing the players under the bus. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they might not be deserving, I just don't see that done in too many places around the country with college players. Personally, I don't like it. You guys attacking Nabeav for his opinion I think are out of line.
In Devildog's condescending post he says "Just because you pine for Riley doesn't mean Andersen doesn't deserve our respect." Nothing I have seen posted here has shown disrespect for Coach Andersen. Disagreement or raising questions does not equal disrespect. Your post however is disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 20, 2015 15:46:21 GMT -8
I just want to make sure I understand everyone's position here: I question our coaching staff's methods, therefore I'm not an actual Beaver fan and need to go cheer for another team? Yes, you're now a Vandal fan. Enjoy. Sitake is right about some undesirables still on the roster, and quite a few of them are not seniors. LMAO... cuz you're and insider and know exactly the "undesirables"  Wow... players not fitting a system... not meeting physical/academic expectations do not equal "undesirables"... are there some that are probably going to be asked to leave for attitude? Sure... but, to spout as if you KNOW "quite a few of them are not seniors" is freaking laughable... on a least three counts: >our team has very few seniors, so logic leads us to the fact that the probability that any undesirables would indeed NOT be seniors!!! Wow... tough call there; >seniors are graduating so any "undesirable" in that class would be a non issue... right??? >you have NO clue... I'll leave that open ended :>) |
|
|
|
Post by beavered on Nov 20, 2015 15:46:34 GMT -8
For those critical of Andersen I have a question. What are your feelings toward the other 2 of our "big three" coaches? Do you like Pat Casey? Tinkle? Is it just Andersen you take issue with or are you just critical of coaches in general?
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 20, 2015 15:55:06 GMT -8
For those critical of Andersen I have a question. What are your feelings toward the other 2 of our "big three" coaches? Do you like Pat Casey? Tinkle? Is it just Andersen you take issue with or are you just critical of coaches in general? PC is as hard assed as they come when demanding certain qualities from his players. I've sent a few players to him even back to his GF days. However... his "ship" is his ship... unless a kid breaks the law and it's public knowledge you hear ZERO from him regarding discipline. Even kids with issues becoming public are handled very privately. Can you tell if a kid's in the doghouse? Yep, no words or innuendo... you just see him disappear from the lineup. Tinkle is really in his first year... he really had to walk a tight rope last year and hope no one stepped out of line. But, he too was very private and covered PT with simple statements as, "... we play who ever had a great week of practice." Glass half full. Talked up the kids contributing not talking down kids not playing well. Was it obvious in some cases that certain players were on short leashes? Sure... but he never made it public via an interview. Tinkle's true test will be coaching his son. Sometimes it can be a "no win" situation... does he deserve PT? Does he give him a longer leash? On and on... It is made much easier as long as your son is one of the better players and contributing, but still another kind of tight rope to walk. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 20, 2015 15:56:47 GMT -8
This is outrageous, if true. But don't remember any accusation that any player, or players, deliberately sabotaged the season or openly ignored the coaching. What were the comments made by Andersen/Sitake and WHO are the players who were hung out to dry? How long ago was this? From oregonlive on October 21st: Perhaps the most perplexing development is how many other players continue to demonstrate proper fundamentals and technique during practice, just like in the spring and fall camp and preseason scrimmages. But those controlled settings cannot completely simulate a game, where Sitake is sometimes unsure if certain players are deliberately being defiant because they don't believe in the scheme or if they simply "get freaked out" when the pressure ramps up with thousands of onlookers in the stands. They haven't named names, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. But there's been more than one comment about players being defiant or "refusing to learn" that are said as almost throwaway comments, but they speak to the mindset of the coaches, who have such a steadfast belief in themselves and their system that they seem unwilling to compromise or modify based on the current situation. To me this sounds like a reporter taking off the cuff comments by a coach that's frustrated that his kids aren't catching on as fast as he'd like and printing something spicy to read. Wouldn't surprise me if Sitake occasionally says some things out of frustration, but he probably realizes most of these kids are being asked to un-learn schemes they have practiced a year or more... not all players can change gears fast successfully. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 20, 2015 16:12:57 GMT -8
I'd agree that Casey and Tinkle do more of their hard assedness behind closed doors. There's not a lot of calling out of kids in the media. It's one thing to say "he needs to hit better or we can't have him out there." It's an entirely different thing to say the kid is "not trying to hit the ball, or refuses to learn how to hit." You never hear that. I wasn't a big fan of Casey's handling of certain disciplinary issues, like keeping that one kid on the team who was stealing his great aunt's social security or whatever, and the sham "benching" of Ben Wetzler wasn't a good look either. Had this message board been available then, I'd have said the same thing.
As for Tinkle - I've got nothing bad to say about him. He handled having half of his team be walk-ons pretty well last year. He acknowledged that the talent wasn't there without making it sound like the kids were to blame for being untalented. I'm sure he yells a lot and tells the kids they haven't won anything yet and they better bust their ass if they want to make the tournament all the time, but it doesn't come out in the media.
And now for something that should really rankle everyone: Ever noticed the similarities between Craig Robinson and Wayne Tinkle?
-Both came from mid-major schools
-Both inherited teams devoid of talent that nobody thought were any good
-Both acknowledged their teams had no talent publically, and stressed that they were going to have to play a slower brand of basketball to be successful
-Both wildly overachieved their first season
-Both brought in highly touted recruiting classes after that first season and vowed to be more up tempo and aggressive on offense, thereby changing the things that brought them success in their first campaigns.
Hopefully, that's where the similarities stop, but I find that endlessly amusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 20, 2015 16:32:32 GMT -8
I'd agree that Casey and Tinkle do more of their hard assedness behind closed doors. There's not a lot of calling out of kids in the media. It's one thing to say "he needs to hit better or we can't have him out there." It's an entirely different thing to say the kid is "not trying to hit the ball, or refuses to learn how to hit." You never hear that. I wasn't a big fan of Casey's handling of certain disciplinary issues, like keeping that one kid on the team who was stealing his great aunt's social security or whatever, and the sham "benching" of Ben Wetzler wasn't a good look either. Had this message board been available then, I'd have said the same thing. As for Tinkle - I've got nothing bad to say about him. He handled having half of his team be walk-ons pretty well last year. He acknowledged that the talent wasn't there without making it sound like the kids were to blame for being untalented. I'm sure he yells a lot and tells the kids they haven't won anything yet and they better bust their ass if they want to make the tournament all the time, but it doesn't come out in the media. And now for something that should really rankle everyone: Ever noticed the similarities between Craig Robinson and Wayne Tinkle? -Both came from mid-major schools -Both inherited teams devoid of talent that nobody thought were any good -Both acknowledged their teams had no talent publically, and stressed that they were going to have to play a slower brand of basketball to be successful -Both wildly overachieved their first season -Both brought in highly touted recruiting classes after that first season and vowed to be more up tempo and aggressive on offense, thereby changing the things that brought them success in their first campaigns. Hopefully, that's where the similarities stop, but I find that endlessly amusing. I wonder how many of those points apply to almost every hoops job that has been down for some time... >usually not getting experienced big time coach... >talent is obviously missing in that type of situation... >coach will obviously have to say he needs to recruit better players and coach up the current roster until he does... >a lot do not over achieve, but is the CBI/winning it that big of deal... >and although better CR's class was no where near Tinkle's (still can't understand how Berto was that highly thought of?? Sorry was never a fan of his game. Nor could understand how a player of CR's caliber could not improve our big man play??? How could Collier play 4 years of D1 hoops and not have a right hand? LOL... sorry I digress... don;t want to start comparing coaches here!!) |
|
|
|
Post by beavered on Nov 20, 2015 16:38:52 GMT -8
For those critical of Andersen I have a question. What are your feelings toward the other 2 of our "big three" coaches? Do you like Pat Casey? Tinkle? Is it just Andersen you take issue with or are you just critical of coaches in general? PC is as hard assed as they come when demanding certain qualities from his players. I've sent a few players to him even back to his GF days. However... his "ship" is his ship... unless a kid breaks the law and it's public knowledge you hear ZERO from him regarding discipline. Even kids with issues becoming public are handled very privately. Can you tell if a kid's in the doghouse? Yep, no words or innuendo... you just see him disappear from the lineup. Tinkle is really in his first year... he really had to walk a tight rope last year and hope no one stepped out of line. But, he too was very private and covered PT with simple statements as, "... we play who ever had a great week of practice." Glass half full. Talked up the kids contributing not talking down kids not playing well. Was it obvious in some cases that certain players were on short leashes? Sure... but he never made it public via an interview. Tinkle's true test will be coaching his son. Sometimes it can be a "no win" situation... does he deserve PT? Does he give him a longer leash? On and on... It is made much easier as long as your son is one of the better players and contributing, but still another kind of tight rope to walk. Regarding Casey, you are flat out wrong. Ever listen to one of his pre-game interviews after a loss? I have been surprised more than once with how direct and critical he can be. Last year, there was a game where an OF called off an infielder on a pop up. The ball then landed in front of him. In is interview before the next game Casey minced no words about not knowing what went through the mind of that player, and how it was totally unacceptable. He did not hold back. He regularly says things like, "Well sure, we did give up a HR but if the SS doesn't kick a routine ground ball 2 batters before that we're out of the inning. Doesn't necessarily say the name, but everyone knows exactly who he's talking about. Tinkle is clearly not as red assed as Casey and I would agree that for the most part, he keeps issues quiet. However, did you happen to listen to the Iona game? Right after Tres tried to go inside and got swatted for the second time, you could CLEARLY hear Wayne yell "That's twice, ...." I don't know how the sentence finished, but I am pretty sure he wasn't telling Tres they'd stop for ice cream on the way home. And yet here we are with a multiple page thread about some comments that Andersen/Sitake made suggesting that *perhaps* some players were not doing what was expected of them. I suppose in the case of Sitake we can presume he's referring to defensive players, but none of their comments offered any insight as to specific players they might take issue with. If anyone did take offense or tank it due to such innocuous comments, it's probably best they move on anyway. And of course, then there's the whole butthurt dynamic that seems to pervade everything these days. Guess what? Maybe sometimes people deserve to be called out when they are not meeting expectations. And - god forbid - maybe they will actually listen to the criticism and use it to improve. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 20, 2015 16:46:33 GMT -8
PC is as hard assed as they come when demanding certain qualities from his players. I've sent a few players to him even back to his GF days. However... his "ship" is his ship... unless a kid breaks the law and it's public knowledge you hear ZERO from him regarding discipline. Even kids with issues becoming public are handled very privately. Can you tell if a kid's in the doghouse? Yep, no words or innuendo... you just see him disappear from the lineup. Tinkle is really in his first year... he really had to walk a tight rope last year and hope no one stepped out of line. But, he too was very private and covered PT with simple statements as, "... we play who ever had a great week of practice." Glass half full. Talked up the kids contributing not talking down kids not playing well. Was it obvious in some cases that certain players were on short leashes? Sure... but he never made it public via an interview. Tinkle's true test will be coaching his son. Sometimes it can be a "no win" situation... does he deserve PT? Does he give him a longer leash? On and on... It is made much easier as long as your son is one of the better players and contributing, but still another kind of tight rope to walk. Regarding Casey, you are flat out wrong. Ever listen to one of his pre-game interviews after a loss? I have been surprised more than once with how direct and critical he can be. Last year, there was a game where an OF called off an infielder on a pop up. The ball then landed in front of him. In is interview before the next game Casey minced no words about not knowing what went through the mind of that player, and how it was totally unacceptable. He did not hold back. He regularly says things like, "Well sure, we did give up a HR but if the SS doesn't kick a routine ground ball 2 batters before that we're out of the inning. Doesn't necessarily say the name, but everyone knows exactly who he's talking about. Tinkle is clearly not as red assed as Casey and I would agree that for the most part, he keeps issues quiet. However, did you happen to listen to the Iona game? Right after Tres tried to go inside and got swatted for the second time, you could CLEARLY hear Wayne yell "That's twice, ...." I don't know how the sentence finished, but I am pretty sure he wasn't telling Tres they'd stop for ice cream on the way home. And yet here we are with a multiple page thread about some comments that Andersen/Sitake made suggesting that *perhaps* some players were not doing what was expected of them. I suppose in the case of Sitake we can presume he's referring to defensive players, but none of their comments offered any insight as to specific players they might take issue with. If anyone did take offense or tank it due to such innocuous comments, it's probably best they move on anyway. And of course, then there's the whole butthurt dynamic that seems to pervade everything these days. Guess what? Maybe sometimes people deserve to be called out when they are not meeting expectations. And - god forbid - maybe they will actually listen to the criticism and use it to improve. You don't read/comprehend well... try to keep it apples to apples! Both talk about SPECIFIC physical mistakes (your bball example is coaching in the heat of action... public, but not in an interview setting)... not generalities that question loyalty, heart, desire and often times are so ambiguous you wonder what the heck is going on... AND over and over and over... |
|
zzufrevaeb
Sophomore
Not beaverfuzz
hi
Posts: 1,500
|
Post by zzufrevaeb on Nov 20, 2015 18:23:15 GMT -8
Yes, you're now a Vandal fan. Enjoy. Sitake is right about some undesirables still on the roster, and quite a few of them are not seniors. LMAO... cuz you're and insider and know exactly the "undesirables" Wow... players not fitting a system... not meeting physical/academic expectations do not equal "undesirables"... are there some that are probably going to be asked to leave for attitude? Sure... but, to spout as if you KNOW "quite a few of them are not seniors" is freaking laughable... on a least three counts: >our team has very few seniors, so logic leads us to the fact that the probability that any undesirables would indeed NOT be seniors!!! Wow... tough call there; >seniors are graduating so any "undesirable" in that class would be a non issue... right??? >you have NO clue... I'll leave that open ended :>) Sorry you don't know anyone.  You mad bro? L O L |
|
Wow... players not fitting a system... not meeting physical/academic expectations do not equal "undesirables"... are there some that are probably going to be asked to leave for attitude? Sure... but, to spout as if you KNOW "quite a few of them are not seniors" is freaking laughable... on a least three counts:
You mad bro? L O L