OSU v. Wisconsin: Offensive Analysis

An Ohio State offense that has at times been so anemic this season found life Saturday to score 33 points against the favored Wisconsin Badgers.  While the OSU coaching staff's offensive play calling has rightly been criticized this year, such criticisms regarding this contest largely miss the mark.  Ohio State came out with a game plan that had some nice wrinkles based upon what they see as their identity--namely the inside run game with Braxton Miller's legs as a change of pace.  More importantly, it is hard to criticize the results, as OSU not only scored 33 points but consistently made first downs nearly every possession, controlling time of possession and field position. 

The Wisconsin Gameplan

Wisconsin, not surprisingly, came out focused on stopping the Ohio State run game.  Against OSU's 2-back strong pistol look, Wisconsin largely played a 4-3 stack, cover 4 defense.  Cover 4 allowed Wisconsin to get both of their safeties involved in run support, giving the defense nine men to play the run.  That is because, while cover 4 looks like two deep safeties, those safeties are aggressively playing downhill.  At the snap, if the safety does not see the No. 2 receiver release and sees run action come towards him, he will become the force player.   The backside safety will then play the cutback and fill.  (See the :06 mark below--as a side note, you'll note on that play that Jack Mewhort got the play wrong and the guards pulled in to each other on the counter trey.  Boom Herron nevertheless gained 12 yards.  Perhaps that just foreshadowed the type of game that would be.).

 

When Ohio State went to the I formation, Wisconsin would walk the safety up and play a 4-3 under cover 3 (as a side note, it is interesting they treated the two looks differently because, for all intents and purposes, they present the same personnel and threats to a defense).  Finally, when OSU began going two tight ends in the fourth quarter, Wisconsin would bring both a safety and corner into force support, creating a nine-man box. 

The Ohio State Response

Ohio State came out with a mixed gameplan, throwing far more frequently and on earlier downs then they have previously shown.  Ohio State had called pass plays on two of their first four first downs, and six of their first thirteen plays.  For better and worse, these plays demonstrated some of the limitations inherent in the OSU passing game.  Two of the pass plays resulted in clear drops.  Two more resulted in sacks where Braxton Miller scrambled too quickly.  However, it also resulted in several first downs, made possible both by Miller's arm and extremely quick feet.  (:36 mark).  

More encouraging than simple run/pass balance, however, was the play calling within those metrics.  OSU demonstrated several important improvements on previous weeks.  The OSU passing game did a far better job running mid-range timing routes.  In particular, OSU had a lot of success with double slant plays underneath the soft cover-4 corner.  The flat defender would take the inside slant, leaving Corey Brown open behind.  In the run game, OSU came out showing several zone read concepts they have not previously shown this year, such as inverted veer.  Unfortunately, OSU did not have much success with these concepts, both because Wisconsin did not remove a linebacker from the box even though OSU spread out an additional offender, and because Miller made several mis-reads as to when to give and when to keep. 

Perhaps most important for Ohio State was running counter trey from the weak-I pistol formation.  OSU has run a smattering of counter trey this year, but never on a sustained basis.  From the pistol, because of the timing it became a mix of 'Dave' and counter trey.  Zach Boren would line up away from the play side, and Boom Herron would take a false step and then take the hand-off from Braxton Miller's reverse pivot.   The result was a quicker hitting play then counter-trey from the I, but yet the counter action held up the Wisconsin linebackers and safeties just enough to create creases in the defense.  In addition, by setting Boren to the weakside, it forced Wisconsin to play balanced and be prepared for lead zone.  (2:56 mark above).  I have always called for more counter-trey then 'Dave,' as I feel it provides that split second separation that sets up the down blocks, but from the pistol it gives you the best of both worlds with the quick hitting nature. 

Buttoning Down

The ironic point is that Ohio State ran more in the second half yet scored thirty points.  Part of this can simply be attributed to Braxton Miller's feet.  As I have previously noted, Miller's running ability in some way functions exactly like the pass game and takes pressure off the inside run game.  It punishes a defense for focusing too heavily on the inside run game.  To wit, Miller's easy speed option 44 yard touchdown was made possible by Wisconsin overplaying the run.  In the clip (at 3:14 above) you will see that OSU was in tight trips personnel.  Wisconsin sought to keep 9 defenders in run support, so they walked their backside safety and corner out on the receivers, leaving no backside help.  Once Miller was able to get to the second level he was off to the races.  In other words, that play was made possible by an overcommitment to the run game, just as a play action post pass would be.  

That being said, OSU likely made things more difficult upon themselves then need be once they got the lead.  In particular, I would nit-pick that where they settled for the field goal they could have helped themselves by throwing on first or second down against nine man fronts.  And they continue to leave yards on the field by not running more bootlegs (especially from the pistol) and not punishing teams that leave slot receivers uncovered.  They are not going to be able to run zone-read concepts well until they do so. 

That being said, the scheme took a cohesive step forward by identifying what they want to do, and then building wrinkles within it.  This team should be able to win if they score 33 points.  More importantly, OSU consistently gained first downs.  Urban Meyer said that an offense's first goal every series should be two first downs.  It gives the defense a chance to rest and flips the field.  If an offense strings three and outs together it becomes the equivalent to a turnover.  Against Wisconsin, OSU only had two three and outs--to run out the clock to end the first half, and before Wisconsin's last touchdown drive (and we saw the results).  With this defense and special teams, that means that Ohio State was successful on offense all game long.  It was not perfect, but it was a cohesive offensive performance. 

Blocking and Running

Such an overwhelming running performance, however, would not be possible without a fantastic effort from Ohio State's offensive line, tight ends, and Zach Boren.  Three examples will suffice.  The first is Boom Herron's 57 yard run.  (1:27 mark).  The right side of the offensive line was picture perfect.  Mike Brewster and Jack Mewhort locked up their men and established position.  J.B. Shugarts was fantastic on the play; first comboing with Mewhort, and then coming around the block to pick up the linebacker who was sitting in the hole and pancaking him, giving Herron the necessary crease.  

The second example was Miller's speed option touchdown.  Here it was Mike Adams and Jake Stoneburner.  Adams collapsed down and pancaked the defense end.  Stoneburner got two blocks, coming off and sealing off the force safety down field.  The third example is at the 2:56 mark.  This is a picture perfect example of how iso plays should work.  Brewster and Mewhort combo the nose straight back into the backside linebacker.  Zach Boren then pancakes Borland right in the hole, creating a huge seam.  The upshot is that Ohio State has stellar offensive line and fullback play, allowing Ohio State to run the ball even when the other team know it was coming.  

The offensive line is in turn supplemented by Boom Herron.  I cannot believe I am writing this, but Herron actually left yards on the field Saturday by being too patient and not simply running north-south.  Two years ago that was unthinkable.  Herron has become an extremely patient, bounce outside runner, who now needs just trust his instincts when to bounce and when to run vertically.

Finally, a word on Braxton Miller.  As noted, he made some mistakes (though he was not helped by his wide receivers).  But his feet in the hole may be the level of an NFL running back.  There were countless plays on Saturday were he left experienced Big Ten players grasping for air.  You can continue to see that he grows in confidence, perhaps best demonstrated by his game winning touchdown.  If Ohio State's offense can stick to their identity but continue to build constraint plays off of that, Ohio State will be a tough out the remaining of the season.