Well, first off, thanks to everyone who responded to this thread. My questions were based on opinions which I saw frequently expressed on this board - the questions were not meant to be facetious or rhetorical.
1) With regard to Smith, I think that several people (perhaps unwittingly) hit the nail on the head when they said that he is better than the alternative. While that point is certainly debateable, the implication is that Smith is the QB by default, and not based on his performance. While Smith probably gives the Buckeyes the best chance to win any given game, he probably also gives them the best chance to lose. Zwick might be more steady, but he is less dynamic and seems to lack certain intangibles which one would expect in a true field general; neither QB has proven himself to be a team leader in the mode of Craig Krenzel. How many of you thought that Troy was going to pull out a victory in the final minutes of last night's game? If Justin had been in there, would you have felt any more confident? Now if Krenzel had been the QB, what would you have thought? (I would have thought that we had Penn State right where we wanted them...) Coming into this season, I felt that the QB position was the biggest question mark on the team (along with the DL), especially in terms of leadership and intangibles; it is apparent that the QB position is in fact the biggest weakness on this team, and likely will be so for the remainder of the season. We have seen one-and-a-half years of Smith v. Zwick, and this QB controversy is not even close to being settled. Unfortunately, we still have another year-and-a-half to go. Will someone please step up and claim the QB position by being the "best" option, and not the "least bad" option?
2) Pittman is a fine back; I particularly like the fact that he always runs hard and doesn't fumble. However, he is not a great back as many claimed in a recent thread. One "insider" has told me that Chris Wells should start from day one next season; no offense to Pittman, but I agree. Maybe C. Wells (like MoC before him) is just the kind of back that JT's offense needs to take it to the next level.
3) Concerning the WR's... Someone made a great point - how do we know whether they are great when the QB can't get them the ball? I do know that our WR's have dropped a lot of passes this season, and can't seem to get many yard-after-catch, but a lot of that could be the QB's inability to get them the ball where they need it. The schemes could be a factor as well.
4) 2005 vs. 2002 - I still can't figure this one out.... The 2002 team was ranked by Billingsely's (people who know football) as the 16th best of all-time (out of ALL 10,402 teams that have taken the field from 1869-2003). Of the 23 starters on that 2002 team (Fiesta Bowl starters, including kickers; Gamble went both ways and thus occupied two starting slots), 19 have been drafted into the NFL (and Rob Sims is still on the team and should get drafted next April), and one more (Andy Groom) played as a non-drafted free agent; of those draftees, 3 were first-rounders; 2 were second-rounders; and 7 were third-rounders. The 2002 team won 14 straight games, outscored its opponents 410 to 183 (29.3 ppg to 13.1 ppg), and rushed for nearly 200 ypg; in addition, that team had incredible leadership and intangibles.
On the current squad, only two players are clearly better than their 2002 counterparts - Hawk (over Cie Grant), and Carpenter (over Robert Reynolds). However, several players on the 2002 squad were clearly better than today's players - Krenzel (over Smith or Zwick); Clarett (over Pittman); Hartsock (over Hamby); Wilhelm (over Schegel); Doss (over Salley); Nugent (over Huston); and the entire offensive and defensive lines. Even though Santonio Holmes is a special player, I would still take Michael Jenkins over him, hands down. Even if the remaining positions are a "wash", the 2002 team had clearly superior talent, IMHO.
Please note, that my analysis is based on "results", not "potential". The 2005 team
may have equal "talent", but the results (individually and collectively) just aren't there.
5) Obviously, the Bucks aren't going to win an NC this year. However, before the season started, 71.8% of the voters in the
BP poll thought that Ohio State would have at most one loss this season (which would have made them NC contenders).
A few other points:
6) A lot has been said about Jim Tressel. Since he has been at Ohio State, Tressel has coached two games that have really "mattered": 2002 Michigan, and 2002 NC game; of course, he won both games. In addition, he has also beaten Michigan on two other occasions, and won two other bowl games, which is nice (even if the games didn't "mean" anything in NC picture). I am not concerned about JT winning "big" games. However, JT will eventually need to get this team into a position to play some games that "count" (i.e., national championship games). JT is far from being on the hot seat, but he will in the near future (say by 2010) need to return the Buckeyes to
serious NC contention.
This brings me to my one criticism of JT: he coaches so that his teams will "peak" at the end of the season. While this philosophy works at the 1-AA level, where there is a playoff system, in major college football, a team can afford, at the very most, only one loss during the regular season. At the end of last year, Ohio State may have been playing as well as anyone, but the four losses kept the Bucks far removed from title contention.
7) On the season, Josh Huston has missed only two field goals, each of 50 yards, and each by only a foot or so. However, those 24 inches are what separate a "good" player from a "great" player (in this case, Mike Nugent). By analogy, the entire 2005 squad is close to being collectively great, but they are obviously missing an ingredient or three. JT is bringing in the talent, and he is a great game-day coach. I honestly feel that, in the next few years, all of the ingredients will come together, all of the little things will go the Buckeyes' way, and Ohio State will once again be national champs.
8) Finally, let's keep some perspective. Since Ohio State began playing football in 1889, the Bucks have had only ten undefeated seasons (inlcuding their inaugural campaign where they went 1-0), and only 6 of those seasons have been "perfect" (unbeaten and untied). Like everyone else, the Bucks will lose some games most seasons. So, enjoy football for what it is - a game - and make sure that you take the losses in stride, but also that you cherish the rare opportunity to claim that your beloved Buckeyes are the best damned team in the land!
Maybe next year..... :osu:
