Game Thread Game Two: Ohio State 20, Akron 2 (Final)

[osugrad21]

Morning Journal

What was a key area has now been taken away
JASON LLOYD, Morning Journal Writer
09/10/2007




COLUMBUS -- Given all the importance Jim Tressel stresses on turnovers and taking care of the ball, it's ironic that it's the one area Ohio State has struggled with the most through two games.


In fact, the Buckeyes have struggled with turnovers two of the last three years. Now they're well on their way to making that three of the last four.


Cont...

 

[martinss01]

Your right.. you watch the game a couple times.. and it isnt the same thing every play, but it's some thing...

One play you'll see the TE not block his man.. the next play it's the RB reading the hole wrong.. next play it's Rehring not moving quick enough on the pull, and running into the RB... next play it's Dionte Johnson getting in the way.. next play it's the Cordle and Person running straight to the second level to go after LBs when the DTs in front of them are left unblocked..

And it's not even the same linemen each time... Boone and Barton are making dumb errors as well.. either getting lazy with technique and gettin beat straight up, or pulling the ol Florida routine.. of standing there confused, waiting for someone to block while another guy runs past them and blows up the play

I think I'd be more confident if it was just a player or two making all the mistakes.. or if the mistake was the same each time... instead it's all types of errors ranging from fullback play to penalties to poor line calls..

thats what i was seeing. it wasn't the same guy nor the same play. it was the fact that only 9 or 10 guys were going full go/knew what they were doing every play on runs. the flip side was that the pass blocking looked pretty solid. makes me wonder how much time we have spent run blocking vrs pass. it could just be a lack of reps at this point because of the new qbs. either way, its fixable.

 

[Best Buckeye]

The O line does need to get a lot better this week. If they don't then the probability that they will improve much over the year slips away and that isn't a good thought. This team will not survive as a passing only team.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

these threads are always a joy to read straight through.

 

[RB07OSU]

I thought Washington played pretty good overall...you could pin a missed tackle or two on almost anyone today.

O'Neal made one strip...one play does not earn, or regain, a starting position. There's a reason why he's no longer starting...

Not to mention he was 1 on 1 with Arthur, who is a pretty talented WR. The best thing to do in that situation is to maintain a nice base, keep your feet moving, and wait for your friends to show up, which he did later on and it worked much better. He tried to make the play all by himself when he didn't need to.

 

[Zurp]

I just remembered something. Did anyone else notice that Jenkins was playing safety in nickle packages? It looked like they brought in #5 (is that Chekwa?) to play one of the corner spots, and they moved Jenkins back to safety. I don't know if they also moved Coleman to cover another receiver, but it looked like Jenkins was playing strong safety, as he was sometimes playing closer to the line.

Did anyone else notice this, or know anything about this?

 

[Piney]

Did anyone else notice this, or know anything about this?

I was at the game and noticed this on a few plays. And thought "That's interesting" so instead of watching the action I watched what Jenkins was doing. And in each time I saw it (about 3 or 4) it was a zone defense and he moved up in the zone.

It seemed like a way to hide Jenkins a bit in the secondary to cause confusion and maybe give the QB a false sense of security that "Jenkins isn't covering X receiver" and then Jenkins moves up in the zone to cover that receiver.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

I thought it was well talked about that Jenkins is our nickle guy when we're in the nickle, and somebody new comes in for his spot.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I thought it was well talked about that Jenkins is our nickle guy when we're in the nickle, and somebody new comes in for his spot.

Don't worry. It will be "news" again the first time Jenkins makes a pick when we're in the Nickle.

 

[Yertle]

Either way, it's a huge statement for the future of the Buckeye's CB position. A true sophomore and a redshirt freshmen are playing corner in our nickel package!

 

[zincfinger]

It's difficult for me to be surprised at the flightiness of most sports writers, but I am surprised at how consistently the OSU win vs Akron is being described as having been a "struggle" for OSU. On OSU's end, one side of the ball (arguably the more important side) thoroughly dominated, the other side made a number of unforced errors but still did enough to put up a convincing margin of victory. Sure, the final score is not always indicative of how close a game was, but it would be one thing if fluke plays padded the margin of victory. The reality is that what were essentially fluke plays, in the form of an absurdly high 5 turnovers, diminished the margin of victory from total blowout to merely convincing. I guess the question is, was 5 turnovers an anomaly, or a pattern likely to be replicated? Because unless it's the latter, a 20-2 win against an overmatched opponent wouldn't appear to me to be the sign of weakness that many "analysts" are casting it to have been.

 

[Zurp]

It's difficult for me to be surprised at the flightiness of most sports writers, but I am surprised at how consistently the OSU win vs Akron is being described as having been a "struggle" for OSU. On OSU's end, one side of the ball (arguably the more important side) thoroughly dominated, the other side made a number of unforced errors but still did enough to put up a convincing margin of victory. Sure, the final score is not always indicative of how close a game was, but it would be one thing if fluke plays padded the margin of victory. The reality is that what were essentially fluke plays, in the form of an absurdly high 5 turnovers, diminished the margin of victory from total blowout to merely convincing. I guess the question is, was 5 turnovers an anomaly, or a pattern likely to be replicated? Because unless it's the latter, a 20-2 win against an overmatched opponent wouldn't appear to me to be the sign of weakness that many "analysts" are casting it to have been.

