[Editor’s note: NEWBrutus is a long-time poster on our forum who has contributed statistical breakdowns for us in the past. Up today is a look back at what went right, wrong, and indifferent against Maryland.]
Many Ohio State fans were hoping to see continued improvement from both the Buckeye offense and defense when they traveled to College Park, Maryland to take on the Terps.
We were treated to a thrilling overtime victory, but one that left many Buckeye fans frustrated.
After sifting through the numbers, the best description I can come up with for both units is bi-polar.
At times, the signs of improvement were there. The numbers show there were times when both units were terrific, if not dominant.
Then there were periods of the game where both units were absolutely terrible.
Those terrible moments nearly cost us the game.
Let’s take a deeper dive.
Drive Data
| Drives | Avg Start | TDs | FGA | FGM | Off. Pts | Pts/Dr | Dr Eff. | Sc. Chance | SC Eff. | Pts/SC | |
| OSU | 14 | 68.9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 52 | 3.71 | .531 | 9 | .714 | 5.00 |
| UMD | 14 | 72.0 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 44 | 3.14 | .449 | 8 | .536 | 3.75 |
Ohio State held a slight advantage in starting field position and drive efficiency. They also were able to convert more of their scoring opportunities into points.
The numbers say this was the best offensive performance since facing Indiana in week six of the season, but it was marred by three turnovers and a failed fourth-down conversion deep in plus territory. Two of the turnovers resulted in at least at 10-point swing, as losing a fumble inside the 5-yard line and the pick-6 happened on back-to-back offensive possessions.
Instead of potentially going to the locker room tied or only down four, we found ourselves down two touchdowns after our first possession of the second half. This could have been a devastating swing in momentum.
We survived, and eventually prevailed.
Offensive Stats
| Offense | Plays | Yards | YPP | Succ Rate | XPL | XPL Yds | XPL Yds Pct | |
| OSU | 94 | 688 | 7.32 | .585 | 11 | 315 | .458 | |
| PASS | 39 | 401 | 10.28 | .641 | 8 | 252 | .628 | |
| RUN | 55 | 287 | 5.22 | .545 | 3 | 63 | .220 | |
| UMD | 62 | 535 | 8.63 | .403 | 13 | 494 | .923 | |
| PASS | 18 | 164 | 9.11 | .333 | 5 | 188 | 1.146 | |
| RUN | 44 | 371 | 8.43 | .432 | 8 | 306 | .825 | |
So you’re reading this and thinking, “How can 114% of their yards in the passing game come from explosive plays?” Sacks are included in the passing stats and not the running stats. I had to go back and look again too.
Let’s start with the Ohio State defense.
When they were good, they were really good. When they were bad, they were really bad.
As has been the case in every game but two, explosive plays have been a major problem. Our opponents have feasted on our proclivity to allow big plays. Maryland was no different, as 92% of the Terrapin yards were gained on plays of 15 yards or more. This is a season high (Oregon State 80.6%).
But to be fair, there were times when the defense played really well. In fact most of the time they played really well. Maryland’s other 49 plays netted 41 total yards, less than one yard per play. Their success rate on those other 49 plays was 24.5%.
But the big plays happened. Whether it is due to missed assignments, running the wrong way, missing tackles, or bad scheme, you cannot overlook, ignore, or rationalize them away. They are part of the game and they have a significant impact on the outcome. There is no way to gloss over this and call it a good performance, or even an average performance.
On the offensive side of the ball, this was a quality performance marred by three key turnovers. The 58.5% success rate is the best since we faced Rutgers and Oregon State. And averaging 7.3 yards per play was the best mark since the first two weeks as well.
But like the defense, you just cannot overlook the critical turnovers (though for the life of me I cannot figure out why we called a QB draw, which ended up resulting in a fumble).
As mentioned earlier, the 10-14 point swing from those was significant and nearly cost us the game.
A Step Forward in the Running Game.
Today we introduce two new measures, Opportunity rate and stuff rate. Both are a way to measure of how well the offensive line is doing their job. Stuff rate is the percentage of running plays which result in zero or negative yards. Opportunity rate is the percentage of runs which gain at least four yards. The idea behind opportunity rate is the line is responsible for the first part of the run, anything after 4 yards is on the back and the downfield blocking of the receivers.
Note: Sacks are excluded from these totals.
| Game | Carries | Yards | YPP | Success Rate | Stuff Rate | Opp. Rt |
| Oregon State | 53 | 375 | 7.08 | .642 | .057 | .660 |
| Rutgers | 38 | 234 | 6.16 | .553 | .211 | .605 |
| @TCU | 41 | 183 | 4.46 | .512 | .268 | .488 |
| Tulane | 35 | 162 | 4.63 | .486 | .114 | .514 |
| @Penn State | 36 | 121 | 3.36 | .361 | .278 | .472 |
| Indiana | 47 | 162 | 3.45 | .468 | .277 | .383 |
| Minnesota | 29 | 111 | 3.83 | .207 | .241 | .483 |
| @Purdue | 24 | 78 | 3.25 | .333 | .167 | .375 |
| Nebraska | 39 | 239 | 6.13 | .538 | .154 | .564 |
| @Mich State | 43 | 131 | 3.05 | .395 | .326 | .419 |
| Maryland | 55 | 287 | 5.22 | .545 | .145 | .564 |
| Total | 440 | 2083 | 4.73 | .477 | .200 | .511 |
There were times on Saturday when it seemed like our renewed emphasis on running the football seemed to hold our offense back. The offensive staff was stubborn. As a fan there were times it was very frustrating, but for the most part it worked very well.
Our stuff rate was the lowest it had been in weeks (Tulane week 4). Our success rate was the best it had been since we played hapless Rutgers. And our opportunity rate was as good as it has been all season long.
The line performed well despite losing starting left tackle Thayer Munford. Dobbins ran extremely well. And the most interesting thing we saw in the run game was Dwayne Haskins pulling the ball on the inside zone reads and gaining positive yards with his feet. (Note he also had two scrambles, but the play-by -play data doesn’t identify scrambles).
Maryland is an above-average defense. Their defensive opportunity rate is 45.6%. Their stuff rate was 17.1%. Our offense was able to better those two categories. The test is much bigger next week, but there have been significant signs of improvement since the open week.
Passing Game Returns to Form.
The running game has shown steady improvement over the past few weeks, but it seemed to come at the expense of the passing game. Saturday, the passing game began to resemble what we saw earlier in the season.
| Game | Comp | Att | Yds | Pct | TD | Int | Pass Eff |
| Oregon State | 25 | 34 | 346 | 73.5% | 5 | 1 | 201.66 |
| Rutgers | 30 | 33 | 354 | 90.9% | 5 | 0 | 231.02 |
| @TCU | 24 | 38 | 344 | 63.2% | 2 | 0 | 156.57 |
| Tulane | 31 | 38 | 419 | 81.6% | 5 | 0 | 217.62 |
| @Penn State | 22 | 39 | 270 | 56.4% | 3 | 1 | 134.82 |
| Indiana | 33 | 44 | 455 | 75.0% | 6 | 2 | 197.77 |
| Minnesota | 33 | 44 | 412 | 75.0% | 3 | 0 | 176.15 |
| @Purdue | 49 | 73 | 470 | 67.1% | 2 | 1 | 127.51 |
| Nebraska | 18 | 32 | 252 | 56.3% | 2 | 1 | 136.78 |
| @Mich State | 24 | 39 | 227 | 61.5% | 1 | 0 | 118.89 |
| Maryland | 28 | 38 | 405 | 73.7% | 4 | 1 | 192.68 |
| Grand Total | 317 | 452 | 3954 | 70.1% | 38 | 7 | 168.26 |
Dwayne Haskins looked more like what we saw early in the season. The pass efficiency rating, which factors completions, TD’s, Yards and Interceptions, was the highest it has been since week six against Indiana. Haskins’ ability to complete a high percentage of his throws and throw the ball down field allowed us to handle the adversity and eventually prevail. Despite the pick six, it was his best performance of the season.
The Playmakers
Who got the ball?
A chance is defined as a carry, a catch, or being targeted on a throw.
| Position | Chances | Pct of Chances | Yards | Pct of Yds | YPP |
| H | 17 | 18.09% | 97 | 14.10% | 5.71 |
| 14 – Hill | 9 | 9.57% | 39 | 5.67% | 4.33 |
| 21 – Campbell | 6 | 6.38% | 46 | 6.69% | 7.67 |
| 30 – McCall | 2 | 2.13% | 12 | 1.74% | 6.00 |
| QB | 16 | 17.02% | 60 | 8.72% | 3.75 |
| 7 – Haskins | 15 | 15.96% | 59 | 8.58% | 3.93 |
| 18 – Martell | 1 | 1.06% | 1 | 0.15% | 1.00 |
| RB | 39 | 41.49% | 205 | 29.80% | 5.26 |
| 2 – Dobbins | 39 | 41.49% | 205 | 29.80% | 5.26 |
| TE | 6 | 6.38% | 55 | 7.99% | 9.17 |
| 13 – Berry | 1 | 1.06% | 11 | 1.60% | 11.00 |
| 89 – Farrell | 5 | 5.32% | 44 | 6.40% | 8.80 |
| WR | 15 | 15.96% | 271 | 39.39% | 18.07 |
| 1 – Dixon | 6 | 6.38% | 102 | 14.83% | 17.00 |
| 9 – Victor | 2 | 2.13% | 41 | 5.96% | 20.50 |
| 83 – McLaurin | 4 | 4.26% | 118 | 17.15% | 29.50 |
| 17 – Olave | 3 | 3.19% | 10 | 1.45% | 3.33 |
| TEAM | 1 | 1.06% | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00 |
| Total | 94 | 100.00% | 688 | 100.00% | 7.32 |
This was the highest quarterback usage of the season.
Looking ahead.
The level of difficulty increases exponentially this week. The team up north comes calling and will pose a significant challenge. Later in the week we’ll take a deeper dive at the numbers and look ahead to the matchup we have been waiting all season to see.