[NEWBrutus is a long-time poster on our Legacy Forum and each week he crunches some numbers and shares them on the forum. From time to time, we will bump these posts to the Front Page and share them with everyone. In this particular piece, NEWBrutus looks at who is getting the ball most for the Buckeyes and which position groups are most effective. He then compares those position groups and their opportunities and production over the last four years. All in all, a jam-packed information overload.]
When he was first hired, Urban Meyer talked about writing out a list of his playmakers and finding ways to get them the ball.
Today we will take a look at those playmakers and how the 2017 Buckeyes are distributing the rock.
A “chance” is defined as a carry (rush or sack), or a target on a pass play.
All data is taken from the box score. Most interceptions do not have the player targeted in the information.
In addition, kneel downs and situations like this past Saturday when the ball was snapped over the quarterback’s head for a big loss are credited to “TEAM” in the box score. They have been excluded from these numbers.
First we will look at this by player.
Below are the chances, yards, and yards per chance for the top 15 playmakers for Ohio State this year.
| Rank | # | Name | POS | Chances | Pct of Chances | Yds | Pct of Yds | YPC |
| 1 | 2 | Dobbins | RB | 157 | 21.33% | 1147 | 20.87% | 7.31 |
| 2 | 16 | Barrett | QB | 110 | 14.95% | 572 | 10.41% | 5.20 |
| 3 | 25 | Weber | RB | 80 | 10.87% | 515 | 9.37% | 6.44 |
| 4 | 14 | Hill | H | 61 | 8.29% | 437 | 7.95% | 7.16 |
| 5 | 21 | Campbell | H | 47 | 6.39% | 510 | 9.28% | 10.85 |
| 6 | 26 | Williams | RB | 45 | 6.11% | 241 | 4.39% | 5.36 |
| 7 | 9 | Victor | WR | 38 | 5.16% | 310 | 5.64% | 8.16 |
| 8 | 11 | Mack | WR | 34 | 4.62% | 260 | 4.73% | 7.65 |
| 9 | 83 | McLaurin | WR | 34 | 4.62% | 296 | 5.39% | 8.71 |
| 10 | 85 | Baugh | TE | 32 | 4.35% | 211 | 3.84% | 6.59 |
| 11 | 1 | Dixon | WR | 27 | 3.67% | 413 | 7.52% | 15.30 |
| 12 | 30 | McCall | H | 17 | 2.31% | 162 | 2.95% | 9.53 |
| 13 | 80 | Saunders | H | 17 | 2.31% | 203 | 3.69% | 11.94 |
| 14 | 7 | Haskins | QB | 13 | 1.77% | 39 | 0.71% | 3.00 |
| 15 | 13 | Berry | TE | 7 | 0.95% | 100 | 1.82% | 14.29 |
Perhaps the more interesting thing is to see how the position groups are being utilized within the scope of the offense. So here are how the different position groups are contributing.
| Position Group | Chances | Pct of Chances | Yds | Pct of Yds | YPC |
| RB | 285 | 38.7% | 1911 | 34.8% | 6.71 |
| H | 142 | 19.3% | 1312 | 23.9% | 9.24 |
| WR | 139 | 18.9% | 1326 | 24.1% | 9.54 |
| QB | 125 | 17.0% | 616 | 11.2% | 4.93 |
| TE | 45 | 6.1% | 330 | 6.0% | 7.33 |
| Grand Total | 736 | 100.0% | 5495 | 100.0% | 7.47 |
The running backs this year have received most of the work and generate most of the production. That wasn’t the case a year ago.
An interesting thing to do is to look back at previous seasons and see how this distribution compares to prior seasons.
Here is the distribution by opportunity for the 2014-2017 seasons.
Here is the Distribution of Yards for the 2014-2017 seasons.
Here is the yards per chance data for those four seasons.
Observations
The QB has been a smaller factor, but still significant
JT Barrett’s running ability is effective and efficient. And at times, there is a tendency to rely too heavily on his legs. However, this season, he has been a smaller part of the offense compared to previous seasons.
A Good RB is very important
Despite having a solid year offensively in 2016, the RB position contributed less than in any of the four seasons shown. Mike Weber made significant contributions, but not like Zeke had made in the prior two seasons. A lot of that had to do with the guy who was playing the H spot last year too.
How special was Curtis Samuel?
The coaching staff relied on him heavily and he was a special playmaker.
Best usage of the Tight Ends in the last four years
The tight end has been used more this season than any of the past four years and has produced more yardage than any of the past four years.
The stated improvement in the WR group is not just lip service
The WR group has made its biggest contribution since 2014, and also had its most productive year since 2014.
There are still three and hopefully four more games to be played this season, and the 2017 numbers can change. It is interesting to see how the different position groups have been utilized so far this year, especially when compared to previous seasons.



Thank you, New Brutus! Sometimes reading this site I pull my hair out (figuratively) for people ranting on about something that the numbers CLEARLY show differently!
Yup, exactly. It makes me want to pull out my hair too, and that would be difficult since I keep my hair in a buzz cut. 🙂
Uhhh, guys- these numbers CLEARLY show what the 2017 version of OSU’s offense does best, when it is game planned properly. It does NOT show that these percentages were ignored in the absolute beatings OSU took from OU and Iowa- thus, NOT game planned properly. It was the offensive coaching staff itself that ignored SUCCESS during the 2 losses, so in its own way these stats support the “ranters”, of which I am apparently one (and glad of it, the lemming role isn’t one I prefer).