• 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!

Penn State at tOSU, Oct 30th, 7:30 PM, ABC

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
DaddyBigBucks said:
Others have already said most of what there is to say…

This is not the first time I’ve seen an inconsistent quarterback have an incredibly great game against the Buckeyes, and that’s what Clifford had last night. He made plays he hadn’t made in a long time; a lot of them. But it wasn’t enough.

If you’d told me before the game that the Buckeyes would make a ton of unforced errors and PSU would play their best game of the year I would’ve worried about this young team.

Hopefully we’ll look back and say they grew up a little last night
Click to expand...

PSU's Achilles heel continues to be the OL imo.

They seem to consistently produce very good defensive players and TE's. Their WR's and backs are usually serviceable to very good. QB's are a mediocre bag of dicks but the OL is almost always overmatched by the OSU DL.

A good enough QB becomes something much less than that under pressure.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
Have we discussed how launching crown of the helmet contact to the back of a players helmet who is already down isn’t targeting?

Why is that even a fucking rule if not for that exact situation. I assume they’re so fucking stupid they think the back of the helmet made it different somehow?
Click to expand...
It also wasn’t the crown of his helmet. I would love to be provided a video database and a commission to study the subject. I watch a lot of football. I can’t watch it all. But just from my experience I’ve seen a lot of targeting calls that went against the Buckeyes get ignored or overturned when other teams made the exact same hit. It’s maddening.
 
Upvote 0
The hit on Wilson should have been reviewed for targeting because he was defenseless and there was 'forceable contact to the head or neck area'.

I don't think the defender launched or used his helmet as a weapon but we don't really know because they didn't even review it.

It just adds to the frustration everyone has with the interpretation and application of the rule. It's clearly beyond the skill of college football refs either on the field or in a review center.
 
Upvote 0
I was impressed by State Penn’s defense, but more impressed with ours. They absolutely showed up as who they’re supposed to be. We showed up and balled at a level that not many outside of the program thought we could. The upside from there is that while there’s still, obviously, room for improvement, I think we’re just going to keep getting better. It’s almost like our young kids don’t know and don’t care that they’re supposed to wait their turns and not be good yet.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
The hit on Wilson should have been reviewed for targeting because he was defenseless and there was 'forceable contact to the head or neck area'.

I don't think the defender launched or used his helmet as a weapon but we don't really know because they didn't even review it.

It just adds to the frustration everyone has with the interpretation and application of the rule. It's clearly beyond the skill of college football refs either on the field or in a review center.
Click to expand...

I agree. Wilson was more ‘down’ than Moxie II or III or whatever he is. He caught the ball on his knees, play was over. It was a late hit by rule that the play was over and it sure looked to me like there was helmet to back of Wilson’s helmet contact… and it sure looked like it was enough of the crown to at least garner a review.

I’m just glad that Wilson wasn’t hurt.

I will also add, if you watch the video during the review of Chamber’s hit, he had a blue streak of paint right near the crown of his helmet. I was thinking that if it was overturned we’d be seeing images of that screen grab for the next decade coming out of BWI.
 
Upvote 0
RugbyBuck said:
I was impressed by State Penn’s defense, but more impressed with ours. They absolutely showed up as who they’re supposed to be. We showed up and balled at a level that not many outside of the program thought we could. The upside from there is that while there’s still, obviously, room for improvement, I think we’re just going to keep getting better. It’s almost like our young kids don’t know and don’t care that they’re supposed to wait their turns and not be good yet.
Click to expand...

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/penn-state/2021/gamelog/

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/michigan/2021/gamelog/

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/michigan-state/2021/gamelog/

This may be the best defense that OSU faces until the playoffs. MSU and scUM aren't nearly as balanced as the Pedtsers. But still need to keep the peddle to the metal
 
Upvote 0
In hindsight, my take is that no one should be surprised that Ohio State is a work-in-progress. Against Penn State, the defense took a step forward. The offense took a step back. The offensive line was the root of most of the problems on offense. I thought Barnes called a good defensive game, but the holes in that zone were something the Buckeyes will want to work on. From the throat slash in the opening series, to the inconsistency in the way that targeting and holding penalties favored Penn State. I think that Ohio State got screwed by the refs and should ask for the Big Ten to review the game.
 
Upvote 0
Hetuck said:
It also wasn’t the crown of his helmet. I would love to be provided a video database and a commission to study the subject. I watch a lot of football. I can’t watch it all. But just from my experience I’ve seen a lot of targeting calls that went against the Buckeyes get ignored or overturned when other teams made the exact same hit. It’s maddening.
Click to expand...
You’re right, the defender slightly tilted his head to the side as he led with his helmet into the back of Wilson’s helmet.
Jaxbuck said:
The hit on Wilson should have been reviewed for targeting because he was defenseless and there was 'forceable contact to the head or neck area'.

I don't think the defender launched or used his helmet as a weapon but we don't really know because they didn't even review it.

It just adds to the frustration everyone has with the interpretation and application of the rule. It's clearly beyond the skill of college football refs either on the field or in a review center.
Click to expand...
sparcboxbuck said:
I agree. Wilson was more ‘down’ than Moxie II or III or whatever he is. He caught the ball on his knees, play was over. It was a late hit by rule that the play was over and it sure looked to me like there was helmet to back of Wilson’s helmet contact… and it sure looked like it was enough of the crown to at least garner a review.

I’m just glad that Wilson wasn’t hurt.

I will also add, if you watch the video during the review of Chamber’s hit, he had a blue streak of paint right near the crown of his helmet. I was thinking that if it was overturned we’d be seeing images of that screen grab for the next decade coming out of BWI.
Click to expand...
I found the video, you can view starting at 1:00.



There is absolutely no way in hell that hit doesn’t meet this definition of targeting (bonus point for Wilson’s helmet being all jacked up and needing to be pulled back into position after the play to really emphasize that he just got rocked in the head):
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
You’re right, the defender slightly tilted his head to the side as he led with his helmet into the back of Wilson’s helmet.


I found the video, you can view starting at 1:00.



There is absolutely no way in hell that hit doesn’t meet this definition of targeting:
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Click to expand...


If it was or if it wasn't, the fact they didn't even review it is what gets me. The inconsistency is maddening.

(and I think it was)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top