OSU v. PSU: OSU Defensive Review

One of the most overrated cliches in football is 'half time adjustments.'  To paraphrase Bill Walsh, its much easier to make adjustments Thursday afternoon than during a game.  What he meant is that it is simpler to create a game plan when you have extensively scouted your opponent and can clinically prepare your game plan, then it is to  tinker with everything during a game where emotions are running high and even coaches only have a limited ability to know everything that is happening. 

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and the OSU defensive performance on Saturday fits that exception.  The OSU defense was able to literally clamp down the screws on Penn State, shutting down the underneath passing game that was allowing Penn State to sustain drives in the first half.  Penn State's QBs thereafter were unable to throw the ball downfield as they needed to succeed .  This change provides a window into the OSU defensive coaching staff's thinking--and perhaps the most interesting aspect is that the change is one many did not likely expect...

The Penn State Gameplan:  The Underdog's Handbook

Penn State had a very nice game plan offensively, one that is often seen from an underdog.  By that I mean, Penn State knew that could not out-talent OSU, so they attempted to create strategic advantages.  Most specifically, Penn State sought to throw on first down and run when OSU expected pass.  The thinking was this--Penn State knew that OSU will generally line up in their base 4-3 on first down, but want to go nickel at the first opportunity.  So Penn State wanted to throw against base and run against nickel. 

Penn St. also sought to create match-up advantages for their run game.  They would use '11' personnel (3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB) to get OSU in nickel.  But they would then motion down the receiver to the single side into the box.  This gave them 2 TEs to run with, while it generally resulted in an OSU corner having to come down in run support.

Fortunately for OSU, however, they were able to keep the PSU run game fairly well contained.  Ross Homan and Brian Rolle did a far better job this game attacking downhill, as opposed to sitting back and catching like at Wisconsin.  John Simon also did a really nice job this game with penetration, and played perhaps his best game this year.

Where Penn State hurt OSU in the first half was with the 3-step drop pass game; in particular with 2 routes--quick outs, and the slant-shoot concept. PSU repeatedly sustained drives on third down through the quick game.

Slant-shoot is a simple combination that attacks the flat and is good against soft zone coverages such as cover-3 (left hand diagram, right hand side below).

For Penn State's purposes it killed two birds with one stone.  First, it gave McGloin easy throws.  Second, it attacked OSU's preferred coverage.  OSU often plays either quarters' coverage or cover-1 man robber.  Both gave PSU softer  underneath coverage where the receiver could run the slant un-hindered.

Here it is against cover-4:

Here it is against cover-1:

The result was Penn State was able to sustain time-consuming drives on underneath routes.

The Ohio State Adjustment

OSU effectively changed coverages in the second half to take away these underneath throws and force PSU to throw the ball vertically.  Once OSU did this, Penn St. had no answer.  The remedy?  Cover-2. 

Many think of cover-2 as a passive defense with two deep safeties and a team sitting in zone.  But the other part of cover-2 is aggressive press coverage by corners and 5 underneath defenders to take away intermediate routes. 

In particular, cover-2 negates the slant-shoot combo.  Suddenly, you have a corner pressing the receiver trying to get off on a slant.  You also have two defenders for two receivers.  The OLB is going to jump the slant route from the inside, and the corner will come off on the flat route, often baiting the QB into the throw.   

So this takes us to the second possession in the third quarter.  McGloin read Torrence playing man on the slant.  Torrence, however, was in cover-2, and baited McGloin into throwing the pass and jumped the route.

Later, Penn State tried to throw a flood route, where Travis Howard was again able as the cover-2 corner  to jump the route, again catching McGloin unaware. 

Conclusion

The OSU defense is extremely flexible and plays a variety of coverages.  This provides OSU the ability to adapt their coverage scheme to what will best stop that opponent.  McGloin did not look prepared to face cover-2 this game and was befuddled once OSU adapted.  Nor did he have the ability to attack the deep corners where cover-2 is weakest.  The result was that OSU was able to stop the Penn State short passing game in its tracks and turn the tide.