Reasons for the slump... and is it over now?

[cincibuck]

You got me there!

As an example of the media's attitude to the Bucks, consider this article. I remember being pissed off after reading it. (This was after the USC game.) The writer starts off being a dick, but finishes on a sort-of objective tone, and as much as you hate it, you can't deny he makes a couple of good points on the second page:

Buckeyes falter again in spotlight - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

The press is not there to be a cheerleader. (Unless you're Notre Dame) Reverse the outcome and read what would be in the Dispatch and then imagine you're a USC fan. Let's face it, our beloved Buckeyes got blown out in three straight games with a national audiance. There were good reasons to lose all three; good teams, on the road, new QB, injuries, but there aren't many good reasons for being blown out.

 

[JCOSU86]

If tOSU had a "dual threat" QB waiting in the wings for 2007, it certainly would have made the TS-TP transition much smoother and easier ... and it might have given Pryor some more time to "learn on the job" as opposed to being "The Man" in his fourth-ever college football game.

But they did, Antonio Henton. That situation got screwed up.

In addition to the recruiting issues, I think the Buckeyes seriously under-recruited the offensive and defensive lines.

 

[matcar]

Some don't want to call it a "slump", and some do. No matter what you call it, the feeling is that tOSU hasn't won a big game since we beat skunkbear in 2006. And even that game lost luster because of dismal performances in the 2006 bowls. Much like Oklahoma viewed Stoops as Big Game Bob, we viewed JT as a big game coach. This vision has been built largely on the fantasmicalawesome record against skunkbear and the 3-0 BCS record. Now JT is 3-3 in the BCS and our big OOC game was a failure. Don't suppose I care what it's called, but until we beat USC next year or pony up in the BCS, I'll still feel sour.

 

[Gatorubet]

How would you best describe Ohio State's offense

• Like two sloths tearing open a stone crab
• Like lightning made of slow
• Like two Ents having sex
• Like plate tectonics, but without the awesome explosions and earthquakes

View Results​

• Polls Archive

Well, here is Exhibit Z from EDSBS, so what you are talking about is not imaginary. No similar Sooner stuff in general display despite a worse BCS record.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

Well, here is Exhibit Z from EDSBS, so what you are talking about is not imaginary. No similar Sooner stuff in general display despite a worse BCS record.

That site just made my fist list!

 

[zincfinger]

Every team has at least a couple of bad games per year. The "luck" of winning a championship comes primarily from having your bad games come against weak opponents: opponents against whom you can survive a bad game. The question then, shouldn't be about a "slump", in my opinion. OSU has played at an overall high level the last three years. The question should be, why has OSU in recent years had a high percentage of their bad performances against elite non-conference opponents? There are two separate phenomena there: i) completely uninspired performances (the Florida game and the second half of the USC game), and ii) mostly respectable performances which were overcome by critical mistakes and a bit of bad luck (the LSU game and the first half of the USC game). Personally, I think that talent gap is, at best, a partial explanation for either of these phenomena, or any of these games. OSU had the overall talent to at least make the game highly competitive in the three games we're talking about here. The question is, in the 12 quarters of high-profile butt-kicking, why did OSU fail to show up in 6 of them, and make critical mistakes which surmounted their mostly respectable play in the other 6? I'm not sure of the answers to those two questions, and I'm not sure which of the two phenomena is easier to fix (or perhaps more accurately, will be more likely to be "automatically" fixed by a change in personnel).

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

Every team has at least a couple of bad games per year. The "luck" of winning a championship comes primarily from having your bad games come against weak opponents: opponents against whom you can survive a bad game. The question then, shouldn't be about a "slump", in my opinion. OSU has played at an overall high level the last three years. The question should be, why has OSU in recent years had a high percentage of their bad performances against elite non-conference opponents? There are two separate phenomena there: i) completely uninspired performances (the Florida game and the second half of the USC game), and ii) mostly respectable performances which were overcome by critical mistakes and a bit of bad luck (the LSU game and the first half of the USC game). Personally, I think that talent gap is, at best, a partial explanation for either of these phenomena, or any of these games. OSU had the overall talent to at least make the game highly competitive in the three games we're talking about here. The question is, in the 12 quarters of high-profile butt-kicking, why did OSU fail to show up in 6 of them, and make critical mistakes which surmounted their mostly respectable play in the other 6? I'm not sure of the answers to those two questions, and I'm not sure which of the two phenomena is easier to fix.

Blame Bollman !

No seriously, you make a good point. You call it "12 quarters of high-profile buttkicking," I used the word "slump," others objected, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.

You make a good point.

 

[zincfinger]

Blame Bollman !

No seriously, you make a good point. You call it "12 quarters of high-profile buttkicking," I used the word "slump," others objected, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.

You make a good point.

Most debates have a semantic aspect to them, but I don't think this one is pure semantics. To me, the suggestion that OSU has slumped equates to the suggestion that OSU's recent successes have been largely a facade resulting from weak in-conference competition. A facade which has been exposed when OSU has faced premier out-of-conference competition. I don't think this is the case. I think instead that OSU has played three bad games; one-and-a-half a no-show, and one-and-a-half a decent showing marred by critical mistakes, as I said. Last year, among OSU's opponents, LSU was certainly better than PSU. But not night-and-day better, as the outcome of those contests would suggest.

 

[cincibuck]

Last year, among OSU's opponents, LSU was certainly better than PSU. But not night-and-day better, as the outcome of those contests would suggest.

USC destroyed the two best teams in the Big 10 in the first half of both games, and toyed with them in the second. The saving grace being that OSU was in the process of switching QBs and did not have its best running back and that both games were played in LA. BUT make no mistake that there was a serious talent gap between USC and the best the Big 10 had to offer.

 

[zincfinger]

USC destroyed the two best teams in the Big 10 in the first half of both games, and toyed with them in the second. The saving grace being that OSU was in the process of switching QBs and did not have its best running back and that both games were played in LA. BUT make no mistake that there was a serious talent gap between USC and the best the Big 10 had to offer.

This is where we differ. I don't think USC destroyed OSU in the first half of that game anywhere but on the scoreboard. Each team's defense stopped the opponent's offense a couple of times. Each team's offense drove the length of the field a couple of times. Yet the halftime score was 21-3. The difference: critical mistakes (and a bit of bad luck). OSU had them and USC didn't. I'm not arguing that OSU should have won, or anything of the sort. I'm saying that OSU played right along with USC in 95% of the game in the first half. But they made a handful of critical mistakes that put them in a big hole. Kudos to USC for not making big mistakes, and for taking advantage of OSU's. But I didn't see a serious talent gap in the first half. I saw two comparably talented teams, one which made a few critical mistakes and one which didn't.

In the second half, I don't think USC toyed with OSU, I think they flat-out dominated OSU. Whether you want to attribute that to USC making successful halftime adjustments, or OSU packing it in at halftime, is up to you. But the level of competition in the second half was greatly diminished from what it was in the first, scoreboard aside.

 

[IronBuckI]

This is where we differ. I don't think USC destroyed OSU in the first half of that game anywhere but on the scoreboard. Each team's defense stopped the opponent's offense a couple of times. Each team's offense drove the length of the field a couple of times. Yet the halftime score was 21-3. The difference: critical mistakes (and a bit of bad luck). OSU had them and USC didn't. I'm not arguing that OSU should have won, or anything of the sort. I'm saying that OSU played right along with USC in 95% of the game in the first half. But they made a handful of critical mistakes that put them in a big hole. Kudos to USC for not making big mistakes, and for taking advantage of OSU's. But I didn't see a serious talent gap in the first half. I saw two comparably talented teams, one which made a few critical mistakes and one which didn't.

I saw mistakes that were forced by the other team, an offense and defensive line that blew ours away, and the inability to dictate any aspect of the game. Then I saw us give up in the second half.

 

[zincfinger]

I saw mistakes that were forced by the other team, an offense and defensive line that blew ours away, and the inability to dictate any aspect of the game. Then I saw us give up in the second half.

Any mistake can be argued as having been forced by the opponent. And to some extent it's usually true. But USC's lines didn't consistently dominate OSU's in the first half, according to the game as I saw it. They gave them stiff competition, but they didn't dominate them. Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from USC. They played well and deserved a decisive win. But a team that is thoroughly dominating does not give up two field-length drives, with scores averted by a missed field goal, holding calls that could have gone the other way, and goal-line false starts. In my view, 21-3 did not reflect the way the teams had played in 95% of the game up to that point. Your mileage may vary, and apparently does.

 

[cincibuck]

Working without a script here. As I recall the defense stopped USC on the first drive. The next three were scoring drives and as I recall there weren't many third and whatever moments. I don't think there was another three and out for USC until the third quarter. Malalegua's interception sealed the deal on the first half. Let's be honest here, the Bucks got their ass pounded on both sides of the ball.

 

[Showtime]

On subject of the 2006 Championship Game, I've heard a lot of rumors about Ohio State.

One of those was a bit obvious, Ginn was a big part of the game plan and losing him really hurt you all. I also heard that Troy Smith did a lot of partying the week leading up to the game, which was why he wasn't as mobile and got sacked more frequently. As to if this is true and has been verified, I have no clue.

I think the reason Florida won was because of special teams. We had a lot of excellent punt and kick returns that gave us good position, in fact in the first half I think our average drive start was the the OSU 47. That field position led to frequent points.

Personally the 2006 season was crazy. For instance, I'm a Florida fan, and wasn't even expecting to make the Championship game.

Every good team has a slump every once in a while. You'll hit your stride and take off from there.

 

[matcar]

Any mistake can be argued as having been forced by the opponent. And to some extent it's usually true. But USC's lines didn't consistently dominate OSU's in the first half, according to the game as I saw it. They gave them stiff competition, but they didn't dominate them. Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from USC. They played well and deserved a decisive win. But a team that is thoroughly dominating does not give up two field-length drives, with scores averted by a missed field goal, holding calls that could have gone the other way, and goal-line false starts. In my view, 21-3 did not reflect the way the teams had played in 95% of the game up to that point. Your mileage may vary, and apparently does.

While I know that situational aspects of any game can make it seem more lopsided than it really is, I know from watching the USC game multiple times that this wasn't just a case of bad timing. We got thumped by a team that was better at almost every position on the field, and possibly on the sidelines/booth as well.

I don't expect that to be the case this September, but it was last. If this team is to ever expect to get better, they'll have to own this reality and plan a new one. I'm certain that JT and the staff feel that way.