...talks about how UConn hasn't been in contact and how they're out. (HT: UMHoops)
Improvement ‘09: Snap Counts?
Filed under:
In which your humble blogger grasps at straws trying find a way, any way, Michigan will improve from last year.
There were two ways that the Michigan offense’s inexperience showed with disadvantages in the snap count. No, I’m serious. They were something of opposites: 1) Early in the year, we saw the Infamous Frozen Line play, in which Michigan tried (sometimes successfully, though the referees didn't necessarily see it that way) to draw offsides calls by snapping the ball whenever an opponent crossed into the neutral zone. 2) Opposing defenses were really, really good at jumping Michigan’s snap counts last year.
Exhibit A, from the Utah UFR:
I don't get it. So Sheridan does the normal hand-slap thing to indicate he wants the ball but this time there's a pause before Molk snaps it. In the interim, Utah jumps offside because they've been timing the snap. Okay, super. Then Sheridan rolls out as the offensive line remains motionless and heaves one downfield to a blanketed Mathews, who leaps and makes the catch. Why not just run a play there? More later. (DO, 1, protection N/A)
The first time this play was run, Michigan got a hopeful jump-ball completion to Mathews. Michigan gets Utah again here, except the refs don't call the obvious offsides. Thanks, guys. Threet hurls the usual sideline route to Stonum. It's accurate but well-covered and broken up. (CA+, 1, protection N/A)
The second time was a drive-killing 3rd down incompletion (which, if the offsides had been called adequately, would have been a free first down).
So, Michigan got somewhat hosed by the referees on one of those, and got lucky on the first one. However, later in the year, we saw a similar occurrence against Minnesota. Defense jumps offsides, ball is snapped, pass is basically a hopeful jump ball downfield. The difference is that, like, the offensive line blocked, and it looked something like an actual play. This adjustment to the “free play” play showed, at the very least, growth by the coaching staff over the course of the year. More likely, it showed that Michigan will run an effective play when a flag is down for offsides.
On to exhibit B, from the Michigan State UFR:
MSU jumping snaps
Okay, Michigan State's crappy cornerbacks are going to press our crappy receivers all day and not get hurt by it, which will be a major factor in the bubble screen's ineffectiveness. Anyway, on this play State is slanting right to the direction of the play, robbing Schilling of any angle to block a DT lined up inside of him. Also, MSU appears to be timing the snap, as will become relevant later. The DT beats Schilling to the spot and Minor is tackled at the LOS.
Hated formation with a WR covered up. On this play the entire State DL pushes the entire Michigan OL into the backfield; it again looks like they're timing Molk's snaps. As a result, Minor has to cut back behind everyone and does well to get back to the LOS.
Again State jumps right at the snap; this one looks onside. Moosman has something of a tough time with the early-mover, who ends up lunging at Threet just as he throws, knocking this open post route off. (BA, 0, protection 1/2, Moosman -1)
Argh. This goes for a first down but Molk(-600000) holds on a bubble screen, partially because State is again jumping the snap count. (CA, 3, screen)
In the wrapup sections the matter came up again:
This actually came up in a mailbag earlier this year, at which point I said this…
“I’m pretty sure Michigan isn’t using no snap count whatsoever, it’s just that the count is silent. DEs don’t have license to time the snap with impunity. There will be variable pauses between the clap and the snap.”
…and promptly forgot about it.
As we now know, there weren't really variable pauses between the hand clap and the snap, which allowed Michigan State to jump the snap count time and again to mostly good effect. They picked up a few offsides calls, but they also got incompletions, stuffed runs, and sacks because their guys were moving before Michigan's OL could even get out of their stances. They were offsides on another two or three plays, but didn't get called for it.
But! It's clear Michigan State was very well prepared to play this edition of Michigan; they scouted out all the wheels and such and timed the snap counts and exploited Michigan's tendencies on offense wickedly. (On defense, OTOH, Michigan broke tendencies and largely played well save for four enormous errors turned in by Stevie Brown and Boubacar Cissoko.)
Aside from varying the snap count a little and picking up those offsides calls, Michigan could do little about it.
There was a little something Michigan could do about it, which David Molk took care of a couple times:
State has obviously been jumping the snap; this time Molk lifts his head and waits, drawing a DT offsides.
Michigan’s snap counts were all the same last year, much to the delight of opponents. This year, with a more experienced offensive line, might we see a little more variety in the snap counts, despite the likely starter at QB being a freshman? I would presume yes. Michigan’s coaches are a smart bunch, and they did what they could last year with limited talent, experience, and prep time. All of those things are an entire year better in 2009, so some variety will be mixed in. I’ll go back to Brian for the grand finale, this time from the Penn State UFR:
My theory: Michigan is implementing portions of a whole gameplan trying to find something that works. They then practice the hell out of their plan and break it out, finding early success.
