Sugar Bowl: #3 Ohio State 49, #2 Clemson 28, Jan 1 in New Orleans

[ShowMeBuck]

In this high scoring era, can a form of Tressel ball still be effective? With an elite punter, a solid O Line and a suddenly emergent running game, can a team not win the TOP battle and limit the other teams scoring chances?

I’m not talking pure Tressel, I’m talking an extremely balanced offensive attack that blends the quick strike ability of the Day passing game with Fields running ability. I think the key will be to stay ahead of the chains and use Fields legs on early downs.

 

[Abenaki]

I’ve been thinking about that Wisconsin game with Cardale making his first start. I was really nervous for that one. I had similar feelings for that one as I do about this one. I remember thinking: “Well, I’m proud of the guys for getting to the Big Ten Championship, but we’re going up against a Heisman candidate in Melvin and JT is done...”

I for damn sure didn’t see the most complete game the team had played all year coming, culminating in a thorough dismantling of Bucky. You might recall the defense wasn’t exactly mauling teams before that game.

Just some food for thought before Friday.

I honestly thought that before both the Wisconsin game and the Sugar Bowl that year. I was in A-Deck when JT went down and as he was getting carted off I thought "oh shit...I just spent $150 (or whatever it was) on a ticket for next week to go to Indy and watch them lose." Then, as they were wrapping up the shutout and the crowd was chanting "We want Bama!" I thought "Do we? Really?"

On the other hand, I was supremely confident that we were going to beat Florida. I thought JT was going to be in NYC for the Heisman and we were walking to the playoffs after the comeback against PSU in '17. I thought there was no way we were losing to Purdue because everyone was calling for an upset.

I guess my point is that I'm nervous enough about this game that it's making me strangely confident about it.

In this high scoring era, can a form of Tressel ball still be effective? With an elite punter, a solid O Line and a suddenly emergent running game, can a team not win the TOP battle and limit the other teams scoring chances?

I’m not talking pure Tressel, I’m talking an extremely balanced offensive attack that blends the quick strike ability of the Day passing game with Fields running ability. I think the key will be to stay ahead of the chains and use Fields legs on early downs.

This is the way. Control the ball, keep Sunshine and the offense off the field. I want to see some 6-7 minute drives but, most importantly, they need to end in touchdowns. You won't win this game with field goals.

 

[bukIpower]

In this high scoring era, can a form of Tressel ball still be effective? With an elite punter, a solid O Line and a suddenly emergent running game, can a team not win the TOP battle and limit the other teams scoring chances?

I’m not talking pure Tressel, I’m talking an extremely balanced offensive attack that blends the quick strike ability of the Day passing game with Fields running ability. I think the key will be to stay ahead of the chains and use Fields legs on early downs.

That's what this game is to me on offense. I've said this a number of times.

Clemson thrives on 2nd and 13 or 3rd and 9 type of situations. We have got to put ourselves in 2nd and 4 or 3rd and 2 situations.

I would change the OL from solid to elite but IMO yes we can win by Tressel ball. Run the ball take shots downfield when we can afford to throw a play away and bend but don't break on defense. I hate saying it but I'm okay giving up yards if it means not giving up the home run.

 

[bukIpower]

I honestly thought that before both the Wisconsin game and the Sugar Bowl that year. I was in A-Deck when JT went down and as he was getting carted off I thought "oh shit...I just spent $150 (or whatever it was) on a ticket for next week to go to Indy and watch them lose." Then, as they were wrapping up the shutout and the crowd was chanting "We want Bama!" I thought "Do we? Really?"

On the other hand, I was supremely confident that we were going to beat Florida. I thought JT was going to be in NYC for the Heisman and we were walking to the playoffs after the comeback against PSU in '17. I thought there was no way we were losing to Purdue because everyone was calling for an upset.

I guess my point is that I'm nervous enough about this game that it's making me strangely confident about it.

This is the way. Control the ball, keep Sunshine and the offense off the field. I want to see some 6-7 minute drives but, most importantly, they need to end in touchdowns. You won't win this game with field goals.

Which means we are going to have to go for it on 4th and 2 from time to time inside the 20. Because I agree we are toast scoring 3s in this game because we know what Clemson is capable of.

 

[Abenaki]

Which means we are going to have to go for it on 4th and 2 from time to time inside the 20. Because I agree we are toast scoring 3s in this game because we know what Clemson is capable of.

I'm good with that.

 

[Don Muenz]

Here's to all things 2002 and 2014.

Tip one for me.

 

[Jaxbuck]

In this high scoring era, can a form of Tressel ball still be effective? With an elite punter, a solid O Line and a suddenly emergent running game, can a team not win the TOP battle and limit the other teams scoring chances?

