Football
By the Numbers
By Jeff AmeyWisconsin visited the Horseshoe this week and suffered a 31-13 loss to Ohio State this week despite controlling the ball for nearly three quarters of the game, more than doubling Ohio State's offensive output, and running more than double the number of plays than the Buckeyes. The Buckeyes scored three non-offensive touchdowns in the game (2 INT returns and a kickoff return) and dominated the Wisconsin offensive line with a front defensive seven that was relentless all game long.
The offensive statistics were...well...offensive this week. So let's get them out of the way so we can get to the discussion.
Run/Pass Breakdown
39 Total Plays--192 yards--4.9 ypp
13 pass (33%)--5/13 for 87 yards 1 TD 1 INT
26 runs (67%) for 105 yards--4.0 ypc
10 Offensive Possessions
Ave. of 3.9 plays--19.2 yards
Ave. start--OSU 25
First Down--17 plays (44%) for 121 yards
6 pass (35%)--2/6 for 39 yards
11 runs (65%) for 82 yards--7.5 ypc
Ave. gain of 7.1 yards
Second Down--12 plays (31%) for 12 yards
3 pass (25%)--1/3 for 6 yards
9 runs (75%) for 6 yards--0.7 ypc
Ave. of 8.8 yards to go
Ave. gain of 1.0 yards
Third Down--10 plays (26%) for 59 yards
4 pass (40%)--2/4 for 42 yards 1 TD 1 INT
6 runs (60%) for 17 yards--2.8 ypc
Ave. of 9.3 yards to go
Ave. gain of 5.9 yards
Conversions--3/10 (30%)
Playaction Passing
3/5 for 45 yards
First Downs Earned--7
3 by pass
4 by run
Formation Breakdown
Two back formations--4 plays (10%)
1 pass (25%)--0/1 for 0 yards
3 runs (75%) for 4 yards--1.3 ypc
Shotgun formations--33 plays (85%)
12 pass (36%)--5/12 for 87 yards 1 TD 1 INT
21 runs (64%) for 101 yards--4.8 ypc
One back formations--1 play (3%)
1 run (100%) for 1 yard--1.0 ypc
Victory formation--1 plays (3%)
1 run (100%) for -1 yard--(-1.0) ypc
RUN TYPE BREAKDOWN--26 attempts
Base/Iso-- 2 (8%) for 6 yards--3.0 ypc
Counter/Trap-- 2 (8%) for 30 yards--15.0 ypc
Cross/X-- 2 (8%) for 9 yards--4.5 ypc
Option-- 5 (19%) for 43 yards--8.6 ypc
Power-- 6 (23%) for 8 yards--1.3 ypc
QB run/scramble-- 4 (15%) for 0 yards--0.0 ypc
Stretch-- 2 (8%) for 2 yards--1.0 ypc
Sweep-- 2 (8%) for 8 yards--4.0 ypc
TEAM-- 1 (4%) for -1 yard--(-1.0) ypc
Other Stats of Note
~ 3 offensive penalties for 17 yards
~ OSU started on the Wisconsin side of the 50 one time--0 pts.
~ 1/1 in the red zone (FG)
~ 1 sack against and 1 turnover (INT)
~ 7/39 plays were on the Wisconsin side of the 50--(18%)
~ 18/39 plays went for no gain or loss--(46%)
~ Number of plays of 10+ yards--6
~ Number of 3 and out drives--6/10 (60%)
~ Wisconsin yards per play--4.1
~ OSU yards per play--4.9
~ Number of plays Wisconsin ran in a row before OSU got the ball in 3rd quarter--30
As good of a game as this was for the Ohio State defense, there was one player in particular I was impressed with on the Wisconsin side of the ball. Their QB Scott Tolzien played a pretty good game despite the two interceptions, especially when you consider the amount of pressure he was under on nearly every pass play. He stayed poised in the pocket with defenders flying around him, allowing him to exploit a few weaknesses in the defense on a given play. With most of their offense returning next season, the trip to Madison next year ought to be pretty interesting.
So here we are, back to complaining about the offense after a few of weeks of things looking up. Last week against Indiana was the best Terrelle Pryor has looked. Doom and gloom seem to have replaced the cautious optimism of the past couple of games. Were things as bad as they looked on Saturday?
My answer is "I don't think so". There is no denying that it was a very poor start for the offense this week. They ran 18 plays for 31 yards and one first down in their first five drives of the game. Pryor went 1/7 on those drives and threw a horrible interception. Before starting their sixth drive of the game, the Buckeyes were trailing 10-7. There's no glossing those kinds of statistics over.
