02.Oct.2013 Bye Week Report Card

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

Slow going, so how about looking back on the first 5 games and grading these units?

Offense: A
Defense: F
Special Teams: B
Coaching: C-
W/L Record: B-

What grades would you give the team and staff so far?

Jump to Bottom
  • VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    Defense should get a D only because they did a pretty good job against Colorado and they showed some (thus far) uncharacteristically good open field tackling. The Buffaloes did however expose how weak we still are against any kind of hurry-up offense. Even the announcer said he’d like to see how we fair against those teams upcoming on our schedule.
    W/L record should be a D simply because we should be undefeated at this point.

    OT: WTF is it with the OSU students on camera during games and showing the Oregon “O” hand sign?!??!! At least once a game some douche in the crowd of hyped up fans flashes the duck sign. Embarrassing. There was a student that did it last year early in the season, then by pure chance he gets into the camera shot again later in the year and starts to make the sign again but pulls back at the last moment like he just remembered the beat down his buddies must’ve gave him the last time.
    We should probably have a thread dedicated to only this topic Angry since I’m sure it matters to everyone.

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

    QB = A+
    RB = C
    WR = A
    TE= B-
    OL = C-
    Total = B

    DT = C
    DE = C+
    LB = D
    CB = B-
    S = C-
    Total = C

    KR = D
    PR = C-
    KC = B
    PC = B
    P= A
    PK = B+
    Total = B

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

      Coaching = C-

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

      Agree, well done.

      An “A’ for the offense is too high because it lack balance. It could be argued that balance hasn’t been necessary; every game the offense has done it’s share to win games. Score 46 and lose?!?

      But still, the run blocking is SO poor, and subsequently the run game, a B is appropriate.

      I might give the coaching a C+ on a curve. The fact that the staff is replacing unproductive players like Skotte is refreshing after years of sticking with their “neat story” players regardless of their production or the talent behind them. They could have made the switches earlier.

  • Timber2002 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Saw that the Beavs are last in the conference and 118th overall in red zone defense. So that gets an F.

  • whiskeysoakednapkins says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -4 (from 4 votes)

    Offense: B- due to zero running game
    Defense: D-
    Special Teams: C (kickoff and punt return game has been non existent)
    Caoching: C+
    W/L record: C- (and I am being generous here as with this schedule they should be undefeated)

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

    OT: A nice piece on Jacoby and his approach to stealing. Portions of his approach apply to a lot more than swiping bags!

    http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/9757214/jacoby-ellsbury-quick-learner-craft-stealing-bases

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

      I very much enjoyed the details in this piece. I’m not a Wikipedia editor but if someone reading this site is, please note that Oregon State is barely mentioned (he played 3 years there before turning pro) in the Wikipedia write-up. See what you can do!

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

    Defense: Incomplete

    And I’m not talking about the opposing QBs’ passes, either

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

    Mannion gets A+ from me. Twwet = Beaver QBs have been sacked 6 times in 248 pass attempts (1 per 41 pass att.). Last season it was 1 per 16 attempts.

    The o-line gets an A for pass blocking but I think Mannion is reading way better then last year and is playing way better over-all. He has grown-up a lot since last year.

    I think with the o-line being replenished in the by-week here our run game will take a big step forward.

    My biggest worry is still our defense but do see improvement for sure.

    As much as I hated this team for breaking my heart with the loss to EWU I hope they can be the storybook team as the season goes on.

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

      The sacks per pass attempt improvement is impressive.

      I looked at Mannion’s numbers the other day, and he’s throwing 1 td per 12 attempts 1 TD per 8 completions…seems like a pretty impressive rate.

      We should probably acknowledge the team’s improved red zone efficiency (thus far).

      I hope the development of Caleb Smith continues and Hamlett if fine. The way Mannion is seeing the field and reading, there’s going to be too many options to stop. Also that Brown gets several touches per game, he looked like he was nearly going to break a long run against Colorado.

      When watching, I get nervous about how long some of Riley’s plays take to develop and start expecting a sack. I wish they could run more plays that develop more quickly, particularly against a D like Oregon. It broke Riley’s heart in the ’09 CW that Canfield had a WR wide open in the endzone, for a lead, but got sacked. Don’t know if that play developed slowly by design, or if Canfield was just too slow, but Riley referred to that play for quite some time.

