"with an assist from unimaginative play-calling by Minnesota"

[MGGopher]

That was coming after a 1st Quarter where the Gophers moved the ball thru the air but "terrified" tOSU by getting 1-2 yards at a crack on the ground. Matter of fact the Running Game stopped or didn't help much at all in the 1st Half.

1st and 10 at MINN 23
(14:40 - 1st) Rodney Smith run for no gain to the Minn 23
2nd and 10 at MINN 23
(14:08 - 1st) Mitch Leidner run for 3 yds to the Minn 26

I notice you didn't highlight the incomplete passes, or the complete ones that went for short gains. How about the ones that were complete, but on which Mitch got absolutely drilled?

When you're playing a team as explosive as OSU (even when your D is solid), you try to LIMIT their possessions. I don't agree with every play call MN makes, but I think I understand what they're trying to do. Here are a few thoughts:

1) Much of the reason our passing game has worked the last few weeks is because we're throwing off play action a lot. If you never run the ball, how successful will play action be?

2) OSU was playing only 6 in the box much of the night. 3 or 4 man routes with 5 in coverage usually doesn't work super well...especially if you're just going straight drop back. Maybe with play action...but see point 1 above.

3) Leidner looked pretty bad early in the game. He made at least 3 really poor throws that I remember on the first couple possessions. Not a recipe for suddenly abandoning the game plan and going Air Raid.

4) Contrary to popular belief, we don't just have one running play called "Run up the Middle." It's surprising (I know), but the team tried many different schemes last night: zone, zone read, power (3 varieties), lead, stretch...and probably more I didn't catch. If we an agree they at least have to try running occasionally, what would you have them try? Bear in mind OSU probably has the fastest D we'll play all year. You remember the vaunted jet sweep we tried last night?

I'll never understand how people on a message board (or even writers for the Columbus Dispatch) think they know better than a division 1 coaching staff who gets paid to do this and has been doing so for over 20 years.

 

[Iceland12]

A. I notice..

3) Leidner looked pretty bad early in the game. He made at least 3 really poor throws that I remember on the first couple possessions. Not a recipe for suddenly abandoning the game plan and going Air Raid.

.

You saw the First Half, looked at the stats and came to the conclusion that "Leidner looked pretty bad early in the game. He made at least 3 really poor throws that I remember on the first couple possession" and that everything else was perfect.

Oh, and the only alternative to the First Half was an "Air Raid" Offense. Didn't see the rest of the game then?

Pointless.

 

[bemidjigopher]

Are you under the impression that the "pick 6" took place on the 4th Quarter? It took place the 4:53 mark of the 2nd quarter. That made it 7-0 and, reading your post "you are acting as if the 7 point deficit" was insurmountable because "our margin was small" and "that's why we lost".

You may be partially right and it explains why you are so comfortable with 2 and 8 or 2 and 9. That's "why we lost" but hey, it's was only by 14.

Gotta keep those losses looking close.

"More jet sweeps".

Well if we don't toss a pick six its a 14-14 game in the 4th we don't onside so Ohio state starts from normal field position. Maybe cardels breaks one for eighty maybe they try to throw in that situation but different ball game it was an important play too bad they picked up the flag

 

[MGGopher]

You saw the First Half, looked at the stats and came to the conclusion that "Leidner looked pretty bad early in the game. He made at least 3 really poor throws that I remember on the first couple possession" and that everything else was perfect.

Why should anybody respond to you.

LOL...go ahead and give me your bright ideas for the offense. I'd love to hear them.

On the whole, I thought Leidner played well. And as I mentioned, he completed a lot of balls off play action...which needs to be set up by a running play. But I was at the game and watched him miss a very open WR early then throw a couple more at people's feet. Was it at that point you wish Limegrover would've torn up the game plan (months in the making, btw...based on advance film scouting and refined in the past week) and said, "screw it...let's air it out tonight, baby!"

 

[Iceland12]

LOL...go ahead and give me your bright ideas for the offense. I'd love to hear them.

On the whole, I thought Leidner played well. And as I mentioned, he completed a lot of balls off play action...which needs to be set up by a running play. But I was at the game and watched him miss a very open WR early then throw a couple more at people's feet. Was it at that point you wish Limegrover would've torn up the game plan (months in the making, btw...based on advance film scouting and refined in the past week) and said, "screw it...let's air it out tonight, baby!"

Well as long as you're taking that route, maybe you were to drunk to notice then? Explains your posts.

That 4th Quarter must have really pissed you off huh? "Run off tackle! Run between the tackles" "Good God don't let Lender throw the ball, it's not manly! It's pulling the Defense out of the box!" "No! No! And I'm at the game too!" "Did I mention that? I was at the game!"

Yeah, you're a real hero.

 

[citywok]

One thing I noticed that nobody's mentioned is how Mayes was a step or two slow on pulling all night. I noticed OSU stop multiple plays to the outside before Mayes could even make contact with someone. Things like that can have a big effect on and dictate your running packages to some extent.

 

[Iceland12]

Well if we don't toss a pick six its a 14-14 game in the 4th we don't onside so Ohio state starts from normal field position. Maybe cardels breaks one for eighty maybe they try to throw in that situation but different ball game it was an important play too bad they picked up the flag

True, very bad they picked-up the flag. On the rest, you'd have to assume that everything else would have played out exactly as it did after the pick to get to the 14-14 score. Tough to believe but possible.

 

[MGGopher]

Maybe you were to drunk to notice then? Explains your posts.

That 4th Quarter must have really pissed you off huh? "Run off tackle! Run between the tackles" "Good God don't let Lender throw the ball, it's not manly! It's pulling the Defense out of the box!" "No! No! And I'm at the game too!" "Did I mention that? I was at the game!"

Yeah, you're a real hero.

Wow, I seem to have upset you. I'm sorry. I think you'd like me if we met in person...and I'd probably like you. I had a lot of fun at the game last night (especially in the 4th quarter), because I really like the team. I know you do too. I don't come here to argue with people. I just tried to explain why I think the staff did what they did on offense last night. They're just guesses, but I gave you a few reasons why I thought they committed to the run. I was admittedly snarky (especially the last bit about people thinking they know better than coaches who do this for a living. Sorry about that, it was stupid and unnecessary). I disagree with your take, but would honestly like to hear your thoughts about how the offense could improve. What types of sets and plays and strategy would you have liked to see last night? I ask in all sincerity.

 

[John Galt]

Well as long as you're taking that route, maybe you were to drunk to notice then? Explains your posts.

That 4th Quarter must have really pissed you off huh? "Run off tackle! Run between the tackles" "Good God don't let Lender throw the ball, it's not manly! It's pulling the Defense out of the box!" "No! No! And I'm at the game too!" "Did I mention that? I was at the game!"

Yeah, you're a real hero.

Try answering MG's question: what would you have done iceman?

Our team, like most, needs to establish the run. It wasn't working, but we needed to keep trying. Yet we still threw it a lot more than we ran it.

 

[leadpipegopher]

Iceman would have called plays that worked and not called the ones that didn't.

 

[Iceland12]

Wow, I seem to have upset you. I'm sorry. I think you'd like me if we met in person...and I'd probably like you. I had a lot of fun at the game last night (especially in the 4th quarter), because I really like the team. I know you do too. I don't come here to argue with people. I just tried to explain why I think the staff did what they did on offense last night. They're just guesses, but I gave you a few reasons why I thought they committed to the run. I was admittedly snarky (especially the last bit about people thinking they know better than coaches who do this for a living. Sorry about that, it was stupid and unnecessary). I disagree with your take, but would honestly like to hear your thoughts about how the offense could improve. What types of sets and plays and strategy would you have liked to see last night? I ask in all sincerity.

Okay, take a look at their 4th Quarters; Colorado State, NE, MI or tOSU.

I'd like the Coaching Staff to stay. The only problem is their "play to stay close in the 4th and steal the game philosophy" doesn't seem to work if they get to far behind, and when Mitch is healthy they are way more successful throwing the ball than running it. It's frustrating to watch them run, as the play by play shows, again and again on first for little or no gain. That almost guarantees that Leidner will get all kinds of heat when he sees 2nd or 3rd and 8 and has to throw, followed by punting the ball away.

They tried running 14 times in the 1st half. Two went for more than 4 yards and 9 went for 2 yards or less. Worse yet 10 of those runs were on 1st and/or 2nd Down. That didn't establish a running game but it did put the Offense in a bad postion on 2nd and/or 3rd down.

This Staff has won WAY more than they've lost using this philosophy so it's probably gonna stay. However their record in the Big Ten and against Power 5 Conference teams suggest that by letting the Defense carry all the load, when they get too far down they lose. This year their Running Game is pretty awful. Meaning they are falling behind more often. Valiant efforts in 4th Quarter or not, they only won one of the above mentioned games.

Maybe the bottom line is, can't see why they don't take advantage of what the Defense is giving them until they are so far behind. They did against Michigan and they were in the game all the way. Don't know why they reverted to form this week. Maybe the "experts" here can tell you why.

Again, hope the Staff stays, the O-Line gets healthier and the Running Game comes back. Right now though Play Action doesn't even work much because the Running Game isn't much of a threat and the D is already all in the box.

 

[mkAz]

Iceman would have called plays that worked and not called the ones that didn't.

