If Mason clocked a 4.4 today during pro-day
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
So having an avg to below avg offense, and avg defense and avg special teams is the formula for success?
Wasn't pickin a fight, Sponge. Just sayin', in a specific situation, it isn't CML making that call, it's the QB. And with our Oline, I'd have agreed with every qb we've had in the past 3-4 years that running just isn't an option.
But like you and others on here have said, hope we run more this season. By no means will we be running "a lot", nor a medium amount, IMHO. This is the "Air-Raid" so anyone hoping we run "a lot more" is going to be disappointed. But we have the physical ability to do so now so we'll see. I don't even know what we averaged last year anyone? or even better, what was the average runs per game CML's first year, second year, etc. etc. Bet it's progressed.
But like you and others on here have said, hope we run more this season. By no means will we be running "a lot", nor a medium amount, IMHO. This is the "Air-Raid" so anyone hoping we run "a lot more" is going to be disappointed. But we have the physical ability to do so now so we'll see. I don't even know what we averaged last year anyone? or even better, what was the average runs per game CML's first year, second year, etc. etc. Bet it's progressed.
I would assume that even you understand that when five offensive linemen can't block three d-linemen, running the ball consistently is going to be a problem. It has been well documented that the previous regime left behind a train wreck, particularly the o-line, Good programs sign more than 7 high school offensive linemen in four years. Everyone wishes the rebuilding process would go faster, but virtually every Cougar fan with a brain can see Leach is making strides rebuilding the o-line. You should listen to Biggs, who said long ago it would take years to correct the mistakes of the past. It was a miracle Leach was able to get this team to a bowl in only its second year. Those who screeched for more time for Wulff are nearly in a frenzy of impatience now.
Again, we've ran the ball fine when we attempted to do so.
Nobody is asking for 3 yds and a cloud of dust here.
And in what yr is this not Wulff's fault?
Was it Wulffs fault we had such a crappy special teams last yr?
We are entering yr 4 after a distaterous yr 3...and we hired someone who has zero exp at d coord.
I wouldn't say we are exactly trending upward
Nobody is asking for 3 yds and a cloud of dust here.
And in what yr is this not Wulff's fault?
Was it Wulffs fault we had such a crappy special teams last yr?
We are entering yr 4 after a distaterous yr 3...and we hired someone who has zero exp at d coord.
I wouldn't say we are exactly trending upward
Re: This offense is much better than average.
When you are in the second half of the conference in scoring, you are not above average.
This post was edited on 3/15 8:59 PM by spongebob11
When you are in the second half of the conference in scoring, you are not above average.
This post was edited on 3/15 8:59 PM by spongebob11
Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking.
I said in an earlier post that everyone knows our defense and special teams need improvement. Duh!
But our offense needs to improve and consistently be in the top half of the conference if we want to be consistent winners.
And again, nobody with the possisble exception of your imaginary friend said anything about running the ball every down.
I said in an earlier post that everyone knows our defense and special teams need improvement. Duh!
But our offense needs to improve and consistently be in the top half of the conference if we want to be consistent winners.
And again, nobody with the possisble exception of your imaginary friend said anything about running the ball every down.
Re: second in the conference in total offense
You don't get points for yds gained. Only points scored.
Hope that helps.
You don't get points for yds gained. Only points scored.
Hope that helps.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Well, that is the conference we play in.
.so yes I am comparing it to our peers.
When you were in college and they graded you on a cueve, they did so against your peers...not what somebody on the east coast did.
But if you want to do that, I just checked and we were 58 in points scored.
But let's say for arguments sake that we are 48th in scoring...and 7th in total offense.
That's a lot of yds between the 20's we're racking up. Sounds a lot like Rosie's offense.
Well, that is the conference we play in.
.so yes I am comparing it to our peers.
When you were in college and they graded you on a cueve, they did so against your peers...not what somebody on the east coast did.
But if you want to do that, I just checked and we were 58 in points scored.
But let's say for arguments sake that we are 48th in scoring...and 7th in total offense.
That's a lot of yds between the 20's we're racking up. Sounds a lot like Rosie's offense.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Fair enough...which is why I used your figure of 48.
What's more important is how we measure up against our conference.
Fair enough...which is why I used your figure of 48.
What's more important is how we measure up against our conference.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
I dunno, Mason must run way better without pads, because in plenty of games, I was watching DE's and LB's chasing him down behind the line- hello, Stanford.
4.4 don't matter if pads make it 4.8.
I dunno, Mason must run way better without pads, because in plenty of games, I was watching DE's and LB's chasing him down behind the line- hello, Stanford.
4.4 don't matter if pads make it 4.8.
My comment about Mason wasn't intended to start a conspiracy theory about him and Leach, but rather to ask how a kid who runs a 4.4 40 doesn't see the field more?
I watched our special teams, as did all of you....Where was Mason on the punt / kick coverage teams? Why didn't he return kickoffs occasionally? I get the point about him having limited cutting ability and not able to break tackles, but how many guys with his speed did we have on our roster? Perhaps this is another reason why we axed our special teams coach mid-season?
I watched our special teams, as did all of you....Where was Mason on the punt / kick coverage teams? Why didn't he return kickoffs occasionally? I get the point about him having limited cutting ability and not able to break tackles, but how many guys with his speed did we have on our roster? Perhaps this is another reason why we axed our special teams coach mid-season?
Leach has frustrated me with some of his game management decision, and yes, I do point the finger at him regarding our horrific special teams play last year. He's the head coach. That level of special teams ineptitude cannot escape my finger pointing.
With that said, I also think that Leach has proven himself to be an elite offensive coach. As Yaki pointed out, we averaged 32/33 ppg without any semblance of a kicking game. With even just an adequate placekicker and special teams coverage units last season, we would have averaged closer to 38 ppg. That's not a Kool-Aid laced "woulda', coulda', shoulda' hypothesis, it's legitimate.
When we hired Leach, I thought he was the perfect coach for our program, and I still feel that way. As his tenure plateau's, I think we'll have a program that consistently scored 35 ppg. We'll have the occasional year where we field a good defense and challenge for a top-tier spot in the league, we'll have the occasional year where things don't come together (like 2014) and we stumble to 3-4 wins, and our average years will be 6-7 wins with an upset over a top team in our conference.
As a WSU lifer, that's the ceiling for our program as I see it. Leach's offense maximizes our potential. We can't recruit with the power schools for linemen and a stable of 4-5 star athletes, but we can recruit good QB's, good WR's, and have a pesky program that drives people crazy. We might be gimmicky, but if you're Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, USC, etc. and you have to travel to Pullman to face us, you better not lay an egg offensively because we'll be able to score points. We got Oregon at a bad time for them last year, and we almost ruined their season. Same with Utah.
What cannot happen anymore, and it's apparent that Leach got the memo, is that we have abysmal special teams play. A great kicker and coverage teams, coupled with Leach's ability to move the ball on anyone, will be a deadly weapon and a great equalizer for us.
And I think had the coaches thought they still had the 2013 Marcus Mason, he would have played.
Mason got hurt and I don't think the coaches cared for how he came back from that injury.
2013 Mason may have been better than 2014 Morrow & Wicks, but that doesn't mean 2014 Mason was better than 2014 Morrow & Wicks.
Sponge...the better question to ask is how many point should
a team that passes for over 500 yards per game put up on a weekly basis. Not a skewed number like 59 against Cal which completely overstates the numbers. Second question, what should be an expected number that if you have a decent defense you should win the game.
We scored 13 against Reno, 31 against Oregon, 28 against Utah, 17 against Stanford, 17 against USC, and 13 against Washington. That means in five games we don't get to 30, and seven games we don't get to 35.
From what you are saying the yards don't matchup to the points.
a team that passes for over 500 yards per game put up on a weekly basis. Not a skewed number like 59 against Cal which completely overstates the numbers. Second question, what should be an expected number that if you have a decent defense you should win the game.
We scored 13 against Reno, 31 against Oregon, 28 against Utah, 17 against Stanford, 17 against USC, and 13 against Washington. That means in five games we don't get to 30, and seven games we don't get to 35.
From what you are saying the yards don't matchup to the points.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Well if you are into fantasy football and you like stats, then maybe.
Until then, being 7th out of 12 teams in the conference is average.
Well if you are into fantasy football and you like stats, then maybe.
Until then, being 7th out of 12 teams in the conference is average.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Well, you still don't understand the meaning of the term average. But you're making progress. In this thread alone you've gone from "avg to below avg" to calling the offense average, based solely on the conference scoring offense rankings.
Sponge it is too bad we don't get wins being above average
in moving the ball between the 20's. Walden would have been undefeated as he could put up yards on anyone. Then Doba would still be our coach as Brink set some passing records. And we saw what 500 plus yards a game meant. Its like saying I have a beautiful Maserati but it does not have an engine or tranny.
in moving the ball between the 20's. Walden would have been undefeated as he could put up yards on anyone. Then Doba would still be our coach as Brink set some passing records. And we saw what 500 plus yards a game meant. Its like saying I have a beautiful Maserati but it does not have an engine or tranny.
Re: Sponge...the better question to ask is how many point should
What do you "expect" then? You ask lots of questions but never put your neck out on the very questions you ask
I expect improvement. Specific numbers mean very little to me as long as they are better than the previous year. Hence my unhappiness for last years W column. You? You seem to have, or be digging for, very specific numbers?
What do you "expect" then? You ask lots of questions but never put your neck out on the very questions you ask
I expect improvement. Specific numbers mean very little to me as long as they are better than the previous year. Hence my unhappiness for last years W column. You? You seem to have, or be digging for, very specific numbers?
Re: Sponge...the better question to ask is how many point should
Year Result Opponent
2000 W 58-0 Oklahoma State
2001 W 63-19 at Baylor
W 49-30 at Oklahoma State
2002 L 48-51 #16 NC State
W 49-0 at New Mexico
W 48-47 at #23 Texas A&M
W 52-38 Missouri
W 62-11 Baylor
W 49-24 Oklahoma State
W 42-38 #4 Texas
W 55-15 Clemson (Tangerine Bowl)
2003 W 58-10 SMU
W 49-45 Ole Miss
W 59-28 Texas A&M
W 62-14 at Baylor
L 40-43 at #7 Texas
2004 W 70-35 TCU
W 70-10 Nebraska
W 45-31 #4 Cal (Holiday Bowl)
2005 W 59-20 Kansas State
W 56-17 Texas A&M
I'll stop here, because you get the point. Leach's offense isn't going to light up elite teams, game in, game out. As you pointed out, we're going to often times score only 17-20 against the top teams in our league. Good defense usually beats good offense. With that said, it's also fair to expect our offense to put up crooked numbers a few times each year. Good teams will bottle us up. Average to poor teams will struggle to stop us and become completely worn out trying to cover our WR's and consistently rush the passer.
So what's the barometer for success at WSU? For me, it's winning half your league games, having an exciting offense that captivates our hard to motivate fan base, and competing for a higher end bowl game every few years. I think Leach will deliver that to us.
We "should have" beaten Rutgers and Cal last year. Had we done that, the season would have played out in the manner most of us expected it to. Next season, I expect us to win at least 2 non-conference games vs. Portland State, at Rutgers, and Wyoming. I think we'll also challenge for 3-4 wins in league play. Until the roster stabilizes a bit more, I think that's where we're at.
IMO, it's a slippery slope when you start adjusting the stats to serve your argument. While there's no question that the 59 points against Cal skewed the numbers, that isn't an anomaly in the Mike Leach offense.
Year Result Opponent
2000 W 58-0 Oklahoma State
2001 W 63-19 at Baylor
W 49-30 at Oklahoma State
2002 L 48-51 #16 NC State
W 49-0 at New Mexico
W 48-47 at #23 Texas A&M
W 52-38 Missouri
W 62-11 Baylor
W 49-24 Oklahoma State
W 42-38 #4 Texas
W 55-15 Clemson (Tangerine Bowl)
2003 W 58-10 SMU
W 49-45 Ole Miss
W 59-28 Texas A&M
W 62-14 at Baylor
L 40-43 at #7 Texas
2004 W 70-35 TCU
W 70-10 Nebraska
W 45-31 #4 Cal (Holiday Bowl)
2005 W 59-20 Kansas State
W 56-17 Texas A&M
I'll stop here, because you get the point. Leach's offense isn't going to light up elite teams, game in, game out. As you pointed out, we're going to often times score only 17-20 against the top teams in our league. Good defense usually beats good offense. With that said, it's also fair to expect our offense to put up crooked numbers a few times each year. Good teams will bottle us up. Average to poor teams will struggle to stop us and become completely worn out trying to cover our WR's and consistently rush the passer.
So what's the barometer for success at WSU? For me, it's winning half your league games, having an exciting offense that captivates our hard to motivate fan base, and competing for a higher end bowl game every few years. I think Leach will deliver that to us.
We "should have" beaten Rutgers and Cal last year. Had we done that, the season would have played out in the manner most of us expected it to. Next season, I expect us to win at least 2 non-conference games vs. Portland State, at Rutgers, and Wyoming. I think we'll also challenge for 3-4 wins in league play. Until the roster stabilizes a bit more, I think that's where we're at.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Again, scoring is all that matters.
You can spin all you want like you usually do. Since you obviously don't understand the term average, I'll try another term and say its mediocre.
Again, scoring is all that matters.
You can spin all you want like you usually do. Since you obviously don't understand the term average, I'll try another term and say its mediocre.
I would "expect" them to take a step back
whether it is Falk or Bender. They may get the same crazy yards, but I expect "real Scoring", not numbers inflated by a Cal game for example, but looking at game by game scoring and seeing if it really matches up with 500 yards of offense.
I expect more turnovers next year. I am expecting a very up and down year from our young QB's. I would expect we score fewer points against USC (if we play them), Utah, Arizona, ASU, Stanford and Cal than we scored in 2014. I think we will score more than 13 points against UW this year, and I would suspect we will beat them this year.
I think when you talk about average scoring, and say we are 7th in conference and we score 59 in one game it skews the numbers.
How effective was our offense. We moved the ball a lot. But moving the ball a lot means zip. Scoring points on offense is what you should look at , and you look at it not cumulative, but game by game. UW for example gave up 27 to Arizona, 44 to UCLA, 23 to CU, 24 to ASU, 45 to Oregon, 20 to Stanford, 59 to Eastern and 19 to Illinois. I would expect we score 24 points with the number 5 offense in the country.
I put my neck out all the time.
I have said many times I except four maybe five wins at the top in 2015. I think the 2016 is the season we get back to a bowl game.
whether it is Falk or Bender. They may get the same crazy yards, but I expect "real Scoring", not numbers inflated by a Cal game for example, but looking at game by game scoring and seeing if it really matches up with 500 yards of offense.
I expect more turnovers next year. I am expecting a very up and down year from our young QB's. I would expect we score fewer points against USC (if we play them), Utah, Arizona, ASU, Stanford and Cal than we scored in 2014. I think we will score more than 13 points against UW this year, and I would suspect we will beat them this year.
I think when you talk about average scoring, and say we are 7th in conference and we score 59 in one game it skews the numbers.
How effective was our offense. We moved the ball a lot. But moving the ball a lot means zip. Scoring points on offense is what you should look at , and you look at it not cumulative, but game by game. UW for example gave up 27 to Arizona, 44 to UCLA, 23 to CU, 24 to ASU, 45 to Oregon, 20 to Stanford, 59 to Eastern and 19 to Illinois. I would expect we score 24 points with the number 5 offense in the country.
I put my neck out all the time.
I have said many times I except four maybe five wins at the top in 2015. I think the 2016 is the season we get back to a bowl game.
Patrol...but what the numbers point to is we don't score
enough game to game to match the yards put forth. You can talk about Leach in 2000, and again in 2005, but this is ten years later. New job, new conference. All one has to look at the won/loss record and realize Leach is in unchartered territory. He has won every where he has gone, expect her. Point to me in another place where he was sub .500
If pointing out the number of points scored against our opponents and the 6 times we scored under 31, or the 4 times under 20, and stating that doesn't square with 500 yards a game is adjusting numbers to serve an argument, guilty as charged I guess. Cause I don't think our scoring out put matches our yardage output.
