• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

2006 Running Backs Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bucky Katt said:
I'm not sure about Mo Wells as a punt returner. From what I saw of him this year, he seems like more of a juker, which doesn't always seem to be the best idea for a return man. I would like to see Gonzo get a shot. More of a get-and-go type player. Just my opinion. :)
Click to expand...

I think JT will go with Gonzo and Ginn. JT sticks with experience at returning kicks.

Remember when we had MoHall and Tone returning kicks even when we had Teddy returning punts for touchdowns like... something that happens a lot?
 
Upvote 0
We went from a bunch of palookas to a bunch of top quality guys that can all help.
It was just ridicules what we were left with because of the MC/only back deal.
I hope we never do that deal again.
We shouldn't have to.
The competition will be terrific. As it should be.

I think Haw would be fantastic as a return man. Not Ginn, but very good.
Mo Wells, needs to get much stronger. All he really needs is more strength.
Mo Wells has all the skills of a great back.
Pittman lacks for nothing. Proven ,quality back.
CWells has what you can't teach, size to block people.
That alone gives him an extra edge in the backup race for time.

We could see a return to more conservative, I-formation plays from Tressel.
Does that prospect bother people?
 
Upvote 0
Taosman said:
We could see a return to more conservative, I-formation plays from Tressel.
Does that prospect bother people?
Click to expand...

Only if it is ineffective. :biggrin:

As long as the offense is producing, I don't think anyone will complain too much about the actual scheme. Then again, I could be wrong. OSU fans are strange creatures, sometimes.
 
Upvote 0
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by Taosman
We could see a return to more conservative, I-formation plays from Tressel.
Does that prospect bother people?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Only if it is ineffective.
biggrin.gif
Click to expand...


That conservative style produced more points for the Bucks in 2002 than the spread attack produced for the "high-flying" Buckeyes of 2005. Not to steal Grad's thunder, but it all comes down to execution.

I'm excited to see what a full season of a credible rushing attack can do for this team. We caught a glimpse of it in the Fiesta Bowl. Holmes' TD came off of play action, and most of the successful runs in the game came as a result of ND loading up against the run off the right side. That kind of threat can open up all kinds of things. Just look at what the threat of Laurence Maroney did for Bryan Cupito against a stout Buckeye defense this year.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
That conservative style produced more points for the Bucks in 2002 than the spread attack produced for the "high-flying" Buckeyes of 2005. Not to steal Grad's thunder, but it all comes down to execution.
Click to expand...
45 against Texas Tech
51 against Kent State
25 against Washington State
23 against Cincinatti
45 against Indiana
27 against Northwestern
50 against San Jose State
19 against Wisconsin
13 against Penn State
34 against Minnesota
10 against Purdue
23 against Illinois
14 against Michigan
31 against Miami
Average : 29.29

34 against Miami
22 against Texas
27 against San Diego State
31 against Iowa
10 against Penn State
35 against Michigan State
41 against Indiana
45 against Minnesota
40 against Illinois
48 against Northwestern
25 against Michigan
34 against Notre Dame
Average : 32.67

Our offense throughtout 2002 was alot more inconsistent than the offense in 2005, especially when everyone got settled in the spread.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
That conservative style produced more points for the Bucks in 2002 than the spread attack produced for the "high-flying" Buckeyes of 2005. Not to steal Grad's thunder, but it all comes down to execution.

I'm excited to see what a full season of a credible rushing attack can do for this team. We caught a glimpse of it in the Fiesta Bowl. Holmes' TD came off of play action, and most of the successful runs in the game came as a result of ND loading up against the run off the right side. That kind of threat can open up all kinds of things. Just look at what the threat of Laurence Maroney did for Bryan Cupito against a stout Buckeye defense this year.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing. As long as the team executes and produces, the actual scheme is not an issue.

If we can run the ball consistently out of the I, control the clock, and out points on the board, I don't think many people will be upset that we are running the ball.
 
Upvote 0
Good call on the PPG average. I remember seeing that 2002 was a higher point total, but I forgot that this season was two games shorter than that one.

Still, the PPG is close enough to show that they can still be dynamic with a more "conservative" style.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
Good call on the PPG average. I remember seeing that 2002 was a higher point total, but I forgot that this season was two games shorter than that one.

Still, the PPG is close enough to show that they can still be dynamic with a more "conservative" style.
Click to expand...

2002 had 7 games where we scored less than the "magic number", 24 points, in regulation.
2005 only had 2 of those - both losses.
I'll take scoring consistently over 30 rahter than the occassional 50 pointer to pad your average anyday.
 
Upvote 0
And of those seven games you mention in 2002, how many of those were games they were without #13 - in other words - without the threat of a consistently well-executed rushing attack? If I recall correctly, the only game out of those seven that our only decent RB played from start to finish was the scUM game. He missed the UC game to get his knee scoped, and then left the Wisky game with a stinger and didn't return until scUM.

I don't want to turn this into a Clarett thread, but what we're looking for is Clarett-esque production out of our upcoming stable of backs - right? Yes, those numbers from 2002 are inconsisent, but neither was the health of their RB that season. The rest of the time, the OSU attack was primarily a rushing attack, and when that attack was available, they scored consistently and often.
 
Upvote 0
College ball is a world different than high school. That being said, Beanie went up against the best high schooler's in the nation...and did well. I think this kid has WAY too much talent to keep him off the field next year.

With his talent level. it is doubtfull that he will stay to his senior year. So, why burn a red shirt on him and waste a year of experience.
 
Upvote 0
its no secret I think he'll play. I think he'll be our savior in terms of our sometimes non-consitent red zone offense.

IDK how our offense will come out next year. I can see us come out firing and be putting up 450 500 yards of offense, we certainly have the tools. However with a young defense, how will that impact the play calling. I wouldnt be surprised to see smith out of the heisman race early on. Than again I love the idea of smith running around in the backfield while ginn and gonzo try n get free, and pittman releasing into the flats all year long. As ND found out, pick your posion.
 
Upvote 0
We are going to get SICK production from our RBs next year, due to both talent, and the O-line. Pittman will still be the man, but I doubt he gets more than 1100 yards next year just b/c Chris Wells will get a couple of series a game, and, IMO, be the featured power back. Both backs could have double digit TD totals. I really doubt Maurice Wells sees more action than he did this year-Pittman is back, and I really, really don't think he will leapfrog C. Wells-it would be phenomenally huge if he did, but I don't see it. Unless he improves substantially, I just don't see him justifying a bigger slice of the carrying pie. As for Haw-we do have games against MAC schools, Illinois, and Indiana......

jlb is 100% about 2002-when we did not have a consistent rushing attack-ie-Clarett-our offense sputtered, except for the Minnesota game. This year we had a lot more firepower in the passing game-no disrespect to Krenzel/Jenkins-and actually had a more consistent running game. Pittman played his heart out against UT and PSU-the lapses in the running game in those games were not his fault,IMO.
 
Upvote 0
For those talking about going with a conservative approach next year, are not taking into account that we are losing 9 of 11 starters on defense.:(

our offense next year has to be dominate, not quality or good but dominate for us to have a chance to run the table because the defense will be green and give up some points early on in the season until the get some experience under their belt.

i wouldn't mind the number 1 rushing attack in the country with pittman, wells, and smith running those qb draws from time to time, and just when teams stack the line of scrimmage a nice play action fake to ginn will back them the fuk off.:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top