      What’s next? Well Riley said after the Colorado game that they’re were going to “insert some new stuff” they’ve been holding back. If true, nice to hear that the are approaching the next phase of the season proactively and aggressively; so often he and his staff appear reactive.

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

        I’ll take proactive for this season. I think it’s more reactive to last season, which is also good and shows a learning curve does exist. Remember last year the Wazzu game was the one where Langsdorf was out-coached by quite a bit. But Mannion managed to shrug off the pain of an injury and a defense who seemingly knew every play call themselves in order to win.

        Mannion’s season was derailed in that game too.

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        …going to insert some new stuff…. like maybe RUN BLOCKING! Wooohooo!

  • steveEbeaver says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

    Offense A- Not much to complain about based on the end result but like everyone else the nonexistent run game is a concern.
    Defense D. Improvement in the Colorado contest raises the grade.
    Special Teams B. the squib kicks against the wind and the kicks out of the endzone with the wind last week shows Read is thinking. They’ve had a lot of different guys handling punt returns trying to figure out who looks the best. Nice to see.
    Coaching C. Mostly because I’ve liked the play calling given the lack of a running game (I hope this is due to the injury problems on the O-line)
    W/L Record D+. You can’t lose to E WA and get a passing grade.

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

    I don’t really know how to judge. I think tomorrows game with UCLA and Utah will answer some questions. The real grade comes after the Stanford game. I watched the 2000 Civil War on PAC 12 last night. After watching Mannion this year, neither Jonathon Smith or Joey Harrington looked particularly good. There were a lot of bad passes and a lot of drops. One thing stood out was that the Beavs ran mostly to the outside maybe because of the speed of Simonton. Can’t understand why we run between the tackles so much with such a diminutive return. I think the defense is practicing against a team that runs between the tackles and doesn’t know what to do when they run outside. They also practice with a pocket passer???

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

    One more grade for Oregon state.
    Legislature: F–
    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/gmo_bill_clears_senate_2013_sp.html

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

      What a fucking mess.

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

        Have you read the bill yet? It has to be the most obscure POS there ever was.
        https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013S1/Measures/Text/SB863/Enrolled

        Let’s make a list of all the products derived from ag. Now let’s make a list of all the local ordinances that prohibit, inhibit, quarantine, whatever uses/storage/etc. of ANY of those products… as well as the plants themselves.

        “I’m sorry officer, but according to SB863 the local ordinance saying I can’t use my front yard as a storage spot for that 25 foot tall hay stack is now moot. Oh… a citation for cutting down all the trees in my yard in order to facilitate space for my hay storage? Sorry, but there is no such ORS law which says I can’t do this, let alone a fine attached to it. Your little city ordinance is moot due to SB863, which was passed yesterday and has an emergency enactment clause.”

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

    Using the latest in advanced theoretical computer modeling normally used to map photon scatter I have created precise, scientific grades for the Beavs so far this season. Here are my results —

    Offense
    Passing 94.39% A
    Running 39.05% F-

    Defense 62.41% D

    Coaching 87.82 % B +

    After extensive research and testing, predictive modeling indicates a continued improving trend. Biggest surprise the scientific models indicated was coaching receiving a B+. After a horrible opening loss Riley has kept the team from imploding and rallied the Beavs. A potential quarterback controversy has been squashed by Mannion’s Heisman type numbers and despite a non-existent running game OSU continues to be able to call games that run up the points. Additionally, rallying to beat Utah and the Atzecs, the team showed they believe in the coaching staff. Finally, the choice of running a pro-style offense has resulted in repeated crops of top tier QBs, WRs, and RBs. Riley deserves credit for this. Computers indicated though that another loss to a mobile quarterback on a crappy team could lead to a precipitous (and possibly irreversible) decline in overall coaching grade.

    • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I dont think the coaching is what is pulling out wins….rather its the exceptional passing game. Poor coaching gives us no run game and at least inconsistent defense. Coaching should not get a B.

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

        Not to pick on just the low-hanging fruit, but are you suggesting the coaches deserve no credit for the “exceptional passing game” but deserve the blame for “no run game” and “at least inconsistent defense.”

        I suppose this is a bit of rhetorical question.

  • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Anyone see this. The only reason Solomon transfered was because the coaches decided to redshirt him. Must have rely felt lied to, because that’s a pretty brash decision. He won’t be playing anywhere this year anyway.

    http://oregonstate.scout.com/2/1332297.html

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

      Boo hoo.

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

        Totally. What a boner.

        He probably would have got his shot this year too after the coaches realized how bad TZ is.

    • carltogr carltogr says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -5 (from 5 votes)

      I don’t blame him for leaving….He probably saw how bad the players were ahead of him and realized even with his good camp that Riley was sticking with the status quo….I remember his film being pretty good as far as nose for the ball and wrapping up…..too bad, the guy seems like a leader.

      • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

        A leader who quits extremely easily? Interesting opinion… Did you attend practice and see this good camp? I don’t think I ever saw his name mentioned as having any stand out play. I’d respect the decision more if it were along the lines of not liking Corvallis, or not fitting in/feeling at home.

        He did look like a solid get. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to redshirt though, unless your a complete beast or have an enormous ego. I don’t think he’s in the beast category yet. At his current size/weight he’s not really big enough to be a Pac 12 safety yet, let alone a LB where some were projecting him. Spend a year pumping iron and partying, and give yourself 4 legit years to play your way into the league. Seems dopey to relegate yourself to a smaller program this early in the game.

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

          ….no I only read the article. Apparently he had good camp, according to him, so I see a guy that really believes in himself and wanted to start right away. Too bad for him cause he really limited his options….too bad, I think he would have a made a decent safety (better than what we have now).

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

        What a fucking mess.

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

          Wow. That post was supposed to be a long way from here. Odd.

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

      Probably one of the only freshman in the country to transfer because they got redshirted…

      Now he’s going to transfer to a non-bcs school. Smart move kid.

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

        Yeah I’m not saying he made the right decision (OSU was probably the best place for him), as much as I’m saying that the guy made a decision and he is sticking with it….unlike TZ who can’t make his mind up to dive left or right when he gets juked on (bad analogy I know)…..but better to pick a direction than stay at the sign post…..Solomon decided to go the other way.

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

      He didn’t go into detail, so we’ll never know. But I heard he was told he wouldn’t redshirt and he was told he would be a safety. Then he was made a LB and told he would redshirt.

      I once took a job with similar circumstances. I chose it over two others because I was told their recent buy-out would create opportunity at the specific position I was hired. I got in, and within three days the position was erased and I was some schlup in a cubicle instead of managing a department.

      I left immediately, and I was very happy at the job which was my second choice. The first place hounded me for about a week telling me they would (eventually) make another like position to the one I was hired and making excuses for their direct lies to me during the hiring process by saying it was a surprise to them… then it was out of their hands… then it showed poorly on my character for “going back on my word”… then I was just a loser who would never amount to anything.

      The guy who did all this interviewed with me for an opening about 18 months later. He did not interview well. Specifically, he didn’t respond well to my “hypotheticals.”

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

      From the practices that I went to he didn’t really stand out to me. For the first practice I actually thought that he was Zach Robinson, who was making some plays and is playing well on special teams, i think he was spending time with the safeties as well as the linebackers. I was excited about having him on the team, but I didn’t see him playing this season. (Not to brag, but I was 100% on which players would not redshirt 🙂 ).

      I can see why he would leave if he was told he was going to play right away and at a different position.

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

      Another thing is lost in this discussion.

      Regardless of the reasons, Solomon thought OSU wasn’t the place for him, and he made a decision that he thought would be better for his future. That’s an adult thing to do, and it’s better that he’s decisive now instead of punishing himself and OSU by remaining in an untenable situation.

      But the more adult decision was made by Riley. He allowed a young man the freedom to make that decision and to act upon it with minor caveats. Too often we hear about coaches who act like petulant children while trying to punish someone who makes a similar decision. I think the schools too often lord too much power over these SAs when they should all be acting in the best interest of each and every one of them instead. I applaud Riley for acting like an adult, and I applaud both parties for making the decision quickly so it not only doesn’t affect Solomon’s eligibility.

      It also gives OSU an extra ship which can be used on an early signee in December.

      And would it be weird for me to suggest that OSU is still a possibility for Solomon? Is that bridge burned?

