Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  Analysis of Ohio's offensive output

Topic:  Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
Author
Message
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 10:52:22 AM 
I went back an analyzed the Ohio Offenses of the last decade, and what I found will surprise people, because it reveals that much of the commentary here is quite simply wrong. This is what I found:
1. Ohio's rushing attack became more effective when they moved to the pistol, and dropped the fullback.
a. From 2005-2010, Ohio's running backs averaged 4.57 yards/carry. From 2011-2014 Ohio has averaged 4.79 yards/carry from the running backs.
b. From 2005-2010 Ohio's QBs averaged 3.05 yards/carry. Since 2011 the quarterbacks have averaged 3.36 a carry.
c. The one negative to the rushing attack from the pistol is a decrease in rushing yards by wide receivers. WR averaged 7.74 yards/carry in the old offense, and only 6.02 yards/carry from the pistol. They also get a lot less carries.
2. When Ohio moved to the pistol, they decreased the frequency of passes. From 2005-2011 Ohio ran the ball 58.1% of the time. From the pistol Ohio has run the ball 64.8% of the time.
3. Ohio's offensive output increased by all measures when they moved to the pistol
a. Rushing yards jumped from 145.1 yards/game in 2005-2010 to 175.4 yards/game in 2011-2014
b. Passing yards/game jumped from 175.4 yards/game to 236.2 yards/game
c. Points scored jumped from 24.1 points/game to 27.7 points a game

Now, I do note that the yards/rush by running backs was highest in two seasons, those being 2005 (5.36 yds/carry) and 2012 (5.4). The interesting thing about 2005 was that was the year that Ohio used traditional blocking with line calls, whereas from 2006 on Ohio has used zone blocking. 2012 was simply a good team with an outstanding line, at least it was, until injuries took it's toll.

Perhaps the pundits are right, though, that the traditional fullback set was effective, but it just became less effective with zone blocking, and that, if you are going to use zone blocking, then you need to use a set like the pistol where the RB has more time to read the blocking.

If I look specifically at this season, the first nine games of the season Ohio averaged a horrible 4.08 yards/carry from running backs, while the final three games Ohio averaged a very good 5.01 yards/carry. This bodes very well for next year, very, very well. The line matured as the season progressed, and AJ was finally healthy for the last three games. The result was a very, very effective running attack.

Every one of those players will be back next year. Ohio will pick up next year where it left off this year. Other teams will be forced to cram defenders into the box, because they can't afford to let Ohio average 5 yards a rush. That, in turn will open up the passing. Run to set up the pass is still the most effective offense I know.

Of course there are always ways to improve the offense. As I look at the year by year data, the number that stands out to me is that Ohio is not getting much in the way of rushing from the WR position. They used to get a lot in years past. Ohio has some nifty WR (guys like Walker or they could put White there), and there is no doubt they can get yards if Ohio can find ways get them the ball. Ohio should try to figure out ways to do more of that, other than the simple jet sweep or the quick screen passes.

Here's some examples:
1. Reverses - Ohio doesn't use many of these anymore because they don't run a lot of sweep action plays. Therefore I don't know how effective they would be.
2. Inside reverses - A personal favorite of mine, it is basically a power run inside the tackles, but with a handoff to the slot man instead of the RB. You could run the RB into a hole like a fullback, and have the WR follow him, or you could run the RB wide, faking a pitch to him, and then give to the WR inside, going the opposite direction, who then turns it up inside.
3. WR option plays - Fake the give to the RB inside, then run the option, where the pitch man is the slot receiver from the other side. He might have to start in motion in order to get there fast enough, I don't know.

Last Edited: 12/6/2014 11:05:43 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Paul Graham
General User



Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 12:11:28 PM 
LC, could some of this analysis be tainted by other factors beyond just scheme? For example, I don't think anyone would question that the 2011 team was the most talent we've had offensively. Regardless of scheme, they would have put up great numbers.

Last Edited: 12/6/2014 12:12:14 PM by Paul Graham
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 12:13:31 PM 
L.C. wrote:
I went back an analyzed the Ohio Offenses of the last decade, and what I found will surprise people, because it reveals that much of the commentary here is quite simply wrong. This is what I found:
1. Ohio's rushing attack became more effective when they moved to the pistol, and dropped the fullback.
a. From 2005-2010, Ohio's running backs averaged 4.57 yards/carry. From 2011-2014 Ohio has averaged 4.79 yards/carry from the running backs.
b. From 2005-2010 Ohio's QBs averaged 3.05 yards/carry. Since 2011 the quarterbacks have averaged 3.36 a carry.
c. The one negative to the rushing attack from the pistol is a decrease in rushing yards by wide receivers. WR averaged 7.74 yards/carry in the old offense, and only 6.02 yards/carry from the pistol. They also get a lot less carries.
2. When Ohio moved to the pistol, they decreased the frequency of passes. From 2005-2011 Ohio ran the ball 58.1% of the time. From the pistol Ohio has run the ball 64.8% of the time.
3. Ohio's offensive output increased by all measures when they moved to the pistol
a. Rushing yards jumped from 145.1 yards/game in 2005-2010 to 175.4 yards/game in 2011-2014
b. Passing yards/game jumped from 175.4 yards/game to 236.2 yards/game
c. Points scored jumped from 24.1 points/game to 27.7 points a game

Now, I do note that the yards/rush by running backs was highest in two seasons, those being 2005 (5.36 yds/carry) and 2012 (5.4). The interesting thing about 2005 was that was the year that Ohio used traditional blocking with line calls, whereas from 2006 on Ohio has used zone blocking. 2012 was simply a good team with an outstanding line, at least it was, until injuries took it's toll.

Perhaps the pundits are right, though, that the traditional fullback set was effective, but it just became less effective with zone blocking, and that, if you are going to use zone blocking, then you need to use a set like the pistol where the RB has more time to read the blocking.

If I look specifically at this season, the first nine games of the season Ohio averaged a horrible 4.08 yards/carry from running backs, while the final three games Ohio averaged a very good 5.01 yards/carry. This bodes very well for next year, very, very well. The line matured as the season progressed, and AJ was finally healthy for the last three games. The result was a very, very effective running attack.

Every one of those players will be back next year. Ohio will pick up next year where it left off this year. Other teams will be forced to cram defenders into the box, because they can't afford to let Ohio average 5 yards a rush. That, in turn will open up the passing. Run to set up the pass is still the most effective offense I know.

Of course there are always ways to improve the offense. As I look at the year by year data, the number that stands out to me is that Ohio is not getting much in the way of rushing from the WR position. They used to get a lot in years past. Ohio has some nifty WR (guys like Walker or they could put White there), and there is no doubt they can get yards if Ohio can find ways get them the ball. Ohio should try to figure out ways to do more of that, other than the simple jet sweep or the quick screen passes.

Here's some examples:
1. Reverses - Ohio doesn't use many of these anymore because they don't run a lot of sweep action plays. Therefore I don't know how effective they would be.
2. Inside reverses - A personal favorite of mine, it is basically a power run inside the tackles, but with a handoff to the slot man instead of the RB. You could run the RB into a hole like a fullback, and have the WR follow him, or you could run the RB wide, faking a pitch to him, and then give to the WR inside, going the opposite direction, who then turns it up inside.
3. WR option plays - Fake the give to the RB inside, then run the option, where the pitch man is the slot receiver from the other side. He might have to start in motion in order to get there fast enough, I don't know.


Inside reverse to the slot seems to work best if the slot receiver's number is 20. Not sure why.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 1:13:38 PM 
Can't argue with the facts.

Can point to play on the field.

Best, quick example. It was a mid-season game this year. We had the ball, late 2nd half I think, about 1.5 yards away from the goal line. First down was Daz solo back up the middle for no gain. Same with second down. Third down Edmond baely made it in by going wide right. It was the play on which he took a big hit to the head (no injury fortunately),

I still think that we are absolute idiots for running lightweight at the goal line. You run heavy big large jumbo weighty big tonnage mega huge down there. Two backs (so D doesn't know which one will get it or can have lead blocker..one of the backs can be a d-lineman for size) plus an extra lineman or two.

You want a stat? We're 15-16 in the last 31 games in a really lousy conference with the majority of those games being MAC games plus FCS schools.

Next year? We'll see who's right.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 3:43:09 PM 
Paul Graham wrote:
LC, could some of this analysis be tainted by other factors beyond just scheme? For example, I don't think anyone would question that the 2011 team was the most talent we've had offensively. Regardless of scheme, they would have put up great numbers.

Well, 2005-2007 had McRae as RB, and he had some talent, too. I think it also matters who is on the offensive line. In any case, here are the numbers on a year by year basis for avg yards/carry by running backs, and stats for any individual back with over 50 carries:
2005 5.13 (McRae 5.5)
--->switched to zone blocking here
2006 4.44 (McRae 4.9)
2007 4.79 (McRae 4.9)
2008 4.60 (Garrett 4.5, Harden 5.2)
2009 4.10 (Garrett 4.2, Davidson 3.9, Harden 3.9)
2010 4.32 (Davidson 3.9, Harden 4.8)
--->switched to pistol here
2011 4.89 (Harden 5.3, Blankenship 5.0, Boykin 4.1)
2012 5.40 (Blankenship 5.1, Boykin 6.0)
2013 4.33 (Blankenship 4.5, Boykin 3.9)
2014 4.34 (OUellette 4.9, Patterson 4.0)
2014, last three games 5.01 (OUellett 5.3)

Now let's look at the offensive lines by year:
2005 - Coppage, Johnson, Knabb, Miller, Wesley, a great group, but about halfway through Johnson, Knabb, and Miller were hurt, if I recall.
2006 - Coppage,Johnson/Eynon,Knabb,Miller,Shelby - Johnson hurt after 3 games
2007 - Leuck, Eynon, Stuck/White, Miller, Shelby - Stuck lost to off-the-field issues
2008 - Leuck, Eynon, Stuck/White, Philibin, Rodgers/Bunner
2009 - Rodgers, Laudermilch/Carlotta/Strum,White, Flowers/Pinder/Herman, Bunner/Flading - Extensive injuries at LG, RG, and RT, ended up a very young line of Strum/Herman/Flading, setting stage for next few years
2010 - Strum/McGrath, Carlotta/Lechner, Allen, Herman, Flading - More injuries, and still young
2011 - Strum/Prior, Carlotta/Lechner, Allen/Bales, Herman, Flading/McGrath - entire line returned
2012 - Prior, Carlotta/Lechner, Allen/Bales, Herman/Johnson, McGrath/Dietz - season ending injuries for Carlotta, Johnson, McGrath, but a veteran group
2013 - Prior/McQueen, Lechner/Everhart/Lucas, Powell, Johnson/Gibbons/Wood, McGrath/Watson - virtually the entire line was hurt, and it was a new lineup each week, and lots of young faces
2014 - McQueen/Lowery, Lucas/Langenkamp, Powell, Pruehs, Watson/McCray - A very young group, actually younger than 2009, setting the stage for the next few years

Combined you see some interesting things:
1. The 2009 offensive line was clearly worse than 2008 as all the backs dropped in production. (Fortunately 2009 had a great defense.) The reason was all the injuries, however the result was a very young line that set the stage for the next few years.
2. The very young group at the end of 2009, Strum, Carlotta, Herman, and Flading went 4.1, 4.32, 4.89 over the next three years. Part of the jump in 2011 was due to that, not the switch to the Pistol. Carlotta and Herman were still there for 2012, when production hit 5.40.
3. Like 2009, there was a big drop in running back production in 2013 when the injuries were once again severe on the offensive line. Note that if we compare them directly, 2013 (even with the internal problems that team had) had higher production than 2009, so the Pistol can't be hurting, and is probably helping. 4. The very young offensive line of 2014 will be together for years. I would expect that like the years following 2009, we will see rising production from the running backs in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (when Lowery, Pruehs, McCray, and Wood will be Seniors). The significant improvement between the first games and the last three games bodes well for the coming years.

Last Edited: 12/6/2014 3:47:19 PM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 4:05:03 PM 
Basically, a look at the numbers does not support the idea that the pistol set is less effective for rushing than a fullback set. If anything, the numbers are better from the pistol. Why would that be? With a fullback set, you have the fullback in the middle, but also more defenders. With 4 wide receivers, all those guys are outside and not available as blockers, but there will always need to be defenders out there, too. Pull them inside, you have to block them, pull them outside, and they are out of the play. Either can work.

The plays I suggested, I think would fit nicely with this offensive scheme and they would be core power running plays, not gimmick plays like reverses or jet sweeps. They also fit the personnel that Ohio has. I like the idea of a Patterson, Walker or White lined up in the slot, being involved in inside reverses and options, and meanwhile having a back like OUellette, Brown, or Irons as the running back.

Finally, as I looked at the steady increase in offensive productivity from 2009-2012 as that core group of Freshmen offensive linemen matured, I get really optimistic about the next few years.

Monroe Slavin wrote:
...Next year? We'll see who's right.

Indeed we will. We all look forward to having you back on the light side. ;)

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 4:58:09 PM 
I have always thought you did not need to have two backs. A tight and Blocker can be just as effective as a fullback. I think that's what We went to later in the year. Last comment on the pistol. If If it was so good more than five schools would be using it.

Last Edited: 12/6/2014 5:02:24 PM by Casper71
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/6/2014 5:14:06 PM 
Casper71 wrote:
I have always thought you did not need to have two backs. A tight and Blocker can be just as effective as a fullback. I think that's what We went to later in the year. Last comment on the pistol. If If it was so good more than five schools would be using it.

I don't think there is any one "magic" formation that is best. In the end it comes down to execution. I'm puzzled by the "five schools" comment, though. Wikipedia lists about 50 teams that use it at least in part, plus 14 NFL teams.

Interestingly, though, I note that it was most effectively used with a QB like Colin Kaepernick. I wonder if it's a coincidence that the QB recruit this year, Quinton Maxwell, has a style of play like Kaepernick? Whether he will develop as a passer, I don't know, but I guess now I know what they liked about him.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 12:00:27 AM 
L. C. I don't know where Wikipedia got their information but I posted a listing put in USA today about a month ago and it showed only five schools using the pistol Troy being one Ohio being one duke another and I forget the other two.

Just watching the end of the Ohio State game and I noticed they rushed over 300 yards and held Wisconsin to less than 100. So I repeat run the ball first it sets everything up

Last Edited: 12/7/2014 12:03:06 AM by Casper71
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 12:05:01 AM 
Casper71 wrote:
L. C. I don't know where Wikipedia got their information but I posted a listing put in USA today about a month ago and it showed only five schools using the pistol Troy being one Ohio being one duke another and I forget the other two.

Just watching the end of the Ohio State game and I noticed they rushed over 300 yards and held Wisconsin to less than 100. So I repeat run the ball first it sets everything up


Run the ball. Stop the run. Win the game. So I guess Ohio needs to switch to the wishbone. I saw Oklahoma do do it so it must be good.

Last Edited: 12/7/2014 12:10:32 AM by Bcat2

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 12:19:03 AM 

Bcat I simply said the run sets up everything else. Ohio State got over 250 passing and Northern Illinois did too. Both set up big pass plays with the run.
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 7:32:18 AM 
Casper71 wrote:
Bcat I simply said the run sets up everything else. Ohio State got over 250 passing and Northern Illinois did too. Both set up big pass plays with the run.


And I agreed with you. Now, don't you see, I am a convert, two back set, heck, OU (Red) showed us three backs are even better, right?

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 1:16:27 PM 
I don't think that anyone disputes the importance of running the football.

The dispute is over how to do (such as pistol vs two back set, etc).

But it's not just running the ball. It's being able to do it at key moments--third downs, key late game moments, to chew clock when well ahead, to drive for points when far behind early, etc.


To go somewhat tangential, first and second down are mildly amusing but third down (both sides of ball) is absolutely vital. This staff lousy on third down.




Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 1:48:15 PM 
Monroe Slavin wrote:
I don't think that anyone disputes the importance of running the football.

The dispute is over how to do (such as pistol vs two back set, etc).

But it's not just running the ball. It's being able to do it at key moments--third downs, key late game moments, to chew clock when well ahead, to drive for points when far behind early, etc.


To go somewhat tangential, first and second down are mildly amusing but third down (both sides of ball) is absolutely vital. This staff lousy on third down.



Third down. Just really quick, vs NIU 7 of 14, vs Bowling Green 12 of 24, 50% combined vs the MAC Champs and East Division champs. Monroe, you got some more misinformation to fling at your own team? This has got to be so helpful when recruits or families of recruits or players visit this board.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 1:54:49 PM 
Bcat, I thought you thought I wanted a wishbone:)
Back to Top
  
Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 4:23:55 PM 
Casper71 wrote:
Bcat, I thought you thought I wanted a wishbone:)


No sir.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/7/2014 4:29:08 PM 
Monroe Slavin wrote:
I don't think that anyone disputes the importance of running the football.

The dispute is over how to do (such as pistol vs two back set, etc).

But it's not just running the ball. It's being able to do it at key moments--third downs, key late game moments, to chew clock when well ahead, to drive for points when far behind early, etc.


To go somewhat tangential, first and second down are mildly amusing but third down (both sides of ball) is absolutely vital. This staff lousy on third down.

Yes, Monroe, it does make a difference. As you point out, there is a huge difference in 3d down efficiency between a two back set and the pistol. One of the biggest benefits of the pistol over the two back sets is the dramatically higher 3rd down conversion rate. When running a two back set, from 2005-2010 Ohio averaged a 3rd down conversion rate of 34.2%, near the bottom of the MAC. Once they switched to the pistol, the rate jumped immediately and dramatically, and they have averaged 42.4% the last four years, very close to the top in the MAC. (NIU leads at 46.4% followed by Toledo at 44.4%, neither really that much higher than Ohio. The average for the MAC during the last 4 years has been 37.9%.)

This year wasn't Ohio's best year for 3rd down conversion, coming in at 39.7%, and only 6th best best in the MAC. Still, it was better than any year that they ran a two back set, so you can't complain too much. When a bad year with the new system is better than the best year with the old system, the difference is pretty apparent.

Casper, maybe only 5 teams run it full time, while the other 45 teams run it sometimes? I do agree with you, running the ball effectively is still the key to winning at football. If you can run the ball, and stop the run, you will usually win. That's why the youth of this team hurt early in the year; they simply weren't very effective running the ball until the last few games.

On the bright side, they did run the ball effectively the last three games, and those were not the worst teams Ohio faced this year. NIU was one of the best teams, and Buffalo was a veteran team that finished just behind Ohio in the standings. (Of course Miami sucks, but that's a given.) That makes me very optimistic that they will pick up next year where they left off this year, and it will be a much better year.

Last Edited: 12/7/2014 4:40:23 PM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/8/2014 12:05:42 PM 
L.C., this points out a pet peeve some on here have expressed. Many if not most FBS schools run MULTIPLE offenses. They go under center some, they run the I, they run a Pro Set and the spread it out. For some reason, we do not do anything other than the Pistol. The question is: Why can't we be more diversified in our approach?
Back to Top
  
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,466

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/8/2014 12:37:18 PM 
Casper71 wrote:
L.C., this points out a pet peeve some on here have expressed. Many if not most FBS schools run MULTIPLE offenses. They go under center some, they run the I, they run a Pro Set and the spread it out. For some reason, we do not do anything other than the Pistol. The question is: Why can't we be more diversified in our approach?


That's not true. We were quite often NOT in the pistol this year.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,491

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Analysis of Ohio's offensive output
   Posted: 12/8/2014 1:05:24 PM 
Is it still "the pistol" if they bring in two tight ends? What if they bring in three, and put one in the backfield?

I have to admit, I'm still a little surprised by what I found when I looked at the data. I knew Ohio's offensive output jumped when they went to the pistol, and I knew their passing effectiveness in particular jumped, but I didn't realize that the effectiveness of the rushing attack jumped dramatically, too, nor that Ohio runs the ball a higher percentage of the time now than they did when they were operating under center.

In some ways it makes sense, though. When you spread the field, the defenders have to spread the field, too, so running up the middle is a lot easier. You have a less blockers, but less people that need to be blocked. I didn't like the pistol much at first, but it's growing on me, especially when I look at the numbers like the huge jump in 3rd down efficiency.

One thing about the offense is that it is something that is constantly changing and evolving, not something set in stone. I do expect that during the off season Isphording will, in his job as co-offensive coordinator, add some changes to the offense for 2015. This year was his first year, so I suspect he largely deferred to Albin, and observed how the current system works. This year I suspect he'll bring some things into it that he has seen work in other systems, such as from his time at Toledo.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 20  of 20 Posts
Jump to Page:  1
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 306 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
305 Guests
1 Registered User:
 NashvilleKat
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties