Marginally OT: Ron English on OSU Running Up Score

Submitted by mgoblue52 on

Ron English thinks it was kosher to have Tressel keep scoring on his Eagles:

 

"I felt like Jim (Tressel, Buckeyes coach) felt that we were still throwing it so he was going to keep scoring," English said. "That's probably what happened out there. I have to weigh developing our receivers, our quarterbacks and our protection. I always try to do that."

But, he leaves a fair warning for the Vest...

 

"Every dog has his day. I've had my days. I'm taking mine right now. I'm sure there'll be a day when I'm giving mine again, whether it be here or somewhere else. But I promise you, I'll be back giving my butt-whuppins out, too. It goes around.

"I'll be doing this a long time. I'm 42 years old. I'll be in this profession for 20 more years, so I'll have my day. I don't say that in disrespect. Let me say it again because I respect Jim Tressel. I don't say that I'm (ticked) off at Jim Tressel. I don't stay that that way. I just know that. Nebraska beats us (at Arizona State, 77-28, in 1995 and) we shut them out (19-0) the next year to end their (26-game winning) streak. That's the nature of the beast. The strong survive in this profession. That's just the way it is."

 

I don't know if Ron will be able to do it with Eastern, but I hope he someday gets the opportunity to roll Ohio State.  He probably has a career of hatred built up for them.

Full article at http://www.detnews.com/article/20100926/SPORTS0203/9260328/Eastern-coac…-

Clarence Beeks

September 26th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

It's not about how much they lost by, but rather the way that OSU went about beating them by that much.  There was NO legitimate reason for virtually all of his starters to be in the game at the end of the third quarter of that game.  And I don't want to hear the "well, Ohio State's players need to get playing time and develop, too" argument, because if you want to go down that road, then don't schedule Marshall, Ohio and Eastern Michigan as your out of conference games.

BlueTimesTwo

September 27th, 2010 at 12:58 AM ^

I think OSU was pissed that Denard was getting all of the heisman hype that they thought should be reserved for Pryor.  Apparently Tressel decided that running a trick play against EMU would be a great way to prove Pryor's greatness.  What could be a better way to showcase your QB's skills than to catch a pass against the worst team in the nation when the defense didn't even bother covering him?

I don't want to wish an injury on anyone, but I would have had zero sympathy for OSU if Pryor had been injured while they were running up the score late in the game.  For all of the talk about how dependent we are on Denard, I think yesterday's game showed that we have depth at QB.  I think OSU is far more dependent on Pryor than we are on Denard.

COB

September 27th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^

-Stat envy?  Get your head out of your ass.  The world nor Ohio State playcalling revolve around what happens in Ann Arbor. 

-You would have no sympathy for Pryor being injured under any circumstances.  

-I think both teams are pretty reliant on their starting QB's....shocker.  I think both teams are decidedly less dangerous without them...again, shocker.   If you think Tate isn't that much of a drop off either you are underselling DR or overselling TF.  I think DR is leaps and bounds better. 

elaydin

September 26th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^

There's ALWAYS a reason, and no, it has nothing to do with player development.  Most of the time Tressel is very good about taking "his foot off the gas".  The fact that he didn't against EMU makes me think there's something else going on.

The only other time I've seen Tressel run up the score was after his players felt the other team was taking cheap/dirty shots.  The results the next 4 times OSU played this team:

48-7

54-10

58-7

45-10

Steve in PA

September 27th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

The need to beat their tomato cans terribly and run up the score since they don't play anyone out of conference and have to boost their ranking to survive B10 losses.  Temple this weekend was an example of a team almost having their day. 

I am not a fan of running up the score...ever.  If your subs are still hammering someone that's different because then it's basically a scrimmage that counts for the record.

Clarence Beeks

September 28th, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^

I'll say it: Ohio State hasn't played much of anyone out of conference.  They played a Miami team that no one really knows anything about yet, and that's it.  The first real measuring stick for Miami comes this weekend.  Beyond that, you seriously think that Marshall, Ohio and Eastern Michigan are quality opponents?  Just because two of them made it to a bowl game last year does not, in any way, indicate that they are quality teams this year (nor does it really say all that much about last year).

tpilews

September 26th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^

Personally, I wasn't much of a fan of RR going for it on 4th and 3 with a 37 point lead. I thought it was a great opportunity to have one of your PKs gain a little confidence/experience on a chip shot.

bluenyc

September 26th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^

Would you have felt better if he took a knee and turned it over.  I am not a fan of running up the score, its karma, but with this defense when is it enough to stop.  I still remember the Colorado game in '94 when we stopped scoring and we know how that ended.

no sarcasm

edit : love the avatar

bluenyc

September 26th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^

No, i was making that suggestion.  I thought about this after the game, the coaching handshake didn't seem all warm and fuzzy.  I was posing an honest question to you.  That was all. 

I remember the games in the '90's when we were dominant and never ran up the score, but it cost us big time against CU.  I said to myself that we should employ the Spurrier score until they stop you after that game.  Just a hard line to determine. 

tpilews

September 26th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^

Oh, gotchya. My bad. Anyway, I still thing the right thing to do is kick the FG. The kicker could use the confidence and UM will need the kicking game at some point this year.

I guess when you weigh the positives and negatives for going for it, or kicking the FG, the positives for kicking it far outweigh going for it, in that particular situation.

ldoublee

September 27th, 2010 at 12:12 AM ^

that kicking a field goal in that situation is "the right thing to do", then you have obviously never coached football.  It is the absolute WRONG thing to do.  If you're not trying to run it up, you call a basic running play.  If they stop you, fine.  If you get the first down or score, well, what more can you do.

And don't say kneel down, that's an even bigger insult.

bdsisme

September 27th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^

I doubt he'd have that much more confidence given that it was a relatively pressure-free situation.  If they kicked the field goal and the kicker made it, he'd be thinking "Nice, I made a 37-yard field goal when there was no pressure since we're up by 30 points."  He'd have more confidence, but not nearly as much as he normally would.

 

However, on the other hand, If he missed the field goal, then his confidence is absolutely shot, and we'd be discussing the kicker situation even more this week.

Blue in Seattle

September 27th, 2010 at 9:04 AM ^

is to give the offense experience.  When I watched the Bowling Greem kicker put the kickoff into the end zone I just couldn't believe we don't have a guy who can do that.

Kicking a short field goal against Eastern has less practive/confidence value then letting the offense with young players in it have another play.

And I hope that we never try another field goal the rest of the year.  I want to see anything that's 4th and 8 or less be an attempt at a TD.

MGoTarHeel

September 26th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^

See I think the opposite is true, sportsmanship-wise. If RR kicks the field goal, he's basically saying to the other team "Yea we're up by 40 and you made a good stop, but I could really use the extra 3 points to redo my kitchen." By going for it (to me) it says "You've stopped us 3 times, let's see if you can do it one more. If we don't get points out of this drive, so what? This game isn't in question anymore."

To be honest though I think you can spin either decision in a positive light. This is just the way I've always thought about it.

shawn6122

September 27th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^

RR needs to coach his boys and not worry about Bowling Green or Del state or anybody. I'm sure he doesnt give a damn. He was/ is on the hot seat so worrying about how bad he beats somebody is for the media and fans. I hope he puts 100 points up every game from here on out. I'm sure he does too.

TVBLUE

September 26th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^

My hope is that this is an indicator that RR is done kicking field goals if we have a realistic 4th down distance.  It does seem that he would've wanted to get some more game situation practice for the kickers.  I also wish that he would just go for 2 on every point after.  I think getting in better than 50% of the time is likely.

jmblue

September 26th, 2010 at 11:16 PM ^

I don't think this is an indication of that.  Last year we did the same thing against Delaware State.  You give the D a chance to stop you on 4th down and keep you from adding anything more to the scoreboard. 

Braylon 5 Hour…

September 27th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

As nice as it would be to never have to see one of these guys kick field goals again, we are going to need to kick a field goal at some point this season.  It's nearly impossible to avoid.

What if we are playing OSU and get the ball back down 2 with under a minute left, and get the ball to the 25 yard line with 5 seconds left?  Right now I'm pretty sure everyone here would take your chances making a 25 yard play happen vs kicking a 42 yard field goal, but still, you gotta kick.  I am all for kicking as little as possible, but if we had an opportunity to kick a meaningless field goal, the Bowling Green coaches would have understood why we did it giving how bad our kicking has been. I can't see a better situation for us to get a field goal kicker of ours a game rep without it having the potential to be damaging.  Any experience helps, even if it's not a pressure filled kick.

Here's to hoping that we're never behind at the end of a game where a field goal is necessary this year. 

MH20

September 26th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^

Going for it gives the defense an honest chance to make a play and stop your offense.  A FG from there was basically a PAT, and we'd hit all of our PATs to that point, so what more "confidence or experience" are they really going to be gaining?  Plus, FG's are rarely blocked, whereas going for it on 4th down is essentially a coin-flip (maybe less -- I don't have numbers in front of me).  So, because a FG from there is basically automatic, I think that is more of a pile-on than going for it and giving the opponent's defense a chance to stop your offense on 4th down.

readyourguard

September 26th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^

I think Ron would have been better served to just bite his tongue.  However, I know how difficult that can be.  Especially when the subject is The Vest and Everybody Gets In U.

umhannon

September 26th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^

I like Ron English. Always have. I think he will improve EMU and improve his coaching position. I am glad his quote here was less controversial than some of his other ones.