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

        “He made a decision that he thought would be better for his future”? This is not an adult thing to do, it’s a human thing to do. In fact, who purposefully makes decisions that they think will be harmful for their future?
        I suspect he made the decision that he thinks will get him on the field faster and that’s it. Sure this might be “better” for him in the long run, only time will tell. Kinda the ‘grass is always greener’ syndrome, like people who are always changing jobs, girlfriends, apartments, etc. instead of sticking with their previous decision and seeing it through.
        I do agree that Riley letting him go is the wise choice, no need to punish him. Who wants someone around that doesn’t want to be around? But I’m not giving Solomon any credit for changing his mind as a wise thing to do until I know more facts about the specifics.

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

          “… who purposefully makes decisions that they think will be harmful for their future?”

          Greg Newhouse

          The adult action is making the decision. “Sticking it out” is not a decision. Or if it is, then it would be one which follows the parameters you think are incredulous above. That would be a decision that would be harmful for your future despite the evidence.

          But I would just classify it as inaction due to fear.

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

            To directly answer your question, I refer you to the abundance of people who make decisions based on emotional reasons. Some people know that what they do is harmful to them. Some don’t know any better. Some just have faith that their decisions will result in good for them.

            And those are just the people who choose based on emotion. Imagine what a psychopath or sociopath might think when one makes a decision. Surely some of them must know what the outcome may be in the end.

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

          It’s all about Risk/Reward…..some decisions are made that sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability and vice-versa. In this instance he decided to sacrifice the long-term possibility of playing for the Beavs, in order to gain the short-term ability to play and start this year — although when you are 18 years old, long term is probably not all that far out (<1 year) when compared to older more adult decisions are 5-10-20 years out, like buying a house and retirement investing. Makes more thankful of the guys who do stick with the program (Jordan Poyer…..wasn't he with the program for 5 years) and ride it out.

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

            Skydivers risk their future all the time….right? with nothing more than an adrenaline rush and good view of the mountains as reward….

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

            ….and agreed….time will tell.

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

        Amen brudder. It didn’t work out and he left soon freeing up a spot that the Beavers were not going to use this year. A win win. While I respect differences of opinion, personal criticism of him is just nasty petulance.

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

    I agree for the most part. I would give a higher grade to the o-line because they have performed well even through the injuries and reshuffling. If we had our starters playing like this then I would give a lower grade. But they are playing better than expected for the injuries. I’d give them a solid B. I’m curious to see what type of difference getting everyone back will have on the running game

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

      I think the RBs need to share in the grade for the running game. While the blocking hasn’t opened gaping holes, they have opened holes. And it’s on the RBs to read those cuts and run off the correct blocks. They haven’t done that yet (except for Brown in garbage time). It was actually pointed out by an announcer on one of our goal line runs when Ward got the ball and (like he always does) just ran “that way” instead of reading Andrews’ block and running off his back. The play was there, but Ward ran it like it was drawn up instead of adjusting on the fly.

      Planning for any play is like scripting a conversation with someone before you have the conversation. Rarely does the conversation go as you plan it because there’s another participant who brings another perspective to it. If you plug ahead with your script in the face of a changing script, then you’re the dysfunctional participant.

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

    QB = A, Mannion is playing at a high level. I wonder how he will fare in the 2nd half of the season.
    RB = Incomplete – Injuries to the offensive line have really made their job tough. None of the backs are guys who can make something out of nothing. The next two games will give a better idea of what’s to come with a healthy oline.
    WR = A, Solid all around.
    TE= B+, These guys are unstoppable in the redzone. Would be an A if not for all the penalties.
    OL = Incomplete – Haven’t got a game in where the starters in camp have played a game together. Not too bad though for a band aid lineup.
    Total = B+. For all the injuries, the offense is performing above expectations. Mannion and Cooks are making up for the lack of running. I don’t think that would have been expected at the beginning of the year.

    DT = C+, Not much to say here. These guys need to step up.
    DE = B+ Chrichton and Wynn have been playing very well. Chrichton with 8 TFL.
    LB = C, Taking out Skotte helps. Losing Doctor really hurt.
    CB = B, Other than Martin, the CBs are playing ok. Nelson looks like he’s getting better every game.
    S = D-, If the safeties are having trouble tackling, it’s going to be a really bad season.
    Total = C. Improved tackling would raise their grade to a B. 2 pick 6s help out a lot.

    Special Teams – A.
    I really only notice special teams when they screw up but they have done well this year especially after losing the snapper. I don’t think anyone really expected the returners to be taking much to the house. Romaine and Kostol have been great. I didn’t even notice that McMullen was the punter for the EWU game.

    Overall – C+. The defense has really been a letdown and that was due to a lack of preparation in fall camp. Hopefully the bye week is used to make up for what was missed in camp. The defense is going to have to step up a few levels to have any kind of success.

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

    I’ll stick with the original post and grade each category holistically, instead of breaking it down.

    Offense: A-
    This is being generous. Competition has been shitty, but Mannion and receivers are showing us that they are head and shoulders above the competition so far. OSU left at least 10 points on the field against Colorado, and that was well before the end of the third quarter. If OSU has any chance against even remotely good teams, then Mannion needs to make better throws and receivers need to catch. It doesn’t matter how wet the ball is.

    Defense: D-
    Even though our defense has been bad, it’s still part of the reason for at least one win (SDSU), and of course our only loss (EW). Some may call SDSU a gift game, but our defender still had to catch the ball…

    Special Teams: B
    The difference between a B and an A here is a 6 feet on single field goal attempt.

    Coaching: C+
    Right near the middle of the grading scale because offensive coaching and play calling (Riley) is spot on, and defensive is bad. Despite this site’s opinion, Riley is picking the right plays by almost completely ignoring any sort of chance with the run, and relying on Mannion’s arm to win games. I called the game plan against Colorado nearly perfectly; Riley calling pass plays, no running game, Chris Brown shouldn’t play because of turnover potential (many disagreed). Sure enough, Chris Brown’s first touch was a fumble, and then he didn’t see the field till garbage time. I was at the game, and even in garbage time, Brown didn’t impress me too much. Colorado is just a bad football team.

    W/L Record: C-
    No excuse for the Eastern Washington game.

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

      I have to disagree with your last statement on the offense. It wasn’t that the ball was wet. It was that Mannion was putting an unholy pace on his passes due to the wind. I do agree that WRs need to catch them still. That comes with practice, and I suspect they didn’t practice that way even though we knew Saturday was going to be stormy.

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

      so much your last statement

  • GoBeavs82 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    IF the team had to maintain a 3.0 GPA to keep their scholarship just like kids with academic scholarships, by everyone’s acct, there is a bunch of scholarship available!

    Recap of CU Pre-game predictions were:

    Angry 28-24
    Whiskeysoakednapkins 37-24
    Wannabeav 45-31
    Bill 42-35
    GoBeavs82 38-24
    Carltogr 41-27
    beaver strikeforce 35-14 at halftime

    Wannabeav was close on OSU’s total points, Whiskeysoakednapkins total points prediction was correct, and all of us missed on the spread. Looking at the spread and total points combined, we have a tie between Whiskeysoakednapkins & GoBeavs82 (not trying to brag).

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

      The game started out close….but Beavs pulled away (sort-of, with the two garbage TDs by CO skew)….early on this game looked like it was gonna be a repeat of the WSU game of last year. It was nice to see the D continue to pick up turnovers, and the O continue to sustain drives and pull-out the big play (I broke my vow of not watching ’til Banker is gone — admittedly I watched about 20 mins of the game — had to walk away in the 2nd Q, and turned on to see CO’s TDs in the 4th Q….more evidence that I should stay away — seemed like everytime I went to watch something bad happened).
      Credit to whomever said it would be close at first, and Beavs would pull away — not sure if you had some reasoning behind that….?

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

      44-17*

      Had the inept Pac-12 officials not erred on CU’s last TD the final score would have been (and should have been) 44-11. Honestly I will admit I was surprised more at how bad CU was. They have improved but imo they still have a ways to go before they’ll even be mediocre in the Pac-12.

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

        What do you think the reasoning was behind the officials’ decision to not overturn that TD call? Is there a scenario where a player steps out of bounds and comes back in where they re-establish being a legal player? Was he forced out by the OSU defender on the play? Or do you think the Pac-12 officials looked at it as a no harm/no foul situation, where the TD had no bearing on the outcome of the game, but the extra stats maybe made their conference look stronger overall?

        During the replay, you could clearly see the official motion with his hand that the player went out and back, yet after a couple minutes of review time, they still didn’t make that call. It’s really frustrating to watch the review process in action sometimes.

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

          Either way the official should have thrown a flag. There could have been a discussion after the play about whether he was pushed out or he went out on his own. I could have accepted the ruling that he was pushed out and Marable was guilty of PI. Remember the Hardin play where he pressed a WR oob then gave up on the play… which resulted in a TD to that WR. The ruling is that a player can be the first to touch it if he was forced out and immediately returns to the field of play.

          I think the replay was just to determine if he had established a foot in play before he caught the ball. But a flag should have been thrown to make it all kosher.

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

            Considering the total was at 55.5, there is a “lot” of interest in whether the TD counted or not. I did not have action on the game, but when CO scored…I told my wife there goes the total.

            She’s been with me enough to know how wagers are never “won” until the final whistle, and it’s amazing how close to the number Las Vegas is in most cases

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

            Maybe that’s why the review took so long. They spent alot of time on the phone, presumably with the review official up in the booth. But maybe they were actually calling their bookie to see which call would net them the payoff?

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

        I have stopped trying to figure out what pac-12 officials are thinking. The only possible explanation is a cranial rectal inversion

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

    Offense — A- (less penalties and running game needed)
    Defense — D- (turnovers are brightspot)
    Sp. Teams — C+ (kicking game is solid, return game not value added)
    Coaches — C+ (injuries etc keep them from a C-)
    Cheerleaders — B+ (nice to look at but I’ve seen better)
    Chainsaw song — D (horrible but sticks in your head)
    Overall — C+ (an average team when you breakdown how good the O is compared to the D….still expect 7-5….best case 8-4 if ball bounces our way)

  • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

    I see most giving the offense an A. Cant see it…..the run game is nonexistent. Against any team that can shut down our passing, either by coverage or QB pressure, we are fucked. The passing game gets an A, but the overall offense only gets wins because of mediocre opposition.

    The offensive line shouldnt get a high grade, …no great run blocking, and false start penalties.

    The coaching shouldnt get a high grade, for the obvious deficiencies of the team. There has been too much game time with very poor, sieve like defense, …and no run game on offense. And substitution penalties against a hurry up offense. Coaching.

    • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      I have a feeling that if we had a different coach at the helm and they had a cool name for it like the Air Assault or the Beaver Bombers you’d give it an A. Riley’s running the offense he has to run to win right now. How many more point should he average to make you happy? I don’t care how they do it as long as we’re averaging 40 +. Play better d and were 5-0 and excited.

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

        Riley himself says he wants balance, running and passing. He doesnt have it. He doesnt want the “Beaver Bombers”. So in HIS view, the offense isnt grade A.

        Its not about points, its about being able to sustain this productive passing game against the better opposition coming up. Riley knows a run game will help that. …and he cant get one going. So the actual offense isnt grade A, even in his view.

        Are you actually excited about the way the team has played up to now? This was the soft part of our season, where we notch easy wins……and its been mostly a struggle, and we even lost one.

        We do seem to be picking up the D, but here comes the harder games, and us with a 1-D offense. I am nervous, not excited.

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

          How about the “Beaver Wild” offense…? be nice to see Nike make some helmets with a Beav chewing on a tree in the elements….

          https://www.google.com/search?q=minnesota+wild&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=OSJOUtzTKcKVkwW5loHoCw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=731&dpr=1

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

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

            This looks nothing like the first “Valley of The Beavers” movie which I saw many times on Cinemax circa 1987.

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

          What would you grade it?

        • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          I disagree that he doesn’t want the “Rodent Raid”. There’s nothing that makes Riley more giddy then having a QB (who he can call plays for) that can chuck the rock. He craves balance (at least loves to say it publicly) because it make things easier for his QB to run play action. I’ll go one step further: Riley probably handed play calling off to Langs for those couple of years because he lost interest due to many personal reasons, but also because he did’t have a QB who could make all of the throws. I don’t think he took play calling back because of public outcry (and our Angry blogging, grrrr), I think it’s because he saw things in practice during Mannion’s redshirt year that excited him. That’s why the whole Katz debacle took place. He found the perfect QB for his system and threw him to the wolves too early because he was overly excited by Mannion’s potential.

