2009 tOSU Offense Discussion

[matcar]

I agree with alot you're saying but JT would quit before handing over the reigns to someone. It's not worth it to him.

I'm sure you're correct. Either the offense will improve or he won't want to be around all that long anyway.

 

[unionfutura]

I have heard this and read this before and I always end up asking myself why? Why would JT quit before handing over OC duties to someone else?

Because we're not talking about a guy who won 2 or 3 games and had a bad year, we're talking about a guy who was won a NC, been in two more, won many B10 titles, and has completely dominated our chief rival. He has a winning philosophy that has been proven over many years and at different levels, in his mind the mistakes that the team is making are correctable enough to win, even if Pryor isn't as good as we all hoped (and he hoped) that he would be.

To get to this level of success you need to be confident and proud, the downside of pride is your the last person in the room to realize your wrong. (Case in point Bobby Bowden)

 

[lvbuckeye]

i think that a large part of the problem is the way in which the plays are called. i think it goes without saying that Tressel takes an extremely meticulous approach to the game. he charts EVERY play. EVERY down and distance. then, upon seeing down and distance within the course of the game, he checks his chart and calls a play based on what has worked from that same down and distance before. on its face, this is not a bad approach. it DOES make getting the next play in a race against the clock, since there are certain choices to make regarding the next play, whether you want it to be a run or pass or what have you... so that is definitely a potential negative. the much larger potential negative is looming.

the thing is, merely looking at a chart of past play success rates doesn't even begin to tell the story as to why a certain play was more or less successful in the past. because those charts are just telling you how many yards a certain play gained. it it doesn't tell you ANYTHING about how the defense was lined up, whether they blitzed or dropped guys back, whether they were manned up or in a zone. whether the defender fell down, or missed the tackle completely, whether the back spun out of a tackle in the backfield, whether Morgan Trent was in "pass coverage," ANYTHING. it just says "on x down and distance, y play will get you z number of yards." i don't think that football works that way. i've never heard of anyone else ever calling plays in this fashion either... if they do, i would like to know.

i also think that this method of calling plays interrupts the flow of the game for the players, and is a huge factor in the number of false starts we have. the only time this team looks in sync is when they are in the 2 minute drill. part of it is the team doesn't have time to think, and part of it is Tressel doesn't have time to consult his little chart.

i've been mulling something over, sometimes even unconsciously ever since i read that talk that Tressel gave to the young coaches where he broke down Dave. he said that "when we ran Dave x number of times in a season, we generally had a good season," as if running a certain play a certain number of times dictates on field success. i would counter that when a team kicks 85 extra points in a season, they generally have a pretty good year too. in short, i think there's a fundamental flaw in thinking you were successful because you ran a play x number of times; or to think that x play will get you y yards this time simply because it did so in some other game a few weeks or months ago. it's like the "punt on 1st down to win" theory or the "go offsides on D every time inside the 5 because the potential loss for the O to move back based on a false start is greater than it's going to hurt you moving half a yard closer to the goal line. it's a logically flawed approach. fun to talk about in bars, but not so successful in real life... i'm rambling.

so, where do we go from here?

i would really, REALLY REALLY like to see the first 12 or 15 plays scripted. 1) to get the team into the flow of the game, 2) to help eliminate the costly delay and false start penalties, 3) to see how the defense will react to those plays and formations, and 4) to give the staff an idea of how to adjust to take advantage of how the defense responds...

that's just my $.02...

 

[buckeyes_rock]

i would really, REALLY REALLY like to see the first 12 or 15 plays scripted. 1) to get the team into the flow of the game, 2) to help eliminate the costly delay and false start penalties, 3) to see how the defense will react to those plays and formations, and 4) to give the staff an idea of how to adjust to take advantage of how the defense responds...

that's just my $.02...

So like many of you, I went back and watched the majority of the first half. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think the play calling was bad in the beginning of this game. There were opportunities...they just didn't execute. And I know that's been said alot, but we had some decent play calls. They actually tried to run a WR screen to Ray. Not good execution. If you watch the first few drives, it was just one of those games where the Bucks just couldn't complete the play when they needed to to stay on the field.

After several stalled drives and a couple fumbles and then compounded by the PU scoring drive to start the second half...it looked like our young squad just panicked. That shouldn't happen, and IMO, I think the coaches could've made things a little easier for TP at that point by trying to give him some short easier pass plays mixed with some runs. But what happened, happened. And young teams can lose composure especially if there isn't a vocal, emotional leader on the O.

So based on the TP interview I just watched on the Ozone, I think the kid has his head on straight. It sounds like he knows he lost composure a little and that he knows he has to be the leader and lead by example. So hopefully, as he said, the pressure is off and he can relax and play within himself the rest of the season.

For some reason, I now feel alot better about where this offense is headed. I think they'll be ok.

Go Bucks and as always...It's a great day to be a Buckeye!:osu:

 

[Onebuckfan]

Bill Walsh was hailed as a genius,,he had Roger Craig < John Taylor< Brent Jones ohh who else Jerry Rice and Joe Montana. Great players and great execution make a play caller a genius. Poor execution makes your OC look like a knucklehead.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

i think that a large part of the problem is the way in which the plays are called. i think it goes without saying that Tressel takes an extremely meticulous approach to the game. he charts EVERY play. EVERY down and distance. then, upon seeing down and distance within the course of the game, he checks his chart and calls a play based on what has worked from that same down and distance before. on its face, this is not a bad approach. it DOES make getting the next play in a race against the clock, since there are certain choices to make regarding the next play, whether you want it to be a run or pass or what have you... so that is definitely a potential negative. the much larger potential negative is looming.

Doesn't this give credence to the theory that his offense is predictable? How hard would it be for Iowa to make a chart of the Ohio State play calls after seeing 10 games?

 

[CalvinistBuck]

Because we're not talking about a guy who won 2 or 3 games and had a bad year, we're talking about a guy who was won a NC, been in two more, won many B10 titles, and has completely dominated our chief rival. He has a winning philosophy that has been proven over many years and at different levels, in his mind the mistakes that the team is making are correctable enough to win, even if Pryor isn't as good as we all hoped (and he hoped) that he would be.

To get to this level of success you need to be confident and proud, the downside of pride is your the last person in the room to realize your wrong. (Case in point Bobby Bowden)

Whether you agree with unionfutura or not, he has made a compelling observation.

As far as handing off OC duties, JT has addressed this in pressers. When asked about delegating the playcalling, his response was, "What would I do?" I recall reading (assuming the reporting was accurate) that Coach Bruce was asked likewise, and he responded something like, "You might as well go behind the bench and smoke cigarettes." JT is a hands-on guy with his QB and the offense--and that will never change.

To use Earle Bruce terminology, JT runs a "tight" offense. It is well documented that JT measures risk carefully, attempting to win the field position battle, limit mistakes and win the turnover margin. It is an approach that has yielded phenomenal success. Why should he change?

JT's approach on offense typically has a power running game at its base. It's what he knows. Posters can talk all they want about JT "opening the playbook," but his philosophy has always stayed the same. No one should be surprised if a Tressel offense particularly suffers when the running game is not productive.

Previously, when the receiver sets changed, the overall approach never did. When Troy Smith secured the starting position at QB, Coach Tressel and some of his staff met with coaches who utilized a mobile QB in an effort to learn ways to maximize production on offense. As we witnessed, TS was a backyard QB (with some extraordinary WRs) that was able to thrive in JT's system. However, the playbook may have expanded, but the philosophy remained the same.

Throughout RichRod's dreadful (joyful?) first season reporters dogged him about employing a system that would utilize the skills of the players he currently had. His response was that this (spread-option) offense was the only one he knew how to run. To a similar extent, JT is also running what he knows best.

The question now is whether this approach is still viable. Some time has passed and it's fair game to ask if the win against Miami was an anomaly. After the beatdown at Iowa in 2005, JT said in the postgame presser that the game of football has changed dramatically in the last 3-5 years. It is a fair question to ask if JT has changed along with the developments that he has observed.

Someone raised a fair objection, asking about Saban at Alabama. He, too, seems to rely on the power running game and not on the arm of an expert passer. Well, if he can continue to recruit elite O-linemen and a few good running backs, I suppose he will continue to have predictable success on a regular basis. But will his offense be able to keep pace with UF or even Utah? If beating Auburn and winning the SEC East is enough, then he has arrived.

To be sure, fans of tOSU football are spoiled. Without reservation, Buckeye fans should be immeasurably thankful that the Vest came to Columbus. Nonetheless, Coach Tressel is at a crossroads. The offense is broken. Last season, tOSU had a power running game and TP wasn't asked to do too much. Now, with a young O-line, less experience at WR, and the departure of CW to the NFL, TP is being asked to do a lot more. Coach Tressel knows what's wrong. The question is whether or not he can fix it.

 

[BuckNut65]

Everyone wants to blame the play-calling or coaching or this or that but the bottom line is if you don't have 11 guys executing a play it is bound to fail. That is the number one underlying reason why this offense does not produce! It seems that we constantly have one or two players failing to execute an assignment. I think it accounts for the perceived lack of imagination or conservatism with the offense. If you can't execute the basic plays in your offense how can you instill a more complex one?
We can all see the issues here whether it is QB play or line play, etc. There is a tremendous amount of youth on that side of the ball so it should earn some patience. What I find disconcerting is that the poor execution continues game in and game out and that is on the coaching staff. Until that gets resolved the inconsistent play will continue.

 

[Poe McKnoe]

Everyone wants to blame the play-calling or coaching or this or that but the bottom line is if you don't have 11 guys executing a play it is bound to fail. That is the number one underlying reason why this offense does not produce! It seems that we constantly have one or two players failing to execute an assignment. I think it accounts for the perceived lack of imagination or conservatism with the offense. If you can't execute the basic plays in your offense how can you instill a more complex one?
We can all see the issues here whether it is QB play or line play, etc. There is a tremendous amount of youth on that side of the ball so it should earn some patience. What I find disconcerting is that the poor execution continues game in and game out and that is on the coaching staff. Until that gets resolved the inconsistent play will continue.

To me, execution and playcalling go hand in hand. If the players execute, the playcalling looks good. If the playcalling makes the play easier, it's easier to execute. It's the relationship between both that really confuses people.

People (ok, most people) wouldn't complain if Jim Tressel called pulled the guard every down for 4 yards gains. Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, TD on Dave. Troy Smith made Jim Tressel look like a genius, but even he struggled (Purdue 04, Penn State 05). 1 player (and 1.5 years) out of 9 seems like the outlier more than the median.

I don't care if Jim Tressel calls plays or not. Sure, I'd like to see what someone else can do, but what he does need is an offensive coordinator that can COORDINATE the offense. Tressel can script all the plays he want and call whatever he wants as long as someone helps these kids execute. The staff needs to work on getting plays in faster and they even admitted they needed to be more situational. On top of that...

How many screens have we executed?
How many draws have we executed?
How many trick plays have we executed?
How many games have the lines failed to execute?
Is it the best idea to let the world know that Pryor can only audible to a run a play (you'll have to fact check me on this one)?

Execution struggles on the most basic plays.

That's why I think a certain position coach needs to step back and take a seat. While the players may like him, I can't say either the offense or offensive line are any good.

And if that doesn't work, then we know the answer to the question. Execution is key. It's how they get there is the question.

 

[unionfutura]

Whether you agree with unionfutura or not, he has made a compelling observation.

As far as handing off OC duties, JT has addressed this in pressers. When asked about delegating the playcalling, his response was, "What would I do?" I recall reading (assuming the reporting was accurate) that Coach Bruce was asked likewise, and he responded something like, "You might as well go behind the bench and smoke cigarettes." JT is a hands-on guy with his QB and the offense--and that will never change.

To use Earle Bruce terminology, JT runs a "tight" offense. It is well documented that JT measures risk carefully, attempting to win the field position battle, limit mistakes and win the turnover margin. It is an approach that has yielded phenomenal success. Why should he change?

JT's approach on offense typically has a power running game at its base. It's what he knows. Posters can talk all they want about JT "opening the playbook," but his philosophy has always stayed the same. No one should be surprised if a Tressel offense particularly suffers when the running game is not productive.

Previously, when the receiver sets changed, the overall approach never did. When Troy Smith secured the starting position at QB, Coach Tressel and some of his staff met with coaches who utilized a mobile QB in an effort to learn ways to maximize production on offense. As we witnessed, TS was a backyard QB (with some extraordinary WRs) that was able to thrive in JT's system. However, the playbook may have expanded, but the philosophy remained the same.

Throughout RichRod's dreadful (joyful?) first season reporters dogged him about employing a system that would utilize the skills of the players he currently had. His response was that this (spread-option) offense was the only one he knew how to run. To a similar extent, JT is also running what he knows best.

The question now is whether this approach is still viable. Some time has passed and it's fair game to ask if the win against Miami was an anomaly. After the beatdown at Iowa in 2005, JT said in the postgame presser that the game of football has changed dramatically in the last 3-5 years. It is a fair question to ask if JT has changed along with the developments that he has observed.

Someone raised a fair objection, asking about Saban at Alabama. He, too, seems to rely on the power running game and not on the arm of an expert passer. Well, if he can continue to recruit elite O-linemen and a few good running backs, I suppose he will continue to have predictable success on a regular basis. But will his offense be able to keep pace with UF or even Utah? If beating Auburn and winning the SEC East is enough, then he has arrived.

To be sure, fans of tOSU football are spoiled. Without reservation, Buckeye fans should be immeasurably thankful that the Vest came to Columbus. Nonetheless, Coach Tressel is at a crossroads. The offense is broken. Last season, tOSU had a power running game and TP wasn't asked to do too much. Now, with a young O-line, less experience at WR, and the departure of CW to the NFL, TP is being asked to do a lot more. Coach Tressel knows what's wrong. The question is whether or not he can fix it.

Pretty much agree, in my eyes here are the problems with the offense:

1) Pryor is asked to be the focal point, this hasn't worked because he's slow to coaching, not that he can't pick it up, he hasn't been very willing to pick it up, instead when the pressure is on he forgets coaching and relies on his instincts which haven't worked out for him on this level in most situations. He needs more time; I liken Pryor to Chad Henne during his second year. Henne had Braylon Edwards, a solid OL, and a good back who in the middle of the Big Ten season ran for 200 yards a game during his freshman year. He was a spoke in the wheel and Michigan rolled to the rose bowl, fast forward a year later, Hart gets hurt, UM's OL is hurt and mostly untalented, the receivers are ordinary. Henne struggled with his new role mightily, Michigan goes 7-5.

Look at Pryor he had very good receivers who knew how to get open, a dominating RB, and a solid, veteran offensive line, we didn't need too much from him that year, and teams certainly weren't keying on stopping him to slow our offense down, and thus we played ok and at times totally dominated the opposition. This year he's got young pups at receiver who themselves are learning as they go, a young inconsistent line that doesn't communicate well with one another, and we're void of a consistent RB. It's should be no surprise he's struggling. TP is fine when throwing to his first option, he usually throws it in the proper place, and on time. He needs to relax and stop panicking. Can he do it? We'll see.

 

[unionfutura]

To me, execution and playcalling go hand in hand. If the players execute, the playcalling looks good. If the playcalling makes the play easier, it's easier to execute. It's the relationship between both that really confuses people.

People (ok, most people) wouldn't complain if Jim Tressel called pulled the guard every down for 4 yards gains. Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, TD on Dave. Troy Smith made Jim Tressel look like a genius, but even he struggled (Purdue 04, Penn State 05). 1 player (and 1.5 years) out of 9 seems like the outlier more than the median.

I don't care if Jim Tressel calls plays or not. Sure, I'd like to see what someone else can do, but what he does need is an offensive coordinator that can COORDINATE the offense. Tressel can script all the plays he want and call whatever he wants as long as someone helps these kids execute. The staff needs to work on getting plays in faster and they even admitted they needed to be more situational. On top of that...

How many screens have we executed?
How many draws have we executed?
How many trick plays have we executed?
How many games have the lines failed to execute?
Is it the best idea to let the world know that Pryor can only audible to a run a play (you'll have to fact check me on this one)?

Execution struggles on the most basic plays.

That's why I think a certain position coach needs to step back and take a seat. While the players may like him, I can't say either the offense or offensive line are any good.

And if that doesn't work, then we know the answer to the question. Execution is key. It's how they get there is the question.

In JT's world execution is the bottom line, playcalling is the least important, sure you can find a play or two that you can exploit a certain opponent with, and could be an important part of your game plan, but you what you are, you have your go to plays, and they need to work for you to be successful. Lining up in the I has worked for JT since forever, and he'll be using it far more this weekend than any other. I expect to see some shot gun, but not as much as we've seen this year.

 

[buckeyesin07]

1) Pryor is asked to be the focal point, this hasn't worked because he's slow to coaching, not that he can't pick it up, he hasn't been very willing to pick it up, instead when the pressure is on he forgets coaching and relies on his instincts which haven't worked out for him on this level in most situations. He needs more time; I liken Pryor to Chad Henne during his second year. Henne had Braylon Edwards, a solid OL, and a good back who in the middle of the Big Ten season ran for 200 yards a game during his freshman year. He was a spoke in the wheel and Michigan rolled to the rose bowl, fast forward a year later, Hart gets hurt, UM's OL is hurt and mostly untalented, the receivers are ordinary. Henne struggled with his new role mightily, Michigan goes 7-5.

Couldn't agree more. For as much as people want to tear down Pyror, they often fail to realize that the offensive line recently has been struggling, and has not been putting him in a position to succeed.

 

[BB73]

Is it the best idea to let the world know that Pryor can only audible to a run a play (you'll have to fact check me on this one)?

Even if that's true, they can have a pass play called, have Pryor call a dummy audible, and then execute the pass play when the defense believes he's switched to a running play. But don't tell anybody.

 

[Onebuckfan]

If our line and QB are making mental mistakes on plays called in the huddle..what makes one think that everybody would be on the same page if an audible is called. I think more of OL's problem is missed assignments than physically being beaten. It ssems the Offenses inexperience is hard for everyone to get on the same page a Senior who knows the offense inside and out and provide leadership would help. Cordle may not be as talented as some but get him back in so at lest the line has a security blanket.

 

[lvbuckeye]

In JT's world execution is the bottom line, playcalling is the least important, sure you can find a play or two that you can exploit a certain opponent with, and could be an important part of your game plan, but you what you are, you have your go to plays, and they need to work for you to be successful. Lining up in the I has worked for JT since forever, and he'll be using it far more this weekend than any other. I expect to see some shot gun, but not as much as we've seen this year.

if executed properly, every play would score a TD. :p

like i said, on the surface, i don't have a problem with using the chart. i just want to see it consulted faster and the first couple series scripted in order to help the execution. of course its just my opinion, but i think the nature of the play calling is what hinders the execution, not the actual individual play calls.

the calls often come in late. the kids press to get lined up, make their reads, make the calls, and get the ball off on time. then someone forgets the snap count because he's in the weeds. or someone forgets his assignment, what have you... because they are rushing. it's like driving a car around a track. driving "fast" doesn't get you the best times. driving "smooth" does. when you are rushing to get the play called and the ball snapped, the execution will falter. get the call in 5-10 seconds earlier, and i think the problem is greatly reduced. i think this is evidenced by the 2 minute drill looking pretty crisp this year, outside of USC anyway...

it's a zen thing. part of me thinks the team would benefit greatly from Tai Chi...