The negativity post
by Grady. on Sep 6, 2009 10:54 PM PDT
in Cougar Football
41 comments
There was an odd end to the Cougars' 39-13 loss to Stanford on Saturday. One you may not have seen on TV.
As the Crimson and Gray left the field, there was a round of applause for the home team.
It was deserved. Respectful. Exactly the kind of thing an awesome fanbase like ours would do. Especially after seeing their ballclub make a marked improvement against a decent conference foe.
Still, something didn't feel right.
Like I said after the game via Twitter: "Round of applause after a 39-13 loss. This is how far we've fallen."
And, while sad, it still rings true to me. A 26 point loss to a middle tier Pac-10 team is now officially an improvement. Something to get modestly excited about. And - please allow me to flaunt my prognostication skills here - it was exactly how I expected the game to turn out. The Cougs did not cover the 17 point spread, and my 38-17 game score prediction was only five combined points off from the real thing. Stanford was a little worse; the Cougs were a little better. Ho-hum.
The point is when you're celebrating your team not getting drubbed by 58 points, your program is in a sad state. What's so frustrating about it is the Cougars did so many things right on Saturday, and still got beat easily. For example, if I had told you before the game:
- The Cougars would commit zero turnovers
- WSU would outperform Stanford in passing yardage, 247 to 193
- The Cougs would only commit 24 yards worth of penalties
- Dwight Tardy would average 4.5 yards per carry
- WSU would be almost even in total yards with Stanford as late as the third quarter
You'd feel pretty good about the Cougs' chances, right? Good enough to believe we'd be in the game, or at the very least only down by a touchdown or two.
And we should have been. However, Stanford did exactly what they had to do, refusing to turn the ball over and letting Gerhart's steady hand carry them to a victory. WSU did little to help their cause, with special teams gaffes and the inconsistent offense you've come to expect with two quarterback systems.
Let's talk about special teams first. The Cougars wasted a half's worth of kick returns by using Aire Justin in favor of James Montgomery. Let's not go crazy about Justin's horrible decision to start a return seven yards back in his own end zone; he knows that was a bad call and so do the coaches. What was a poor decision, however, was failing to put the better pure runner (Montgomery) out there in the first place. Justin is a defensive back who managed 16 yards per return. Montgomery is a running back who averaged 30 yards on three returns and gave the Cougars some hope in the field position game. Let's keep him there. (Side note: I'm growing to like Montgomery - especially the whole "I'm going to hit the other guy before he hits me" mentality")
Kickoff coverage was atrocious. It's very troubling because it speaks to our lack of talent and athletes available for special teams. Wulff even resorted to the squib kick, and let me be clear when I say I wish we treated squib kicks like the plague. I hate them. Hated them ever since Doba decided it would be a better idea to let a coverage man carry the ball to the 40 rather than the actual return man. I know they're better than a touchdown, but it's just so weak to gift wrap the ball near midfield for your opponent. If you do do it, at least kick the ball down the middle so it won't roll out of bounds and you can get your coverage team to the ball faster. And don't get me started on punt coverage, most notably the 45 yard boot by Forrest that nearly hit the sky but still didn't provide enough time for our team to get within ten yards of the return man. On the flip side, at least we know Reid Forrest is our team MVP.
Meanwhile, I find myself beginning to question Wulff's coaching decisions. For example: why are we always rolling out Lopina in a direction where he has to make a throw back across his body? Is there any good reason for this? Maybe those of you with football coaching experience out there can help me out. Also - and this is one of newly retired John Madden's pet peeves - why are we consistently throwing the ball short of the marker on third and long? Assuming the receiver is going to get enough YAC every time for the first down is nonsensical. And finally, do you really need a timeout to figure out that going for it on fourth down - trailing by 19 points in the fourth quarter on your opponent's 36 yard line with a sketchy kicker - is a good idea? I actually heard someone in the bathroom throw out Mike Price's name as a coaching possibility.
While I appreciate Nuss' optimism, I'm not so thrilled with our rush defense. If you look at the whole game's stats WSU still gave up a horrific 6.9 yards per carry. Yes, I'm aware some of it came late with backups in, but all that proves is that our depth is still far inferior to our opponents' depth. If you look at Gerhart's full game, he averaged 5.3 yards per attempt. Now, I feel a little better about that, because if we can be mediocre against a great running back we can at least hold our own in some of these games. But Andrew Luck's field day running the ball (8.8 yards per attempt) is inexcusable. So is making Tavita Pritchard look like pre-dogfight Mike Vick later on in the game.
