| 2005 Football Recruiting Forum for keeping track of past prospects from the 2005 class. |
|
View Poll Results: You want the next 5 star Buckeye recruit to be a...
|
|
Quarterback
|
   
|
41 |
14.91% |
|
Offensive Lineman
|
  
|
40 |
14.55% |
|
Running Back
|
  
|
138 |
50.18% |
|
Wide Receiver
|
  
|
10 |
3.64% |
|
Defensive Lineman
|
  
|
21 |
7.64% |
|
Linebacker
|
  
|
17 |
6.18% |
|
Defensive Back
|
|
8 |
2.91% |
|
Other
|
|
0 |
0% |
03-10-2004, 01:12 AM
|
 |
Thoughts Arrive Like Butterflies
Administrator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7,601
Points: 3,908,183.56
Bank: 3,051,578.14
Total Points: 6,959,761.69
|
|
Recruiting Poll
If the Buckeyes could only land one 5 star prospect next year, not counting Boone and O'Neal, what position would you like him to play?
__________________
Anonymous Donor
|
03-10-2004, 01:27 AM
|
 |
Heisman
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 883
Points: 3,402.26
Bank: 86.79
Total Points: 3,489.05
|
|
|
i voted tailback. i want one that is at least 215 right now and projects to playing at 230ish in the big ten mold of eddie, maurice, curtis enis, raymont, etc. someone that can run between the tackles and get one or two yards no matter what.
unfortunately this year looks like another year of the small tailback. i think there is one in NC toney barker (?) that fits the bill but i have no idea if he has any interest in us at all. then of course there is michigan verbal grady who fits the bill to a T and scares the hell out of me right now but he doesn't seem like a remote chance in hell.
__________________
enjoy,
the vg
|
03-10-2004, 01:50 AM
|
 |
Banned
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
Points: 12,046,927.93
Bank: 10.92
Total Points: 12,046,938.85
|
|
|
I want the best OL's every year, and the more the merrier. A very close 2nd is a DL.
The OL is the backbone of your offense. It allows QB's who are second-rate, or in some cases second-string to become Super Bowl heroes.
But, then there is the argument that you win Championships with defense. Look at the 2002 Buckeyes. Decent but not great OL, incredible DL. A strong DL makes your LB's better and your DB's better.
It just seems that there are more great DL's out there every year. The OL's are a little harder to come by.
|
03-10-2004, 02:00 AM
|
 |
Administrator
Administrator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,158
Points: 464,810.32
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 464,810.32
|
|
|
I voted RB too. I never want the Hall/Ross situation again.
|
03-10-2004, 02:43 AM
|
 |
Haole in da hills
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,328
Points: 47,432,263.07
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 47,432,263.07
|
|
|
You can never go wrong with a 5-star OL, and that's what I voted. A solid OL can make a decent RB good. Just look how well Ross ran when the OL played well (and when Ross was healthy). Actually, Hall also ran well when the OL did well and Hall wasn't dinged up. If you think Clarett was good in 2002, just think how good he could've been behind a solid OL, like Oklahoma's or Michigan's. We saw so many plays last year get blown up before they even started, due to poor OL play...
__________________
|
03-10-2004, 02:54 AM
|
 |
Recovering Arcade Junkie
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 233
Points: 1,968.50
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,968.50
|
|
|
I'll side with WoodyWorshiper here and go for the OL. The great play of the Bucks D over the last decade seems to consistantly bring in the talent on that side of the ball. While on offense our OL hasn't struck fear into many of our opponents lately. If we can solidify the OL, suddenly Ross and Hall aren't getting hit in the backfield and are solid backs.
|
03-10-2004, 03:21 AM
|
 |
All-American
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 286
Points: 205.90
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 205.90
|
|
|
After we shut down scUM's running game, I don't want them to have any hope that they may be able to pass the ball.
DEF. BACK
|
03-10-2004, 03:43 AM
|
 |
Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,944
Points: 1,033,092.31
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,033,092.31
| | |
