What is the Source of Our Run Blocking Issues? - In Pictures
[ED-S: Bump]
In the “What is the Source of Our Run Blocking Issues” thread, I offered my list of things we are doing poorly (hint: everything). This Diary delves deeper into each of those items by examining an example of each in a brief picture page format. Let’s jump right in.
1. Bad individual technique. A lot of plays start from a fresh line of scrimmage 2 yards behind where the ball was snapped because of just plain getting beat 1 vs 1.
Example: First play of Michigan’s second possession.
Pic1: Butt motions next to AJ Williams, who is the defacto LT since Lewan is lined up outside of Schofield on the right in "Tackle Over."
Pic2: Michigan runs outside zone away from Lewan/Schofield. This goes about how you'd expect. Bryant and Williams both take a step laterally and allow their guys to get in on them with leverage. Before the ball is even handed off, they’ve each ceded 2 yards. Bonus: Schofield releases without chipping the DT, leaving Lewan an impossible angle.
Pic3: By the time Fitz gets the ball he has a wall of bodies in front of him 5 yards behind the line. The DT Lewan had no chance at is also there to prevent any hope of a cutback. Michigan would go on to throw for short gain on 2nd down, then Gardner throws his first pick on 3rd.
[Jump]
2. Guys not getting clean blocks on second level defenders. Guys are releasing downfield and letting guys run by them or force them to give ground to recover a good blocking angle.
Example: 2nd Quarter, 11:51. 1st and 10
Pic 4: Michigan is in Tackle Over again with Lewan outside of Schofield on the left side.
Pic5: Michigan runs to the stacked tackles this time. This pretty well blocked. Lewan has kicked out the end and Schofield is sealing(ish) the DT, leaving Kerridge 1 on 1 with a LB in the hole. Thump that guy and Fitz is out to the safety (who came roaring down at the snap, but still)
Pic6: Kerridge isn't able to shove the guy out of the hole. He lets the guy side step to his left and now there are two bodies in the way. The LB gets an arm around Fitz and hold him up until the cavalry arrives and TFL.
Pic7:On the very next play, a read option, Bryant pulls around and has a LB dead to rights. Dileo is already harassing him and has him sealed to the inside, all Bryant has to do is aim for his right hip, latch on and Gardner is off to the races.
Pic8: Instead, Bryant puts his head down and goes for the kill shot, which not only misses the LB but almost takes out Dileo, forcing Dileo to step aside. The LB goes from being 2 vs 1 to 0 vs 1 and is all alone with Gardner to tackle for minimal gain, bringing up 3rd and 8. Gardner throws to Chesson on the 3rd down, but it’s dropped. Punt.
3. Lack of cohesiveness. Guys not feeling what the guy next to him is doing or how much help they need. You have guys holding combos too long to release on one play, then on the next they'll leave to go block a LB while the other guy gets smoked by a DT he has no angle on.
Example: Michigan gets the ball back following PSU’s score right before the end of the half.
Pic9: They need a yard on 2nd down, and line up in standard OL formation. Lewan is injured so the line is Schofield, Bryant, Glasgow, Kalis, Magnuson, with Funchess at TE on the left side.
Pic10: At the snap, Glasgow barely gets a rub on the DT before heading out for the MLB, leaving Kalis in a bad spot. Notice how much further downfield he is than Schofield, who is also releasing on this play. Kalis maybe can do a better job moving laterally to scoop that guy too, but that's a tough play.
Pic11: A couple seconds later, Kalis is fighting the good fight, but the DT is steadily getting play-side of him.
Pic12: Bryant and Funchess both do a decent job sealing the hole long enough for Fitz to burst through, but Kalis eventually gets beat to the spot by the DT who is free to tackle at the LOS. Downfield blocking looks decent enough to at least let Fitz fall forward for the first down otherwise.
Michigan goes from trying to score to running out the clock. They run into a 10 man box on the next play and punt it with 14 seconds left.
4. Targeting issues. Guys are not identifying the right guy to block, resulting on some guys blocking air and/or defenders being blocked by air.
Example: This is Michigan’s first play of the game.
Pic13: Schofield motioned to tuck in between Lewan and Bryant on the left side in "tackle over."
Pic14: At the snap Glasgow inexplicably goes to block the 3T, who Bryant and Schofield are already doubling. Kalis is pulling, leaving a giant hole for the NT to charge through untouched.
Pic 15: The NT steps behind a pulling Kalis and meets Fitz in the back field. Michigan would go on to punt after a Gardner run and INC.
Two other issues I noted were running into a stacked box with infuriating predictability and RB hesitation. I won’t get into these because you know what it looks like in the case of the former, and honestly Fitz played pretty well this game in the case of the latter.
Conclusion. I can only imagine how frustrated the coaches are getting at this point. There is no one problem or even one guy. Quite the opposite, on any given play, we have the ability to screw up in 4-5 different ways, by anyone on the line save maybe Lewan. That’s wack-a-mole futility right there, where do you even start? I was able to find an example of each type of issue in the first half alone, often more than one case of each. This wasn’t an every once in a while thing, it happened with alarming regularity. The proof is in the pudding, we had one good RB running play and every other one died in its infancy due to one or more critical mistakes. As Brian said last week, it only takes one.
What’s even more interesting or frustrating, depending on your level of optimism, is that every one of these directly lead to the end of a drive. It’s not really surprising, we’re just not good enough to play with 2 or less productive opportunities to gain a fresh set of downs.
I’m not sure where we go from here. We’ve all but exhausted personnel tinkering options and the guys that are starters by virtue of marginally being better aren’t improving. In fact, in the case of the fullbacks, it’s actually getting worse. My hope is a light will go on for one or two guys late into the season just from sheer repetition. That’s all it is at this point though, a hope and a prayer.
(disclaimer, I’ve never played nor coached a down of football in my life so if I’m totally off on something, please correct me in the comments).
October 15th, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^
Do you even really know what that means? Just because there are 8 or 9 guys in the box doesn't mean you can't run into it. It also depends on what the offense is doing. We run out of heavy packages with 8 or 9 blockers routinely, there's not that big of a numbers disadvantage in a lot of cases. As SpaceCoyote mentioned, running stretch plays take guys on the back side out of the play so it's not really even relevant.
Now, we might not be capable of running into a stacked box because asking 8 or 9 guys to block without anyone screwing up is a bridge too far. Borges should get some blame for not accepting this fact and continuing to do it anyway. It also doesn't matter that on 1st down, PSU is screaming at the LOS because they know exactly what we're doing, again, Borges's fault.
None of that means that OL play isn't an absolutely huge, huge problem and the source of a lot of our dysfunction offensively. I've just showed 5 plays where guys make obvious obvious mistakes, most of which would have gotten yards otherwise. One of them may well have gone for a touch down (it was an read option, not I-form FWIW).
EDIT: I went back and looked and the only play PSU has a numbers advantage on is the first one. Play 2 has 7 in box vs 7 defenders. Play 3 is the same except it's option so there's a guy intentionally unblocked and the QB is the ball carrier so it's actually a Michigan win. Play 4 A LB is lined up over the slot receiver so it's 6 v 6. Play 4 is also a short yardage situation where you getting the RB 1 vs 1 against a LB is a win. Play 5 is 8 vs 8, 9 if you count the Safety marginally rolled up 7 yards off the LOS but he's pretty irrelevant to the play. If Glasgow blocks the DT, it's hat on hat, with probably at least one LB caught in the trash with no angle to make a play. The WR also gets a good crack back block so add one more "in the box" for the good guys.
October 15th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^
Those are the only two plays where the defense has a "numbers advantage" in the first half. On both plays, the front side can still be blocked in the zone stretch. Now I still haven't watched the 2nd half, but we'll get to that a bit later, as then you have clock management considerations as well.
