Picture Pages: Iso Adaptation Comment Count

Brian

21369895655_7177e1b6ae_z

[Bryan Fuller]

You're going to have to bear with me on the offensive UFRs this year. The last time I saw a traditional gap-blocked, regular-ol-QB offense for anything more than a one-game debacle was ten years ago. That was the first year I did UFR and most running plays of that sort were deemed "another wad of bodies" because I didn't know what I was looking at. Since then:

  • Two years of Debord running almost nothing but outside zone
  • Three years of Rodriguez running inside and outside zone with a little power frippery
  • Two years of Hoke trying to shoehorn Denard Robinson into a pro-style offense, giving up, and running a low-rent spread offense
  • Al Borges's Cheesecake Factory offense that ran everything terribly
  • Doug Nussmeier's inside zone-based offense.

I've seen plenty of power plays. Most of them were constraints that could  be run simply and still succeed because the offense's backbone was something else. The rest were so miserably executed that they offered no knowledge about what power is actually supposed to look like. I watched a bunch of Stanford but not in the kind of detail I get down to with the UFRs.

fbz3gg1_thumb[1]One thing that I am pretty sure I think is that the popular conception of power as a decision-free zone in which moving guys off the ball gets you yards is incomplete. Defenses will show you a front pre-snap. You will make blocking decisions based on that front. Then the defense will blitz and slant to foul your decisions and remove the gap you want to hit. If you do not adjust to what is happening in front of you then you run into bodies and everyone is sad.

What Stanford was great at was running power that was executed so consistently well that it was largely impervious to all the games defenses played. This requires linemen who are downblocking to think on their feet, maintain their balance, and stay attached to guys who may be going in directions they were not expected to. It requires everyone off the line of scrimmage (tailback, fullback, pulling G) to see what's in front of them and adjust accordingly.

Michigan did a bad job of this against Utah. They also got blown backwards too much, complicating decisions for the backfield. The latter was not a problem against a much weaker Oregon State outfit. The former was much better, and that's the most encouraging thing to take from this game.

Here's an example. It's a six yard run in the first quarter on which Oregon State sends a blitz that Michigan recognizes and thwarts. There's no puller on this play; I think it was intended to be a weakside iso that ends up looking not very much like iso because Michigan adjusts post-snap.

M comes out in an I-Form twins formation; Oregon state is in a 4-3 that shifts away from the run strength of Michigan's formation. They are also walking a DB to the line of scrimmage:

wiso-1

By the time Michigan snaps the ball this DB is hanging out in a zone with no eligible receiver while both WRs get guys who look to be in man coverage. This is not disguised well unless the highlighted player is Jabrill Peppers and can teleport places after the snap:

wiso-2

He's going to blitz and the DL is going to slant to the run strength of the line. Michigan will pick this up, and I wonder if they IDed the likelihood of this pre-snap. No way to tell, obviously.

On the snap both the FB and RB start to the weak side of the formation; you can see Erik Magnuson start to set up as if he is going to execute a kickout block on the defensive end:

wiso-3wiso-4

With the blitz and slant from the Oregon DL that's not going to happen. Each Oregon State DL has popped into a gap. Kerridge is taking a flight path to the gap that would normally open between Magnuson and Kalis, the right guard, on a play without this blitz. Without the blitz the DE would be the force player tasked with keeping the play inside of him; Magnuson would have a relatively easy job as he and the DE mutually agreed on where he should go.

Here the DE threatens the play's intended gap. Magnuson can't do anything about that. The D mostly gets to choose what gap they go in, and it's up to the offense to roll with the punches.

Michigan does this:

wiso-5

A moment later Magnuson has changed his tack from attempted kickout to an attempt to laterally displace the DE using his own momentum. Kerridge has abandoned the idea of hitting the weakside B gap and is flaring out for the blitzer.

Thunk:

wiso-7

Now, this could be successful for Oregon State still. The slant got five Michigan OL to block four guys. Nobody got downfield; the slant got a 2 for 1. But their MLB has stood stock still for much of this play, and Magnuson ends up shoving his dude past the hash mark—+1, sir. This is a ton of space to shut down, and De'Veon Smith is the kind of back that can plow through you for YAC.

wiso-8

Smith fends off the linebacker with a stiffarm and starts gaining yardage outside; it could be a good deal more but Chesson misses a cut* and the DB forces it back, creating a big ol' pile:

wiso-9

Second and four sounds a lot better than second and eleven.

*[Drake Harris will later pick up a 15-yard penalty for a similar, but more successful cut block; the genesis of that flag is probably Gary Andersen doing some screaming at the official after this play.]

Video

Slow:

Items of interest

You don't get to pick the gap even if it's gap blocking. Defenses slant constantly, and often in a specific effort to foul the intended hole and pop the back out into a place where an unblocked guy can hit. Post-snap adaptation is a must for a well-oiled power running game.

Slants win if they suck away an extra blocker. I would be peeved at the MLB if I was Oregon State UFR guy. While Michigan adapts to the slant well enough to provide a crease for Smith, the blitz means Michigan had to spend a blocker on the defensive back and the MLB is a free hitter. He should be moving to this more quickly than he does.

Slants also tend to open up giant running gaps. Adjustments like the above will often lead to a defender running in one direction suddenly getting unwanted help from an OL. If the OL can redirect and latch on just about everyone is going for a ride here. Once Magnuson locks on and Kerridge targets the DB these are two blocks that are easy to win and Smith is going to have a truck lane.

Given how much space Smith has even a linebacker playing this aggressively who shows up in the gap might lose or get his tackle run through; Michigan's getting yards here, whether it's three or six or more if Chesson gets a good block.

In the past this site has seen arguments about whether meeting an unblocked safety at or near the line of scrimmage is a win for the offense or the defense. I have largely come down on the side of "that absolutely sucks," but when the hole is so big that the defender is attempting to make an open-field tackle it's a lot more appealing.

Michigan WRs need to be more careful with the cut blocks. You can cut a guy from the "front," by which the NCAA means the area from 10 to 2 on a clock. (Seriously, that's the way it's defined in the rulebook.) This was very close to a flag, and Michigan got one later.

I wish Michigan was running pop passes, as those are good ways to get defensive backs hesitant about running hard after plays like this. Maybe in a bit.

Comments

MGoOhNo

September 15th, 2015 at 7:49 PM ^

Cheesecake factory does what cheesecake factory does EXTEMELY WELL!!! You don't get chicken parm at CF expecting Mani oseteria. You don't get shrimp and bacon club at CF expecting Frita Banditos. You don't get pizza at CF expecting Domino's (your secret guilty pleasure). You go to CF because it's CF. Stop drinking the Haterade.

Mgobowl

September 15th, 2015 at 7:54 PM ^

Could Magnuson have passed off the DE to Kalis and then taken on the MLB? I'm not sure if that's a possibiltiy within the scheme, but could have netted even more yardage. 

tolmichfan

September 15th, 2015 at 8:46 PM ^

Since it is an ISO I doubt they could pass the end off. Remember the gap is supposed to be between the guard and tackle. In a perfect world the Kali's and Mags should have thier butts turned into the hole, FB should be hitting the LB and smith should be cutting off that block. If the end is running upfield on the outside shoulder of mags, he could run both the end and the blitzer upfield, and allow the FB to get on the LB. Brian did a great job of explaining what happened, remember it's easier to use someone's momentum to move them.

Mgobowl

September 15th, 2015 at 10:44 PM ^

Right, so if the DE has his left shoulder inside Mags, could Mags have given an extra push further down the line using the DE's momentum to run him out of the play? Or is the ISO playcall dictating that he latch onto his man (the DE) and ride him until the play is over? 

I think Brian's point was that power is not as rigid as most people think and players still need to think on their feet after the ball is snapped. 

Admittedly specific schemes are not something I'm terribly knowledgeable about. 

