I was talking to some Buckeye fans, and they said that it seemed he took plays off, because his role in the defense was to CONTAIN. When your told to contain in a defense your not looking to attack the QB, you stay in your area, and wait for the play to come to you. So they were saying he was told to do that a lot, and that's why he wasn't visible at times. They were saying if he didn't have that contain role he couldv'e had more sacks. So all you people who say Gholston is lazy STFU!
He was actually better in the bowl game than a lot of people are giving him credit for. Forced a fumble which was recovered by OSU for a big loss, had the only sack on Matt Flynn, who tossed the ball in the dirt as he was going down and was called for intentional grounding, negating the sack. Had pressure throughout the game. His numbers don't do his game justice.
No worries. The article is a good read. Check it out: http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=32380
I know I was being sarcastic. He was the sole responsibility for about 9 broken plays from LSU's offense. I was watching that game and he embarrassed the right tackle about 90% of the time, but Flynn was good in getting the ball out quick so that Gholston couldn't get a sack. He was double teamed for most of the 2nd half and OSU's secondary was atrocious. He was a big reason why OSU didn't lose by 40 pts.
I thought you probably were, but you never know how people are going to read it. All those dumbass analysts keep using the bowl game to justify his "bust" potential.
The general consensus on Gholston is hes going to be boom or bust, I have to agree. I disagree with your or whoevers it is analogy that his role was to purely contain. As someone else has already said, look at the bowl game. When the mocks started and we were penciled in to take him I satrted to take more notice of him, and my opinion hasn't changed, for the Buckeyes he took plays off, period. Maybe there was another reason that we are not aware of, but now he has another goal and should have a point to prove, if he thinks all he has to do is show up, hes in for a rude awakening.
He meant of the OSU fan who said his job was to contain, but Tressel himself said that in games where the opposition was less talented he put Gholston in the stand-up containment role where he guarded an 9 yard piece of real estate- and in being so quick and athletic he doesn't need to do much moving around to cover it. Watching him stand there in the flat as if he is watching the game is what it looks like, but really he is doing his job. I will say, however, if he is doing that and the play is directed away from him- he will not go to the other side of the field and help with the play, he'll stay on his side-- Thats the only knock on him, he doesn't have the hustle of a Harris or, in another sport, a Ryan Callahan.
He might have said it. Whether its true or not.......you have a pass rushing monster and want him to contain?
You're right that his role wasn't entirely to contain. That's not what Jim Tressel said, though. He said that his role shifted as need demanded. His whole point was that analysts had no business saying that he took plays off because they weren't aware of how he was being used on every play. According to Tressel, he ALWAYS did what he was supposed to do and put effort into it.
Then that's Tressel's screw up not Gholstons right? And Tressel doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to lie for no apparent reason.
read the article. Also, just because you're a "pass rushing monster" doesn't mean you don't have to maintain your responsibility when the play goes the other way.
If he is taking the play off where he is guarding the flat on the right side and they throw or run the ball to the left, 25 horizontal yards away, and he doesn't run at top speed to make the tackle, considering we have personnel on that side as well- I'm not going to utterly pissed off. When he takes a play off that is coming at him, I will be the first to call for his head. With the coaches we have that preach finishing and hustle, i don't think he'll be lazy like that for too long.
Yeah, I read the article, but the problem I have is that article and what I have seen, they conflict.
