Who will be Some of our Major New Contributors?

Salsa · Post by **Salsa** » Sat May 28, 2005 11:00 am

Not financial contributors, friends, but contributors to our team?

Anthony Turner, Luke Alexander, and Corey Partridge garnered the "new contributors" headlines following the Spring Game.

But I'm hoping there are more, giving us a total of 6-8 "new contributors" who will really step up and make this a better team.

I'll just throw out a handful of possibilities but I really don't know. That's why I'm asking the question.

On offense.

Ruiz at tight end?
Partridge and Alexander as receivers?
Turner at QB?
Macon at RB?
What about on the offensive line?

On Defense

Mack? At what position?
Winovich and Haneline at LB?
Brandon Curtis and Nick Davis at DL?
Dozier at CB?
Biggs somewhere?
Schaefer or Goodwin?

Seems like there's always a few who step up and really help. Like I said, it would be great to get 6-8 (or more!) this coming season. Of course, we have a lot of veterans, and maybe that will keep the number of "new contributors" down.

bc ziggy 58 · Post by **bc ziggy 58** » Sat May 28, 2005 11:08 am

The "new contributors" MUST come on the D side of the ball. We MUST generate a pass rush and we MUST have a shut down corner. Based on what we all saw last year, I feel that both of these needs MUST come from someone new.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sat May 28, 2005 12:56 pm

i agree with that, but we also need a few recievers to step up, losing Cole, Hawk, and Corn at the same time hurts

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat May 28, 2005 12:57 pm

Van Johnson will be a factor at CB. He made some very nice plays in the spring game including an INT on Omar.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:00 pm

bc ziggy 58 wrote:The "new contributors" MUST come on the D side of the ball. We MUST generate a pass rush and we MUST have a shut down corner. Based on what we all saw last year, I feel that both of these needs MUST come from someone new.

Hey I'm with you totally man. Where I see we could use the most new contribution would be at ath DT's. If Nick Davis or Curtis and Thaler make the interior D-line ALOT stronger this year , we should get a real pass rush this year. As much as complain about the somtimes lack of good size at linebacker , its probably more important to have the bigger DT's to initiate good penetration to ease pressure of linbackers anyway. That could go along way for us in both pass rushing and run defense. Like I said before I'm really interesting in seeing how the DT's Curtis and Davis pan out as well as Thaler getting better.

On the offensive the side of the ball, its just sick. We have so much freakin talent on that side of ball its insane. You can practicly name your pick of who could stand out this year. With guys like Partridge , Alexander, Kennedy, Ruiz, you name it , those guys could be huge for us.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:14 pm

If we run the 2 RB set that was mentioned awhile ago, I could see Lane becoming a bigger factor than he has in the past years as well.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:17 pm

McMetz811 wrote:If we run the 2 RB set that was mentioned awhile ago, I could see Lane becoming a bigger factor than he has in the past years as well.

I can't wait to see us run this set! Its going to be hilarious watching teams try to defend us. Especially with us now going use TE's more.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:59 pm

falconboy wrote:
McMetz811 wrote:If we run the 2 RB set that was mentioned awhile ago, I could see Lane becoming a bigger factor than he has in the past years as well.
I can't wait to see us run this set! Its going to be hilarious watching teams try to defend us. Especially with us now going use TE's more.

I have always been a big fan of Lane but the way things looked in the spring game it could be Macon. Either way I hope they throw in some new sets this year and go under center a little more often.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:19 pm

i'd rather we spread the field, 2 back sets arent exciting, 3yds and a cloud of dust sucks, i want 5 wide throwing almost every down until we get a big enough lead... Omar 4 Heisman!

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:23 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:i'd rather we spread the field, 2 back sets arent exciting, 3yds and a cloud of dust sucks, i want 5 wide throwing almost every down until we get a big enough lead... Omar 4 Heisman!

Yes but you cannot be one dimensional or good teams will figure out how to stop you. I love the 4-5 WR looks as much as anyone but that does not mean we have to use it 100% of the time. Using three Wrs and two RBs can be just as dangerous. Being able to execute in a variety of sets make you much more dangerous.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Sat May 28, 2005 4:26 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:i'd rather we spread the field, 2 back sets arent exciting, 3yds and a cloud of dust sucks, i want 5 wide throwing almost every down until we get a big enough lead... Omar 4 Heisman!

Just to fill you in, it wouldn't be a traditional FB/HB set. It would be a two HB, split set trying to create more mismatches and get our more experienced players on the field. I think this new wrinkle could really throw some teams off.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sun May 29, 2005 10:46 am

BGSUFootballFan wrote:i'd rather we spread the field, 2 back sets arent exciting, 3yds and a cloud of dust sucks, i want 5 wide throwing almost every down until we get a big enough lead... Omar 4 Heisman!

One could argue that 3 yards & a cloud of dust in the second half last year wins us the UT game.

3 yards & a cloud of dust eats clock to keep your defense off the field. It keeps your defense rested, and lets them work on adjustments. It is also a good way to prevent turnovers. Of course when your QB only throws 4 INTs in a season that's irrelevant. Still having that Run first mentality at times would be a great addition to our offense.

3 yards & a cloud of dust may suck to watch to some people, but it protects your defense and is a proven method to WIN football games. I'd rather watch us grind out a win on the ground than have prolific offense and lose like @ UT last year. Not saying a total switch to that mentality is desired, but it doesn't hurt to go to a running offense in certain situations.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Sun May 29, 2005 11:12 am

Hammb: Those are fine points. If we move the chains in the second half (with or without clouds of dust), that probably turns out differently.

When he first introduced the twoback set, Coach Brandon set it was to get Lane the ball more, IIRC.

Having more options is better, as long as you can still execute. But, the D has got to be better (even a little), and we can be very dangerous this year. But they lost a lot, and if they are porous in big games, it could also be a disappointing season. I know we could go undefeated. We could also go 8-3 if we lose at Wisconsin, Boise and Miami.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sun May 29, 2005 11:35 am

hammb wrote:3 yards & a cloud of dust may suck to watch to some people, but it protects your defense and is a proven method to WIN football games.

Of course it sucks, but as exciting as the first half of that game was, there was no way that grinding out the clock for a win would make it a boring game.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sun May 29, 2005 11:36 am

TG1996 wrote:
hammb wrote:3 yards & a cloud of dust may suck to watch to some people, but it protects your defense and is a proven method to WIN football games.
Of course it sucks, but as exciting as the first half of that game was, there was no way that grinding out the clock for a win would make it a boring game.

Forget 2rb sets, PJ Pope alone in the shotgun could have won us that game.

Who will be Some of our Major New Contributors?

Who will be Some of our Major New Contributors?

Oh Yeah!

Re: Oh Yeah!