The official site lists Chris Brown, Storm Woods, Damien Haskins, Tim Cook (Juco), Jaylynn Bailey (never heard of him), Marcus Grieves (never heard of him), Shane Wallen (never heard of him). Then there are the new guys, Taylor Thomas (NQ, going to a CC) and Deltron Sands. Paul Lucas doesn’t appear physical enough to be a Pac-12 RB, so I think he winds up at WR.
The big three are Brown, Woods, and Haskins. Sands is interesting player. I think his 5″8 kept a lot of schools away (when will they learn size doesn’t matter, at least with RBs)?
We all know what these RBs bring to the table, so I don’t need to do a writeup on each one, but a quick synopsis would be:
Chris Brown: Most upside of the RBs. A balanced back with the best speed, fluid runner, a bit of a slasher, etc. We still don’t know for sure what this guy is because Riley never played him, but we do know half the Pac-12 offered him, and in his limited time he’s racked up nice stats.
Storm Woods: He reminds me of Priest Holmes, in that he can rip off big chunks, but it requires a gaping hole to do it. More of a bulky, galloping runner, but he gets the job done. He doesn’t have great raw speed. Better balance and vision than speed. Great leader and personality, and for this reason alone he has to be on the field a lot.
Damien Haskins: He’s gained some size and agility at OSU (spring game compared to his HS film), but he’s still limited. He’s probably in the Yve Bernard mold…slow, good vision, a bit of an undersized bowling ball. Not my type of RB, so I am not high on this guy. The fewer carries the better. Maybe he can carve a role as a goal line back?
Tim Cook: Looks like more of a FB. Maybe a goal line or short yardage back?
Deltron Sands: Shifty, quick, good cuts, good pass catcher. Good work ethic. He is a dark horse, imo. He could jump Haskins or Cook due to his versatility, but OSU would probably be best long-term to redshirt him. I definitely like him more than Haskins.
My guess is Andersen is predictable here and goes with Storm Woods as the 1 and Chris Brown as the 2 and Haskins as the #3, redshirting Sands. He might be better off playing Sands over Haskins, though.
In summary, Woods is a competent runner and great leader with a winning attitude. Chris Brown has more upside. Sands is a dark horse, if he doesn’t redshirt. He can do a bit of everything. Whoever winds up #2 should be more worried about Sands than Haskins or Cook. My guess is Sands redshirts, though. It makes no sense to waste a year with Woods and Brown around.
Update: Tim Cook signing likely seals Sands fate as a redshirt.
Who should start?
[poll id=”5″]
Might want to add Tim Cook to the poll.
https://twitter.com/BeavRecruiting/status/597521935799427075
I’ve been reading on message boards that the staff is really high on him and thinks he’ll make an immediate impact. Certainly has the body for it.
(HUDL link embedded)
Also, you’re correct about Lucas being considered a WR. That’s actually what they recruited him as, even though all of the websites call him a RB
I missed that signing, and he’s not on any official rosters. This is one reason it’s hard to do writeups now, but I have to do them now while I have some time. In the video (what I watched, like 10 players) it looks like he’s mostly playing FB.
Anyway, with him on board that means Sands will probably redshirt. There’s no way Cook starts based on that film, but he probably knocks Sands off the list.
Lucas would be interesting at RB, but I think he’d get hurt quickly — he just doesn’t have the frame for it. Beavs could really use a HR threat at RB, though.
Agree Lucas will/should fill a dual role. Seems like he could fill a Deanthony Thomas type of role ( which had mixed results at Oregon)
Need to get him open in space which seems to be an important piece of this new offense. In Lucas’ film he sure does show he’s that home run guy at any given time. I hope they dont redshirt him. I worry about him staying eligible(academics) for all of his years so if he’s good to go this year, start using him now.
Yes, use him now, agreed.
Agree with your comment on Cook. Just judging by this Baldwin comment in June, I think he might get the bulk of the carries. Also interesting that he is basically calling out the toughness of the current RBs.
‘What do you expect junior college transfer Tim Cook to bring to the running back group?
“Physicality. He’s a solid, solid 220 (pounds), and he’s got to be able to run downhill and do those things and be another durable body for us. Because that’s part of the problem is those guys were in and out of spring ball. I understand that they take punishment, but the running back that can survive and stay with us and be there on a daily basis is the guy that’s gonna get the rock.”‘
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2015/06/qa_with_oregon_state_beavers_o.html
I voted for Woods. They need his leadership, and he’s solid if not spectacular.
What is awesome is that GA has said over and over he wants to use multiple RBs (I believe he said at least 3 in the mix). This will be so refreshing.
I also voted for Woods. His experience, maturity, and leadership were big factors.
Just like the QB position, injuries could be a factor here. A small sample, but these two positions could tell something about the new regime with respect to conditioning and injury prevention. Durability seems to be Woods’ big downside, maybe better conditioning combined with the use of multiple RB’s can make that a thing of the past. If Collins gets the nod at QB conditioning will just be the beginning; it will also be a question of coaching the high flying approach out of him.
As for a bowling ball goal line guy, how ’bout Peko (return of the “fridge”?).
I’m glad Woods has stuck around. When Mullaney transferred, I was afraid Woods could too since he has already graduated. I can see next year being a potentially frustrating one for him having to work with new QBs and with how frequently our QB’s tend to keep the ball in their own hands. Also, if the downfield passing is as poor as it was in Spring, we should be easy to defend on run plays.
I’ve thought Brown should start for a couple years, still do. Most talented back and talent should play.
Yeah, already a Jr. and so little playing time, especially for a guy with so much upside. Seems two factors to blame: being behind Terron Ward and having Riley at the top. The Ward thing makes sense, one outta two ain’t bad…I guess.
As Angry said, it will be refreshing if GA follows through and uses more than a couple RB’s on a regular basis.
My vote for Brown too. Seems like the excitement turns up a notch when he’s in the game.
I’d have no problem with that. He’s got more upside than Woods, but Woods is a better leader, and for a team like this that could struggle, that has value. But either way, if GA is being honest, both should get a lot of carries, so who starts is moot. Say Woods gets 15 carries and Brown 10 or visa versa. Does anyone have a problem with it? I wouldn’t. They seem like 1A and 1B options really.
He struggled with ball security under Riley, so I’m fine with him having not been in the mix up to this point. Hopefully Andersen and company have some drills to work on ball security with him. If they can improve on that, I’d move him ahead of Woods too.