          It is about points. It’s about scoring more points then your opponent. You do that and it means you win the game. If the D even just plays Mediocre in EWU and Hawaii, Beavs win each game by 30 and we’re not having this conversation.

          Running Game: Let’s continue to gloss over the Line problems. Over the last few years they’ve recruited enough talent to have decent depth. We probably had enough depth to absorb 2 starters going down. Look around the rest of college (and the NFL for that matter) and see how many teams don’t take a hit in production by losing 2 of 5 starters. Now, We’ve also lost 3 primary backups to injury as well. A 4th primary backup retired due to injury. That’s 6 players in a 10 man rotation. You’re on crack if you think we’ll ever have 3 deep Pac 12 starting caliber Olinmen.

          I don’t think any of us want a coach who gives his team an A after game 5. Maybe an “A: all things considered” (which is what I think we’re all doing.) Your coach should never be fully satisfied until you’ve just won the championship, because they should always strive for continuous improvement.

          I never said I’m excited (I kind of am though, because I like college football.) I said “we’d” be excited if we we’re 5-0, which we’d be if the D didn’t play like a middle of the road FCS team the first couple of games. Tackling in practice is important Looks to be important. Let’s do that next year. That’s where our depth in no bueno. But there are a lot of young athletes in the program. Secondary and LB depth should be good by next year (need to find one more cover corner, Dashon Hunt!) I think getting the linemen back will dramatically improve the running game, which will allow the pass game to set up the run, which will set up the play action, you get the idea. I think the D will continue to improve and will end up being solid against all but maybe Oregon (That sucks to keep saying. Who fucking knows, we’re due for some luck in that game at some point right?).

          On the schedule: I see 1 game that odds are is a blow out loss. And a bunch of close competitive fun games to watch where we have more then a punchers chance of winning (if the D continues to improve).Why are you nervous bro? Are you playing in the games? Enjoy the ride and the small things along the way, or maybe get out for sanity’s sake.

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

            I think you present a good argument re O-line talent and depth. But I think you head in the wrong direction after you present it. I believe we have great depth on the O-line. If we didn’t have that depth… if we had 2010 depth, for example… we would be starting TEs on the line or scouring the campus for fat guys.

            We put a good group on the field because we have depth. Injuries happen, and you need depth to cover for those injuries. That’s why you have depth. Do I need to explain why we need depth?

            I want excellent depth instead of great depth. Excellent depth would give us two or three more talented options should anyone go down in what is just a worst case scenario for us right now. We don’t have excellent depth. We only have great depth.

            But that still allows us to field something other than neat stories and fat guys with rich daddies.

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

        Our D doesn’t improve week by week against hurry up/spread/QB’s that run/Strong run blocking/Read options though.

        And we lost to Eastern Washington. Pretty much the only redemption for that is beating the Ducks at this point (unlikely).

        Otherwise this is going to end up another year tacked on to our life sentence as Beaver fans with a coach who doesn’t ask for greatness but loves the shit out of mediocrity.

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

      The grade is for the first 5 games on offense, not what can happen down the line. Of course it will drop as the opponents get better. But they’re averaging 40 something points per game, which is clearly an A.

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

        Hey the passing game is EXCEPTIONAL… but overall, that offense wasnt good enough to beat a FCS school…. it settled for a couple field goals where touchdowns would have won the game. Just sayin….

  • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Utah looking pretty damn good against UCLA right now. Fun game to watch. I think that ends up being a better win then we got credit for, as Utah is no push over this year.

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

      Did you see UCLA complete the RB pass to the QB Hundley for the TD? Pretty much the same play OSU tried but they converted it.

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

        Damn, Utah gets burned again on the RB pass?

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

          Anyone have a link to the UCLA game? I’ve got radio but want video.

      • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        They are shutting Heisman Hundley down! Utahs d and rb’s are playing some hard nosed kick ass football.

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

          Not for long. Hundley with TD’s throwing, receiving, and running. Looks like he has put the nail in the coffine with a designed QB draw for a TD late in the 4th qtr…..36 yds!

          As for T.Wilson, what….4 picks?

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

            Make it six. Not gonna win that way.

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

            Utah fans calling their qb “Johnny Utah” when they tied the game, but I like “Johnny Six Picks” better

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

            Vaya con Dios, Brah…… (That’s a Point Break reference in case you were wondering.)

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

        Hundley is a little more athletic than Mannion

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

      Score tied at 24. Win is looking pretty good

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

    Watch the Iowa State-Texas “fumble” play. Number 75 for Texas has two arms around the neck of the Iowa State player during a takedown.

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

      Watch iowa state’s coach come uncorked after the game. Epic.

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

      Holy crap is there a lot of wrong going on in that play, bush pushing, holding, the fumble…

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

      The other play with the Texas WR taking a cheap shot at the knees of a DB was pretty bad.

      Looks like Texas is a little frustrated these days.

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

    Iowa St. coach needs to realize that for the good of the league it will be better for all teams if Mack Brown keeps his job! Of course, Mack Brown unfortunately figured out how to beat a Mike Riley team.

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

    Article on Mageo:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2013/10/oregon_state_football_lineback_1.html

    I think it will be kind of interesting to watch his tackling technique because I wonder if rugby hasn’t taught him to keep his head up more when initiating contact, or do players care about that in that sport? It seems like, sans helmet (or potentially weapon) the tendency would be to keep you head up.

    Also makes me wonder if the DT – Tago – who I think is recently learning english – is going to see the field this year?

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

      Rugby players have to tackle above the hips and without the head as a weapon (for obvious reasons). So they need to perfect their tackling technique in order to be successful. Often, one can make a stop against the ball but not bring the man down. So many tackles are simply stopping and controlling the ball until support comes to bring the ball to the ground… or redirecting the ball to do the same. Mageo shows these traits to a tee.

      Tago has played some. But he’s not in the regular rotation yet. Look for #91 when plays set up.

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

        One thing you’ll notice about Mageo is that if he’s not in on the initial contact he’ll take an angle down field to take the ball head on should the man break loose. Too often you see football players take a direct line to the pile, and that leaves them out of position when so-and-so “bounces it outside.” He’ll run behind the pile and wait to see if he’s needed to push it back or to bounce either direction should the man break loose. He’s really fun to watch.

        It makes me rethink what I think a MLB should do. I thought Seau was the model for that position when he would hit the gaps with impunity and throw himself at the runner’s legs on a dive if he couldn’t get through cleanly. That was an extremely successful technique which redirected run plays to his team’s advantage. He would whiff on dives into the backfield but still make the runner bounce backward and stick him out in no man’s land.

        Mageo will choose the gap and hit high. He doesn’t always make the tackle, but he provides that second where the rest of his team can come up for support. And if he can’t read the gap (much like a RB reading a hole) he’ll bounce down behind the traffic and look to see if he’s needed.

        I have to imagine this is what Banker wants in his perfect MLB. I loved Bubba. But Bubba was of the Seau mold with less size. If Banker thought the same way I did with the Seau mold of a MLB crashing the gap and everything else be damned, then I have to think he’s looking at the tape and seeing the intelligence with which Mageo plays.

  • VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 7 votes)

    Given the bye week BDC, in his genius, has sent Banker down to Palo Alto to help with the men’s soccer match against Stanford. On learning this, the early Vegas line is Stanford +20. JB

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

      “It’s basically soccer on grass” said Banker. “You don’t see them throw a lot, and I don’t want to overthink it, but we’ll keep our nickel and dime packages just in case. As long as the players read their keys correctly and stay in our scheme, we’ll be fine.”

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

    Stanford returns fire in the escalating “war of facilities:”

    http://www.oregonlive.com/pac-12/index.ssf/2013/10/stanford_unveils_new_football_facility.html#incart_river

    Not the Death Star in Eugene, but still sugar daddy-driven:

    “The project was funded in large part by billionaire real estate developer John Arrillaga, a Stanford alum whose name adorns many buildings on campus.”

    Really, a locker room for former players?!?

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

      A lot of alums have been returning in recent years in Corvallis. A former player locker room is a great idea. Former players would have something of their own back at their school and would probably look forward to returning to remember some of their glory days.

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

    I just can’t argue with the kid’s mentality.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2013/10/oregon_state_beavers_rundown_q.html

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives