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

[cincibuck]

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.

Funny you should pick that game because in my opinion Tressel walked away from his own philosophy: First half, we're up 6 and less than two minutes to go and he has Huston, who had been putting the ball into the end zone on every kick, squib it. Result: Texas ball on the forty and they get a field goal to cut our lead in half. Second half, Bucks up six again and instead of punting and putting Texas no better than the 20 where our defense has kept them from doing anything and he takes a shot at a 50 yard field goal and gives up field position.

It seems fair to say that Tressel violated his own rules twice in that game.

 

[jwinslow]

Yes but not for that reason :)

what kind of grade school class do you run?

It seems fair to say that Tressel violated his own rules twice in that game.

Not the second time IMO. Huston's a great kicker, and he nearly made that FG. If we make it, it creates a nearly insurmountable 9 pt lead, given how our D was playing. Had we had a 7 pt lead, and then he had gone for a FG, that would have been violating tresselball. But we were in danger of losing without the FG.

 

[afgolfer]

Everone is complaining abou the line play, but in all honesty if you go back and watch the game, the line did ok on blocking even after barton was hurt. On several plays I remember the QB haveing 5-6 second to throw the ball or run but stayed in the pocket (which a QB should do to an extent, He drops back and stays there instead of moving up into the pocket) Many times guys were open and he had time to throw but was sacked. Also, I dont know if anyone else saw this, but Smith waits till a guy is open instead of throwing the ball when someone breaks. This results in passes thrown behind the recievers and also gives the defense time to break on the ball for the Int. He has a strong arm but has no touch, accuracy, or vision (both seeing the play develope and knowing whare people are around him)

 

[osugrad21]

Also, I dont know if anyone else saw this, but Smith waits till a guy is open instead of throwing the ball when someone breaks. This results in passes thrown behind the recievers and also gives the defense time to break on the ball for the Int. He has a strong arm but has no touch, accuracy, or vision (both seeing the play develope and knowing whare people are around him)

That is why I would love to see him under center...those drop steps are the best way to get some timing down.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

I'm glad to see everyone has been convinced by my arguments.

21 - getting out of the shotgun is an excellent thought, which honestly had not occurred to me. I think there are a ton of small changes that can be made that would make a tremendous impact...maybe "tweaking" the scheme would be a better description than changing it. And AKAK said it well, too, that this offense is schizophrenic. It does NOT have an identity, and with all the talent on that team, it is painful.

 

[osugrad21]

AKAK said it well, too, that this offense is schizophrenic. It does NOT have an identity, and with all the talent on that team, it is painful.

That I can completely agree with...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'd agree with the skizo remark. There should be something that OSU does, whether it's throw or pass, whcih even when the D knows it coming, OSU stands better than good chances of making it. It could be as simple as a 10 yard route to the TE... I don't care, but there must be at least 1 play whcih OSU can constantly count on.

When you have such a play, or so it seems to me, you can take some chances with your other downs. If it's 2nd and 1, why not take a shot deep? Yeah, ya might get picked from time to time, or even sacked.... But, at least you'd keep the D honest (and hopefully affraid)

Although, in fairness, I do recall Smith tossing a 35 - 40 yarder to Holmes (Who was open) but overshot him by a couple yards.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Everyone is making great points in this thread.

I want to get back to the post that FKA made about philosphy.

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...

I for one am a firm believer in Tresselball. It is the reason why PSU beat us saturday nite. I would rather see a great defense struggle with a effecient offense that wins games.

I think there are times when you have to take your shots and there are times when you need to try and move the ball and put points on the board and times when if they come it is a bonous. If we are losing well duh we need to take chances. If we are on top we can be safer.

I don't agree with your assessment of us not being able to come from behind. I will give you some examples. Last year MSU we scored in the last 2 minutes to win. We made comebacks against NW and Purdue, defense lost those games. I think Wisky last year we lost it after that bullshit fumble call. Also if you remember last year against scUM we went down 14-7 and never got tight. Texas we got down early and if not for stupid ass plays we win. same with PSU, if we don't throw that int and make the fg we win. I also don't think the O played tight besides Troy who has the game moving at light speed in his head.

I think Jim Tressel has been evolving his coaching styles over the season he has been here.

In 01 - we had a decent running back and not a good qb and we played to our stregths. The cupboard was bare and we struggled.

In 02 - we played to our stregths with Clarrett and when we had Ross we had no stregths.

In 03 - no running game and qb with not the greatest passing game.

In 04 - we saw a qb that couldnt find his game, then we saw a qb come into his own and started to turn the O around. We spread the field out and started to make plays.

In 05 - we started off good then Texas came to town and we had enough offense to win the game and lost. Then Smith played good against Iowa and PSU we struggled.

In 06 - I think we go back to the I with Wells and stay with that for a while.

I also agree with Grad that I like the pro-set and would like to see us put Troy in the pro set.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[Onebuckfan]

I like the idea of the QB undercenter for the rhythym(3 or five step drops) and it helps your O line they know where their QB is. Plus its a true run/pass formation.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

I don't agree with your assessment of us not being able to come from behind. I will give you some examples. Last year MSU we scored in the last 2 minutes to win. We made comebacks against NW and Purdue, defense lost those games. I think Wisky last year we lost it after that bullshit fumble call. Also if you remember last year against scUM we went down 14-7 and never got tight. Texas we got down early and if not for stupid ass plays we win. same with PSU, if we don't throw that int and make the fg we win. I also don't think the O played tight besides Troy who has the game moving at light speed in his head.

If the defense lost the games, doesn't that prove my point? I understand what you're saying about coming from behind, but for every game you can list where we did, I can list one where we didn't. My point is, with this team, there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to be behind to begin with. When the team is down, you have to make changes to come from behind and win. I am simply advocating that you make other, minor changes to prevent ever being down to begin with.

I think Jim Tressel has been evolving his coaching styles over the season he has been here.

In 04 - we saw a qb that couldnt find his game, then we saw a qb come into his own and started to turn the O around. We spread the field out and started to make plays.

In 05 - we started off good then Texas came to town and we had enough offense to win the game and lost. Then Smith played good against Iowa and PSU we struggled.

If we lost, then we didn't have enough offense to win. The D played excellent, holding a Heisman finalist (if not winner) in check for almost the entire game. Our offense started four, yes, FOUR drives inside the Texas 35 and couldn't get ONE touchdown. That isn't efficient. If we get even one TD, then maybe it's enough to win. But we didn't.

In 06 - I think we go back to the I with Wells and stay with that for a while.

I also agree with Grad that I like the pro-set and would like to see us put Troy in the pro set.

Agree.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

If the defense lost the games, doesn't that prove my point? I understand what you're saying about coming from behind, but for every game you can list where we did, I can list one where we didn't. My point is, with this team, there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to be behind to begin with. When the team is down, you have to make changes to come from behind and win. I am simply advocating that you make other, minor changes to prevent ever being down to begin with.

Ok first off in the games where the defense lost the games, that is what lost the game not the offense, and we can't put the blame on the O'.

I would like to see the games that we lost where we didnt make a decent comeback.

In Tresselball it is usually the defenses job to hold the lead and not for the offense to gain it back.

As for the being behind, that is a very crazy statement. I mean even FSU was down or tied with the Citadel this year.

Also some peopel are giving a lot of criticizm after we lost two games to two very good teams.

If we lost, then we didn't have enough offense to win. The D played excellent, holding a Heisman finalist (if not winner) in check for almost the entire game. Our offense started four, yes, FOUR drives inside the Texas 35 and couldn't get ONE touchdown. That isn't efficient. If we get even one TD, then maybe it's enough to win. But we didn't.

Well I know we didnt execute to score the td, but can we give some credit to Texas's D. If their O' started inside the 35 we would expect our D to hold their O' to 4 tds. It isnt like we came away with no points and didnt try to score.

 

[jwinslow]

Smith has great speed when dropping back from under center. Therefore he can get the ball away quicker than some even with a big pass rush. I think in the shotgun, he loses timing and cannot do a good play fake. I think the option play will be more effective at times as well.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Smith has great speed when dropping back from under center. Therefore he can get the ball away quicker than some even with a big pass rush. I think in the shotgun, he loses timing and cannot do a good play fake. I think the option play will be more effective at times as well.

Great point, but last year we were all calling for the spread. I want 3 wide, 1 te and rb with smith under center. But that is up to Jt.

 

[Def]

In 02 - we played to our stregths with Clarrett and when we had Ross we had no stregths.

In 03 - no running game and qb with not the greatest passing game.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Michael Jenkins is starting in the NFL. say what you want about Craig, but he is also in the NFL. We have quite a few lineman from these teams in the NFL as well. A quality, dependable TE. No strengths is a bit harsh an asessment imo. Say what you will but we did have some talent to work with and not much in the way of results without Clarett.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Michael Jenkins is starting in the NFL. say what you want about Craig, but he is also in the NFL. We have quite a few lineman from these teams in the NFL as well. A quality, dependable TE. No strengths is a bit harsh an asessment imo. Say what you will but we did have some talent to work with and not much in the way of results without Clarett.

First off Jenkins was being double teamed most of the games. When you have Krenzel as your qb and Tressel as your coach you don't go into double coverage very often. We didnt have the other recievers that year. Vance was not a great reciever. Hartsock got his fair share of plays and big plays, but the te has never been one of our stregths in the passing game. Also the o-line got beat fairly often on passing plays.