2019 Ohio State Season Thread

[Cincydawg]

Minibobs at work again.

On a much lesser scale, I've seen this with UGA-Tech, in reverse in a way.  Tech managed to win 2 of the last 10 (both in Athens), but the games are not "significant" any more nationally (they have been at times).  But, the rivalry is ebbing mostly because Tech is bad or mediocre.  I don't know the last time they were favored, maybe 1990.

Michigan is still good every year, very good in some years, but nearly always ranked at game time, and was the favorite last year.  So, OSU could still dominate and it would still be a rivalry.  Tech could get an upset every so often and the rivalry would still be dying (at least for me).

[FearlessF]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Enter now for a chance to win a tickets-and-lodging package for the [/color]Ohio State game[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)], with proceeds benefiting Californians for Nebraska’s Scholarship Fund.[/color]

[medinabuckeye1]

Lets talk about Ohio State's defense:

It is really all about limiting big plays.  In 2018 the Buckeyes ranked #51 in the FBS overall allowing 25.5 PPG.  It is all about the big plays because while Ohio State was a middling #51 overall, they were an absolutely horrible #118 in IsoPPP+, an explosiveness stat.  

My take is that when they weren't allowing big plays the Ohio State defense was typically stout.  Now one could say that is a little like saying that when he wasn't getting shot, Abe Lincoln had a good time at Ford's Theater and there is definitely some truth to that so let me clarify:

First, when I say that the Buckeyes' problem was big plays, I don't mean it as an excuse.  Big plays are part of the game and TD count the same regardless of whether they were scored on a 22 play drive of 3.5 yards per play or on a 60 yard burst.  

That said, I do think that in terms of fixing the problem (the problem for coaches) and in terms of us analyzing whether or not it is likely to be fixed, there is a substantial qualitative difference between a defense that was middling every down (ie, ranked #51 overall and ranked #51 in explosiveness) and the 2018 tOSU defense that was middling overall and horrible at preventing big plays.  

I think that Ohio State's defensive issues from 2018 are mostly correctable and I expect to see them corrected with a number of new defensive coaches and more overall experience on the field.  That isn't to say that I expect Ohio State's 2019 defense to rank #1 but I do expect them to be a lot closer to 2015 (#2) or 2016 (#3) than 2018 (#51).  

[bayareabadger]

Lets talk about Ohio State's defense:

It is really all about limiting big plays.  In 2018 the Buckeyes ranked #51 in the FBS overall allowing 25.5 PPG.  It is all about the big plays because while Ohio State was a middling #51 overall, they were an absolutely horrible #118 in IsoPPP+, an explosiveness stat. 

My take is that when they weren't allowing big plays the Ohio State defense was typically stout.  Now one could say that is a little like saying that when he wasn't getting shot, Abe Lincoln had a good time at Ford's Theater and there is definitely some truth to that so let me clarify:

First, when I say that the Buckeyes' problem was big plays, I don't mean it as an excuse.  Big plays are part of the game and TD count the same regardless of whether they were scored on a 22 play drive of 3.5 yards per play or on a 60 yard burst. 

That said, I do think that in terms of fixing the problem (the problem for coaches) and in terms of us analyzing whether or not it is likely to be fixed, there is a substantial qualitative difference between a defense that was middling every down (ie, ranked #51 overall and ranked #51 in explosiveness) and the 2018 tOSU defense that was middling overall and horrible at preventing big plays. 

I think that Ohio State's defensive issues from 2018 are mostly correctable and I expect to see them corrected with a number of new defensive coaches and more overall experience on the field.  That isn't to say that I expect Ohio State's 2019 defense to rank #1 but I do expect them to be a lot closer to 2015 (#2) or 2016 (#3) than 2018 (#51). 

I’ll dig in here at some point. There’s some numerical slicing and dicing to do. I will say the 51st is inflated a few spots by pace. They were 40th in points per drive.

Their profile was kinda odd to say the least.

[MrNubbz]

If Borland & Werner are starting at LB,that's not good IMO.Not sure why Keandre Jones couldn't beat either of them out

[medinabuckeye1]

I’ll dig in here at some point. There’s some numerical slicing and dicing to do. I will say the 51st is inflated a few spots by pace. They were 40th in points per drive.

Their profile was kinda odd to say the least.

Very odd.  

Most defenses that give up a lot of big plays are generally terrible at everything but that does not define Ohio State's 2018 defense at all.  They were very much feast-or-famine in that they were either shutting opponents down or giving up huge plays.  

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Michigan fan it's hard not to be most interested in the Greg Mattison aspect of the defense. He's a great coach but what interests me most is that DC hasn't been the thing he's best at in his career.

[MrNubbz]

I dunno he was Coordinator at FLa in 2006(along with Charkie Strong) at ND and with the Ravens.He brings some stability IMO.Hell i liked him in AA

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say he was a bad DC. He was far more valuable to Michigan when he took the demotion to assistant coaching DL. That's the thing he's best at.

Put another way: It'll be much harder for Michigan's new DL coach to be better than Mattison than it was for Michigan to replace Mattison as a DC. Again, he's a great coach, so neither was easy, but I think we like dabbling in nuance and "extents" in this message board, and at DL Greg Mattison is at the tippy-top of his profession.

[Honestbuckeye]

It was so strange.  Often, when you saw the breakdowns on big plays, it was the simplest of mistakes that were being made.

I specifically remember watching Macfarland from Maryland made then look silly but on each of his big runs, the mistake was one guy being 1/2 a body off in his alignment or pursuit angle.   Then, the next week those issues did not arise in the Game.  

They have multiple NFL level player at each level of the defense, and at LB, 2-3 guys that would likely start just about anywhere, coming off the bench.

Werner is a talented kid- nice jets for a LB, so I expect more from him.   I don’t know how long they can keep Teradja  Mitchell and Baron Browning on the bench. 

Brendon White and Okudah finished extremely strong, so the hope is we see way more consistency. Word is that Washington and Mattison have simplified assisgnments while offering more confusing looks.   We will see. Hafley has said the same for the DBs — more mixture of man and zone with looks that are difficult to tell one from the other.  

[bayareabadger]

Very odd. 

Most defenses that give up a lot of big plays are generally terrible at everything but that does not define Ohio State's 2018 defense at all.  They were very much feast-or-famine in that they were either shutting opponents down or giving up huge plays. 

So, this is actually a little inaccurate, give or take quibbling about "a lot." It often reflects strategy more so, give or take execution/quality. 

Using the Bill C stats, the two main offensive and defensive numbers mentioned are that IsoPPP (measures how explosive the explosive plays are) and success rate, which basically says, how good is this team at stringing together chain-moving plays and marching the field. 

A bend-don't-break defense, the kind we oft lament, says we'll give up some success rate for good explosiveness defense (I've seen one coach argue big play prevention/production is a top indicator of winning, which in this context is debatable). Since this is all a continuum, it means there are some defenses that will try to be more aggressive. That means trying to get opponents off the field faster, with the risk of getting beat on a big play.

I've tried to figure out a name for this. Don't-bend, sometimes-break feels weird, and high-risk, high-reward fails because people are poor at risk assessment. 

Examples of this when it works are Clemson at times in this run and old MSU teams. While those are both good squads, it's a low margin for error defense. They tend to be quite good or quite bad. Bend don't break has a higher floor, lower ceiling, and if you have good talent, teaching and technique, and strategy is fine.

Schematically this can manifest in concrete ways. If I put an extra man in the box to make short runs harder, I have one less on the last line of defense. If my corners play tight to take away hitches, the defender has a better chance to get behind them. 

So let's look at OSU. Last year, this was their defensive rank:
36th in success rate (drops to 57th with another adjustment about down and distance)
115th in explosiveness
If the former was better, the latter would maybe be OK. What's more interesting is when we split up run and pass.

Vs run
41st in marginal efficiency (better version of success rate)
120th in marginal explosiveness 

Vs. pass
52nd in Marginal efficiency
61 in explosiveness
So the pass D was kinda flat mediocre at it all, run D was try not to bend, break badly

Previous years
2017
Overall success rate 14
overall explosiveness 11
Run success rate 7
Run explosiveness 7
Pass success rate 35
Pass explosiveness 8
2016
Overall success rate 14
overall explosiveness 53
Run success rate 9
Run explosiveness 66
Pass success rate 24
Pass explosiveness 30
2015
Overall success rate 7
overall explosiveness 33
Run success rate 25
Run explosiveness 32
Pass success rate 1
Pass explosiveness 66
2014
Overall success rate 24
overall explosiveness 29


This doesn't look at some of the overall numbers, which get adjusted for competition. That raised the OSU D to 29th last year. I sometimes shy from adjusted numbers because they tend to go against feelings and confuse 

[medinabuckeye1]

Watching last year it "felt" to me like Ohio State's defense was great most of the time and just flat awful once in a while.  

An example:

In last year's opener (OrSU), the Beavers had 196 rushing yards on 39 carries (5.0 avg).  The thing is that the Beavers had both an 80 yard TD run and a 78 yard TD run.  Now if you take those two plays away they had a grand combined total of 38 yards on their other 37 carries.  

Allowing 38 yards on 37 carries isn't bad, middling, or even good, that is great even against weak opposition.  

Against the pass it felt about the same.  Oregon State also had 196 yards passing but they had a 49 yard TD pass and 27 and 26 yard pass plays.  Overall they were 14/24 for 196 yards but if you take away the three long plays they were 11/21 for 94 yards.  

What I am flailing about trying to communicate here is that, at least to me, tOSU's defense felt like that most of the year.  Against OrSU they had two big miscues in rush defense and three in pass defense.  On those five plays they allowed 260 yards.  On the other 58 plays OrSU only got 132 yards.  That is a very Jeckyll and Hyde situation where the Buckeyes had 58 plays of excellent defense and 5 plays of just horrible defense.  

Even in the Purdue game which was, by far, Ohio State's worst outing, the Buckeyes forced three 3-and-outs with another three drives of <7 plays and <35 yards.  They also had 7 TFL's including 2 sacks.  My point is that they did a lot of good things but the problem was that when they weren't doing good or great things they were doing terrible things.  

Overall it seemed to me last year that some of the most exciting CFB of the year was when Ohio State was on defense because there were just a ton of big plays both ways.  

All of that said, I completely agree with your thoughts on high-risk/high-reward defense and I think that was a big part of it.  Ohio State's defense relied heavily on pressure and making big plays.  When it worked they did great things like sacks, TFL's, INT's, etc.  When it didn't work they gave up huge chunks of yardage.  

[bayareabadger]

It shows the razor’s edge part of high risk, high reward. 

If OSU is 10-15 spots higher on success rate, which eliminates a few big plays a game, you have a really solid defense. 

The gap in success rate and adjusted success rate is odd. I wonder if that means OSU was more prone to allowing good plays in second and third and long. 

[medinabuckeye1]

It shows the razor’s edge part of high risk, high reward.

If OSU is 10-15 spots higher on success rate, which eliminates a few big plays a game, you have a really solid defense.

The gap in success rate and adjusted success rate is odd. I wonder if that means OSU was more prone to allowing good plays in second and third and long.

It sure felt like it.  

For an example, Purdue's first TD drive was 98 yards in 15 plays.  That is an average of just over 6.5 yards per play but Purdue's drive was not 15 plays of 6.53 yards each, far from it.  On that drive the Buckeyes had a five yard sack, two additional TFL's, a no gain stop, and there was an offensive PI on Purdue that put the Boilermakers in a very difficult 2nd and 25.  Additionally, the Buckeye defense forced a 4th and 1 that (IIRC) was converted on a fake FG.  I would venture to guess that most sacks and TFL's are drive-killers and offensive PI is almost always a drive killer because it is just extremely difficult to recover from 2nd and 25.  Purdue was able to keep that drive going and get into the endzone because when Ohio State's defense wasn't doing those good/great things they were busy allowing:

• A 23 yard pass that was then fumbled and advanced an additional 3 yards for a first down on 2nd and 25 right after the PI
• A 16 yard pass on 2nd and 8
• A 14 yard pass (right after the sack) on 2nd and 15
• A 13 yard pass on 3rd and 2
• A 13 yard TD pass on 2nd and 11
• An 11 yard pass on 2nd and 12

For the drive, Ohio State gave up six plays of 10 yards or more and five of them occurred on 2nd and 8 or more.