|
Post by baseba1111 on Sept 11, 2017 10:06:13 GMT -8
Yeah, the team hates CGA. Jalen Moore was just refuting that idea on twitter last night - but I'm sure you know better. Using your own lack of logic... or lack thereof Ya, cuz Jalen speaks for each and every player. I think they all messaged him to tweet their feelings...
|
|
|
Post by eugenedave on Sept 11, 2017 21:59:16 GMT -8
Remember when Craig Robinson came in, completely slowed down the tempo, ground games to a halt, used a gimmicky D and won 50% of his games and made us all believe OSU could be decent at basketball again? Remember how rather than realize he had a a system that worked, and then went and completely recruited against that system and tried to run an up tempo style that saw us go from giving up 62.2 points per game in his second season (the fewest ppg an OSU team had allowed since 1985) to givng up 75.6 ppg in his final season? I feel like that's what's happening with Gary Andersen. Our rushing attempts the final four games of last season: 22/34/46/51. We were starting to find an identity. Not coincidentally, our record in games where we rush for 200 yards under Gary Andersen is 6-3. We are 1-17 when we don't. You guys aren't going to believe this, but we've only won one game under CGA when we've attempted more than 25 passes, and it was against IDAHO STATE. So what do we do this year? We come out and throw the god damn ball 47 times week one. Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Did we fool ourselves into thinking we needed to be a fast paced, up tempo offense to be competitive? How is that the case when we've proven that (at least under Gary Andersen) we are at our most successful when we take the air out of the football (apologies to Tom Brady) and run run run run run. Furthermore, we just got our ass handed to us by a team that just ran the ball 58 times against us. If you take out the last 64 yard run by Demry Croft, Minnesota averaged 3.3 yards per carry and still would've put up 41 points. KNOW WHO YOU ARE So is the answer as simple as RTDB (Sorry Giles, couldn't resist bring this acronym over from Pure Orange), Run the Damn Ball?
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on Sept 12, 2017 4:09:43 GMT -8
Remember when Craig Robinson came in, completely slowed down the tempo, ground games to a halt, used a gimmicky D and won 50% of his games and made us all believe OSU could be decent at basketball again? Remember how rather than realize he had a a system that worked, and then went and completely recruited against that system and tried to run an up tempo style that saw us go from giving up 62.2 points per game in his second season (the fewest ppg an OSU team had allowed since 1985) to givng up 75.6 ppg in his final season? I feel like that's what's happening with Gary Andersen. Our rushing attempts the final four games of last season: 22/34/46/51. We were starting to find an identity. Not coincidentally, our record in games where we rush for 200 yards under Gary Andersen is 6-3. We are 1-17 when we don't. You guys aren't going to believe this, but we've only won one game under CGA when we've attempted more than 25 passes, and it was against IDAHO STATE. So what do we do this year? We come out and throw the god damn ball 47 times week one. Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Did we fool ourselves into thinking we needed to be a fast paced, up tempo offense to be competitive? How is that the case when we've proven that (at least under Gary Andersen) we are at our most successful when we take the air out of the football (apologies to Tom Brady) and run run run run run. Furthermore, we just got our ass handed to us by a team that just ran the ball 58 times against us. If you take out the last 64 yard run by Demry Croft, Minnesota averaged 3.3 yards per carry and still would've put up 41 points. KNOW WHO YOU ARE So is the answer as simple as RTDB (Sorry Giles, couldn't resist bring this acronym over from Pure Orange), Run the Damn Ball? And, as I always say on 2nd and 4, "give it to him again, it ain't that heavy" Go Beavs!!
|
|
|
Post by grackle on Sept 12, 2017 5:08:11 GMT -8
How have we gotten to this dreaded place AGAIN?? Simple, we rushed out and hired an incompetent head coach who has assembled an incompetent program. Doesn't help that he can't recruit any better than MR, and probably not as well as MR.
Sorry, but it'll be years until we're competitive again. No more $$$ from me for FB until a decent head man takes over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 5:47:54 GMT -8
I fear GA caught a communicable disease from shaking the hand of Mark Helfrich after the CW. GA seems to have lost that crazy confidence he brought in with him. Hope he gets it back. No matter what happens he needs to go there with his guns blazing. Balls out. No fear. Make mistakes at 100 mph. There is nothing worse than a quiet, self-questioning leader.
The feeling of being a fan right now, i keep thinking about Apollo 13 and the gymbal lock phenomenon. Gary tried to take this program around the dark side of the moon and it feels like there is a helluva wobble now.
|
|
|
Post by rollotomasi on Sept 12, 2017 7:35:16 GMT -8
I fear GA caught a communicable disease from shaking the hand of Mark Helfrich after the CW. GA seems to have lost that crazy confidence he brought in with him. Hope he gets it back. No matter what happens he needs to go there with his guns blazing. Balls out. No fear. Make mistakes at 100 mph. There is nothing worse than a quiet, self-questioning leader. The feeling of being a fan right now, i keep thinking about Apollo 13 and the gymbal lock phenomenon. Gary tried to take this program around the dark side of the moon and it feels like there is a helluva wobble now. Apollo 11
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Sept 12, 2017 7:39:31 GMT -8
Remember when Craig Robinson came in, completely slowed down the tempo, ground games to a halt, used a gimmicky D and won 50% of his games and made us all believe OSU could be decent at basketball again? Remember how rather than realize he had a a system that worked, and then went and completely recruited against that system and tried to run an up tempo style that saw us go from giving up 62.2 points per game in his second season (the fewest ppg an OSU team had allowed since 1985) to givng up 75.6 ppg in his final season? I feel like that's what's happening with Gary Andersen. Our rushing attempts the final four games of last season: 22/34/46/51. We were starting to find an identity. Not coincidentally, our record in games where we rush for 200 yards under Gary Andersen is 6-3. We are 1-17 when we don't. You guys aren't going to believe this, but we've only won one game under CGA when we've attempted more than 25 passes, and it was against IDAHO STATE. So what do we do this year? We come out and throw the god damn ball 47 times week one. Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Did we fool ourselves into thinking we needed to be a fast paced, up tempo offense to be competitive? How is that the case when we've proven that (at least under Gary Andersen) we are at our most successful when we take the air out of the football (apologies to Tom Brady) and run run run run run. Furthermore, we just got our ass handed to us by a team that just ran the ball 58 times against us. If you take out the last 64 yard run by Demry Croft, Minnesota averaged 3.3 yards per carry and still would've put up 41 points. KNOW WHO YOU ARE So is the answer as simple as RTDB (Sorry Giles, couldn't resist bring this acronym over from Pure Orange), Run the Damn Ball? No, that doesn't fix the defense, but it sure wouldn't help hurt. Pierce and Nall are both excellent running backs who are hard to tackle. Running the ball keeps the clock moving, keeps our D off the field. Look, I would love it if we were more balanced, but the simple fact is we aren't a very skilled passing team. People have been noting since game one that Luton throws a nice ball, but isn't very accurate. I'm fairly certain we haven't attempted one screen pass all season. There's just not a lot of complexity to what we do, so let's just line up and (to borrow a line from GA) "punch them in the mouth." I don't get why we're trying to be cute. I don't get why we try to exploit the perimeter run game when what we do best is run between the tackles. This isn't a new problem by the way. After Nall ran for 122 against Colorado, he didn't record a single carry the next week against Utah because "we didn't think we had an advantage." I think we do way too much adjusting our plan to fit the teams we play and not enough of making teams adjust to us. I'd rather go down swinging with our strengths than trying to fool people by doing s%#t we aren't great at.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 12, 2017 7:44:50 GMT -8
So is the answer as simple as RTDB (Sorry Giles, couldn't resist bring this acronym over from Pure Orange), Run the Damn Ball? No, that doesn't fix the defense, but it sure wouldn't help hurt. Pierce and Nall are both excellent running backs who are hard to tackle. Running the ball keeps the clock moving, keeps our D off the field. Look, I would love it if we were more balanced, but the simple fact is we aren't a very skilled passing team. People have been noting since game one that Luton throws a nice ball, but isn't very accurate. I'm fairly certain we haven't attempted one screen pass all season. There's just not a lot of complexity to what we do, so let's just line up and (to borrow a line from GA) "punch them in the mouth." I don't get why we're trying to be cute. I don't get why we try to exploit the perimeter run game when what we do best is run between the tackles. This isn't a new problem by the way. After Nall ran for 122 against Colorado, he didn't record a single carry the next week against Utah because "we didn't think we had an advantage." I think we do way too much adjusting our plan to fit the teams we play and not enough of making teams adjust to us. I'd rather go down swinging with our strengths than trying to fool people by doing s%#t we aren't great at. It is sad, in a painful way, that our worse games are when we attempt to "game plan" in some cute fashion. I agree that Nall, for some reason, look heistant this year a bit. Probably because his line is garbage and he is trying not to die... but not using your best offensive weapon a majority of the time is the height of lunacy. Nall should have no fewer than 20 carries a game, minimum. and Pierce should have 10 or more as well.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 12, 2017 7:56:27 GMT -8
"Look, I would love it if we were more balanced, but the simple fact is we aren't a very skilled passing team. People have been noting since game one that Luton throws a nice ball, but isn't very accurate. I'm fairly certain we haven't attempted one screen pass all season. There's just not a lot of complexity to what we do, so let's just line up and (to borrow a line from GA) "punch them in the mouth." I don't get why we're trying to be cute. I don't get why we try to exploit the perimeter run game when what we do best is run between the tackles. This isn't a new problem by the way. After Nall ran for 122 against Colorado, he didn't record a single carry the next week against Utah because "we didn't think we had an advantage."
I think we do way too much adjusting our plan to fit the teams we play and not enough of making teams adjust to us. I'd rather go down swinging with our strengths than trying to fool people by doing s%#t we aren't great at."
It seems they do so much adjusting they never really ever get good at anything. For two seasons GA preached an offense featuring a QB that that could beat teams with his head arms and feet, then as soon as they start doing that they go another direction. Now I could understand that maybe there's a decision going a different direction might pay off down the line, but when a team that desperately needs a taste of success starts to taste it maybe it's a good idea to continue and get good at it, then add in the other dimension to the game rather than dump what's starting to work for a whole new experiment.
As nabeav points out, this staff has at times made changes week to week... after actually having some success. I can understand making changes when it's obviously not working, but when it's starting to succeed maybe it should continue to be developed?
|
|
|
Post by rollotomasi on Sept 12, 2017 8:06:38 GMT -8
No, that doesn't fix the defense, but it sure wouldn't help hurt. Pierce and Nall are both excellent running backs who are hard to tackle. Running the ball keeps the clock moving, keeps our D off the field. Look, I would love it if we were more balanced, but the simple fact is we aren't a very skilled passing team. People have been noting since game one that Luton throws a nice ball, but isn't very accurate. I'm fairly certain we haven't attempted one screen pass all season. There's just not a lot of complexity to what we do, so let's just line up and (to borrow a line from GA) "punch them in the mouth." I don't get why we're trying to be cute. I don't get why we try to exploit the perimeter run game when what we do best is run between the tackles. This isn't a new problem by the way. After Nall ran for 122 against Colorado, he didn't record a single carry the next week against Utah because "we didn't think we had an advantage." I think we do way too much adjusting our plan to fit the teams we play and not enough of making teams adjust to us. I'd rather go down swinging with our strengths than trying to fool people by doing s%#t we aren't great at. It is sad, in a painful way, that our worse games are when we attempt to "game plan" in some cute fashion. I agree that Nall, for some reason, look heistant this year a bit. Probably because his line is garbage and he is trying not to die... but not using your best offensive weapon a majority of the time is the height of lunacy. Nall should have no fewer than 20 carries a game, minimum. and Pierce should have 10 or more as well. If Nall looks hesitant, it's due to the nature of the offense installed this year. In their infinite wisdom, the coaches have chosen to employ more of a "spread" rushing attack (with a QB who will never run, wtf?) whereby the run is slow to develop so as to let the QB get a read on the defender. This is instead of giving the War Daddy the ball with a head of steam and letting him do what he does best - run over, around, and through people.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Sept 12, 2017 8:15:11 GMT -8
So is the answer as simple as RTDB (Sorry Giles, couldn't resist bring this acronym over from Pure Orange), Run the Damn Ball? No, that doesn't fix the defense, but it sure wouldn't help hurt. Pierce and Nall are both excellent running backs who are hard to tackle. Running the ball keeps the clock moving, keeps our D off the field. Look, I would love it if we were more balanced, but the simple fact is we aren't a very skilled passing team. People have been noting since game one that Luton throws a nice ball, but isn't very accurate. I'm fairly certain we haven't attempted one screen pass all season. There's just not a lot of complexity to what we do, so let's just line up and (to borrow a line from GA) "punch them in the mouth." I don't get why we're trying to be cute. I don't get why we try to exploit the perimeter run game when what we do best is run between the tackles. This isn't a new problem by the way. After Nall ran for 122 against Colorado, he didn't record a single carry the next week against Utah because "we didn't think we had an advantage." I think we do way too much adjusting our plan to fit the teams we play and not enough of making teams adjust to us. I'd rather go down swinging with our strengths than trying to fool people by doing s%#t we aren't great at. We definitely ran a screen pass in the 2nd half vs Minny. It fooled me, because I was "oh s%#t, our o-line completely whiffed their blocks!" and then I realized it was that old trick play "the screen pass". I think we gained 5 yards on it.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 12, 2017 8:18:36 GMT -8
I thought an incomplete screen was done in the first series of the game, could be wrong about when it was but there were definitely a couple attempts. I'm pretty sure one got at least a few yards.
|
|
|
Post by tennesseebeaver on Sept 12, 2017 17:29:30 GMT -8
One cure..... JOHNATHON SMITH. Bring back the swagger!
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Sept 12, 2017 19:29:30 GMT -8
How have we gotten to this dreaded place AGAIN?? Simple, we rushed out and hired an incompetent head coach who has assembled an incompetent program. Doesn't help that he can't recruit any better than MR, and probably not as well as MR. Sorry, but it'll be years until we're competitive again. No more $$$ from me for FB until a decent head man takes over. Everyone must certainly do with their own money what they feel is best, but I wonder how giving the football program less money will make it easier for them to improve. Call me naive, but I tend to believe that the powers that be are capable of recognizing a problem without the fans needing to cut their donations to make them see it. Also, I tend to believe that fans who vote with their wallets find it easier to cut their donations than to increase them when things go well. Did fans increase their donations, to show their support, after the Beavers had gotten within one win of the Rose Bowl in 2008, or did they cut them because of the blowout loss to the ducks? Did fans increase their donations, to show their support, after the Beavers had made it into the Top 10 Nationally in 2012, or did they cut them because they felt the coaches were responsible for the season-ending loss to Texas in the Alamo Bowl? I started giving money to the school in 1997. It certainly wasn't because we had a winning program. It was to *help* us try to build a winning program. And since I was donating anyway, I decided to buy season tickets. I may not keep buying tickets if family stuff makes it easier not to go to games, but I've never felt that stopping my donation would help the team improve. As for the "dreaded place" we are in, we've been there before and we've bounced back even without changing coaches. Sometimes the dreaded place is just an unfortunate glitch. Looking for new coaches every time is not necessarily the answer.
|
|
|
Post by COBeav on Sept 13, 2017 5:49:47 GMT -8
Everyone must certainly do with their own money what they feel is best, but I wonder how giving the football program less money will make it easier for them to improve. Call me naive, but I tend to believe that the powers that be are capable of recognizing a problem without the fans needing to cut their donations to make them see it. Also, I tend to believe that fans who vote with their wallets find it easier to cut their donations than to increase them when things go well. Did fans increase their donations, to show their support, after the Beavers had gotten within one win of the Rose Bowl in 2008, or did they cut them because of the blowout loss to the ducks? Did fans increase their donations, to show their support, after the Beavers had made it into the Top 10 Nationally in 2012, or did they cut them because they felt the coaches were responsible for the season-ending loss to Texas in the Alamo Bowl? I started giving money to the school in 1997. It certainly wasn't because we had a winning program. It was to *help* us try to build a winning program. And since I was donating anyway, I decided to buy season tickets. I may not keep buying tickets if family stuff makes it easier not to go to games, but I've never felt that stopping my donation would help the team improve. As for the "dreaded place" we are in, we've been there before and we've bounced back even without changing coaches. Sometimes the dreaded place is just an unfortunate glitch. Looking for new coaches every time is not necessarily the answer. Hey Mike .... you bring up some good points, but you tie your argument into single games or time, and I believe giving (or not giving) is more complicated than that. You see I did increase my donation levels considerably as the team improved in the mid-to-late 2000s. We went from 2 west side fairly inexpensive seats to 4 east side seats in section 115 that quickly escalated in cost from $1000 per seat to $1600 per seat over the course of a couple years. At some point as the Riley era wound down, I dropped 2 of those expensive seats and got 2 up in Valley View where no donation is required. Things continued to go downhill around then and we chose to move from section 115 to section 120 where seats only cost $400 each as I couldn't continue justifying the expenditure for the product put out on the field. I'm not sure how I can express my individual displeasure with an inferior product unless it's with my wallet. In comes GA and suddenly I'm more excited as a fan especially after seeing progress and a CW win last year, and this year I drop the Valley View seats and go back to 4 seats in our section again significantly (at least to me) increasing my donation level. So yes, we did increase our donation level as the team improved --- just as we decreased our donation level as the team was having significant issues. I'm not sure if we're the only people who do this kind of thing, but there's no other way individuals can make a statement to an athletic department that seems to have a tin ear than by increasing donations when things are going well, and decreasing them when things aren't going so well. Yes, it might be counter intuitive, but the theory of large groups moving an institution by decreasing donations may be the only way we can get through to the powers that be. If you have a serious suggestion about how I, a simple fan who buys 4 seats a year and isn't a major donor can have some other impact, then I'm all ears. Should we once again become a competitive, winning football program that competes year in a year out ... I just may move my 4 seats back to section 115 and increase my donation level once again. Until then, however, my next move will be to drop 2 of my seats and their corresponding donation because I can't even give them away these days. Am I the only one who does it this way?
|
|