Picture Pages: Blowing Up The Inverted Veer Comment Count

Brian

Michigan couldn't get yard one with the veer against Nebraska, and most of them ended up with an unblocked Nebraska player blowing up Gardner. It is time to look at them. For some reason. Why didn't I start a blog about 1980s hairstyles? 1980s hairstyles never make you want to rub your face in gravel.

I digress. The first one comes on Michigan's first drive. A late blitz has just seen a power O slanted to and blown up for a one yard loss; it's second and eleven on the 24.

Michigan comes out with an H-back and two tailbacks in a twins formation, which necessarily means that the slot receiver is not an eligible receiver. Nebraska responds with 7.5 in the box, with the gray area defender just about splitting the difference between Funchess and the tackle.

wat-1

On the snap Bosch pulls and the gray area guy sits and stares the backfield down.

Michigan shows veer action with Kerridge leading Toussaint to the outside; Michigan blocks the playside end, which would mean they're expecting to option the slot defender except 1) Kerridge is out there, so they're using one of their blockers on him anyway and 2) Gardner does not appear to be reading him but something further inside, if he's in fact reading anything. Gardner's awareness of this slot defender seems to start after the mesh point.

wat-2

You can see that Gardner's helmet is not pointed at the slot defender as he starts making his decision:

wat-3

What's he reading? Is he reading anything? I don't know. it doesn't seem like it. Watch the video in real time to get a feel for it. Toussaint does react like a guy who might get the ball, juking the blitzer, so I guess they're reading something. What is unclear.

Meanwhile, Kerridge is expecting the slot guy to contain upfield; instead he shoots upfield inside of him hard, too hard for him to adjust to.

wat-4

Gardner pulls and seems to sense a disturbance in the force now; he goes straight upfield.

wat-5

Toussaint dodges the blitzer, running into Gardner; Kerridge  is prone, Gardner starts stumbling, and his momentum is taking him into the chest of an unblocked LB.

wat-6wat-8wat-9

It's now third and nine, and Gardner's soul is now worn 1% more.

Video

Slow:

Items Of Interest

Optioning no one. We're back here, in year three. Michigan has a rudimentary read option game on which their QB doesn't know what to do too often and gets plays blown up, but here we're back to last year's Alabama game, where the defense made it so that Michigan's option plays didn't actually option off a defender, with similar results. No matter what happens on the edge here, the play still spends Kerridge and Toussaint on one defender and leaves an unblocked guy.

It would be one thing if I'd ever seen this fullback on the edge thing work. I have not. At best it's wasted him as he blocks a guy shooting up on the edge who is trying to contain Toussaint; at worst:

I'm about to get some comments about how this is Gardner's issue or Kerridge's issue and that Borges can't be held responsible for the results of this play. Sure. Any one play can be traced back to some execution error by the offense.

These posts are an effort to explain trends I'm seeing in the offense with particular plays, though, and this kind of half-ass option is par for the course. Michigan cannot get the fullback to be useful on these read option plays, and hasn't made him useful for three solid years.

option-3_thumb[1]

This is the kind of stuff Denard papered over by being Denard. Even when Michigan was eviscerating Ohio State two years ago, they weren't really optioning anyone and it was left to Denard to make the magic happen against an unblocked dude at the LOS:

Michigan was fortunate that was a freshman Ryan Shazier on one leg. When you don't have Denard and you've turned your quarterback's ribs into a fine paste already, you no longer get 41 yard touchdowns and instead your unblocked dude gets a tackle for minimal gain, or more likely a loss.

They've had Kerridge for three years now and Gardner that long and Toussaint that long and they still can't get them to execute a real option. Either they're not trying or they're not coaching. And either way…

How is this supposed to work? It seems like the idea here is for the slot guy to run himself upfield outside of Kerridge to maintain a force back inside and then for Gardner to hit the gap between him and the rest of the defense. Nebraska beats that idea by using the slot guy super-aggressively.

How do you make this play work? Nebraska understood that Michigan's formation meant Funchess was not eligible; the gray area defender had no thought of a pass and ended up blowing up the play. But you can still make this work since Nebraska is sitting so deep with the safeties. Michigan has two options here: shooting Kerridge at the LOS, leaving Toussaint to his own devices, or using Kerridge to attack the slot defender and put Toussaint on the edge into acres of space.

This is the kind of thing you could come back to later with a tweak and bust a big gain. Clearly there were no big gains on this day. This design isn't necessarily bad; the inability to see what Nebraska is doing and get rock to their scissors at some point is. I mean, if you get this again and block the dude the defense has no force player, which means you get a lot of yards. This move by Nebraska violates a cardinal tenet of sound defense and works because they win on RPS, and if you probe at what they're doing here you can beat that. Instead Nebraska just kept chewing up Michigan's offense.

Hooray covered slot receiver. Hooray. I will never understand the point of that. If Michigan had some package where the ability of the H-back to get to the backside of the play meant something, okay. Instead you get nothing and if the D recognizes it, as they seem to here, you're playing 10 on 11. Temporary voluntary red card.

Again, maybe this is some sort of genius but since I've never seen it do anything productive it just seems dumb.

Comments

MI Expat NY

November 12th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^

I'd imagine that those teams also have other issues with the offense besides a young line.  For instance, I know Maryland has now lost a bunch of starting skill position players (though they did put up 500 total and 220 rushing yards against UConn when healthy, how'd we do?) and Cal is starting a true freshman QB.  

umumum

November 12th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^

with 2 fifth year seniors, Lewan and Schofield,  and a redshirt junior and 2 redshirt sophomores in the mix.  My first guess of a team not on your list, Indiana, is younger--a junior, a sophomore, 2 redhirt sophs and 1 redshirt junior.  I'm comfortable there are others.

And, of course, you focus on a sidenote and not the substance of my comment.

Yeoman

November 12th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^

Whether Indiana's line is younger or not depends on your methodology. How do you conceive the learning curve for a lineman: does a Lewan improve as much from year 4 to year 5 as another lineman improves in his first year getting any practice reps or coaching? And do plays succeed or fail based on overall average competency of a line, or because someone busts the play? How mcuh can your LT do to salvage a play that your C and RG have failed on?

Multiple o-line freshmen (whether redshirt or true) busts your line. It's very hard to find a counterexample.

There was a pretty lengthy discussion of this on Gameboy's various posts last week, which I don't really have time or desire to repeat now.

----

As for those other teams having problems besides their line, except for UCLA that's probabaly a fair point. It also points out that functioning programs recruit linemen; they don't have repeated empty classes. It's a problem ordinarily reserved for the Idahoes and Easterns of the world.

umumum

November 12th, 2013 at 3:51 PM ^

but I'll continue the argument about something I believe you overrate even if true--which it is not.  While I have no intention of checking all 123  schools for the ages of their offensive linemen, it is much easier to check the offensive yardage of the schools (+IU) you proffer.

Mich        83rd in  total yards per game     97th in rushing yards per game    (and trending downward)

Ark           100    and    25

Mary         59 & 90

Tulane     114 &102

CMU         104 &103

W Ky          33 & 46

Wake        116 & 116

Cal            30  &  108

Idaho         96 & 93

UCLA        31 & 32

IU                8 & 33

So 5 of 10 average more yards per game than Michigan--those that do, markedly more.  6 of 10 average more rushing yards per game.   And, again, we are on a downward arc.

Plus as we know, most of the listed teams are not historically strong football programs--and as the poster above noted, and you acknowledge, there are likely many reasons for their limitations.

I agree that whether Michigan is younger than Indiana depends on your methodology--but Michigan's offensive line factually has more years on campus than does Indiana's.  I'd also suggest that (sight unseen) I'd prefer 2 fifth year seniors--able to anchor and tutor the younger players--over a line of youngish players.

This whole exercise is really beside the point unless you believe that (11 weeks into the season) inexperience solely accounts for an offense getting worse each week--cuz we all know it is a real problem.  If so, we will never be on the same page.

 

Yeoman

November 12th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^

By FEI, Michigan and UCLA are the only offenses on that list (I'm not including Indiana, I reject the "total years on campus" metric) that are above average. Arkansas is close. Eastern ranks #4 of the ten, which gives you an idea of just how bad most of the list is.

I've been trying to find out how much influence yong linemen have on the effectiveness of an offense. The exercise isn't at all beside the point unless you think the point is to decide on the truth first, and scrounge through data looking for something that supports what you've already decided.

antonio_sass

November 12th, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^

I agree to an extent, but can't you also say the same about the coaches? 

Do we have the single dumbest collection of coaches in the history of mankind?

A ton of posters have flat out called Al Borges an idiot.That he doesn't understand offense...

