Home Blog Page 370

Some Football Notes

By
angry
-
16

1. Moving Frahm to the inside is a positive. Many of us thought he should have been a tackle from the start. This is another instance where the staff was proven wrong. Do I think Frahm will be a major player inside? No. But I do think he can play a bit part as a backup and maybe contribute five serviceable plays per game.

2. Wheaton has come on strong and secured the split end job barring injury. This is a good thing. His emergence takes the offense from serviceable/good to the next level, possibly even potent if Katz can orchestrate it.

3. The wide receivers, as a group, are the strongest part of this team. I’d like the Beavers to take advantage of that by incorporating more 3, 4, and even 5 WR sets. Why not go with an attack spread through the air and play to your strongest attribute? Langsdorf and Riley have changed with the times (e.g. incorporating the fly sweep, wildcat, etc), but they always seem reluctant and conservative in their implementation. It makes me think we won’t see many interesting WR sets, but we should, so long as Katz can run it without being overwhelmed. Knowing your roster and playing to strength is an excellent way to overcome deficiencies, while remaining stubborn and true to a (somewhat outdated) “pro offense” that chains some of your best athletes to the sidelines greatly benefits the opposition.

4. The offensive line, for the second year in a row, is the major concern. You should be worried about the names we’re hearing of late: McAndrews, Ellis, and Lamb are being mentioned as possible starters, and that portends bad fortune ahead.  Thank God it’s April. There is still enough time for the universe to align properly.

5. The starting defensive line is good, but depth is an issue. Devin Kell is garbage and currently fighting a fellow maladroit in Andrew Seumalo for the backup left defensive end position. John Braun is the backup right end. He has some ability and should be moved to left end should anything happen to Miller. We simply cannot have Devin Kell or Andrew Seumalo on the field at any point in their tenure at OSU. People will say that is harsh. Well, if it’s any consolation, I’d be equally harsh on myself if I were trying out for DE. I’d simply accept that some people are not meant to play the sport and go home–these two should do the same.

6. McCants–For the 3rd spring in a row we’ve heard the raves.  Ha ha. Come on, I am not falling for this again. While I do concur the man has shown glimpses, until he is performing at a high level/on a regular basis and in real games I am not going to take the bait. Under the bright lights, this guy crumbles like feta on a Greek salad. Still can’t help but chuckle when I think of the Steven Jackson comparisons…

7. Word is that Hekker is kicking the ball well. I sure hope so. The ire of this blog on many occasions, my wrists could use the rest and my liver could do without the gin and tonic.

8. Took eight bullets to get to the “QB Battle”–I think that says it all, right? Katz is the starter, so please beat writers, let this die.

9. On a positive note, I’ve come around a little bit on the Ungas. I thought they weren’t good enough to make a DI roster, but I concede the point; they’re good enough to be third string.

10. They don’t go into effect until 2011, but I’m already worried about the new rules regarding the wedge formation and taunting and how they are going to screw us in (a) games where we play powers like TCU, USC, etc, and (b) away OOC games (e.g. phantom PI call on Laybourn at Utah).

As always, feel free to discuss anything football related in the comment section.

Pa'aluhi's Machinations

By
angry
-
50

Ah the ever-scheming military mind of David Pa’aluhi. He is one class-act soldier in the making.

So let me get this straight:

1. He quits the OSU program for personal reasons (i.e. a supposed family situation, etc).

2. He then claimed he has always dreamed of a military career and will be enlisting.

3. Now, two months later, he plans to play linebacker for the 2011 Rainbows? (I’m sorry “Warriors” and “Rainbow Warriors”, but you will always be Rainbows to me).

Are these the “good guys” we recruit? Guys who scheme their way back home with lies? Why not just be upfront from the start? That’s what admirable people do.

The father is now doing damage control, saying he isn’t sure what David is going to do. This is Army and NFL code for “there are no red-flags or character issues here, fellows”, but it’s too late, pappa Bubba, because there are.

