Picture Pages: Maybe A Third Of Why We Suck At Running Comment Count

Brian

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:

arc-block-please

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.

arc-block-please

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.

arc-block-please-2

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:

arc-block-please-3

(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.

arc-block-please-5

Poor Damn Toussaint, 2013 edition.

arc-block-please-6

That's a loss of two yards.

Video

Slow:

Items Of Interest

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-ok-3_thumb[1]

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.

Comments

NoMoPincherBug

September 24th, 2013 at 10:11 PM ^

Ahh...here we go again.  Michigan struggles on offense...and Brian Cook breaks out the Rich Rod card.  Its inevitable. Some Man Crushes are destined to never die.

"Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
I was wrong, and I just can't live without you"

The fact is that Michigan is trying to transistion to Pro Style with a RR recruit at QB and the 3rd center in 3 seasons trying to bolster the middle of the line.  Its a work in progress that will not get shored up until the interior 3 OL either get more experienced and improve...or are recruited out and replaced by new blood.  Its really that simple. Jimmys and Joes not Xs and Os.

steve sharik

September 25th, 2013 at 2:08 AM ^

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.

Space Coyote

September 25th, 2013 at 8:48 AM ^

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.

Brian

September 24th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^

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. 

 

 

 

 

Zone Left

September 25th, 2013 at 12:16 AM ^

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.

jackw8542

September 25th, 2013 at 8:08 AM ^

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.

NiMRODPi

September 25th, 2013 at 9:16 AM ^

Too many people here are way smarter than me when it comes to football. I'm going to continue to contribute to the popular notion though that Fitz's decision once he got the ball (that Gardner SHOULD have pulled) was terrible.

Isn't it generally accepted that a RB should run across the back of his blockers and not to the side where the pressure is coming? Just from a common sense standpoint, why would you bounce out toward the pressure? Kerridge is the guy immediately in front of him, can't he see that his positioning basically screams "run up the gut?" I imagine many run plays don't go perfectly according to plan, the RB is supposed to be see that stuff and react

UMgradMSUdad

September 25th, 2013 at 9:26 AM ^

For all the crap Miller gets, in two of the three videos, he effectively handles the DT he's blocking one-on-one.  In the third, he's running down field looking for someone to block, but his lack of blocking anyone isn't why the play failed.

El Jeffe

September 25th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^

We're at 149. Come on, people!!!

This should get things going:

Rich Rodriguez was the finest coach ever to have trod the hallowed turf of Michigan Stadium.

Discuss.

Magnus

September 25th, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^

FWIW, I thought Gardner should have kept on that first play, too. I thought that when I saw it live, and I still think it. He's better at these read plays than Denard Robinson was, but not great.

Personally, I think Michigan's offense is a bit too complicated. I think you should be zone or power/iso, and the combination of a few different styles of blocking makes this a difficult offense to run for the offensive line.

Magnus

September 26th, 2013 at 8:27 AM ^

I definitely think it can be simplified. There are oodles of plays/formations you can run without changing your basic schemes, footwork, reads, etc. The footwork, hand placement, etc. involved with zone blocking is so different than running power, for example, that I think it can be confusing for even NFL linemen. Not "confusing" as in they don't understand, but confusing in the sense that it takes muscle memory and repetition to get there. The same can be said for quarterbacks, running backs, etc. It can be simplified over a bye week, although perhaps not perfected.