[Every now and again, longtime poster NEWBrutus will drop something on our Legacy Forum that we want to put up on the Front Page. This is one of those things. A number of pieces have already been written this week about the lack of touches for the running backs and the large number of carries for J.T. Barrett. The assertion being that too many carries for Barrett and too few carries for J.K. Dobbins is a bad thing. What do the numbers have to say, however? You might be surprised. — Tony Gerdeman]
Here are the game-by-game numbers for Dobbins, J.T. Barrett, and Mike Weber.
| Row Labels | Sum of Play_NoPlay | Sum of Play_Yards | Sum of YPP | Sum of Success Rate |
| J.K. | Dobbins | |||
| Indiana | 29 | 181 | 6.24 | 48.3% |
| Oklahoma | 13 | 72 | 5.54 | 53.8% |
| Army | 13 | 172 | 13.23 | 84.6% |
| UNLV | 14 | 95 | 6.79 | 57.1% |
| Rutgers | 6 | 53 | 8.83 | 16.7% |
| Maryland | 13 | 96 | 7.38 | 76.9% |
| Nebraska | 12 | 106 | 8.83 | 66.7% |
| Penn State | 13 | 88 | 6.77 | 61.5% |
| Iowa | 6 | 51 | 8.50 | 33.3% |
| Total | 119 | 914 | 7.68 | 58.0% |
| J.T. | Barrett | (Sacks | Excluded) | |
| Indiana | 12 | 68 | 5.67 | 58.3% |
| Oklahoma | 15 | 81 | 5.40 | 46.7% |
| Army | 5 | 41 | 8.20 | 100.0% |
| UNLV | 4 | 22 | 5.50 | 75.0% |
| Rutgers | 7 | 88 | 12.57 | 71.4% |
| Maryland | 8 | 59 | 7.38 | 62.5% |
| Nebraska | 9 | 55 | 6.11 | 77.8% |
| Penn State | 15 | 106 | 7.07 | 46.7% |
| Iowa | 13 | 72 | 5.54 | 76.9% |
| Total | 88 | 592 | 6.73 | 63.6% |
| Mike | Weber | |||
| Oklahoma | 3 | 29 | 9.67 | 100.0% |
| Army | 4 | 13 | 3.25 | 50.0% |
| Rutgers | 10 | 44 | 4.40 | 70.0% |
| Maryland | 13 | 59 | 4.54 | 69.2% |
| Nebraska | 18 | 82 | 4.56 | 55.6% |
| Penn State | 7 | 21 | 3.00 | 57.1% |
| Iowa | 5 | 27 | 5.40 | 100.0% |
| Total | 60 | 275 | 4.58 | 66.7% |
Certainly the thing that jumps off the page is Dobbins’ average per carry. He’s a special back. You can easily make an argument for why he should get the ball more. Your eyes tell you that too.
But let’s look at J.T.’s numbers for a moment–taking sacks out of the equation. Barrett is an effective runner and more importantly an efficient runner.
Defenses are forcing him to keep the ball in the read game (per Kevin Wilson), but he makes his carries count. For the season 63.6% of his carries are successful plays (gains 5 yards on first down, 70% of the yards on second down, and converts 3rd and 4th downs).
Too often this gets lost in the shuffle.
Consider what happened vs. Iowa in the running game. Dobbins had an impressive 8.5 yard per carry average. That number is largely skewed by one run of 35 yards. He averaged 3 yards per carry on his other attempts.
J.T. averaged a solid 5.54 yards per carry, and was successful 77% of the time.
People are arguing that the lack of touches for the running backs were the problem against Iowa. The numbers say otherwise.
In fact, our average yards per carry against Iowa were better than what we did against Penn State!
The stronger argument is that we should have run the ball more period, regardless of who was getting the carries.
Th problem coming up is Ohio State is going to be facing one of the best run stopping defences in the country. J.T. Barrett doesn’t look good running against Michigan State. They stay in position and don’t give him room to run. The problem isn’t how much he runs, it’s how he doesn’t stretch the field, meaningless Michigan State safeties can come up in run support. I was worried about Iowa last week because they play great assignment football and are rarely out of position. Michigan State is better at that than Iowa is.
This is a tough game, and Barrett’s last shot at any kind of Championship as a player. While I hope he does well, two years ago and last year are still fresh in my mind. And Dantonio’s 3-3 vs. the Buckeyes is truly disturbing. By the numbers, records number of Conference Championships etc. you could seriously argue Michigan State has been as good team as any team in the Big 10 over the last few years. So, I’m hoping, but it’s not going to surprise me if they make this Buckeye team look bad. With two ints and 10 penalties, and one special teams gaffe and I don’t see how tOSU wins, And that’s totally within the realm of possibility.
On the other hand, a couple of successful long balls and quick slants so Dantonio has to call off the dogs, and it’s OSU’s game. One can always hope.
All of these writers and coaches keep saying Barrett has to run because on the zone read they are watching Dobbins. Well of course they are. Barrett when running looks like hes 50 years old. Another brilliant question would be to ask Meyer if thats the only running play they have. And Im not talking about sending everybody out of the backfield on 3rd and long and sent Barrett up the middle. Disgusting
JT needs to be running the ball more! After all, he has an OSU legacy to build!
I think there is too much criticism flying about concerning reads and who is running the ball. The root cause in my view is OL play all along the line. Offside defensive players are inadequately screened. At the point of attack there is lack of movement and too often getting pushed into the backfield. I would like to see two running back sets which creates a problem of three possible runners,or one back running a wheel rout, with tight end delayed drag. But we sure can’t do the same crap with the same lack of discipline.
Yes Jerry- in other words, coaching issues rather than questions about the skill of the ball carriers. Plan the game according to personnel strengths (and flaws), rather than according to what the coaches think is easiest for themselves to handle. This head coach likes to make veiled comments about players who need to improve before they see the field. How about game planning improvement?
Not sure running JT is a problem. He is an effective runner but is definitely not as fast as he was prior to his broken ankle. The problem to me is that it becomes a very predictable security blanket at crunch time. He has to throw the ball well tomorrow or we might be in trouble.
Thanks NEWBRUTUS! Your articles are insightful and your work appreciated.
I’d like to see his throwing stats when he runs more in games. I don’t have numbers to back me up, but I think in game he runs more early… he struggles to throw the ball later.
Which is why teams choose to defend him that way… get him running… and he won’t be any good throwing the ball. Sure, they give up 5 yards per carry… but if they force us to throw on 3rd down… that’s normally a win for the other team… with JT running to a sideline throwing the ball out of bounds.
Also, he’s not a home run threat at all. No one is scared of JT taking it to the house like Miller.
Still a great leader and the best option we have… but it’s really frustrating to watch.
Sometimes people do the wrong thing for the right reason- and such is the case with this article. I have consistently defended JT Barrett and cast blame on the coaching staff- JT has been under a million coordinators, for example. There are many folks like me who comment in agreement on this site…
The problem with the article is that it doesn’t ask the right question. Is running the quarterback really a problem? If we remove all context from the question, its an easy answer- no, its no problem. Unfortunately, football can mirror real life, and in real life we can’t simply eliminate context to get our way in every argument. Recent OSU backs have been truly outstanding at the college level- see Carlos Hyde and Zeke- and have been underfed when they were HOT and needed the ball. THAT is when running the quarterback becomes a problem. It also becomes a problem when the opposing defense has a pulse and has sniffed out the quarterback run. Its also a problem when the quarterback run is not supplemented with a healthy passing game (such as 25 yard parallel passes that gain NOTHING or low percentage long throws).
Was running Braxton Miller on 4th down in the infamous Michigan State game a few years ago, a problem? YES. It was a problem because Carlos Hyde was the only Buckeye gashing the MSU defense and because Braxton Miller became a fragile player indeed against certain teams. Sparty knew exactly what was coming- period. OSU could have run that play 5 times, and Braxton Miller would still be paralleling the line of scrimmage FOREVER rather than moving forward even a bit, resulting in failure each time. Some of you may recall that Meyer, when asked about that play call after the game, said he “wanted the ball in his best player’s hands” to decide the game. Well, Braxton Miller WASN’T his best player in that game, yet he still got the ball.
There’s a real disconnect somewhere in that offensive brain trust, against truly good teams- and his initials are Urban Meyer. The infamous quarterback run isn’t going to be the savior against every team, and its the job of the coaches to know the difference and distribute to the most effective players ( or “best” if you prefer that term) instead.
Who cares… This team sucks!!!!
Its a total embarrassment watching this dumpster fire week in and weekout
I suppose that your argument would be to simply throw away the runningback altogether. LOL.
There is no skewing of a riunningbacks numbers. There are precious few runningbacks historically who built their careers on single runs. They build their credentials over many carries reaching a mean average.
I find it interesting that you think it’s okay to remove JT’s sacks (negative rush plays). It’s not okay. Just like a tailback who has a negative rush the real average of their carries is measured by ALL of his touches. Since Coach Meyer somehow thinks that JT is their get out of jail card rushing the football, his sacks work against your position. Just like it’s not JK Dobbins fault the offensive line couldn’t keep defenders out of the backfield, but, the negative rushes still fall on him. The sacks work the same way. The real average is taken as a whole, not by picking and choosing which plays to count and which ones to throw away to try to paint a false picture.
People are saying what is obvious and real when all of the colors are added to the picture. JK Dobbins CERTAINLY should have had 3 times the amount of carries that he had. Another reason he should have had those carries is because JT has turned into a slow footed weakling in his carries. Some of those carries he decided to take away from his tailback would likely have gone for much more productivity with the ball in JK Dobbins’ hands. Add in the bonus that JK Dobbins runs with mean intention rather than curling up and flopping on the ground at the sight of a defender 5 or 10 yards away, running JT over handing the ball to JK is completely a STUPID idea.
Run the ball more? Yes, obviously. But the ball belongs in a hungry ball carriers hands, not the hands of a guy who refuses to make the most out of every carry. Had this been 2014 JT Barrett? Sure. He ran hard and refused to lose with his feet that year, or when he was trying to win the starting spot from Cardale Jones. Since then he’s a gimmick runner who doesn’t make the most out of keeping the ball.
JK Dobbins AND Mike Weber have been shortchanged, as had the offense completely by plays that keep the ball in JT Barretts hands. JT Barrett has declined from a “ball carrier” into a ball distributor since 2014. The Buckeye running game is suffering because of it.
Plus he says take away Dobbins 35 yard run and he averaged 3 ypc on his other carries.Then 2 sentences later he says we averaged more yards per carry against Iowa then we did against Penn St. Why didnt he take out Dobbins 35 yard run then. Very uneducated article.
JT is one of the best short yardage runners in the country. He has always been the best on the buckeyes, even better than Zeke. He also gains consistent yardage when he keeps the ball on all downs. These stats are not surprising at all. His forte is making the correct reads in the read option. My argument is that we should run called plays for the RB where we make sure we have blocked at the point of attack so he is running downhill and getting positive yardage each play. In the read option, JK often has to make a great move right at the line of scrimmage against a defense that is keying on him and trying to take him away. That is why his efficiency suffers in comparison.