OSU v. Miami: Offensive Analysis

(Unfortunately, due to technical errors, my game analysis does not yet have video.  I will update with video

It does not take a second review to state that OSU's offensive performance was inadequate to win against Miami.  The second viewing did, however, demonstrate that OSU could have won this football game and simply left opportunities on the field.  OSU came out with an odd game plan, fell behind quickly, and simply shot themselves in the foot too many times with a non-existent passing game.  Frankly, it leaves one wondering if Jim Tressel's stubbornness as an offensive play caller that drove so many crazy would have been precisely what was called for on Saturday. 

Who Are You Fooling?

OSU's offense came out with a game plan that was, frankly, too cute by half.  Ohio State ran six plays on their first two series (both three and outs).  Miami played a very basic 4-3 under, 2 high shell to the field.  Ohio State ran all six plays from the shotgun.  The first offensive play was a lead outside zone that gained seven yards.  Over the next five plays, OSU threw four passes, with the only completion being a swing pass on third and six.  The only other run play was a outside zone read that Joe Bauserman kept--not likely to lead to many positive yards.  Here is the complete breakdown of OSU's first two series.

• 1st-10:  Shotgun twins left, split backs.  Outside zone.
• 2d-4:  Shotgun 10 personnel trips right.  Bubble screen.  Poor throw in the dirt.
• 3d-4:  Shotgun tight trips (illegal formation with the TE mistakenly covered).  All curl routes, Bauserman throw away.
  
• 1st-10:  Shotgun tight trips left.  "Dash pass"  (QB dropbacks, then delays roll out).  Flood route left.  Bauserman holds the ball too long, incomplete.
• 2d 10:  Shotgun empty.  RB 'rocket' motion outside zone read.  Bauserman keeps  3 yards.
• 3d-7:  Shotgun tight trips left.  Swing pass to Hall, Miami in cover-1 robber.  3 yard game.

Beginning with the third series, Ohio State went back to the I formation.  Miami continued to play a 2-high shell, and Ohio State successfully ran the ball down the field with Jordan Hall.  This begs the question--why did Ohio State try to outfox Miami by running plays that exposed OSU's weaknesses more than fooling Miami?  This rhetorical question has two levels.  First, Ohio State's plan is reminiscent of an Ohio State gameplan in previous years with Terrelle Pryor.  The Buckeyes would play generally straight up  throughout the season and then, in a game against a quality opponent like Wisconsin, would open by getting in the shotgun and featuring Pryor's legs.

Of course, Pryor was not walking through the door against Miami.  This Ohio State offense is far more limited, with a strong offensive line and run game, but weak at the QB and wide receiver position.  OSU single-handedly disarmed themselves by going away from their I formation run game to shotgun sets they could not execute--all without Miami demonstrating they could stop that run game (indeed the rest of the game demonstrated that Miami could not).  Further, without the Pryor run threat, the plays came across as a hodge-podge of gimmick plays with no common thread.  Trying to catch the opposing defense off-guard is of course desirable, but your team needs to be able to execute those plays.  Otherwise, you are simply holding back your own offense.  

Even more curious is why the coaching staff would open the game with these sequences with Joe Bauserman as Quarterback.  Many of these plays put a premium on a QB's legs, and Bauserman is not suited to fill this role.  For instance, the outside zone read play was open, but Bauserman is simply not quick enough to hit the hole.  

It begs the question why the OSU coaching staff would come out running these plays with Joe Bauserman if they have a quarterback, Braxton Miller, who can execute spread offensive plays.  One can speculate that perhaps the plan was to start Miller with this game plan, but the coaches backed away from Miller but kept the opening play call- -but this is  pure speculation.  This theory would at least give the coaching staff a justification for their opening game plan.  Otherwise, it can sadly be sad that the only people they were fooling were themselves.  

Jordan Hall and Missing Tresselball

Under this perverse logic, it of course makes sense that the Buckeyes put in Braxton Miller and then turned to their I-formation running game.

Once OSU based themselves primarily out of the I, Miami continued to feature the same 4-3 under, 2 high shell.  Importantly, Miami would always keep their Sam linebacker to the field.  OSU took advantage of this by putting their formation strength into the boundary and running straight downhill.  Jordan Hall took over and demonstrated his natural vision and quickness, and showed how much better a tailback with vision can make an offensive line look.  Hall was particularly effective on the inside lead zone play, where his quick instincts allowed him to make one cut and run north-south.  The running game was also aided by the return of Corey Linsley.  Linsley and Jack Mewhert bring an aggressive combination to the run game, and Linsley is far more effective at getting to the second level than Marcus Hall.  This downhill running game allowed Ohio State to sustain its two real drives of the game.

Unfortunately, OSU again held themselves back by turning to an ineffective passing game on first and second down, handicapping both drives  These pass plays would inevitably lead to incomplete passes, putting OSU in second and third and long holes. 

This is where Jim Tressel was missed.  Tressel had a 'unique' ability to stubbornly stick to the running game if it was working until the opposing defense stopped it.  In fact, Tressel would run the same play five or six times in a row until the defense stopped the play.  On Saturday, Miami never consistently stopped the OSU running game.  Yet OSU would repeatedly turn to an ineffective passing game to keep Miami off-balance, when Miami had not stopped the main act.

In addition, OSU drives were repeatedly handicapped by Jordan Hall coming in and out of the game.  Carlos Hyde played a nice game, showing increased patience and vision.  But Jordan Hall simply has to be on the field for OSU to have a chance.  They must get him in game shape and ready to get 25 carries. 

Unfortunately, Ohio State's finally began moving the ball when they were in a 14-0 hole.  Counter-factually, it would have been nice to see how OSU would have done if they had opened the game in the I formation with Jordan Hall starting and ran the ball downhill.  Even an opening drive with several first down's could have changed the game's complexion.

The Quarterback Position

Ultimately, the utter lack of productivity from the quarterback position made it very difficult for the OSU offense to succeed.  For starters, I believe it a misnomer to say that Joe Bauserman and Braxton Miller split time.  Bauserman received the vast majority of snaps until the game was out of reach.  Granted, Miller partially limited his snaps with his turnovers, but the OSU coaching staff demonstrated an extremely quick hook with Miller--for example pulling him after one play when there was a bobbled exchange between Miller and Jamaal Berry, even though it is unclear if Miller was at fault.  This is reflective of the season.  Bauserman has been the quarterback--Miller's appearances have mostly been a side show, akin to the coaches dipping their toes in the water and then quickly pulling back.

Unfortunately, Bauserman has been unable to fill even reasonable expectations, which is that he would be able to function as a game manager.  Instead, by going 2-14 with 13 yards passing Bauserman did not provide the Buckeyes any production from the QB position.  Bauserman's problem can effectively be boiled down to a lack of confidence in his ability to make throws.  Essentially, Bauserman is facing the following issues:

• Holding the ball too long and not hitting wide receivers on their breaks.
• Staring down one wide receiver.
• Throwing the fly route to avoid throwing across the middle.
• Throwing a non-catchable ball.  For instance, on several drops the wide receiver's job was made far more difficult by the lack of spiral.  Jake Stoneburner had difficulty not only because the throw was low and behind him, but Bauserman's arm angle was so low that he did not see the football until it was on him.  Verlon Reed was fooled by the ball's spin, thinking the throw would be high but because it was not a spiral it simply died. 
  

The lack of experience at wide receiver does not help matters, but wide receivers are largely superfluous if the quarterback cannot deliver the football.  The most that can be argued for Bauserman is that he has not turned the football over.  But at the extreme, anyone can avoid turnovers by simply taking a knee and turning the ball over on downs.  Bauserman is not far from that.  He is handing the ball off and then holding it and/or throwing it away when a pass play is called.  No defender is therefore going to respect the pass threat when he hands off.  If this is OSU's goal, then they would be better served by simply direct snapping the ball to Jordan Hall and putting in an additional offensive threat.

Starting Braxton Miller does not come without risk.  Most will point to the turnovers against Miami.  He is clearly not comfortable with the full Ohio State package.  To me, however, Miller has not been given an adequate chance to demonstrate he is capable of winning the position.  Instead, the odds have been stacked against him, with opportunities few and far between.  The current situation is therefore doing a disservice to both Miller and the Ohio State offense.  Frankly, no can can answer how Miller would react if the coaches told him the starting position was his, but it would seemingly lead to more confident play than the current situation where he is quickly yanked out of the game.

The Way Forward?

The Ohio State offense offense thus faces a crossroads.  The current situation with Joe Bauserman getting the majority of the snaps and Braxton Miller sprinkled in just enough is creating a disjointed offense.  In my personal opinion, Bauserman simply does not have the tools to produce productive plays against quality competition, and Miller's confidence is being hurt.  Miller, however raw he may be, at least offers the opportunity for OSU to get productive plays from both his legs and arm. 

To me, OSU needs to borrow a page from their '08 script with a freshman Terrelle Pryor.  This OSU has one advantage over the '08 squad, and that is a dominant offensive line.  They need to lean on it.  Start Miller, but play the majority of the game from the I-formation.  Run the lead inside zone, outside zone, and lead draw until the opposing team commits additional players to stop the run.  From there, Miller should primarily be used on play action bootlegs with flood route combinations, giving him two reads, with the third option being to run.  The coaches can occasionally mix-in the spread option read packages.  The run-pass breakdown should be around 70-30, with Miller having called pass plays approximately 15-20 times a game, with the expectation that he will run on 5-10 of those plays.  Ohio State does not need to reach far for an example game plan--they should instead follow a plan similar to that employed against Akron. 

By leaning on the run game, with constraint play action plays that keep things simple for Miller and give him an easy run option.  OSU can get at least some production out of the passing game, compared to the utter lack of production against Miami. In addition, one hopes that once put in this situation, Miller will relax versus the unenviable circumstances he has faced thus far.   As Lou Holtz once said, in college football an offense needs at least two of these three things to keep a defense honest:  the run game, option game, and pass game.  With Miller, so long as he is better with ball security, Ohio State at least gets the quarterback run threat that Holtz is referencing.

Finally, OSU needs to reduce its rotation at particular position and keep its playmakers on the field.  OSU does not have the luxury to rotate as it has in previous years because it is light on talent, particularly for the next two games.  Hall is an obvious example.  He needs to be on the field.  OSU continues to remove Jake Stoneburner far too often.  As noted last week, his presence forces the defense to account for him, even on run plays.  Devin Smith has the ability to get open deep, and should see more playing time.  Linsley should also be playing full time.  OSU needs to lock in place the people that can help this offense succeed going forward.