05.Mar.2017 These Guys Clearly Want Luton to be the QB

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Reading between the lines in this article, it’s pretty clear these guys still don’t want to start McM.

If Luton starts the year and is bad/worse than McM, there is going to be hell to pay, on this site at least. The QB evaluation problems are getting beyond frustrating. Hard to believe a JC guy that almost every P5 team passed on is the answer. It’s like these coaches made up their minds (maybe before practices even began) who they want to win the job and are just going through the motions to give an illusion of competition. Also seems like they’re trying to make Luton into Falk or some other ideal of what they think a QB should look and act like. Hope I’m wrong, but I sense it.

Jump to Bottom
  • beavergopher beavergopher says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    Numero Uno

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

    Same deal when garrettson came in. He was basically given the job. Lot of people here were high on him. But maybe because the baseline was so low already it clouded the skills assessment.

    Everyone will have to see what Luton can really do when the spring game comes around.

  • Yakkety says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +10 (from 18 votes)

    You need to get over your mcmaryion obsession.

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 8 votes)

      How many recent QBs are .500 in the CW?

      If he doesn’t start the season, odds are he’ll be .667 in that series come December.

    • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)

      @yakkety: If that was supposed to be funny,,,,,, it wasn’t.

  • mckalk mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    We were right on before the first season when it appeared that Seth Collins was the pre-ordained starter and in GA’s eyes the second coming of Chuckie Keaton. We all know how that turned out.

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +12 (from 20 votes)

    There’s going to be hell to pay? How exactly? Nothing you or anyone else here writes is going to get someone fired. That’s a pretty laughable statement.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -6 (from 18 votes)

      Yes it is, and it already has with Riley. And on top of that, Canzano steals about 80% of his Beaver material from here. Bob D used to read the site. What is laughable is you have no clue who reads the site and the impact yet are making a statement of fact from a position of ignorance.

      • Turd Burglar says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +10 (from 20 votes)

        This site had zero impact on Riley’s job status. The dude left for more money and a better job. Angry, you really showed him! Haha

        • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 7 votes)

          “left for more money and a better job” hard for me to agree here.

          Money? Sure, but how much do you need and what of the quality of life step back when moving to Neb? Balance that vs the kicked back gig he had in Corvallis, with his grandson close by and those long Texas vacations. Not to mention a media which was sympathetic to the end.

          He’d have stayed if the seat didn’t get hot and the seat got hot, at least partially, because of the attention brought by this sight and its followers. An overstatement to say that Angry, alone, got him booted but a mistake to say it didn’t factor in. “Zero impact?”, you cannot be serious.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

          Better job, my ass… and in Nebraska to boot.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 8 votes)

            Exactly, and he left because we ran him out of town and he knew he’d have to fire his nepotism cronies. He left for a worse job because of all that. More money, yes, but a total shot in the nads in every other regard.

            Job is worse because (a) Location and (b) Fan expectations he’ll never come close to meeting (c) Nebraska is a team living in the past. Beavs have made a BCS game more recently than they have.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            He had a secret Runza addiction.

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

            Give it about an hour… hour and a half tops. Then it won’t be a secret anymore.

          • Turd Burglar says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 8 votes)

            Nebraska is by FAR a better job. Anyone who isn’t a total Beaver homer will tell you that.

            1) National Championships – Check
            2) 3rd in all-time wins – Check
            3) Better Facilities – Check
            4) University fully committed to football – Check
            5) 350+ consecutive sellouts (more committed fan base) – Check
            6) More Heisman trophy winners – Check
            7) Pay their staff more – Check

            Shall I continue? I actually think fans having higher expectations is a GOOD thing. Riley left to go coach with the big boys and make big boy money. He didn’t get fired. We need to deal with it.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Almost all of that happened 30+ years ago and before scholarship limitations.
            It’s a worse job because of location, delusional fanbase who still thinks it’s 1910, and you’re out in 3 years if you don’t win titles.

            They have better history, but it’s a worse current job.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Yes, it is a worse job.

            Now add that he was coach for life here. The only things you list that made it better for him were:
            1) Higher pay over the short term
            2) Loyalty
            3) Romanticism

            For Riley it is not a better job. For people like Craig Bohl or Scott Frost, it is likely the best job they can ever have.

      • them beavers them beavers says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        so if I say silly things they read it too? This is a great site I don’t read most other media anymore I don’t have the time for it.

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)

        “What is laughable is you have no clue who reads the site and the impact yet are making a statement of fact from a position of ignorance.”

        And neither do you. Unless someone comes out and personally informs you of it. This site can be read anonymously ya know. I’m sure BDC reached out to you to ask your opinion on whether or not he should have fired Riley. But hey, if you think whatever you write here can get a coach fired, you’re entitled to that ignorant opinion of your own. Just know many are laughing at that statement you made. You’re written plenty about Casey and his “warts” but last I checked he’s still employed by Oregon St.

        Talk about an inflated ego. Don’t throw out your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -5 (from 13 votes)

          Whatever, dude, you don’t know what goes on behind the scenes.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Costume changes?

          • Angry@angry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +6 (from 8 votes)

            You make implications like these… that suggest you do know what goes on behind the scenes, and suggest that people do come to you for input… but then on the other hand you bitch about all these things that happen… so do you actually have input or even a little pull? Doubtful if you’re constantly angry what’s going on.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Set prep?

            Drinking?

  • wannabeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +11 (from 11 votes)

    I think you could tell from analyzing the mix/match of QB’s with 1/2’s after just two or three practices that Luton was getting the preferred looks. However, McM was, if I recall correctly, first with the first team. out of the gate. One could argue that’s not a lot of comparative analysis but, on the other hand, the coaches know what McM can and can’t do and IF Luton showed early that he can exceed McM’s level of productivity it would be foolish not to push him to the front of the QB line. I’m going to wait till the spring game to come to any conclusions about the appropriateness of any QB priority.

  • WFO WFO says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    They brought in a gunslinger JC quarterback and a run and shoot coach, pretty easy lines to read between.

  • Sparkd73 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 9 votes)

    Every time I have seen McM play the offense has been vanilla with the main emphasis on running the football. How will you be able to tell that Luton is “worse” than McM? McM is a good backup to have, but I think the coaches keep passing him over for a reason, I doubt the conspiracy theories of him being a Riley recruit is that reason. My theory is that he bogs down a bit when they expand from the base.

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

    Off topic, but saw this and thought I’d share.
    It’s what you get when you cross Tom Herman with a Texas sized recruiting budget. These are pretty cool looking. I’m actually looking forward to seeing what else they come out with this year.
    They’re almost as good as our waterfall graphics from last year.

    https://www.behance.net/gallery/49560809/Texas-Longhorns-Uniform-Graphics

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

    What are the odds GA, who admits he knows little about offense, found a hidden gem of a QB that all the other P5 schools missed on?

