Picture Pages: Final Bubble Treatise

From my knowledge of Boston, Comm Ave goes right through BU's campus, on the other side of the river from Cambridge. Would BU be playing Columbia? Does BU have a football team?

Quick question - in one of our recent games (Iowa?) it looked like we made an adjustment where the slot receiver would run a quick out against that type of formation.  When run, it looked like a "QB Oh Noes" but instead of hitting a WR (or TE) running down the seam the throw went to the slot receiver running a 5-yard out against a defender playing way too far inside (as in your pictures).  Did you notice this, and if so, do you think that play was Borges' attempt to make the defensive alignment a little more honest?

(If so, it clearly didn't work, as the Illnois defensive alignements above demonstrate).

Thanks!

Does this have anything to do with, what seems to be, a lack of a short passing game? I really think that having Koger or Smith leak out into the flat gives Denard or Devin an easy oulet pass.

Vs neb or osu with an out of nowhere bubble screen, we should carry brian off the field on our shoulders.

Do you think Borgess doesn't want to deploy the bubble or talk about it because he is saving it for the osu game?

I REALLY hope he's not saving the bubble screen for the Ohio State game, especially since it's not like it's an incredibly-complex wrinkle to introduce to our offense (given that they ran it last year plenty).

I can't fathom that Borges would keep the bubble screen in the playbook when using it could have slowed down MSU's blitz pressure or helped Michigan move the ball against Iowa (before the final 3 drives). Since I'm assuming that Borges is entering each game using a gameplan he thinks gives Michigan the best chance of winning, I also have to assume that Borges simply does not like to use bubble screens... at least this year.

I really wish Borges would give us a real answer on this one. It baffles me, because he's been flexible elsewhere with playcalling - why would he be willing to run zone reads but not bubble screens? Brian suspects that "it's just not part of the offense", but why not when we've seen just about everything else?

The bubble screen is a ridiculously simple play, we have the perfect guys to run it, and it addresses a fundamental shortcoming of this year's offense: inability to threaten the edges and force defenses to respect our WRs on running downs. That final point is what's most worrying to me. I'd be totally fine with not running the bubble if we had another staple play that served the same purpose - but we don't. As a result, teams can sell out against the run, and we don't punish them for it.

Just think how much easier our short yardage running game would be with the bubble (or an equivalent) as a threat. Sell out against the run on 3rd and 2? BAM bubble screen for 5-10 yards. Respect the bubble on 3rd and 2? BAM Touissant or Denard run for 3.

The real crux was mentioned by Brian - we're running plays from shotgun, but we aren't running a "spread" because we aren't spreading the defense. Running zone reads without a bubble threat is like running power without pulling a guard - you're sacrificing the fundamental advantage of the scheme. It causes the "10 man football" that's been talked about by the coordinators - if one guy isn't perfect, the play is a disaster. Spreading the field would not only yield better results when everything goes right, it would reduce the cost when something goes wrong.

I'm not sure if Borges will use it against NE but he may use it to help the offense to blow out OSU and also in our bowl game.

Here's hoping the offense continues to play well and is able to score more TD's in the redzone!

The way the defense is playing, if the offense ever did get red hot this team would be unstoppable.

To me, its less about that specific play and more about why Borges responded the way he did.  Either he wanted to stop the talk because he is planning on breaking it out sometime, or he was truly insulted by the question.  If he's not planning to ever employ the bubble screen, why be insulted by a question as to why?  Answer the question once and be done with it.  Its the perfect chance to educate the under-educated.  It just seems like a very strange answer which then spawns gossip/more questions.

Just a thought, has Denard demonstrated the ability to make the proper read and throw the bubble with the proper timing & accuracy? IMO he has not mastered tthe zone read play yet let alone the 3rd option(bubble).

Maybe I'm wrong and resident spread experts can correct me, but I've yet to see him(including RR days) really run that staple as effectively as the list of many others we see doing it every saturday. Sometimes it looks to me as if Denard has made up his mind whether to keep or hand off before the snap rather than actually "reading", or does he just make the wrong read alot??

Like I said, I could be wrong, this is not data driven but more a visual observation mostly from watching other teams run similar plays.

1) Can Denard throw it accurately? Play sucks if the ball isn't thrown where WR can catch in stride.

2) Can you block it effectively? Play really sucks if Corner beats #1 and jacks up the WR catching the ball. With cut blocking into the formation now illegal, can make it hard for #1 to make block if Corner slices in on bubble look.

