menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Changes
Page: 2 of 2
mail
person
Robert Fox
11/21/2017 11:23 AM
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
To repeat, this staff seems to relish getting under the radar lower ranked players and coaching them up. With players like that it is hard to get enough of them coached up to win championships. With that kind of player we are what we are...8-4, 2nd place,and low bowl. We should be used to it by now.
I don't think they relish it. I think that's what they are capable of recruiting. Your point seems to be "recruit better players," as though that is a choice that a coach has to make, that you have a choice of outstanding players and average players, and that our coaches are skipping the outstanding players.

I don't get that argument.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
11/21/2017 1:37 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
To repeat, this staff seems to relish getting under the radar lower ranked players and coaching them up. With players like that it is hard to get enough of them coached up to win championships. With that kind of player we are what we are...8-4, 2nd place,and low bowl. We should be used to it by now.
I don't think they relish it. I think that's what they are capable of recruiting. Your point seems to be "recruit better players," as though that is a choice that a coach has to make, that you have a choice of outstanding players and average players, and that our coaches are skipping the outstanding players.

I don't get that argument.
for once, I'm 100% with you Robert.
mail
TWT
11/21/2017 8:29 PM
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
To repeat, this staff seems to relish getting under the radar lower ranked players and coaching them up. With players like that it is hard to get enough of them coached up to win championships. With that kind of player we are what we are...8-4, 2nd place,and low bowl. We should be used to it by now.
At the same time the bar is raising in the conference with WMU in the Cotton Bowl and commitments from 16 three star recruits. Ohio has only 4 and in the bottom 1/3rd of the conference. A killer walk on program isnt enough anymore.
mail
person
Sam bobcat
11/22/2017 8:27 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
Everybody needs to compete for their position. No more recruiting projects to fill in the roster, just because a guy started the previous year. If a player is not in the top five (MAC) at his position, they need to be challenged.
Who is starting with backups who are better?
You keep barking about “start forever” but who are you referring too?
You asked so I am going to tell it like it is. Mangen’s Position should have been recruited hard three years ago. Ellis has been up and down, but his position should have been recruited hard as well. Ellis has been a pleasant surprise overall this year in my opinion. He got picked on at the end of the year, last year. He is a risk taker and he wins a lot of battles. When loses, we lose. Where is Cam Odom?
Next year, if Hagan continues to try to avoid injuries, he should be benched. We make a lot of mistakes that can be corrected with competition. We need to recruit better. We have three guys coming in next year that we’re not even all-conference in high school. I call them the loyalty projects. Move one of the motley’s over to safety if our safeties can’t cover a 4.9 40 running tight ends.
Anticipatory problems or situations.
Rourke is a great qb, probably 1 or 2 with Cleve Bryant all-time. He is still only 20 years old and needs to be coached. He can grow or be like Roback at EMU. Roback has NFL talent, but he has made a lot of poor decisions because he is very head strong. The coaches need to be able to coach Rourke, I don't know what happened with TT, but Rourke needs to grow. He will need to watch a lot of film and avoid taking big licks. When he gets the headset on the sideline, he needs to listen.
The MAC is a passing league and has been for the last decade. You have to recruit good wide-outs, defensive backs and tight ends or you will be on the outside looking in. You need 5 wide outs that can play every week and 5 corner backs. We went from having TJ Wright and Dion Byrum, to this. We went from Jordan Thompson and Rudy Sylvan to this. We went from Taylor Price and lavon Brazill to this. We need to win in the living room, period.
In regards to Hagan, the coaches need to be real with him. There has only been one player that could dominate the MAC playing at 80% and that player is Randy Moss. Hagan at 80% is a second string MAC player. We need 100% or we need another option. I hate that the kid has to wait to go into the draft, but rules are rules. This could have been his year. He needs to stop believing the hype and play hungry. The MAC is a passing league, you will get exposed if you are not giving 100%.

I don’t disagree with most of that. But that doesn’t explain who you think deserves to be starting over the coaches choices.

What I am saying is that we need to recruit guys that can play right away at certain position. There needs to be an open competition. As stated before, Hagan was third team to start the year last year and Rourke was second string this year. We have two projects coming in at wide receiver next year as if we are stacked, come on.
If it were that easy to go recruit someone that you know will be a true freshman starter we would be national champions. Maybe you could do a better job scouting and recruiting players than our coaches. In that case why are you not on the staff already putting together the team of the century?
I’m not trying to be a jerk but you make it sound so easy lol. It obviously isn’t.
If you recruit a 6’4, 210 pound TE when you need tight ends, you have failed because you know that the TE you recruited will have to red shirt. If yo recruit a 4.7 40 WR and a WR that has caught 10 high school passes when you need WR’s you have failed because both need to redshirt. We have to stop acting like we are perfect.
Well go find us a tight end capable of starting as a freshman then! I guess they are easy to find?
Go to a good recruit and tell him that we have an open position. Show him a progression plan, I am sure that we can find somebody. We probably need to go the JUCO route. JUCO's have two years, let the young man know that he needs to play if he wants to go to the next level. Come to Ohio and compete.
I have a hard time imagining our coaches haven't thought of telling a good recruit we have an open position. And knowing where Rourke was found, I'm guessing they know about JUCO. Your idea that there are D1 players ready to step in and start at this level who haven't been offered by P5 programs is unrealistic. It's easy to sit on your couch and say "We just need to recruit players who can come in and start right away!" "We just need to tell them we have an open position!" Really?
mail
person
allen
11/22/2017 8:44 AM
Sam bobcat wrote:expand_more
Everybody needs to compete for their position. No more recruiting projects to fill in the roster, just because a guy started the previous year. If a player is not in the top five (MAC) at his position, they need to be challenged.
Who is starting with backups who are better?
You keep barking about “start forever” but who are you referring too?
You asked so I am going to tell it like it is. Mangen’s Position should have been recruited hard three years ago. Ellis has been up and down, but his position should have been recruited hard as well. Ellis has been a pleasant surprise overall this year in my opinion. He got picked on at the end of the year, last year. He is a risk taker and he wins a lot of battles. When loses, we lose. Where is Cam Odom?
Next year, if Hagan continues to try to avoid injuries, he should be benched. We make a lot of mistakes that can be corrected with competition. We need to recruit better. We have three guys coming in next year that we’re not even all-conference in high school. I call them the loyalty projects. Move one of the motley’s over to safety if our safeties can’t cover a 4.9 40 running tight ends.
Anticipatory problems or situations.
Rourke is a great qb, probably 1 or 2 with Cleve Bryant all-time. He is still only 20 years old and needs to be coached. He can grow or be like Roback at EMU. Roback has NFL talent, but he has made a lot of poor decisions because he is very head strong. The coaches need to be able to coach Rourke, I don't know what happened with TT, but Rourke needs to grow. He will need to watch a lot of film and avoid taking big licks. When he gets the headset on the sideline, he needs to listen.
The MAC is a passing league and has been for the last decade. You have to recruit good wide-outs, defensive backs and tight ends or you will be on the outside looking in. You need 5 wide outs that can play every week and 5 corner backs. We went from having TJ Wright and Dion Byrum, to this. We went from Jordan Thompson and Rudy Sylvan to this. We went from Taylor Price and lavon Brazill to this. We need to win in the living room, period.
In regards to Hagan, the coaches need to be real with him. There has only been one player that could dominate the MAC playing at 80% and that player is Randy Moss. Hagan at 80% is a second string MAC player. We need 100% or we need another option. I hate that the kid has to wait to go into the draft, but rules are rules. This could have been his year. He needs to stop believing the hype and play hungry. The MAC is a passing league, you will get exposed if you are not giving 100%.

I don’t disagree with most of that. But that doesn’t explain who you think deserves to be starting over the coaches choices.

What I am saying is that we need to recruit guys that can play right away at certain position. There needs to be an open competition. As stated before, Hagan was third team to start the year last year and Rourke was second string this year. We have two projects coming in at wide receiver next year as if we are stacked, come on.
If it were that easy to go recruit someone that you know will be a true freshman starter we would be national champions. Maybe you could do a better job scouting and recruiting players than our coaches. In that case why are you not on the staff already putting together the team of the century?
I’m not trying to be a jerk but you make it sound so easy lol. It obviously isn’t.
If you recruit a 6’4, 210 pound TE when you need tight ends, you have failed because you know that the TE you recruited will have to red shirt. If yo recruit a 4.7 40 WR and a WR that has caught 10 high school passes when you need WR’s you have failed because both need to redshirt. We have to stop acting like we are perfect.
Well go find us a tight end capable of starting as a freshman then! I guess they are easy to find?
Go to a good recruit and tell him that we have an open position. Show him a progression plan, I am sure that we can find somebody. We probably need to go the JUCO route. JUCO's have two years, let the young man know that he needs to play if he wants to go to the next level. Come to Ohio and compete.
I have a hard time imagining our coaches haven't thought of telling a good recruit we have an open position. And knowing where Rourke was found, I'm guessing they know about JUCO. Your idea that there are D1 players ready to step in and start at this level who haven't been offered by P5 programs is unrealistic. It's easy to sit on your couch and say "We just need to recruit players who can come in and start right away!" "We just need to tell them we have an open position!" Really?

It is better than having TE's drop 15 passes and catch less than 10. You recruit two players with the size, speed and talent to play and you hope one pans out. Instead, we recruited two undersized twins and one undersized running back guaranteeing start start forever for our tight end. The thought that he was going to start over Heitzman is crazy. I was thinking, really?
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
11/22/2017 8:45 AM
Sam bobcat wrote:expand_more
Everybody needs to compete for their position. No more recruiting projects to fill in the roster, just because a guy started the previous year. If a player is not in the top five (MAC) at his position, they need to be challenged.
Who is starting with backups who are better?
You keep barking about “start forever” but who are you referring too?
You asked so I am going to tell it like it is. Mangen’s Position should have been recruited hard three years ago. Ellis has been up and down, but his position should have been recruited hard as well. Ellis has been a pleasant surprise overall this year in my opinion. He got picked on at the end of the year, last year. He is a risk taker and he wins a lot of battles. When loses, we lose. Where is Cam Odom?
Next year, if Hagan continues to try to avoid injuries, he should be benched. We make a lot of mistakes that can be corrected with competition. We need to recruit better. We have three guys coming in next year that we’re not even all-conference in high school. I call them the loyalty projects. Move one of the motley’s over to safety if our safeties can’t cover a 4.9 40 running tight ends.
Anticipatory problems or situations.
Rourke is a great qb, probably 1 or 2 with Cleve Bryant all-time. He is still only 20 years old and needs to be coached. He can grow or be like Roback at EMU. Roback has NFL talent, but he has made a lot of poor decisions because he is very head strong. The coaches need to be able to coach Rourke, I don't know what happened with TT, but Rourke needs to grow. He will need to watch a lot of film and avoid taking big licks. When he gets the headset on the sideline, he needs to listen.
The MAC is a passing league and has been for the last decade. You have to recruit good wide-outs, defensive backs and tight ends or you will be on the outside looking in. You need 5 wide outs that can play every week and 5 corner backs. We went from having TJ Wright and Dion Byrum, to this. We went from Jordan Thompson and Rudy Sylvan to this. We went from Taylor Price and lavon Brazill to this. We need to win in the living room, period.
In regards to Hagan, the coaches need to be real with him. There has only been one player that could dominate the MAC playing at 80% and that player is Randy Moss. Hagan at 80% is a second string MAC player. We need 100% or we need another option. I hate that the kid has to wait to go into the draft, but rules are rules. This could have been his year. He needs to stop believing the hype and play hungry. The MAC is a passing league, you will get exposed if you are not giving 100%.

I don’t disagree with most of that. But that doesn’t explain who you think deserves to be starting over the coaches choices.

What I am saying is that we need to recruit guys that can play right away at certain position. There needs to be an open competition. As stated before, Hagan was third team to start the year last year and Rourke was second string this year. We have two projects coming in at wide receiver next year as if we are stacked, come on.
If it were that easy to go recruit someone that you know will be a true freshman starter we would be national champions. Maybe you could do a better job scouting and recruiting players than our coaches. In that case why are you not on the staff already putting together the team of the century?
I’m not trying to be a jerk but you make it sound so easy lol. It obviously isn’t.
If you recruit a 6’4, 210 pound TE when you need tight ends, you have failed because you know that the TE you recruited will have to red shirt. If yo recruit a 4.7 40 WR and a WR that has caught 10 high school passes when you need WR’s you have failed because both need to redshirt. We have to stop acting like we are perfect.
Well go find us a tight end capable of starting as a freshman then! I guess they are easy to find?
Go to a good recruit and tell him that we have an open position. Show him a progression plan, I am sure that we can find somebody. We probably need to go the JUCO route. JUCO's have two years, let the young man know that he needs to play if he wants to go to the next level. Come to Ohio and compete.
I have a hard time imagining our coaches haven't thought of telling a good recruit we have an open position. And knowing where Rourke was found, I'm guessing they know about JUCO. Your idea that there are D1 players ready to step in and start at this level who haven't been offered by P5 programs is unrealistic. It's easy to sit on your couch and say "We just need to recruit players who can come in and start right away!" "We just need to tell them we have an open position!" Really?
Exactly my point by responding to this thread. Recruiting is sales, you need the right pitch, a great product, great timing, and let's be honest...a lot of luck. "Recruiting better" is not an answer to winning a big game. Limiting turnovers is a great way to win a big game. Something they haven't done well the past couple of games. How does a coach stop a player from overthrowing a receiver or an up back from fumbling the kickoff? By telling them to not do those things?
mail
person
Mark Lembright '85
11/22/2017 9:15 AM
I think the tight end talk is a bit of a red herring. Ohio's offense is fine and is MAC championship caliber, at least this year anyway. 34 points should get you a convincing win at Akron.

This year's problem has been defense. It has been average at best. If anything, we need to recruit better defensive backs, or coach them better. Now that being said, those players sure don't grow on trees. Heck, even P5 teams have trouble getting good defensive backs.

But Ohio's problem this year sure hasn't been on anything on the offensive end.
mail
C Money
11/22/2017 9:42 AM
Mark Lembright '85 wrote:expand_more
I think the tight end talk is a bit of a red herring. Ohio's offense is fine and is MAC championship caliber, at least this year anyway. 34 points should get you a convincing win at Akron.

This year's problem has been defense. It has been average at best. If anything, we need to recruit better defensive backs, or coach them better. Now that being said, those players sure don't grow on trees. Heck, even P5 teams have trouble getting good defensive backs.

But Ohio's problem this year sure hasn't been on anything on the offensive end.
I agree with the first part. We actually scored points this year instead of bogging down in the red zone. The O line is strong and should be for a while. The Kron game was really the only time we couldn't open holes late in the game.

And I think the talent is there at WR and DB, it's just young. We're a year or two away from seeing results there. The problem is going to be rebuilding the front seven. Who are the sophomores or younger who significantly contributed this year? We are very senior and junior heavy in the front half of the defense, and there is some uncertainty with how those underclassmen will perform in years ahead.
mail
person
allen
11/22/2017 11:06 AM
C Money wrote:expand_more
I think the tight end talk is a bit of a red herring. Ohio's offense is fine and is MAC championship caliber, at least this year anyway. 34 points should get you a convincing win at Akron.

This year's problem has been defense. It has been average at best. If anything, we need to recruit better defensive backs, or coach them better. Now that being said, those players sure don't grow on trees. Heck, even P5 teams have trouble getting good defensive backs.

But Ohio's problem this year sure hasn't been on anything on the offensive end.
I agree with the first part. We actually scored points this year instead of bogging down in the red zone. The O line is strong and should be for a while. The Kron game was really the only time we couldn't open holes late in the game.

And I think the talent is there at WR and DB, it's just young. We're a year or two away from seeing results there. The problem is going to be rebuilding the front seven. Who are the sophomores or younger who significantly contributed this year? We are very senior and junior heavy in the front half of the defense, and there is some uncertainty with how those underclassmen will perform in years ahead.
our wide receivers and tight ends had to rate in the lower half of the MAC. People always use stats to paint a picture instead of addressing our problems. We need playmakers, period. We are 100th in passing yards, 9th in the MAC, that is probably good to some of you.
http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=11
Last Edited: 11/22/2017 11:21:12 AM by allen
mail
C Money
11/22/2017 11:48 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
our wide receivers and tight ends had to rate in the lower half of the MAC. People always use stats to paint a picture instead of addressing our problems. We need playmakers, period. We are 100th in passing yards, 9th in the MAC, that is probably good to some of you.
http://stats.ncaa.org/rankings?sport_code=MFB&division=11
Here's a little different take on the passing game: Did Rourke regress as a passer as the year went on?

Through the first 6 games, he had 1 INT in 135 attempts. In the last 5 games, he's had 5 INT in 109 attempts. His completion percentage dropped from 60.7% to 47.7%. He is running better during that span, but what happened to his arm?

Do teams now have tape on him and can better scout his tendencies? Or does our QB Coach suck, and is not only incapable of developing a quality QB but makes a quality QB worse?

(#FireIsphording)
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
11/22/2017 11:57 AM
I attribute it to a couple things:

1. Definitely more tape on the guy. As the season progressed, definitely became a larger factor why the stats got progressively worse.

2. As teams begin to adjust, similar to chess one must adapt strategy to what is given. Unfortunately for us, it didn't happen quick enough.

3. We all talked about his arm and wasn't sure about what it would do, well as situations present themselves, maybe we found out the throws aren't there.

Not defending the coaching or throwing it under the bus, just always believe every athlete as tape is found on them struggle initially. The answer to whether we can adjust for the tape is the bowl game. If he has a 3 or 4 pick game, then it's all coaching and I'm willing to throw the offensive staff under the bus. Until then, I am not getting overly excited yet.
mail
person
Sam bobcat
11/22/2017 4:59 PM
C Money wrote:expand_more
I think the tight end talk is a bit of a red herring. Ohio's offense is fine and is MAC championship caliber, at least this year anyway. 34 points should get you a convincing win at Akron.

This year's problem has been defense. It has been average at best. If anything, we need to recruit better defensive backs, or coach them better. Now that being said, those players sure don't grow on trees. Heck, even P5 teams have trouble getting good defensive backs.

But Ohio's problem this year sure hasn't been on anything on the offensive end.
I agree with the first part. We actually scored points this year instead of bogging down in the red zone. The O line is strong and should be for a while. The Kron game was really the only time we couldn't open holes late in the game.

And I think the talent is there at WR and DB, it's just young. We're a year or two away from seeing results there. The problem is going to be rebuilding the front seven. Who are the sophomores or younger who significantly contributed this year? We are very senior and junior heavy in the front half of the defense, and there is some uncertainty with how those underclassmen will perform in years ahead.
2019 we will peak.
mail
person
Casper71
11/22/2017 5:20 PM
Foxy, if WMU Or Toledo can recruit 16 three star athletes I fail to see why Ohio can’t do the same thing. That is why my got feeling is the staff loves to recruit under the radar guys.
mail
person
Mark Lembright '85
11/22/2017 5:26 PM
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
Foxy, if WMU Or Toledo can recruit 16 three star athletes I fail to see why Ohio can’t do the same thing. That is why my got feeling is the staff loves to recruit under the radar guys.
Yet WMU underachieved this year as Ohio has a better record and we thumped Toledo two weeks ago, so at least “on paper” Ohio is already right there with those two programs.
mail
person
allen
11/22/2017 5:59 PM
Our wide receivers and tight ends get no separation. We also have a lot of drops. Rourke scrambles for 7 seconds and passes and the ball still get deflected. Teams get more break up against us than they get against anyone. We can’t blame that on Rourke
Showing Messages: 26 - 40 of 40
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)