    Serious question. Do you really think that’s probable?

    I know it happens, but it’s extremely rare. I’m pretty sure he’s obsessed with Luke Falk and mad he didn’t recruit him, and now he’s going out on a limb trying to find another. Just like with Seth he was trying to find another Keaton. He tends to gravitate toward what he knows (see coaching hires).

    Luton has a big arm + GA/coaches enamored with their ideal QB = recipe for the wrong choice.

    I could be wrong, of course, but I rarely am. I’ll save final judgment until I see Luton throw live. Hopefully the spring game is televised.

    • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      Chances of finding a “hidden gem” = pretty darn slim.
      However, is a “gem” what is needed? Maybe just a QB who doesn’t cause setbacks?

      If you’re a defensive minded HC maybe what ya need is an adequate QB who does most things fairly well and nothing outstanding. Maybe.
      Hard to square this view with GA’s goal of 40 ppg; maybe he really wants 30 with a D which holds opponents to less. Use the run, keep ints at nearly zero and it’s possible………if we see a real O-line.
      I think the Spring Game will be on PAC12, hope so.

    • Bill says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      Odds are very low. It’s much easier to be seen now with sites like hudl and programs have larger staffs who are able to review recruits. He wasn’t an unknown as a JC transfer.

      Luton didn’t make it at Idaho, I don’t think opposing coaches are going to be losing any sleep over him. He could become a good player but not likely an all conference player.

      Also Falk started at WSU in 2014, GA wasn’t at OSU yet.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 6 votes)

        But GA grew up knowing Falk, right? I think he once said he was a friend of the family who they passed on with recruiting.

        It just seems like Collins was his Keaton, Luton is now his enamoration with Falk, and meanwhile the guy who is actually winning games for the team is being talked down by the staff and media. Luton can probably make throws McM can’t, but he also seems dumber/will likely make many more mistakes. I don’t see Aaron Rodgers II (JC transfer somewhat off the radar) here or Luke Falk (under recruited star). The guy couldn’t play at Idaho and almost every P5 team passed on him, yet it seems the coaches still want to give him the nod. McGiven (this dude seems awful at evaluation) pushing to name a starter now. It’s just a shit storm once again. There’s zero reason to trust this staff with QBs, and until they show there’s (a) a merit system in place rather than hoping for their wet dream QB and (b) they choose the right guy from day 1 based on proper evaluation, then I am not going to trust them. This looks like another botch job brewing. And it was expected to a degree. I joked months ago they’re probably start Luton…I also said last year McM was the best QB on the roster, and they started Garrettson. I’d say I’m a better evaluator, and I’m not even there seeing them first hand. It’s why this is clearly a bias/wet dream situation (“Luton, you’re the next Aaron Rodgers or Luke Falk *fap fap fap*) for these coaches and not based on merit or performance.

        • Doozeldorf says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          Yes, that makes perfect sense. Why on earth would coaches want the best performing QB to lead their team? It makes more sense to put the lesser performing QB at the top just so they can gamble on the possibility that he becomes great and they can say they found him. That sounds like a perfect strategy for winning games and building a program. If that is actually the case then Barnes needs to fire the whole crew and start over again.

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Has anyone ever said the coaches would make a conscious decision to put a less talented QB ahead of one with more talent?

            Seems to me we are talking perceived talent when viewed through a lens built of preconceived notions.

            So many factors go into top notch QB play and most humans (even experienced coaches) cannot evaluate and focus upon them all. If you are convinced, by your experience, that taller is better or that strong arms are more important than weaker and more accurate arms you’ll reach a decision on that basis. If you are less experienced or defensively minded then it is more likely you’ll not consider enough angles to make the best decision.

            It can be an honest decision, it can overlook several factors, it can put the guy who is actually better on the bench. But it can still be untainted by politics or pedegree.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Exactly right, OldBeav. Great comment.

          • Angry@angry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            You guys are saying Luton’s getting a leg up on the others because of his height? Then why was Vamderveen moved to TE. Why was Kempt so far down the depth chart he transferred?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            A@A, you should probably stay out of any nuanced conversation.

          • Doozeldorf says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Well, nobody said “less talented”. I said “lesser performing”, meaning how they perform in practices, the same practices we don’t get to see. And in fact, Angry did say MCM could outplay Luton but GA would choose Luton just because he’s bigger and throws farther. That means GA will start the lesser performing QB. So you guys are saying GA will be so blinded by Luton’s size and arm that he will completely ignore the on-field performance and production of MCM. To me that would be completely idiotic for a coach trying to rebuild a program from the ground up. Especially when the lesser performing QB has only 2 years of eligibility.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            To me that would be completely idiotic for a coach trying to rebuild a program from the ground up

            He just did it last year, playing an awful Garrettson over a McM doing well in practice (per reports).
            He stuck with StS year 1 despite him being awful as well despite McM doing well in practice.
            Now he seems to be leaning Luton despite McM proving himself in games.

            It’s GA’s major flaw, which is why there’s a post about it. As I said, Luton better be great if he starts.

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

          Falk was recruited by no one. Walked on at WSU.

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

        Falk was from Logan, and GA was aware of him. But GA also might have had a foot out the door that year, and his successor is the one who really missed.
        http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2016/10/12/washington-state-quarterback-luke-falk/91959144/

    • Cake says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

      Your obsession with ‘why did Andersen love Seth so much’ is bordering on bizarre.

      Andersen came in so late in the recruiting game, he swung for the fences with Kafentzis, missed, and settled for a guy he knew was probably a WR at heart, but wanted to play QB. Collins wasn’t his ideal QB, he was just available. He anointed Collins starter because every QB we had sucked, but at least Collins could run. There’s no conspiracy here.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

        He anointed Collins starter because every QB we had sucked, but at least Collins could run. There’s no conspiracy here.

        No, McM was good. And just so obviously better than Collins if you know how to assess a QB. The people here who do (me, Jack, et al) all saw McM was better. But the morons were enamored with “the hurdle”. Now the same people are enamored with a 70 yard pass and using all the same justifications for nebulous ideas like “upside”.

        • Jack Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

          To be fair, MM, NM and SC all sucked eggs at the time. MM’s problem was his obvious insecurity when he walked on the field. But he was serviceable at the end of the year.

          The he went from serviceable at the beginning of last season, to being a QB who can beat the teams we should beat at the end of the season. If his career tracks progressively, at the end of the season he will be a QB who can beat some of the teams we shouldn’t beat.

          If Luton or DG surpass that now, so be it. If they don’t, MM plays. I’m comfortable with all contingencies at this point, and I think at least two QBs will be needed over the course of the season… maybe all three.

