Ohio State v. Purdue: OSU Offensive Review

OSU returned back from being almost entirely a shotgun, 'spread' team v. Wisconsin to being based primarily under center, equally threatening with the run and pass.  The result was an offensive explosion, with 415 yards and 42 points of first half offense.  In so doing, OSU demonstrated their proficiency in a number of areas.  When Purdue played pass-first, OSU ran the ball right at the Boilermakers.  When Purdue then moved to take that away, OSU responded with the bootleg and drop back pass game.  The Purdue game demonstrates what the 2010 OSU offensive unit--from the coaches to the players--scheme and execute a pro-style system best and should be the OSU offense's M.O. for the remainder of this season.

The Purdue Defensive Plan:  The Golden Oldies'

Purdue's game plan was a 'greatest hits' of what opposing defenses have done against OSU this year.  Like Wisconsin, Purdue came out determined to stop the OSU pass game, playing with 2-high safeties in primarily a cover-2. 

Unlike Wisconsin, OSU responded immediately, running right at Purdue's 7 man fronts.  Then, when OSU had success running the football, Purdue tried to respond by, like Illinois, slanting to the field and trying to sneak a safety up at the snap. 

OSU countered by pulling out the play-action and dropback passing, hitting open intermediate areas withhorizontal stretches.  At that point, Purdue was pushed and pulled in so many directions that they had no response to the OSU onslaught. 

The OSU Offensive Reality:

The 2010 OSU offense is an interesting case study.  On the one hand, OSU does not have a 'bell cow' that they can turn to no matter what the opposing defense presents.  OSU is not Auburn where they are going to run 'inverted veer' with Cam Newton 25 times a game.  Teams have demonstrated that they can slow down the OSU run game by putting an eighth or ninth defender in the box.  OSU does not have have the offensive line that is going to control that extra defender, or a tailback that is going to make that extra defender miss.  And Wisconsin showed that you can fluster the OSU passing game by playing four deep defenders and giving Pryor a variety of zone coverages.  In other words, OSU cannot over defensive schematic advantages simply through great individual play.

On the other hand, OSU has also demonstrated that they are good in three different facets--the run game, the pass game, and Terrelle Pryor running.  So OSU can adeptly strategically respond to whatever a defense may try to do.  If a team wants to play seven men in the box, than OSU will be able to run the football downhill with their zone run game.  Conversely, if a team tries to bring up a safety to take away the OSU run , then things are opened up for Pryor, who can put an over-committed defense in a bind with his combined running and throwing ability.  

So while its often too simplistic to simply think in terms of numbers in the box, for this OSU team it truly applies-seven men in the box run the football, eight pass or get Pryor outside the pocket. In other words, if a defense wants to play two-deep safeties then OSU should run the footbal; if a defense wants to bring extra defenders up in run support, turn to Pryor on roll-outs and the dropback pass game.  It makes for a strategic environment where the onus is on the coaches and players to a) identify what the defense is doing, and b) respond accordingly.  Fortunately, OSU has the ability to play effectively against any defensive look.

Theory to Reality:  Putting the Plan Into Action

The Buckeyes presented an example of how this works against Purdue.  As noted, Purdue came out game planning to stop the OSU passing game.  OSU responded with five straight running plays.  On the first drive, Ohio State was able to run right at Purdue on isolation plays.  

Then when Purdue was expecting the inside, downhill run game, ran lead stretch to get the Purdue defense running  laterally on outside zone plays. 

This was the basic OSU run game all day--isolation, lead inside zone, lead outside zone.  Purdue had little success against the OSU run game and had to make adjustments to try to stop it..  The reason is simple--running the football is a less risky strategy, so if a team can easily run the football against you have little chance for the other team to make mistakes and thus have success.  Purdue reacted by switching to a 4-3 stack front and sneaking up a safety.

But OSU was also prepared, and responded by throwing.  In particular, OSU returned to featuring the bootleg and the ''Dave play-action rollout pass."  Purdue could not handle the inside run threat and danger of Terrelle Pryor on the edge, opening up big holes in the intermediate zones for Devier Posey on flood routes.  Note how the Mike linebacker is first held by the play fake, then comes up to stop Pryor from running, opening up Posey coming behind him:

OSU was then able to complete the onslaught by turning to their horizontal stretch passing game.  Here, OSU runs double scat routes with deep in route's behind the scat against Purdue's quarter-quarter half coverage. 

Pryor appears to be reading the middle linebacker.  He jumps the underneath scat route, allowing Pryor to hit Sanzenbacher behind the linebackers and in-front of the deep three.

OSU also had a nice gameplan on a more granular level.  For instance, OSU often 'flipped' their tight end.  They did so because they had clearly seen on film that Purdue would flip their defensive line rather than shift down, sewing confusion before the snap.  This is precisely what OSU got.

OSU also did a nice job against Purdue's biggest threat, Ryan Kerrigan.  In passing downs, OSU went to the use of 11 personnel (1 TE, 1 RB), in a doubles look with the TE in a slot.  They would use the tight end to widen Kerrigan out, and then to get a chip on him.  Indeed, Kerrigan's one sack was a result where Kerrigan widened out and the TE did not chip, resulting in an impossible path for Shugarts to reach Kerrigan.  All in all it was a very nice game plan, a step forward from Wisconsin.