Now, Michigan hasn't blocked zone stretch well all year, so like you're saying, there are things you can blame on Borges. Don't call zone stretch as often if we can't consistently block it, fine. But some of these calls are putting the OL in as easy of positions are you can get to succeed and they aren't. If PSU is giving some of the looks like that they did and Michigan can't run the ball, then they simply can't run the ball at all, it's as simple as that. So they might as well completely scrap the game plan and become a completely different team.
My feeling is that a lot of people want that because they prefer the spread, which is fine to prefer. But don't claim that what Michigan is doing is schematically incorrect when it isn't. The scheme is fine, the coaching at the OL position has clearly not developed young players to even be decent, which it should at least be, and that is by far the biggest reason for the problems.
October 16th, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
I think the end of regulation drives and OT are what really left a bad taste in people's mouths, probably skewing their perceptions of what he did the rest of the game. I know I was shocked upon rewatching it how wide open the offense was from the 3rd series to the midway through the 4th Qtr. Then he just went into clock killing mode, but did it in the most predictable way possible, and using our weakest play to do it. It really did feel like bashing your head into a brick wall. That I do blame him for and still think he cost us the game (all other things being equal, I mean there were all sorts of ways we could have won and didn't).
October 16th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
Maybe he should have run more Iso or Power, but I do 100% understand him putting the ball in Fitz's hands in those situations rather than letting DG option and carry. Even when DG has tucked the ball, he isn't strong in what he does and has had the ball ripped out numerous times. His ball security is a big issue. So maybe it should have been Power or Iso that you know gets you back to the LOS, or even a fake option where you're giving to the RB no matter what.
FWIW, the reason he probably went to stretch is because he did want to kill the clock or just set up the FG, and stretch takes care of the backside defender, so you can run it into a stacked box a bit better without the risk of an option. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, but I'm sure that's why he did or that was his thought process. Now, I haven't liked stretch with this team from the start, and certainly don't think the interior guys are good at stretch by any means, which means it probably shouldn't be run even in those situations, even if the theory behind it is actually best.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
which means it probably shouldn't be run even in those situations, even if the theory behind it is actually best.I think that's really it right there. Any other team should definitely be putting it in the hands of their senior RB
October 16th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
I guess the point is that it's not as clear cut as people are making it out to be. Both POVs have very valid points. I think Borges's actions are much more defensable than people are making them out to be. Agree or disagree, this is far from a black and white thing.
October 16th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
"If PSU is giving some of the looks like that they did and Michigan can't run the ball, then they simply can't run the ball at all, it's as simple as that. So they might as well completely scrap the game plan and become a completely different team.
My feeling is that a lot of people want that because they prefer the spread, which is fine to prefer."
I think a lot of people want that because they want to win, and doing what we're doing now won't lead to us winning.
Now, they're likely wrong about a spread being any better - but what we're doing now is a known failure. Will an offensive change help? Hard to say, but we shouldn't succumb to the sunk cost fallacy.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 7:48 PM ^
But the backside DE here is irrelevent, at no time should the RB have to cut it back to the point where the backside DE's pursuit stops this play, and if he does, then boot should be wide open. Either the edge gets sealed or Fitz plants his foot and cuts directly up field quickly, there is little dancing involved where the backside pursuit can make a play.
I'm not saying the playcalling is perfect or even very good, and I haven't liked stretch from this unit yet, but the fact that they can't execute it, because it is an execution issue, is the biggest problem. If you're drawing up a play on a board you are seeing an offense against a defense that you can successfully run at in each of the situations above. It may not be perfect, but in these situations it isn't inexcusable either.
What it comes down to is the play calling is average and the execution sucks. That's a problem, but it's much more the OL execution than the play calling.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:56 PM ^
Okay I'll buy that - but wouldn't you agree that taking the yards from the bubble screen against that defensive look would be a lot easier than asking this team to block perfectly against a D that knows exactly what's coming?
At the very least, throwing that bubble a couple times a game gets one of the safeties out of the box and increases the upside of your zone stretch - instead of perfect blocking getting you 5 yards, it gets you 10.
What I see often is, even if the line blocks well, there's a free hitter only a couple yards deep. Spreading things out a bit with some throws would help this.
As I said earlier, I can understand running to set up the pass, but the best case scenario of doing that is exactly what we see in these pictures: a stacked box with WRs 1 on 1 against soft coverage for easy yards and the possibility of busting a big play. So let's take advantage of that!
October 15th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^
Because I believe bubble screens are a nice play. I'll actually having a post addressing this as well as I've noted some problems with just running them though and why it's not always so simple.
But yes, in theory, if it were my offense I would have bubbles installed and would throw it to the edge a bit to help stretch the box. But it isn't necessarily that simple, especially if it's something they aren't really practicing (which you can blame, I have no issue being critical of it not being installed or run enough for the coaches to be comfortable with it), but the play itself, the call against the defense presented, should be much more successful than it is. Even if it's not perfect, if execution is even average these plays are going 2-4 yards which isn't a terrible way to set-up other things. Asking for average or even mildly compitent would improve this offense drastically with the same exact play calling in the same exact situations.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
You like bubbles. I like bubbles. Why does Borges no like bubbles? It doesn't even take much practice - only two guys have to change what they are doing. And it would open up what we really want, the downhill run game.
I mean I really do appreciate your insight regarding execution, but at some point, so what? Are you saying Vince Lombardi couldn't get these kids to execute? Is it okay to keep trotting them onto the field into a position in which you know they will fail? I mean, yeah the coaches get to see practice, but at this point we've seen two years of pathetic run blocking with essentially no effective adjustment in our play calling.
Not only are we failing to execute, but we're failing to punish anyone for cheating on our crappily executed plays. Why? What's the plausible explanation for producing the worst RB performance in Michigan history? I really want to hear a brilliant explanation for not running a bubble screen, I just can't think of one.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:49 AM ^
Especially from under center. And whether people like it or not, Michigan will continue to run from under center because it's a big part of their philosophy. But there are footwork issues, timing issues, accuracy issues, the bubble has to be run correctly and sold correctly. Funchess also apparently can't get off the LOS as a WR and has mostly been lining up off the LOS, probably because he's a bit slower so jamming him would make him less effective, but that means he's the guy lining up in the slot to take the bubble.
So, there is work to be done when throwing a true bubble.
But if you mean just the extended hand off play that Michigan has run this year, yeah, it'd be nice to see a bit more of that. However, just because a guy is lined up 10 yards off the LOS doesn't mean that will be successful. They could be lining up at that depth and never retreat, meaning they play very down hill and can make a play (and the block by the other receiver) very difficult, so it's only a marginal gain (still better than what Michigan's been getting, but not the sure fire 5-7 yards everyone is claiming). It may be more consistent, but it could also have less upside oddly. So there is much more to consider there as well.
Schematically, the runs that have been run are perfectly fine, seriously. And Borges has been mixing up option looks and spread looks more than many people are willing to claim. He had his reasons to go conservative at the end of the game, namely because of DG's ball security issues, which have been extremely obvious even when he has the ball tucked. He doesn't carry the ball well ever, and so upside/downside of handing off may have swayed Borges's idea there.
I actually don't mind the number of runs plays for the number of plays run. I would like to switch some of the 1st and 2nd down calls though and make the 1st down calls closer to a 50-50 split. But this is also a team that really, really struggled in pass protection in this game, as they have in the past as well. So there really isn't a clear option as far as play calls.
