I am OK with the pistol SO LONG AS we figure out a way to do better at the goal line and in short yardage situations. Pre-pistol, we were among the top (and possibly #1, IIRC) in the nation in goal line efficiency. The past couple of years, that has not been the case.

We beat BGSU last year if we are more efficient in the red zone and at the goal line. And (correct me if I'm wrong because I don't have time right now to look it up) if we had beaten BGSU, we would have won the division.

Sounds like MAAAAAYBE we are getting more two-back sets in the offense this year. I think that MIIIIIIIIGHT make things better at the goal line. My current status is cautiously optimistic.

I don't think we will know how things are going to work until Terd comes to town. If we win that one (especially if we win it like 2011), get excited.

How about, "It is not the Xs & Os, but, the Jimmys & Joes." If the OL can field a healthy group of upperclassmen who are shaving and have "been there" the short yardage game will improve no matter the set. Also, I saw a clip of a reception by a TE who turned up-field looking for someone to steam roll. Attitude!!!!

There's nothing I hate more than the Pistol or Shotgun 3 yards and in. Too much time for the defense to react and too much of a risk for turnovers. Don't get cute, just punch the sucker in the end zone.

That makes me wonder: have QBs lost the art of taking a snap from center? I've seen more and more center/QB exchange fumbles in the past few seasons to make me think the snap has gone the way of the 15ft jumper in basketball.

Monroe, wouldn't the linebackers be the key for an opponent stopping our running game? It seems that linebackers are still built to stop the run.

We run as many sets with the RB flanking the qb as we do from the pistol. The rb is essentially the same distance from the line as he would be with the qb under center? He not any farther back and this way he gets the ball sooner (or becomes a blocker sooner) and can pick his hole and go. if the qb is under center, the rb gets the ball closer to the line and can't change directions as easily in a short yardage situation. We're also more predictable that way.

Power running starts with the offensive line. If they can make holes even in 80%+ running situations, then it all works.

I went to the stats, and collected some data, and I'll let you all take a look at it, and comment. If the 2-back set is more effective than the pistol, stats where it might show up would be third down percentage, 4th down percentage, and red zone percentage. In addition, since the goal of the offense is to score points, you'd think it would affect points per game, and a stat I computed, points per red zone appearance. I like the latter better because a team that scores no TDs, but who is really accurate on FG attempts would have a high red zone percentage, but would still have a low points/red zone visit. Anyway, here's the data:

3d Down Pct, raw pct, and MAC Rank:
2005 26.5% 12th
2006 34.5% 7th
2007 38.0% 7th
2008 39.6% 11th
2009 32.1% 11th
2010 34.7% 11th
2011 47.6% 2d
2012 42.9% 4th
2013 39.2% 9th
2014 39.7% 6th
[I exclude 2005 because it is just plain awful in all stats]
Average 2006-2010 = 35.8%
Average 2011-2014 = 42.4%

4th Down Pct, Raw Pct, MAC Rank:
2005 0.0% 12th
2006 46.2% 7th
2007 52.9% 4th
2008 50.0% 7th
2009 38.9% 10th
2010 68.4% 1st
2011 69.2% 2d
2012 50.0% 4th
2013 41.7% 9th
2014 46.2% 7th
Average 2006-2010 = 51.3%
Average 2011-2014 = 51.8%

Red Zone Pct (pct of times come away with points)
2005 53.8% 11th
2006 77.8% 6th
2007 75.0% 8th
2008 70.0% 13th
2009 70.5% 10th
2010 88.4% 1st
2011 81.0% 9th
2012 79.0% 8th
2013 81.8% 6th
2014 83.3% 4th
Average 2006-2010 = 79.3%
Average 2011-2014 = 81.3%

Points/Game
2005 17.5 9th
2006 19.7 6th
2007 30.5 4th
2008 24.1 10th
2009 24.8 6th
2010 27.5 5th
2011 30.5 5th
2012 31.7 4th
2013 27.4 6th
2014 20.5 11th
Average 2006-2010 = 25.3
Average 2011-2014 = 27.5

Points/Red Zone Visit
2005 3.85 12th
2006 4.38 7th
2007 4.33 8th
2008 3.70 13th
2009 3.75 12th
2010 5.72 1st
2011 4.40 12th
2012 4.50 8th
2013 4.64 8th
2014 4.69 6th
Average 2006-2010 = 4.38
Average 2011-2014 = 4.56

I'm no football genius, so I'll let those who know how to find the numbers tell me. But My theory is that in short yardage, a lead blocker can make a world of difference. Additionally, my logic says that a RB in the I, with a QB under center, can get more momentum going immediately from the snap than can a RB who has to wait for the shotgun snap, then the hand-off, and then they go. I know we're talking fractions of a second here, but those fractions make the difference in sport. Just my theory. I'd love to find some data to prove me wrong or right.

Good points for discussion cc-cat, and some I hadn't considered! Key to your points are probably QB/RB making quick decisions and hitting the hole decisively. In 1yd or goal line situations, I still see value in the QB under center. It makes him dangerous with the potential for a sneak.

My thoughts on the stats I posted above:
3rd Down Pct:
If you look at third down percentage, the percentage was clearly better with the spread. I presume that was caused by the fact that, with the improved passing attack, Ohio was more capable of picking up long first downs. I don't have any facts to back that up, though.

4th Down Pct:
Fourth down percentage shows no difference. Again, I don't know if the spread is enabling Ohio to pick up more long fourth down tries, but they are failing on more short 4th down tries.

Total Points:
Total points were clearly higher with the spread, however, I presume that what has some concerned in the trend, going 31.7, 27.4, and 20.5 the last three years. Is that because defenses are getting better against the spread? Or, is it just related to the personnel and injuries last year? We'll have a good idea of that a year from now.

Red Zone Pct:
There is no significant difference here. This stat is far too affected by FG accuracy to be meaningful, anyway.

Points/Red Zone Visit:
This was higher with the Spread. Looking at the detail, the 2010 team was the only team that was really good at scoring from the I, whereas all the spread teams have been pretty good at putting points up once they got to the Red Zone. On paper, last year's team managed to do pretty well inside the red zone, but that doesn't match perception. Apparently they were often stopped just outside the Red Zone, and the BG game was a perfect example, where Oho was stopped at the BG 41, 38, 43, 35. In that particular game they also didn't do well in the Red Zone, getting a FG, FG, missed FG, TD, and Fumble, so 13 points on 5 tries, or worse, 13 points on 9 drives into BG territory.

Rushing yards/Attempt:
This was also higher from the spread. How could it be as high without a lead blocker? Well, there are two ways to get by a guy. One it to block him, and the other is to lure him away from the play. The I, with it's lead blocker takes the former approach, blasting defenders out of the way (hopefully), but also using misdirection at times to take the second approach. The spread uses mostly the latter. If you put WR out wide, defenders have to go with them, which means less defenders in the middle to stop the run.

Conclusion:
In the end, when I look at the stats, they are pretty close, but if one is better than the other, it's the spread that comes out on top. I don't think there is any perfect offense, or perfect defense. In the end it all comes down to execution. I don't think the drop last year was a function of defenses catching up, so much as that, with so many young players last year, Ohio wasn't executing at a high level, and I don't look for a repeat of that problem this fall. I think the Offense will be much improved.

I do agree with Monroe about one thing, and that is that there is no reason that they can't run both an I formation and a spread, and mix the two. Nebraska was known for running the I formation back in the day, but they often lined up in the spread, particularly in passing downs. In fact, in the National Championship game against Florida in the 1996 Fiesta bowl, they lined up multiple times with 5 wide receivers and an empty backfield.

With all the playmakers that Ohio has, I see no reason that they can't mix and match formations, but even if they stick to just one, there are lots of ways they can use to get those playmakers the ball.

Here's another way to look at these stats. Suppose we divide them based on who the leading passer was each year:
2005 17.5 9th Everson
2006 19.7 6th Everson
2007 30.5 4th Bower
2008 24.1 10th Jackson
2009 24.8 6th Scott
2010 27.5 5th Jackson
2011 30.5 5th Tettleton
2012 31.7 4th Tettleton
2013 27.4 6th Tettleton
2014 20.5 11th Sprague

Year with Bower (2007) - 30.5
Years with Tettleton - 29.9
Years with Boo (2008, 2010) - 25.8
Year with T3 (2009) - 24.8
Year with Sprague - 20.5
Years with Everson (2005-2006) - 18.6

Maybe who the QB is is more important than the formation?

Latest issue of SI has an article supporting my thesis that we can be uniquely effective if we go to power ball, given defenses' emph on speed and, therefore, lack of size.

Article in SI points to the problem that teams are having in projecting how defensive players (espec lb's and d-backs) will play in the pros because college ball is almost exclusively about fast, smaller guys whereas size is needed in the secondary in the pros.

Can we win a national title by going heavyjumboBIGMANZ? Probably not. But I bet we'd be a serious threat to win the MAC Championship.


Again, I think our passing attack has enough pieces to be very effective when pieced with a power running game. Do the power.



It just is not satisfactory to be in the worst division in the worst conference in college ball and to only be competitive with the lesser teams in the conference and incapable of beating a team which is 'good' only in the sad framework of this lousy conference.

While the article you refer to does discuss how today's LBs and D-line players are not built to take on power blockers (thus supporting your contention that if we go big, we would overpower), the article also presents the "thesis" that, "Today's college offenses - which spread the field, push the tempo and eschew plays in favor of "packaged concepts" that include multiple options within each call - put put defenders in a bind, often forcing them to make no-win decisions.

So potentially overpower vs. no-win position. Both sound valuable. But then the article was not about supporting one versus the other, but rather presenting the challenge the current college approach puts on scouts as they evaluate a player such as Shaq Thompason, who the Panthers took in round 1.

Of course the article closes presenting that as more pro teams are going the way of speed and spread offense that perhaps the Shaq's of the college game today "might" be prototype for the pro game tomorrow - just a "guess" on SI's part - so maybe there is a hint there as to what the pro teams are thinking.

But, as I state above, we can go power - will take a couple of years to shift our recruiting/personnel/offense in order to be effective (and not just treat it as an occasional scheme) - but knowing we will be committing to running up the middle on first and second down will bring solace to a number of posters who I am sure will show great patience as we migrate to such an approach.