|
Post by skyrider on Dec 24, 2017 3:45:10 GMT -8
Recently watched the replay of the OSU vs. Notre Dame Fiesta bowl game. To me the gap between the talent on that OSU team and the talent on the current roster is enormous. Quite a challenge for Coach Smith and for the patience of OSU fans.
On another note, the Army vs. San Diego State bowl game on Saturday was a perfect example of how a triple option offense can allow a team with far less physical talent, recruiting advantages, and resources to compete successfully. If you are interested and have an open mind on the subject please check the statistics and time of possession for both teams and if possible watch a re-play and listen to the comments of former Texas coach Mack Brown.
Finally a question for Beaver fans. How long a time span do you believe Coach Smith must be given to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed? My view is that he needs to be given at least six years. This year is basically lost in terms of recruiting, he should then have at least 5 more years (a redshirt year and four years of his own players).
Also do you believe that Beaver fans have the patience for that time frame?
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Dec 24, 2017 4:04:23 GMT -8
Here is a brief summary of the Army vs. San Diego State game that illustrates the point that I was attempting to make in my previous post.Army dominated the time of possession. The Black Knights ran 91 plays to the Aztecs' 30 and held the ball for 46:00 to San Diego State's 13:53.
"That's our brand of football," Monken said. "We don't have anybody like they have -- when you break through the line, it's six points."
Woolfolk ran for two touchdowns, and Bradshaw and Andy Davidson ran for one each.
Monken said there was no doubt the Black Knights would go for two points if they pulled within one in the closing minutes with a touchdown.
"That No. 20, Rashaad Penny -- if we went into overtime, he's going to get the ball in his hands again," Monken said. "There's no way I wanted to watch that anymore."
Walker took the pitch and raced toward the right corner of the end zone.
"Our O-line did a tremendous job," Walker said. "All I had to do was catch it and run."
THE TAKEAWAY
San Diego State: The Aztecs went into the game ranked ninth in FBS rush defense, allowing 110.4 yards per game. Army ran for 120 in the first quarter and 440 overall.
Army: The Black Knights went into the game ranked last in the FBS averaging 29.6 passing yards per game. They went 1-for-4 passing for 6 yards, including receiver Kjetil Cline throwing an interception.
|
|
bill82
Freshman
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 971
|
Post by bill82 on Dec 24, 2017 4:10:49 GMT -8
Wasn't this the Jerry Pettibone plan? My memory may be fuzzy but I thought Tim Anderson was suppose to be our option quarterback in a run-oriented offense. And it turned out the scheme did not work in a Power 5 conference. No judgement. Just asking.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Dec 24, 2017 6:27:27 GMT -8
Take this crap to the Triple Option Board.
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Dec 24, 2017 8:00:53 GMT -8
Thank you for your courteous and intelligent(not) response.
|
|
|
Post by nexus73 on Dec 24, 2017 9:07:54 GMT -8
Georgia Tech has done well with triple option. Oregon's spread attack with plenty of option totally demolished all Beaver D's which faced it including the one that was so good in 2008 (as I recall the year) against the run. Obviously the concept of option football in some form works at the FCS Power 5 level. Then look at the NFL, where read-option schemes usually work well when used judiciously in order to protect the QB's ability to play for a season. You will see Russell Wilson more willing to run late in the season when chips are on the table to be picked up.
Would OSU's O been more potent with McMaryion running option plays? Most likely. We could not have done any worse obviously!
Why not discuss strategy than be dismissive Glove?
As for what we have for a QB who is Rileyesque, I would expect our O-scheme to be the same as we used to have. The 6'7" guy (can't remember his name right now) showed the raw talent to pull it off and I expect with MR and JS doing the coaching, that he will be at least serviceable. Unlike Andersen, I do not expect a changing of gears in offensive concepts with the new staff. Remember the fast QB from the state of Utah who was here about the same time we had DA and SJ? Back then the OL was as useless as tits on a bull for pass protection so if one wanted a backup to have a chance to survive, he had better be able to move to avoid the inevitable pass rush avalanche. Not many QB's were built like redwoods as DA was. That did not happen and I consider it to be a big mistake by MR. The player went back to Utah and did well just as McMaryion did by transferring to Fresno State.
