By the Numbers
by BeaverBeliever12 on Oct 30, 2011 7:50 PM PDT
in Oregon State Football
Email
Print
That was an embarrassing loss. Let's look at some numbers that decided how this game went.
- 225 - Utah's rushing total. I gave a telling statistic in the pre-game write-up that when Utah had won they had averaged 185.7 yards per game and 58 yards per game in losses. So naturally you game plan to stop the run right? Even the opposing coaches questioned the lack of trying to stack the box against the run. It was an atrocious gameplan, the goal of the coaches should be to tailor a plan for each opponent and they failed to in that game.
- 14 - This is the number of passes that Utah QB Jon Hays threw. This is the point that seems most important, he was probably the weak link for the Utah football team, and he was barely even tested. Once again, even the most talented teams need the coaches to do a plan well. Teams can get away with less talent, look at the Buffalo Bills in the NFL, they have no spectacular players, except for maybe Fred Jackson, but their coach Chan Gailey worked to maximize what he talent there was. The Beavs seem to work exclusively out of the same old sets with no new ideas. Even if the talent level gets all the way back to be able to beat most teams using vanilla schemes, to beat the elite there has to be something tailored for each opponent.
- 6 - The number of sacks given up by OSU. The offensive line couldn't hold up and Mannion couldn't do anything to help. This unit is just not up to par, even against WSU it looked like Mannion had discovered pocket presence, it didn't really look like the line had really improved. There is still no way to really fix the line this season, they just have to play better until more players get a shot next year.
- 3 - The number of interceptions and turnover differential. Mannion got rushed into bad throws and then started to regress in his progressions. I thought that his growth from the WSU game would just continue trending upwards, but it appears that I was wrong. It is far from being all on Mannion's back but if the Beavs are going to throw 49 passes he has to perform better in spite of his line's play.
- 1.2 - OSU yards per carry. Another thing that falls to the offensive line, they need to at least open a small crease for any of the Agnew or any other tailback. The passing game will not be open if OSU cannot run at all. Things need to improve to at least 3 yards per carry for the Beavs to be competitive, and if it doesn't expect more beatdowns like what Utah just delivered.
There are not any real positive numbers to draw out here, except maybe Johnny Hekker's 52.5 average yards per punt. The Beavs regressed against Utah and to expect them to draw out a better effort against Stanford seems foolish. The only way the Beavers will compete is if the gameplan becomes much improved. To beat a talented team like Stanford it is going to require a perfect game out of the Beavers, and even then probably a little luck too.
Go Beavs!
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Beavs vs. Utah
Great analysis of what happened to the Beaves in Salt Lake City!! I don’t know that much about it, but it makes sense. What is tough to handle is that we are back to my Dad’s Beavers of 30 pluse years, especially the famous 28 years! There is too much talent for this to be a long stay, and I hope it isn’t. This wishing and hoping did not get it done then and it has not worked too well this year. I am not sure we can win, again, this year. I wish and hope so. . . . but until we do. . . Beavers get out your lunch pales, go to work and coaches come up with solid game plans. . . Go Beavs!
Player of the Game
Hekker! Tells you where that game was. Not to take away from him, he had a fantastic game but still…
Mannion got rushed into bad throws and then started to regress in his progressions. I thought that his growth from the WSU game would just continue trending upwards, but it appears that I was wrong.
I agree with most of this, 96.5% of it, but do think it is a bit of dual edged sword to say the line played like crap (it did) and got Mannion way out of his progressions then blame him for not trending upwards.
Ironically enough I called him out for not hitting spots and then he was too rushed in this game and threw to spots where the defenders were well in place, his timing was way off. I do “blame” Mannion for not reading the coverages properly BUT really will say this was a bit more on the line. They didn’t protect him well and they couldn’t get the run game going either. A bad one/two there for a first year starting QB. A great QB will be able to adjust yes, BUT only to a point if the o-line can’t protect you.
And in general: If we had any type of offense going in that first quarter that game was there for the Beavs taking. It was a defensive struggle there and something had to break but it didn’t break for the Beavs advantage. And they couldn’t respond either. Terrible game.