I'm not sure why it was so disappointing. Like I said, this game turned out practically the way I thought it would. I guess it's the confirmation there isn't much hope for this season. Some teams have good offenses but bad defenses. Others have strong D but no O. We have neither - with a side of special teams issues (except for Forrest Fire the Second, of course). I think part of myself wanted to see the Cougars surprise me; the way UW surprised me by hanging in there with a surprisingly bad LSU team (this is why I don't gamble on sports).
At the end of the game, I too was clapping my hands. I loved the effort, the intensity, the improvement on both sides of the ball. Even the pregame handshake turned out to be a nice show of sportsmanship that was a lot cooler in person than it had appeared on the televised broadcasts of other games.
Still - I hate how far we've fallen. And how long it's going to take to make it back.
So, Coug Nation - do you have anything else to vent about from Saturday's game? Any more reasons for optimism? That's what the comments are for.
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Some positives?
We already got two recruits to commit who were at the game on Saturday.
Our special teams coverage improved last year after a horrendous start, so we can expect that to change.
Our offense didn’t look anemic and after this Saturday we’ll have ONE quarterback. (I’m hoping for Lopina)
I’m looking forward to watching our O-line (hell, the whole team) get better throughout the year.
by james_WSU on Sep 6, 2009 11:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Our special teams coverage improved because we used more starters there.
That may have played a part in the slew of injuries that followed.
by Dancing Football on Sep 7, 2009 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another positive
I didn’t watch the game (stupid work…), but it sounds like the team was actually playing football, not just running around in pads. The most frustrating thing about last year to me was the painfully obvious lack of effort. At least they will go down swinging, and that is much more fun to watch.
by displacedcoug on Sep 7, 2009 12:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Negative?
I have no idea what game you were watching. The game that I was at showed a clear change in attitude to where we were from last year. Yes the defense had some issues in the first half, but looked awesome in the second half (negate the late td run by Toby). The offense sustained drives and got them in scoring position while Lopina was in. Shall I note a 19 play drive on our first possession? Did we ever have 19 plays in a quarter last year? Also, on the offensive front, did you see that we ran Wulff’s offense? Yes, we didn’t have to huddle like last year to try and run the no huddle offense.
As far as your special teams comment. We all know we don’t have a ton of talent on our team. We are thin because Doba didn’t hit the recruiting trail. Therefore a lack of a senior, junior and sophomore class of athletes. That is going to mean that we will have to have more starters playing on the ST unit. That isn’t good, but will sure things up, ala Karstetter still on kickoff coverage.
Maybe you didn’t notice the more competitive nature of our game, and that is the only excusable reason for your undeniable pessimism. It may suck to be excited about a loss, but it sure as hell beats the type of “football” we played last year. Yes, it is in quotes because I do not consider what we played last year as football.
Enjoy the new direction we are taking to be a more competitive football team year in and year out, and not trying for a JC quick fix. The foundation looks solid.
by diehardcoug on Sep 7, 2009 12:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So you are completely happy
that your team might have played it’s best game against a Pac 10 opponent since 2007 and they lost by 26? Yes, there were improvements but the point of Grady’s post is to say that even with those vast improvements we are still a pretty bad football team.
by Dancing Football on Sep 7, 2009 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completely happy?
Yes to answer your question. Did we really think that after 1.5 recruiting classes under Wulff it going to turn our team into a powerhouse? It is about expectations for what we have on our team. We know that our talent is not there. Fine. That means that we have to do it with our schemes and making sure we do it with our responsibilities. Did we break down a couple of times? Yes. That doesnt mean that we should overlook all of the positives we did have in overcoming our severe lack of talent. It is going to take a while to get in the kids we need to get back to the top of the Pac-10. Just wait it out and take the small victories when we can get them along the way. The foundation is building. Ask Dick and Tony.
by diehardcoug on Sep 8, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't expect 1.5 recruiting classes to turn around the team.
The point is there is still a long way to go. It’s not worth jumping up and down over because the team managed to keep an opponent under 40. Yes, I am pleased that the Cougs did not look as bad as last year, but it’s too early to get excited.
