Lighteyes's picture


MEMBER SINCE   January 04, 2017

Recent Activity

Comment 20 Apr 2019

You can and should argue they played the wrong dudes last year, but it actually wasn't being too loyal to older players. Brendan White should have been playing earlier, but the guys they tried ahead of him (Pryor, Wint, Wade) were also sophs, same as White. Same thing with the linebackers - Pete Warner was a true soph and Tuf Borland was a redshirt soph.

It's not a loyalty issue, it's just mis-evaluation.

Comment 19 Apr 2019

I laughed at that too. I also spent a little too long trying to date that game - I'm pretty sure it's 2009, since it's (a) after Alabama came back (2008 or afterwards), but (b) before Florida and Texas fell off (earlier than 2010), (c) it also fits with Oklahoma since IIRC 2008 was the Sam Bradford year, and (d) I think that was the year that Georgia Tech was excellent. 

As for the QB recruiting, I said this in a thread yesterday, but if the model becomes to grab an elite guy every other year or every 3rd better have a really good high school QB evaluator, because the consequences of missing on your elite guy (bust, injury prone, whatever) would be enormous, year-long or even multi-year ramifications. 

Comment 19 Apr 2019

2014 was an anomaly. The number of times when the third-string QB is relevant are far, far outweighed by the seasons where the starting QB basically plays every relevant snap. 

Even at Ohio State: We all remember the 2014 season where Cardale came in and played like a hero off the bench, but the much more common situation would be 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2016, and 2018 when the first-string QB took almost every important snap and the backup got maybe a dozen non-garbage time plays the entire season. 

And even in situations where the backup QB does get playing time, it's often just for a game or two due to injury - 2017 Haskins only got in a single game, 2012-2013 Kenny G only got like 4-ish games, etc.

Comment 18 Apr 2019

If you're right (and I think you are), then high school QB evaluations are going to be ultra-critical because picking the wrong QB is going to wreck at least one full year, if not two.

I mean, let's imagine Fields doesn't match what we're all hoping - I don't think this'll happen, but let's just play the scenario out: If Fields is average or can't stay healthy or whatever, that obviously means 2019 is a shaky year because we're relying on Fields AND it likely also puts 2020 on shaky footing unless Jack Miller gets ready quickly as a true freshman.

Comment 14 Apr 2019

The issue with a grad transfer is just that their rotation is already going to be pretty full. Unlike with Keyshaun Woods or Andrew Dakich, there's no obvious hole on the roster so that you can legitimately promise 20 minutes a night.

Instead, you'd need to find a grad transfer who's willing to accept minimal playing time...but that transfer would still need to be good enough to be worth taking. That's a hard needle to thread - not saying they absolutely can't find a guy like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't find a good fit.

Comment 13 Apr 2019

The reason people are universally panning the Albies deal is because it's just so wildly undermarket as to be nonsensical. The Ringer article breaks it down, but there have been a players recently who haven't even reached the majors that have deals better than what a 22-year old All-Star entering his prime just signed for. SBNation did a calculation based on the typical "free market cost of a win share" and over the length of the contract, Albies left something like $200 million dollars on the table - i.e., his $35 mil contract is like 1/6th of what it should be.

To put it at a money scale which is more relevant to the average American, it's like if you went to buy a car and after negotiation, agreed to by a Honda Civic (MSRP: ~$20,000) for $50,000+. The overall decision to buy a Civic (stay in ATL) is fine, but the financial number is completely out of line - you could have gotten that exact same endpoint with far better fiscal numbers.

Comment 11 Apr 2019

I think it comes down to what you actually see when you're watching the game.

For example, let's assume Fields has a great game. How did that happen?

>Are the receivers pretty well covered, but Fields just kept hitting receivers in stride, planting passes perfectly on the far shoulder, anticipating throws, etc? Then you should be super excited about the offense and not particularly worry about the defense; sometimes you can do everything right and just get beat by a perfect pass.

>But if Fields has a big game because receivers are open by miles, LB's are out of position, and DB's are missing 'tackles', then you should be pretty concerned about the defense.

And same sort of questions if it goes the other way - did Fields go 5/12 because he was overthrowing guys or were there just some really good pass breakups and stellar coverage?

Comment 10 Apr 2019

Do people who spend their time complaining on Twitter about articles they haven't read actually go "out in public"?

Comment 10 Apr 2019

Well, if you're a couple years away from going pro (and/or enough of a benchwarmer that you're clearly "going pro in something other than sports"), it's probably not a great use of your time, energy, and potentially money to waste time on a process that doesn't really matter to you any time soon, if ever. 

But for someone with a serious shot at even being an undrafted free agent in the next year or two? I'm not really sure why you wouldn't do it since there doesn't seem to be much downside.

Comment 08 Apr 2019

From a pass catching standpoint, the past few years, the TE position as a pass-catcher has effectively been the H-Back position. Other schools may regularly produce good tight ends (Iowa, Minnesota), but those schools also usually didn't have much of an H-back role - Iowa can give 100 total touches to their tight ends because they don't have a star like KJ or Parris running routes out of the H-back role to get the ball.

Comment 05 Apr 2019

Yeah, that was a super weird comment.  I don't know who he's seeing that's "skeptical", but as far as I've seen, pretty much everybody is on board. The only possible skepticism about Lincoln Riley is whether or not he'll be able to turn down a future parade of NFL offers. I mean, even if you want to say his team's weren't 'complete' due to their defensive liabilities, there's still at least 120 FBS teams*that would gladly trade their 2017-2018 results for Oklahoma's.

Not Clemson or Alabama obviously. Probably not Georgia even though their 2018 wasn't as good as Oklahoma's. Maybe not Ohio State depending on how you view "winning major bowl games" versus "losing in the playoff". Possibly not UCF if they're making a long-term bet that in a couple decades, people will just sort of nod their heads and accept their '2017 national champions' claim without comment. And...that's pretty much the full list, I think.

Comment 04 Apr 2019

In addition to the lack of titles, the other big historical difference why fans/media consider Ohio State a football school is simply how those 'purgatory' periods were. The years between 1968 and 2002 might not have produced national title banners, but still won plenty of conference titles (15 if Wikipedia is correct) while being in the top 10-15 teams in the country almost every single years, pumping out pro talent, etc. Even if they weren't quite winning titles, there was still plenty of other success to draw eyeballs.

By comparison, the basketball team went almost three decades (1971 to 1999) with two fantastic Jim Jackson years, two other Sweet 16 appearances, and then not a ton else that jumps off the page.

That said, I'm looking forward to Holtmann continuing to develop the roster. That stretch from 2005 to 2012 when Ohio State won 5 B1G regular season championships, 4 B1G tourney championships, was a fixture in the NCAA tourney, and stood toe-to-toe with Kansas, Kentucky, etc in heads-up matchups? Not a fluke, that's a legitimate level that Ohio State can absolutely get back to...and everything Holtmann has done since walking in the door has made me believe that he's got the coaching and recruiting acumen to get there.

Comment 03 Apr 2019

That's always been my belief too. The only way this is an actual competition for Baldwin is if Baldwin is clearly and unquestionably the best man for the job - not "both guys are good", not "well, both guys have good and bad days", but a flat out "yeah, Baldwin is outplaying Fields and no sane person could argue otherwise". Anything short of that and Fields is starting against FAU.

Comment 02 Apr 2019

I certainly hope a first-year DT starter does awesome, as the only proven commodity at DT is Landers (who's also had injury concerns). So for this line to excel, it will really help if at least one of the DT's without a lot of experience really steps up.

That said, I'm not sure Togiai and Vincent are eligible to go one-and-done - both are listed in the scholarship chart as true sophs, so even if they ball out (and they might! both of them definitely have the athleticism to do it), they'll still be around next year.

Comment 02 Apr 2019

That's way too hot-takey.

First off, we don't actually know how good these dudes were the season before they broke out. The coaching staff repeatedly said that Haskins in 2017 wasn't remotely ready to be what he was in 2018; maybe they're right or maybe they're just saying that (I personally believe the latter, but I wasn't in that QB room), but there definitely are  guys who improve over time. It's not hard to believe that Malik Hooker, unheralded three-star, wasn't sufficiently polished in coverage as a redshirt freshman or that Terry Glenn, walk-on, wasn't ready to step up until after several years of development and seasoning. As for Lattimore, he was always expected to be a future star, but physically couldn't play earlier due to the nagging hamstring injuries..

Secondly, all of these guys were behind excellent players. It's not like they had a hidden gem stuck behind a bad to average player, the players in front of these guys were all college stars and future NFL'ers.

Comment 02 Apr 2019

the sports bars and the government can make some serious cash. 

I support legalization of sports gambling, but this statement has some caveats worth noting.

