Keys To Building Successful Football Program: Balance Between Creativity & Fundamentals

I appreciate your clarification, Nestor. Actually I could tell from the undertone of the original post that your real point was to urge patience for Neuheisal. (Just like I suspect his real motive in peddling the “punt and win” tropes this year was so his players and fans don’t get discouraged by the conservative playcalling that’s necessary in a down-talent season.) Given the hotheaded petulance that can come in reaction to the latest blip, I totally sympathize. And I’m encouraged by his job so far. I just wanted to make sure we don’t lapse into any false assumptions about football so we can properly and objectively assess his work as it progresses.

Leach is relevant here because he represents a potential breakthrough in football philosophy. His case almost exactly mirrors Ben Howland’s.

Leach thinks an offense should score as much as possible, no matter the cost to defensive fatigue. Howland thinks a defense should give up as little as possible, no matter the cost to offensive energy.

On the surface, Leach doesn’t care about defense. Numbers show his defense to be not nearly as bad as his offense is good.

On the surface, Howland doesn’t care about offense. Numbers (Pomeroy) show that his offense tends to be among the most efficient in the league.

Both have beaten vastly more talented teams (Texas, Oklahoma last year, Cal in Holiday Bowl, A&M and Nebraska throughout previous years for Leach; Memphis, Gonzaga, Kansas for Howland) but not enough to win it all. And both have been criticized for that shortcoming in a similarly unreasonable way.

To me, Tech’s loss to OU was just like our losses to Florida: a vastly more talented team that played perfect, against which we couldn’t do what we do best. Tech couldn’t move the ball against OK; we couldn’t defend Florida or Memphis (contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t our offense that cost us those games).

Both approaches may be flawed. In the technical category Howland and Leach are unimpeachable: Howland’s teams have the most efficient offense and defense and Leach’s offense was no impediment to the defense when it’s talented (as it was in his time at OU). But “spiritually” you might say that Leach’s emphasis will discourage defensive recruits and have an intangible cost on toughness, just as Howland’s might cost us the offensive flow we may need against the best teams. Though I disagree, time will tell.

Let’s just be concrete with our meaning when discussing these things, so we can try to figure out the real value of things like field position and ball control, not just their mythical association with “traditional, hard-nosed, fundamental football, growl.” Let’s not assume that something lacks fundamentals because it’s really innovative, or vice-a-versa (I remember the dark days too well to take Howland’s efficient offense for granted).

At any rate, it’s a fun discussion to have when it surrounds a promising coach and a program on the rise.

Ohio State has a mobile qb and Tressel has started adding plays that take advantage of Pryor’s speed. The main play that they run that has been described as “the spread” is really just a read option. This play is heavily used by Urban Meyer and Rich Rodriguez, two coaches who have had mobile qbs.

Ohio State runs the play differently than WVU and Florida though. TOSU first overloads one side of the line with 2 tight ends. The running back goes in for the handoff and heads to the back of the weakside tackle. Pryor then can give up the ball or keep it for himself after faking the handoff. After that, there are differing variations of the play. Sometimes there is a trailing pitchman (RB or WR) like in a traditional option and others there is a wide receiver going in the opposite direction for a reverse. Of course, Pryor can also roll out and pass the ball.

In reality, this new fangled spread read option is just a modified version of the Nebraska option. Before Bill Calahan, Nebraska used to line up with 2 tight ends, 2 running backs, and a wide receiver. The QB would have the option of giving the ball to the full back for the dive up the middle, taking it himself around the corner, or pitch to the trailing pitch man (tailback). Sometimes they would work in a reverse to the wide receiver or roll out for a pass to a tight end.

The two plays are eerily similar yet one is supposedly part of the spread offense.

Tressel’s problem at Ohio State is not the scheme he runs. He has a lineman factory in Columbus and would be an idiot not to feature a power running game. He has the athletes at the skill positions to compete with anybody as well. The reason that Tressel keeps losing big games is that offense is too predictable. Ohio State always follows the same pattern: establish the run first, throw deep once or twice when they stop it, run again, throw a few medium depth passes, run some more. This pattern works most of the time, but becomes predictable quite quickly. Furthermore, since Tressel calls most of the runs between the tackles, it becomes easier for the defense load more men into the box.

USC was so successful against them because they were able to clog the line while still covering the deep receiver. If Tressel wants to be more successful outside of the big ten, he will need to mix things up more in his playcalling and be less predictable. His offensive scheme is not hurting him, lack of originality is.