Offensive numbers...

[wulffui]

Can't say I have an issue with anything you posted. I didn't bring up Wulff, however. Wulffui did, although not by name when we were discussing last yrs crapfest...so I simply responded.

I also think Leach was the perfect hire. I think many, including myself thought Lubbock equals Pullman.

What many, including myself didn't take into consideration is the fact that taking leftovers in Texas is still pretty damn good talent.

We'll see on the field, especually on D if he was able to recruit any speed. That is where I am not optimistic.

I just feel like there are things this defense couldn't possibly be any worse at- like DB's looking back for the ball, and by extension creating turnovers. There's gonna be some plays where a DB just gets burned, and it's bad, but it happens. Our offense even does it to other teams on occasion.

What was killing me were about a dozen plays where our coverage was in the receivers hip pocket, and no one recognized a ball in the air, and wouldn't look to make a play- those need to turn into interceptions this year, and at least some of them would almost have to. I'm not terribly worried about the speed on defense either- the year of physical maturation out of most of your "speed" guys should help an issue I would have put well down my list of defensive concerns from last year.

Same with our kicking game- even if the FG's are just as bad, and that would be hard to believe, there's no way the coverage unit will give up twice as many TD's on returns as the next worst team in the country.

And as the primary "we need to run more!" guy, I'd think you'd see the value in returning your core RB's and entire OL, as you switch out your pocket QB for a noticeably more mobile model- I definitely expect more running game, and for it to look better than in the past, because you have those pieces in place now.

 

[wulffui]

Mike Price won 6 games his 1st yr, dumbass...and had an offense that wasn't so easy to defend..so no, I never said that about Price(or Walden for that matter)

I said that Leach wouldn't get it done because BYU showed how easy this offense is to defend. Drop 8 in coverage and call it a day.

And if we continue to throw the ball 60 plus times a game, we won't win more than 5 games.

Also, you could see that Price had some athletes on the field. I don't see anyone in the back 7 except White so I think your prediction of 8 wins jives with your kool aid drinking.

White, Hameed, Porter and Pippins, freshmen all, looked like a big step up in class athletically from recent years, and I'm excited to see them mature and turn our secondary into a strength.

 

[spongebob11]

I just feel like there are things this defense couldn't possibly be any worse at- like DB's looking back for the ball, and by extension creating turnovers. There's gonna be some plays where a DB just gets burned, and it's bad, but it happens. Our offense even does it to other teams on occasion.

What was killing me were about a dozen plays where our coverage was in the receivers hip pocket, and no one recognized a ball in the air, and wouldn't look to make a play- those need to turn into interceptions this year, and at least some of them would almost have to. I'm not terribly worried about the speed on defense either- the year of physical maturation out of most of your "speed" guys should help an issue I would have put well down my list of defensive concerns from last year.

Same with our kicking game- even if the FG's are just as bad, and that would be hard to believe, there's no way the coverage unit will give up twice as many TD's on returns as the next worst team in the country.

And as the primary "we need to run more!" guy, I'd think you'd see the value in returning your core RB's and entire OL, as you switch out your pocket QB for a noticeably more mobile model- I definitely expect more running game, and for it to look better than in the past, because you have those pieces in place now.

I don't think we'll run the ball more because Leach is too stubborn. We've had success with it..enough to run the ball a little more to keep the D honest...and didn't happen.

Regarding the kids you mentioned in the secondary, i didnt watch any replays this yr aka game film so maybe I missed something.

My brother seems to like Hameed and has a pretty good eye for dB's so I'll take your guys word for it.

 

[wulffui]

I don't think we'll run the ball more because Leach is too stubborn. We've had success with it..enough to run the ball a little more to keep the D honest...and didn't happen.

Regarding the kids you mentioned in the secondary, i didnt watch any replays this yr aka game film so maybe I missed something.

My brother seems to like Hameed and has a pretty good eye for dB's so I'll take your guys word for it.

Given a choice between analyzing Leach's previous seasons play distribution and drawing data from that, when combined with this teams returning personnel at QB, RB, and OL carries more weight with me than your biased assertion that Leach is too stubborn to continue doing something that works, which you base solely on a level of success which exists only in your mind, and certainly isn't borne out by the stats.

Even when it's good, it hasn't been that good, and when you'd actually think, "hey, this would be a good place for a run", they've been abysmal. Doing more of something you're abysmal at is not a recipe for success. Getting better at it, and doing it better is, though, and really, if you're going to be honest, these are far and away the best tools they've had to do it in his four years here.

 

[Whitworth-Coug]

I don't think we'll run the ball more because Leach is too stubborn.

Going into Year 4 and you still have no idea what the "Run" Play in the Air Raid is all about.

 

[spongebob11]

Going into Year 4 and you still have no idea what the "Run" Play in the Air Raid is all about.

I know what it is in theory...but it is not a run play because you are not moving the safety or the linebackers and have no threat of the play action pass with a stupid bubble screen or swing pass that rarely works.

 

[spongebob11]

Given a choice between analyzing Leach's previous seasons play distribution and drawing data from that, when combined with this teams returning personnel at QB, RB, and OL carries more weight with me than your biased assertion that Leach is too stubborn to continue doing something that works, which you base solely on a level of success which exists only in your mind, and certainly isn't borne out by the stats.

Even when it's good, it hasn't been that good, and when you'd actually think, "hey, this would be a good place for a run", they've been abysmal. Doing more of something you're abysmal at is not a recipe for success. Getting better at it, and doing it better is, though, and really, if you're going to be honest, these are far and away the best tools they've had to do it in his four years here.

This is where the stat geek mentality so prevalent on this board fails.

Even if a rushing play only gets 1 yard, that is much better than a sack, and incompletion, and an interception. I'll refer you to the ASU game where they were teeing off on Falk in the second half as a case study.

There was something like 5 picks in the second half and I'm guessing at least 5 sacks. If we run the ball for no gain in 8 out of 10 of those plays, its a bit of a different game.

And finally, since you love stats so much, Mason in 2013 had 87 rushing attempts for 429 yds which is 4.93 yds per attempt...so yes, I was correct that we ran the ball just fine...yet for some reason, he only got 6.69 attempts per game rushing...and hardly touched the ball in the Apple Cup despite having monster games the 2 games prior.

 

[YakiCoug]

White, Hameed, Porter and Pippins, freshmen all, looked like a big step up in class athletically from recent years, and I'm excited to see them mature and turn our secondary into a strength.

A defense can always improve and get faster, and I believe WSU is heading in the right direction. Attrition has slowed the development (Alex Jackson, others), but another factor to consider is how offenses have changed in the conference. Arguably, it's tougher to defend Oregon, Arizona, and ASU now than it was in the 1990s. I recently rewatched last year's Oregon game, one that WSU easily could have won despite blown assignments on defense. Several times when Devon Allen and other WRs would be covered, Mariota would just take off. That scheme combined with that kind of talent presents great challenges to a defense. Alex Hoffman-Ellis, whose speed was undeniable, was burned a couple times in Pullman several years ago by a Duck offense somewhat inferior to last year's version. ASU's offense in 1994, one that was a harbinger of things to come a decade or so later, schooled the Palouse Posse in the first half. Oregon's transition in the early to mid-2000s also demonstrated that the old defensive schemes weren't going to work as well. Ropati Pitoitua, Aaron Johnson, Hussain Abdullah, Tyron Brackenridge, Eric Frampton and the rest of the Cougar defense were exhausted halfway through the third quarter in the 2004 Oregon game.
But a defense that can force turnovers can disrupt these new offenses at times. Look at what Arizona has done two consecutive years against the Ducks (the Pac-12 title game last year notwithstanding). The Cougar defense last year flopped miserably in forcing mistakes. Will this change? I guess we'll find out soon enough, although some here aren't willing to wait before they whine.

