• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Game Thread Game Eleven: Ohio state 25, Michigan 21 (final)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Yeah Carr really blew it with his comments yesterday... So many missed calls in the game... And yet he tries to blame the game on the refs... (I probably would too if we lost... but not Publicly!!!)... But did Gonzo really get away with one? The way it looked to me is that the corner was looking at Troy while Gonzo decided to turn it up field; because the corner was looking away, he kept on inching over to the sideline while Gonzo had to side step him (and there was contact made) to get by him without just bowling him over... So basically the corner was moving over while Gonzo was trying to go downfield... I got it on tape, and kept watching it... Looks good to me... I want to know why the hell the refs missed the backward pass lol
 
Upvote 0
I think Lllloyd's just digging himself a bigger hole by complaining about the refs after he and his team didn't get it done on the field on Saturday. I mean, look at it this way: if the roles were reversed, would you want Tressel whining to the papers on Monday? I wouldn't. And I know that there's no way in the world that Tressel would do so. I think Lllloyd doing that makes the scUM look bad--it's one thing to lose a game, but it's another thing to lose and then whine about it in the papers two days later.
 
Upvote 0
If you listen to Carr's comments about the Ohio State rushing defense, you
clearly hear him crediting Hawk as a great player. Carr notes that their offense
missed Long at full strength and imagines that had Michigan been able to run
for 100 yards the game outcome might have been different. But he comes very
close to conceding that the run defense for the Buckeyes simply was great and
there wasn't much Michigan could have done differently.
 
Upvote 0
nickofthewoods said:
Carr notes that their offense missed Long at full strength and imagines that had Michigan been able to run for 100 yards the game outcome might have been different.
Click to expand...
Typical Carr, just another way to frame the excuse. Of course if Michigan had been able to run for 100 yards the game outcome might have been different! He might as well just have said that if Michigan could have scored more points than Ohio State the game outcome might have been different.

Great defenses beat great offenses. This is Football 101, and has been a basic truth of the game for 100 years. Lloyd Carr, like all of Michigan's fans, just can't get it. The 1997 UM team actually had a terrific defense, and it's not a coincidence that that was the UM team that brought them their first national title in 50 years.

If UM had rushed for 100 yards, OSU would have rushed for 200, just like the way Henne passed for 200 yards while Troy threw for 300. I don't think this happens because Ohio State necessarily has better offensive skill players than Michigan (though I think, OSU does). It happens because Ohio State has better defensive skill players than Michigan.
 
Upvote 0
The other reason why Carr's whining is almost completely irrelevant is because that play was on 1st and 10. Even if Troy doesn't connect its 2nd & 10 clock still with 40 seconds on it, stopped by an incompletion, or if Troy tries again to use his feet, his drift is taking any scramble toward to sideline - again lets say 2nd and 8 - 35-40 seconds on clock. The point being that Smith was moving the ball with such ease yesterday on that last drive that if it wasn't Gonzo on 1st and 10, it could just as easily have been Ginn on 2nd & 8 reeling in a pass that stops the clock while they move the sticks.
Nothing was going to stop him on that drive, and no force-out of bounds was going to stop Gonzalez.
Definitely a keeper of a Buckeye moment. Gonzo & Smith are building a healthy resume toegether of dagger through the heart plays against the rodentia from the north. :osu: Open the scoring last year, close the deal on this.

I look forward to next year's big, big play from this duo :biggrin: -- back in the 'Shoe
 
Upvote 0
One aspect of Saturdays win that hasn't been talked about is the excellent national exposure we received.

I think it has to help our out of state recruiting in some way. Hard to judge how much.

But if someone says, "Don't go there, they don't throw the ball" or" they don't play freshman" . The kids will know they're being lied too. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
I couldn't decide if this should be in it's own thread. I figure if someone wants to split it, then that's fine. But maybe it's already been talked about in this thread. (I haven't read all 120 pages.)

Anyway, I was thinking earlier, "What if Huston didn't miss that extra point attempt? How would the game be changed?" The weird thing about this is that I hate it when people do this. A tiny change in the situation can change the play call, which changes the result of the play, which changes the situation on the next play, and so on. It may have meant Ohio State would win 70-0. Or they might have lost 70-7. But, for fun, let's say that nothing else really changes much.

Ohio State scores on Smith's run, extra point is good. OSU 7-0.
Ohio State FG is good (40+ yards, I think). OSU 10-0.
Michigan scores on 2-yard pass, extra point is good. OSU 10-7.
Ohio State FG is good (20-30 yards, I think). OSU 13-7.
Michigan scores FG. OSU 13-10.
Michigan scores touchdown, extra point is good. Mich 17-13.
Michigan scores FG. Mich 20-13.
Ohio State scores on Holmes TD, extra point is good. Tied 20-20.

First, I'm assuming Michigan goes for 1 after their second touchdown. I think its a safe assumption. It's pretty rare to go for 2 when the 6 points puts your team up by 3.

Now, on their own 12-yard line, and the game is already tied, is Tressel aggressive enough to move the ball down field, or does he play for overtime. And is Llloyd conservative, in trying to play for overtime, or does he think that he's got the Bucks pinned deep, and its time to play aggressive?

Let's say the Bucks move down field and get to the Michigan 30. Is Smith aggressive enough to attempt that pass to Gonzalez, with the score tied, and under a minute to play? I could see the strategy becoming that Huston could easily kick that far, so let's let him try a long field goal. If he misses, we can take our chances in overtime.

Anyway, just a thought..
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Let's say the Bucks move down field and get to the Michigan 30. Is Smith aggressive enough to attempt that pass to Gonzalez, with the score tied, and under a minute to play? I could see the strategy becoming that Huston could easily kick that far, so let's let him try a long field goal. If he misses, we can take our chances in overtime.

Anyway, just a thought..
Click to expand...

Interesting analogy. I was thinking about how the game should have been 27-20, but that's obviously assuming that the final drive remains unchanged. In reality, I think Tressel would try to move the ball into field goal range, but do so with more running plays - thus taking more time off of the clock. He wouldn't want to risk a 3-and-out on 3 passes that stop the clock and give Michigan time for a FG drive. Therefore, I seriously doubt a TD would have been the result of the drive. However, the offense was on fire, Michigan's defense was winded, and Huston is too good of a kicker to miss again. So, I'd vote for the 23-20 finish.
 
Upvote 0
Zurp said:
Anyway, I was thinking earlier, "What if Huston didn't miss that extra point attempt? How would the game be changed?" The weird thing about this is that I hate it when people do this. A tiny change in the situation can change the play call, which changes the result of the play, which changes the situation on the next play, and so on. It may have meant Ohio State would win 70-0. Or they might have lost 70-7. But, for fun, let's say that nothing else really changes much.
Click to expand...
i agree with leaving it at the understanding of the butterfly effect/chaos theory. had huston not missed the extra point attempt, everything afterwards would have likely been different than what actually resulted. heck, ohio state might have lost. then again, ohio state might have blown out scUM. we'll never know, but it is fun conjecturing, right? my opinion is that if huston would have made his field goal, he would have kicked the ball right into carr's wide open, shouting mouth, rendering him a mute.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top