Yeah but he curls 200lb dumbbells so obviously there was no excuse. Also, look at his left arm. It's just hanging by his side not even attempting to catch the ball.
One of the best by LSUfreek
Your tweet is incredible Vico.
This is such a beauty to watch when they come in. It is incredibly effective.
Agreed; it should apply equally for everyone. A little difference between Wisconsin and Ole Miss though is we have an additional 3 games since the Alabama loss by which to judge Ole Miss, including a loss to Arkansas. Obviously I can't speak for Vico or anyone else, but I think the eyeball test (or that and a combination of some F/+ ratings that someone on this site compiles for us) should (and usually does) count for a majority of the rankings.
One problem with college football and polls are there are just so many teams and unequal schedules. There is also the ever looming and always unanswered question of what a ranking should be based on: who you think are the best teams (eyeball test people seem to hate) or resumes. Usually rankings are a combination of the two, which then makes them arbitrary of when you apply the eyeball test or just go by resumes.
I personally have never truly understood that if you thought Wisconsin was the 8th best team in the country on Friday and OSU was the 2nd best team in the country, what did you see from Wisconsin that would make you think that's not accurate? They lost to a team considered better than them in overtime by a turnover on downs on the 3 yard line. I think that confirms their ranking more than anything. Certainly more so than Clemson beating NC State in overtime at home or Louisville edging past Duke at home.
They're not. Michigan is likely a must-win and Penn St. is probably a must-win. We could lose any other, but only one, regular season game and it won't matter one bit. Only wins that are required to win the conference are must wins. We would still win the division with a single loss to NW, Nebraska, Maryland, or MSU.
I would dispute #2. A loss to a bad team likely does not put us out of the playoffs. But a loss that prevents us from winning the division, which this has the potential to do, would likely put us out of the playoffs.
Thanks. Although I wasn't trying to spell "Bucky" or anything if that's what you're implying.
Also, my first downvoted comment. Figured it was coming for pointing out the stupidity of dumb nicknames like "sCAM" or "ESPiN" or "$EC" or "scUM" or similarly as people refer to us as "Ohio" or "Suckeyes". Just like in the annual pet peeves confessional thread where employees and users of 11W also call out the idiocy of these.
I'm not sure the Ohio Suckeyes could have beaten sCAM Newton with that ESPiN and $EC bias though.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Don't tell that to Louisville fans. Everyone down here swears up and down the Louisville is getting in as a 1-loss non-division winner.
HOWEVER, the question is why do people say he is not a good passer. And those are the reasons. He has below average arm strength, he waits too long to throw a deep ball, and he is in accurate at medium and long distances at times.
With that said, he was absolutely amazing at MSU his freshman year. In that game, he hit the long throws. Without those, I'm not entirely sure we win that game. He is also the best I remember at decision making in running the read option.
Brutus took the famous basketball pregame/bench pants the IU team wears.
But then it is not a valuable analysis. You can't say "Let me show you why A is better than B. See all the potential here with A? Now with B, we are going to artificially limit its uses. Voila! A is now clearly better than B."
Or in this case "see with a 4-2 we are going to require at least 4 rushers (even though that's not really accurate). See how few possibilities there are? Now with a 3-3 we are not going to impose the limit that doesn't actually exist. See how many more combinations there are?!"
You're right. I glossed over that. But I think it's unreasonable to state that as a fixed variable since it's not fixed. I seem to recall Steve Miller getting a Pick-6 against Alabama and Solomon Thomas getting a game-sealing interception against Arkansas.
Maybe I'm missing the part of the evaluation? All you say is he is underperforming. In what way? I also kept thinking he wasn't playing well (overrunning ball carriers, not diagnosing runs plays quickly and plugging the hole, not getting clear of blocks), but then he kept grading out as champion so I said "what the hell do I know? he must be playing well."
Nice analysis, but it's missing a few items. We may think of these as unique items but I'm not sure the offensive line cares from a number standpoint if a d line is rushing the B gap or a linebacker is rushing the B gap. So hopefully someone that knows offensive line mechanics can pop in and explain.
In addition, you're missing the option of a DE (or even a DT) dropping into coverage with a 4-3 look. We've seen OSU do this a number of times. So the 4-3 options should also include:
5. Drop LDE into coverage
6. Drop RDE into coverage
7. Drop LDE into coverage, blitz LB1
8-however many other combinations.
In the end, it's the same number of combinations as it's still 6 players. So I think it goes to other factors, such as get your best players on the field.
Hard to fault a guy for staying at home surrounded by family and friends to play with Teddy Bridgewater initially and to become the #1 receiver on a pretty good offensive team. It's not like he chose GaTech's putrid passing offense over coming and competing at Ohio State.
On the radio this morning they read an official statement from the ACC. The marker on that side of the field is opposite the chain gang and is only suggested. There is no requirement for the marker of the line to gain to be within a certain number of feet of the sideline (or even there at all). Obviously the guy shouldn't be cheering, but that's not why Louisville lost (though it is why he won't be hired to do that job anytime soon).
The mistake is on Quick, who for whatever reason, either didn't realize he needed to get to the two yard line or didn't want to give the effort to attempt (diving after the contact, attempting to drive through the defender, cutting up field instead, etc). The people that the screeners are allowing through on the radio are all supportive of Quick (a hometown kid that OSU also recruited), which is nice.
Exactly. No way you can continue to win close games like that. Just ask the 2002 Buckeyes.
Yeah i'm not sure who you are talking with. LouBuck35 is correct that the people calling into the shows are drunk on the Kool-Aid. But, really they were drunk on the Kool-Aid about a week before the season. Consensus went from being 9-3 would be good, to certainly they'll go at least 10-2, to playoff bound for sure.
Just more SEC bias from ESPiN. I'm not buying it.