steve sharik

There has been much discussion and confusion over what type of defense Michigan runs.  Many consider Michigan to be a "4-3 Under" team, including Brian and others.  Many have referred to a book by some guy I never heard of (although I will say that most of the books out there are writen by relative unknowns b/c the big name are kinda busy, what with their chamionships and blue-chip recruits to pursue and whatnot), and while I have not read this book, I'm sure there are some merits to it.  However, it is certainly not the bible of 4-3 Under defense.

In a board topic I recently warned against calling our defense a 4-3 Under b/c that is the name of a front, not a defense.  Certain teams and coaches call themselves a 4-3 Under team b/c that's what they run as a base.  I, for one, am not convinced this is the case with Michigan.

I think it wise to bring forth where all these terms come from and how to incorporate them.  I will remind everyone of the numbering system that I use.  Understand that there are many different ones out there.  The letters are gap names (A gap, B gap, etc.).



















Let me begin the discussion by saying that the Under (and Over) are defensive front alignments, not entire defenses.  Back in the late '60s, through the '70s, and into the early '80s, the 5-2 was the defense.  The base 5-2 looks like this:
The lines down the middle of the OL indicate that the DL is head-up, as opposed to shaded outside or inside.  The DE's are in 8-techniques (referred to as a ghost 8 if there is no TE), the DT's are in 4-techniques, and the N is in a nose.

A defense never wants an offense to know where it is.  As Sun Tzu said, "The experts in defense conceal themselves as under the ninefold earth."  In order to make it harder for offenses to flank either the strong side or the weak side, the Over and Under fronts were incorporated.

Under is a shift of the DL to the strong side:
Notice how the strong side DE and DT have shifted to 9- and 5-techniques (respectively), the N from nose to strong shade, and the weak side DT and DE have shifted to 3- and 5-techniques (respectively).

Over is a shift of the DL to the weak side:
Notice that, from the 5-2 base, the weak side DE and DT shift to 9- and 5- techniques, the N to a weak shade, and the strong side DE and DT shift to 5- and 3-techniques.  You may also notice that the SS has "spun down" (where "spinner" cam from) and the FS is now MOF (middle of field).  Don't get distracted by that; it's just the defensive coach in me drawing up things to be sound and not be outflanked.  What you should pay attention to is the shifting of the front.

College offenses started to use the pro formation, but ran the famous split-back veer option offense.  Rick Leach fans should recognize this well.  With two WRs instead of one, the threat of the pass existed to both side.  So, would the 5-2 defenses in Over move the weak side DE into an OLB alignment to help take away the quick slant?
The defense now has two players playing out of their comfort zones: a safety playing OLB and a DE playing OLB.  Remember, back then there wreen't a lot of freak athletes who were hybrid players.  Furthermore, the defense now has 4 DL when the coaches want to play 5--the offense has dictated to the defense.  No good.  Also, the very popular "iso" play would be good against this front:


By the early '80s the 4-3 was already a mainstay in the NFL, played by the Pittsburgh Steelers and Dallas Cowboy dynasties of the '70s.  However, it should be noted that the Steelers ran the stunt 4-3 (with DL coach George Perles) and the Cowboys ran the prototypical "Pro" 4-3.  The 4-3 had started to make its way into college football, but it really caught fire when a coach from Oklahoma State learned the Dallas 4-3 and brought it to his new job with some outfit known as "The U"--the Miami Hurricanes.  As some of you may know, the 'Canes wreaked havoc with their "Pro" 4-3 and everyone decided that this was the defense to run.  (Probably a better thing to copy was to load your roster with NFL talent.)  The Pro 4-3 looks like this:
Notice that the N is now in a weak side 1-technique in order to shrink the "iso" hole.  Really, though, this front isn't all that different from the old 5-2 Over, with defenseive tackles in the strong side B gap and the weak side A gap.  Many coaches still call this "Pro" 4-3 base "Over."

Despite the switch to the "Pro" 4-3, defensive coaches still like the old Under.  It had served them well against strong side runs, and now offenses were running the "Power O" play, with the FB and backside pulling guard leading a downhill, off-tackle run to the strong side.  So, how does a "Pro" 4-3 team play Under front?  Like this:
The Sam walks up to play a 9-technique, either stand-up or in a 3-point stance.  The strong side DE shifts to a 5-technique, and the N to a 3-technique.  The Mike and Will backers shift over to balance the front.

Now, go back and compare this to the 5-2 Under.  What's the difference?  None, except the letters and personnel are a little different.  The alignments, however, are exactly the same.

A little later I will discuss Michigan playing field/boundary and why they're really not an Under team.

What is your favorite road uniform through the years?

A) 1970s white pants (EDIT: new pic)


B) 1980s maize pants borderless #s


C) 1990s maize pants, blue #s w/maize border


D) Current


E) Prospective w/current practice jersey design


F) Edit: User suggestion--most recent Nike version


I don't know if this is diary-worthy or not.  Probably not, but I didn't want it to get lost in the minutiae of "Why RR won't be fired" posts on the board. 

Anyway, I'm really not happy with our current road uniforms.  Racing stripes don't make you look good, they make you look NASCAR.  ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.")

Actually, I would not mind us going back to gray face masks.  And I like the practice jerseys from above.  I think we would look good with either maize or white pants.

Heresy suggestion: white helmets w/blue wings?  No, no, no, my bad.

Anyway, have fun with it.

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

[Editor's note: bumped. My favorite point in this is the reason you run the Illinois-style veer where the running back heads outside and the QB goes upfield is that you can run it with the same QB-RB position you run the stretch from.]

There seems to be some confusion/questions floating around about our run game, and spread run game in general, so I think some enlightenment is in order.

First, the basic outside zone read.  The offensive line's basic objective is to reach block to the gap toward the playside.  If you're an offensive lineman, you reach any defensive lineman in your gap toward the playside.  If there is no defensive lineman to reach, climb to LB level. 


In the zone read play, the QB reads the backside end and determines if he is chasing the RB or not.  If the DE is chasing, the QB pulls the ball and runs away from the box.  If the DE isn't chasing, the QB hands the ball to the RB.  The RB is to run toward the perimeter while reading the playside DE.  If the DE gets reached, the RB continues outside.  If the DE maintains outside leverage, the RB cuts inside of him.


To stop the outside zone, defenses: a) get penetration, b) fast flow to the playside, and c) maintain gap discipline; i.e., stay in their gap.  If all you do is outside zone, defenses get pretty good at this.  (Attn: Mike DeBord)

To take advantage of defenses that do this, inside veer principles from traditional triple option offense was incorporated.  Here's the inside veer out of the double slot (aka flex bone), what Paul Johnson of Georgia Tech runs.  (Aside: studied this offense while he was winning 1-AA titles at Georgia Southern, where he was prior to Navy.)

This is inside veer to the left.  The playside OT veers inside the defensive end and blocks anything in the B gap and combo blocks with the OG to the Mike or Inside Backer.  If there's no DL in the B gap, the OT climbs right to the Backer, as shown above.  The OG will combo with either the OT (if there's a DL in the B gap) or the C (if there's a DL in the A gap) on that DL to the Mike or Inside Backer.

Okay, here's where it gets fun.  To take advantage of fast-flowing, gap-sound defensive technique, the spread offense will run its version of veer by running inside veer blocking on the backside of the zone play, thus creating a "zone side" and a "veer side." 

Notice how the QB is now in front of the RB so the RB can be downhill, as opposed to outside on the zone play.  Defenses picked up this nuance, and could tell whether we were running the zone play or the veer play.  Our solution to this against Illinois was to run veer with an "opp read," where the RB and QB basically switch roles.  In doing this, we could run the veer play w/o changing the alignment of the QB and RB to do so:


Run-oriented spread guys are basically option guys who have found a way to appease fans and boosters by putting a lot of WRs on the field and still being able to run option.  Urban Meyer has repeatedly said he'd run wishbone option if he could but it wouldn't sell tickets nor lure top-notch recruits.

Here's another option incorporation: the midline.  In traditional inside veer, the offensive objective is to read two defenders and cut off the rest from the perimeter.  In response, defenses would stop it by assigning one guy to the dive, one guy to the QB, one guy to the pitch, and sending the rest of the defense toward the flow of the play, hoping to get to the flank and kill the key cog--the QB.  The offensive answer to defenders flying outside to kill the QB was the midline, so named b/c the dive goes right down the midline of the formation, or right up the center's butt crack.

Instead of reading the DE for give/pull, the QB now reads the 3 technique DT.  If the 3 technique closes to take the FB, the QB pulls and starts down the line as if to take the ball to the perimeter.  Instead, he follows a lead blocker up into the B gap.

Now let's take a look at the incorporation of this option principle into the spread offense.  Like the spread veer, the spread midline runs the zone play to the playside, and the midline on the backside.  Notice how this play is dirty b/c the defense can't play games with its backside DE since the offense isn't even reading him.  This play is exactly like the regular zone read with one exception, the backside OT.  And when the QB pulls the ball, the defense expects the QB to take the ball to the perimeter.  This way the spread offense fools the defense much in the same way the traditional option offense does: trick the defense into thinking the QB is going to the perimeter when he's really going inside.

