Even though our defense got gashed a lot, it was encouraging to see our defenders continually run the Oregon skill players down from behind. Our team speed is better than its been in over 10 years.
Another thing that was encouraging
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
I was thinking the same thing. In years past we would have having given up at least 3 long play TDs, gotten demoralized and gotten blown out. We even ran down Griffin, twice. In modern college football it is essential that you make spread offenses score from the red zone, where they tend to have the most problems. The days of making Jake Locker look like a fast Deon Sanders are over, thank god.
Funny you should mention Jake Locker looking like Deon...
If you look in this clip you'll see a very slow #10 in the secondary...you know who that was... A true freshmen from fairfield named Deone Bucannon... but that will show you just how even Deone had so so much conditioning to do when he walked in the door. Arguable the best player from the Wulff era and as a true freshmen he was smoked by Locker.
Now in his defense Locker ran a 4.52 at the combine...but when Deone ran it 3 years later...it was 4.49. That's with two years of conditioning from the Leach era, and from how ripped Deone was his senior year it was clear he took full advantage of training.
That's how far the best player from that era had to change and go...
I'm not going to miss those days one bit...
As i have said elsewhere on the board,the defense is improving week by week. if they keep improving the cougs have a shot to win 8 games. They can realistically beat any of the remaining teams on the schedule. A few less sacks and an improving defense bodes well. However, the cougs need to give an all out effort,if not they will lose some games they are capable of winning.
Going into the game, Oregon was averaging a little over 300 yards rushing per game. So, it is not out of the ordinary what they did to a defense. What is kind of funny is that while giving up over 500 yards, the defense did not play all that bad. Don't get me wrong, they were not world beaters, but they have improved as the season has gone along and I think they will continue to do so.
Our defense is getting better with experience, and they're a lot faster but we gave up over 400 yards rushing against a team without a D-1 QB.
I'm not trying throw water on the post I started, but we still have a lot of work to do. Arizona, Stanford, UCLA and ASU will be tough for us to stop.
I'm not trying throw water on the post I started, but we still have a lot of work to do. Arizona, Stanford, UCLA and ASU will be tough for us to stop.
True, but it is not as if this were against a team with a horrible rushing offense. They are the 6th best rushing team in college football. In four of their games, Oregon has rushed for over 300 yards and in two (including WSU) they have rushed for over 400.
Still, you're right, they need to improve. But, I think they have been. Don't you?
I've always figured that Deone was pretty blown by the time that play occurred. If you've ever tried to sprint while exhausted, you can picture the result.
I do think they've improved. They needed game experience this year, and that's what's happening. With that said, Oregon ran for 400+ yards when everyone in the stadium knew they weren't going to pass.
What Kougkurt said. Besides, if it makes you feel better, Oregon only went over 400 yards because the game went into OT
You don't need to make Jake out to be faster than he actually was. All trained up, he ran 4.59 at the combine. 4.6 is pretty ordinary for skilled player. The holocaust deniers, at the time, were claiming he was a 4.3 guy. Sad!
As for Bucannon, your 40 time drops considerably when you hire a speed coach. We all knew the guy could hit. The question on him was always speed, or lack thereof. Any agent who knows what he is doing would have steered him to a speed coach, like Anthony Prior, before the combine. I seriously doubt that it had anything to do with Leach. Let's not forget, we were getting gashed with regularity as recently as last year. And Horton, was slow even when coached by Leach.
Grinch = speed > size; Breske = speed < size
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out that, after last year, many of our "stat idiots" on this board pointed out how close we were to winning so many games. I think the general concept was, "We don't have to shut anyone out, we just have to make one more stop on 3rd down. We just have to stop ONE touchdown and we'll be good!" Well... Guess what. We got some great penetration out there. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we pressured/sacked well. Just enough to win. Isn't that what we ALL were saying we needed to do last year? Now that we did it against a PAC12 North Powerhouse, some are making excuses for them? I don't care is someone wants to say the north is having a down year. I don't care if someone wants to make excuses for our foes. That's their problem. Because this win is going to be perfect ammunition for the recruiting trail, something we can ALWAYS have more of. Why go to Oregon when you can come to WSU!!!!!
I'd also like to point out that, after last year, many of our "stat idiots" on this board pointed out how close we were to winning so many games. I think the general concept was, "We don't have to shut anyone out, we just have to make one more stop on 3rd down. We just have to stop ONE touchdown and we'll be good!" Well... Guess what. We got some great penetration out there. I don't have the stats in front of me, but we pressured/sacked well. Just enough to win. Isn't that what we ALL were saying we needed to do last year? Now that we did it against a PAC12 North Powerhouse, some are making excuses for them? I don't care is someone wants to say the north is having a down year. I don't care if someone wants to make excuses for our foes. That's their problem. Because this win is going to be perfect ammunition for the recruiting trail, something we can ALWAYS have more of. Why go to Oregon when you can come to WSU!!!!!
Oregon was 5 of 16 on third down. That is outstanding.
