That's what I keep going back to...is it really a locker room or culture or Holtmann issue? Or is this just the nature of the beast these days. Yeah, we've lost a handful of guys to transfers, but we have also had a handful of guys transfer in as well. Players are transferring all over the country, not just out of Ohio State.
The season was a bit of a waste, because we wasted a Heisman caliber QB season, a great tandem of RBs and a very good, though not perfect, offense. This team was good but not nearly as good as some others in recent memory. Losing Bosa obviously hurt, but the D-line was still great all year...it was the LBs and safeties that struggled. They were inexperienced and they were in a scheme that they couldn't execute in. Even in that TCU game even with Bosa in the lineup, you could see the cracks in the foundation...the big plays. Linebackers out of position, DBs taking horrible angles, etc. That wasn't a particularly good TCU team as it turned out and they gave us a fight and put up big plays on us. This defense was hands down the worst I've seen in my lifetime at Ohio State for a variety of reasons. The offense even had very real struggles executing in the red zone. The 2018 team was good but was also very flawed...we've had many other more tantalizing "what if" teams to remember than 2018.
Lol, who? I've never seen anyone make that claim and I need to know who to laugh at.
How do we make the gray on the sleeve stripe permanent? What stupid petition do we have to start? I remember when they made the change to our base uniform about 14 years ago and pretty much everyone said "why?" For the last 14 years everyone has pretty universally said they like the gray on the sleeves version a lot better. They roll them back out as throwbacks and there's always pretty much universal positive reception and we've been calling for a return to these as our base uniform ever since we first wore them 5 years ago. Yet we keep banging our head on the wall with our current base home uniform. They change it when nobody asked for it and won't change it back when everyone actually is asking for it. Can't tell you how many times I've had the conversation, "why the hell don't we make this our permanent uniform?!"
Ladies and gentlemen, the DENNIS system has arrived.
I'd like to start by saying I'd take Dobbins over Beanie any day if we're talking RBs of the last 20 years. I actually think Dobbins is a better version of Clarett, personally. Both stout RBs with amazing vision, feet, hips and cutting ability...but JK has MUCH better speed...though to be fair, Clarett was bigger and probably more powerful.
Anyway, I think he sort of misspoke and meant stylistically could be the same type of RB as Beanie. I think it's a good comp, but Beanie was like Teague on roids.
I think Crowley looks smooth and has some shitftiness ability more than Teague and Chambers...but I also think he looks like he might be the slowest of the three in terms of breakaway speed. And obviously, I'm with ya...hoping his knee gets back to full strength.
I totally agree on all three though, they all lack that extra dimension that NFL caliber players like Dobbins have.
I just think he has more limitations as a dynamic running back. He's not shifty like Dobbins or Zeke...doesn't have that change of direction ability in his hips, knees and feet that help make Zeke and JK so great. He just has a much more real ceiling and it's physical things that you kind of usually just either have or you don't. He seems to have virtually no agility. Vision can be improved dramatically, but I'd say he has one less dimension than great/elite NFL caliber RBs. Still think he'll be a more than effective and over 1000 yard rusher because he's strong and has good straight line speed and will have a strong line.
Fantastic point. Can't say I disagree. I'm thinking in terms of malicious intent, but the rule is also trying to legislate out the danger in a reckless play. It still seems harsh, but I suppose I can understand it.
I wasn't at all excited about Teague going into the season. He showed me a lot more than I thought he was capable of and I feel confident in him today. That said, I think he has a much lower ceiling than Dobbins and frankly, I think he'll be easier for other teams to shut down if they actually key on him. Fortunately for him, defenses will have to key on Fields and all of his receiving weapons next year.
Been spoiled by Dobbins and his feet, vision, cutting ability, improvisation, etc. Teague seems significantly more stiff in the hips than Dobbins or most NFL/future-NFL caliber RBs. I think I heard Carpenter use the term, "railroad type RB" the other day and that term fits IMO. Teague is obviously very strong and has great straight line speed, but he isn't going to make great cutbacks for big gains or make someone miss, but he'll follow the play and hit the designed hole hard.
Wish him nothing but the best. He's gotten this opportunity at this school because of who his dad in law is, but also unfairly for him, he will have to deal with a lot of skepticism and people wary of nepotism. This just feels more like a Tressel type, "let's just elevate Nick Siciliano to full time QB coach" type of hire. I don't really know dick about Dennis other than who his father in law is and that he played WR at GT, so wouldn't be fair to just not give him a fair shake because of cynicism at this point. Just have to trust Day and Gene and Urban. Most importantly, he better be able to recruit!!
Would he settle for co-2nd fiddle?
He worked pretty cohesively under Chip Kelly who is a known control freak and also called all of his own plays. Was pretty highly regarded as a QB coach/OC while at Oregon under Kelly.
That was their only loss that year. We happened to be pretty damn good. Oregon scored all over everyone else that year including hanging 59 on FSU and 46 on Mich State. His offensive philosophy probably aligns very well with Day's since they're both Chip Kelly disciples. He was national QBs coach of the year twice at Oregon and was widely praised for his work with Marcus Mariota, who obviously had a phenomenal and decorated college career. If you call his offense weak, you're kind of saying the same thing about Ryan Day and Ohio State's offense as well because they're conceptually decently similar. My big question with him would be about him as a recruiter. After Chip left, it seemed like they slowly eroded away talent-wise. Not bad, but not the level of talent and playmaking he inherited from Kelly. I'm not saying he's the right hire for this position, I'm just saying I don't know why we would dismiss him this easily because we beat them once.
Wow, this is no less targeting-worthy than the Wade hit. What frustrates me most about these as potential targeting calls is that this is a ball-carrier, not some defenseless receiver stretching out for a catch or QB getting blindside-leveled. This is a ball-carrier a timely trying to avoid tacklers. Trevor Lawrence was ducking/bracing and in no way vulnerable/defenseless in the terms we're talking about. You could call this on damn near every other tackle on a runningback, but they never even look at those.
Yeah, I've come around to having less of an issue with the call as much as I do the rule. I don't think Wade violated the spirit of the rule, which is to protect defenseless players from malicious head/neck hits. I don't think there was anything malicious about the hit, Lawrence was in no way vulnerable/defenseless, nor do I think he targeted the head/neck...but he did clearly lower the crown of the helmet and led with it, which is a reckless/dangerous play, even if not deliberately dirty. This is where I do think a tier system could be useful...while I can understand them flagging the play in question maybe as just a personal foul, I just didn't think Wade deserved an ejection for THAT hit. But, these are the rules we have to deal with.
JK's drop in the endzone was a correct overturn IMO. The targeting call I don't agree with because the quarterback lowers himself and his own head to brace for impact. Wade did lead with his head which is why I can understand there being some kind of penalty, but I don't think there was any head hunting or malicious intent, nor was there a defenseless/vulnerable player involved that warranted a targeting call and an ejection. The catch/fumble overturn was just flat out inexcusable. Regardless of what any Clemson fan or compulsive contrarian dipshits make as a "plausible" argument in their minds still doesn't change the fact that, at the very least, this is/was a debate and in no way possible did that replay provide the irrefutable evidence officials religiously claim they require in order to overturn a call on the field.
Lol, this tweet is relevant...
I think this qualifies...
Wish I did but wasn't recording and have since changed the channel. Will check Twitter and see because I'm sure some people have talked about it on SM either way.
Forum Post 29 Dec 2019
I think I found their standard for what they consider to be a "football move"...
That's the thing, they could call targeting on every other damn tackle in a game when a runningback is being tackled if they wanted to based off of that call. But because it's Trevor Lawrence...
This is a great point and I have zero doubt in my mind they would've ruled it a TD in that scenario.
I can't seem to reconcile in my head the amount of times that I watch a blatantly obvious call NOT get overturned because there's some kind of dumb reasonable doubt or they're not 110% irrefutably confident, even though it seems so painfully obvious, so they let it stand. They decided THIS was so clear cut and obvious that they had to OVERTURN it?! There's not that tiny shred of reasonable doubt there...ya know, like the fact that the receiver actually caught and controlled the ball?!?