Fee Fi Foe Film: BYU Offense Comment Count

Ace

Yes, they did it again. Before last week's loss to UCLA, which wasn't readily available in torrent form, BYU tallied their second straight last-gasp comeback win, knocking off Boise State a week after connecting on a Hail Mary against Nebraska.

While BYU's 381 yards on 5.6 YPP was a respectable figure against a solid team, the way they got there is notable: a few huge plays, no small amount of luck, and little else. Here are all of their drives against Boise:

  • 3 plays, 75 yards, 84-yard TD pass
  • 4 plays, 11 yards, interception
  • 3 plays, 7 yards, punt
  • 6 plays, 19 yards, punt
  • 3 plays, 5 yards, punt
  • 6 plays, 17 yards, interception
  • 5 plays, 2 yards, punt
  • 3 plays, 8 yards, punt
  • 3 plays, 9 yards, punt
  • 6 plays, 84 yards, 21-yard rush TD set up by a 70-yard pass on 3rd-and-19
  • 8 plays, 32 yards, punt
  • 5 plays, 12 yards, QB sneak TD set up by BYU interception and two BSU penalties
  • 6 plays, 13 yards, punt
  • 7 plays, 64 yards, 35-yard TD pass on fourth down

Three of their four scoring drives involved a huge pass play over the top; the other was a 12-yard drive set up by an interception, and Boise State was in great position to hold BYU to a field goal before taking a personal foul penalty for continuing to play without a helmet.

While Tanner Mangum has filled in admirably—and sometimes spectacularly—at quarterback, this team really misses Taysom Hill, especially in their run game.

Personnel. Seth's diagram [click to embiggen]:

We debated shifting Wormley out to SDE and inserting Matt Godin at three-tech after Willie Henry was pulled for big stretches of the UNLV game, but M's defense stays unchanged for now. With the amount BYU throws the ball around—and how much trouble Henry had on the backside of zone runs—it wouldn't be surprising to see Godin, a good interior pass-rusher, get a lot of snaps.

Spread, Pro-Style, or Hybrid? Spread-to-pass. With Hill out, BYU was throw-first, and only some of that can be attributed to them playing from behind for most of the game.

Basketball on Grass or MANBALL? A mixture of both but BYU leaned towards zone blocking in this one.

Hurry it up or grind it out? BYU runs a no-huddle but doesn't go to light speed; having a freshman quarterback likely slows them down a bit.

[Hit THE JUMP for the rest of the breakdown.]

Quarterback Dilithium Level (Scale: 1 [Navarre] to 10 [Denard]): Mangum isn't Hill by any stretch. While BYU can still run the (very) occasional read option, Mangum isn't much of a threat on designed runs. Where his mobility serves him best is escaping the pocket; he's especially dangerous when he rolls to his right. UCLA took note of this last week and made a concerted effort to shut that down:

UCLA bottled up BYU freshman Tanner Mangum, the Hail Mary virtuoso, by keeping him in the pocket. Bruins defensive coordinator Tom Bradley saw on video that in the first two games, Mangum went 13-of-28 when he stayed in the pocket, and 9-of-11 when he rolled to his right. UCLA allowed Mangum to roll to his right only four times. The first three, he went 1-for-3 with one pick. The last came on 4th-and-7 from the Bruin 42 with 1:09 to play and BYU trailing, 24-23. Or, as it was formerly known, Hail Mary time. Mangum rolled to his right and slung it downfield -- right to linebacker Myles Jack.

Mangum is averaging 2.3 yards per non-sack carry. He gets a 5 on the Dilithium Scale.

Dangerman: Pick a giant receiver or go with shifty slot guy Mitchell Juergens, who leads the team with 244 yards through three games. He snuck behind the Boise State defense for BYU's first huge pass play—yes, on a Mangum rollout:

Mangum has a cannon. Boise State had a couple huge breakdowns in this one. Juergens took advantage, showing off good speed and later, on the desperation heave, some solid ball skills. He's the best BYU receiver in the short and intermediate areas, as well.

With BYU so big-play reliant, Michigan also must make sure they don't give up anything too easy to one of their three 6'5 or taller receivers who gets major playing time. The best of those is Mitch Mathews, who already has three touchdowns. Also key for Michigan: not falling asleep and letting a receiver go over the top:

That is the aforementioned 70-yard pass on 3rd-and-19; Devon Blackmon had to wait under it like a punt and still managed to get a ton of YAC. BYU's receivers are tough to contain for 60 minutes but I'm confident Michigan can do so better than Boise, whose safeties weren't so good at the cardinal safety rule of keeping everything in front of them.

Zook Factor: Nothing of major note here.

HenneChart: As you probably guessed, Mangum was boom-or-bust. The chart is what you'd expect of a high-upside freshman who can armpunt the ball to his power forwards wide receivers if need be:

Opponent DO CA MA IN BR TA BA PR SCR DSR
Boise St. 1 15 (1) 3 8x 2x 3 -- 3 1 53%

Mangum has a heck of an arm, which he puts on display not only on deep throws but also by zinging intermediate hitches and outs before the defense can arrive. He's prone to throwing the ball high and he'll miss his fair share of targets. His deep ball isn't totally consistent; he's prone to doing the Jake Rudock thing where he'll leave one long when ideally he'd hang it up short and let his receiver utilize his height advantage.

Mangum threw two picks in this one. The first was a back-footed long ball he left short—yes, I'm aware I just said he had the opposite problem, so you have to trust me here—and his receiver couldn't recover in time to undercut the defensive back. The second was an awful decision after he rolled out:

That was the BRX. Mangum also had a habit of holding onto the ball too long, as young mobile quarterbacks often do; he ate a sack on a three-man rush when one of the defenders in coverage said "to hell with this," shot a gap, and took him down at least a full second after the ball should've been thrown away.

OVERVIEW

BYU operates almost exclusively out of the shotgun, going to the pistol usually in short running situations.

Formations Run Pass PA
Gun 20 28 6
I-Form -- -- --
Ace -- -- --
Pistol 8 1 1
Heavy 2 -- 1

They kept a decent run-pass balance in this game despite the running game taking a half to get going, but the pass really opened up the run for them, not the other way around.

Down Run Pass PA
1st 12 11 3
2nd 11 9 4
3rd 7 8 1

It's all about the explosive play for BYU. The passing game was either heaves down the field or short, easy stuff that didn't reliably move the sticks. BYU's offensive line doesn't help the passing game much. Mangum rolls right so often in part because they tend to allow pressure. Their right guard, especially, had trouble keeping contact with his man:

He also had trouble keeping his hands to himself and showing basic human decency.

I've covered what you need to know about the wideouts above; Juergens is a good all-around threat and the rest of the group can go up and get the ball. The tight ends weren't featured in the passing game at all but they were useful as blockers on a couple outside runs.

Boise State shut down the BYU rush attack in a way that seems very repeatable by Michigan. BYU couldn't get to the second level on their inside runs; they could get a tiny bit of push but couldn't get combo blocks that spring running backs free, and if one guy messed up, the play was dead:

Until BYU's last drive, their best run came when running back Adam Hine—who showed a nice power/speed combination when he actually had the chance to do something—busted through a tackle in the hole, broke another, and found the sideline for a 21-yard score; a nice play but not one that made you think the offensive line was doing particularly well. BYU had a couple more chunk runs late but mostly because Boise was playing pass.

The key for Michigan is simple: don't bust a coverage. BYU didn't show they can reliably put up points or move the ball without getting huge plays on breakdowns in the secondary. Usually those busts were rather inexplicable; the following play actually involved some nice play design.

PLAY BREAKDOWN

BYU comes out with four receivers all bunched to the near side:

This setup can cause confusion whether a defense is in man or zone. Against man it's easy to pick off a defender with a rub route; against zone it's easy to flood a specific zone and give a defender a difficult choice. In this case they catch BSU in a zone. At the snap, the inside receiver runs a bubble screen, the two other receivers lined in front take off down the field, and the guy in the back of the diamond—Juergens—runs the ever-unstoppable wheel route.

The two deep routes occupy the safeties while the bubble holds the attention of the cornerback (#4) who lined up over the bunch.

Said corner comes to the sudden realization he should be following the wheel instead of playing the bubble—which a linebacker is taking—but he gets turned around and can't find Juergens, who's wide open down the sideline.

You can see the seam route taking the safety way out of the area. If BYU needed a checkdown, the running back slipped out of the backfield and was open for a decent gain, too.

Video:

Don't bust coverages, please.

Comments

M-Dog2020

September 23rd, 2015 at 9:51 PM ^

This is our coming party. Our DL is going to just devastate that OL. Our DB's will feast on BYU's "spread and chuck it" offense. Rudock is going to look like Tom Brady in comparison behind a sturdy OL that gives him protection to move the chains ... 70 offensive plays, with 40 coming in the rush and 30 coming in the pass. Balance, total game management ... 400 yards of total offense / rush 190 yards / pass 210 yards (no INTs). UM's defense gives up 300 yards in total / rush 75 yards / pass 225 yards ... but 3 sacks and 2 INTs creating great field position throughout the day. BYU sucks in special teams and Peppers is electric ... punt return for TD and strong kick returns for field position advantage. Michigan 28 - BYU 14 ... mark it down.

M-Dog2020

September 26th, 2015 at 6:42 PM ^

I am coming ... CAN YOU BELIVE WE HAVE HARBAUGH !!! Was at the game ... first one since last year's Utah debacle. WOW ... GAME DAY IS NOW THE WAY IT SHOULD BE ... AND WE WERE DOMINATE NOT CLUELESS. Some of those play calls and designs were just outstanding. Fabulous.

M-Dog2020

September 23rd, 2015 at 9:51 PM ^

This is our coming party. Our DL is going to just devastate that OL. Our DB's will feast on BYU's "spread and chuck it" offense. Rudock is going to look like Tom Brady in comparison behind a sturdy OL that gives him protection to move the chains ... 70 offensive plays, with 40 coming in the rush and 30 coming in the pass. Balance, total game management ... 400 yards of total offense / rush 190 yards / pass 210 yards (no INTs). UM's defense gives up 300 yards in total / rush 75 yards / pass 225 yards ... but 3 sacks and 2 INTs creating great field position throughout the day. BYU sucks in special teams and Peppers is electric ... punt return for TD and strong kick returns for field position advantage. Michigan 28 - BYU 14 ... mark it down.

twizzle12

September 23rd, 2015 at 5:22 PM ^

That formation is pretty cool, because the guy running the bubble is inelegible to catch it.  They fact the both a corner and lb sucked up to cover a guy who can't catch a pass is awesome formation design.

alum96

September 23rd, 2015 at 7:55 PM ^

I know a lot of teams have played patsies but so have we.  OSU had a freshman QB who couldnt throw and UNLV had a decent QB with 1 Wr who didnt have time to throw.  Utah is prob one of the bottom 10 least explosive offenses in the P5 (along with OSU this year).

Sample size is an issue and we've benefited from a lot of mediocre low explosion offenses.  Again I understand so have other teams but a team like Washington State is likewise crappy but can do a lot of damage in explosive plays.

alum96

September 23rd, 2015 at 11:51 PM ^

I watch a lot of college football.  Advanced stats don't really mean too much until halfway thru the year - I am not sure where this #6 stat came from.

I see UM ranked #12 on defense on S&P+ and ISOppp which is the only measure on defense with the word explosiveness on it ranks #23.

Turning to the offensive S&P+ rankings, Utah is currently #66 in total offense ISOppp #48.  That is the most explosive offense we faced.

Oregon State?  Offense is ranked 114 out of 128 teams. ISOppp is 95th.

UNLV is 121st in total offense. ISOppp is 75th.

Again - too early to use these advanced metrics but if you believe them we have played 2 of the bottom 15 offenses in the country.  And the toughest is 66th.

The P5 teams lower ranked than OSU are Boston College and Northwestern.  So its the 3rd worst offense among all P5.  And 14th worst in FBS.

Utah is still ahead of 15 others:  Missouri, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Washington, Iowa State, Minnesota, Purdue, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Colorado, rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, Kentucky, and Kansas. 

So I mispoke about Utah - not bottom 10 P5 but bottom 20ish.   I forgot how many bad offenses there are out there when I see the list above.

The larger point stands - UM has played 2 very poor offenses ...among the worst in any conf P5 or not, and then had Utah which is a bottom third type of offense among P5.  I don't know how anyone who has watched Utah at all the past 3+ yrs could say its an explosive offense. 

We've had teams favorable to the defense.  And we still face 4 of the bottom 15 P5 offenses in the weeks ahead so it will continue to benefit us - Minn, rutgers PSU, Northwestern.  As it will benefit most Big 10 defenses.

IsoPPP: An explosiveness measure derived from determining the equivalent point value of every yard line (based on the expected number of points an offense could expect to score from that yard line) and, therefore, every play of a given game. IsoPPP looks at only the per-play value of a team's successful plays (as defined by the Success Rate definition above); its goal is to separate the explosiveness component from the efficiency component altogether.

alum96

September 23rd, 2015 at 11:47 PM ^

By the way "adusted" ISOppp for UM's offense is 30.  [table 1] Which would mark it as a quite explosive offense.  Which makes zero sense to me.  Which is why using these advanced stats this early is pretty useless.

"Unadjusted" ISOppp [table 2] shows UM ranked 118th.  

Interestingly enough, unadjusted ISOppp shows Utah 122nd, OSU 105th, and UNLV 117th.

Not much explosiveness.  And not even a fiat ruling.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff

2manylincs

September 23rd, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^

Im thinking that they have the sde push upfield more with his rush than usual? And if so, Is this something that favors the skillset of henry or one of the other options (godin, wormley, taco)?

doggdetroit

September 23rd, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to assess BYU's performance against UCLA, a much better team than Boise State? Mangum played much better against UCLA (30 of 47, 244, 2 TDS, 1 INT). BYU also outplayed UCLA for the majority of the game before giving up a late TD drive on which they looked gassed. After that, Mangum led another potential game winning drive but did toss an interception at the UCLA 30 with under a minute to go.
 

jackw8542

September 24th, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^

Amazing that people are impressed by his 5.2 YPA and 64% completions but highly critical of Rudock's 5.6 YPA and 64% completions.  If you take away Mangum's almost freakish Hail Marys, his YPA for the season is pretty pedestrian. 

It seemed like UCLA figured out how to keep him from benefitting from his tendency to roll to the right.  I am confident we will do the same.

Rabbit21

September 24th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^

The issue was that within that, he had an almost freakish ability to keep drives alive on third downs on critical drives, kind of like what Logan Thomas did during the Sugar Bowl a few years back.  People remember that sort of thing and it forms the narrative.  Now does it matter that most of those extended drives came when both of UCLA's starting cornerbacks were out and the D had shifted to soft zone to compensate, yes of course it does, but the fact remains that Mangum has an ability to make plays to go along with his being a freshman and this is something Michigan should be concerned with.  

WolverineHistorian

September 23rd, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^

It seemed Boise had that game in control, up 24-14 late in the third when they got risky trying to throw a bomb out of their own end zone which was picked off. They were able to score from there which put them in position to pull out Hail Mary #2. What worries me is that BYU always seems to cash in on turnovers. And turnovers are something we have made a hobby for several years now. That concerns me as much as Mangum getting out of the pocket. Those throws on the run are very impressive.