Brady Hoke and Al Borges' San Diego State Team in 2010 averaged 450 yards a game. Ronnie Hillman ran for 1600 yards that year, and averaged 5.8 yards a carry. Their QB threw for 300 yards a game. And before you say "mountain west competition," they put up 35 points against a TCU team that finished #3, undefeated, and beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.  It was a prolific offense. 

There are certainly issues on this team beyond youth and inexperience, but to put it all on coaches, or worse, to call them bumbling idiots, is pretty farfetched.

 

umumum

November 12th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^

though some might.  I do have some questions about Borges so-called expertise--over-rated IMHO resume and vis-a-vis other coordinators.  If instead of coaching,  Borges was a contributor to this this board, I suspect he would provide meaningful insight into offensive schemes--just as Space Coyote does.  And he could be an effing  genius and still a crappy coach--or at least the wrong coach.  It doesn't really matter if the coaches are smart or not--it just matters that they get production out of the players they have.  At this point, it has to be scheme, teaching or both.  Seriously, this is akin to defending GERG (gee, look what he's done at Texas) and God knows he was terrible at Michigan.

antonio_sass

November 12th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^

I agree there's a problem with coaching, but I also think the future is less doomed than most here think. Even if we do keep AB. Because [in my opinion] the youth and inexperience of the players does play a role.

I guess I wasn't reacting to you in particular but to the general feeling of this site lately. 

umumum

November 12th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^

everyone knows that.  But with inexperience, you should start with issues, BUT GET BETTER as the season progresses.  Scheme and lack of improvement are on the coaches.  I'm all for Hoke having at least a 4th year.  But why do you believe Borges deserves one?  What would be your breaking point?

NiMRODPi

November 12th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^

I know this is not part of the picture pages, but based on Brian's post, Space Coyote's contributions in this post (great stuff by the way. If nothing else I learn lot from yourself, Brian, and others on this board), what is the alternative?

 

I mean, the play has been nicely diagramed, the concept of the play has been thoroughly explained, I understand it, and they can't do it. If they can't do this, what is this other thing they actually CAN do? I hear all about scheme or how our players can't execute this or its coaching. But is there something both enormously easier for us while not being enormously easy to defend? Space Coyote or Brian could better answer this but from random guy looking at the play I say no. This should be executed. The "not executing" phrase is wearing thin but every picture pages it's precisely what we see. And if the scheme prohibits execution then I  would like to know the one that is both easier, more effective, and one that our young guys can actually make happen.

 

 

SouthU

November 12th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

... in this game:  Was that not out of this formation?  Seem to remember both Kerridge and and Fitz heading outside to DG's right after the shotgun snap. 

DelhiGoBlue

November 12th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

has been discussed ad nauseum, what is Toussaint's role if he doesn't get the ball, to do what he did?  Shouldn't Toussaint be going after the gray area guy instead of waiting to get plowed over?  A mere novice I, but the way I see it, if Toussaint goes forward then DG doesn't get tripped up and he can still go outside.

DelhiGoBlue

November 12th, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^

He did neither, and in my estimation, for whatever reason he did neither, therein lies another symptom of the overall problem.

What I'm seeing is that things have been so dumbed down that little to no initiative is allowed much less encouraged.  I'm not suggesting that everybody be allowed to freelance, but I am saying that Toussaint should have done something, run or block.  However, when confronted by the situation he found himself in he was confused, it was new, he did nothing. 

It doesn't take an elite guru coach to instill the idea that doing something is always preferable to doing nothing, and then demand that something be done.  I know, preaching to the choir, I just thought I'd vent my $.02

Space Coyote

November 12th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^

That guy was supposed to be blocked, so Fitz wasn't expecting him to be there. The FB should have blocked him. So Fitz was still between "am I getting the ball or not" because he doesn't know the blocking is screwed up inside too. So he is still playing both until it's too late. At least that how I see it.

Goblue89

November 12th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^

I'm sorry but the more I look at this, WTF is the point of covering up Funchess?  Space Coyote, somebody please tell what exactly that gains?  What is the advantage of that?  So he can be 2 yards closer to the guy he is going to block 20 yards down field? Also, who exactly are they optioning?  And why is Kerridge leading outside?  Who exactly is he going to block out there?  Gallon has the Corner and Funchess is heading towards Cover 2 safety.  There literally is no one out there for him to block.  I think the biggest part of the problem is Kerridge's path, why is he heading outside? Again, who is out there for him to block?  If it's his responsibilty to block the slot defender he should work inside out.  If that defender does end up heading up field he can easily wall him off.  Besides the obvious formation issues and not really optioning anybody I think the biggest issue is the play design regarding Kerridge's path. 

In reply to by MarcusBrooks

DelhiGoBlue

November 12th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

out?  That's pretty strong, though it could well be the case.  Either way, I agree that his hesitation and lack of committement to do anything was more egregious than Kerridge's missed block.

Goblue89

November 12th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^

It's actually not that hard of block for Kerridge and he doesn't need to thump the guy anyways.  He just needs to take his guy where he wants to go.  If he wants to crash inside sweet, take him inside and Gardner can give to Toussaint inspace.  If he wants to head up field fine, take him up field.  I think the biggest problem is Kerridge went full-speed ahead where he thought the guy was going to go instead of taking of few stuffle steps foward and take the guy where he wanted to go. 

Space Coyote

November 12th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^

As I said, I hate covering receivers. It is a tip to the defense that it's likely run (where, they don't know). That said, you would be surprised how many defenses will still trot a DB out to cover that guy.

Anyway, the reason here is because Borges wanted a guy to block the playside safety. He wanted to form an alley on that side for Fitz. The FB takes the slot defender, Funchess takes the safety, and Gallon takes the CB. Everyone else is sealed inside. That's the only reason he did it, was to get the play completely blocked playside, which it should have been.

Space Coyote

November 12th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^

Because he wanted to run to strength and wanted that slot blocker. So the TE or Funchess had to be covered. Now, typically I'd say "alright, cover the TE, don't cover your 2nd biggest threat". But a couple things could have gone into the thinking here.

1. But have the TE off the line you open up plays to the backside of the formation with the inverted veer look (including counter schemes and how the FB would leak out into the flat later). So in a way, it keeps the box defenders more honest, which they succeeded in doing (they didn't all crash playside on the snap before reading the play).

2. They wanted to know what that slot defender was doing. They didn't want to run him off, they want a clear target for the FB. Funchess covered, that guy comes. Maybe that was something they saw on film and were trying to take advantage of. But there's a real possibility that they didn't want to force the FB to read "is that guy going with the WR, do I pick up the filling alley safety or does Funchess, so do I switch to his guy?" etc.

My guess is more #1 than #2, but it depends on what they saw on film.

KSmooth

November 12th, 2013 at 5:59 PM ^

Oh most wise spirit of a psychedelic hot pepper,

Okay, I agree with you -- do not like covered slot receivers. But if you are going to have a slot blocker (Look!  I just invented a new football position!) wouldn't you want it to be someone who excels at blocking out of the slot or wideout positions? Last I heard that wasn't Funchess' long suit. Or would you be thinking that Funchess size, and the unusual angles he'll be coming in from, will make him more effective?

Realize my earlier post was a bit of a rant, but I'm really curious about the whole thing. What exactly are they thinking?

Yeoman

November 12th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^

I'm just thinking out loud here, but hasn't one of the criticisms been that personnel groupings are showing tendencies? Putting Funchess on the LOS and covering him is a tell, but subbing Williams in for Funchess is also a tell, a much earlier one that the defense could respond to by substitution.

And Funchess isn't being asked to do anything here that he doesn't routinely have to do as a WR. He just has to stand up the DB that's covering him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that always putting the personnel on the field that are ideal for the particular task in the play you've called has drawbacks.

Goblue89

November 12th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^

You mean the playside saftey 10 yds downfield in cover 2? So Borges wanted Funchess to be covered and thus not a threat so he could get a 2 yard head start on a guy 10 yards away from him?  If Paskorz lines up at TE with Funchess in the slot off the LOS how does that make their responsibilities any different.  If anything the slot defender has to respect Funchess making Kerridge's responsibility easier.  Everything else stays the same.  I'm sorry but that does not make any sense and if that's how Borges really thinks how can you defend that thinking? 

MarcusBrooks

November 12th, 2013 at 3:01 PM ^

hell if Toussaint doesn't back up into Devin to avoid contact Devin can get outside!

he is forced inside by Fitz.

why not have Kerridge hit up the LOS since he is not athletic enough to make an angle block and have Bosch continue down the line and blow up the blitzing player as a trap block?

unbelievable how outcoached we are by even the crappiest defense.

Vasav

November 12th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^

I'm missing a step in my logic. The defensive alignment lead to the offense (trying to) blocking every optionable defender. That leads to the default option, which is for the QB to keep on the veer, right? But there's clearly a lane for Fitz is the TE and FB make their block. So why is it assumed to be a broken play if everyone is blocked? I know I'm missing something here...

Space Coyote

November 12th, 2013 at 7:05 PM ^

But you ask a bit different question here that I didn't answer, as far as why is the QB keep the default.

The reason that is is because DG can't really see what's happening to that side. He can't tell if the safety is filling the alley or any of those things. So handing off could result and giving the ball off to a guy going laterally without much chance of success. On the flip side, with keeping, the RB can still act as a blocker to that side. The QB still sees what is in front of him and can still try to make something of the play. Here, everyone is blocked up front but Gardner doesn't know what's coming from the side (for instance, the FB missed his block), so default is to keep because now Fitz can make that play and DG can potentially make something of the play.

mgoblue98

November 12th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

This play goes for big yards and maybe a touchdown if properly blocked.  Even with the screw up it could have gone for big yards if Gardner hadn't gotten tangled up and been able to cut outside.  I see Paskorz at TE/Uback so I wonder if maybe he hasn't gotten enough reps on this.  Wasn't he injured for a number of games earlier this year? 

FreddieMercuryHayes

November 12th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^

So my question is, after reading many of these types of discussions on the offense, why isn't Borges looking for ways to reduce the amount of players that have to 'execute' in order for a play to be succesful, or at least emphasize the more experienced players to be the critical cogs in the play call?  I imagine, as Space Coyote has mentioned, is that Borges/Hoke is most likely very much in the camp that they will rep what they want to do in an attempt for it to have returns in the coming years.  But then that also begs the question, is that the correct coaching philosophy to have.  Obviously the answers will come in the next few years when hindsight will be 20/20.  But what about Belein?  He has scrapped the systems he has worked with, has invented, in recent years, and when asked why he did it, his answer was "because we want to win."  Is that incorrect?

I don't know man.  I understand that what Borges is calling is technically sound from a play design stand point.  But all of his technically sound plays involve like 7 guys having to execute blocks perfectly.  Contrast to some of the spread/read option offenses where you use the reads to reduce how many kids have to execute blocks properly to work (yes, this does add in that players have to make correct reads).  But college football teams will always have young, inexperienced kids.  They screw up.  Even pros screw up.  Isn't incumbant on the OC to design plays/calls that reduce the risk of having it blown up by messed up assignments?  If you can't get your players to block, shouldn't you find ways to reduce the amount they have to block instead of just trying to change who they block? 

I guess this is my problem with Borges right now.  I just don't see the additude of expecting so many kids to 'execute' as a sustainable offensive system in college football.  Without doing something, some change up, that actively tries to protect against some of the most complicated aspects of the game, like reading and reacting to active defensive fronts, I just can't see this team having the sustained success the program expects.  Borges had one awesome year at Auburn where half his offense were pros.  After that?  Back to mediocrity or terribleness.  Is that what UM is going to be under Borges?  Wait for everybody to be seniors/awesome and finally have a breakthrough where they can execute they way Borges wants, then back to the pits after they graduate?

 

 

aplatypus

November 12th, 2013 at 4:51 PM ^

I don't think it requires 7 perfect blocks to succeed as long as you measure success as a moderate gain. 

I think it requires at best 5 ok blocks, and 2 good blocks to get you 4-5 yards. 

Butt screwed up his read a little, and the offensive line did mostly what they're supposed to do. I didn't see anything amazing there. And even with that, all we need is Kerridge to hit that defender and it's a decent gain. He does that, and Funchess manages to run into the safety (I think that's a fair expectation of a 2nd year TE..) and it's maybe a first down. Get that, plus a good Gallon block and Fitz outrunning the other safety and it's a huge play. 

I don't think there's a whole lot more things can be simplified, personally. And doing so wiould be and even larger tip off to defenses what's coming. 90% of this play's success hinged on Kerridge recognizing the guy he supposed to block and running into him. He failed to do that and the play faltered. Simple as that. 

ccarna

November 12th, 2013 at 4:09 PM ^

Great win

Great Offensive Strategy, though out skilled by every team they play

Great Scheme

Great Plays

Great Adjustments

$1.00 popcorn

$1.00 hot chocolate

 

Go Clarkston High....Good luck in round 3 of the playoffs.

 

GoBucks11

November 12th, 2013 at 5:01 PM ^

So, this looks like a read option that has no read to option. The defensive end to the play side is blocked; the defensive tackles are blocked; I'm assuming the fullback (Kerridge is it?) is suppose to scoop the SAM; the backside defesive end is blocked; the MIKE is blocked; one would be falsely decieved into thinking the WIL is being read, but he gets picked up by the pulling guard. The only unaccounted-for defender is the SS on the backside, which Gardener isn't even looking at.

With all of the playside defenders accounted for, why is this even a read play? This obviously doesn't need a read if there is no one to read. When Robinson ran the play, it made sense, because the defense would either commit to Robinson and let the handoff go for yards with all the blockers, or the defense would overcommit to the handoff and movement of the line and Robinson had the speed and agility to beat most people one-on-one, making the backside safety almost null.

But Gardener isn't Robinson and isn't as threatening in space. He makes his yards not on the read option, but on rollouts and scrambling out of the pocket, which Michigan doesn't seem to want to do.

Ways to fix it: First, put the tight end on the line and move the slot off the ball. Funchess is a terrible blocker and his only real threat is his verticle patterns. This would at least force the linebacker to care about Funchess or move SS from backside to playside and the linebackers shift back to the backside to account for it. Second, leave the backside D-end free so that you have a real read to make. The tight end works with the play side tackle down to the MIKE. The playside guard on the 3technique, pull the backside guard on the WIL, the center blocks the 2i, backside tackle on the SS, fullback kick-out-to-log block* the SAM, send slot receiver on a seam, SE stock blocks the corner. Finally, the quarterback reads the backside defensive end. If he comes down the line, keep it. If he comes upfield, hand off.

Not too hard. And to keep them honest, fullback could go for a pop pass into the flat if the linebacker over commits. Pass to the slot receiver if the safeties cheat on the run. SE does an in route in vacated space of the SAM. It's a simple offense, but if you make your blocks, it will work. And for the most part on that play, the line made the blocks. The fullback screwed up his, but that was partly coaching, partly recognition. So it could work for five yards a pop, and maybe more if the defense commits too much. But it's all for not, because Borges is awful.

*Kick-out-to-log= Blocker stays strong inside on his route to the defender. If the defender comes upfield, it's kickout block. If the defender comes inside or down the line, engage the defender and roll over top to seal the edge. The runningback can choose to go inside on kickout or outside on the log.

gvsulaker19

November 12th, 2013 at 8:17 PM ^

Putting Funchess on the LOS , thus making him ineligible, indeed frees up the defender that is in the "gray area" to play just for the run, simply because Funchess is not a threat to catch a pass at all.

This play may have been better designed to have a WR on the left side of the formation, on the line, allowing Funchess to back off the line and become eligible, and remove the FB.

You still have a pulling guard to lead for Gardner inside, an H back playside that can seal the edge of the defense, and a clear read defender, who probably lines up wider because Funchess is now a threat to catch a pass. This is a much easier read for the QB on this type of play where the mesh point happens as both players are moving parallel to the LOS.

In the play shown, the FB is at a disadvantage because either:

A) He is attempting to block the read guy and should not be.

B) He is being asked to kick out a defender who primarily is looking for the run. So, said defender starts coming with a full head of steam inside the FB. That is damn near impossible pick up, even for the best of blocking backs.

GoBucks11

November 13th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^

This play has him reading the WIL coming across (who gets blocked by the pulling guard anyway).

Besides, let's say if Gardener reads that the OLB respects the slot, he hands off to the sidecar. If the OLB comes crashing in, he keeps. But the OLB crashes so hard that the play would be blown up in the backfield. And all of this is moot because the slot is never a threat in this set, because Borges never calls a pass play and the offense never checks to a pass play. The OLB will never respect the slot and will leave him manned up on the safety as he focuses solely on stopping the read option.

You have to be diverse in your playcalling as an offense and keep the defense guessing and on the back of their heels, something Borges knows nothing about. I wonder if Gardner has ever been given the greenlight to change plays at the line.

Waves

November 12th, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^

For some reason my posts keep getting deleted, although I'm not a controversial poster...

Anyway, my hunch is that Hoke knows his X's and O's but is just not a teacher. He can't connect with his players in a meaningful way so they "get it'. In my line of work I see that personality type a lot, even in academia unfortunately.

Professor Prepuces

November 12th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^

I don't understand why this post has so many comments; it appears that everyone is in agreement with Brian's analysis.  This is perhaps the greatest act of trolling I have ever witnessed on the internet.  Never before have I seen so many people argue over their agreement.  What hath Al Borges wrought?