Tim Beck to Ohio State

[Count 'Bility]

Beck is a good OC. Our offense has been really good the last couple of years, just look at the numbers.

Our defense was the problem, not our offense. Beck will do great, imo.

How's about we look at the numbers against teams with a pulse? That's the issue here. People look at our stats like the offense was so great when those numbers were padded against sh#t competition, and usually failed miserably against good teams. Not great teams. Not elite teams. Just "good" teams. Wisconsin last year? Sure the defense gave up 59, but what did the offense do to alleviate the pain when things started going south besides constant turnovers and 3 and outs. Michigan St this year? LOL. Sorry. But that game alone is enough to justify it not being a very good offense. McNeese St? Purdue? Minnesota? I mean, cmon.
Ok. Now. I've already admitted my wrong thoughts on Beck. Obviously he's got a good football mind to get the jobs he's gotten. I know that. And now it is clear that here, he probably wasnt the problem. But I jsut dont wanna see this Ohio St hire turn into a topic of retreat that maybe we shoulda kept the guy. it wasnt working here. Not when it mattered. Our qb develepment was garbage. We've had two quys in a row that arguably regressed under his tutaledge, and the offense was erratic and inconsistent. So I just refuse to use stats and "the best offense since 2001" to justify his prowess.

What OC in the country does not run up the numbers against sh#t competition? They all do. Frost had amazing numbers all year. Play Ohio St.'s defense and all of the sudden one of the best offenses in the country can only muster 20 points.

Or play and undefeated, defending National champion and look better than ever.............
Our offense was not that good this year. Sorry, but it wasnt. Watch the games. Look who we played. Who we were successful against, and who we struggled against. Watch the games. I was preachin way back when we played Rutgers and after sloppy performances against them and Purdue, I was predicting 2 losses in the last 3 games BECAUSE OF OUR OFFENSE. Granted the defense gave up over half a hundred at Wiscy, but the offense only scored 17, and like I said, didnt do anything on their behalf either to try to regain control, and went scoreless in the final 3 quarters. What happened in the second half agaisnt Minnesota is laughable. Straight up laughable. And these arent even great teams. Just good teams. Hell, Ohio St was "slowed" by the juggernauts Penn St and Va Tech, but proceeded to light up Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon. Name me the last good team that our offense had a great game against a great opponent. Not necessarily a complete game, cuz that term is kinda weird to me. But just a great game overall.

You can thank TA for that, not Beck

Oh.
Who's the qb coach that coached Armstrong into regression again?

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Beck is a good OC. Our offense has been really good the last couple of years, just look at the numbers.

Our defense was the problem, not our offense. Beck will do great, imo.

How's about we look at the numbers against teams with a pulse? That's the issue here. People look at our stats like the offense was so great when those numbers were padded against sh#t competition, and usually failed miserably against good teams. Not great teams. Not elite teams. Just "good" teams. Wisconsin last year? Sure the defense gave up 59, but what did the offense do to alleviate the pain when things started going south besides constant turnovers and 3 and outs. Michigan St this year? LOL. Sorry. But that game alone is enough to justify it not being a very good offense. McNeese St? Purdue? Minnesota? I mean, cmon.
Ok. Now. I've already admitted my wrong thoughts on Beck. Obviously he's got a good football mind to get the jobs he's gotten. I know that. And now it is clear that here, he probably wasnt the problem. But I jsut dont wanna see this Ohio St hire turn into a topic of retreat that maybe we shoulda kept the guy. it wasnt working here. Not when it mattered. Our qb develepment was garbage. We've had two quys in a row that arguably regressed under his tutaledge, and the offense was erratic and inconsistent. So I just refuse to use stats and "the best offense since 2001" to justify his prowess.

What OC in the country does not run up the numbers against sh#t competition? They all do. Frost had amazing numbers all year. Play Ohio St.'s defense and all of the sudden one of the best offenses in the country can only muster 20 points.

Or play and undefeated, defending National champion and look better than ever.............
Our offense was not that good this year. Sorry, but it wasnt. Watch the games. Look who we played. Who we were successful against, and who we struggled against. Watch the games. I was preachin way back when we played Rutgers and after sloppy performances against them and Purdue, I was predicting 2 losses in the last 3 games BECAUSE OF OUR OFFENSE. Granted the defense gave up over half a hundred at Wiscy, but the offense only scored 17, and like I said, didnt do anything on their behalf either to try to regain control, and went scoreless in the final 3 quarters. What happened in the second half agaisnt Minnesota is laughable. Straight up laughable. And these arent even great teams. Just good teams. Hell, Ohio St was "slowed" by the juggernauts Penn St and Va Tech, but proceeded to light up Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon. Name me the last good team that our offense had a great game against a great opponent. Not necessarily a complete game, cuz that term is kinda weird to me. But just a great game overall.

You can thank TA for that, not Beck

Who is our QB coach? Who called the play? Who recruited that qb? Ding ding ding, Timmy beck

 

[zoogs]

I don't think we should have kept him. My point (and I'm sure other share the same opinion) is he wasn't bad/terrible/awful.

Completely agree.

 

[Stumpy1]

Beck is a good OC. Our offense has been really good the last couple of years, just look at the numbers.

Our defense was the problem, not our offense. Beck will do great, imo.

How's about we look at the numbers against teams with a pulse? That's the issue here. People look at our stats like the offense was so great when those numbers were padded against sh#t competition, and usually failed miserably against good teams. Not great teams. Not elite teams. Just "good" teams. Wisconsin last year? Sure the defense gave up 59, but what did the offense do to alleviate the pain when things started going south besides constant turnovers and 3 and outs. Michigan St this year? LOL. Sorry. But that game alone is enough to justify it not being a very good offense. McNeese St? Purdue? Minnesota? I mean, cmon.
Ok. Now. I've already admitted my wrong thoughts on Beck. Obviously he's got a good football mind to get the jobs he's gotten. I know that. And now it is clear that here, he probably wasnt the problem. But I jsut dont wanna see this Ohio St hire turn into a topic of retreat that maybe we shoulda kept the guy. it wasnt working here. Not when it mattered. Our qb develepment was garbage. We've had two quys in a row that arguably regressed under his tutaledge, and the offense was erratic and inconsistent. So I just refuse to use stats and "the best offense since 2001" to justify his prowess.

What OC in the country does not run up the numbers against sh#t competition? They all do. Frost had amazing numbers all year. Play Ohio St.'s defense and all of the sudden one of the best offenses in the country can only muster 20 points.

Or play and undefeated, defending National champion and look better than ever.............
Our offense was not that good this year. Sorry, but it wasnt. Watch the games. Look who we played. Who we were successful against, and who we struggled against. Watch the games. I was preachin way back when we played Rutgers and after sloppy performances against them and Purdue, I was predicting 2 losses in the last 3 games BECAUSE OF OUR OFFENSE. Granted the defense gave up over half a hundred at Wiscy, but the offense only scored 17, and like I said, didnt do anything on their behalf either to try to regain control, and went scoreless in the final 3 quarters. What happened in the second half agaisnt Minnesota is laughable. Straight up laughable. And these arent even great teams. Just good teams. Hell, Ohio St was "slowed" by the juggernauts Penn St and Va Tech, but proceeded to light up Wisconsin, Alabama, and Oregon. Name me the last good team that our offense had a great game against a great opponent. Not necessarily a complete game, cuz that term is kinda weird to me. But just a great game overall.

You can thank TA for that, not Beck

Who is our QB coach? Who called the play? Who recruited that qb? Ding ding ding, Timmy beck

So Beck coached TA to over throw, under throw or throw it to the other team?

 

[knapplc]

Here's the points we scored in our big games the last couple of years.

2013

UCLA - 21

Michigan State - 28

Georgia - 24

2014

Miami - 41

Michigan State - 22

Wisconsin - 24

USC - 42

Every one of those scores was enough to win the game. Several of those performances were ugly by the offense, but in spite of the ugliness we put up points.

The fewest points we've scored the last couple of years were 22 this year against Sparty (L) and 17 twice last year, against Iowa (L) and Michigan (W).

Put me in the camp of saying Beck's offense largely wasn't the problem - it was the defense.

The offense was often ugly, and sputtered way too much, so Beck doesn't get a free pass. The product he put on the field was part & parcel to the product we saw team-wide. But was he terrible? No. Was he the problem? More often than not, no.

 

[NUpolo8]

I don't think we should have kept him. My point (and I'm sure other share the same opinion) is he wasn't bad/terrible/awful.

Completely agree.

This is where I am too.

 

[Whistlebritches]

Put me in the camp of saying Beck's offense largely wasn't the problem - it was the defense.

The offense was often ugly, and sputtered way too much, so Beck doesn't get a free pass. The product he put on the field was part & parcel to the product we saw team-wide. But was he terrible? No. Was he the problem? More often than not, no.

I mostly agree with this. If the offense could have found a way to hang onto the ball things would look even better.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Here's the points we scored in our big games the last couple of years.

