|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 4, 2016 12:04:15 GMT -8
What I fear is that the bar has been re-set to the point where all of a sudden OSU fans are thrilled with 8-4 seasons and mid-tier bowls, when that level wasn't good enough for the previous coach, who was consistently bashed for losing four games a year. Oh man, I'm right there with you on just wanting to get back to what was not good enough before. As I've said in other posts, I didn't want Riley to leave partially because I felt he was our best long term chance for success (but I certainly could have been wrong on that) and partially because I didn't want to go back through the "rebuilding" process. I knew it was likely that whoever we got would not be a Riley clone (that never happens when fans are unhappy with a coach) and, therefore, we'd be resetting the bar for a while. I don't mind resetting the bar necessarily. I think that fans need to be reminded that wins of any sort are not guaranteed and there's a reason that, once upon a time, we would give anything for just a winning season. I think fans SHOULD be happy with 8-4, but I also understand that you have to at least give the fans hope of that occasional season when you threaten to win the conference. Whether Riley was going to get us back to that or not was/is the big debate. At any rate, part of what the fans who wanted Riley gone have to deal with is going back through a rebuilding. They may not (probably didn't) anticipate that it would be quite this dramatic or drawn out but just getting back to a winning season or 8 wins WILL be an achievement when it happens. And then the real test will become whether or not we exceed where we were. It's going to take time and I don't mind being happy about the little things along the way.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 4, 2016 12:21:25 GMT -8
I think he gave the only reason he needs to... it's his opinion. You tend to think your lengthy posts of opinion are what? Superior? What we should believe? Factual? Do you neeed "reasons" other than its what you think? I thought I had done a pretty good job of acknowledging the poster's right to have his own opinions and even thanked him for being clear about it. I thought that I was objecting to what I considered a misstatement of fact. I had listened, in length, to GA's take on the targeting penalty and I didn't see where GA was acting surprised or where he was saying anything inconsistent with his other statements. It is my opinion that the poster had made a misstatement of fact. Is it not OK for me to object, based on that? I do have lengthy posts filled with my opinions. And, yes, I do find my opinions "superior". I base my opinions on what I perceive to be the facts and best supported by the evidence at hand. That's why they are my opinions. That's why my opinions can change when there is a change in the evidence. I wouldn't pick an opinion that I felt was inferior to another. I understand that others have different opinions. I felt that Riley was good for OSU -- my opinion. I feel that Andersen is good for OSU -- my opinion. I heard Andersen take the blame for the targeting penalty because he needs to do a better job of making sure his defenders know which QBs are going to always slide and which are not. It is a fact that I heard him say this, not an opinion. It is my opinion that this is one indication how this rule is too arbitrary and hard for the defenders to obey.
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Nov 4, 2016 12:51:21 GMT -8
What I fear is that the bar has been re-set to the point where all of a sudden OSU fans are thrilled with 8-4 seasons and mid-tier bowls, when that level wasn't good enough for the previous coach, who was consistently bashed for losing four games a year. Oh man, I'm right there with you on just wanting to get back to what was not good enough before. As I've said in other posts, I didn't want Riley to leave partially because I felt he was our best long term chance for success (but I certainly could have been wrong on that) and partially because I didn't want to go back through the "rebuilding" process. I knew it was likely that whoever we got would not be a Riley clone (that never happens when fans are unhappy with a coach) and, therefore, we'd be resetting the bar for a while. I don't mind resetting the bar necessarily. I think that fans need to be reminded that wins of any sort are not guaranteed and there's a reason that, once upon a time, we would give anything for just a winning season. I think fans SHOULD be happy with 8-4, but I also understand that you have to at least give the fans hope of that occasional season when you threaten to win the conference. Whether Riley was going to get us back to that or not was/is the big debate. At any rate, part of what the fans how wanted Riley gone have to deal with is going back through a rebuilding. They may not (probably didn't) anticipate that it would be quite this dramatic or drawn out but just getting back to a winning season or 8 wins WILL be an achievement when it happens. And then the real test will become whether or not we exceed where we were. It's going to take time and I don't mind being happy about the little things along the way. "I think that fans need to be reminded that wins of any sort are not guaranteed ..."
College football 2016 has sure validated this statement for MANY programs.
Changing coaches is fraught with unknowns. The Riley to Andersen transition might be characterized as mellow to strict, where the Kelly to Helfrich transition might be viewed as intense to cerebral. Duck fans are learning about change in much the same way OSU fans are experiencing it ... well except the path for OSU is looking more like an upward trajectory and the Ducks are going in the opposite direction.
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Nov 4, 2016 12:59:52 GMT -8
That may be....and his testiness with the media this week to me is a sign that he thinks OSU is good enough to win games like that now, and this one is wearing on him more than past wins because of that. I admire his passion and his belief in himself. I think we will win eventually, though at what level I don't know. What I fear is that the bar has been re-set to the point where all of a sudden OSU fans are thrilled with 8-4 seasons and mid-tier bowls, when that level wasn't good enough for the previous coach, who was consistently bashed for losing four games a year. Riley did get "bashed" for having a ceiling and losing 4 games a year, at best. You're right.
However, I think most fans were generally happy with 8-4, although we certainly lost games each year we should have won (along with winning the games we shouldn't have). What wasn't good enough (at least for me) was the regression from 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. To, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 5-7 (and yes, I am aware there was a 9-4 season in there, but the program was regressing). IMO GA hasn't set the bar lower and all of a sudden fans are happy with 8-4 when 8-4 wasn't good enough before. Riley, GA, whoever. Most fans will be generally happy with 8-4, as long as every few years we are making a run at a 9 or 10 win season. And I don't think GA will be happy with 4 losses a year either at best.
I did find something interesting though. When I read your comment about it being "our" program and the comments about practice. I just assumed you were an old retired guy who went to practice every day and felt that GA was keeping you out. I was shocked to realize you were late 30s. Respect your opinion, but it isn't like GA is the only coach in CFB to close practice. I think the vast majority of CFB, especially Power 5 coaches have closed practices. You've got some legit reasons for you to not be happy with GA. IMO though, closed practices shouldn't be on the list. As more than likely whoever came in was going to have closed practices.
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Nov 4, 2016 13:06:49 GMT -8
What keeps me coming back to games? Ryan Nall running 89 yards up the gut and away from defensive backs. Bolden catching the ball in open space. Jalen Moore hitting a WR so hard he just drops the ball. Devin Chappell absolutely de-cleating a guy on a screen pass. The fact that because of busy schedules, these six or seven Saturdays a year are the only times I get to see some of my best friends and their families. Because my son doesn't care that we don't win, he just wants to be in the stadium cheering on the Beavs. Because I grew up in the 80's and 90's and didn't even know what it was like to cheer for a winning football team until I was 19 years old. Because my great grandfather moved to Corvallis in the first decade of the 20th century, and every generation since has gone to Oregon State. Because I'm a god-damned Beaver. I'm with you on most points. I will always be a Beaver fan, even when things aren't roses. In fact, I think that is what separates a true fan from a poseur! I may not be thrilled with a team or coach, but if they represent OSU, I will always support them until they are no longer affilited with that school I love!
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 4, 2016 13:23:58 GMT -8
I heard Andersen take the blame for the targeting penalty because he needs to do a better job of making sure his defenders know which QBs are going to always slide and which are not. It is a fact that I heard him say this, not an opinion. See, I heard him say "It was the proper call. No question about it. It's the way rule is stated and you need to be able to turn off of it and get yourself back and understand who you're playing and the situation you're playing in. If there is a definition of targeting, or if there's a highlight reel for next year of what is targeting, that will be it...Bright will understand. He'll grow. Again, that's one of those 'veteran moments' that are so, so vital." THAT is also a fact, and that is one of the inconsistencies in the things Gary Andersen says that frustrate me to no end.
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Nov 4, 2016 13:32:46 GMT -8
I heard Andersen take the blame for the targeting penalty because he needs to do a better job of making sure his defenders know which QBs are going to always slide and which are not. It is a fact that I heard him say this, not an opinion. See, I heard him say "It was the proper call. No question about it. It's the way rule is stated and you need to be able to turn off of it and get yourself back and understand who you're playing and the situation you're playing in. If there is a definition of targeting, or if there's a highlight reel for next year of what is targeting, that will be it...Bright will understand. He'll grow. Again, that's one of those 'veteran moments' that are so, so vital." THAT is also a fact, and that is one of the inconsistencies in the things Gary Andersen says that frustrate me to no end.
Where is the inconsistency? GA says it was the proper call. And that players needs to understand the situation. And he goes on to say his player will understand and grow from it. He also accepts the blame. Because as a coach, he failed ensure the defenders knew which players will slide always, and which ones may lower their head and take the hit.
There is ZERO inconsistency there. A Young player made a mistake. He'll learn from it (as will the team) and what was a mistake made by a young player, will likely not be repeated as a "veteran" player. And that is likely for two reasons, he'll get coached up and he learned from his mistake on the field. Its not like GA said, it was horrible call. Then blamed Bright for making a stupid play.
You very clearly laid our your dislike for GA, so this doesn't surprise me. But, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Nov 4, 2016 13:52:54 GMT -8
Your interpretation of it makes sense, and maybe I am being overly critical. But what I originally said is that GA cannot consistently refer to us being in a fight and throwing "big boy punches" and any other aggressive language or imagery he uses and then not expect his players to have unnecessary roughness penalties from time to time. There is a big difference from "I need to coach it better" and "he needs to learn" to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 4, 2016 13:54:02 GMT -8
See, I heard him say "It was the proper call. No question about it. It's the way rule is stated and you need to be able to turn off of it and get yourself back and understand who you're playing and the situation you're playing in. If there is a definition of targeting, or if there's a highlight reel for next year of what is targeting, that will be it...Bright will understand. He'll grow. Again, that's one of those 'veteran moments' that are so, so vital." THAT is also a fact, and that is one of the inconsistencies in the things Gary Andersen says that frustrate me to no end. Yes, you are correct that he did say "Bright will understand" and he did indicate that a more veteran player would do it differently. No argument there on that fact. So, I get where you may feel he is blaming the player. He also took blame on himself for not making it more clear which QBs are gong to slide (aaaagh! Again, that make the rule seem impossible to me!). At any rate, I don't personally think GA expressed "surprise" about the penalty and I don't think it is wrong for him to continue to talk about how his team needs to "fight". I don't see the inconsistency between that and what was said above. I don't *like* the fact that defensive players need to play with aggression but also learn when to "turn off", but that's part of this new rule that many coaches (including GA) support.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 4, 2016 14:08:49 GMT -8
That may be....and his testiness with the media this week to me is a sign that he thinks OSU is good enough to win games like that now, and this one is wearing on him more than past wins because of that. I admire his passion and his belief in himself. I think we will win eventually, though at what level I don't know. What I fear is that the bar has been re-set to the point where all of a sudden OSU fans are thrilled with 8-4 seasons and mid-tier bowls, when that level wasn't good enough for the previous coach, who was consistently bashed for losing four games a year. Riley did get "bashed" for having a ceiling and losing 4 games a year, at best. You're right.
However, I think most fans were generally happy with 8-4, although we certainly lost games each year we should have won (along with winning the games we shouldn't have). What wasn't good enough (at least for me) was the regression from 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. To, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 5-7 (and yes, I am aware there was a 9-4 season in there, but the program was regressing). IMO GA hasn't set the bar lower and all of a sudden fans are happy with 8-4 when 8-4 wasn't good enough before. Riley, GA, whoever. Most fans will be generally happy with 8-4, as long as every few years we are making a run at a 9 or 10 win season. And I don't think GA will be happy with 4 losses a year either at best.
I did find something interesting though. When I read your comment about it being "our" program and the comments about practice. I just assumed you were an old retired guy who went to practice every day and felt that GA was keeping you out. I was shocked to realize you were late 30s. Respect your opinion, but it isn't like GA is the only coach in CFB to close practice. I think the vast majority of CFB, especially Power 5 coaches have closed practices. You've got some legit reasons for you to not be happy with GA. IMO though, closed practices shouldn't be on the list. As more than likely whoever came in was going to have closed practices.
