And one of them is the owner of the Ohio State record for most total offense in a single season. The other one is starting, because he won three games at the end of last year in which Zeke Elliott averaged over 200 rushing yards a game.
If Cardale had put up the exact same stats he did in his three starts last year, but the defense happened to crap the bed and give up 43 points to either Alabama or Oregon, Barrett would be the starter right now.
Yep. This is not some kind of new issue. He was underthrowing most of his passes in the playoff too, but Smith and Marshall bailed him out multiple times. And Meyer is right: it's bad mechanics.
I personally don't love the alternatives. But I'm glad they athletic department is willing to
experiment for the sake of staying relevant, exciting, and excitingfind some way to sell new jerseys to OSU fans who already own jerseys.
Fixed that for you.
Cardale won the natty. He became the presumed starter unless beaten out.
By that logic Jeff Hostetler should have been the presumed starter ahead of Phil Simms going into the 1991 season. He was not, because that logic is dumb.
This is not a judgment on the decision, but on Ward's comment.
For all of Barrett’s strengths as a nimble rusher and accurate distributor of the football, he can’t stretch the field like Jones
But Barrett had his opportunity to beat out Jones in fall camp when both guys were working with the first team and rotating every day, according to coaches and players. He apparently did not do that. The decision was “really close,” according to Meyer, but it remained clear in Meyer’s mind that Barrett had not done enough to beat out Jones.
So, as a result, Jones earned the right to start the season-opener against the Hokies and has started each of the last two weeks, too.
This reasoning is bullshit. Jones "earned the right" to start because Barrett didn't "beat him out"? That presumes that Cardale should be the starter for no given reason unless Barrett unseats him. What gives him that advantage? If Cardale straight-up wins a QB competition between the two of them, then fine, just say that. But giving one the job by default, and then putting the onus on the other one to "beat them out," and if he "fails," giving the job to the default guy, is dumb reasoning.
It is almost universally accepted that Jones has a stronger arm, is a much tougher back to tackle on the move or take down in the pocket, is a formidable downhill runner in the mold of Big Ben, and indeed led his team to three of the biggest victories in school history, all after coming off the bench as essentially the third string QB.
All of which are reasons why he should maybe be a more heralded pro prospect (and I would quibble with "tougher to tackle" - you can't tackle what you can't catch, as Minnesota found out). Barrett simply runs Meyer's preferred offense better, because he makes better reads and decisions.
What's more, it's also nearly universally accepted that Jones is one of, if not the most likable players on the team, with a big grin, easy laugh, and continually amusing Twitter feed. He seems to have a good rapport with his coach and teammates, and seems like a genuinely nice young fellow.
And yet J.T. was voted team captain, by his teammates.
I feel like these are two pretty decent reasons why.
I am going to root like hell for Cardale to play like a destroyer of worlds, but I am also not going to be the least bit surprised if he continues to make terrible decisions and never once actually step into a throw. If our schedule wasn't fluffy Charmin soft it would catch up to him sooner rather than later.
So these are god-awful.
"Yeah, well, you too!"
Solid counter-argument. As if Detroit being a shithole somehow makes Cincinnati NOT Kentucky.
Cincinnati sucks. You're basically Kentucky anyways. Congratulations. You're slightly better than Kentucky.
I completely get the notion that Larry David was reminding the audience that, essentially, these were four horrible people we had been watching for almost a decade. The problem is that 1.) it really kind of rubs the audience's face in that fact, and, way more importantly, 2.) the episode is just not funny. Like, at all.
"You're giving me the 'it's not you, it's me' routine? I invented 'it's not you, it's me.' Nobody tells me it's them, not me. If it's anybody, it's me."
"All right, George. It's you."
"You're DAMN RIGHT it's me."
While I think Izzo is a tremendous coach (obvs) the methodology here relies solely on expected tournament wins based on seeding, and I think a very good argument could be made, and has been made elsewhere, that a big part of the reason Izzo regularly outperforms MSU's seeding in the big dance is that the committee just as regularly underseeds MSU. This is probably based on the fact that Izzo usually schedules a monster non-con slate, so his teams pile up a few more losses than most teams in the area where his teams should be seeded based on quality (not resume).
Just looking at his farthest runs: in the kenpom era, he has made three final fours. Those teams were seeded on the fifth, second, and fifth seed lines. According to kenpom's rankings, those teams should have been seeded 1, 2, and 5. In the same era he has made two elite eights. Those teams were seeded seventh and fourth. According to kenpom, they should have been 4- and 2-seeds. Hell, this year's sweet sixteen team is a 7-seed; Kenpom would have had them on the border between the 4/5 seeds.
Izzo is an all-time great coach and his coaching is probably a competitive advantage in March. But if all you're looking at is performance relative to seed, a significant factor in his great numbers according to that measure is the fact that the Spartans are usually underseeded by the committee. It's a lot "easier" to outperform your seed expectation when the committee regularly gives you worse seeds than your actual quality would indicate.
Possible reading comprehension fail on my part.
Sriracha or GTFO.
I was being flippant. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions. But yours is wrong.
It's okay to be wrong about things. You're wrong about The Dark Knight.
As for 2001, it's a gorgeous movie and when it's on TV I often find myself getting swept up into 10-15-minute stretches of it, but every time I try to watch the whole thing start to finish it just bores me to tears eventually.
Roger Ebert does a commentary track on the Citizen Kane DVD that is utterly fascinating. People don't realize it because it's not flashy action or CGI, but that film is LOADED with practical special effects shots. But then, I'm one of those assholes who doesn't understand how someone can not like that movie. It's a damn good story.
Just say no to horrifying diarrhea sludge. Your palate deserves better. Yes, even yours.
Fido is the one that's right.
I wish I could give you a million recs. In my opinion, Blade Runner might be the most overrated movie - and Ridley Scott the most overrated director - of all-time.
As for answering the question itself, to paraphrase a critic I like, when I saw Dr. Strangelove I immediately thought "I'm not sure how much I liked that movie, but that's okay because it clearly liked itself PLENTY ENOUGH for the both of us." That movie is about half as funny and half as satirical as it thinks it is.
His jumper looks much better. Still not great, but a lot better.