OKLAHOMA STATE AFTERMATH: Improvement And The State Of The Team
by Brian Floyd on Sep 6, 2010 4:56 PM PDT
Email
PrintWe've talked a lot about the game and the coaching staff in the wake of Saturday's game, but we haven't said much about improvement. Has this team improved and is it heading in the right track?
Jo-Jo got me thinking about that question and more with a comment he left yesterday. I should've been more clear in my last paragraph. He's right. This team is bad and we knew it was going to be a poor team coming into the season. There's still a very large gap between WSU and the rest of the Pac-10. That was on full display Saturday.
But how bad is the team? That's a question I just can't answer yet. Deciding that after one game is falling into the trap of extrapolating a small sample. We got whipped. That doesn't mean we'll get whipped every game this year. How they come back from this in the next few games will say a lot.
The bigger question here is whether the 2010 Cougars are better than the 2008 and 2009 teams. It's a question that also can't be fully answered after one game. We can get an idea of the direction, but by no means is it complete.
With 11 minutes to go in the first half, the Cougars were down 17-10. After fumbling the handoff on the first play from scrimmage, WSU found themselves down a touchdown in the first minute of the game. Here we go again.
Instead of rolling over, the Cougars traded three-and-outs with OSU for the next few series, stepping up and making plays to stop Oklahoma State. Now we have progress.
Oklahoma State went up 17-0 to end the first quarter and it looked like all was lost. Instead, WSU got on the board with an absolute bomb from Nico Grasu -- a 56-yard field goal that none of us saw coming. Another three-and-out set the Cougars up for a 56-yard strike to Marquess Wilson and gave us all a glimpse of what we expected to see from the exciting freshman. All of a sudden, after getting off to a horrific start, we had ourselves a game.
With all the momentum, WSU gave up another touchdown, this time on a deep pass from Brandon Weeden to Justin Blackmon. On the next series, the Cougars were in field goal range, yet opted for a fake, nearly converting on fourth down. Say what you will about calling for a fake, but with the game still within reach, why not take a stab at it? They had nothing to lose.
The rest, as we say, is history. The Cowboys finished off the half with a few big plays and put the game out of reach. What happened between the first quarter and second quarter was telling, though. The defense was making plays, the offense was starting to click and the Cougars were playing like we had hoped they would.
I saw flashes of what I wanted. At times, WSU looked like they could hang with Oklahoma State. The problem was consistency. For whatever reason, they couldn't sustain the formula that was working during the stretch where everything was clicking.
I saw players in the right places, only to bounce off Kendall Hunter. The players understand what they should be doing, but aren't all the way there physically, still. No play better illustrated that than the last-second touchdown in the first half. Tyree Toomer filled the hole, wrapped up, and was bowled over as Hunter fell into the end-zone. He was doing all the right things, but was physically overmatched.
I saw a more disciplined team.
Watching players get run over and pushed around illustrates that this team still has a ways to go. Expecting them to magically be bigger, faster and stronger after the offseason is completely unrealistic. The freshmen coming off redshirts add speed, but they're still only 19 years old.
The offense did look shaky, as well. Jeff Tuel came out and looked downright nervous. He was sailing balls, running for his life and looking like a wide-eyed deer in the headlights. He settled in and made some nice throws, though. Outside of the opening snap and a garbage time fumble by Lobbestael that most of us couldn't see, the offense took care of the ball. That's encouraging.
Special teams were much improved in the season-opener. Punt coverage was rock-solid -- outside of a late blocked-punt -- and the unit as a whole just looked better than they have in years. It may seem small, but we can also use the play of the special teams as a measure of depth. Instead of having to use tired starters or overmatched players, WSU was able to put backups on special teams this year. They did exactly what was asked of them and it paid off.
Yes, this team is bad. While I don't know how bad they are, Jo-Jo is right. At the same time, there's encouraging signs. I want to see how they bounce back. I want to see if they hang their heads or come out swinging. From everything we've seen and heard after the disaster that was Saturday, it sounds like this team wants to fight and prove they're better than what we saw.
So is all hope lost? If you looked at only the score and statistics, it sure looks that way. I don't think so. Improvement was there at time, but consistency was missing. If they can actually put it together for more than a small stretch, the results will come. Of course this is easier said than done.
So what do you say? For those that watched the game, was there improvement?
103 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I actually went back and watched the 2nd and 3rd quarters today with a clear mind
The good—
Fullington. Wow. Just wow.
Barton and Wilson. Lots of talent there. Can’t wait til Kristoff joins them.
Tuel. Da man.
O-line. Dramatically improved.
Special Teams. Greatly improved (and staffed by walk-ons for once!)
Mizell. Very special player. Needs to start now.
Almost no penalties of any consequence. Motion and procedure penalties a thing of the past? Knock on wood.
Concerns-
Defensive schemes. Do we have any? Players looking lost out there. May have been OSU’s semi-wishbone formation and allegro tempo.
Sustaining drives. Really, really need to do better job here. We’d get to their 35-40 and stall big time.
Keeping composure when momentum swings against you. After Wilson’s long TD catch, the following occurred: long OSU TD, unsuccessful fake FG, long OSU run, 2 nice goal-line stuffs and unreal fade-route OSU TD (not to mention OSU TD right before half.) That’s 21 straight points for OSU after we had gained uncle Mo. Somewhere in there, someone needs to step up and stop the bleeding.
Reason for hope-
“The look.” We actually do pass the eyeball test and look like we belong on the same field as a FBS team.
by DesMoines on Sep 6, 2010 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I should've mentioned this, but it was a big deal
Almost no penalties of any consequence. Motion and procedure penalties a thing of the past? Knock on wood.
4 penalties for 40 yards. Definitely not a bad thing.
We do have defensive schemes and they were being used. Again, they had trouble matching the physicality, but the schemes were there. Take the play in the first half where Hoffman-Ellis broke to the flat. The lineup up seven on the LOS and disguised who was coming and who was dropping coverage. If Hoffman-Ellis caught the ball that hit him in the hands, he was gone. It’s one example, but it wasn’t like WSU was running basic, dumbed-down schemes like they had in the past out of necessity.
All in all, after watching it again, I feel better
And to answer your question, there definitely was improvement from last season. I think last year’s team (depending on the month in which the game was played) may have had to forfeit. Can you imagine our Apple Cup lineup vs. the high-octane OSU offense?
I’ll be heading to Pullman this weekend for the Montana State game. I expect to see a route somewhere in the 50’s to 60’s range.
I’m very impressed with the new ST and O-line coaches. Hopefully, Sears and Ball can raise their games to keep pace. I’m really taken aback by the ST.
Definitely improved.
Receivers were open, Tuel had more than .02 seconds to throw, tacklers were in position and DB’s had close coverage. It wasn’t often a OSU WR was wide open. For the most part we were in position to make plays but just didn’t finish.
The key to me is as the season goes along do the players adjust to the speed of the game and start finishing plays or are we still going to be talking about dropped passes and a abundance of missed tackles in December.
Got home from my weekend at the Gorge
And watched the DVR of the first three quarters. Midway through the second I was actually enjoying myself. In the second quarter.
It’s not much, and it’s not nearly enough. But it is a change.
What I saw was a team that believed in themselves at times and believed they could compete. At 10-17 the Cougs looked excited, looked like the offense had some swagger, and the OK state fans looked actually a bit nervous.
What I really take away is that we are still a long way from being where we need to be as a game that had potential to be competitive at halftime wasn’t due to mistakes we cannot afford to make. We aren’t good enough to get away with missed tackles an things like that. But we are good enough to make a 17-0 game that included a turnover on our first snap competitive in the 2nd quarter.
There is no reason to weigh in too much on the future of the coaching staff until the season is over or close to it. We have this staff for the year, we need them to have the support of Moos so they can coach and recruit at their fullest for the season. The final score is absurb, but I also saw flashes of a team that can compete against actual FBS opponents.
by 02Coug on Sep 6, 2010 6:10 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I agree
I have not enjoyed a halftime of a Coug game in a couple of years. Prior to that it has still just been so, so since 2004. I saw some things that I liked and of course the scoreboard shows something ridiculously uninspiring. But, I think this team is much improved this year and I look forward to watching them grow. That is right, I feel like I can actually watch them grow this year as opposed to turning off the tv in disgust.
Medical redshirt?
Ugh, that was hard to watch.
I am wondering what you guys know/think about what happened to Ricky Galvin. Since he literally only played one play, and if he is done for the year, do you find it plausible that the NCAA will grant him a medical redshirt? Honestly, I can see it going either way, rules are rules and he did play a down, but come one! Come on!
CougarHirsch 06’
Yes, he will have a medical redshirt
If a player plays in less than 20% of the teams games, they are eligible for a medical redshirt. So just look at it like Galvin’s redshirting this year. He’s fine.
Legs, he can always do legs for now.
But yeah, his upper body definitely needs work. Maybe curls on one side!
I wish that were true
He’s not going to be able to do squats or dead lifts with a broken wrist/arm.
Great piece Brian. I appreciate your analysis, and it helps a guy like me who hasn’t been able to watch the team know that some things are moving in the right direction. Keep up the great work.
Will he really miss that much lifting?
I have no idea how much lifting these guys do in season, but I’m assuming it’s on the lighter side. Broken arm healing estimates range from 4-12 weeks so even the long end of things he would be healthy right around the Apple Cup and should be 100% for all of the offseason work.
by Mark Sandritter on Sep 6, 2010 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Very good point.
I didn’t think of what he would be missing compared to the other redshirts. Good news is he should have a solid seven months to be in the strength program before the start of next fall camp.
by Mark Sandritter on Sep 6, 2010 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, man. I appreciate it.
And thank you for asking the question. It made me sit down and think about whether there were signs of life.
Pac-10 game
I think the Cougs are going to win one despite those 65 points. If they get those flashes turned into consistent play they could even win two. Very large IF.
This tid-bit from Ted Miller makes me feel a little better.
“Oregon State gave up 278 yards on the ground to TCU and ranks 96th. Washington State yielded 291 yards and ranks 103rd. And UCLA is 106th after surrendering an eye-popping 313 yards on the ground to Kansas State.”
I just wish all of those yards didn’t lead to points, but it’s nice to know we aren’t alone.
I think all Coug fans have gone crazy
3 or 4 plays during the duration of an entire football game does not mark improvement. It marks disaster.
We still got outscored in the first quarter 17-0.
We only scored 10 points against their first team.
Our first teams yielded most, if not all, of the 65.
Our players still look lost and slow to react.
Our coaching staff still has not shown it knows how to scheme or be prepared for a game.
"We still got outscored in the first quarter 17-0."
“We only scored 10 points against their first team.”
I would argue both of those represent substantial improvement.
On what planet?
We still have not scored a first quarter TD since 2008,.
The players on this team are not that bad. They may not be Pac 10 title material, but there is absolutely no reason they should be out of every game they play in the first half.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
As we have said before
This is only the first game. I know it feels like the 25th game, but it’s not. This is a new team, and a new season. You will not find very few games in the last two years where we were within a touchdown midway through the second quarter.
I know we all keep preaching patience, and it’s probably wearing thin, but it’s really in the best interest of your sanity to give this group some time to come together. On the road at Stillwater is not the easiest place in the world for a bunch of freshmen and sophomores to start the year.
The SMU game is going to the breaking point
If they lose close or manage to win, people will be on board.
If we lose by 30+ to a CUSA team, well, its going to get ugly.
And patience only goes so far. These coaches are completely unprepared for games every week. EVERY WEEK.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I just don't see what you are seeing
And you want to talk about inexperience, on Saturday we started 7 guys on each side of the ball that were Juniors or Seniors!
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions
I saw a lot of preparation on Saturday
I think that showed up in that series of stops the defense got in the first and second quarters. They were prepared for a wide-open passing attack. When it came, they were prepared. When Oklahoma State decided they were going to run the ball on every play, they looked lost, which I won’t completely excuse, but I will say is not totally unexpected when you prepare so thoroughly for what you think you’re going to see and then the opponent throws you a curveball. Beyond that, no matter what adjustments the coaching staff made along the way, young guys are going to be slower to implement. It most certainly wasn’t perfect, but I’m convinced it was better.
Being unprepared for oppenents adjustments
is a sign of inept coaching.
’
That is all I will say.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Excuses, excuses
It was Oklahoma States first game of the year too.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep, because you can really compare the two
OSU had tape on WSU, they knew what the offense would run and they could plan accordingly. WSU did not have tape on OSU because they were starting over with a new OC and players at skill positions.
by Brian Floyd on Sep 7, 2010 11:26 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is a joke right?
You don’t actually believe what you wrote do you?
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
It was not a personal attack
It was an attack on logic, because the post made ZERO sense.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
How much do you know about Dana Holgorsen?
by Brian Floyd on Sep 7, 2010 12:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is a personal attack
I expect a warning to be issued.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
To seriously answer your question
I don’t know squat, but then again, I am not the head football coach.
The idea that we got blown out because we did not know what to expect is silly. That means that every time a new OC is at the helm they should win by blowout 100 percent of the time. The argument does not hold water.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know
It was a dead serious question.
In order to understand why they weren’t prepared, you need to know who he is and what he’s done before taking the job.
More excuses
What are you going to say when SMU rolls WSU by 30+?
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
How is that an excuse?
You say they were unprepared. I’m telling you why.
The offense OSU ran was something that Dana Holgorsen has never ran. Look at his tape, look at his track record. He’s a Mike Leach disciple that has always run a pass-happy Air Raid offense.
Instead of just saying “it’s the staff’s fault”, try to understand why the didn’t expect what OSU showed.
The logic is flawed
Coaches come up with new schemes all the time, they don’t always result in blowouts.
Mike Gundy had never seen Wulff and Co coach against a D-1team prior to the 2008 meeting, but we certainly did not blow them out.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
i know his parents have to be jerks
for naming him Dana.
by BigWood on Sep 7, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
i attacked LOGIC once
but those mac nerds have built a powerful defense.
by BigWood on Sep 7, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those weren't adjustments from Oklahoma State
That was them coming out with a gameplan that ran entirely counter to everything that offensive coordinator had done in his history. Do you think if we played Oklahoma State the second game of the year instead of the first that the players would have been so incredibly geared for a passing attack?
And, as I said, we’re really not privy to any adjustments the staff tried to make midstream. Players who don’t have a lot of experience are going to be slower to implement things on the fly because they have simply had fewer snaps doing different things than a more experienced player. You have to acknowledge that’s, at the very least, a possibility.
That is called being unprepared
Blaming it on surprise is just another excuse.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
i'm still not entirely sure the stops we got in the 1st half were our doing
i felt the running game was getting 6-7 yards per carry, and OSU was trying to work out some kinks in their new offense against a defense other than their scout team.
if this were a conference game, they may have scored 50 by halftime.
I dont think I buy that
It was a close game. If they were already up by four touchdowns, maybe I’d go with that line of reasoning. But it doesn’t seem like most programs would do something that risky, even against WSU.
That said, I didn’t see the first half. So maybe you’re onto something. I dunno.
Wait a minute
You have been scoffing at the critics and you didn’t even see the first half?
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Listening on the radio, following along online
I think I’ve made reasonable allowances for the limitations of my analysis.
well, for the life of me i couldn't figure out why they were passing in obvious running situations
that was the only thing i could come up with. being the first game and considering their confidence in their ability to move the ball against us at will, it’s a solid educated guess
Three of Saturday's starters
were Juco Juniors playing their first D1 game (two on the O-line). That’s a big adjustment to make, especially on the O-line. One of the Sr. O-linemen, our RT, was a 5th year guy that was replaced by a true freshman. So some of the experience (in terms of class level) wasn’t all that experienced at the D1 level (Jucos) and some of it just didn’t match-up talent wise (RT).
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
by Matt Gardner on Sep 7, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree the players aren't that bad
And the repercussions of the fact that are players aren’t that bad and we were out of the game by halftime will be dealt with at the end of the year.
But that simple statement, “our players are not that bad” is a significant improvement over the last few years.
Here is a newsflash
Our players have never been bad enough for the consistent beat downs they have received. A few a season they were bad enough for, but not every game.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, I think this particular point has run its course
Some think the players really have been that bad, some don’t. Bickering that point won’t get anyone anywhere, since nobody is going to change their minds.
Of course you do
You and Cougfan are one in the same. Never take sides against the family.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Two observations...
(1) It is only the first game and those can be flukey. I mean, how much worse would we feel if we surrendered 588 yards to Hawaii rather than 544 yards to OSU? Not to say we are going to come out after this and be USC or anything, but this defense is featuring a lot of players on the D-1 stage for the first time, and it will take some time for them to live up to potential.
(2) While watching the BSU-VT game last night I was thinking to myself: Between Kellen Moore and Drew Brees, how many Heisman contender QBs have made Wazzu their first choice only to be told to take a hike.
Come on guys, there was some stuff to like
Yes the score got out of hand. Yes it hurt to see that final tally. But there were so many aspect of the game wherein the Cougs were considerably better than last season that it warrants mentioning.
1)Coverage teams were terrific. The punt and kick off coverage was obviously a vast improvement. I think there were a couple punt returns for loss- we haven’t seen that since 2003 when Sammy Moore and Abdullah ripped down the field with their hair on fire. This is indicative of the speed and athleticism of the young guys who aren’t yet in the mix on the defense or offense yet can run and hit. Sheer exuberance and fearless play is required and we saw it. Big time improvement herein.
2) The O-line was better than last year. They were nearly all new and all playing new slots- Zach at center, the juco left side- and they did ‘okay’. The jailbreak blitzes and blown up plays of last year weren’t happening anywhere near as consistently.
3) We saw Tuel with some more time back there. Let’s look back on the AZ St game last year wherein he had 13 sacks and 30 ‘hurries’ in some 36 throws. Yes, he was jittery and missed some throws. Yes he got happy feet and left the pocket early a few times. But I want to add that getting used to actually having a pocket at all is new to him. There were drops- Barton missed a couple slants that were wide open and Soloman too. Tuel hit for 212 yrds. and didn’t throw a pick. As he settles, and so do the WRs (several were baptized Sat.) the hook ups will get better. Toss in the injuries to Kars, Simone, Byers and Galvin and I think Tuel held up well.
3) Grasu made a long kick. I repeat- WSU’s kicker made a long kick. I wish they had let him try the second one. The guy needs confidence- and I think 35 yards looks much more doable when you hit from beyond 50.
4) Yes the RS DB’s got beat. But they were stride for stride on those long passes and simply neglected to look for the ball. That is a sheer lack of experience. That is a correctable error. It is technical, not raw speed. But it was a far cry from last year when the opposition WR was 15 yards gone at reception. It takes reps and recognition but the athleticism is coming back there.
5) The score. It doesn’t bother me the way the USC 60 did, when we rolled over. At 17-10 tell me you weren’t thinking- “well shut my mouth”. The cowpokes poured it on, and not to their credit IMO. The Cougs had freshman in at every slot in the back 7 in the third quarter and some 4th quarter series—OSU threw 5 consecutive passes for a score already up 35; w/ their starter all still in the game. The same Coug 2nd unit D surrendered another score. Then the absurd block of a punt up 40+ w/ your star WR by OSU? Classless and foolish— what if he had been chip blocked and blown a knee? The reason for the block was Byers injury- and a missed assignment.
Last thing- Ok St. is a burgeoning power program with a coach settled into his 5th year w/ all his sets in place recruiting wise. The last 2 were top 15 in the country. T-Bone’s money has built them a palace and training facilities rivaled only by Oregon’s Nike cash. Hunter was ALL AMERICAN as a soph and somewhat forgotten (though not by me- he hurt us in 2008) coming into the game. The O-line that supposedly was a potential ‘weakness’ had two RS juniors plugged in and a 5 star soph who had waited his turn. They had red shirted specifically to buy them two seasons after Okung and the other NFL caliber guys had graduated. They are 3rd year system guys— already w/ many reps and 3 years on the iron- not juco transfers who started immediately (like Jacobsen and Gonzo for us) and are an actual reload, not a hoped for success out of no where. The notion that this is a middling Big 12 school is silly- this is a program on the rise- any other idea, like many that were presented by Coug fans, is not realistic. The cowpoke machine is up and running. Sorry to report it- but the Cougs are still gathering parts.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
Burgeoning power program?
They were picked by many to finish at the bottom of the B12 South.
They have never been to a BCS bowl.
Even with Okung and Bryant they could only muster 9 wins.
Historically they have nothing on WSU, and there are not many school WSU can say that about.
Hit the wrong reply button
Meant to reply to hollywierdcoug
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Mark my words
That program has the money to stick around. The recruiting sets have been stellar. I see you want to bark- thats fine,we all handle losing differently- but you cannot ignore the fact of their recent success, nor the reason for it. Facilities, a new stadium, huge dollars, and winning have them drawing solid classes of recruits averaging around 3.3 per group. That means every knee injury or drop out or transfer is filled by another 3 star, minimum. It means upper class men pushed by high quality sophs. It means red shirting your freshman- not starting 50 % of them like WSU. It is a standard the Cougs need to try to match. Good grief b-lot— 40% of the players last weekend were playing their first NCAA Div I game for the Cougs. No one on the fronts for Ok St. was in that category. Better take a chill pill dude- it is a few seasons before the ’09 kids are juniors.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course they have the money
But that does not change what they are right now, which is mediocre at best.
I don’t think it requires juniors to be competitive in college football. Nor does being a junior automatically make you competitive. The age factor is completely oversold.
You are wrong
WSU has never had a winning season w/o a ratio of at least 70% upper class men starting. The lone exception was Gesser’s junior year when that number was about 60%. A particularly bumper crop of sophs was in that fold and some young ones shocked the vets and beat them out. But even then, it was a senior w/ experience backing up a super soph. Look it up. 1988, 1992, 1994, 1997- 2001,2002 2003- go ahead i dare you.
Even back to my day – the 1982 Holiday Bowl team was laden with vets. You are way off base. It requires the strength and experience of years to win consistently in football in the bigger conferences. Your position is dead wrong. It is most especially key at the smaller schools like WSU- who cannot and do not draw the 4 star and above instant impact players.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We also never
got blown out every game we played with those underclassmen. I never said anything about winning seasons and bowl games.
Go ahead, look it up. Hell, they even won a few games!
Nothing about my position is dead wrong. We are getting BLOWN OUT to the tune of 30, 40, 50 points a game. Even in the worst years of Cougar football that never happened. That is not a coincidence.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks for making my point
the Cougs had 6 seniors of note in Wulff’s first year. Then they had 7 last year who played a good bit. This year? 5 or 6 guys are actually 4 year seniors (not juco’s)- and they are getting waxed. Third season and still no seniors? How does that happen? No coach has ever inherited a cupboard this bare. The announcer for the Ok St. game said each Coug coach has inherited minimum 14 NFL drafted players. Wulff has had 3. Seniors matter.
In 1998 and 1999 coming off of 10 wins and a Rose Bowl in 1997 w/ a senior heavy class and Leaf departing- the Cougs managed 1 conference win. Two years one conference win. Fans and alum were actually calling for Price’s scalp. He kept talking about the recruits and hanging in there… then in 2001 they arrived. No one expected 10 wins, no one expected it three years in a row… but it happened. However, don’t forget the 1999 scalp hunt. Just think if those alums had seen to that… the most glorious period in Coug Football history would not have been the same. Sorry… but freshman and sophs are frequently outmanned and out gunned. That is a simple fact of PAC 10 football.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't make any point for you
Look at the scores during the 98 and 99 (and even 2000) seasons. A couple of blowouts per season. Next look at the scores of the past two seasons. Its not even close to the same thing.
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/pac10/washington_state/yearly_results.php?year=1995
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/pac10/washington_state/yearly_results.php?year=2005
Sure a loss is a loss, but its at the point where we don’t even belong on the field with our competition.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
now go back and look
at the 98/99 roster and tell me how many seniors and juniors filled the roster on those ‘non blow out’ years of losing. It has never, ever, been like this before in modern Coug football. I know for certain it has never been this empty of juniors and seniors since the mid 70’s, because I have been watching them intnetly since that time.
Seniors ad juniors don’t guarantee wins- but a dearth of them does assure losing.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course it doesn't "automatically" make you competitive...
But do you believe that a team of talented and experienced juniors and seniors doesn’t have an advantage over a team of talented and inexperienced freshman and sophomores? I’ll take the Jr and Sr team every day of the week.
One of the things that helped WSU produce three straight 10-win seasons was the fact that when guys graduated the players that stepped in, especially on the OL, DL, LBs, and secondary, were all (for the most part) seasoned and experienced players. Guys like Tai Tupai, Mike Shelford, Karl Paymah…all guys who got experience as back-ups early in their career before finally stepping in as starters later in their careers.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
You are missing the point
It doesn’t take juniors and seniors to not be blown out every week.
All day long everyone is preaching “we are losing because we are young” and there is some truth to that statement, but we are not getting BLOWN OUT because we are young.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I can't speak for everyone here
But I know I’ve never said we’re losing only because we’re young. There are myriad factors at play.
I'm not missing the point at all...
and I didn’t write that we were getting blown out because we are young.
You stated that being a junior doesn’t automatically make you competitive. I responded that most successful teams are laded with experienced JRs and SRs, not FR and SO, especially at WSU where our greatest success in our entire history was built on talent and experienced teams. Of course there are other factors, and coaching is one of them, but so is the team’s inexperience.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
So by your logic
A team of juniors will automatically be competitive?
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
There are correlations
Most correlations, by definition, will not be perfect. All things being equal — with the caveat, of course, that all things are never equal — a team of upperclassmen will be more competitive than a team of underclassmen.
Not what is being stated
You have taken a straw man path. That is not the logic. The logic is that a 3rd year player, w/ 3 years in the system and usually 4 on the iron is better prepared to compete than a 1st year freshman. The added weight, experience and skill involved in developing a player comes into the equation. Rather than a sheer baptism of fire.
Let’s make it simple. Who would you rather have in a lineup? Freshman Rien Long, the 255 pound TE converted to DT— or RS junior Rien Long the 290 pound Outland Trophy winner? Or how about freshman 255 pound 2 star Leon Bender? Or senior 300 pound All Pac 10 DT? How about sophomore Jason Gesser vs. senior Jason Gesser? Freshman Leaf vs. junior Leaf? Freshman safety (look it up) 2 star Brandon Gibson- or senior NFL bound WR?
Face it- freshman who come in and dominate are rare. Juniors and seniors who excel are not so rare.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Holy crap I forgot he was a safety before college
A rec for you, sir.
Also, 6-5 210 pound freshman LB/QB Mkristo Bruce or 6-6 260 pound senior defensive end Mkristo Bruce.
So essentially
You are just writing Cougar football off until year 5 of the Wulff regime?
Of course they should be better by the time they are juniors, but that does not make them good. Not sure why you can’t understand the difference.
Forgive me for being pissed off, but all I have read about all off season is “remarkable improvement” and on Saturday we got the same old blowout story. Thats what I am so pissed about. We have not improved.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 7, 2010 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I think this is where we're getting our signals crossed
1. “So essentially you are just writing Cougar football off until year 5 of the Wulff regime?”
I don’t think anyone is writing it off. But I think those who dissent with your opinion are trying to say that there is a certain reality about where the program is at right now. We can argue forever about how it got there and whose fault it is, but the reality is that this team’s most talented players are young. Really, really young. And there are certain limitations that come along with that. So the best thing to do is try and evaluate them based off current circumstances. Which brings me to my next point …
2. “Forgive me for being pissed off, but all I have read about all off season is ‘remarkable improvement’ and on Saturday we got the same old blowout story. Thats what I am so pissed about. We have not improved.”
We’re arguing that, despite the score, there are lots of positive signs that point to improvement. You are simply pointing at the final score as your evaluative tool, which is certainly your prerogative, but we believe that’s really not the best way to try and measure improvement.
If you’re going to constantly come at it from the final score, of course we’re not going to see eye to eye.
by Jeff Nusser on Sep 7, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
to be fair, Wulff himself said we'd see scoreboard improvement this year
so are we not seeing eye to eye with him now, too?
I'll agree with that.
That first game was a big blow to my belief that Wulff can get it done. I haven’t completely lost hope but I agree with what you are saying, scoreboard improvement needs to happen. We might not be able to win a lot of games with our inexperience but I think score improvement needs to take place and it needs to be sustained (ie – not just one game where it seems like things have turned around but several where the team competes for longs stretches of the game, not just 10 minutes). Game 1 it flat out didn’t happen.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
You're right
But I’d argue, again, that overreacting to one result is a bad idea. If these beatdowns are repeated with regularity again this year, then I understand your point. But I’m not going to head down that river from one game. It’s one game. The first game.
I guess I just don't agree
That you can measure improvement by looking at one play here and one play there.
In the end, the scoreboard is the only thing that matters. I pray pray pray that I am wrong, but I have a terrible feeling that many people will feel as I do after the SMU game.
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 8, 2010 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Where did I say automatically?
Come on. I said “most successful teams are laden with experienced JRs and SRs”. It’s right in my comment, word for word.
"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."
while enjoying the often telecast
Snow Bowl victory in Pullman 1992 … it is very fun to note the bevy of frosh and sophs on special teams and plugging in occasionally on the D. It is especially fun to note the kids who would form the Palouse Posse -1994. That was easily the finest defense of the modern Coug era. In 1992, they were flying around on special teams trying to earn a spot. Eaton and Sasa weren’t starters in 92, but weredominant DT’s in 94. Classic.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow!
I take one day off from the board and look what blows up
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
I found that my comments over the weekend
sometimes pushed the envelope of sanity, so I needed a break.
I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Ugh
huzzah sir! huzzah!
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 7, 2010 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Rrrrrrreeeeeaaaaaddddyyy
for Saturday?
by well you win some and lose others on Sep 8, 2010 12:12 AM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
