Scrimmage thoughts

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Either Williams gained a step or our D lost a step.

There was nothing "Speed D" about what they were doing out there; they looked slow and/ or were taking horrible angles to the ball. I'm hoping that it was just our all-conference RB making them look bad.

 

[random soul]

Either Williams gained a step or out D lost a step.

There was nothing "Speed D" about what they were doing out there; they looked slow and/ or were taking horrible angles to the ball. I'm hoping that it was just our all-conference RB making them look bad.

The defense is what I'm concerned about. We're a bit small and lack depth up front, and while we have athletes in the back 7 a lot of them aren't super experienced, so even if they aren't slow they'll often look it from bad reads/false steps/hesitation/lining up in the wrong place etc.

 

[YakiCoug]

Either Williams gained a step or out D lost a step.

There was nothing "Speed D" about what they were doing out there; they looked slow and/ or were taking horrible angles to the ball. I'm hoping that it was just our all-conference RB making them look bad.

Wasn't it the 1s v. the 2s? Maybe our first-unit offense is just that good. Having said that, the halftime score v. Montana State will be WSU 3 MSU 10...

 

[ElComanche]

I say more like 24-7 in favor of the cougs

 

[Coug90]

Wasn't it the 1s v. the 2s? Maybe our first-unit offense is just that good. Having said that, the halftime score v. Montana State will be WSU 3 MSU 10...

You want to make a wager on that? I'm assuming you meant to put a number after the 3...?

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

Interesting how people see things. I'll go with the beat writer.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Interesting how people see things. I'll go with the beat writer.

View embedded media

Or you could watch the highlight reel featured on this site, which is from what I made my statement.

That being said, if someone who was actually there says the D is solid I'm happy to be wrong. Just not sure why Rivals/ WSU or whoever made the reel would only show the O getting theirs and not some defensive highlights.

 

[CougPatrol]

I've never had a handle on preseason analysis regarding the Cougs. My hope and pessimism cancel each other out and I'm left with nothing more than a guess.

The only basis for my prediction is what I've seen under Leach since he's been here. We typically struggle in September and play to the level of our competition. Lesser opponents like Portland State, Rutgers, Wyoming, Eastern WA, Boise St., UNLV, Colorado (2012), Nevada have all competed well against us. Same has been true in the bowl games. Long layoffs seem to affect us, which makes sense given the complexity of our passing offense. Most other top-25 programs would simply run downhill and wear out lesser teams. When our offense is off, even Big Sky teams can hang with us. We have a lot of weapons, and a slick system, but guys like Marks, Cracraft, Robert Lewis, and John Thompson don't physically intimidate or command bracket coverage.

So until proven otherwise, I'll bet based on what I've seen. We'll lose a game we shouldn't, win a game impressively against a good team, look bad in a couple games, and finish the year around 8-4. No complaints here if that happens.

 

[YakiCoug]

The defense is what I'm concerned about. We're a bit small and lack depth up front, and while we have athletes in the back 7 a lot of them aren't super experienced, so even if they aren't slow they'll often look it from bad reads/false steps/hesitation/lining up in the wrong place etc.

Beyond Ekuale at 305, we have only Broom at 281 and Mattox at 286. The coaches knew Tapa was an academic risk (that's why they had him sit), yet they failed to bring in transfers. I've watched some interviews (Grinch, others) in which they state the depth is better this year, but that's only because they're playing with the 3-4 lineup, which has Ekuale, McBroom, and Mattox at NG ("See, we have THREE noseguards!"). If I were an opposing offensive coordinator with a big, physical O-line, I'm going to pound WSU's d-line. If there's a rash of injuries, this season could be lost.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Can anyone who watched the scrimmage provide their observations of Neville and Bledsoe?

Glad Cougar

 

[longtimecoug]

Beyond Ekuale at 305, we have only Broom at 281 and Mattox at 286. The coaches knew Tapa was an academic risk (that's why they had him sit), yet they failed to bring in transfers. I've watched some interviews (Grinch, others) in which they state the depth is better this year, but that's only because they're playing with the 3-4 lineup, which has Ekuale, McBroom, and Mattox at NG ("See, we have THREE noseguards!"). If I were an opposing offensive coordinator with a big, physical O-line, I'm going to pound WSU's d-line. If there's a rash of injuries, this season could be lost.

did they really go after any transfers? I don't know, but if we can't get enough d line out of high school we are going to have to start getting a transfer every year

 

[BiggsCoug]

I've never had a handle on preseason analysis regarding the Cougs. My hope and pessimism cancel each other out and I'm left with nothing more than a guess.

The only basis for my prediction is what I've seen under Leach since he's been here. We typically struggle in September and play to the level of our competition. Lesser opponents like Portland State, Rutgers, Wyoming, Eastern WA, Boise St., UNLV, Colorado (2012), Nevada have all competed well against us. Same has been true in the bowl games. Long layoffs seem to affect us, which makes sense given the complexity of our passing offense. Most other top-25 programs would simply run downhill and wear out lesser teams. When our offense is off, even Big Sky teams can hang with us. We have a lot of weapons, and a slick system, but guys like Marks, Cracraft, Robert Lewis, and John Thompson don't physically intimidate or command bracket coverage.

So until proven otherwise, I'll bet based on what I've seen. We'll lose a game we shouldn't, win a game impressively against a good team, look bad in a couple games, and finish the year around 8-4. No complaints here if that happens.

If WSU went 8-4 10 years in a row that would be the golden era of WSU football and the best it's ever been. Some fans would call for Leach's firing though.

 

[BiggsCoug]

did they really go after any transfers? I don't know, but if we can't get enough d line out of high school we are going to have to start getting a transfer every year

I think you'll see two trends in DL recruiting. More numbers and no more 6'3" and shorter. Only 6'4" and taller.

 

[YakiCoug]

If WSU went 8-4 10 years in a row that would be the golden era of WSU football and the best it's ever been. Some fans would call for Leach's firing though.

One of your buds, the "My Office Slapper," is probably still grumbling that "Leach isn't going to get it done."

 

[YakiCoug]

I think you'll see two trends in DL recruiting. More numbers and no more 6'3" and shorter. Only 6'4" and taller.

Dallas Hobbs is 6-6, and Willie Rodgers is 6-5. They're going to have to gain weight quickly, though.

 

[CougPatrol]

If WSU went 8-4 10 years in a row that would be the golden era of WSU football and the best it's ever been. Some fans would call for Leach's firing though.

LOL, some fans....As in, <1%. If this season goes according to plan and we qualify for a bowl game, even as a 7-5 team, Leach will be the undisputed 2nd best coach in WSU's modern history. I still give the nod to Price by virtue of (2) championships, but Leach runs a more consistent program.

There's no more analysis needed. He's completely transformed our program from "I'm not sure we'll ever recover from the Wulff abyss," to "I wonder if we'll ever get over the hump and win the P12 championship."

 

[Fab5Coug]

The defense is what I'm concerned about. We're a bit small and lack depth up front, and while we have athletes in the back 7 a lot of them aren't super experienced, so even if they aren't slow they'll often look it from bad reads/false steps/hesitation/lining up in the wrong place etc.

The back 7 has tons of experience.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

LOL, some fans....As in, <1%. If this season goes according to plan and we qualify for a bowl game, even as a 7-5 team, Leach will be the undisputed 2nd best coach in WSU's modern history. I still give the nod to Price by virtue of (2) championships, but Leach runs a more consistent program.

There's no more analysis needed. He's completely transformed our program from "I'm not sure we'll ever recover from the Wulff abyss," to "I wonder if we'll ever get over the hump and win the P12 championship."

Unfortunately, Biggs is right. 10 years of the same thing and a decent percentage of fans would be unhappy. I agree that until WSU wins a conference championship (or two), Price gets to carry the flag as the best WSU football coach. To be truthful, I'm thrilled.....right now.....with the prospect of consistently being 8-4, but I know that if WSU hasn't finished a regular season with a record better than that by 2020, I'll be starting to feel antsy.

