• 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!

You want the next 5 star Buckeye recruit to be a...

  • Total voters
i voted tailback. i want one that is at least 215 right now and projects to playing at 230ish in the big ten mold of eddie, maurice, curtis enis, raymont, etc. someone that can run between the tackles and get one or two yards no matter what.

unfortunately this year looks like another year of the small tailback. i think there is one in NC toney barker (?) that fits the bill but i have no idea if he has any interest in us at all. then of course there is michigan verbal grady who fits the bill to a T and scares the hell out of me right now but he doesn't seem like a remote chance in hell.
Upvote 0
I want the best OL's every year, and the more the merrier. A very close 2nd is a DL.

The OL is the backbone of your offense. It allows QB's who are second-rate, or in some cases second-string to become Super Bowl heroes.

But, then there is the argument that you win Championships with defense. Look at the 2002 Buckeyes. Decent but not great OL, incredible DL. A strong DL makes your LB's better and your DB's better.

It just seems that there are more great DL's out there every year. The OL's are a little harder to come by.
Upvote 0
You can never go wrong with a 5-star OL, and that's what I voted. A solid OL can make a decent RB good. Just look how well Ross ran when the OL played well (and when Ross was healthy). Actually, Hall also ran well when the OL did well and Hall wasn't dinged up. If you think Clarett was good in 2002, just think how good he could've been behind a solid OL, like Oklahoma's or Michigan's. We saw so many plays last year get blown up before they even started, due to poor OL play...
Upvote 0
I'll side with WoodyWorshiper here and go for the OL. The great play of the Bucks D over the last decade seems to consistantly bring in the talent on that side of the ball. While on offense our OL hasn't struck fear into many of our opponents lately. If we can solidify the OL, suddenly Ross and Hall aren't getting hit in the backfield and are solid backs.
Upvote 0
A great TB is the engine that drives every great Buckeye team. OL would be nice too, but linemen can be "built" more readily than a great back. A 5-star QB would be nice too, but OSU doesn't need a gunslinger to be successful.
Upvote 0
jlb: "OL would be nice too, but linemen can be "built" more readily than a great back."

We didn't exactly set the world on fire "building" an offensive line the last three years. Any good back will great behind a solid OL, and that solid OL will also make a good QB great. Bottom line, a great OL is the best "force multiplier" you can have on offense.
Upvote 0
I see your point. I guess I was thinking from more of a theoretical point of view, rather than a practical one taking into account OSU's track record. Then again, it is known that Tressel has been recruiting a different style of offensive lineman than what OSU has been accustomed to. We really don't know how this approach has worked out yet, since most of these guys haven't seen much of the field yet. I imagine it doesn't really help much to teach the finer points of pulling and trapping to a gang of 350 pounders who are too big and slow to make it to the point of attack. The reputation for developing linemen still hangs mostly on the Cooper administration, as up until last year, it was almost exclusively his recruits that were getting PT. I am somewhat disappointed that they (Tressel & Co.) didn't get a little more improvement out of those guys, but I beilive that the style of player that Cooper brought in really handcuffed Tressel's staff in what the could do with the OL. I think we will find out in the next two season just how good the current staff is at "building" an offensive line.

Bottom line, a great OL is the best "force multiplier" you can have on offense.
On the flip side though, a great RB can make the OL look a lot better. Look no further than the 2002 season vs. the 2003 season. When Clarett had the rock, nobody was complaining about the run blocking. Last year though, with all the same players on the line, the line play "seemingly" worsened.

Finally, a 5-star RB is almost always a higher profile catch than an equally rated OL. High profile commitments help generate interest in the program with recruits. As much as I want a great players - at any position - I also like to see the Bucks make a big splash with a big-name, high profile commitment.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
We already have a 5* OL and a 5* DB committed for 2005, so I picked QB. Unfortunately, we'll have to go out of state if we get one (or wait until 2006 when Miles Schlicter might merit that rating).
Upvote 0
I went with OL... with Boone and another stud OL, that would help our O dramatically (no line= big trouble, even if you have the stud skill guys... not to mention we are still a bit thin there)... a close second IMO would be RB, then QB (QB is important however with Zwick and Smith both soph. we have time to bring in another really good one... OL we need right now)...
Upvote 0
Duane Long once said that OL is the toughtest position to project success at in College. There are exceptions of course - Pace and almost assuredly a kid like Byers - talking one of those and I agree with OL. But not all 5 star are in that category.

Let's not forget that Bryce Bishop was first team HS AA - a ranking that would likely have converted to five stars if that system had been in place at the time. Adrien Clarke was one of the top 10 OL prospects out of HS. Step and Olivea were both honorable mention HS AA. All that talent on the same OL - and what was the result?
Upvote 0