Hooker almost never is manned up on somebody. They let him play centerfield for the most part. So no, not definitely..
But their stud (Mike Williams) is on the outside, and have other good outside receivers. I don't think we move Conley away from their true #1 receiver.
Yes, I'd agree, I would rather someone like Baker or Worley on the TE for the most part and not Webb. Well, not Webb 1-on-1 on just about anybody is a good idea.
This is my fear as well. Webb on Leggett and Arnette on Artavis Scott their speedy slot receiver. I don't think we can sit in man Cover 1 all day against these guys unless we're getting major pressure on Watson.
But, as Kyle hinted in the article, other teams have gotten into trouble over committing to the run game. I am thinking we should be able to contain the run game without getting too aggressive and make them more predictable on passing downs.
What I see is multiple dangerous receivers and a QB who can spread it around to them. We should be able to play our "basic" defense and stop their run game though, and we're solid on the outside with Conley and Lattimore. But can Webb and Arnette stay with their TE Leggett and slot WR Scott? I don't like those matchups.
Assuming we stop their run game, the key is just going to be keeping Watson contained and making them work their way down the field. With our ball hawks and Watson's propensity for throwing picks this year, we should be able to snag a couple. In their uglier games, they haven't been able to run the ball, and Watson has been forced to throw the ball 40-50 times. He'll get his yards, just need to do what we do - get INTs and play great in the red zone.
I'd tend to agree, but thus far it seems the staff is pretty unwilling to leave in additional blocking help for some reason. At least need a TE to get in a chip block before heading out on a pattern to give him some help.
On the plus side, Clemson is not a great tackling team, and our run game could have some more success than it has against other top teams. Which of course sets everything else up.
I anticipate another 20-25+ carry game for JT. As much as I hate it, we kind of are what we are at this point. And I think that may be enough to get past Clemson, but we will need a lot of improvement if we make it to Bama.
From the profootballfocus article D.J. linked:
RT Isaiah Prince has been slightly better in terms of run blocking, but has given up 45 total pressures, ranking him dead last in the country in pass blocking efficiency out of 174 tackles who have played at least 50 percent of their teams’ snaps.
Yeesh. Here's to hoping they can get him straightened out for the CFP. I'd be willing to bet the majority of those pressures came against Wisconsin, Penn St., and TTUN. So, basically, when the skill of the defense/d-line goes up, Prince struggles big time. Clemson being top 4 nationally in sacks does frighten me a little bit.
I was really glad to hear Kirby Hocutt go into a little bit of detail in all the stats and metrics they look at when ranking the teams. He did this in regard to Washington over Penn St., but obviously those would vastly favor OSU as well.
That's my issue with guys like Kanell making this stand for Penn St. They are completely ignoring the body of work of OSU, and conveniently never mentioning the 2 Penn St losses. Let alone the fact the OSU was the much more dominant team all season long in many statistical categories. And would be at least a 10-13 pt favorite on a neutral field if they played PSU this weekend.
Logged in for UV.
Exactly, if we were ND this year, with the exact same schedule/results and 11-1 record, there wouldn't even be a discussion. ND would be in in that scenario. The double talk from ESPN on all of this is simply to create interest and get people to watch the games and the selection show on Sunday.
I personally think PSU is going to win, and win easily. So it may fail in to that Nope category. Like it or not, PSU is on fire right now, and Wisconsin seems to just be treading water to me. If their QB can't play, look out, it could get ugly quick. Be prepared to sweat out the selection show on Sunday.
I definitely would prefer Washington out of the possible round 1 opponents. Their schedule has been pretty weak, and while they have an explosive offense and passing game, I like our D's ability to keep them in check. I know they think they have a solid defense out there, but it wouldn't be ready for our level of physicality. Clemson on the other hand, kind of has a similar profile, but they have playoff experience and Watson has the ability to win a game all by himself. That would be a scary game for me.
+1. I think Michigan has almost zero chance as a 2 loss team with no conference championship. The media is really talking out of both sides of their mouth on this one. They're trying to get us to believe that OSU is not a lock if Penn St. wins, but in the same breath they are saying UM gets in if Clem or Wash loses and Penn St. wins? What?
FWIW I believe 538 rates UM's playoff chances at 1%, which sounds about right to me. The above article, and others in media, make it seem as though UM needs just 1 team in front of them to lose and they are in. I'm just not seeing it. Any and all of the 2 loss teams behind them who win a CCG will jump them, IMO.
Right, and from what I read, the study did not go into detail and attempt to make any subjective determinations of whether theses were good or bad calls. Which of course would be impossible to do and ruin their study's objectiveness. So at the end of the day you have just have raw numbers, totals of penalties if you will. And the earth shattering conclusion is that good teams get called for 10% less discretionary penalties than bad teams?? I know I'm simplifying that a little bit, but c'mon, even trying to label this study as something with any revealing value at all is a stretch.
I managed to sell all 6 of mine and come out with a small profit. I had a pair in 443 which are actually pretty nice seats and a bit more "rare", made $25/ticket on those after fees. Then I was stuck with my normal 4 seats in 220. As ZMBucks laments with his in 221, these were almost unsellable. There were probably 1,000+ tickets on Stubhub in that general area and nobody is buying. They were sub $50 last I checked.
Somehow I got a guy to pay $100/each just yesterday here local in Indy. Craigslist for the win. Said he was new to the area and just wanted to check the experience out with his family. If that didn't go through, yeah I'd be pretty much giving them away for sub $50 or just making plans to go to the game myself.
I blame this on Wisconsin more than PSU, although I expected better out of PSU. Thought they might carry the day like Iowa did last year. In 2014 it was a pretty easy ticket and the stadium was 75% OSU, hardly anybody from Wisconsin. Once again this year if you look at where the bulk of the tickets are at the cheapest prices, it is all within the Wisconsin side and sections.
Lessons for next year are I could have taken my medicine and listed the 220 tickets for $110ish and I think they would have sold Saturday night/Sunday. I just thought the market would "correct" a little but it never did. Just kept tanking every day. I think that is always going to be the case unless OSU or TTUN is in it from the east, or apparently Iowa from the west. But I don't know that I want to renew my 220 seats. If they don't have an option for upgrading, I think I will just wait until the normal pre-sale on Ticketmaster and see what I end up with.
10% less likely? That's supposed to be some earth shattering difference? It could also be explained away by in most cases these "flagship" teams have better players, better coaches, and better technique. Therefore the overmatched opponents are more likely to commit penalties such as holding, PI, etc.
I'm bitterly disappointed in this study, and the fact that it would even see the light of day on 11W.
Yeah really had to beat the bushes around here to sell my 6 tickets. Made a few bucks on a pair on Sunday and felt very fortunate to unload the other 4 today at face value. Guy could have gotten them much cheaper at Stubhub, although dear Lord does Stubhub just rape people on fees or what. Not only do they take 10% from the sellers price, which seems fair, but I was shocked to see they were adding on about 25-30% in fees on that price to the buyer.
Definitely rethinking my strategy for next year, that's for sure. I need some better "match up proof" seats. These corner 200 level seats are a dime dozen and nobody wants them if a team like the Buckeyes aren't in it.
Exactly exactly. I know many coaches have the saying "once you lose a game, you're leaving your fate to others" or something to that effect. Be that the committee, or help from other teams losing. Well there should be an additional saying, "once you lose two games, better luck next year."
The BCS at least established a "system" where there was a clear pecking order between 0, 1, and 2-loss teams. In order for a team with an additional loss to get in front of another team, there had to be a big difference in SOS and general performance.
And here we have OSU vs. PSU, where there is a 1 loss difference, and a pretty significant difference in SOS and general performance (advanced stats/margin of victory), and that is also owned by OSU. As the ranking in the OP shows, it's not even close in the old system. Now head-to-head should absolutely count for something, but not at the expense of everything else. Especially when considering it was OSU's 3rd straight game against a team who had a bye week, and 2nd consecutive road night game at a tough venue. And it took some miraculous special teams plays in the 4th qtr and a non PI call much worse than the ones TTUN is still whining about, for PSU to sneak out a 3 pt win.
Hah, just was saying this in the other thread. OSU would be an absolute lock at #2 in the BCS era, and there would have been little media controversy or backlash. Yes somehow with the field expanded to allow TWO more teams, we are sitting here debating the possibility of OSU dropping out in favor of multiple loss teams behind them. It's kind of absurd when you look at it that way, and makes one think this is just the typical ESPN/media ploy to get eyeballs on the screen each week for the rankings.
If they put out hard numerical values like this, then everybody would already know OSU was locked in and it wouldn't be as exciting to watch the selection show.
The not so funny thing is, if we were still in the BCS era, OSU would be a stone cold lock at #2, playing Bama in the NCG. OSU is #2 in every possible computer/advanced stat ranking. And of course a solid #2 in all of the polls. OSU would be in and it wouldn't even really be all that controversial.
Don't get me wrong, I love the CFP over the BCS, but I can't believe how adding 2 more teams to field and using a committee has so drastically changed the way we value teams. Losses used to matter, and there should be a sizable difference between 0, 1, and 2 loss teams respectively.