Ohio State v. Purdue: Offensive Analysis

The 2011 Ohio State offense faces a classic chicken and egg problem.  Ohio State's offensive play calling is staid and puts the players in a poor position to execute.  But on the occasion that the OSU offensive coaches do break tendencies and call constrain plays, Ohio State cannot execute.  This combination has led to poor offensive performances throughout the year.  Nonetheless, the ultimate burden must fall upon the OSU coaches for failing to realize what the personnel does well, and instead falling back to a continual repetitiveness that prevents consistent performance.

Purdue:  Loading the Line of Scrimmage Ab Absurdum

Purdue's gameplan took loading the box to the logical extreme.  Purdue essentially played a 5-3 look, with a traditional 4-3 under mixed with 3 stacked linebackers.  Then, when Ohio State went to the unbalanced, TE covered looked with both wide receivers on the same side, Purdue simply walked their backside cornerback up to put a sixth person on the line of scrimmage.  Purdue also made a point of putting their best defensive linemen over True Freshman Antonio Underwood and gave him a two-way go.  Underwood was never able to block him until he was mercifully pulled right before the second half.  On passing downs, Purdue would bring overload blitzes and play tight man coverage.  Braxton Miller had difficulty delivering in the face of unblocked rushers, and OSU's wide receivers rarely got open versus such coverage. Unfortunately, while Miller is a great runner he does not currently have the knack for scrambling on passing downs when things break down.  He waits too long in the pocket and steps straight into the rush.  Teams are thus able to bring blitz pressure with impunity.

The OSU Gameplan (Or Lack Thereof)

The result was that the OSU run game never had a chance to develop.  Ohio State's offense was unable to even gain a first down for its first three possessions, putting its defense in a poor position and falling behind 10-0.  Part of the issue was that Underwood was not prepared to play, leaving a hole in the offensive line.  The other aspect, however, is that Purdue simply had too many numbers to block.  In addition to the 8 and 9 man fronts above, Purdue had their safeties immediately playing run action.  The result was that whenever Zach Boren hit the hole to lead block, Purdue would have 2 or 3 unblocked bodies still unaccounted for.  OSU was forced away from their lead run game, and simply did not have a response.

OSU did occasionally try to counter Purdue's downhill onslaught.  The problem is that Ohio State is very inconsistent in deploying such plays, largely from Braxton Miller's inconsistency.  For example, in the fourth quarter, OSU called a delayed screen to Jordan Hall, which was open.  But Miller panicked and scrambled.   In overtime, OSU tried the same Tight end throwback screen to Jake Stoneburner that worked successfully against Nebraska.  Miller did not pull the trigger, however, and instead held the ball and was sacked.  Miller at times also had difficulty completing the short outs.

The Coaching Letdown

That is not to absolve the coaching staff of responsibility.  Instead, I feel the lack of offensive performance ultimately falls in their lap.  Most importantly, the Buckeyes essentially sacrificed first down.  Even in the second half, where OSU had sporadic success moving the football, OSU had very little first down production.  OSU would get in one of two first down formations:  a direct snap look (I refuse to call it Wildcat, because that refers to a very specific series), or the Tight end covered, unbalanced formation I referenced earlier.  OSU never threw from either formation, and very rarely had a 'successful' play; that being a gain of at least 4 yards.  The tight end covered formation, in particular, was simply a strategic giveaway to the defense.  OSU did not add an additional blocker at the point of attack, while simultaneously reducing the potential vertical passing threats, allowing Purdue to simply add an additional defender (or two) into the box.  The upshot is that OSU used a down to gain very little, putting themselves behind the chains.  Ohio State would then try the constraint plays described above on second and ten.  But why not do so on first down, where you then have a down where you can still run the football before you are in a must pass situation?

The other disappointment is that the coaching staff continually fails to put Braxton Miller in a position where he can succeed.  As a freshman, Miller is simply lost trying to run a dropback passing game from under center.  His timing and footwork are poor and he does not look comfortable.  He does a bit better with a quick passing game from the shotgun, but every good throw Braxton has made this year is when he is scrambling or on the move.  For example, the best throws he had against Purdue were the fake zone read roll out to Evan Spencer, the last minute touchdown throw over Jordan Hall's back shoulder, and the overtime through to Ty Williams. 

One wonders, then, why OSU does not get Miller on the move more often, even if it simply a sprint out?  In addition, one wonders what happen to the loaded pistol formation that worked so well against Wisconsin?  From that formation OSU could run all their lead plays while still getting Miller in the shotgun and giving him some mobility.  One would expect that the Ohio State staff would expand upon that package--for example one easy way to do it would be to use Zach Boren as a decoy and run speed option away, as well as add a lead option to Boren's playside--since that has been by far OSU's most successful offensive performance.  Instead, we have not seen that formation once the last two weeks.  Throughout the Tressel tenure, the gameplanning in terms of formation changes from week to week has always been jarring, and last week was no exception.  Why did OSU suddenly decide to use a unbalanced tight-end covered formation a majority of the snaps?  The result of having no bread and butter to fall back upon is that there is simply nothing for the coaches or players to build upon.  That leads to the results we saw last Saturday.