|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 1, 2017 10:16:47 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life. I would hardly call the pro set "unique". When Riley got here, that offense was pretty much the norm around the country. It only became "unique" when many of the other schools switched to spread offenses.
|
|
|
Post by blackandorange on Nov 1, 2017 10:32:21 GMT -8
If we go to the triple option, I will happily give up my four season tickets. Not interested.
Signed,
Beav fan since 1970
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 1, 2017 11:03:41 GMT -8
Why stop at the triple option? Why not be bold, like the razor companies? I suggest we go with the Quadruple Option! Even the stoutest of SEC defenses will be unprepared for this revolutionary offense!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 11:28:27 GMT -8
Why stop at the triple option? Why not be bold, like the razor companies? I suggest we go with the Quadruple Option! Even the stoutest of SEC defenses will be unprepared for this revolutionary offense! Eventually we will just move the razor 1/8" and be done.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 1, 2017 13:49:04 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life.The thing of it is that Pettibone did a great job. he recruited very well. Tim Alexander came to Oregon State over both Nebraska and Oklahoma. There may have been more Texas players on the roster than at any point before or since. He had one of the best defensive-minded coaches in the country in Rocky Long, coaching the defense. And for all of that, the best that he could do was two 4-7 seasons. It sounds like you want to turn Oregon State into a team that would have a five-win ceiling, absent something weird happening. A hard pass. Oregon State can do better.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 1, 2017 14:46:53 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life. No, it'd be like being mad at someone who had to eat the same s%#tty pizza for 6 years if they decided they had no taste for s%#tty pizza any longer. The toppings might be different with a different coach's s%#tty pizza, but it's still a s%#tty pizza.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 1, 2017 15:06:20 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life.The thing of it is that Pettibone did a great job. he recruited very well. Tim Alexander came to Oregon State over both Nebraska and Oklahoma. There may have been more Texas players on the roster than at any point before or since. He had one of the best defensive-minded coaches in the country in Rocky Long, coaching the defense. And for all of that, the best that he could do was two 4-7 seasons. It sounds like you want to turn Oregon State into a team that would have a five-win ceiling, absent something weird happening. A hard pass. Oregon State can do better. Ft3O (sideways)
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 1, 2017 20:07:30 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life. No, it'd be like being mad at someone who had to eat the same s%#tty pizza for 6 years if they decided they had no taste for s%#tty pizza any longer. The toppings might be different with a different coach's s%#tty pizza, but it's still a s%#tty pizza. 6 years 13-52-1. 53 s%#tty slices of pizza.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Nov 1, 2017 20:16:23 GMT -8
The only successful era in the last 40 or so years in OSU football has been highlighted by a foundation of: A definitive somewhat unique offense system (pro set) and a successful "coaching up" of recruits who were not considered to be "good enough" in most cases for PAC 10/12 football. I am talking about the Mike Riley era. It is incredible that so many Beaver fans (as evidenced by many comments in this thread) are: (1) Unable or unwilling to see that the triple option headed by an outstanding coach of that system who has a proven record of "coaching up" recruits (virtually all military academy players were considered to not be good enough to play at the level they are now succeeding at.) would give the Beavers a similar situation to the only good run we have had in the last 40 years. (2) So willing to be the "fall guy" for the rest of the PAC 12 by trying to win by out doing the other schools at spending money, attracting athletes from Florida, California and Texas who are 4 and 5 star recruits, etc., etc. Finally comparing all triple option football to the Pettibone era, is like saying no pizza is any good because you had a bad slice once in your life. No, it'd be like being mad at someone who had to eat the same s%#tty pizza for 6 years if they decided they had no taste for s%#tty pizza any longer. The toppings might be different with a different coach's s%#tty pizza, but it's still a s%#tty pizza. There's no need to attack Domino's like that...
|
|