Mavric

I guess I think the OL has played pretty well this year. I also thought previous OLs played much better than many like to give them credit for. Obviously we've had injuries which haven't helped. With our original starting five - Gates, Farmer, Utter, Foster, Knevel - I really liked what we were looking at. Knevel hasn't been particularly good and everyone else has been banged. up. I also think they could get some help from some different play-calling, in case I haven't mentioned that.

I think it's pretty likely we'll lose to tOSU and probably beat Maryland. The other two games are basically toss-ups at this point. I think we should win them both but we just haven't found enough ways to put a full game together to feel very confident - especially against better defenses. So I'm hopeful for 10-2 but would have to bet on 9-3.

If this holds, it sets up possibly the most epic Game 7 loser of all time. If it's the Cubs: Thought we were done, gave the fans hope only to blow the chance for a miracle finish to the Curse. If it's the Indians: Had it won - first time in 60 years - only to blow the last three, two of them at home.

JUCO DE Andrew Van Ginkel Who voted for: Wisconsin seaofred92, Dillrp4NU, nphuskers12, huskered17, Warrior10, sho, smurphy14, swmohusker, papio2chi

Committed to Wisconsin Who voted for: Wisconsin seaofred92, Dillrp4NU, nphuskers12, huskered17, Warrior10, sho, smurphy14, swmohusker, papio2chi

Not too shabby. I'll take it. Surprised we're ahead of Florida but I guess I was over-estimating their schedule a bit. Kind of thought LSU would be ahead of us as well with their two losses both to Top 10 teams and how well they've played recently. Thought maybe Oklahoma as well but that Houston loss looks a lot worse now.

Young, Knevel and Farmer (obviously) didn't practice. Young was doing work on the the side so he didn't look that far off. Newby and Ozigbo said to have practices through the media availability so if he's hurt it must have happened later.

Moved the Beck dialog here for fear of it taking the same form as the recent Pelini thread.... Carry on.

Against my better judgement.... And that's not an abstract concept, now is it. So it has absolutely no bearing. Such as our overwhelming scoring advantage in the fourth quarter this year. But you don't have any defense either. Only your opinion. Which you're entitled to. But it is maddening to insist on arguing the smallest of points in an argument that will never be won by either side because there is no right or wrong answer on an abstract concept. Then don't bother arguing about it. Not really. I think you could make a pretty strong argument for the 2012 team that overcame bigger deficits to better teams. That team also had some bad losses but I would put coming out looking to be fairly unprepared against bad teams in a similar boat to playing poorly against good team with the results commensurate with the competition. Or the 2009 team that had to fight tooth and nail for 60 minutes in basically every game because we didn't have any offense. But people really have no idea about the mental toughness of a team. They look at the results and interpret it how they want. And thus arguing about it is pointless. You can make your own case for a different team. Or why you don't think this team is that mentally tough, if that's what you think. But you're not making your own argument in a lot of cases. You're attacking someone else's and always demanding they provide some kind of proof. Some things can't be proved. Being unable to let things go has most of the board wanting you banned for trolling. I've been one to speak in your favor because I don't think you're trolling. You have good points to make. But the way you present yourself leaves you looking like a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, figuratively speaking.

Reading up on some tOSU stuff the last couple days, seems like a lot of people are pointing to lacking play-making WRs as causing a lot of their problems. Maybe there is one guy who's playing well but the other guys struggle to get open. So teams are doubling one guy and stacking the box against the run. Without more threats in the passing game, it's making it pretty hard on everyone else. Perhaps a couple WRs being injured playing into that? I think that was also mentioned.

Honestly, if you pull the "no evidence" card on an abstract quantity one more time, I might straight up ban you on the spot just for making my head hurt. OF COURSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT'S WRONG EITHER. THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK - PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THEY AREN'T ALWAYS BASED ON FACTS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM WRONG. Sorry. I'm better now. I think.

OWH

Could also speak to the fact that they had trouble recruiting/retaining QBs because guys didn't want to sit behind a three year starter and Heisman trophy winner.

Spread hovering at tOSU by 17 for this week. Need to overcome some history apparently - and not surprisingly. Ohio State's offense doesn't seem to be firing on all cylinders so I'd take the points.

Wow. That's pretty poor. Don't follow the NBA a lot but there aren't a lot of huge names on this list. Perhaps Antetokounmpo this year?

Pro Football Focus graded Utter as our top-performing offensive player for the Wisconsin game. Not offensive lineman. Offensive player.

you missed the slice play and bluff plays on the inside run count and some of those other outside runs would have brought down the YPC which was closer to 30% more successfull than 50%. All in all we had a little more success outside but I wouldn't say a huge amount and you could argue the inside plays were needed for the outside runs to work. That being said we did have a few nice gains on some outside runs as you pointed out and while some others didn't have success, odds are running it 5-7 more times outside would have resulted in probably 2-4 runs of 5 or more yards. They have the Slice and Bluff as Inside Zone plays. You can argue with them if you like. completely misinterpreted how it was broken down I apologize I deleted this original response because I thought I mis-read your statement. You can ignore my first comment in my previous post.