 

Space Coyote

September 15th, 2015 at 10:07 PM ^

I'd argue this is actually Lead Inside Zone to the weakside of the formation rather than Iso,  but I could be wrong there; in essense they work the same here against this D alignment and in most cases, so it doesn't really matter.

My argument would be based on Magnuson's footwork (and that of the rest of the OL). Each OL laterally steps right parallel to the LOS. On an Iso play, I'd like to see Magnuson step directly at the DE so he can plant his head on the inside of his breast plate immediately, and I'd like to see the other OL step directly to their targets rather than step laterally (but again, they may be zoning off the playside anyway). It's the difference between a down block (gap block) and a zone block, the former steps directly to the target so it can quickly turn the target (follow the butts) while the latter initially blocks square and lets the defender dictate which way the OL blocks. May not matter here with the slant on though.

With the defenses alignment, Iso is very difficult to block without zoning it (3 DL to the weakside). So it may, in fact, be a called Iso that they zoned off. Either way though, Brian is correct in how the offense must adjust on the fly to slants/stunts (and how Glasgow/Kalis should have adjusted better, when the guy outside of Kalis slanted inside he should have given a shove, passed off the Kalis, and moved onto the MIKE; FB always blocks WILL here, which is the LB outside the DE in this case) in a gap scheme. Pointing out the Kerridge block is great, it's a very nice adjustment on the fly, something he wasn't doing a couple years ago and has obviously greatly improved (he even got to the right side of the defender, taking him completely out of the play even though he "whiffed" the block, which is why you block to particular targets on defenders).

By the way, bottom left is similar play, though it's missing a defender in the playside B gap, which is why it's so difficult to block Iso here. But it's a walk-up WILL, the harder he charges the lower the FB blocks (and here he cuts):

nb

September 16th, 2015 at 1:31 AM ^

Great description and replay! You can tell it is man blocking because of the down blocks on the play side. If it were zone you would see the offensive line with higher hats stepping towards the play. That said, I agree it is not power. Power usually implies a pulling blocker bringing more linemen to the point of attack. In power, instead of the backside guard combo blocking with the center to get the backside linebacker, the lineman pulls and blocks the linebacker through the hole.

This play is an ISO on the 6/7 technique. I like this play because the fullback doesn't clog the hole like typical ISO, it's a kick out on the end. Good outside linebackers/DE will either close down on C gap to the fullback to maintain outside cage leverage or if they are getting blown back they will wrong arm that ISO blocker to crash the hole with a head in the C gap. This requires the 6/7 technique get D gap help from the alley player (likely safety). Finally, this MLB blew this play. he needs fill C gap aggressively downhill. He was completely unblocked and didn't make contact until D Smith had 3 yards and a head of steam. OSU/ MSU linebackers will fill harder, and Deveon will need to make him miss or run him over.

BrotherMouzone

September 16th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^

I love the breakdowns of these plays, and you do a nice job of understanding the roles of the offensive players and how they need to adjust. My only request is that you use more football appropriatye terminology, lets raise the standard even higher! You know, 21 personnel, hole numbers on offense instead of "gaps" which are usually just refered to on defense, shades, techniques, allignments. You should go watch some film with AA Pioneer coaches and add these things to your posts...

GoBucks11

September 16th, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^

Michigan could be in trouble when they play against more competent LBs. Evident here and against Utah. Here against Oregon State, the LBs (especially that number 8) had plenty of time to get to the hole, fill, and stop many of Michigan's runs at or before the line of scrimmage. Instead of coming downhill, 8 moves over to the hole and stands off the line of scrimmage by as much as three yards. If any of you have played LB, you know you are going to get chewed out later for standing stock still in hole instead of filling it. Utah's LBs knew this and did well to stuff the play at the line. I think when Michigan goes up against the meat of the Big Ten schedule, it could be disasterous if they can't get their lineman up to the second level to block those LBs. The only Big Ten games I see Michigan's power and iso being effective are against Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana. Otherwise, I think getting yards on the ground might be difficult to find.