Kips, had we won in the Pig House in 1969, not only could we have had back-to-back NCs, but we would've been playing for a three-peat in the 1971 Rose Bowl.
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 LordJeffBuck
- Start date
kippy1040
Hall of Fame
Your right about that Mili and that is what i thought about then back in those days. ABC sports network were already calling the Ohio State Buckeyes the team of the Century. Even in 1974 we were screwed over from the Michigan State game at thier place. WE scored the winning TD with time running out and they did not award the game to us. Woody was furious. Archie had admitted that many times in his conversations about that game.
Upvote
0
Well, it seems that most voters, when evaluating QB's, select "winning" (Kern, Krenzel) over "talent" (Germaine, Greene, Schlichter). It would be interesting to see how this poll would be different if the latter three QB's had won an NC (and each had at least one very real opportunity to do so - see the most agonizing losses poll).
Upvote
0
tomwal
Sophmore
Corny may be a sentimental favorite of alot of us old guys, but as a passer? (Put it to ya this way) Greg Hare got more respect on that team (as a passer). Not to down grade Corny in anyway...quite the contrary, thoes great teams he played on were probably more led by him than Archie, and he worked his ass off to improve. Not a doubt in my mind, but, week in and week out, it comes down to Championships here, and Kern and Krenz HALF to be 1 & 2 here. With....for me, Krenz getting the nod, only because as a starter he, never and I mean never (even against Wisky and scUM last year, in terrrible conditions, with the mistakes that the defense made, put us into position to win both thoes games....hell if I remember correctly he had us up on Illinois 22-21, in the 4th of his first start) lost a game he should have won. I cant say that about Rex or Corny. If Kern had won either scUM 69, or Stanford 71 I'd go with him. As far as pure passer I'll give the award to Art, best, most accurate and quickest release of anybody (QB) I've seen at OSU. If he'd a beat USC I might go with him. When the day is over on this topic? Well right now, I have to go with the guy that won 13 out of 14 games decided by 7 points or less, as the ALLTIME ONE AND ONLY QB FOR THE BUCKS. Thanks CK, in my eyes....you always finished the job.
Upvote
0
MightbeaBuck
with hat in hand
By the voting so far it appears the criteria for being a great college quarterback involves winning a national championship. If we go by these standards, then the greatest OSU halfback / tailback will be Maurice Clarett and the greatest fullback / tailback will be Jim Otis or John Brockington.
If we use a slightly different criteria, say the quarterback that would most improve probably any team he was placed on. This would eliminate Krenzel from most top ten lists. In fact, most QBs in this poll would not be great.
Change the criteria agian, make it a quarterback so good that a coach that hates the pass "only three things can happen with a pass, and two of them are bad" would completely change his whole offensive style to accommadate him. "Three yards and a cloud of dust" Woody chose a single quarterback over his usualy stable of stud RBs. Because in my opinion, Woody is God when it comes to coaching, I have to go with his choice of best quarterback ever.
Germaine was a pretty good passer, but Schlichter was a couple of levels better at passing, plus he was better at every other component of quarterbacking.
Because of Art's passing skills, older fans don't remember, and younger fans looking back in history at him, don't know how well he ran. While he wasn't as good a runner as, say Kern, or Greene, he was better than anyone since, including Stanley Jackson or Bellasaurious.
Like Krenzel, Schlichter could and did put the whole team on his back and carry it to victory. When Krenzel carried the team though, it had 14 NFL draft picks on it. To think what Art could have done with Krenzel's supporting cast!
As good as Schlichter was at Ohio State, he was still held back compared to what he would have done at a "passing" school.
Anyway, I didn't vote for a second place, because Art was as far above second place as second place would have been above 12th place.
If we use a slightly different criteria, say the quarterback that would most improve probably any team he was placed on. This would eliminate Krenzel from most top ten lists. In fact, most QBs in this poll would not be great.
Change the criteria agian, make it a quarterback so good that a coach that hates the pass "only three things can happen with a pass, and two of them are bad" would completely change his whole offensive style to accommadate him. "Three yards and a cloud of dust" Woody chose a single quarterback over his usualy stable of stud RBs. Because in my opinion, Woody is God when it comes to coaching, I have to go with his choice of best quarterback ever.
Germaine was a pretty good passer, but Schlichter was a couple of levels better at passing, plus he was better at every other component of quarterbacking.
Because of Art's passing skills, older fans don't remember, and younger fans looking back in history at him, don't know how well he ran. While he wasn't as good a runner as, say Kern, or Greene, he was better than anyone since, including Stanley Jackson or Bellasaurious.
Like Krenzel, Schlichter could and did put the whole team on his back and carry it to victory. When Krenzel carried the team though, it had 14 NFL draft picks on it. To think what Art could have done with Krenzel's supporting cast!
As good as Schlichter was at Ohio State, he was still held back compared to what he would have done at a "passing" school.
Anyway, I didn't vote for a second place, because Art was as far above second place as second place would have been above 12th place.
