Based on JT's history, OSU will never have a high powered offense

[Jaxbuck]

I for one don't want a new coach or some funky TT type offense. I just don't see any reason on earth why a school like OSU cant be among the top 40-50 teams in 1A football in offense. Not with our talent and resources to attract the top coaches.

I don't think thats asking too much or looking for greener pastures. I think a lot of the frustration is due to the fact we know our own pastures are pretty damn green but don't get to enjoy them.

Take USC, or some old Miami teams, the 90's Cowboys, 80's 49ers...whoever you want and you'll find they are all superior defensive teams but what made them dynasty's was an equally dominant and dangerous offense. Thats the component we lack and untill we get it fixed we can only be a very good team, not a dominant one.

My contention remains unchanged; you don't have to be bad offensively to be a great defensive team.

[zincfinger]

I would take this even a step further: having a dominating defense should help the team's output on offense. What we've seen so far this year is OSU's offense routinely getting great field position, due to the turnovers the Bucks' defense creates (not to mention the phenomenal return game). Combine this with the fact that opposing defenses routinely get short rests between series because their offenses can't sustain anything against OSU's D. Under those circumstances, an adequate but pedestrian OSU offense should be putting up 30+ points a game. A hugely talented offense should obviously put up more, even with a ball-control type of approach.

I liked your analogies to other teams, Jaxbuck. I'd maybe look even more to teams like the Steelers of the '70's, the '85 Bears, or the '86 Giants. These were teams that were built on the foundation of dominant defenses, but they had weapons on offense who put points on the board, and their effectiveness in this respect was only helped by their defenses' dominance.

[Jaxbuck]

Originally Posted by zincfinger

I would take this even a step further: having a dominating defense should help the team's output on offense. What we've seen so far this year is OSU's offense routinely getting great field position, due to the turnovers the Bucks' defense creates (not to mention the phenomenal return game). Combine this with the fact that opposing defenses routinely get short rests between series because their offenses can't sustain anything against OSU's D. Under those circumstances, an adequate but pedestrian OSU offense should be putting up 30+ points a game. A hugely talented offense should obviously put up more, even with a ball-control type of approach.

I liked your analogies to other teams, Jaxbuck. I'd maybe look even more to teams like the Steelers of the '70's, the '85 Bears, or the '86 Giants. These were teams that were built on the foundation of dominant defenses, but they had weapons on offense who put points on the board, and their effectiveness in this respect was only helped by their defenses' dominance.

Actually the 85 Bears, the 86 Giants and the 00 Ravens are all examples of great defensive teams that won in spite of a sub par offense. They also all won once and were then merely a very good team for a while. The true dynasty's were the teams with a potent offense and a great defense.

Hopefully JT aspires to be the 70's Steelers more than the 85 Bears but so far it appears thats all we are going to be.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

Actually the 85 Bears, the 86 Giants and the 00 Ravens are all examples of great defensive teams that won in spite of a sub par offense. They also all won once and were then merely a very good team for a while. The true dynasty's were the teams with a potent offense and a great defense.

Hopefully JT aspires to be the 70's Steelers more than the 85 Bears but so far it appears thats all we are going to be.

I've heard some argue that JT's Buckeye teams remind them of the Ravens.

Personally, I still think they will get this thing rolling on offense, the Iowa game would be none too soon.

[Jaxbuck]

Originally Posted by sandgk

I've heard some argue that JT's Buckeye teams remind them of the Ravens.

Personally, I still think they will get this thing rolling on offense, the Iowa game would be none too soon.

If they put 30+ up on Iowa and look like the offense we saw week 1 I'll shut up, but after 4 years of waiting for the offense to start rolling in the next game color me skeptical.

I think the Ravens (other than the low life thug players) are a very good analogy to what we have going on here. Just like us they can go ahead and write off any season that the defense is anything less than dominant because the offensive woes are institutionilized.

[osugrad21]

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

I think the Ravens (other than the low life thug players) are a very good analogy to what we have going on here.

I guess Brian Billick doesn't know jack about offense either

[Jaxbuck]

Originally Posted by osugrad21

I guess Brian Billick doesn't know jack about offense either

Well it depends if you want to go by his reputation or his results.

he obviously has the offensive genius rep but what has he accomplished with that offense?