At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”
While reading Brian's amazing post about the clinic meeting with Mattison, I came across one piece that I can not understand:
Michigan does not align to strength but rather aligns to field—ie, if you're on the left hash the SAM will be to the wide side of the field and if you're on the right hash the SAM will be to the wide side of the field. You can flip your tight ends all around and Michigan won't flip in response. I assume the flipping from earlier in the year was a necessary evil as Michigan tried to get everyone up on the new system.
I don't understand how this can possibly be true. For example, if the ball is on the left hash and the offense comes out heavy left (a TE at least to that side) or a TE with a wing or a even a fullback in the game too, how can our D stand a chance by lining up in an under front with the Sam away from the power?
Wont we be badly outnumbered on that side? A power run with a pulling guard would be a 4 on 3 advantage and possibly more if you decide to read an unblocked DE to the wide side.
In a normal under front, the shade is to the tight end and the 3-tech is away. Does this still stand if the offense lines up power into the boundary? If not how is it not absolutely deadly for the defense to have only a shaded nose and an end to the tight end side?
Over at Grantland Chris Brown of Smart Football has a great article on Vince Wilfork and the Patriots D.
The main focus on the article is how Belicheck makes his Hybrid 3-4/4-3 work. The biggest part of this article for Michigan fans is the part where Chris Brown explains the history of the formations and how we arrive at Michigan's 4-3 Under front. Especially since so many people think we're recruiting for a 3-4 (Guess what, we're NOT! http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-3-4-switch-again-kenpom-basketball-leaders-more-you-know, http://mgoblog.com/category/tags/last-time-we-are-not-switching-3-4)
this is good stuff. He explains the main differences between the techniques required in the 3-4 vs the 4-3. I tackle the (lack of) personnel differences between a 4-3 Under and a 3-4 here:
But here are the juciest bits from Chris Brown (the whole article is definitely worth a read):
These 4-3 and 3-4 teams typically differ in a key respect: which "technique" their defensive linemen use. Usually, teams must commit to one technique or the other, as each choice has all sorts of other implications for the defense.
And the first question for a defensive lineman is always, Am I playing a 2-gap technique or a 1-gap technique?
"Gap" refers to the area between offensive linemen. A 1-gap technique is just what it sounds like: The defensive lineman lines up in front of the gap he is responsible for and his job is to attack and control it. If nothing else, a defender must not allow a runner to go through his gap. While defensive linemen attack their gaps, the linebackers behind them are responsible for their own gaps. These are the defense's "run fits," meaning how they fit into an offense's blocking scheme to take away running space.
Pretty much we're going to run the 1-Gap 4-3 Under because it's a lot simpler to teach. 2-gap systems like the 3-4 are a lot harder to run. Just go read the article, it's great.