          For all I care, they can alternate during games depending on whose skills work better for any given drive.

          • Sparkd73 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I agree with the assessment of McM here for the past two years. The question I think is still out there is if he can make the next stwp. If he can, great. I don’t know what drives these coaches to think he is not the qb that will get us to the promised land, I don’t have insider info on what is happening in the huddle or film study, so I choose to believe the coaches. They are the ones that will ultimately be held responsible for the results.

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

            Wouldn’t alternating by skills be sorta like telegraphing what’s coming? Or maybe exactly like it!

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            No. You’re just playing different styles within a central plan. Subbing a QB is no big deal… except for TV broadcasters. Oh, how they wail when coaches do it in football. You would think the world was about to end. Apparently, some stodgy traditionalist from ancient times when the forward pass was a novelty wrote down some stupid rule about changing horses mid-stream having something to do with a game.

            Just like any other position, the QB should be rested. If everything is clicking, I would say let him play until he tires, physically or mentally. Put the next guy in for a series or two, and give the first guy some perspective on what the D is doing and how the coaches think they can solve that puzzle. Stick him back in, rested and recharged.

            Also like any other position, the best player will play the majority of the time. But you get the benefits of resting your main talent as well as the secondary learning game management with game reps.

      • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        And then there was DelRio, he sucked too. In fact he was so bad he became a starter at….. Oh wait maybe he didn’t suck after all.

        • Angry@angry says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Exactly. I’ve said this before but Angry only ever talks about how all reports from practice said McM was good LDR was inaccurate.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Well LDR has sucked at Florida so far. He had one good game vs a bad team, and still wound up with a 1:1 TD/INT ratio. Do you guys even know that or are you just impressed he’s at Florida?

      • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        The problem I’m having with this conversation is everyone seems to be laying it at the feet of Andersen, when, imo a large portion of the blame should be put at the feet of the assistant coaches.

        Yes, yes Andersen is the head honcho and should feel the heat but right from the get go he announced that he was going to leave the offense to the offensive guys.

        Again imo, it’s pretty obvious to me that the first year fuck-ups are why Baldwin was demoted and if the fuck-ups continue the guy(s) currently running the offense will feel the ax too.

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    OT: Don’t miss Eggers article on WBB, linked and discussed this morning on previous thread.

  • BeaverBill BeaverBill says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)

    Personally I don’t care if Sponge-Bob is QB, as long as whoever is back there can throw the damn ball and make us beyond one dimensional. What I’ve been reading is all pretty good compared to last year except the concerns over of offensive line. Whoever is QB is going to need a OL that can pass block… that is the greater concern versus who is crowned QB in my book as all 3 QB’s are serviceable as long as they get some blocking.

    • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Yes, pretty much what I intended above. Better stated.

      And, noticed that Yanni got more attention in the scrimmage than Sumner.

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      Agree. There are two guys that play adequately if needed and a dude with a higher upside.
      As long as the staff does not stubbornly hitch their wagon to the new guy, we have options, which is a good thing. It does appear they are giving him every chance to have the job. I wonder how the rest of the team feels about it? MM must be respected by his teammates for sticking it out and leading them to some wins last year.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -4 (from 4 votes)

        Why does Luton have higher upside?
        I’m not sure what that’s based off of. The QB graveyard is littered with dudes who could throw a ball 70 yards. It means zilch.

        • alex says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

          As you said above: “Luton can make some throws that McM can’t.” He also has a significant height advantage. That’s the upside: physical tools. And arguably, from the interviews that I’ve seen, leadership abilities.

          As to why he’s been passed on by P5 schools, the issue for him has always been inexperience. He ran a veer system in HS which is why everyone passed on him then. In 2016, he committed to us and shut down his recruitment over the summer while he was off the radar. Then he had a great, record-breaking season and signed with us directly afterward in December. Not a lot of opportunity for poaching, especially if he wasn’t interested in looking around. He could still be bad, but that’s a reasonable explanation for the lack of other interest.

          I’m not sold on him and think McM ended the year well, but I do think there is a real basis for optimism. And while McM was solid last year, we need improvement from him as well if the offense is going to take a step forward. I want a true, open competition between Luton and McM. Garretson is a solid backup but don’t see him as starting material.

        • Sparkd73 says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          It doesn’t mean zilch, it means there is potential for making that part of the offense. If that is the only throw they can make or they can’t throw it accurately, then it means zilch for them starting. Being able to make more of the throws than another qb doesn’t mean you are better but it does mean you have a higher upside.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

          It actually means Zilch either way, as do hurdles and every other glam move. You see Tom Brady or Joe Montana hurdling or throwing balls 70 yards? Nope. Efficiency and intelligent and making the easy throws is all that matters. Guys will be open 10 yards down field on almost every play. Know how to read D and know who it will be, then hit them 70% of the time, and you’re a Hall of Famer.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Of course, but if the mental/accuracy part is equal, the guy with the better arm/mobility can do more.

          • Sparkd73 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            “Higher upside” is speaking of potential. Maybe we are just talking semantics but Joe Montana is a guy who maximized his talent beyond what anyone could have predicted to be a true HOF qb. And there are many qbs out there that had all of the tangible skills to be HOF but never could put it together. We agree, but those qbs with all the tangible skills have a higher upside. If you could have Montanas head/heart with the arm of John Elway, who knows what the ceiling would be.

          • Bill says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            “You see Tom Brady or Joe Montana hurdling or throwing balls 70 yards? Nope.”

            Yes, in the past Brady had an exceptional arm. Brady today, can’t drive the ball downfield, but years ago he could. Back in the mid 2000s, he routinely threw the ball downfield and stretched defenses.

            Brady is working with what he has now and what his body can do. When his arm could really sling it he did.

          • Beavlover69 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            This “zilch” argument means zilch if you ask me

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            I’ve watched many Pat games being a Jet fan, and I never saw Tom Brady throw anything close to 70 yards. He was in the 50 to 55 yard range, even in his prime. Maybe he could throw further, but I never saw it. I Googled it, and some say he threw a ball 65 yards in the 2007 Super Bowl. Either way, say he tops out at 55 now at his advanced age, he’s still the best QB in the game with somewhat of a rag arm and zero mobility. The reason is simple: he’s smart, mastered the playbook, reads formations pre-snap, takes what the D gives, and completes a high percentage of what the D gives him. It’s not rocket science. That’s what a QB is and always will be. You can talk about legs, hurdles, handstands, windmills, and rocket arms all you wish.

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

  • JockItch JockItch says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    We don’t need to score 40 points a game….how about getting to 30 points first. Not looking at last year’s schedule, we would beat Utah, UCLA, and Stanford with only 30.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

      Agreed, if you have a good run game and D, which the Beavs have, why do you need 40? Again, it seems these guys are enamored with that Luke Falk passing game at WSU and putting up all those points. Seems that’s the main reason they’re giving their new toy the best shot to win the job. At the end of the day, the best QB will be on the field (at some point, maybe not to start the year), and my guess is that will be McM, much to fans and coaches chagrin.

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

      Thought we lost to UCLA 28-14, but it was actually 38-14 — I must of had alternative facts. I still stand by my point. Play better D and score 30, we should be in upper half of the league.

  • them beavers them beavers says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Call me what you will but this team needs to at least keep wining the Civil war to prove they are still going in the right direction.

    off topic but Basketball Civil War,

    If your team is up 20 I’d think you’d still not get all of the calls in a basketball game right. Beavers would have lost any ways but is a charge not called anymore on either team in basketball?

  • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Beavs move up to 4th in D1baseball Top 25 poll

    http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/baseball/d1/d1baseballcom-top-25

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -6 (from 8 votes)

    For the record, I’m not tied to McM and want the best QB to win. I just don’t understand the fapping and unspoken bias toward Luton. Because he’s a shiny new toy who they *hope* is the 1 in 1000 hidden gem that pans out? Because he throws a ball far? I don’t get it. You have a guy who wins games and has many years in the system, so giving first string reps to Luton is only taking reps from the guy who will ultimately play the most (again).

    GA has been handed a gift. He can’t recruit QBs to save his life, yet he was handed one from Riley, and yet he still can’t see it. I don’t think GA could spot a solid QB even if looking at his bust in Canton. It’s his weakness for sure. McGiven is even worse at evaluation, which isn’t helping the situation.

    • JockItch JockItch says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      McM is a serviceable QB — my expectation is a Trent Dilfer, or Brad Johnson journey type, who is smart, understands the situations, and doesn’t make the big mistakes (turnovers). Marcus has proved in games that he’ll hang in there (although limited sample) — he’s done a hell of a job. It needs to be his to lose, unless Luton comes in and throws double the yards and half the INTs against the same competition.

      • beavergopher beavergopher says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        I agree with you two. McM has done it on the field and should be getting the majority of the reps.

    • Sparkd73 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

      I’m curious by your statement that you aren’t tied to McM, but you are calling him a “gift” and saying that GA can’t recruit a qb even though we haven’t seen Luton. You absolutely are tied to McM and I’m ok with that as your opinion. I am still skeptical about McM because I have seen some poor choices and even poorer throws in game situations. I think he is serviceable but not a game changer, and maybe that is what we need.

      • dwill03 dwill03 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

        Angrybeavs is a website that touts itself as being a critical look at Beaver athletics (and basically everything else in life.) Angry as well as most (self included) have been happy with GA, but being critical people are still trying to identify the chink in his armor. The sample size might not be large enough, but the current pattern for a GA led team is there always seems to be some sort of a QB controversy. That was the main complaint from Whisky fans (aside from jumping ship.) It’s been the case here as well.

        You could tell towards the end of last year that McM was the players choice, and they were happier with him at the helm. Now it looks like we’re back at square 1.

        Again, this could all be blown out of proportion because GA closes practices, and we only here about what they choose to show the media for 20 minutes when they feel like it. But a pattern is developing. I believe that’s why Angry is skeptical.

      • dwill03 dwill03 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

        “you aren’t tied to MCM, but you are calling him a “gift””

        Assuming GA flubs the QB position (which is still just a developing pattern) the one thing you can hang you hat on about Riley: He could identify and develop quarterbacks. There’s no disputing it. And McM is the last Riley QB on the roster.

        • wannabeav says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          yes, Riley did recruit McM, but he also recruited Nick Mitchell on the way out the door as well. Just sayin.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            Riley was good with QBs. WRs and RBs as well, for the most part. It was maybe the only thing he was good at. He was in love with his passing game and recruited well to it for the most part. Regarding Mitchell, I don’t think Riley recruited him to start. Probably as a scout team QB given the depth at the time.

          • dwill03 dwill03 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            I always felt Mitchell was more of a “Neat Deal” that we could have another set of brothers on the team. You know, the whole family image thingy

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

            Riley was good at throwing a bunch of wet noodles at the wall and eventually getting one of them to stick somewhere around the middle of his junior year. MM is the noodle that stuck. We just had to play him in his first two years. He can be as efficient as Canfield was his senior year, possibly a little less so because of the difference in arms… but close. I’d expect his junior year to turn out like Canfield’s junior year as well.

            That’s where I set my bar. If any QB, including MM, can beat that, then cool.

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

          I always felt like Riley recruited McM as an afterthought because of all of the bitching from the fan base about his pro-style QB’s with no mobility and no chance in hell of running the ball effectively, but maybe he did see some talent.? Wasn’t McM a pretty highly rated dual-threat QB coming out of high school?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Yes, he was top 15 I believe.
            On HS tape he throws better than he runs. Threw a nice ball.

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

            He was a pro-set pocket passer in HS. He didn’t run except for busted plays. And even then he looked like a pro-set pocket passer scrambling on a busted play.

            How that translates to him being rated as a dual purpose QB needs to be explained by those who did so, because he was not one in the least. I have a couple guesses, but they need to explain their own stupidity first.

          • Nicebeaver Nicebeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

            I think it went something like this—–

            Rivals Analyst 1: Sir, we have a new QB to add to our database, before readers catch on that we’re just making this shit up. He currently has one offer.

            Rivals Analyst 2: ummm….let’s go with “2* QB”. We can always move him up later, if needed.

            Rivals Analyst 1: Sir, his offer is from Mike Riley at Oregon State.

            Rivals Analyst 2: Fine…..”3* Pro-style QB”

            Rivals Analyst 1: Um…..sir….according to his profile pic, he’s black.

            Rivals Analyst 2: “3* Dual-Threat QB” it is! Now get out of my office. I have to count this Bama bump money….

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Haha. Pretty accurate!

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

        Exactly, Dwill, at least one reader comprehends the message. Spot on.

        • Angry@angry says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

          This is one of my favorite angry posts… “atleast ONE” person agrees with me. The reason all your comments about this have a -5 score is you’re the only fool who believes this shit. And your entire schtick is contradictory…. you guys don’t know who reads here, Canzano steals my material, OSU values my input, yet I’m always angry about what OSU is doing and I can’t even get a press pass.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -5 (from 5 votes)

            Stay out of nuanced discussions. You’re not equipped to handle them.

          • Angry@angry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

            You already said that. Not funny or relevant. Not yesterday, not today.

            Have you been a total douche your entire life? Or does it get worse as you get older…?

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

            If you read it yesterday, why are you still here today?

          • Angry@angry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            I’ve said before there is good information here. None of it provided by you

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            meow

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            !

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

        When I say I’m not tied to him, I mean if Luton comes from 2nd or 3rd on the depth chart and just completely dominates and shows all the traits of great quarterbacking (smart, mastered the playbook, reads formations pre-snap, takes what the D gives, and completes a high percentage of what the D gives him), then I think he should play.

        • alex says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)

          I think this is the point where we differ. I don’t think Luton should have to “completely dominate” to win the starting job. I think he just needs to be the best QB on the roster, period. Doesn’t matter to me whether he dominates or if it’s close.

          Turn it around: McM has a huge advantage on Luton regarding experience. He has 3 years of college experience and 2 years in GA’s system, including some 7 (?) starts. Compared to Luton who is raw even for a newcomer (limited passing in HS). If McM can’t distinguish himself even with Luton’s uphill struggle, does he really deserve to start?

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Well… yeah.

            Because then all things would be nearly equal, and the team is conditioned and experienced with MM leading the way. Maybe JL takes over immediately, in the second or fourth game… or never.

            The onus is on Luton to distinguish himself from MM, not the other way around. You said it already. MM has the advantage in intangibles. If their practice games are close in terms of efficiency, you have then weight the intangibles for game day.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

          What does “distinguish himself” mean? He won a Civil War, the first in almost a decade. The game before he threw 5tds and 0INTs vs Arizona. 300 yards and 2tds vs a decent WSU team.

          Did Luton do any of this? He played some at Idaho and stunk, then couldn’t beat out their QB. McM has already “distinguished himself” compared to Luton, and that’s my point.

          By the way, you also loved Collins…

          Agree the best QB should play, but to beat McM’s resume Luton will have to dominate practices.

          Btw, I remember that you also loved Collins at QB.

          • alex says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            I didn’t love Collins at QB…I loved the prospect of Collins as WR/RB hybrid last year. Last yr was disappointing but I think a lot of that is on the coaches not utilizing his talent well.

            In 2015 I was higher on Collins than many on this site, but I didn’t love him. I thought he was the best option at QB, but not a great one and McM ended up outplaying him. I was wrong but I don’t think I was drastically wrong.

            Regarding McM’s resume, he’s had some really nice games but also some pretty bad ones. He has demonstrated he can manage the game well and generally take care of the ball, but has not demonstrated that he can take over and dig the offense out of a hole once we get behind.

            Yes, McM’s resume to date is far better than Luton’s. But again, if McM can’t clearly beat out Luton in practice, that’s a major red flag for me. If his talent is equal to or greater than Luton’s, he should be able to blow him out of the water with the experience and comfort level with the O.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 8 votes)

            See oldbeav’s post above. It’s excellent and gets to the heart of the post. That McM might outplay Luton, yet because of size, strength, arm, etc Luton still might win the job. There is bias. GA has botched the QB job at WI, and he botched it here until he was forced to play the (obvious) best QB due to injuries. McM can outplay Luton both camps and still lose. It happened the past two years. Especially last year: I spoke (emailed) with writers who were at practice who said McM was clearly the best QB.

            On top of that, the coaches seemed to want McM to fail. The obvious one was when the put him in pinned at the 10 yard line and asked him to throw a WR screen (that got intercepted). Horrible time to put a guy in for some of his first snaps and a horrible call. Put him in a position to fail. So I do think they have something against him because he isn’t their guy.

            Meanwhile, Garrettson was horrible yet kept getting starts.

            “Coach knows best” mentality is so old. You didn’t say that, but someone did in this thread, and it should be addressed. They obviously don’t always know best which is why they get canned every few years, and people should stop bowing to authority like that.

            I don’t understand your comment that McM can’t beat out Luton in practice, and that’s a red flag. Luton can’t beat out McM either…so what exactly are you talking about?

            Anyway, the best QB needs to win. Not the guy that GA has a boner for or reminds him of player xyz. That has not happened anywhere he’s been except at Utah State with Keaton, and I don’t even know the full circumstances there. Did he see Keaton was the best QB or luck into him via someone else getting hurt? Maybe someone can chime in on the circumstances that Keaton first played. McGiven is a bad talent evaluator and/or has biases that OldBeav touched on, which isn’t helping the matter.

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

            Agree with most of that. Think it is indeed possible that Luton starts while not outperforming McM and I hope that doesn’t happen.

            Important clarification: I said that *IF* McM can’t beat out Luton in practice, that’s a huge red flag. Didn’t say he hasn’t beat him out, or that he can’t beat him out. That’s in response to your comment that you’d want Luton to start only if he can dominate his competition.

            Again, I think our differences boil down to this: you think it’s McM’s job to lose and you want Luton to clearly prove he’s better to get the nod. I think whoever is playing better through spring & fall camp should start, even if it’s tight. Open competition.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            Again, I think our differences boil down to this: you think it’s McM’s job to lose and you want Luton to clearly prove he’s better to get the nod. I think whoever is playing better through spring & fall camp should start, even if it’s tight. Open competition.

            But if it’s tight, how do you not go with the guy who has won games in the Pac? Just don’t understand that at all.

            The reason I think Luton really needs to dominate and stand out is that playing well vs the Beaver D might turn out to mean very little, depending how good they are (I do think they’ll be pretty good but still, we don’t know, and the O might know their tendencies, etc). McM has played well vs *actual opponents* and in *P5/NCAA games*, so if it’s close, it should be his job. I have no confidence that will happen with this staff because it hasn’t yet.

          • JockItch JockItch says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Even with a decent QB in Mannion (#1 in the PAC for yards), we got to a big fat Aloha bowl. Goes to show you can’t forget about the defense and running game (Jacquizz actually gave us hope for a Rose Bowl there for three years until Riley over-used him). Makes me think of the Oregons, Baylors, Oklahoma States, and Houstons — lots of Offense until they play a Stanford type grind them out team. We’ve got about 2/3rds of the puzzle for a solid team — run game, and defense (needs another year). With a solid O-line play McM could get us to a Holiday, Sun, or maybe even an Alamo Bowl his Senior year.

        • Sparkd73 says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

          I agree with Alex on this. Who puts us in a better place to win. I thought one of the big knocks on Riley from this site was the priority given to upper classmen. Isn’t that what you are advocating?

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            ” Isn’t that what you are advocating?
            No, I don’t see it that way at all. What is being advocated is that the QB who gives the Beavs the best chance to win gets the job. A guy who has been in the system and with the squad probably has an advantage because of that but not because he is an upperclassman.

            But those “experience in the program” factors aren’t, and cannot be, the whole story.
            What is being questioned here, I believe, is the ability of this staff to asses the skills of each of the candidates. And to evaluate the whole package in doing so. Angry has provided some reasons which lead him to believe the staff lacks ability in this area, I have yet to see examples which say otherwise.

            Personally, I think the coaches are doing their best and do not have a conscious bias. And, I think more than one of these guys will lead the team at some point in the season. I’d just like to start with the guy who gives the best chance to win.

          • Sparkd73 says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            I am in violent agreement with you oldbeav, if McM is the better qb I want him to play. I also agree with your statement that I don’t believe the coaches have a conscious bias. I think that is my biggest challenge with angry’s point. I don’t know how angry or any of us can be confident right now on who the best is.

          • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            “violent agreement”, that’s a new one on me.

            I think we all recognize the problems any fan faces in trying to judge which of the QB’s is most likely to be successful leading a winning Beavs team. Not only does the media have limited access to observe practices, but we are getting info from those limited observations which is filtered through the scribes. Lots of room for misinterpretation there.

            The spring game will tell us something, but still not the whole story. As is said, “only time will tell”…still, it is interesting to hear different points of view and the foundations for those opinions.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Cooks finds himself in a disturbing situation:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/nfl/index.ssf/2017/03/brandin_cooks_wide_receiver_te.html

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      Hmmm… Cooks with Mariota?

      Tennessee has the 5th and 18th picks in the first round. Cooks is worth that 5th pick… or more.

      Thomas will run through his darling status as Brees’ favorite target after a couple years, and he’ll have a Danny Amendola career. His numbers might go up next year, but his efficiency will take a hit without Cooks drawing the best defender every week.

      Snead’s just lucky to be where he is. I’m not sure why he’s projecting.

      • Jack Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)

        Bottom line: Brandin’s coming up on the time in his career where his and his family’s financial security will be dependent on him signing a contract worthy of a #1 receiver. Thomas is not a #1, but he got that publicity all year. That’s money that will not appear in Brandin’s next contract regardless of the reality of his value.

        He should ignore the haters. It’s a business, and this is a business decision for him. It’s not personal.

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

          Cooks is my all-time favorite Beav and I agree he needs to establish himself as a true WR1 to get paid accordingly.

          But, I think he handled himself pretty badly here. He doesn’t have to be OK with taking backseat to a rookie, but he DOES need to keep that crap out of the media and the locker room. Be a good soldier when it counts, and then do what you need to do behind closed doors with coaches and front office.

          And while I totally get the frustration of being targetless in a 49 pt win, complaining afterward is not a good look. This could all end up negatively affecting his post-rookie contract.

          • Jack Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Not really. Giving Thomas’ and Snead’s poor behavior any credence is bad. But it just is what it is.

            That he’s frustrated tells me he’s talking to the front office, and he’s not going to get that #1 money from them because they don’t value him enough to lock him up. I posted a couple months ago that they could do this easily if they committed to him like the Rams committed to Isaac Bruce. Give the man #1 money, and you remove any question about what he will do for you for years to come.

            They sure make it sound like they value him for what he is when the trade talk pops up. Duh. But they won’t pay him to be the anchor of that WR corps? They will learn quickly what his value is when they spend inefficient monies on a continuous stream of journeymen WRs… those they have on a roster without him.

            He’d be a perfect fit with Derek Carr, IMO.

  • mckalk mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    I know we are not going to get it, but I would love to hear specifically from the staff as to where McM fails on the field because he obviously does not meet their “vision” of the perfect QB. Is he missing open looks, is his ball hard to a catch? Poor reads on the run-option? What is it? I just think the current Beav roster is going to win more games following the Stanford model than the Wazzu model right now and McM is an intelligent, good decision maker who can run the ball when needed and has minimized mistakes so far.

  • Nicebeaver Nicebeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    We’re going to need all 3 QBs again this year, most likely. I’d imagine the O-line will start out the season shaky again. Wouldn’t be surprised to see all 3 QBs start games, so maybe this is about dangling that carrot out there to keep everybody working their hardest to improve during the off-season.
    GA/McGiven said before winter conditioning that the goal was to have a starter named early in spring practice. I’d imagine we’ll get through the Spring game and still not have a starter named. Then, we’ll get to Summer/Fall camp and all 3 guys will still be competing until about 1-2 weeks before the PSU game. It happens almost every year.

    • Jack Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

      Yeah… all I see is another off-season of blah blah blah QB blah blah blah.

      It’s not really that interesting. I’m going to whine when one of them makes a mistake in a game where I’m BIRGing… or something. But personnel management is a pretty straightforward thing.

      I actually think we have decent depth at that position for once. And I think we’re going to need it because I don’t think any one of them can run a whole season.

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Darell G agrees with this statement.

      • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        I can’t wait until he’s the starter against PSU, and everyone’s heads explode.

  • Lancer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

    Re: Judging staff’s ability to discern best QB

    One factor that I feel is being overlooked in this conversation is that we have a new mind placing input into the offensive system, which I don’t believe has been the case historically? While that won’t alter the system, this means there likely will be new plays that need to be installed — these packages might require a different kind of QB, or a QB that shows they can handle what the team has in their toolbox already, plus excel using these new tools.

    I feel like the staff understands what McM’s strengths and weaknesses are; they should after observation in practice prior to the season and what they have analyzed on game tape. I expect they would give more practice time/reps to the newer or younger players initially, to see where they are and what they might be capable of producing.

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

    Good to see Oregon State listed as offering this guy: http://www.si.com/college-football/2017/03/07/daniel-faalele-img-academy-recruiting

    • Mud&Sticks Mud&Sticks says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      6’9″? Sounds more like he’s somebody that Tinkle should be interested in but based on the OSU basketball team’s “luck” with the last player from England….. My first reaction is PASS

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      That’s one big boy.

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

    Baseball against Ball State should be interesting. I believe they to be the only team other than Duke to have a winning record at this point — all others are below or at 0.500 ball. We play 4 games against them. With the bats struggling against UC Davis (3-7 record) at home, expect Ball State to give Beavs a pretty good series. Wouldn’t be surprised if they split the series, if the bats stay in a slump.

  • wannabeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Strangely enough, Jim Wilson chimed in on the main theme of this thread on today’s Joe Beav show. Wilson’s take: coaches (generically, but impliedly including Andersen et al) all want the QB with the greatest potential upside to be the starter. Basically, Jim was suggesting that Luton getting the push early on should be expected. That said, Wilson said he’s liked McMaryon since the Civil War loss in Eugene two years ago because of his game management skill and thought his throwing skill displayed in the Zona win last season augurs well for the future. Bottom line: he’s comfortable with either at this point.

  • wannabeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    game tonight vs. Portland has been postponed to later in the spring.

  • Nicebeaver Nicebeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    Gina with a olayer quote from practice, regarding the QB situation.