(Ignore the bubble routes; copied from a previous post.)

Having fun?

Questions welcome.

(At some point after the season it might be fun to have a get-together and have a chalk talk.  mgochalktalk?)

[Editor's note: bumped for obvious reasons. I was just going to say the same stuff about the long handoffs anyway in UFR.]

I just finished breaking down the first half plus the first series of the second half from the Penn State game.  Overall, the defense was generally solid, but there were a handful of major gaffes.  When you gaffe on defense, the other team gashes you, usually for six.  This happened Saturday. 

What compounded these problems was the ineffectiveness of the offense, which I believe can be primarily explained by two words: David Molk.  The team practiced all week with Molk at center and then for him to get injured after 5 plays and out for the rest of the first half really hurt the execution.  The other major offensive problem was catching a football.

When you wear gloves.

When you get paid to do it. [ed.: in scholarships, folks!]

To quote Brian: "Blearrrggghhhh!"

After Penn State's 2nd offensive series (on which they kicked a FG to go up 10-7), the offense had 4 series to either tie the game or take the lead.  The results? Punt, punt, pick, safety.  How did the defense follow up these? Forced punt, forced punt, forced punt, and then the 1-play drive for the TD to make it 19-7.  In the first half, the D gave the O plenty of opportunities.  The O gave the D no margin for error.

Okay, on to the meat.

ANALYSIS BULLETS:

• In the 36 snaps (some called back due to penalty), we set our front to the field 30 times, or 83.33% of the time.  I'm guessing we had a huge tendency on them.
• Out of the 36 calls, 25 were no blitz (69.44%), 10 were man pressures (27.78%), and 1 was a zone blitz (2.78%). 
• While only 1 call was a pure zone blitz (i.e., we blitzed LBs and played all zone behind it, including dropping the quick into an underneath zone), we did drop the nose and tackle into the shallow underneath area in order to a) take away shallow cross, b) take away check down throws to the RBs, and c) spy the QB.  We did this 3 times.
• We played some form of man coverage on 21 of the 36 calls I broke down (58.33%), and only 3 of those were no safety help.  However, two of those used the nose/tackle drops.
• Two Penn State TDs were the exact same play out of the exact same formation to the exact same WR matched up against the exact same defender.  Angry-Michigan-Stevie-Brown-Hating-God.
• Shocking as it is, our safety play was poor.  We didn't tackle well, we didn't cover well, we weren't physical.  Woolfolk was decent in coverage as a safety, but we had to play him at corner; now even more so with Cissoko's departure.  Kovacs was a good run defender as the Free Safety (which is really our hybrid safety/LB player), but we moved him to Strong Safety.
• The long TD to the TE was Kovacs responsibility.  We were in Cover 2.  The completion wasn't on him, but the fact that it turned into a TD was on him.  There were three breakdowns on the play.  First, Brandon Herron lines up too far outside the TE, allowing him a free release.  There's no reason for him to be out that far given there's Stevie Brown apexed b/w the slot and the TE, plus a hard corner in cover 2.  Second, Obi doesn't collision the TE, mostly b/c of his unmolested release, but Obi still has to at least get his hands on the TE and widen him toward the half safety.  Third, and most importantly, Kovacs has the deep half of the field.  The two WRs both ran hitches, which should have refocused Kovac's eyes inside to #3.  He didn't get depth, and then looked less than speedy attempting to chase down the TE.

• D-line is keeping us from being the worst Michigan defense of all time.  We have 3 good players and The Beast.  However, it is possible that The Beast was responsible for Royster's long run and the end around for a 1st down on 3rd and 2.
• LB play is average.  The technique is solid now, but recognition just isn't there sometimes, and when ILB recognition isn't there, the defense starts to bleed yards.  This is hard to tell, but you just don't see LBs making plays.  When you think about the great defenses, what do they all have in common? They were all strong up the middle: great DTs, ILBs, and safeties.
• The DL excellence and improved LB technique
• Corner play was good the last two real games, but naturally once the good teams know that, they attack elsewhere.  (I think Warren played hurt after that punt return fiasco and couldn't play with the same effectiveness, hence, the TD allowed late in the game.)
• Regardless of position, opposing receivers are never re-routed unless we are in their face.  This is not how good pass defenses play coverage.  All receivers running downfield routes must be collisioned in every coverage.
• Coach Robinson is mixing up coverages nicely, in terms of making them look identical.  Now, whether or not they were effective is a different matter, but there had to be many occurances of Daryl Clark reading the coverage and being incorrect.
• The maddening quick screens to the WRs were the result of poor execution in some of the coverage looks mentioned above.  Allow me to demonstrate:

Okay, the corner's 10 yards off.  What's the coverage?  Man?


