and start whacking some hind end.
Estimates are approximate. Michigan's spent maybe half of their snaps in the shotgun/pistol on running downs this year, running about five things: jet sweeps to Norfleet, QB draws, speed option, the inverted veer, and a kind of alternate to the inside zone called "belly" that Rich Rodriguez was fond of during his brief spell in Ann Arbor.
Oddly, Michigan hardly runs anything like a base play from the shotgun. They don't run the stretch, they don't run any iso or power type plays. There is a faint smattering of inside zone, but that's it, and that's not anywhere near established. In their first three games of the year I've got them down for three inside zone runs from pistol or shotgun; they went for a total of three yards. Nobody's cheating to a base run play against Michigan.
This allows opponents to tee off on the things Michigan is kind of good at. More importantly, it often seems like they're going up against opponents who are better drilled at defending modern offensive concepts than Michigan is at running them. Here's an example:
Michigan's in the pistol with Kerridge as a fullback, Williams the tight end, and both WRs to the field. It's first and ten. UConn responds by shifting their line to the strength (an "over" front) and aligning their linebackers about evenly with a safety rolled up over Williams.
Michigan wants to read the end to the bottom of the screen. That will allow Michigan to blast the playside end off the ball with a sustained double; Williams will head for the safety as Kerridge deals with the playside linebacker. If the end crashes, Gardner pulls. If he contains, Gardner keeps.
Snap. You can see Williams release, Lewan and Glasgow begin to bash the playside end off the line, and the frontside UConn LBs react to gaps that may need to be filled.
Gardner is now considering the end, who does what ends are supposed to do these days: try to split the difference so that they can be useful on a handoff and still contain the QB. Gardner's trying to figure out what to do about this:
(Note that Lewan and Glasgow are battering their guy inside effectively.)
Now, I think that's a pull. I gave Gardner a minus for that, because I want Gardner to test the edge against a defensive end who's standing at the LOS. But it's a gray area for the quarterback. The end is neither flat-out containing or crashing down; this is a situation in which errors are common.
At the decision point, Gardner gives. Kerridge is staring down two defenders, doesn't know which one to deal with, doesn't really deal with either but it doesn't matter because whoever he does in fact block is just going to funnel to his buddy.
Poor Damn Toussaint, 2013 edition.
That's a loss of two yards.
Remember the wheel route from the Notre Dame game? That's the opposite of this. Borges saw the wheel open, gave it a try once, and then pulled it out in a similar situation later for a big gain. Here Michigan just abandons these runs. How is this a similar situation? Like ND, UConn is playing this play in a certain way. If they play it in the same way again, you can alter what you're doing to bust it open. But Michigan hasn't done this, and so rarely does things that are misdirection that twitter blows up about it when they get five yards on it.
Arc, arc, arc, arc. Nebraska demonstrated the tweak against Michigan a couple years back on an almost identical play. Michigan shuffled Jibreel Black down, planning to contain with Kovacs on the outside. The fullback approached the end, and then…
Black could not recover in time to get out on Martinez, Kovacs got a guy in his face, and Nebraska ripped off a 23-yard gain.
Here it's a little different because the end does have contain on Gardner, but if Michigan pokes at that belly play again they can do something similar. Instead of having a true read it's a designated Gardner keeper on which Kerridge's job is to get outside and block whoever that contain guy happens to be, Michigan can burn the shuffle.
This is a paragraph of disclaimers and explanations. That's my thought process when I see things like that on the zone read, because that was Rodriguez's thought process. He probably forced defenses to create the shuffle a few years back when he started blocking backside ends trying to crash down and shooting Carlos Brown or Brandon Minor through the gaping hole scraping linebackers would leave. That burned scrape exchanges hard for a while, and then the cat and mouse game moved on.
Michigan is deficient at cat and mouse in the run game. I'm not trying to suggest that Michigan has to be a spread option team for their offense to work better; I am pointing this out because it remains my wheelhouse and it's a good example of the things Michigan doesn't do because they are a jack-of-all-trades offense that doesn't see how a defense is responding and do something to break it. Because to do that Nebraska thing above your fullback has to rep it and sell it, etc. It takes practice time.