How many fumbles did Brown have? I remember one, I think.
I know in practices they say he fumbled here and there, but I don’t know that he deserves the ball security tag…unless my memory is wrong.
He’s only had the one… on a swing pass to the right side where he tried to do too much on the sideline… and it wasn’t lost. That happened to be the first time he ever touched the ball. Since then nothing. But others have had multiple drops which have been lost since then.
So yeah… he’s the one with ball security issues.
He’s also our best off-tackle runner, that we’ve seen. Woods is better at getting downhill inside the tackles. But it’s hard to say how either (or any) will fit in the new system. Misdirection will be more than play-action now. And that could leave gaping holes for Sanders or Cook to run downhill and blow up some safeties. Or it could lead to Brown cutting off the end either in or out. Or it could lead to Woods bouncing it out or cutting against the grain (he’s the best at that right now due to vision).
Brown was subpar in protection, that’s why he was buried on depth chart. Have to be able to block as well as run to see the field in pro style.
I think it was a matter of fumbling more than the other guys in practice. I also remember just 1 lost fumble and I believe he put another on the ground that went out of bounds.
Still, Riley is so conservative that even a couple fumbles in practice can get a guy in the doghouse, to the point where he’d go with a guy who never, ever fumbled despite not being as big a ground threat.
No lost fumble… just the one drop on his first touch ever… that I think Andrews landed on or knocked out of bounds trying to land on it.
Yeah, “drills to work on ball security”. Seems to me there was a Spring camp piece in the O where Barrs-Woods indicated ball security drills were something new which he didn’t remember doing under Riley, et al.
Only ones I recall were pugal stick drills Brennan used (uses) with WR’s.
Brings back memories of early Riley 2 when there was an article in the paper quoting one of the players saying they hadn’t had tackling practice since they left high school. And at that same time there were folks on the message boards commenting about how shitty the team tackling was. Shortly after that came out in the paper the team had some tackling drills.
I sure don’t miss MR.
1 fumble, 1, I repeat 1……Riley’s NFL mentality made that a deal breaker, that is beyond stupid at the college level.
That’s what I thought, 1 fumble. But from memory, he had fumble issues in practice. So, maybe Riley should get a break on that one. Maybe someone remembers it better than I do.
I haven’t seen any ball securitity problems in a loooooong time from Oregon State running backs. Quizz was legendary, Agnew had a few his freshman year, but Storm and Ward rarely turned put the ball on the turf. They were taught well under Riley.
Heads up, scotty, this just in:
http://www.osubeavers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30800&ATCLID=210184995
Better than trolling bars!
I don’t talk to anyone at bars. I just go there for the late-night food and general eavesdropping
I’m looking forward to more two back sets. In the past we’ve relied so heavily on one running back and a zone blocking scheme with little mis-direction in the backfield. There will be ample opportunity to use the top three (four?) running backs effectively in this new scheme.
Misdirection?? Is that the play where an o lineman false starts? We used to be so good at that one.
I think it’s play action on 3rd and 14… after the false start.
And the delay of game penalty coming out of a time out.
….with two time-outs remaining and only 10 seconds left in the half….
That goes without saying……
Definitely a misdirection! As in it had us going down the field in the wrong direction
The running game is still a zone blocking scheme, that won’t change from last season.
What I mean, it was up to just one back to read the block without the defense having to worry about a second potential ball carrier.
Also interested to see how Woods runs now that they are teaching the foreign concept of “getting your pads low.” He runs angry…but upright. With improved technique, he could have a great year.
Brown could be really good. But I think Woods has the job unless brown outshines him on the field after the first few games. Woods should have the experience for getting the little things right (i.e. blocking) and had periods last year where he was downright explosive. He could be stellar this year if he stays healthy. Brown is a great 1B and cook and Haskins would not have much drop off
question: how much blocking does the RB do in this offense? I don’t remember the other spread options doing much blocking, but maybe I missed it. Also, one of the knock on the spread RB’s like LaMichael Jamms and Kanjon Barner was that they were not good blocking backs for the NFL. So is that really an issue in this offense?
Apparently you need to make a correction in your write-up and poll..it’s now Storm Barrs-Woods.
That’s right. Had already forgotten that
Whaaaa?
https://twitter.com/Storm24Tx/status/608432900602781696
OT: Baseball……….KJ plays a little LF for Team USA, and the NY Post writes about Conforto’s bat but says, “Reports on his defense are mixed, but most observers believe he can hit plenty enough to justify his corner outfield position. ”
http://nypost.com/2015/07/04/more-advanced-than-any-hitter-in-minors-will-desperate-mets-turn-to-conforto/
After watching Conforto cut down runners and make other great plays in the OF I was shocked to read that statement.
I have seen different reports on his defense, non seem conclusive. I think his defense is underrated he always seems to “lack” speed and an arm, however he has a knack for making plays and seems to be in the right place at the right time. He probably won’t blow you away with his defense, but I don’t think he is a liability.
Just for kicks, this from an AP story on the Beavs last game in the ’13 CWS (note the quote from Casey at the end):
Jack, have you taken the Myers-Briggs personality test? I’m guessing you are INTP, possibly ENTP. Strong NTP anyway.
Sorry you’re wrong. Jack’s an ASS!
He falls into the nuttier than squirrel shit category.
I picture Jack constantly wearing a tinfoil hat and talking to himself in the third person
He says he would take exception to that, except he thinks it’s some kind of trap.
Besides… foil hats are a gubmint conspiracy… as I’ve been saying for years… sitting here in my Faraday cage… wearing my KV-GARD coveralls. And now I have proof!
https://keysduplicated.com/~ali/helmet/
Jack is an alcoholic with a masturbation problem.
Define “problem.”
OT… completely kid/work safe… but warning… you can not unsee this:
https://twitter.com/HistoricalPics/status/610227822540533760/photo/1
Couldn’t tell if that was a government sponsored experiment or not but can’t help but wonder if it was and if it was would they be telling us the truth…
Hyphen Woods will be the starter. Brown has the most upside for big plays and it will probably be a co-starter in reality, but Hyphen gets the title as a senior reward. He has earned it. His concussion his soph year set him back, but he came back strong last year and has been a great kid on and off the field. I think Haskins will be a contributor for inside runs and short yardage. JC kid is the wildcard. Guess we will see at camp unless he pulls a Peko.
What’s this? A transfer not working out in the duck’s favor?
Vernon adams didnt graduate from EWU. I guess there’s still a little time to magically fix this, but the ducks have to be more than a little worried.
http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2015/07/vernon_adams_jr_did_not_gradua.html
Nothing a little cash can’t fix right?
Does nike get a refund if he doesn’t transfer?
Peko is tutoring him, so it’s all good.
I’m sure he’s just finishing up on a summer course… that he can take online from here… without the aid of Nikegon “tutors.”
But if I was an EWU grad, I would be pissed he got to walk without earning it first. I knew someone who wasn’t allowed to walk because his school said he didn’t apply for graduation. He did, and he got his diploma in the mail. But you can bet he says some neat words when he gets the alumni calls for donations.
Nobody with a hyphenated last name has a chance. Woods just went from a 7.5/10 type talent to a 5.5
Any opinions here on leaving names off of jerseys? Seems to me that would reinforce the “Team First” attitude. Maybe for just one of the jersey colors?
I like the names so my cussing can be more specific.
Banker didn’t have a name on the back of his polo shirt.
Damn that Ralph Lauren, worst DC ever!
Out of the running for Eletise. How does Ole Miss get the nod over OSU?!
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=88119
I am starting to get nervous about this staff recruiting. This was a guy with a pretty good relationship dating back several years with some of the staff and we don’t make the Top 5. Maybe you can’t recruit here? Nebraska made it in that stings even more. I know its year 1 of this staff and there should be some leeway but I am getting disappointed with the fight for these top tier guys. Looks like the same old thing.
As I’ve said for years, we need to improve facilities. Some of those changes are coming, but obviously we need to do more.
Finish the stadium, blow kids away with shiny bling in the locker room, weight rooms, meeting rooms, lounges, etc. That’s all Nikegon did.
Nikegon also revamped their offense to make a flashy product that their buddies on ESPN are more than happy to promote.
Beavs will always be a step behind in the arms race always playing catch up as long as they dont have a daddy warbucks paving the way.
Also, we’re on a Nike contract. As long as that continues, we will never get the newest/freshest designs no matter what we pay. That will always be reserved for uo.
I thought our shitty uniforms and the nutria were all about recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. That sure is working out.
Andersen seemed to go heavy on the Polynesian angle when putting together his staff, so this is a major whiff. I suspect we are in for a slow rebuild that involves more under the radar guys until there is documented progress on the field. Luck O da Beavs.
News flash: it’s easier to recruit to a place with more money and history like Nebraska
I will give you the money thing, but history? What history resonates with today’s 18 yr old kid? The last time they were relevant the kid was what 5yrs old? Before that they were not even born. Yes Money is a big thing and that goes a long long ways much more than history.
I am not saying that we would have signed him or not, but this staff has made it known that their model is to be the next #PolyNation so when they go out and flunk on one of the top Poly’s out there that is disconcerting.
I don’t get Arizona schools either, other than their staffs hit the trail super hard. ASU’s facilities are not that much better than ours, bigger not necessarily better. UA has upgraded I give them that. UW just upgraded as well, but neither of these schools have a ton of “history” either in the last 20 yrs.
I think the Arizona schools benefit from having Eletise’ sister already going to college in state. Family gets a 2 for 1 deal when they want to visit their kids at college from the islands.
I have to agree with kman on this one. I know the silver lining is alot can change between now and February, but is the product we put on the field this year ready to change some kids’ minds between now and then?
Kman, check your DM’s
It’s a distant history, but it’s still more and carries a degree of prestige for some weird reason
It takes a while for prestige to break down. Like Richard Sherman has a Stanford degree…think about that. What’s it say about Stanford? All the “elite” universities have had to lower standards and there are a lot of idiots coming out of all of them. Harvard is really bad right now [compared to where they were].
Good point. Heck, some people still think the U in U of O stands for “University” and not “Uncle Phil”
Ouch, that one hurts. I get the Arizona schools because his sister goes to school down there, but the Ole Miss over LSU or Alabama is surprising.
If memory serves, Ole Miss has surprisingly been flipping some of the top recruits in the country on signing day the last couple of years. Me thinks they have some hidden boosters with large pockets. That or these high school kids are really loving Derby attire.
Some thing is fishy.
Maybe they have a North Carolina “curriculum”
Re Eletise & recruiting:
Because OSU is being considered by some of the top tier players BEFORE OSU has even played a down under the new coaching staff gives me hope for the future. They were at least able to get their foot in the door with the type of players who wouldn’t have even wanted to talk to them in the past.
It’s my hope that if OSU becomes fun to watch, fun to play for and competitive the Eletise like player who’s currently an underclassman in high school will have a better impression of OSU football and will be willing to give OSU serious consideration.
By the way, FWIW – 24/7 is showing a 50% chance Eletise goes to UW and a 100% chance Mauigoa goes to the cougs.
“By the way, FWIW”
A 247 prediction is worthless. They frequently whiff just like the Beavs did with Eletise.
I was told by a 100% reliable source last month that Eletise and family already had plans to visit OSU after the opening camp, before going back to Hawaii. It’s to visit Elu Aydon, but it also sounded like a (2nd) unofficial visit was part of the trip too. Seems strange now, with the timing of his top 5 list.
Anyway, if anybody is in Corvallis, keep your eye out. We need a spy at Local Boyz.
@ blazer: Well, one could certainly go in several directions based on what you’re reporting. Such as Aydon’s thoughts about the coaching staff/school/facilities, etc. caused Eletise to eliminate OSU BEFORE even seeing the place and talking to the coaching staff.
If he made this announcement before coming to Corvallis I guess that’s a poke in the eye for the coaches.
Eletise had already visited Corvallis back in May. This visit is hos second trip. Also, if you follow Aydon on social media, i think it’s safe to assume he’s happy where he is.
Where do you see Eletise’s top 5 and that the Beavs didn’t make it? He was one we were told loved the Beavs and could be had, by reliable sources, too.
@ angry I’m assuming you’ve by now seen this which was posted earlier by MeMyself&I.
Top 5: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/insider/post?id=88119
Exactly. We’re more likely to get big recruits once we have a great season, so I’m not too worried about recruiting right now. Besides, nothing is official until February anyway.
OT, Basebal (again): ICYMI, this from the gadget-times on Matt Boyd being sent down:
You know Boyd has some really good strengths and he has some limits right now in his development. He is around the plate alot, and doesn’t or hasnt walked anybody this year, which is a major improvement over last season. The problem is he really doesn’t the “stuff” to overpower hitters so he has to be very sharp with his deception. I would like to see him develop a cutter in order to keep his average fastball off the fat of the bat. He reminds of Mark Buerhle who when he catches too much of the plate can get ripped, but other times he will keep batters so off balance that they won’t know how they miss his pitches.
I strongly believe he will be back up and it will be this year. He could be very instrumental in a playoff run for the Jays. His first start back in AAA after being sent down was a solid win so I don’t think we have to worry about his head.
Thanks, good to hear about his first start back in AAA. And, I think Angry has the answer, make him a reliever. Staying around the plate is a plus there and him developing a cutter at this stage seems like a good idea but a long shot.
Thanks for indulging my comments on baseball here as well.
They need to make him a reliever. He’d be dominant. He doesn’t have enough plus pitches to make it through a MLB lineup 3 times, and that’s what is needed to be a solid starter. His stamina is only so so, too. As a reliever he can use two pitches and give max effort each outing. That’s his calling and destiny. If they force this starter thing he will be out of baseball in a few years.
I disagree, he’s a major competitor. But I respect your knowledge and you might be right.
On another baseball note Josh Osich (through a no-no at OSU) is up with the Giants and is a Lefty specialist that is in there bullpen. I think he could even become a closer. The Giants have had the battery of Osich and Susac a couple of times this year.
This guy next to me at this bar is just rambling to himself. Looks like Jack’s at the same happy hour I am
I Believe you’re thinking too highly of Storm Woods and sleeping big time on Marcus Greaves. FWIW, the fact that you devote a blog to Beaver football yet don’t know the name of a RB who will likely see a decent amount of carries is a little alarming. Greaves played well in the spring game and with the amount the Beavs will run the ball this year, we will have an injury at RB. that’s a guarantee. I can promise you, Greaves will see carries in meaningful time at some point this season.
secondly, I think you’re giving way too much credit to Woods. He’s regressed each year since his Freshman season and I fully expect Brown to overtake him by the end of the season (health permitting). I wouldn’t be surprised if Cook sees more carries than Woods by year’s end. Woods shys away from contact and dances too much. he’s not shifty enough of a runner to do that either. The only situation Woods excels in is hitting a hole hard and running north and south. and judging by the way out O line looked last year, there won’t be much of that this season. Our RB’s will need to be physical and work for every yard they get. Wood’s workload will slowly diminish this season.
Haskins still looks pretty stiff when running and there is no chance Sands plays any meaningful snaps this year. I see the workload being 1. Brown 2. Cook 3a Woods 3b. Greaves
GO BEAVS
No I don’t put too much stock in Woods. In fact, I begrudgingly named him the starter based on leadership mostly, and acknowledged Brown has more upside. I’m not sure what paragraphs you’re reading, but likely they are in your head and not on the blog..
Regarding Greaves, I’m not the only one who doesn’t know who he is:
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2015/04/the_oregonians_beaver_banter_p_14.html
It sounds like you have no idea who Greaves is either, since you didn’t hear the wrong guy was credited. I looked him up on youtube. He looks okay, but the players in front of him are much better. It’ll take a lot of injury for him to see the field.
Speaking from my own anecdotal experience, I’ve seen Woods get better each year. Your critiques are solid, but I do not think he got worse from year to year.
I’m a bigger fan of Brown than Woods, to clarify…
And always have been.
I just think on a young team like this Woods might be better to have out there. But if Brown out plays him then he should obviously be the primary back. Woods is impressive as a person and football mind, though — he could be a good coach one day. The guy is a leader and has great passion for the game.
I’m not going to defend Woods because I don’t love him as a player and think Brown is probably a better RB (need to see more of him, but from what I saw he is better). If the Beavs had a veteran QB I’d say start Brown all the way.
99% of the time I’d vote for talent over experience, but if Woods isn’t out there, who is the leader on offense? So I stay put him out there and mix in Brown (a lot).
Regarding the Greavs/Bailey thing, that’s on me. I get those two mixed up and I know one is better than the other but to say you have no idea who either one is….
Saying Brown has more upside is obvious. That’s not necessarily “groundbreaking”. You said Woods was going to see the field A LOT and I’m saying he’s going to see less of the field than you think. The Beavs likely won’t be competing for anything but a spot in the Poinsettia Bowl or whatever bowl they have going these days. Therefore, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have Woods out there a ton. This season is likely going to be a big tryout for a lot of the younger guys and I think you’re going to see a lot more of either Brown or Cook than Woods
and to say he’s gotten worse year over year is probably a stretch on my part but you really haven’t seen the progression that you would’ve liked to see when the guy runs for nearly 1,000 yards his freshman year. and I know the O line was awful last year but he just didn’t look the same to me
Woods had a pretty good freshman year, and the Beavs had their most balanced offensive playcalling of his career that year, with Cooks and Wheaton both getting plenty of catches go stretch the field.
His Soph year started out well but he had that concussion early in the season (at BYU i think?) From there, when he played out the rest of that season, he was hesitant and avoided contact. Understandable after an injury like that. Probably shouldnt have been on the field as much as he was that year. The offense was very pass heavy that year and woods showed he was a capable receiver too.
Last year, i thought he was solid and back to his freshman year form, and his yards per carry show he was pretty successful, although the number of carries dipped from another pass heavy offense as well as splitting reps with Ward. He may not have looked the same for a period if time because he also was dealing with a mid season knee injury.
This is the year Woods will be his most hungry. I think he’ll get heavy use as a receiver again in some 2 back sets, and I also think the new offense will shuffle the backs in and out frequently to keep them fresh for the increased tempo. I just dont think the designation of being the starter will mean a whole lot with the frequent rotation we’ll be seeing. Number of reps per back will be interesting to track.
I’m not familiar enough with the new offensive scheme, but we should see an uptick in the number of plays with multiple backs on the field at the same time, right?
I would imagine so. Expect a HEAVY dose of the run this year. the more guys who can carry the ball you have in the formation, the harder it becomes to defend.
Hey Angry , did you get an invite to work out with the team on Fridays ? 3 reporters are with the Team and Coach Simon on Fridays. Could you Hang ?
Whenever I think about OSU running backs, I think of Quizz and how amazing a feat it was to have so many carries yet no true fumbles (I refuse to count that one bad lateral at the Vegas Bowl as a fumble)
Wonder if we’ll ever see another RB like him again.
