It's not as simple as that. I think every one is capable of understanding turn overs are bad. I question where the notion that a higher scoring offense = more turnovers comes from. Some one needs to show me that correlation because I have never seen it.
It's about SKILLS. You can't just say bam we have a higher scoring offense. It's about running the offense that is best given the players you have. Do you want Krenzel throwing the ball 35 times a game? Boeckman?? I don't, not when we have great running backs and great defense. If you have those quarterbacks throwing the ball 35 times a game, they will turn it over and it will cost you some games. When you have a great defense that can shut any one out, then why not use it. Do you really think that we would have been in the National Championship game with a different "philosophy" in those years? Play to your strengths. When we had Troy, we threw the ball. We have a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback within the last 5 years. It's about skills and what gives you the best chance to win football games. Tressel's "philosophy" is always changing. And that's what makes him great and puts us in the NC so often.
What I have continued to be critical of over the years is why the offense is so consistently inefficient especially in the scoring department. The answer I see the most is a variation of what you are using, he intentionally holds back the offense. I don't believe for one second Jim Tressel calls a play and tells the guys to get stuffed on 3rd and 1 vs Navy on purpose.
The first part of this is not my belief at all (holding back the offense on purpose). As to the second part, it's a lot easier to stop a team running the ball when you know what's coming. Tressel obviously believes that his best chance to get that 1 yard is to go to his strength of running the football when you have an average-at-best QB. Is that conservative? I don't know. Is it just a poorly designed running play?? I don't know that either.
The only thing obvious there is I have no idea what "it" is if you think Troy had it and Krenzel didn't.
It, in terms of offense like we're talking about, is skills. Troy had the skills for us to throw the ball 30 times a game and put up tons of points. Tressel didn't have to put so much pressure on the defense and the running game because he had an offense that was exceptional all around. He had a QB that he could trust to throw it on those 3rd and 1's.
He has 1 NC at OSU, not multiple and if you have below average quarterbacks for 9 years (your words, not mine) then its a recruiting/development issue.
Agreed.....However, Tressel's first QB recruits were Zwick and Smith. Smith was developed very well. And then there most definitely was below average QB recruiting to have Boeckman as a starter. Now we have Pryor, which was a great recruiting coup and will be (hopefully) great after a few years of development. This will allow us to open up the offense. And he did win a championship with that conservative offense.
I have no issue with a run first offense/strong defense philosophy. I think its the surest way to win. What I do not agree with most OSU fans about is the mistaken philosophy that you must have a bad offense to have a good defense and win games or the next variation of that, if you try and have a good offense you'll turn it over more. It's nonsense. You can be good at both. At a school with the resources of OSU, you should be good at both.
I don't believe that we have a bad offense on purpose. I believe that we are conservative on purpose when we don't have the talent at the QB postion.
As I said a few posts back, it really comes down to questioning if you are actually reducing the risk of loss by being so conservative on offense or is that extra pressure you place on the defense and ST to be near perfect actually increase the teams aggregate risk of loss?
I think you are playing the odds. We win so many games. To be honest, I'd rather put the game in the hands of Beanie Wells and the defense than Boeckman. The great thing about having a Troy Smith or a Terrelle Pryor (again, hopefully) is that you don't have to do that. I'm not going to lie and say I have never thought "wow we are being incredibly conservative." But I've started to understand Tressel's "philosophy" and realize that it wins games and that he's conservative because it gives us the best chance to win.
I think, like most people, Tress susceptible to a familiarity bias and thinks that what he knows is better (safer) than what he doesn't know/isn't comfortable with. The Florida teams of the past few years, Texas, USC, Nebraska back in the mid 90's, the early 2000's Miami teams they were all balanced offensively and defensively. There is no reason for OSU to be otherwise. I know it can't happen every year exactly like we want but given the entire body of work since 2001 the offense has been the consistent under performing asset. I don't understand why people get so uptight about questioning why that is or for thinking it should be otherwise.
It should be talked about. But again in my opinion, I think it comes down the QB position and the skills of that guy. If Pryor is a lot better this year and we open the offense up, I think it will prove that. I don't think he's scared to open the offense up when he has the players to do it. I just think he wants to win and will do what's needed to do that. The guy has won a championship here and 4 in 1-AA. He knows how to win. I think over the next few years we will start to see a much more productive and open offense because we will have Pryor and then likely Braxton Miller at the helm.
BTW I do believe that with the changes in play calling we saw towards the end of last year combined with the continued development of Pryor and the OL, the 2010 offense should be as good as any we have seen under JT.
I agree.