    “Safety Brandon Arnold on his unique view of OSU’s quarterback competition: “I see (Luton is) pushing them all. The kid’s got a cannon. Then you see Marcus out of nowhere come with a cannon, too. You see him picking it up. Then you see Darell pick it up, too, and trying to sling the ball into places that you didn’t see him try to last year. It’s fun to have another quarterback here that’s gonna push everybody else to try to achieve their potential.”

    • wannabeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      that’s as good a scenario as you could hope for in this situation

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    FB SCHEDULE:
    Per Gina, Beavs will face BOTH Fresno St and Montana St in 2022. Also Fresno St in 2024.
    At least for ’22, this doesn’t seem to fit the ideal we discussed some time back.

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

      Remind me, what was the ideal? I cant remember, but this sounds good to me, except Mt State has good teams most years and that’s a potentially embarassing upset in the making.
      Home/home with Fresno st puts us in a decent recruiting area and makes our road game more accesible to the families of our Cali players.

      • dwill03 dwill03 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I think ideally in the current stupid half ass play-off:

        One Cupcake
        One Decent Mid Major
        And for now 1 big 10 team

        • youngorst says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          OSU shouldn’t be scheduling “to make the playoff”

          If they make it, cool but they should be scheduling for (in no particular order)

          1) Home games (2 a year if not 3 on occasion)
          2) Wins (3-0 should be common, 2-1 should be a lock)
          3) Recruiting (road games should be places they recruit; home games should get them on TV where they recruit)
          4) Prepping for conference play (this includes remaining healthy)
          5) Player development (blowouts develop players)
          6) Fan experience, variety of opponents that the team will be competitive against. Driving to Reser to watch OSU get blown out isn’t an interest of mine. I am okay with the getting a Wisconsin or Oklahoma State to Corvallis but only if I believe they can be competitive.

          All 6 of those considerations (and probably others I am not mentioning) should come before scheduling for the playoff.

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

        Was it MSU or Montana that beat Boise State this passed year….? Yup that could be good game.

    • dwill03 dwill03 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Fresno State: Under Riley we recruited the inland empire pretty hard the last couple of years. This most recent class I believe a lot of these TMP Mafia kids are from that general area so from a recruiting standpoint it’s fine. I guess any trip down to Cali is good, as long as you win.

      No real reason to play Montana State…

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

        Montana State travels really well.
        When they play Portland State they take over the stadium. Could be added simply for the boost in ticket revenue

        • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I meant from the standpoint if your playing a 1aa team as a warm up, don’t pick one that can sneak up and beat you if your breaking in a new qb first game and they’re off. Pick teams who you can dominate so the underclassmen get time.

          There’s really no benefit to beating a good 1aa team vs a crappy one perception wise. Bad risk/reward.

          If you’re going as far as scheduling upper eshelon 1aa teams, you might as well skip it and scedule a lower quality power 5.

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

            I agree with you there. Would much rather just have Portland State or Idaho State again. Montana St is definitely one of those upper level 1aa teams

    • youngorst says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      What was that ideal?

      On paper Boise State, at Fresno State, Montana State is a decent schedule. Guessing the ideal would be to have a P5 opponent in there but based on recent history I’d rather not play Boise State AND a G5 opponent personally.

      I’d rather replace Boise State with a G5 opponent but Boise State is already there so while I’d probably try to get out of that game assuming I can’t (and OSU probably can’t) than its smart to avoid a G5 opponent in 2022. The only thing I don’t understand is why schedule the home game vs. Fresno State in 2024 when it might have been possible to get 3 home OOC games in 2023 (Boise State, Fresno State, FCS)

      For me, the biggest ideal is to avoid what is happening in 2018 and 2020 where the Beavs are playing 2 road non-conference games. That should be not happen. 2 home games/1 road game or 1 home/1neutral site/1 away game even 3 home games on occasion if it can be done but never 2 road games.

      • youngorst says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

        Don’t know why I started saying G5 when I clearly meant P5 opponent after the first time I said P5. Long day.

    • wannabeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I was hoping for some more Big 10 or Big 12 additions to the schedule, or in my wildest dreams, maybe even an ACC or (lower level) SEC matchup. To have those prospects substituted by Fresno is particularly disappointing because I vowed, after going there in 2002, that it was the one place I would never return to as a visiting fan. I can deal with smack talk (there was more of that at Hawaii in 2006 Wisconsin in 2011 than I expected) but threats of physical violence are beyond the pale and that’s what I experienced in Fresno from some young “toughs.” Montana State is a Big Sky upgrade from Portland, S. Utah, and even Sac State (!) as the Bobcats, along with Montana and Eastern Washington, form the upper echelon of that conference. Dennis Erickson’s alma mater too. On balance I’d give this collective addition to the schedule a C- or D+. Maybe the promised additions mentioned in Gina’s story will be more in keeping with my expectations.

  • youngorst says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Frankly, this was obvious. You don’t go after a JUCO QB if you don’t view them as your likely starter. Luton was and is the favorite. I like MM but I am okay with that.

    • Nicebeaver Nicebeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      “You don’t go after a JUCO QB if you don’t view them as your likely starter”

      You do when you see the lack of experienced depth after Garretson departs this year. We’d be down to McM and 2 guys with zero throws (Moran/Willard) next year. We needed that JUCO QB just to keep the position adequately manned going forward.

  • ohiobeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    I frankly hope that Luton becomes our version of Big Ben for a couple of years. Strong running game mixed with a pocket passer who takes deep shots and connects. If he can sees the throwing lanes easier and has experience with an offense similar to his juco year, why not see how he handles it.
    GA has shown a willingness to take risks and see if he hits paydirt with qbs. If his philosophy tends more towards gambling for the game changing qb, MM has proven he is not that. MM is the solid back-up. If Luton is the game-changer, then we have a special season.
    GA found Keaton as that game-changer at Utah St and he had everything else in place for that special season. I hope he can do the same thing here. The situation with Collins was more of a coin flip and go with the athlete, because none had experience. Luton has proven to be extremely productive in a juco season. Perhaps he can be even more productive at this level if it all clicked last year and the game isn’t overwhelming him as if he were a freshmen.

    I like MM but I like the idea of a downfield threat that can see and make the throws on play action as the compliment to running Nall even better.
    Injuries will be part of the scenario anyway, get them all reps and play aggressively to the strengths of each.

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

    The thing that impresses me most about Big Ben is his ability to stand in and make throws despite getting lit up every other play. If Luton has the ability to delivery throws while taking blows then by all means he should start, gives you the luxury of playing your best run blockers on the line too.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    If he’s Big Ben, a future hall of famer, I don’t think anyone would argue him starting.
    Pretty big leap from Big Ben to a guy who couldn’t start for Idaho, though. It’s possible the Idaho coach was bad at evaluation.