I think quiz was a once in a lifetime back. People really don’t know how great he was. If we had a line worth half a shit he could have won the heisman. Instead he got hit in the backfield every other play and would still gain 3 yards with those ridiculous jump cuts.
I YouTube the play where he trucks boyett at least once every couple of months.
Imo the same thing (he could have won the heisman) could be said about SJ and his OL, especially the one he had his last year. Here’s hoping OSU’s OL improves over the coming years.
Can you imagine SJax with that 2006 o-line… and maybe Al giving Riley that talk before the season started?
I thought that lateral came in a USC game?? And no it should not count.
From Will’s Dad:
“Hey buddies… do any of you know what’s up with Coach Riley? As usual I sent him a nice package of Omaha Steaks and his wife a nice floral bouquet…both came back “non-deliverable.” His cell phone with the 541 area code says that the “service is terminated.” Whats up with coach?”
PS: Jack.. I’ll be there for the start of fall camp next month. Can I use the couch? I don’t mind sharing with the seven cats.
Dude… I live halfway between you and Corvallis… in the glorified strip mall that houses your grad school.
OT, Baseball: Connor put up a recap of the summer league performance of returning Beavs. Disappointing.
KJ’s numbers are too small a sample given he spent time with Team USA,
Lots of guys hitting mid-200’s with 30-80 AB’s.
Pomeroy with 11 K’s in 6.2 innings…but 5 BB as well.
Disappointing, no?
http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2015/07/checking_in_on_beavers_basebal.html
I wouldn’t say disappointing. It is just summer ball, they are playing with wood bats so offensive production should dip a bit. They go from practicing 3-4 times a week plus BP and other stuff on game days, to playing games almost every day. I am not going to get excited for someone doing well in summer league, the same goes is I am not going to be disappointed over summer ball numbers.
The exception is players playing for Team USA because of the overall competition. KJ is still on the team and doing well, Rasmussen did not make the final cut.
Whoa…….Eggers has had a piece on Collins up for a couple days which answers some fears about maturity and smarts.
Even mentions a connection with Jim Harbaugh’s staff.
BTW, lots there to debunk the old lines from Schnell and Goe regarding OSU/Corvallis.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/12-sports/266130-134356-collins-vies-for-starting-role-
“He has to make those big-boy throws now.”
The heart of the matter with Collins. The rest of the article is filler.
And, that quote is from his dad, not anyone on the Beavs staff.
As for “filler”, maybe I’m just now catching up, but I found several items of interest: he had a 3.4 GPA, his sister is also at OSU, he “loves the school, loves the environment…”, his HS coach calls him “one of the hardest-working kids on our team.”, and this from GA regarding the mental challenges faced by freshman in “preparation and practice and school and offseason conditioning.”:
I like Coach Andersen’s response when I asked about naming a starting quarterback.
“It’s not going to take forever to make that decision”.
A subtle jab at Riley? With the Mannion, Katz, Vaz fiasco of seasons past?
Don’t know how I said when I asked, obviously I’m not The author. I blame stupid iPhone auto correct.
I noticed that statement too, not sure it was a subtle jab but I sure like the proactive stance vs. the old, passive approach we endured for too long. Maybe it was just another indicator that GA is sold on Collins. But, he did mention all three in closing with the comment about preparing for camp.
Good to hear from you, Afghan. Hey, did you laugh at the people who were complaining about the heat recently?
Haha yeah. Don’t get me wrong, I hate it as much as the next guy, but I know it can be much worse.
I liked how Riley handled the quarterback competition in fall camp going into 2013 (Not the 2012 season). This years competition is so different than ’13, Vaz and Mannion both had good years in ’12, both deserved to be starters, and I the end result was better play out of both quarterbacks.
OT, but relevant:
Connor has a piece up regarding the new OSU/Brenda Tracy partnership…
Here’s hoping that part of Brenda’s message is if you go to dangerous places bad things can happen. A message apparently Brenda wasn’t aware of way back then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQYkbzSz5s
Wow!
Just wow.
Blaming the victim, mud and sticks? Pathetic.
Where did I say it was all the victims fault?
Apparently comprehension isn’t one of your strong suits.
I read it in the two sentences you wrote.
How about we teach people, especially young men, to not sexually assault anyone else, especially young women? You sound pathetic and that statement is not a viewpoint I’d like to share with someone who is smart enough to come out of my university.
Really? So if a woman associates (parties, gets drunk, etc.) with bad boys, or bikers, or gangsters and she gets raped she’s to be thought of as being totally innocent? Yeah, right.
Yes.
The person infringing on others’ rights is always to blame, no matter gender or circumstances [except maybe the rules of war].
So if a guy goes into a biker bar knowing that it’s a biker bar and gets the shit beat out of him you’re saying he’s totally innocent? Totally innocent? You gotta be shitting me.
Of course he’s totally innocent. Unless he beats himself.
He’s totally innocent as far as being a victim of battery. The bikers are guilty of committing battery.
The victim is also guilty of having horrible judgment, but that’s another matter. Many self-defense experts will tell you that a top rule of self-defense has nothing to do with punches and weapons: It is to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.
If I went on a self-guided tour of all the sketchy dark alleys in Chicago at 2 AM and got mugged, the mugger is at fault and guilty for mugging, not me. However, it would be dangerous for me to completely ignore the fact that I was making horrible decisions that are likely to get me into trouble… because unfortunately, no matter how much education or how many campaigns there are against violent crime, it will still exist. This is the other aspect that needs to be addressed if we, as a society, are truly serious about preventing people from becoming crime victims. It generally isn’t, due to political reasons, and that sadly creates more victims.
Whenever I see this topic come up, the issues get conflated to various degrees.
(This is not a comment on any particular case.)
The victim is also guilty of having horrible judgment
No, the biker is guilty of having horrible judgment. The victim is guilty of exercising their right to travel through life unmolested without battery, which is to say they are guilty of nothing.
Can’t seem to find a reply button at this level of replies so I’m replying here…
“No, the biker is guilty of having horrible judgment. The victim is guilty of exercising their right to travel through life unmolested without battery, which is to say they are guilty of nothing.”
When I said the victim in the biker scenario is “guilty” of having horrible judgment, I didn’t mean in the legal sense. I meant it in the “that’s horrible judgment and therefore not good” sense.
