EUGENE – Disappointment resonated from the Oregon State football team after losing the Civil War on Thursday night.
The Beavers gave props to the Oregon. They felt they played a solid game, but came up short. Check out the above of QB Sean Canfield talking with the media in a bunker under the stands.
“I thought we had a good plan, made a lot of good plays and made a lot of good stops on defense,” coach Mike Riley. “We just came up short.”
Here’s the basics. The Ducks are a good running team, and the defense couldn’t stop them enough. The Beavers were ready, but the Ducks made more plays, particularly at the end.
The running game was not there. RB Jacquizz Rodgers couldn’t get going. The passing game just couldn’t do enough.
“We’ll look at a lot of lost opportunities, but they won,” Riley said. “There are a very good team. There’s no doubt about it. They are the best. They earned that right.”
Once you come off the ledge you’ll see it was a good game and the better team won. While the Beavers are most likely headed to the Las Vegas Bowl, eight wins and maybe nine is a good season for a team that lost so much on defense.
“There’s nothing you can say that’s helpful at this time,” Riley said. “If you make the commitment our team made this year it’s going to hurt.”
Here’s your postgame reading. The game story here. You can find photo galleries off that link. Here’s the report card. Here’s the notebook. Here’s a story about where the postseason should be.
13 comments
tmiller41 says:
Dec 4, 2009
OK, I know this sounds like sour grapes, but there was NO WAY Legarrette Blount deserved to play in this game. I don't believe Chip Kelly should have allowed it and this was only done to drive the game down OSU's throats. Another fine example by the UofO. I am rooting for the other OSU team in the Rose Bowl. Beavers deserved this game.
jweimer02 says:
Dec 4, 2009
sore loser
mckalk says:
Dec 4, 2009
Cliff, I'm pleased with 8-4. If the offense had a "normal" amount of turnovers the record could have been 6-6 or 5-7 in a heartbeat. This years offense is one for the ages, I think the frustration comes from knowing with a key defensive stop in the league games this might have been a BCS season. I think the play of the game was that third and 16 late where LaJames slithered away for a 14 yard gain which created a makable fourth down. You just can't give up that kind of yardage on a third and long.
SJ_Johnsen says:
Dec 4, 2009
tmiller: Sour grapes and mis-information. Blount was put in while OSU was still leading. Drive it down their throats? No, just trying to win a football game. Maybe that's why the Beavs lost. They don't have that "Drive it down their throats mentality. Isn't that part of what football is all about? I can understand sour grapes but not empty headed claims……sorry your life is one of sour grapes.
SJ_Johnsen says:
Dec 4, 2009
by the way Cliff…….LaMichael James had 166 yards not 139. Swallow hard and accept reality…….Oregons backfield and O line will be back next year. Maybe in 2012 will be the Beavs year!
beeverluv says:
Dec 4, 2009
Their o-line was horrible. If not for the magic of Masoli, the Ducks would have been going backwards all night. Kudos to the Beavs for playing a good game. We were in their backfield all night, unlike last year. Maybe next year we can add tackling to the improvements we made this year. 2012 will be a lousy win in the Civil War without Masoli to challenge us or Kelly on the sidelines.
Any thoughts as to who the Ducks might get when Kelly leaves for what looks like Michigan?
tommiet says:
Dec 4, 2009
Good effort Beavs, you played your best. I blame this loss, just like the other losses this year, on coaching. I like Mike Rliey but his one huge weakness is lack of courage in the red zone, folding and kicking field goals knowing the other team is going to score a lot of points on our D. Over and over he has done it this year, and it has cost us games. Last night, perfect example, first half, field goals, and then 4th quarter when we're wishing we had of taken a chance early, we're going for it on 4th and 15. Slim to no chance of success. Where are those Sun Bowl cojones he displayed a couple years ago?
That's my only beef with Riley. He's a great coach and has done a good job for us. I'm happy to have him but just had to say my piece. Just disappointed.
ObjCritic says:
Dec 4, 2009
OSU's three Pac-10 losses were: 5 points to Arizona, 6 points to USC, 4 points to UO.
I don't think that Riley's game planning, or Landsdorf's play-calling were problems. I think it was player execution.
Think about it, one more TD and PAT per game, and their undefeated in PAC-10. OSU thoroughly beat Stanford and whipped Cal, and destroyed the Washington teams, and won at ASU for the first in 40 years. For two years straight now they played for a shot at the Rose Bowl. That's real progress. It doesn't sound like a coaching issue to me.
4thN15 says:
Dec 5, 2009
Anyone can pck any game apart, especially after a tough loss. Oregon beat us fair and square. I'm just glad we get another shot at Mosoli.
If I were to have one knock on the Beavs, it would be conditioning. I love watching a well conditioned team in the whaning minutes of a match or game. Conditioning is a point of pride for the Ducks, and it shows late in games. They have beaten the Beavs on that point two years in a row. Cliff, can you give us more on conditioning next year?
Cliff, I thought your grades were a little harsh this morning. Coming in second to a legitimate top 8 team with a huge home field advantage feels more like A- and B's to me, rather than C's and D's. What is your curve?
–John G.
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 5, 2009
The conditioning has been pretty good for the Beavers. If we are talking just the Oregon games, there was nothing left mentally and physically in 2008. It mostly mental that cost them. This year, there was some better conditioning for the Ducks. But I think that was due to really good athletes. But, I usually do some look at conditioning in the offseason. Stay tuned.
As for the curve, it's a sliding one. It depends on the situation. If OSU plays well, but is just overmatched I've graded lightly. If OSU overmatches a team and stinks, I grade hard.
Here's the general view
A- Excellent. An area wins the game.
B- Good. Just good work, helps win the game.
C-Average. Did the job. Didn't really win the game or lose the game.
D-Needs to improve. A lack of help caused the loss.
F-Failure. you caused the loss. (This has been given out to QBs three times and special teams twice. That area it really sticks out – throw a ton of INTs and miss a ton of kicks).
ckirkpatrick says:
Dec 5, 2009
And I was hard on the team because they had plenty of time to prepare. This was for the Rose Bowl. Oregon ran wild on defense. When it comes to playing a team of Oregon's caliber, the Beavers need to improve. Thus, a lot D were handed out.
saltick says:
Dec 5, 2009
If you look at the four games we lost, we gave up deep passes to Arizona and Cincy, and then to Oregon on the third and long? I guess we knew our secondary would be a question mark this year. I agree that our red zone plays should have included some passes to the tight end? The other was basic tackling, hard to get Masoli down for some reason. Third and fourth downs were a killer for our defense, it is too bad, the kids had a great year. What we don't need to do is duplicate Oregon or UCLA and roll over to a lessor team in Las Vegas. Go Beave!
tabhawk says:
Dec 5, 2009
I was pretty surprised at how relatively uninvolved the TE's were in this game. Was that intentional on Riley's part? Extra protection for Canfield?