ADVERTISEMENT

You know what makes me happy????

BiggsCoug

Hall Of Fame
Feb 5, 2003
20,360
4,765
113
5 high school offensive linemen committed to WSU. Yeah buddy!

Once all these kids start growing up in the program and the competition starts to push the bar higher and higher I think you'll see more running plays, better yards rushing and these QB's and WR's will run wild once the protection is better.

This is the beginning of the most successful run in WSU history!!!
 
I couldn't agree more.

The competition on the OL is going to make for a split second more time for Falk, Bender, or whoever and that will give the receivers a chance to get more open; and run free in the secondary.

I'm always proud to be a Cougar, but I am truly excited for the future. Our coaching staff is full of a bunch of men who have been there and done that. They know what success looks like. They know how to achieve success. Soon, very soon we will see it on the field.
 
Originally posted by BiggsCoug:
5 high school offensive linemen committed to WSU. Yeah buddy!

Once all these kids start growing up in the program and the competition starts to push the bar higher and higher I think you'll see more running plays, better yards rushing and these QB's and WR's will run wild once the protection is better.

This is the beginning of the most successful run in WSU history!!!
I know. We are going to really see just how good of a coach Mike Leach is. I agree, this the beginning of the most successful run in WSU history!!!
 
Good news indeed, but it's hard to imagine that we'll ever top 2001-2003. Sure hope so.
 
You are an easy man to please : )

Dahl, Ecklund etc gave a couple kids time to redshirt, grow into their bodies, and now they start layering the lineman. They should be able to plug in OcConnell and others for a series or a game and they should be physically ready to play. It will be nice not having a shortage of lineman forcing the Coug's to go to the JC market which is dicey at best.

Outside of Madison's mono, that line has been healthy for three years. The weight room and the sand pit is doing what it is designed to do.

While that makes me smile, get me some DB play and one guy that puts the QB on their back on a consistent basis and I will share your "happiness".
This post was edited on 1/20 10:43 AM by CougEd
 
Originally posted by BiggsCoug:
5 high school offensive linemen committed to WSU. Yeah buddy!

Once all these kids start growing up in the program and the competition starts to push the bar higher and higher I think you'll see more running plays, better yards rushing and these QB's and WR's will run wild once the protection is better.

This is the beginning of the most successful run in WSU history!!!
I think we'll see flying saucers before Leach starts running the ball.

We have had decent YPC the last 2 yrs and teams were giving us the run...and we did fairly well when we took adavantage of it...just not enough.
 
Sponge, I can't argue with the YPC and teams "giving" us the run, but I have to modify it.

All that was true between the 20's.

But in the red zone, it emphatically was not true. We simply could not (with any consistency) get 2 yards rushing in a short yardage situation anywhere near the goal line.

I think Biggs point (at least, my take on Biggs point) is that getting more and more fully developed linemen is going to result in having the ability to be a credible run threat in goal line situations. Sure, you will also see the benefits between the 20's. But WSU's having the ability to pound the ball when necessary makes the other D coordinator's job a lot more difficult.
 
Yeah, I agree with both of you. I don't think it's about running MORE, it's about running when it's appropriate and having success. Throughout the year, we were all watching, wondering why WSU wouldn't run it in this or that situation. But when WSU did, we'd get squashed. So it seems to me, he just gave up on it because it wasn't successful in any way. Definition of insanity is… ? Anyways, it wasn't successful because our Oline wasn't up to par. It's getting there with every year so as our Oline will become more physical, opening up lanes, we'll see more running at appropriate times within CML's system. I don't think anyone is advocating or saying CML will run MORE (maybe a slight uptick… all depends on success on the run, IMHO), just having the ability to do so successfully at appropriate times.
 
Originally posted by Coug95man2:
Yeah, I agree with both of you. I don't think it's about running MORE, it's about running when it's appropriate and having success. Throughout the year, we were all watching, wondering why WSU wouldn't run it in this or that situation. But when WSU did, we'd get squashed. So it seems to me, he just gave up on it because it wasn't successful in any way. Definition of insanity is… ? Anyways, it wasn't successful because our Oline wasn't up to par. It's getting there with every year so as our Oline will become more physical, opening up lanes, we'll see more running at appropriate times within CML's system. I don't think anyone is advocating or saying CML will run MORE (maybe a slight uptick… all depends on success on the run, IMHO), just having the ability to do so successfully at appropriate times.
That simply isn't true.