So let’s extend this, then. It’s the 1800’s. You give me a load of valuable cargo, plus your daughter to carry across the country in my stagecoach. I have a choice of two routes: The first route is a reasonably safe route. The second route is a route known for being preyed on by stagecoach robbers. I choose the second route, and your daughter gets kidnapped, and your cargo stolen. Will you still say I am guilty of nothing? After all, I was just exercising my right to travel through the public trails freely. You’ll think there was nothing wrong on my part? My stagecoach traveling strategies don’t need a second look?
I don’t know. I’d need more info. Maybe you were reasoning that since the route was so well known for robberies, that everyone would stop taking it, and therefore the robbers would leave and go to the other trail. Would that be bad judgment? I’m not sure.
I think people can and do have bad judgment.
But when they are the victim of a crime, I don’t think it’s fair to question their judgment, because the person committing the crime has, by definition, worse judgment, and secondly they are infringing on someone’s body/property rights. They are the ones who should be scrutinized. Sure, I’d be pissed if you lost my gold and daughter. But I would be more pissed at the asshole who robbed you.
I think we agree bad judgment exists but just don’t agree who blame should be deflected onto. My view is that even if a victim exercised bad judgment, the criminal exercised worse judgment and also violated their property rights. So I want to focus my energy there.
Regarding Brenda Tracy — she went to a party. Girls do this. Without girls at parties, there would be no parties! She’s not in any way at fault for what happened, and I don’t think she exercised bad judgment (e.g. she knew the people, she went with a girlfriend, who apparently turned on her, wasn’t her boyfriend there? etc. I forget the details, but it seemed like a very normal situation of a girl drinking with guys in college. Then the dudes went ape shit and fed off their “We’re football players and untouchable” god complex/mob mentality). Let’s say she did exercise bad judgment: who cares? It doesn’t give someone the right to commit a crime upon you. Think how insane that sounds. Nor does it justify the crime happening, etc.
As noted, I’m not talking about the Brenda Tracy incident, but about concepts in general.
“Sure, I’d be pissed if you lost my gold and daughter. But I would be more pissed at the asshole who robbed you.”
Why are you pissed at me at all? I was just exercising my rights, wasn’t I? I was traumatized by the robbery, too, and they took all my horses, so don’t blame the victim!
Never have I said someone perpetrating a crime has the right to do so. I’ve said the perpetrators are guilty every time. Obviously they have worse judgment, but who cares about them? They’re not the ones anyone’s trying to protect.
Holding perpetrators of crime accountable and encouraging people to make smart decisions are not mutually exclusive.
Why are you pissed at me at all? I was just exercising my rights
Actually driving is a privilege not a right.
You do have a right to self defense of property, but apparently you didn’t exercise it.
Holding perpetrators of crime accountable and encouraging people to make smart decisions are not mutually exclusive.
Correct. But not everyone has the capacity to make great decisions, nor are bad situations always obvious. Everyone has been in a normal situations that turned bad. Right?
So what do you want to happen? I’m not sure what your ultimate goal is.
You want to shame and punish the victim or not? You want to split the blame and only half or one-quarter blame the victim? Or what? I’m confused. You want to encourage “good decisions”, as defined by…scotty? courts? society? who? Not the individual making them? Is this all correct? Just explain your ideal. This stagecoach thing is ridiculous.
All right, to cut to the chase then:
Cracking down on perpetrators of crime and campaigns to stop crime are pieces of the puzzle that address things at the societal level. Not making bad decisions, like insulting people at biker bars, and unnecessarily walking down seedy alleys at night, is another piece that addresses things at the personal prevention level.
To prevent ourselves from being victims of crime, both are important pieces. We will never be able to stomp out all crime. Some people are just bad people. That doesn’t mean we’re powerless, though. We do have the power to make smart decisions and reduce our personal risk. While there is some subjectivity, there are things most people can agree are smart decisions* to reduce personal risk. For example:
* lock your doors to help prevent getting burglarized
* travel in well-lit areas when you can to help prevent getting mugged
* avoid needless confrontation to help prevent getting assaulted
* use strong passwords for accounts to help prevent getting your identity stolen
* etc, etc.
(* You ask “good decisions as defined by who?” Even the legal system acknowledges the concept of a standard for good decisions, subjective as they could be. Look up the legal concept of “reasonable care” for example.)
If I were on the jury for the biker bar battery case, I’d be voting the batterer guilty. I’d never say “well, the dude who got beat up kinda asked for it, so not guilty.” No one asks for it. But along with my guilty vote, I’d also be thinking “damn, that dude who tried talking shit at a biker bar is stupid.” I’m not blaming him for being battered. I’m not saying he should be punished. That blame and punishment should fall on the batterer. That does not mean one should not be able to acknowledge at some point that the shit-talking dude made a poor decision.
Were everything as simple as “just teach rapists not to rape” as I’ve seen some advocate, we’d be living in a utopia. We could also just teach murderers not to murder, burglars not to burgle, batterers not to batter, fraudsters not to commit fraud, muggers not to mug…. You can see how focusing *exclusively* on this approach would be naive and unrealistic in protecting ourselves from crime. It’s an important piece, but it’s not a sufficient solution.
It boggles my mind that this is controversial at all.
I kind of agree. As I said above, “I think people can and do have bad judgment.” The question follows “now what?”. It’s just a dead end. So we agree people can make bad decisions, and we agree the victim isn’t at fault. But yet I still don’t feel we agree entirely.
I think part of the confusion/discussion came from the word “innocent” used above. When I hear the word, I assume people mean a court of law and/or they want to place blame somewhere. And obviously the victim is innocent.
I still feel we don’t totally agree, and it has something to do with the nuances…like defining good/bad decisions. I just think that has to be up to each individual, for all but the most obvious things. In this example, a girl going to a party with friends…it’s not an obvious bad decision. It’s what people do, and then they drink a lot. Mud is trying to say she’s to blame for going to the party. If that were true, girls couldn’t go to parties, or if they can, there has to be some strict code they need to follow because guys/criminals can’t control their dicks? You’re judging situations in hindsight (e.g. if nothing happened to her, her decision was good. If she gets raped, her decision is bad). That’s Monday Morning QBing with crimes and moral issues. I think it’s mostly this nuance of “good/bad” decisions that keeps us from agreeing completely. I think there are just…decisions. Some in hindsight look bad. Some seem bad (walking in a dark alley), but wind up being fine. Some seem fine, but wind up being bad. Some decisions are good by all common standards (PC police, courts, Scotty, etc), yet there’s still a bad result.
It’s a subtle difference but I think it’s what keeps us from agreeing entirely.
What I’d like is people allowed to make their own decisions without some asshole telling them what they should do, monday morning QBing them, etc. If something goes bad, their “punishment” is living with their “bad” decision for the rest of their life, and probably learning “the hard way”. All the blame and criminal issues should be aimed at the …criminal.
” “I think people can and do have bad judgment.” The question follows “now what?”. It’s just a dead end.”
If you think that way, though, and raping or battering someone is really bad judgment (as I think you stated earlier) then by that logic, it would be pointless to try educating the potential rapists and batterers.
Rather than a dead end, I see it as a call (*in addition to other crime prevention initiatives*) to educate people in how to make smart decisions that reduce their likelihood of becoming crime victims. These precautions should be reasonable, of course. No one should have to live in a bubble.
Teaching de-escalation, walking away from volatile situations, and avoiding drug-filled parties with strangers, would be examples of reasonable precautions that could be encouraged and taught. Doesn’t mean everyone will take the lessons to heart, but some would, and these people would be helped.
Love ya, angry ;p
(Double-reply, sorry)
“Mud is trying to say she’s to blame for going to the party.”
I don’t agree with Mud. (Besides, I’m much less soil-based!)
“You’re judging situations in hindsight (e.g. if nothing happened to her, her decision was good. If she gets raped, her decision is bad).”
Again, not Mud, and I don’t remember Tracy specifics (never been talking specifically about that case to begin with) but bad decisions are generally bad decisions no matter what happens. For me to blow my life savings on lottery tickets would be a bad decision, whether I got lucky and won the jackpot or not. Talking shit to the biker is a bad decision even if he thinks it’s funny and buys me a drink. Maybe it’s a philosophical point of difference, but to me, bad decisions can sometimes have good outcomes and good decisions can sometimes have bad outcomes. Determining good or bad ahead of time by analyzing likely outcomes is how one prevents the Monday morning quarterback problem.
In the end, everyone has a different tolerance for risk. That’s fine, but it’s better if people are aware of the risks before they take them.
Scotty, not all crime situations are obvious.
This is what Canzano wrote about Tracy: The report outlined a weekday late-night excursion from Keizer to Corvallis by Tracy and her best friend, Karmen McFadden. It was supposed to be a fun night spent hanging out with McFadden’s boyfriend and some others.
Does that sound like an obvious gang rape situation? What would Scotty do to intervene and protect her from…herself? She was apparently too stupid to know that hanging out with her BEST FRIEND and a few others means gang rape?
People do make bad decisions, or what seem to be bad decisions, but we only know they are bad based on outcomes. Again, good luck defining good/bad in any definitive way. Philosophy has struggled with that for like two thousand years. There are decisions; some look bad based on outcomes. Our minds trick us in this way and summarize a person’s decision as good or bad based on outcome. It’s wrong.
Explain how Brenda Tracy’s decision was bad, based on the description above. Explain what Scotty would suggest she did differently.
It disgusts me to even think like that, buddy.
For me to blow my life savings on lottery tickets would be a bad decision, whether I got lucky and won the jackpot or not.
For me, too, but many would view that as a good decision if they won, bad if they lost…
I think we’re uncovering the conflict:
It sounds like you think I’m implying that if someone’s a crime victim, they must have made a bad decision. I don’t mean that at all.
Some crimes end up following a bad decision, but many don’t. Running mouth at biker bar? Bad decision. Midnight alley tour of Chicago? Bad decision. Walking to Chipotle right now? Perfectly fine decision, even if I happen to get hit by a drunk driver on the way. Just a horrible outcome.
“Explain how Brenda Tracy’s decision was bad, based on the description above. Explain what Scotty would suggest she did differently.”
I never said her decision was bad. You’re talking about the Brenda Tracy situation here, but for the zillionth time, I’m not talking about that. As I said, I don’t even remember the circumstances. I got into this whole thing following the biker bar scenario.
It sounds like you want a real-life example, though: A friend of a friend of mine took a late-night ride with a guy from online that she barely knew. He ended up being a scumbag and assaulting her. He is to blame for that. As for what scotty would suggest she did differently, I would suggest she not take late-night rides with people she meets online and barely knows. Even the friend (who is a woman) while acknowledging the scumminess of the perpetrator, was asking me “what the hell was she thinking?”
She should take a late night ride with Scotty instead.
Scotty avoids asking things of the women he dates that he wouldn’t be comfortable doing in their position. For instance, I have a “no coming back to my place on the first date” rule plus a “meet in public places” especially early on rule. It’s also safer for me, as well.
As to decisions, philosophical differences, I guess.
It sounds like you think I’m implying that if someone’s a crime victim, they must have made a bad decision. I don’t mean that at all.
Some crimes end up following a bad decision, but many don’t. Running mouth at biker bar? Bad decision. Midnight alley tour of Chicago? Bad decision. Walking to Chipotle right now? Perfectly fine decision, even if I happen to get hit by a drunk driver on the way. Just a horrible outcome.
I mean that is reasonable and mostly makes sense.
We could probably go on forever, though. Like I can think of circumstances where it would be fine, even noble, to run your mouth at a biker bar. I also wonder if objective good and bad even exist. We’re both basing it more on math/probable outcomes rather than an objective good or bad (philosophy has grappled with this for centuries, and it seems impossible to “prove” only opine), and I agree some behavior has a higher probability of a undesirable outcome. Maybe using words like desirable or undesirable outcome make more sense than “good” and “bad” (these sound moral, whereas the former suggest probabilities).
But we can leave it at that.
“We could probably go on forever”
I can change my username to Jack if you like
I have a “no coming back to my place on the first date” rule plus a “meet in public places” especially early on rule. It’s also safer for me, as well.
Prude.
Safe prude ;)
Mud, I suggest you educate yourself on the law. You described severe battery, and then said the recipient of that battery is [at least partially] to blame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28tort%29
I also suggest understanding the basic principle of property rights, and that our body is our first piece of property, ours from the moment we’re born. Nobody has the right to “trespass” upon it without our consent, no matter any other circumstances (location, clothing, gender, etc). And trust me, you want it this way. You wouldn’t be alive for but a day if battery was not such a serious crime. The British who reasoned and wrote much of the common law found it the most serious and offensive of all crimes, and rightfully so.
Your attitude is “she/he was asking for it”, but that does not fly under law. Even if the person explicitly does ask for it (e.g. “Bikers, please beat me into a coma.”) the biker does not have a right to batter the person. Meanwhile, suicide (taking your own property), is not a crime (though it once was), since it is your property and you own the rights. Suicide should only be considered a crime if your committing it infringes on someone else’s rights (e.g. you jump off a building and land on someone, killing them).
