• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jwinslow said:
Perhaps Troy would put up bonkers numbers in this era. Actual troy production (under 200 pass yds half the time, 18 rush ypg avg) isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

*whispers* but yeah, he did win the heisman */whispers*

I get your point but... he gave them heisman level for then to, you know, be competitive...
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from on this, and I don't know that you're completely wrong. I still feel better in the 4th quarter if our defense is relatively fresh from less time on the field and on offense we've been pounding it down their throat for 3 quarters.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
Not supporting a player making a decision they feel is best for them, regardless of the circumstances, feels like a dick move for a coach, especially if they do it up front regardless of the circumstances before the player even steps foot on campus. It sounds like something that Dabo would do, who is infamous for his “no visits” policy for verbal commitments and being a dickhead in general, and not something Ryan Day would do.

The impression I have of Ryan Day is that he focuses more on building team chemistry and a brotherhood amongst players to make it less likely people would choose to opt out, but that he is supportive of players making decisions they feel is best for them.

Even Urban Meyer, who is also clearly a bit of a dick himself, had players opt out on him.

Denzel Ward opted out of playing in Meyer’s final game as Ohio State’s head coach. Going burnt bridge on something like that up front with a player seems stupid and counterproductive; similar to the “no visit” policy, I hope Dabo implements it with gusto, and that along with pressuring for early commits and the “no visit” policy, these high pressure tactics will continue to burn him in the future Korey Foreman style.

Would you care to weigh in on Clemson’s oline? Carmen is obviously elite, but some of the other starters appear to be substandard, especially from a Clemson recruiting perspective (3-star guys or lower at C, RG, and RT from what I can tell), with true freshman as backups, so there aren’t really other options.

What happened there? Ohio State fans, including myself, feel like the Buckeye dline against Clemson’s oline is one of the biggest advantages we have and our best hope for disrupting and slowing down Clemson’s offense.
Click to expand...

When it comes to OL on paper we never have had top talent. It has been mostly 3 stars. Mitch Hyatt being the exception he was a Clemson legacy and even in terms of NFL we have only had 4 OL drafted(3rd Rd, 4th Rd, 5th Rd and 7th Rd). It's about the unit more than the individual on the OL. The OL has been inconsistent most of the year but they're coming in to the playoff on high note playing really well vs VT and in the ACC Championship

As for the other stuff without getting too deep Its the agent's influencing players to opt out. The guise of using the time to "prepare for the draft" is gone. There has never been any evidence of "injury risk" and if anything the evidence actually points to injuries having very little effect on draft position

The Dabo no visit policy works. Since the 1 Robert Nkemdiche year we've had like 5 or 6 decommits total and far less transfers than most programs. I wouldn't even bother to follow recruiting if I was a LSU or FSU fan with 10+ decommits every year. Good luck to Foreman(and Hancock) hopefully he goes on to have a career like Dalvin Cook
 
Upvote 0
Abenaki said:
I see where you're coming from on this, and I don't know that you're completely wrong. I still feel better in the 4th quarter if our defense is relatively fresh from less time on the field and on offense we've been pounding it down their throat for 3 quarters.
Click to expand...

If they're taking 45 seconds to score, your defense can stay pretty fresh.
 
Upvote 0
Lots of good mathematics on these replies and correct analysis but......why can’t you still control the game from a TOP perspective and limit the amount of time available for your opponent to beat you?

That’s why I said a variation of Tress ball.

In short, I’d just like to see tOSU maximize fully on each offensive possession obviously with TDs. I don’t want to see drives ending in punts.

I’m just saying that I’d like to control the pace of the game and time that Clemson has the ball. Winning the field position game is just a component of that.

I still believe that 1st and 2nd down will be key. Staying ahead of the chains, using Fields running ability, etc to extend drives and all that. What worries me most is him hanging on to the ball and taking losses or zero yards etc. That will be a killer.

I just think the pendulum has swung a little too far with the ultra aggressive nature of the passing game these days.

In short, I do believe in going for it more often on 4th down but I don’t believe in the full on air raid, throw it all the time like Day has sometimes employed.

I’m scared shitless by that first half of the last game. That’s even exacerbated by the fact that we won’t be facing a bland NW offense. Our suspect secondary will be facing a totally different animal.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
If they're taking 45 seconds to score, your defense can stay pretty fresh.
Click to expand...
That's why I said in my previous post we need to end the drives with touchdowns. I like our chances if it's close going to the 4th and we've been wearing them down with consistent success and they're relying on big plays.

We should be able to move the ball. The keys are 1) doing it consistently and avoiding 3 and outs and turnovers, 2) paying those drives off, and 3) how do we stop them? With apologies to how well the LBs have played lately, I really only have confidence in the DTs on that side of the ball. And our offense has worked best when Fields is not trying to force big plays, which has gotten him into trouble. Take the check downs, take the running game, for the love of God find Ruckert, and keep the suspect part of the team off the field.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OpulentShoddyGypsymoth-max-1mb.gif
 
Upvote 0
Abenaki said:
That's why I said in my previous post we need to end the drives with touchdowns. I like our chances if it's close going to the 4th and we've been wearing them down with consistent success and they're relying on big plays.

We're should be able to move the ball. The keys are 1) doing it consistently and avoiding 3 and outs and turnovers, 2) paying those drives off, and 3) how do we stop them? With apologies to how well the LBs have played lately, I really only have confidence in the DTs on that side of the ball. And our offense has worked best when Fields is not trying to force big plays, which has gotten him into trouble. Take the check downs, take the running game, for the love of God find Ruckert, and keep the suspect part of the team off the field.
Click to expand...

It just comes down to whether the best way to attack them is smash them in the face and gash them on the ground... if it is.... then sure, do it. If its not, you just can't afford to be stubborn about it at the expense of not scoring. I mean at some point they're gonna make us man up and run in the red zone, I imagine... and we're gonna have to do it... sure, but even Tressel (not necessarily to go back to that) really always had a sense of how many points he thought he would need and adjusted the risk level accordingly. Jax is probably right here that its in the 40 neighborhood. As you said, how much to do trust the defense to get off the field? I kinda trust them to get turnovers maybe and they need to gamble a bit on 3rd down, but, do I want to be giving them the ball back a bunch and hope these guys can consistently stop Barbie? Not really.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
It just comes down to whether the best way to attack them is smash them in the face and gash them on the ground... if it is.... then sure, do it. If its not, you just can't afford to be stubborn about it at the expense of not scoring. I mean at some point they're gonna make us man up and run in the red zone, I imagine... and we're gonna have to do it... sure, but even Tressel (not necessarily to go back to that) really always had a sense of how many points he thought he would need and adjusted the risk level accordingly. Jax is probably right here that its in the 40 neighborhood. As you said, how much to do trust the defense to get off the field? I kinda trust them to get turnovers maybe and they need to gamble a bit on 3rd down, but, do I want to be giving them the ball back a bunch and hope these guys can consistently stop Barbie? Not really.
Click to expand...
Maybe we're arguing over semantics a little bit here. We have enough weapons on offense to take what they're going to give us and be successful with it, as long as we're not stubborn about sticking to the game plan if it's not working. Sustained success on offense is our best defense this week.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top