Not calling for Leach's head antsy, but it will get to the point where people are going to start asking the question, "Why is Leach our head coach if he can't win a conference championship? Price did it twice in under 15 years!". At some point, you need to be honest about what your goals are, but you sure as hell better understand that there are consequences to change. The Sonics had to get rid of George Karl because he couldn't win an NBA title and Piniella was encouraged to hit the exit because Seattle couldn't beat the Yankees when it mattered. Human nature dictates that you crave improvement and that the status quo equals failure. Often you find that the status quo was pretty good.

Again, being honest with myself, I know that there will reach a point in time where I'll be unhappy with Leach if we haven't at least played in the conference championship game. I'm not worried about it because I believe that he'll get it done.

 

[YakiCoug]

Not calling for Leach's head antsy, but it will get to the point where people are going to start asking the question, "Why is Leach our head coach if he can't win a conference championship? Price did it twice in under 15 years!". At some point, you need to be honest about what your goals are, but you sure as hell better understand that there are consequences to change. The Sonics had to get rid of George Karl because he couldn't win an NBA title and Piniella was encouraged to hit the exit because Seattle couldn't beat the Yankees when it mattered. Human nature dictates that you crave improvement and that the status quo equals failure. Often you find that the status quo was pretty good.

Again, being honest with myself, I know that there will reach a point in time where I'll be unhappy with Leach if we haven't at least played in the conference championship game. I'm not worried about it because I believe that he'll get it done.

In 1997, Stanford and Oregon football were average. The UW was still reeling from being on probation. With Leaf, WSU seized the opportunity built upon the early season wins v. UCLA and USC. In 2002, the UW again was affected by probation, and Phil Knight hadn't written any big checks yet at Oregon. USC had a future NFL QB, but there were many holes in Pete Carroll's first squad, whose Achilles heel was the thunderstick..
The point is this: Leach is coaching in a much tougher conference right now. Oregon slipped last year, but there seems to be little doubt that Phil Knight U will rise again. The mutt program is on solid footing, as are Stanford and USC. Leach will be more consistent than Price, but conference titles will be hard to come by. He is on pace, however, to match Price's 3-11 record v. the UW.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

In 1997, Stanford and Oregon football were average. The UW was still reeling from being on probation. With Leaf, WSU seized the opportunity built upon the early season wins v. UCLA and USC. In 2002, the UW again was affected by probation, and Phil Knight hadn't written any big checks yet at Oregon. USC had a future NFL QB, but there were many holes in Pete Carroll's first squad, whose Achilles heel was the thunderstick..
The point is this: Leach is coaching in a much tougher conference right now. Oregon slipped last year, but there seems to be little doubt that Phil Knight U will rise again. The mutt program is on solid footing, as are Stanford and USC. Leach will be more consistent than Price, but conference titles will be hard to come by. He is on pace, however, to match Price's 3-11 record v. the UW.

Hey, there's no need for rational thought! I want a gosh darned championship!

 

[Coug95man2]

Leach will be more consistent than Price, but conference titles will be hard to come by. He is on pace, however, to match Price's 3-11 record v. the UW.

If this trend continues, this might be my emotional "trigger". No, no, no... like flat, not calling for his head or anything. But man... The Apple Cup means a hell of a lot to me. Would love to start making headway on that front...

 

[425cougfan]

Beyond Ekuale at 305, we have only Broom at 281 and Mattox at 286. The coaches knew Tapa was an academic risk (that's why they had him sit), yet they failed to bring in transfers. I've watched some interviews (Grinch, others) in which they state the depth is better this year, but that's only because they're playing with the 3-4 lineup, which has Ekuale, McBroom, and Mattox at NG ("See, we have THREE noseguards!"). If I were an opposing offensive coordinator with a big, physical O-line, I'm going to pound WSU's d-line. If there's a rash of injuries, this season could be lost.

This is what worries me. An injury or two and the whole season (and a few years of building to this point) could be screwed, when the "fix" -- getting a serviceable, if not great, big body as a transfer -- looks like a no-brainer from the outside. Wonder what the thinking was.

 

[425cougfan]

In 1997, Stanford and Oregon football were average. The UW was still reeling from being on probation. With Leaf, WSU seized the opportunity built upon the early season wins v. UCLA and USC. In 2002, the UW again was affected by probation, and Phil Knight hadn't written any big checks yet at Oregon. USC had a future NFL QB, but there were many holes in Pete Carroll's first squad, whose Achilles heel was the thunderstick..
The point is this: Leach is coaching in a much tougher conference right now. Oregon slipped last year, but there seems to be little doubt that Phil Knight U will rise again. The mutt program is on solid footing, as are Stanford and USC. Leach will be more consistent than Price, but conference titles will be hard to come by. He is on pace, however, to match Price's 3-11 record v. the UW.

Price also had that 1997-98 run in year 9, with 2 bad years before it and 3 bad years after it.

More generally, I agree with all YakiCoug wrote regarding the Pac-10 being easier to handle back then. I'd also add, just to preemptively counter anyone who would point out that Leach has good facilities and Price didn't, that I don't think it's that simple.

Leach no doubt has median facilities in most respects in the Pac-12. They're not the best in the conference, despite what Moos may say, and in particular, he has no dedicated (or appropriate) IPF. From informal looking around at other schools, I'd say they're pretty good and solidly Pac-12 level, but probably middle of the pack in the conference. They're quite good and better than what Price had for certain, but it's not like WSU now has amazing facilities which means that Leach should be able to pull in top-5 classes in the conference every year. All schools in the conference have good facilities.

All schools also have highly-paid (and, mostly, pretty good) coaching staffs in the Pac-12. Who's the worst coach in the conference ... Rich Rod or Wilcox (a little early for him, I'd think), maybe? Perhaps Graham, Helton or Mora (despite the latter being a douchebag, he was viewed as a pretty good coach a few years ago, at least)? If those guys are the bottom of the barrel, the overall standard is pretty high. Without looking, I think all those guys I listed as the candidates for the worst coach in the conference all have won 10 games in a season at their current Pac-12 schools other than Wilcox, who is taking over his first program.

I also think it's harder, all else equal, to recruit in the Pac-12 today. You have what seems to be more kids in the Pac-12's footprint willing to go out of conference, and it's harder to keep undiscovered or lightly recruited gems under wraps in today's world of recruiting, even if it might be somewhat easier to find them in the first place. It's a lot harder to keep the big fish from poaching your recruits in today's day and age, and more recruits *seem* to be focused on collecting offers and taking the biggest one. I know it's always been like that to an extent, but it seems worse now. I also think -- but have nothing to back this up, admittedly -- that kids focus more on academics today than they used to, so you might get, say, a kid with a 4.0 GPA in California who might be more apt to go to Duke or West Point (or Princeton, apparently, in the case of Brevin White) than WSU, perhaps unlike 20 years ago.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Price also had that 1997-98 run in year 9, with 2 bad years before it and 3 bad years after it.

More generally, I agree with all YakiCoug wrote regarding the Pac-10 being easier to handle back then. I'd also add, just to preemptively counter anyone who would point out that Leach has good facilities and Price didn't, that I don't think it's that simple.

Leach no doubt has median facilities in most respects in the Pac-12. They're not the best in the conference, despite what Moos may say, and in particular, he has no dedicated (or appropriate) IPF. From informal looking around at other schools, I'd say they're pretty good and solidly Pac-12 level, but probably middle of the pack in the conference. They're quite good and better than what Price had for certain, but it's not like WSU now has amazing facilities which means that Leach should be able to pull in top-5 classes in the conference every year. All schools in the conference have good facilities.