Then there is Keith Pankey. And I quote:

“He’s my friend until the day I die, but he does play (again) I wish he was playing for us,’’ said Pankey.

My question is this: is that attitude one of a great friend and a great guy, or the attitude of a laid-back guy saying the “right thing” to get air time? And Riley’s disappointment is palpable, but he’s saying what you’d expect to hear. Would Pete Carroll? Would Chip Kelly? Seems guys at the top demand more, and you’re either a best friend or worst enemy.

“It’s not a black and white world, Angry!”

Right, but it is if you make it one like winning programs do. You’re either their best friend or worst enemy. That’s how USC runs a program. What you are seeing before your very eyes, with the Beavers, is that the gradation from a black and white world bleeds into, pardon the pun, a middle of the Pac team.

File this one under Coach Riley and Keith Pankey’s lack of a killer instinct and scheming hoodlum under the guise of good guy/family man.

Blog Milestone: 100,000 Hits

By
angry
-
27

Anytime there’s a big milestone like this I’ll use it as a chance to thank you guys, and, like the Obama administration, keep my books transparent. Being proactive, honest, and transparent gives the detractors a lot less ammo to use against.

Thanks to all who follow the blog and mostly those who contribute their good thoughts and responses. Without the latter, this blog would be a man blathering to himself and thus a less interesting place to gather. I’m sure some will argue that is what it is anyway.

This blog started as an experiment to see if there existed a need for an alternative viewpoint in the media, or if all the forums from which I was ostracized were right in that my viewpoint was that of a lone wolf. I think the number of hits and the intelligent and mostly respectful discussion here suggest that the fan base desires more criticism from the mainstream media. It also suggests a latent rage that exists in every beavlet, whether directed at the team’s performance or [shots at] the messenger.

My critics will scoff at the notion, but within the past year I’ve noticed more objectivity and criticism from Beaverblitz, my biggest rival (how’s that for a play on words). They hired a new guy, Travis Rice, who is trying to dissect the practices and tell you when a guy is performing poorly, but a fan still has to read between the lines to get to it. For example, instead of, “this lineman is so bad he couldn’t block his ex-girlfriend on Facebook” (sorry Wilder McAndrews), you’ll get “McAndrews needs to improve if he wants to ward off the youngsters”)…things like that.

So yeah, since we’re being transparent, it’s quite clear that Mamma Machado had a talk with her writers and asked them to be more critical and objective. Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Or something. Thanks, Angie (I mean Keith Pankey’s mom). *Cough*

Some numbers:

Total views: 100,000

Busiest day: 1,570

Posts: 138

Comments: 3,117 (dispersed among ~100 unique commenters).

Subscriptions: 31

Average views per day 2009: 262

Average views per day 2010: 348

And as wordpress notes, “we don’t count your own visits to your blog.” I read that they don’t count any user who is logged in, either. Sorry, detractors.

So in short, it’s been a good first nine months. The numbers show a steady growth in the blog’s fan base and following. The upcoming football season presents, on paper, much opportunity for criticism, from the starting QB job to the scheduling and beyond, so I don’t see anything but good times ahead. I’m going to continue doing this as long as I feel the passion; my only request of readers is to spread the word so that in the future we have even more lively and interesting debate.

Cheers,

Angry

Stanford @ OSU

By
angry
-
21

Apologies, but this is going to be a lazy post, mainly created to have an on-point discussion area for the weekend series with Stanford. I’ve been too busy this week to crunch numbers or come up with a slant for this series.

My gut feeling is that since Stanford isn’t an elite team, the Beavers will take two of three to even out last weekend’s loss.

As I write this, “KRhod” gives up a two run jack to give Stanford a 5 run 7th. I’m still sticking with my prediction though, because I feel like winning versus inferior opponents is the Beaver’s Modus operandi.

Historical Analysis: Oregon State–A Football, Basketball, or Baseball School?

By
angry
-
47

If you hang around sports fans enough, you'll eventually hear sentences such as so-and- so "is a great football school" or so-and so "has great basketball tradition" when describing a particular university. Rarely do you hear the phrase "baseball school" uttered, but I suppose it happens if you're at a Rice alumni dinner. See what I did there? Rice…dinner. Aah, but I digress. When thinking about Oregon State, I think first and foremost it's a football school, but that notion is derived mostly from the fact that, for me, football is the most interesting sport to watch, has the most prestige (i.e. "bragging rights") amongst fellow college sport fans, and therefore it gets the most relevance and notoriety nationally. In other words, it's a football school because I want it to be, and the football team is relevant right now. Additionally, I've only begun following OSU athletics within the past ten years. Which leads me to my next point: if I asked an old-timer, he or she would probably tell me OSU is a basketball school. Basketball is the second most prestigious university sport, and OSU has an impressive resume, including two final fours, but these were in 1949 and 1963, prompting my old-timer comment above. The least prestigious men's sport is baseball. However, OSU has a long-standing tradition of success on the diamond transcending many decades. For example, in 1962 OSU was ranked 15th in the nation; 1963 saw them 10th; 1985 (29th); 1986 (23rd); and of course the recent string of 2005 (7th); 2006 (1st); 2007 (1st); and 2009 (24th). Even before polls were instilled, the Beavers won 13 conference titles dating as far back as 1908. So what type of school is OSU? Here are some numbers that might shed light on the question. The following numbers are as of the last completed season for each respective sport:

  • Baseball| National Titles (2); Conference Titles (22); College World Series Appearances (4); Tournament Appearances (10); Ranked Teams (8); All-time wins (1990, which is 39th all-time); Winning Percentage (.600, which is 50th all-time).

*A point to note when examining any sport is that winning percentage is a better measure of success than total wins, as many programs have more wins due to longevity. A perfect example of this is Fordham, who has the most DI victories, but they have fielded a team for 149 years, where as the Beavers have laced them up for a century.

  • Basketball| National Titles (0); Conference Titles (20); NCAA Tournament Appearances (16), Final Fours (2); Elite Eight (6) Ranked Teams (13), All-time Wins (1,594 which is 15th all-time), Winning Percentage (.575).  The basketball team under Slats Gill, was by all accounts, the glory years of OSU athletics. The 1940's saw some great Beaver teams, and they would have more in the "ranked" column above if not for the fact that the NCAA didn't begin college basketball polls until 1949.
  • Football| National Titles (0); Conference Titles (5); Rose Bowls (3); Ranked Teams (11); BCS games (1 offical, 4 if you count the 3 Rose Bowls); Heisman Trophy Winners (1); Wins (494, which ranks 70th all-time); Winning Percentage (.483, which ranks 95th). As many know, the football program holds one of the more humiliating records in college athletics, having a losing record for 28 seasons. Rice had 28 "non-winning" seasons, which included two .500 campaigns, thus allowing OSU to hold this humiliating record to themselves.

My initial thought after crunching the numbers is that OSU is first and foremost a baseball school. After all, the teams +60% winning rate is highest of the three major men's sports and they earned the school's only national titles. What better way to gauge success? But then I had to consider the dominance of the basketball team under Slats Gill and Ralph Miller. Gill has the most wins in school history, and Miller has the highest winning percentage. And then there is football. For me, the 70s and 80s ruined what was once (and could have been) a glorious and prestigious record book. The Beavers futility coincided with the advent of sports television, which ingrained the loser perception into the national media until this day. As much as we fans love football, and it's the sport that garners the most posts, attention, and response on this blog, I have a really hard time saying OSU is a "football school" after looking through the record book. My ranking would be:

  1. Basketball
  2. Baseball
  3. Football

Agree or disagree? I'd like to hear the perspective of some old-timers who lived through the glory years of all these respective sports. I'm sure they can shed some light on it.

1...369370371...393Page 370 of 393