On the bright side, the offense and Pryor seemed to respond to Wisconsin taking the lead with their best drive of the game, a 7 play, 88 yard (93 when you include penalty yards) drive that ended with Ohio State's lone offensive touchdown of the day. The offense followed that with another long drive on their first series of the second half (which came after 30 straight Wisconsin plays and two OSU return TD's) that ended in a field goal. After that, the offense was pretty much shut down.
Those two drives accounted for 83% of the total offensive output for the game. So what do we focus on, the 17% of the offense that came from the first 5 drives, or the 83% from the last two meaningful ones? There's no glossing over 18 plays for 31 yards, one first down and a turnover, but you can't totally ignore the next 14 plays that accounted for 160 yards and 10 points either.
Let's take a look at the position groups.
Quarterbacks
There isn't going to be much in this section that is going to surprise you, except for that I'm not going to be as hard on Pryor as much of Buckeye Nation seems to be this week. The bad start for the offense can be laid at his feet. He started one for his first seven and was unable to get going in the running game. On the other hand, when the Buckeyes had their two long scoring drives, Pryor was the main reason why the offense went. On the touchdown drive, he accounted for all 93 yards of offense.
Watching this game back, I found that my initial impressions of the early part of the game weren't accurate. I thought Pryor was under more pressure, but that wasn't the case. For the most part the blocking was good. I thought maybe Pryor held the ball too long, and while he did on a couple of those plays, it wasn't really the problem either. He also threw the ball with better mechanics than I thought he did as well. Yet, he looked terrible. What was the issue?
To me, it looked like Pryor had decided where he was going with the ball before it was snapped. I came away with the impression that perhaps the Badgers were baiting him into a few of his bad throws (including the INT) by pre-snap alignment. This is admittably more speculative than I try to be usually, but it's the impression I got after re-watching it.
After the 1/7 start, the next several passes that Pryor threw were from playaction. In fact, four of the last six of his passes were from playaction, of which he completed three. I think Pryor is most comfortable with passing from playaction, mainly because the pass rush gets there slower and the reads are easier, both things that Pryor struggles with.
I'm going to end this segment addressing one of the issues I've seen or heard concerning Pryor several times this season, and especially after a game where the offense struggles. I've been reading or hearing that it's time to "turn Pryor loose". Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? I'm assuming it's supposed to mean he should run the ball more, but what has anyone seen Pryor do running the ball that tells them that featuring him as a runner is the answer to the offensive woes? He is a dynamic runner, no doubt about that, but he's made almost as many questionable decisions running the ball as he has passing it, and his aversion to contact makes it seem a dubious solution at best.
As it is, 23 of Ohio State's 39 plays (24/40 if you include the intentional grounding call) in this game featured Pryor either passing or running the ball. That's nearly 60% of the time. How much more would be "turning him loose"?
Grade--D+ One good drive and another decent one can't make up for the first five when it comes to grading. I'm more interested to know how he would've finished the game had it been closer in the fourth quarter.
Running Backs
Other than a 31 yard run by Brandon Saine on Ohio State's first drive of the second half, the backs basically did next to nothing on the ground in this game. The next longest run by a back on the day was a seven yard run, also by Saine a few plays before that one.
Boom Herron's ankle injury has to be a concern as the Buckeyes continue into conference play. Luckily, the Buckeyes aren't facing great teams the next three games, so perhaps he'll be able to rest it for the stretch run against Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan.
Grade--C Not really a whole lot to grade here, but the backs looked no better than average.
Recievers
The Buckeyes only managed to complete five passes in the game, and the receivers ended up being mostly a non-factor. The bright spot was DeVier Posey's touchdown catch right before halftime that gave the Buckeyes the lead heading to the locker room.
There has been a lot of talk about the recievers not getting open this season, but I think that's a little overblown. Teams have been commiting a lot to the line of scrimmage to contain Pryor's running, which has left a lot of man coverages on the recievers. I thought Wisconsin did a pretty good job of mixing man and zone coverage looks (zone look but play man and vice versa) in this game, confusing Pryor's pre-snap reads.
Grade--Incomplete There just isn't enough to grade here.
Offensive Line
The offensive line has been catching a little heat this week, but I think if there is a group on offense that deserves a pass for the week it's this one. The offensive line has not been the problem for the offense this season. In fact, this is probably one of the best lines the Buckeyes have had since Tressel started at Ohio State.
The offensive line struggled a bit this week, especially in the running game, but I don't think anyone should've been surprised. It was widely noted that the Buckeyes were suffering from the flu this week, and no group was hit harder than the offensive line. After several of them had missed practice time in the week leading up to the game, was anyone really expecting them to come out and dominated the Badgers?
All in all, the pass blocking ended up being pretty good. Pryor wasn't significantly pressured on most of his throws. As previously stated, the run blocking was less than good, but this is where I think they deserve their pass.
Grade--B- Not good, but not bad either. The line certainly wasn't behind Pryor's struggles in the passing game.
Offensive Coaching/Gameplan
Anytime the offense struggles, the complaints start up that Tressel isn't very imaginative with his playcalling, or that he should hire a "real" offensive co-ordinator, or that the coaches aren't developing the players correctly, or a myriad of other things with the basic tenet being that the coaches aren't doing a very good job. I've been one of the complainers on many occasions. There is usually some level of validity to every one of those complaints.
I'm just not on the complaining bandwagon this season.
You can make the argument that Pryor isn't progressing like he should, but I would counter with "How should he be progressing"? I see progress. I see a QB that is planting his feet and stepping into his throws more often every week. His footwork is improving...slowly. We were all (me included) sucked in by the hype surrounding him. He's not a finished product, and we don't know if he'll ever be, but he's making progress.
I see a coaching staff that has scrapped what wasn't working in the first couple of games in favor of an offensive approach that does a better job of playing to the team's personnel strengths. There have been transitional pains, and I don't think the coaches entered this season with the idea of Pryor being such an important part of making the offense successful. There is an explosive offense in there somewhere, though. You get the feeling that if Pryor ever "gets it", things will improve in a big way.
As for the unimaginative playcalling, four of the 26 rushing attempts in this game were plays that we haven't seen Ohio State run this season, two of them I hadn't seen them ever run. One was the counter from the shotgun that went for 31 yards. They had run a similar play in earlier games except Pryor was the ball-carrier on those. There was a sweep/stretch play with a pulling center. It looked more like Minnesota's stretch play under Glen Mason. Finally, there was pretty simple play with an X (or cross) block between the guard and tackle. It didn't break for big yardage, but gained at least four both times they ran it.
You can argue about the sequencing and situational playcalling or even playcalling adjustments, and you won't get much of an argument from me there. I think those are some of the weaknesses of this offensive staff. But there is nothing wrong with the plays themselves. They just need to be executed better, especially by the quarterback.
Grade--B I wasn't upset about the playcalling at all. I think the coaches are doing their best to work around Pryor's weaknesses.
Defensive Coaching/Gameplan
The defense truly played an incredible game on Saturday considering they were on the field over 42 minutes including a stretch of 30 plays in a row spanning the end of the second quarter to near the end of the third. Despite being on the field for 89 plays, the Badgers gained only 362 yards (4.1 per play) and two sustained drives that ended in field goals. They managed to hold the Badgers when they got the ball at the OSU 11 yard line (though the special teams gave up a TD on a fake FG) and returned two interceptions for touchdowns in the game.
The defensive line set the tone for the day on the first play of the game, sacking Wisconsin QB Scott Tolzien and harrassing him on nearly every passing play afterwards. The Buckeyes finished the day with six sacks. Not only that, but the defensive front seven dominated the Wisconsin offensive line in the run game as well. The defensive line kept the linebackers clean all game long, and all three had a pretty big day, with Homan leading the team in tackles and Rolle up there as well.
Kurt Coleman and Jermale Hines both had huge plays to help the Buckeyes on a day where the offense was struggling, returning interceptions for touchdowns at crucial times in the game. The secondary didn't have a great game, but I think that had more to do with Tolzien staying poised under pressure and finding holes in the zones than bad play by the Buckeye secondary.
Grade--A- They did have a lot of trouble getting themselves off the field on third downs, but giving up 6 points against 89 plays makes up for that.
Special Teams
It was either good or bad for the special teams.
The good...Ray Small's kickoff return for a touchdown after Wisconsin had cut the lead to 8 in the third quarter. Coverage teams were good all game. Jon Thoma had a pretty decent day punting the ball yet again. Aaron Pettrey made all of his kicks this week.
The bad...A penalty on OSU's only good punt return. Giving up a touchdown to Wisconsin on a fake field goal.
Grade--B There is definitely more in the good column than the bad, but giving up the TD was inexcusable.
The schedule works out for the Buckeyes to get some good work for their offense in the next three weeks. Don't be surprised if Pryor looks better in the next three games, but struggles again when the Buckeyes travel to Penn State and Iowa comes calling. The offense is going to be a work in progress all season and patience is going to be hard to come by when we see struggling again. The key is going to be how Pryor progesses in the next three games, and if he can use that against the better teams at the end of the year.
Click here to email this the-Ozone feature to a friend...or even a foe.
Return to the-OZone Front Page
(c) 2009 The O-Zone, O-Zone Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, rebroadcast,rewritten, or redistributed.