Picture Pages: He Just Used Power, Part I
"He just used POWER"
–Kirk Herbstreit, every play, every edition of NCAA Football since 2003
Michigan spent half its day with Michael Schofield tucked just inside of a tight-end-ish Taylor Lewan, and ran ran ran ran ran ran ran out of this. Your "tackle over" breakdown:
- PASSES: 2, one incomplete to Chesson, one 30 yard post to Gallon.
- POWER: 11, one each for Green and Gardner, nine for Toussaint. 54 yards acquired, all but one on Toussaint's carries. [Includes playside G pulls.]
- ISO: 3, two for Toussaint, one for Green. Five yards total.
- STRETCH: 4, for 28 yards. Green picks up basically all of his yards on two of these.
- [Excluded are four goal line plays that were all runs; those were a pair of two-yard touchdowns, one successful play that got M from the 4 to the 2, and a zero-yard iso.]
- All told, when Michigan lined up Lewan next to Schofield they acquired 4.8 yards a carry. One the one hand, woo-hoo BFD Minnesota is terrible and that's a mediocre YPC once sacks are put somewhere sensible. On the other hand, woo-hoo, only two TFLs and a screw-you performance against a team dropping eight or nine guys in the box. When Michigan did deign to pass from this, Gallon and Funchess were both open on deep posts and Gallon picked up 30 yards only because Gardner threw the ball behind him; an on target pass may have been a 60-yard touchdown.
- Let's delve. We'll cover three plays eventually, all of them relatively successful but not that successful: Michigan's first two snaps and the 12-yard touchdown that was like "oh, I guess that was easy."
- Michigan's first snap comes from the opponent 35 after a fumble. Michigan comes out in what I dubbed "tackle over I-Form Big H," a set with one WR, two TEs, and two RBs; Butt motions to the usual H-back spot:
Minnesota responds by singling up Gallon and putting everyone else within seven yards of the LOS. Could Michigan have bludgeoned this repeatedly with easy Gardner/Gallon hookups? Yes. They were intent on establishing the run, though.
Power rules, like zone rules, depend on how the defense lines up. Minnesota was mostly an over team in this game, so Lewan would kick and the hole would be between the two OTs. Here they're shifted under, so Lewan will block down, Butt will kick, and Michigan will shoot the pulling G and fullback into that gap between the two.
This all goes just fine. By the next frame you can see that both Schofield and Lewan have easy control of their end, Bryant is coming down the line, and a gap will develop.
By the time Toussaint gets the handoff, the gap is truly massive. The playside end has been clubbed inside to the hash, with Lewan popping off on a linebacker. Meanwhile the SAM is three yards upfield, 2/3rds of the way to the numbers.
Part of this is bad play. Ace pointed out in the Minnesota FFFF that Minnesota's ends tended to get way upfield, and that was the case in this one. (It's a SAM, but same thing. End man on the LOS.) The gaps the Gophers were trying to shut down were difficult for them to do so.
Also bad play: Minnesota's #9, who should be reading power all the way and attempts to shoot a gap upfield and to the inside of the POA. If it's third and one, okay maybe you make a play and boot the opponent off the field. On first and ten this is asking to get a huge play on your face.
So now Michigan has two guys plunging through a large gap with one linebacker showing because #9 is exiting the play on his own recognizance. That leaves an extra guy for the overhanging safety, right?
Note gap even larger now.
Uh… no. Bryant hits the guy Lewan has already blocked.
That guy tackles, but not before Toussaint picks up six yards.
Video
Slow:
Items of Interest
He used power just like he would have in any other situation. Over the last few days I've scoured the internet for anything it has to tell me about unbalanced lines, and found that when it's in use it's either 1) a package designed to futz with alignment keys as teams try to find a tight end and locate him in an unexpected position, or 2) Stanford HAM.
Naming your 7 OL package after notorious steroid case: Stanford football.
Stanford's stuff endeavors to screw with your brain by putting four guys to one side of the center, which conventional defenses don't have a great answer for. It's something you have to prepare for. There's not much to prepare for here, at least in terms of "we haven't seen this before."
Here Michigan was confronted with…
FACT: our tight ends can't block
FACT: our tackles are the only upperclass OL we have and they're both pretty sweet
FACT: manball
FACT: especially after inserting Chris Bryant
…so they just swapped Lewan and AJ Williams and ran normal power out of normal power sets. There is absolutely nothing about this play that would be any different if Michigan ran it from a normal line, except that AJ Williams is a lot less likely to execute his assignment with this authority.
Michael Schofield was a revelation in this game. Traditionally he has been the least-involved Michigan OL in the run game charting because that stuff doesn't bother with "hinge" blocks on the backside of power, which are executed literally 99% of the time by anyone—say, nice place to stash a TE—or blocks on the backside of stretch plays that are tough to evaluate without a cutback and often patently unfair to expect the backside T to execute. Schofield's gotten a lot of those because Michigan runs towards Lewan, a lot. Surprise.
That said, Schofield has always been regarded as more of a finesse player by everyone including his offensive line coach. He has never consistently moved guys off the ball. In this game, he did. Minnesota isn't good, sure. It's still going to be a record positive day for him.
The art of the kickout. Kickout blocks get relatively short shrift from me in UFR charting because they are by their nature a compromise between offense and defense. The defense says "I'll stay out here so the play turns back inside," and the offense says "I will push you a bit and make sure you stay out there."
Here Butt and the SAM compromise in a way very detrimental to Minnesota's chances, but that's mostly on the SAM. If he sets up better, Butt walls him off and the hole is narrower. He rarely has to actually deal with the guy trying to beat him, because if that guy succeeds he may have just given up the corner.
Minnesota saw this and was like NOOOOPE. This is almost the only under front the Gophers ran all game. After this play, Minnesota shifted their line towards Lewan, which meant that Lewan would kick the DE. This started a parade of plus-half-points for him as he shoved guys to create large holes, but did remove him from the kind of facecrushing blocks he executed on this play. This under front gives Lewan a hard-ish job he does really well; the over gives Lewan an easy job he does really well, shifting the hard-ish bits to other players.
Identifying guys to block: issue. Neither Kalis nor Bryant was particularly good at figuring out what they're supposed to do when they reach the hole. (This is at least better than the situation last year, which was "OL cannot reach hole.") Here Michigan has an opportunity to bust a big play because one of the Minnesota linebackers goes under a block and eliminates himself; Bryant can go all the way to the safety, whereupon Toussaint probably scores a touchdown. Instead he doubles a guy that Lewan is blocking, which… cumong man. Of all the people to block a second time you pick the one Taylor Lewan has.
As discussed previously, that's one error that costs Michigan 30 yards.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
Man I was waiting for you to show up in this thread and prove I am not crazy.. We disagree on what the safety did to their assigments, but we agree what the original assigment was and that Schofield could have handled the slant much better.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
Schofield/Lewan could be wrong, or Bryant could be wrong. What was done later doesn't necessarily tell me who it is. We are in agreement on the original assignments, and I'll try to convince why it's impossible here to tell who is actually wrong on this play (though it's obviously one of those I named).
I talked about the adjustment to a walk down safety. With the position of the safety, the typical adjustment might be the one they made. Up in the box or Funk or someone else could then have noted that the safety isn't playing down hill like a filling LB, but is instead playing soft like a safety that still has safety responsibilities but is in a box. So then the coaches said, "Alright, let's not treat him like a LB if he isn't going to play like a LB" and so they made the adjustment to block the WILL.
We're in agreement on the assignment nominally and on what the adjustment is if indeed the safety is walked down. What we don't know is when they tell their OL to make this adjustment, whether that walk down safety was in a grey area, or what. What is known, is later they either adjusted to the safety play or corrected the assignment.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
Originally I thought you meant the weak safety because he actually is in the box. Thats why I said he was a non factor. That safety on the strong side I did not consider changing the assignment but I can see where he would. I would think they would change it once that guy hurt them but this was the first play of the game. But yes if they counted him, then the MIKE becomes the WILL. If thats the case Lewan and Schofield were on a seperate page than Bryant.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
Many of the posts above express the view that a blocking assignment was missed, ultimately resulting in an unblocked tackler that Fitz needs to make miss. Other posts, if you follow them to their logical conclusion, express the view that the unblocked tackler is unblocked by design, again resulting in a situation where we would love to have Fitz to make that guy miss. Whether by error or by design, Fitz is shown here facing a single unblocked tackler that we would love to see him make miss. He doesn't. Just sayin'.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^
I love reading these kind of debates. No one made any accusations at Brian nor chided a player for being an idiot. Constructive criticism is possible!
October 9th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^
October 9th, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^
Wow, this might be the most informative thread. Thanks to all who discussed the play. It helps people like me that don't know anything about blocking schemes.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
A little late to the party, but on a normal Power play, the Tight End kicks out the end man on the LOS, Tackle and Guard double and work to 2nd level backside, Center down-blocks the next first level defender, backside Guard pulls and backside Tackle seals inside.
On this play, Butt still functions as the TE by kicking out and Lewan still functions as the Tackle by downblocking even though he's lined up in a Tight End position, so wouldn't Glasgow be the pulling "Guard" in this alignment? Bryant is essentially functioning as a pulling Tackle.
So in this case the box safety would indeed function as the MIKE and the MIKE would function as the WILL. This leads me to believe that Bryant was wrong and should have picked up the safety in the box, and Glasgow should have accounted for #9, being that he's an extra down-blocker where the Guard would usually pull. Williams also steps to seal the backside 3-tech inside, which would be the normal responsibility of the player just outside the puller (normally the backside Tackle). Given it's a bit harder than a standard seal block on a man outside of him, but being tasked with sealing a man inside of him isn't unheard of by any means. Glasgow would also have a relatively easy angle to take the WILL in this scenario.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^
He functions as a lead blocker, or the FB normally would, not as a TE. So his responsibility is similar to what a FB's normally would be: to kick out the EMOL. That's the way they played it all day so that's how they are functioning from this formation.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
When I said TE, I was referring to the lead blocker, not exclusively the TE that kicks out the EMOL. Normally on Power the next 3 players inside the kick-put block down block, with the backside 2nd level in mind for the Guard and Tackle. But on this version, 4 players down block inside the kick-out.
