Bubble Screen
Did anyone else notice VT was just giving us the bubble screen? I think they scouted us on MGOBLOG and said we'll just leave the guys unguarded because Borges is defiant in not doing it. I think that was a big contributor to the running game being stuffed. It seemed like several times we went trips they defended us with 1 guy out there.
I'm sure the blogosphere will have plenty of picture pages, but it seemed like VT had 15 guys out there. While I was frustrated about the bubbles, I do want to give Borges props for setting up 3 td's that were done in by horrid execution/luck/cheating.
Pop Pass to Hemmingway- Looked like a for sure six but Denard made a marginal throw that was batted down.
Screen to Smith- Denard with a bad pass. That replay showing 3 Mich OL standing by themselves was depressing.
JR Stop and Go- A great call as they were jumping our short routes. How it's not interference is a mystery to me. He gave a Brad Marsh shove and knee trip as Hemingway was going by.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^
right about 8 Hoseleys. It felt for a lot of the game like they were playing with 13 people on defense. I really don't even think the bubble was open. Clemson must have had some special potion because that defense looked stout to me, even relative to other defenses I have watched this post-season. Felt like punching a wall.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^
Enlighten us on how you would attack a defense constantly blitzing through the A gap then champ? I know I am a little curious why they pretty much used MSU's gameplan against us again, and they still seem to have no answer. I agree that everyone is hung up on bubble screens, but there are plenty of other plays for making them pay for that they we have not seen either. A basic running back screen. Running the TE behing the blitzing LB's and dumping it off. A swing pass to a back. Al has to have something he can go to that will counter that A gap blitz doesn't?
January 4th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^
Well, Champ, I believe you didn't see me make any claim on having a shred of x-and-o expertise. I am also positive, buckaroo, that you didn't see me say a work about "a basic running back screen" (though we did run a few of those), "running the TE behing (sic) the blitzing LB's and dumping it off", or "a swing pass". What I did comment on is the single-minded obsession with bubble screens, sport.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
I could care less about Brian. He's right though. I could care less about a bubble screen, but when you have 3 WR's and they guard them with 1 guy that is a mismatch. We were running against 7 man boxes all night because they cheated their alignment.
You can call any play you want but you have to have a constraint play to counter your base play so the defense won't cheat. If they won't cover the 3 WR set with the appropriate amount of db's and you don't like the quick screen then don't line up 3 WR's anymore and bring a blocker in to help against the unblocked defender.
I'll list my resume as apparently now it is neccesary for the internet.
Played 6 years
Scouted 8 years.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^
Man, what is it with you lately? Did I unwittingly sleep with your girl?
I thought we covered all this the last time you accused me of parroting everything Brian says. There are some things about which I agree with Brian. For some reason that really burns you, and compels you to spend your time typing about it. I find that strange.
It's one thing if you disagree with me or Brian or both (and although I have made a skin suit of Brian out of the flesh and beard of the dead male hookers I have killed, it may surprise you to know that Brian and I are not the same person). But you're not even engaging the argument (which is kind of what a sports blog is for). Rather, you are spending your time obsessing about the perceived similarity between something that Brian wrote and something I wrote. It's kind of disturbing, frankly.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
You know what, I'll revoke the personal dig, apologies.
I still think you (and Brian) are wrong, as detailed elsewhere in this thread.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:13 AM ^
Nothing can take the joy out of watching Michigan win like coming to MGoBlog sometimes. Jesus.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
I still haven't completely accepted the reality that Michigan won that game. Since when does Michigan have breaks go its way? Since when does anything go Michigan's way in a bowl? This is not the universe I grew up in!
January 4th, 2012 at 10:15 AM ^
The game plan by Borges was just horrible. If we would have lost, this would have been magnified more, but we won so no one is talking about it. The plays run on first down were down right pathetic.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
At times I thought I was watching an old offense play with 2011 players. Run middle, run middle, pass, punt. That was an extremely painful game to watch, at least for this guy.
Its great to win, no doubt. But it was not all that fun to watch it unfold. Watching the players celebrate on stage afterwards made it all worthwhile though.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
The game was indeed painful to watch (when we were on offense), but that "run mddle, run middle, punt" stuff is wrong.