3) Harder to teach than it looks. When run well, it's an excellent play. When run poorly, it looks like garbage. Either it's part of what you do or it's not. Would have to practice it daily, particularly out of multiple defensive looks for blocking purposes.

4) Not a good answer to any man coverage.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but the gist is that there is a lot more good stuff out there on offense and defense than coaches have time to teach effectively.

Did Borges run bubbles at SDSU or Auburn?  If not, then we can probably forget about it.  If so, then we have to wonder if its just something with Denard or the receivers.  

What are the negatives with it?  Small chance of an INT off a tipped pass, a backward pass/fumble?

It seems to me he has been pretty candid about answering all other questions, so I wonder why it hits a hot button?  Maybe there is something going on that he does not want to tell us????

The person who doesn't get his block executed is Schofield (#75).  He's hitting the DT with Lewan (#77), and then scraping off at the WILL, and failing.  And the WILL makes the tackle for a 1 yard gain.  If the WILL doesn't make the tackle, Denard is through one on one with the Deep safety, who may get blocked by Junior.  The Nickleback/Slot LB is taken care of by #33, and the DE that Moore (#89) let through for some reason, seems to be the optioned DE that Denard is reading.  So I think the TE is supposed to let the DE through, the backside Corner is too late to do anything, so he's the unblocked defender where the offense is gaining leverage.  So I don't think Hemingway does anything wrong, since with two RB's back, the Slot LB (who is either the SAM or the Nickelback) will be taken care of, and the DE crashing in has to choose.  Omameh is pulling and takes care of the MIKE.  So from the design of this play I think it still accounts for every defender, PLUS gaining an advantage of extra downfield blocking since Hemingway and the TE Moore are both heading downfield for second level/third level blocking.  IF the strong side guard could just slide off the DT block and get to the WILL, then that's a massive size advantage.  But Illinois apparently has a pretty intelligent WILL, since all the flow of the RB's and QB is to the strong side and he crashes there immediately.  But since he's starting where Omameh starts, you would think that Schofield could still just head straight out to stop a guy 3-4 yards to his right.

I think the schematic analysis should start from a position that assumes Borges is NOT running RR's offense despite the similarities in alignment.  Also maybe there is an option/check down to throwing to Hemingway on a slant route.  What's interesting is that the WR who is on the line of scrimmage ends up making the TE (#89) inelligible since the TE is covered, and the weakside tackle is an eligible receiver in this specific formation.  I think Brian pointed out before that this should tell the defense it's likely a run, since the TE isn't eligible, BUT Hemingway is, since he's lined up behind the line of scrimmage.  So whether you call it a bubble or not, this play would have worked if Schofield got his block, and would have worked for long long yardage for Denard.  Additionally Denard could have thrown to Hemingway, and maybe that is the option that just wasn't called on this specific play since Borges wanted to make sure the defense saw the first option.

In any case, on this play, the highlighted defenders do not make the tackle, and they are not blocked by someone who could have blocked the WILL who did make the tackle.

Also this play demonstrates that Omameh must have learned how to pull because he destroys the MIKE on this play.

EDIT - ok I missed the fact that the weak side CB makes contact with Denard first.  So it's the weakside CB and the WILL who make the tackle.  There is not one for the backside CB, so either this play hopes that everything happens faster than it really does, or it's a poor play formation from the start.  What I'll say about Borges is that it's very likley he understands the Read Option theories, but he does not have the experience with it to coach it at the same level as Rodriguez.  So he is learning Read Option as much as Denard is learning Pro-Style-West Coast.  Where I take comfort is that Borges did describe the Fitz run as a success because the defenders where keying on Denard.  So Borges does get it about Denard and last year, but just does not have the same system experience.

In several of his pressers, Borges has made reference to various plays in his offensive as making other plays possible. Perhaps the bubble does not do that in his system. Or perhaps it is a preparation issue. I ASSume that plays are practiced so that the progression feeds off the previous play. You start with a base and then practice the various extrapolations. Perhaps, in his system, prepping the bubble would be too expensive compared to other choices. 

In listening to him he seems to never consider any play in isolation. It may be that, in and of itself, he has no problem with the bubble, but it doesn't fit with what he is trying to coach this particular team to do.

Borges doesn't really tell us much about how his plays support each other in his system. I would not expect him to comment on whether or not the bubble fits or why. 

I suppose bubble screens are best for QBs who are tall and can see better over wall of defenders.