2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,712
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Aug 29, 2017 22:02:36 GMT -8
I go back to St. Dennis' thoughts on the subject: "We need a tougher non-conference like we need a hole in the head." : : why did we so eagerly move this game up to late August, when that date in mid September following a warm-up game against PSU and then a challenge against Minnesota was so appealing? Heck, in another thread we were complaining about the temperature... well, what do you want from August in Colorado? Ain't anybody at the AD's office ever open an almanac? it is hot as balls every freaking day in the summer! What was our benefit? National exposure? on a third tier, at best, channel that nobody actually got? It isn't like we were jumping for the ESPN game or anything like some other moves we have made. Slightly OT, but knowing CSU was returning so many starters and had ended the year strong, what WAS the reasoning behind moving our schedule around? It seemed like breaking in a new quarterback/team/scheme/staff at home against PSU would be of more value (to fans and team) than starting with CSU.... The narrative I heard was it gave us a second bye, but that may be putting lipstick on the pig. I sure wondered about that move the moment it was announced. In all fairness, maybe we didn't know at the time the change was made that we would have a new QB at the helm, but I would still think starting with PSU would favor us in the season.....with our road record I know we couldn't be cocky about a sure win...... Here's hoping we can start the season strong with PSU this weekend, like we should have all along. Go Beavers!
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Aug 29, 2017 22:07:52 GMT -8
FWIW, I'd just like to point out that we have been the victims of unfortunate timing in playing OOC games vs Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU, Penn State, and Boise State. In all of those "series", our games have basically coincided with the "glory years" of said team's history (or recent history in the case of Penn State). It's like getting Oregon State in an OOC game was the elixir teams needed to "show up" on the national scene. That said, I've never been a fan of the "body bag" one-and-done games that Bob liked to schedule. With that many examples over that many seasons, hard to believe it was pure coincidence. If memory serves Louisville ended up 9-3 in 2005 in spite losing several key players during the season. When healthy the 2005 Louisville team may have been the best of all the teams mentioned above. Louisville went 11-1 in 2004 and 12-1 in 2006, but their 2005 squad before the injuries was the better all around team.
|
|
|
Post by biggieorange on Aug 30, 2017 10:17:01 GMT -8
For me, I'm just stoked that GA has made getting stronger a priority. /s Both or our lines got man-handled last weekend. Seriously, 3 years into that priority and that's what we get? To me, that's the bigger failure than the QB fiascos, shifting offensive identities, and defensive schemes that don't fit the personnel. Even if the CSU's of the world run around us, shouldn't we have at least been able to push them around a bit?! Yeah this was heartbreaking to watch. Worse when it was mentioned several times how CSUs Oline is undersized.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 30, 2017 11:26:42 GMT -8
For me, I'm just stoked that GA has made getting stronger a priority. /s Both or our lines got man-handled last weekend. Seriously, 3 years into that priority and that's what we get? To me, that's the bigger failure than the QB fiascos, shifting offensive identities, and defensive schemes that don't fit the personnel. Even if the CSU's of the world run around us, shouldn't we have at least been able to push them around a bit?! Yeah this was heartbreaking to watch. Worse when it was mentioned several times how CSUs Oline is undersized. Not to start a versus debate, but top to bottom, even in our bad years, players were top to bottom stronger and better conditioned with the old regime. In, what I do not feel is a coincidence, it should be noted that Nebraska won a whole lot of their games last year with second half and 4th quarter surges. That is a strong sign of a team in good shape, staying the course, wearing the other guys down. Well more than half their wins were games they were tied, trailing, or only up slightly at half. more to being strong than just squatting a whole lot of weight.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Aug 30, 2017 11:31:08 GMT -8
Yeah this was heartbreaking to watch. Worse when it was mentioned several times how CSUs Oline is undersized. Not to start a versus debate, but top to bottom, even in our bad years, players were top to bottom stronger and better conditioned with the old regime. In, what I do not feel is a coincidence, it should be noted that Nebraska won a whole lot of their games last year with second half and 4th quarter surges. That is a strong sign of a team in good shape, staying the course, wearing the other guys down. Well more than half their wins were games they were tied, trailing, or only up slightly at half. more to being strong than just squatting a whole lot of weight. LOL. Anytime someone says..."not to do xxxxxx, but xxxxxx" you know what's coming.
|
|
sabzi
Freshman
Posts: 157
|
Post by sabzi on Aug 30, 2017 11:58:09 GMT -8
Yeah this was heartbreaking to watch. Worse when it was mentioned several times how CSUs Oline is undersized. Not to start a versus debate, but top to bottom, even in our bad years, players were top to bottom stronger and better conditioned with the old regime. In, what I do not feel is a coincidence, it should be noted that Nebraska won a whole lot of their games last year with second half and 4th quarter surges. That is a strong sign of a team in good shape, staying the course, wearing the other guys down. Well more than half their wins were games they were tied, trailing, or only up slightly at half. more to being strong than just squatting a whole lot of weight.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Aug 30, 2017 12:20:47 GMT -8
Yeah this was heartbreaking to watch. Worse when it was mentioned several times how CSUs Oline is undersized. Not to start a versus debate, but top to bottom, even in our bad years, players were top to bottom stronger and better conditioned with the old regime. In, what I do not feel is a coincidence, it should be noted that Nebraska won a whole lot of their games last year with second half and 4th quarter surges. That is a strong sign of a team in good shape, staying the course, wearing the other guys down. Well more than half their wins were games they were tied, trailing, or only up slightly at half. more to being strong than just squatting a whole lot of weight. I do not know and could care less about weight room #s as on this board they are all hearsay/at least 2nd hand news/coach speak. But, announcing publicly that we needed to get stronger was what rubbed me the wrong way from day one. First, it's pure and utter coach speak that all coaches believe and is a constant in every program. The strength and conditioning coach/staff isn't there to maintain the status quo! The new regime had not even begun to implement their full conditioning/weight program and yet it seemed like a complete evaluation of every player had been done. Second, it was repeated over and over to the detriment of the kids and furthermore it was just not smart! Anything that can be interpreted as a slap in the face to a former regime should be avoided at all costs. There are loyal players who will be upset at losing a coach/mentor. There are loyal fans looking for early "cracks" to pry wider. GA was and has not been very wise in his public statements. He reminds of a guy who needs that boastful public persona to feel good about himself... hoping everyone else also believes the hype. Third, it plainly obvious that either the 25 teams we've played have superior strength and conditioning programs or were not really stronger?! For the most part the "look" of our 25 games are finesse "football" (Nall might have more 'pancakes' than our OL). Their kids must be naturally stronger, buy in/work harder, or both, as there is no evidence (other than coach speak) on the field of play that we have made any strides in being "stronger" and in better shape. Something has to give here, if we are making such great strides we are either still a really weak -ass bunch or we're indeed stronger and not getting coached properly to utilize it!? As my completely "unsavvy" football partner in crime will ask at least once a game, "why is there none of our jerseys pushing their jerseys out of the way?".
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Aug 30, 2017 12:21:37 GMT -8
Not to start a versus debate, but top to bottom, even in our bad years, players were top to bottom stronger and better conditioned with the old regime. In, what I do not feel is a coincidence, it should be noted that Nebraska won a whole lot of their games last year with second half and 4th quarter surges. That is a strong sign of a team in good shape, staying the course, wearing the other guys down. Well more than half their wins were games they were tied, trailing, or only up slightly at half. more to being strong than just squatting a whole lot of weight. LOL. Anytime someone says..."not to do xxxxxx, but xxxxxx" you know what's coming. you caught me... <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 30, 2017 13:14:28 GMT -8
: why did we so eagerly move this game up to late August, when that date in mid September following a warm-up game against PSU and then a challenge against Minnesota was so appealing? Heck, in another thread we were complaining about the temperature... well, what do you want from August in Colorado? Ain't anybody at the AD's office ever open an almanac? it is hot as balls every freaking day in the summer! What was our benefit? National exposure? on a third tier, at best, channel that nobody actually got? It isn't like we were jumping for the ESPN game or anything like some other moves we have made. Slightly OT, but knowing CSU was returning so many starters and had ended the year strong, what WAS the reasoning behind moving our schedule around? It seemed like breaking in a new quarterback/team/scheme/staff at home against PSU would be of more value (to fans and team) than starting with CSU.... The narrative I heard was it gave us a second bye, but that may be putting lipstick on the pig. I sure wondered about that move the moment it was announced. In all fairness, maybe we didn't know at the time the change was made that we would have a new QB at the helm, but I would still think starting with PSU would favor us in the season.....with our road record I know we couldn't be cocky about a sure win...... Here's hoping we can start the season strong with PSU this weekend, like we should have all along. Go Beavers! Oregon State gets two byes. USC gets zero byes, unless they win the South. Then, they would get a bye before the Pac-12 Championship Game. Oregon State also got an extra week of practice out of the deal. New quarterback or not, playing in Death Valley or Pike's Peak or not, Oregon State should not lose to a Mountain West team by 31 points. The Beavers should not be allowing 58 points, the most points scored by a non-Power 5 against Oregon State in Beaver history. The move should have worked out and given Oregon State two weeks to prep for a brutal stretch of Washington, @usc, and Colorado. If Oregon State wins one of those three, it is 100% worth it. If the Beavers do not go bowling (which looks like a long-shot at this point), that extra week of practice is great.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 30, 2017 13:21:26 GMT -8
Just no more. I don't want to see blue turf. It hurts my eyes. I don't want to deal with Fresno State fans. Just no. Just say no. I want to go kick the crap out of Boise St. Fresneck? Pass. San Diego State and UNLV are great places to play. Boise is awful. Anyone want to play in New Mexico?
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Aug 30, 2017 13:37:05 GMT -8
For me, I'm just stoked that GA has made getting stronger a priority. /s Both or our lines got man-handled last weekend. Seriously, 3 years into that priority and that's what we get? To me, that's the bigger failure than the QB fiascos, shifting offensive identities, and defensive schemes that don't fit the personnel. Even if the CSU's of the world run around us, shouldn't we have at least been able to push them around a bit?! I think it shows that there is a lot more to football than just strength (and weight). Perhaps we focus too much on strength numbers when our guys should be putting in a healthy dose of speed and agility drills.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Aug 30, 2017 13:46:50 GMT -8
I want to go kick the crap out of Boise St. Fresneck? Pass. San Diego State and UNLV are great places to play. Boise is awful. Anyone want to play in New Mexico? I like Albuquerque. It's like Denver if it was 10 to 20% of it's current size.
|
|
2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,712
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Aug 30, 2017 13:55:50 GMT -8
Slightly OT, but knowing CSU was returning so many starters and had ended the year strong, what WAS the reasoning behind moving our schedule around? It seemed like breaking in a new quarterback/team/scheme/staff at home against PSU would be of more value (to fans and team) than starting with CSU.... The narrative I heard was it gave us a second bye, but that may be putting lipstick on the pig. I sure wondered about that move the moment it was announced. In all fairness, maybe we didn't know at the time the change was made that we would have a new QB at the helm, but I would still think starting with PSU would favor us in the season.....with our road record I know we couldn't be cocky about a sure win...... Here's hoping we can start the season strong with PSU this weekend, like we should have all along. Go Beavers! Oregon State gets two byes. USC gets zero byes, unless they win the South. Then, they would get a bye before the Pac-12 Championship Game. Oregon State also got an extra week of practice out of the deal. New quarterback or not, playing in Death Valley or Pike's Peak or not, Oregon State should not lose to a Mountain West team by 31 points. The Beavers should not be allowing 58 points, the most points scored by a non-Power 5 against Oregon State in Beaver history. The move should have worked out and given Oregon State two weeks to prep for a brutal stretch of Washington, @usc, and Colorado. If Oregon State wins one of those three, it is 100% worth it. If the Beavers do not go bowling (which looks like a long-shot at this point), that extra week of practice is great. I agree and disagree with you. You are correct that the Beavers should not have lost by 31 and allowed 58 points to be scored. But I still think CSU on the road first game represented more of a challenge than PSU at home first game, when setting the schedule. Especially, as I noted, when we are breaking in a new quarterback/team/scheme/staff, and they were not. I also (from our current vantage point) do not see how our conference affiliation somehow gives us an edge in games (at this point in our evolution) - CSU facilities are on par with ours, their athletes seemed to keep up with ours, etc. (sadly it didn't help us against the EWUs and Sac States either......and I am not going to comment on coaching)- and again, PSU seemed to be the least challenging opponent on our schedule this season, and hence a logical starting point. I also agree with you that if all of this translates out to a W in our Washington, @usc, and Colorado stretch, it will have been worth it (though one could argue the progression afforded by starting with the least challenging opponent and growing from there aids in becoming capable enough to deal with Washington, @usc, and Colorado later as well). At the end of the day, we helped CSU make history, and none of the sort either you nor I appreciate.... (though my sons tried to cheer me up by pointing out we scored the first points ever in the new CSU stadium......it didn't work). Go Beavers!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Aug 30, 2017 14:08:01 GMT -8
Oregon State gets two byes. USC gets zero byes, unless they win the South. Then, they would get a bye before the Pac-12 Championship Game. Oregon State also got an extra week of practice out of the deal. New quarterback or not, playing in Death Valley or Pike's Peak or not, Oregon State should not lose to a Mountain West team by 31 points. The Beavers should not be allowing 58 points, the most points scored by a non-Power 5 against Oregon State in Beaver history. The move should have worked out and given Oregon State two weeks to prep for a brutal stretch of Washington, @usc, and Colorado. If Oregon State wins one of those three, it is 100% worth it. If the Beavers do not go bowling (which looks like a long-shot at this point), that extra week of practice is great. I agree and disagree with you. You are correct that the Beavers should not have lost by 31 and allowed 58 points to be scored. But I still think CSU on the road first game represented more of a challenge than PSU at home first game, when setting the schedule. Especially, as I noted, when we are breaking in a new quarterback/team/scheme/staff, and they were not. I also (from our current vantage point) do not see how our conference affiliation somehow gives us an edge in games (at this point in our evolution) - CSU facilities are on par with ours, their athletes seemed to keep up with ours, etc. (sadly it didn't help us against the EWUs and Sac States either......and I am not going to comment on coaching)- and again, PSU seemed to be the least challenging opponent on our schedule this season, and hence a logical starting point. I also agree with you that if all of this translates out to a W in our Washington, @usc, and Colorado stretch, it will have been worth it (though one could argue the progression afforded by starting with the least challenging opponent and growing from there aids in becoming capable enough to deal with Washington, @usc, and Colorado later as well). At the end of the day, we helped CSU make history, and none of the sort either you nor I appreciate.... (though my sons tried to cheer me up by pointing out we scored the first points ever in the new CSU stadium......it didn't work). Go Beavers! But Oregon State still gets the Portland State game. As it was, Oregon State had to play seven consecutive weeks and six against teams that played in bowl games last year. Imagine Portland State, Minnesota, @ Washington State, @ Colorado State, Washington, @ USC, and Colorado all wihtout a bye. At this point, if you think that Oregon State would have beat Colorado State between a road game in Pullman and a home game against Washington, I have a bridge that you may be interested in purchasing. If you think that a 31-point loss and 58 points allowed is something, play that schedule and see what Washington and @ USC would have done. No, Oregon State gets Portland State to right the ship for Minnesota. Minnesota should be a win. They were one of the most dysfunctional teams in America by the end of last year. The Gophers have a new coach and lost their starting QB, both corners, and most of their line. With the bye, Oregon State can go 2-1 and completely focus on Washington State without worrying about a trip to Fort Collins to follow. Then, Oregon State gets a bye to gear up for Washington, @ USC, and Colorado. And by God, that bye week cannot get here fast enough.
|
|