Crazybuckfan40 - don't mean to single you out, but I strongly disagree with just about everything you wrote. I don't want to get into the specifics, but briefly:
1. I do agree that recruiting is going very well, and has (and likely will) under Tressel.
2. Player development is a HUGE problem, at least offensively. You list many offensive players, 14 of whom were drafted into the NFL after the 2002 season, that proves player development is fine. I say these players prove that it is NOT fine. If I recall correctly, tOSU was near or at the top of the B10 in sacks allowed, and near the bottom in rushing yards per attempt (at least if you take away Clarett's statistics) in 2002. Yet many of those OL are now starting in the NFL. It was not an effective unit, then or now, and that points to one thing - coaching. It is the coaches job to bring along these kids, and to develop them. The talent is OBVIOUSLY there, but the production is NOT. That means the problem is coaching. And, yes, I feel it is fair to discount Clarett's stats, because he was the exception, not the rule. Ross, Hall, Pittman, Joe, and Schnittker have not been able to move the ball effectively against a solid defense. No RB has, save for Clarett...and even he could only manage 50 against Miami.
Sorry, LBJ, I know you referenced the OL play in your post as well, but I don't think the line was any better in 2002 than it is now...but to me, that only goes to further prove your point, because in 2002 we had MoC and Krenzel to make up for the OL.
3. Coaching technique has EVERYTHING to do with the problems these kids are having. While lack of execution certainly comes into play, the ineffective zone-blocking technique that Bollman has been trying for at least three years now is useless, and that is a coaching problem. Either coach a different scheme, or bring in a coach that knows what he is doing. With the athletes we've had on this OL in the last 3 years, there is absolutely NO excuse for the lack of results. Again, coaching.
crazybuckfan40 said:
4. Offensive philosophy. I know this is where I am going to strongly disagree with a lot of you guys.
First does Tressel have a conservative mind set. Yes. Can an offense be good with a conservative mind set. Yes.
So what needs to happen to have a good offense with a conservative mind set. Execution, Execution, Execution.
I am going to start off by comparing our offense to lets say Princeton in basketball. They set pick after pick and wait for the pefect oppurtunity to take advantage of the defense wheter it be an open three or a back door cut for a layup. The word I like to call it is METHODICAL. Is it fun to watch no(unelss they are your team), does it get the job done yes. So when they go up against a lesser team they still do everything like they would agaisnt a better team and so they still don't put up a great value of points, b/c they still walk it up the court and work the shot clock, just like they would do against a better team.
Our offense doesnt have the execution, we are not finding the open areas in the zones, we are not making the pass, the block, the catch.
It has nothing to do with the play call that is in. All plays are put in the game to be run to pefection and gain yardage.
I have never seen a game where the playcalling was a obvious problem. Playcalling is a problem when you are running the ball when it is 3rd and 7. Or passing on 4th and inches. Last game we were trying to create mismatches with Teddy motioning out and putting gonzo in the slot and so forth. We didnt find the mismatches. Maybe they were covered or something.
I think a main problem in our offense is that teams play zone against us and we are not able to just find the open area and when we do the ball arrives late.
Last game we use PA we threw down the field and we tried to get Teddy the ball.
Also we do not run a spread offense. We run a basic offense out of a spread formation. We do it to get our best guys on the field and to spread the defense out. I can almost guarntee when we get Chris Wells and he is as good as advertised we will be back in the power I.
So is there one thing that can fix the problems no. Does USC have problems on offense yes, but they look flashy b/c they don't play great defenses. I am not discrediting USC offense but they havent played great defenses like we have and.
The only thing I would like to see is more execution, hit a deep ball, bust that long run, and things to that nature. It is just one thing or another that is not happening. They need to work at it and get it right. I don't think it helps that they are still trying to find themselves and it doesnt help when there are 108,000 fans screaming and yelling and one of your main contributors goes down.
So lets all just settle down and let young kids go and try and find themselves out on the field.
This, I don't understand. This starts off apparently addressing the offensive philosophy, but seems to go on and address only the play-calling. Personally, I think both are somewhat lacking. The offensive philosophy does not take the intangibles into the game. JT is perfectly happy winning by one point every game...but you CANNOT count on everything going exactly as scripted. There WILL be turnovers, there WILL be penalties, and your opponent WILL surprise you. So build a frickin' cushion into the gameplan, for cryin' out loud. The playcalling goes back to the offensive philosophy...fix the philosophy, and the playcalling will take care of itself.
One last thing...
LordJeffBuck said:
Now for a brief word on "Tresselball". If you haven't figured it out, Tresselball is designed to force both teams to play a "perfect" game. If Ohio State has more talent than its opponent (usually the case), then the Bucks should win if they play a "perfect" or "near perfect" game. If Ohio State has equal or less talent than the opponent, the Bucks must still play a "perfect" or "near perfect" game, and then rely on the opponent to "crack" under the pressure which Tresselball forces upon the other team. In other words, Tresselball gives the a less-talented Buckeye squad the chance to win by beating the opponent in the battle of "intangibles" - just think how many times OSU's opponents seemed to "choke" near the end of games in 2002 (shanked punts, dropped passes, turnovers, penalties, etc.); or conversely, how many "lucky" plays went Ohio State's way. That, my friends, is the essence of Tresselball - play solid, mistake-free football, and don't crumble under pressure; use your special teams to win the battle of field position; and when the opponent begins to weaken, capitalize on their mistakes.
I agree with your definition of "Tresselball". But as I stated above, I don't like the philosophy, and don't see the need for it. While this type of game will give tOSU a chance when they are facing a superior team, it also gives inferior teams a chance to top tOSU. Again, all it takes is ONE mistake...a dropped TD in the endzone. A QB fumble at the end of the game. These things happen. Your players will not ALWAYS be able to execute PERFECTLY. And to be honest, they shouldn't have to - and definitely not when they're playing an inferior team.
To me, there are two noticeable differences between this years squad, and the 2002 squad:
1. This squad is MORE talented. Save for the RB and DL spot, I believe there is more talent at every single position. Some are debatable, but very close, others are very clear. Argue for the QB spot if you like, but Krenzel, great as he was, was NOT as talented as either Smith or Zwick.
2. This squad is not lucky. Or at least not as lucky as the '02 squad. There isn't a fourth down miracle at Purdue this year, and there isn't a Clarett ripping the ball away to keep the O on the field after a turnover, and this year our opponents aren't going to miss the last second field goals. But the talent is still there...we just need to use it better.<!-- / message -->
