Why the ASU game bothered me....I think it may go to a philosophy

[CougEd]

that I may not agree with, and that simply may be my problem. Against ASU I believe 35 points came as a result of turnovers. I know our head coach is an offensive guy through and through, but I believe virtually every coach I have seen or know would say "you just can't turn the ball over 5 times on the road". Instead, the press conference was about our reaction to the turnovers.
Turnovers by nature are momentum changers. That is why they call it "fickle ole mo".

How about not putting the defense in those situations. Would I rather have Kelly who threw the ball 25 times and scored 52 points, or Halliday/Falk who through it for 600 yards and 31 points? Even when our QB plays a perfect game against Cal, we lose when we score 59 points.

Saturdays game made me think about Price and his recruiting philosophy, and what he did different, even with in game management.

When Price became successful, the first thing he did was hand over the roster to his defensive coach and he got first choice. Price's philosophy when it came to recruiting may have been get the best available athlete (save the QB) on campus and we will figure out where to put them. Leach might be more position specific when it comes to recruiting.

There were numerous offensive guys Price went after that made the switch to the defensive side of the ball. Aside from Larue, have we seen that happen? Maybe Leach's offense is so specific in what they need the players he recruits fit his system and fit that side of the ball. Cracraft and Bartilone come to mind.

But getting back to philosophy, maybe his offense is so dynamic when it gets the right people in the system that defense and turnovers is almost an after thought.

If I have a complaint it is the following-for a young team (which it has perpetually been) he is constantly putting it precarious positions. Instead of burning clock against CU in 2012 (which helped define the season) he said they should be mentally tougher. Instead of figuring a way to cut down the turnovers (IE don't chuck in 60 plus times a game) they need to mentally tougher. In my 30 plus years of watching Cougar football, I have only seen it once where we had five turnovers and come out on the winning end...and that was 2003 against the Beavs at home.

 

[SaveFerris]

Originally posted by CougEd:
that I may not agree with, and that simply may be my problem. Against ASU I believe 35 points came as a result of turnovers. I know our head coach is an offensive guy through and through, but I believe virtually every coach I have seen or know would say "you just can't turn the ball over 5 times on the road". Instead, the press conference was about our reaction to the turnovers.

................

When Price became successful, the first thing he did was hand over the roster to his defensive coach and he got first choice. Price's philosophy when it came to recruiting may have been get the best available athlete (save the QB) on campus and we will figure out where to put them. Leach might be more position specific when it comes to recruiting.

There were numerous offensive guys Price went after that made the switch to the defensive side of the ball. Aside from Larue, have we seen that happen? Maybe Leach's offense is so specific in what they need the players he recruits fit his system and fit that side of the ball. Cracraft and Bartilone come to mind.

I don't know if it's a good idea to go out and blame your RFr QB in his second start going up against a good ASU defense. Even on the first pick which was definitely a poor decision by Falk the DB goes up to get the ball, clearly loses it going to the ground and was still able to make the play. The next 2 picks usually would have ended up hitting the ground. Credit to ASU, I don't see them as flukes but rather just great plays by a good defense.

On Price, his better defenses would go back out on the field letting the offense know they were going to get them the ball back. We saw some of that early in the game against ASU. After the bad snap on the punt the defense came out and forced a FG. Then what? The defense "did their job" on most drives but as the turnovers piled up it they couldn't handle it. I would like to see that same mentality we saw under Price of an entire defense ready to play and excited to get back out on the field. We aren't there yet as a program but I am pretty sure the players know they need to get better.

As for Price giving the DC first choice, I always thought that was a little bit of an exaggeration. I think in most cases they were his decisions. Leach has tried offensive players on the other side of the ball. Dockery, Jackson, Morrow, and LaRue come to mind. The difference we are seeing under Leach is more balance in the recruiting classes and as you say they are more position specific. That doesn't mean we won't see players switch sides but probably less than what we saw under Price.

Similar to Price, I think Leach has more influence over the defense and certainly player management than what might meet the eye.

 

[dgibbons]

Originally posted by CougEd:
that I may not agree with, and that simply may be my problem. Against ASU I believe 35 points came as a result of turnovers. I know our head coach is an offensive guy through and through, but I believe virtually every coach I have seen or know would say "you just can't turn the ball over 5 times on the road". Instead, the press conference was about our reaction to the turnovers.
Turnovers by nature are momentum changers. That is why they call it "fickle ole mo".

How about not putting the defense in those situations. Would I rather have Kelly who threw the ball 25 times and scored 52 points, or Halliday/Falk who through it for 600 yards and 31 points? Even when our QB plays a perfect game against Cal, we lose when we score 59 points.

Saturdays game made me think about Price and his recruiting philosophy, and what he did different, even with in game management.

When Price became successful, the first thing he did was hand over the roster to his defensive coach and he got first choice. Price's philosophy when it came to recruiting may have been get the best available athlete (save the QB) on campus and we will figure out where to put them. Leach might be more position specific when it comes to recruiting.

There were numerous offensive guys Price went after that made the switch to the defensive side of the ball. Aside from Larue, have we seen that happen? Maybe Leach's offense is so specific in what they need the players he recruits fit his system and fit that side of the ball. Cracraft and Bartilone come to mind.

But getting back to philosophy, maybe his offense is so dynamic when it gets the right people in the system that defense and turnovers is almost an after thought.

If I have a complaint it is the following-for a young team (which it has perpetually been) he is constantly putting it precarious positions. Instead of burning clock against CU in 2012 (which helped define the season) he said they should be mentally tougher. Instead of figuring a way to cut down the turnovers (IE don't chuck in 60 plus times a game) they need to mentally tougher. In my 30 plus years of watching Cougar football, I have only seen it once where we had five turnovers and come out on the winning end...and that was 2003 against the Beavs at home.

Alright, another athletes to defense post! The "athletes to defense" thing doesn't make any sense when you actually consider who has been switched over to defense- Dotson, Larue, Alex Jackson, Rahmel Dockery. Two of those guys didn't want to play defense. The RBs are mainly scat back types so not exactly candidates to move to LB. Caldwell did get moved to safety. Any TE type bodies already end up at DL or OL. Gabe Marks is the only guy that I can honestly point to and say he could have been an impact player on defense.

What Leach was really harping on was consistency. The defense was doing pretty well when ASU did not get the ball off a turnover, but rolled over as soon as a turnover happened. How about forcing a FG or two on those five possessions, instead of watching ASU put in the ball into the endzone in like three plays?

 

[Norbert1]

This team (and some fans) need to pop in a tape of the 2003 WSU defense. In that season, WSU had 7 turnovers in 3 different games. We were 2-1 in those games because our defense would go out after a turnover and either get the ball back or force the other team to punt. The defense did not concede. They put the team on their backs and got the momentum back by making a key stop on 3rd down or forcing a turnover.

Simple as that. I did not hear Leach say it was acceptable that the offense gave up the ball 5 times.

Leach was trying to draw attention to mental aspects of the game.[/B] Why did the same guys stuff ASU for the majority of the 1st half but allow ASU to score a TD following each turnover?

The drive chart says it all:
interception: ASU gets the ball at the ASU 38, ASU scores TD in 4 plays, 62 yards, 1:04 TOPinterception: ASU gets the ball at the WSU 13, ASU scores TD in 2 plays, 13 yards, 0:34 TOPinterception: ASU gets the ball at the ASU 30, ASU scores TD in 4 plays, 70 yards, 1:38 TOPfumble: ASU gets the ball at the WSU 18, ASU scores TD in 1 plays, 18 yards, 0:05 TOPinterception: ASU gets the ball at the WSU 38, ASU scores TD in 7 plays, 38 yards, 2:10 TOP

The other ASU drives resulted in 3 TD's and 7 punts. For the 7 punts, these same guys who got gashed following a turnover held ASU to a 3-and-out on 6 different drives.

