Ohio State 20, Wisconsin 17 (Oct. 4)

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by BadgerNation

Finally, to Miliani, Pryor is the X factor. I can promise you that an umbrella defense is going to be deployed by Wisconsin at the start of the game. Like it or not, Pryor is going to have to complete some throws early. If that happens, I don't like our chances. If Ohio State becomes one-dimensional (Beanie run, Pryor run) then the scales tip to the Badgers.

Yep, Pryor is going to be the X-factor to our offense as long as he's at Ohio State. I think Wisconsin will need to force him to "throw deep", at least on occasion, not just "to throw". He has already shown the ability to complete the short-to-medium ranged passes, but has yet to prove his deep ball. If by an "umbrella" defense, you mean a softer, deeper pass defense to cover as much of the secondary as possible, I think Pryor would have a field day with the short passes. Take away the short stuff, maintain outside containment, and make him throw 15+ yard passes. Oh yeah, then there's this kid named "Beanie" in the backfield you have to worry about, so playing a tighter defense will also help in that regard.

[OSUBasketballJunkie]

CPD

Ohio State football: Buckeyes to get a first look at Hill

Posted by Doug Lesmerises October 02, 2008 12:07PM


AP file
The Buckeyes haven't seen this before.


On the list of 10 reasons that Ohio State reached the national title game last year, not facing Wisconsin running back P.J. Hill checks in there somewhere around No. 9. Playing a power running team without its power running back changed the complexion of the matchup.
While Beanie Wells lugged the Buckeyes to victory over the Badgers last season, Hill was forced to sit out the game with a bruised leg. In his place, Zach Brown ran for 63 yards on 20 carries, a 3.2 yards per carry average. Hill was missed, Wells busted out for three touchdowns in the last 18 minutes of the game and the Buckeyes pulled away for a 38-17 win.

Continued............

[brodybuck21]

Originally Posted by OSUBasketballJunkie

CPD

i still dont see the big deal with hill. hes an ok back but nothing special imo. id love to see his career numbers vs decent teams. anyways, i hope the buckeyes put wisky in their place and shut those moronic fans up.

[osugrad21]

Scout Premium-Rea's Say: Times Have Changed For Wisconsin

[LitlBuck]

I haven't read this entire thread so I apologize if this has been discussed but I will be extremely upset if Ohio State does not put seven guys in the box, similar to what sCum did last week, to stop the running game of the Badgers. Granted that they will have Beckum back so that probably will take care of one of our LB's or the SS. I just don't think that Wisconsin has enough of a vertical passing game to beat us if we stop the run and it will take more than just our front 4 to do that IMO

[Tlangs]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

I haven't read this entire thread so I apologize if this has been discussed but I will be extremely upset if Ohio State does not put seven guys in the box, similar to what sCum did last week, to stop the running game of the Badgers. Granted that they will have Beckum back so that probably will take care of one of our LB's or the SS. I just don't think that Wisconsin has enough of a vertical passing game to beat us if we stop the run and it will take more than just our front 4 to do that IMO

do you mean 8 in the box? 7 in the box is a standard defense.

[LitlBuck]

Originally Posted by Tlangs

do you mean 8 in the box? 7 in the box is a standard defense.

The children from up north put about 7-8 guys within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage at the beginning of the second half and just dared Wisconsin to throw the ball. It was not a normal defense that would contain both passing and running. It was close to being a goal line defense but Wisconsin was without their top TE so they continued to run and that is one of the reasons why they lost the game. Their defense was on the field almost the entire second half because the children held them to so many 3 and outs.

[HorticullyBuck]

What this boils down to is which DEFENSE has to be the LEAST one dimentional. whoever has to constantly overload the box is going to loose from a big pass play eventually. (my prediction is that both QBS have to ability to drop a big bomb sooner or later) I think the buckeyes have a edge in this; not only because of defense but because of offense. we have two runnings threats. two GREAT threats. Wisky has PJ hill and a qb who can run kinda. if the defense plays better than their previous games; which hopefully the natural foward progression of the year prevails and we can slow the wisky run better than they slow us. i disagree with people saying this games shoulders is on TP; i think thats what the Penn state game will boil down too i beleive. whole nother topic

[Bucky Katt]

Originally Posted by brodybuck21

I have something to say and here it goes....

[censored] wisconsin, [censored] brooks bollinger, [censored] brett bulimia, [censored] ron dayne, [censored] bucky badger, [censored] john stocco, [censored] lee evans and [censored] their drunk moronic fans. i know osu fans have a bad rep and in a lot of instances it is justified, but how can a fan base with numerous tales of how they throw items such as batteries not get more national attention? Either way...

