| Buckeye Football Ohio State football, moderated. Consider this the general community forum, but with a theme. Completely off-topic chatter should start at, or move to, the Open Discussion forum. |
11-23-2003, 08:45 PM
|
 |
woof
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,315
Points: 8,168.05
Bank: 219.32
Total Points: 8,387.36
|
|
|
Huh. Maybe I worded poorly, or maybe you misread, doesn't matter. I'm not at all trying to send you to Bucknuts, you're more than welcome to keep posting here. You mentioned elsewhere you hadn't been there before, I gave the link suggesting that there were more like conversations going on there. That quite a few take it too far, but there are still a ton of great posters over there. Sending you to Bucknuts (even if I was), shouldn't be considered a bad thing. Anyway, I'm not trying to be rid of you.
I also don't mean to sound defensive. You made a point, I saw it differently. We both made our points, and that's it. You (and anyone else) can be critical of Craig, I am at times myself of course. Just because in this case I thought he actually played well, doesn't mean I'm a groupie of his or something. And saying that shouldn't be read as me saying I don't like him as our starting QB, I do. I just don't feel a personal bias one way or another.
So again, not trying at all to be combative or defensive. Just sharing my perspective on the issue for whatever it's worth. The only thing I didn't really understand was the "stats are for losers" thing, and I said as much. The rest -- well I thought I was pretty clear on the whole 'happy to agree to disagree' deal.
Don't take anything too personally, we have no real beef.
--edit--
I understand your Thome example. My point earlier is in contrast of that though. Krenzel's good numbers came (I felt and feel) when we did need them. When we were down in the early going and absolutely had to score, he was nearly perfect for a couple critical drives. Doesn't mean he didn't struggle in the first few series badly, and then again later at the end of the game, but he had some moments there.
|
11-23-2003, 09:06 PM
|
 |
Serenity now
Senior Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,792
Points: 127,750.23
Bank: 0.53
Total Points: 127,750.76
|
|
|
Krenzel did have a hot hand on the first scoring drive, BUT he was definitely not "on" yesterday. Maybe the TV provided a different view than I had. I was directly between the uprights of the goalpost about 20 feet from the field. A great view to see exactly what the QB would see.
CK was extremely tentative with his passes on the first two drives. The pass to Jenkins would have indeed gone for a TD, and it really was not close to him at all. He had Holmes streaking across the middle later on in the first half. Holmes had a good 3-4 step lead on the DB from the moment he cut across. Krenzel could have hit him a lot earlier for a huge gain, as there was no middle contain by the LB or S. CK waited too long then overthrew. With Holmes's elusiveness in the open field, it would've been a huge gain as well. There were a few others where CK took a sack instead of throwing to a receiver (usually the TE) who was open.
That is not to say that CK played badly by any stretch of the imagination. He just could not get a consistent rhythm, mainly due to the OL's "Roger Dorn" blocking scheme. It's a huge difference, just look at Navarre. Not one sack the entire game. This was our real problem throughout the day. No OL composure, combined with scUM's OL giving Navarre all day (and he still threw 3 passes that could've gone for picks in the first half alone... with adequate pressure he probably turns it over multiple times).
The bottom line is that without a legit running game, our passing game wouldn't go anywhere against that D. It's not CK's fault, it's not SM's fault. We were banged up before the game started and were overmatched. A few breaks go our way and this is a completely different ballgame.
Lydell and Mo Hall both showed a lot of heart given their physical condition. I don't understand why people rip on Mo Hall's kick returns so much. He's got two bum knees. What do people expect? IIRC, he averaged almost 24 yards per return last year.
|
11-23-2003, 09:16 PM
|
 |
AM YISRAEL CHAI
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,145
Points: 17,781.16
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 17,781.16
|
|
You don't need to back down from the subtle attempt to send me to Bucknuts. I didn't really understand the first paragraph of your last post. You said something on the lines of "There are like conversations going on over there". Did you mean to say that there are conversations like the one I'm engaged in going on over there?
Oh yes, Craig didn't come through in a very crucial time. The miss to Jenkins was at a very Crucial time and it hurt. It Should've been a quick six and would've answered scUM's first score. Instead of it being 7-7, It was soon to be 14-0 and the Bucks were never able to quite get over the hump. It May not have been a difference maker in the End but who Knows?
I liked what Scott did in the Purdue Game and just wanted to see him get the chance to do it again. The guy was nearly perfect in his relief of Craig in that game and He helped turn that game into a victory. He started inside his own ten twice. I would've liked to see him get a chance to start in decent field positions for a couple series. Field position is so crucial and he didn't have it
|
11-23-2003, 09:34 PM
|
|
woof
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,315
Points: 8,168.05
Bank: 219.32
Total Points: 8,387.36
|
|
ashland, I'm not backing down from anything. If you had been chatting with me longer, you'd also know that I'm not very subtle when it comes to making my feelings heard. So again, I'll reiterate, my bringing Bucknuts up was because of 2 things (a) your post here and the one about the linebackers was more inline with convos (reasonable ones) going on over there (meaning you'd find a measurable wealth of like minds on the subject), and (b) because you mentioned you had never been there before. That's it. Your posts are a lot like ones that are common on Bucknuts. NOT the insanely bad ones that have people coming over here, those are the zealots.
Remember the whole point of this thread... My post and point of amusement was NOT that the guy felt Scott should have stayed in the game, but rather that the guy was saying that Tressel is a liability and that we'd be better off had we kept Coop.
Sorry, that's just assinine any way you look at it. The guy went off the deep end and had a little girl-style hissy fit, and it ended up on a forum. I found (and find) that hysterical.
As far as my intentions with you, If I wanted you gone, you'd be gone. I don't, you're not. It's really that simple.
As far as Scott vs. Craig, clearly you're a 'Scott guy' and that's cool. I don't have a problem with that. I've already made my points on the issue, but to gloss over them one last time, I think Craig played well for us. When Scott was in, he played decently as well, but he didn't do anything that suggested there was going to be an increase in production with him behind the wheel. He made some good passes and some bad, I think those guys are overall a wash, and there are times where each may well be a better play than the other.
So really, let's put this thing to bed, unless you're going to take offense to something on behalf of all veterans again. 
If you'd like to argue about something, I'm more than happy and willing. But this has no legs. You wanted to see more of Scott, I was happy enough with what I saw as a better performance than Craig than some other games this season, you think Scott could have done more, I don't entirely agree. 'Nuff said. Let's pick another issue if you want a debate. My "agree to disagree" stance takes the wind out of this one, and we can't really argue about my intentions when I brought up Bucknuts, as I'm the only one who knows what they were.
|
11-23-2003, 09:47 PM
|
 |
Administrator
Administrator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,082
Points: 239,031.78
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 239,031.78
|
|
Quote:
|
The guy went off the deep end and had a little girl-style hissy fit, and it ended up on a forum.
|
Hehe  |
11-23-2003, 10:00 PM
|
|
AM YISRAEL CHAI
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,145
Points: 17,781.16
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 17,781.16
|
|
I guees it's just that you said you had quit going there for good and then suggested I go there.
OK, I'll put it to bed.
You lost me on the Vet comment. Yeah, I come from a long line of Vets, WWI, WWII, Korea and myself a Gulf war vet. My uncle was killed in the battle of the bulge. So I get a little defensive  |
11-23-2003, 10:08 PM
|
|
woof
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,315
Points: 8,168.05
Bank: 219.32
Total Points: 8,387.36
|
|
|
I quit because of a minority, and because I wasn't having any fun there anymore. But a lot of great posters still go there.
I understand how and why you took that as a hint to go away, try and take my word when I say I didn't mean it that way.
Anyway, no problems here. I think (in retrospect) I might have overtalked the positives of Craig's play. I still feel he had a decent game overall, but I made it sound like it was one of his best efforts, when it wasn't. I think he was hitting more than he was missing, and that he really did have some stretches where he was on fire, but NO question that he missed some relatively "gimme" passes.
The vet thing was just a friendly joke. I'm a vet, and like you, there's a long history of them in my family on both sides. Oddly, I was the first (as far as I know) guy of all of them who decided to at least start by enlisting.
| |
