I missed the forecast by a mile. It's fun to nail it, but my goal is to set a baseline for what I expect to happen on both sides of the ball. It helps me modulate my frustration when things aren't going well.
If I thought we'd struggle and we did, it helps me avoid being the Sunday AM armchair A$$ and criticize everything that didn't work. That said it's a hell of a lot more fun when I think things will work and they do!!!
Net net... If on September 2nd, someone told me we'd be undefeated after game 6..ranked in the top 4 ...after dominating Oklahoma in Norman and beating Whisky at Camp Randal in overtime with a walkoff sack I'd have been ECSTATIC.
I'm really happy with where we are, but serious improvement will be needed and there is likely enough time to sort it out and get it implemented
Summary:
We were never able to play UrbanBall, but were able to prevail in a white knuckle game of TresselBall.
Whisky was able to use Buckeye inexperience on D with the Pro Scheme to "fix" their running game and hit multiple explosive plays that shouldn't have been there nearly as often as they were. The problems with the passing game continue to hamstring the offense and will continue to hold us back until the staff makes changes to fit what they want to do with what the QB and inexperienced wide outs are able to do.
When The Bucks Were On D
The major positive was that the Bucks continued to play extremely well in the red zone. This was the first time they've been challenged all season, and they stood VERY tall when the chips were down. This is also proof positive that we were playing well in the trenches and had very little problem with the physical aspect of the downhill run game.
Ironically, our problem was playing in space... as the D was out of position and thinking instead of reacting, and Whisky clearly used the bye week to take full advantage.
They had 5 explosive plays. 2 on the ground and 3 in the air.
They were also efficient.. Clement hit a 4 YPC average on 24 carries with the explosive play removed, which moved their success rate from barely average in their previous games to OUTSTANDING.
@Ross Fulton explained the issues we might have with the pro set. I thought those would be an issue for the first 2-3 series. Unfortunately, we had those problems for 3 quarters.
We sorted them out at halftime, started to stuff Whisky in the 3rd, and generated a critical turnover. Then Whisky made adjustments to our adjustments in the 4th.
The issue is that 2:1 or 2:2 formations with TE(s) and FB add gaps which change the edge defense and technique. Again it's ironic that we used to be tooled to defend that, and couldn't stop the spread to pass looks. It also allows the O to double team the 3 tech and use the FB to attack the LBs.
Knowing this is one thing. but we don't run that in practice, and Whisky lives it. Clearly we weren't ready for it and the tendency busters they gave us with 3 days to practice it.
The D showed fantastic grit holding Whisky to 3 FGs with 4 RZ trips in H1. If one of those is a TD we lost and it might have been VERY BAD. As the O was having struggles of their own.
Oh BTW they didn't leave Hooker Free in C1 and replace Webb with Smith as I had been predicting.. They put Webb at Free in C1 and had Hooker play his actual position.... I REALLY wish I had been right
B/C Webb is not able to play the Free C1 role in the Schiano scheme.
When the Bucks Had the Ball
Well here's where I get to bitch. The Bucks DID NOT come out distributing the ball in the air. Instead they came out with a plan to hit the outside edge with runs to Samuel and downfield passes, and had the exact same problems they had with Indiana. These are the exact same problems they will have with above average defenses until one of two things happen.
The BIG positive is that the OL provided solid pass pro for most of the night against a nasty Whisky D scheme. You can fix a passing game if there's protection. Otherwise it's hopeless.
The other positive is once things were simplified. JT can make downfield throws into tight windows and Samuel and Wilson and Baugh can make some very big catches.. and Noah Brown is the possession receiver extraordinaire.
The problem IMO and I have been pretty adamant about my opinion, is that JT Barrett is not yet ready to QB an advanced vertical scheme and this is compounded but the WR inexperience running the proper route combinations or technique needed to get separation.
The problem is that a vertical scheme involves route combinations that require terrific timing and technique this team is not YET able to execute.
Hence, the game plan will fail unless the foundation is changed to a "horizontal" scheme that uses downfield passes as constraint plays AFTER - and ONLY AFTER the edges and underneath bubbles are established.
This is similar in some ways to the D problems in 2013. The problem wasn't that the coaches had a BAD plan. It was that the kids just couldn't execute it, and it eventually got so bad they totally lost faith.
That won't happen with the Offense, if for no other reason JT won't let it. But the staff needs to make some adjustments as if this were a loss... or we will suffer one we shouldn't have to.
If I thought we'd struggle and we did, it helps me avoid being the Sunday AM armchair A$$ and criticize everything that didn't work. That said it's a hell of a lot more fun when I think things will work and they do!!!
Net net... If on September 2nd, someone told me we'd be undefeated after game 6..ranked in the top 4 ...after dominating Oklahoma in Norman and beating Whisky at Camp Randal in overtime with a walkoff sack I'd have been ECSTATIC.
I'm really happy with where we are, but serious improvement will be needed and there is likely enough time to sort it out and get it implemented
Summary:
We were never able to play UrbanBall, but were able to prevail in a white knuckle game of TresselBall.
Whisky was able to use Buckeye inexperience on D with the Pro Scheme to "fix" their running game and hit multiple explosive plays that shouldn't have been there nearly as often as they were. The problems with the passing game continue to hamstring the offense and will continue to hold us back until the staff makes changes to fit what they want to do with what the QB and inexperienced wide outs are able to do.
When The Bucks Were On D
The major positive was that the Bucks continued to play extremely well in the red zone. This was the first time they've been challenged all season, and they stood VERY tall when the chips were down. This is also proof positive that we were playing well in the trenches and had very little problem with the physical aspect of the downhill run game.
Ironically, our problem was playing in space... as the D was out of position and thinking instead of reacting, and Whisky clearly used the bye week to take full advantage.
They had 5 explosive plays. 2 on the ground and 3 in the air.
They were also efficient.. Clement hit a 4 YPC average on 24 carries with the explosive play removed, which moved their success rate from barely average in their previous games to OUTSTANDING.
@Ross Fulton explained the issues we might have with the pro set. I thought those would be an issue for the first 2-3 series. Unfortunately, we had those problems for 3 quarters.
We sorted them out at halftime, started to stuff Whisky in the 3rd, and generated a critical turnover. Then Whisky made adjustments to our adjustments in the 4th.
The issue is that 2:1 or 2:2 formations with TE(s) and FB add gaps which change the edge defense and technique. Again it's ironic that we used to be tooled to defend that, and couldn't stop the spread to pass looks. It also allows the O to double team the 3 tech and use the FB to attack the LBs.
Knowing this is one thing. but we don't run that in practice, and Whisky lives it. Clearly we weren't ready for it and the tendency busters they gave us with 3 days to practice it.
The D showed fantastic grit holding Whisky to 3 FGs with 4 RZ trips in H1. If one of those is a TD we lost and it might have been VERY BAD. As the O was having struggles of their own.
Oh BTW they didn't leave Hooker Free in C1 and replace Webb with Smith as I had been predicting.. They put Webb at Free in C1 and had Hooker play his actual position.... I REALLY wish I had been right
B/C Webb is not able to play the Free C1 role in the Schiano scheme.When the Bucks Had the Ball
Well here's where I get to bitch. The Bucks DID NOT come out distributing the ball in the air. Instead they came out with a plan to hit the outside edge with runs to Samuel and downfield passes, and had the exact same problems they had with Indiana. These are the exact same problems they will have with above average defenses until one of two things happen.
The BIG positive is that the OL provided solid pass pro for most of the night against a nasty Whisky D scheme. You can fix a passing game if there's protection. Otherwise it's hopeless.
The other positive is once things were simplified. JT can make downfield throws into tight windows and Samuel and Wilson and Baugh can make some very big catches.. and Noah Brown is the possession receiver extraordinaire.
The problem IMO and I have been pretty adamant about my opinion, is that JT Barrett is not yet ready to QB an advanced vertical scheme and this is compounded but the WR inexperience running the proper route combinations or technique needed to get separation.
The problem is that a vertical scheme involves route combinations that require terrific timing and technique this team is not YET able to execute.
Hence, the game plan will fail unless the foundation is changed to a "horizontal" scheme that uses downfield passes as constraint plays AFTER - and ONLY AFTER the edges and underneath bubbles are established.
This is similar in some ways to the D problems in 2013. The problem wasn't that the coaches had a BAD plan. It was that the kids just couldn't execute it, and it eventually got so bad they totally lost faith.
That won't happen with the Offense, if for no other reason JT won't let it. But the staff needs to make some adjustments as if this were a loss... or we will suffer one we shouldn't have to.
Last edited:
