NCAA Football 2015

[grumbler]

The criticism is that of all their plays, only 12 were runs by running backs. So yes, they did have lots of QB and WR runs that add up to a large percentage of run plays, but the running backs were not given much of a chance to get going.

YThe criticism doesn't take into  account the system Urban Meyer runs.  In his spread-to-run system, there are very few plays that are designed with only a single running candidate; the vast majority of plays option off the defense.

And Elliot (the only RB to get the ball, IIRC) averaged worse than anyone else; if he had gotten the ball more, they'd have gotten fewer yards.  What OSU needed to do was push those MSU safeties back with a downfield passing game.

[alfred russel]

YThe criticism doesn't take into  account the system Urban Meyer runs.  In his spread-to-run system, there are very few plays that are designed with only a single running candidate; the vast majority of plays option off the defense.

And Elliot (the only RB to get the ball, IIRC) averaged worse than anyone else; if he had gotten the ball more, they'd have gotten fewer yards.  What OSU needed to do was push those MSU safeties back with a downfield passing game.

Elliott averaged 2.8 yards a carry, JT Barrett 2.9, and when passing the ball they completed 9/16 passes for 46 yards, or 2.9 yards an attempt.

This is an odd argument. I'm saying they didn't feed Elliott the ball enough, and you are responding that I am not taking into account Urban Meyer's system, but Urban Meyer has said that they didn't feed him the ball enough.

Elliott was a heisman candidate and probably would have been in NY for the ceremony if not for the MSU game. When you have a guy like that, it is tough not to wonder why he only got the ball 3 times a quarter.

[grumbler]

Elliott averaged 2.8 yards a carry, JT Barrett 2.9, and when passing the ball they completed 9/16 passes for 46 yards, or 2.9 yards an attempt.

This is an odd argument. I'm saying they didn't feed Elliott the ball enough, and you are responding that I am not taking into account Urban Meyer's system, but Urban Meyer has said that they didn't feed him the ball enough.

I don't believe that he actually said that.   Elliot said that, and Meyer just agreed that he wasn't going to dispute Elliot's comments. 

All I did was note that Elliot was their least effective weapon, so I fail to see how that is an "odd argument"  that their problem wasn't that they didn't get him the ball more, and was, instead, that they needed to stop MSU from stacking the box and so get everyone more plays.  Meyer DID address that.

Elliott was a heisman candidate and probably would have been in NY for the ceremony if not for the MSU game. When you have a guy like that, it is tough not to wonder why he only got the ball 3 times a quarter.

Elliot got the ball in 50% of the rushes against ND, and only three less than 50% in the MSU game.  I don't think shifting three rushes from Barret to Elliot in the MSU game was going to make a damn bit of difference, either in the score or in Elliot's Heisman candidacy.

If OSU could have sustained drives against MSU, and Elliot could have gotten 25 or so touches (out of 50 or so running plays), yes, that would have turned the game around.  But the problem wasn't that Elliot was not getting the ball enough, it was that the offense wasn't able to run enough plays to win.  The OSU playcalling was bad, but it was bad because it didn't react to what was happening on the field.

[alfred russel]

I don't believe that he actually said that.   Elliot said that, and Meyer just agreed that he wasn't going to dispute Elliot's comments.

All I did was note that Elliot was their least effective weapon, so I fail to see how that is an "odd argument"  that their problem wasn't that they didn't get him the ball more, and was, instead, that they needed to stop MSU from stacking the box and so get everyone more plays.  Meyer DID address that.

"I couldn't disagree with his comments, but that's not the place" is what he said in the post game press conference.

"Elliott carried eight times on the Buckeyes' longest scoring drive of the game — a 32-yard drive in the first half. He carried the ball four times the rest of the game, including only two carries for three yards in the second half."

http://www.news-herald.com/article/HR/20151123/SPORTS/151129811

I don't know where you come up with Elliott being "their least effective weapon". Is it yards per carry? He had a 1 yard TD run--I think we agree that was a highly effective play. That hurt is yards per carry. If you take away that run, he averaged 2.9 yards per carry--that is the same as the QB running the ball and also the same as the yards per pass play. Clearly the bulk of his carries came in the short end of the field where yards are hard to come by and the result of that drive was one of the few bright spots of the day.

[grumbler]

I don't know where you come up with Elliott being "their least effective weapon". Is it yards per carry? He had a 1 yard TD run--I think we agree that was a highly effective play. That hurt is yards per carry. If you take away that run, he averaged 2.9 yards per carry--that is the same as the QB running the ball and also the same as the yards per pass play. Clearly the bulk of his carries came in the short end of the field where yards are hard to come by and the result of that drive was one of the few bright spots of the day.

You make my point for me.  Elliot wasn't running effectively, so taking carries away from the (ever-so-slightly) more effective runners was not the answer.  The answer was to be more aggressive about throwing the ball, so everyone could run better.  I think pulling Elliot and substituting Marshall on a few first downs (and then throwing to Marshal) would have done much more to open up the running attack than giving Elliot the ball two or three more times for another five or ten yards. 

And, of course, the passing game suffered from the fact that a six-yard TD pass couldn't go more than six yards, so the argument about Elliot is easily countered by the same argument about passing.

[Eddie Teach]

I didn't see this game, but it sounds like Sparty won because their defense was playing with more energy than OSU's offense rather than poor play-calling by OSU. 8 runs for 32 yards is not great; it's a matter of luck that it resulted in a touchdown instead of losing the ball on downs(or a field goal this close to end zone). 4 yards every play is sufficient, but it's not gonna get distributed like that.

[alfred russel]

I don't know where you come up with Elliott being "their least effective weapon". Is it yards per carry? He had a 1 yard TD run--I think we agree that was a highly effective play. That hurt is yards per carry. If you take away that run, he averaged 2.9 yards per carry--that is the same as the QB running the ball and also the same as the yards per pass play. Clearly the bulk of his carries came in the short end of the field where yards are hard to come by and the result of that drive was one of the few bright spots of the day.

You make my point for me.  Elliot wasn't running effectively, so taking carries away from the (ever-so-slightly) more effective runners was not the answer.  The answer was to be more aggressive about throwing the ball, so everyone could run better.  I think pulling Elliot and substituting Marshall on a few first downs (and then throwing to Marshal) would have done much more to open up the running attack than giving Elliot the ball two or three more times for another five or ten yards. 

And, of course, the passing game suffered from the fact that a six-yard TD pass couldn't go more than six yards, so the argument about Elliot is easily countered by the same argument about passing.

They averaged 2.9 yards per pass attempt, and threw more passes than ran the ball with Elliott.

I'll remove the 6 yard pass play for a TD from the statistics if you want, but since it was longer than the average it would make the average go down.

The team throws more passes than Elliott runs, they average 0.1 yards per play more on the passes than runs - equal if you remove the 1 yard TD run--yet you conclude Elliott wasn't effective and throwing the ball more apparently would be?

As I pointed out, 8 of the 12 runs Elliott had came on a single drive that went for a TD--their best drive of the day. 3 yards and a cloud of dust can still work--espeically when the other team only puts up 17. What a bizarre coaching decision on a day when the offense is generally stymied, to have your best drive fueled by Elliott--a 10 play drive marked by 8 Elliott runs (the other two plays accounted for just 5 yards), and then you only give Elliott 4 more carries the entire game. Way to use your best player.

[alfred russel]

I didn't see this game, but it sounds like Sparty won because their defense was playing with more energy than OSU's offense rather than poor play-calling by OSU. 8 runs for 32 yards is not great; it's a matter of luck that it resulted in a touchdown instead of losing the ball on downs(or a field goal this close to end zone). 4 yards every play is sufficient, but it's not gonna get distributed like that.

3 yards and a cloud of dust isn't luck--it is a viable strategy.

ET: let me ask you this:
-you have one TD drive in the game more than 6 yards. On that drive you feature a running back 8 times in 10 plays. This drive is in the first half.
-the entire rest of the game you have 3 first downs.
-The running back in question is a heisman trophy candidate.
-The running back gets 4 carries the rest of the game.

Do you think they probably should have tried running their heisman trophy candidate RB a bit more?

[Eddie Teach]

3 yards and a cloud of dust isn't luck--it is a viable strategy.

Nobody can guarantee 3 yards though. If the running game averages 3 yards, it's just as likely to go 6 yards, 6 yards, first down, 0 yards, 0 yards, 3 yards, punt. I see guys who are averaging 6-8 yards a carry get stuffed on consecutive runs frequently.

ET: let me ask you this:
-you have one TD drive in the game more than 6 yards. On that drive you feature a running back 8 times in 10 plays. This drive is in the first half.
-the entire rest of the game you have 3 first downs.
-The running back in question is a heisman trophy candidate.
-The running back gets 4 carries the rest of the game.

Do you think they probably should have tried running their heisman trophy candidate RB a bit more?

8 times in 10 plays that netted 32 yards. That is not a solid TD drive, that's lucky distribution of yardage gains.

I feel 12 carries is enough to say that Sparty was doing a decent job of stopping him. Maybe he would have played better given more carries, but it's not a given.

[grumbler]

The team throws more passes than Elliott runs, they average 0.1 yards per play more on the passes than runs - equal if you remove the 1 yard TD run--yet you conclude Elliott wasn't effective and throwing the ball more apparently would be?

As I pointed out, 8 of the 12 runs Elliott had came on a single drive that went for a TD--their best drive of the day. 3 yards and a cloud of dust can still work--espeically when the other team only puts up 17. What a bizarre coaching decision on a day when the offense is generally stymied, to have your best drive fueled by Elliott--a 10 play drive marked by 8 Elliott runs (the other two plays accounted for just 5 yards), and then you only give Elliott 4 more carries the entire game. Way to use your best player.

OSU didn't do much downfield passing (and when they did, it tended to work), which is exactly my point.  The problem wasn't that Elliot or Barnett turned into bums, the problem was that MSU sold out on the run, and OSU called plays like they could still run with 9 in the box.  Elliot wasn't gaining enough yardage on first and second downs to maintain drives (nor was barnett, though he was getting more than Elliot).  The solution wasn't switch one ineffective runner's caries to another ineffective runner; if Elliot had had the 15 carries for 44 yards and Barnett the 12 carries for 33, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

The great TD drive you refer to went for 32 yards.  Elliot couldn't even manage 3.5 yards per carry in the best drive they had (8 carries for 27 yards aren't Heisman-winning stats).  In fact, they aren't even game-winning stats.  Way to use your offense.

[alfred russel]

Nobody can guarantee 3 yards though. If the running game averages 3 yards, it's just as likely to go 6 yards, 6 yards, first down, 0 yards, 0 yards, 3 yards, punt. I see guys who are averaging 6-8 yards a carry get stuffed on consecutive runs frequently.

8 times in 10 plays that netted 32 yards. That is not a solid TD drive, that's lucky distribution of yardage gains.

I feel 12 carries is enough to say that Sparty was doing a decent job of stopping him. Maybe he would have played better given more carries, but it's not a given.

I get your point, and while there is some truth to it, I'd point out:

-run plays, while they obviously have variation in outcome, have less deviation than pass plays. If you ever see two teams--one is run heavy averaging 5 YPC, while the other is pass heavy and averaging 6 YPA with a completion rate around 55%, bet on the running team. The passing team will struggle to sustain drives.
-Why abandon the run with Elliott because Sparty was doing a decent job of stopping him but not the pass? They had more passes than Elliott runs, and the results were 9/16 passing for 46 yards--2.9 yards per attempt. That is a recipe for only getting 3 first downs besides that one drive we've discussed.
-This ignores that backs like Elliott tend to gain steam as the game goes on.
-On a hunch, I remembered a similar recent game - Derrick Henry was bottled up pretty good in the early going against Florida. On his first 12 carries, Henry had 41 yards, or 3.4 yards per carry. That is a bit better than Elliott, but Henry also lost a fumble, and the passing game for Alabama was more effective. In the end? Saban kept feeding Henry the football, and he finished with 189 yards on 44(!!!!!) carries, won the game and got into the playoff, and the next week Henry picked up the Heisman Trophy.

grumbler, I get that your option is "abandon Elliott like they did, but call more effective plays". Watching on TV, it is really impossible to know that they didn't do that and Barrett didn't just shit the bed. They called plenty of pass plays. Presumably Barrett had options to throw downfield, but for whatever the reason he kept scrambling.

[alfred russel]

Fuck Big 12, every day you should praise baby Jesus for Baylor, because pending the WV game all your other bowl teams have been blown out.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Fuck Big 12, every day you should praise baby Jesus for Baylor, because pending the WV game all your other bowl teams have been blown out.

You say this like it's a bad thing.  Too bad about Baylor though.

E:  Well no, the Purple Wizard losing what might be his last game is kinda a bummer.  The rest can suck it though.

[grumbler]

grumbler, I get that your option is "abandon Elliott like they did, but call more effective plays".

  That's not what i proposed at all.  And even if it was, that would be better than your option of "let Elliot run all 29 running plays so he can get the 86 yards and OSU can lose exactly like they did."

Watching on TV, it is really impossible to know that they didn't do that and Barrett didn't just shit the bed. They called plenty of pass plays. Presumably Barrett had options to throw downfield, but for whatever the reason he kept scrambling.

The pass plays they were calling were all the dinky shit.  Very few even had receivers going downfield.  There was nothing to the passing game that would make MSU reconsider keeping their safeties close to the box, and by running Elliot more OSU would just have been playing into MSU's hands.

I don't buy the "Barnett just turned into a turd and Elliot, though he looked like a turd, was really a tootsie roll."  The problem, as Meyer acknowledged, was play-calling and the OSU staff letting their offense get stuffed in the box.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Good god, Oregon.