I’m not talking pure Tressel, I’m talking an extremely balanced offensive attack that blends the quick strike ability of the Day passing game with Fields running ability. I think the key will be to stay ahead of the chains and use Fields legs on early downs.

The short answer is, fuck no. Tresselball cannot be effective in todays game because it's basic philosophy, play field position with a rested defense and the opponent will make a mistake, is flawed. Kids come out of HS now with so much exposure to advanced offensive schemes, drills and high level game experience that by the time they hit campus they are ready to execute. This feeds the offenses in general which will simply execute down the field on you if left to do so. They are too good. We are in an era of good offense will beat good defense head to head.

I think the way you have to look at it is similar to the way people finally understood the real cause of offense in baseball. In baseball the constraint is 27 outs. You give them away at your peril. In football the constraint is number of possessions. Likewise, to give them away as a general rule is the definition of sub optimal strategy.

The 13 year average for CFB is 23.7 non garbage time possessions per game. IMO, You can win by doing the following, in order of approximate probability of success:

1. scoring efficiency/per possession
2. getting extra possessions through turnovers (with continued scoring efficiency)
3. reducing opponents scoring efficiency through defense
4. reducing opponents total possessions through TOP

The obvious flaw with #4 is that you are reducing your own number of possessions so it's like bunting in baseball, it only makes sense in very specific late game situations because overall you are going against the fundamental laws of offensive production for your game. Does it make sense to bunt in the bottom of the 9th? sometimes. Does it work to run the ball and run the clock out with a lead late in a football game? Obviously, but you can't play that way all along anymore (Tresselball).


So parse the math anyway you want to, @DaddyBigBucks, but when facing an elite offense like Clemson I think the number is 40+. You have, say, 12 possessions to score 6-7 TD's, take away the ball and gain extra possessions or limit their scoring efficiency with your own defense. Good fucking luck with option #3, #2 is a crapshoot so your offense better bring it's big boy pants and be as effective as possible with the ~12 possessions you know you are going to get.

 

[BB73]

The short answer is, fuck no. Tresselball cannot be effective in todays game because it's basic philosophy, play field position with a rested defense and the opponent will make a mistake, is flawed. Kids come out of HS now with so much exposure to advanced offensive schemes, drills and high level game experience that by the time they hit campus they are ready to execute. This feeds the offenses in general which will simply execute down the field on you if left to do so. They are too good. We are in an era of good offense will beat good defense head to head.

I think the way you have to look at it is similar to the way people finally understood the real cause of offense in baseball. In baseball the constraint is 27 outs. You give them away at your peril. In football the constraint is number of possessions. Likewise, to give them away as a general rule is the definition of sub optimal strategy.

The 13 year average for CFB is 23.7 non garbage time possessions per game. IMO, You can win by doing the following, in order of approximate probability of success:

1. scoring efficiency/per possession
2. getting extra possessions through turnovers (with continued scoring efficiency)
3. reducing opponents scoring efficiency through defense
4. reducing opponents total possessions through TOP

The obvious flaw with #4 is that you are reducing your own number of possessions so it's like bunting in baseball, it only makes sense in very specific late game situations because overall you are going against the fundamental laws of offensive production for your game. Does it make sense to bunt in the bottom of the 9th? sometimes. Does it work to run the ball and run the clock out with a lead late in a football game? Obviously, but you can't play that way all along anymore (Tresselball).


So parse the math anyway you want to, @DaddyBigBucks, but when facing an elite offense like Clemson I think the number is 40+. You have, say, 12 possessions to score 6-7 TD's, take away the ball and gain extra possessions or limit their scoring efficiency with your own defense. Good fucking luck with option #3, #2 is a crapshoot so your offense better bring it's big boy pants and be as effective as possible with the ~12 possessions you know you are going to get.

Yep, field position is much less important that it used to be. Most games now are all about points per possession, which is why more coaches have realized that it makes sense to go for it on 4th down near the middle of the field.

And red zone efficiency should be calculated by points per possession, not % of time scoring. Two TDs and 2 interceptions in the end zone, although disappointing, is better than 4 field goals, even though that's considered 100% by the foolish metric that tracks red zone productivity. Hopefully the Buckeyes have a better red zone points per possession on Friday than in the Clemson game last year, where too few TDs allowed the game to remain close.

 

[Don Muenz]

Perhaps red zone efficiency would be better measured by a numerator of total points scored and a denominator of seven times the number of red-zone possessions. This would penalize for taking three instead of seven, or only a 42% efficiency.

 

[AKAK]

The short answer is, fuck no. Tresselball cannot be effective in todays game because it's basic philosophy, play field position with a rested defense and the opponent will make a mistake, is flawed. Kids come out of HS now with so much exposure to advanced offensive schemes, drills and high level game experience that by the time they hit campus they are ready to execute. This feeds the offenses in general which will simply execute down the field on you if left to do so. They are too good. We are in an era of good offense will beat good defense head to head.

I think the way you have to look at it is similar to the way people finally understood the real cause of offense in baseball. In baseball the constraint is 27 outs. You give them away at your peril. In football the constraint is number of possessions. Likewise, to give them away as a general rule is the definition of sub optimal strategy.

The 13 year average for CFB is 23.7 non garbage time possessions per game. IMO, You can win by doing the following, in order of approximate probability of success:

1. scoring efficiency/per possession
2. getting extra possessions through turnovers (with continued scoring efficiency)
3. reducing opponents scoring efficiency through defense
4. reducing opponents total possessions through TOP

The obvious flaw with #4 is that you are reducing your own number of possessions so it's like bunting in baseball, it only makes sense in very specific late game situations because overall you are going against the fundamental laws of offensive production for your game. Does it make sense to bunt in the bottom of the 9th? sometimes. Does it work to run the ball and run the clock out with a lead late in a football game? Obviously, but you can't play that way all along anymore (Tresselball).


So parse the math anyway you want to, @DaddyBigBucks, but when facing an elite offense like Clemson I think the number is 40+. You have, say, 12 possessions to score 6-7 TD's, take away the ball and gain extra possessions or limit their scoring efficiency with your own defense. Good fucking luck with option #3, #2 is a crapshoot so your offense better bring it's big boy pants and be as effective as possible with the ~12 possessions you know you are going to get.

I agree with all of this, but I think it does somewhat miss the point at touch if we take "tresselball" out of it, which is then, can you win running the ball a lot....

(Like everyone else) My Brother in law is texting me screaming to run the ball against NW, and said we need to grind it out. To which I replied, we're not grinding anything, we're gashing them on the ground.... that wasn't "But look its 5-6 yards a pop its working" it was 10-15.

So, I think we do have to take this into account, given that we seem to like Ohio State in the trenches a little more than in previous matchups... I didn't see the usual Clemson D-Line against ND (either time) that I'm used to... I did see a pretty good back 7. So, I do think we need to account for all that.... and if we can run the ball without sacrificing possessions there's no reason to not do that.

Flipping it the other way, the Defense does have to take some risks to get the other guys off the field, playing base and sending 4 guys on 3rd and 10 is going to get a shoe through the TV.

All that said, back to the previous point of going for it past the 20, fuck that, I think we really need to go for it -- or plan to -- any time we're in plus territory. Which is to say, I have seen quite a number of times in Ryan Day land, where we're 3rd and medium and you're really in a good place to go 4 downs and the play call is to get the 6 yards on 3rd and not get it (Edit: through the air down field)... and you were facing 5-6 guys in the box. So, if we could go ahead and play call to succeed on 4th downs (and not be scared to run the QB, sorry Baker Mayfield) on 4th and short... I'd really appreciate it.

 

[AKAK]

Perhaps red zone efficiency would be better measured by a numerator of total points scored and a denominator of seven times the number of red-zone possessions. This would penalize for taking three instead of seven, or only a 42% efficiency.

I've seen them using pts per redzone possession more lately in NFL broadcasts.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Flipping it the other way, the Defense does have to take some risks to get the other guys off the field, playing base and sending 4 guys on 3rd and 10 is going to get a shoe through the TV.

 

[jwinslow]

In this high scoring era, can a form of Tressel ball still be effective? With an elite punter, a solid O Line and a suddenly emergent running game, can a team not win the TOP battle and limit the other teams scoring chances?

I’m not talking pure Tressel, I’m talking an extremely balanced offensive attack that blends the quick strike ability of the Day passing game with Fields running ability. I think the key will be to stay ahead of the chains and use Fields legs on early downs.

2006 Troy is not effective enough in this era, let alone any years before that. You generally need heisman level play at QB to even be competitive.

 

[AKAK]

2006 Troy is not effective enough in this era, let alone any years before that. You generally need heisman level play at QB to even be competitive.

ummm......

 

[BB73]

ummm......

Well, 30 passing TDs and 6 picks (Troy’s numbers in 2006), won’t even get you into the Heisman discussion these days. Fields was at 40 passing TDs with 1 pick, plus 10 rushing TDs, when the voting was done last year and only got 6 first place votes.