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

      I haven’t watched any film this year, does this Luton guy stand in and deliver while taking body blows?

    • AKBeaver AKBeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Someone posted prior that the coaches son was a qb at Idaho. Luton saw the writing on the wall and knew he had to transfer in order to play.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Cool.
        I really do hope he’s Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben, et al. Even if it’s light edition.
        I also hope it’s a fair and open competition and we don’t have to scratch our heads for a full season/half the season for a 3rd straight year.

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

      To be fair, Big Ben wasn’t good enough to start at Miami (OH) till his redshirt frosh year. Luton wasn’t given that benefit at Idaho despite having spent high school in a wishbone offense. Probably should have been redshirted year 1 at any college.

      That said, I seriously doubt Luton puts up Big Ben at Miami (OH) numbers but a 60% completion % isn’t out of the question in my view.

    • Angry@angry says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

      Idaho’s QB has a shot at the NFL, and the one before him was a 5th round (I think) pick. So wrong again.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -5 (from 9 votes)

        I never said an Idaho QB didn’t make the NFL, so nice try, and exactly why you should stay out of nuanced conversations.

        • Angry@angry says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +10 (from 14 votes)

          No but you criticized Luton for not being the #1 his freshman year when Idaho has had very good QB’s lately, and then you said perhaps Idahos coach can’t evaluate a QB. So among many many many other things, this opinion of yours is wrong. hey when you get out of your secret meeting with Scott Barnes today, why don’t you tell us what McM likes you to make him for breakfast…

          • Jack the Cuck says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            First time I’ve actually seen Angry BTFO by Angry@angry, well played sir.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            You’re being such a mammoth boner.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            a@a, again missing nuanced conversation, claiming I said things I never said, and then deducting ridiculous conclusions from the things I did say.

            You’re the personification of Oy Vey.

          • Angry@angry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Okay Angry, I’m on vacation this week, so I’ll play along… what did I say you said, that you didn’t??

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

            It’s like reading two separate conversations with straw men in each… sometimes constructed in the subsequent reply.

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

    I didn’t say Big Ben, but our version of Big Ben. Perhaps a poor man’s version of Big Ben is enough of a difference maker at this level.
    Given GA’s quotes about aggresiveness and toughness, perhaps the old school Steelers are the template: tough physical defenses, tough physical running game and downfield passing. Then I see it as an explanation for giving Luton such a chance.

    • beavergopher beavergopher says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Luck O da Beavs……….he turns out to be Gentle Ben.

    • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

      We don’t want Luton to be anything like Big Ben. Last thing we need is a starting QB raping co-eds in the bathroom. Allegedly. That’s the shit that is allowed to go on 40 miles down the road.

  • FatDog says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Joey Wong getting good props as former OSU Beav in WBC game–China v Cuba.
    Mentioned OSU baseball several times.

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Here is a piece on Luton, yesterday in the GT. Headline made me think it was something from weeks ago. He speaks of the systems he has been in and what he sees as his strengths.
    I found the TE comment encouraging, no matter who wins the QB competition.
    Some quotes:
    “He blossomed at the JC level, passing for 3,551 yards and 40 touchdowns with 15 picks.
    and:
    “We’re working the tight ends in a lot and I think that’s really good.”
    A bigger group of tight ends with the return of Noah Togiai from injury along with Quinn Smith and Tuli Wily-Matagi expands the options for the QBs.”

    http://www.gazettetimes.com/sports/beavers-sports/football/osu-football-jake-luton-throws-his-hat-in-the-qb/article_c9bdb164-c1bb-5841-9a50-4a5dc2afc14c.html

  • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    BTW, anyone read the (paywall) piece on BeaversEdge about practice #10? Headlined “Pass rush stands out…”

    • Nicebeaver Nicebeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      My guess is it went something like…
      “We only saw the last 20 minutes of practice but of the 7 or 8 reps we actually saw, the pass rush sacked the QB once……so that stood kindof out to us as pretty cool….”

      • beavergopher beavergopher says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Prolly because the oline is questionable at this juncture.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

      You mistyped BeaverSedge 😉

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

    On Cooks I’d tend to agree he should just keep his mouth shut but I doubt it did him a whole lot of damage considering the Patriots are rumored to be after him.

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

      It’s business. He feels the Saints are harming his earning potential so he’s trying to get out of there. He’s going to get paid big money by someone. Might even be the Saints.

      I like when athletes talk. Makes the game more fun. Creates rivalries and fans. If the ducks were all very likable people, what kind of rivalry would that be?

  • beavergopher beavergopher says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    2018 MBB verbal makes Scout 100.
    http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/2018-basketball-prospects

  • Ryan says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Not that is matters. But Men’s Basketball team shoots 14-24 58% from free throw line. Lose to Cal. Final score Cal 67 OSU 62. Eubanks rolled an ankle in the 2nd half too. Gotta make your free throws.

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

    Here is a little more info on Lutons path to OSU.
    http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/108762/oregon-state-qb-jake-luton-gambles-on-himself-hopes-it-pays-off

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

    Saw a few days back that Alfred Hollins was on campus for a visit and received an offer. Anyone know if we have a shot with him? Seems to have a decent offer sheet and even though we have a glut of players at his position, I think we need talent more than anything at this point.

    http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/202770/alfred-hollins

  • Gangster of love, Maurice says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Was that just the worst season in school history? Conference history? Discuss amongst yourselves…

    • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I know you are never really cured, but if Parker can stay sober after that season I believe he is darn close!

      BTW: Ball State baseball thread scheduled to go up in a couple hours.
      GO BEAVS!

  • GreatSwammi says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I’ve heard this more than once now….Luton is the guy, Luton has a cannon, etc., etc., etc. I wonder if fans making those comments get the fact that these are scrimmages and practices and usually the QB is off limits to hits. Actual PT in a real game is a completely different situation than scrimmages or practices when you have a 300 lb linemen zeroing in on the QB…..

    Well, MM has been in those situations and led the Beavs to two impressive victories against AZ and the Ducks. Luton hasn’t proven anything yet in a real game situation. IMO, I hope the coaches go with MM to start the season because we’ve seen and know what he can do when he has a healthy running game, a set offensive line, and receivers that can actually catch the ball. For a better part of last season, MM didn’t have the luxury of any of those things except in the AZ and Oregon games. When he had those things, he performed exceptionally well. Without MM last year, the Beavs don’t beat AZ or the Ducks.

    It’s MM job because he has earned it…..Luton hasn’t and Spring games, scrimmages and practices prove very little about how a player will perform in a real game situation.

  • goBeavers goBeavers says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think the problem is that none of the QBs are actually any good.

    This seems to be a GA problem, so that’s really troubling as it portends to the future.

    I hope I am wrong.

Write a Comment

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives