The first half of the game reminded me of the Wisconsin game last year, except where Wisconsin would either go unbalanced or motion to where they had a numbers advantage, Iowa just flat out showed it.
Rather than adjust, Meyer & Co. continued to rely on Miller to make a play, failing to exploit with both the run and pass the bubbles inside and in underneath flats left open by the Badger game plan.
While the season was obviously a success, this is where I think the improvement needs to come next year. Coaches can't just rely on Braxton to "make a play" as they did this year. I'd argue that establishing Hyde north-south and getting Miller established in the east-west passing game would open things up for OSU as much as Miller's running.
It'll be interesting to see Braxton's growth next year and (hopefully) the year after. Right now, he's playing like a true sophmore. It's a bit disconcerting to see his throwing regress (at least seemingly) over the year. If he's hitting 65-70% of his passes each game, the offense would be near unstoppable.
Thus far, the best thing about Miller is he's able to get out of the jams he creates (I think Ross is intimating the same thing, just says it nicer). Often, drives stall out early in the game due to overthrows and missed throws. This puts OSU in a hole and requires Miller to put on his Superman cape to start breaking off absurd runs. Once he starts converting those 3rd and 2s and 3s through the air, he won't need the cape (at least as much).
I was happy to see OSU finally had success defending the outside runs. Against UCF and Cal, the DE would line up shaded inside or heads-up with the tackle, creating easy angles for blocks. Against MSU, the DE was heads up, but then attacked the outside should of the blocker, allowing the DE to maintain contain and defeating the OT/TE's angle. Great inside-out fill from the LBs, too (which wasn't there against UCF and Cal because they were usually caught in the DE getting blocked).
I think Nebraska will be more of a challenge as the D will now have to be disciplined. Last year, the D tended to freelance against IV and zone reads.
I was hoping this breakdown would include the plays where Cal was able to get outside. When they were successful, the force man was lined up either heads up or inside the end man on the offensive side -see JT Moore get (barely) doubled by the OT/TE, with the TE then getting to Shazier and John Simon shaded inside the LT with no LB outside. The schemes made it easy.
In a way, it was probably helpful to have a Cal team coached by Tedford - an offensive guy - come in a out-scheme the OSU D staff (but without the personnel to do much damage). It should help the coaching staff in self-scouting. If it doesn't, we'll run into issues with teams that like to get to the edge like Nebraska (option killed OSU last year), Purdue (screens and outside runs), and Michigan (Denard and Toussaint).
Next, the OSU D staff needs to work on what to do when the offense motions.
Agree on the TV. The sideline camera seemed to be directed to the deepest offensive back and the nearest safety, then zoomed in to the action (on runs) or followed the action on pass. It didn't give you enough of the field to determine the covereage easily.
Spot on Ross, as usual. It's not the defenses being run, it's when they're being run. Combine that with lack of execution and you get a recipe for big plays.
I'd also suggest better disguise of blitzes. When they blitzed (outside of a delayed and zone blitzes), it was obvious who was coming. On the delayed and zone blitzes, the blitzer (or 4th rusher in zone) would run into a blocker, taking themselves out of the play.
The breakdowns on cover 3 are becoming inexcusable. I don't know if the focus on interceptions is leading to the outside 1/3rd defender coming off his zone and biting on undeneath (Miami) or the inside post (UCF).
How many of Braxton's carries were missed reads? He had a couple option pitches that were there, but instead of pitching he'd try and cut back underneath his man.
Gotta be Winfield, considering his brother was murdered earlier in the week.
Cover 3 corners cannot let a man run vertical past him.
Ross- Did my eyes fool me or did I see some Tampa 2 mixed in as well? I saw Sabino sprinting back to cover the middle a couple times.
It also looked like most of the big gainers were against cover 3. Looked like about 65% Cover 4 25% Cover 3, and 10% Cover 2/other. Bucks seem to like man with their backs against the goalline.
On the 1st video, it looks like a missed read. The LDE crashes (following the RT) and turns his shoulders. Should the QB have pulled the ball (or was it a designed give)? By giving, it looks like they're giving up the numbers advantage.
D got beat when they played cover 3. CBs would bite on underneath stuff leaving a deep 1/3 open.
Miller missed several reads on the read option, mostly in the 1st quarter. He too often kept it, instead of giving to the RB.
Great pass, no doubt, but no one was fooled. Watch the pulling guard - he gets deep when its a pass, OL doesn't fire out and sell run. LBs aren't sucked up on the PA. That's just TP and WR making a great play.
Spot on. There was not even a pretense of constrarint. A QB finishing off the hand-off ala Brett Farve would have at least held the back side end - who too often was crashing down the line making the tackle for a gain of 1 or 2. Instead, the QB would hand the ball off and stare. TP could have made a living with a bootleg action off Dave. Add a Wisconsin-type (under OSU old offense) jet sweep and you're in business.
The one Dave pass they had was obvious and so slow developing that it amounted to nothing.
The Cincy papers have always seemed a bit more on-and-off toward Ohio State. Etc.
Doesn't the Cincy paper use AP reports for the Buckeye games? I recall they send a writer to bowls/final fours, but I think they use AP reports for regular season games.
From the referenced article:
Defenses needed something better. They needed Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu.
There's still a plaque at UM celebrating Jesse Owen's world records.
Teams that beat Oregon have generally had great defensive lines. See, OSU, Auburn and LSU. Wisky has not had a great Dline. They've had good players (JJ Watt), but not enough to overwhelm the Oregon Oline. Moreover, their LB's may be good a filling holes, but they are slow sideline-to-sideline.
Not Ross, but I think your concerns regarding the offense are misplaced. OSU isn't going to be running the Oregon offense, they're trying to match the Oregon offense's tempo. The tempo allows for more plays, more plays allow for more scoring opportunities.
The term "spread" is a broad definition of offenses. Some teams spread to throw (Mike Leach, Purdue under Tiller), others spread to run (UFM). Rich Rod had other issues with smurf receivers, no running back and poor defense. I wouldn't worry too much about Rich Rod's failures.
About how many Ohio kids will be taken in 2013? Many of the offers seem to be to out of state kids.
From a recent ESPN chat with Vince Doria:
Jake Schmal (Melbourne, FL)
How does ESPN decide how much attention to give to a particular NCAA scandal. As an Ohio State fan, I have been following that story closely and the stories ESPN has run multiple stories using old or false information while other colleges have gotten much less attention.
I'll preface this by noting that I happen to be an Ohio State graduate (journalism, 1970). That said, I think we have reported fairly on a number stories involving violations in college football, including USC, Tennessee, North Carolina, Miami, so forth. No doubt we did perhaps more enterprise reporting on the problems at Ohio State. As in the case with most news entities, we feel an obligation to report the news, which I believe we have done with a variety of universities. When looking deeper, there are a combination of two variables. How important in the landscape is the offending party? In the case of Ohio State, it is arguably one of the two or three most prominent college football programs in the country. A second aspect is the type of information you have access to, the sources, the willingness of the sources to provide information, and so forth.