There are many ways to run up the middle. None worked, but we tried them all; isos, zones, powers, traps, under center, out of the gun. So "run middle, run middle" holds no weight. There were a lot of plays called to find something that worked. We didn't, but just because you are not sophisticated in football tactics doesn't mean it was unimaginative, which seems to be your complaint.
For the record we also ran outside. This didn't really work either, although damned if we didn't call zones, read options, speed options, and influence plays to find something. Still, that didn't fit your meme, so I can see why you left it out.
And we also passed. We passed for 2 interceptions and a couple others that could have been picked, so in those cases the old "run middle" may have been the right thing to do. Imagine that!
Our offense sucked, but not for the reasons you think it did. Chitown is onto it when he says VT has a good D and our line played poorly.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
What would you have done??? Nothing was working. Denard was getting keyed on, Fitz couldn't get anything going, our passes were being deflected and covered. Give VaTech some credit for having probably the best D we've faced all year, aside from maybe MSU.
We won. Borges could give to shits what you think about his playcalling (as he should)
January 4th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
What the hell are bubble screens? /S
Borges's hatred of the bubble screen is well known, and illogical, especially in games like last night.
And I bet, even Borges is disappointed by his playcalling last night.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
Here is why our offense didn't work:
That defense was plenty talented, moreso than this blog, or the experts of the blogosphere gave it credit for, and beat the shit out of an OL whose best player was playing on one foot.
Full stop.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^
I completely agree with you. Tech's defense was stiffling and they blew up all kinds of running plays designed between the tackles. That said, did anyone else wonder why they weren't trying to get Denard out on the edge more than they did? Or was it simply not possible due to Tech's speed on defense?
(Disclaimer: I am admittedly a layperson and I do not pretend differently, so please do not ridicule me for asking these questions.)
January 4th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
I didn't notice Denard really having much of an opportunity to go outside. That defense was really fast and seemed to get on every horizontal thing we tried. That tunnel to Gallon was the only horizontal play we ran that I saw work.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^
It sure was frustrating to watch the Tech defense blow up the O-Line time and time again. I can't figure out if it was a factor of Molk being hurt or that their interior D-Line played out of their minds. And you're right - that one time they tried the Jet Sweep it got absolutely blown up.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
Our line isn't/wasn't athletic enough. Their D-line held their own, but a lot of the time, it was secondary players, who were in the box all night, making plays, which only helped their D line as the game went on. The confusion VT created upfront seemed to get to us. We started to roll out to buy time in passing plays, but their secondary was athletic enough to keep us largely in check. We really need a receiver with great speed to help us open some things up. We also probably could have used the TE more in the receiving game.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^
In the box every play.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^
I thought it was kind of amusing how many people visited my blog and admonished me for overrating Virginia Tech's position groups.
January 4th, 2012 at 10:55 AM ^
I have a feeling that Borges is to bubble screens as Zoolander is to left turns.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
We are 11 -2 and just won the Sugar Bowl. Better find something to complain about.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^
will shed further light on all of this as team gets more time and experience with new systems and coaches get more time and experience with players......
January 4th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
To answer the original question; no, I did not see how VT was leaving themselves open to the bubble screen.
Instead, it seemed to me that VT had some very good and active DBs that were all over the short passing game.
It seems that many have started to watch Michigan games thinking that every single snap would be an excellent time for the most amazing play in all of football the bubble screen.
It's a tad ridiculous. This wanting them to run a specific play that they haven't run all season has run its course. They don't run bubble screens. This does not mean Borges is stupid or dum or wrong or anything. It's just one specific play that they don't run. FIN
January 4th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
So, since we haven't run it all year, all the teams we faced "had some very good and active DBs that we all over the short passing game" in addition to Borges just not liking to run it? If we don't like to run it, than it is what it is, but it was there for the taking. Just because they were jumping slants and 5 yard curls on the outside receiver doesn't mean that the bubble screen or a similar play isn't there for the slot receiver.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:53 AM ^
I thought this game, in particular, was not a good game for everyone to be all BUBBLE SCREENZ about because VT was all over the short stuff with their very good DBs. The VT DBs did not appear to be laying off Michigans WRs. I said nothing about other games. I see no evidence that bubble screen 'was there for the taking.' You presented no argument compelling or not that it was. Stating something as a fact with no evidence to back it up is not an argument.
But none of this is important because Michigan does not run bubble screens.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
You're right, it doesn't matter since we don't run them, but, just because we haven't run it all season doesn't mean that it's not there for the taking against some teams. You're saying in addition to not having run it during the season, that it wasn't there. Last night, it was there for the inside receiver. The defender covering them was 10 yards off on plenty of plays which is enough room to run an effective bubble screen. The short stuff they were all over was with the outside receiver with the CB playing 7 or so yards off, not the inside receiver. And people saying you only run it a few times for a small gain, maybe we do run it a few times, but maybe we fake it and go deep or exploit another hole to capitalize on their aggressive defense.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^
Surely Borges has a philosophical beef with the bubble screen, but if you're gonna spread people out you have to attack wide to counter that entire fanbase in the box defense. Then it sets up that run-pass play-action slant stuff that we absoultely killed peeps on last year. Oh well, we won & are 11-2. Boo yeah!!
January 4th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^
I do think that we should incorporate the bubble screen in our offense. I am a firm believer in taking what the defense gives you. That being said, I think chitown is absolutely correct in pointing out the fanaticism that many of us users have with the bubble screen.
The bubble is certainly a tool that we should use, but it's generally not something that drastically changes a game, except in a situation where the slot reciever is an athletic phenomenon that can be regularly counted on to beat one man and go a long way. We don't have one of those. More to the point, if we did, the defense would already be worried about that reciever and they would certainly cover him. And, in that case, the reciever himself would provide that defensive constraint that the bubble screen seeks to create without a single bubble screen actually being thrown. Without such personnel, the bubble is basically a 5 yard pitch play.
Not that a 5 yard run is something to scoff at. But, in the case of our offense, I really believe that even if we ran 10 bubbles a game, the defense would not give it much attention. The reason is Denard Robinson/Fitz Toussaint. Defenses (good, smart ones) would rather be bled to death by short bubbles than put a player out there to stop it and let our running game get going. If they don't pack the box, Denard can take one for 6 at any time. And when he's not doing that, Toussaint is running the ball effectively, to the tune of 5.6 yards per carry.
So, when both the QB and the RB average over 5 yards per carry and are both a threat to score on any given play, the defense must focus on stopping them, bubble screens be damned. The bubble has about the same average yards per play, but is much less likely to break for a huge gain. And it carries the risk of putting the ball in the air.
In the end, we are arguing about maybe 35 yards per game. YPG isn't something we have struggled with. The idea of putting defenses in a "pick your poinson" situation is great in theory and critical to the philosophy of the spread, but entirely irrelevent in our case; the defense MUST pick the Denard poison or get killed.
For what it's worth, I do fancy myself of expert at offensive football.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
I agree that it's not as big a deal as some make it out to be, but once you show the bubble screen, there are other things you can do out of that look that will confuse a defense. Virginia Tech and other aggressive defenses may bite on the bubble screen pump fake and allow themselves to get beaten up top, where they don't have safety help sometimes.
With RR, we had a very effective play where we faked the zone read with Denard to find Roundtree or another slot open in the seam for a long gain. It's not a play that you try to run continuously, but over the course of a season, the half a dozen or so times it works may make a big difference.
I also like the play so that Denard has an easy throw to help his rhythm and at times, it may be more effective at getting us into 3rd and manageable situations.
January 4th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^
The seam play you are talking about has nothing at all to do with the bubble. So that's a wierd interjection. It was very effective for us, however, and I kind of miss it.
I also like the idea of the bubble helping Denard get into a rhythm. Easy, quick throws that can help him build up some confidence. Unfortunately, if you remember last year, he wasn't really great at them.
And, I think that this discussion is very tangential to the topic at hand, the bubble screen qua bubble screen. It simply isn't a big concern for the defense because they will have to ignore it in favor of defending our running game. And, although I'd love to see us convert some third-and-short situations with the bubble, in a game like last nights, where nothing was really working, the bubble wouldn't have made much of a difference, unless you are willing to run it every single play.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^
cant run bubble screens when they crowd the line of d
scrimmage.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
Do you honestly think people would be clamoring for this play if they were playing bump and run. Whether they're crowding the line of scrimmage between the hashes makes no difference when running this play out of the gun.