Response to local columnist's latest Beaver bash
First, I'd like to preface this entry by saying I love Dennis Erickson as a coach. He had an amazing tenure here and will always hold a special place in my heart.
And now our regularly scheduled blog in progress.
The columnist at the Oregonian (who also has a blog) had a story on the Beavs this week criticizing the Beavers and specifically coach Mike Riley. He basically suggested that the Beavers should get Dennis back. He also seems to think that the Beavers have taken a step back since Riley got here. The proof he uses is that A) Mike Riley is too nice and B) Mike Riley has lost by over 18 points per game in half of his 26 losses here. First of all, he's taking Mike's first stint into account as part of the proof. That's the first flaw in the argument. Mike inherited a 2-9 team. They were picked last in the Pac-10 both seasons and generally deserved it. He started the turnaround by getting the guys to believe they could win and by recruiting a better class of player. But they shouldn't be included as any part of a discussion about the present. Anyways, let's take a look at these arguments.
The "too nice" argument is very subjective. However, here's my impression of Riley. At my job, I expect my boss to treat me professionally and like an adult. If I slipped a little on a project and he/she started getting in my face and dropping F-bombs on me if front of my co-workers I'd be pissed. I may even quit to find a place where the boss doesn't do that. However, if he talked to me privately in his/her office and tried to find out what happened and made it known that it shouldn't happen again or else there may be some consequences, then I'd be sure I got my project done on time the next time for fear of losing my job. This sums up the way I see Mike Riley. He's not going to publicly (on TV) chew a player out. Or rant and rave like Pat Hill or even Dennis did. But he will take you aside and let you know what you did wrong. And he will sit you down or drop you on the depth chart if need be. He treats these guys like adults and with respect. And he expects the same from them. And to the columnist: don't prove your arguments by using 13 year olds as the center piece of the argument. These guys are not 13 year olds.
Second, there's this tendency to remember the past in a different light than the present. It's the "good old days". So this columnist feels Erickson had turned OSU into Michigan and left the program while it was at it's peak. But I remember things a bit differently. The Fiesta Bowl year aside, there were a lot of unexplainable blowouts. Many seasons where running and even catching the ball seemed more difficult than it is today. In fact I don't think there's been much difference between the years since the Fiesta Bowl. The expectations have been higher, but the results are pretty much the same every season. A couple of blowouts. A hot start followed by a string of losses. Or a slow start followed by a string of wins. We end up about 7-5 or 8-5. Am I wrong?
Lets look at the Pac-10 records for the last few seasons:
---------------------------
Riley 1:
1997: 0-8
1998: 2-6
---------------------------
Erickson:
1999: 4-4
2000: 7-1
2001: 3-5
2002: 4-4
---------------------------
Riley 2:
2003: 4-4
2004: 5-3
OK. Last season was the best Pac-10 record since 2000 and the second best Pac-10 record in the last 30 years. How is that taking a step back? Regardless, at the very least most of these seasons look about the same. Except that awesome 2000 season.
What about bowl games? These are arguable the biggest exposure games for a program.
EricksonÂ’s Bowl record: 1-3
RileyÂ’s Bowl record: 2-0
Seems like a step up to me. For whatever reason Riley has done better in bowl games that Erickson.
OK, but what about the holy grail? Losing by 17 points or more?
---------------------------
Riley 1:
1997: 6
1998: 3
---------------------------
Erickson:
1999: 1
2000: 0
2001: 3
2002: 2
---------------------------
Riley 2:
2003: 2
2004: 2
2005: 2 (in progress)
Not exactly an obviously increasing trend. 2000 is a bit different because they only had one loss. But other than that for whatever reason we get blown out every once in a while.
Anyways, I think the arguments don't hold water. Judge a guy at the end of the season based on how the team performs on the field and on wins and losses. Don't question how he does it.
Just had to get that out. Now let's beat WSU!
7 comments:
I am one of those fans that wishes that Riley would do something in public to fire up his players. I am not talking about verbally assualting them but atleast getting up in their faces if they do something wrong/stupid and celebrating with them when something great happens. Or atleast get the other coaches involved more. I havent been to any games this year because of work but maybe I am missing if he does this already. if he does, I am sorry for the ignorance.
The fans need to know that he is doing something or they will always think of Riley as too weak. I think there are numerous people that believe he is. If they didnt think he was, that article would have never been published.
OK, I believe this does happen. Just not publicly. From what I've read on websites Mike gave Dan Haines a good talking to after the ASU fumble.
Maybe the TV just isn't showing those conversations as they go on during the next play?
I'll tell you what's really bothered me the last couple of seasons, and that's Mike Riley being shown on TV smiling while we're getting our tails kicked, and its happened more than just a few times. I wish he WOULD be a little more vocal. Maybe he should get on the field more and yell, at least a little for crying out loud. Show some fire for the fans, if not for the players!
People come on. Yelling, jumping up and down, struting around the side line would doubtfully change a damn thing. Need proof? Look at Arizonas head coach Stoops. He yells, screams, and gets in his players face. He looks like a fool and oh by the way they lose all the time. If you think Riley needs to change his approach you either don't know much about college football, OSU, or what Mike Riley has accomplished and will accomplish. If you nay sayers would stop with the distracting negativism and shut the hell up. Pete Carroll is on the verge of his third national championship in as many years. If he were at Oregon State would that be true? Hell no. We've got some good talent but nowhere near the depth as some of the marquee college programs. If we want to get to that level we need continuity in our system, meaning sticking with the very capable coach we have. Mike Riley has us heading in the right direction, support him, and scoff at anyone who doesn't. Most likely they're a duck in beaver clothing. If a talented highschool player deciding between say Oregon, Cal, USC, or Oregon state might easily be turned off of OSU if he hears rumors that the fans don't even like their coach. It's hogwash, knowledgeable beaver fans know we have a special football mind in Riley, lets give him some time to mold his recruits into a power to be reconned with.
I think that it's clear that Riley can discipline his players in light of the recent news on the new drug and alcohol policy.
Honestly, I can't remeber Riley smiling on the sidelines when he's losing. Bruce Read did smile during UL, but I never saw anything but a straight face.
I just believe that Riley needs to light some firecrackers (figuritively) under some players to get them going.
That's cool. I can accept that. I wouldn't complain if Riley got a little fired up every once in a while.
Post a Comment