PULLMAN. Though only a single day has passed since Washington State’s most recent outing, a road setback against Oregon State on Saturday evening, the impact of that performance continues to settle in.
The Cougars fell 48–30 to the Beavers, yet their offensive display offered encouraging signs. Quarterback Owen Eshelman, making his first career start, led WSU to its highest scoring output against an FBS foe this season. His performance spotlighted receiver Branden Ganashamoorthy, who set personal bests in catches and receiving yards, while also revealing a reliable capability in the running game.
Coach Kirby Moore, who opted midweek to shift the starting role from Caden Pinnick, whose six consecutive starts to open the season came to an end, highlighted the improved cohesion the change brought. “We just had a much better rhythm,” Moore noted, emphasizing the synchronized execution among all eleven starters. This included clearer communication, tighter coordination on option plays and run-pass options, and sharper pass-game timing. Early-down efficiency stood out, with third-down performance showing marked improvement in the second half.
The loss extended WSU’s slide to four consecutive defeats, dropping its record to 1–6 overall and 0–3 in Pac-12 action. The Cougars remain in search of their first win at the FBS level. Their defensive unit faced a formidable opponent, though scoring 48 points is no small feat, only teams from the early 2010s have routinely absorbed such tallies without consequence.
Looking ahead to next weekend’s home contest against top-ranked Boise State, three key questions emerge.
Was the pivot to Eshelman delayed too long? Throughout Saturday’s contest, where Eshelman accounted for three total touchdowns, two through the air and one on the ground, the debate around timing intensified. Had his skill set been sufficient all along, why was he held back until the season had already slipped?
That reflection holds merit. With Eshelman under center, WSU likely would have beaten Utah State, possibly edged past Fresno State, and even challenged Washington in the season’s opening Apple Cup, particularly given the Huskies’ recent inconsistency.
Moore and his coaching staff appear to have stuck with Pinnick longer than optimal, a choice that may have cost the program multiple victories. For a program accustomed to postseason success, having reached a bowl in ten of the last eleven full campaigns, such omissions carry weight. Moore and his staff now face scrutiny for their continued investment in Pinnick, who arrived last winter from the transfer portal with considerable promise.
Quarterback Competition Shifted Slowly Away from Pinnick
When fall practice concluded, Pinnick emerged as the preferred starter over Eshelman, despite the latter displaying the most dynamic throwing ability. Pinnick’s edge came from his familiarity with college football, having completed a full season of gameplay, and his physical profile as a genuine two-way threat. Throughout the 15 August sessions, he demonstrated those traits consistently, reinforcing the coaching staff’s confidence in him leading the opener.
That context helps explain why head coach Moore opted to stick with Pinnick at the start of the season, including the early road trip to Kansas State and the subsequent home contest against Duquesne. The real discussion, however, centers on when the opportunity arose, or should have arisen, for Eshelman to step in. While a lopsided victory over FCS Duquesne might have justified keeping Pinnick in, his performance in that game revealed recurring tendencies that had shown up earlier: inconsistent decision-making, occasional lapses in timing, and reliance on situational fortune.
One illustration was his lone touchdown pass against Arizona, which came after a defensive misstep rather than a deliberate execution. Across his starts, Pinnick’s performance consistently reflected similar patterns, prompting Moore to adjust his approach. Ahead of the Utah State game, Moore assumed direct control of playcalling, possibly viewing it as a chance to isolate variables and identify whether Pinnick’s struggles stemmed from external input or deeper foundational issues.
This strategy, though not foolproof, aligns with the investment a coach often makes in a player he recruited and developed over time. The emotional and logistical commitment to Pinnick likely shaped Moore’s patience, even as inconsistencies mounted.
Eshelman’s Window for Opportunity
Eshelman’s contributions during the season suggested he was ready for increased responsibility. His mobility stood out, 136 rushing yards and a score via the ground highlighted his versatility, yet he received fewer chances than his play warranted. Two fourth-and-short decisions in the middle of the field illustrate this: one at the OSU 48 with the Cougars trailing 7–0, and another at the WSU 49 with the Beavers ahead 20–3. In both instances, Moore chose to punt rather than trust Eshelman to convert short-yardage situations. Each time, the opposition capitalized immediately with a long touchdown.
Moore later explained the philosophy behind those calls, emphasizing trust in both the defense and the kicking game. He added that there was value in creating scoring momentum, even via field goals, particularly early in games. This was evident in the second quarter against Oregon State, when, on fourth-and-1 from the OSU 1, Moore opted for a field goal over letting Eshelman attempt a go-ahead conversion. The resulting three points marked the Cougars’ first score of the game and may have served as a subtle confidence booster for the squad.
Washington State entered Saturday’s contest as an 18.5-point underdog against a formidable offensive force, making a field-goal-heavy strategy a questionable choice for a team seeking its first win against such a dominant opponent in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Punting in those situations raises questions about the signal being sent to the quarterback.
The Cougars’ ground attack has struggled to find a rhythm this season. In the latest game, tailbacks Maxwell Woods, Kirby Vorhees, and Leo Pulalasi combined for just 26 yards on 13 attempts. This performance continued a trend of stagnation, exacerbated by an offensive line that ranks second-to-last in the Pac-12 for run-blocking according to Pro Football Focus.
WSU’s run-blocking grade of 51.2 places the unit at No. 127 nationally, with only 11 other programs in the country performing worse in that metric by PFF’s assessment. This deficiency makes it difficult for the running backs to generate meaningful production. The front line is not at full strength, with left tackle Maximus McCree starting in place of the injured Ashton Tripp, though Tripp’s own run-blocking grades have been below average.
The three running backs have delivered inconsistent results over the first six games of the year:
* Against Washington: 16 carries for 38 yards * Against Kansas State: 17 carries for 72 yards * Against Duquesne: 26 carries for 248 yards * Against Arizona: 17 carries for 59 yards * Against Fresno State: 12 carries for 45 yards * Against Utah State: 19 carries for 77 yards
Across all six contests, the trio averages 80 rushing yards per game. Against FBS opponents only, that average drops to 52. Previous reporting highlighted head coach Jake Moore’s decision to retain all three backs as a key offseason achievement in December. With five games left on the schedule, there is growing doubt about whether the group can become a consistent threat.
While the passing ability of quarterback Tyler Eshelman was expected to create opportunities for the run game, the tailbacks have still failed to produce significant yardage. A potential boost could come in mid-November when WSU hosts Colorado State, a team that currently ranks last in the nation in total defense, allowing 530 yards per game.
Improving the rushing attack is not merely an aesthetic concern. Eshelman demonstrated his own capability to run the ball effectively in the most recent game, but a more productive tailback group would help distribute the load and reduce the pressure on the quarterback.