Neck Sharpies: Eight Plays Screwing With Brown Comment Count

Seth

image

So today I complete the series on Don Brown's defense. After two the gist of that defense is plainly gotten: he runs the same defense Michigan does. I was really hoping to find BC doing something schematic to bottle up Clemson's spread offense; instead it seems their successes came from just fundamentally executing things that Michigan didn't against Ohio State from the same Cover 1 that we both ran.

But I did find something pretty cool on the next drive: Clemson trying to mess with that, and how it responded. The first play's a good example:

Play 1: Jet Motion Triple Option vs. Cover 1—After a three-and-out and an interception that led to BC taking a 7-0 lead, Clemson is ready to bring out the fancy stuff. This looks fancy:

image

That's a lot of lines in the backfield—and a formation trick that Michigan saw against Ohio State several times—so let me unpack it.

[After we hit THE JUMP]

  1. First note that the formation is unbalanced—the slot (Y) receiver is covered. I left the Clemson position names in white text for the eligible receivers on the play, though the RT isn't eligible due to the number he's wearing.
  2. They have a rather wide split in the backside A gap. Clemson uses a lot of wide splits in general and it's a good tactic against teams with burly, north-south down linemen. Remember PSU and Indiana both did this against Michigan to make outside zone a bit more threatening.
  3. The TE is lined up directly in front of the RB, a formation that OSU runs often and which threatens a quick downhill run much like an I-form would.

That's the formation stuff. The play is a triple-option

  1. BLUE: The flanker (blue line) comes in a jet motion (CB in man notifies the SS; the SS now has the Z receiver in man, and the CB is now an extra safety). The jet is the QB's first read; if the strong safety is blitzing or otherwise out of position this can bust outside for big yards. The SS forms up so the quarterback swiftly goes to the next, more likely read.
  2. GREEN: This is a simple zone read handoff. The SAM is the the read; if the SAM crashes it's a keep (RED). He doesn't so it's a give to the RB.

So after all that we're now back to an inside zone handoff versus Cover 1.

BC's defense of it is anything but fancy. The free safety is now even further back in the parking lot—he's lined up over the covered receiver 17 yards deep. That's too far away to be of much help in the running game, excepting that jet sweep if he reacts fast. The point stands that the Eagles aren't interested in giving up their deep guy yet to help against the run.

And by the play of their front four they don't have to. Remember the lesson from the last two months if you draw a double or a combo when defending zone running: either dominate your block so thoroughly that you're blowing up everything in the backfield, or delay the guy lined up playside of you so long that the LBs can run free.

Here the Eagles SDE beat the H-back's downblock (red arrow), and the DT is just putting everything into keeping leverage vs. that doubleteam and not letting the LG release. You've got yourself a happy linebacker and no frontside A gap.

image

On the backside the NT has also prevented any flow; that's the WLB who's come up to whack the RG at the line of scrimmage. The RB delays a second and the LG does come off to hit the MLB, but the hole is now squeezed so tight that everyone can converge and hold it to 3 yards. The lesson once again: the spread and the option will give the offense number, but a defense executing hard things consistently can win 10 on 11.

Play 2: Jet Motion PA Fly vs. Cover 3—On the next play Clemson tried the same formation again, except with the TE close to the line and splits to either side of the center:

image

The cornerback is calling out that his receiver isn't on the line. This means the safety to his side (the one going "Huh?") is supposed to be the deep guy and the safety on the other hash ought to come down and play the seam-curl-flat zone.

He does. And both safeties are late to process this; at the snap "Flarb?" is running down the seam before BC gets either a quick seam or a jet sweep to the face. "Huh" is running to get over top of both verts then realizes he's got to deal with the uncovered slot receiver's route. The MLB is racing to cover a middle deep zone in case the slot receiver turns in and under the FS. And the WLB is backing out into the same zone as the CB who was initially over the motion guy. It's pandemonium!

image

Or rather it's a schematic win for the offense, which now has good protection and four athletes versus four defensive players in all that space despite giving up an eligible receiver by alignment. And they've gotten themselves one of those zone-stretching route combinations against one of the zones it works against, namely verts vs. Cover 3.

Cover 3 is intricately related to Cover 1. The outside cornerbacks for the first 10 yards barely do things differently: they've got the receiver they're on top of if he goes deep, so they stay in man coverage the whole way, with a subtle difference I'll get to in a sec. Also the first-level defenders in a Cover 1—that is, the linebacker level—pretty much act like Cover 3 zone guys, with an eye on their man. Think of it from the perspective of a WLB who's got a running back in "man" coverage. If the RB stays in to block, you don't want the WLB to be chasing the RB around. Have him read the RB and stand right in the middle of the passing lanes.

The difference is strongest on the back coverage, as demonstrated by how you'd like BC to defend this play versus how they did:

imageimage

Ideally when the unbalanced call comes they'd check back to their Cover 1 rules. That means the nickel is a man defender on the slot receiver while the SS now has run responsibilities. But the nickel is still acting like an outside linebacker—he's watching the RB for a flare or screen, and setting the edge of a run. The WLB is doing the same thing, which has carried him into the same zone the boundary CB backed into.

Had they rotated the coverage, the nickel becomes a cornerback with man coverage on the slot receiver, and the SS is down in the box so your run fits are still good, and most importantly you have that overhang safety in position to force this throw against the sideline or else run the risk of a pick. Instead the FS has to cover the slot receiver, and the field CB is all alone.

So what's the difference if everyone's covered? It's how that CB plays his man. If you know you've got help you can play outside/trail technique and trust the overhang safety will be there if the receiver goes in. Outside technique lets you own the sideline and lets you sit on a potential out since you've got help inside. Pure cover 3 you're on your own with that guy as long as he's in your region. Expecting help, this CB didn't play like that. He sat on the 7-yard out, then turned his hips in outside technique, and doesn't realize until the 50 that "Oh god I'm all alone here!" and by then all he can do is play trail technique and hope the offense can't execute a relatively hard thing.

The good news is they can't, and that the things that it left open are things most offenses can't execute more than 50% of the time. The bad news is that you give up a lot when they do.

Play 3: Quick Slant vs. Okie 1—More motion, and once again on 3rd and long they break out the fun stuff!

image

And once again BC gets a three-and-out because they're very good at executing their base coverage while their linemen are very good at generating pressure when freed from boring ol' run defense.

image

It's covered magnificently. When the TE crossed the formation the nickel lets everyone know that he's flipping but still has his man (the boundary CB will have to protect that quick in). The WLB has the running back and the MLB drops quickly into the rat zone. On the other side the field CB and SS both do a good job using the contact zone to re-route their receivers, who are now running so close to each other that they're both essentially doubled.

With a nickel over top and two linebackers underneath, the primary read to the TE is dead-dead-dead. Despite just four guys coming vs six blockers, the blitz specialist SAM is being blocked by a running back, the wide 9 DE on the left is running past the RT, and the looping DE uses some excellent hand technique to keep the RG from getting a block as he cruises into the B gap, leaving the center blocking nobody. The QB senses pressure and tries to escape to the wide side; the MLB sees it, shoots up, and they sack to force a punt.

Play 4: They rough the kicker—Oops.

Play 5: Quick Ins versus Cover 1—

Welp. So after the crushing penalty Clemson raced their offense onto the field and immediately went 5-wide. This is a tempo play meant to hit fast before the defense is set. However the nice thing about Cover 1 is you can line up in it quickly and everyone should know their jobs.

The downside is you're pretty predictable, so with a lot of preparation the offense can dictate some bad matchups. Here Clemson got their best offensive player Artavis Scott [insert crutin grumblins'] matched against #28, who's BC's SAM. Scott versus a linebacker is already a mismatch even if the linebacker is ready, and #28 barely is. He's late to get on the field (BC had a hard time matching personnel coming out of a special teams play), and sets up with a huge cushion. Clemson takes that cushion, getting the ball to Scott right away. Artavis then does crazy athletic stuff, a safety gets his balls blocked, and the WLB finally pushes him out at the BC 10.

Not great, Don.

Play 6: Zone read vs. Cover 1 Heavy—Here's a good example of rock on paper. Clemson is running their base play, a simple zone read from a simple Ace formation with two tight ends on one side and two receivers on the other showing bubble. BC is running their base man coverage once again.

But there's a wrinkle: since they're so near the end zone there's no need for the free safety to stand in it. Michigan this year tended to use this as an opportunity for the FS to be an extra run defender, or change up who the deep guy's gonna be (even Bolden and Gedeon did that at times). BC just went Cover Zero and added a pass rusher. Well kind of a pass rusher.

image

The SS is in man on the inline TE and comes up into press technique on him, basically giving BC an extra line defender. They also left a big gap on the backside with that LG totally uncovered and the rest of the DL over-shifted to the frontside.

It's a trap! The SAM ($) stunted around the end out there, and now there are two totally clean linebackers able to run right into that gap:

image

The FS at the top is heading out to cover the bubble if it happens. Meanwhile the SAM is coming around the block by #78, and the MLB and WLB both are heading unblocked into th4e obvious place. Zero yards and a Mattison versus Northwestern 2012 trophy.

Play 7: Mesh vs. Cover 2—Here's another thing that offenses run to mess with man coverage. Mesh is the rock play of those 4-wide Air Raid offenses.

image

This time the defense is playing Man 2 instead of Man 1—there's no "Rat" or "Robber" zone in the middle; instead you have two safeties each splitting a deep half. Man 2 works well inside the red zone since the second level is compressed. Don't need to cover so much vertical space, improve your horizontal.