The Donald Trump approach, I like it.

 

[cjbfbp]

I notice you didn't highlight the incomplete passes, or the complete ones that went for short gains. How about the ones that were complete, but on which Mitch got absolutely drilled?


2) OSU was playing only 6 in the box much of the night. 3 or 4 man routes with 5 in coverage usually doesn't work super well...especially if you're just going straight drop back. Maybe with play action...but see point 1 above.


I'll never understand how people on a message board (or even writers for the Columbus Dispatch) think they know better than a division 1 coaching staff who gets paid to do this and has been doing so for over 20 years.

And I'll never understand how some people refuse to believe their lying eyes and refuse to criticize any decisions made by experts. Expertise is a double edged sword. It makes you more competent to perform certain tasks than those without expertise but it also may result in a certain level of lockstep thinking and preconceived notions. I happen to be an expert in a certain technical area and I'm guilty of some of those things from time to time.

As to #2, despite 5 on 3 or 4 and only 6 in the box, we still managed 281 yards passing vs. 33 yards on 26 rushes. I don't have to be an expert to know what worked fairly well and what didn't work at all.

 

[Iceland12]

The Donald Trump approach, I like it.

Yeah, that was pretty Trump-like snarky wasn't it?

 

[WorkingMyTailOff]

They stayed with the run against Michigan and eventually it paid off. The coaches may have thought they needed to "shorten" the game by trying to run more. I thought their game plan made sense last night.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Iceland12]

They stayed with the run against Michigan and eventually it paid off. The coaches may have thought they needed to "shorten" the game by trying to run more. I thought their game plan made sense last night.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was a very balanced Offense against Michigan, which is what they need. The Pass set-up the run but the Passing Game was way more successful. There were 35 runs for 144 yards running and 33 passes for 317 yards and they started off the game throwing the ball as well.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400763553

 

[MGGopher]

Okay, take a look at their 4th Quarters; Colorado State, NE, MI or tOSU.

I'd like the Coaching Staff to stay. The only problem is their "play to stay close in the 4th and steal the game philosophy" doesn't seem to work if they get to far behind, and when Mitch is healthy they are way more successful throwing the ball than running it. It's frustrating to watch them run, as the play by play shows, again and again on first for little or no gain. That almost guarantees that Leidner will get all kinds of heat when he sees 2nd or 3rd and 8 and has to throw, followed by punting the ball away.

They tried running 14 times in the 1st half. Two went for more than 4 yards and 9 went for 2 yards or less. Worse yet 10 of those runs were on 1st and/or 2nd Down. That didn't establish a running game but it did put the Offense in a bad postion on 2nd and/or 3rd down.

This Staff has won WAY more than they've lost using this philosophy so it's probably gonna stay. However their record in the Big Ten and against Power 5 Conference teams suggest that by letting the Defense carry all the load, when they get too far down they lose. This year their Running Game is pretty awful. Meaning they are falling behind more often. Valiant efforts in 4th Quarter or not, they only won one of the above mentioned games.

Maybe the bottom line is, can't see why they don't take advantage of what the Defense is giving them until they are so far behind. They did against Michigan and they were in the game all the way. Don't know why they reverted to form this week. Maybe the "experts" here can tell you why.

Again, hope the Staff stays, the O-Line gets healthier and the Running Game comes back. Right now though Play Action doesn't even work much because the Running Game isn't much of a threat and the D is already all in the box.

I appreciate your thoughts. They make a lot of sense, and I can understand your frustration with the team continuing to run on early downs (especially 1st) with little success. I haven't studied game logs (it looks like you have), but I do believe you're right that they threw more on 1st down against MI, primarily off play-action. Maybe you can confirm whether there was truly a significant difference in the number of early down running plays in the MI game and the OSU game, or if the running plays were just more successful against MI thereby clouding our judgement. If it's the former, you're right -- the staff had a different (and less successful) gameplan for OSU, which is frustrating considering the success they had against MI.

The other thing to consider is what MI and OSU were doing on defense. If I remember, MI was committing many more players to the box than OSU. That usually dictates how an offense attacks. But you're right that MN was finding very little success running on early downs into a 6 man box against OSU, so it begs the question of why they didn't adjust sooner and throw more on 1st and 2nd down. Perhaps they thought the first few stops were flukes or outstanding individual plays by an OSU defender, but that the basic plan was still good. We'll never know.

I don't disagree with you on much of what you said, but like I mentioned earlier, I can also easily justify why the staff did what they did against OSU. It clearly didn't work though, which invites frustration and second guessing. Probably warranted, although I usually give the staff the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, thanks for the well crafted response. I love discussing football strategy. Sucks when it's a team you love that just lost, however!