[censored] EM ALL! I hope we beat them 85-0......

ok i feel better now....

Emphasis added for words worth repeating.

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

Granted that they will have Beckum back so that probably will take care of one of our LB's or the SS.

Hopefully a safety. I don't think OSU's linebackers can hang with Beckum.

[LitlBuck]

The problem was last Saturday the Wisconsin coach did not throw a pass until he was backed up against his goal line and even I knew it was coming and it bounced off the WR and they were behind so than they had to throw. Is their coach and thrown a couple passes in the third quarter, they probably would have gone for TDs and they would not have had to be bombs.

[generaladm]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

I haven't read this entire thread so I apologize if this has been discussed but I will be extremely upset if Ohio State does not put seven guys in the box, similar to what sCum did last week, to stop the running game of the Badgers. Granted that they will have Beckum back so that probably will take care of one of our LB's or the SS. I just don't think that Wisconsin has enough of a vertical passing game to beat us if we stop the run and it will take more than just our front 4 to do that IMO

I'm sure the Buckeyes will employ a defensive strategy geared to stop the power running game. The reason we haven't seen OSU stacking the box is because we have played four spread offense teams, and one that would exploit any overcommitment by the defense. I'm guessing we'll see a standard 4-3 formation most of the time. Both of our safeties are good in run support, as is Malcolm Jenkins. As far as covering Beckum, putting Hines or Moeller on him from LB may do the trick. They are both fast enough, the question is do they have the experience, and can they make up for the size difference? On passing downs, I would be tempted to stick Chekwa on him. He doesn't match up physically, but he has the speed to stay with him, and the hops to knock the ball away. I wonder if Beckum will be his old self coming off a hammy injury.

[buckeyesin07]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

The problem was last Saturday the Wisconsin coach did not throw a pass until he was backed up against his goal line and even I knew it was coming and it bounced off the WR and they were behind so than they had to throw. Is their coach and thrown a couple passes in the third quarter, they probably would have gone for TDs and they would not have had to be bombs.

Wisconsin fans are claiming (which may be true) that the reason the passing offense was so pathetic against UM is that Beckum was limited and their other TE was out of the game. Regardless, Wisconsin must pass the ball on us much better than they did last weekend, or they won't have to worry about converting a two-point conversion at the end of the game, because they won't even be in it.

FWIW, I really like OSU's chances if Hill gets the bulk of the carries--Brown poses much more of a threat to our defense as far as I'm concerned.

[LitlBuck]

Wisconsin fans are claiming (which may be true) that the reason the passing offense was so pathetic against UM is that Beckum was limited and their other TE was out of the game. Regardless, Wisconsin must pass the ball on us much better than they did last weekend, or they won't have to worry about converting a two-point conversion at the end of the game, because they won't even be in it.

Clay is also good. He is a power back with more speed than Hill. I think that P.J. does more of a bull rusher for the lack of a better term. I know that both of their TE's were out last week but they didn't even bother to try and throw the ball to a WR or even a swing pass out of the backfield. It was just very poor playcalling IMO

[LitlBuck]

Originally Posted by generaladm

I'm sure the Buckeyes will employ a defensive strategy geared to stop the power running game. The reason we haven't seen OSU stacking the box is because we have played four spread offense teams, and one that would exploit any overcommitment by the defense. I'm guessing we'll see a standard 4-3 formation most of the time. Both of our safeties are good in run support, as is Malcolm Jenkins. As far as covering Beckum, putting Hines or Moeller on him from LB may do the trick. They are both fast enough, the question is do they have the experience, and can they make up for the size difference? On passing downs, I would be tempted to stick Chekwa on him. He doesn't match up physically, but he has the speed to stay with him, and the hops to knock the ball away. I wonder if Beckum will be his old self coming off a hammy injury.

Agree with your philosophy but I want to see our 3 LB's very close to the line of scrimmage. Regarding Beckum I keep on having visions of a few years ago when a Purdue TE kept on making third-down receptions against us while one of our LB was chasing him from behind

[brodybuck21]

Originally Posted by LitlBuck

Agree with your philosophy but I want to see our 3 LB's very close to the line of scrimmage. Regarding Beckum I keep on having visions of a few years ago when a Purdue TE kept on making third-down receptions against us while one of our LB was chasing him from behind

2000 purdue game and courtland bullard could not cover the TE...at least that's my nighmare scenario for this game