Upvote
0
-
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!
- Thread starter MD Buckeye
- Start date
I would rather have a kid serving his punishment of not playing while still bettering himself by watching the game and staying involved.
His punishment was not being on the field, in action. I think it's awesome that the coaches kept his mind on his Saturday duties. I'm sure it was eating him alive watching the game upstairs and having the urge to want to run onto the field and win the game.
Upvote
0
TampaBuckeyes
Assistant Coach
I think the whole ovi thing was a scam. The coaches knew they could beat minny without JT, so they told him to drink to just over a .08 and drive in circles around a dui checkpoint. They just wanted to reduce the amount of film to help in the final 5 games. Very cunning Mr Meyer.
Upvote
0
Buckeye86
I do not choose to discuss it
To get philosophical, I think this discussion goes back to the point of punishment in the first place.
In my estimation, punishment is to: 1. prevent unwanted behavior 2. correct unwanted behavior 3. prevent criticism of being soft on crime (particularly in the world of college football).
By all accounts, 1 and 2 aren't really a factor with Barrett. He is universally regarded as a great kid and an amazing leader who made a mistake.
So whatever deflects criticism seems to be the ticket in this case, which would be to bend the rules (headset, halftime and all that) around the established standard punishment for the offense.
I could see the argument being made that bending the rules weakens control over the team and encourages bad behavior, but in my opinion that is also minimal in the case of Barrett.
The other players know Barrett does things the right way and if they want similar deference from the coach in these cases they need to do things the right way as well.
Bottom line, I think Barrett is a special case and everyone on the team knows that.
In my estimation, punishment is to: 1. prevent unwanted behavior 2. correct unwanted behavior 3. prevent criticism of being soft on crime (particularly in the world of college football).
By all accounts, 1 and 2 aren't really a factor with Barrett. He is universally regarded as a great kid and an amazing leader who made a mistake.
So whatever deflects criticism seems to be the ticket in this case, which would be to bend the rules (headset, halftime and all that) around the established standard punishment for the offense.
I could see the argument being made that bending the rules weakens control over the team and encourages bad behavior, but in my opinion that is also minimal in the case of Barrett.
The other players know Barrett does things the right way and if they want similar deference from the coach in these cases they need to do things the right way as well.
Bottom line, I think Barrett is a special case and everyone on the team knows that.
Upvote
0
He better be back in under Center this week. That first 25 minutes of play by Jones was brutal.
Upvote
0
Uh, no. It is YOUR logic. The logic of "if the coaches do it, I'm fine with it" came from you.
Upvote
0
buckeyesin07
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
I wouldn't be surprised if Urban sat JT for a series or two against Illinois, but he needs to get some serious reps under his belt heading into MSU and Michigan. We all were slapping ourselves on the backs as to how well JT played against Rutgers, but after seeing Jake Rudock (of all people) light up Rutgers like a Christmas tree this weekend, it would be nice if JT got some reps against a team that's not a complete doormat.
Upvote
0
sparcboxbuck
What happened to my ¤cash?
Serious question. Where were Bosa, et. al. during their suspension when we played at home? They didn't go in the road, for obvious reasons... Zeke needed a dog sitter and all... but when we were at home, were they in the stadium / locker room?
Upvote
0
bukIpower
Head Coach
agreed 100 percent. Rutgers pass defense is just bad all the way around but with JT (unlike Ruddock) he was able to be balanced against them with the run/pass so it was good to at least see him rush for over 100 on Rutgers who's so so against the run. I agree though that it'd be huge to get JT as many reps as it's going to take to get him ready for our final two game gauntlet. Also wouldn't be shocked to see CJ play the first two games but if I was a betting man (which I'm not) I'd lean on JT starting from snap one.
If it means scoring 100 points and having JT air it out all game for 600 yards through the air then i'm all for it. Illinois needs to be a sacrificial lamb to get this offense moving in the right direction. We don't need to see a conservative approach if we get up 42-10 or something we need REPS running an offense that features a zone read base.
Upvote
0
Bill Lucas
Assistant Coach
Right now the forecast looks good for Saturday. If it changes then we aren't going to be seeing a ton of passing from recent history there.
Upvote
0
pianobuck46
pianobuck46
Yeah, went to the game at Memorial in 2002. It's always windy as hell, so I would expect a run game.
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
Based solely on my personal opinion on suspensions, in general, and this case, specifically.
I can buy that. Even though I think he shouldn't have been part of the game at all (again, based only on my opinion), I'm glad that the coaches included him in a way that improves him. I don't know how buckeye leaves work with Urban Meyer, but I believe that with Tressel, the whole team got buckeye leaves when certain conditions were met; it wasn't just individual points. So Barrett might get buckeye leaves for that game. If it were up to me, he wouldn't. But I wouldn't really care much if he did.
I'm posting a lot on a subject I don't really care about. Funny.
Upvote
0
Again, never said I would be good with him playing the second half. That was something you arrived at and assumed all on your own. But please by all means continue on...
Upvote
0
Holy god. The point was that your logic was bad, not that you actually said that. Have you never heard the phrase "using that logic" before? It takes your current logic, and applies it to something else, showing how the logic itself is faulty. It doesn't actually imply you really said something you didn't say.
Jesus.
Upvote
0