Ohio State v. Illinois: Offensive Analysis

Ohio State rebounded with a 17-7 win with an offensive performance only an offensive lineman could love.  Ohio State ran first, second, and third for over 200 yards to power themselves to victory.  The stat sheet is somewhat misleading, as the Buckeye coaching staff called at least a half dozen additional pass plays (including two shovel passes) that were not executed because of poor footwork or other mishaps by Braxton Miller.  While OSU has found an identity that fits their offense, they must take advantage of how they use the passing game to have more sustained offensive success.

The Buckeye Offensive Identity

The 2011 Ohio State offense finally (and fully) established their identity against Illinois.  After compounding problems against Miami and Nebraska by throwing the football in situations where the opposition had failed to stop the Buckeye run game, Ohio State took no chances with such an occurrence Saturday.  Ohio State ran, ran, and ran some more. 

Illinois featured a similar defensive game plan to their successful philosophy last year.  Namely, from their base under defense, Illinois featured a bevy of slants and run blitzes to try and create negative plays.   Generally, Illinois would either slant toward formation strength (:05 second mark), or bring a weak side run blitz (:49 second mark).

Behind these fronts, Illinois showed one of two coverage looks predicated upon stopping the run.  The first was to play a single-high safety coverage (cover 1 or 3) that allowed Illinois to bring an additional defender 'in the box.' (:11 second mark).  The other coverage Illinois employer were various forms of cover 4 (such as cover 7).  (:31 second mark).  Cover 4 may sound like deep coverage, but it actually allows a defense to put 9 defenders in run support because the safeties are parked at 10 yards with easy read keys.  

Strategically, the OSU coaching staff of doing a nice job with wrinkles within the run game to negate the Illini's aggressive style.  Two specific examples stand out.  First, OSU used an overloaded two TE set that put 6.5 offenders to the offense's strength, into the boundary.  The Illini defense did not respond to this numbers' disparity.  OSU ran 'Dave' from this formation, bringing an additional blocker to the strength.  (:38 and 1:53mark).  (As a side note, OSU's pulling guards did an excellent job cutting off their pull and picking up blitzing inside linebackers, remedying an early season problem.  For those that have been critical of 'Dave,' OSU ran the play to perfect on Saturday, with the tailbacks either cutting immediately up field, or bouncing the play outside, the two areas opened up by the play). 

The other obvious play success was the use of sprint draw.  Sprint draw is essentially an isolation play with the advantage of getting the tailback the ball deeper in the backfield.  It takes advantage of OSU's strengths--namely a superior offensive line and good tailback play--and has been one of the Buckeyes' most successful plays this season.  Against Illinois, this play used Illinois' aggressive style against them, allowing the Illini blitzing linebackers to come up field so that OSU could run right past them.  (:49 second mark).  OSU took advantage of the point that it is not simply about "how many defenders are in the box," but the more specific question of where are they amassed.

Boom Herron's Return

Of course, the Ohio State's run game was immensely helped by Boom Herron's return.  From his very first run, Herron took the Ohio State run game to another level.  What Boom does so well is draw defenders into the hole and then bounce the play outside--something he used to do poorly.  (1:22 mark).  (As discussed earlier this year, this is what a tailback can do to negate additional run defenders).  He and Mike Adams' return demonstrate the impact that outstanding players can have upon a team's success.  Many of Herron's cutbacks were right behind Adams' blocks.  If Herron and Adams had been available, a game such as Michigan State may have come to a different outcome. 

Jordan Hall remains an effective complementary back to Herron.  Hall would benefit from the one thing Herron has picked up--which is bouncing plays outside.  Ironically, for a small frame, Hall is as wont to run through defenders.  However, he has great quickness in the hole and runs north and south.  (1:04).  Both Herron and Hall repeatedly made defenders miss in the hole, and represent OSU's two best offensive weapons.  

The Passing Game (or Lack Thereof)

Of course, the blithe takeaway from the OSU game was that OSU only complete one pass in four attempts.  The latter stat is misleading, however.  While OSU was without a doubt run heavy, numerous called passes did not turn into statistical attempts because of Miller's inexperience.  For example, OSU called two shovel passes during the game.  The example at the 2:00 mark demonstrates some of the issues.  The shovel pass was open.  But Miller failed to get enough depth and then panicked and ran the football.  The play ended up being a big gainer because Miller is a great athlete and continues to make plays with his legs.  But the point remains that the run/pass ratio was not as lopsided as a facile statistical glance may indicate.

Heading Forward

That does not mean, however, that OSU can have success against an opponent like Wisconsin with such little production with the passing game.   OSU is leaving easy passing yards on the field that a defense is yielding simply through formation and scheme. 

This is most glaring in the quick passing game.  Illinois' corners would generally use bail techniques to vacate and cover to allow the Illini safeties to be heavily involved in the run game. (:38 second mark). This leaves OSU the glaring ability to throw simple quick hitch patterns that would again constrain the defense (Bill Walsh always saw the 3-step game as a way to attack an overplaying defense) and get Braxton Miller in a rhythm.  As noted, OSU did try to take such steps but simply had poor execution.  I previously mentioned the shovel passes, but OSU also tried to run a fake zone read play and sneak Jake Stoneburner into the backside flat, but Miller did not pull the trigger on the play.  As to be expected, Miller is unsure with his footwork, and loses his focus downfield when faced with a pass rush. 

But OSU has to generate something out of the passing game (in addition to Miller's runs), if for no other reason then to constrain the defense.  Miller's touchdown pass to Stoneburner was perhaps his best throw this season, and gives the Buckeyes something to build on.   Miller has demonstrated he is most comfortable with the quick, underneath passing game, so use it.  Ohio State has correctly established their identity as a power run team. 

Ohio State was immensely helped by two turnovers in Illini territory.  A turnover like that could have changed the outcome against Michigan State or Nebraska.  The OSU offense will continue to need some help from the team's other two facets.  That does not mean, however, that OSU otherwise failed to move the ball.  Instead, OSU had two long drives, but those long drives only resulted in three points.  They have to convert such drives in to scores, and the way to do so is by using bootlegs, wide receiver screens, and the quick passing game to take pressure off the run game.