Identity Issues For Pac-10's Oregon State Loom Large

We've all heard it asked by the media and answered by coaches; what is your teams identity?  Are you a run first to set up the pass team? Are you a Texas-Tech type team that airs it out with four wide?

What if you don't know what your identity is? At what point does a coach need to abandon what he believes should be the identity of his team and go with what seems to work with the personnel he has?

Does what happened a season ago determine how you approach planning for the week ahead?  Graduation, leaving for the NFL, and injuries would point to no.

Either way, most successful teams around the nation buy into a scheme and create their identity over the duration of a season.

Chalk it up to arrogance or simple stubbornness, but often times coaches don't stick with what best suits their team.

Take a look at some of the great coaches around the nation and you'll notice something.  A cool calm confidence they have in the scheme they have implemented.

The trust and belief that your team will execute the game plan you have laid out for them is what separates the good from the great.

As the saying goes: "When the goin' gets tough, the tough get goin'." They don't abandon what works for them and try something new.

Unfortunately, this was not the case for Oregon State in week one. 

While Stanford found great success on the ground, Oregon State struggled to maintain consistency.  A normally great running team who have spawned the likes of Ken Simonton, Steven Jackson, and Yvenson Bernard seemed to forget what their identity was after half time.

James Rogers picked up where he left off in the first half with 49 yards on five rushes.  The fly sweep that everyone claimed was over-exposed in the Emerald Bowl a season ago was just as effective as before. 

His carries were limited in the second half.

Newcomer Jacquizz Rogers had a tough time finding the holes, but showed glimpses of his athletic ability.  14 carries did not allow him to get into a rhythm.

As the game wore on OSU seemed to fully abandon the run game that they've relied so heavily on in the past and went to a shotgun look.  In the end OSU threw the ball 54 times to only 28 rushes.

Not their identity.

I understand at some point the game dictates what you do.  If you're short on time, passing moves the ball and conserves the clock.  However, OSU is at their best when the run game is working, thus setting up the play-action.

Early on, receiver Sammie Stroughter broke free and was hit in stride for a 55 yard touchdown, set up by play action.  OSU did not go deep again because there was no play action threat with the lack of a running game.

With such young running backs, it seemed as if Mike Riley didn't feel comfortable handing them the ball in the waining moments of the game.  This greatly influenced the way the game turned out.

Durring a game, changes in schemes and play calling indirectly shows either a lack of belief in players' ability to execute properly, or confusion on the part of the coaching staff.  Either way, neither are positive and make it hard to get into the flow of a game.

100 yards in penalties, a lateral for a safety, two interceptions (one resluting in a back breaking TD), and five fumbles (one lost and one lead to a turnover on downs) are mistakes that can not be made if winning is expected.

Frustration surrounds Oregon State after what was a very confused and young looking team in Palo Alto on Thursday.