However, I, and I think a lot of other Michigan fans, thought "I really hope they have a curveball coming up" in the second quarter; they did not. Once you get past the game plan, Michigan has no backup. So we've seen teams adjust to the offense and have success stopping it.
When does the backup plan come in? Well, 1) when Threet's elbow gremlins step off, and 2) when these guys get past the training wheels stage and have a base they can fall back on.
Now that Michigan’s offense will have the training wheels off (and hopefully Forcier can be a non-gremlin version of Threet), there will be more variety in multiple aspects of the game.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:00 PM | 
Questions:
I never played
Questions:
I never played
August 19th, 2009 at 3:14 PM |
Problem with that is that the
Problem with that is that the
Problem with that is that the snap count should be advantage Offense. Not having a count at all and leaving up to the center probably would be advantageous to the D-line as they can more easily look inside to the center.
"But it is better to live here in sackcloth and ashes than to own the whole state of Ohio."
-- Lafcadio Hearn
August 19th, 2009 at 3:31 PM |
Again, please enlighten me
Again, please enlighten me
Again, please enlighten me but how would the center show when he's going to snap the ball any more if there is no snap count compared to if there is? In fact, since the center would be the only one that knows the snap, wouldn't that make it less likely that one of the other O-lineman might give it away (somehow)? I suppose that it might make it hard on the O-line to be really explosive and push the D-line back though since they won't know when they need to move until the center snaps it. But if you could explain this a little bit I'd appreciate it.
Additionally, I agree that the snap count should inherently be advantage offense since they know when it's coming but the defense doesn't. But if the defense figures it out then it's advantage defense which is doubly bad since that means the offense actually lost the advantage too.
I don't know how hard this would be on receivers. I don't know how much they rely on knowing the snap count. If they need to know it to have that explosive first step, then I'd say that a center controlled snap count would be a bad idea. But if they only look to the center to see when he actually snaps it and they aren't doing the snap count in their heads then I don't think it would be so bad.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:03 PM |
"it might make it hard on the
"it might make it hard on the
"it might make it hard on the O-line to be really explosive and push the D-line back though since they won't know when they need to move until the center snaps it."
That sentence sums up why I think the offense loses its advantage by not having a set count. Could be wrong, but to me the advantage is that fraction of a second where the offense begins moving before the defense. Granted, if the defense knows the count, all bets are off.
"But it is better to live here in sackcloth and ashes than to own the whole state of Ohio."
-- Lafcadio Hearn
August 19th, 2009 at 6:41 PM |
I agree the snap-count fiasco
I agree the snap-count fiasco
I agree the snap-count fiasco was exactly that, a fiasco. It was so painful to watch. You'd see the handclap, wait a second, and the ball would be snapped with a defender already busting through the line. Of course our O-line was porous and hopefully that will change, but a snap-count should be an advantage. If the offense knows the count, the O-line can move as soon as they hear the appropriate count (assuming the center actually hikes it like he's supposed to, b/c that is really what starts the play, officially).
Any change to the count should be a nice advantage, or at least less of a DISadvantage compared to last year, and should undoubtedly help.
I think Molk will do a better job either disguising the snap or adjusting the time between the clap and the snap (sounds like two STDs doesn't it?) to keep the defense from jumping it.
The idea of kneeling on an offside play is atrocious. They should decide when to try to make the defense jump and have an actual play attached to it, maybe even just a bubble screen or slant or something to keep it from potentially being a big waste.
Lastly, I would think using one training wheel would make things way harder than four :)
August 20th, 2009 at 11:05 AM |
My late grandfather was
My late grandfather was
My late grandfather was caught between the clap and the snap one time... It was fatal. He was on a millitary tour in southeastern Asia and caught both STD's from a nice lady who spoke of, "love me long time."
August 20th, 2009 at 9:15 AM |
Caesar,
"I never played
Caesar,
"I never played
Caesar,
"I never played football in high school since so people are going to have to enlighten me a little bit."
Don't sweat it! Lots of guys (not all of them by any means) who did play high school ball think they are football experts and that the way they were coached to do it is the "right way" just because they strapped it on, and don't ask these sorts of questions. So kudos - keep close to gsimmons to learn more about the game.
"How hard is it for a QB to take a snap when he knows it's coming, just not exactly when it's coming? Essentially, could there be no snapcount (at least for most the plays) and instead just have Tate signal that he's ready and then let Molk snap it when he wants to (with an eye on the play clock of course)?"
Depends if he is under center or in the shotgun. In the gun, he at least has to be looking at the center so he can keep his eye on the ball. Under center, he can't see the center begin the snapping motion so it's more difficult to be ready for a sudden snap. Despite the shotgun's rep as an "advanced" technique, I believe a decently-catchable gun snap is easier to coach and execute than the very complicated and chemistry-dependent T-formation (under center) snap.
In short, not that easy to take the snap without a good knowledge of when it's coming. Because of this, I believe snap count timing is critical, both for the exchange and for the line getting off the ball. Every team I've played on went with a rhythmic snap count like "DDDOWWWNNNN....SET!.....HUT!...HUT!" with at least a second in between each word. Some teams do a "Down..." (1-one thousand silent count) GO! and snap it. Others do what I believe is the dumbest snap count ever, the QB comes to line, puts his hands under center and says "HUT!" whenever he feels like it, taking the line completely out of any rhythm.
Snap counts should be changeable within a game to slow the defense down or draw them offsides. I also think the frozen-line play is dumb and cheap, because if the refs miss the offsides call the offense has given up a play for no gain. You always want players to think about executing, not not executing.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:34 PM |
I coached the offensive and
I coached the offensive and
I coached the offensive and defensive lines at the high school and middle school levels for a few years. I also played QB and TE in high school as well. I was an average player, nothing great, I just love football. I would be considered a "Sad Josh" according to this website. I worked with QB coaches regarding center/QB exchange too. The issue is not how easy or routine it looks. It is about concentration, chemistry and conditioning.
Concentration could deal with how intelligent the QB/center players are. Some of them are not too bright. They can get anxious, overconfident, and stubborn. One kid I know would never pitch during the option. He was the only decent, productive QB so he got away with it. He thought he knew more that the coaches. His asinine attitude permeated through the entire team.
Dealing with chemistry, the experience they have working together has to be cultivated. At times you may see or hear about players working on that in the hallway of dorms and various places after practice.
Late in the fourth quarter mental mistakes happen. If the QB is rattled from a hard tackle or expects to be tackled hard, fumbles occur. A player's (center or QB) hands could be cold or wet. The ball could be wet.
A good QB knows how to deal with problems. This why I think Tate Forcier has that "It" factor he'll have some ups and downs but he'll have them winning in the 4th qt. just like Henne. Turnovers will not be an issue.
The exchange is supposed to be routine but it happens and it drive coaches and fans crazy.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" --Alfred Lord Tennyson/ John Sheridan B5
&n
August 19th, 2009 at 2:59 PM |
Great post, and Exhibit 1a of
Great post, and Exhibit 1a of
Great post, and Exhibit 1a of why I think we'll be much improved over last year. With a QB that's more talented and everyone else having had another year in the system, our offense should be able to mix things up more to keep the defenses on their heels.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:12 PM |
Am I the only one who thought
Am I the only one who thought
Am I the only one who thought the frozen line play was done on purpose not to get offsides calls, but to mess with the defense and make them, kind of, quit on the play thinking it was a dead play?
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:05 PM |
Correct....everybody misses
Correct....everybody misses
Correct....everybody misses the point. The d lineman has supposedly already beat them by jumping offsides that is why the center hikes it. The dlineman not seeing anyone move slows down assuming a whistle has blown. He does not want to risk a personal foul blasting the QB on a dead play so he eases up allowing the QB time to chuck a fade down the sideline on a free play.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:16 PM |
I recently read an account of
I recently read an account of
I recently read an account of practice (can't recall where, sadly) that suggested the frozen line play was (1) still being practiced, and (2) had been changed from a desperation throw to a QB kneel, suggesting the sole purpose is getting an offsides call from the ref.
Am I the only one terrified by this thought?
August 19th, 2009 at 3:24 PM |
I agree. Offsides should be
I agree. Offsides should be
I agree. Offsides should be a free play. Chuck it downfield and hope something good comes of it. At the very least run the play you had called. Just kneeling on the ball gains you nothing, especially if the refs don't call the offsides.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:25 PM |
Yeah, I read that too and I
Yeah, I read that too and I
Yeah, I read that too and I don't know what the point is. The only real threat if you throw in a situation like that is of getting intercepted which is obviously a big deal if the flag isn't thrown but the odds are fairly low. The odds of losing yards when you kneel if the flag isn't thrown is very high (somewhere around 100%). So I don't know what the point of this is either.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:40 PM |
Yes and no.
I was basing the
Yes and no.
I was basing the
Yes and no.
I was basing the idea that we'd just throw it up on the idea that it would work out of any formation, we don't need to have a running back right there for the handoff (although I expect him to be there the vast majority of the time since our run game should be so strong).
But, the problem with that is that if the O-line really doesn't move or do anything then there's a high chance that Minor or anther RB, or even Tate could be hit extremely hard by a lineman running full speed. I think the point of the kneel down is to make sure the QB (and to some degree the RB) don't get injured. They might even be hoping that the D-line doesn't figure out what's going on and still hits the QB (hopefully not too hard though) and we get a 15 yard personal foul out of it.
But yeah, I don't like it either way.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:30 PM |
Maybe that's the
Maybe that's the
Maybe that's the trickeration! Opposing teams watch our practice footage, see that if they go offsides on that play we'll just kneel it, all of a sudden, BAM! Denard down the sideline.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:33 PM |
And THAT is why they call
And THAT is why they call
And THAT is why they call BlockM the offensive MGoGuru!
August 19th, 2009 at 4:10 PM |
Here's what I'm wondering: I
Here's what I'm wondering: I
Here's what I'm wondering: I thought that part of the beauty of the "hurry up to the line, dictate pace" notion was that you could, in theory - at least every once in a while - do some extremly quick snaps to catch the deffense off guard, off sides, tired, not lined up correctly, can't get their personnel on the field, etc. (i.e., call 2 or 3 plays ahead of time). Seems like I never saw that last year...but maybe we were just too new with the scheme to take it that far? As much as the spread is supposed to be about tempo, it sure seemed like we frequently snapped the ball with less than 10 seconds left on the play clock.
(this is the problem with a 35 year UM fan that is befuddled by anything that Bo wouldn't recognize)
The Free Press is dead to me
August 19th, 2009 at 7:50 PM |
I think you're right about
I think you're right about
I think you're right about the team being way too inexperienced. It was hard enough for them to get a play called and executed when they had a few seconds to think about it, much less very quickly. Seems logical.
Note that any of my actual football analysis should be taken with a (large) grain of salt. (That's the problem with a 21 year old UM fan that is befuddled by anything X's & O's related because he's never played football.) Although, Bleedin9Blue, maybe that's why my schemes just might work! None of this "knowledge" to inhibit my natural ability when it comes to planning trick plays.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:17 AM |
That is beyond dumb if it's
That is beyond dumb if it's
That is beyond dumb if it's true. If offsides was called, it's a waste of a free shot downfield. If it wasn't, you've lost two yards and a play (which might be better than getting sacked, but there's no guarantee of that happening).
August 19th, 2009 at 3:33 PM |
Molk Tip-off?
In the early
Molk Tip-off?
In the early
Molk Tip-off?
In the early games, I also thought I noticed Molk was tipping off the snap by raising his head right before he snapped the ball. He (Molk) seemed to do this less and less as the year went by.
I actually watched some YouTube of Florida and their center never raised his head before the snap.
Hopefully this is resolved.
Argument fallacy ad hominem: Attacking a characteristic of the source rather than addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:57 PM |
The lack of 'backup plan"
The lack of 'backup plan"
The lack of 'backup plan" last year was one of my many frustrations. At my most morose, it made me wonder about RR's ability to adapt when the game plan clearly wasn't working. I hope to god it changes this year, and that the explanation was akin to what Tim posted.
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
August 19th, 2009 at 4:02 PM |
For the O-line, knowing the
For the O-line, knowing the
For the O-line, knowing the snap count is advantageous so that they can get the jump on the D-line. Also, O-linemen are looking at the D-linemen and therefore, whom they need to block and not at the center. Besides, it is almost impossible for an O-tackle to see the center anyway, especially with a 250lb guard between them. The receivers are often looking towards center, so they don't really need to hear the snap count (and depending on the noise and how far they are from center, they often can't hear anyway). Of course the QB knows when it is coming and the backs can see the center from where they are, so no problems there. SO, it is mostly for the O-line. Getting a microsecond jump on the D-linemen in front of you could make the difference between you blocking him and him getting around you.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:07 PM |
Thanks. I feel like this was
Thanks. I feel like this was
Thanks. I feel like this was directed at my questions above (and if not, it still answered them very well) so thank you for that. After thinking about it, it does make sense that the snap count is mostly for the O-line as they're the only ones that can't see what's happening.
That makes me appreciate the job the center a lot more since he has to get the ball off at just the right moment. If he's too late then there's a false start, if he's too early the D-line has a big advantage over the O-line.
Isn't this why they do the "hand holding" plays sometimes? Then the guard can watch the ball and "tell" the tackle when it's snapped based on when he [the guard] moves his hand? I've noticed that that seems to be used more by away teams so is that used when it might be hard for the tackles to hear the QB call for the ball?
August 19th, 2009 at 4:21 PM |
It was supposed to be under
It was supposed to be under
It was supposed to be under your thread. I must have hit the wrong REPLY button.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:07 PM |
Started to write a comment
Started to write a comment
Started to write a comment but the guy previous to me beat me to it.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:06 PM |
i think that it is more
i think that it is more
i think that it is more likely that there was some other key tipping the d such as molk head move than the snapcount being the same on each - not even a seventh grade lightweight football team would not vary the snap count.
Would be interested to hear from gsimmons or some other coach who NO SUGARCOAT has experience in reading some of the more common keys OLinemen give to the D.
our package is our package, and it’s pretty big. - Greg Mattison, Bowl Practice Presser Tr. 12-13-11.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:31 PM |
Never understood the hand
Never understood the hand
Never understood the hand clap and snap thing. Anyone and I mean anyone can call out a cadence and get the ball snapped to them. I thought that was stupid how they did that last year. It definitely gave the opposing team an advantage.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:52 PM |
You know, I hope Magee and RR
You know, I hope Magee and RR
You know, I hope Magee and RR do incorporate some differentiation and change up for the snap counts this fall.
I'm struggling to understand why it a.) took so long to recognize this timing of the snap and b.) to remedy it.
I like the metaphor used by Brian about the "training wheels" though. If we only considered the most successful of read spread option offenses in college football over the years (Northwestern, Utah, Florida, Oregon, Tulsa, Tulane, West Virgina) they all possessed a quarterback that was a legitimate run threat, a dangerous vertical and horizontal passing attack, and something between serviceable-to-excellent running backs.
Michigan had none of those things last year. They couldn't keep their QBs and RBs healthy, and the OL was playing musical chairs for half the season.
I don't even think Zak Kustok was that great of a quarterback for Northwestern. But dammit if that guy didn't drive defenses insane with ridiculously accurate short throws downfield, hitches and low posts. Then they'd come back with a QB keeper for 12 or 18 yards, and a forward shovel pass to a tailback for 10 more.
For Oregon, everyone was scared to death of Dennis Dixon because of his passing (67% completion rate) and rushing (5.6 ypc and 9 TDs). But people forget that TB Jonathan Stewart rushed for 1,700+ yards and 11 TDs with Dixon in the lineup.
So Forcier/Robinson plus their legs (or mere threat of their use) alone should make Michigan (Minor, etc.) a lot better offensively.
Maybe with a change up in the snap count, and Forcier at QB, Michigan can get past the Rodriguez Playbook "Table of Contents" and move directly to chapter 8: Opponent Now Thoroughly Exhausted and Confused: Pull Tab on Can of Whoopass.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:16 PM |
One team whose identity
One team whose identity
One team whose identity escapes me (maybe the Patriots, I'm not sure) has the quarterback lift his leg when he's ready for the snap. The center then scans the defense, and snaps it when he's ready. It works for them
August 20th, 2009 at 10:04 AM |
M 2007?
M 2007?
M 2007?
IMHE
August 20th, 2009 at 12:46 PM |
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with Tim's post, but ESPN's college football page has a picture of Charlie Weis with a headline of "Critical Mass."
Who says the WWL has no sense of humor?
Questions:
I never played football in high school since so people are going to have to enlighten me a little bit.
How hard is it for a QB to take a snap when he knows it's coming, just not exactly when it's coming? Essentially, could there be no snapcount (at least for most the plays) and instead just have Tate signal that he's ready and then let Molk snap it when he wants to (with an eye on the play clock of course)?
Does being in the shotgun make this type of thing harder or easier? Obviously the ball must go further, it must be snapped harder, and it must be snapped differently than if the QB is under center but the QB has more time to "see the ball in" like a receiver.
I was glad to re-read the "Molk lifts his head and wait" bit, it makes me think that the coaches talked to him about it and that Molk is smart enough to know that he has to help out here.
As for the end, "Now that Michigan's offense will have the training wheels off..." I don't think that we're going to be seeing the full extent of this offense yet. Even with many returning guys on offense, our QB is still new to it. Even if he's a film junky that's a student of the game and he ran a similar offense in high school, I don't think we're there yet. I do think we went from having 4 training wheels (we needed all the help we could get last year... which, ironically, may have hurt us to some degree since it made us more predictable) to more like one or two training wheels. I expect the playbook to be much more open but not all the way. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
And hopefully Forcier is the most resilient QB on the planet.
Edit: I've been meaning to mention this, what happened to being able to title posts on the comments for front page stories like we can for the board? Now it's just the first couple of words of the post are the title. Unless my memory is screwed up, it wasn't this way before. Any reason for the change?