2013

UCLA - 21

Michigan State - 28

Georgia - 24

2014

Miami - 41

Michigan State - 22

Wisconsin - 24

USC - 42

Every one of those scores was enough to win the game. Several of those performances were ugly by the offense, but in spite of the ugliness we put up points.

The fewest points we've scored the last couple of years were 22 this year against Sparty (L) and 17 twice last year, against Iowa (L) and Michigan (W).

Put me in the camp of saying Beck's offense largely wasn't the problem - it was the defense.

The offense was often ugly, and sputtered way too much, so Beck doesn't get a free pass. The product he put on the field was part & parcel to the product we saw team-wide. But was he terrible? No. Was he the problem? More often than not, no.

"Enough" to win the game can be an extremely debateable term. I think you could assume that 21 points against a Pac12 offense will not be enough, esp when you have a young defense of guys making their 3rd start. I think there was a consensus that in 2014, we were gonna have to get to 30 to beat Michigan St. We scored 17 points against Wisconsin. i know the scoreboard showed 24, but that last TD was with seconds left after Wiscy gave us the ball on thier 2 yard line. But even then, i think going into that game, you woulda thought that 17-24 points coulda been enough.
But again, "scoring enough points" is hard to determine. Like I asked, did the offense play a good game against those teams? Pretty obvious that Miami and USC in 2014 are the only two yes's. And Miami is not a good team, in my opinion of the standard of good teams. I go back to the CapOne bowl against Georgia in 2012 for when the offense last played a good game against a good to great team.

 

[knapplc]

Turnovers are a huge reason Beck's term here wasn't as successful as it could have/should have been. That's on the OC to fix, and it never seemed to get fixed.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Turnovers are a huge reason Beck's term here wasn't as successful as it could have/should have been. That's on the OC to fix, and it never seemed to get fixed.

That's very true. I didnt wanna bring up the turnovers, because to a degree, I just dont know how much you can actually put on the coaches. Looking at the Mich St 2013 game, of those 5 turnovers, man, i just dont know. Seems like just a bad day. But yet, it was also an overall reflection of the undisciplined, lack of attention to detail, Pelini era. And goes back to my original point that now, I just dont know how much we can put on Beck. But I stand by my overall opinion that the supposed greatness of our offenses is over exaggerated. Going back through the past 4 years and looking at the poor defensive performances, we can find many instances where the offense's inconsistencies and lack of discipline also put the defense in very bad spots. Opening the wound more instead of trying to plug it.

 

[zoogs]

And really, if Bo didn't have as heavy a hand over the offense as he did, our offense these past few years might have looked very different.

The Bo/Beck vision is what looked great at times, or maybe "time" (Miami), but was plagued by issues. Beck's standalone product was a different style, and it looked pretty good. Beck's predecessor had a game where the reigns were taken off, too, and that was also pretty good (Arizona).

This is a good opportunity for Beck to work with some people who have similar vision for their offense.

 

[knapplc]

Is anyone saying the offense was great? The refrain I hear is "good enough." Good enough to win more often than not, and almost never the reason we lost - that's been the defense under guru Pelini.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Is anyone saying the offense was great? The refrain I hear is "good enough." Good enough to win more often than not, and almost never the reason we lost - that's been the defense under guru Pelini.

I would agree with this.

On top of everything, how often in the last 2 years was the offense pressured to score because the defense was making the opposing player look like a Heisman trophy winner and they were down by a couple TDs? That can throw the Offense off track from doing what they really want to do if they are having to press to score more and more points just to catch up.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Is anyone saying the offense was great? The refrain I hear is "good enough." Good enough to win more often than not, and almost never the reason we lost - that's been the defense under guru Pelini.

But as a team effort, in a loss, nothing was good enough. Every phase coulda done more. That's the debateable part. how do we know what's good enough for one phase over the other?
And as far as the great part. Well it was mentioned earlier by someone that this was the best offense since 2001, suggesting it was great and not the problem. That's where my whole arguement began on this. Comparing anything on these past 4 seasons to anything pre 2002 is a crock of sh#t. Plain and simple. i dont care what the numbers say.

 

[Red Five]

I don't have a big problem with the play calls on a play-by-play basis. Sure there were some misses (end of USC game), but there were also hits.

My biggest issue with Beck was is QB coaching. It was basically non-existent. Sure, he probably said this is read 1, this is read 2, etc. But none of our guys have seemed to improve at the QB spot.

TA So - 53% completions

TA Fr - 52% completions

TM Jr - 62% completions

TM So - 56% completions

TM Fr - 59% completions