|
Post by tnarg33 on Aug 31, 2017 6:03:21 GMT -8
Comparing a team from 20 years ago to a team now is an effort in futility. Maybe they had equal talent, maybe not. The thing we should all be able to agree on is that thus far GA hasn't shown he could out coach a sock puppet
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 31, 2017 6:29:45 GMT -8
And anyone who thinks Scott Barnes is going to dismiss Gary Andersen after this season, no matter what happens, doesn't really know very much about OSU athletics. You're 100% right here. GA is our coach until at least 2019, unless he assaults a referee or something. I don't even want him canned. I just want him to win some football games
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 6:48:07 GMT -8
Comparing a team from 20 years ago to a team now is an effort in futility. Maybe they had equal talent, maybe not. The thing we should all be able to agree on is that thus far GA hasn't shown he could out coach a sock puppet LOL! Luckily, sock puppets don't play football or we'd be in real trouble! Year one: sure, I'd agree with you. Year two: no, I think GA and the team had some fine games--even games we lost were close. Year three: one bad loss and you're throwing in the towel? wow. Here's why I think CSU will be an anomaly once we look back at the season. 1. We kicked off the season with a week less preparation than most teams. Now you can say that CSU was ready and Stanford was ready. That's true. But for a team that is rebuilding with a qb learning the system, well, it wasn't the best idea. 2. The altitude. Passes were bound to go wild. Men were bound to tire out--especially 300 pound men who can't get the oxygen their bodies need. 3. The heat. The weather and location are a distinct advantage for some teams. Play in Pullman late in the year, and you have to deal with snow and ice, whereas we'll be playing in rain or drizzle most of the year. 4. The game plan. I think the plan of the game was to focus on Luton in order to get him as much experience as possible with the team in a game situation. This is the test for any player. Now the coaching staff makes adjustments and does their coaching thing to help him grow and to help the team win. If you are the coach of a team with one of the worst offenses in the league and you suddenly got a new key piece for your offense, wouldn't you do exactly that? 5. The game was a tune-up game. We, the fan base, saw it as a must-win because we don't believe the team can win many Pac-12 games this year. Our sights are low. If you are coach, do you settle for that? Hell no! I would rather use my non-conference games as learning experiences. The Pac-12 games are the bread and butter. If you can't compete against those guys, you're done. So I expect to see a lot of progress in Saturday's game. And that progress should continue throughout the season. Maybe we won't win as many games as we thought, but if we stand toe-to-toe with the big teams and it turns into a slugfest, I'll be very happy.
|
|
|
Post by tnarg33 on Aug 31, 2017 7:09:42 GMT -8
I guess I can't argue with that. I can't say we aren't rebuilding since we've decided to have a new offense/qb every season. Pretty easy to excuse away poor results when we are rebuilding over and over and over. We will play games where it's hot or wet or cold or higher altitude but that doesn't change the fact that we weren't the better team last week and have rarely looked liked the better team in any game over the past 3 years.
If this was a well implemented "rebuild" in year three we'd have a system and would have our best guys out there. We wouldn't be trying to get guys reps and seeing what works with new guys. There shouldn't be throwaway games or learning experiences, we should be competing for wins every week.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 31, 2017 7:41:32 GMT -8
Comparing a team from 20 years ago to a team now is an effort in futility. Maybe they had equal talent, maybe not. The thing we should all be able to agree on is that thus far GA hasn't shown he could out coach a sock puppet LOL! Luckily, sock puppets don't play football or we'd be in real trouble! Year one: sure, I'd agree with you. Year two: no, I think GA and the team had some fine games--even games we lost were close. Year three: one bad loss and you're throwing in the towel? wow. Here's why I think CSU will be an anomaly once we look back at the season. 1. We kicked off the season with a week less preparation than most teams. Now you can say that CSU was ready and Stanford was ready. That's true. But for a team that is rebuilding with a qb learning the system, well, it wasn't the best idea. False. We got to start practice early. In fact, we started a few days earlier than Colorado State.2. The altitude. Passes were bound to go wild. Men were bound to tire out--especially 300 pound men who can't get the oxygen their bodies need. Agree here. Altitude was always going to be a factor. Everyone knew it....well, almost everyone. GA has said numerous times that altitude doesn't have "that much" of an effect on performance.3. The heat. The weather and location are a distinct advantage for some teams. Play in Pullman late in the year, and you have to deal with snow and ice, whereas we'll be playing in rain or drizzle most of the year. I don't think heat is an advantage for Colorado State at all. The average temperature in Fort Collins for August is 84. For Corvallis it's 83. I don't know a whole lot about turf temps, but why would their turf be hotter than our turf? Also, if we weren't practicing outside in the heat leading up to a game we knew was going to be outside in the heat....well......
4. The game plan. I think the plan of the game was to focus on Luton in order to get him as much experience as possible with the team in a game situation. This is the test for any player. Now the coaching staff makes adjustments and does their coaching thing to help him grow and to help the team win. If you are the coach of a team with one of the worst offenses in the league and you suddenly got a new key piece for your offense, wouldn't you do exactly that? Not if it meant a greater potential to lose the game, no. This isn't baseball with a 55 game schedule. This isn't AYSO, where they don't keep score and focus on getting kids to play "the right way." That's what practice is for. That's why we named Luton FOUR WEEKS BEFORE THE FIRST GAME. And just so we're clear, after seeing him play, I understand why he was named the starter. His arm is clearly better than anyone we've had since Mannion. But again, it comes back to this: I still believe that this coaching staff values things like size and athletic ability over skill and intelligence. I don't care how hard you can throw a football, can you make the right throw accurately at the right time? Can you recognize a bad situation and take an incompletion over an interception or sack? You can run a 4.4 40, but can you recognize a zone and find the soft spot in it on the fly? You can bench press a refrigerator, but can you stay at home and not over-pursue on a counter? My opinion is that you can always make guys stronger or faster...it's much tougher to make them smarter.5. The game was a tune-up game. We, the fan base, saw it as a must-win because we don't believe the team can win many Pac-12 games this year. Our sights are low. If you are coach, do you settle for that? Hell no! I would rather use my non-conference games as learning experiences. The Pac-12 games are the bread and butter. If you can't compete against those guys, you're done. If you're a coach, you settle for losing games early in the season? Hell no! You go out there and try to win every game, every week. So I expect to see a lot of progress in Saturday's game. And that progress should continue throughout the season. Maybe we won't win as many games as we thought, but if we stand toe-to-toe with the big teams and it turns into a slugfest, I'll be very happy. We have now reached the point where playing hard and losing makes the fans happy. "Sure, a win would be better, but look how hard we played! We made them work for that win! GRIT!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 8:43:06 GMT -8
LOL! Luckily, sock puppets don't play football or we'd be in real trouble! Year one: sure, I'd agree with you. Year two: no, I think GA and the team had some fine games--even games we lost were close. Year three: one bad loss and you're throwing in the towel? wow. Here's why I think CSU will be an anomaly once we look back at the season. 1. We kicked off the season with a week less preparation than most teams. Now you can say that CSU was ready and Stanford was ready. That's true. But for a team that is rebuilding with a qb learning the system, well, it wasn't the best idea. False. We got to start practice early. In fact, we started a few days earlier than Colorado State.2. The altitude. Passes were bound to go wild. Men were bound to tire out--especially 300 pound men who can't get the oxygen their bodies need. Agree here. Altitude was always going to be a factor. Everyone knew it....well, almost everyone. GA has said numerous times that altitude doesn't have "that much" of an effect on performance.3. The heat. The weather and location are a distinct advantage for some teams. Play in Pullman late in the year, and you have to deal with snow and ice, whereas we'll be playing in rain or drizzle most of the year. I don't think heat is an advantage for Colorado State at all. The average temperature in Fort Collins for August is 84. For Corvallis it's 83. I don't know a whole lot about turf temps, but why would their turf be hotter than our turf? Also, if we weren't practicing outside in the heat leading up to a game we knew was going to be outside in the heat....well......
4. The game plan. I think the plan of the game was to focus on Luton in order to get him as much experience as possible with the team in a game situation. This is the test for any player. Now the coaching staff makes adjustments and does their coaching thing to help him grow and to help the team win. If you are the coach of a team with one of the worst offenses in the league and you suddenly got a new key piece for your offense, wouldn't you do exactly that? Not if it meant a greater potential to lose the game, no. This isn't baseball with a 55 game schedule. This isn't AYSO, where they don't keep score and focus on getting kids to play "the right way." That's what practice is for. That's why we named Luton FOUR WEEKS BEFORE THE FIRST GAME. And just so we're clear, after seeing him play, I understand why he was named the starter. His arm is clearly better than anyone we've had since Mannion. But again, it comes back to this: I still believe that this coaching staff values things like size and athletic ability over skill and intelligence. I don't care how hard you can throw a football, can you make the right throw accurately at the right time? Can you recognize a bad situation and take an incompletion over an interception or sack? You can run a 4.4 40, but can you recognize a zone and find the soft spot in it on the fly? You can bench press a refrigerator, but can you stay at home and not over-pursue on a counter? My opinion is that you can always make guys stronger or faster...it's much tougher to make them smarter.5. The game was a tune-up game. We, the fan base, saw it as a must-win because we don't believe the team can win many Pac-12 games this year. Our sights are low. If you are coach, do you settle for that? Hell no! I would rather use my non-conference games as learning experiences. The Pac-12 games are the bread and butter. If you can't compete against those guys, you're done. If you're a coach, you settle for losing games early in the season? Hell no! You go out there and try to win every game, every week. So I expect to see a lot of progress in Saturday's game. And that progress should continue throughout the season. Maybe we won't win as many games as we thought, but if we stand toe-to-toe with the big teams and it turns into a slugfest, I'll be very happy. We have now reached the point where playing hard and losing makes the fans happy. "Sure, a win would be better, but look how hard we played! We made them work for that win! GRIT!"Good points, all around. I hope you are wrong, though. I want to believe that CGA knows what he's doing. I want to believe that the CSU game will be fading quickly in our memories. If things look foul versus Portland State, well, I'm going to be pissed....I'm going to the Minnesota game with a friend of mine who is a Golden Gopher alum. We'd better be in position to kick some Gopher butt!