One does not win by subtracting talent. Obviously MR proved to be a loser at OSU over the course of time and he did the same at Nebraska, so to cite him as a successful source for how to handle these situations is not going to fly. I hope JS reviews the mistakes MR made for to repeat them would mean OSU will remain in the basement it finds itself in. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In the final analysis, it is not how nice a guy you are that determines how long you can last as a head coach, it's the W's and fan expectations of how many W's there needs to be. OSU can see the number come in at 8, plus or minus 2, for a coach to last. Nebraska's number I would put at 10 plus or minus 2. Alabama has the highest number at 12 with no more than one regular season loss and a title game loss allowed while coming home with the trophy half the time being expected. Then go the other way. San Jose State's number would be 6 at most, plus or minus 2. They have low expectations down there. Any coach who did succeed with the Spartans would then move up the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Dec 24, 2017 9:13:31 GMT -8
Thank you for your courteous and intelligent(not) response. [ First that’s a speed option based attack. Not the Pettibine et al triple option. I’m not a triple option fan because I do not like the ball in the air going away from the LOS. Too high fumble potential. An offense to watch, Gus Malzans Auburn Tigers. A grown up version of the Wing-T An offens with versions which gives some of the personnel advantages of the ‘classic’ option with son flexibility. It can also look like what Wake Forest ran with Riley Skinner at QB. I don’t think it’s what Coach Niner will run in Corvallis I expect more Boise with limited plays ran to perfection from personnel groups and formation changes.
|
|
|
Post by BeaverTailChaser on Dec 24, 2017 9:59:08 GMT -8
We will not be running the option...whether it be the triple or speed type. Thank God! Let's please put a folk in all this could been / should been option nonsense. Please... do not taunt Happy Fun Ball! Lol
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 24, 2017 10:02:39 GMT -8
The SDSU - Army game was a great game. Lets not sully it by talking about the triple option...
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 24, 2017 10:47:04 GMT -8
Nexus73. I hate to beat a horse to death, but since you said Riley proved himself to be a loser at OSU I would like you to define “loser” in reference to the coaching profession, and also have you point out how many coaches aren’t losers.
Riley averaged about 7 wins a season (and that includes his first stint) at a school that had averaged less than 3 over the previous 25 years. In a twelve year span he had four losing seasons. In 12 seasons he took his team to 8 bowl games and 6 bowl wins, again at a school that had a 25 year stretch without a winning season prior to his arrival. That’s 3 bowls every 4 years, a number matched, not beaten, only by 1 coach in the history of that school.
As far as Riley’s stint at Nebraska goes, two years two bowls (admittedly he backed his way into the first one). 15 wins in two seasons before the NU AD started messing with the makeup of his coaching staff. At that point it was the AD’s team in large part. Anyway, I will agree that Riley’s stint at Nebraska didn’t go well... but I challenge you to prove your statement “Obviously MR proved to be a loser at OSU over the course of time”.
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Dec 24, 2017 11:23:11 GMT -8
Finally a question for Beaver fans. How long a time span do you believe Coach Smith must be given to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed? My view is that he needs to be given at least six years. This year is basically lost in terms of recruiting, he should then have at least 5 more years (a redshirt year and four years of his own players).
I still would like to get some response to my question about how many years do we need to allow Coach Smith before determining whether he is doing a good job or not. My opinion was 6 years.
Other opinions would be appreciated.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 24, 2017 12:17:23 GMT -8
I'm in favor of giving any coach 4 years. All coaches worth keeping should be able to show some kind of improvement with this team over what we've seen the last 3 seasons, within 3 years.
I'm not saying produce a great team, just produce improvement. Right now the Beavers are one of the worst teams in the Power 5, there's pretty much nowhere to go but up... if there aren't signs of improvement by year three then year four may be the determining year.
The key is improving. Let's say year 3 produces just 3 wins. There will be posters here howling mad. Now let's say along with those 3 wins, we only lost the 9 losses by a total of 20-30 points. I'd argue that is a HUGE improvement over the last 3 years and deserves another season or more (assuming no major backslide) to turn close losses into wins (heck, 9 losses by a total of a 100 points would still be a huge improvement over this last season, but I might not be overly excby it unless we played competitively).
I personally think an arbitrary 6 years is every bit as bad as an arbitrary 3 years though. At some point improvement has to be expected. The Beavers were not improving this year. I'd have given GA year 4 to try to turn it around, but I kind of doubt it would have happened... I would not give him 3 more years without showing improvement and (for lack of a better word) direction.
I'd hope this group of coaches can produce the kind of results Riley's group did. In my opinion Riley basically produced way beyond expectations when you consider what OSU's football budget was compared to that of other Power 5 and Pac 10/12 schools.
|
|
|
Post by angrybeaver67 on Dec 24, 2017 13:06:07 GMT -8
Skyrider - it’s possible that I see the world through orange & glass half full glasses... In my opinion, we will see improvement fairly soon. This coming year, I would expect possibly 4 wins and 8 losses...including a couple Pac-12 upsets that surprise. Not great but better than what we had this year. The following year, could possibly be bowl eligible. Year two maybe, almost for sure year three. If we can get back to the situation where we normally have winning records and go to bowl games...and occasionally have really good years where we go to major bowl games. If we can get back to that most of us would be pretty happy. To get a total transformation it may take 4-5 years, but to have the success we want here CJS and staff will need to do a good job developing existing players, and get them to “buy into” their new system. Their effectiveness will be determined on their ability to do that. CGA and his staff didn’t do that very well, and way too many players were encouraged to go elsewhere. I suspect that Coach Jonathan Smith and staff will get some surprise recruits for the second signing period. We need to be able to move forward...with new players that can help our team win. I’m hoping for more offensive and defensive line players...in addition to another good quarterback with the second signing period. And future years, with more time and the new coaching staff, should result in improved recruiting for the Beavers. Glad CJS was able to save most of the previous staff’s recruits and appears to value them, and got ALL 11 of them to sign at the first signing period. And sorry to pile on, but when you suggested triple-option my mind was screaming NOOOOO!!!!!!! Would much rather see a hybrid approach that looks a lot like the Boise State / UW offense, with perhaps elements of the old Riley offense that fit the players we have on the team.
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Dec 24, 2017 13:06:49 GMT -8
I'm in favor of giving any coach 4 years. All coaches worth keeping should be able to show some kind of improvement with this team over what we've seen the last 3 seasons, within 3 years. I'm not saying produce a great team, just produce improvement. Right now the Beavers are one of the worst teams in the Power 5, there's pretty much nowhere to go but up... if there aren't signs of improvement by year three then year four may be the determining year. The key is improving. Let's say year 3 produces just 3 wins. There will be posters here howling mad. Now let's say along with those 3 wins, we only lost the 9 losses by a total of 20-30 points. I'd argue that is a HUGE improvement over the last 3 years and deserves another season or more (assuming no major backslide) to turn close losses into wins (heck, 9 losses by a total of a 100 points would still be a huge improvement over this last season, but I might not be overly excby it unless we played competitively). I personally think an arbitrary 6 years is every bit as bad as an arbitrary 3 years though. At some point improvement has to be expected. The Beavers were not improving this year. I'd have given GA year 4 to try to turn it around, but I kind of doubt it would have happened... I would not give him 3 more years without showing improvement and (for lack of a better word) direction. I'd hope this group of coaches can produce the kind of results Riley's group did. In my opinion Riley basically produced way beyond expectations when you consider what OSU's football budget was compared to that of other Power 5 and Pac 10/12 schools. I think it’s a mute point because Niner will succeed. We will see marked improvement on and off the field. I expect that year three with Niner will see OSU back in the mid to top of the PAC north. I also expect the program to continue to give opportunity and education to the student athletes. Smiths greatest gift as a player and I suspect Coach was/is the ability to make those around him that much better. Niner Refining that skill with coach Pete just gives me more confidence. Right guy right time This Place
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 24, 2017 13:07:31 GMT -8
Nexus73. I hate to beat a horse to death, but since you said Riley proved himself to be a loser at OSU I would like you to define “loser” in reference to the coaching profession, and also have you point out how many coaches aren’t losers. Riley averaged about 7 wins a season (and that includes his first stint) at a school that had averaged less than 3 over the previous 25 years. In a twelve year span he had four losing seasons. In 12 seasons he took his team to 8 bowl games and 6 bowl wins, again at a school that had a 25 year stretch without a winning season prior to his arrival. That’s 3 bowls every 4 years, a number matched, not beaten, only by 1 coach in the history of that school. As far as Riley’s stint at Nebraska goes, two years two bowls (admittedly he backed his way into the first one). 15 wins in two seasons before the NU AD started messing with the makeup of his coaching staff. At that point it was the AD’s team in large part. Anyway, I will agree that Riley’s stint at Nebraska didn’t go well... but I challenge you to prove your statement “Obviously MR proved to be a loser at OSU over the course of time”. I was going to bring this up... but then I just asked myself why... Everybody knows Riley's record at OSU. 93-80. If you think that ultimately proves him to be a loser there is nothing in the universe that is going to change your mind. That is your echo chamber you live in. Just let it go. You can lead a horse to water...
|
|