I do think there is a bit he could change, in my opinion, but he may have an opinion that if someone really picked his brain to try to learn and he had the time to explain, he could explain pretty much all of what he did. Seriously, he could, and I believe that. It's easy to say something didn't work so it didn't make sense and that other things would work better that weren't run in those situations, and if Borges could go back and call plays again with this knowledge I'm sure he'd do some things differently as well. But at the time, in the situation, he had a legit reason to do many of the things he did. It wasn't perfect, it was just very average play calling/schematics with terrible execution, which don't get me wrong, is also on the coaches. I also think people are being quite selective in what they are remembering from the game. Remember, this was a game at one point that Michigan had 2 RS FR, 2 Walk Ons, and a Senior playing on the OL. Yet, they still had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes to go and a 7 point lead with less than a minute to go. They also had a long game winning FG attempt, and two FG attempts from a distance that Gibbons had not only made before, but that night. I'm not excusing it all away or supporting it, but I am defending a lot of it.
October 16th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 11:06 AM ^
I think he could explain his defense... his defense, not the one that was forced upon him. GERG is actually fine schematically, and it's shown a bit at Texas this year. I don't think he really ever understood the nuances of the 3-3-5 as a base defense. I think GERG is actually a pretty average DC, not a terrible one we make him out to be. He's also not great, but yeah.
Anyway, I don't disagree on stretch. I don't like it any more than you do. I'm just explaining the theory and thought process that is behind it. There is legit theory and thought behind it, and in those situations, in a vacuum, stretch is probably the best play to call, seriously. But there are other factors. I would have run Iso probably, tried to pick up two yards and said "we aren't getting negative yardage because that's the only thing that can hurt us."
As far as a coach getting to DG about ball security, yes, they could work on it. But you can't just teach him to be a RB, there are so many more things that DG and Borges are working on. I think they've worked with him about at least tucking the ball in open space, but you really don't have time to work with him extensively on how to tuck the ball to maximum effect, it's just not realistic. That's why you have RBs in those situations.
October 16th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^
Thank you for continuing to patiently participate in the discussion ;) Your reasonability is an asset to the blog and helps hotheads like me learn something. In particular, you're right that we probably ought to stop saying "bubble screen" when we really mean something else (but thematically similar).
Anyway, I'm curious if you think Al is doing what he really wants to do here, or if he's in a GERG situation. On the one hand we know he doesn't like running the QB, and we see him moving away from that. On the other, we see the addition of a meager pistol package and the zone stretch for this season - things that don't really speak to a specific identity. We don't seem to have "deeply" installed much of anything, by which I mean we seem to have a breadth of looks and formations with only a couple plays we consistently run from each - to me that doesn't speak to a guy who's installing his own system that he understands intimately. What do you think he's thinking?
The reality is that our traditional run game really is historically bad on the level of the 2010 defense, and everyone seemed to agree that required a coaching change. So what are your thoughts? I certainly don't think out offensive talent is inferior to our defensive talent in 2010.
To me, the best solution would be to come out in more 3 and 4 receiver sets, whether in shotgun or under center. Borges seems to have recognized that our TEs and interior line are not ready for prime time, but his solution (tackle over) is limited and easily schemed for. To me, we've got a couple of good options for low risk "long handoffs" that are being criminally underused: Dileo and Norfleet. Dileo in particular is also a great asset for 0-15 yard passes - sure hands and a knack for getting open, even if he'll never be a deep threat. Gallon is also underrated in space. Even if you target them only a few times a game, they are dangerous enough that the D needs to account for them - that's basically a guaranteed block, something our TEs can't seem to deliver. At the very least, forcing the D into a nickel package will soften the interior run defense.
As far as coaching, I just don't think Funk is getting it done. The linemen are failing at the basics. Yeah, they're young, but even allowing for that they don't seem to be performing as if they've been receiving world class coaching. If we're going to carry the 2010 analogy, it was really poor fundamentals that were to me the biggest knock on GERG. Those improved massively in 2011, and we reaped the benefits.
I also am not impressed with Al as a QB coach. Maybe he's got too much on his plate. We never saw much improvement out of Denard, and Devin seems to have plateaued - he's still making poor decisions consistently. I think Devin could really benefit from a dedicated coach who could focus on the mental aspects of his game, and a double-duty OC doesn't seem like the best solution.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
In regards to Funk/2010 defense: I think it's a bit similar. GERG isn't necessarily a problem when he has position coaches that can teach fundamentals and he can run his defense. Borges doesn't have an OL doing much of anything for him. Puts him in a real bind.
Historical bads: Youth is a very real excuse, they aren't just pulling it out of thin air. The OL was going to be bad and hopefully improve enough to reach "can get by with". The problem is, it isn't really approaching the "can get by with" point. It's worrisome.
Switching personnel: I think Borges is doing that a bit and he recognizes it. I would like to see him switch his first and 2nd down play calling a bit. I understand what he's trying to do on first down with what the defense is giving him, but I think switching it up a bit would help. I'd expect a bit more of that going forward, especially because it looked like Gardner took a little step forward again against PSU.
Borges running what he wants: No, I don't think he is yet. It's not to say he doesn't want to run these things, but I do think with his limitations at OL, and some confidence issues at QB, a lot of what he wants to do (throw more, throw it deep more, run more complex intermediate routes that require reads and protection) he isn't able to do. So he's still limited.
Borges as QB coach: I have seen improvement in DG. His confidence has clearly taken a hit, and that has affected him with his mechanics. Getting that bad is difficult for any coach. I think Borges is working with him and he is making steps in the correct direction. If his confidence upticks back to ND levels, people will really see the improvement that Borges has been working on him with, because there are things that are being masked because of not having 100% confidence, especially in his reads. That being said, I've always liked having a QB coach and OC seperate, because I think it helps the QB to have that guy on the sideline and a bit more dual focus in practice. That's personal preference though.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:03 AM ^
October 16th, 2013 at 7:55 AM ^
Might be time to take it to the basics and say hit the guy in front of you. 1st they need to spread the field. Get everyone out of the box.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This must mean Borges is insane....
October 16th, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
You have inexperienced players who don't know where to run, who to block, or what to do. To deal with that we change players; use spread, traditional, and now off-balance lines; and have more plays than any team in football. The players are sophomores sitting in on physics grad seminars. No one can learn that way.
A lot of the best college offenses (Oregon, AirRaid, yes - Urban Meyer's) use few, complementary plays b/c the kids are raw and, as us Michigan fans well know, aren't allowed to practice much. Contrarily, we have young players using multiple blocking schemes and formations, and then wonder if the OL coach "teaches poorly" and complain the players "don't execute."
It's not exactly poor coaching. It's poor scheming by the coaches.
October 16th, 2013 at 8:16 AM ^
I'm taking Brian's argument on this one. It's possible to crack some seams in some of these run plays. I'll agree that there are many things the line isn't doing correctly. But how many times a game are you going to count on your entire offensive line, 2 TEs, and a FB (that's 8 guys) to make their blocks perfectly? That's all you're getting here. Somebody isn't getting a block here, somebody isn't getting a block there. The odds of all 8 guys making their blocks is very slim. Whereas with a quick slant or a bubble screen you are counting on 0 or 1 guy to make a block. The outcome of this doesn't look as grim. And considering the corners are 11-12 yards off the receivers at the snap, even if that 1 guy misses his block, you're still looking at a 4-5 yard gain for free.
OH, and stop running the stretch play. I hate that f****** play.
October 16th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
I understand the youth excuse, but only kind of. Lewan and Schofield are both 3rd year starters. How often will a team ever be afforded that opportunity on the line, let alone at tackle? I understand Kalis and Bryant are both 1st year starters but both had/have pedigree. There will virtually never be a year when 4/5 starters are returning on the line and if that's the case then the line the following year will probably be poor due to attrition. At some point the best linemen have to hold their own and the others need to fill the voids and that seems like a job for coaching.