This is why there is debate about the right for a doctor to end someone’s life. And those are terminal situations under strict consent with discussions, etc. And you’re saying it’s okay for this to happen in day to day life just because of location, gender, clothing, behavior. It’s laughable, dude. Get out of the bunker and join society.
I think you guys are both right. Clearly the perpetrator is 100% to blame. 100% wrong. 100%.
But I will definitely be teaching my daughter about places she should not be. Ever. All the education and/or punishment in the world is not going to eliminate sexual assault in our society. It’s sad, but true. I’m not saying that strides cannot be made; education and awareness will certainly do that.
Where have you taught her to never go?
That is your right as a parent. But remember when our generation were kids? We did everything and anything freely, and it was great. The next generation of parents became very overbearing and scared to death of everything (much of this media related — shows like America’s most wanted showing kidnapped kids, etc). Fear mongering, really. It’s important to know about that stuff and know the signs but not choke off a kid’s life or make them paranoid before they even have a chance to live and be a kid, because being a kid and not caring about anything only lasts a few years, and it is an awesome time if they’re truly carefree. My gf had overbearing parents, and she lost out on a lot of life. Things I say I did as a kid (we’re 10 years apart) she gets jealous of and just can’t relate.
Don’t take this the wrong way, GWH. I’m not telling you how to parent. Just throwing out my perspective on the fine line with that.
Nail meet head.
I’ve read somewhere there’s an old saying in the Middle East, like “Trust in Allah, but tether your sheep.” Despite what may be “right” and what “should be”, it still falls upon us to deal with the evils of reality and take a reasonable degree of responsibility for our well-being.
You make great points.
I don’t have an exclusive list. She’s 12. For starters, she won’t be spending a lot of time in chat rooms, Kik, etc. until she is a little older and has a better understanding of the predators that hang out there. I know once she leaves the nest, I can’t really tell her what to do or what not to do. I just try to instill in her a sense of judgment. I don’t think it’s a great idea to get blackout-drunk at a frat party…or at a bar, etc. And it wouldn’t be her “fault” per se if she did and something bad happens, but it certainly would expose her to a risk that isn’t necessary.
I have no intention of raising her in a bubble, but I believe it is wise to teach your kids that bad people and bad places exist.
GWH, are you speaking just to sexual issues then? I can understand that chat room fear, etc.
If so, I imagine it’s tough for a father to deal with all that knowing how we [men] work and think. After all, she could bump into Scotty at a bar. ;) He’s preying at them all the time!
But…if you’re talking about getting on her bike and riding around town all day, dawn til dusk, without telling you where she is…I mean that’s being a kid. Anyone from our generation who didn’t have overprotective parents grew up doing things like that. Exploring, leaving the house all day, breaking bones (not me personally, but it happened all the time), getting mud all over us, not wearing helmets, injuries, etc. It is life. And my childhood was very rich because of all that, whereas people I know who had more protective childhoods were never allowed to fully be kids, and they don’t reflect on their childhoods as fondly, and when they tell stories of childhood they are not as rich.
If I ever do have a kid, I am going to let them live and just take the risks. The most important thing is to let them know you love them. But then let them go be them. That’s my stance. Maybe I’d be with you and monitor the sexual stuff until it was reasonable but not much else. I guess this comes down to life philosophy, too. I just think life is dangerous, there are infinite ways to die for each of us every day, and no matter my efforts I’d never be able to protect my kid from all dangers. So I just say let them live and figure it out. Tough love? Freedom? I don’t know.
There’s also some philosophical issues. For example, say a parent gets overly involved and limits xyz. Well maybe if they hadn’t, the kid would have had an awesome experience. An example: there was this dangerous mountain in the town I grew up in. My parents let me bike up. I met one of my best friends up there. I also saved his life (he slipped off the edge and was hanging on) and I pulled him up, and that strengthened our friendship. We’re friends to this day, decades later. He said he was forever indebted because I saved his life. So my point is this: by not being in “dangerous” locations you don’t necessarily just avoid danger — you can also avoid many positives. The odds of catastrophe (look at catastrophy insurance prices if you don’t believe me) is much lower than the odds of (a) nothing happening or (b) a positive outcome, so I think this brings philosophical questions into play and even psychology (are parents projecting their fears), and social issues (media fear mongering, etc).
Now of course, go parent your kid as you see fit, and never listen to an asshole telling you what to do. That goes without saying. Just giving my thoughts on it.
“After all, she could bump into Scotty at a bar. ;) ”
Nah, it’s safe. Scotty life rule: Never get involved with anyone you meet at a bar :) Just eavesdrop on their silly conversations and post them to angrybeavs instead
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at. I trust the kid…she’s proven herself trustworthy over and over. But she’s also very trusting. That’s the part that worries me. Before I handed over the ipad to her (that she paid for with birthday and Christmas money), we had a long talk…I told her that at some point, some boy WILL ask her for a nude picture. It’s reality. She was embarrassed, but I want her to hear that from me first…she will be prepared to respond when/if that time comes, instead of it coming as a shock.
And after I posted above…I get a phone call from Oregon where my wife and kids are visiting….
“Dad…are you sitting down? I just called to tell you that I got my period, and I thought you should know.”
FML.
Lolol.
Good luck with the next phase, buddy.
Aaaaand, more OT: Sydney and Ruth square off for the gold, 5am ET Monday. USA v Canada.
I really hope Andersen’s teams start to have high success in 2-3 years. It will make it clear that people like Schnell that promote the Oregon State is lucky to have a stale coach who is happy with 6 or 7 wins and any ole Cactus, Hunger or Potato bowl are poor excuses for sports writer. Being a regular member of the upper third of this conference is possible with a hungry and energized coach. Even in Corvallis.
She is still as annoying as she almost always is in her latest tweet:
@Lindsay_Schnell: Why do ppl think “I’m a sports writer” means “please, give me all your uninformed sports opinions”? From now on I’m saying I’m in insurance.
ICYMI: http://www.osubeavers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=30800&ATCLID=210188974
Q&A with Tinkle. Of note, he used the word “neat” thrice in this session.
He definitely has some Riley in him, as Angry said.
He can probably fit two of Riley in him.
That just sounds…wrong….
Riley would be guilty on two counts
Maybe it explains the sweaty pits?