-RVM
Aren't the lines the whole story?
I’m no football expert, but isn’t line play THE reason for OSU’s losses? We lost the line of scrimmage horribly yesterday, and it showed. I agree that Mannion made some bad decisions, but I also agree with your point that the line didn’t give him a lot of time to make a decision.
A common complaint I read is that OSU is too talented to be losing this much, I disagree. It’s obvious OSU has talent at the skill positions, and it looks like they have some good LBs, but the lines are so terrible it doesn’t matter. Scheme all you want, but you can’t run through solid matter, you can’t throw the ball with 300 pounders draped all over you, and you cannot cover receivers indefinitely. To win games, OSU must win the lines and they simply don’t.
Take the WSU game. It’s the first time in the last year in a half that I remember OSU dominating the lines. Mannion got player of the week, Agnew rushed for 100+ yards, and WSU’s passing attack floundered. Is there really anything else to talk about? Coaching, QBs, CBs, whatever, it just seems like the lines have been the paramount reason for every OSU loss and will continue to be until they drop the football program.
A thought just hit me, but wasn’t Derek Anderson’s senior year the same story? I’m not sure you could ask for a much better QB than DA as a senior, but our line stunk, we had no rushing attack, and we finished, what, 6-6? 7-5? With DA as a senior throwing to the magical Mike Hass. Mannion’s a freshman throwing to people that are not Mike Hass.
Another thought just hit me. We might not win another game.
Although, after all that, I will say the D-Line has looked pretty decent at times this year. They look like they have potential, but the O-line? Ugh.
Mannion repeatedly failed to recognize blitzes and stunts
and failed to make even rudimentary adjustments to them. And he has essentially no lateral mobility, only vertical. Step up or step back, but never anything close to moving the pocket, or even a simple sidestep that would force the rush to take a more time consuming containment route.
That’s not on the line.
Neither is failing to check into the proper play to take advantage of the inherent opportunities Utah’s aggressive schemes presented, which would have slowed down the rush.
Having 2 starters get hurt didn’t help either.
Throwing into double and triple coverage while there are receivers 10 yards clear of everyone is also not the o-line’s problem.
The o-line did and does have some serious issues, but to suggest the lines are the whole story when there were major fundamental problems that lie totally with the qb and the oc is not going to restore the program to respectability even if the Stanford o-line was magically installed in front of Mannion.
Andy Wooldridge, andy_wooldridge@yahoo.com
BuildingTheDam.Com
Go Beavs!
I wouldn't go as far as the whole story, and wasn't in my original comments
But I don’t know! If we all of the sudden got the Stanford line! Wow, not sure the fundamental issues would be quite as there with Mannion at the least. Give him some protection and also be able to block the blitzes out for him properly he does a pretty good job. So I have to go with kriskrosed and say a weak line, which we had Saturday, is the start of the issues. I mean they couldn’t get the run going either, which then hurt them.
And would say that I also agree there is some longer standing issues with the o-line and OSU has problems recruiting a full line of skilled blockers. The program seems to get one or two really top-notch guys but never seems to have depth or at the least have a REALLY skilled front five.
I don’t know maybe I’m being nice and giving him a free pass but I didn’t really see that offensive performance as something to lay on Mannion, and even with my criticisms of his reads I would not say he a “fundamental” problem.
-RVM
Apologies if it sounded like I was trying to abstain Mannion from guilt
I wasn’t. That pass to Wheaton into triple coverage was a stinker for sure. All I’m trying to say is that the O-line is so crucial that poor play makes the rest of the team look disproportionally worse. In my head, it’s like expecting a house to stand without a foundation. You can’t really tell if it was built sturdy or not because it was going to fall no matter what you did.
I know those guys work their tails off and I know there’s been injuries, but if you had the chance to improve one unit on the team, wouldn’t it be the O-line?
===
I’m curious. How much should be put on Mannion? I’m working off generalizations here, but Utah seemed to pressure Mannion with four and five man rushes. I have to believe that was a factor in his poor play.
I do remember a few blitzes where Utes outnumbered Beavs, though. Is that on Mannion? For example, I remember twice he got sacked coming out of the fake on a play action. He had no chance to move, much less throw. If he had any chance, it was fixing it pre-snap. Are those the kinds of things you’re referring to?
No need to stack the box against Utah, says Riley
Riley’s response to Utah coach Kyle Whittingham (and others, including BTD’s BeaverBeliever12) regarding OSU’s failure to stack the box: “If we tackled better, it would have looked better. We didn’t change much in the second half and we did a better job . . . .” [from today’s Gazette-Times]
So there you have it. It wasn’t the defensive scheme devised by the coaching staff that caused the Beavs to give up an average of 5 yards per running play and 24 points to the Utes in the first half. It was the fault of the players for not overcoming that scheme and tackling those pesky Utah runners anyway.
Well they did tackle like **** though. Not sure we can take that away from the players!
Another one/two punch in my opinion: one = defensive called schemes were taken advantage of and two = piss poor tackling.
-RVM
Well, obviously they made tackles, or Utah’s 5-yd per carry average would have been a lot higher. The thing is, the Beavs might have been able to tackle earlier in the plays if they were in the right defensive scheme, perhaps holding the Utes to a 1 or 2-yd average carry, which is what the Utes held us to.
by fanoverboard on Oct 31, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
That 1.2 yards per carry stat is a bit misleading.
Sean Mannion was sacked 6 times for negative 59 yards. If you remove those 6 “rushing attempts” then Oregon State averaged 4.55 yards per carry.
by Ute in DC on Oct 31, 2011 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
OK, but my point was...
that you’ve got a better chance to tackle a runner quickly if your defensive scheme has you in the right position to do so.
by fanoverboard on Oct 31, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
You've got me on that one
but take away those fly sweep rushes as well and it comes out to a much nastier 3.36 average, which does contradict my point in the story, because the Beavs were certainly not competitive. If the yards per carry hover around 3 Mannion must play great though, and he played poorly.
by BeaverBeliever12 on Oct 31, 2011 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I said at the time (first half notes)
that poor tackling was deflecting attention from poor schemes, and poor fundamentals as far as reads, for that matter.
Better tackling always looks better. (By the way, who is supposed to teach the players how to tackle? I thought it was the defensive coaches, but apparently I’m misinformed about that.)
Andy Wooldridge, andy_wooldridge@yahoo.com
BuildingTheDam.Com
Go Beavs!
It's a shame that...
the coaches and players don’t read BTD regularly. If they thad the benefit of all this insightful content, the Beavs would have a winning record. Somebody PLEASE get a copy of this to the team before the Stanford game!
by fanoverboard on Oct 31, 2011 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
All I'm saying
Is that they tackled like poop in a handbasket (especially in the first half).
Would it made a big difference if they tackled overall better? I don’t know, and do tend to agree that Utah out coached Banker and the other defensive staff. People seem to be misreading me a bit here.
I’m not trying to go revisionist and do a “let’s blame it all on the players”, but that tackled like…well you should hopefully get my point!
-RVM
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Building The Dam
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Beavers Football Schedule
| Sacramento St. | Sat 09/03 | L 28 - 29 |
@
Wisconsin
|
Sat 09/10 | L 0 - 35 |
|
UCLA
|
Sat 09/24 | L 19 - 27 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Sat 10/01 | L 20 - 35 |
|
Arizona
|
Sat 10/08 | W 37 - 27 |
|
BYU
|
Sat 10/15 | L 28 - 38 |
|
@
Washington St.
|
Sat 10/22 | W 44 - 21 |
|
@
Utah
|
Sat 10/29 | L 8 - 27 |
|
Stanford
|
Sat 11/05 | L 13 - 38 |
|
@
California
|
Sat 11/12 | L 6 - 23 |
|
Washington
|
Sat 11/19 | W 38 - 21 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Sat 11/26 | L 21 - 49 |
