After all this time to learn from Tress & Urban, not to mention the crucible of 2011, & still not anywhere near ready for prime time (strictly in a dealing-with-the-media sense). Skin is way, way too thin & he doesn't even do *coachspeak* well. I've adopted the position for a while now that I don't want Luke fired, I want him hired, somewhere else. Hopefully he gets a lot better at this before then.
Ugly day for the offense, but I'm not stressed - early start, windy, blah blah blah. This team's issues are not with the offense. I just wanted to link to this: http://www.elevenwarriors.com/blogs/el-caballo-de-sangre/still-skeptical-about-this-defense & say that I stand by every damn word of it. This is not a National Championship-level team on the defensive side of the ball, & I don't think they can be.
Yeah, I hope I'm not being too dickish about it, but your preference seems nonsensical to me without some sort of justification. The 2010 group was objectively better than this year's in terms of experience & stats, & seems subjectively better to me based on having seen both groups in action. I mean, I'm willing to hear you out, but...
Thanks. Let's hope me & your devil are wrong :)
Thanks :) You too, SB97.
Fair enough. I should have been clearer: my *opinion* is that there are two potential *realities*, & they're not mutually exclusive.
I am entirely prepared to accept that, as the stats indicate, we have the actually 9th-best defense in the country. That's one potential reality. Another potential reality, that can absolutely be true at the same time as the 1st can be, is that this defense still has specific glaring deficiencies that any of the teams we might face in the Nat'l Championship game (should we make it that far) are likely to be able to exploit to great effect. I might be wrong about that - I'd be happy to be. But I remain skeptical. Not pessimistic, &c., but skeptical.
If you're saying that I'm all, "hurr durr stats say THIS but I think the defense sux", well, then, you shouldn't have allowed yourself to be "lost" by clumsy verbiage; I'm as interested to hear your thoughts on the defense as anybody else's.
Thanks for that link. I agree with everything Matt says there; & I remain skeptical, ha ha. Again, I have no problem believing that the defense is good, maybe very good, & improving. What I am skeptical about is whether it is good enough - or capable of being good enough at certain positions - to feel confident about a matchup vs. any of those 3 potential Nat'l Championship opponents.
I say I'm skeptical about our defense's ability to deal with potential Nat'l Championship Game opponents; you tell me to root for Sparty. Umm, OK.
Seriously: I have seen what LOOKS like improvement from this defense recently too, & I'm NOT saying they're not good or even very good. The question - again, in the context of facing the 3 teams I mentioned above - is whether that will be good ENOUGH. I'm skeptical that it will; I hope I'm wrong. I think we'll have a better idea of what this defense is capable of after the Indiana game.
I mentioned that one of the things I was worried about was our LB play; you cited the 2010 Rose Bowl. Let's take a look at the people occupying 3 pretty analogous LB/LB-ish positions on that Rose-Bowl-winning team & this year's:
2010 Rose Bowl: Brian Rolle, Ross Homan, Jermale Hines
2013 Buckeyes: Ryan Shazier, Curtis Grant/Josh Perry, Tyvis Powell
Is it really so off-base for me to be skeptical?
See my response to JFUNK above
I am certainly willing to "admit" that the defense has shown improvement lately. It still bears remembering that Penn State & Purdue are terrible, & that this recent improvement should be viewed with - wait for it - skepticism :)
I am very interested to see what happens against Indiana; hopefully we'll know more about this defense after that game.
Yo Vico! Killing it as always; sorry to take so long to say congrats on the move.
"Fickell can tell the linebackers are trying"
"(True Freshmen) Josh Perry, Camren Williams, and David Perkins all have opportunities to see the field at linebacker this year, Fickell said"
That game of Eff, Marry, Kill sure does suck but at least it's easy to figure out: you Eff Pelini, Marry Hoke, & Kill Kill. Pelini's crazy means the one Eff would be fun, Hoke is no looker but stable & you know the food would be good, & you'd be doing Kill a favor, just as you would for ANY Minny FB coach.
Listen to Desmond's punk ass speak in the passive voice: "It happened so quick..."
It was unsportsmanlike, and he's a dick for doing it. Screw him.
Congratulations, and thanks for all your work.
You're not "questioning" Gene Smith's word, you're discounting it altogether. And your extreme disappointment - which, incidentally, is shared by me and probably 99% of the people who call themselves Buckeye fans - doesn't constitute a valid reason for OSU to be punished more than anybody else ever has been for these types of violations.
You sort of give the game away when you say things like "zero effort". That's untrue and unfair.
Ditto Pam. The position summed up in Bucksfan's last three sentences, which is basically also MGoBlog's and other assorted haters' in a nutshell, is just wrong. Ohio State, via Tressel's misdeeds in his official capacity, absolutely did lots of things "wrong", and admitted and continues to admit them. They vacated a season, got the main culprit out of his job, and imposed probation. If we can take Gene Smith at his word, it would appear that the school is going to take steps to improve compliance efforts going forward.
It occurs to me that Bucksfan (and Brian Cook, and that dick from CBS whose name I'd never heard before 11W pointed me to his trolltweets) probably is unable to take Smith et al. at his word - that there's nothing short of him losing his job as well, and whoever ran the compliance efforts involving FB, probably all the coaches, and voluntary scholly reductions on the order of 15 or 20, that would satisfy Bucksfan's and the others' desires to see OSU act like it takes this seriously, whatever that means. Which is insane - and way out of proportion to anything that's gone on here. Of course, if I'm wrong, and there's some sort of middle ground between what I've mentioned above and what OSU self-imposed that would make these people happy, they're free to say so. The problem they have with that is any punishment much more serious than what OSU's suggesting would be way out of line with precedent and proportionality, and would be unfair example-making.
I personally feel like a one-year reduction of seven scholarships would be fair - one for each caught player and one for the coach, for the one year that was affected by all this. No bowl bans are in order here, despite how butthurt everybody EXCEPT the NCAA seems to feel about the Sugar, for all the reasons Pam mentioned.