 

[wulffui]

This is where the stat geek mentality so prevalent on this board fails.

Even if a rushing play only gets 1 yard, that is much better than a sack, and incompletion, and an interception. I'll refer you to the ASU game where they were teeing off on Falk in the second half as a case study.

There was something like 5 picks in the second half and I'm guessing at least 5 sacks. If we run the ball for no gain in 8 out of 10 of those plays, its a bit of a different game.

And finally, since you love stats so much, Mason in 2013 had 87 rushing attempts for 429 yds which is 4.93 yds per attempt...so yes, I was correct that we ran the ball just fine...yet for some reason, he only got 6.69 attempts per game rushing...and hardly touched the ball in the Apple Cup despite having monster games the 2 games prior.

This is ridiculous. You're advocating to choose to fail, because success carries a risk of failure also.

It's as though Mason's numbers were maximized by his limited usage- he definitely was a "diminishing returns" guy, and I bet that monster game against Cal was at least a quarter of his season's output.

Yes, it's clearly only "stat geeks" who think that running a play with more probability of succeeding than one with less probability is a good idea, but I'm sure that you- confronted with a seventh grade concept like probability, you'll probably feel intellectually flustered, call this a "Dungeons and dragons" conversation, and go on about Leach being stubborn.

They can't get sacked, throw an interception, and throw an incompletion on the same play, but if they do all of those, they still aren't that much worse off than three one yard runs in sequence.

 

[spongebob11]

This is ridiculous. You're advocating to choose to fail, because success carries a risk of failure also.

It's as though Mason's numbers were maximized by his limited usage- he definitely was a "diminishing returns" guy, and I bet that monster game against Cal was at least a quarter of his season's output.

Yes, it's clearly only "stat geeks" who think that running a play with more probability of succeeding than one with less probability is a good idea, but I'm sure that you- confronted with a seventh grade concept like probability, you'll probably feel intellectually flustered, call this a "Dungeons and dragons" conversation, and go on about Leach being stubborn.

They can't get sacked, throw an interception, and throw an incompletion on the same play, but if they do all of those, they still aren't that much worse off than three one yard runs in sequence.

Sorry, but 4.93 yds per carry does not jive with your we can't run the ball mantra no matter how bad you want it to.

And yes, I think 10 1 yd runs is better than 5 sacks and 5 ints.

And nobody is choosing to fail. Once again, its about situational football, which you fail to grasp. We had a double digit lead at half against ASU, and they decided to T off on our QB the second half.

Another scenario...against Colorado State when we got the ball at our own end up by 15, we decided to go 3 straight pass plays. Burned no clock and had to punt. I told my brother right then that would cost us the game...and sure enough, we let CSU kick a fg to end the half.

And how the hell do you get Mason is a diminishing returns guy when he rushes the ball less than 7 times per game?!!

 

[wulffui]

Sorry, but 4.93 yds per carry does not jive with your we can't run the ball mantra no matter how bad you want it to.

And yes, I think 10 1 yd runs is better than 5 sacks and 5 ints.

That's one guy, stat master. How about the teams numbers? We both know they're worse, right?

I think it's foolish to create lowered expectations based on an imaginary worst case scenario, but have at it- at the end of the day, the main reason we lost our bowl game was because Leach opened up your page of the playbook, and the kids choked.

 

[spongebob11]

That's one guy, stat master. How about the teams numbers? We both know they're worse, right?

I think it's foolish to create lowered expectations based on an imaginary worst case scenario, but have at it- at the end of the day, the main reason we lost our bowl game was because Leach opened up your page of the playbook, and the kids choked.

Wrong. If we kill the clock at the end of the first half, game over.

And I've been saying get Mason the ball more since his Frosh yr...and he was our leading gainer from scrimmage...yet ran the ball less than 7 times per game. Not smart.

And BTW, I'm not the only one that has the opinion. Most who have covered our games say the same thing...we are too 1 dimensional on offense.

It should tell you something when none of his pupils run the offense the way he does. Look at Baylor. Basically run the ball, play action and throw deep, with some short stuff mixed in. Looks nothing like what Leach does to an astute eye.

 

[wulffui]

Wrong. If we kill the clock at the end of the first half, game over.

And I've been saying get Mason the ball more since his Frosh yr...and he was our leading gainer from scrimmage...yet ran the ball less than 7 times per game. Not smart.

And BTW, I'm not the only one that has the opinion. Most who have covered our games say the same thing...we are too 1 dimensional on offense.

It should tell you something when none of his pupils run the offense the way he does. Look at Baylor. Basically run the ball, play action and throw deep, with some short stuff mixed in. Looks nothing like what Leach does to an astute eye.

So killing the clock at the end, when the game is decided, that's the WRONG way- you should do it while the game is still in the balance, so you can forego a chance to score. You should put that in your "Football 101" book.

I'm also shocked that an offense with Tuel, Halliday, and a raft of walkons on the OL didn't resemble the best offense in the NCAA with their multiple Heisman candidate QB's and several first round OL didn't look the same "to an astute eye". I mean, when I get a hamburger, I can tell if the patty is beef or a horse apple, but I don't have to chalk it up to my "astute eye"- pretty much any moron could see it.

 

[spongebob11]

So killing the clock at the end, when the game is decided, that's the WRONG way- you should do it while the game is still in the balance, so you can forego a chance to score. You should put that in your "Football 101" book.

I'm also shocked that an offense with Tuel, Halliday, and a raft of walkons on the OL didn't resemble the best offense in the NCAA with their multiple Heisman candidate QB's and several first round OL didn't look the same "to an astute eye". I mean, when I get a hamburger, I can tell if the patty is beef or a horse apple, but I don't have to chalk it up to my "astute eye"- pretty much any moron could see it.

No idea what the hell you are babling about.

In the Colorado State example, you kill the clock and go to half with a lead in that situation when deep in your own half of the field. Football 101. We didn't and gave them 3 points. Cost us the game.

 

[wulffui]

No idea what the hell you are babling about.

In the Colorado State example, you kill the clock and go to half with a lead in that situation when deep in your own half of the field. Football 101. We didn't and gave them 3 points. Cost us the game.

I'm absolutely shocked that explaining something went over your head.

No, fumbling when you had the game in hand "cost us the game". You can try to fictionize that "they should have quit then... not quitting is what kept them from winning" (see also: CU '12- the "win by quitting" mentality must be genetic) so you can give more blame to Leach- but Laufasa is the one who choked, and if he hadn't, they win the game.

 

[wulffui]

Also, being out past the 30 is "deep in your own side of the field". Good to know.

Nope, they were only past the 20. Oops. But I'll own that mistake. You know they'd have just used their timeouts to force a punt, right?

Maybe timeout use is "Football 102".

 

[YakiCoug]

I'm absolutely shocked that explaining something went over your head.

No, fumbling when you had the game in hand "cost us the game". You can try to fictionize that "they should have quit then... not quitting is what kept them from winning" (see also: CU '12- the "win by quitting" mentality must be genetic) so you can give more blame to Leach- but Laufasa is the one who choked, and if he hadn't, they win the game.

"Was that sarcasm?" Sheldon Cooper asks. hahahahaha

 

[spongebob11]

I'm absolutely shocked that explaining something went over your head.

No, fumbling when you had the game in hand "cost us the game". You can try to fictionize that "they should have quit then... not quitting is what kept them from winning" (see also: CU '12- the "win by quitting" mentality must be genetic) so you can give more blame to Leach- but Laufasa is the one who choked, and if he hadn't, they win the game.

Its not quiting. Its smart football. Go into halftime with your lead, don't risk giving up an int or giving the ball back to the other team.

It cost us the game. If we don't give them 3 pts before half, our follies at the end of the game don't matter.

Not kicking the fg against CU wasn't quitting. Its called dumb football.

 

[wulffui]

Its not quiting. Its smart football. Go into halftime with your lead, don't risk giving up an int or giving the ball back to the other team.