1.) The sports bars can make some nice money, but it's worth noting that for the average person, an entertainment budget is an entertainment budget - if legalizing gambling means spending more money at sports bars, it means spending less money elsewhere like other restaurants, movies, etc. No, the sports bars don't (and shouldn't) care about this, but it's still worth keeping in mind that this is a win for one industry and loss for others.

2.) It's really not "serious cash" for the government. The sponsors of the bill themselves estimated the tax revenue at between $12.5 million and $20 million. In the context of Ohio's $70 billion annual budget, that's basically a rounding error. Yes, you'd certainly rather have the state of Ohio get that revenue rather than going into the pocket of some shady offshore casino or a neighboring state, but calling it "serious cash" is a bit of an overstatement.

Comment 28 Mar 2019

Reading the USA Today article, the problem seems to be that they never got the NFL and union to buy into that plan though.

The idea of a minor league makes sense, but there’s a lot of legitimate practical considerations for the union and it doesn’t appear like the AAF had thought it through or worked with the union ahead of time to make sure everyone was on board.

Comment 27 Mar 2019

Tress got six in a row. Sure, he shared some of them. You want to imagine JT in the unified title era? 

In fairness, Tressel wouldn't have made the unified conference title game in at least two of those years - 2005 and 2008, Ohio State is finishing second in the B1G Leaders/East, thanks to having the same record as Penn State and a head-to-head loss. And in 2010, depending on the divisional alignment, Ohio State might not have made it either - Ohio State had the worst record in the shared head-to-head triumverate (OSU: 0-1, Wisconsin 1-1, Sparty 1-0). So if they used the same "Leaders" division setup they had originally, Ohio State finished second to Wisconsin, if they use the current B1G East setup, who knows.

It's interesting how much the B1G title games has changed legacies - if Tress was 4 of 10 with a national title (missing 2005/2008/2010), he'd still be justifiably revered but it wouldn't sound quite as impressive as 7 titles in 10 years. And on the flip side, if the season ended after TTUN and shared titles still existed, Meyer would be a perfect 7 for 7 in 'conference titles' thanks to 2012's undefeated season, 2013 and 2015 shares with Sparty and 2016 share with Penn State.

Comment 26 Mar 2019

I’m not sure this is really as big of an issue. The past few years where they went legitimately six guys deep at receiver were far more the exception than the rule. It’s far more common to have 1-2 dudes who play almost every relevant snap, so the true depth isn’t as important. If Hartline develops Olave and Wilson into All-B1G caliber players, suddenly the #5, #6 and below guys on the depth chart don’t really matter because they aren’t seeing the field nearly as much.

Comment 22 Mar 2019

1.) I still believe the 2011 team just had really bad luck - Kentucky was underseeded and fantastic, Ohio State had multiple key perimeter shooters simultaneously go ice-cold, and even with that, they were literally one shot away from winning. In the "what-if" game, the obvious one related to 2011 is that if they even shot 'poorly' instead of 'abysmally bad', Ohio State wins that game by a few possessions and very possibly ends up winning the title.

2.) If you want to talk about what-ifs related to Matta's legacy, here's an opposite one: What if Ron Lewis misses that shot in 2007 so OSU loses to Xavier? Now Matta has a whopping four losses in the Sweet 16 or earlier as Top 2 seeds (2006, 2007, 2010, 2011), plus the Elite Eight loss to Wichita...and only one Final Four trip (2012) on the other side of the ledger. 

Comment 21 Mar 2019

I think the suggestion was that you keep Carr for 2019, then cut him in March 2020 - which only leaves Oakland with a $5m dead cap hit. So Haskins gets a season to learn the NFL sitting behind Carr before becoming the starter.

Comment 21 Mar 2019

I legitimately don't care about the Big Ten's lack of titles in basketball. In football, yes, conference perception matters because even a loaded team can be left out if they lose a single game (e.g., 2015). In basketball, there's so many bids that if Ohio State is even "pretty good", they'll be a lock for the tourney no matter if the B1G is great, mediocre, or garbage.

Comment 19 Mar 2019

It's because the NCAA knows that the coaches can (and will) sue...and the NCAA would lose. The NCAA tried once to restrict assistant coaches' salary in the late 1980's to early 1990's. The coaches filed an anti-trust lawsuit and won, then won on appeal, then won a judgment of approximately $60 million dollars (which was a lot more money in the mid-90's, because TV revenues hadn't yet exploded through the roof).

Until very recently, players never went the legal route of hiring an attorney and threatening legal action. It's no coincidence that the rules have loosened up at the same time as players started becoming aware of their rights and getting lawyers involved.