Consider Yourself Statified
by KevinHD on Jun 24, 2010 8:00 AM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintIt's that time of year where a lot of numbers start to be thrown around, so let's take a look by section.
"Game of the Year" Odds, this time less Game of the Yearish. It used to be you'd see one or two of these for each of the big-time programs. Now? Well this is most of the season with Temple to boot.
PSU @ Alabama -9.5
Temple @ PSU -17.5
PSU @ Iowa -3
PSU -10 @ Minn
Michigan @ PSU -10
PSU @ OSU -7
MSU @ PSU -10.5
The general perception is that PSU is going to have severe growing pains early, bringing a new QB into Tuscaloosa and whatnot, and then gets it together by Big Ten play. I suspect this is overstated considering our biggest weakness, leadership on offense, is matched up against a ‘Bama team returning just two defensive starters. It's still a dynamic, though.
As for Big Ten play, the lines say we're an equal match for Iowa and slight dog to Ohio State on a neutral field. They're both away, however, so that's a disadvantage. The rest of the Big Ten save Wisconsin remains significantly behind per the lines.
The one other thing to point out: Adjusted for home field Wisconsin is a 3-point favorite against MSU, 6-point dog to Ohio State and pick against Iowa. In other words: picked to struggle more with MSU but perform exactly like Penn State against OSU and Iowa.
Which makes this kind of strange...
And yes, necessarily in that order. Odds of earning the BCS bid. I can't wait until 2011 when we can just call this "conference champion."
Big 10
3591 Illinois +1500
3592 Indiana +2000
3593 Iowa +300
3594 Michigan +1000
3595 Michigan State +1000
3596 Minnesota +2000
3597 Northwestern +2000
3598 Ohio State +150
3599 Penn State +650
3600 Purdue +1500
3601 Wisconsin +300
Ohio State—no surprise there—followed closely by Iowa and a futher-back Wisconsin. Penn State sits at more than twice the odds of the Badgers.
Considering the lines of PSU and Wisconsin are about equal in terms of neutral field play, this brutal road schedule is effectively making it twice as hard to win the Big Ten as something more balanced. So don't understate it.
Still, I'm not buying the Wisconsin thing and it seems like a sucker's bet from here. Besides Iowa gets them at home.
But these things have to jump off from somewhere. And that place is probably this consensus pre-season ranking.
There's diversity in where the rankings come from but hardly any in thought. Ohio State and Iowa sit mostly in the top-10. Wisconsin, save one 6(!) and one 23, sit just outside that.
Penn State is a fair 20 considering the questions no one knows the answer to. PSU is as high as 14 (from SI) and as low as...well TSN left them out completely.
The not-quite nightmare this year is losses to the three top-10 teams we play on the road and perhaps one along the way. With no luck we end up with four losses. But last year four-loss teams were as high as 14th (Nebraska) and there was a five-loss team in there at 24 (Clemson).
Leaving Penn State out of your guess at the final poll is to predict complete fallout.
The Pre-Season Pryor of the Year Award Goes To(!) Early Heisman Odds:
Mark Ingram +350
Terrelle Pryor +500
Evan Royster +1200
Case Keenum +1200
Dion Lewis +1200
Jacory Harris +1200
John Clay +1200
Noel Devine +1200
Jake Locker +1200
Ingram is a safe and logical bet considering his status as returning Heisman winner. I'm done ragging on Pryor because it's getting old, but the logical counterpoint to his hype still stands: look at his numbers in every meaningful game (Toldedo and Indiana don't count): he has one good performance against Oregon in the Rose Bowl and one absolute debacle against Purdue in their loss. In every other game he was a role player compared to the guys in New York last year.
Yeah, Royster is in there, but he's basically "the field" behind Ingram and Pryor. And make no mistake about this: he's shooting Nerf crossbow arrows at skeets unless Penn State knocks of both Iowa and Ohio State on the road.
And one final note, from the statheads. Football Outsiders released their 11-25 ranking earlier this week, including a long list of "just missed the cuts." With Penn State a consensus ranking around 20 and this:
Total Draft Points Lost to 2010 Draft - Overall
1. Florida (86)
2. Oklahoma (68 -- 43 without Bradford and Gresham)
3. Alabama (58)
4. Texas (56)
5. USC (55)
6. Tennessee (51)
7. Iowa (49)
8. Penn State (40)
9. LSU (39)
10. South Florida (36)
10. Georgia Tech (36)
Well I anticipated a snub. I anticipated wrong, though:
No. 8 Penn State Nittany Lions
Proj. 2010 Offensive F/+ Rank: 14th
Proj. 2010 Defensive F/+ Rank: 8th
Top 25 Opponents: 3 (all away)
Keep in mind this is a "power ranking," based on a teams expected strength and not how the 2010 results will be screwed around with after the AP finishes taking all the logic out of them. The schedule sucks, no doubt, but FO says they're pretty darn good.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And if you don't remember
even with the Trifecta of Hype last year (Tebow, Bradford and McCoy), Royster still opened up at +1000 last year.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
Royster
We will have to be in NC contention at least until late November, and Royster is going to need monster stats.
Ingram’s stats:
Car Yards TD’s
271 1,658 17
He needs those kinds of numbers to even get consideration.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
I think he needs significantly more to get consideration.
He’s not in the SEC, and he’s not at OSU or Michigan.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Always remember with gambling numbers
that Vegas does not have a vested interest in getting it right. Vegas has a vested interest in properly gauging the general feelings (in terms of money) of the betting public, which generally means setting numbers that inspire a massive, even amount of betting on both the right and wrong side.
Some may say, “yeah, but the bettors have an interest in getting it right.” This is true, but I’d rather not put too much stock in the collective wisdom of people who would bet money on a bunch of 17-23 year olds playing a game where a bad call or two can drastically change the outcome.
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
That being said, I'd take PSU's odds to win the Big Ten
13:2 odds for a team that basically just has to split the difference between OSU and Iowa, then win the games where they’re favored by 7+? 7-1 doesn’t guarantee a team a B10 title, but only 2 teams have ever gone 7-1 since PSU joined the league and not won a least a share (1995 Ohio State, 2006 Michigan)
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
I like the nits at +650 too
those are good odds. if we can get lucky in either columbus or iowa city, then we’ve got a shot.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
No!
I just yelled at RossWB for calling us Nitts.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Because it rhymes with "Zits"
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
by Kevin's wording
those aren’t odds to be able to call yourself co-Big Ten Champion, but to actually be the Champion (ie, get the automatic BCS berth)
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 24, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Vegas most definitely has a vested interest in getting it right...
Note there is a significant amount of juice on those conference odds (a staggering 48% in this case). Vegas doesn’t necessarily need to be right on either count (public consensus and each team’s actual “chances”) when they’ve got that much juice built into the lines. Public consensus is important to how they set lines, but if the line is set without taking into account what the “true” line should be, it can cost them dearly.
That said, I can’t really see +650 being a good number. But not as bad as Indiana at +2000. That’s hilarious. When more books start releasing conference odds, PSU will definitely be higher.
I’d also like to point out the separation between tOSU (150 implies 40% chance of winning the conf) and Iowa/Wisconsin (300 or 25%) is greater than the difference between IoWisky and PSU (+650 or 13.3%).
Vegas couldn't care less about getting it right
All Vegas lines try to do is inspire a massive amount of even betting on both sides. So long as they get that, they’re happy, even if they’re wrong by 90 points and Indiana ends up winning the Big Ten.
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
Sigh
I’m not going to start a flame war here about bookmaking, but I think you need to start looking at sites like wagerline.com or at consensus numbers at some offshore places to see how wrong you are. Are they motivated by creating even betting – absolutely. Do they always achieve that – not by a long shot.
I know you’re throwing some hyperbole out there with your examples, but I think any book would be thrilled if Indiana won the B10 at +2000. There is a snowball’s chance in hell that they would take an even amount on Indiana and, oh, let’s say Ohio State.
It wouldn't be a flame war if put forth reasonably
Like you’ve been doing so far. Ck’s been on a bit of a roll in here lately argumentatively, but he’s not always right, and it sounds like you’re in a perfect position to articulate his wrongness in this instance, effectively around the semantics of ‘getting it right.’
Makes for interesting reading to this reader. Plus, I’m generally ignorant about Vegas and Bookmaking, so could always use the education.
by Semanticron on Jun 25, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I wish I remembered the link, or even where I read it
but I think it was back during the 2008 season I read this really good article about how lines are set. Even betting is good to have, but not the sole thing.
The link was posted either on here, or that OSU blogger’s “betting” site (for lack of a better explanation) that at one point calculated the odds of PSU going undefeated.
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 25, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Odds betting vs. Line betting
They work very differently. In odds betting, Vegas tries to set the lines so that they make money if the underdog wins, and merely cover their losses if the favorite wins. There’s a really good article on about.com concerning this. So, yes, Vegas would go crazy with joy if Indiana won, and probably say, “meh, whatever” if OSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Penn State won.
Line betting works by making a decent guess at the outcome of a game / how the general public will bet on it, then moving the line as people bet to inspire a massive amount of even betting on both sides. You are correct to say that Vegas doesn’t always achieve this, but this is dangerous for the bookmaker.
That information, I’d guess, is stuff you already know. But always remember: Vegas wants to make money. Period. Sometimes this involves Vegas betting against the general public and sticking to a line it really feels is correct in spite of the fact that it doesn’t inspire even betting. Most of the time it does not.
I think about it this way: Vegas has spent decades developing algorithms to predict the outcome of games and the feelings of the betting public. If Vegas cared about getting it right, they would stick to their algorithms and lines would never move ever, unless team secrets about injuries / locker room issues leaked. Alas, they often do.
Like I said, it’s not like Vegas won’t sometimes stick to their guns and bet against the public, but this is really only when their algorithms give Vegas a great deal of confidence that the public is wrong, and even if the public is right, the rest of the betting makes the bookmaker think he will cover his losses. Vegas cares only about making money; the fact that Vegas often does get it right (or at least within standard deviation of right, and I’ll grant that Vegas usually is) is more a consequence of the public being right (on a weighted average with respect to money) than Vegas being right.
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
wrong
“I’d rather not put too much stock in the collective wisdom of people who would bet money on a bunch of 17-23 year olds playing a game where a bad call or two can drastically change the outcome.”
The money that they are wagering with must have grown on trees then, right?
" is more a consequence of the public being right (on a weighted average with respect to money) than Vegas being right."
If they hadn’t already, anyone with a clue realized your credibility on this subject is 0 after reading this statement.
by HolyBuckeye on Jun 28, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Aww, look at how classy and polite he is.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 30, 2010 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Royster
He’s got a few things going against him. I think PSU is going to rotate their running backs to keep them fresh this year. That seems to be the trend these days instead of having a workhorse that carries the ball 30 times in a game. Guys like Green and Redd are going to steal some carries, so look for Royster to only average about 15 per game.
One thing that killed Royster from getting hype last year was that he didn’t get a lot of touchdowns. When PSU got near the goal line they tried to punch it in with Clark too often taking Royster out of the game. I’m not sure why they’re so scared about trying to make a handoff once they get inside the five yard line. Maybe that was Daryll Clark’s call once he lined up under center. They might try to do the same thing with Newsome this year.
If Royster is going to contend for the Heisman he needs a solid offensive line, a lot of carries, and big games in big wins over Alabama, Ohio State, or Iowa.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
Re: Clark on the goalline
I think it had more to do with Clark’s size. He was 232 lb and looked it. Royster doesn’t really run like a goalline back and besides was smaller than Clark anyway. I never had a problem with them taking that from Royster, it seemed like the smart move. To me touchdowns are like RBIs, sure you did something good but the stat is in many ways meaningless.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
And besides
the amount of carries Royster isn’t going to get, combined with the amount of touchdowns he’s not going to score, added to the amount of top 10 teams we’re not going to beat, and I’m surprised they even release odds for him.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
So you’re optimistic.
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I mean I’ve already put my next paycheck on him.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
I think a banana peel, stop sign, and turnstile had something to do with it too
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
Clark was built like an NFL MLB, I’d have lined him up and taken the QB sneak 3 downs in a row too.
The other problem with Royster is while Green and Redd quietly steal opportunities, Newsome’s role in the offense could further prohibit gaudy numbers. Newsome could easily look for 100 yards rushing and a TD on the ground against lesser opponents, where as those types of games for Alabama would have given those yards and opportunities exclusively to Engram.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
Sorta (re: LM), but you and Kevin are ignoring physics.
Clark couldn’t get any momentum/kinetic energy by simply falling forward. The speed a RB can build up increases those two units significantly, which means Royster is more likely to go forward unless that extra half second means the defense is coming forward significantly faster. This wasn’t about Royster not being a goal line back, it was fear over how poor the OL was.
So, I guess the nerd in me is just saying – size DOESN’T matter that much. I think Royster could have pulled 3-4 more TDs easy if they would have given him the ball and used the same blocking schemes.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Depends
If momentum is your only consideration, you’re right, mass and velocity are on equal footing. But for Kinetic Energy, an increase in velocity, as opposed to mass, produces a squared increase (KE = 1/2 * m * v * v and M=m*v)
Also, unless you’re talking about someone of BWare’s stature, momentum isn’t your primary concern, as those legs will keep churning fighting to maintain/increase velocity.
Wow…guess that makes me a supernerd?
If he doesn't win after that...
“If Royster is going to contend for the Heisman he needs a solid offensive line, a lot of carries, and big games in big wins over Alabama, Ohio State, or Iowa”
If Royster doesn’t win the HT after that, you would be able to rest assured he could vindicate himself in the MNC game. Sounds like pretty tough putt for any team.
by Onestatewest on Jun 25, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
We cover in tuscaloosa
This Penn State team is going to be good. They might not become good until the second half of the season, but we’re going to destroy our bowl opponent.
I think concerns over the o-line are drastically overrated. The o-line wasn’t great last year, when it was a bunch of well-regarded but inexperienced brutes. Well, we’ve got well-regarded experienced brutes now, and I think it shows.
At the end of the day, I think this team’s success comes down to coaching, because we have the talent and the experience all over the field to win, with the exception of qb. And so it should just be a matter of good scheming by the offensive coaches to maximize the effectiveness of whoever’s under center.
I haven’t spent much time looking at the defense, and just take it for granted that we’ll be solid as usual there.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
I can’t help but thinking we have a better chance to win against Bama than O$U and Iowa. I just don’t think Bama knows what’s coming
This.
A Bama team with no defensive experience? Watch for the exact some TD that Moye scored against LSU – out and up, new corner bites and Moye shows them that a 4.3 up north is a 4.3 down south.
I’m not sure we win it, but I think we’ll be FG-close.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Winning against the tide is beyond my wildest dreams
so let’s just keep it right there. But I think keeping it within one score is perfectly reasonable.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
I'm expecting 2006 Ohio State.
That game was one score until Morelli had to throw downfield.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Watched that game in Atlanta, right in the middle of two weeks of training. The columbus office thought they’d roll, then they got real, real nervous, then the bottom fell out.
I knew it was a very, very close game but I couldn’t help but feel like my team just got their asses kicked.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
Your last sentence is basically what I'm expecting.
So maybe a little bit of 2009 Iowa too.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
After Smith made that incredible scrambling throw, I was so dejected. How do you defend that?
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I vividly remember that. Annoying.
That god for foosball, though. I owned souls in foosball that Saturday.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
No worries on D, for sure.
I’m actually kind of expecting our LBs to be better than last year. Mauti will be Poz good. I feel like someone can get to constantly-injured Lee level, and I really don’t think Bowman played well last year (compared to 2008).
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Hm, not sure I agree that the Oline is now "well-regarded brutes" now.
It’s the same cast of characters that essentially couldn’t stick in the lineup last year.
by PSUinBOSSton on Jun 24, 2010 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
well-regarded in that they were highly-touted out of high school
with the exception of Klopacz (two star), the rest of the o-line was either a 3 star (Troutman) or four star recruit (Wisniewski, Pannell) according to scout.com. I don’t know what Eliades star rating was, but he was ranked as one of the top 40 linemen in the nation in his hs class, so presumably 4-star.
The constant rotation last year—and in the preseason this year—is more a result of chemistry (or the lack of it) than the individual talent of the players. These guys now all have another year playing—and more importantly a year playing TOGETHER, which I think translates into success on the field.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
I agree with all of that.
But you called last years group not well-regarded, and this years group well-regarded. I was just saying they’re mostly the same linemen. At least, as you point out above, they all played some.
by PSUinBOSSton on Jun 24, 2010 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
go back and read the original comment
i said that both groups were well-regarded, just that this year they have experience (whereas last year they didn’t).
The o-line wasn’t great last year, when it was a bunch of well-regarded but inexperienced brutes. Well, we’ve got well-regarded experienced brutes now,
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
which was really the only reason last year's group wasn't well regarded.
all those tables showing the starting experience and correlation with wins (basically what Iowa will have to try and overcome this year)
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 24, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
No leadership on this team
There is a ton of talent, but right now there is little leadership. You can point to one or two guys maybe, but you need more than that. A team full of freshmen and sophomores don’t have the confidence yet to look each other in the eye and know they can do great things.
That will be the downfall of this team, though it should be a pretty good season with 8 or 9 wins.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
hard to argue with you
this speaks, perhaps, to my comment that the team would become good, though we might not be too great at the beginning of the season. Hopefully those leaders will emerge in camp or in Tuscaloosa and not too much later.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
The flipside is
If they somehow pull out a win in Tuscaloosa, look out. Suddenly they are full of confidence, and they’re too young and stupid to know they’re not as good as they think they are.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
Absolutely.
I’ll take 9.5 points. Saban’s teams generally don’t blow people out. For all his flaws, he isn’t Urban Meyer.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Heyyyyyy Kool Aid!!!!
I’ll have what you’re drinking. I do think the Alabama game will be low scoring and the 9.5 is too much. I’m on the optimistic side as well and I think 10-2 or better is more likely than 8-4.
by Frank O'Brien on Jun 24, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Someone has probably already said this
but this season is setting up like 2002. Tough schedule, exciting season, mediocre finish in the standings.
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 9:55 AM EDT reply actions
But we have instant replay this time.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
by KevinHD on Jun 24, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Zing!
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't give a crap about stats.
We’re going to lose to Alabama and Iowa. Iowa will be close as per usual.
We’re going to beat Ohio State.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:05 AM EDT reply actions
bets, not stats.
But hey, it still applies.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
OSU looks good to me. I think Iowa should be worried about ending up like we did last season. The line is everything in the OSU-Iowa-PSU thing this year, just like it almost always is.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
Wake me when a) Ohio State gets a solid runningback and b) Pryor doesn’t have to rely on his defense to win.
I expect moderate progress from Pryor this season. I do not expect Ohio State to be anything close to unbeatable.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 24, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
That's been one of the mysteries of this offseason:
the faith in OSU’s running backs relative to the talent they have at the position. I think OSU has, at best, the 3rd best group of RBs in the league (behind PSU and Wisconsin, in that order)
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
With the line they have, the 3rd best group seems to be adequate.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
But I’ll stop defending them now because to be honest I don’t know much about their roster.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
I agree
If OSU’s line is as good as it can be and that group does end up being 3rd best (about which I think Iowa and a couple others might have something to say), it should be adequate
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
Quick briefing
Saine, Sr./4star -Should be starter though will split time with
Herron, Jr./4 star-has played well in his time but doesn’t show the natural vision and burst of Saine.
Mix in the young guys,
Jordan Hall, TSo./3 Star – Played very well in limited time last year, great chemistry with Pryor.
Jaamal Berry, RsF, 5 star – Went from the doghouse for weed to the doghouse from dropping the ball in Spring practice. Fantastic potential but obviously has yet to prove anything.
Mix in the FB, Zach Boren (tSo, 3 star) who was shockingly used as an offensive weapon (read: not blocking) last year (later in year).
Add those to the leading rusher, Pryor, and I think the OSU ground game will be in pretty good shape.
by Onestatewest on Jun 25, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Talent
I won’t dispute that OSU has great talent at the RB spots, and I think Zach Boren is the best true fullback I’ve seen in a long time (what that means in today’s game is hard to say). TP has had some great games running the ball too.
As for the guys who will get meaningful carries at tailback, Saine and Herron are simply not on the same level as Royster or Clay, and possibly Iowa’s backs. I base this purely on the ‘eyeball test,’ maybe the numbers back it up, maybe they don’t. They lack the vision and patience of Royster (which really came along well late last season) and the inherent right of Wisconsin running backs to be a fat guy with the football who’s gonna run you over that Clay has.
OSU has recruited well at RB, and the o-line and receivers should be good enough that whoever starts should put up good-to-great numbers. I’m just not so sure that Curtis Dukes wouldn’t be the starter at OSU.
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
Fair
I think Saine would be thought of differently if he could A-get the ball 25 times a game and B-stay healthy doing it. (if ONLY, right?!) Boom admittedly has bad vision, not quite to the Lydell Ross level but it is not good. I am OK with the commitee at this point mainly because we don’t really have any choice. I do think that Saine will emerge as the “feature” back this year, getting the lion’s share of carries rather than the equal (due to injury) carries/yards he and Herron got last year. TBD I suppose.
by Onestatewest on Jun 29, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Can't the same be said for Stanzi and Iowa though?
They’ve had RB problems since Greene, and Stanzi seems to have some sadistic pleasure in making the defense bail him out every other game against teams they should be crushing.
Ohio State
The thing about playing them is you know the odds are small that either team will break 13 points. So anybody can win that game.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
When is the last time that the first team to 10 didn't win?
2003?
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
How reassuring is it
That the new O-line lineup with Wiz at guard seems to be sticking? Is it too soon to say that it’s set and that lineup wasn’t just “horsing around”?
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
Is it sticking, or are we just short on intelligence? I really don’t know.
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
the latter
Did you see that Dick Anderson interview on BWI? Dude sounded like Herschel Walker in 81 with all the talking much and saying little.
Wiz lines up at Center again this year. Put your bets on that.
Crack is wac
Hmmm
I’m less convinced. I think that’s the move most likely to stick – there’s just not enough talent at guard without him.
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I will go with somewhat reassuring.
With the play of our line last year, I really thought the slow looping shotgun snaps provided by Wiz were a problem. He just didn’t look as comfortable there. If there is comfort with a new center being at least comparable to Wiz being there, I think we are already loads better.
So I would say I am more comfortable than if it were just switched right bac k, but still uneasy with this group in general.
by PSUinBOSSton on Jun 24, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
The right side could be real good
with Eliades and Wiz. I expect lots of runs and roll outs to that side.
No matter how many teams are in it, I will continue to dislike the Big Ten.
by Illegal Formation on Jun 24, 2010 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I really thought Eliades was better suited to play tackle.
He looked athletic and like he had good feet to me, but didn’t really drive guys with his blocks. Hopefully he improves in that aspect, because at RT he will need to open some holes.
by PSUinBOSSton on Jun 24, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I kinda hope that it sticks
as much as I don’t want this to be a throw-away year, I would rather not have a new center for the 2011 game vs Bama. Plus it is his natural position, and so it isn’t like we’ll really be “worse” with him there.
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 24, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
We have to bite the bullet
Last season there was this sense of “well let’s just patch up the O-line, take the tackle put him at guard, take the guard put him at center, we’ll worry about continuity next season” Well it’s next season, and instead of breaking in a new center with a cushy schedule like last year’s, we’re breaking him in against the defending NC’s.
We could be going into this season with a 3rd year starter and All-world Guard, a 2nd year starter at Center, and a 2nd year starter at tackle. Instead we have 1 guy returning to the position he played last season. The same will be true for next year if we don’t bite the bullet now. This isn’t a NC contender this season, but next year very well could be if we make some tough choices.
Bottom line, I love that lineup and I hope like hell it sticks.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
When was the last time we were an underdog in a game (from the oddsmakers)?
I was thinking we have been favored in every game the last two years, correct?
by mundyscorner99 on Jun 24, 2010 11:48 AM EDT reply actions
we were dogs against USC in the Rose Bowl and OSU in 08
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
oh yeah forgot about the rose bowl
or at least i try to.
by mundyscorner99 on Jun 24, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
We were favored against OSU in 08
I just rewatched the game recently and Herbstreit was talking about how rare it is for visiting teams to be favored when playing at OSU
I seem to remember
PSU being favored by a couple points all week and then the line suddenly jumping to OSU being favored on the Friday prior to the game. I also seem to remember some commentator saying something along the lines of “the underdog is 3-2 in the past 5 years” or something like that shortly after the game. I could be wrong, and apparently I am.
Idle talk and hollow promises; cheating Judases; doubting Thomases
Good question.
Looked it up. PSU was actually a dog to LSU last year, but was favored against OSU in both ’09 and ’08.
Paterno hasn’t been a regular season dog since the OSU game in 2007.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
I’m still surprised Joe was a dog to LSU. Paterno hasn’t lost two consecutive bowl games since 1976. That’s crazy.
Do you want the mustache on, or off?
Too bad.
That's what I though re: the regular season games
I was trying to find a line for the LSU game – the only thing that referenced it was this from the ESPN preview – but I have no idea if that changed by game time. It says PSU was favored by 2 points.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=300010099
No big deal. I was just bored and thinking about how we seemed to have been favored in most games over the past few years and that will likely change (at least in a few) this year.
by mundyscorner99 on Jun 24, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
The Bama game will be close.
I mean look at what happened to Iowa last year. Bring in a kid who’s never started into The Shoe, and they had everything rolling, and then they pulled a PSU and lost by a field goal in the last few minutes. I assume Newsome is billion times better then Vandenburg. We’ll come out swinging.
"Want a donut go to dunkin donuts, want a linebacker go to Penn State." - Chris Carter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Shoe Diaries
Related FanShots on Black Shoe Diaries
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