It cost us the game. If we don't give them 3 pts before half, our follies at the end of the game don't matter.

Uh, yeah- they do. We lost by three on an FG at the horn, because they only needed a kick to win. Does "Football 101" tell you they wouldn't bother trying to win with a TD after Caldwell's fumble? Is it the awesome D we played in that game that makes you think they'd have gotten the stop?

 

[wulffui]

Its not quiting. Its smart football. Go into halftime with your lead, don't risk giving up an int or giving the ball back to the other team.

It cost us the game. If we don't give them 3 pts before half, our follies at the end of the game don't matter.

Not kicking the fg against CU wasn't quitting. Its called dumb football.

Too bad those play calls cost us our halftime lea-... wait, we were STILL up 12? So, that complaint has the faint whiff of BS?

 

[spongebob11]

Uh, yeah- they do. We lost by three on an FG at the horn, because they only needed a kick to win. Does "Football 101" tell you they wouldn't bother trying to win with a TD after Caldwell's fumble? Is it the awesome D we played in that game that makes you think they'd have gotten the stop?

OK..so that fg would have sent it to overtime instead of winning the game for CSU.

 

[spongebob11]

Too bad those play calls cost us our halftime lea-... wait, we were STILL up 12? So, that complaint has the faint whiff of BS?

You see, in real football, pts given up in the first half still count at the end of the game.

 

[YakiCoug]

Its not quiting. Its smart football. Go into halftime with your lead, don't risk giving up an int or giving the ball back to the other team.

It cost us the game. If we don't give them 3 pts before half, our follies at the end of the game don't matter.

Not kicking the fg against CU wasn't quitting. Its called dumb football.

Babling. Quiting.
Was the third time the charm for you in English 101? Always devaluing a WSU degree. Devaluing a WSU degree all ways.
And why are you still soiling your britches over a game played in 2013? Sounds like a case of PTSD.

 

[wulffui]

OK..so that fg would have sent it to overtime instead of winning the game for CSU.

And since they'd actually have incentive to score a TD, probably not.

 

[wulffui]

You see, in real football, pts given up in the first half still count at the end of the game.

So do points scored at the end of the first half... But I bet most kids WANT a "it's quittin' time!" kinda coach- the ones who were here when he got here sure did.

 

[spongebob11]

And since they'd actually have incentive to score a TD, probably not.

How many points did we lose by? 3

How many points did we give up at the end of the first half when we could have ran out the clock. 3. There you go.

 

[wulffui]

How many points did we lose by? 3

How many points did we give up at the end of the first half when we could have ran out the clock. 3. There you go.

How many points can you score in a possession? 7. Is 7-3 > 3? Yes, it is. There you go.

 

[spongebob11]

So do points scored at the end of the first half... But I bet most kids WANT a "it's quittin' time!" kinda coach- the ones who were here when he got here sure did.

You obviously learned the game of football via a video game. If you think giving the other team a chance to score before half when you have a double digit lead is smart football, I can't help you.

 

[wulffui]

You obviously learned the game of football via a video game. If you think giving the other team a chance to score before half when you have a double digit lead is smart football, I can't help you.

No, we should quit, like you suggest. Not like they could use timeouts. Wait- THEY TOTALLY COULD.

No wonder you defend Wulff- you guys were in Football 101 together!

Shame neither of you passed...

 

[spongebob11]

How many points can you score in a possession? 7. Is 7-3 > 3? Yes, it is. There you go.

Of course...but in real life, not in a video game, you don't always score 7.

Proof is in the pudding. We didn't score 7, we didn't run out the click, we gave them the ball back, they scored 3.

 

[spongebob11]

No, we should quit, like you suggest. Not like they could use timeouts. Wait- THEY TOTALLY COULD.

No wonder you defend Wulff- you guys were in Football 101 together!

Shame neither of you passed...

Exactly...and they wouldn't have had any timeouts which they used on that drive.
Apparently you've never heard of making the other team burn timeouts because that isn't a concept in video game football.

 

[wulffui]

Of course...but in real life, not in a video game, you don't always score 7.

Proof is in the pudding. We didn't score 7, we didn't run out the click, we gave them the ball back, they scored 3.

No. You especially don't score 7 when your main objective can be achieved by scoring 3, and trying to do otherwise creates greater risk.

But they pretty much scored 7 every time they wanted to in the second half. I'm sure they would have failed that one time, even though they'd done nothing but succeed.

 

[wulffui]

Exactly...and they wouldn't have had any timeouts which they used on that drive.
Apparently you've never heard of making the other team burn timeouts because that isn't a concept in video game football.

Preach that quitter ball, brah.

You make the other team burn time outs when the game is in hand. You don't quit trying in a competitive game because you're scared the other team might do something.

 

[spongebob11]

Preach that quitter ball, brah.

You make the other team burn time outs when the game is in hand. You don't quit trying in a competitive game because you're scared the other team might do something

Preach that quitter ball, brah.

You make the other team burn time outs when the game is in hand. You don't quit trying in a competitive game because you're scared the other team might do something.

Keep preaching idiot football "brah"

We did in that situation exactly what you don't not want to do...and that's give the other team an opportunity to score before half when you are up double digits.

Its not surprising to me that you also think going for it against CU instead of kicking the fg was wise.

 

[wulffui]

Keep preaching idiot football "brah"

We did in that situation exactly what you don't not want to do...and that's give the other team an opportunity to score before half when you are up double digits.

Its not surprising to me that you also think going for it against CU instead of kicking the fg was wise.

No, that 40 yarder was a gimme, and would have taken them from up three scores, to... uhh, still up three scores. Total game changer, there. Your football mind, where every single play we make happens in a bubble, and DEFINITELY couldn't have led to a change in opposition play calls...

Just call me if you feel like you want to bet on things, that's all I ask.

 

[wulffui]

Keep preaching idiot football "brah"

We did in that situation exactly what you don't not want to do...and that's give the other team an opportunity to score before half when you are up double digits.

Its not surprising to me that you also think going for it against CU instead of kicking the fg was wise.

We'd have still had to punt.

The punt was shitty.

We'd have still had to defend.

The defending was shitty.

And in that very game, given a chance to run out the clock, the players failed.

But your Leach hard-on has incredible tunnel vision.

 

[CougEd]

I'm absolutely shocked that explaining something went over your head.

No, fumbling when you had the game in hand "cost us the game". You can try to fictionize that "they should have quit then... not quitting is what kept them from winning" (see also: CU '12- the "win by quitting" mentality must be genetic) so you can give more blame to Leach- but Laufasa is the one who choked, and if he hadn't, they win the game.

I think the play those who object to it is you don't risk a handoff, you take a knee and if it doesn't totally burn off clock, which Rick N says it would have, you punt and leave them less than 10 seconds. But who was the player who fumbled and how many carries did he have during the game. i think that is what upset those who were upset. It would be similar to not using Lynch at the goal line, then throwing it to your special teams guy. In either case it happened, wish it didn't.

 

[wulffui]

I think the play those who object to it is you don't risk a handoff, you take a knee and if it doesn't totally burn off clock, which Rick N says it would have, you punt and leave them less than 10 seconds. But who was the player who fumbled and how many carries did he have during the game. i think that is what upset those who were upset. It would be similar to not using Lynch at the goal line, then throwing it to your special teams guy. In either case it happened, wish it didn't.

Honestly, this is a part of the reason I'm not devastated by the loss of Halliday- both this and the Cal ending had him go "headless chicken" with the clock management, in games he'd commanded until those few seconds- locking up during winning time is not a great QB trait.

Could you have gotten there with knees? Maybe. But given that Halliday already had totally botched one clock management down already, do you trust his kneels? Should a player not be able to simply take a handoff and fall down, even if he's never seen a football in his LIFE, let alone the game?