Combine that with a relatively inexperienced QB, and tons of questions of defense, we are still a year away.
enough game to game to match the yards put forth. You can talk about Leach in 2000, and again in 2005, but this is ten years later. New job, new conference. All one has to look at the won/loss record and realize Leach is in unchartered territory. He has won every where he has gone, expect her. Point to me in another place where he was sub .500
If pointing out the number of points scored against our opponents and the 6 times we scored under 31, or the 4 times under 20, and stating that doesn't square with 500 yards a game is adjusting numbers to serve an argument, guilty as charged I guess. Cause I don't think our scoring out put matches our yardage output.
Combine that with a relatively inexperienced QB, and tons of questions of defense, we are still a year away.
Re: Actually you seem to be saying that only conference rankings for points
Apparently you don't understand the meaning..or anything about football in general.
So tell me how 7th in scoring out of 12 teams is above average...or not mediocre.
Apparently you don't understand the meaning..or anything about football in general.
So tell me how 7th in scoring out of 12 teams is above average...or not mediocre.
Re: Sponge it is too bad we don't get wins being above average
Does the offense need to improve? Sure. Everything has to improve coming off a three win season. But the stupidity with which you and your brother attempt to converse on the issue, is, well, stupid. The 2002 team averaged 33.1 ppg.
Same could be said about Price, and probably every other coach at WSU in the past 40 years. Again, 32 ppg is not "average" or "mediocre", it's better than average. As far as the system goes, the system continued to produce with the backup QB who was a redshirt freshmen (which might raise some eyebrows amongst the Keeper of the Laws of Historical Probability and Statistical Certainty, aka Iron Laws, and his devotees, but I digress).
Does the offense need to improve? Sure. Everything has to improve coming off a three win season. But the stupidity with which you and your brother attempt to converse on the issue, is, well, stupid. The 2002 team averaged 33.1 ppg.
Re: Patrol...but what the numbers point to is we don't score
So you and Biggs agree!!! Pop the champagne!
So you and Biggs agree!!! Pop the champagne!
Re: Patrol...but what the numbers point to is we don't score
Either way, I agree that 2016 will be Leach's best team. We'll have at least 2 knowledgeable QB's in the system, along with what appears to be continually evolving line play on both sides.
I can't and won't try to point you to a place where Leach was sub .500. I'll simply counter that by saying that today's WSU is the toughest gig in collegiate football. Tougher than what Price and Walden dealt with. Every program has made football their top priority, something that wasn't the case back in the day. Wulff was never going to get there, and I always had a soft spot for him. Leach will probably never achieve what he did at Texas Tech, but I do believe that he'll turn us into a solid program.
I'm not as wrapped up in points scored vs. points allowed stats. I'm trying to look at the program objectively with regard to where I think Leach can take us vs. what we'd stand to gain if we make another change. I think Leach's philosophy will eventually enable us to win 6-7 games most years. The bottom tier teams in our conference won't match up with us any better than we'll match up with them.
Win the OOC games, win half of the league games most years. That's what I'm hoping for, and I think Leach will deliver. We have a quirky offense, but it appeals to kids and if we can hit a mid-level bowl game in 2016, that will continue to intrigue recruits who want to catch a bunch of passes and run up and down the field. For me, that's the BEST thing WSU football can offer recruits. We're sure as Hell not going to win the recruiting battles for the few, coveted, pro-style linemen, TE's, and RB's.
I don't doubt that we're a year away either. As I said, I expect us to win 2 non-league games, and challenge to win 3-4 league games. Winning all 3 OOC games would be a real boost heading into conference play.
Either way, I agree that 2016 will be Leach's best team. We'll have at least 2 knowledgeable QB's in the system, along with what appears to be continually evolving line play on both sides.
I can't and won't try to point you to a place where Leach was sub .500. I'll simply counter that by saying that today's WSU is the toughest gig in collegiate football. Tougher than what Price and Walden dealt with. Every program has made football their top priority, something that wasn't the case back in the day. Wulff was never going to get there, and I always had a soft spot for him. Leach will probably never achieve what he did at Texas Tech, but I do believe that he'll turn us into a solid program.
I'm not as wrapped up in points scored vs. points allowed stats. I'm trying to look at the program objectively with regard to where I think Leach can take us vs. what we'd stand to gain if we make another change. I think Leach's philosophy will eventually enable us to win 6-7 games most years. The bottom tier teams in our conference won't match up with us any better than we'll match up with them.
Win the OOC games, win half of the league games most years. That's what I'm hoping for, and I think Leach will deliver. We have a quirky offense, but it appeals to kids and if we can hit a mid-level bowl game in 2016, that will continue to intrigue recruits who want to catch a bunch of passes and run up and down the field. For me, that's the BEST thing WSU football can offer recruits. We're sure as Hell not going to win the recruiting battles for the few, coveted, pro-style linemen, TE's, and RB's.
Re: Well if that is the case I want to change the opinion in which
He says the rebuild is going to take longer than anyone expects He isn't so naive as to give out numbers for next year, he's just saying it will take several more years to get WSU out of this hole (I want to say 2017 or 2018 is when he says we'll be out but I'm not sure he needs to clarify to be sure). I tend to agree but I'm certain the ride from here to there will be fun to watch.
He says the rebuild is going to take longer than anyone expects He isn't so naive as to give out numbers for next year, he's just saying it will take several more years to get WSU out of this hole (I want to say 2017 or 2018 is when he says we'll be out but I'm not sure he needs to clarify to be sure). I tend to agree but I'm certain the ride from here to there will be fun to watch.
Re: Sponge it is too bad we don't get wins being above average
Apples to oranges. The conference and the game is completely different now.
Conference scoring is up...and we run more plays than we did back then.
For someone who likes to call other people stupid, you should probably look in the mirror.
Apples to oranges. The conference and the game is completely different now.
Conference scoring is up...and we run more plays than we did back then.
For someone who likes to call other people stupid, you should probably look in the mirror.
Patrol...WSU has always been the toughest gig in colelge football
and actually with Utah and CU it might have gotten slightly easier. Not significantly, but easier.
Do I get wrapped up in scoring offense. Yes, when that is supposedly your strength and the defense is so gawd awful. But I said the same about Walden, and the same about a Brink led offense. The numbers lie. Great offenses between the 20's, but like the old saying in gold, drive for show, putt for dough.
I will say leach does make it tougher on himself in recruiting than say Price. Price wanted TE bodies. If he missed out on them he would move to OT, or DE. It gave him flexibility. If Leach misses on an olineman, say Denzell Dotson or Villarubia, they have no where else to go. They can't play TE, they can't play DE.
We will see in the next two years how good of evaluator in the Pac 12 he is. He will have his kids in the program. He won't have to fight kids to see his vision. He can get them in the weight room and film room, and they better have the same work ethic.
And actually, outside of USC, UCLA and maybe Stanford, who really is looking for the pro TE and the pro rb, or even the pro qb? If Marriota isn't hugely successful, teams will start recruiting against Oregon (and they may not even need that type of QB), and say the spread option does not get a kid ready to play at the next level,. Nor does it at RB. The recruiting pitch may be...go to Oregon if you like the uniform change, but if you want a pro career at WR, RB, TE, or QB, come to "my' school.
and actually with Utah and CU it might have gotten slightly easier. Not significantly, but easier.
Do I get wrapped up in scoring offense. Yes, when that is supposedly your strength and the defense is so gawd awful. But I said the same about Walden, and the same about a Brink led offense. The numbers lie. Great offenses between the 20's, but like the old saying in gold, drive for show, putt for dough.
I will say leach does make it tougher on himself in recruiting than say Price. Price wanted TE bodies. If he missed out on them he would move to OT, or DE. It gave him flexibility. If Leach misses on an olineman, say Denzell Dotson or Villarubia, they have no where else to go. They can't play TE, they can't play DE.
We will see in the next two years how good of evaluator in the Pac 12 he is. He will have his kids in the program. He won't have to fight kids to see his vision. He can get them in the weight room and film room, and they better have the same work ethic.
And actually, outside of USC, UCLA and maybe Stanford, who really is looking for the pro TE and the pro rb, or even the pro qb? If Marriota isn't hugely successful, teams will start recruiting against Oregon (and they may not even need that type of QB), and say the spread option does not get a kid ready to play at the next level,. Nor does it at RB. The recruiting pitch may be...go to Oregon if you like the uniform change, but if you want a pro career at WR, RB, TE, or QB, come to "my' school.
