The Sugar Bowl Review: The OSU Offense

The Ohio State offense again demonstrated its potency by flying out to a big first half lead.  This evaporated, however, when momentum swung during the third quarter, forcing the Buckeyes to grind out the game's remaining minutes.  The Buckeyes were sufficiently prolific in the first half, however, to allow a few crucial second half scrambles by Terrelle Pryor to be just enough to get OSU past the finish line.

The Arkansas Decision:  Attack

In my preview, I posited that Arkansas could go one of two ways:  sit back in quarters coverage, or play an aggressive, blitzing style.  Arkansas clearly chose the latter.  Arkansas blitzed OSU more than OSU has seen this year, and more frequently than the Razorbacks have shown all season.  Arkansas would show an over or under with a 2 high shell.  But generally Arkansas would bring at least the OLB/nickel back off the edge from the field, and would often bring a second ILB in tandem. 

When OSU went to I formation, Arkansas multiple times brought a weakside corner blitz to try to catch the OSU run play from behind.

Behind this, Arkansas would play cover-1 man , bringing a safety up late to play the slot receiver. 

Terrelle Pryor and the OSU Response

Fortunately, this played right into Terrelle Pryor and OSU's hands.  Pryor is most effective when teams force him to use his legs and make decisions on the move.  And Pryor was particularly adept this game in doing so.  In my opinion, this was Pryor's best game at Ohio State.  This was not simply because of his passing accuracy, though he played well in this area, such as his touchdown throw to Dane Sanzenbacher on the deep out, putting the football only where Sanzenbacher could make a play.  Pryor has had other good days throwing the football.  Instead, Pryor was at his best this game because of his decision-making.  This applies not only in diagnosing coverages, here reading the zone blitz and hitting the curl behind the dropping defensive linemen;

but also continually making the right decisions as to when and how to employ his legs.  Pryor was nearly pitch perfect as to when to move in the pocket and make plays downfield, and when to tuck the ball and run.  

As a result, Arkansas had no answer for Pryor.  One of the dogs that did not bite this game was the effectiveness of the Arkansas pass-rush.  J.B. Shugarts had repeat issues handling No. 91 Jake Bequette on speed rushes.  But Pryor single-handedly neutralized this aspect, leaving opportunities down field. 

Pryor will never get credit for what did not happen, which was preventing Arkansas from generating negative plays, but his ability with his feet was the difference in this game.

The OSU Strategic Response

Ohio State also did a nice job strategically responding to the Arkansas game plan.  They did so in three ways:  by exploiting the underneath flat to curl; by running the football into the boundary; and by using no-huddle.  Addressing the latter first, Arkansas was not prepared for the Buckeye hurry-up offense.  OSU did a nice job keeping their hurry-up offense based around their base offensive series, and then building in slight variations.  This simplified things for the players, and yet continually kept Arkansas off-balance.  The hurry-up forced Arkansas to stay in a base 4-3 over defense and limited their flexibility.  For example, on one second quarter drive, OSU worked out of variations of shotgun tight-trips, working off the zone read and zone read bootleg series. 

The no-huddle led to OSU's second strategic wrinkle, which was to attack with the tight end and slot receiver against the inside man-coverage defender.  Arkansas frankly seemed unprepared with their man-blitz scheme to cover the tight end on play-action.

OSU exploited this with one of the few true wrinkles they showed, a TE pop pass off of the zone read fake:

When OSU turned to their downhill run game, they would generally line up in twins to the field and then run into the boundary.  This largely neutralized Arkansas' propensity to blitz their field linebacker/nickel back from the field.

Finally, OSU kept Arkansas off-balance by taking downfield shots.  Here, OSU ran a well-executed four verticals pattern against Arkansas' 2 deep-man under.  Dane Sanzenbacher--the seam reader-- broke his pattern to the post, and Pryor hit him.

 Several times, OSU ran a half-waggle post-dig combo trying to get Devier Posey past the coverage.  Pryor and Posey were finally able to connect for the last First Half touchdown, with a nicely tagged wheel route that held the outside corner.

The deep threat prevented the cover-1 safety from coming up into run support.  This play-calling allowed OSU to stay one step ahead of the Razorbacks' field edge blitz pressure and secure OSU a large halftime lead.

The Ohio State Second Half:  Hanging On

Of course, this offense did not continue into the second half, leading to the inevitable 'why.'  On second viewing, the play-calling was not as indictable as thought on first glance.  When one looks at the play-by-play sheet, the OSU play-calling did not drastically alter, at least until OSU genuinely started trying to burn clock at the end of the fourth quarter.  Instead, there were a few subtle shifts that nonetheless changed the dynamic.  One, OSU had a few clear inside run calls on first down.  When Arkansas saw the Buckeyes in the I formation on First down in the second half, they started bringing more inside run blitzes. 

Several times, Arkansas would bring a field bllitz and Boom Herron was not fast enough to run away from the blitz, getting caught from behind.  There were only a couple of calls I would put in this category, but they nonetheless put the Buckeyes in tough second down situations.  Second, OSU--while they did not stop throwing--stopped trying to get vertical.  This allowed the Arkansas cover 1 safety to play the run more aggressively without worrying about deep responsibility.

Execution also played a role.  A few areas stand out.  When the OSU running backs did get to the second level they were left in one on one situations with the safety.   The tailbacks were never able to beat the safety for big chunks of yardage.  Even one such play would have drastically shifted the field .  Unfortunately, this OSU squad did not have the tailback play to effectively run the football from the I formation when the opposition expected run. The Arkansas pass rush also became more effective, putting more onus on Pryor's legs.

Ultimately, however, momentum was perhaps the biggest factor.  While this may sound like an excuse, it is reality.  The Arkansas offense got rolling, and the OSU offense simply never had a change to get on track.  The field position continued to worsen, contributing to the problem.  Because of this, one or two plays could have made a difference.  For example, if OSU converts the third and short where they had to kick the field goal, or if Shugarts is not called for holding on Pryor's third down scramble deep in OSU territory, the game may have not been so close. 

Fortunately, Terrelle Pryor's running ability was able to give the OSU offense just enough to prevail.  Time and again Pryor made big plays both on designed runs and scrambling. 

This allowed OSU to convert enough third downs to put the defense in a position to close out the game.

Conclusion

The Ohio State staff had a game plan that demonstrated that the coaching staff had correctly diagnosed the Arkansas defense and deftly responded.  The OSU offense did not seek wholesale changes--instead small things like using a twins formation that kept Arkansas' defense to the field, and then running to the boundary away from the blitz--put the offense in a position to succeed.  The game-plan was also meshed well with the defensive plan to force Arkansas to repeatedly finish drives.  Ultimately, however, it was OSU's playmaker--Terrelle Pryor--that made big plays and allowed OSU to win.