Oregon State 42, Washington State 10
by Grady. on Nov 21, 2009 7:08 PM PST
in Cougar Football
38 comments
I'm trying a little something different with game recaps, which is linking to the SBN recap (above) for those of you that missed the game and may want to know all the ins-and-outs that got us to the final score.
Yet again, there's not much for me to add, except this: for whatever its worth, this game restored my faith in Paul Wulff a little bit. Pay no attention to the final score - this game was close throughout most of the first half and was 21-10 late in the third quarter. Sure, the Cougars never led, but this wasn't the roll-over-and-die type performance we've seen every week since the USC game. In fact, this game was pretty reminiscent of the game against the Trojans, with the obvious differences today being a lack of Jeff Tuel and the lopsided final score.
Still, there's a long way to go. Watching Arizona play Oregon at this moment, I remember how Arizona struggled in the early years under Stoops. While he never reached these depths, the Wildcats didn't have a winning season until the fifth year under Stoops. However, they've reeled in solid recruiting classes, built their program up, and now find themselves in the conversation for a Pac-10 championship.
Is it an equivalent example? Not exactly, but I try to look on the bright side after the 1,238 times that we see a Cougar QB pass go to Dwight Tardy in the flat for no gain. Earlier today, I felt like it was only a matter of time for Wulff. Now I feel like maybe there's a glimmer of hope.
What else is good news? We're a year away, at least in my opinion, from knowing the answer to our Wulff question. Either the program starts to show signs of life (which is a win), or Paul Wulff proves he can't get it together and we move on to the next coach (also a win).
Player of the Game: Seniors. Rather than give the award to an individual player, I thought I'd throw it out to the seniors who stuck with this program through good times and bad (mostly bad) over the past four to five years. Hope they got to go to some basketball games!
Unsung Hero: Jared Karstetter. Six catches for 72 yards, and a bright spot in a still struggling Cougar offense.
It was over when... Jacquizz Rodgers spun away from a Cougar defender en route to a 39-yard touchdown with 12:10 left to play in the fourth. It put OSU up 35-10.
Play of the Game: Dwight Tardy's 1-yard dive into the endzone to get the Cougars within 21-10 at halftime.
Stat of the Game: Jacquizz Rodgers finished with 165 rushing yards. WSU, as a team, had 192 total.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Does anyone else other than me think that Lopina gives the Cougs the best chance to compete right now?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 21, 2009 7:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I hated Lopina last year, but I was surprised at how quick they yanked him early in the season. He played decent against Stanford and has looked pretty good all year in minimal time (except for the Hawaii game I guess). But he is a solid starter, now if he could just not fumble the ball…
by MattPD on Nov 21, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also we need to quit the designed QB draws
Lopina is NOT a rushing quarterback
by Grady. on Nov 21, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lopina definately gives us the best chance
And it’s curious how quickly we went away from him. But Tuel is the future, and has shown some true bright spots. Don’t know if Tuel will be available next week or not, but after weeks of layoffs I think Lopina is our only hope (and it’s not much of one).
by 02Coug on Nov 21, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep Wulff or dump him ...
… it doesn’t matter. But burning Tuel’s redshirt is a killer.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 21, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree, still
I understand why Lopina was pulled as a starter so soon and it wasn’t just what you saw on the field (which also wasn’t great). Lobster, well everyone saw last week. Tuel is the best QB we have and the best chance we had to win. It also sped up his develop and got him game reps.
It’s not him getting hurt or him struggling at times that matters, it’s the thought process that went into it, as we’ve been preaching. The process made sense to me in this case and I think it’s fine we burned the redshirt.
by cougfan on Nov 22, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not a killer
And I’m not going to rehash the reasons why AGAIN for you. You can just go back and look at the 1,344 other comments we’ve left as to why playing Tuel was, has been, and still is the best plan.
If you want to argue it was a bad idea because he got injured, well, you simply can’t make decisions based on whether someone might get injured. That’s just stupid.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why Lopina is nothing better than a mediocre backup
“The offense is still struggling. Though Kevin Lopina played well at times, there were a lot of big plays – Gino Simone open in the end zone early, a couple of long passes with guys running free – that were missed. Even Lopina admitted that afterward. But he took care of the ball until a late fumble – that probably cost WSU three points – and there is something to be said for that.” Grippi
That’s pretty much him in a nutshell. Playing a guy who’s going to keep us within 30 but offer no future benefit to the program is just silliness if you have a better option — like, say, one who’s going to help you hopefully win for the next three years. There was no better option on Saturday, so there you go. But if Tuel can play, there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that he’s the better option, and gives us a better chance to win. Period.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for calling an argument that I never made stupid.
There are only two reasons that coaches ever burn redshirts on a developing football player: 1. Lack of Depth at the position in question or 2. the old “best chance to win” argument. This whole “game experience” argument some of you have made is just make-believe. There isn’t any coach out there that doesn’t believe that a whole year of practice plus an extra year on the field isn’t going to result in a more refined player.
Lack of depth hasn’t been an issue yet this year and clearly Tuel does not notably impact WSU’s chances to win a game this year. The offense was at its relative best this year in the first three games and Tuel was not part of any of those.
I know you want to find meaning in wasting a year of eligibility, but it was a mistake. And, if I’m the only person in the universe who at least questions the decision, then that is more an indictment of other than of me (in light of all evidence available).
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 22, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for making the point for us
“1. Lack of Depth at the position in question or 2. the old "best chance to win" argument”
1. We had no depth at qb
2. He is the best chance to win.
Next
by cougfan on Nov 22, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Please go back and read all the Tuel redshirt threads before you make indictments on others
It’s been rehashed 8 million times already and to question the readers here for being sheep saying we haven’t questioned the decision and have blindly followed it is ridiculous. It’s been questioned and discussed until we’re blue in the face and most agreed with the thought process when all was said and done.
Tell me this:
How is a senior quarterback who agrees to help organize and run offseason activities then bails on them only to show up the night before camp better for the team?
How is a senior quarterback who is absent from extra film sessions while a sophomore and freshmen qb are always in the film room better for the team?
How is this same quarterback, who’s lack of ability shows on the field by his inability to make reads or to go through any progressions better for the team?
Why is it that after being called out and benched he mysteriously disappears with an injury, only to magically reappear after the freshman qb who is a hell of alot better than him goes down with a ligament strain?
We’re trying to get players to buy in and the damn QB who is a senior and supposed to be a leader checked out before the season even began. You tell me how that’s a better alternative than using Tuel, a guy who everyone has admitted is a better leader and better QB than either of the other 2.
By the way, Lopina only started the first 2 games and did nothing of value in either. Unless you wanna count 2 picks and a fumble against Hawaii valuable. The thought process in burning the redshirt was correct. Just because he was injured and struggled at times doesn’t mean it was a bad decision. Better he does it now then later.
Should USC have redshirted Barkley in favor of Corp, too?
by cougfan on Nov 22, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"How is ..."
I’ll tell you how: Gekko is a Husky who hasn’t paid attention to the team other than just to make extremely overgeneralized observations that aren’t based on any depth of analysis.
That’s to be expected — I know I haven’t paid any closer attention to Washington than he has to us. But you also don’t see me running over to UW Dawg Pound to criticize the decisions of Sarkisian and his staff, since I don’t know (or, frankly, care to try and understand) the nuances of their program.
If it brings him entertainment to come over here and do what he does, fine. But That doesn’t mean we have to waste our time rehashing old and tired arguments over and over again to try and prove some point that’s already been established to a guy who could give a crap about our program.
I suggest saving your energy for the rest of us.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cmon man - I'm not trolling ..
.. my state of Washington roots run very deep and I have a vested interest in the program for many reasons. We’ve got Ty 2.0 going on right now and this blog has evolved into the Paul Wulff Apologist Network. You don’t have to believe that Wulff needs if you happen to believe that the Tuel redshirt burn was a mistake. In foresight it looked questionable, in hindsight it looks like a gaffe.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 22, 2009 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say you made that argument
I was merely making a preemptive strike. I’m so tired of making the same arguments again and again to your ill-informed statements. I guess I just need to start ignoring you.
The point we’ve made over and over is that playing him this year gives the team the best chance not only to perform well this year, but next year as well. Yes, him redshirting might have resulted in him being a better player by year five, but this team at this time in the program’s rebuild needs him to be a better player next year, and the year after that. It’s generally accepted that a player is better in his second year of playing than his first year, so he’s going to be better next year than he would have been had he redshirted. We’ve made this point before. Ad nauseam.
Unless, all you’re really trying to do is stir the pot. That’s actually more or less the conclusion I’ve come to at this point, since you almost never back up any point you make with any facts. “In light of all evidence available”? I have yet to see any real evidence to support any of your points.
Besides, how can anyone continue to take you seriously when you say something as ignorant as “The offense was at its relative best this year in the first three games and Tuel was not part of any of those.” That was against an inexperienced Stanford unit (which is still eighth in the conference in total defense), and then against Hawaii and SMU. You’re really going to try and compare the performance of the offense against the likes of USC, Arizona and Oregon State to that? That’s just silly.
From now on, I’m just going to stop feeding the troll.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone else other than me think that this whole argument is rather tired?
Mostly since you’re the only one continually bringing it up?
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree it's a tired agrument
Primarly due to the fact that Jeff Tuel is clearly the best QB on the team. He gets on-field experience and the team gets a QB that, while young, can actually make some plays. The other QBs on the team weren’t doing that.
And I think you’re right on, Nuss: Lopina might help keep it closer (closer being a relative term) but there is zero future benefit to the team. If Lopina had played all year and WSU ended up losing games by an average of 25 points per game instead of 35, so what? How’s that help us next season?
by Scottie44 on Nov 22, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not evolve to name calling.
… you guys do a good job on the blog, but the lack of debate on legitimate issues is really a critique that I think is fair for you to consider. You guys sometimes gang up and attack people when they have opinions that you do not share and you cannot easily rebuke. Example: On the attrition rate issue, you made a point that you’d bet your house no other program has anywhere close to that kind of attrition and then I counter with two examples and get a personal attack and dismissal for the trouble. Maybe it is fatigue from a long and draining season. I’ll back off.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 22, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"but the lack of debate on legitimate issues is really a critique that I think is fair for you to consider."
Now, you’re a liar, too.
http://www.cougcenter.com/2009/11/10/1122782/should-wulff-be-fired-after-just
Yup, I said it.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, my point is this
We embrace contrarian views. We like discussion of tough issues. I’m not trying to name call, but your comments have essentially hit on these themes the last few weeks over and over and over again:
1) Kevin Lopina should be starting.
2) Paul Wulff should be fired because he’s Ty Wilingham reincarnate.
3) Burning Jeff Tuel’s redshirt was a mistake.
You’ve offered no shred of statistical evidence that Lopina is the most effective quarterback, very little understanding of the nuances surrounding Wulff’s job security, and you’ve just repeated the same argument over and over regarding Tuel.
You’ve brought nothing new to the table in quite some time. Frankly, we expect more out of our community members than that. That you’re a Husky coming into our community means your burden is that much higher.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 22, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey guys why didn't Tuel play?
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Nov 21, 2009 11:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tuel
Don’t forget the separation this will give us between Tuel and Halliday. We are building some layered depth at the QB position.
by Stiffmiester on Nov 22, 2009 9:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tuel vs. Lopina...Really??
Since when does throwing for 133 yards with 0 TDs give us the best shot to win. I agree that Kevin is a feel good story right now with the tiny spark that he has provided since the Lobbestael disaster against UCLA. The facts are though that Lopina is a QB that throws for 100-200 yards and thats what he is at best a ball control QB that could win games only if he had a dominant running game which he doesn’t. His career INT to TD ratio is terrible and while I agree that he gives us a better chance than Lobbestael right now there is virtually no upside. Lopina is not going to suddenly go off and throw for 300 yrds and 3 TDs in the Apple Cup. If Tuel is healthy which I doubt he will be then he clearly gives us the most upside and therefore the best chance to win. Remember Tuel did throw for over 300 yrds at Cal and I can’t even remember the last time a cougar QB threw for 300 before him maybe all the way back to Brink. Don’t forget his impressive play against USC either. Burning the redshirt was the right move he gained valuable experience and had we stayed healthy would have given us a chance to win a game or two. Plus separating Halliday and Tuel is huge those guys are the future at the QB position. Point is Lopina is what he is while I appreciate his effort he lacks the skills and upside to give us a better chance than a healthy Tuel.
by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Nov 22, 2009 1:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The separation issue is the biggest head scratcher I've heard yet.
… its like you are assuming that WSU won’t recruit another decent QB for the next two years.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 22, 2009 7:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a matter of all the arguments in total.
1) Jeff Tuel has the best “tools” to get the job done for us this year. There was discussion that had he not gotten injured during fall camp, he would have started on the first snap against Stanford. He was that much better than the other qbs in practice. He (reportedly) makes his reads more consistently, he throws with more zip and accuracy, and he evades defenders and runs better than Lopina.
2) QBs practicing on a scout team against our porous defense wouldn’t have given him as good of in game experience and therefore ability to grow and get better as playing against other team’s defenses.
3) Lopina, while a serviceable backup and decent qb, doesn’t make his reads well. While he doesn’t lock onto one receiver the way Marshall does, he often forces a longball rather than continuing to make his reads and check down. He also had a nagging injury which has limited the zip he puts on the ball.
4) Lopina’s leadership was questioned early in the year. While he had a nagging injury which limited his mobility and the zip he could put on his throws for the better part of the season, he was cleared to play, and didn’t travel with the team a number of times this year even when he was cleared to play by doctors…. There were numerous reports of Tuel and Loebbestahl in the film room, and making extra throws with receivers after practice, but not Lopina. Against Hawaii, players were trying to be intense about coming back after our dreadful start, and Lopina was seen yucking it up with various players on the sideline after throwing 2 interceptions, rather than spending time learning adjustments and getting coaching.
5) With Halliday coming is as a qb in this class (who many believe will be an absolute stud), playing Tuel this year allows 2 years of separation between them, meaning that if Jeff plays 4 years, Halliday will be ready to step in and take over as a RS Jr after Tuel graduates.
by TiltingRight on Nov 22, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you could use the same argument for burning the redshirt
people are worried about losing Tuel for the 2013 season like we’ll run out of quarterbacks…..
so now you’re back to square one.
by BigWood on Nov 22, 2009 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also assuming we'll have him for the 2013 season, period.
If he ends up being special… well, Leaf and Bledsoe both left early. Even if he’s not THAT good, he could get injured. You can’t count on having guys around. After all, Cory Mackay was going to be starting at DE this year.
by TiltingRight on Nov 23, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the condition of the O-Line
burning Tuel’s Redshirt was moronic…who didn’t know the kid would, at least, break a knee cap. Luckily he didn’t break his back, “It’s Spinal.”
by ReidForrest4Heisman on Nov 23, 2009 6:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Neither of the other two quarterbacks have gotten hurt this year during a game
So your point is wrong.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given Paul Wulff's weekly news conferences
Which I listen to via your podcenter (ty very much)…he’s stated numerous times that all of his QB’s are gunshy behind WSU’s make shift O Line. Given Paul’s weekly comments, I’m not sure that’s the situation you want a RS Freshman/Future of your program playing behind. Mix that with the fact of how bad this team was…then you have your answer on whether it was a good move or not. My impression was that Wulff made this decision based on criticism in the media. Risking the future/health of his QB to attempt to salvage some positive publicity in the media.
by ReidForrest4Heisman on Nov 23, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I just don't think the facts support that conclusion
Tuel has performed statistically better than the other two quarterbacks against better competition. He’s playing because he’s the best quarterback on the roster. You can definitely argue whether it’s prudent to put him behind that sieve of a line. That’s legitimate.
But to say that Wulff made the decision to salvage positive publicity is just off base, especially given the fact that the move was roundly panned when it came about. He said he made the decision because he thought Tuel was the best quarterback, and I think that’s been proven.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 23, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we please stop the injury talk?
The whole argument that Wulff decided to burn Tuel’s redshirt to put him behind a broken O-Line is incorrect. Go back and look. The only injury after the Hawaii game was Zack Williams, who had rolled an ankle. In the SMU game, Guerra sprained an MCL but this was after the decision was made to burn the redshirt.
The facts don’t support the argument that Wulff decided to burn the redshirt knowing the was throwing him to the wolves behind a broken line. Did the line end up being a problem? Yes. Was it a problem when the decision was made? Not really. Again, the thought process in regards to the redshirt wasn’t bad. The result and injury to Tuel may not be what you had hoped for but that’s the breaks sometime.
by cougfan on Nov 23, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that is a ridiculous counter to that argument.
That is the exact same as saying that given the fact that Nuss has never been injured drinking and driving, the decision to drink and drive is therefore fine.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 24, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well in that case
Let’s say you don’t burn his redshirt early and he doesn’t get game time experience. Then, as you say, the condition of our o-line results in Lopina and then Lobster getting hurt. Now you are force to burn his redshirt anyways and he gets less experience while still losing his redshirt.
by Wazzu Willy on Nov 23, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful Nuss & Coug Fan!
You guys are way too quick to claim ‘facts’ on your side and a lack thereof for anyone disagreeing with you. That’s what shuts down the discussion. You can point backward at all of the previous blogs and articles and claim those are the ‘facts’ but sports by it’s nature and the blogs that follow the sports are all about the last game. You’re now frustrated and showing it. Let it go.
I think it’s incredibly obvious that Wulff has become a divisive figure by virtue of the team’s record (which is not good) and many of his choices (they are his choices) as head coach, which have led or contributed to that record.
We all understand the finances involved and probably all have figured out that PW is here for at least 1 year more.
But to not expect or anticipate well known threads of criticism’s following more losses is not honest at your end of things. Each week with the Cougs under PW has been the definition of insanity lived out in front of us; Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Unfortunately I don’t see things getting better anytime soon.
by Longtime Coug on Nov 23, 2009 4:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
