Ohio State v. Michigan State: Offensive Analysis

As they say, the show must go on.  Despite further suspensions, the Ohio State offense must persevere with who can play.  Unfortunately for OSU, the offense's performance against Michigan State reached a new low in a season full of poor performances.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  The Buckeyes are stuck in a vicious cycle.  The play calling fails to keep defenses off-balance, making it more difficult for the players to execute, and the lack of execution has apparently caused the coaches to put even less confidence into the play-calling.  But someone must be acceptable for breaking this cycle, and that ultimately falls upon the coaching staff.  The staff does not face an either/or choice.  Instead, the coaches can actually put more emphasis on the downhill run game if they simply made a few basic adjustments that constrained the defense and allowed that run game to thrive.  The coaches could significantly cut down the playbook, yet simultaneously force the defense to defend the entire field, simply by making plays "look alike."

Back to the Well:  The Constraint Theory

At this point it should be obvious to everyone that the Ohio State offense has limitations, most notably inexperienced quarterbacks and wide receivers.  But OSU undoubtedly left points on the field against Michigan State by failing to have any coordinated offensive approach.  It is too simplistic to say OSU must pass more on first down.  Indeed, given the lack of production from the passing game, it may be counter-productive.  Despite Michigan State's best efforts against the run game, Ohio State ran the ball fairly well against the Spartans.  OSU must therefore both rely upon its run game more and take pressure off its run game.  How can OSU do that?  Through the constraint theory of offense and making plays look alike. 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, an offense has a significant advantage over a defense.  It gets to dictate to the defense the play's direction, putting the defense in a reactive mode.  The offense maximizes this advantage by, in the words of the incomparable Homer Smith, making plays look alike:

Every primary backfield action needs to threaten all 11 defenders. What a primary play needs is good counter plays. Every defender needs to be worried about the ball coming to his area - on a throwback screen, a reverse, a play-action pass, or whatever - as a play begins.

What makes a defender good is something to read. If he can say to himself something like, "As soon as that quarterback makes that half-assed fake, I’m going to find the tightend coming across and try to get an interception," if he can read initially and react accurately, he can play over his head. Counters, not mirrored primary plays, keep defenders from reading and jumping on plays.

Chris Brown refers to this as the "constraint theory of football."  An offense must work as a structure.  Any time-tested offense is predicated around base plays that you, as an offense hang your hat on and can defeat any defense on paper.  But off those plays, a team must have "constraint" plays that punish a defense for cheating to stop your base plays.

The upshot is that a good offense must: (a) find those one or two things on which it will hang its hat on to beat any "honest" defense — think of core pass plays, options, and so on, but also (b) get good at all those little "constraint" plays which keep the defense playing honest. You won’t win any championships simply throwing the bubble screen, but the bubble will help keep you from losing games when the defense wants to crush your run game. Same goes for draws and screens if you’re a passing team. You find ways to do what you want and put your players in position to win and score.

Designing an offense is all about structure. Constraint plays, like the bubble, work when the defense gives you the play by their structure; same for play-action passes over the top. When I say these are defensive cheats, I mean they aren’t the base, whiteboard defenses you expect, because defenses — both players and coaches — adjust to take away what you do well. But you want to go to your core stuff, so you build your offense off of that, and each constraint play forces the defense back in line, right where you want them. That’s the beauty of football: punch, counterpunch.

This point applies to any successful offensive system, even though they may look different.  The wing-T; wishbone; run 'n' shoot, and air-raid all work because they have this punch-counterpunch built into the system.  The modern, pro-style offense is not a true system like a wing-T, but instead several "mini-systems" that likewise threaten a defense across the field off the initial action. 

Why Beat Your Head Against a Wall?

Unfortunately, time and again the Ohio State offensive coaching staff has forgotten this crucial tenet of offensive football.  Rather than run base plays, and then constraint plays when the defense overplays its hand, OSU's offense often time looks like a hodge podge of plays:  a few run concepts from I formation; a few pass concepts from shotgun.  It allows the defense to beat Homer Smith's number one rule.  This was painfully obvious all game long against Michigan State.  The OSU coaching staff essentially throw grease fire on a simmering flame.  Two small constraints could have made an enormous difference to giving Ohio State's offense an opportunity to string drives together. 

The first is quick bubble or slip screens to wide receiver.  Michigan State repeatedly refused to cover up OSU's inside slot receiver within ten yards of the play.  In such situations, this should be an automatic check.   It is an easy pass and easy yards that the defense is simply handing you.  By not taking advantage of it, you are simply allowing the defense to use an extra defensive back in run support.

Granted, the above play was 3d and 9, but it would have had a better chance for success then a speed option.  And the bigger point is again and again OSU left such opportunities on the field, both giving away immediate yards and allowing the defense to commit more defenders to run support.

