WSU Vs. Colorado: Carl Winston And Yards After Contact
by Craig Powers on Oct 3, 2011 6:31 PM PDT
in 2011 WSU Football News
Email
PrintCarl Winston hasn't done much to stand out in his first two and a quarter years as a Washington State Cougar. Coming into this season, he had carried the ball a total of 64 times for 232 yards and no touchdowns. He has always been no higher than the second running back on the depth chart, but seemingly no lower than the third. Behind a horrendous offensive line in his freshman and sophomore seasons, he was often ineffective.
For Winston it seems that he has always been caught somewhere between a back who makes quick cuts to avoid defenders and a back who wants to run the defender over. The problem for him has been that he wasn't quick enough to make guys miss in the Pac-10/12 and wasn't big enough to overpower them. What was left was a guy that didn't really get many yards after a defender had him squared up. With a line that routinely let the opposing team into the backfield, that meant he rarely found the ball in his hands.
This season something with Winston seems to have changed. He doesn't try to make that cut as often to avoid the defender, he has embraced the muscle added to his frame and chooses more often to absorb the contact and do his best to get as many yards as possible after contact. This new found identity, and his ability to pick up blitzing defenders, saw him on the field and carrying the ball more than any other running back on Saturday against Colorado.
Winston didn't let those touches go to waste. He easily had his best day as a Coug, running the ball 10 times for 47 yards and catching 4 passes for 35 yards. He also scored his first career touchdown to get WSU on the board in the first quarter.
Possibly no run demonstrated his new bruising style more than his final carry of the game on WSU's second-to-last drive. The Cougs were facing a 3rd and 1 from their own 32 and needed a first down to keep momentum and hope alive. I'll spoil the result with the play-by-play description, the fun part was the process anyway:
Carl Winston rush for 9 yards to the WshSt 41, tackled by Jon Major and Anthony Perkins for a 1ST down.
Analysis of the run, where I do my best Brian Floyd impression, after the jump.
We'll start, as always, with the pre-snap look. Colorado is playing back as they are in prevent mode. They have five men up on the line of scrimmage, with everyone else dropping into coverage.
After the ball is snapped, Marshall Lobbestael immediately turns and hands to Winston, who looks to go straight up the gut. Byers cuts across and looks to chip in on the outside. Colorado's nose tackle does his job and takes up WSU's entire right side. The center pushes the rushing linebacker out of play. This leaves an opening for the left end to loop around and meet Winston. As you can see, the end is the only Buffalo in position to make the play. If he does, the Cougs will be stopped short and be faced with a running clock and a fourth down. In years past, I would not have been surprised to see Winston taken out at the legs short of the line to gain. Not so this time.
Instead of making a cut, Winston absorbs contact from the defensive end, spins off, and regains his balance with five yards of green before the next defender. First down achieved and a Colorado defender left grasping at air. Winston wasn't done.
I could have left the post off with the last picture, but as you remember the play-by-play said Carl gained nine yards. He still had some punishment to deal out for a member of the Colorado secondary.
The defender met Winston at the 36. The defender was unaware that Winston had a BEASTMODE setting, and was promptly ran over. The Buffs were unable to bring Carl down until he had reached the 41. Winston made initial contact at the line of scrimmage and ended up gaining nine yards on the play, making two grown men look silly in the process.
I look forward to seeing more of this from Winston. This running style will be the perfect complement to Rickey Galvin's quick burst attack. For now, we can enjoy the growth Carl has made and the positive impact it has on the Washington State offense.
224 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And why didn't they go back to Winston or the running game?
That’s the frustrating part of this offense. Yes everyone knows the offense can execute the pass very well, but what’s difficult is sitting there watching the running game work, yet it’s not used consistently throughout the game. Imagine if Winston had 25-30 carries. More balance and this offense really takes off. Now that Tuel is most likely back, continue to watch the offense pass 70% (49 passes) compared to how often they’ll run the ball 30% (21attempts) even though they know they can.
“Tuel Time” is great, but if Winston or Mitz can consistently average 4 yards a carry why not let the run set up the pass. No team wants to stack the box with WSU’s WR’s because there’s a guaranteed threat to pass so utilize the threat of Galvin and throw in Winston or Mitz for some power on other plays. This offense could be better if they ran the ball more like 45% of the time giving their running back more options to break one, especially Galvin.
The Cougs are a pass first team
That is just the way it is. They pass alot and then hand off to a RB and because the defense was in pass defense the run works. (sometimes) I don’t see anything wrong with this. The Cougs offensive philosiphy it a spread/passing team. The RB they have are kinda built for this style of Offense. (Galvin, Mason) If the Cougs started focusing on the run…it might not work, or all there backs might get hurt because they are smaller.
8 yards a pass > 4 yards a run.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Oct 3, 2011 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
But you guys are statistics nerds, you know there's more to it than that, right?
For instance, deviation from the mean matters on getting first downs, how much the average yards per pass is influenced by average yard per run, likelihood of a turnover when passing vs rushing, etc.
by dertingfactor on Oct 4, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course.
But at its core, if you’re picking up eight yards an attempt, you’re doing something very, very right and probably shouldn’t feel bad about throwing it a lot.
It keeps the defenses honest
If you even out the ratio you control what the defense thinks is coming you create more confusion. Everyone knows WSU can pass the ball, however being able to run the ball is what wins against good defenses. You can pass all day long outside the 20’s, but if you can’t punch it in it doesn’t matter. Look at Oregon against LSU for a prime example. What happens in the trenches matters, especially in the second half. This team shouldn’t rely on the pass always being there. They must be able to get some consistent yards up the gut when necessary, especially when ahead in the second half.
How is Oregon against LSU a prime example?
You are countering your own argument. Oregon is a good running team. They run more than they pass. By your logic, they should be able to win against a good defense like LSU.
But continue on with your string of football cliches.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
OK, Read the comment
Oregon is a run-first finesse team. They aren’t a power team. But the theory I used was based on being able to do both based on a more even ratio. You can’t run all day against a good defense, and you can’t pass all day against a good defense.
You must be able to do both with some consistency. Oregon when faced against a good defense struggles in the passing game because they are used to weak competition. Look at the National Championship game as another prime example. Their running game got bottled up and they had to rely on their passing game and failed because they are a run-first team. If you take a pass-first team and put them against a great defense like LSU, they will put you in zone and sack you all day long. If you can’t do both you fail. It doesn’t matter if it’s Oregon vs LSU or Texas Tech vs LSU.
I did read the comment.
And you mentioned nothing about finesse or anything like that. Maybe you shouldn’t speak as if everything is black and white, it makes your point very, very weak.
Do you honestly think Oregon fails? I’d love to fail like them. No team plays as well against even or better competition. LSU didn’t play as well against Oregon as they have against the rest of their schedule. LSU won that game because of turnovers, because everything else was even. Not because of balance or toughness. Oregon’s finesse team outgained LSU’s power team.
You’ve fallen in love with this “balance” myth. It has been disproved statistically, and on the field all over college football. Many of the best offenses are unbalanced. See Georgia Tech or Oklahoma State. You have to do what works best for the players you have, not strive to meet some arbitrary ratio.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Oct 4, 2011 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The point is there has to be some balance
How man unbalanced offenses have won a national championship? Come back when you have a team that has won one national championship using a pass first or run-first approach in the the past 10 years. I doubt you’ll find one.
How do you know our run game isn't doing well because we pass more?
Running the ball causes defenders to stack the box. Passing the ball causes them to open up running lanes. There isn’t some magical 50% number that causes teams to do both.
How can you honestly say that our RBs will get the same yards if we run the ball more and defenders play against the run better? It may open up our passing game but our passing game is obviously working. And so is our running game. Run the ball more and the running game may not work as they stack defenders and blitz less.
by Something Snazzy on Oct 4, 2011 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Oops
No teams are going to stack the box against WSU because there’s a threat to pass. It doesn’t matter if they spend the whole game running the ball, defenses are forced to play honest because of Marquess Wilson and Co at the wide receiver positions.
The 09 Saints passed about 62% of the time.
And the 06 Pats, 07 Colts, and 2010 Packers all threw 55+% of the time.
College numbers are skewed by the competition differences. When you’re up by 50 in the 3rd against Alabama Directional Tech, Mississippi Directional Tech, Georgia Sisters of the Poor and Florida FCS Bootstain Tech you tend to keep the ball on the ground.
You’re getting overly wrapped up in the number of attempts. That’s the wrong number to focus on.
Think about how often we were playing from behind last year. How many 4th quarters we were slinging all over the place to try and get back into the game. We ran 417 times vs. 384 pass attempts. Did you like those results?
ANY team should MAXIMIZE possessions where its talent is. Ours is not at RB. If it was, we’d know it.
No one is making the case that a team doesn’t need to run the ball. It has to enough to keep the defense honest, and to keep the possibility of us running in the back of their minds. We’re arguing that 50/50 or 55/45 in order to do that is bull****.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The teams you mentioned could run
The Saints didn’t win a Super Bowl until they had a decent running game. Coincidence? Same thing with the Colts and Pats.
There has to be some sort of balance or threat of a passing team being able to run or a running team being able to pass or they don’t win when it matters most.
Rather the point, no?
It’s the fact they CAN run the ball, not the fact that they try to achieve 50/50 balance.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
But more to the issue: Why is someone using professional football examples to try and prove a point about the college game?
Like I said earlier,
the talent/competition level is closer.
The Saints don’t play Idaho State.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
The other issues at play are speed and strength of defenders
It’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison.
I think that makes the argument stronger, though.
In college football, Alabama can recruit the NFL type linemen and running backs, so when they play Troy (or Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State, etc.), they whip the snot out of them by “establishing the run.”
In the pros, you can’t do that. Everyone has access to the same level of talent, within limits.
Besides, it’s not a point about the college game, it’s about the game of football. Brian’s links refer specifically to the NFL. But they’re applicable to all football.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I realize I'm very late to this, but Oregon is not a finesse team.
Don’t confuse that with spread. They very much are a power running team, although not as powerful as last year.
Probably should read these two things
by Brian Floyd on Oct 3, 2011 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Staying away from the run is stupid in itself
If you can’t run you can’t win. Show me a team that passes all day long and wins against good quality BCS competition? You can’t because if you can’t run the ball you don’t win. Yes you can beat teams like Colorado and other crappy teams, but when faced against a very good defense if you can’t run you’ll lose.
Obviously you have to be able to do both or you can’t succeed. But you can’t rely on just the passing offense or just the run, there needs to be a mix. Only relying on the pass or the run is stupid.
What about Texas Tech?
The 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders lost to Ole Miss in their bowl game. Who cares what happens within their conference because anyone knowns they don’t play defense in the Big 12.
They were a bad tiebreaker away from being in a BCS bowl game
Also, “Who cares what happens within their conference because anyone knowns they don’t play defense in the Big 12” is sort of a weak argument, don’t you think?
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
They were a tiebreaker from getting their butts handed to them
Look at the Big 12 teams from that year. Oklahoma is the only team in the Big 12 that plays defense.
The point is you can roll your conference with a pass heavy attack like Mike Leach had, but when it matters most, bowl game, you lose against a good defense.
Again, flawed argument
Good defenses stop everyone. Auburn stopped everyone last year, from Alabama to Oregon. LSU is doing the same thing this year. Using performance against a quality defense to point the finger at offensive philosophy is not compelling.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also, you don't know if that bowl game mattered to Texas Tech the most.
They were expecting to be in a BCS game but weren’t because of a tie-breaker. So one could say that that bowl game against Ole Miss did matter that much to them as they felt they deserved to be in a better bowl game.
Bowl games are the ultimate small sample size argument
Besides the fact that it’s just one game, it’s just one game with exceptional circumstances. Better to look at an entire body of work when evaluating football teams.
You just made the argument that Defense, rather than
run/pass balance, makes the difference.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
So going to 11 Bowl games since 1999 under Mike Leach and his successors
based on offenses that run the spread is not something you would like WSU to replicate? As well as going 7-4 in those bowl games?
by sdcoug09 on Oct 4, 2011 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
He's not arguing
“Stay away from the run”
He’s saying run for running’s sake (to “establish the run”) is stupid.
If you go up on a team by 30 points in the 3rd, consistently, by passing 65% of the time, and then run 65% of the time the rest of the way to eat up the clock, did running win the games, or did passing?
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why don't you talk to Mike Leach, Mike Gundy, Bob Stoops, Dana Holgorsen and June Jones about this plan?
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
by SoCalCoug on Oct 3, 2011 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why don't you ask Leach, Gundy, Stoops, Holgorsen, and June Jones when they won a major bowl game?
Stoops has one national championship ring and it wasn’t using the spread offense. How about those other teams? Why don’t you ask Pete Carroll, Jim Tressel, Jim Harbaugh, Mack Brown, Jimbo Fisher, Gene Chizik, Les Miles, and other head coaches how the run helped them win?
The coaches you mentioned win big against soft defenses, but if facing a major defense struggle. You can find plenty of teams throughout history who can throw the ball all day long, but if they can’t run when they need to they don’t win.
"it wasn’t using the spread offense"
Excuse me? Josh Heupel and his almost Heisman Trophy built on the back of a spread attack would like a word with you.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It wasn't today's spread
That spread offense in 2000 was a two back spread offense. Quentin Griffin had 16 rushing TD’s as a freshman in that offense. Not the one back with a ton of receivers offense they use now.
You're putting the term "spread" in far too narrow of a box.
Guess who the offensive coordinator on that 2000 team was? I’ll wait while you go look it up.
I am at work and can't comment constantly
If you think these gimmicky offenses work, show me how many national championships have been won with gimmicky offenses.
If you want to count the 2000 Oklahoma national championship team go ahead. Let’s see who else you can find?
I will not engage in this facet of the argument
Because, as I said, using a national championship as a qualifier is a non-starter with me for obvious reasons. I was simply poking a hole in your statement. You said a team can’t win it with a spread offense. Clearly you can. I accomplished my goal.
And in case you’re wondering, Mark Mangino falls in this category.
What?
If conference and non-conference games is all that matters then it doesn’t matter what kind of offense you run.
If you want to win a national championship or BCS bowl games you must have some balance. You can’t name any team other than that ’00 Oklahoma team that has won a championship since using a gimmicky offense.
After this I'm done because it's taking too much time and it's too long
My whole point is that you can’t be a one-trick pony and win when it matters most. If WSU wants to play with the big boys, they will have to have some balance.
One-trick ponies rarely win the big games. There must be a threat of the pass or the run. They can’t rely only on one thing to get by. As long as WSU can run the ball when it matters ie 3rd and short, 4th and goal, etc then that’s what matters most. I just want more balance. Does it have to be 55-45? No, but passing the ball 70% of the time against the big boys is going to end up in failure.
"My whole point is that you can’t be a one-trick pony and win when it matters most."
If you’re defining “when it matters most” as a national championship, and that is the center of your entire argument, then I guess I don’t even understand why we’ve wasted so much time on this conversation.
WSU has had one team in 100 years that had a realistic shot at being a national football champion. To put that kind of context on this team or Paul Wulff or Todd Sturdy just isn’t logical.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
3 Rose Bowls?
When it matters most is a BCS or a big bowl game against a good program like Texas in the Holiday Bowl.
Expecting WSU to go the National Championship is a pipe dream in of itself. Expecting WSU to make it a Rose Bowl or other BCS bowl, isn’t a pipe dream as evidenced by WSU going to 3 since ’97.
It’s a pipe dream right now just to get to a BCS bowl. But to think WSU doesn’t or won’t ever have the shot to get back to that level? That’s what I want from my Cougars. If you are satisfied with winning Aloha bowls, then fine by me.
You really aren't making the argument that running the ball more will lead WSU to BCS bowls, are you?
If you are, please put the keyboard down and step away from the computer.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 4, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course not
That would be a stupid argument.
The point was running the ball helps the offense. You can’t pass the ball 70% of the time and expect to win games against good defenses.
We aren't passing the ball 70% of the time.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Ok?
So one game? You’re arguing that we shouldn’t do what we did in one game, where we won? I … I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Go back and see the point
The original argument here started because I stated we needed to run the ball more against Colorado and then it turned into this long drawn out argument.
I guess in the second quarter
where we faced so many 2nd and long and 3rd and long we should have run more?
Or maybe we should have run when we were down 10 points with under 5 minutes?
Small sample size is small.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
My pencil out says
22 runs (including 2 knees in Victory formation) and 52 passes (including sacks and Marshall’s run) is 70.25% passes.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
Common Sense
Oh yeah, on 3rd and 23 we should run the ball.
Think dude. We shouldn’t throw the ball 3 consecutive times to start a drive if the first pass isn’t completed. On 3rd and 1, we should run the ball, not pass.
Use the run to help out the offense. You can’t pass the ball day all day long and hope to win.
That's my point.
In this game, which you sited in your first post, there were actual factors that led to us skewing so far towards throwing. In the first quarter, we ran the ball 13 times, and threw it 12 (13/12).
In the second, we had a lot of penalties, and gave up sacks, which led to long situations which lead to throwing. (5/16)
In the third, they were still pressuring, and we were still trying to throw where they ain’t (3/11).
In the fourth, we were down by 10 with 5 minutes to go (3/14).
My point was using ONE GAME to make this argument is kind of silly.
And I think I’ve said it three times already, and I know others have as well, no one is objecting to “using the run” to help the offense, we’re objecting to the idea that you have to be “balanced” to be successful.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then what you really should be looking at is how many times we ran the ball on "standard downs"
That’s not hard to figure out and might actually help your argument.
But then again, we’re back to this again — “Use the run to help out the offense. You can’t pass the ball day all day long and hope to win” — so maybe it’s a lost cause.
Vs Colorado, WSU had 9 3rd/4th and 4 or less situations.
They ran 4 times converting 3 and they threw 4 times converting 2.
50-50 balance
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 4, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
And again, I'll point out that WSU ran a spread-like offense in both Rose Bowls and the Holiday Bowl
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
One back, under center does not mean WSU was a running team.
Mike Price is still the OG of the spread, and will always be.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 4, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just to put all of this in one place
1997: 58% passes, 42% runs
2002: 59% passes, 41% runs
2003: 59% passes, 41% runs
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because Wulff is trying to #suck4Luck?
… what?
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I sense a pattern too
I sense a pattern of some form of balance.
Thanks for helping argument Jeff.
Stats
Out of a 100 times if you pass the ball 60 times and run it 40 times, there’s some balance there. It’s not tilted towards passing like if it were 70 passes to 30.
And ...
Where did I say equal balance? My original argument stated 55-45 which obviously isn’t balanced.
There has to be some form of balance. The team can’t be a one-trick-pony.
And this is the point we're all trying to make
You can throw the ball much more than you pass and still not “be a one-trick-pony.” This is the point you’re missing.
Mike Leach’s offenses were able to run the ball VERY effectively, as are Holgorsen’s. The key, as Mark so awesomely points out at the bottom of this thing and is the exact point I was trying to make with my basketball question above that was ignored, is overall efficiency.
If you see the start of this ...
At the beginning my whole point of this argument was that we can’t run the ball 70% of the time and expect to win. If you see my original post, it puts an arbitrary number that would be better than 70 (55-45%).
Obviously you understand what I’m talking about and have some agreement with me. I’m not going to keep arguing because this going further and deeper than it ever needed to.
Perhaps speaking to specific situations
Under which running the ball instead of passing would have been more prudent in this game would be a way you could convince people. But then again, TiltingRight sort of made the point that they were passing somewhat out of necessity.
Does this 55-45% ratio
have to be every game or should this ratio be for the the whole season? Do we need to be predicable? Because I will take 70/30% ratio and a win over CU. Now do we we need to be 40 passing and 60% running next game to balance out the season stats? When looking at these balance attacks are you saying they need to be at 55-45% every game or over the course of the season. Every game is going to play differently depending on the opponent and if you are playing from behind or with the lead. If you have the lead a lot these stats can be misleading because you are usually running more if you have a lead.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
You also said "imagine if Winston had 25-30 carries a game"
That one game would be swell, but what do you do for the rest of the season when he’s on the sidelines?
You do realize that all three main running backs have significant questions, right? Galvin, much as we love him, is far from the definition of durable. Winston has never, ever been fully healthy until now. Mitz spent much of his time in Pullman rehabbing from injuries. By trying to place so much emphasis on the run, which clearly isn’t a strength, you run the significant risk of obliterating your own backfield.
And we didn't win the national championship in any of those years.
Ipso Facto, you argument is invalid.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
...
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does your total equal 70%
No. Like I said before there has to be some balance. 60-40 is fine. Look at those 3 years you mentioned. They certainly didn’t pass the ball 70% of the time.
Go find me a team that passes the ball 70% of the time and wins their bowl games?
You changed your argument again. Read your first post.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
Mike Price OG of the spread?
Not at all sure what that means. When Price was hired from Weber State, a local sportswriter wrote, “so WSU has hired a .500 coach.” 30 years into his career, he’s still a .500 coach. I watched UTEP v. Houston last week. something iike 55-48 Houston. Price’s teams are still as maddening, disorganized, undiscciplined, and sloppy as they were at WSU. Good riddance to his ego. Price the head coach at Alabama? what a joke. Our pitiful performance in the 2003 Rose Bowl was a direct result of his power play. The Rose Bowl people were pissed off by the first non=sellout since WWII. Thanks Mike.
pardon the language, but this goes here...
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
How much room do you have to clear in your garage
To store that enormous axe you like to bring out and grind?
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
...
The Rose Bowl people were pissed off by the first non=sellout since WWII. Thanks Mike.
Ya I heard that Mike Price actually personally bought over a thousand tickets and just burned them in a direct attempt to cause a non-sellout.
Follow @JasonCoug
CougCenter member since before you were born
by Coug999 on Oct 4, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I am confused.
Do you want WSU to be running the ball more this year? I don’t see us going to a BCS championship this year. I don’t see your logic applying to this team. I can see why you are making point that you need to run the ball if you are playing with the big boys in a national championship, but that isn’t realistic this year, so why focus on it? Why don’t we play to our strengths and throw the ball so we can put ourselves in the best possible position to win now?
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
by SoCalCoug on Oct 4, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Not to nitpick Nuss
But WSU has produced TWO teams that realistically had a shot at the National title in 100+ years of college football. The 1915 team went 7-0 (including the first “real” Rose Bowl Game) and outscored their opponents 204-10.
If you don’t believe me look here, and here
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Oct 4, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Just a random and light tidbit
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Oct 4, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
:)
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Oct 5, 2011 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
:)
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Oct 5, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
What does "gimmicky" have to do with 50/50 run/pass splits?
Why do you keep changing your argument?
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's a list of spread offenses, if that's your point
OU 2000, Texas 05, Florida 06, Florida 08, Auburn 2010
I can’t cite numbers on run/pass balance because I don’t have time to dig through the stats, and they’d be misleading anyways, because in every blowout they run more in the second half than they normally would in executing their offense.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Texas, Florida, and Auburn
You might remember these were running teams that used the spread with running QB’s. This wasn’t the true spread that you now see in Oklahoma where they pass the ball nearly the whole time.
So wouldn't high use of a mobile quarterback be considered gimmicky?
by sdcoug09 on Oct 4, 2011 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Indeed
Auburn last year was about as gimmicky as it gets, if taking the best player in football and having him do something with the ball on approximately 85 percent of plays is gimmicky.
...
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
How many of the QB runs were unproductive pass plays
that led to the QB running with the ball? Would that be considered a pass first, or run first offense?
If Oklahoma had a QB who could run like Denard Robinson, are you saying he would stay in the pocket?
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
The last 6 national champions were not 'balanced'
(note this is straight stats, not taking into account sacks or scrambles simply rushing attempts and passing attempts)
Auburn – 296 pass attempts to 652 rush attempts
Alabama – 346 to 601
Florida – 329 to 545
LSU – 442 to 612
Florida – 399 to 476 (the closest ratio 45/55)
Texas – 336 to 605
So the need for a national champion team to be balanced is a fallacy. Like Mark said look at efficiency not simply the pass-run ratio.
If you read the initial argument ...
My point was more balance, but also the fact that in order to win you must be able to run the ball. Pass first offenses like those run by Mike Leach and championed by several of the people positing on this thread don’t win the big games.
The teams you mentioned weren’t normal. Vince Young, Tim Tebow, and Cam Newton aren’t your everyday college QB’s. Each player was amazing when they won their national championships and was special in their own right. You want a better sample, look at Houston, Hawaii, SMU, BYU when Detmer won the Heisman, and plenty of other high profile pass-first offenses that win against cupcakes.
This really needs to be done
You can’t discredit every piece of evidence against your point as “that isn’t the argument I was making” or “those teams aren’t normal because those players are really good.”
Yes, those players are really good. That’s why they won the national title. And that is why good teams are generally good, they have special players doing good things and the coaches work to make sure that the best players on their team have the biggest impact. Guess who the most dynamic players on our team are, receivers.
by 02Coug on Oct 4, 2011 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Agreed. I guess if you take away LSU really good
offensive line players they wouldn’t have that pounding run game huh? This LSU team you mention isn’t normal either.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
I'm really at a loss.
You said before that a team can’t win a BCS championship unless they are balanced. But now you’re saying that they just need to be able to run the ball to win. That is exactly what everyone has been saying. Balance is not necessary, but you do need to run the ball.
Seems to me that you are simply obsessed with the running game and are only satisfied with a power running team. Sorry to say it but if that’s what you want, WSU is not a team to watch to find that. You’re going to need to temper your expectations in regard to the rushing game.
This is the last comment I will leave to you as I’m tired of your argument changing and you’re constant addition of qualifiers.
the 1994, 95 & 97 Cornhuskers say "Hi"
by Blackie1829 on Oct 4, 2011 1:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Those teams were prior to 2000
Re-read my comment. I said since 2000.
This is so incredibly ridiculous.
If you have to put a bunch of conditions on what you’re trying to prove, it’s time to stop.
OK, notice something about those Huskers?
They could run the ball and established the game by running the ball something you believe is stupid?
...they were a triple option team.
You know, one of those “gimmicks” you’re maligning. No, I said you continuing to move the goalposts so whatever it is you’re arguing is right is ridiculous.
exactly
They were a “one trick pony” “gimmicky” “unbalanced” offense that won 3 titles in 4 years.
by Blackie1829 on Oct 4, 2011 9:56 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
especially with the primo grade 1 beef (yeah, I said it)...
…and athletes they had running it.
They were ridizzonkuloustastic.
by Blackie1829 on Oct 4, 2011 11:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
What exactly is your definition of a gimmicky offense?
Because the spread isn’t one.
Follow @JasonCoug
CougCenter member since before you were born
So how many teams that run a balanced offense
have not won a national championship?
by sdcoug09 on Oct 4, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
More than those that run an unbalanced offense- Night & Day
by jeremyb91 on Oct 4, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
So clearly a team is less likely to win a national championship
by running a balanced offense than by running a ‘gimmick’ offense.
I am rec'ing both of these comments for completely different reasons.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
And by the way
If you’re going to measure “success” as “national championship,” you’re going about this the wrong way. How many teams have a realistic shot at a national championship? That’s just not a good way to evaluate whether a program can be successful with a certain philosophy.
BCS
The goal of any BCS school is to make it a national championship game or at least a BCS game. You can make it to one of these games with a gimmic offense, but if there’s no balance teams don’t win.
Success is winning a bowl game in my opinion. Getting to 10 wins with a gimmicky offense and then getting blown out against a good defense because you can’t have balance isn’t good. If you’re happy with 8 or 9 wins and losing a bowl, game then that’s alright I guess. Not what I want, but OK.
Would you really not be happy if we won 8 or 9 games this year
Made the Holliday bowl and got blown out? Because honestly, we’re not playing for a BCS title this year. Not after losing to San Diego State, that ship sailed. We’re dreaming of a bowl game, any bowl game.
by 02Coug on Oct 4, 2011 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
For many BCS schools, a BCS game is not a actual goal
would those teams like to get there, of course, but its not like its BCS or bust for them.
Georgia Tech has been pretty successful with the triple-option, even Navy. If their recent seasons are ‘failures’ I would kill to have that as our last three seasons. Nebraska was pretty successful running the option too. Hawaii has some good success running the spread, granted it was short lived they did manage to get to the Sugar Bowl. Texas Tech was pretty successful under Leach with the spread.
I think your 10 wins with a bowl victory or the season is a failure is incredibly short sighted.
Trying to break a record of replies to the same comment here
Look at your list of coaches. Look at the programs they coach, and look at the personnel they’re able to obtain. And then ask yourself why other coaches don’t do what they do ….
OK, I’ll answer it myself: Because they can’t. Mike Price’s one back, Hal Mumme’s air raid, Mouse Davis’ run and shoot … all came about because they couldn’t get the personnel necessary to simply line up and knock people over. So they invented something else they could compete with. There are only so many linemen who can both shove people around and pass block.
Let me ask you a question: When WSU was winning all kinds of basketball games with Dick Bennett’s philosophy, did you think they needed to have a more average tempo? Or needed to be uptempo because that’s the best way to win?
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Keep people responding
Those coaches listed were brought up by someone else.
I agree the spread offense and the various offenses we’ve seen in college football over the past 30 years change and adapt for the personnel, but of those offenses who rely on the pass-first, how many won national championships?
Again, if your scope of analysis is "national championship," it's a non-starter
Were the 1997 Cougars unsuccessful with their one-back, pass-first offense because they didn’t win a national championship?
Don't know what happened to the previous comment
But those ‘97 Cougars featured a running attack that had one back with over 1,100 yards and 11 TD’s. Do you remember that?
If you go to a bowl game and lose close or win, then it’s not a failure. Going to a bowl game and getting your butt handed to you is a failure.
You keep changing your argument.
First, winning a national championship is all that matters. Then, winning a bowl game is all that matters. Now, it’s OK if you lose close. So does that now make 2010 Oregon a success?
And yes, I remember Michael Black well. Again, you’re making the point for us: That team was able to run the ball, even though it was a pass-first offense. That’s all that matters. The ratio was just as irrelevant then as it is now.
For the record, WSU passed the ball 58% of the time in 1997.
So you're saying going to the Vegas Bowl and losing by 21 points to whoever
Would be a failure this year? Let me reiterate the part about “going to a bowl”
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Oct 4, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
As my 4 year old cousin might say:
“(Sun Bowls) are poopy!”
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Oct 4, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe the 2002 Cougars went to a bowl that was Rose-ier
2001 Cougars were the Sun Bowl team.
Let's make this as simple as possible
The National Championship is not what we are playing for this year. Or next year. Or probably the year after that.
So ask an appropriate question. How many of those offenses have seen teams reach a bowl game? This is our goal.
And the answer is all of them. An offense that wins 6 or 7 games is a dream of Coug fans right now. Once we become a team that wins 9-10 games a year and can’t get over the hump to a Pac 12 title an BCS Title game invite, then we can talk about the 55/45 split and needing to run more.
If you see my point below we don't
have the personnel to run what you want. And your measuring stick is national championships. You keep referring to LSU and teams like Alabama. We have to think realistically to what personnel we have. The coaches I listed have been very successful. Not all of them have won national championships, but they have had their teams at levels WSU has never seen. They win with what they got. Like Jeff said they were winning the Dick Bennett way. They molded their schemes to fit what personnel they could get. I don’t see where you are going with this discussion. You are comparing apples to oranges in terms of programs, personnel and schemes. Again we are not LSU. LSU wins because they have better more physical players, that’s it. I don’t think they win because of coaching.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
We are not LSU
Not many teams in the country have the talented, big hauses that LSU has on the o-line. That is not a fair comparison.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
More reading material:
Here. Summary? Run/Pass balance shouldn’t be based on how often you do them, but how well.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
To take this a step further,
Through four games, my back of the napkin numbers say our runs net 5.25 YPC, while our passes net 9.20 YPP. So we are indeed out of balance, but need to actually throw MORE.
MOAR THROWING BALL! MOAR!!!!
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Ever thought that maybe they set up the run by passing?
I know you aren’t asking to be a run first team, but I think a few more carries might negatively impact the ypc numbers of our backs. By passing a bunch and showing that our WR core is deep Wazzu scares teams into coverage which makes running much easier.
by newportcoug on Oct 3, 2011 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Think of it this way.
Who would you rather have with the ball in their hands. Marquess Wilson, Jared Karstetter, Isaiah Barton, etc. or Winston, Mitz, Galvin?
And remember, quite a few of those “pass” plays are long handoffs. It skews the numbers every time.
by Brian Floyd on Oct 3, 2011 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Are you asking me?
Pass to Wilson/Karstetter until the D backs off, then hand off to the running back for an easy 3-4 yard gain. That way the backs don’t have to fight for as many yards.
By the way, if you wonder
why we never see our TEs. Add Lintz and Dunn to this list.
#CougHarmonyonTwitter with your pants off, M*tha F*cker!
by TiltingRight on Oct 4, 2011 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions
The threat is already there with the WR core
As we saw last season and in year’s past, if WSU can’t run the ball it doesn’t matter how well the play from the QB is. The run sets up the pass and the pass helps out the run. If you can’t run the defense can sit in a zone all day long and defend the pass.
Being able to run the ball would not have fixed the years you are talking about.
The problems with those teams were alot more than a weak running game.
exactly wrong
the past few seasons the Cougs did not utilize their best personnel in the correct fashion by this very run first theory. it was when they relented and recognized that Tuel, the WR’s and the OL that is better at pass blocking, that they began to finally see offensive gains and consistently improved offensive production.
The massive over simplification of some ratio is silly- you get the ball to your best chance for a gain. Right now, that is the spread it and thread it O we run. The runs keep the LB’s honest- and now that they are releasing the backs to the flat— even better.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 3, 2011 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
sorry @ jeremy not louhawk^
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 3, 2011 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
It's funny how we celebrate this 75/25 pass/run ratio
when in fact the majority of the yards were gained in the last 2 drives. And in the SDSU game, we passed so much we rarely had the ball due to the number of incompletions allowing our defense to be on the field a great deal.
The fact is, the staff has maintained that they want to be a balanced offense and continue to repeat this mantra. If they want to be TTech fine, but again just another example of the coaching staff saying one thing and doing another. It simply looks foolish.
BTW, I would prefer to be a TTech offense, particularly in light of the number of WRs sitting on the sideline that are talented. That is where our depth is and I would be glad to get into a shoot out.
by ptowncoug3012 on Oct 3, 2011 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
We're not really going to pick apart what a coach says in a press conference, are we?
All coaches say the same things and all coaches repeat the same mantras. And truth be told, that’s not really what the coaches have said, either. In an ideal world, they’d like to be balanced, but there’s not some huge emphasis placed on it.
And the SDSU and Colorado games were basically carbon copies of each other as far as playcalling. The difference? In one, there were four turnovers. In the other: One.
What have the coaches' said? Because I have heard it
said by PW numerous times. Then why doesn’t a reporter ask about the heavy pass play calling? Isn’t that an intelligent inquiry? Is there something that the defenses are doing (My guess, partly due to heavy blitzing) or is there a change in identity and we want to be more like AZ, etc. and pass more than run? This is not an accusation, but a question about the direction of our offense that any fan would want to know. I would be interested in PW’s answer.
And in ideal world, according to the stats so far, such a world would be heavy on the pass because again there is nothing to the theory that establishing the run does anything for the passing, right? So why need balance?
by ptowncoug3012 on Oct 4, 2011 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I am that reporter
Really don’t feel like going back through my recorder to transcribe the quotes again, but I’ve asked both Wulff and Sturdy about it before. Their answer wasn’t that balance was the end all, be all. Instead, it was more “Sure, we’d like balance. Everyone would.”
As for the offensive identity, that very clearly changed a year ago.
As much as I love
offenses that run the ball well and a lot, WSU must pass the ball because that’s their strength.
by tclaus on Oct 3, 2011 10:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
agree totally with jeremy b91
Running the ball does so many good things: takes the pressure off the QB, is good in bad weather, controls the clock, and takes the opposing crowd out of the game when on the road. WSU coaches from Price, to Doba, to Wulff, have talked about the importance of getting 150 yards/game running. Nobody has meant it. Can I “prove” that a 55/45 balance leads to winning more games? no. I have looked at a lot of game statistics in the paper. Teams that have to pass 40 times a game almost always lose, even if they get 400 yards. I watched the WSU-OSU game at Corvallis in 2006. We got almost 600 yards total offense, most through the air, and somehow still managed to lose. Arizona is throwing the ball 50 times/game, averaging 400/yards/ game passing , and is 0-3 in the league.
==If the opposition knows a team can’t pass, they can tee off on the QB. With a mediocre OL like ours., that leads to holding penalties and inability to protect the QB. When a team is “pass first,” a mentality sets in that we can win shootouts, and the defense is not physical enough. Teams that can run the ball are also more physical, and that translates to the defense too. We got away from the run against SDSU, and it cost us the game. Lobbestael can’t make the throws Tuel can; why Sturdy called passs plays that he can;t make is beyond me.
"Can I "prove" that a 55/45 balance leads to winning more games? no."
Then why do you still cling to it, citing examples that are red herring arguments at best? The term “correlation does not equal causation” would seem to be apt here, because I could counter your examples of many passes leading to a loss with examples of many passes leading to a win. You’ve tried to make this same argument before, and it’s just as unconvincing now as it was before.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
ok....ok..
Arizona is 0-3 because their D is bad, and they have played some good teams.
Then, jeremyb91 talks about national championships. Teams that win national championships are better than other teams they play in every facet of the game. The Cougars are nowhere near that good. Maybe someday Wazzu will run the ball more, but they will need a good Oline and a solid RB (I think we have the RB). But even then, most of the running will occur after Marquess has hauled in three TD passes and we are up 31-10.
As for that OSU game it was actually 2005
and the pass-run ratio was probably not the reason for the loss. Being outscored 28-3 in the 2nd half would seem to dictate that neither the run nor the pass was working that well. Plus the play calls were 60-40 pass-run. Which is fairly balanced.
Another major factor in the loss was the 4 interception thrown by Brink. So one game probably isn’t the best indicator to look at.
As for Arizona. Not counting Northern Arizona, they played #7 Ok State, #4 Stanford, #9 Oregon and USC. All games where they were either dominated or it was a shoot out.
Ok State – 37-14 (21-0 halftime) 51-21 pass-rush
Stanford – 37-10 (16-10 halftime) 39-23 pass-rush
Oregon – 56-31 (35-9 halftime) 57-35 pass-rush
USC – 48-41 (27-12 halftime) 53-33 pass-rush
Like newportcoug said, Arizona’s D is not good so they are having to play from behind constantly. If you’re already down two score at half time you’re going to need to throw the ball a lot more. I don’t have time to go through every play and get the ratios before and after halftime but I can be fairly certain that the pass-rush ratio is skewed because of having to play from behind.
Craig you read my mind.
I just got done watching the game again a couple minutes ago (nerd alert) and I noticed the same thing. Winston was a beast in this game. He was a completely different back. He had some major YAContact.
On the same note I notice a different Barton this year. The guy had a major impact on this game. During the broadcast the announcers said Levenseller explained to them that Barton played with a bad hip last year and that he is one of the best route runners on the team. If I remember right, Brian said that he watched Barton in early fall practice and he put a clinic on with the jug machine. Good hands. While watching the game again I was also really impressed with Ratliff. Our wideouts just keep impressing me more and more. We are deep at WR.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
THIS-- Barton is so much better at recognition
this year and clearly carves to the slant on the outside LB blitz – his cut off of the overloaded safeties on the 19 yrd TD was a thing of beauty.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 3, 2011 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Wilson and Karstetter get plenty of talk
but Barton has been quietly going about his business and has had an impact. I thought he should get some recognition. They are not huge numbers but on the season he has 19 rec, 241yds, 12.7avg and 4 TDs. 4TDs in 4 games is nice. You are right that 19yd TD was a beauty.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
also
watching the game again is a COUG alert- not a nerd alert.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 3, 2011 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Haha. Thanks I feel better now. I first watched the game to just enjoy it,
then I watched it closer to pay attention to personnel and schemes. I was really surprised how many players got in the game. Locker got a lot of time, I saw Coen get some burn, I believe Simone got some time at S and (I think) McCartney did as well, Eaddy at PR, Brandon Golden, Logan Mayes, #25 Bontemps (or Mitchell Peterson) on special teams getting a stupid personal foul and Laufasa on special teams. There was a lot of personnel changes to keep people fresh at a mile high. In the last few years I don’t remember us being able to do this. I also watched players like Lenard Williams to see how he did. He actually didn’t do a horrible job. He drew a holding penalty on his way to a sack and had a couple QB pressures. He read a couple screens and dropped back.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
Clayton got reps too
Coen started and so did Rankin because Pole and Kaufusi were in trouble for being late or something. Pu’U Robinson had a couple tackles which I was glad to see- getting him healthy and up to speed will help the DE (LEO) aspect of the Coug D.
I mentioned after the SDSU game that the Tec LT was a freak and a stud. He shut Long’s water off all day. I still think the cougs won’t see an O-line like that until Stanford- loved seeing Long bounce back. 6 solo 2 assists- for 8 tackles- 1 forced fumble and the blocked FG— wow.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 4, 2011 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure if it was you or someone else who mentioned this in the gamethread
but I 100% agree. I’ve been taken aback by how much better Barton is this year. Saying it’s night and day doesn’t even do it justice.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 12:35 AM PDT up reply actions
his recognition now that he knows the O
is such a bonus- plus there was buzz from levy that he was dinged up al year- that half step is big in the slot.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Oct 4, 2011 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Oddly enough, in terms of YPT, catch rate and 1st down percentage, this was by far Barton's worst game of the season.
More on that on Wednesday, but I was very surprised when I saw the numbers.
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 4, 2011 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions
That is odd
but I remember he did have one drop, if not two.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
Holy crap this thread is entertaining.
I’m trying to be a good student and do homework at the library, but when there were 70+ new comments on this thread since I last checked? Just… wow. I honestly went through and rec’d like, every single comment in this thread. You all make me warm and fuzzy inside.
Do you also enjoy stabbing yourself in the eye?
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Oct 4, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I think why I find it so fantastic
is every time I go to comment, someone has said it already, said it better, and said it snarkier. I love you guys, is basically what I was getting at. The overall discussion is awful because once the original argument was shot down, it kept evolving and changing into other ridiculousness.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Time for a Second Half thread.
Follow @JasonCoug
CougCenter member since before you were born
by Coug999 on Oct 4, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
A good offense is an efficient one. It doesn't matter how much you run or pass to do it.
WSU is currently the ninth most efficient offense in terms of yards per play.
Here is a breakdown of the teams that finish in the top 15 of yards per play since 2005.
2010: 162-37, 6 BCS bowl teams, national champion
2009: 134-62, 4 BCS bowl teams
2008: 154-45, 4 BCS bowl teams, national champion
2007: 132-63, 4 BCS bowl teams
2006: 149-49, 4 BCS bowl teams, national champion
2005: 114-64, 3 BCS bowl teams, national champion
So that is a combined record of 845-320 a .725 win percentage and four of the six national champions.
Efficiency, not balance is the most important thing.
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 4, 2011 1:55 PM PDT reply actions 13 recs
This needs to break the record for number of rec's
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I remember the GIF of Paul Wulff as that kid who lifted up his shirt at the World Cup
got like 15 or 20 recs. I can’t remember one with that many. There have only been a handful with 10 or more.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 4, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry to burst your bubble Mark
But 72.5-27.5 just isn’t balanced.
Two in the cake, one in the puddin'! -Kevin Calabro, Twitter: MichaelPreston3
by Michael The Coug on Oct 4, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm so glad my post inspired so much discussion.
What was it about again?
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
Winston needs to throw it 55% of the time and run it 45% of the time.
Duh?
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
by SoCalCoug on Oct 4, 2011 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Thanks.
I was starting to think it was about Winston’s ability to coach us to a National Championship.
CougCenter In Reid We Trust, Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Oct 4, 2011 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wait...where did you find this.
This is like spotting Sasquatch. Julian Peterson making a tackle? Get outta here!
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
There are 133 recs in this thread.
Remember when I said if WSU beat Colorado recs would flow like rum and crush at the Rancourt house? I was wrong, not even Kyle drinks this much.
by Mark Sandritter on Oct 5, 2011 12:40 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Forget counting them
It will continue to grow.
by well you win some and lose others on Oct 5, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure I rec'd at least 50 comments.
That’s pretty ridiculous.
Oh, and NEVER UNDERESTIMATE MY ABILITY TO DRINK, ESPECIALLY IF I AM ALONE AND PLAYING XBOX.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 5, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd for the precisely timed text wrap.
For the record, I do not want any more info about you “alone and playing.”
Aim High - GO COUGS
by 89Coug in FL on Oct 5, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Without Mrs. Kyle?
by well you win some and lose others on Oct 5, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
She came home and I was drinking plus using the Shake Weight.
She just shook her head and walked back out the door.
by Kyle Rancourt on Oct 6, 2011 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This is great Mark
it is like being comedians and having the audience drinking again. It was a dry crowd for a while.
THE ORIGINAL SoCalCoug | CougCenter member since 9/2/2008
WOW!
I wandered away from this thread and it exploded!! Great discussion-
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
This is the most awesomest and confusing off-topic thread I have ever seen!
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Oct 5, 2011 10:00 PM 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.
