The fan reaction to the tOSU loss on this board has been interesting.
Ohio State put up 62 (would likely have been 69 had they not taken a knee) on our defense and there's two possible fan reactions (both seen here over the last two days)
1). What's wrong with our defense?
2). What's wrong with our offense?
There's no question that Q1 is reasonable, but there's been a fair bit of focus here on Q2. The underlying assumption is "If tOSU can put up 62 on our top-ranked defense, why can't we put up 63 on their less effective unit?"
(NB: We'd actually have needed 70 if tOSU successfully played out their final drive.). The focus has been on our scheme.
So....
Is there a scheme issue under Harbaugh?
The simple answer IMO is "No".
He has installed the most versatile offense in CFB. Depending on personnel, we are comfortable with everything from single back, multiple WRs out of the shotgun to jumbo back, multi-TE power between the tackles, to most things in between including QB read option runs and RPO. The scheme also features lots of formations and a fair dose of motion. I think it's as hard to defend as any scheme in CFB, with a few caveats:
1) Play calling. In choosing the balance from among the power choices and the "finesse" choices, how (and why) do the coaches lean one way or the other?
2) Execution/talent. Once the coaches choose a play, success or failure may flow from the call or it may be rooted in execution/player ability.
Q1is much more interesting IMO. The answer is statistics. Stats predict outcomes. The coaches know that they'll win most games if they win the two most powerfully predictive stats: TO margin and YPPA. (NB: In some college games, total rushing yards is another powerful predictor). These are the metrics our staff (correctly) coaches to.
If you can run for a first down (or get it on third and short), you reduce the likelihood of TOs. A glance at the NCAA stats seems to show 2-3 times as many INTS per 100 throws as fumbles per 100 carries in the aggregate. If you want to minimize TOs, run the ball. (Disclaimer - that's a quick glance, more careful (and deeper) analysis would be welcome.)
Remember, too, that TO margin is hindered by the Don Brown pressure defense. It trades away the INTs that flow from a zone defense for three and outs that are characteristic of press, man. In short, UM's offensive coaches seem to be focused on the right thing here, even if fans don't love it. Run the ball if you can win running the ball.
The problem there is predicting YPPA. The short passing game argues that you give your receivers enough chances, and they YAC themselves to a huge advantage. If they do so, you control the second most powerfully predictive stat. If they don't, you lose that edge AND increase your chances of losing the TO battle with more (albeit safer) throws.
So, how do you choose the approach? You look at the match-ups (Caveat 2). If you conclude that your edge running the ball is greater than your opponent's edge either way, run the ball. It's the best way to win. IMO, that is what happened Saturday. The coaches believed that they could run, run, throw and outscore tOSU. It was a miscalculation in play calling, not a problem with the scheme.
At halftime, the turnover battle looked good on the muff and the 24-19 halftime edge goes away with better execution (Gentry drop) and a PAT (foregone on a two point attempt). At halftime, the offensive game plan probably looked great to the coaches. Just tighten up the defense, keep doing what we're doing on offense and we will win. Well....
A punt block and two INTs submarines that pretty quickly. Further, the defense imploded instead of improved. A spectacularly awful third quarter on both sides of the ball radically changed the way the UM coaches had to manage the offense.
It was awful, but it wasn't the offensive scheme. It was a misread. I suspect that the coaches thought they were going to pull away in the second half, but instead they got hit by a runaway train. They have to do a better job of reading the tea leaves (and calling plays accordingly) going forward, but they don't need to overhaul the offense.
Ohio State put up 62 (would likely have been 69 had they not taken a knee) on our defense and there's two possible fan reactions (both seen here over the last two days)
1). What's wrong with our defense?
2). What's wrong with our offense?
There's no question that Q1 is reasonable, but there's been a fair bit of focus here on Q2. The underlying assumption is "If tOSU can put up 62 on our top-ranked defense, why can't we put up 63 on their less effective unit?"
(NB: We'd actually have needed 70 if tOSU successfully played out their final drive.). The focus has been on our scheme.
So....
Is there a scheme issue under Harbaugh?
The simple answer IMO is "No".
He has installed the most versatile offense in CFB. Depending on personnel, we are comfortable with everything from single back, multiple WRs out of the shotgun to jumbo back, multi-TE power between the tackles, to most things in between including QB read option runs and RPO. The scheme also features lots of formations and a fair dose of motion. I think it's as hard to defend as any scheme in CFB, with a few caveats:
1) Play calling. In choosing the balance from among the power choices and the "finesse" choices, how (and why) do the coaches lean one way or the other?
2) Execution/talent. Once the coaches choose a play, success or failure may flow from the call or it may be rooted in execution/player ability.
Q1is much more interesting IMO. The answer is statistics. Stats predict outcomes. The coaches know that they'll win most games if they win the two most powerfully predictive stats: TO margin and YPPA. (NB: In some college games, total rushing yards is another powerful predictor). These are the metrics our staff (correctly) coaches to.
If you can run for a first down (or get it on third and short), you reduce the likelihood of TOs. A glance at the NCAA stats seems to show 2-3 times as many INTS per 100 throws as fumbles per 100 carries in the aggregate. If you want to minimize TOs, run the ball. (Disclaimer - that's a quick glance, more careful (and deeper) analysis would be welcome.)
Remember, too, that TO margin is hindered by the Don Brown pressure defense. It trades away the INTs that flow from a zone defense for three and outs that are characteristic of press, man. In short, UM's offensive coaches seem to be focused on the right thing here, even if fans don't love it. Run the ball if you can win running the ball.
The problem there is predicting YPPA. The short passing game argues that you give your receivers enough chances, and they YAC themselves to a huge advantage. If they do so, you control the second most powerfully predictive stat. If they don't, you lose that edge AND increase your chances of losing the TO battle with more (albeit safer) throws.
So, how do you choose the approach? You look at the match-ups (Caveat 2). If you conclude that your edge running the ball is greater than your opponent's edge either way, run the ball. It's the best way to win. IMO, that is what happened Saturday. The coaches believed that they could run, run, throw and outscore tOSU. It was a miscalculation in play calling, not a problem with the scheme.
At halftime, the turnover battle looked good on the muff and the 24-19 halftime edge goes away with better execution (Gentry drop) and a PAT (foregone on a two point attempt). At halftime, the offensive game plan probably looked great to the coaches. Just tighten up the defense, keep doing what we're doing on offense and we will win. Well....
A punt block and two INTs submarines that pretty quickly. Further, the defense imploded instead of improved. A spectacularly awful third quarter on both sides of the ball radically changed the way the UM coaches had to manage the offense.
It was awful, but it wasn't the offensive scheme. It was a misread. I suspect that the coaches thought they were going to pull away in the second half, but instead they got hit by a runaway train. They have to do a better job of reading the tea leaves (and calling plays accordingly) going forward, but they don't need to overhaul the offense.
