2002 vs. 2008: The Ohio State Buckeyes Offense

I had originally written several paragraphs about how there are some Ohio State fans who need to relax. I mean, sure, the team isn’t as awesome as we’d all hoped, but they aren’t bad. They’re 6-1, and it’s not like they’ve lost to Toledo or anything. Things aren’t perfect, but the sky isn’t falling here. “They have a solid defense and a shaky offense,” I wrote. “It was good enough to be great in 2002. Why is it so bad in 2008?”

Wait, I thought. Let’s look a bit more closely at that comparison. From that, this post was born. How do these Buckeyes compare to the Buckeyes that beat Miami in the Fiesta bowl? First, the offense:

(Note: All stats from the NCAA Website)

Offense
	2002		2008
Statistic	Actual	National Rank	Actual	National Rank
Pass YPG	173.21	92	143.57	108
Pass Efficiency	146.05	10	128.46	51
Yards Per Attempt	8.66	-	6.24	-
Rush Yards	191.29	31	177.29	37
Yards Per Carry	4.26	-	4.46	-
Total Yards	364.50	70	320.86	94
Points	29.29	41	24.29	70

 

It’s pretty clear that this offense isn’t even as good as 2002’s. It’s possible that some of this can be explained by changes to the clock rules or something, but I don’t think you’ll find 40 yards in the rule changes. More likely, this can be explained by the personnel. The 2008 Buckeyes have been without Beanie Wells for three games. “But Mo Clarett was always injured too!” you say. Well, hypothetical objector, Clarett played in 11 games and rushed for over 1200 yards, 20th in the country. That offense’s top player was a major contributor in a way that Beanie hasn’t been yet. Heck, Pryor is officially the team’s leading rusher because Beanie hasn’t played in enough games to qualify. You can see that the offense, even without Beanie for half the season thus far, is averaging more yards per carry than the 2002 version. If Captain Destructo and his Stiff Arm of Justice can continue to produce, even with a half-functional traitorous foot, those offensive number should pick up. Some help from the passing game would be nice, though.

Speaking of the passing game, the quarterbacks are another difference. In short, Terrelle Pryor could learn a thing or two from Craig Krenzel. That’s not to say that Krenzel was better, but that Krenzel played the position in a way that I think Pryor would do well to emulate, at least in this stage of his development. Krenzel would drop back, look around, and if he didn’t quickly see anything he liked, he’d take off running. Krenzel only threw for 140 yards per game, but he added another 26 on the ground – not bad for a guy that wasn’t terribly mobile. Pryor is already averaging 48 yards per game on the ground, but if he was as decisive as Krenzel, he’d average even more. And if he took the occasional chance downfield, he’d add some more passing yards, bump up that yards per attempt stat, and open up the field for the offense. I’ve run into a Voltaire quote a lot lately (including about Pryor, I think, but I don’t remember where): “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Craig Krenzel epitomized “good enough” as a quarterback, while Pryor is trying to epitomize “perfect.” But this team doesn’t need perfection, it needs good enough. If Pryor is willing to be more decisive and take more chances, ths team will be better off for it.

I’d also argue that the coaches need to help Pryor out. I’m no quarterbacks coach, and I haven’t designed a play outside of video games and the playground, but I think that a gameplan that either gets the ball out of Pryor’s hands quickly or that has him take off running sooner would be a benefit. Have him roll out, make a read or two, and take off running if nothing’s there. Have him throw some quick hitches and slants. Let him take shots downfield. Heck, if memory serves, Holy Buckeye came about because Krenzel saw no safeties deep and decided to throw to Jenkins downfield before the ball was even snapped. With the way teams are loading up against the run, Pryor is going to see something similar from time to time. Let him try to take advantage of it.

As long as the team is winning, none of the problems are too bad. And it’s not like this season’s offense is awful. It’s not very good, though, and sooner or later that will be a problem. The 2002 offense was pretty close to the minimum you can receive in terms of production from an offense and still be a successful team. And that team was bailed out repeatedly by a stellar defense. Is this season’s version good enough to do likewise? I’ll take a look at them next time.

Go to Source