 

[CougEd]

Athletes to defense post

Actually thanks for being more concise. What you said is exactly the difference in philosophy. Leach is looking for a specific recruit/body, and it does not cross over. And when they have two kids who don't want to switch they quit. Under normal circumstances, it is not big deal, except DB is a good reason why we are 3-8. They couldn't afford to swing and miss.

Here is a more novel idea. one a coach has greater control over....don't turn the ball over. You already have a defense that completely sucks, and you are going to make it more difficult on them? That is sound.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Athletes to defense post

Originally posted by CougEd:
Actually thanks for being more concise. What you said is exactly the difference in philosophy. Leach is looking for a specific recruit/body, and it does not cross over. And when they have two kids who don't want to switch they quit. Under normal circumstances, it is not big deal, except DB is a good reason why we are 3-8. They couldn't afford to swing and miss.

Here is a more novel idea. one a coach has greater control over....don't turn the ball over. You already have a defense that completely sucks, and you are going to make it more difficult on them? That is sound.

So, the plan was to turn it over five times? Leach chose to do that? Instead we should have done what? Gone run heavy when the OL was getting crumpled? Guarantied third and long situations?

 

[CougEd]

Pop in tape from one of our best teams ever? Why not pop in tapes of

the games that are much more the norm? I get "the mental aspect" of the game, but I think actually putting those kids in the best position to win vs pounding the square peg in a round hole might be more prudent. Maybe they would be more mentally capable if they had confidence. Maybe from the wins comes the confidence.

 

[CougEd]

Did he "plan it"? I hope not. But chucking the ball 74 times I would

suggest it drastically increases the odds.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Did he "plan it"? I hope not. But chucking the ball 74 times I would

Originally posted by CougEd:
suggest it drastically increases the odds.

Since you're all about historical fact and probability, in Falk's 120 pass attempts before the ASU game he threw one interception and that was on a hail mary in the USC game.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Seems to me that Leach is sending a very strong message to his D coordinator. That is the explanation for his focus on the defense's reaction to the TOs, in my opinion.

 

[spongebob11]

Re: Did he "plan it"? I hope not. But chucking the ball 74 times I would

Has there ever been a coach in division 1 who has thrown the ball 70 times per game?

No.

Why? Because it doesn't work.

This post was edited on 11/24 8:38 PM by spongebob11

 

[dgibbons]

We don't throw 70 times per game

But what we do does work for ranking 7th in the country in total offense.

What were doing on defense, not good. Special teams, just real bad.

 

[chinookpirate]

Re: We don't throw 70 times per game


6th in the NCAA in total offense but 37th in scoring. 76th in red zone offense
This post was edited on 11/24 9:32 PM by chinookpirate

source

 

[Coug90]

Re: We don't throw 70 times per game

Exactly. Yards is kind of a worthless stat when looking at actual offensive production. Points per drive- Where do we rank there?

As for the run vs. pass argument...I'm a broncos fan (Denver, not BSJC). I watched in consecutive weeks a team with the greatest QB on the planet choose to pass 57 times and only run it 10 times one game, scoring 7 points on a losing team...The next week with a 50/50 run/pass split scoring 39 points against one of the best defenses in the league.

Now, the NFL is not college, I get that. But even the traditional pass happy, air-raid style teams (Baylor, WVU, etc.) understand the value of incorporating an ACTUAL running game into their offenseS. Leach MUST find a way to do this or we will continue to lose more games than we win, and that's just the truth. We don't have to have a 50/50 split, but there's got to be more of a threat, and we have to be able to execute and gash teams when they drop everyone back. I think we are still a year away from being able to consistently EXECUTE this with the youth at OL and RB, and that's why we haven't seen more of it this year. I hope I'm right, or we are in for years of lots of yards and not enough points to get Ws.

 

[CougEd]

Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

?

 

[YakiCoug]

Re: We don't throw 70 times per game

Originally posted by chinookpirate:

6th in the NCAA in total offense but 37th in scoring. 76th in red zone offense
This post was edited on 11/24 9:32 PM by chinookpirate

And where did we rank 2004-2011? Are the current marks an improvement? Do you think the offense will be ranked higher next year and beyond? Did you raise a stink from 2008 to 2011?

 

[Brent H.]

Re: We don't throw 70 times per game

Originally posted by YakiCoug:

Originally posted by chinookpirate:

6th in the NCAA in total offense but 37th in scoring. 76th in red zone offense
This post was edited on 11/24 9:32 PM by chinookpirate

And where did we rank 2004-2011? Are the current marks an improvement? Do you think the offense will be ranked higher next year and beyond? Did you raise a stink from 2008 to 2011?

We are scoring almost 34 points a game, up from 31 from last year and a whole lot better than our 20 ppgs in 2012. The offense is getting better, the offense is working, it's the other side of the ball that's the problem. When you score about 34 points a game you should be winning games, but when you're giving up 39 points a game you get 3-8...

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

Do you think the reason this team has only three wins is the shortcomings on offense?

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

Re: We don't throw 70 times per game

Originally posted by Coug90:
Exactly. Yards is kind of a worthless stat when looking at actual offensive production. Points per drive- Where do we rank there?

Our defense never gets a turnover......so the 'points per drive' stat is skewed with always starting drives deep into our side of the field. We also throw the ball much more when we have to drive the ball down field 70 yards. If we forced a couple turn overs each game, we'd have shorter fields, more success, and less games with 60 passes. It all comes down to defense.

 

[chinookpirate]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

Originally posted by dgibbons:
Do you think the reason this team has only three wins is the shortcomings on offense?

Part of it is, without question.

If our red zone offense was as productive as our offense is between the 20's, without question we would have won more games this season.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

Originally posted by chinookpirate:

Originally posted by dgibbons:
Do you think the reason this team has only three wins is the shortcomings on offense?

Part of it is, without question.

If our red zone offense was as productive as our offense is between the 20's, without question we would have won more games this season.

And with merely a below average defense, we'd have won more. And with a fair catch we'd have won more. And with a made instead of missed 19 yard field goal we'd have won more. And with merely below average kickoff and punt coverage teams we'd have won more.

So that part is pretty damn small.
This post was edited on 11/25 8:28 AM by dgibbons

 

[chinookpirate]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?


... and here, all this time, I thought the objective was to get the ball into the end zone more than your opponent does. huh.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

Originally posted by chinookpirate:

... and here, all this time, I thought the objective was to get the ball into the end zone more than your opponent does. huh.

And it's not like we're doing terrible in that department. Top third in the country isn't bad, and that's with some FGs that should have been made.

 

[chinookpirate]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?


I'm only looking at the results of what we DID do. I'm not speculating how successful we COULD have been if only...


hth

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Yards? Are we 7th in scoring?

Originally posted by chinookpirate:

I'm only looking at the results of what we DID do. I'm not speculating how successful we COULD have been if only...


hth

And top third in the country is not bad.

You've to realize that your narrative of the defense giving up 50+ somehow means the offense sucks doesn't make any sense, right?

 

[CougEd]

And Dgibs...if I may quote you...we are one dropped ball from having two

wins. If I recall correctly it goes both ways.

But the post is valid, IF Cracraft doesn't drop the punt I think the season is different.

And yes, #7 is a hollow number if you don't score.
This post was edited on 11/25 10:37 AM by CougEd

 

[CougEd]

He should send that same strong message to his OC...don't turn the

ball over five times.

 

[CougEd]

Kragthorpe mid 80's for OSU...

Great numbers. Looked great between the 20's.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: And Dgibs...if I may quote you...we are one dropped ball from having two

Originally posted by CougEd:
wins. If I recall correctly it goes both ways.

But the post is valid, IF Cracraft doesn't drop the punt I think the season is different.

And yes, #7 is a hollow number if you don't score.

This post was edited on 11/25 10:37 AM by CougEd

Do you realize how dumb it is to point to the offense as the problem when the defense and special teams are as bad as they are? Scoring 33.5 ppg isn't exactly bad.

Your continuation of the consistency crusade is noted. The point, of course, is that the some pivotal plays occurred while a unit other than the offense was on the field.

 

[CougEd]

If you have a avergae scoring offense, you better have an average

scoring defense. 600 yards means squat, I would much rather have Taylor Kellys number, 15-25 and 5 TD's. That is maximizing your production.

So the problem is three-fold. One, you use a worthless stat, yards per game. A more worthwhile stat to properly measure the offense is points scored. Second, if you are going to be the upper level of average in offense, you better be mediocre on defense and special teams. Third, special ed teams.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: If you have a avergae scoring offense, you better have an average

Originally posted by CougEd:
scoring defense. 600 yards means squat, I would much rather have Taylor Kellys number, 15-25 and 5 TD's. That is maximizing your production.

So the problem is three-fold. One, you use a worthless stat, yards per game. A more worthwhile stat to properly measure the offense is points scored. Second, if you are going to be the upper level of average in offense, you better be mediocre on defense and special teams. Third, special ed teams.

You're proving you don't understand what the term average means.

You appear to be agreeing that defense and "special ed teams" (talk about begging for a one liner) are the problem.

 

[CougEd]

I understand the term-maybe this will be more clear-since they don't

play all 125 teams, it makes that stupid ranked 37th in yardage stat meaningless. Great PR, great recruiting tool, and a number for folks such as yourself to hang on to.

So tell me where WSU ranks in scoring offense in their own conference. Here, let me help. They are 6th scoring 33.5 poiints a game. Depending on how they do against UW they could stay at 6th, or drop below USC for 7th. In either case, that sure seems like average to me. Take a guess where they rank in yards per game? Second, only behind Oregon. Oregon scores 12 more points per game and only has 51 more yards for the season than WSU.

ASU scores 37.2 points per game, or 3.7 more points per game than WSU and they almost have 1000 yards less offense for the season.

So while not the primary problem, what they are doing is problematic in that they need to be more efficient, and in doing so maybe that helps our defense in some small way.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: I understand the term-maybe this will be more clear-since they don't

Originally posted by CougEd:
play all 125 teams, it makes that stupid ranked 37th in yardage stat meaningless. Great PR, great recruiting tool, and a number for folks such as yourself to hang on to.

So tell me where WSU ranks in scoring offense in their own conference. Here, let me help. They are 6th scoring 33.5 poiints a game. Depending on how they do against UW they could stay at 6th, or drop below USC for 7th. In either case, that sure seems like average to me. Take a guess where they rank in yards per game? Second, only behind Oregon. Oregon scores 12 more points per game and only has 51 more yards for the season than WSU.

ASU scores 37.2 points per game, or 3.7 more points per game than WSU and they almost have 1000 yards less offense for the season.

So while not the primary problem, what they are doing is problematic in that they need to be more efficient, and in doing so maybe that helps our defense in some small way.

Well, in conference only stats we're actually 5th in scoring offense. And in cumulative stats, we're 7th in scoring offense.

But thanks for the help....

The defense inching into below average territory would be really helpful.

 

[CougEd]

I would think the constant pounding into the "Wulffians heads by the "Leech

"Leeches" that they are part of the problem, they have low expectations and are supporting losing , that some amped up their expectations as discussed at length from 2008 to 2011.

So I would suspect some didn't raise a stink because they probably felt the best thing for the program was to support a slightly improving team and program. But since they continued to lose and they were told they weren't true Cougs, maybe some changed their approach and have different expectations of an established coach.

 

[wazzubruce]

Re: I would think the constant pounding into the "Wulffians heads by the "Leech

Gawd Ed, give it a freaking rest !!!

 

[CougEd]

Do you not believe people have different

expectations? And the bar is set with what Wulff accomplished or didn't? Now that is interesting.

What is more interesting is Yaki asked about questions and concerns from 2008 to 2011, and I simply gave him an explanation why thing s would be different. I thought it was a pretty benign post.
This post was edited on 11/25 1:49 PM by CougEd

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Re: He should send that same strong message to his OC...don't turn the

If his offense was a turnover machine game in and game out, then you'd have a point.

The defense has been poor all season.