6 wins

[Flatlandcoug]

Brink had Harrison behind him, good receivers, and the last fully functional offensive line WSU would field until this season. With better defense that team should've won at least 8 games. It was all downhill from there.

The biggest issue that Brink had as a sophomore was the pick sixes. He had a fairly long windup on his throws and I think he threw at least three and probably more pick sixes that season that were the deal killers in at least a couple games. It's the reason that I'm somewhat annoyed with Falk throwing the interception against Stanford on the blown up screen play. Regardless of who's fault it was, that kind of mistake was a big factor in our loss to the Cardinal and you have to make sure you learn from the mistake and don't repeat it regularly (Falk and/or receiver). Brink cleaned that up a lot his junior and senior years.

Falk deserves a lot of credit for his accuracy and the caution that he has when it comes to not forcing the ball. He's done a lot better the last few weeks on dumping the ball off and avoiding sacks as well. Brink was a master of that at WSU and it's one of the reasons that he was the rare WSU QB that didn't miss games because of injury.

 

[BiggsCoug]

8 games? If you tell MP or DE they have a 1000 back and NFL talent at WR and TE, then ask them what bowl they're going to... They answer Rose Bowl. They don't care what the defense looks like.

 

[chinookpirate]

It is next man up. The WHOLE HISTORY OF THE SYSTEM is next man up.

Man you post stuff on here without doing ANY research. You just make stuff up. That's all you do is talk out of you a ss and then wonder why everybody jumps down your throat all the time.




So it is next man up...that's how this system works.

.

]
hey Rocket Surgeon... you might want to do a little research... EVERY football coach teaches "Next Man Up"

 

[Coug1990]

]
hey Rocket Surgeon... you might want to do a little research... EVERY football coach teaches "Next Man Up"

Says the person who thinks a QB that starts for three years is the same as a QB that stands on the sidelines.

 

[chinookpirate]

Is that what you think that I think?

You must not be a very good reader... or have the ability to ask questions when you get confused..

 

[Geoduck12]

Finishing drives when they are central to the outcome of the game is what sets him apart from other QB's. Opening drives, closing first half drives, opening second half drives, end of game drives. Falk has been outstanding in those circumstances.

 

[Cougatron]

]
hey Rocket Surgeon... you might want to do a little research... EVERY football coach teaches "Next Man Up"

Yeah but not every coach produces it as amazingly consistent.

 

[CougEd]

Yeah but not every coach produces it as amazingly consistent.

Let's not get carried away. Leach is a great coach, but next man up is a great slogan. But if we were looking at next man up we wouldn't be making three people switch along the line if the depth was truly there. If Dillard was truly ready, they wouldn't screw with the rest of the line. Fortunately they have six good lineman and hop the depth is created with the extra 20 practices, a blow out of CU, and in the spring.

 

[Coug95man2]

Let's not get carried away. Leach is a great coach, but next man up is a great slogan. But if we were looking at next man up we wouldn't be making three people switch along the line if the depth was truly there. If Dillard was truly ready, they wouldn't screw with the rest of the line. Fortunately they have six good lineman and hop the depth is created with the extra 20 practices, a blow out of CU, and in the spring.

I thought you guys were talking about the QB position? IMHO, just because we now have to bodies for OL, doesn't mean they are ready to play. QB and Oline are not an analogy and you seem to be making that. Like Biggs has mentioned ad naseum, Oline takes time to develop. And I agree. So just because CML (or more likely the Oline coach) isn't plugging someone from the 2's list into whatever position, has nothing to do with "plug in and play" for the QB.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Leach's system is about as close to "plug and play" from the QB position as you're going to get. That doesn't mean you or I could throw for 3K yards in it, but when was the last time (save for his '12 transition year at WSU) that Leach didn't have a productive QB? I'm not going to look it up, but, never?

And Ed's "laws" were a pretty darn accurate description of WSU football up until the point Leach was hired.

 

[chinookpirate]

Yeah but not every coach produces it as amazingly consistent.

We all sure do hope so. We're going to get a chance to find out.

 

[CougEd]

I thought you guys were talking about the QB position? IMHO, just because we now have to bodies for OL, doesn't mean they are ready to play. QB and Oline are not an analogy and you seem to be making that. Like Biggs has mentioned ad naseum, Oline takes time to develop. And I agree. So just because CML (or more likely the Oline coach) isn't plugging someone from the 2's list into whatever position, has nothing to do with "plug in and play" for the QB.

My bad, I thought we were talking about the next man up mantra. It is interesting that the oline has way more bodies but not beating the crap out of some teams didn't garner the experience they had hoped. You would hope we are getting to the point where 3/5's of the line doesn't have to be shuffled to accommodate one players injury. Right now we have lots of bodies, we need to get them experience.

 

[wulffui]

My bad, I thought we were talking about the next man up mantra. It is interesting that the oline has way more bodies but not beating the crap out of some teams didn't garner the experience they had hoped. You would hope we are getting to the point where 3/5's of the line doesn't have to be shuffled to accommodate one players injury. Right now we have lots of bodies, we need to get them experience.

Meh, if you've really gotten to the point where your complaint is "yeah, our OL just handled the most blitz heavy defense in the conference without our best lineman, but we had to shuffle a few guys around for our best line, which means our 9th or 10th best lineman at this point isn't as good as the sixth best, so that kinda sucks, right?"... well, that's "top team in the country" type of complaining.

We're 6-3, and playing for a good bowl game, not for "how good we'll be next year"... even though we will be. Let's play and win, and let guys get experience when it's time, like in the fourth quarter of the Colorado game, hopefully.

 

[Coug1990]

Leach's system is about as close to "plug and play" from the QB position as you're going to get. That doesn't mean you or I could throw for 3K yards in it, but when was the last time (save for his '12 transition year at WSU) that Leach didn't have a productive QB? I'm not going to look it up, but, never?

And Ed's "laws" were a pretty darn accurate description of WSU football up until the point Leach was hired.

Then, it was not much of a law. The cause and affect of his laws never did match. Most of us gave real reasons for the lack of underclassman QB's not making bowls, except it did happen once. It is like saying it is impossible to send a man to the moon. Then, on July 20, 1969 saying it was impossible, but that was yesterday. Things changed.

 

[Coug1990]

My bad, I thought we were talking about the next man up mantra. It is interesting that the oline has way more bodies but not beating the crap out of some teams didn't garner the experience they had hoped. You would hope we are getting to the point where 3/5's of the line doesn't have to be shuffled to accommodate one players injury. Right now we have lots of bodies, we need to get them experience.

Does it matter? As long as they can continue to win, then I don't see the issue that you seem to see.

 

[longtimecoug]

The conversation may have started out WSU-specific, but the question of whether a soph could succeed had evolved into a more general sense when I proffered up JW:


So if you want to stick to your more WSU-specific narrative, then why can freshman and Sophs succeed elsewhere, but only juniors or above can have success at WSU?

because the iron laws are in play here

 

[Cougatron]

My bad, I thought we were talking about the next man up mantra. It is interesting that the oline has way more bodies but not beating the crap out of some teams didn't garner the experience they had hoped. You would hope we are getting to the point where 3/5's of the line doesn't have to be shuffled to accommodate one players injury. Right now we have lots of bodies, we need to get them experience.

Our line is fine. Falk holds the ball a little too long. He still needs to get a little quicker on his reads, but for the number of drop backs we have and the sack ratio...

28 sacks...for 503 attempts (531 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks)

That means a sack is happening 5.2% of the time.

UCLA has the least sacks in the conference with 10 on 323 attempts (333 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks)

So basically UCLA who is the best in the conference has a sack happening 3% of the time.

That is such a small difference from the very best to us.

To illustrate how good they actually are...Stanford has 16 sacks on 201 attempts (217 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks) or 7.3% sack rate.

So I don't think ANYONE here will say Stanford has a poor offensive line...but in sacks per dropback...they are not as good as us. So they are really good. It's just combined with Falks slight hesitation at times they really aren't showing their full potential.

The line is shuffled to put the people with the best strengths in the correct position to give the best combination. This isn't the stupid. You are a guard you have to only play guard style coaching that Wulff has. This is everyone knows what to do at every position on the line. We move people who are playing each role the best to start. Someone goes down...okay reshuffle and move our next best combination.

 

[CougEd]

Our line is fine. Falk holds the ball a little too long. He still needs to get a little quicker on his reads, but for the number of drop backs we have and the sack ratio...

28 sacks...for 503 attempts (531 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks)

That means a sack is happening 5.2% of the time.

UCLA has the least sacks in the conference with 10 on 323 attempts (333 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks)

So basically UCLA who is the best in the conference has a sack happening 3% of the time.

That is such a small difference from the very best to us.

To illustrate how good they actually are...Stanford has 16 sacks on 201 attempts (217 for adjusted passing attempts + sacks) or 7.3% sack rate.

So I don't think ANYONE here will say Stanford has a poor offensive line...but in sacks per dropback...they are not as good as us. So they are really good. It's just combined with Falks slight hesitation at times they really aren't showing their fool potential.

The line is shuffled to put the people with the best strengths in the correct position to give the best combination. This isn't the stupid. You are a guard you have to only play guard style coaching that Wulff has. This is everyone knows what to do at every position on the line. We move people who are playing each role the best to start. Someone goes down...okay reshuffle and move our next best combination.

Jesus....I know are line is fine to date. Every coach who has coached at WSU has had to really shuffle the lineup because they really had six people they trusted. That is what is going on here. No different. If they had the depth (experienced) they would plug in Dillard or whoever else is there and keep the continuity. We will get there, just not there where it is the next man up just yet.

 

[Coug1990]

Jesus....I know are line is fine to date. Every coach who has coached at WSU has had to really shuffle the lineup because they really had six people they trusted. That is what is going on here. No different. If they had the depth (experienced) they would plug in Dillard or whoever else is there and keep the continuity. We will get there, just not there where it is the next man up just yet.

Isn't plugging in Seydel doing this? If there were another injury, I have no doubt that the Cougars would do just fine. You seem to think that just because Dillard didn't replace Dahl that somehow the depth is weak.

 

[dgibbons]

Leach's system is about as close to "plug and play" from the QB position as you're going to get. That doesn't mean you or I could throw for 3K yards in it, but when was the last time (save for his '12 transition year at WSU) that Leach didn't have a productive QB? I'm not going to look it up, but, never?

And Ed's "laws" were a pretty darn accurate description of WSU football up until the point Leach was hired.

That's the point. The failure to realize change is/was inevitable, and the stubbornness to insist that WSU can only win the way that he was comfortable with.

 

[dgibbons]

Isn't plugging in Seydel doing this? If there were another injury, I have no doubt that the Cougars would do just fine. You seem to think that just because Dillard didn't replace Dahl that somehow the depth is weak.

Yeah. Not quite getting why Seydel is not the "next man" who is now up. Maybe Ed can consult the 1980s and let us know.

 

[Cougatron]

Isn't plugging in Seydel doing this? If there were another injury, I have no doubt that the Cougars would do just fine. You seem to think that just because Dillard didn't replace Dahl that somehow the depth is weak.

Yeah plugging in Seydel is exactly doing this. The line isn't about set in stone positions. Everybody has different abilities. So what you do is manipulate the positions to accentuate strengths. Eklund plays tackle better so he's now in the tackle spot and Seydel jumps in at guard.

You don't play the player at his best position...you play the players to make your best line.

Dahl was put at Left tackle because he was the most consistent and the absolute best with his quickness... so when he goes down the next best lineman for that responsibility is Eklund so he moves out there and then the next best lineman Seydel moves into guard.

It's not. Well our Left tackle is there. We must put in our next left tackle on the depth chart. The positions for the lineman are arbitrary except for the center.

 

[Coug1990]

Yeah plugging in Seydel is exactly doing this. The line isn't about set in stone positions. Everybody has different abilities. So what you do is manipulate the positions to accentuate strengths. Eklund plays tackle better so he's now in the tackle spot and Seydel jumps in at guard.

You don't play the player at his best position...you play the players to make your best line.

Dahl was put at Left tackle because he was the most consistent and the absolute best with his quickness... so when he goes down the next best lineman for that responsibility is Eklund so he moves out there and then the next best lineman Seydel moves into guard.

It's not. Well our Left tackle is there. We must put in our next left tackle on the depth chart. The positions for the lineman are arbitrary except for the center.

ED seems to be worried about the future. Moving Middleton to left guard is a move for the future as well. He will likely start there next season.

Regarding Dillard, how many times in the past did we throw players into the starting lineup on the offensive line before they were physically ready? I have listened to many interviews and read many interviews. The staff really like Dillard and believe he is very talented. But, he only weighs 270 now. While he could probably do an adequate job now, why throw him in now when you already have players that can do a better good job today/now?

I just do not understand ED's logic behind his argument.

 

[YakiCoug]

ED seems to be worried about the future. Moving Middleton to left guard is a move for the future as well. He will likely start there next season.

Regarding Dillard, how many times in the past did we throw players into the starting lineup on the offensive line before they were physically ready? I have listened to many interviews and read many interviews. The staff really like Dillard and believe he is very talented. But, he only weighs 270 now. While he could probably do an adequate job now, why throw him in now when you already have players that can do a better good job today/now?

I just do not understand ED's logic behind his argument.

There is no logic.

 

[CougEd]

Isn't plugging in Seydel doing this? If there were another injury, I have no doubt that the Cougars would do just fine. You seem to think that just because Dillard didn't replace Dahl that somehow the depth is weak.

Ummm...I thought it was pretty clear. They are reshuffling t

ED seems to be worried about the future. Moving Middleton to left guard is a move for the future as well. He will likely start there next season.

Regarding Dillard, how many times in the past did we throw players into the starting lineup on the offensive line before they were physically ready? I have listened to many interviews and read many interviews. The staff really like Dillard and believe he is very talented. But, he only weighs 270 now. While he could probably do an adequate job now, why throw him in now when you already have players that can do a better good job today/now?

I just do not understand ED's logic behind his argument.

I didn't write one thing about the future, so I am not worried. I simply said as of right now they don't have the depth they would like to have. If they did they wouldn't shuffle players into new roles.

Maybe you missed the post about them winning the Pac 12 north next year, and playing UW in the Apple Cup in 2017 for the Pac 12 north, so I am not worried about the future.

 

[Coug1990]

Ummm...I thought it was pretty clear. They are reshuffling t

I didn't write one thing about the future, so I am not worried. I simply said as of right now they don't have the depth they would like to have. If they did they wouldn't shuffle players into new roles.

Maybe you missed the post about them winning the Pac 12 north next year, and playing UW in the Apple Cup in 2017 for the Pac 12 north, so I am not worried about the future.

I did miss the post about you saying the Cougars will win the P12 north. ED, depth does not always work that way. A two deep is not just two players at each position. Look at when Darrien Molton missed two games with injury. Charleston White and Marcellus Pippins were on the same side on the depth chart. When Molton went down, they moved one of them over. They just didn't move up Pat Porter.

 

[YakiCoug]

Ummm...I thought it was pretty clear. They are reshuffling t

I didn't write one thing about the future, so I am not worried. I simply said as of right now they don't have the depth they would like to have. If they did they wouldn't shuffle players into new roles.

Maybe you missed the post about them winning the Pac 12 north next year, and playing UW in the Apple Cup in 2017 for the Pac 12 north, so I am not worried about the future.

You also previously predicted no more than five wins this season and a .500 season in 2016. You don't know if you're coming or going these days.

 

[CougEd]

You also previously predicted no more than five wins this season and a .500 season in 2016. You don't know if you're coming or going these days.

Yeah, until the Boise State vs UW game and Stanford against Northwestern I realized we could easily beat those teams and I adjusted my prediction.

 

[YakiCoug]

]
hey Rocket Surgeon... you might want to do a little research... EVERY football coach teaches "Next Man Up"

You're stealing HWGC's "rocket surgeon" noun phrase. Then again, you're stealing from yourself.

 

[YakiCoug]

Yeah, until the Boise State vs UW game and Stanford against Northwestern I realized we could easily beat those teams and I adjusted my prediction.

Just as you adjusted your prediction back in 2009 that someone was about to mirror 1998-2002/3. What is it about being wrong that you so enjoy?

 

[kayak15]

Ed, I suspect that Leach's idea of depth on the O-line, somewhat like his offensive balance theory, is a bit different from that of the old-time coaching philosophy. He seems to view depth as arising from versatility not straight numerical assignment. If we look back at the position assignments from practice (Are we still getting those or has the S-R squabble eliminated them? Can't recall.) we see player A listed as first team starter at LG. Then replaced there by player B and A moved to RG. Then B moves to RT and C goes to RG and D plays some snaps at C etc. etc. etc. With the exception of Dahl and Madison at tackle it seems like everyone else is putting in some time at more than one position. I have seen no practices but reading those listed shuffles it sounds to me that after the first set of downs we start to scramble with the interior routinely in flux. Half a dozen or more O-line lineups employed. A process that intentionally develops depth via versatility. The O-line, especially the interior, is getting experience in practice at shifting to "plan B" in case of injury or illness. You are right about the game day experience though. Would have been nice to kick a team or two in the gonads early and given these reassembled O-lines some actual "live fire" experience.

Like you and others, I am not worried about the future of our O-line. We have adequate, if not great, depth at this point, just not the customary 'first string/ second string' scenario where the first string RG goes down and the second string one automatically moves up. I rather like this instruction of various positions. It allows us to roll with the punches dealt out by adverse conditions in a flexible manner.

Now, let's add a few more wide bodies to this year's recruitment and continue on.

 

[Fab5Coug]

My bad, I thought we were talking about the next man up mantra. It is interesting that the oline has way more bodies but not beating the crap out of some teams didn't garner the experience they had hoped. You would hope we are getting to the point where 3/5's of the line doesn't have to be shuffled to accommodate one players injury. Right now we have lots of bodies, we need to get them experience.

Perhaps a bit of unique situation in that our LG has a fair amount of experience playing LT. Without that, perhaps a straight substitution (Dillard for Dahl) is more likely.

 

[CougEd]

Perhaps a bit of unique situation in that our LG has a fair amount of experience playing LT. Without that, perhaps a straight substitution (Dillard for Dahl) is more likely.

True, but there was a reason McGuire switched dahl and Dillard for the bowl game against CSU. Having three moving parts on the most complicated unit can eventually lead to being less productive because before everyone knew their job inside and out, and it is a comfort zone as much as anything else. But so far they have done well.

 

[dgibbons]

Perhaps a bit of unique situation in that our LG has a fair amount of experience playing LT. Without that, perhaps a straight substitution (Dillard for Dahl) is more likely.

I assume that Dahl's injury happened early in the week. So the staff had plenty of time to move guys around. Had it been during the game, the backup LT may have been the one inserted into the lineup.

 

[dgibbons]

True, but there was a reason McGuire switched dahl and Dillard for the bowl game against CSU. Having three moving parts on the most complicated unit can eventually lead to being less productive because before everyone knew their job inside and out, and it is a comfort zone as much as anything else. But so far they have done well.

Dillard wasn't on the team then.

How about you let the lineup changes caused by an injury actually play out before raising "concern"?

 

[Coug1990]

Ed, I suspect that Leach's idea of depth on the O-line, somewhat like his offensive balance theory, is a bit different from that of the old-time coaching philosophy.

It hasn't been this way in a long time. That was before the scholarship limit and the 120 or so D1 schools. Teams used to be able to load up on players, so the major schools were 3 deep at every position.

 

[Coug1990]

I assume that Dahl's injury happened early in the week. So the staff had plenty of time to move guys around. Had it been during the game, the backup LT may have been the one inserted into the lineup.

Not 100% sure, but I believe Dahl's injury occurred late in the Stanford game. He was able to finish the game, but was out the rest of week and on.

 

[Coug1990]

True, but there was a reason McGuire switched dahl and Dillard for the bowl game against CSU. Having three moving parts on the most complicated unit can eventually lead to being less productive because before everyone knew their job inside and out, and it is a comfort zone as much as anything else. But so far they have done well.

As Dgibs said, Dillard was not on the team two years ago. You meant Dahl and Eklund.

That is true about the three moving parts. Still, McGuire and Leach (a former OL coach himself) did not seem to be worried about that. They know their team and capabilities better than anyone.

 

[CougEd]

Dillard wasn't on the team then.

How about you let the lineup changes caused by an injury actually play out before raising "concern"?

He is on the team now. The reason he moved Dahl to LT in that game was because Ecklund struggled out there.

 

[dgibbons]

He is on the team now. The reason he moved Dahl to LT in that game was because Ecklund struggled out there.

Good job letting things actually play out before raising "concern."

And I don't think Ecklund "struggled." If he had really struggled, he's be on the bench. Dahl developed into the best linemen, so he moved to LT.