...well, sorta. This whole week, my sleep has been barely able to keep my eyes open past 10:30, wide awake at 12:30, sleep pretty good til about 3:30, then up for the day. But I digress.
Part of my function as admin/publisher - I think anyway - is to sometimes play the role of devil's advocate when the board turns roller coaster after a particular event (football games, primarily). 12 hours later, I'm struggling to see where the board opinion is too far overboard. I'll go ahead and get a few things that I do believe were positives noted:
1. The interior d-line - even considering the opponent - played much better than I expected. Taylor and Daniels got in on the sack action and the unit held up quite nicely against the conventional running game.
2. Separate from the unit, Daniels has to be a high point all by himself. Gundy may have been hedging, but never seemed certain DD would see game action in the opener (though he was certain Daniels would play this year). Sure, it wasn't against an upper-level Big 12 opponent, but it was still a freshman going against D1 upperclassmen (2 SR and one RS SO)...but you wouldn't have guessed that if you didn't know.
3. Zach Sinor - performed well in his debut, and in more critical situations than anyone might have guessed going into the game. (i.e. OSU needed to punt a lot).
4. The OL might be one player stepping it up (Lewis, Robinson or someone) away from being functional. Maybe.
5. Rudolph played acceptably. Not great, not bad and a couple of drops would have made his performance look better. Knowing that Shepard dislocated a finger earlier this week should help everyone be encouraged that it's probably not the start of a trend. A few days out from a finger injury is no bueno for a WR. Marcell Ateman was said to have had a "really good camp" and actually stepped up, so there is one bit of "really good camp" talk that showed up.
6. Despite warts, it is still a Cowboy win. And the circumstances were not completely normal - road opener, Thursday night, wet. None of that wipes away the obvious concerns, but the point at the end of the day is to win the next game on your schedule. And of course there's the old adage that you see the largest improvements from game one to two.
So, there's the silver linings I saw.
Playcalling? You say vanilla, I say potato. It's just the OSU offense of the present...pick just about any game in the last three years and you should see a lot of similarities. Perhaps a series or two here or there, or maybe even a half...but last night wasn't particularly "vanilla" based on history.
On a similar note, I'm not sure why people still expect to see OSU corners in press coverage with any sort of frequency. It's simply not a regular part of Spencer's philosophy. The bigger problem with the D is they weren't real disciplined and missing an All-Big 12 guy (Peterson). History tells us Spencer will make corrections on the former and it will improve. Peterson is medically-cleared, so now it's simply a matter of confidence and comfort. If he didn't feel right in pre game, then sitting was the right call for the staff to make. In a way, the discipline issue is maybe not a concern - the starting unit is big, athletic and fast. And seem to like to hit. It's considerably easier to coach assignment discipline into big fast guys that like to hit than it is to make small, slow guys into something they are not.
Overall, it really was a bit of a stinker and there were plenty of reasons to be cautiously pessimistic. I'm not sure I've ever used or read that term, but it seems to fit?
Part of my function as admin/publisher - I think anyway - is to sometimes play the role of devil's advocate when the board turns roller coaster after a particular event (football games, primarily). 12 hours later, I'm struggling to see where the board opinion is too far overboard. I'll go ahead and get a few things that I do believe were positives noted:
1. The interior d-line - even considering the opponent - played much better than I expected. Taylor and Daniels got in on the sack action and the unit held up quite nicely against the conventional running game.
2. Separate from the unit, Daniels has to be a high point all by himself. Gundy may have been hedging, but never seemed certain DD would see game action in the opener (though he was certain Daniels would play this year). Sure, it wasn't against an upper-level Big 12 opponent, but it was still a freshman going against D1 upperclassmen (2 SR and one RS SO)...but you wouldn't have guessed that if you didn't know.
3. Zach Sinor - performed well in his debut, and in more critical situations than anyone might have guessed going into the game. (i.e. OSU needed to punt a lot).
4. The OL might be one player stepping it up (Lewis, Robinson or someone) away from being functional. Maybe.
5. Rudolph played acceptably. Not great, not bad and a couple of drops would have made his performance look better. Knowing that Shepard dislocated a finger earlier this week should help everyone be encouraged that it's probably not the start of a trend. A few days out from a finger injury is no bueno for a WR. Marcell Ateman was said to have had a "really good camp" and actually stepped up, so there is one bit of "really good camp" talk that showed up.
6. Despite warts, it is still a Cowboy win. And the circumstances were not completely normal - road opener, Thursday night, wet. None of that wipes away the obvious concerns, but the point at the end of the day is to win the next game on your schedule. And of course there's the old adage that you see the largest improvements from game one to two.
So, there's the silver linings I saw.
Playcalling? You say vanilla, I say potato. It's just the OSU offense of the present...pick just about any game in the last three years and you should see a lot of similarities. Perhaps a series or two here or there, or maybe even a half...but last night wasn't particularly "vanilla" based on history.
On a similar note, I'm not sure why people still expect to see OSU corners in press coverage with any sort of frequency. It's simply not a regular part of Spencer's philosophy. The bigger problem with the D is they weren't real disciplined and missing an All-Big 12 guy (Peterson). History tells us Spencer will make corrections on the former and it will improve. Peterson is medically-cleared, so now it's simply a matter of confidence and comfort. If he didn't feel right in pre game, then sitting was the right call for the staff to make. In a way, the discipline issue is maybe not a concern - the starting unit is big, athletic and fast. And seem to like to hit. It's considerably easier to coach assignment discipline into big fast guys that like to hit than it is to make small, slow guys into something they are not.
Overall, it really was a bit of a stinker and there were plenty of reasons to be cautiously pessimistic. I'm not sure I've ever used or read that term, but it seems to fit?
