Serious question: Can anyone offer a serious assessment of why offensive coordinators try to outhink themselves instead of doing what everyone in the world except them seems to think is obvious? This seemed to happen with Langsdorf this weekend and happened with Beck, Watson, Norvell, et al. before that.
What is it that causes them to stick with their "style" when their "style" obviously won't work in a certain game or with certain players?
We've averaged ~40 runs a game this year. We ran it 24 times. So, we run the ball until we play someone good? Is that it? Did they think we were going to comeback to win once it was a four-score game and Armstrong was out?
They said we didn't run in the second half because they stacked the box. But that is the definition of letting the other team define your game. We have a scholarship fullback in Luke McNitt. If they stack the box, why not put him in to even the numbers, run the ball, eat some clock, rest your defense and then pass if and *only* if they cheat and leave you something open. Reduce the risk of INTs. Especially when you're down by 21+ and you know you're going to lose??
Do they not appreciate the psychological consequences of this? Especially in the 4th quarter when passing in the 3rd quarter was NOT WORKING! You tried something. It failed. Why keep doing it?
I know everyone is basically saying this now, but that makes it more than hindsight. Literally everyone seems to realize that Langsdorf's "plan" was insanity when OSU's secondary is elite and we have Ryker Fyfe, not Sean Mannion, throwing the passes.
I just don't get it.
