It's impossible to call the perfect play on every down and even if you do, the team that controls the LOS is more likely to win. Look at the game against Bama two years ago. Turnovers kept the Tide in the game but OSU was controlling the LOS and that eventually won out.
our first
21 of 27 plays were PASS PLAYS. and im willing to bet money AT LEAST HALF OF THOSE were thrown to the flats at or behind the los. thats of the first 27 plays. in the first half. if thats your idea of even "half decent" play calling... im not sure what to tell you. second, if what we saw today was the first time our offensive coordinators threw together a game plan like this i would agree with you. hell a year ago these are the same guys who handed the ball off to zeke fucking elliot something like 9 times in total in a loss to sparty. the same duo that im reasonably certain never once threw the ball to braxton miller on a short pass, or even a screen pass, of any type over an entire year!
if this was just something that happened today, yeah... sometimes people just go stupid. but this isn't the first time, this is a theme.
I don't care about any of the assistants.
why do you not care about the assistants? if the kids go out and fail? im ok with that to a pretty large degree. but when adults fail kids? thats where i start having issues.
But the players are part of the equation too.
of course the players are a part of the equation. a pretty big part. but what is a coach if not a person who puts another person in a position to succeed? if you, as a coach, are not putting the individual(s) you are coaching in a position to succeed... i gotta think you have fundamentally failed as a coach.
We knew coming into this game that the OL had to protect better and Barrett had to see the field and throw the ball better or we would lose.
so unless you have a dominant oline and joe montana at qb it is literally impossible to win a fb game? come on now, no matter what your weakness and no matter the position of that weakness. there ARE ways to scheme to limit the other teams ability to exploit that weakness. last year we didn't have a deep threat. we did nothing to scheme around that deficiency. this year we have youth across the board. we did nothing all year to scheme around that deficiency. if you feel differently feel free to point out what they did to do so.
We didn't need to know what plays would be called to know that was true. I wanted to see Weber get more carries and then he fumbled twice.
*sigh*
21 OF 27 of our first plays were passes. besides, i don't think either fumble was in the first half. if a freshman tailback fumbling twice is reason enough for you to just not run the ball ever again... i don't think you should be calling plays either.
I wanted to see more receivers involved but the OL couldn't protect and JT isn't very accurate and too many on target balls weren't caught.
so was jt inaccurate or accurate but the passes weren't caught? either way, im almost certain if we had just thrown more passes to the flat behind the line of scrimmage we would have had a chance. im tellin ya, the "next" one was going to go all the way!!
Maybe some more imaginative play calling would have gotten a few more first downs. Maybe not.
so "maybe not" is reason enough to not try??? what possible reason did we have tonight to LITERALLY try LITERALLY anything different than what we were doing? were we worried the L would be in larger font if we threw another pick or had another fumble? what possible reason did we have to not try literally anything we hadn't tried?
It wasn't going to win the game.
so fucking what??? im fine with loosing games. i still play competitive sports. as such, i loose games. way more games than i would like to. it happens to everybody. but to not try "cuz you weren't going to win anyway"... wtf?
this i agree with. even if we were in OU form we might still loose this game. clemson is very good this year.
it's not because of an assistant or two on the Buckeye staff.
so your finishing up with this loss, and the offenses performance the last two years, as being 100% on the kids? im going to have to agree to disagree here...[/QUOTE]
No offense but that's ridiculous. What branch, what squadron? Leadership styles vary from unit to unit, Commander to Commander, and senior leaders to senior leaders...
