Text Size

College Sports Arena

Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Talk Buckeye football and hoops, Viking hoops, as well as all other discussion on college sports in here.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, danwismar, furls

Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby danwismar » Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:58 pm

http://www.alongtheolentangy.com/2010/1 ... ame-review

Ross Fulton's usual insightful look at what the Buckeyes were doing and not doing on Saturday. He faults the backs more than the O-line for the running game issues, using video to show how totally screwed up Brandon Saine is at the moment. Good stuff.
"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Dan's OSU Links - http://bit.ly/uXRD51
danwismar
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby peeker643 » Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 pm

Peeker643's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

It blew.


No link available.

;-) ;) :wink:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22625
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby furls » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:20 am

Great stuff. This might be his best break down yet, and actually, it brought me off the ledge (a little). It does underscore some serious personnel problems on the team, but they can fix some of them. That game was on the B10 network, so I did not have the ability to rewatch (and that is the first game all year I really wanted to see again).

I saw the slants, but like Ross said, slants create cutbacks so I would argue that Illinois was gaming more about our RBs inability to see and attack cutback lanes than any other factor. I know this dead horse has been beaten, but BS is really hurting the team. Did you see the two plays where he did not execute the plays that were set up perfectly for huge gains? That outside zone run could have gone for 20 before he even had to use speed or react to a defender. The inside play behind the FB was set up perfectly for 10 yards, 15-20 if he can break a tackle, TD if he can make the guy miss all together.

Again it tells me that the O-Line is doing well, the problem is with the backs, and fortunately we have some of those on the bench and at this point I think it is just a matter of time before we see JHall. As far as the WR, Posey has not been great. Dane has and the absence of Stoneburner means that we are relying on Philly Brown/T Wash to contribute and neither has.

In short:

1. Saine needs to become the 3rd down back and come in for empty backfield plays.
2. Stoneburner needs to get healthy.
3. Posey needs to start performing at last year's level.
4. Someone still needs to emerge as a viable 3rd WR.
5. TP needs to stay healthy.

All these things can happen.
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6414
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby peeker643 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:15 am

furls wrote:Great stuff. This might be his best break down yet.


Mine or the crap JCoz posted Furls? ;-) ;) :wink:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22625
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:18 am

Let's face it, if Hall or Berry were THAT good they'd be playing already. Clarett and Beanie Wells played as freshman so it's not as if JT is allergic to the concept.

Are they better than Saine out of the backfield? Probably. Then again it isn't hard to be better than a guy averaging 2.2 yards per carry the last four games.
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby furls » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:22 pm

hermanfontenot wrote:Let's face it, if Hall or Berry were THAT good they'd be playing already. Clarett and Beanie Wells played as freshman so it's not as if JT is allergic to the concept.

Are they better than Saine out of the backfield? Probably. Then again it isn't hard to be better than a guy averaging 2.2 yards per carry the last four games.


Come on, you are better than that weak stuff. Quick, name the #3 back on the '06 team that Chris Wells "stole" the carries from. It was Maurice Wells, so there really was no competition for the #2 back that year. There was 0 depth at tailback in '06 and Beanie got 104 carries (to Pittman's 242). It isn't like Beanie jumped a deep depth chart and took over as starter. He was "the change of pace back" on a deep team as the #1 RB recruit in the country, not really a leap.

As for Mo C, he beat out two sophomores, Maurice Hall and Lydell Ross (who were both notoriously bad, probably the darkest days running the ball in TSV's tenure) again as the #1 RB in the country.

It really isn't the same thing. Now it does sound like BS's days toting the rock may be ending, so hopefully that elevates someone, anyone. I have never said that Dan Herron should not be the guy, he is adequate. I just sincerely hope that there is something better than adequate out of the six RBs currently on scholarship (Saine, Herron, Hall, Berry, Hyde and Smith).
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6414
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Re: Fulton's Analysis of OSU Offense vs IL

Unread postby JCoz » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:16 am

hermanfontenot wrote:Let's face it, if Hall or Berry were THAT good they'd be playing already. Clarett and Beanie Wells played as freshman so it's not as if JT is allergic to the concept.

Are they better than Saine out of the backfield? Probably. Then again it isn't hard to be better than a guy averaging 2.2 yards per carry the last four games.


Well, I agree that the past indicates there is some other factors playing into Hall and Berry not supplanting the upper guys, but I just don't know what it is.

There certainly is no doubting that Saine is doing an awful job carrying the ball so far.

As I said before I think Saine getting less carries is really all we need, the rest should be relatively self-regulated, with those carries (particularly with pryor's Quad issues) going to Boom and maybe Hall.

No matter what when Pryor hurt his quad it opened up 5-8 more carries a game for the RB's, that much I can promise you, so there will be three things I'm looking at:

1. Who gets the 5-8 carries that Pryor previously had?
2. Will Saine get less carries, and where will HIS carries go?
3. How much will the overall carries for RB's increase as the weather goes down hill?

All and all I think you could see as many as 10-12 carries going to one or more of Boom, Hall, Berry and possibly Hyde in the right scenario.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith


Return to College Sports Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gbot and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: gbot and 2 guests