I have a dream.
"Even with the best of intentions, however, we still must be willing to look at what we could do better." Jim Tressel
I have been a regular reader of BP (and the o-zone.net) for about seven years. I have been reluctant to participate in the forums because my passion for Buckeye football is so intense that I'm fearful that once I start posting, I may not be able to control my urge to be continually engaged. However, I can no longer hold it in and feel compelled to encourage constructive discussion of Coach Tressel's handling of tOSU offense.
I may not know as much about X's and O's as Grad, I certainly don't know Buckeye history like BB73, or recruiting like Wade, or statistics like DBB, I'm probably not as smart as Jeff, and I'm definitely not as funny as Kyle, but, as a husband, father, teacher and coach for over 20 years, I know something about looking at what I can do better.
Before I even start my rant, I want to thank Clarity and the others who had, and continue to have, a vision for developing and maintaining a productive community for supporters of Buckeye athletics. The mods are to be commended for their persistent effort to keep this site focused on the positive.
Permit me to make it clear at the outset that Coach Tressel stands out as one of my heroes. He gives every indication of a man who stands by his principles. He is a coach and teacher who cares about integrity and I especially admire his patience. Indeed, there is no one else I would want to run the program.
Still, I'm discouraged. I recall something he said during the presser after the Bucks got whipped by Iowa in 2004. Coach said that the game of football has changed dramatically in the last five years. The fact that he identified the dynamic nature of the sport led me to believe that he would prepare to grow with the changes he and his staff perceived.
As defenses have become more sophisticated, we have witnessed many coaches modify their offensive philosophy as well. And, for example, while I don't expect Coach Tressel to totally abandon the power running game and run a read-option offense, I do expect the coaching staff to implement a package that yields better results than what we've seen. As a math teacher, I know you can prove just about anything you want with statistics. However, there's no disguising the fact that even with the superior athletes the Buckeyes typically have, their total offense is typically below the norm.
Jim Tressel regularly refers to himself as a teacher--and rightly so. However, as I know personally, we teachers often teach the way we were taught. Indeed, Tressel's approach is more "tight" as Coach Earle Bruce would say and this can be a very good thing when you are an elite team in the Big Ten. A stingy defense, superb special teams and a conservative offense is a good recipe for beating most teams that Ohio State plays. But while this game plan nearly ensures that tOSU will not lose to a Stanford or Appy State, how often will it garner a win against a USC or Florida?
To be sure, the glass is certainly half-full. Winning your conference and beating your rival is most important. Admittedly, we Buckeye fans are currently spoiled. However, if Coach Tressel is to maintain his integrity based on his own stated principles, he is obligated to continually investigate ways to improve.
I can certainly relate. As a chaulk-and-chaulkboard type of guy who teaches the way he was taught, I have been slow to embrace technology. And though I teach content (geometry) that is older than Jesus, I have found that proper use of innovation can make me a more effective teacher. In the same way, I am simply suggesting that Coach Tressel re-evaluate his game plan on offense in the light of modern advancements.
Unlike other recent losses to Top 5 teams, the loss to USC still stings because I?m not convinced the better team of football players won. We can complain about execution, bad calls, or the fact that TP is only a sophomore, but the bottom line is that, on offense, the Buckeyes did not have an effective game plan. And if Coach Tressel believes what he preaches, then he would agree with this assessment. Consider his own words: "Remember, the fact that you didn't achieve the desired outcome doesn't mean that you are a failure. It simply means that the plan you had in place didn't work, so you have to get better."
Coach Tressel is most definitely not a failure, but his game plan on offense in big games has typically been a failure. The plan he had in place did not work. Coach Tressel says we should "never makes excuses for one's own shortcomings." And the coach is certainly entitled to lament mistakes in execution by his players, but, ultimately, when your team continually wins the field position battle, the coaches need to devise a game plan that scores more points.
So, is my lengthy post just my way of venting? Perhaps. But, I would like my contribution to serve a purpose. I want to encourage thoughtful discourse on how Coach Tressel and his staff should approach change. Now, if the results in big games have been acceptable to you within the context of overall success, or you think that Coach can do no wrong, then you probably should refrain from entering this discussion.
Take off the scarlet glasses. I want to know. What do you think Coach Tressel should do about his game plan on offense? Furthermore, I would like to work under the premise that firing Coach Tressel or Coach Bollman is unacceptable. Such talk is silly and counter-productive.
I am thinking that any measurable change will be incremental, but more than just a tweak is necessary. Let's presuppose that change is possible. Where does it start? What does it look like? I am looking for thoughtful, constructive responses that facilitate useful discussion. From a coaching standpoint, what kind of change is realistic and advisable?
Coach Tressel quoted C. S. Lewis this week. Well, Prof. Lewis also said, "You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream." I dream of a dominant defense and a dominant offense. Are the two mutually exclusive? I would like to think they are not.
