• 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!

Tim Beck (HC Coastal Carolina)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeye86 said:
So Pitt is more talented than OSU because they managed to move the ball against Clemson? Or did they have a better OC who utilized the talented they did have more efficiently.

The answer is obviously #2, highlighting once again you are simply trolling with nonsense.
Click to expand...
Nah everyone on Clemson's scheduled has more talent than us because they scored... Except Syracuse and South Carolina State...
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
So Pitt is more talented than OSU because they managed to move the ball against Clemson? Or did they have a better OC who utilized the talented they did have more efficiently.

The answer is obviously #2, highlighting once again you are simply trolling with nonsense.
Click to expand...
Take a pamprin man. Not trolling, just not making excuses for losing. Trying to give another team credit for a win and not downplaying it by making excuses.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
So Pitt is more talented than OSU because they managed to move the ball against Clemson? Or did they have a better OC who utilized the talented they did have more efficiently.

The answer is obviously #2, highlighting once again you are simply trolling with nonsense.
Click to expand...
Oh, the old transitive property, never heard that one before.

We lost to PSU and I think we were more talented. We got dominated by Clemson but think they were more talented.
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
Take a pamprin man. Not trolling, just not making excuses for losing. Trying to give another team credit for a win and not downplaying it by making excuses.
Click to expand...
"more talented" is an excuse...

Bottom line - We got our ass kicked by Clemson. Offensively they had a good game plan against our D but our D held up well. Defensively they destroyed our Offensive game plan which was/has been LACKING for some time now. None of this is an excuse its just statements of what most folks consider fact...
 
Upvote 0
ginn421 said:
The point being that they are arbitrary rankings based on guesswork, and therefore an invalid measure of current talent. I tend to think Clemson is slightly more talented than OSU, especially on offense. Defensively the gap narrows. Obviously not 31-0 more talented, but sometimes the way a game flows can be misleading.
Click to expand...
The rankings are developed by folks who make a living at it, based on tons of film review and evaluations...they're far from simply "guesswork". They get most of it right, although they will obviously over-rate some and flat out miss on others, instances of which are fairly rare.

Alabama has had the consensus top recruiting classes for the past eight years or so, and it shows on the field and it the NFL. Not a whole lot of busts for Bama. So I'd say the recruiting analysts get it right quite a bit.

For teams that don't usually get the top recruits, as others have pointed out, it's not always the level of talent your recruit, but how well you can develop that talent.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
The rankings are developed by folks who make a living at it, based on tons of film review and evaluations...they're far from simply "guesswork". They get most of it right, although they will obviously over-rate some and flat out miss on others, instances of which are fairly rare.

Alabama has had the consensus top recruiting classes for the past eight years or so, and it shows on the field and it the NFL. Not a whole lot of busts for Bama. So I'd say the recruiting analysts get it right quite a bit.

For teams that don't usually get the top recruits, as others have pointed out, it's not always the level of talent your recruit, but how well you can develop that talent.
Click to expand...

That all is fine. You can have on-paper estimations of players, I'll stick with real-life observations of on-the-field performance.
 
Upvote 0
ginn421 said:
That all is fine. You can have on-paper estimations of players, I'll stick with real-life observations of on-the-field performance.
Click to expand...

I feel like you and Thump are arguing separate ideas of talent. Clemson was more talented in that their players were performing up to their potential and being put in a position to succeed. What Mili is arguing, and I agree with, is they had no advantage based on raw ability. Our players have the same upside, if not better, overall than Clemson's. Is that so hard to believe? Did we not all just witness a minor league NFL team in terms of talent struggle to find any offensive consistency against severely overmatched opponents like Hawaii, NIU, Indiana, and Illinois? So why is it a surprise that a talented team like Clemson could blow us out without having a significant talent advantage?
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
The rankings are developed by folks who make a living at it, based on tons of film review and evaluations...they're far from simply "guesswork". They get most of it right, although they will obviously over-rate some and flat out miss on others, instances of which are fairly rare.

Alabama has had the consensus top recruiting classes for the past eight years or so, and it shows on the field and it the NFL. Not a whole lot of busts for Bama. So I'd say the recruiting analysts get it right quite a bit.

For teams that don't usually get the top recruits, as others have pointed out, it's not always the level of talent your recruit, but how well you can develop that talent.
Click to expand...
Mili,

You are correct with the star rankings, seems to me many of our high star players are still really young and Clemson's starting 22 was comprised of more seasoned players.
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
Mili,

You are correct with the star rankings, seems to me many of our high star players are still really young and Clemson's starting 22 was comprised of more seasoned players.
Click to expand...

This is definitely fair. If you did a comparison of all 22 starters on field for each team, you'd end up selecting more Clemson starters, IMO.

However, there's nothing anybody can rationally say, that excuses throwing the ball 21 of 27 times to open the game. There's nothing that excuses the amount of 5 wide sets we utilized when 3 of the 5 receivers were former HS RB's and poor route runners.

I agree with others, in that this year our personnel was limited in terms of playmakers. But that is more reason to rely heavily on the power run game. What they tried to manufacture against Clemson was legit insanity....it's really not even defensible. The fact that when questioned by the media, Meyer said "throwing 21 of 27 times to start the game was NOT part of the game plan" just reaffirms the disconnect between Beck and Meyer IMO.

Meyer deserves some criticism for allowing this situation to manifest, but there are a lot of good options available right now....including Kevin Wilson seemingly on the back burner. I'm already fired up for 2017 to start....
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top