The Washington Huskies welcomed the Ohio State Buckeyes to the Greatest Setting, as the two played for the first time as fellow B1G Conference members. The Dawgs took a 3-0 lead against the #1 team in the country and kept the game competitive going into the 4th. Unfortunately the defense finally broke and the offense could not reach the end zone, as the team ultimately fell 24-6 to the reigning national champions. It was a valiant effort by UW but showcased areas of improvement that is holding them back from being a ranked team, let alone a CFP contender.
To the film.
Offense: Tough Nut to Crack
For this week’s Film Study, we wanted to feature the good and the bad, and more importantly, the “why” on both sides of the ball. Ohio State should be considered a measuring stick game for most programs. They are a perennial title contender with a loaded roster year in and year out. If you can play competitively for an extended period of time, you’re probably a pretty solid team. That was our high level takeaway from the game this past week. We are dramatically better in key areas compared to last season, but there’s still a ways to go in other areas. For example, on offense, we were fairly competitive in the trenches. Sure, under 100 yards rushing and 6 sacks don’t tell the same story, but that’s why we dive into the film, right here at UW Dawg Pound, every week.
1st Quarter – 4:55 – 2nd & 10
Ok so I’ll get it out of the way early. This play is me cherry picking for the best play from the run game. Not only was this the biggest play on the ground for our Huskies all game, but it would also end up accounting for over half of our net rushing yardage (although if you account for ~46 yards off sacks, it’d only be about 1/3 of our rushing yardage). The net result of the play isn’t really what I wanted to focus on though. I know that every defense can get got here and there. What I did want to focus on was the solid execution up front.
To give context for the play, we’re in a new Weak I formation look with 11 personnel, featuring Denzel Boston of all people in the backfield as the FB. This was one of many first quarter looks that Fisch threw at OSU to probe their reactions and adjustments to weird alignments and personnel. The play concept itself was a pretty standard Mid Zone run call towards the strong side of the formation (towards #86 Decker DeGraaf on the left side).
This play was called against a seemingly vanilla OSU defensive alignment. Pre-snap they are lined up in a 4-2-5 look with the CBs playing off and both safeties playing back but with a slight tilt, possibly indicating a post-snap rotation.
You can see the play develop better from the replay angle here, but post-snap, OSU rotates Caleb Downs (#2) into the box in a disguised Cover 3 call. On paper, what we have here is a run play being called right into the teeth of an OSU defense that is sprinting their best player right at the point of attack. Fortunately for us, our line picks up the box defenders beautifully. With Boston and Omari Evans (#5) aligned towards the field, the OSU 2nd level defenders are shifted towards their side, away from the point of attack, so even with Downs running up into the box, we can get hat-on-hat blocking on the play side. Decker does a great job solo blocking #97 Kenyatta Jackson Jr. (who has 20lbs on DeGraaf), freshman LG John Mills (#72) gets a nice pancake on the DT, and Willis & Roebuck clean up at the second level to spring Coleman for a big run.
Obviously, we didn’t get runs like this all game, and the OSU defense eventually clamped down on the rushing attack. However, I think we can use this play as a “glass half full” takeaway from the game. The line (and DeGraaf) have taken a big step forward. We now have the talent to stand toe-to-toe with the most talented defensive fronts in the country (at least some of the time). We might not yet be ready to assert our physical dominance over an OSU-level team on a down-to-down basis when they’re loading up the box and intentionally trying to stop the run, but we’re past the point of needing double teams across the board to get any sort of movement at the line. If all goes as planned and guys like Mills continue to develop like Azzopardi has, we aren’t far off from that being a reality.
1st Quarter – 1:08 – 1st & Goal
On the flip side, this play is emblematic of how far we have yet to go, as well as summarizing the crux of our red zone struggles in this game. In short yardage situations, particularly on the goal line, OSU’s rather conservative defensive game plan shifted from bend-but-don’t-break to stonewall against the run. The Buckeyes’ red zone defense took the calculated risk that Demond couldn’t beat them through the air when the field shrank, so they sold out to stop the run in all forms.
Here on this play, we’re running a tried and true Split Zone Read Option concept that we’ve used successfully in short yardage situations and should be familiar to most Husky fans. The problem is that OSU is ready for it. Not only do they have 6 defenders on the line to takeaway all opportunities for a double team, but they are also ready to take away either side of the option On the read side of the play (boundary side of the formation), the Buckeyes have DE #92 Kaden Curry crashing hard on the interior run knowing that #8 Arvell Reese has contain on Demond Williams behind him. With Curry selling out on stuffing the run in the backfield, Quentin Moore (#88) never really had a shot at getting a good block given Curry’s inside alignment.
What confuses me watching the replay is Demond’s decision to give the ball to Coleman, and to a greater extent the play call itself. I get that typically the QB is coached to give the ball when the read defender (#8) stays home in contain, attacks the backfield, or if there’s any confusion in the read. However, the read defender is a 6-4 243lb LB and squeezes down the line at the snap. Does Demond not think he has a speed advantage to the edge? If he doesn’t, that’s a totally acceptable answer, but that does beg the question on why Fisch didn’t take that into consideration with his play calling. We have other plays on the call sheet that get the same look but bake in an additional option for the ball.
For example, we have a Read Option RPO into the flat with the TE that we used last year on the goal line against UCLA.
Instead of just handoff or pull the ball for a run, this style of RPO gives us the 3rd “pitch” option that maximizes horizontal stress for the defense’s run front and is highly effective against defensive looks that sell out to stop the run and back it with man coverage. Alternatively, if Fisch was dead set on running a Split Zone run look, there is a version of the Read Option RPO that can emulate it. Like the one below from USC back when they had Caleb Williams.
As you can see, it can give the QB another option against an EDGE player when they are playing contain. With a dual threat weapon like Demond, I’m just not sure why we wouldn’t have just given him as many options as possible unless we don’t trust him to make that play.
3rd Quarter – 6:08 – 3rd & 3
Finally, we have a passing play that’s not particularly interesting schematically or an outstanding individual effort, but it did spur a couple of other thoughts on the overall game plan.
Here on this play we’re running a Hoss concept that’s gained notoriety ever since the Patriots spammed this play against the Falcons in their Super Bowl comeback nearly a decade ago. Hoss is actually an acronym (hitches outside, slot seams), and it usually gets paired with a some sort of man-beater option route from a 5th receiver (in this case the RB). It’s a concept that’s effective against a variety of coverages, both man and zone. There are a few different ways of coaching the progression, but the seam routes are always an integral part of the read as the vertical stretch portion of the concept.
In this case, we’re attacking a 2-high shell look from OSU and with five defenders on the LOS, there is a lot of open grass pre-snap to DeGraaf’s side to attack up the seam. Decker beats the jam at the line and Demond layers a nice pass into the gap between the LB and the safety for the nice gain. Nothing complicated.
What this play did make me think about though was how we were attacking the OSU defense through the air and how we were utilizing DeGraaf. On the season, we’ve shied away from the drop back passing game in favor of play action concepts and screens. Additionally, despite being a freshman All-American last year, DeGraaf has been awfully quiet in the passing game this year with just 7 catches for 50 yards. With Rashid Williams out, and with Omari Evans injured until this game, Dezmen Roebuck has had to step up. Roebuck made a handful of big plays against OSU (including a long reception on a seam route in the same Hoss concept), but DeGraaf is a sure handed TE with downfield ability. Why hasn’t he gotten more involved in the passing game? If OSU was going to force Demond to beat them with his arm and the drop back passing game, I would’ve thought that the staff would’ve dialed up more plays with Decker at least acting as a safety valve.
Defense: Fits & Starts
Much like the offense, the defense had moments where they proved that they’ve taken a step forward this season despite missing a bunch of key players. On the flip side, there were certainly some plays where I question how well our staff is preparing guys to execute at their potential. Like always, there are things to coach up, but I still walk away thinking that we’re moving in the right direction.