The 2012 and 2013 teams, when healthy, were light years better (in my opinion) than that 2009 team. Both the 2012 and 2013 teams, though, had injury problems (in particular the 2013 team). When healthy, both of those teams were in every game against every opponent. In 2009, Oregon State had a weak Arizona State, a weak Stanford, a weak Washington, a weak Washington State, and a weak Oregon. All of those teams were better in 2012 and 2013. 2012 and 2013 proved that there was no regression. (I think it proved that the team was entering a peak, off-peak system that many on the old board said that they wanted to develop, like Washington State under Mike Price.) The 2012 team was within four points of Stanford at Pac-12 champion Stanford and within eight points of Pac-12 champion Stanford in 2013. If Vaz does not channel his inner Cam Newton in 2012 against Stanford, Oregon State is in the Fiesta Bowl. It may have proved that BDC was not re-investing in the football team properly, particularly in light of the fact that Oregon State was making several million dollars more per year with the new Pac-12 deal starting in 2011, but there was no regression. BDC then ran off Langs. The offense sputtered. And injuries in the USKnee game doomed the defense. 5-7. If there was regression in 2014, it was primarily created by BDC, tinkering with the team, thinking that he knew better than Riley.
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Nov 4, 2016 14:09:39 GMT -8
Your interpretation of it makes sense, and maybe I am being overly critical. But what I originally said is that GA cannot consistently refer to us being in a fight and throwing "big boy punches" and any other aggressive language or imagery he uses and then not expect his players to have unnecessary roughness penalties from time to time. There is a big difference from "I need to coach it better" and "he needs to learn" to me. There is a difference between unnecessary roughness and a targeting call that gets a player ejected and causes them to miss the first half of the next game. GA has said he likes his players to have some fire (he routinely has said this about Collins) and show emotion. I don't think GA is ok with the personal fouls as DE was. But he wants players to be physical, and occasionally that's going to result in a personal foul. He also, expects them to be smart about it. Getting a PF on 1st and 10 on the opponents 20. Not really a big deal. Getting a PF on 3rd and 10 on the 45, stupid. I think he fully expects his players to get a PF now and then. But a targeting call is not just 15 yards and the game goes on.
You see a "big difference" from "I need to coach it better" and "he needs to learn." To me those are the same, as the coach, it is his job to help is players learn from their mistakes (and his). Obviously we see things a lot different. But that's what makes message boards a bit more fun! Go Beavs!
|
|
|
Post by beavineugene on Nov 4, 2016 14:19:30 GMT -8
Riley did get "bashed" for having a ceiling and losing 4 games a year, at best. You're right.
However, I think most fans were generally happy with 8-4, although we certainly lost games each year we should have won (along with winning the games we shouldn't have). What wasn't good enough (at least for me) was the regression from 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. To, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 5-7 (and yes, I am aware there was a 9-4 season in there, but the program was regressing). IMO GA hasn't set the bar lower and all of a sudden fans are happy with 8-4 when 8-4 wasn't good enough before. Riley, GA, whoever. Most fans will be generally happy with 8-4, as long as every few years we are making a run at a 9 or 10 win season. And I don't think GA will be happy with 4 losses a year either at best.
I did find something interesting though. When I read your comment about it being "our" program and the comments about practice. I just assumed you were an old retired guy who went to practice every day and felt that GA was keeping you out. I was shocked to realize you were late 30s. Respect your opinion, but it isn't like GA is the only coach in CFB to close practice. I think the vast majority of CFB, especially Power 5 coaches have closed practices. You've got some legit reasons for you to not be happy with GA. IMO though, closed practices shouldn't be on the list. As more than likely whoever came in was going to have closed practices.
The 2012 and 2013 teams, when healthy, were light years better (in my opinion) than that 2009 team. Both the 2012 and 2013 teams, though, had injury problems (in particular the 2013 team). When healthy, both of those teams were in every game against every opponent. In 2009, Oregon State had a weak Arizona State, a weak Stanford, a weak Washington, a weak Washington State, and a weak Oregon. All of those teams were better in 2012 and 2013. 2012 and 2013 proved that there was no regression. (I think it proved that the team was entering a peak, off-peak system that many on the old board said that they wanted to develop, like Washington State under Mike Price.) The 2012 team was within four points of Stanford at Pac-12 champion Stanford and within eight points of Pac-12 champion Stanford in 2013. If Vaz does not channel his inner Cam Newton in 2012 against Stanford, Oregon State is in the Fiesta Bowl. It may have proved that BDC was not re-investing in the football team properly, particularly in light of the fact that Oregon State was making several million dollars more per year with the new Pac-12 deal starting in 2011, but there was no regression. BDC then ran off Langs. The offense sputtered. And injuries in the USKnee game doomed the defense. 5-7. If there was regression in 2014, it was primarily created by BDC, tinkering with the team, thinking that he knew better than Riley. No Regression? Really
Prior to 2010, Riley had one losing Season at OSU. 2005. From 2010 - 2014 he had 3, and one season in which we were 1 game over .500. Blame it on Riley, BDC, injuries, whatever you want. The program was regressing. And... since facts vs. opinion is brought up in this thread. I am going to argue, that isn't even an opinion. Its a fact, the program had regressed from what it had been.
