OSU v. Wisconsin: Defensive Analysis

Jim Heacock and company turned in one of their best performances in recent memory given the circumstances--and that is saying a lot considering all the exemplary Ohio State defensive efforts.  The Ohio State defense shut down a Wisconsin running game that generally runs roughshod over opposing defenses--including a more experienced OSU defense last year.  The OSU defense put on a clinic as to how to defend the zone run game.  It started with controlling the line of scrimmage, and continued to proper filling by the linebackers and secondary.  OSU did what they needed to do against a multi-faceted Wisconsin team, which was to shut down what Wisconsin wanted to do and force them out of their comfort zone.  

The Ohio State Gameplan

There is no doubt that Ohio State came out focused, first and foremost, on stopping the Wisconsin run game.  This was evidenced in subtle, yet unmistakable ways.  Ohio State continued to play their 4-2-5 nickel defense against Wisconsin's base 12 and 21 personnel.  In hindsight, this was a crucial decision, as Tyler Moeller's unique versatility allowed him to both take on tight ends and fill in the box, while simultaneously allowing Ohio State to easily react to Wisconsin's oft-used receiver motion to cover the inside receiver in the flat. 

Ohio State took another page from TCU's 4-2-5 base defense and played TCU's 'Tite-2' versus Wisconsin's base personnel.   

This was made possible by the versatility of the OSU defensive backfield, namely that they are all physical, capable tacklers.  In essence, Moeller and Barnett became interchangeable parts.  They each set themselves at the edge of the 'box' and played force to their side.  (See :13 and 1:17).  Simultaneously, they would widen out and play the No. 2 receiver if warranted, with the other becoming more committed to run support.  Depending upon alignment, Moeller would also come inside the tackles and play a traditional 'Sam linebacker under and over technique.

When Wisconsin would motion across the formation to twins or go with a tight wing, Moeller or Barnett would simply widen with No. 2, and then the cornerback would come into force support.  Bradley Roby, in particular, did a fantastic job taking on the lead blocker and forcing the tailback to run laterally.  (2:41).

As such, even though Ohio State had 5 'defensive backs' on the field, OSU actually played a more aggressive form of defense, bringing an eighth defender into run support and having quickly identifiable 'force' and 'spill' players to force zone runs to the sidelines.  (1:13 mark).  Ohio State was also quick to go to goal line fronts in short yardage situations.  (:42 seconds).  

Technique-wise, the OSU coaches had their inside linebackers and force players play downhill and fill holes far more aggressively then last year.  In the 2010 contest, OSU's Mike and Will linebackers were trying to read and flow to the hole.  This gave Wisconsin's offensive line time to get to the second level and distorted gap soundness, providing cutback lanes.  On Saturday, Ohio State had the OSU linebackers at the first sight of run action attack immediately downfield and fill their gap.  (:12 second mark).  Ohio State therefore had every gap covered, eliminating the cutback.  Ohio State's run-first focus did yield some weaknesses, particularly in the strong side flat, where Wisconsin completed several passes.  However, the key was that Ohio State took Wisconsin away from what Wisconsin sought to accomplish, slowing their offense down.

Winning Battles

Of course, none of this would have been possible without outstanding individual and team execution.  This starts up front.  The unsung hero was Garrett Goebel.  The noseguard repeatedly stalemated double teams, forcing Wisconsin's tailback to cut before wanting to and preventing Wisconsin's linemen from getting to the second level.  Of course, the other three defensive linemen's play was outstanding as well.  Jonathon Hankins has amazing lateral quickness for someone his size.  He would stalemate his defender, control his gap, and then spin off and get down the line to make plays.  (1:12 mark).  Johnny Simon and Adam Bellamy took advantage of the Wisconsin tackles' relatively weak pass blocking skills and bull rushed them backwards, forcing Russell Wilson to panic and flee the pocket. 

The Ohio State back seven also played their role.  I already singled out Moeller and Roby.  Andrew Sweat continued to play at an all big ten level.  He has a nice ability to fill his gap, and then come underneath the action to make tackles close to the line of scrimmage.  Perhaps more importantly, Storm Klein and Etienne Sabino have made vast improvements.  OSU's run defense was vulnerable earlier this year because those linebackers would overrun plays or be tentative in their reads.  This was not a problem against Wisconsin, as they adopted the aforementioned aggressive style and attacked downhill.  Sabino also did a very nice job setting the edge in short yardage, forcing Wisconsin's tailbacks to move laterally and allowing the defense to clean up.  Finally, C.J. Barnett is physical enough to play like another linebacker.  Barnett is a textbook tackler, and comes up and sticks ball carriers.  As such, Ohio State's defensive coaches are benefited by having a lot of versatile players that can take on various roles.  Such an effort against Wisconsin's zone run game is only possible when all eleven defenders successfully execute their responsibilities and tackle.

The Wisconsin Late Push

This outstanding effort against the Wisconsin run game, however, is somewhat marred by Wisconsin's late two touchdown barrage to briefly take the fourth quarter lead.  In my opinion, this was largely a result of suddenly having to switch gears and play a pass first, reactive style.  Wisconsin's first touchdown was set up by a third and 1 draw, where everyone should have known that Wisconsin would run the football, but yet OSU's linebackers immediately dropped into zone coverages, creating too much separation.  Similarly, on the last touchdown pass, OSU was playing a deep cover-2, and Wisconsin had the proper call versus cover-2--3 verticals.  Christian Bryant got stuck in a 2 v. 1 situation, where he had to make a choice.  Wilson gave a nice pump fake and drew Bryant to the middle, opening up a wide open touchdown. 

In other words, while there were unmistakable breakdowns, no long term conclusions can be drawn, other than the OSU defenders needed to grab better control of the situation.  It should not mar the unbelievable performance by the Ohio State defense for the vast majority of the game, and the clinic they put on defending the lead zone run game.  Ohio State has numerous defensive players currently playing at an all-conference level, making them an uncomfortable match-up for anyone they face the remainder of the year.