I think that in the eyes of the "analysts", a #10 team (or whatever Ohio State was ranked) should beat Akron by more than 18 points. And the only way that Ohio State should EVER be behind is if Ohio State fumbled the kick-off and Akron recovered for a touchdown.

These "analysts" typically only look at the bottom line, and maybe some highlights of the game. They didn't see that Ohio State was driving, and some fluke play happened where the receiver fell down and the defender was able to practically call a fair catch for the interception. They didn't see that Akron got a lucky bounce (all bounces are luck - one way or the other) to pin Ohio State on the 2. They didn't see Ohio State's conservative play-calling, or Akron's knowledge that Ohio State would have conservative play-calling, and call their defensive plays accordingly. They didn't see most of the game. Just the final score. 18 point margin of victory, when the line was something like 28. Or whatever it was.

And remember that these "analysts" only bother to analyze a particular game because they want to make money for their employers (who, in turn, pay the "analysts"). When you get money involved, I think a good break-down of a game gets skewed in order to help them make money in the future.

 

[Dryden]

I think that in the eyes of the "analysts", a #10 team (or whatever Ohio State was ranked) should beat Akron by more than 18 points. And the only way that Ohio State should EVER be behind is if Ohio State fumbled the kick-off and Akron recovered for a touchdown.

These "analysts" typically only look at the bottom line, and maybe some highlights of the game. They didn't see that Ohio State was driving, and some fluke play happened where the receiver fell down and the defender was able to practically call a fair catch for the interception. They didn't see that Akron got a lucky bounce (all bounces are luck - one way or the other) to pin Ohio State on the 2. They didn't see Ohio State's conservative play-calling, or Akron's knowledge that Ohio State would have conservative play-calling, and call their defensive plays accordingly. They didn't see most of the game. Just the final score. 18 point margin of victory, when the line was something like 28. Or whatever it was.

And remember that these "analysts" only bother to analyze a particular game because they want to make money for their employers (who, in turn, pay the "analysts"). When you get money involved, I think a good break-down of a game gets skewed in order to help them make money in the future.

On the other hand, these analysts, in the case of ESPN, SI, and CBSSportsLine, all actually hold AP Top 25 ballots.

They're the ones that ranked OSU #10!

 

[Dryden]

It's difficult for me to be surprised at the flightiness of most sports writers, but I am surprised at how consistently the OSU win vs Akron is being described as having been a "struggle" for OSU. On OSU's end, one side of the ball (arguably the more important side) thoroughly dominated, the other side made a number of unforced errors but still did enough to put up a convincing margin of victory. Sure, the final score is not always indicative of how close a game was, but it would be one thing if fluke plays padded the margin of victory. The reality is that what were essentially fluke plays, in the form of an absurdly high 5 turnovers, diminished the margin of victory from total blowout to merely convincing. I guess the question is, was 5 turnovers an anomaly, or a pattern likely to be replicated? Because unless it's the latter, a 20-2 win against an overmatched opponent wouldn't appear to me to be the sign of weakness that many "analysts" are casting it to have been.

Robbie's fumble occurred at mid-field, Torrence's fumble occurred across mid-field, Hartline's fumble occured at the Akron 49, Todd's first INT occurred at the Akron 7, and the second one which he forced was on a drive the started near the OSU 40.

Even if we only pick up a couple of first downs across three of those five possessions and kick FGs, it's 29-2. Or just one TD, two FGs, and still allowing 2 TOs makes it 33-2. The INTs that were dropped? One of them was a Pick-6!

Bottom line, we should have beat them 40-0. Everything was there to do it, and we shot ourselves in the foot time and time again, and that's even with no running game for three quarters.

 

[Zurp]

On the other hand, these analysts, in the case of ESPN, SI, and CBSSportsLine, all actually hold AP Top 25 ballots.

They're the ones that ranked OSU #10!

Hmm. Good point. But on the OTHER hand (how many hands do we have, here, anyway?) college football, in general (and ESPN, SI, CBSSportsline, etc, by association) get better ratings when the traditional power-houses are doing better (i.e. ranked higher). They will sell more whatever to more fans when the traditional powers are ranked higher.

But that may contradict what I said earlier. (I'm not actually sure if it does, as I'm not sure what I said before. Or what I'm saying now.) I guess my point is that when money is involved, it tends to lessen the credibility, in my eyes. I'd rather hear what some of the small-time reporters for local newspapers have to say than the big-time national news reporters. Or, sometimes better yet, some of the stuff on message boards can be helpful.

But, of course, any ol' jerk can write crap on a message board...