|
Post by vhalum92 on Oct 31, 2016 14:13:46 GMT -8
Interesting blow by blow, and I appreciate it. I don't think it is fair to just look at the results. The way the defense is lining up is another factor... and after getting gashed by the run I'm sure WSU came out to stop the run.
I don't have specifics and I don't know our offense well enough to tell you if or when we are making an audible from run to pass, it is just common football strategy. I do agree that our run was stuffed more in the second half then the first, due to halftime adjustments and blown assignments I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 31, 2016 14:38:57 GMT -8
We did abandon the run, though. 4 runs and 8 passes in the third quarter. Fourth quarter was 8 runs and 9 passes. The third quarter was the most pass-heavy quarter of the four. Going pass-heavy with an 18-point lead is a good way to turn that 18-point lead into a four-point deficit, which is exactly what happened. First of all, thank you for appreciating the table. It was interesting to put it together and it helps me picture things better instead of just relying on my impressions. The numbers do seem to support your contention that we abandoned the run in the third quarter but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the cause and effect there. I don't think the coaches thought passing the ball was the best way to protect the lead. And if they had intentionally gone away from the run, I don't think they would have gone back to it. Rather, I believe that the first two drives of the 3rd quarter starting with no gains on runs put us in a hole and then we ended with some situations in which we needed to go pass heavy. The sack for an 8-yard loss when we had the ball in good field position looks like a bad choice in hindsight but the fact is that we were on the edge of Owens' range anyway and we hadn't been giving up sacks up until then so it wasn't an unreasonable play call. I think the fact that both of the first two third quarter possessions and the last third quarter possession started with a run shows that there wasn't a conscious decision to give up on the run. It's just that nothing worked. Whether passing or running, we were not getting first downs. At any rate, we could go back and forth on that all day and we'll both still lean toward or own personal interpretation. I saw at the end of the first half that WSU was figuring out how to take advantage of our defense and I figured the Cougars would not be held down again in the second half. I didn't expect, however, that they would find a way to so successfully shut down our offense. They even found a way to get McM to start throwing off target. It was like a snowball effect. Mike '84
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 31, 2016 14:57:18 GMT -8
23-39 59%, 327 yards 2 TD / 0 INT. I'll take that all day out of our "3rd string QB". Glad he's finally getting a shot. One interesting thing about the way this all went down is that we have a much more experienced 3rd-string quarterback than most teams. I'm sure we could talk all day about how things might have worked out differently for the season so far if the QB situation had gone differently, but I just don't second-guess the people who are much closer to the situation and have access to about a million times more information than I do. I don't feel like I can judge the decisions made when I'm so far removed from everything that went into the decisions. But, regardless of all that, I'm glad that we're not in a situation in which Garettson and McM were knocked out as our top two QBs and we were faced with either putting Seth back at QB, burning the redshirt on Moran, or going with a walk on from Waukesha, Wisconsin that nobody had even heard of. Most teams that are down to the third-string QB are really not in a good situation. I'm sure Marcus would have rather been the starter or, at worst, second string, but I'm glad that it worked out that we were able to go to a guy with Pac-12 experience after losing two QB's ahead of him. Speaking of Marcus and his play the past two weeks, it'll be interesting to see what Nigel Burton says about him on this week's Talkin' Beavers. I think Nigel tells it like it is (or at least how he thinks it is) and he was definitely not one of those saying that Marcus should have been the starter. Now that he's seen Marcus' play in the past two games, I'll be curious to hear his thoughts. Go Beavs! Mike '84
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 31, 2016 15:00:43 GMT -8
Interesting blow by blow, and I appreciate it. I don't think it is fair to just look at the results. The way the defense is lining up is another factor... and after getting gashed by the run I'm sure WSU came out to stop the run. I don't have specifics and I don't know our offense well enough to tell you if or when we are making an audible from run to pass, it is just common football strategy. I do agree that our run was stuffed more in the second half then the first, due to halftime adjustments and blown assignments I'm sure. They were only putting seven in the box at most. The one time that they brought a run blitz, Oregon State false started, and it seemed like the perfect offensive playcall to counter the blitz. The run was there. Oregon State just chose not to exploit it.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 31, 2016 15:12:12 GMT -8
We did abandon the run, though. 4 runs and 8 passes in the third quarter. Fourth quarter was 8 runs and 9 passes. The third quarter was the most pass-heavy quarter of the four. Going pass-heavy with an 18-point lead is a good way to turn that 18-point lead into a four-point deficit, which is exactly what happened. First of all, thank you for appreciating the table. It was interesting to put it together and it helps me picture things better instead of just relying on my impressions. The numbers do seem to support your contention that we abandoned the run in the third quarter but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the cause and effect there. I don't think the coaches thought passing the ball was the best way to protect the lead. And if they had intentionally gone away from the run, I don't think they would have gone back to it. Rather, I believe that the first two drives of the 3rd quarter starting with no gains on runs put us in a hole and then we ended with some situations in which we needed to go pass heavy. The sack for an 8-yard loss when we had the ball in good field position looks like a bad choice in hindsight but the fact is that we were on the edge of Owens' range anyway and we hadn't been giving up sacks up until then so it wasn't an unreasonable play call. I think the fact that both of the first two third quarter possessions and the last third quarter possession started with a run shows that there wasn't a conscious decision to give up on the run. It's just that nothing worked. Whether passing or running, we were not getting first downs. At any rate, we could go back and forth on that all day and we'll both still lean toward or own personal interpretation. I saw at the end of the first half that WSU was figuring out how to take advantage of our defense and I figured the Cougars would not be held down again in the second half. I didn't expect, however, that they would find a way to so successfully shut down our offense. They even found a way to get McM to start throwing off target. It was like a snowball effect. Mike '84 The fade to Villamin is a microcosm of what is wrong offensively. We ran enough, so that the safeties got sucked into the backfield, leaving less talented corners to guard guys like Villamin one-on-one on the outside. Oregon State has to make Wazzu pay there. Instead, the ball is thrown short. Villamin has to move to create separation. He does it poorly. Even though he creates the separation and is wide open, the ball still goes through his hands. Without a QB that can put it in the right spot, the WRs are having to do too much, which is helping to create drops. What is frightening is that McMaryion is probably the best throwing QB that Oregon State has on roster. Big gainers are there. Just need to find the open man and put it int he right spot. Without the big play threat to the outside, the safeties can key on the run.
|
|
BeaverNut23
Freshman
WOOOOOO Feels dam Good to beat those Hogs! GO BEAVSSS!!
Posts: 553
|
Post by BeaverNut23 on Oct 31, 2016 15:51:36 GMT -8
MCM looked good against wazzu, though the low dirty tackle by wazzu in the 1st half looked scary, good thing MCM didnt get hurt there or we'd be in really deep trouble.. the only thing I wish MC would do more is get more amped up like seth and scramble alittle more like seth. Seth brought so much electricity to the offense, especially when we played against Stanford last year. If MCM scrambles alittle more and keeps doing good on his passing, he'll be the beavs sole QB for the next 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 31, 2016 16:16:30 GMT -8
If MCM scrambles alittle more and keeps doing good on his passing, he'll be the beavs sole QB for the next 4 years. That would make 2019 and 2020 really difficult since Marcus only has 2 more years of eligibility after this season. Don't think he can be our QB for the next 4 years, regardless of how much scrambling he does. And I wouldn't expect much scrambling from him this season anyway since the coaches have hopefully told him to avoid contact as much as possible.
|
|
BeaverNut23
Freshman
WOOOOOO Feels dam Good to beat those Hogs! GO BEAVSSS!!
Posts: 553
|
Post by BeaverNut23 on Oct 31, 2016 17:19:57 GMT -8
If MCM scrambles alittle more and keeps doing good on his passing, he'll be the beavs sole QB for the next 4 years. That would make 2019 and 2020 really difficult since Marcus only has 2 more years of eligibility after this season. Don't think he can be our QB for the next 4 years, regardless of how much scrambling he does. And I wouldn't expect much scrambling from him this season anyway since the coaches have hopefully told him to avoid contact as much as possible. ah..right...forgot he was a sophomore this year. ah well skipped y mind while i was listening to music while typing.