The OSU Offense Moving Forward

In my mind, the Purdue game settles that Ohio State's offensive 'identity' should be as a pro-style, multiple team, rather than one based out of the shotgun, for several reasons.  First, as noted above, this OSU offense functions best when it can threaten a defense with all three facets.  From the shotgun, OSU necessarily becomes a Terrelle Pryor-based run and pass offense, losing the downhill run game.  According to Jeff Amey, Pryor was the primary ball-carier on 70% of the plays against Wisconsin, including the first eleven plays from scrimmage.  Not coincidentally, OSU also ran far more plays from shotgun at Wisconsin, nearly 75%.  Wisconsin did not have to devote resources to the inside run game, leaving extra zone defenders to befuddle Pryor.

During the Wisconsin game, just like with Purdue, once OSU established a viable downhill running game, tings opened up for the OSU passing game.  Teams have been unable to bottle up the OSU run game with seven defenders, instead having to devote extra resources to the run game.  This is where Terrelle Pryor becomes truly dangerous.  Teams must play either loose zone coverages that can be read pre-snap, or man coverage, where Pryor's run-threat outflanks the coverage.   Even if the run game does not produce big yards because teams scheme to take it away, it is the threat of a viable running game that provides Pryor play-making opportunities.  This offense has been most explosive when teams have to worry about the inside run-game.  One will notice that Pryor played his best once OSU established a run game against Wisconsin.  From the shotgun, that run constraint must come from Pryor, and his specialty is not attack defenses between the tackles like typical spread quarterbacks.  The shotgun in equal run or pass situations is often the equivalent of OSU unilaterally disarming one of their primary threats.

Second, and relatedly, the coaching staff is better able to attack and constrain defenses from under center.  This is not something inherent to a pro-style versus spread scheme, but rather applies more specifically to this group.  Part of this is simply because of this team's personnel, as discussed above.  But this is also because the coaches seem to have a better feel for how to mesh the inside and outside running game together, for example, and then how turn to constraint rollouts and bootlegs when teams look to take the running game away.  In other words, the offense schematically works better together as a coherent whole.  The Purdue game showed a degree of play integration and 'making plays look alike' that is not present for OSU from the shotgun.

Third, I believe the schemes we saw in the Purdue game best suits Pryor's talents.  As noted, I do not believe his strength is being a primary ball carrier on pre-designed runs.  However, I really like getting Pryor on the edge through bootlegs and rollouts.  To me, this truly places a defense in a bind because they must deal with multiple issues.   One, is it a run or a pass play?  If they want to screw down on Dave as taught to do, then Pryor easily gets to the edge.   Two, it puts a bind on the linebackers and force players, who must both play their coverage responsibilities and yet somehow defend the threat of Pryor running.  In addition, it naturally gets Pryor to the edge where he is most dangerous.  This type of play-action passing is just not available from shotgun.

Finally, I also believe this best suits Boom Herron's talents.  Boom is a pro-ypical downhill runner.  You may note that much of OSU's success the last two games is running old-fashioned isolation plays right at defenses where Boom can make one cut and go.  You add lead stretch to that and the offense is suddenly attacking with the run game across a variety of fronts, again not possible with the OSU shotgun running game. 

Again, this is not an either/or debate.  OSU utilitzed the shotgun effectively against Purdue and will continue to do so.  Rather, this is to argue that the OSU offense should be built around under-center looks with shotgun as a compliment, not the other way around.  Judging by how the Wisconsin game concluded and the Purdue game plan, the OSU coaching staff has likely come to the same conclusion. 

Substitutional Offense

Interestingly, the OSU offensive personnel has become more situationally based then previous Jim Tressel outfits.  This is partly because of injuries, but also reflect the offense trying to utilize their players talents.  The most obvious example is Brandon Saine coming in for Zach Boren or the tailback in passing downs.  But a similar rotation has also happened at tight end.  Reid Fragel played against Purdue in '21' or '22' personnel situations (two runningbacks, one or two tight ends).  Then, in passing situations with '11' personnel (1 TE, 1 RB) Jake Stoneburner would check in, providing the better pass threat.  The coaching staff is trying to utilize Stoneburner while protecting his hurt ankle, and also taking advantage of Fragel's blocking.  It is also clear that Corey "Philly" Brown has become the third wide receiver and he made the most of the opportunity.  He offers OSU an additional multi-dimensional threat, and can hopefully put to rest the problems OSU has had with the third wide receiver position.

The Development of Terrelle Pryor

I know this is a never-ending source of debate, but I would be remiss to not point out two plays that I believe show impressive improvements from Pryor in the mental standpoint of the game.  The first play is the double-scat play I showed earlier.  I want to show it again.

Note how Pryor stares down Posey and then pump fakes to him, getting the Mike backer to bite before hitting Dane.  This is a very nice play showing an understanding of coverages and how to get defenders to react.

The second one is the very next play.   Here, Dane runs the scat route.  This is a fantastic route by Dane, but look at how both Pryor and Sanzenbacher are on the same page with a complicated route scheme. 

In sum, though many want to treat Pryor as a finished product he continues to improve as a quarterback.  I also believe the establishing of the run threat and what that opened up was crucial for Pryor's confidence Saturday, and demonstrates why OSU must maintain a run threat for the remainder of the year to attack defenses from all three facets.

The First Half play by play breakdown follows: