“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Dare I say the Beavers get their first win this weekend?

I know folks are afraid of Nick Foles picking apart the defense. He will get his yards, no doubt. However, the Beavers have a handful of things going in their favor:

• Arizona is the only Pac-12 school with a linebacker slower than Reuben Robinson. This, along with their defensive line play, has lead to an opponents' rushing average of 6.0yd.
• Opponents average 38 points versus the Arizona defense.
• As bad as Mike Remmers is, he won't have to worry about protecting Mannion this weekend. The Wildcats have only 3 sacks on the entire year, while opponents have garnered a whopping 13 versus them.
• With Wynn, Crichton, and Fernando coming on strong, the Beavers should annihilate Arizona's offensive line, in the process marginalizing their all-conference QB.
• Beavers have the home field advantage. Even though the Reser crowd is pretty lame, this is still a minor advantage.

So, all things considered, the lone reason I see to pick Arizona in this game is Foles vs the secondary. Completely valid, but I saw enough from the Beavers young pass rush this past weekend to believe they are coming into this game (a) brimming with confidence and (b) hungry for a win. If they generate a good rush, and they should, then much like last week the secondary will look better. Foles will get his yards, but the defense will keep him in check.

You could see and feel the Beavers growth in the loss to ASU. Their play improved, but more importantly their confidence improved. Assuming the coaches put the right personnel on the field, I absolutely love the Beavers in this game.

30-24, Beavs

Okay, Beavlettes, have at it.

Some points of discussion:

• Mannion's interceptions: I'm not bothered by them. I know I should be; 4ints is a big number (and he should have about 10 on the season instead of 5). But, I have seen enough positives to ignore the INTs. As I wrote before, Mannion reminds me of a Tom Brady/Derek Anderson hybrid, and I don't know which side will win out until the supporting cast is better. Right now I am thinking there's more positive than negative.
• Langsdork's play calling: It was better, but I'm not ready to let off the gas. One thing I will say, and I think it's a point missed by many fans, is that the redzone woes go back to the offensive line. When in the redzone, offenses are boxed in by the end lines, and without a RB to chip away (those 3 and 4 yard runs are huge in the redzone) the short passing game becomes less effective. Longer routes are boxed in by the end lines. That being said, I don't think OSU was good in the RZ even last year with Quizz. So, the struggles are due to a combination of factors. Once the OL is upgraded next year and Riley takes over play calling, I expect drastic improvement.
• Riley's demeanor: He looked animated. Didn't it look forced, though? Makes you wonder if he reads the criticism.
• Banker's adjustments: Again, why all the sudden did the DBs look for the ball? Why all the sudden did we see stunts, swim moves, and LB blitzs? I don't get it. Do these guys need to hear criticism before they decide to coach/game plan?

The players who stood out to me were Fernando, Crichton, Unga, and Wynn. I loved Fernando's speed and swim moves. He looked bat-shit crazy (in a good way). I had Fernando penciled in as a 2-star. I'm going to go ahead and bite the bullet on that one. The guy looks very good as a pass rush specialist. Another guy who stood out was Obum Gwachum.

Players who stood out for the wrong reasons: Hekker, Romaine, Doctor (bad tackler), Enger, and Remmers. I'm giving Enger a pass since he is new. Doctor needs to step up his game.

Overall I left that game feeling encouraged. I know that is bad to say after a loss, especially since I preach high expectations. I'm not sure how to resolve that conflict. All I know is that I do have high expectations, and that the ASU game excited me more than bothered me. I guess you could say I see the potential down the line, and the shock of the dreadful start has worn off and allowed patience to shine through.

I’m sticking with my 38-27 prediction, even with Ward and Robinson starting. I should probably add 3 for Robinson and subtract 10 for Ward (i.e. 41-17), but eh…I feel like they’re both symbolic starts who will be replaced by the second series.

Plus, it’s October, Riley wakes from his slumber. If it were September 30th I’d predict the blowout. Beavs are a weird team, too, in that when you completely expect them to fail and the “fire Riley!” chants to ensue they come up with a win to stave off that negative momentum.

All of this makes me want to get crazy and predict a win, but then I realize the Sun Devils are just flat out better, so I’ll take the safe route and call for a closer than expected loss.

When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose. –Bob Dylan

An argument for Oregon State sound something like this:

• They can only go up from here.
• They've beaten ASU three times in a row.
• They'll be playing loose with nothing to lose.
• Beavs play best when nothing is expected of them.
• They're hungry for a win.
• Beavs get healthier this week.

That's a lot of secondary, circumstantial reasons to like the Beavers. As much as I'd like to ignore them and instead rely on individual matchups (that clearly favor ASU), it is hard to do so entirely. There is an element of truth that a loose team with everything to gain is dangerous. It's not abnormal for a young team to (subconsciously) destroy all expectations before pleasantly surprising.

I also think that given all the criticism around the program, it might be best for them to get out of Corvallis and deal with unfamiliar boos rather than familiar negativity and criticism. What I am saying, and this is counter-intuitive, is that I believe the Beavers are better off on the road this weekend. Their home town fans might be more of a drag on morale than opponents' fans.

For these reasons, I like the Beavers to keep this game fairly close. I can't in good faith predict a victory, but I think the game will be near even at the half. Some of that will be due to the Beavs playing well, and some will be due to the Sun Devils handing out yardage via personal fouls. Arizona State will use speed, break some big runs, and pull away around the midpoint in the third quarter, ultimately winning by 11. Beavs play well for the first half but can't sustain it. Fans feel disappointed in the loss, but apathy makes defeat easier to swallow. Coaches and players focus on the positives. Riley talks about growth and finding an identity in post-game interviews.

38-27, Sun Devils

Didn't the (85) scholarship limit begin in 1995? And didn't Oregon State's administration begin putting a concerted effort into a much neglected football program around that same time?

If all this is correct, it means Pettibone was reaping recruiting rewards, via the rule change, from 1995-1997. This is significant since it was right before Riley took over. In other words, with more dispersed recruits, Riley would have inherited better talent than past coaches. And those players would be juniors unless they red-shirted. So, they were filled out and ready to go. Riley won 3 games with them; Pettibone won 2 games the year prior. The next year, Riley won 5 games.

The Beavers didn't snap the 28 year losing streak until Erickson took over.

For some reason, Beaver fans want to credit Riley with Erickson's success. Most think Riley broke the streak. Most barely acknowledge Erickson went 31-17 and took the Beavers to their lone BCS game. And when they do, there is always the "yeah, but did it with Riley's recruits" quantifier (which isn't even true).

Also, by that logic, when Riley returned shouldn't he have been able to take the Beavers to a BCS game? I mean, if all that is needed is Riley's recruits then a BCS games should be an annual event.

Maybe I am wrong. I didn't follow Beaver football closely until 2003. Some of you guys go back to the 40's. Maybe you'll ream me out for this post, but digging through the record book, I see facts that point to Erickson being the better coach. The guy has two National Championships and 7 BCS games on his resume. Riley has 0 and 0. But, Oregon State fans believe Riley is the better coach. Erickson just road Riley's coattails. It's hard to imagine if the story were reverse and Erickson was the coach and Riley had left, that Beaver fans wouldn't be praising Erickson and dissing Riley. 

I'm not anti-Riley or pro-Riley. He is what he is. An average coach with a laid back attitude. He's not a perfectionist so he doesn't pay attention to detail. That's it. He'll never take OSU to a BCS game, or likely even an Alamo Bowl.

I don't think today is the day to fire Riley. He should be given until mid-season to assume play calling, and he should be given the off-season to fire coordinators. It's also important that big donors and fans alike see just how average he is, because they need to become better educated fans so we can avoid this problem with future coaches. For the old, dying guard, this is a learning experience in objectivity and reality. These problems began long ago. I think it's important to understand the recruiting/rule changes, NCAA dynamics, OSU admins, etc all played a role in transforming the program. It wasn't a Riley thing. I'm sick of hearing the uneducated/under-analyzed argument (recently made by Ted Miller) that OSU's renaissance was due to Riley. He was a small part. I'm convinced any average coach could have done the same. The fact that Erickson, a far superior coach, did better with Riley's recruits only strengthens that argument. It's why I don't fear taking a risk on a new coach.

Anyway, these two guys will be on display this weekend. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy watching Erickson's squad more than Riley's.