Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 14:27:46 GMT -8
coaching succession matters.
Think about Riley benefitting from Pettibone's offensive linemen and Rocky Long's defensive players. Riley's first OS team only won 3 games but it was probably better than the current Beaver squad. Better lines, better run game, better defense. Didn't quite have the skill players for his passing offense yet but all in all Riley had some building blocks. I hope Anderson recruits many linemen in his next class in the offhand chance some of them pan out when he is gone.
|
|
|
Post by gobeavs92 on Sept 17, 2017 15:16:55 GMT -8
Ok, so quick question; Jeff Tedford was the first person showing major interest right after the Beaver HC job was available. Knowing that, would you still want a guy like Baldwin or Tedford? Go Beavs! I am aware of Tedford's interest. I wanted Baldwin. Would have hired Tedford over Andersen though. Andersen never excited me. The only way I'd even consider hiring a head coach with a defensive background is if I believed they had a dominant defensive system they would install (Andersen did NOT have this) AND I knew they were opening to hiring someone to run the offense that isn't someone just following them around (Andersen clearly wasn't gonna do that either). But at the end of the day, I would have hired Baldwin. I'll take a hungry up and coming coach who hasn't had a major job yet over a guy who is on the downhill side of their coaching career and already had their major job in almost every realistic hiring situation for OSU. I met Baldwin about 10 years ago at a BBQ and had some football related discussions with him (I was coaching high school at the time and a family member was a strength and conditioning coach a Central Washington when he was there); was very impressed with him. Nothing has changed my mind in the last decade. He would succeed at OSU. Both of us are ex high school coaches then! I disagree about taking Baldwin, and I definitely wouldn't assume that Tedford isn't "hungry". The same thing could be said that experience (especially in this league as a HC, which Tedford has) is a better qualifier then just being young and "up and coming". In fact, I would argue that one of the best coaches to be here at Oregon State was older and had a lot of experience when he got here, in Dennis Erickson. No matter what your thoughts are on DE, he has had the best season here at Oregon State record wise and brought in some of the best players to ever put on a Beaver uni. Again, this is all moot. CGA will likely not be replaced anytime soon! Go Beavs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 15:59:56 GMT -8
I am aware of Tedford's interest. I wanted Baldwin. Would have hired Tedford over Andersen though. Andersen never excited me. The only way I'd even consider hiring a head coach with a defensive background is if I believed they had a dominant defensive system they would install (Andersen did NOT have this) AND I knew they were opening to hiring someone to run the offense that isn't someone just following them around (Andersen clearly wasn't gonna do that either). But at the end of the day, I would have hired Baldwin. I'll take a hungry up and coming coach who hasn't had a major job yet over a guy who is on the downhill side of their coaching career and already had their major job in almost every realistic hiring situation for OSU. I met Baldwin about 10 years ago at a BBQ and had some football related discussions with him (I was coaching high school at the time and a family member was a strength and conditioning coach a Central Washington when he was there); was very impressed with him. Nothing has changed my mind in the last decade. He would succeed at OSU. Both of us are ex high school coaches then! I disagree about taking Baldwin, and I definitely wouldn't assume that Tedford isn't "hungry". The same thing could be said that experience (especially in this league as a HC, which Tedford has) is a better qualifier then just being young and "up and coming". In fact, I would argue that one of the best coaches to be here at Oregon State was older and had a lot of experience when he got here, in Dennis Erickson. No matter what your thoughts are on DE, he has had the best season here at Oregon State record wise and brought in some of the best players to ever put on a Beaver uni. Again, this is all moot. CGA will likely not be replaced anytime soon! Go Beavs! I don't disagree on Erickson but I'd argue he is different than Tedford. I'm not positive but I think the number of coaches who spent 8+ years at a P5 program, got fired, and then went on to have success at another P5 program could probably be counted without me needing to take my shoes off. I didn't say he wasn't hungry, I just can't think of many examples of that working. Another point I want to make in JS's favor is that I do think that sometimes an alum makes the best salesman to both recruits and boosters. Alums do seem to succeed at their alma maters often. If you google coaches coaching at their alma mater you get a list of quality coaches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 16:03:07 GMT -8
Both of us are ex high school coaches then! I disagree about taking Baldwin, and I definitely wouldn't assume that Tedford isn't "hungry". The same thing could be said that experience (especially in this league as a HC, which Tedford has) is a better qualifier then just being young and "up and coming". In fact, I would argue that one of the best coaches to be here at Oregon State was older and had a lot of experience when he got here, in Dennis Erickson. No matter what your thoughts are on DE, he has had the best season here at Oregon State record wise and brought in some of the best players to ever put on a Beaver uni. Again, this is all moot. CGA will likely not be replaced anytime soon! Go Beavs! I don't disagree on Erickson but I'd argue he is different than Tedford. I'm not positive but I think the number of coaches who spent 8+ years at a P5 program, got fired, and then went on to have success at another P5 program could probably be counted without me needing to take my shoes off. I didn't say he wasn't hungry, I just can't think of many examples of that working. Another point I want to make in JS's favor is that I do think that sometimes an alum makes the best salesman to both recruits and boosters. Alums do seem to succeed at their alma maters often. If you google coaches coaching at their alma mater you get a list of quality coaches. Right, it's hard enough to catch lightning in a bottle the first time. If you get a coach who is energetic and innovative you have a chance. I think GA is half of that but we don't seem to have half a chance.
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Sept 17, 2017 20:15:42 GMT -8
That's absurd. By no objective manner do we have better talent than CAL. Just about every post by ee1990 is absurd. SaveSaveBlah blah blah, that's the refrain of someone who can't be bothered to do any research before making up an opinion that suits them. CAL finished below OS in recruiting rank last year for the first time in, well, I only went back 11 years.
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Sept 17, 2017 20:41:54 GMT -8
Just about every post by ee1990 is absurd. SaveSaveBlah blah blah, that's the refrain of someone who can't be bothered to do any research before making up an opinion that suits them. CAL finished below OS in recruiting rank last year for the first time in, well, I only went back 11 years. Did you cross reference recruiting classes with players on roster? If not your "research" is incomplete and therefore useless in the context you're trying to use it in. Cal's been the toughest in P12 on academic entrance standards for athletes. They tightened the requirements further in recent years. They started a walk on RB last night, does that sound like talent rich team to you? Or put it this way, do you think we have 3 or 4 running backs who could beat out a walk on?
|
|
|
Post by snohobeav on Sept 17, 2017 21:26:03 GMT -8
Another example of coaching falling short, from Kerry Eggers' article: "On the other hand, a couple of OSU decisions at the end of the first half defy logic. First, after punter Nick Porebski's mishandled snap gave Washington State the ball at the OSU 26 in the final minute, Wazzu had it third-and-goal at the 3. Cornerback Jay Irvine was called for pass interference, which gave the Cougars the ball first-and-goal at the 2. On the next play, Falk hit Isaiah Johnson-Mack for the touchdown with four seconds left. But by then, OSU's cover guys should have been instructed to do anything — grab, hold, whatever — to the WSU defenders to prevent a catch. The worst that could happen was another P.I. call and another first-and-goal." portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/372496-256176-luton-injury-latest-blow-to-osu
|
|
|
Post by ee1990 on Sept 19, 2017 11:19:00 GMT -8
Blah blah blah, that's the refrain of someone who can't be bothered to do any research before making up an opinion that suits them. CAL finished below OS in recruiting rank last year for the first time in, well, I only went back 11 years. Did you cross reference recruiting classes with players on roster? If not your "research" is incomplete and therefore useless in the context you're trying to use it in. Cal's been the toughest in P12 on academic entrance standards for athletes. They tightened the requirements further in recent years. They started a walk on RB last night, does that sound like talent rich team to you? Or put it this way, do you think we have 3 or 4 running backs who could beat out a walk on? And now you're picking and choosing a single position when literally the metrics by which talent is measured indicate the opposite. Whatever, we're turning on each other now because our coach sucks. I'm done with this particular argument. You all know my stance. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Sept 19, 2017 16:45:02 GMT -8
Did you cross reference recruiting classes with players on roster? If not your "research" is incomplete and therefore useless in the context you're trying to use it in. Cal's been the toughest in P12 on academic entrance standards for athletes. They tightened the requirements further in recent years. They started a walk on RB last night, does that sound like talent rich team to you? Or put it this way, do you think we have 3 or 4 running backs who could beat out a walk on? And now you're picking and choosing a single position when literally the metrics by which talent is measured indicate the opposite. Whatever, we're turning on each other now because our coach sucks. I'm done with this particular argument. You all know my stance. Best wishes. What metrics are you referring to? Have you watched Cal play this year? Where do you clearly see more talent? What I see are players who are where they're supposed to be and execute fundamentals at a high level. I didn't see any size or speed advantages at any positions compared to their last two opponents. Their QB is identical to Marcus McMaryion in size and build. Their walk on RB looks about 185 pounds. None of their receivers came close to the wr athletes Ole Misses fielded. And their O-line is heavily aided by scheme and tempo. What you see watching Cal is not a team with better athletes than we have, you see an offense helped immensely by the scheme, play calling, and tempo they use. Defensively you see smart players who are well prepared(stick to their assignments), play together as a unit, and execute basic fundamentals like open field tackles at a high level. All those things boil down to coaching, coaching, coaching.
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Sept 20, 2017 8:51:55 GMT -8
Ok, so quick question; Jeff Tedford was the first person showing major interest right after the Beaver HC job was available. Knowing that, would you still want a guy like Baldwin or Tedford? Go Beavs! I am aware of Tedford's interest. I wanted Baldwin. Would have hired Tedford over Andersen though. Andersen never excited me. The only way I'd even consider hiring a head coach with a defensive background is if I believed they had a dominant defensive system they would install (Andersen did NOT have this) AND I knew they were opening to hiring someone to run the offense that isn't someone just following them around (Andersen clearly wasn't gonna do that either). But at the end of the day, I would have hired Baldwin. I'll take a hungry up and coming coach who hasn't had a major job yet over a guy who is on the downhill side of their coaching career and already had their major job in almost every realistic hiring situation for OSU. I met Baldwin about 10 years ago at a BBQ and had some football related discussions with him (I was coaching high school at the time and a family member was a strength and conditioning coach a Central Washington when he was there); was very impressed with him. Nothing has changed my mind in the last decade. He would succeed at OSU. Couldn't agree more about Baldwin. I was ready for him to come here when Riley left as was excited - if not slightly cautious having lived through the Fertig and Avezzano disasters with assistants in the past. When Andersen popped up, seemingly out of nowhere, I drank the koolaid and thought this was a notch better. I have always loved watching Baldwin's teams and I'm absolutely convinced - if he'd be interested in US at the point that we're looking for a new HC - that he would be a solid hire. His age, his system, his energy and his abilities with kids would be refreshing here!
|
|