OSU v. Iowa: The OSU Defensive Review

The Buckeye defensive performance against Iowa was fairly typical of what you expect from a Jim Heacock led unit.  There was some bending, not a lot of break, and in the end the defense is again largely responsible for another OSU victory.  Iowa has a solid, balanced offense, and OSU responded with a myriad of fronts and coverages to keep Iowa guessing.   In the second half, the defensive front was able to control the line of scrimmage, turning the tide and ensuring the OSU victory.

The Iowa Playbook

Iowa's goal was to use formation and motion to attack the OSU front at weak spots.  Specifically, Iowa had two goals--try to get OSU in nickel, and run away from OSU's formation strength.  Iowa did so by taking a page from Penn State and brought a tight end back into the formation to attack OSU's 6-man fronts.

Iowa also repeatedly set twins or trips to the field and then run stretch into the boundary.   The goal was to get OSU to set their front to the field, enabling Iowa to outflank OSU.  Here you can see how OSU's front is set to the field, providing no run support outside the tight end save the boundary corner.

Iowa had success running the ball early, raising flashes of Wisconsin.  Ross Homan began the game again standing flat footed waiting for the play to come to him, rather than attacking the hole.  This allowed Iowa to gain solid yardage when getting to the second level.  One major difference, however, was that OSU unleashed Brian Rolle to shoot gaps and attack the line of scrimmage, allowing OSU to stop Iowa several times for negative yardage.

Finally, as Iowa does, they sought to attack the OSU underneath zones.  Here Iowa does a nice job hitting the all-curl route v. the OSU cover 3.

The OSU Counter

Ohio State, as they are wont to do, did not overreact despite the fact Iowa had success early.  Instead, OSU stuck to its basic plan.  On first down, OSU played primarily cover-3, freeing HInes to come into run support.  

On pass downs, OSU played a lot of cover-2--more so than any other time this year--mixing in some cover 1 robber.  The reason is that these looks provide ample underneath coverage.  In pass downs, then, cover 2 gave OSU five underneath defenders to attack things like the mesh route that Iowa so favors.  Here is the OSU cover-2 v. mesh:

And here vs. cover 1:

What is so impressive about the OSU defense is that unlike, say Iowa, OSU is not wedded to any coverage philosophy but will instead play a myriad of coverages with equal success.  That allows OSU to choose the coverages that best defends the team they are playing, putting the Buckeyes on the offensive.

The OSU Adjustments

OSU did make some minor adjustments, however, that kept within their philosophy but nonetheless helped neutralized Iowa's game plan.  For starters, OSU began playing less nickel and instead going with a 4-3 stack look.

This allowed OSU to move easily adjust to the TE motion, and allowed the Buckeyes to balanced numerically for Iowa stretch plays into the boundary.

OSU also unleashed numerous zone blitzes on first down.  What was unusual for OSU was not zone blitzing, which they do often, but its extensive use on first down.  Clearly, the OSU defensive coaches felt confident that Iowa was likely to pass in such situations.  Iowa helped them out in this regard by moving away from the run game that had been successful in the first quarter.

Here is OSU running a 'Steeler' zone blitz, their most frequent fire zone look. 

Here is OSU running an interior linebacker zone blitz, but with the same 3-3 zone behind the 2 LBer blitz.  The blitz below was often used on first down since it attacks the interior and is thus gap sound versus run plays.

The OSU Difference

In the end, though--as is often the case--OSU was able to control the second half defensively through better execution.  John Simon and Cam Heyward, in particular, controlled the line of scrimmage, repeatedly stalemating the Iowa offensive line and getting pressure. 

Simon has played at an extremely high level since the second half of the PSU game.   He took over the game in the fourth quarter, repeatedly making plays in the Iowa backfield.  Brian Rolle also deserves mention.  As noted, he was allowed to play a gap-shooting style this game and responded, repeatedly getting into the Iowa backfield.  One difference between Wisconsin and Iowa is that the OSU defense was able to put a wrench in Iowa's movement by stopping plays for negative yards or no gain.  Rolle had a big role in making that possible.  Indeed, the OSU linebacker corps as a whole played better as the game went on.  Part of this was going to the stack, which allowed Andrew Sweat to also get involved in downhill run support.  Homan was also more aggressive playing downhill as the game continued, perhaps freed to do so by the move away from nickel.

Nowhere was this increased level of play more apparent than the fourth quarter.  OSU controlled the line of scrimmage on the last two series, putting Iowa on roller skates.  OSU did not do anything fancy, instead playing tight cover-2 coverage.

The cover-2 allowed OSU to play aggressively on Iowa's underneath routes, providing time to get to the quarterback.  On the last possession OSU took this a step further, playing cover 2 man under.  OSU's underneath defenders could play aggressive man coverage, knowing that they had deep help.  Iowa could not get open against this aggressive style.  The clip below gives great shots of every underneath defender in man coverage.

Conclusion

It took the OSU defense a few possessions to find their footing, but once OSU made minor adjustments, the Buckeyes were largely able to control the game against the Iowa offense.  The OSU defensive line played at a level in the second half that many expected this season, and Johnny Simon's play as a sophmore has to be encouraging to all OSU fans.  This game was a perfect example of why the OSU defense will concede yards tactically, to accomplish their overall strategic objective, and why the OSU defense is so successful year after year.