29.Apr.2010 Beaver Fans Embarrass Yet Again

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

I’m a Beaver fan, obviously, but I don’t like Beaver fans. Using Aristotelian logic, one might deduct I do not like myself. That is up for debate.

So today Rivals published an article about the most balanced offenses of the past decade. #1 was Oregon State. Curious, I then looked at comments from Beaver fans to see how they’d react to that. This is what I found:

1. “Great article outlining the nations most diversified offense throughout the past decade…you guessed it…Oregon State.”

2. “Best family environment in the nation, most diversified offense, and upper-tier defense. Decent facilities in a beautiful campus setting. What else can a top recruit ask for?”

3. “It is a great article and one that should be used in recruting offensive players. The Beavers showcase it all, great passers, great RB’s, and great WR’s. If I’m playing Offense and I want to play in a pro style offense, I’m taking a hard look at Oregon State.”

Something all three of these nitwits failed to ask, or conveniently turned a blind-eye to, is the methodology behind this study.

First off, the link can be found here:http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1079485

As you can see this isn’t NASA level rocket science. When asked their methodology, the publishers confess, “we simply added the number of 1,000-yard rushers, 3,000-yard passers and 1,000-yard receivers.”

Er…

So their #1 school is actually Hawaii, a team with not a single 1,000 yard rusher the last decade, and their #3 team is Texas Tech, a team that also fielded zero 1,000 yard rusher since 2000. Again, let me reiterate, the #1 and #3 teams, using this methodology, had no 1,000 yard rusher in ten years, yet they are listed as two of the most balanced offenses in the nation.

Er…

And Oregon State fans are lapping this up and patting their backs. Begs the questions:

1. A result of orange-colored glasses?

2. Turning a blind eye to an obviously flawed methodology?

3. Other?

I know it can’t be #2, because if the Ducks were the top offense on this list Beaver fans would be sure to point out all the flaws in how the numbers came about, the least of which would be how they never have 1,000 yard receivers. So it’s gotta be #1. Again those pesky orange-colored glasses…

Beaver fans: can you stop giving the fanbase a reputation by being proud of meaningless, fourth-rate achievements that you’d ridicule if touted by another school? For starters, the “best family atmosphere” award, the CBI championship, and this article should be removed from your lexicon.

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

    People like statistics that agree with their point of view. I think its a little of 1 and 2. If the stats are flawed, but make us look good? whooo caarreez *puts on glasses*

    I see your point, though :p

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

    I’ll never turn down good press…but “most diverse offense” ????!!!!! Quizz left, Quizz right, Fly sweep, swing pass to the flat. That about sums up our 2009 campaign. We’ve been pretty consistent at RB, and usually have a decent QB after one or two seemingly obligatory disastorous years (please, Ryan, shatter this trend!). But diverse? Yeah…I’m going with option number 1. Beaver fans in fact mock the trickery of the spread offense, in support of the orange tried-and-true.

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

    Your post doesn’t make much sense.

    You say Texas Tech and Hawaii “are listed as two of the most balanced offenses in the nation.” But that’s not true, the article threw them out as outliers (lack of a 1,000 yd rusher). That left the Beavers on top.

    So the point of your post was addressed in the very article your ranting on. SOLID!

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

      So the point of your argument is that any data analysis can throw out its results because the findings dont’s fit the expected results? And, therefore, post-edits on data analysis are correct as long as they’re mentioned?

      Outliers cannot, by definition, include data sets which fully comply with preset analysis standards. They need to be eliminated before the analysis takes place. You can’t do an analysis then remove data.

      With that being said, I wouldn’t be surprised to find OSU in the top ten of a legitimate study with legitimate parameters for finding a ‘balanced’ offense.

      #1? No.

      #6-9? Most likely.

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

        You must not understand their “preset analysis standards”.

        To me, the scope of their analysis was defined (finding diversity) and their results were interpreted accordingly. I have no issue with them eliminating data sets that didn’t fit their scope.

        This blog post should of questioned Rivals definition of diversity and how the benefits of that definition doesn’t necessarily correlate to winning Pac10 titles.

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

        I must admit that I care about Rivals enough to not ever go to their site or read any of their ‘analysis’ ever again.

        Still, data sets need to be eliminated before analysis… for whatever reason. Eliminating them afterward is just one big oops, and it leads to unnecessary posts on blogs which rightly question methodology or the lack thereof.

        I personally like the Beavs offense, but I also see the need for more diversity. The tailback option is a nice addition. I think the spread can be an additional set as well. It doesn’t need to be the regular bread ad butter. But can’t it be thrown in to confuse defenses?

        We have several different sets for defense depending on the situation. Why not offense as well?

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

          A QB that can run (Katz) would be a very nice change to the normal peg leggers the Beavs have had for as long as I can remember (Alexander doesn’t count, he moved to wide out).

          Fake to James, fake to Quizz, Katz takes off with the ball as option #3…oh, then he pulls up and throws it.

          I hope they let the kid run. Seems Lyle was either hesitant or was instructed to stay in the pocket. I thought for sure he’d have been a 6-8 carries a game himself.

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

          The biggest problem with the spread is that QB’s get broken. It’s what happened to Alexander out of the triple option.

          If a QB can’t play to the highest degree of his athleticism, then the spread suffers with him.

          It’s a little like the Beavs’ running game over the past few years. Without Quizz, where would we be?

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

      I mean, you can write whatever you want in this comment section, but basically you’re saying you have no issue with a methodology where you have to throw out 2 of the top 3 results because they don’t conform to the word “diverse”, the very thing you’re trying to define. If you believe that then that is a you problem.

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

        “that is a you problem”…. did you drool on the keyboard while you typed that?

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

        Why would I drool on my keyboard?

        Why would I drool on anything except maybe a pillow while in a deep sleep.

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

    meh… I’ll take a meaningless statistic over showing up in the police blotter. It is cool to get recognized by a national publication even though it is kind of meaningless. Then again 90% of these kinds of articles are pointless.

  • beavers4life says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Angry,

    We should define Diversified or diverse: I will use a few different dictionaries and then come up with my own definition since you enjoy philosophy, normally you wouldn’t use dictionaries to define things.

    Dictionary.com: distinguished by various forms or by a variety of objects

    M-W.com: to produce variety

    My definition: Diversified is to have a variety of abilities, duties, or something that produces a good or bad that creates one outcome for a society in general.

    Basically what I’m getting at is that Oregon State has the most production in the 3 fields of Passing, Rushing, and Receiving in the last decade. This just proves that football is truly a team effort, not a scheme, a personal effort, or some other combination you can come up with.

    This makes the most sense because the Spread offense doesn’t utilize the passing game very much, but heavily uses rushing yards. Oregon State is one of the few true Pro-Style Offense in College football. Coach Riley recognizes that the Pro-Style offense is what utilizes everyone on the offense and helps with productivity. So, with Katz, Vaz, or Lalich behind center, we have 3 true QB’s that have shown to be productive. So we now have a real passing attack. So hopefully those passing stats will be increased since Matt Moore left. Until we can have a constant hum after every pass, then we will know that we have a real QB who can throw the ball.

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

    I guess my point about the Uber Fans, not that they shouldn’t feel good about the finding or the press. I guess my take would be that the recruits that do come here may like these attributes, but it doesn’t seem to get the 5 star to show up, so it’s not everything. Better than nothing though. At least do it right. And they do…now.

    Also, I guess I’d like to see more Fans actually support this mindblowing offense, promote this family atmosphere, enjoy the beatiful venue and scenery…BY GETTING THERE ASSES TO THE FRIGGIN’ GAME AND SELLING OUT THAT CRACKER BOX ON NATIONAL TV VERSUS A RANKED OPPONENT. Just saying.

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

      Just to make my point…I am obviously a Husker fan too…they put 80k in Memorial Stadium for a Spring game and the several dozen recruits saw that. Some verbally committed on the spot after the ‘scrimmage’. I get that OSU is not NU. But the FANS can sell the team to the kids as well as the team can sometimes. “We’re a great family atmosphere team…because the only damn people in the stands will be our families” it seems.

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

      Hey!

      It’s going to be sunny and 65-70 tomorrow.

      Are you saying I should go sit at Reser instead of dragging my kids to the mountains for some really boring fishing and picnicking?

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

    I’d take a less diversified offense that scored more points (like Hawaii, Texas Tech, or even the Ducks) in a heart beat. Does anyone disagree? Who really cares how diverse you are. (Notice the lack of a question mark, that means it’s rhetorical).

    The guy above had a good point about last years offense being Quiz right, Quiz left, fly sweep, 5 yard dump pass. The actual play calling was stale, or, the opposite of diverse. Having the ball distributed around to WRs and RBs could just mean you don’t have a dominant player or facet. In short, it’s a terrible article.

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

      “The actual play calling was stale, or, the opposite of diverse. Having the ball distributed around to WRs and RBs could just mean you don’t have a dominant player or facet. In short, it’s a terrible article.”

      Exactly, Angry. Effective…usually. Diverse…laughable.

      I happen to like a lot of Riley’s schemes, and he’s not afraid to put his bet down on his best horses…over…and over…and over…Point in case, the quote(s) coming from the USC locker room after the 2008 game…”we knew what was coming, we just couldn’t stop it!”

      But sometimes…geez, they can stop it…and we seem to find the bottom of our bag of tricks pretty quickly. I wouldn’t mind a little more of the dreaded “trickery” from time to time. Riley almost seemed embarrassed that they mixed in a few wildcat plays…and I think the only reason he “stooped” to that level is the fact that some NFL teams rolled out a wildcat package the year prior, so he could still claim an “NFL-Style Offense.” And no, Beaver Nation, it’s not a “Wild Beaver” formation. I cringe everytime I see someone use that unimaginative phrase. I like some wild beaver from time to time myself, but really? It reeks of “desperate for attention.”

      The article should have been titles “Teams with the highest number ot 1000 yard rushers, passers and receivers.” But that’s not nearly as catchy!

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

        It’s a tailback option. Wildcat is also a little stupid.

        You can run the spread option out of a pro set. I particularly liked the wrinkle Kelly had against us with Barner in the slot. We could easily motion one of a split backfield to that spot. What kind of havoc would that cause the defense? It’s just like a bubble screen, only the defense isn’t set for the slot.

        Or the single back could motion to the open slot, and Katz could wheel through a trap up the gut every now and then just to keep the defense honest on the edges.

        The point is that you can take a whole spread option playbook and break it down into subsets for use during a game when the defense is over-pursuing. Four or five spread option plays and one tailback option per game would make for some confused defenses.

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

          Yeah, I don’t understand why we don’t do things like this. Is is a pride thing (i.e. have to run an nfl/pro offense) by Riley?

          The last two trick plays I can remember:

          1. Loomis vs Boise State
          2. The WR…Wheat-Brown throwing a TD (no clue when this was, I think 2005) on a lateral pass.

          I realize you don’t want to overuse trick plays, but I think four or five years is long enough.

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

    Hey Angry, tell me what you think of the new site. What needs to change?

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

      Sorry, I check my email sporadically.

      I think it’s fine. This is the thing: I am seriously considering buying a domain with a main content area (like the blogs on the main page here) and then an open forum for discussion and where users can make topics etc. Maybe hold off until I do that. Speaking of which, I might take recommendations from you guys for a site name…

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

        The nice thing is that it’s all transferable. I’m asking because the instance of a domain could house several sub-pages, and this could be one. I’m worried more about content than anything.

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

    Went to the spring scrimmage today. Was not impressed by the offensive performance. Lots of inconsistency. Who else was in attendance and if so, what are your thoughts?

  • beavers4life says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    hey angry,

    in regards to your comment on Oregon live of the spring game…Lomax was that good because he was going against the #2 or maybe #3 defense. Also, the receivers do need to catch the balls in order to make a QB look good in stats. Interceptions is what I look at in any game from a QB standpoint. If our guys don’t catch the ball, i’d rather have the ball hit the ground and not fall into the defenses hands. On another note, I want to know how the defense did after those INT’s, how close did they get to scoring a TD and such after the ball was intercepted. The reason why is because that will tell me how the beavers defense has gotten faster and also who is quick enough to catch the guy who INT’d the ball.

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

      When I hear INT coupled with “WRs dropped balls” I wonder how many of these were tips and not the QB’s fault. It’s not a clear picture. The writeup of the spring game could have been better–every source has been weak.

      My point on Lomax: I keep hearing how well he’s doing. Never heard one bad thing about the guy. Then he’s the only one to perform in the spring game. Why not move him up the depth chart if he’s dominating the 2 and 3 defense? This issue with his size and arm strength…see how he does higher up, because neither seems to be an issue. It sounds like he’s been the most consistent QB all of camp, and it also sounds like he’s also not moving up the depth chart because of the coaches (and media’s) predefined notions of what a QB should look like, and that is the kind of thing that gets me angry.

      • beavers4life says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        So what you’re saying is he’s like Jonathan Smith? Undersized and viewed as an equipment manager? I see what you’re saying though. I’ve met his(Lomax’s) dad about 5 years ago and that family is very good athletes. I agree that Lomax should be given a reps with at least the second team to see how he does. If he still performs consistently then give him chances with the second string offense against the first string defense and see how he does against pressure. If he does well there then shoot. try him out with the first string offense. it’s that simple.

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

        Yes, that’s what I think they should do. But because of his frame, age/class, etc they’re not giving the guy a fair shot.

        When I said size or frame I mean bulk–he’s clearly got the height, but everyone talks about how thin he is.

        The reason I bring this up is because I’m getting nervous about Katz…was a huge fan of this guy early on, but I’m starting to sense he loves showing off the arm more than he loves playing quarterback and it’s going to result in a lot of forced passes/ints and WR drops/tips from throwing the ball too hard on short passes. Not completely worried because there isn’t enough of a track record to say if my concern is founded.

        • beavers4life says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I can see that concern because I too have that concern. The reason for the concern can also be said by the coaches by them stating something like this, “He has a great arm, but we need to learn to take some off of the passes.” I recall Coach Riley and Langsdorf saying that as well. Also Riley saying, “You don’t need to throw it 95 mph every time.”

          I want to see Katz live to see for myself what he looks like. I kinda wish we weren’t playing TCU just to put everyones mind at ease about the QB situation.

          I like our defensive front and their production from the spring game. Also the offensive line seem to being decent, but the articles written by the newspapers don’t seem to give an accurate description of what’s really going on. I’m curious to what “new” formations we’ll have this year. 4-5 wide outs, double TE’s, more power I formations when needing 1-2 yards, fake punts/field goals(especially with Hekker on handling the ball on BOTH of those SPT.

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

            I think you guys are missing the point on Katz. He has all but locked up the starting job and that is a good thing. He does have heat on his ball but it is not overwhelming and I am not as concerned about him forcing it as I was Canfield his entire career. In fact, I have seen Katz pick up and run outside the pocket. If anything I am more worried about him getting happy feet before he throws or being too quick to run. As far as a tailback option, that involves making the QB run and I don’t think our scheme is built for that, way too much practice time.

            Lomax did look good but remember it wasn’t the 2nd team, it was more like the freshman. Take it all with a grain of salt. I do think he might have a shot at working his way to the 2nd team but that will take a solid showing in fall camp. They did try Vaz out for a series against the young defense to see if he would perform as well as Lomax and he didn’t. That said, Vaz looked better than Lalich against the 2’s. Vaz fumbles under center and in the gun, that is his biggest fault. Lalich lets a lot of balls sail on him, he has the same problem Canfield does. Big prototypical body but his passes sail, sometimes lack speed and he is known to force the football. Overall, Lomax could make a push at being number two but he needs to add some bulk or he will get injured. Lomax certainly was a look at the future but he has to perform on multiple days, not just one (albiet the one with fans watching has to mean something).

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

            As far as the new formations, don’t expect anything crazy. I have seen a couple of minor tweaks and innovations but I think it is more about plays added to the playbook than formation changes. Formations don’t really mean anything, it is about the creativity that you use from them. It is also about being able to run the same play out of many formations so that the opposing team cannot identify your play based on the set. We did have all of the formations that you listed last year. We used double TE a lot, same with 4-5 wide when jovan went in for quiz. Power I became huge when running game started to slow, using darkins to lead the way for quiz.

            As far as the O line, they looked “decent” and that is it. They had moments where good things happened and some moments they got destroyed. TE’s blocked great but the rest of the line showed their lack of depth and still needs a lot of work if we want to go to a bowl game. We had moments like the end of the UA game last year where we gave up sack after sack in less than 3 seconds. I think that the line struggles to handle multiple blitz. It is not about knowledge because Linekohl at the center is as smart as they come. They have to continue to grow as players. If our line doesn’t improve it could be a very long year. This is one reason to suggest the play action boot with Katz and his ability to run being a great addition to our offense.

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

    I’m getting a bit tired of the WRs dropping balls. Gut tells me Catchings and Bishop were the usual suspects–can anyone confirm? Jakebeav, you were there, who is guilty?

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

      Dropped balls were pretty even across the board. I would say that Obum had a couple, which seems to be common for him when I have watched practices and the spring game. He can make some miraculous catches but can have a bunch of drops (sort of like TO in that sense, big body too). Bishop did have one drop that I remember but it was in traffic and he took a lick, not gunna fault him. Catchings performance was forgettable like always, I was impressed by Wheaton though (always am).

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

      Agree with OSBeavs on his take. Wheaton was solid, but the others seemed a little hit-and-miss. Moreover, I felt like a good portion of Katz’s balls were simply off-target or overthrown. Maybe this is because of the disruption by the D-line, but it had me scratching my head at times. Somehow I was expecting more than what I saw..

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

        “Somehow I was expecting more than what I saw”

        This is the feeling I’ve had all spring. I wanted to hear that Katz was learning how to put touch on the ball and make better decisions.

        I get the feeling that, when the season kicks off, this is going to be a hyped offense that winds up doing a lot of dump passes (again) and killing themselves with tipped balls and missed 3rd down conversions. But a lot can change before then so we’ll see.

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

    I think the beaver coaching staff should receive some kudos for recruiting and developing some very good college level skill players over the past ten years (a hell of a lot better than the dark ages), but as for the #2 offense??? Geez, you would have thought there would have been a few more P-10 titles in there. Statistics can be fools good.

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives