10.Oct.2009 Post-Game Thoughts

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Not too much to say on this one. The Beavs played well in all three facets of the game. As most prognosticators figured, they’d have to control the tempo with their own run game and that’s precisely what happened.

The two areas for improvement are:

1. Offensive line pass blocking–Remmers continues to yield sacks. Wish we could get some better play there. It was nice to see the wildcat and some creativity.

2. Defensive intensity–the Beavers pretty much stopped playing D in the second half. The game wound up being much closer than it should have been because of this. Also, it’s a big deal because if you beat Stanford by 24, as opposed to 10, you start to creep into the top 25 discussion and Quiz possibly gets some Heisman attention. As it stands, the Beavs will have to win @USC before earning attention.

One final note is that this could have been a completely different game if the Stanford WR hauls in that opening pass. So let’s not get overconfident here. The good news is that we executed like a DI team today and got the win. The bye week will be interesting. There’s a great chance for improvement, but at the same time you don’t want to see the Beavs come out flat at the Colosseum.

Jump to Bottom
  • G Joubert says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Harbaugh is a competitor, as he should be, but his attitude gets real old real fast.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      There are some unlikable guys in the conference, from Harbaugh to Nick Holt. It’s a pretty bad time with these uber-recruiters posturing as coaches.

  • Beavute Beavute says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Angry,
    Was the fumbled Stanford punt that almost turned into a safety not reviewable? All the replays showed safety. The guy was running sideways and his knee actually landed in the endzone. If it was reviewable, I wonder what the OSU coaches were thinking. There’s no downside to challenging (you don’t need your timeouts anymore) and if you get an overturn, it’s pretty much game over at 40-28 and Stanford having to kick to us. Just curious.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Yeah it’s reviewable. Riley didn’t challenge the fumble in the Cincy game, either. Never understood that.

      In this case I think the reason is that refs always give the runner the benefit of the doubt on forward progress. He fielded it at the half yard line, landed on a player, and was dragged into the endzone. Even after review I think they’d mark him at the half yard line due to forward progress.

  • Beavute Beavute says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Typo..I think it would have been 40-22 with a safety. Three scored deficit with about 4 minutes to play.

  • Xcalifguy says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I don’t think Riley wanted to review it cuz he knew his team was going to win and, after all, he didn’t want to “rub it in” to his bud, Harbaugh. Riley does NOT have a killer instinct – he’s more like a pro coach vs. a college coach. The points you score DO matter in college. They should have challenged and reviewed it, I think they’d have ended up with 2 more pts.

    • Beavute Beavute says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      And it would have been good strategy to review it. 16 points down in college is a two possession game and a doable comeback with 4 minutes left. Down 18 points and you are history.

      • angrybeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Yeah, I agree Riley should have reviewed it, but I’ve seen enough football to know refs rarely reverse that call. I’m not that upset about it because I think a review yields the same result. The non-review in the Cincy game, though, infuriates me. Riley basically said, “we could have reviewed that and I chose not to”, but never explained why. That was possession in a game you were losing–clear time to challenge.

        • G Joubert says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          If you ignore any forward progress consideration it was a safety based on where he went down, but I thought at the time that the ruling would be his forward progress was stopped and he was pushed into the end zone. I was surprised that wasn’t the ruling on the field. He DID NOT appear to go into the end zone on his own power.

  • mckalk mckalk says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’d like to see more aggression from the coaching staff. Both plays needed to be challenged. Makes me wonder a little bit about communication on the sideline. You can bet if Stanford did pull off the 16 point miracle, it would now be an interesting discussion.

    Also, where was the review booth. Love those P-10 officials.

  • bill hetland says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I felt the offensive played 10 times better, canfield had a ton of time, and he looked damn good… gotta give them credit… I also agree we need more of a killer instinct, i hate playing to not lose once you have a lead… do what got you there, and get up by 40, then slow down… we went passive clock burn personality to early…. I love Riley though, so not complaining… go beavs.

    • angrybeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      That’s why I said a few weeks ago we shouldn’t give up on Canfield yet. He looked good at times even in those early games. The real test, to see if he’s come of age, will be on 10/24. The offensive line, too. You can get rush outside/to the corner vs a slow LB corp like Stanford but you can’t do that vs USC, which means running between the tackles, getting a good push, and pass blocking properly (Remmers, after two years, is still a mess and I fear him blocking the QBs blind side in that game). It’s a terrible match-up for the Beavs OL, so they better work like mad in these two weeks to come up with creative solutions and max protect schemes.

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives