-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter osugrad21
- Start date
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
He didn't say that they did any running WITH Clarret. He just said that they didn't do any running WITHOUT him.
But, then again, they didn't do any running with me, either. Maybe I could have saved the day?
Also, the 2002 team was also the 2002-2003 team. But he said "teams". So maybe that's a wrong interpretation.
I liked Lydell Ross and Maurice Hall as much as anyone. But even I have to admit that the Buckeyes were a different team with Clarret running, compared to those two. And some of those offensive linemen made it to the NFL. I don't think the line was the problem.
Upvote
0
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
To clarify my apparently mysterious comment, I was responding to this:
[quote/wolverinemike:]this......Whether it's a 5 star stud or a 1 star project. They'll only be as good as the guys blocking for them.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. The point was that in that time frame - 2002 - 2003 my impression was that Ohio State - OHIO STATE, the home of the rushing game, - couldn't run for shit, either because MoC was injured, or because he was no longer on the team. Close games against Cincinnati, Illinois, Michigan and U. Miami were partly due to his absence or limited playing time. Despite missing most of three games, Clarett ran for over 1200 yards and scored 16 touchdowns in just 11 games.
Hall and Ross weren't awful. As a tandem, they ran for 1100 yards in 2003. But the offense, with the same QB and much the same o-line, stuttered in close games, just as it did in 2002 when MoC wasn't playing. Maybe it was the fact that MoC was more adept as a receiver thus giving the defense more to think about when he was in the game. Whatever it was, one running back was a huge difference in team performance.
It wasn't until Pittman, and then Beanie, came along that the running game was again consistent... and again the bucks didn't have much of a running game when Beanie wasn't able to go, per the comment by Jwins - "Beanie could find running room in a phone booth"
[quote/wolverinemike:]this......Whether it's a 5 star stud or a 1 star project. They'll only be as good as the guys blocking for them.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. The point was that in that time frame - 2002 - 2003 my impression was that Ohio State - OHIO STATE, the home of the rushing game, - couldn't run for shit, either because MoC was injured, or because he was no longer on the team. Close games against Cincinnati, Illinois, Michigan and U. Miami were partly due to his absence or limited playing time. Despite missing most of three games, Clarett ran for over 1200 yards and scored 16 touchdowns in just 11 games.
Hall and Ross weren't awful. As a tandem, they ran for 1100 yards in 2003. But the offense, with the same QB and much the same o-line, stuttered in close games, just as it did in 2002 when MoC wasn't playing. Maybe it was the fact that MoC was more adept as a receiver thus giving the defense more to think about when he was in the game. Whatever it was, one running back was a huge difference in team performance.
It wasn't until Pittman, and then Beanie, came along that the running game was again consistent... and again the bucks didn't have much of a running game when Beanie wasn't able to go, per the comment by Jwins - "Beanie could find running room in a phone booth"
Upvote
0
Everybody points to two things-- blocking and talent when it comes to running game production. That ignores one very key component, IMO...playcalling. A varied playbook opens up lanes almost as much as an All American guard. Was tOSU's line the past two seasons infinitelty more talented than in 2011? Did Carlos Hyde suddenly become much more talented? Nope. The playcalling ceased being "Keep Calm and Run Dave" game in and game out. The Bollman-JT offenses had a serious tendency to button things up when QB play was inexperienced and/or below par, or they didn't have a RB they felt could "create."
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
Good point. Or, similarly, when you have a quarterback that can keep defenses "honest" with his own play (see Michael Wiley's junior year - 1998, and compare to his senior year, when he didn't have Joe Germaine as quarterback, anymore), it helps the running back.
Upvote
0