Upvote
0
MightbeaBuck said:
I don't think voting for Kern or Krenzel means that those picking them are mandating a national title as a requirement, rather that the abilities of Kern and Krenzel lead OSU to the titles. Kern's teams were 27-2 while he was the starting QB (he missed postions of games due to injury, but still was "the starter" during that time). Krenzel's teams went 25-2 under him (although he started both the 2001 Michigan game and the 2002 Outback Bowl, he really wasn't "the starter" then, so I just counted the full 2002 and 2003 seasons although he also missed game during his tenure). No other Buckeye QB has come close to those records.
Upvote
0
tomwal
Sophmore
I think championships are the only demeaner of a great QB. Look at the pro's ....Marino, Tarkington, Tittle, Kelly, Fouts....I could go on and on. These cats may get their moments on ESPN classic, but theyre never talked about as the "great ones". Somebody please tell me who was the (qb) that lost to Curley Lambaue in the Packers first ever title game? Eiter way, it's always about championships when measuring Quarterbacks for greatness. If Germaine was so good ....he'd a had a ring.....if Corny was so good, .....he'd a had a ring.....if Slichter was so good....well you get the picture. When are fan's going to realize that just being accurate with your passes is only about 1/3 of doing the job correctly.
Upvote
0
tomwal
Sophmore
OH and one more thing, I can guarangodamnteeya, that as far as brains are concerened, CK outclassed, AS(s) 10 to 1, before, he (CK) was sheyatin yellow. AS(s) may of had the best arm...and may of had the best release, but he was never the example to other players the way Kern or Krenzel was, and that's the way it is!! Thats percisley why he never got the ring. Thats percisley why he's where he's at today.
Upvote
0
MightbeaBuck
with hat in hand
I, and most other non-Giant fans, would call Marino or Tarkington "great" far sooner than would call, say, Jeff Hostetler great. Dan and Fran were both incredible quarterbacks, but, in your opinion, that's OK, 'cause Hostetler has a ring! Dan & Fran will be talked of for many many years on a national level, while Hostetler will become more and more obscure. (Unless his career as a financial advisor somehow propels him into the spotlight!)tomwal said:
"When are fan's going to realize that just being accurate with your passes is only about 1/3 of doing the job correctly?" So what you are saying is that the other 2/3's of doing the job correctly is having an awesome team to support you? As I said earlier, Krenzel had an all star cast to support him.
The quarterback is only 1/22 of the starting team (1/24 if you count kickers.) While he is by far the most important player, and the offensive "boss" on the field, he is still only one cog on a winning (or losing) team.
"...if Schlichter was so good..." If 1/11 of the offense, or 1/22 of the team was so good, he'd have a ring. What about the rest of the 1968 team? Does Rex Kern get the ring? or did everyone else on the team get one also? By calling a quarterback great only if the team wins X number of games (or at least one MNC) it kind of slams the rest of the team.
Many, if not most, people on this board have said the MNC two years ago came from the defense. Maybe that is a sign of a great quarterback, having an awesome defense.
When are fan's going to realize that just being surrounded by a great team is less than 1/3 of doing the job correctly?
I was just reminded, another thing to consider as part of the great criteria: Who started the most games? Who started the most years? Did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before the game?
Upvote
0
tomwal
Sophmore
Mightbeabuck,
You bring up some good points, I will agree that Kern and Krenzel were probably surrounded by the best supporting casts, but Schlicter's, Greene and Germaine's were nothing to sneeze at. Hell, look at what a great supporting cast did for B. Hoying. I mean how many Heismens, position award honors and All-Americans did these teams produce? My point being that the guys that didnt win championships may have been lacking somewhere! Maybe in the leadership? or accuracy? or reading defenses department? but somewhere thats for sure. Thats basically why I say that a great arm is only 1/3 of the job. I will also agree that Jeff Hostettler is/was not in the class of a Marino or Takenton.
You bring up some good points, I will agree that Kern and Krenzel were probably surrounded by the best supporting casts, but Schlicter's, Greene and Germaine's were nothing to sneeze at. Hell, look at what a great supporting cast did for B. Hoying. I mean how many Heismens, position award honors and All-Americans did these teams produce? My point being that the guys that didnt win championships may have been lacking somewhere! Maybe in the leadership? or accuracy? or reading defenses department? but somewhere thats for sure. Thats basically why I say that a great arm is only 1/3 of the job. I will also agree that Jeff Hostettler is/was not in the class of a Marino or Takenton.
Upvote
0
NOTREDAMECHIEF
Legend
tomwal - Makes some grest points as the really good ones just win! How many fans can name more than 6-7 players on Montana's first super bowl team?
Upvote
0
osu2thetop
Newbie
1- Art, There is no way he shouldn't be #1
2- Rex Kern, winning %
3- Craig Krenzel, same as Kern
2- Rex Kern, winning %
3- Craig Krenzel, same as Kern
Upvote
0
BuckeyeRob
Yeah, whatever...
bucknuts44820 said:
I couldnt decide between Kern and Krenzel. It finally came down to his record vs Michigan and I think Krenzel was/is more of a clutch winner. Hoying and Germaine are the "sexy" picks for the passing stats but neither of those guys had a winning record vs scUM and didnt win the whole ball of wax. Plus, IMHO those guys had more offensive talent than the 02 squad.
Upvote
0