We've ripped off plenty of nice runs. Just as recent as the Apple Cup we get an 8 or 9 yd run in the 1st quarter, then 3 consecutive pass plays for a turnover on downs.

To Crazy in Cal's point, even our best teams struggled in short yardage situations. In 02 our short yardage play was a jump ball to Bush.

I don't think an Air raid team is ever going to be able to blow someone off the ball because they are in a 2 point stance 99% of the time. We'll see though
 
Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Really? So here are the numbers according to ESPN.

WSU's best rusher in average yards over the year was Theron West with 4.2. Next was Jamal Morrow with 4.0, then 3.0. Then it drops precipitously. Now I'll go through the rest of the PAC and you tell me how we did.

UW: Ross had 9.0 and Shaq had 7.5
OSU: Woods had 6.3 Bolden had 6.2 and Dockery had 6.0
UO: Nelson had 9.2 Marshall had 7.5 (one kid had one run so his average was 21 yards… not counting him)
Stanford: McCafferty had 7.1 Montgomery had 6.3
UCLA: Perkins had 6.3 Starks had 4.5
USC: Vainuku had 5.7 and Allen had 5.4
CAL: Enwere had 5.7 and Lasco had 5.3
ASU: Smith had 8.3 and Richard had 5.7
UA: Randall had 6.9 and Wilson had 5.8
Utah: McCormick had 5.9 and Booker had 5.2
CO: Fields had 6.0 and Powell had 5.3

Yeah, we rocked the running game. And there were the 3rd and 4th guys on some teams that still beat our #1 rusher, in average over the season. But regardless, everyone is running more effectively (notice I don't say solely "more"). THAT is, IMHO, due to an Oline that isn't as physical is the counterpart Dline. It's improving and I agree with Biggs on his overall sentiment. This will improve as our Oline improves and gets bigger and more mature. I'm stoked about our running game, thus our maturity coming up at the Oline but last year wasn't a pretty running game, thus not pretty on the Oline. I remember someone rushing 3 and they sacked the QB...

Sponge if you want to argue that you remember a run where we got decent yards, fine. It's the exception to the rule (or the statistics, that is).
 
YPC was "good" because we throw the ball almost 80% of the time. Talk about setting up the run--as a team we only had 478 rushing yards all year. That puts us outside the Top 200 individual rushers in 2014 (!) and DEAD LAST among FBS teams.

The proving ground was really 3rd and short--on 3rd and 3 we had almost no choice but to throw as our stable of Gary Colemans could not hope to power forward for a couple in the clutch. That's how you know our rushing game was garbage.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

All of those teams you mentioned are run first teams with the exception of Cal.

You are also taking this out of context.

I said that we ran the ball fairly well when given the run...which is the whole purpose of this
offense as it is a pass first offense.

Chip, of course our rushing yardage over the year is going to be low...we pass the ball more than anyone in the country!
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

All I said, Sponge, was we didn't run as much because when we did, we'd get squashed. The numbers bear that out. You are the one that started arguing my point. I was only supporting MY assertion that we got squashed quite a bit. I'm looking at the running game/Oline as a whole season. You are splitting some hair about "when they give us the run".

Please show me that official statistic and then we can both be on the same page.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

I said that we have run well when they gave us the run because that is what this offense is based on. This is not fantasy football where statistics are king.

I am talking about situational football here.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Originally posted by spongebob11:
I said that we have run well when they gave us the run because that is what this offense is based on. This is not fantasy football where statistics are king.

I am talking about situational football here.
So, when other teams give the Cougars the run by playing nickel and dime packages, plus dropping their linebackers, the Cougars run well. Good to know.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Dude. Read my first post. I was agreeing with you. My exact quote to YOU was, "Yeah, I agree with both of you." I was only asserting, in general, we sucked at the run. All you want to do is argue about minutia.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Yes, but when we've tried to run in short yardage, we've gotten mashed- even more so on the handful of occasions we actually loaded up to show run in an obvious run situation.

You can't complain "oh, why don't they run more on 2nd and 2?" unless you're at the front of the line when that fails, admitting its not always the best move.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

The 2014 team ran a total of 1014 plays, 771 of those plays were passes, 243 were runs, so they ran the ball about 24% of the time, which is the balance Leach looks for, 4 recievers and 1 running back, they should run at least 20% of the time based upon the "Leach Balance" objectives. The problem is they averaged 2 yards a carry, as infrequently as they run you have to make it count, those numbers have to get up over 5 years a carry for this run offense to be successful and to make life easier for the QB. Signing 5 quality linemen per year pattern will get us there, lift and workout for 3 years before they see the field for their Junior and Senior years. If WSU isn't going to get 5 star linemen, a lineman that has 3 years of weights and learning the system will be a good to great lineman by the time they are Juniors, and as a whole as good as any line in the league.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Well...my response was to your quote that when we ran the ball, we got smashed....I didn't see you say that when we run in short yardage situations that we sucked...which I would agree with.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Originally posted by spongebob11:
Well...my response was to your quote that when we ran the ball, we got smashed....I didn't see you say that when we run in short yardage situations that we sucked...which I would agree with.
Why didn't you write this to clarify instead of just arguing with him?
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

NM. This ain't worth it.
This post was edited on 1/20 2:20 PM by Coug95man2
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Because I was responding to what he actually wrote...not what I thought he meant.
 
Running percentage

Originally posted by 405 Coug:
The 2014 team ran a total of 1014 plays, 771 of those plays were passes, 243 were runs, so they ran the ball about 24% of the time, which is the balance Leach looks for, 4 recievers and 1 running back, they should run at least 20% of the time based upon the "Leach Balance" objectives. The problem is they averaged 2 yards a carry, as infrequently as they run you have to make it count, those numbers have to get up over 5 years a carry for this run offense to be successful and to make life easier for the QB. Signing 5 quality linemen per year pattern will get us there, lift and workout for 3 years before they see the field for their Junior and Senior years. If WSU isn't going to get 5 star linemen, a lineman that has 3 years of weights and learning the system will be a good to great lineman by the time they are Juniors, and as a whole as good as any line in the league.
As I recall when I looked this up some time back, Leach's teams at TT ran the ball about 1/3 of the time. And relatively effectively on a YPC basis.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Originally posted by spongebob11:
Because I was responding to what he actually wrote...not what I thought he meant.
OK, fair enough.
 
95...probably why I hate stats....

in 97 I think Skip Hick had an average of 9 yards a rush against us. Is that an accurate description of his day? 88 came on one run, the one series LEon had to sit out because of stuff he did in the 96 Apple Cup.
I hate stats cause they don't show a picture of what truly is going on. Skip Hicks had a 9 yard average against us in 97, yet 88 came on one play. The rest of the game he was well under three if my memory is correct.

Let me state several things so it is not to be misconstrued as a Leach hating post. First, there is a pendulum in college football. Many teams use the read option either as a base offense, or use it to keep defenses honest. Oregon was the first and it works for them all the way to the championship game.

But here is where Leach will have the advantage over the next five years, meaning the pendulum will be to move away from the read option for some teams because they will see talent go bye bye because it is showing the read option QB in the NFL is gonna go bye bye.

The NFL is going to get tired of taking "dual QB's" like Locker, Colin Slapernick, and the many others they have spent draft picks on only to see Brady, Manning, Romo, Wilson who are the more refined QB's with true QB teachings, and Super Bowl rings by their name in the case of Flacco, Big Ben, Brady, Manning, Manning, Wilson and Brady.

I watched Marriota with pressure on him and he looked horribly inaccurate against OSU. He looked like Locker on more than several plays. Do you try to take that read option QB and fit him into some sort of NFL system? I think the answers are coming out that the NFL needs a better training ground for their QB's, and the training ground is in the true passing game.

While Leach has a different offense, one that is said to be a "system" offense, I think he will be a leg up trying to get kids into the NFL. And he will continue to get more and more pro prospects in his system.

With that said, without the coaches film to break down play after play, it is impossible to know how many times during the game there were three and four man fronts that we had numbers in the running game. But I would say 66 attempts a game probably means we are out of balance.

I, like Sponge would like to see more running even if the stats to you say we are dreadful. Without the look of a running game, you are not forcing the linebackers to make a read. They are simply dropping into coverage. And when it is said the screen pass serves as a run, no it doesn't. You are not making the linebackers play the "run", and their first step and initial is back. In doing so , you are creating tighter windows for the QB to throw into.
 
Re: Running percentage


Originally posted by Loyal Coug:
Originally posted by 405 Coug:
The 2014 team ran a total of 1014 plays, 771 of those plays were passes, 243 were runs, so they ran the ball about 24% of the time, which is the balance Leach looks for, 4 recievers and 1 running back, they should run at least 20% of the time based upon the "Leach Balance" objectives. The problem is they averaged 2 yards a carry, as infrequently as they run you have to make it count, those numbers have to get up over 5 years a carry for this run offense to be successful and to make life easier for the QB. Signing 5 quality linemen per year pattern will get us there, lift and workout for 3 years before they see the field for their Junior and Senior years. If WSU isn't going to get 5 star linemen, a lineman that has 3 years of weights and learning the system will be a good to great lineman by the time they are Juniors, and as a whole as good as any line in the league.
As I recall when I looked this up some time back, Leach's teams at TT ran the ball about 1/3 of the time. And relatively effectively on a YPC basis.
When Leach won 11 games at TT he rushed for over 100 yards a game. The thing is right now is that this line still can't block very well, pass or run. That 11 win team for Tech gave up 5 sacks for the entire year going against Texas and OU defensive lines. Leach was always around 900-1000 yards a year rushing the ball. This year Wicks and Morrow had about 600 yards, but sacks really went against the rushing stats. Look at this link, no way we are this close to having a line like this.

Tech's offensive line
 
Re: 95...probably why I hate stats....

I still don't know where my communication went south with your brother. I agreed with his sentiment that on specific situational plays we did OK at the run game and tried to forward the thought of, overall we still sucked at the running game. That was all. I don't want to argue with you or your brother, man.
 
The QB s at TT were far more mobile and could scramble and they even used to run a QB draw to keep defenses honest. I see far better QB play next year,in spite of inexperience..I believe that we will see afar better and more diversified offense next tear
 
'd like to see them practice running the ball 60% of the time in the first 3 games against Portland State, Rutgers an Wyoming and the 50% against Cal. Make someone on the Pac12 network say "who does he think he is....Paul Johnson?".
 
While we are on the "what I'd like to see" theme, I'd like to see the Cougs make some use of the shovel pass.

That is a play that works best when you have a line that is capable of run blocking, but it also requires an initial O line look that a LB would assume for at least a full second was pass blocking…and that fits us so well I'm amazed we haven't used it much.

Perhaps with a better O line we might see more of it.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Aren't the vast majority of the examples you are using receivers? Ross, Dockery, etc?? Very few rushes per game and overall to judge from, but you are comparing them the the Cougs running backs? Just seems odd.
 
Re: 95...probably why I hate stats....


Originally posted by CougEd:
in 97 I think Skip Hick had an average of 9 yards a rush against us. Is that an accurate description of his day? 88 came on one run, the one series LEon had to sit out because of stuff he did in the 96 Apple Cup.
I hate stats cause they don't show a picture of what truly is going on. Skip Hicks had a 9 yard average against
This objection works when someone is drawing conclusions based on 1 player in 1 game, as you point out above.

We are looking at 243 carries across 12 games. There is no "small sample size" warning to be made here.
 
Interesting...didn't know that is what you and I were doing

the arguing part. I thought you offered an opinion with supportive info and I simply said that is why I hate stats.
 
Re: Interesting...didn't know that is what you and I were doing

Originally posted by CougEd:
the arguing part. I thought you offered an opinion with supportive info and I simply said that is why I hate stats.
Outside the playground, this is what an argument is about (stating a position and supporting it with evidence).
 
Re: Correct...why stats are misleading

Originally posted by CougEd:
nmsg
I disagree that stats are misleading. There are good stats and there are bad stats. Stats can be used to show what is happening on the field. Stats can also be used incorrectly to show something that is wrong or used to manipulate. Just like many things, find out who you trust or do not trust. Find out stats that make sense and do not make sense.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

It is good to know..especially when they do that almost every down but we rarely take advantage of it.
 
Re: Your perception is contrary to the numbers, Sponge

Originally posted by spongebob11:
It is good to know..especially when they do that almost every down but we rarely take advantage of it.
I have to agree with Sponge that the run needs to be more of an option, but it stands to reason we won't have that option until we have a superior offensive line. Everything begins in the trenches.
 
Interesting...so are you saying 95 is manipulating stats for some unknown

reason? That certainly is an interesting take. I thought he just posted stats that were listed by the pac 12
 
Ed, no. That is not what I said at all

Originally posted by CougEd:
reason? That certainly is an interesting take. I thought he just posted stats that were listed by the pac 12
In general, statistics can tell us a lot if used correctly. That is what I am saying. Not trying to troll. Not trying to play gotcha with you or 95. Not even trying to argue with our or intentionally take what you said out of context.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT