I agree, we are being pushed around.

You are 100% correct on this.

But there are things you do to negate that.  Blitzing helps.  It puts your secondary and backers in coverage in a predicament, but you can't let a team run you up and down the field because you will certainly lose unless it's a shootout.  You put yourself in a better position if you have enough pressure to negate a size discrepancy like that.  I would think it would give you pressure on the quarterback too.

It would also help if some offense would show up.

This is what really puzzles me about this team . . . our lack of scoring.  That our D is young, inexperienced and not good at the moment, I get.  What I don't understand is why we can't score more against anybody but creampuffs.  I kind of thought that this game might be a shootout, but they shot down the field and we shot ourselves in the foot.  It seems to me that TT's one dimensionality is a big part of it.  Is he hurt again?  I think Vick deserves a chance to start.  It probably won't happen, but for some reason TT just won't run the ball and so the D can key on the RB -- particularly on first down (and second) when we rarely ever throw the ball.  I announcers even said, and I think they were right, that TT audibled out of a pass and gave the ball to Beau on the 3rd and goal at the end of the 1st half.  He seems to like to audible Beau up the middle.  I think, from what I can observe, and I'm not the greatest at seeing these things, that a large number of the "Beaus up the middle" (maybe a quarter of them) are one dimensional option plays and not called runs.  Why?  It looks to me like TT is almost afraid to run.  Vick, on the other hand, seems to relish running.  There's something in this picture that just doesn't seem to fit.  Hope Frank can figure it out, because I sure can't.  GO OHIO!  BEAT BG!

The read option is useless if the quarterback hands it off every single time. 

We run the read option?  Doesn't look to me like those are anything but straight handoffs.

OK. L.C., I see your point.  And, I agree that the defensive would probably have played better in the second half had it not been for some of those blown calls that cost us probably at least 16 points (for UB) and (7 for OU).  That alone would have made the score something like 16-10 in favor of UB in the 4th Qt., much more manageable than it turned out to be.  On the other hand, against CMU our defense was not worn out, the O had a decent amount of possession time, but we still couldn't stop their best runner.  Last night I thought we made Oliver look like Ray Rice.  Our run defense does not seem as stout as in some years in the recent past. 

I agree with LC.  Overnighting in Buffalo, I got the morning paper.  They pointed out that the Bulls didn't beat a patsy, pointing out that the Ohio D only gave up ONE first down in the first quarter. 

Give Ohio two TD's by the middle of the 3rd and Buffalo's hole sceme may have been quite different.  When the Bulls got that run going then they tossed in some perfectly timed passes--it took Buffalo 2.5 quarters to establish that running game.  The Ohio offense gave them the luxury of being able to continue to hammer away.  Ohio moving the ball with regularity may have led to a less man handling by the Bulls. 

Pretty good pressure on their QB in the first period and than the kid got all day thereafter--time to try some different stunts up front to get to the kid once or twice?

I like the design of that run, L.C.

But I disagree about our defense last night.  It's true that the O couldn't get it going.  But a game is four quarters.  And Beefs D did their job the whole game last night.  In contrast, by mid third quarter we were getting blown off the ball.  There were a lot of plays on which our d-line got pushed back almost five yards off hte line.  It was visually evident domination.  At that point, we didn't respond--for the last 1 1/2 quarters.

Even if physically and emotionally in a bad mode, shouldn't we have stacked the box a bit more.  Sure, it may have left us open for their passing.  But the way that their running game was controlling the whole game, we had to try to do something to stop their running.


I don't think that there've been too many d-line injuries this year, right?  This late in the year, the newbies have played some.  What makes us think that next year will be much different in terms of our ability to stop big offensive lines from pushing us around? 

That run was a core play at Nebraska for years. Back in the 1973 Orange Bowl, offensive genius Tom Osborne messed up Notre Dame by inventing an all-new offense just for the bowl game, netting a 40-6 win. He showcased Johnny Rodgers in the game. Nebraska lined up in the usual Power I, but instead of the conventional handoffs to the I-Back, most of the inside power runs were hand-offs to the guy in the slot, Rodgers. From the slot, he ran the ball 15 times for 81 yards and 3 TDs, while the I-back got 11 carries.

Most of the gimmicky offense developed for that game was scrapped after that game, but that inside counter, or inside reverse, remained an effective tool for the offense for all of Osborne's time at Nebraska. Perhaps there are defensive changes that explain why the play is no longer used, but if so, I have no idea what they are. It seems to me that the speedy defenses of today are more able to shut down power sweeps these days, which is why you see less of them. They are also fast enough to adjust to reverses, which take too long to develop. Same for doubler reverses. On the other hand, an inside counter is a quick-hitting play - all the defense needs to do is take one step in the wrong direction, and the line can open a huge hole in the middle, and their speed will not enable them to recover.

Can you even imagine a game where, say, Dovell gets 15 carries? Here are the career rushing stats for Ohio receivers:
Dovell - 0 carries
Foster - 0 carries
Cochran - 1 carry for 11 yards (in 2012)
Waters - 0 carries
S. Smith - 0 carries
L. Smith - 1 carry, 0 yards (in 2012)
Reid - 0 carries
Dixon - 0 carries

With your rational then some of the best defenses we've had we're under Nick Toth during the Cleve and Lichty years. Those guys could play, and sometimes they could play an entire game.