2012 and 2013 teams vs. 2009. Meh, I will give you 2012, that was a damn good team. And if Vaz started vs UW and Mannion vs. Stanford. It may have been a 10 win team. 2013, I disagree with. They ended 7-6 for reasons other than injuries.
|
|
|
Post by orangeexpress on Nov 4, 2016 15:03:11 GMT -8
Riley did get "bashed" for having a ceiling and losing 4 games a year, at best. You're right.
However, I think most fans were generally happy with 8-4, although we certainly lost games each year we should have won (along with winning the games we shouldn't have). What wasn't good enough (at least for me) was the regression from 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 8-5. To, 5-7, 3-9, 7-6, and 5-7 (and yes, I am aware there was a 9-4 season in there, but the program was regressing). IMO GA hasn't set the bar lower and all of a sudden fans are happy with 8-4 when 8-4 wasn't good enough before. Riley, GA, whoever. Most fans will be generally happy with 8-4, as long as every few years we are making a run at a 9 or 10 win season. And I don't think GA will be happy with 4 losses a year either at best.
I did find something interesting though. When I read your comment about it being "our" program and the comments about practice. I just assumed you were an old retired guy who went to practice every day and felt that GA was keeping you out. I was shocked to realize you were late 30s. Respect your opinion, but it isn't like GA is the only coach in CFB to close practice. I think the vast majority of CFB, especially Power 5 coaches have closed practices. You've got some legit reasons for you to not be happy with GA. IMO though, closed practices shouldn't be on the list. As more than likely whoever came in was going to have closed practices.
The 2012 and 2013 teams, when healthy, were light years better (in my opinion) than that 2009 team. Both the 2012 and 2013 teams, though, had injury problems (in particular the 2013 team). When healthy, both of those teams were in every game against every opponent. In 2009, Oregon State had a weak Arizona State, a weak Stanford, a weak Washington, a weak Washington State, and a weak Oregon. All of those teams were better in 2012 and 2013. 2012 and 2013 proved that there was no regression. (I think it proved that the team was entering a peak, off-peak system that many on the old board said that they wanted to develop, like Washington State under Mike Price.) The 2012 team was within four points of Stanford at Pac-12 champion Stanford and within eight points of Pac-12 champion Stanford in 2013. If Vaz does not channel his inner Cam Newton in 2012 against Stanford, Oregon State is in the Fiesta Bowl. It may have proved that BDC was not re-investing in the football team properly, particularly in light of the fact that Oregon State was making several million dollars more per year with the new Pac-12 deal starting in 2011, but there was no regression. BDC then ran off Langs. The offense sputtered. And injuries in the USKnee game doomed the defense. 5-7. If there was regression in 2014, it was primarily created by BDC, tinkering with the team, thinking that he knew better than Riley. The 2013 team lost at home to EWU and gave up nearly 70(!) at home to a decent but not great UW team - certainly not the UW team that waltzed into Autzen this year. The 2009 team was competitive in every game that year save the bowl game and darn near went to the Rose Bowl. I could be talked into the 2012 team being better, but not the 2013 team. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by leaveit2beaver on Nov 4, 2016 19:20:57 GMT -8
I would like to chime in and just say that I am a Beaver forever. That's more than a lot of so called fans can say about "their" school. Especially the people from down south. Simply, if you run across a Beaver fan you feel an immediate bond. I could drink a beer or twelve with just about anyone that is a Beaver fan. That is great. And I love it. No matter what. I see a path to four more wins too.
|
|