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Oct 31, 2016 18:08:22 GMT -8
Interesting blow by blow, and I appreciate it. I don't think it is fair to just look at the results. The way the defense is lining up is another factor... and after getting gashed by the run I'm sure WSU came out to stop the run. I don't have specifics and I don't know our offense well enough to tell you if or when we are making an audible from run to pass, it is just common football strategy. I do agree that our run was stuffed more in the second half then the first, due to halftime adjustments and blown assignments I'm sure. They were only putting seven in the box at most. The one time that they brought a run blitz, Oregon State false started, and it seemed like the perfect offensive playcall to counter the blitz. The run was there. Oregon State just chose not to exploit it. 13 penalties for 110 yards a lot of those on the offense will do that to you
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 31, 2016 18:47:18 GMT -8
23-39 59%, 327 yards 2 TD / 0 INT. I'll take that all day out of our "3rd string QB". Glad he's finally getting a shot. One interesting thing about the way this all went down is that we have a much more experienced 3rd-string quarterback than most teams. It would be an interesting interview question to submit to coaches... would you rather your 3 string QB be the best passin QB or the best running QB on the team? I suspect in most cases they would choose the passer unless they just have a penchant for falling over a lot.
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Nov 3, 2016 8:08:43 GMT -8
Cougs stacked the box in the second half and shut down the run simply becuase they knew our passing game is weak. We did nothing to counter that 5 -7 man fronts.. Nothing.
The OC position in my opinion is our weak link on the coaching side and needs to be a focal point when the season ends. We can't compete with make believe OC's. Bring in a proven spread OC. Not just a flash in the pan, but a proven coach and scheme that is at least a decade of success.
To think that the last 20 years everyone stacks the box and we still can't shred em.... pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by bvrblvr on Nov 3, 2016 8:22:27 GMT -8
OSU does have the #1, #8, and #18 all time passing yards leaders in the conference since 199. That kinda feels like they've been able to make a few people pay for stacking the box in the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 3, 2016 8:25:00 GMT -8
Against Washington State, we threw for the second most yards anyone had against them all season. We also ran for the second most yards they had allowed all season. Granted, almost all of that was in the first half, but I don't think coaching had a whole lot to do with what happened in the second half, at least on our side of the ball. We didn't abandon the run, we didn't suddenly do something out of the ordinary....Wazzu just took stuff away from us. Defensively, GA said that there were 10 passes in the second half that he thought we defended perfectly, and on 9 of them Washington State made a great play on.
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 3, 2016 14:55:11 GMT -8
Nothing was working well in the 3rd quarter. We didn't abandon the run or ignore Nall so much as we just couldn't get yards or first downs no matter what. In the first half, when everything was working, we had a run vs. pass play ratio of 15 runs to 23 passes and a run vs. pass yards ratio of 150 yards to 226 yards. Out of our 6 possessions in the first half, 4 started with a run and 2 started with a pass. Obviously, when you start with a run and it gets good yards, it puts you in a good position to mix in the run and pass after that. In the second half, when nothing was working well, we had a run vs. pass play ratio of 12 runs to 17 passes and a run vs. pass yards ratio of 19 yards to 91 yards (including the 8 yard loss on a sack as a pass play). Out of our 9 possessions in the second half, 5 started with a run and 4 started with a pass (including the pass/lateral desperation play at the end). When that first run is getting you 1 or 0 yards, it makes it harder to mix in the run/pass after that. And yet, we actually had a higher ratio of run plays in the second half than in the first. It's just that we only had 17 plays in 9 possessions (including a 1-play possession for a TD after the fumbled punt and a 1-play possession to end the game). Here's how the possessions looked: POSSESSION | QUARTER | OPENING PLAY
| RUNS-YDS | PASSES-YDS | RESULT | 1 | 1Q | Pass | 3-17
| 4-38
| Missed FG
| 2 | 1Q | Pass | 1-89
| 1-5
| TD
| 3 | 1Q | Run | 4-18
| 5-57
| TD
| 4 | 2Q | Run | 2-22
| 2-0
| Punt
| 5 | 2Q | Run | 2-(-4)
| 5-77
| TD
| 6
| 2Q | Run | 3-15
| 6-49
| FG/end
| 7 | 3Q | Run | 1-1
| 2-(-8)
| Punt
| 8 | 3Q | Run | 1-(-4)
| 2-8
| Punt
| 9
| 3Q | Pass | 0-0
| 3-2
| Punt
| 10 | 3Q | Run | 2-3
| 3-41
| Punt
| 11 | 4Q | Pass | 1-2
| 2-0
| Punt
| 12 | 4Q | Run | 1-3
| 0-0
| TD
| 13 | 4Q | Run | 4-14
| 2-9
| Downs
| 14 | 4Q | Pass | 2-0
| 2-9
| Downs
| 15 | 4Q
| Pass | 0-0
| 1-24
|
The table isn't letting me put "end" as the result of the final possession, but you get the idea. Mike '84 Great table, Mike! First play of the second half was a one-yard run. Second play was a play-action that resulted in a sack. If they had handed off to Nall, it would have been a big gain. Third down was a designed swing pass that Wazzu smelled out and McMaryion threw away. (Why not a screen pass of some kind? Or something where there is a second option in case the first option just is not there?) Basically, Oregon State created a huge hole and then exacerbated the problem by running a terribly-designed play. Falk catches Manase Hungalu in single coverage with Wazzu's RB on the next drive with no safety help. (How does that happen?) In the teeth good rush, Falk puts a perfect ball into the RB's hands for a touchdown. 24-14. Second drive started with Nall on the sideline. Fly sweep for loss of four yards. Only fly sweep that was not a big gainer. (Does anyone else think that the fly sweep is far less effective out of shotgun? It does not make any sense to me, because the receiver has to go backwards to get the ball, which sortof defeats the purpose of the fly sweep, i.e. to get a receiver up to full speed before the defense can.) The third and last time that the fly sweep was run. Finished 9 carries for 27 yards. Second down was a nice buttonhook for eight yards. Third down, McMaryion caught Wazzu's safety cheating, leaving Villamin with single coverage on the outside. Pass was a little underthrown. Perfect pass is a touchdown. Villamin has to push off to create separation or risks an interception. Ball goes through his hands anyway. (Still, Marks did the same thing--a little more smoothly, but he still pushed off--for a touchdown two drives later, and it was not called.) Fourth down is a terrible running into call (rather than a roughing, which it should have been in my opinion). On second-and-eight, Oregon State rushes three and drops eight. The three get pressure but not soon enough. Falk throws it up for Marks. Haley misplays and Arnold inexplicably watches it fall into Marks' hands before reacting for a touchdown. 24-21. Third drive started with a quick pass to Collins for two yards. Second down is a well-conceived play call that would eventually work for a big gain. This time, McMaryion throws wildly over Nall's head. Third down. Hernandez attempts to run his defender off into referee, but the referee only acts to shield him from the ball being thrown. Ball looks like it is thrown a half-second too soon. Bolden asks for a flag to be thrown, as he believes that he is being held. Marks pushes off. No call. It is on the opposite side of the field from Villamin's called push off, plus it was a lot smoother than Villamin's attempt. Still, probably should have been called, if Villamin's was called. Touchdown. 28-24 Wazzu. Fourth drive started with a four-yard run for a four-yard run for Nall. If Nall breaks it to the outside, second play looks like it is going for a huge gain, but a false start is called. Nall catches it for a 41 yards gain on a similar play to the second down play call in the previous drive. Bad snap. Nall looks gassed. McMaryion tries to block for Nall but merely gets in Nall's way. (I love McMaryion's hustle, but he should know better.) Loss of one. Collins fakes out his defender and is wide open in the flat for what could be a decent gain. McMaryion throws behind him, allowing the only defender in the area to break it up. Third down is a slant to Collins, who again looks open for a decent gain, but McMaryion throws behind him a second time in a row, allowing the trailing defender to break up the pass. Oregon State gives up 22 points in a 7:08 period and turns a 24-6 lead into a 28-24 deficit. We did abandon the run, though. 4 runs and 8 passes in the third quarter. Fourth quarter was 8 runs and 9 passes. The third quarter was the most pass-heavy quarter of the four. Going pass-heavy with an 18-point lead is a good way to turn that 18-point lead into a four-point deficit, which is exactly what happened. I agree with your assessment concerning discrepancy between the 2 pass interference calls and no calls. I find it humorous though, that the most glaring difference between the 2 plays was the catch versus no catch. I would have liked to see a catch on our side.
|
|