Michigan's not thinking the zone game well at either the field level or the box level because they're not committed to it, and that extends to everything from stretch to power to iso.
Also maybe chalk that up as a missed read for Gardner. Because Michigan doesn't rep it consistently enough? I don't know. Has to be a consideration.
In other sad runs Michigan got out-schemed on. UConn was sending guys off the corner with frequency, but Michigan did not recognize it despite UConn tipping it hard. This inverted veer featured the dead giveaway of a safety moving down to line up directly over a wide receiver:
And on this one, how would you describe the playside corner's presnap technique? Is "right angle to wide receiver" a thing?
Michigan just gets lined up with 14 or so seconds on the clock and thus doesn't have much time to recognize what the defense is doing and adjust, like you saw Notre Dame and Akron do to Michigan's detriment several times. They're just eating bad playcalls. That's a natural consequence of spending 25 seconds in a huddle and not recognizing that one of the most common responses to spread stuff is to send extra guys off the edge.
None of this has anything to do with the offensive line. These are two TFLs and one miraculous Gardner escape wiped out by a Funchess holding call (which, BTW, ugh) on which the offensive line plays no part. The problems go deeper than their issues, which we'll get to later. This is Borges and to some extent Gardner—I don't know if he's got checks here—getting beat by the defensive coordinator. They got some back with the speed option, FWIW.
Who's up for a tedious 150 comment thread questioning whether it's worthwhile to read this? I certainly am! I hope there are content-free arguments. Let's make sure to ignore Ka'Deem Carey's 2000 yards last year when we're incensed at the idea Rich Rodriguez might be able to coach a run game.
and start whacking some hind end.
Count me among the hordes of the overly optimistic after the ND game. I thought Devin had magically become capable of running the offense after a handful of starts at QB.
I just watched the Monday Night Football pre game fluff on Peyton Manning, however, and was reminded once again of why he is so spectacularly good at what he does: he is a master of the X's and O's and can read the defense like an open book.
However athletically gifted Gardner is, he clearly still needs time to a) gain a higher level of understanding about how to read a defense generally and b) figure that out in the specific context of Borges' philosophy. Frankly, after watching the Manning stuff and hearing Steve Young say it takes a NFL QB 4 to 5 years to figure it out, I am amazed that college QBs ever look very good.
Here's to hoping that Gardner is learning faster than it looks like he's learning right now (and oh, yeah, to our OL getting better fast too).
Devin never looked as bad as in his third and fourth start this year. Surprisingly, in both cases, we scored on our opening drives and then everything thereafter, except for some good defensives stops, goes to shit. I think, I hope, I pray much of it has to do with this inexperienced OL, and if so, get out of the huddle, go without a huddle and thrown passes needing two seconds of protection to mitigate his chances of the only escape route he knows, going backward. We must be getting our pocket completely crushed which makes little sense inasmuch as some rushers have to rush outside just to keep contain which should lead to the abilitity to step up and through lanes where lbers are not blitzing. Gholson was a master at this in only his RS freshman year. My guess is the qb guru he spent time with taubht him this. I think he was able to get away with this move in h.s. due to his size and limited number of D1 talent he faced on opposing defenses. Kid is super athletic, but his escape routes should be varied if Al wants him to throw from pocket inside of utilizing sprint outs where there's a hell of a lot more land. He never utilized Denard in this manner either, and that is something he'll never be able to explain away.
Is it possible that for our offensive philosphy we are not getting adequate defensive looks/formations in our practices to work against?
In the first play shown, why isn't the always FB coached to block the outside guy of the two? I mean at least in this instance if he takes the outside defender then the inside guy either has to take the time to run around the two bodies in his way, run through them, or head back up field. All options lead to him not making the tackle behind the LOS. Even if taking the outside defender only nets a two yard gain, that's way better than a TFL.
I think Brian has the play design wrong. I believe Kerridge is supposed to the LB (which he does after chipping the DE) and allow for Fitz to get up the middle. Fitz runs toward the middle, then stops and cuts outside.
I think this play is well-executed by everyone not named Fitzgerald.
I've watched dozens of plays like this and all I can tell you is that when the LT and LG double and drive the playside end to the inside like that, it's not a straight inside zone. Believe me or don't.
You wouldn't leave the playside DE unblocked on inside zone. And the FB doesn't kick the playside DE on inside zone. If it was inside zone, the FB would block the backside DE. If they think it's inside zone to the FB side, then the handoff wouldn't be to the strong side of the formation.
It's "veer option" out of the pistol, or "belly option" as Brian has stated. He has the play and the blocking absolutely correct.
Shouldn't the FB have taken the outside the guy and made the LB go around him?
Oblivious point is obvious, but actually blocking someone would have been better than what he did.
Obviously, it's always better when your FB actually blocks someone than do nothing. You never want to see even the slightest hesitation from a FB. But his job is to take the LB, and that's who he's trying to get to.
So, is it just up to Devin to pull and out race the DE to the corner or is Fitrz suppose to take him (assuming a pull)? The DE seems to be doing a good job on staying in a position to take both Fitz and Devin.
(I do appreciate the info.)
But Devin has the job to pull here and try to beat the DE around the corner. The DE is really in an "inbetween" position in as much that he can easily crash down on the RB but has to open his hips and get outside to either funnel DG to the sideline or to force him back inside, which is much more difficult.
More likely, he is playing inbetween, but will take a second to read the play, meaning by the time he reads it Fitz can reduce the gap between them and at least use his momentum to try to seal him inside with his body.
Anyway, the play is on DG, but Fitz can certainly help DG to a great extent by selling the run fake and then occupying the LB.
Let's get on the same page:
I think Pruitt (#56) does a good job of staying in no-man's-land and making this read difficult. I absolutely believe Fitz should be running inside of him if he gets the ball. DG is clearly looking to run outside of him.
I'm not positive the give was the right move by DG. It looks like the right choice to me (I think 56 stays home and gets to DG if he keeps). I don't think Fitz would have blocked Pruitt if he didn't get the ball, since he's supposed to run inside of him.
My point is simply that Fitz should run inside of the DE on this play, and he didn't. I believe that cost us yardage.
I hope that when I wake up tomorrow morning the date is October 5th.
From paragraph five:
If the end crashes, Gardner pulls. If he contains, Gardner keeps.
Yeah, reading that previous mailbag thread where a bunch of passive-aggressive clowns took their criticisms of Brian to the next level, I just LOLed.
Look. we get it. Sometimes Brian questioning of the coaches goes down the wrong way. But I wholeheartedly agreed with the fact that, if RR had one mad skill, it was tweaking a run game to continously rack up big yards. You know, Denard and the whole "NCAA all time single season record for QB rush yards" thing. RR had a lot of flaws, but gaining offensive yards was not one of them.
On the inverted veer with the safety moving down the line... watch Kalis pull and run in between(!) two UConn defenders. I know there are pulling rules and he's likely been coached to leave the first person who crosses his face (assume he's being optioned away), but this just looks so wrong. In my head I thought there was a FB in that formation, but there's not - Kalis needs to realize someone needs to be hit there.
Gardner doesn't care, makes both miss and picks up the first. Funchess hold.
DG can still be great.
I'm in favor. Tastes great, less filling. Here you go:
are we performing badly because we are between two systems, trying to play both? And (if so, considering that it's the ultimate goal) doesn't continuing to try to run the ball make sense even if it often fails, especially against lesser squads?
If the answer to the second question is yes, then you have to accept that the games were going to be much tighter than necessary but possibly--long run--worth it.
If the answer to the second question is yes and this is also Borges and Hoke's rationale, then you must come to the conclusion that they're not idiots, but playing the cards they've been dealt in a rational, if not always effective, manner. That would be my sense of this issue. We can't judge Borges yet.
As one of the people that probably tries to counter Brian's analysis on things, his set up is absolutely correct. He is calling out the play and the blocking correct, none of that is wrong. I disagree on some of the conclusion. I think the play is fine despite going into an 8 man front when typically it will see a 7 man front. But the play would still work if DG keeps.
On top of that, the counter for this shouldn't be to switch up a blocking scheme. The counter should be giving run action and having Gardner hit some receivers, like when they ran the pop pass near the end zone but Gardner missed it because his footwork went to crap. Borges did set this play up and did counter it with that, DG missed it though.
But for whatever reason I can't edit (and not just because I responded to it, I couldn't before), and no one has responded. I can edit other posts, but can't on this one. Never seen that happen.
Anyone, one mistake in it
*As one of the people that probably tries to counter Brian's analysis on things the most often, his set up here is absolutely correct.
Also, and this should probably be written in all caps, but seriously, can we not have the Rich Rod debate again. Can we just not bring him up and have to listen to people proclaim his greatest and people exaggerate his flaws or the bad things that happened to the program. Hoke isn't on the hot seat and shouldn't be. Neither is Borges nor should he be. Rich Rod was a good offensive coach. His teams didn't perform to Michigan's standards. We've moved on, it's done. Let's drop it instead of rehashing the whole thing to the googolplex power. It's so damn annoying.
That's right, I decided to bold it.
To Brian's point, it does at times feel like our offense is trying to do too many things all at the same time and floundering because of it. Devin and the young line are both having a tough time making even obvious adjustments and it's possible that's because they're a little overwhelmed by the size of the playbook instead of being comfortable having a simpler base offense to run out of.
RR's Michigan offense had what, about 6 running plays? Part of what made (and makes) his system effective is that the guys drill the same damn play over and over again. This is college - the kids have a finite amount of time to practice, and getting the reads right against all the things a defense can throw at you is really difficult. I'm sure Gardner's doing his best, but if he's not keeping when he should, or the line isn't blocking quite right, or if Toussant isn't sprinting to the hole, then the play blows up. We can call that a failure to execute - this whole thread highlights key issues, but it looks to me like a failure to identify the kind of run game the team is going to commit to and then practice the hell out of it.
I rarely see checkdowns by Devin, and when he does, it's always to a run play. Borges NEEDS to be able to check down and adapt to defense like every single opponent has done to our defense this year. So archaic.
Check down is a pass, typically to a RB, as a third or fourth read in a pass progression.
Audible is switching plays completely. Checks are switching something within the design of the play or doing something within the scope of the offense while not switching the playcall (like the extended hand off to the WR check).
And Gardner does have checks and audibles within almost every play. He'll at least have one run audible (speed option), typically can check the play to the other side (he counts numbers every time he gets to the LOS to see if they can run the play), and probably has at least another run play or a pass play he can audible into as a "must audible" situation.
I think we have perfectly capable WRs and TEs of winning 1v1 match ups when teams stack the box. But they have to get to the right spots and DG has to hit them when they come open. It's as simple as that. You can spread it out, keep it as it is, whatever, DG has to hit the passes if he wants defenses to back off. Until then, well, this is what's going happen.
Is the haphazard offensive scheme that Borges is running at UM the same he's run at other schools, or is his offense likely to morph into something else once he gets 100% his own recruits?
Also, are Borges and Hoke tied at the hip, or (if Michigan's offense continues to struggle for a couple more years) is Hoke apt to replace Borges with someone else?
If you want a picture of the offense Borges wants to run, here it is:
Seriously, he wants to run a pro-style offense with a base power behind a pulling guard. Shane Morris is supposed to be his Drew Henson.
On OL, the elite WR and RB, Shane may be long gone! It may take us to 2017 to get to this level
At first I thought this was a bust on Touissant, but I think it's actually on Gardner. The end not committing is essentially the same as playing contain, which does make the read really hard, but Gardner has to know the defensive formation is set to bottle up the middle.
If Williams gets his block (hint: he doesn't), Gardner would have only had the end between him and a long gain. Kerridge also gets stuck in the whole trying to block the end instead of screaming through at the linebacker. I don't know if he could have avoided the contact based on the camera angle, but
However, I still think Touissant could have salvaged the play for a 5+ yard gain. The zone read is designed to go inside or outside based on the end. If Gardner keeps, he's supposed to go outside the end. After the handoff, Touissant realizes Kerridge is caught blocking two guys and goes "BOUNCE, BOUNCE, BOUNCE" into the area Gardner optioned away from. If he just plants and burrows straight ahead, he's behind Lewan, which is a really safe place for a running back, and just inside of where he's supposed to go. If he's lucky, Touissant concurrently sees that Lewan and Glasgow have essentially eliminated the whole middle of UConn's defense, cuts back to the right, and gains 20 yards.
Touissant mentioned that last year he was trying to win the game on every play in order to impress the scouts. As things go further off the rails for him, he seems to be doing it even more. He's got to cut up behind Lewan, where he is more or less supposed to go, and take his 5 yards.
are a couple of orders of magnitude more frightening than the "our OL sucks!" theme (yes, theme, not meme) that dominated the postgame chatter.
Non-sequitur: was anyone able to hear the UConn fan trash talking Gardner on the ABC feed in the second half of the broadcast? "You're a terrible passer! You couldn't hit a barn! A barn!" over and over. The thing was, on the limited data sample of that game, he was right.
Non-sequitur turns out to not be a non-sequitur: If your QB can't hit open short and intermediate routes on a given night, I'm not sure that such a thing as constraint plays can exist in any part of your offense. Even Air Force or other teams that throw basically never at least have the credible threat of being able to step back and hit a wide open receiver.
Devin was so completely rattled in this game I think there's a cascade effect through Borges' head. Fuck, my QB is totally off. Fuck, look for Plays That Might Work. Fuck, forgot to run those counters/constraint plays to punish the defense for how they're playing my Plays That Might Work. Woo-hoo, Desmond Morgan World's Greatest Athlete! We're saved!
I don't know, man. I had a game plan for this post, but Brian rattled the hell out of me with the implication that our offensive braintrust isn't being trustworthy with their brains.
Its not that Borges has forgtten the play book. He just can't call them because his guys can't run them. For example, the play with the corner turned sideways is begging for the QB Oh Noes! where Devin takes a step toward the line and drills the WR on an in route for an easy 10 - 15 yard play. Denard did this with some regularly. If the safety bit on the run too, it was an easy TD.
Here is the problem - Who wanted to see Devin try to take a fake a run and then throw a quick pass over the middle? Ok, that's no one. The way Devin was playing, that ball was likley to high or late or both which is a good chance for an INT. Also, I am not sure that the interior line could give Devin the two seconds that play takes.
We have the counter play in the books. Borges just doesn't trust his guys to run the damn plays. Unfortunately, I have to agree with his assesment here. (It is also possible that Devin was supposed to audible to that play, but failed to do so.)
Eventually, they went to very, very simple plays. QB runs or zone sweeps where they just told Fitz to run outside of 77 and hope for the best. Luckily that worked well enough.
There is no QB play action in the playbook. Michigan hasn't run that since 2011 and not well since 2010.
Meanwhile, the only QB run Devin has executed is the Draw. The rest of his carries are on scrambles or keepers on the option. Maybe a fake option if Brian's hypothesis is correct. When Denard ran the "Oh Noes" it was playaction off of the outside zone or ISO. So, what would Devin even be faking?
Michigan's running plays are all telegraphed by formation.
Under center it's the stretch, power, or ISO.
From the pistol it's inside zone/belly.
In the shotgun they have the inverted veer and QB draw.
There are a couple of other variations but nothing fits together and there aren't any adjustments made to any of the plays. When something doesn't work, Borges just tries running something else rather than tinkering.
If you're going to run the stretch play as much as we have been it's indefensible to NEVER run it from the gun when Devin Gardner is your QB. That's on the staff.
The simply look for something in the book that will work. There isn't move/countermove planned or even executed. ND shot gaps with linebackers, Akron did the same walking down safeties and sending corners, as did UConn and there were no counters or adjustments. The blocking scheme remains static. When you look at individual encounters, the job is being done on the interior -- Miller, Glasgow and Kalis don't get defeated in their blocks and they don't miss regularly. The same is not true of the tight ends, save Butt from time-to-time. The interior guys are often not going the right direction to negate what the defenders are doing. In the play above, the line call was to double the tackle with Lewan and Glasgow -- done. That left one to block by Kerridge and one to option. Kerridge did just ok, but the free hitter hit Fitz two yards deep. Call it a bad read by 98. So, call it again and 98 keeps this time. However, Al doesn't want to do that, so 98's runs are limited to "third plays" in the pass game. So the defense doesn't need to respect the keep on the read option because there is no read and their is no option. If he isn't going to keep, then you gotta block that free hitter because at that point all you have is an iso blocked like a read option and Fitz get popped.
And this happens play after play.
Unless Al is setting up the Big Ten with these tendencies, so that he can unleash his countermoves, this seems like deadhead football.
Last, I'm not sure why Al is looking at the pros for his inspirations, when the pros are looking to the colleges where more innovation happens and doesn't rely on the NFL way of unlimited study time, big bodies trying to stalemate each other and preying on individual mismatches set up in evil genius labs. Bama,LSU and Stanford get away with this through superior beef and superior coaching. Everyone else is looking up and trying to make the best with what they have, which requires in-game games and adjustments.
Mattison does it. Al just wants to run his stuff the way he drew it up.
1. O-line needs to block the right people. This is a mental thing and some technique.
2. Fitz needs to run the play that is called.
3. Gardner needs to stop turning the ball over.
4. We need a #2 receiver to emerge as a threat.
If those three areas were executed correctly then we wouldn't need to analyze these plays because the offense would be inherently less predictable and defenses wouldn't park 8-9 on the line.
Looks to me Fitz should've gone more up the middle and it would've been maybe a 3 yard gain or something similar.
When Kalis pulls, has he no responsibility to crush the first guy he sees, or is he supposed to seek out the second level?
I know, crazy, a real non RR question.
I think he probably should block one or the other once two guys show but he is definitely supposed to pass off that defensive end, who is the guy being optioned. Adjusting to pop the corner may be desirable, but it's a really rare thing to see one of these option plays find a corner blitz and still succeed. That's an opportunity for brownie points more than a failing.
I'm putting on Fitz. He missed a real nice seam at 1 o'clock, turned left and drove straight into contact.
You gotta see the cuts that are there or there's no point in blocking for you anyway.
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
Who's up for a tedious 150 comment thread questioning whether it's worthwhile to read this? I certainly am! I hope there are content-free arguments. Let's make sure to ignore Ka'Deem Carey's 2000 yards last year when we're incensed at the idea Rich Rodriguez might be able to coach a run game.
As is "inverted veer" (which is why I hate that name).
Power as a concept: double down at the hole then combo to the back-side LB, kick out the force player, and lead on the playside LB (with a pulling guard, tackle, FB, my gramma, etc.)
Power from the spread: all the same, except instead of kicking out the force player, you read him with action to the perimeter. Force player plays perimeter = power. Force player squeezes = perimeter run.
With "inverted veer," the QB is the power runner and the RB is the perimeter runner. With this play, it's opposite.
Now, some power adjustments: traditionally, power is for either a 5-2 defense with a stand-up "box" end (or LB), or for a 4-3 with a 9-tech DE. Teams (beginning with Don James Washington and the G defense that is now Va. Tech's calling card) started putting their strong side end in a 7-technique, inside shoulder of the TE.