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 31, 2017 10:11:25 GMT -8
As frustrating as Game One was... the season isn't exactly over. It feels like a regression, sure. It is in direct conflict with our expectations that a simplified offense would have the Beavs ready to play early in the year instead of misfiring and searching for chemistry.
But teams come out flat sometimes. It happens, even with the best coaches. Struggles with chemistry and timing create uncertainty, uncertainty makes you a step slow and makes you look much worse than you really are. Some guys get shell-shocked, some start trying to do too much and end up out of position.
I hated the play-calling against CSU. I get it that they thought there were some things there, with CSU walking one of their safeties down into the box and playing a 1-high scheme with the back 7, but I just don't think they did Luton any favors asking him to put the whole team on his back. I thought the whole idea with this spread option offense was to be able to get a hat on a hat and use numbers and leverage to run the ball even if they crowd the box. Thomas Tyner is one of the fastest running backs in college football and not once did we run him to the edge.
There must be a reason these decisions were made, and I would assume that we will never know what they are.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 31, 2017 11:48:11 GMT -8
As frustrating as Game One was... the season isn't exactly over. It feels like a regression, sure. It is in direct conflict with our expectations that a simplified offense would have the Beavs ready to play early in the year instead of misfiring and searching for chemistry. But teams come out flat sometimes. It happens, even with the best coaches. Struggles with chemistry and timing create uncertainty, uncertainty makes you a step slow and makes you look much worse than you really are. Some guys get shell-shocked, some start trying to do too much and end up out of position. I hated the play-calling against CSU. I get it that they thought there were some things there, with CSU walking one of their safeties down into the box and playing a 1-high scheme with the back 7, but I just don't think they did Luton any favors asking him to put the whole team on his back. I thought the whole idea with this spread option offense was to be able to get a hat on a hat and use numbers and leverage to run the ball even if they crowd the box. Thomas Tyner is one of the fastest running backs in college football and not once did we run him to the edge. There must be a reason these decisions were made, and I would assume that we will never know what they are. We want to believe high ranking people in powerful positions have their reasons when something happens that seems ridiculous to casual observers. It is comforting to say "what do I know?" "I am not the coach, I am not there every day..." But as Hanlon's razor states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". while of course there is no malice in a football game plan, but the general idea is sound. Just because logic demands there has to a reason the seemingly obvious was not done, does not mean there is a reason.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Aug 31, 2017 12:04:53 GMT -8
As frustrating as Game One was... the season isn't exactly over. It feels like a regression, sure. It is in direct conflict with our expectations that a simplified offense would have the Beavs ready to play early in the year instead of misfiring and searching for chemistry. But teams come out flat sometimes. It happens, even with the best coaches. Struggles with chemistry and timing create uncertainty, uncertainty makes you a step slow and makes you look much worse than you really are. Some guys get shell-shocked, some start trying to do too much and end up out of position. I hated the play-calling against CSU. I get it that they thought there were some things there, with CSU walking one of their safeties down into the box and playing a 1-high scheme with the back 7, but I just don't think they did Luton any favors asking him to put the whole team on his back. I thought the whole idea with this spread option offense was to be able to get a hat on a hat and use numbers and leverage to run the ball even if they crowd the box. Thomas Tyner is one of the fastest running backs in college football and not once did we run him to the edge. There must be a reason these decisions were made, and I would assume that we will never know what they are. We want to believe high ranking people in powerful positions have their reasons when something happens that seems ridiculous to casual observers. It is comforting to say "what do I know?" "I am not the coach, I am not there every day..." But as Hanlon's razor states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". while of course there is no malice in a football game plan, but the general idea is sound. Just because logic demands there has to a reason the seemingly obvious was not done, does not mean there is a reason. I have Hanlon's Razor written on the wall in my office lol
|
|