BeaverNut23
Freshman
WOOOOOO Feels dam Good to beat those Hogs! GO BEAVSSS!!
Posts: 553
|
Post by BeaverNut23 on Feb 8, 2018 19:42:23 GMT -8
This is from the dreaded Oregonian so heads up. articles.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2018/02/brian_lindgren_wants_oregon_st.amp From what I've read, I can honestly say I just dunno about a hurry up pro style offense with spread concepts... Honestly I'm not bought in or convinced under Smith. I'm not bashing or anything. I'm just not sold on this. Smith is a great guy and all. But I just dunno about the schemes of the offense and defense. A pro style hurry up offense and a 3-4 defense??... Eh... Idk.... Maybe during the next spring game, I'll be convinced in to all this.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 8, 2018 20:43:18 GMT -8
This is from the dreaded Oregonian so heads up. articles.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2018/02/brian_lindgren_wants_oregon_st.amp From what I've read, I can honestly say I just dunno about a hurry up pro style offense with spread concepts... Honestly I'm not bought in or convinced under Smith. I'm not bashing or anything. I'm just not sold on this. Smith is a great guy and all. But I just dunno about the schemes of the offense and defense. A pro style hurry up offense and a 3-4 defense??... Eh... Idk.... Maybe during the next spring game, I'll be convinced in to all this. Well, for one, if you base concrete decisions on the spring game you’re sure to be disappointed. In addition, and no offense, I will put my chips on the new staff verses you. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Feb 8, 2018 20:55:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by nforkbeav on Feb 8, 2018 22:21:50 GMT -8
Just having a plan for an offensive identity paired with coaches who can make it happen is a GIANT step forwards.
UW's offense has been 1 and 2 in conference scoring the past two seasons. Our new direction sounds eerily similar to what UW does, but you don't know if that will work??? LOL....hahaha you're a funny dude
|
|
|
Post by easyheat on Feb 8, 2018 23:44:58 GMT -8
No doubt you will see a Pro-set from JS with a lot Peterson/UW and some OSU/Riley and OSU/Erickson mixed in. JS wants balance and tempo from multiple sets. The use of formations and personnel groupings have a strong influence on today's game and you'll see that. JS and Lindgren are a quantum upgrade offensively from what we had with GA and his offensive staff. The Beavs will move the chains and get better at it as time goes on.
As for the 3-4? The best base for combating the spread teams. With the exception of UW, USC and Stanford, the PAC-12 is a spread conference. With a 2-gap nose, two War Daddys at DT and hybrid athletes that can rush and cover at OLB, you can match up with the spread's flotilla of receivers. A natural for utilizing nickel and dime packages. Most feel it's an easier scheme to recruit to than a college 4-3. The new D/C is a true believer, and will make it work.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Feb 9, 2018 0:16:01 GMT -8
As for the 3-4? The best base for combating the spread teams. With the exception of UW, USC and Stanford, the PAC-12 is a spread conference. With a 2-gap nose, two War Daddys at DT and hybrid athletes that can rush and cover at OLB, you can match up with the spread's flotilla of receivers. A natural for utilizing nickel and dime packages. Most feel it's an easier scheme to recruit to than a college 4-3. The new D/C is a true believer, and will make it work. The 3-4 makes me nervous because, or so it seems to me, one needs to recruit fairly exceptional athletes to fill the positions at NG, DT and OLB. In a 3-4, the NG must be able to eat up 2-3 OLs by himself, a rare player, indeed. In 1 4-3, you can throw in two guys for the same assignment. In a 3-4, the DTs must be able to take on 2 guys a lot of the time, whether it be am OG and an OT or an OT and a TE. In the 4-3, DTs take off pressure by engaging the OGs most of the time. In a 3-4, the OLBs have to be able to rush the edge, contain the edge, cover backs, TE's and occasionally even slots in passing plays, and take on stunting OLs in sweeps and other off-tackle runs. In a 4-3, the DEs don't have to (except on generally rare plays) cover receivers/backs. Essentially, the OLBs have to be fast enough to cover on passing plays and big and strong enough to take on OLs on run plays. That's a tall order. I wonder if OSU can consistently recruit NGs, and DTs and OLBs suited to a 3-4. I look at the best example of a good 3-4 in the Pac 12 over the last few years (Stanford) and have to really wonder if we can get the monster DTs that those guys get on a year-in-year-out basis.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 9, 2018 6:21:15 GMT -8
So basically Washington's offense. That sucks?
|
|
|
Post by bennyorange on Feb 9, 2018 7:35:41 GMT -8
Echoing Smith, Lindgren insisted the Beavers will adapt their scheme to existing personnel and not impose a system on players who do not fit it.
What an amazing concept after the square peg/round hole mentality of the previous idiot.
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Feb 9, 2018 10:37:35 GMT -8
Echoing Smith, Lindgren insisted the Beavers will adapt their scheme to existing personnel and not impose a system on players who do not fit it. What an amazing concept after the square peg/round hole mentality of the previous idiot.You mean like having Tyner exclusively run 2 fly sweeps a game?
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Feb 9, 2018 10:54:17 GMT -8
So basically Washington's offense. That sucks? Really? I'd be happy with CJS running some variation of the Petersen Boise State offense. Not a lot of razzle dazzle but very consistently effective and found creative ways to run the football even when they lacked premier running back talent. What made that offense really run was not NFL talent in the arm, but a guy who could make good decisions and distribute the football. That was the drawback of Riley's offensive philosophy to me. Sure, he was a good enough x's and o's guy that (given the tools to work with) he could simplify the playbook for a Moevao type skillset qb. It didn't necessarily fall flat without a big armed NFL type drop back passer, but it was one hell of an uphill climb. The question to me is, what kind of identity is Smith going to forge with the Beavers? Andersen really wanted to establish a "tough guy" identity but it felt like the talent was mostly still being funneled to the offense. Whereas I would say with St. Dennis, that staff tended to take athletes and put them on the defensive side of the ball when it was a toss up. Riley's staff was kind of haphazard to me... they tended to give guys the first look on offense and then move them to defense to give them a chance to contribute before they left. Boom obviously is the first guy that comes to mind there, but looking at how wideouts who couldn't get on the field took a chance to play corner (Brandon Hughes) also comes to mind. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this was a waste overall or not. Guys like Sammie Stroughter they figured would get his first shot at WR and if it didn't work out he would be a hell of a DB.. obviously it worked out. Other schools were offering him as a DB. Some guys like Gwachum obviously had their impact potential squandered, but if Stroughter wasn't getting a shot to play WR at Oregon State he was going to take the offer from Fresno State. I think this was one of Riley's calculated strategies, sometimes it panned out, sometimes it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 9, 2018 11:24:26 GMT -8
This is from the dreaded Oregonian so heads up. articles.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2018/02/brian_lindgren_wants_oregon_st.amp From what I've read, I can honestly say I just dunno about a hurry up pro style offense with spread concepts... Honestly I'm not bought in or convinced under Smith. I'm not bashing or anything. I'm just not sold on this. Smith is a great guy and all. But I just dunno about the schemes of the offense and defense. A pro style hurry up offense and a 3-4 defense??... Eh... Idk.... Maybe during the next spring game, I'll be convinced in to all this. At least he gets 6 years to figure it out. August 2017, Beavernut23 said: "Yeah, I'm totally ok with 4 or maybe 5 losing season, cuz years 1-3 or 4 or years 1-5 are rebuilding years for a new coach rebuilding a team. The first 5 years of any coach r gunna be struggling. I won't expect a winning season till like year 6 and on. "
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 9, 2018 11:38:35 GMT -8
As for the 3-4? The best base for combating the spread teams. With the exception of UW, USC and Stanford, the PAC-12 is a spread conference. With a 2-gap nose, two War Daddys at DT and hybrid athletes that can rush and cover at OLB, you can match up with the spread's flotilla of receivers. A natural for utilizing nickel and dime packages. Most feel it's an easier scheme to recruit to than a college 4-3. The new D/C is a true believer, and will make it work. The 3-4 makes me nervous because, or so it seems to me, one needs to recruit fairly exceptional athletes to fill the positions at NG, DT and OLB. In a 3-4, the NG must be able to eat up 2-3 OLs by himself, a rare player, indeed. In 1 4-3, you can throw in two guys for the same assignment. In a 3-4, the DTs must be able to take on 2 guys a lot of the time, whether it be am OG and an OT or an OT and a TE. In the 4-3, DTs take off pressure by engaging the OGs most of the time. In a 3-4, the OLBs have to be able to rush the edge, contain the edge, cover backs, TE's and occasionally even slots in passing plays, and take on stunting OLs in sweeps and other off-tackle runs. In a 4-3, the DEs don't have to (except on generally rare plays) cover receivers/backs. Essentially, the OLBs have to be fast enough to cover on passing plays and big and strong enough to take on OLs on run plays. That's a tall order. I wonder if OSU can consistently recruit NGs, and DTs and OLBs suited to a 3-4. I look at the best example of a good 3-4 in the Pac 12 over the last few years (Stanford) and have to really wonder if we can get the monster DTs that those guys get on a year-in-year-out basis. Don't forget ILBs. I think that Oregon State can recruit OLBs, but finding two true ILBs to come to Oregon State is going to be a once a decade sort of deal. I think that finding an NG, two DTs, and two ILBs to play in Corvallis at the same time is a once in a half century sort of deal. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just see Oregon State continuing to get dominated by the Stanfords, USCs, and Washingtons of the world.