The second is just running a simple naked bootleg.  From the I formation, the bootleg is essential to hold the backside contain players who are otherwise unblocked and can crash down to the play side.  Indeed, the zone read was originally developed as an advanced bootleg to hold the backside defense.  Otherwise, as Smith notes above, the offense has no way to hold the defense because the defense simply has more defenders then the offense has blockers--the Quarterback's counterpart.  

Unfortunately Ohio State has repeatedly forgot this basic offensive truism, and Michigan State punished them for it.  Michigan State's defensive ends crashed with impunity, making tackles in the backfield on otherwise successfully blocked plays.  

I repeat, you cannot run the ball offensively from the I formation if the opposing team is going to do this, because you have no other way to account for the backside DE.  What is even more concerning is that not only does Michigan State's DE crash down, but their cornerback also immediately attacks the run.  If Braxton Miller simply keeps the football, he would have an easy run/pass option with the backside wide receiver.

This should be a no-brainer for the Ohio State coaching staff.  Miller is an athlete.  What better way to get him to the edge then a naked bootleg--even if it is a called run.  In addition, it will shrink the field he has to read as a passer.  The coaching staff can easily give Miller a run/pass option.  On several plays against MSU, if OSU had simply called a naked boot keeper, Miller would still be running untouched.  If OSU calls 3-5 bootlegs a game, it will not only make things easier on Miller, but it will make it easier for OSU to run the ball 35 other times a game, because it will force the defense to remain honest.  Between these two simple constraint plays Ohio State literally left over one hundred yards on the field.

Execution Mishaps

These clear coaching deficiencies are compounded by on-field execution issues.  No better example is the offensive line.  The offensive linemen are good individually, and the run blocking remains this team's strength.  But they have repeatedly shown--first against Toledo, next against Michigan State--that they have difficulty understanding how to handle defensive 'games' up front such as stunting and twisting.  They experienced the same problem against Illinois last year, but Terrelle Pryor bailed them out.  There is no one to do that this year, so the results are amplified.  To me, the problem seems to be that though the line is zone blocking or conducting a half slide pass protection, they are overly concerned with blocking the man they are assigned to on the chalk board, thereby letting stunting defenders go right by them through their zone. 

Below, you see this protection in action. 

Michigan St. runs a simple twist with the Mike 'backer running a fire dog B gap, and the 5 technique twisting back inside.  Jack Mewhort and Mike Brewster both blow this protection, and it is all about communication and repetition.  Mewhort needs to recognize the twist is on, pick up the blitzing 'backer, and work with Brewster until Brewster can pick up the twist.  What instead happens is that Mewhort lets a blitzing linebacker run right by him that Brewster cannot get to, and then chases the twist around the line--precisely what you should not do.  In other words, the offensive line's problems are largely not an issue of talent, but of recognition and execution.

The wide receivers are facing similar issues.  Granted they are inexperienced, but they are running sloppy routes and failing to recognize coverage.  For example, the receivers' crossing routes are far too shallow, and they are getting caught up in the 'wash.'  They are then trying to settle down like they are playing against zone coverage, when it is actually man coverage. 

The upshot of this is that everyone else associated with Ohio State's offense are making things more difficult upon OSU's quarterbacks, neither of whom are capable of making up for others' mistakes.  I thought that Braxton Miller played ok.  About what I would expect from a freshman.  He missed some throws, he held onto the ball too long.  But he was pretty accurate when he did throw.  He does a nice job with short routes.  Too bad they hardly ever call them.  He is not going to win you any games right now like Pryor did.  But his legs could be a nice complement to a run focused, ball controlled offense, if they simply put him in a position to succeed, rather than expecting him to execute a five-step drop pass game on third and long.  But instead you get all the above problems compounded together on a single play, as you see below.

First, Ohio State's slot receiver is left uncovered.  This should be an automatic check to a slip screen and an easy pitch and catch.  Second, Michigan State's backside defenders crash down immediately on run action away, leaving an easy bootleg with twins wide receivers uncovered to the back side.  Third, Ohio State's offensive line does a poor job blocking an inside pinch.  Marcus Hall overreaches, and Mike Brewster does not try to get to the next gap, allowing Michigan State's 3 technique to split them and stop the play before it begins.

The Upshot

The Ohio State staff faces a clear choice.  If they continue to operate this way, Ohio State will remain one of the worst offenses in the country.  But if Ohio State simply ran 10 plays where they ran bootlegs and threw bubble screens to uncovered receivers, they could spend the other 50 plays running the football because the defense would not be allowed to cheat.  With Mike Adams returning, Ohio State retains a very dangerous run game, and the occasional addition of Braxton Miller having easy run pass option would allow OSU to potentially score enough points to win games.  Whether they can employ the constraint theory of offense, however, remains to be seen.