Question for the Boneyard family??? | The Boneyard

Question for the Boneyard family???

Status
Not open for further replies.

HuskyFan1125

"Dont be the same, be better"
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,388
Reaction Score
4,622
I have now seen Ohio State play 3 times and I have to say that they seem so much better as a team both on offense and defense this year in comparison to last. The beat Oklahoma, LSU, and FSU. I know those arent huge wins, but they were ranked when they played each other.

I was thinking back last year and the previoius years how OSU always seem to melt down. They lost Jantel Lavender which I thought would hurt them badly. It hasn't!

My question is, was running the offense thru Lavender all these years a misstep for the Buckeyes?? Are they better without Lavender?
 

alexrgct

RIP, Alex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,096
Reaction Score
7,842
It's tough to say. They have a shockingly mediocre schedule through no real fault of their own (conference is what it is, OOC scheduling on paper was pretty solid as you've noted). It's not totally outside the realm of possibility that they run the table heading into the NCAA tourney.

But I will say Lavender always seemed to be one of those players at the college level who put up good numbers but didn't really make her team better. Bill Simmons calls it The Ewing Theory when a star player leaves a team and the team seems as good or better without him/her. JL definitely had Ewing Theory potential.
 

cferraro04

Sensei
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,518
Reaction Score
2,505
My opinion was that they didn't run the offense enough through Lavender. Sometimes she didn't even touch the ball for long stretches. I was always of the opinion that they needed to run through her more. Prahalis always seemed a tad too emotional. Maybe she has that under control now...maybe they just have better chemistry without a dominant center who demands the ball but doesn't seem to get it as often as she should.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
198
Reaction Score
766
I bought the Simmons book and it was a waste of money. Ewing's Knicks were a great, great team that outworked its opponents (they were very much like the UConn women in terms of intensity - although the offense was uglier) but had the misfortune to run into Jordan's Bulls year after year.

If we end up upsetting Baylor this year will they say that we're better off without Maya? I think not.
 

alexrgct

RIP, Alex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
10,096
Reaction Score
7,842
I bought the Simmons book and it was a waste of money. Ewing's Knicks were a great, great team that outworked its opponents (they were very much like the UConn women in terms of intensity - although the offense was uglier) but had the misfortune to run into Jordan's Bulls year after year.

If we end up upsetting Baylor this year will they say that we're better off without Maya? I think not.
Except when Jordan retired and they still couldn't get it done. They also failed to get past Reggie's Pacers on a couple of occasions, and it's not like the Pacers were an historically great team by any stretch of the imagination.

They Maya analogy would not be accurate because despite the loss last season, Maya won two NCs. Ohio State, meanwhile, always seems to underachieve.
 

KnightBridgeAZ

Grand Canyon Knight
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,848
Reaction Score
3,850
To the OSU question. They went through a stretch - going back to before Lavender - where they collapsed in the NCAA's. Their schedule was always relatively competitive OOC.

I'm not sure that one can directly blame how their offense ran through Lavender (or Davenport) but perhaps the style of play in the Big 10 - which contributed to the structure of their offense - might have had an impact in the postseason. At least that was always the take of some folks that I know when we would talk about it.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
198
Reaction Score
766
Except when Jordan retired and they still couldn't get it done. They also failed to get past Reggie's Pacers on a couple of occasions, and it's not like the Pacers were an historically great team by any stretch of the imagination.

They Maya analogy would not be accurate because despite the loss last season, Maya won two NCs. Ohio State, meanwhile, always seems to underachieve.

Disagree on #1 - Indiana came on later when the Knicks were running out of steam and the Pacers were becoming a strong team. The Knicks were the greatest team's greatest rival, it was effort and defense vs. talent and offense; and they shared many long, hard fought, classic playoff series.

Disagree on #2 - 2009 and 2010 wins were with Tina or Renee. Devils advocate here and presupposing a win in 2012: Maya couldn't get it done in 2011 but the team was better when she left. Therefore we were a better team without her.
Ridiculous. There are too many variables in play. Simmons' oversimplification ("Ewing rule") is annoying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
360
Guests online
957
Total visitors
1,317

Forum statistics

Threads
169,402
Messages
4,174,772
Members
9,066
Latest member
pdxsumeet


Top Bottom