Did we do well?
Am I the only one who thinks the close game was more of OSU not trying rather than Michigan playing well? It seemed like they were content with not scoring until Michigan scored. As soon as we score, they score to put it back at a 2-score game. They basically sat back and let Michigan shoot themselves in the foot.
This is how I saw the game...
OSU gets a couple of first downs and punts from midfield. Tate fumbles in the endzone,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
Michigan kicks a field goal,
OSU sees that we can move the ball and score, so they go ahead and take a 2 score lead,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
halftime,
nothing,
nothing,
Michigan scores,
OSU puts the game out of reach again and packs it in until we can show we want it,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing,
nothing
And by nothing, I mean punt or interception. This wasn't a good game. It was OSU toying with us. Am I the only one who feels this way?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 PM ^
i'm pretty sure osu tried. despite what mike hart says, teams do no "toy" with each other. that is a sportswriter cliche
osu played conservatively. thats all.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 PM ^
Yes, you are right, OSU was playing pretty conservative. It was sorta like they had a piece of candy in their hand, and just held it higher then Mich could reach. At any given time, they pretty much did what they aanted to.
I just felt some relief because the defense did not get torched, and I felt better than the last four weeks.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^
Yes, OSU did play conservatively, but that's just Tressel's style. You may remember that Carr liked to do this, too, unless they were playing in some bowl game against Florida. This does not mean that you are toying with the other team. It simply means that they felt they could win the game this way.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 PM ^
I didn't feel that way at all. You really think that OSU just wanted to get up by a score and coast in a rivalry game? No team does that unless they are playing a team like Delaware State. This is a ridiculous thought, IMHE. What made it seem that OSU was toying with us was the fact that Tate kept turning the ball over. We could have won that game, but Tate's youth showed up. To me, it seemed like our defense was just stepping up and stopping OSU on many drives and the offense was moving the ball well, but couldn't finish drives off.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Ohio State did not try anything dynamic on offense, because Tressel felt that he didn't have to as long as he had a two-score lead. He was mindful of the fact that our one touchdown came following a Pryor interception, so he packed it in unless and until he had to pull something out. That's how he coaches -- play it safe, don't make a mistake that will cost you the game.
Our defense did a fine job, but I think that if the offense was doing better and putting up points, OSU would have opened it up a bit more and scored more points as well. I don't think we can fairly say that the defense "held" OSU to 14 points, as much as OSU held itself in check.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
I thought the same thing. However it could have worked to our advantage. I think Tressel came out with a little trepidation and definately had a "first do no harm" game plan (surprise!) Anyway the first fumble and score actually allowed him to sit back more than he otherwise would have in my opinion. The thing is, and I hate to sound like a koolaider here, but we didn't play too poorly. Tressel's tendencies to be conservative and our only hope of Notre Daming him at the very end could have turned into an incredibly fortunate confluence for us, but alas...
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 PM ^
OSU was definitely trying, but I sort of compare the game to the 2007 game. I never once really felt like Michigan was going to win, Tressel's game plan (like the previous week against Iowa) seemed to be run the ball and minimize the chances of Pryor making mistakes. Hate to say it, but a decent passer on Saturday would have torn the secondary apart.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 PM ^
I agree with your analysis, but think the reasoning was that they wanted to take a zero risk approach while up two scores. If you look at it, any time that we got within 2 scores they merely ran it down our throats for 80 yards and put up another score.
Had Tate managed not to give the other team the ball I think the Vest would have handed off the ball all day and kept the game out of reach. In summary, I don't think we are as close to OSU as the score indicated.
HOweva, 2010 is another year. Go Blue!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^
He threw the ball exactly 5 times in the second half and scored 7 points on 6 non-V formation drives. What do you think Tressel was trying to do?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 PM ^
I've heard this argument a number of times and it seems
entirely bogus to me. Ohio State is capable of scoring whenever they like, but only choose to do so when Michigan gets close? Anyone who's watched Michigan's tape this year (I think tOSU's staff might have) would know that we're a bad team that's capabable of scoring in bursts. Why would tOSU "toy" with us, basically making sure that we have a chance to fluke out a victory?
Isn't it more likely that tOSU simply doesn't have a good offense?
This wasn't 2007. Our offense certainly had teeth on Saturday. A lot of those "nothing" drives consisted of multiple first downs followed by Tate either making a freshman mistake or an aggressive mistake. I'm pretty sure tOSU's plan wasn't to let us drive to the 6 yard line then fool Tate into throwing a pick in the redzone (one of those "nothing" drives).
In fact, I'm pretty convinced, after watching the game both at the stadium and now at home, that RR and GERG had masterful gameplans in place, ones that, if executed very well would give us a chance to beat a superior opponent.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:07 PM ^
tressel showed last year that he has no problem running it up against us. they were definitely trying
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:09 PM ^
If "toying with us" means converting only 4-15 third downs, averaging fewer than four yards per pass attempt and scoring 14 offensive points, I'll take it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
an agressive OSU wins that game by 30.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
Huh? What constitutes being "aggressive"? Do you realize that on Saturday, OSU averaged more yards per rush than per pass? The stats suggest that OSU entirely played to its strengths. If they really wanted to "toy" with us, they'd have asked their crappy QB to throw 30 passes.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 PM ^
+1 I wish like hell they had put this game on TP's shoulders. His aggregate line against M in two years is
14/30 187 yards 3TD 2INT
27 rushes 67 yards
Please let him "make plays" against us. Please.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^
they 'toyed' with us, that was someone else's words.
OSU wasn't agressive, they are the only team UM played in Big Ten play that didn't test out LB's in pass coverage, or our safeties. Their game plan was rather pathetic.
They played not to lose.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 PM ^
might have won by 30. they also might have lost b/c their qb is pretty turnover prone (see Purdue game).
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
Coaches - whose multimillion dollar salaries hinge on winning and losing - don't "toy" with teams.
You call it "OSU playing conservative." I'll call it "OSU being OSU."
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
I wouldn't say they are always like that, I think we can all remember Troy Smith and what he did to Michigan
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
Troy Smith >>>> Terrelle Pryor. Mr. Everyone Murders isn't winning any Heismans.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
not until they start running the zone read regularly. He looked unstoppable the four times they ran it. Holy murdering batman, TP would be crazy good if he were playing for Rod or Urban Creyer.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
... Tressel Ball.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 PM ^
Didn't Pryor try to go deep on a couple passes Saturday? If the kid had any kind of touch on his passes it would have been 14 points. Their offense isn't that good.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^
Fuck Ohio State. Don't give a shit to spekalate what they did or didn't did
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
I bet Tate is still hurt from the Indiana game. No one talks about it. We are 4-0 and he suffers a seperated shoulder. Then his production gradually declines throughout the season. Same thing happened with Chad. Next year, with three qb's, we will be in a better place.
GO BLUE!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
Why do you make it sound like we are going to die?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
Not even tresselball wants to win by 3 or 7. They didn't score on Saturday b/c they couldn't, not b/c they were content to only win be a small margin. They gladly would've taken another 42-7 victory if it was possible.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 PM ^
I've lived in the Norhtern half of Ohio all of my life. 95% of the people around me are Bucknuts. About 2% are realistic OSU fans and the rest we don't care about. Not only do we listen and watch the OSU games, we relive them through community conversations all week long after the game. This by no means makes me an expert, however, I receive a constant barrage of OSU information and opinions.
Anyone who has studied the Buckeyes all season long has drawn no different conclusion than they could possibly have since the wine cooler king took over.
---Treshole ball is "safe ball" (playing not to lose)
---Even if Treshole wanted to "toy" with an opponent, does anyone really think that the guys on the field are going to back off at their positions?
---Similarily to every other team in any sport, certain game plans work and certain ones don't. Certain plays work and certain ones don't. Treshole has long been a coach of ball control first and designed "big" plays second. He has always had an OL that eventually wears down most opponents. A worn out DL = a more successful running game later on, which in turn, opens up a passing game. Sure there are games that are close...this is one of the reasons why. Any given Saturday can turn out any given way.
---Treshole has yet to win ANY game that he wasn't supposed to win, (the 02 championship doesn't count, IMO, because most of the guys on the field weren't his).
What I saw Saturday was honestly a 14-13 game. I believe that our defense played their hearts out and actually showed up to stop them. Our offense did what it had done all year with one exception; it stayed on the field longer per posession and stayed on the field longer in the second half. The offense played their hearts out as well. Tate did what he has been training to do, make plays. Shit happens. The ball bounces a certain way and unfortunately, it didn't bounce to Michigan when we needed it to.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
I understand what you are saying, but I think that it is probably oversimplifying the game. I think that M played better than it had in previous weeks, and that explains a portion of the margin (thought big plays still hurt M).
I do believe that, in spite of being the evil empire, Vest has respect for Rodriguez, as evidenced by his (yes, it hurts me to say it) classy defense of the M program when in the midst of the FreeP barrage. It seems like, if he can punch Michigan in the nose, he will with relish, but I don't think his agenda is to embarrass the rivalry. I think Vest is conservative by instinct, and because he can be until challenged.
I can't comment any more on this without getting a little ill. I need a drink.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 PM ^
If that was oversimplifying than how about this?
Save the "ifs and ands" if you can but the original post was directed to the actual job that M did in this particular game.
In this game, they missed a chip shot field goal (13 points), interception in end zone after a long drive (21 points), another interception in the red zone (+3 or possibly +7 points for now a total of 24-28 points), another interception during a sustained drive (? points)....
.... take away the given 7 points to OSU (14 points)....
....No none of these points can be added or changed, but it shows the flow of the game.
Do you think that Iowa didn't challenge him....or Purdue...or USC? This is not a man who can rise or get his team to rise to the occasion!
Trust me when I tell you that there's a reason that Treshole can't win when he's not supposed to and we saw why on Saturday.
M outplayed them....period.
And BTW, when he defended M in his press conference, he was also setting it up to defend himself if needed.
And another BTW, Treshole admitted in the post game conference that Saine's TD was not the play that he wanted called.
And another BTW, Treshole was trying to call time out before the screen pass that turned into a TD.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 PM ^
OSU never "not tries" against UM. It is still their biggest game of the year, and you can bet the countdown clock in their locker room has already been reset for next year's game.
So, to answer your question: yes, you are the only one.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
Why in the name of all that is holy, would aOSU take this game off. It is the biggest rivalry in all of sports, I don't give a shit what the main stream media says. Michigan played their hearts out on both sides of the ball Saturday. You guys need to pull your heads out of your asses and take a breath
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 PM ^
you witnessed was Tresselball in its purest form- DON'T MAKE MISTAKES and let your tough D bring home the W. That's what he does.
UM had a every chance to win that game and was in it the whole time. A missed FG here at pick in the end zone there, and who knows what could have happened.
To say that they were toying with us is insane. A convincing win helps them gain more national respect than a close one to a 5-7 team.