What did we learn? OSU edition.

If you want to use your QB as your primary run game, that's fine with me.  Guess that's one way to clear up a QB competition.  First one with a broken bone loses.  

Get a fullback if that's the case...or better yet, put a TE back there to help lead block.

 
Cy the Cyclone said:
I learned this was the first game of the season and looked like it for both teams.

Defense looked pretty stout against the run.  LBs looked surprisingly decent against the run but slow on coverage.  Good hitting though.  Secondary has no speed and needs a dose of mental discipline 

My big question about the offense was where is this running game everyone keeps talking about?  QB draws and scrambles is not a running game.  Actual running backs carried the ball 14 times.   Combine that with a bunch of slow receivers and you have a pretty anemic looking offense.
Click to expand...
And almost 80 of our rushing yards on 2 plays.  By Luke and AM.....My biggest disappointment was the lack of dedicated run game.  Listening to Lubbick and Austin I really thought there would be more "flow of one play to the next", calling something to set up something.  Of course with no deep receiver threat, you can play 11 guys "in the box".  

IMHO, other than the penalties, I thought we played better than last year.  And it was game one.  Against a team that might win the NC this year...

 
Cy the Cyclone said:
If you want to use your QB as your primary run game, that's fine with me.  Guess that's one way to clear up a QB competition.  First one with a broken bone loses.  

Get a fullback if that's the case...or better yet, put a TE back there to help lead block.
Click to expand...
I am with you there. I do not want QBs running more than occasionally.  Gotta have some RBs who can figure it out and do damage themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m thinking coaches know we don’t have anyone that be a receiving threat so they chose to put experience and blocking ability on the field. Helps control the turnovers.  At least for this game. I bet it opens up more as the season progresses. 

 
lo country said:
And almost 80 of our rushing yards on 2 plays.  By Luke and AM.....My biggest disappointment was the lack of dedicated run game.  Listening to Lubbick and Austin I really thought there would be more "flow of one play to the next", calling something to set up something.  Of course with no deep receiver threat, you can play 11 guys "in the box".  

IMHO, other than the penalties, I thought we played better than last year.  And it was game one.  Against a team that might win the NC this year...
Click to expand...
And you would think we’d getting a few payback penalties for single handily giving the refs a job this fall. 
 

some people just don’t appreciate all we did for them.  

 
krc1995 said:
And you would think we’d getting a few payback penalties for single handily giving the refs a job this fall. 
 

some people just don’t appreciate all we did for them.  
Click to expand...
Haha.  Never thought about that.  Maybe against the rest of the schedule we will get some actual appreciation!

 
Cy the Cyclone said:
I learned this was the first game of the season and looked like it for both teams.

Defense looked pretty stout against the run.  LBs looked surprisingly decent against the run but slow on coverage.  Good hitting though.  Secondary has no speed and needs a dose of mental discipline 

My big question about the offense was where is this running game everyone keeps talking about?  QB draws and scrambles is not a running game.  Actual running backs carried the ball 14 times.   Combine that with a bunch of slow receivers and you have a pretty anemic looking offense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Tom looked at the stats back in the 90s and deducted the qb run yards

 
GBRFAN said:
I'm sure Tom looked at the stats back in the 90s and deducted the qb run yards
Click to expand...
When you think about it, why waste the time to hand the ball off?   Add another blocking lineman, or two to the formation. 
 

QB could move down the field in a bubble of fatties. 

 
lo country said:
And almost 80 of our rushing yards on 2 plays.  By Luke and AM.....My biggest disappointment was the lack of dedicated run game.  Listening to Lubbick and Austin I really thought there would be more "flow of one play to the next", calling something to set up something.  Of course with no deep receiver threat, you can play 11 guys "in the box".  

IMHO, other than the penalties, I thought we played better than last year.  And it was game one.  Against a team that might win the NC this year...
Click to expand...


Mills seems to be a guy that doesn't really make people miss in the backfield. So that accounts for some of what happened yesterday - when a team with that kind of athleticism gets into your backfield, you have to have a guy like Ameer to make something out of nothing, and that isn't Mills.

I expect for our offense to prove to the fan base even more against Wisconsin that we are significantly improved in the run game...but I still think the Badgers beat us by two scores nevertheless.

I think our line will be bullying Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, & Iowa. Minnesota is an unknown for me because I can't tell yet whether they're nearly as good as last year or not. Biggest X factor for us is turnovers on offense, not whether we have a running game, IMO.

 
I do not agree with fans blaming the QBs for yesterday’s game. The way I saw it, Martinez was surveying the field and going down his progressions but no receivers were open. Last year, we had Speilman who was very good at getting open. As hard as it is for us to admit, we do not have very talented receivers which drives the play calling towards many QB runs. Also, wandale was not heavily involved like I hoped he would. Overall, I do not think the blame falls on the QBs. YEs, they did fumble but the play calling dictated that given that the passing game was not very successful. Ohio state is really loaded and talented. Next week’s game will be a much better measure of who we are and how much we improved.

 
Archy1221 said:
Of the QB position leads the team in rushing yards, it’s going to be a long long season. 
Click to expand...
ok - solid point.  Did anybody want or say that our QB would do or should do that? 

If we score 100 points a game it will be a long season for the other team..... if they score 100 points it will be long for us.  I thought typing that might make me fill better - but it didn't.  How about you?

 
Undone said:
Because we have no pass rush at all, we would have been waaaaay more effective in more of a Nickel scheme today.

Going to be honest: It'll be completely demoralizing if Mertz & Wisconsin embarrass us with a passing attack next week. I said right at the end of last year that I don't think Chinander deserves any excuses in year 3 for lack of talent - he needs to figure it out.

But holy f***, offense...don't turn the ball over and leave the defense with a short field against the Badgers.
Click to expand...
Our pass rush was actually better than what I was expecting.  Tannor even got one.

And had we got that safety......

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top