TL;DR I'm putting into my own words what's been said since Saturday. Also, I'm still upset.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
Running into a stacked box time and again. Every team we have faced this year has consistenlty put one more in the box than we can block. When you have "youth" in the center and guard positions, and two tackle more suited to zone blocking than power things get difficult...because noone dominates a defender and effectively "blocks" the free man.
The answer is a better passing game that forces teams to play honest...or at least play roulette with their defensive alignment.
One of the reasons Bubble Screens are so effective is the effect it has on LB play. They can no longer afford to fast flow to zone run action. If they are being hurt by bubble screens and missed tackles on the outside, they have to factor those plays into their reads, as a zone run left with a backside bubble can really hurt you if your secondary doesn't tackle effectivley.
Borges' reaction to this has been to throw over the top. It has been effective, but hasn't forced teams out of the run heavy defensive look. Gardner turns the ball over too often and it appears to me that the staff isn't exactly confident that his turnover problems won't abate.
To me, the Bubble is a better option, as the throw is simple and fairly safe and won't result in alot of turnover. Funchess should be a mismatch for every db he faces in terms of blocking. Problem is, it's tougher to throw from under center..dictating more shotgun or pistol.
The coaches need to decide what they want with the offensive line. Two tackles who seem suited to zone..guards who seem suited to man/gap/power.
Here's what I would do.
Quit relying on young/poor blocking TEs to get the job done. Run 3 WR sets with Gallon in the slot..Funchess and Chesson as WR. Pull guys out of the box this way. Simplify the reads for your struggling OL.
Reinsert the smaller/quicker Miller at center. Put Glasgow at LG. Replace Kalis (I don't think his zone blocking technique is very good..he turns his shoulders too much and doesn't have a good lateral step). Problem is with who? I don't like Bryant as a zone blocking guy. Can Bosch, Dawson or Samuelson handle it? I think we're about to find out.
More pistol less under center. I don't like Gardner with his back turned to the LOS. Go with more zone running until you have tackles physical enough to dominate the LOS..especially on the right side. I like Schofield, but not as a power run blocker.
JOB #1...back the defense up out of your face...by scoring points and making it not worth their trouble.
October 16th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
"Running into a stacked box time and again. Every team we have faced this year has consistenlty put one more in the box than we can block."
That's not really what's going on except at the end of the game. Just because there are 8 or even 9 in the box doesn't mean you can't block them all. We run 2 TE sets all the time with 8 blockers. We crack back our WR on a lot of plays that add one more blocker, etc. Of the 5 plays I showed, only the first one has a numbers disadvantage, for example.
Now we might not be able to block everyone because our OL isn't consistent enough, and Borges needs to do a better job of recognizing that and getting them out of situations that require perfect execution.
October 16th, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^
It is consistently happening. It has been the hallmark of defensive schemes this entire year with few exceptions.
Again..on most occassions, if we have TE and a normal OL set up and a full back, we have seven blockers...defense generally puts 8 people in run support. If we use FB and OL..defense puts seven in the box. This is a sure sign that teams don't respect our passing game, and are not going to let us run the ball unless we demonstrate that we can beat them throwing 35 times a game.
October 16th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
I don't have the data in front of me but that hasn't been my perception. I re-watch every game over in slo-mo, especially offense and almost every negative play I can think of could have been avoided if not for obvious mistake. The RPS numbers in the offensive UFRs sort of bear that out. Central was +6/-4, Notre Dame was +23/-11 (!), Akron +10/-11, UConn +16/-19 (Ok, that's not great), Minnesota +8/-8
October 16th, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
Yes, the numbers may be even, but we are at a disadvantage if the D doesn't play "fair".
October 16th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^
is that we're pretty likely two years away from being a very good team, not one.
Comments