As it's shown on the second Picture Pages, Lewan functions as the kick-out block, with only 3 down blocks behind him, which is normal Power with Lewan functioning as the kick-out. This play is different, as an extra down blocker is employed.
October 9th, 2013 at 4:21 PM ^
The second picture pages is a common Power O adjustment to having two players stacked or outside the EMOL. The offensive EMOL will kick out the DE and the first lead blocker with play through the hole to the OLB.
On this play, it's a fairly normal Power blocking scheme. The second one is the adjustment.
October 9th, 2013 at 5:53 PM ^
I guess I'm not making my observation overtly clear.
Butt is the kick-out man and Kerridge is the lead blocker on the OLB, there isn't any dispute there.
What I'm saying is that Lewan is functioning literally as a TE. The debate in this thread has been about Lewan and Schofield's double. The Guard and Tackle double to the WILL, not the Tackle and TE. So Schofield and Kalis should be responsible for the playside DT and WILL, but due to the nature of the unbalanced set Minnesota aligns so that they're both covered with the corner up at the LOS. So since they both block the players over them, Glasgow must be responsible for the WILL. Lewan helps Schofield on his way to the MIKE (or Schofield takes the MIKE if the MIKE cuts underneath for whatever terrible reason he might do that). This would leave the box safety for Bryant.
In another sense, which two players can the offense not account for with the QB and RB? In this case it's the backside DE and #21 on the backside.
October 9th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^
On a normal power play in the gap scheme the TE is either going to go straight to the MIKE if the tackle is uncovered. And then the tackle and guard combo to the will. If the tackle is covered he will combo with the tackle to the will. The EMLOS is kicked by an Hback or fullback. An adjustment to the power play is to have the TE stay on the EMLOS and have the normal kickout guy come underneath him and get the sam. Usually the you do this with the H on the strongside offset from the TE. I've never seen an adjustment that makes the center pull. Not in a gap scheme power play. Not saying someone couldn't do that.
October 9th, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
I've never seen that against this kind of front where the TE would be responsible for the WILL when the Tackle is covered. This defensive alignment is essentially a 50 front shifted to the unbalance: in that alignment the Center and Guard are responsible for the Nose and WILL, and since the Nose is shaded inside the Guard, the Center can release straight to the WILL.
October 9th, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^
Trey block - when the tackle is covered (50, 34, Under) the T and TE combo block together on the END to the WILL. Its not the TE that has the WILL, its one of the two. The guard would block down on the nose and the center would work back to the backside dlineman until he "breaks glass", meaning whatever is running thru there. If that backside 4tech in a 34 slants playside, you need the center there. So you can't combo the nose with the guard and center. Its a straight angle block for the guard.
Duece block - guard is covered (43 base, 43 over). The TE works straight to the MLB. The T and G combo the 3tech to the WILL. Center blocks back on the 1tech.
October 9th, 2013 at 6:29 PM ^
Well I guess bottom line me and you run Power differently.
The teams I've been involved with have always had the Center and Playside Guard double to WILL against 50 fronts, with the Tackle and TE (if any) double to the MIKE and have the pulling guard take on the playside safety, or if we don't use a TE he takes the MIKE, leaving the OLB for the kick-out man. We've always had the backside Tackle account for the 4/5 tech backside, we only need them to slow them down a little and that player doesn't make the play. We leave the backside OLB on the LOS unblocked, he's a non-factor.
On this particular play I believe that is the case, since I'm more prone to believe that our 5th year Senior future-draft pick tackles are less prone to biff an assignment against an unusual front like this than 2 1st year starting players, as Glasgow and Bryant did in my opinion.
My question for you is if the TE and Tackle account for the man on the Tackle and the WILL, who accounts for the box safety in that scheme?
October 9th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
After rereading a bit of the previous conversation, I think the confusion boils down to me agreeing with Space Coyote in that the playside safety walked down into the box changes the play so that he's the MIKE. So in your terms, I view the play as Lewan and Schofield are blocking the NEW WILL, so it's true to how you explained Power.
With this in mind, I believe Lewan and Schofield were correct in having Lewan peel off to the player functioning as the WILL, but Bryant didn't get the adjustment and blocked who he thought was the MIKE.
My only point of contention is that Glasgow should pick up #9, in that #9 still has linebacker responsibility and could (did) go unblocked after reading pull from Bryant.
October 9th, 2013 at 9:07 PM ^
October 9th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
if Toussaint gets six on this play, why is the next play 2nd and 6?
October 10th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
Yea, the last frame where Fitz has met his tackler, he's at 3 yards, falling forward gets him to more like 4-4.5 yards. (I was wondering in the last frame how Fitz would have stumbled to get the extra 3 yards.)
There...I've contributed* to this thread. This awesome, fudging thread.
*Contribute = brought nothing
October 10th, 2013 at 9:02 AM ^
Comments