These next two games are very important because they will be playing teams with closer and probably lower levels of talent than our guys. If the football team takes care of business in those, I will be excited. I’m just reserving my judgement.
by Dancing Football on Sep 8, 2009 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do agree
with the thought that the next two games will really decide if we should get excited. The thing is though, we only have that game to judge on. So, compared to last year, using it as a barometer, we should have some hope going forward. I can only go off of what has happened and the effort and results were much better, considering we weren’t chalked full of talent to being with.
by diehardcoug on Sep 8, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for the record
At the end of the game, I too was clapping my hands. I loved the effort, the intensity, the improvement on both sides of the ball.
I’m happy with the overall direction of the program. What hit me at the game, though, was how far we’ve fallen and how long the climb out of it is going to be.
The post is somewhat of a counterpoint to Nuss’ post about the positives. There definitely are some good things to take away, but quite a few problems as well.
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I'll repeat my point
How much closer would the game have been JUST without the special teams blunders? Take away 1 point for the 2-point conversion, and take away Owusu’s touchdown (assuming they didn’t score on that drive). All of a sudden, you’re talking about a 21-10 game midway through the third quarter with the momentum completely on your side. Who knows what would have happened after that?
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Hawaii is when we'll be able to really measure some stuff.
Team speed isn’t going to improve, so we’ll still be prone to giving up big plays on D, but a lot of the “special” teams f***ups have as much to do with blowing lanes and assignments (which are easily fixed) and being unable to shake loose and poor wrapping up on tackling (less easily fixed) than anything else. As they say, teams improve most between weeks 1 and 2.
That being said… we HAVE to beat the Warriors or it’s going to be a long, depressing season. Like this past election day if you were a Republican type long and depressing. Like a San Diego native in Fairbanks, AK on the first day of winter season.
The biggest thing for me is whether the D had a bad game tackling by being too jacked and losing focus (they did better in the 2nd half). They can make up for footspeed issues by taking the ballcarrier down when you get your hands on them. If that doesn’t improve, I may be looking for some hemlock.
by TiltingRight on Sep 7, 2009 12:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
my take
We lost by 26 points to a mid-level Pac10 team. We seemed to play hard, but that should be a given for players on scholarship. My specific comments:
—Special teams were awful. Why, after practicing in spring, summer, and fall camp, are players out of position and missing assignments? We need a separate special teams coach, period.
—Defensive line got basically no pressure on the QB. Luck was able to throw to whoever he wanted. The defense did not do “ok” if you give up 480 yards. DBs were out of position and tackled poorly.
—Getting 1 TD from the offense won’t get it done. When you can’t score from the 1 yd line on first and goal, the OL still has a long way to go. Rypien made the point that one Stanford DL in particular was unable to be blocked the whole game. So, both DL and OL are still bad. Football is a game of line play.
—I am not surprised by 22,000 fans. The WSU fans have been very supportive over the past 6 years as the program was slowly destroyed by Doba and his merry pranksters. Don’t blame the fans.
We have to start winning football games, and soon.
by bpcoug53 on Sep 7, 2009 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So what are most fans going to be saying as...
the season progresses and we are losing by an average of 3-4 TDs instead of 7+?
Isn’t that progress?
I only ask these things because I expect 2-3 wins maximum and will mostly satisfied if we continue to improve and compete throughout the season.
I think one of the signs of a very good coach is that they win a game no one expects them to win. That is more difficult in football than basketball, but I think a very good sign would be to see us beat one (or maybe two) Pac-10 teams.
If we don’t beat both Hawaii and SMU (I’m counting on those for 2 of our wins), this season is going to look bleak very soon.
by westsidecougar1 on Sep 7, 2009 9:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's progress
I only ask these things because I expect 2-3 wins maximum and will mostly satisfied if we continue to improve and compete throughout the season.
I agree with that, too, in terms of expectations. It’s just sad we got to this point in the first place. But now I think I can accept it and look forward to the improvements along the way.
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our fans could be better
I’m the guy leading cheers through my megaphone until the game is over. I’ve been to many games where I’ve felt my cheer leading changed a game. The Seahawks know they have a 12th man advantage. I wish the same thing were true in Pullman.
Our team works its butt off all year, so why don’t the fans leave a little out there on Saturday?
I was opposite the students for Saturday’s game and was shocked that while we were still in this game during the 3rd and 4th quarters, most our fans were sitting down on 3rd and 4th down plays allowing Stanford to get comfortable and communicate. The general rule for football fans is to make a lot of noise when your team is on defense and to be quiet while your team is setting up the offense.
Since I’m ranting, it has been a nearly 30 year gripe that the Cougar cheerleaders lead cheers when our team has the ball exhorting the crowd to make noise. Who trains these kids?
I really wonder how that game would have turned out with a better crowd. I do believe we could have made a difference.
by CougarsRock on Sep 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Student
I think part of the problem with the student section is that none of the students have witnessed a good football team in Martin Stadium. There are no students left over from the 10 win seasons, so they just don’t know how to create a good home field advantage. Besides, I have lost my voice many a time the last few years and nothing came of it. I really don’t think louder cheering would have made a big difference in that game. It can definitely make a difference in a close game. In reality, the Standford game was far from close.
In response to an earlier post… you can rave about a 19 play drive all you want but we still came away with 0 points. At the end of the day points are all that matter.
by 907coug on Sep 7, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see your point.
I’m graduating this semester and I had no idea WSU was ever that good. I’ve never been a Husky, but I didn’t start watching (and loving) sports until I came here. In 2006 the games were a lot of fun: beating ranked Oregon and coming close to winning against top 10 ranked USC and Cal all at home. Saturday I was yelling at first, but every time I did Stanford got a big play so I became superstitious lol
by james_WSU on Sep 7, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been a fan since the Cougs were good
And that big play after the crowd gets riled up thing… happens ALL the time.
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are so many people having such a hard time seeing the big picture?
Yes, we still lost. Yes, it still wasn’t close. We can lament the fact that it sucks that we’re not competitive all we want, but at the end of the lamenting, we’re still going to suck.
So, the question is: Are we just going to complain about how we still suck? Or are we going to try and see the big picture? The big picture shows me that while this team still has miles to go, it has already come a mile.
Why not enjoy the little victories?
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I've spent so much time in the offseason thinking positive
That it’s tough to be reminded that yes, our team sucks.
But the big picture is very, very bright. Just look at Karstetter. Or Simone. Or Travis Long. Or Jeff Tuel. We have a group of young players that make me start to feel like we have the football equivalent of the Low-Weaver-Cowgill basketball class.
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never forget the big picture
which is why i’m not freaking out, but it does get old trying to explain the big picture to friends that are only casual fans.
by james_WSU on Sep 7, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throwing short on 3rd down
A couple of those were the result of the O-Line not being able to block anybody on Stanford and Lopina having to check down and dump it off to a safety route as opposed to play-calling. Our pass blocking was really bad and hamstrung the team when the QB needed time to throw down the field.
by Scottie44 on Sep 7, 2009 10:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think 3rd and long was a sign of some issues with the O-Line
The line was great opening holes for our running backs, especially on the early drives. But where I saw some O-line issues was on clear passing downs where they let pressure get in early. Lopina was left to dump the ball to running backs or recievers in the flats and hope they could get the first. It worked a few times, and Lopina might have gotten too comfortable with the dump off instead of more difficult throws down the field that risk interceptions.
by 02Coug on Sep 7, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also think some of the issue is our WRs
That’s something I’m going to write about this week.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Few things I was frustrated with
1. In all the years I’ve been a Coug fan, I can’t remember when we were actually competent inside the 5 yard line on offense. Those struggles continued on our first drive, and getting in the end zone on that drive could have really sent a confidence boost to our team while shocking Stanford a little.
2. We didn’t commit a lot of penalties, but at least 2 were stupid and costly. 12 men on the field for an extra point just shouldn’t happen, and opening up by giving up 8 points instead of 7 hurt. The late hit on the dropped pass into the flat was frustrating, I know it can be argued that the DB didn’t know if it was a pass or lateral and whistles were late, but the reciever wasn’t moving and the DB didn’t pull up at all. Could have been avoided.
3. I’m sure we’ll get into this over the week, but we’ll need a clear #1 QB as we move forward. Lopina is making good decisions, may not provide the big play opportunities of Lobbestael but until he makes a mistake it should be Lopina’s job to lose.
by 02Coug on Sep 7, 2009 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That late hit call was awful
I’ve seen that play numerous times and rarely ever do they throw a flag. I didn’t hear a whistle and the defensive player has to assume the ball is live until he’s told otherwise.
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good to know
On TV it was hard to tell about the whistles, and of course with reply it gets slowed down and just looked like he had forever and should have known the play was dead.
by 02Coug on Sep 7, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could have been avoided by not blowing the guy up to the ground
If he thought it was a fumble, dive for the ball. If he’s not sure, wrap up and drive back until you hear a whistle. Gotta be smarter than that.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heard the whistle
and it was late, but he still had time to stop.
by woolybugger on Sep 7, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a great game plan
WSU’s strength on offense is the running backs. WSU abandoned the run which looked promising in the second quarter. As on poster said in the game thread…poof…and the running game is gone! The throwing actoss the body thing is a great point to bring up because I also noticed it. The WSU coaching staff needs to play to the strengths of what this team can do rather than what they wish it can do.
The two QB system needs to be shelved…pick one guy and go with it. Nothing against the Lobster but Lopina was building some positive’s before he was replaced. That replacement coencided with the abandonment of the running game for no good particular reason.
Overall WSU looked better than I thought they would and Stanford looked worse. The Cards are way too one dimensional on offense and they have too many holes on defense.
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
From my vantage point Lopina was clearly the better QB in this game.
So much so that I was wanting Wulff to use Lopina and not Lobster in the 4th quarter.
Sad to say that I agree with a Husky, but I agree with everything John says above.
For some reason when Lobster came in during the 2nd quarter the offense began to throw on first down instead of running… and with incomplete passes, the throwing continued through entire sets of downs… It did not look good and the results were not good. When Lopina was in, the Cougars used a more balanced attack which pretty much consisted of running the ball until we had a 3rd and long or 2nd and long that demanded a pass attempt.
I found myself wanting Wulff to use Lopina in the 4th quarter for the same reason that we all wanted Wulff to go for it on 4th downs. I desperately wanted the team to get back into the game and Lopina seemed like the right answer.
I hope that Wulff saw enough of Lobster during the 4th quarter to finally make the decision to stick with Lopina from here on out. My choice would be to give the entire Hawaii game over to the Senior.
by cfred on Sep 7, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to break down the QBs hopefully later today
But I also had the same impression of the run/pass play calling. I’m curious to see how it really was when I break down the drive charts.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cfred
I take my Husky hat off when I am over here trying to analyze what I see in the game. I see enough positive pieces if used correctly that this doesn’t have to be a lost season for WSU. The big question is will the coaches be able to put together those pieces. This game was closer than the score indicated even though Stanford had more talent. The difference in the coaching staffs were pretty apparent. One team had a definite plan (Stanford), and one team was out there throwing stuff up against the wall to see what would stick (WSU).
WSU needs to focus on what they know they can do well, simplify it, and execute it every week. You can’t get any consistency going in a two QB system. The only reason Lobster should play is if Lopina is hurt or he is doing some mop up at the end of the game.
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you're being objective over here but...
…I just don’t know if I’m comfortable with a Husky calling him “Lobster”.
by jj_fekl on Sep 8, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ROFL
It is the best nicknmae in college football history.
by John Berkowitz on Sep 8, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expectations
1.) First off, 02Coug could not have said it any better about our redzone woes. Even those Gesser led teams were AWFUL (2001 Apple Cup loss – 4 redzone trips and zero points!) If it cost us games then, think about how much worse its hurting us now.
2.) Lopina is our starter, period.
3.) Does anyone think that we need to readjust our expectations for the Wulff era (assuming he gets his 5 years)? I don’t mean this negatively. I mean it very well might not be until 2012 that we compete.
A lot of people have thrown around 2010 as some magical year when things turn around, but maybe it will take until Wulff’s guys are seniors to even flirt with a .500 record? And if he can do that, he will be a major success in my book.
by LACoug on Sep 7, 2009 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think 2011 is the year we should expect results
Here are my expectations at the moment in terms of win totals:
2009: 2-3
2010: 3-4, competitive in conference games
2011: 5+, challenging for a Bowl game
by Grady. on Sep 7, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My predictions...
09: 3-4
10: 5-6
11: 7+
2013…. Rose Bowl!
I have a lot of faith in Tuel as you can see lol
by james_WSU on Sep 7, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we see 3-4 wins and are not competitive in 2010
then I see some changes being made, at least at the asst coach level.
by ptowncoug3012 on Sep 8, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One outside the box reason for Lopina
If there is a love affair that happens with lobster, where does that leave Tuel for the next two years after his redshirt? If we are being honest, neither of the two qbs we have are the type that are actually going to lead a productive offense, and the mindset of the coaching staff seems to be that Tuel is the real deal.
Lopina also gives us the best chance to win (as shown by his ability to drive us into the redzone in what seems like every drive he had). Next year, turn it over to Tuel without too much of an uproar to having the lobster in there and let him learn. That way in 2011 we can start being toward the top of the league. Keep looking to the future.
by diehardcoug on Sep 8, 2009 12:48 AM PDT 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.