All schools also have highly-paid (and, mostly, pretty good) coaching staffs in the Pac-12. Who's the worst coach in the conference ... Rich Rod or Wilcox (a little early for him, I'd think), maybe? Perhaps Graham, Helton or Mora (despite the latter being a douchebag, he was viewed as a pretty good coach a few years ago, at least)? If those guys are the bottom of the barrel, the overall standard is pretty high. Without looking, I think all those guys I listed as the candidates for the worst coach in the conference all have won 10 games in a season at their current Pac-12 schools other than Wilcox, who is taking over his first program.

I also think it's harder, all else equal, to recruit in the Pac-12 today. You have what seems to be more kids in the Pac-12's footprint willing to go out of conference, and it's harder to keep undiscovered or lightly recruited gems under wraps in today's world of recruiting, even if it might be somewhat easier to find them in the first place. It's a lot harder to keep the big fish from poaching your recruits in today's day and age, and more recruits *seem* to be focused on collecting offers and taking the biggest one. I know it's always been like that to an extent, but it seems worse now. I also think -- but have nothing to back this up, admittedly -- that kids focus more on academics today than they used to, so you might get, say, a kid with a 4.0 GPA in California who might be more apt to go to Duke or West Point (or Princeton, apparently, in the case of Brevin White) than WSU, perhaps unlike 20 years ago.

Discussions like these point to how difficult it is to measure "success" for a school like WSU. On one hand, it's easy to blow off your comments and say that if Leach is any good, he should be able to compete at the top level with median level amenities....at least once every few years. On the other hand, having a great coach is no guarantee that you will get to the promised land with any type of regularity. Bill Snyder is already in the college football hall of fame and is widely regarded as one of the best coaches in college football history. KSU has two conference championships in his 25 years of coaching at KSU. Although they'll be in the discussion this year, nobody expects them to win the Big 12 this year. If a first ballot Hall of Famer can't get the job done that often, it's just proof of how tough it is. Of course, KSU is also proof that we have a "right" to expect some 10 win seasons along the way, even if we don't get conference championships. KSU has finished with 10+ wins in 9 out of 25 seasons with 14 seasons of 9+ wins. If not for a gack against Minnesota, Leach would be fairing ok in the 9+ win measurement.

The Pac-12 is a tough conference and the comments are all spot on. Even the bottom dwellers of the moment (Cal and OSU) are dangerous teams that can upset you if you aren't playing well. That said, we've missed conference championships in the past two seasons based on a couple bad moments more than some overpowering disadvantage. I believe that Leach is up to the task of keeping WSU in the 7 to 10 win range with regularity. Unless we start seeing a lot more 4 star and high 3 star recruits, expecting more than that is probably unfair. Of course, variety is what's important. Ironically, WSU fans would probably be more supportive of Leach if our cycle (not including bowl records) from 2015-22 was something like 8-4, 8-4, 10-2, 5-7, 9-3, 6-6, 8-4, 9-3 than they would be if we finished 8-4 every year even though the overall record would be one game worse after 8 years. Two mediocre seasons to remind of us of how good a better season feels is almost necessary for a happy fanbase. Our fanbase would need two bad seasons to fire up the pitch forks.

 

[CougPatrol]

8-4 will always be considered a fantastic season by me, and I'll never grow tired of it or expect a higher level from our coaching staff. Never.

8-4 means that we win the vast majority of our games and qualify for a decent bowl game. It means that my 5 hour drive to Pullman and the money I spend is usually, but not always, capped off with a victory. More importantly, a winning percentage of 67% is better than just about, if not EVERY other WSU program.

Fans can chirp about higher expectations all they want, but 8-4 is a great football season for WSU, and most Power 5 conference schools.

 

[GrayOnGray]

Cal and the Beavs both wanted to go to that "next step" when they got disgruntled with Tedford and Riley. (I know it's more complicated than that). But if we could be 8-4 every year, the only other things I'd ask for is that we win our bowl game more than we lose it, and/or at least be competitive EVERY time. That, and competitive in the Apple cup EVERY time. Winning say, at least a third in both categories.