|
|
Post by zebraworks on Nov 29, 2015 15:38:56 GMT -8
eggers stated in his article that some players were not taken for disciplinary reasons (unknown violation of team rules) This doesn't sound like not attending was voluntary on players part
|
|
zzufrevaeb
Sophomore
Not beaverfuzz
hi
Posts: 1,502 
|
Post by zzufrevaeb on Nov 29, 2015 16:21:45 GMT -8
If things had gone as planned, Peko eligible, Crichton finishing his eligibility, last year's D line would have been crazy good and 5 wins would have become 9 or 10. If that happens, Riley's still our coach and Del Rio is our QB and we are all making plans to be in Las Vegas for Christmas. Thank God, I'll take this year's team over Vegas and no direction. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 8:18:43 GMT -8
The Andersen 57 showed you what is expected of "Men of Iron whose strength will never yield." Learn It. Live It. Love It. Oh and BTW...any more talk of moving Ryan Nall to another position and I may have an aneurysm I have had a man crush on Ryan Nall at RB since the day we signed him. Always thought moving him was silly talk and messing around with him at TE and all this other crap was silly as well... Pretty excited to watch him crush DBs next year. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 8:25:52 GMT -8
While I agree that anyone who chose not to attend the CW should be politely shown the door, I don't think simply cleaning house is going magically improve the squad. None of those guys were playing anyways, and the guys that were out there were the ones getting smoked every week. Depth is great and all, but having backups better than the other guys backups isn't going to get you bowl eligible. The one thing I think will make the team better instantly is an improved D-Line, but I swear to God we all say that every season and no matter who we throw out there, the results are the same. Even with Crichton and Wynn we struggled. Last year it was "well if we just had Peko and Grimble....." and even when both were playing it wasn't great. I would be highly surprised if any players voluntarily chose to not play... I think Andersen culled the herd for a variety of reasons. I posted on another board, my over under is 10 players gone and I will take the over. And I don't think it is just talent mismatch guys that will be gone, I think Andersen is of character to honor a scholarship to a guy that gives it his all, even if it means sitting on the bench because his skills don't line up... Andersen is going to send bad attitudes packing. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 8:39:06 GMT -8
"I think Andersen is of character to honor a scholarship to a guy that gives it his all, even if it means sitting on the bench because his skills don't line up... Andersen is going to send bad attitudes packing."
Pretty sure the scholarship has to be honored. I believe what happens in these situations is the Coach tells the player he'll honor his scholarship for the duration, and the player will be required to go to every meeting, practice, weight training, function, etc. but he is never going to see the field. One missed event and the scholarship is revoked. That usually gets the job done.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 30, 2015 8:40:47 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong... I love the Nall kid... in fact I do not know what is his best position might be. However, if he is our stud RB we're not going to be a bowl team. He is everything I would want in a player, but he would not be the go to back for any other team in the Pac 12... period. Until we get some skill players that would START for other elite teams we are going to be settling for 4-8 to 7-5 seasons. This conference if too good to just depend on a improving D.
Nall can be an exceptional situation type back... he is a GREAT beginning, but he needs some help just to take some of the load and pounding off him. His good games came versus two of the weakest D's in our league (excluding our own)... nothing against him... but, until we have an elite group of OL/OL play any back is going to be limited; especially until we have a consistent aerial attack.
With all that said... and back tracking... I think it would be totally unfair to the kid to now make him change to another position, especially on the D side. And why for gawd's sake would he be moved to a position were he can't make a difference more than 4-5 plays a game (TE/H-back).
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 30, 2015 8:44:42 GMT -8
"I think Andersen is of character to honor a scholarship to a guy that gives it his all, even if it means sitting on the bench because his skills don't line up... Andersen is going to send bad attitudes packing." Pretty sure the scholarship has to be honored. I believe what happens in these situations is the Coach tells the player he'll honor his scholarship for the duration, and the player will be required to go to every meeting, practice, weight training, function, etc. but he is never going to see the field. One missed event and the scholarship is revoked. That usually gets the job done. Schollies were a one year renewable type agreement... has that changed? It was pretty one-sided... school could part with you, but player needed permission to go elsewhere... at least have school initiate contact with them or it was NCAA violation. Players could still initiate communication). The NCAA and their rules are always in flux and I have no real interest in being an expert. Anyone know? |
|
|
|
Post by obattack on Nov 30, 2015 8:45:28 GMT -8
Scholarships are not guaranteed. A coach can revoke it for any reason. I don't' think Anderson will do that to those that are working hard for the program. I think we will see the guys that aren't putting in the effort sent packing, but I think Anderson will allow the ones who are earning their keep through hard work stick around, even if they don't have the talent level he is looking for. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens moving forward.
On the guaranteed scholarship part, there has been discussion on guaranteeing scholarships for the 4-5 years but as far as I have heard, only USC has done this, not all of the Pac-12.
|
|
|
|
Post by fumblerooski on Nov 30, 2015 8:52:30 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong... I love the Nall kid... in fact I do not know what is his best position might be. However, if he is our stud RB we're not going to be a bowl team. He is everything I would want in a player, but he would not be the go to back for any other team in the Pac 12... period. Until we get some skill players that would START for other elite teams we are going to be settling for 4-8 to 7-5 seasons. This conference if too good to just depend on a improving D. Nall can be an exceptional situation type back... he is a GREAT beginning, but he needs some help just to take some of the load and pounding off him. His good games came versus two of the weakest D's in our league (excluding our own)... nothing against him... but, until we have an elite group of OL/OL play any back is going to be limited; especially until we have a consistent aerial attack. With all that said... and back tracking... I think it would be totally unfair to the kid to now make him change to another position, especially on the D side. And why for gawd's sake would he be moved to a position were he can't make a difference more than 4-5 plays a game (TE/H-back). What have you seen to make you think Nall isn't good enough to be a feature back? lack of elite speed? toughness? vision? blocking? |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 8:53:04 GMT -8
"I think Andersen is of character to honor a scholarship to a guy that gives it his all, even if it means sitting on the bench because his skills don't line up... Andersen is going to send bad attitudes packing." Pretty sure the scholarship has to be honored. I believe what happens in these situations is the Coach tells the player he'll honor his scholarship for the duration, and the player will be required to go to every meeting, practice, weight training, function, etc. but he is never going to see the field. One missed event and the scholarship is revoked. That usually gets the job done. Schollies were a one year renewable type agreement... has that changed? It was pretty one-sided... school could part with you, but player needed permission to go elsewhere... at least have school initiate contact with them or it was NCAA violation. Players could still initiate communication). The NCAA and their rules are always in flux and I have no real interest in being an expert. Anyone know? Use to be that way. Oregon State along with most other schools started offering 4 year scholarships as a response to lawsuit threats. This all started last year, so most people on the squad only have year to year ones to my knowledge. There was an article in the little O stating how Andersen is offering everybody in THIS class 4 year scholarships (well, HS guys that is). |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 30, 2015 9:20:41 GMT -8
I posted on another board, my over under is 10 players gone and I will take the over. And I don't think it is just talent mismatch guys that will be gone, I think Andersen is of character to honor a scholarship to a guy that gives it his all, even if it means sitting on the bench because his skills don't line up... Andersen is going to send bad attitudes packing. I don't think anyone chose not to play, but the rumors are that some redshirts and others not suiting up chose not to attend the game with their team. That's who I was referring to. I don't think Storm Woods just said "nah, I'll sit out my last college game. I'm cool." |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 30, 2015 9:27:16 GMT -8
Don't get me wrong... I love the Nall kid... in fact I do not know what is his best position might be. However, if he is our stud RB we're not going to be a bowl team. He is everything I would want in a player, but he would not be the go to back for any other team in the Pac 12... period. Until we get some skill players that would START for other elite teams we are going to be settling for 4-8 to 7-5 seasons. This conference if too good to just depend on a improving D. Nall can be an exceptional situation type back... he is a GREAT beginning, but he needs some help just to take some of the load and pounding off him. His good games came versus two of the weakest D's in our league (excluding our own)... nothing against him... but, until we have an elite group of OL/OL play any back is going to be limited; especially until we have a consistent aerial attack. With all that said... and back tracking... I think it would be totally unfair to the kid to now make him change to another position, especially on the D side. And why for gawd's sake would he be moved to a position were he can't make a difference more than 4-5 plays a game (TE/H-back). What have you seen to make you think Nall isn't good enough to be a feature back? lack of elite speed? toughness? vision? blocking? Simply my opinion/eye test watching other teams I want our Beavs to look/play like. Nall embodies all we want, but he is not an elite running back... he'll never have the explosive first step to hit holes that are there for a fraction. He has tons of good qualities, but IMHO he is a "transition" back at best until you get a stable of backs similar to those other schools have. Again... not a slam on Nall. I just wish he'd been red-shirted and developed in a specific position all along... and my feeling is he could be a next level defensive type... and I guess still could be??? |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 30, 2015 9:30:15 GMT -8
Schollies were a one year renewable type agreement... has that changed? It was pretty one-sided... school could part with you, but player needed permission to go elsewhere... at least have school initiate contact with them or it was NCAA violation. Players could still initiate communication). The NCAA and their rules are always in flux and I have no real interest in being an expert. Anyone know? Use to be that way. Oregon State along with most other schools started offering 4 year scholarships as a response to lawsuit threats. This all started last year, so most people on the squad only have year to year ones to my knowledge. There was an article in the little O stating how Andersen is offering everybody in THIS class 4 year scholarships (well, HS guys that is). Thx for the update... I knew something had been updated, but did not who and when it was in effect... And, I know schools had a choice somehow... guessing some do not need that carrot?! |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 9:30:24 GMT -8
I got my info from an ex-player at TSDTR. It was from the Harrington era however. That's all I was basing it on, and perhaps that's just how Cryalotti did it before he turned down the next big available job!
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 30, 2015 10:30:20 GMT -8
What have you seen to make you think Nall isn't good enough to be a feature back? lack of elite speed? toughness? vision? blocking? Simply my opinion/eye test watching other teams I want our Beavs to look/play like. Nall embodies all we want, but he is not an elite running back... he'll never have the explosive first step to hit holes that are there for a fraction. He has tons of good qualities, but IMHO he is a "transition" back at best until you get a stable of backs similar to those other schools have. Again... not a slam on Nall. I just wish he'd been red-shirted and developed in a specific position all along... and my feeling is he could be a next level defensive type... and I guess still could be??? Nall just has a different set of skills. He is a downhill, bruising running back. He is never going to make a person miss, and he probably is not well suited for a zone running scheme. "Elite" is a lot of things. He does not have Quizz level moves in the hole. He does not have Bernard level vision, but if we build an offense to his skills, you can bet your bottom dollar he will be among the top in the Pac. Kid is huge and fast once he gets a head of steam. That Oregon defender he ran AWAY from was no slouch himself. He is a home run threat if he breaks a tackle... and he breaks a lot of tackles. He just needs to be used right. Downhill, one cut through the hole He is like a Denver Bronco running back from the 90's... Maybe WE should start cut blocking! (kidding, I hate that...) |
|
