We are finally back to real football. Any thoughts as you guys watch the games?

My early ones:
That Indiana game set-up was one I was saying for a long time I did not like from an Ohio State fan perspective. First game are always tricky as you have not worked out the bugs with limited practice so I prefer the first game of the year to be the easiest. Add in making it a night game, on the road, and a conference game and it was a recipe for trouble. Then add in that was a senior laden team going against their old coach with Ohio State breaking in far more freshman.

All of that said, I will certainly concede the game was the most exciting first game we have had in some time and there was far more build-up to it than there would have been in October/November.

On the game itself, Indiana was tremendously good at very quick passes in the first half (and into the 3rd quarter). There biggest problem was not taking full advantage of that early momentum. They played better than OSU in the first half, but only led by a point at half time.

I am still not liking the fact we did not see the long ball from OSU. I am not in a camp that is blaming JT, but that was our big issue last year and OSU at least has to be in a position to credibly threaten it as time goes on. That said, the running game was great even without Weber and 2nd half was much better.

---

Other games: Never saw the line, but would have guessed Minnesota would have won more. Not a big deal though.

I think Michigan is very underrated for the season, but think with all the youth needs to be very happy Florida has so many players out now for the first game.

Would like to see Rutgers at least stay close for awhile and would like to see Maryland push Texas even though do not expect wins.

(09-01-2017 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  We are finally back to real football. Any thoughts as you guys watch the games?

My early ones:
That Indiana game set-up was one I was saying for a long time I did not like from an Ohio State fan perspective. First game are always tricky as you have not worked out the bugs with limited practice so I prefer the first game of the year to be the easiest. Add in making it a night game, on the road, and a conference game and it was a recipe for trouble. Then add in that was a senior laden team going against their old coach with Ohio State breaking in far more freshman.

All of that said, I will certainly concede the game was the most exciting first game we have had in some time and there was far more build-up to it than there would have been in October/November.

On the game itself, Indiana was tremendously good at very quick passes in the first half (and into the 3rd quarter). There biggest problem was not taking full advantage of that early momentum. They played better than OSU in the first half, but only led by a point at half time.

I am still not liking the fact we did not see the long ball from OSU. I am not in a camp that is blaming JT, but that was our big issue last year and OSU at least has to be in a position to credibly threaten it as time goes on. That said, the running game was great even without Weber and 2nd half was much better.

---

Other games: Never saw the line, but would have guessed Minnesota would have won more. Not a big deal though.

I think Michigan is very underrated for the season, but think with all the youth needs to be very happy Florida has so many players out now for the first game.

Would like to see Rutgers at least stay close for awhile and would like to see Maryland push Texas even though do not expect wins.

I pretty much agree with your whole post. I will say though as an independent observer that Indiana is much improved both offensively and defensively. What kept them from keeping it tight was depth.

Your Buckeyes run the ball well enough. I agree on the deep passing game for the offense. But what you didn't mention were your corners. They were vulnerable all night and the quick tempo gave them problems (like with Clemson). They need to quit playing the receiver and play the ball. In a quick passing game reading the eyes of the QB and reacting to the ball will yield greater defensive success than playing the receiver who knows when to break off the route and turn for the catch. You may need twin safeties so that they can cover a route that fakes short to go long.

So far tonight I'd say Rutgers is improved, but also lacks depth. Wisconsin wasn't ready to play, but they don't really look complete either. Their O line was pushed around by Utah State a smaller defensive front. But they are establishing their dominance in the 2nd half, but still not very impressive against a much smaller and less deep opponent.

(09-01-2017 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  We are finally back to real football. Any thoughts as you guys watch the games?

My early ones:
That Indiana game set-up was one I was saying for a long time I did not like from an Ohio State fan perspective. First game are always tricky as you have not worked out the bugs with limited practice so I prefer the first game of the year to be the easiest. Add in making it a night game, on the road, and a conference game and it was a recipe for trouble. Then add in that was a senior laden team going against their old coach with Ohio State breaking in far more freshman.

All of that said, I will certainly concede the game was the most exciting first game we have had in some time and there was far more build-up to it than there would have been in October/November.

On the game itself, Indiana was tremendously good at very quick passes in the first half (and into the 3rd quarter). There biggest problem was not taking full advantage of that early momentum. They played better than OSU in the first half, but only led by a point at half time.

I am still not liking the fact we did not see the long ball from OSU. I am not in a camp that is blaming JT, but that was our big issue last year and OSU at least has to be in a position to credibly threaten it as time goes on. That said, the running game was great even without Weber and 2nd half was much better.

---

Other games: Never saw the line, but would have guessed Minnesota would have won more. Not a big deal though.

I think Michigan is very underrated for the season, but think with all the youth needs to be very happy Florida has so many players out now for the first game.

Would like to see Rutgers at least stay close for awhile and would like to see Maryland push Texas even though do not expect wins.

So far I'd say this.

tOSU and Wisconsin both had the same problem, lethargic in the first half, played like you'd expect in the second. Talent, coaching, and experience showed up for both, but if the try that in the B1G, they'll end up with one in the "L" column.

Indiana looked better than I expected. When that offense clicks, they can really score. Teams better not sleep on them.

Rutgers played better than I expected. They have a long way to go, but you can tell they've vastly improved over last year.

Old P.J. better get the bilge pump out for that boat instead of "rowing". At home in your debut against a BAD Buffalo team and you only managed a 17-7 win? I wouldn't be surprised to see them at the bottom of the B1G West.

I think Michigan will blow out Florida. I predicted (and still stand by) Maryland upsets Texas. Purdue gets routed by Louisville.

Maryland looking competitive against Texas, Penn State doing what they need to do against Akron, Craig Bohl is giving Iowa a hard time with a very good QB, Illinois is struggling against a good Ball State. Don't have ESPNu but I am not expecting a great season out of Sparty. Didn't get to watch anything yesterday because of work, even had to miss out on going to see EMich win.

27 - 7 Terps just got the ball back on the kickoff as well.

Illinois dodged a bullet, Ball State badly outplayed them yet lost.

That's football.

OMG! I can't tell you how happy I am to be wrong about taking the Terps and the point. Don't even care about the pick 'em

(09-02-2017 03:24 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  OMG! I can't tell you how happy I am to be wrong about taking the Terps and the point. Don't even care about the pick 'em

Hanging a fiddy on Bevo! Congrats and well deserved. B1G Easy better not sleep on the Terps.

Sent from my SM-G925V using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-02-2017 11:56 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Maryland looking competitive against Texas, Penn State doing what they need to do against Akron, Craig Bohl is giving Iowa a hard time with a very good QB, Illinois is struggling against a good Ball State. Don't have ESPNu but I am not expecting a great season out of Sparty. Didn't get to watch anything yesterday because of work, even had to miss out on going to see EMich win.

Sparty's red shirt sophomore QB that has only played in like 4 games of his college career had a slow start but then did very good. I think one game stat was that 10 recievers caught the ball. Sparty's running back was a disappointment fumbling twice for Bowling Green scores. MSU 35 -BGSU 10. Compared to the dismal season sparty had in 2016 and the off the field incidents, I think they did very well today. Granted it was BGSU. But i was happy with the performance today. Note that im not buying any Big Ten Championship T-shirts yet... lol

Congratulations, Maryland!
Back to playing Terps football again, I see.

(09-01-2017 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  We are finally back to real football. Any thoughts as you guys watch the games?

My early ones:
That Indiana game set-up was one I was saying for a long time I did not like from an Ohio State fan perspective. First game are always tricky as you have not worked out the bugs with limited practice so I prefer the first game of the year to be the easiest. Add in making it a night game, on the road, and a conference game and it was a recipe for trouble. Then add in that was a senior laden team going against their old coach with Ohio State breaking in far more freshman.

All of that said, I will certainly concede the game was the most exciting first game we have had in some time and there was far more build-up to it than there would have been in October/November.

On the game itself, Indiana was tremendously good at very quick passes in the first half (and into the 3rd quarter). There biggest problem was not taking full advantage of that early momentum. They played better than OSU in the first half, but only led by a point at half time.

I am still not liking the fact we did not see the long ball from OSU. I am not in a camp that is blaming JT, but that was our big issue last year and OSU at least has to be in a position to credibly threaten it as time goes on. That said, the running game was great even without Weber and 2nd half was much better.

---

Other games: Never saw the line, but would have guessed Minnesota would have won more. Not a big deal though.

I think Michigan is very underrated for the season, but think with all the youth needs to be very happy Florida has so many players out now for the first game.

Would like to see Rutgers at least stay close for awhile and would like to see Maryland push Texas even though do not expect wins.

I pretty much agree with your whole post. I will say though as an independent observer that Indiana is much improved both offensively and defensively. What kept them from keeping it tight was depth.

Your Buckeyes run the ball well enough. I agree on the deep passing game for the offense. But what you didn't mention were your corners. They were vulnerable all night and the quick tempo gave them problems (like with Clemson). They need to quit playing the receiver and play the ball. In a quick passing game reading the eyes of the QB and reacting to the ball will yield greater defensive success than playing the receiver who knows when to break off the route and turn for the catch. You may need twin safeties so that they can cover a route that fakes short to go long.

So far tonight I'd say Rutgers is improved, but also lacks depth. Wisconsin wasn't ready to play, but they don't really look complete either. Their O line was pushed around by Utah State a smaller defensive front. But they are establishing their dominance in the 2nd half, but still not very impressive against a much smaller and less deep opponent.

That's going to take a few years -- Flood really left nothing behind outside of Janarion Grant. Happy with how the game went last night, perhaps next year we can dream about 6 wins.

Even the Newark Star-Ledger was happy with RU's performance. And they hate us.

(09-02-2017 05:26 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Congratulations, Maryland!
Back to playing Terps football again, I see.

Well yes. When you do what the Maryland administration did to Ralph Friedgen and then go on to hire Randy Edsall...It takes a while to recover. But seriously, the hire of DJ Durkin, the AD/Admin actually giving some thought to football and not just basketball, the new Cole complex. Things are trending in the right direction and look pretty good. FINALLY!

(09-01-2017 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  That Indiana game set-up was one I was saying for a long time I did not like from an Ohio State fan perspective. First game are always tricky as you have not worked out the bugs with limited practice so I prefer the first game of the year to be the easiest. Add in making it a night game, on the road, and a conference game and it was a recipe for trouble. Then add in that was a senior laden team going against their old coach with Ohio State breaking in far more freshman.

That's why I liked it. Playing a Kent State or Akron, as Clemson and Penn State did, might have been good for exercising the scoreboard technicians, but the game that was played was a hell of a lot better preparation for Oklahoma next week.

Purdue gave a better game than people thought they would against Louisville. Michigan did what they were supposed to do and handle Florida. I don't know why Florida was ranked that high but they did make the Michigan QB look bad on a couple of plays. So there's that.

Maryland against Texas is a great result but it wasn't that much of a shock considering that Texas is still not near where they should be in terms of talent. What it does indicate to me is that UT cannot just reload like Alabama can. The Shorthorn fans will have to endure a few more weeks of struggle as Herman tries to sort out the personnel issues there.

Rutgers did what they could considering where they were last year. I'm not expecting much from them this season.

(09-02-2017 11:19 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Purdue gave a better game than people thought they would against Louisville. Michigan did what they were supposed to do and handle Florida. I don't know why Florida was ranked that high but they did make the Michigan QB look bad on a couple of plays. So there's that.

Maryland against Texas is a great result but it wasn't that much of a shock considering that Texas is still not near where they should be in terms of talent. What it does indicate to me is that UT cannot just reload like Alabama can. The Shorthorn fans will have to endure a few more weeks of struggle as Herman tries to sort out the personnel issues there.

Rutgers did what they could considering where they were last year. I'm not expecting much from them this season.

Purdue played well enough to win. Their defense just got tired. Depth beat them.

I'd say the Big 10 had a really great week. The weakest performance was a win (Illinois). Indiana, Rutgers, and Purdue were much improved. Maryland had brisket in Austin! That's the bottom of the conference.

I think Penn State looked the most complete. Wisconsin and Ohio State have the pieces, they've just not put them together yet. Really the only disappointment was Nebraska and that was a win. But if that's what they really have they are in trouble.

Michigan looked ahead of schedule in defense, but it was very hard to determine what they did or didn't have on offense. With the Gator's offense being so woeful and their defense looking strong, it's hard to know just what Michigan has or doesn't have at this point.

I will say this. I think your conference SOS is going to go up. And some of those 4 I mentioned as your bottom last year are going to hang some unexpected L's on somebody.

I wasn't surprised that Purdue gave Louisville a tough game. There's a lot of familiarity there.

Michigan was better than Florida. Maryland was better than Texas. Honestly can't tell much about the rest.

(09-03-2017 09:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wasn't surprised that Purdue gave Louisville a tough game. There's a lot of familiarity there.

Michigan was better than Florida. Maryland was better than Texas. Honestly can't tell much about the rest.

Florida and Texas are enigmas. How can the flagships of two football rich recruiting hotbeds screw up for so long and so badly? If Muschamp manages to win at South Carolina (not championships mind you, but to just win regularly) it makes Florida an even bigger question. If Jim McElwain loses to several SEC schools and F.S.U., all of which seems likely, he's out the door. Then it is wash, rinse and recycle the at Florida.

Herman is finding out what Charlie Strong experienced. If he's still rebuilding next year and another hot young coaching talent is coming off of a big year then he'll be gone too.

The problems at Texas and Florida seem to me to be coming from the administrations. There is a climate problem at both schools. Suspending 10 players the week before a key season opener is an administrative problem at least within the A.D. if not the school itself. And, I could be wrong, but there seems to be a commitment problem at Texas. Those 4 and 5 star kids they sign in state don't just suddenly cease to be athletes when they sign with Texas. But under the last few years of Mack Brown, then Strong, and yesterday under Herman they all appear to be suffering from a lack of motivation coupled to with a lack of fundamentals.

Maryland played well, but not even Alabama or Ohio State would have been expected to hang 51 on Texas in Austin and Maryland is not Alabama or Ohio State. Looking at the Texas defense yesterday and watching parts of the first half of Missouri I wondered later what the score would have been if it had been Missouri playing Texas instead of Maryland. Texas might have won but 80 to 72 might have been the score.

Few final thoughts.

1) Purdue shocked me. I figured they'd lose by at least 3 TDs. They looked like a real football team. Credit to Jeff Brohm.

2) I'm sure Mike Riley was impressed by his offense to about the same degree as he was depressed by his defense. If they give up 36 to Arkansas State, Oregon might hang a 70 on them.

3) PSU looked good, scary good. They seemed to be the only contender to hit the gate running.

4) Illinois might be the worst program in the P5 right now. They'll be lucky to win another game.

I was impressed with Purdue. The immediate impact Brohm has made on the team is outstanding. I will be pulling for them this season & I expect to see them pull off some "upsets". Good opening weekend for the B1G overall. Great win for Maryland!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-03-2017 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 09:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wasn't surprised that Purdue gave Louisville a tough game. There's a lot of familiarity there.

Michigan was better than Florida. Maryland was better than Texas. Honestly can't tell much about the rest.

Florida and Texas are enigmas. How can the flagships of two football rich recruiting hotbeds screw up for so long and so badly? If Muschamp manages to win at South Carolina (not championships mind you, but to just win regularly) it makes Florida an even bigger question. If Jim McElwain loses to several SEC schools and F.S.U., all of which seems likely, he's out the door. Then it is wash, rinse and recycle the at Florida.

Herman is finding out what Charlie Strong experienced. If he's still rebuilding next year and another hot young coaching talent is coming off of a big year then he'll be gone too.

The problems at Texas and Florida seem to me to be coming from the administrations. There is a climate problem at both schools. Suspending 10 players the week before a key season opener is an administrative problem at least within the A.D. if not the school itself. And, I could be wrong, but there seems to be a commitment problem at Texas. Those 4 and 5 star kids they sign in state don't just suddenly cease to be athletes when they sign with Texas. But under the last few years of Mack Brown, then Strong, and yesterday under Herman they all appear to be suffering from a lack of motivation coupled to with a lack of fundamentals.

Maryland played well, but not even Alabama or Ohio State would have been expected to hang 51 on Texas in Austin and Maryland is not Alabama or Ohio State. Looking at the Texas defense yesterday and watching parts of the first half of Missouri I wondered later what the score would have been if it had been Missouri playing Texas instead of Maryland. Texas might have won but 80 to 72 might have been the score.

Texas is definitely an interesting case. I think Herman will be successful, but I think everyone was so gung ho for him, that they over-stated things for him a bit. His background was really not all that different than Strong (winning a major bowl at a smaller program before moving up). I like him as a coach a lot, but he was also vastly over-hyped given limited amount of experience.