What's Wrong & How to Fix It (Merged)

[FKAGobucks877]

That's a mere technicality.

Now why are you here instead of with that beautiful wife of yours?

 

[cincibuck]

1. Coaching

a. Instruction (technique, for example) I'm an ex teacher/track coach. I have no business telling these coaches how to go about their job.

b. Game planning & schemes No comment

c. Adjustments during the game; Seems to me that the Bucks do this very well on the defensive side of the ball but haven't done it on the offensive side. I'd want to staff the problem and examine what the defensive coordinator is doing that the oc isn't. Maybe this means a look in the mirror.


d. Overall philosophy: Loosen up! You've got three GREAT wideouts and you can't get the ball to them? Makes no sense whatsoever. If nothing else three GREAT deep threats should force the dls and lbs to react by either blitizing or playing back. Staff the problem. Where are our plays to take advantage of this situation? I haven't seen screens, I haven't seen TEs or RBs sneaking into the open space that should be created by having so much potential going down field. What the hell is going on in the red zone and why haven't we solved it in five years.

It's probably silly to imagine that these things aren't being hashed out in staff meetings, but then you have wonder why the Bucks couldn't do anything with all the field position they had against Texas and PSU, or why, with the kind of talent they get vs the rest of the Big 10, they're still so ineffective with the ball.

What would happen if JT took his staff on retreat and said, "Look at our stats. Are you telling me we can't out rush, out pass Indiana, Northwestern, Ill... opps we can out rush and out pass them... we should be in the top two or three of those league statistics year in and year out. Why aren't we?"
Again, I'm not a football coach, but there are reasons why programs like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State succeed. It starts with tradition which begets money and facilities which begets talent. If 80 year old Joe Paterno can learn, then so can can JT.
​

 

[Golferdow01]

That's a mere technicality.

Now why are you here instead of with that beautiful wife of yours?

Probably beating it to a few pornos for endurance purposes

 

[crazybuckfan40]

1. Coaching

a. Instruction (technique, for example) I'm an ex teacher/track coach. I have no business telling these coaches how to go about their job.

b. Game planning & schemes No comment

c. Adjustments during the game; Seems to me that the Bucks do this very well on the defensive side of the ball but haven't done it on the offensive side. I'd want to staff the problem and examine what the defensive coordinator is doing that the oc isn't. Maybe this means a look in the mirror.


d. Overall philosophy: Loosen up! You've got three GREAT wideouts and you can't get the ball to them? Makes no sense whatsoever. If nothing else three GREAT deep threats should force the dls and lbs to react by either blitizing or playing back. Staff the problem. Where are our plays to take advantage of this situation? I haven't seen screens, I haven't seen TEs or RBs sneaking into the open space that should be created by having so much potential going down field. What the hell is going on in the red zone and why haven't we solved it in five years.

It's probably silly to imagine that these things aren't being hashed out in staff meetings, but then you have wonder why the Bucks couldn't do anything with all the field position they had against Texas and PSU, or why, with the kind of talent they get vs the rest of the Big 10, they're still so ineffective with the ball.

What would happen if JT took his staff on retreat and said, "Look at our stats. Are you telling me we can't out rush, out pass Indiana, Northwestern, Ill... opps we can out rush and out pass them... we should be in the top two or three of those league statistics year in and year out. Why aren't we?"
Again, I'm not a football coach, but there are reasons why programs like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State succeed. It starts with tradition which begets money and facilities which begets talent. If 80 year old Joe Paterno can learn, then so can can JT.

​

see the thread on breakdown of Tresselball and you will answer your last paragraph.

Hey FKA is you wouldnt mind I would like for you to elaborate on your whole philosophy theory.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Hey FKA is you wouldnt mind I would like for you to elaborate on your whole philosophy theory.

Not exactly sure what you mean, but here's a stab:

See LJB's "definition" of Tresselball on his post last page. I think that explanation is very accurate. Jim Tressel's offensive philosophy doesn't really seem to exist much. He primarily likes a lights out defense, great special teams, and leaves the offense to get points if and when they have good field position. You will hardly ever see Tressel throw the ball on third and 15 from inside our twenty, because that is a risk, and he'd rather just punt and try again next time.

The overall philosophy, to me, seems to be that if you play a mistake-free, EFFICIENT offensive game, you will be in a position to win. This sounds great, on paper. I take issue with the fact that certain people are not executing, which equals a mistake. Additionally, when you play this type of game, you almost invariably leave the opponent with a chance at victory. Another downside is that once a mistake (or mistakes) are made, your offense has no experience or confidence to be able to retake the lead. Think about the instances in the last several years where tOSU has been down, and needed to come back, late in the game, for a score. What has happened? In 2002, thanks to luck and several miracles, it was possible. Then we went to Wisconsin in 2003, where we needed seven for a tie...and JT punted. And then the defense, for the first time in a long time, couldn't hold. Texas - and inexperienced QB in Zwick, who had only played half the game, made an HONEST mistake by trying a little too hard. I do not blame Zwick. PSU - same thing.

The Texas game is probably the best example. Tresselball would have worked in that game IF all of the players would have executed and not made any mistakes. The problem is, 99.9% of the time, somebody IS going to make a mistake. It's part of the game. Hamby DID drop that TD. Zwick DID fumble. But if Tressel would have taken even the smallest of risks, just a couple of times, on drives that we started inside our opponents 35 yard line, those mistakes would NOT have mattered. Many blame the play-calling, but to me, the play-calling is a by-product of the system, or the philosophy. If the philosophy is to score TD's, or to play to win, as opposed to taking a minimalistic "no risk" play not to lose approach, then the play-calling will take care of itself, because it is a result of the philosophy.

Did that help? If not, just let me know more specifically what you're looking for...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not exactly sure what you mean, but here's a stab:

See LJB's "definition" of Tresselball on his post last page. I think that explanation is very accurate. Jim Tressel's offensive philosophy doesn't really seem to exist much. He primarily likes a lights out defense, great special teams, and leaves the offense to get points if and when they have good field position. You will hardly ever see Tressel throw the ball on third and 15 from inside our twenty, because that is a risk, and he'd rather just punt and try again next time.

The overall philosophy, to me, seems to be that if you play a mistake-free, EFFICIENT offensive game, you will be in a position to win. This sounds great, on paper. I take issue with the fact that certain people are not executing, which equals a mistake. Additionally, when you play this type of game, you almost invariably leave the opponent with a chance at victory. Another downside is that once a mistake (or mistakes) are made, your offense has no experience or confidence to be able to retake the lead. Think about the instances in the last several years where tOSU has been down, and needed to come back, late in the game, for a score. What has happened? In 2002, thanks to luck and several miracles, it was possible. Then we went to Wisconsin in 2003, where we needed seven for a tie...and JT punted. And then the defense, for the first time in a long time, couldn't hold. Texas - and inexperienced QB in Zwick, who had only played half the game, made an HONEST mistake by trying a little too hard. I do not blame Zwick. PSU - same thing.

The Texas game is probably the best example. Tresselball would have worked in that game IF all of the players would have executed and not made any mistakes. The problem is, 99.9% of the time, somebody IS going to make a mistake. It's part of the game. Hamby DID drop that TD. Zwick DID fumble. But if Tressel would have taken even the smallest of risks, just a couple of times, on drives that we started inside our opponents 35 yard line, those mistakes would NOT have mattered. Many blame the play-calling, but to me, the play-calling is a by-product of the system, or the philosophy. If the philosophy is to score TD's, or to play to win, as opposed to taking a minimalistic "no risk" play not to lose approach, then the play-calling will take care of itself, because it is a result of the philosophy.

Did that help? If not, just let me know more specifically what you're looking for...

Well said, FKA.... I for one think if you get the ball inside the 35 you take a shot at the EZ immediately. Stick the knife in quick. Seems Tress prefers just to run the iso so that we don't lose a FG opp. If we get 6, great, but don't give up the 3. It wouldn't hurt to pop one or two balls at the goal line.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Completely agree. There is a middle of the road. I'm not pushing for Texas Tech's offense, but when you have the talent we have, it is a crime not to use it.

 

[tsteele316]

first off, my comments on Tresselball. Someone raised the point that if osu just executed against texas, that tresselball would have won that game. they also followed it up with the unrealistic expectations that come with tresselball. That is spot on. I'm a YSU alum as well as an OSU alum, so i've watched a lot of JT coached teams. The bottom line is that Tresselball leaves the margin for error so small that it's going to yield results like texas and psu just as often as it will give you results like the '03 fiesta bowl. The question then becomes whether or not you are willing to risk opening it up offensively a bit to the point that it may have won a few more games in '03, '04, and this year, at the possible expense of a season like 02.

Secondly, as to how to fix the offense. I havent read everything in this thread so I apologize for any repetitious material.

I really think Bill Conley put it best when he said this team has no offensive identity. This team has no bread and butter plays or sets to hang their hat on. Really, just do one of two things. Either line up in the power I and dare teams to stack the box at the expense of coverage on the outside for Holmes and Ginn (both of whom need to be permitted to run a route exceeding 7 yards), or spread the field a dare teams to leave themselves vulnerable for smith and pittman to gash them with the run.

Once you see how a team is going to defend your base offense, you make adjustments, or you have a few set-up plays that exploit what they are trying to do, thereby making your base plays more effective. It doesnt have to get more complicated. In fact, I would suggest that maybe the whole thing should be simplified. I'm tired of seeing osu trying to run a gimmick offense without really having a gimmick.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

The Texas game is probably the best example. Tresselball would have worked in that game IF all of the players would have executed and not made any mistakes.

Exactly - it's a "talent" issue, not a "scheme" issue.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Exactly - it's a "talent" issue, not a "scheme" issue.

No, I really don't think so. The talent is there...but mistakes will ALWAYS be made, no matter how much talent you have. You also need to USE the talent you do have, and that IS a scheme issue. If we would have better utilized the talent on the field, the mistakes that were made would have been overcome by the talent...instead, the scheme didn't allow for the mistakes, and the talent wasn't used.

 

[osugrad21]

No, I really don't think so. The talent is there...but mistakes will ALWAYS be made, no matter how much talent you have. You also need to USE the talent you do have, and that IS a scheme issue. If we would have better utilized the talent on the field, the mistakes that were made would have been overcome by the talent...instead, the scheme didn't allow for the mistakes, and the talent wasn't used.

...but what if the scheme is designed for certain outcomes and the execution is preventing that?

Would you still call that a scheme issue?

 

[tsteele316]

...but what if the scheme is designed for certain outcomes and the execution is preventing that?

Would you still call that a scheme issue?

the use of that scheme is certainly an issue. if the execution of a scheme is a problem, then you have to adjust to a scheme that can be executed.

Also, I really don't think talent is the issue so much as it is the developing of that talent by certain position coaches named joe daniels.

 

[jwinslow]

Exactly - it's a "talent" issue, not a "scheme" issue.

bull. I just got done rewatching the texas game (lots of things I discovered, such as Teddy not dancing, Zwick grading out well when not pressured, and Smith grading out well int he first half).

There was some bad playcalling and bad execution. It wasn't a lack of talent, Pittman was dominating running the ball that game (often breaking it outside, showing great vision, and gaining well over 7 yards on a number of carries). Smith and Zwick were hitting WRs pretty well. We started calling a lot of QB draws, and other bad calls.

One time it was 3rd and 10, we were on the 50, before halftime, and Tressel called a 3 or 4 WR set QB draw. It got blown up, and was a horrendous call. Smith had been pretty on fire throwing the ball (when not in the cramped red zone) that half, yet we went with a trick play. Great work tressel.

I don't understand what it is that gets everyone down on Pittman. I don't think he's gonna have his name retired, or make people forget about Clarett. But if you watch the Texas game, he turned at least 5 dead end runs into big gains with vision, speed and jukes. Pittman was very good, especially considering the opponent. He put us in great opportunities to convert for 1st downs, or he got them himself.

 

[martinss01]

I've always been of the opinion that you create your own luck - luck is the intersection of talent and opportunity.

and if lots of talent meets little opportunity does that mean they are somehow less talented? or are you saying that a talented person makes opportunity?

 

[JXC]

Why does something have to be 'wrong'? I don't think anything is 'wrong'. If losing football games meant something was wrong, then almost every team in the country would have something wrong with it. We've lost to two teams that are undefeated and ranked in the top 10, and in both games, we could have won. Maybe we just don't have a good enough team to be national champions this year. I know a lot of people feel differently, but I don't see anything wrong with this team. There are things that we need to improve in a hurry, and maybe this team doesn't have what it takes to come through in big situations...But there is NOTHING wrong with Ohio State football. I think we've already played our two toughest games...there is no reason why this football team can't go 10-2 this year. We are going to improve as the year goes on, we always do. Go Bucks!