In traditional power, the playside TE would block down, but with a 7-tech, teams coached to kick-out the end now had some thinking to do. If you block the 7, you're blocking the kick-out defender and the kick-out blocker is trying to figure out on the fly who to block. Moreover, now the whole has expanded from the C gap out to the D gap, making it a much less of a downhill "MANBALL" play and giving the defense more time to run to the ball.
If you don't block the 7, but are trying to block down, it's hard to release outside the TE, then down block on who, exactly? The playside LB is for the lead blocker and the backside LB is for the G/T combo. So, what to do?
Kick-out the 7-tech and help by influencing him with an outside release of the TE, who will block the overhang LB or S.
So, how does this affect this play? Well, UConn has a 7-tech, and since Borges & Co. are traditional pro-style guys, they adjust that way and try to treat the 7 as the "kick-out read." Since they only talk to NFL guys, they haven't learned that pro-style power adjustments don't fit the spread. In this instance, that unblocked 7-tech can easily play both the give and the pull. Terrible concept for the spread.
If they consulted spread offense guys, they would know that the adjustment here would be to treat it like traditional power: block down on the 7 with the TE, lead the FB on the playside LB, and read that overhang LB.
Now, it's still not very good b/c Gardner is planted and is not threatening the perimeter on the run like "inverted veer" does.
What I'd like to see is the "inverted veer" off the jet sweep look to Norfleet.
I just don't like that adjustment to this play at all, at least not as much as the traditional "power" adjustment. Inverted veer: yes, I like that adjustment because the QB can ride the RB a bit longer laterally to get a good read on the LB. But here, the only way to ride the RB is up, making that read harder and not necessarily forcing the LB to commit. If you ride him to the intended RB hole, then his back is turned to the play.
IMO, what you said is fine, but I think then you have to have a very short mesh point and have the RB immediately arch to the LB to try to pick up an extra block for the QB, or essentially scrap the "power" portion of the option you're describing. Meanwhile, I think that same thing can more easily be done if it's blocked the way they blocked it above, with the short mesh point and the RB taking the DE instead. But either way, I think you're getting 8 in the box with a 7-tech, it needs to be a quick read/short mesh (almost like when a back in PA needs to abandon the fake to make a block) and have your QB keep it.
FWIW, and I think we saw it later, that guy lining up in a 7 tech is primed to set up the speed option and reading the overhang defender. Maybe, in all of this, that's the best "adjustment" to this.
Kalis pulls and runs between two defenders like he's running a route instead of blocking.
On the zone read Fitz has to maintain his "cutback awareness." If he cuts that back across the line, anything could have happened.
Baby steps and deep breaths.
I hear you, but when I've seen this play before it's got to be right quick north and south otherwise the end can crash back. To make this cut to the open spaces inside is not coached at all.
What you're suggesting is similar to the criticisms some people leveled at me after the Akron UFR: the back should find this cutback lane he is usually yelled at for attempting. I'm not going to get on a guy for following his play design on something like this. This isn't a pick your hole play, it's a DO THIS OR DIE play.
But shouldn't he be pushing straight ahead to get 2-3? He took the handoff and immediately arrested his momentum before bouncing outside. Cut your losses and duck behind Lewan for a couple. If he keeps moving forward, there's a decent shot he could bounce later.
There's a lot wrong in that play, but there was a shot all the way until the end. In general, this play encapsulates this year's line. They seem to be okay individually, but are just not a great unit.
To get it to 150.
This year, Arizona is 3-0, having outscored its opponents 131-26. Last year, Arizona went 8-5, which was a big improvement from the 4-8 of the year before RR arrived. He was and is a great coach and will continue to show it. While he was in many ways his own worst enemy while at Michigan, it also seems reasonably clear that he inherited a bare cupboard, was undermined by Carr and was in the process of improving the team. The athletic department did not give him $1M to hire Greg Mattison, as some may recall, or even enough to hire Jeff Casteel away from WVU. And he was not given enough time to build his team. Regardless, it was probably best that he leave, particularly after that bowl game fiasco.
Isn't that more on Fitz? He did have a huge hole right in front of him? Maybe I'm seeing it incorrectly?