You're correct.  However, we were playing a "slice" technique, which is used in bracket coverage.  Williams and Warren were bracketing #1, and Williams was supposed to undercut him.  Yes, it'd still be a completion, but there's no way they should get 8 yards.  If you go back and watch the film, you'll notice that after their third time having success with this, it came on our sideline and you can see GERG in Williams's grill after the play, reprimanding him.

We also used this:

Okay, what's the coverage? Man?


Nope, it's cover 2.  Notice how the defense's alignment is almost identical.  The only differences are the alignments of Stevie, who has to apex #2 and EMLOS b/c there's 2 WR's to his side instead of 1, and Kovacs, who is now a deep half player instead of a center fielder.  However, on the boundary side, we are playing what is called "thumbs" or sometimes "invert" b/c the safety is down in the box (hence the hybrid OLB/safety nature of our free safety) and the corner is deep.

In this coverage, it is also Williams's responsibility to make the quick WR screen a small gain, as opposed to, say...oh...8 yards.

Okay, that was fun.  Now allow me to opinionate:

OPINION BULLETS:

• Watch the 2nd half kickoff and you'll see why Brandon Smith is a LB instead of a safety.
• And we really, really, really need safeties.  And linebackers...but mostly inside linebackers.  We're pretty set at OLB, in my opinion.
• Going forward, expect our safeties to be targeted every game.  We must become competent or we will give up 30+ every game the rest of this season.  Yes, even Illinois.
• We need to switch Kovacs and Williams.  Kovacs doesn't make mental errors, but he simply doesn't have the skill set to play a deep zone.  Whoever suggested he'll be a Sam next year, I was on the same frequency.
• For those of you seriously concerned about the immediate future of this team, I don't think it's as bad as Saturday suggested.  At the time, I didn't think it was as good as ND suggested.  (Although, to be fair, playing the Irish will always make you think you're better than you actually are.  Here's a little prayer for Weis being there for many years.)  Right now we're on the uphill part of the roller coaster, which is dull for those who like to have fun and a relief for those who like to be comfortable.  When you're on the roller coaster, though, if you want to have the fun you have to first endure the dull.  Remember, as Beilein said, the 2nd year is a roller coaster.  Space Shuttle rides come years later.
• Defensive recruiting is this program's #1 priority.  I know, I know.  Duh.
• As I stated in a board post, I don't like going all-out blitz with man coverage on 3rd and long.  The dagger TD against Stevie Brown was a double safety, Mike LB blitz with cover 0 behind it on 3rd and 9 from the 11.  In that situation, what is to be gained by a sack that wouldn't also be gained by a 7-yard completion?  Best case scenario with that call (assuming no turnover created) is a 10 yard loss, making it a 38-yard FG attempt.  Easily makeable.  I would play cover 2 , keep the ball in front of us, give up the FG, and keep us in the game.
• I believe Rodriguez will ultimately be successful here, if he is shown the same patience by the administration that Amaker was.  That type of patience, however, will not happen with the fan base.

In his offensive UFR vs. MSU, Brian showed why we can't run the bubble.  He explained that the safety dives down for the bubble upon seeing the run fake.  If this is true, then something like this would work really well:

Now, the defense isn't aligned this way, but if safeties are coming downhill on run fakes, then they must be burned.  At Milford, we used to torch people with this play, especially out of a trips set, where #3 (the inside most receiver) would cross to the opposite hash.

What I saw when I watched the video, however, was that the safety was keying the slot receiver.  When he saw bubble, he attacked.  If the slot went vertical, he wouldn't come downhill, making the adjustment diagrammed above useless.

What I notice from that alignment is that we should incorporate the "Dart" scheme:

As MSU was playing us (and likely Iowa since they play a base 4-3 cover 2, which is diagrammed here), the OLB to the RB side was the "thief" on the QB, and was attacking off the edge on a run read to take away the QB keep outside off the read play.  Also, the safeties were screaming downhill upon keying a bubble route by the slot WR.  So, we call the QB Dart to the B-gap bubble. (See how the B gap is uncovered by the DL?)  We add bubble routes to bring the safeties down and to the perimeter.  We get a solo block on the playside DE who wants to get upfield, we get a double on the nose (which will also combo to the Sam backside), and we get a backside securing block by the RB (think Minor) on the chasing backside DE.  Tate or Denard (don't know if they'd play us this way w/him in the game) comes off the fake and runs downhill through the cavernous B-gap and runs until he hits his head on the goal post.

Midline option to the 3-technique side would also work well:

Outside zone to the left, only now QB reads the 3-technique, not the 5-technique.  Almost surely the 3-technique will read the OG and play the RB.  Sam LB is off the edge for the regular read path, the 5-technique is blocked outside, and the safeties are gone b/c of the bubble read.  Tate or Denard, go dunk the ball over the goal post.

No diagrams in this one, b/c we were really vanilla, not from the standpoint of not blitzing (b/c we did a ton of that), but from the standpoint that we didn't do anything fancy with fronts, coverages, blitzes, etc.

Therefore, I will go immediately to...

ANALYSIS BULLETS!

• We are a field/boundary 4-3.  We end up in over or under merely as a result of how the offense aligns.  Against MSU we did not flip the line against trading TEs, and it really helped us play better football.
• The lion's share of MSU's yards came on defensive breakdowns in three areas:

1. Poor rush lane discipline by the DT and N (RVB and MM)
2. Poor coverage in the secondary, especially by the safeties (TW and JK)
3. A soft edge to the zero-WR flank

• In #1, the DT and/or N would err by trying to make a 1-on-1 move on their man, taking them out of their gap responsibility and creating a huge run lane.
• In #2 and #3, our technique in the secondary is extremely poor.  We have too large a cushion, open our hips too early, and break too late on the ball.  We might be the worst secondary in the nation at getting off blocks, especially stalk blocks by WRs.  I can understand a 180-lb corner rolled up in the box being blocked by a pulling guard, but their is zero excuse for being driven backwards by WRs.
• Mouton blitzed a ton Saturday, perhaps to eliminate some thinking for him, perhaps to play to his strength.  He was poor in open-field tackling, often getting juked by non-shifty players and not even laying a glove on the ball carrier.  Ezeh has begun to improve his reaction time to blocking schemes, but now he overruns the play.  He needs a lot of work on diagnosing things on the fly.  Not a great day for Obi, but not a bad one, either.  I like the way he's improving slowly but surely, and I don't think he'll hurt us again like he did against ND.
• GERG had it going on in the 4th, sending an unblocked blitzer into the backfield 3 times late in the 4th with the game on the line.
• Our corners' strength at this point is press coverage, whether it be man or cover 2.  Our safeties' strength is blitzing off the edge; Mike Williams also had some success w/this earlier this season.
• DL is easily the strength of the defense, and its legitimately good, but not dominant, except for The Beast.  (I graded him out a little higher than Brian, perhaps b/c I gave him +1000 twice; once for the smackdown on the ex-con and once for the sack/caused fumble.  MSU tried to solo him with an OT...fools.)

OPINION BULLETS:

• I think it is way past due to give up playing off-man coverage with these guys.  It's simply 7-on-7 for opposing offenses against a scout defense for all intents and purposes.  Giving up that many 2nd- and 3rd-and-long conversions to an offense that hadn't been converting well is garbage.
• I know the "big play" is something to be avoided, but I'll take one 70+ yard TD a game and 3/13 on 3rd down conversions over zero 20+ TDs and 8/13 on 3rd down conversions every single time.
• I think Dantonio kept us in the game with his conservative run calls in the late 3rd and entire 4th w/2 TE, 2 RB sets against 9 in the box and switching from the 4-3 to the no-blitz, 4-2-5 late in the game.  Before the last two drives we scored on, first downs were 18 to 5.  Track meets aren't fun, but getting pummled is less fun.
• I could definitely see Kovacs moving to Sam (aka "spinner") next season.  He's physical at the line and a solid tackler, but he's at a disadvantage in coverage.
• I like the idea of Mike Williams to Strong Safety for Woolfolk.  Yes, Woolfolk is faster, but if he's always out of position and missing tackles, who cares if he runs a fucking 4.3?  However, switching him back to corner is a sign that 1. JT Turner simply isn't picking up the defense fast enough and that 2. we're really thin there. 
• Winning helps recruiting, but we need to prove to defensive recruits that our position coaches can help players make it to the league.  I don't know the track record on our defensive position coaches, but I hope BG, SB, and (the following year) DW go on to star in the NFL.
• What does all this mean for Iowa?  Well, their run game will be much stronger, but their pass game isn't as good.  I think we should play press man and hard cover 2 all game, but I don't think we will.  We're still trying to find our way defensively.  If the offense doesn't come to play, it could be a long night. 
• That said, I don't think anyone knows what to expect with this team, so enjoy whatever positives come our way this season.  Our time will come, but that time won't be until a few seasons from now.