Clemson has a play on that gets the chunk provided. Mesh gets the inside receivers crossing each other, tying up the man defenders to break a guy open.

image

The get the rub, with the slot receiver re-routing himself upfield after the mesh to make sure he gets a block on the trailing defender. Legality is murky on this—like holding or racecars that touch it's only against the rules if it's called and it's hardly ever called. Since the WLB had to clear out when the RB flared, it's up to the safety to come down and end the play. He makes a solid tackle on the 4 yard line.

Play 8: PA rollout vs Man 2—With the ball now in run territory they can't run the fancy pass pro stuff. BC covered the rollout totally and it's about to be sack-and-kick except:

image

Number 8 there is a rush specialist true sophomore DE who has contain. He is not containing. In fact when he turns around the RT gets such a push that our contain man is 2 yards in the endzone once he regains control of his own momentum. By that point the QB is walking in.

Lessons: No defensive scheme is perfect, and every opponent (unless we face Borges again down the line) is going to come in with ways to test yours. Clemson ran out an unbalanced jet action package twice and that was ended fusslessly once by the base coverage's basic adaptation, then nearly gave up a hard-to-get TD when the adaptation came slower.

Most of the "Clemson tries stuff against BC's base stuff" drive was stuffed. You can't help a roughing the kicker, and you can't help giving up 6 yards on a pick play when the pick just crosses the line into offensive PI.

But they broke two big plays by winning on personnel. Clemson got Artavis Scott matched against a linebacker running in late and that broke for most of the yards. Then they got an unready pass rusher way out of his lane on a broken play. Brown's found himself some players—I like the linebackers and the starting DL a lot—but he doesn't have very athletic safeties or any kind of backups. Against a really good modern offense, that's gonna break sometimes.

The encouraging thing is any players on a level that Brown will have at Michigan do know their base defense and how to stay in it when the offense does something awry. With a talent upgrade, the floor here seems to be D.J. Durkin minus some recruiting chops, while the ceiling is D.J. Durkin when he was against anybody but Ohio State.

Comments

Reader71

December 31st, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^

One thing I notice is that the end man on the line of scrimmage is always shaded on the outside shoulder of the TE or tackle. Against Ohio and Indiana, Michigan used a lot of defenses featuring the end man either shaded on the inside shoulder or heads up, and sometimes totally disregarding a TE, with the linebacker presumably responsible for the outside gap. But the linebackers were at normal depth. This left a really soft edge.

Here, even if the OLBs are on the line, the DE stays shaded outside shoulder. It just makes more sense to my ignorant-to-high-level-defensive-scheme eyes. Particularly when they are running stretches and trying to get the edge. I kept screaming to anyone that would listen that if Wormley didn't kick out to cover that TE, we would be dead. And we were. I don't get what we were doing.

Seth

December 31st, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^

I noticed that too. What Michigan was doing is the weird thing--the whole point of an over front is to set the edges with an end who can rush.

I think Michigan's "over" was informed by under thinking, and that Michigan was trying to get back some of their size advantage by having ends in a 5 or 4i tech to help with inside runs, trusting they had dynamic edge players who could come up quickly if a bounce occurred. Peppers and Ross are both pretty good at that sort of thing.

Remember that what Michigan ran last year wasn't the defensive philosophy that its coaches came up with. They're much closer to speed-through-gaps type of thinking, but they had a surfeit of DE/DT tweeners on the line and tried to dominate battles they could have just focused on winning. The strategy worked great against those they could dominate on the regular--pushing the Mormons or Terps off the ball was simple--and blew up in their faces when they met OL as strong as their DL.

Reader71

December 31st, 2015 at 1:10 PM ^

I know we did the weird thing. I just don't get what the possible advantages would be. I know that at least part of it was to stop inside runs and keep the smallish LB clean, and another part was an assumption that Peppers et al can help on the perimeter. But that wasn't what Indiana and Ohio were looking to do, so it seems like a misguided strategy. I guess I'm thinking there must have been something they were trying to accomplish with respect to the stretch play specifically, but I could be wrong.

Good stuff, BTW. You're my guy on here. Love the breakdowns, particularly on D.

Gobluecheese

December 31st, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^

I thought the last man on the line of scrimmage had to be an eligible receiver. That is, I thought the last ineligible receiver needed to be "covered". If the open tackle is ineligible because of his number, does that mean he reported as eligible, or is my whole understanding of alignment in tackle football being turned on its head?

Seth

December 31st, 2015 at 1:06 PM ^

He's eligible by alignment, but due to his number he's not.

In the NFL you can report to the referee that you're an eligible receiver even if you're wearing a number between 50-79 or 90-99.

In college football it's just numbers 50-79 that are ineligible and he must change his jersey if he wants to be an eligible receiver. That's why Magnuson wore 81 in 2014 when he lined up as an extra OT.

Gobluecheese

December 31st, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

That actually does mess with my previous notions about alignment. Thanks. A follow up question, if you please. What do the rules state about number of players on the line of scrimmage/ in the backfield as far as alignment? 7 on the line? No more than 7 on the line? No less than? Is there actually a requirement for number of players in the backfield?

Pepto Bismol

December 31st, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^

You can ONLY have 7 on the line.  4 must be off the line, in the backfield.

Like, Michigan's punt unit will often have 5 guys on the line, plus 2 gunners as numbers 6 & 7, then the punter and 3-man protection wall making up the 4 in the backfield.

On a FG attempt, you'll have 7 on the line, 2 wings set back on the ends of the line plus the holder and kicker.  7 + 4. 

Any play (other than a kickoff, I suppose), however you slice it, you'll have 7 up, 4 back. 

Gobluecheese

December 31st, 2015 at 10:49 PM ^

According to the NCAA Rulebook; section 'Offensive Team Requirements-At The Snap'; #4. "No more than 4 players may be backs." The "no more than 4" implies there could be fewer backs. I'm surprised it doesn't state explicitly that there needs to be at least seven players on the line (which I'm pretty sure is the rule) as an offense could potentially run a play with fewer than 11 players, fulfill the requirement with "no more than 4 backs" and not have 7 men on the line. Maybe there's a note somewhere that says there must be 11 offensive players during a snap, but I haven't seen it yet.

Pepto Bismol

January 1st, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^

You can scour rulebook for semantic contradictions if you wish. Like Seth said, this is the basic rule of football. If you have more or less than 7 on the line, you'll get an illegal formation penalty. I'm trying to help you here, but apparently you want to debate. Instead of searching for alternate interpretations in the rulebook, try just watching a football game and counting to 7. Best of luck. Happy New Year.

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Gobluecheese

January 1st, 2016 at 7:38 PM ^

Sorry. I'm not trying to be an ass here. I was looking for precisely what the rules require. I've watched football. I've counted to seven. I understand that that's how teams line up typically, and that adding another player to the line is a disadvantage because it means having one less eligible player so teams won't do it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't. I was looking for the precise rule and what I've found is what I posted above. And from what I can find, the college rule for illegal formation is "more than four players in the backfield". In NFL it's fewer than seven players on the line of scrimmage. Neither suggest more players on the line is a problem. I could still be wrong, but everything I've read seems to suggest I'm not. Either way, I'll probably never see this anyway, so I'll shut up now

dragonchild

December 31st, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

We're making a lot of Durkin's scheme, but his use of our senior linebackers wasn't very inspiring.  And he was the linebackers' position coach.  So Brown's* ceiling seems to be more what we ran this year, plus better linebacker play.

The extent to which Brown gets his players to punch above their weight is amazing.  The takeaway here seems to be that Brown, like Durkin, asks his players to do really hard things.  But this was BC vs. Clemson.  Whatever difference in offensive talent exists between Clemson and Ohio State, it's nowhere near the difference in talent between BC and Michigan.

FormerlyBigBlue71

December 31st, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

I love the cover 1 scheme against prostyle offenses but not so much Ohio state's offense. I really like how MSU's defense schematically gets 8 or 9 men playing the run against Ohio State's 11 personnel. Only scheme I have seen that tips the numbers in the defenses favor against the spread while still covering the pass well.

dragonchild

December 31st, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

Problem with MSU's defense is that it requires great safety play.  If you have great safeties you have a great defense.  If you have crappy safeties you have a very vulnerable defense.

You need to have the players to run that scheme, but neither Michigan nor Michigan State have all the pieces.  It's mind-boggling that Ohio State didn't want to test STAEE's safeties out of some weird overreaction to water falling from the sky.

FormerlyBigBlue71

December 31st, 2015 at 1:46 PM ^

Well since Ohio State's strenght is running the ball and not their deep passing game I would rather have a scheme that takes away their strength and forces them to beat you with low percentage deep balls or having a slot reciever burn a safety. If that happens you tip your cap. I don't see how we beat OSU if we continue to let them run wild on us.

Wolverine fan …

December 31st, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^

#5 and #8, represent two players at Michigan that shouldn't be making those kinds of mistakes next year. #5 is a true Sophmore CB, and as we know, CB is not a position of great concern next year with Lewis and Clark exploring new ways to bring the defense to the Promised Land.



As for the D-line, there may be even less concern there, as Mone and perhaps Mr. Gary take that group to a place I can only dream about. The base defenses may be very similar, but the upgrade in talent across the board shoud allow coach Brown to dial up the aggressiveness another notch and wreak havoc upon most opponents next year. Who knows, maybe the Bucks don't have a RB that can replace the productivity of Zeke Elliot... Is there any other reason they didn't try a different back against Sparty?