1st Quarter – 8:44 – 4th & 1
First up, we have the outstanding 4th down stop early in the game that set the tone for the surprisingly defensively dominated game. Heading into the game, most fans were concerned about getting bullied by the OSU run game based on lingering concerns about our overall depth of talent on the DL and the injury to Buddah Al-Uqdah. Those concerns were momentarily put to rest on this play.
With just one yard needed to convert, OSU lined up in a goal line I-Formation package and ran a lead run right at the defense. Nothing fancy or complicated. This is the epitome of a “we’re bigger and stronger than you” type of call. Against this we ran out our own goal line personnel package featuring both of our 350lb DTs clogging the interior and put six defenders on the line. Behind them we had three LBs including Deven Bryant, Xe’ree Alexander, and Anthony Ward. Throughout the first third of the season, my two biggest issues with the run defense has been our inability to stand up against 1v1 blocks and our inconsistency flowing to the point of attack to stuff the RB in the hole. Both of those concerns were alleviated on this play. Not only did our guys hold up at the point of attack long enough to choke down the run lane, but we also had multiple second level defenders flow immediately to the gap to stuff the run for no gain.
Again, we weren’t this stout against the run all game long, but this play did show that we have the talent potential to make it happen. Now we just need to figure out how to get this type of run defense on a more consistent down-to-down basis when the offense isn’t telegraphing run.
2nd Quarter – 1:14 – 3rd & 11
One of the more controversial play call decisions from the game was our blitz call here on 3rd & long just before the half. I’m a pretty firm believer in “momentum” in sports, and this was a momentum killer. Instead of a potential OSU field goal to tie the game heading into the half, we allow a TD to their most dangerous weapon untouched. In the moment it felt like coaching malpractice, but after rewatching the play a few times, I’m less certain that this was a bad call and more just unfortunate timing.
Using the better replay angle, you can see that OSU is running a Middle Screen concept where Jeremiah Smith (#4) is running a drag across the middle, and the rest of the OSU skill position players are releasing downfield to block. This is getting run right into a blitz play. Screens work best against an aggressive pass rush, so this wasn’t a great defensive look to be in on this play. One criticism I heard was “why would we call a 7-man blitz with no one on Smith?” Well, that’s technically true, but it wasn’t because we forgot about Smith on the play. What we had called was a deep zone blitz. For Madden or CFB26 players out there, think Engage Eight. We’re bringing the house on the blitz, and instead of playing man coverage where we are for sure leaving someone uncovered, we have our four coverage defenders play deep Cover 4.
It’s a more schematically sound way to bring a 7-man pressure, but it assumes that the offense is going to push the ball downfield in a conventional drop back passing concept. The most aggressive pass play they can run is a 4 Verts concept, where we have enough defenders deep to cover everyone. Alternatively, they can still dump off the ball short or in the intermediate portion of the field, and we’d have defenders ready to rally to make the tackle. Basically, a screen that gets 4 of the 5 skill players downfield to block the 4 coverage defenders is just the perfect play call against this blitz.
As for the folks out there wondering why we even called a blitz in the first place considering that it was 3rd & long, the most logical explanation I could come up with was that the staff was worried about OSU going for it on 4th down. Given the down and distance, and the fact that they still had all three time outs, it was very likely that they were going to go for it on anything inside of 4th and medium. Their offense was getting 5 or so yards per play at that point, so anything less than a negative play was likely to end up being a conversion. It’s still a big risk to take, but it was a decision that signaled the staff’s willingness to call the game to win and not just keep things close.
4th Quarter – 5:01 – 4th & 1
Last OSU TD
Finally this week we have the most glaring example of a miscommunication leading to a back breaking touchdown. Again facing a 4th down attempt from OSU, the defense sets up in our goal line personnel package. OSU uses a Wing-T formation that they had used on the goal line earlier in the game to set up a rushing touchdown, but this time they motion a TE out of the backfield into the flat. The Wing-T formation is already an unusual look meant to confuse the defense by mixing up coverage and run fit responsibilities, but the motion adds an additional layer of confusion to it.
The play design itself is a common Sprint Out Snag concept, but the presentation and motion are what throws our guys off. As you can see better on the replay angle, once the TE motions out of the backfield, Alex McLaughlin (#12) tries to make a check with the rest of the defense to signal that they need to bump out their coverage responsibilities. For whatever reason, it doesn’t appear like Bryant (#17) fully comprehends the check call and they both end up chasing after the RB in the flat. At the same time, neither really get a good angle on the RB (likely expecting the other to follow him), and they also leave the in-line TE (#15) to get out free into the back corner of the end zone. It’s a tough wrinkle to prep for if there isn’t a ton of film on this exact formation, but its a gross miscommunication of assignments if a coverage check is being made that ends up with two players open to score a TD.
Other Thoughts from Coach B:
- OSU ran the classic dual threat QB defense. They played zone coverage, conservative contain, QB spy, forced all options runs inside, and dared the passing game to beat them. This made our offense look pretty good between the 20s when the passing game still had space to operate. However, when the passing windows shrink, it can go sideways quickly.
- Most of the sacks Demond took were in the second half when Willis exited the game due to injury, but I won’t pin all the blame on Max McCree. Many of the sacks are on Demond and the receivers. Demond had time to throw the ball on a lot of passing plays, but he tended to lock onto his first read, waiting too long for the guy to get open. There was also at least one sack where he ran straight into the contain. An area of improvement is his internal clock and learning to get rid of the ball instead of taking the negative yardage. A sack is better than an interception, but an incomplete is better than a sack.
- Run game had a few flashes but it was obvious early that OSU game planned around limiting Demond’s rushing. Stuffed Bash Counter Option (Q1 6:39). Offense pivoted to under center runs to set up bootleg play action. OSU was prepared and had discipline on bootlegs (Q2 6:00 sack). Outside of Coleman’s big run, he averaged about 3 ypc. Not efficient enough to lean on consistently.
- Something worth circling back to, we touched on our red zone scoring issues against OSU, but if we take a step back to assess the red zone scoring for the first 4 games of the season, we are heavily skewed towards rushing TDs when we convert. When we do throw the ball in the red zone, we tend to throw jump balls to Denzel in isolation. I’m not sure if it’s because we don’t have any other reliable targets who can get open quickly or win jump ball situations, or if it’s just that Fisch doesn’t have an extensive red zone passing game package installed. Either way, I’m not sure if we’re going to see a noticeable improvement in red zone scoring against teams that can sell out to stop the run.
- Defense also had its moments, like on the 4th down stand, but communication still seems to be an issue on adjustments, like on OSU’s last TD. I wonder if the constant shuffling in the line up, particularly at LB and DB, is a contributing factor. The LBs and DBs are usually the defensive positions that require the tightest communication to make sure coverages, run fits, and pre-play checks are understood.
- Looking at the defensive play calling overall, the conservative coverages were an interesting choice. Sure, Jeremiah Smith is a dangerous weapon, but we didn’t seem to do much to put pressure on Sayin to beat us. We held the OSU run game to 4.4 yards per carry (good but not great), but just 7.4 yards per pass attempt (excellent defensively when compared to our 7.5 YPA in a disappointing effort). Many of Sayin’s completions were on simple out routes or other access throws to the outside against off coverage. Basically, they were gimme completions. I’m not sure what would’ve happened if we had dared OSU to pass, but it felt like a missed opportunity since we were doing adequately against the run and still giving up easy completions by design.
- Contrary to a lot of folks out there, I feel pretty good about our decision to go for it on 4th down when we called the fake field goal play. I didn’t like play call and would’ve preferred us to run our normal offense. It was also 4th & 14 instead of a easier 4th & short, but I was OK with the situational decision. OSU had almost every talent advantage, and at some point we needed to take a risk to manufacture points. A FG would’ve made it a 6-0 one-possession game, and it was going to be hard to steal a possession. It was a gamble that didn’t pay off, but we needed to play to win the game.
Awgs’ Bonus Play of the Week
Credit to the special teams, as they laid the boom twice this week. First with Quinten Moore forcing this fumble on a punt return and Decker DeGraaf quickly recovering.
As well as Adam Mohammed for laying this truck stick.