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on Feb 9, 2018 12:06:45 GMT -8
Echoing Smith, Lindgren insisted the Beavers will adapt their scheme to existing personnel and not impose a system on players who do not fit it. What an amazing concept after the square peg/round hole mentality of the previous idiot. Careful now, you are giving idiots a bad name!
Those jackwagons took it a step further and ran off D1 talent that didn't fit their version of a round hole.
Go Beavs!!
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Feb 9, 2018 12:12:45 GMT -8
So basically Washington's offense. That sucks? Really? I'd be happy with CJS running some variation of the Petersen Boise State offense. Not a lot of razzle dazzle but very consistently effective and found creative ways to run the football even when they lacked premier running back talent. What made that offense really run was not NFL talent in the arm, but a guy who could make good decisions and distribute the football. That was the drawback of Riley's offensive philosophy to me. Sure, he was a good enough x's and o's guy that (given the tools to work with) he could simplify the playbook for a Moevao type skillset qb. It didn't necessarily fall flat without a big armed NFL type drop back passer, but it was one hell of an uphill climb. The question to me is, what kind of identity is Smith going to forge with the Beavers? Andersen really wanted to establish a "tough guy" identity but it felt like the talent was mostly still being funneled to the offense. Whereas I would say with St. Dennis, that staff tended to take athletes and put them on the defensive side of the ball when it was a toss up. Riley's staff was kind of haphazard to me... they tended to give guys the first look on offense and then move them to defense to give them a chance to contribute before they left. Boom obviously is the first guy that comes to mind there, but looking at how wideouts who couldn't get on the field took a chance to play corner (Brandon Hughes) also comes to mind. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this was a waste overall or not. Guys like Sammie Stroughter they figured would get his first shot at WR and if it didn't work out he would be a hell of a DB.. obviously it worked out. Other schools were offering him as a DB. Some guys like Gwachum obviously had their impact potential squandered, but if Stroughter wasn't getting a shot to play WR at Oregon State he was going to take the offer from Fresno State. I think this was one of Riley's calculated strategies, sometimes it panned out, sometimes it didn't. I have faith Smith will install an offense that does mostly what you, me, others hope for. Which is simply score points, lots of them. Personally I could care less at this point what that offense is. If its the dreaded triple option and we are hanging 45 a game, awesome. Hell, I enjoyed whatever CGA was running at the end of 2016.
OP and others seem to be concerned with an overwhelmingly vague comment regarding the new offenseive scheme. All I take from the comments is it will look like Washington's, which is multiple sets. They will line up with QB under center and 2 TEs and puund the rock, they will spread 'em out with QB in shotgun. Makes sense, Smith has been coaching that very offense for a while now, I'm sure he'll bring his own little twist to it, and adding in some of Riley's influence. I don't recall Washington running a fly sweep, but I bet we see it once or twice next year.
Anyway, I just kinda laughed at the "slight" panic here. Anything HAS to be better than what we saw last year, I'm willing to give Smith a shot and put my faith in his knowledge, not gonna kneejerk any decision/scheme he makes/implements at this point, not even the dreaded 3-4 D.
Maybe I'm just a fan.
BTW, IMO Jake Browning would be horrific in Riley's offense. Dude has one read, a dump off, and sketchy feet when pressured. Which works phenomenally for what Washington does. So bring on the next Jake Browning!
|
|
|
Post by coforange on Feb 9, 2018 12:13:03 GMT -8
So basically Washington's offense. That sucks? Ya right. That's what I have taken away from his explanations of what he plans to do. So was this Chris Peterson football or Johnathan Smith style. All I know is, if I hear we need to find our identity one time I will go bat s%#t crazy.
|
|