Harbaugh vs the Spread Offense (Read Option)

Submitted by jsquigg on

So, I hope this isn't a waste of a thread topic, but in light of the travesty against OSU and the mailbag today which prompted me to look up Harbaugh at Stanford vs Oregon mainly, should we be worried long term against spread option teams with a running QB?  Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know this isn't just on Harbaugh but the staff as a whole.  With that said, pro style coaches have a history of poo pooing the spread and then not being able to stop it, which is maddening since you can find a library's worth of info on spread option football just by using Google.

So, will closing the talent gap, specifically the d-line, ultimately be more important than scheme?

Who should we worry/not worry about as a defensive coordinator against the spread option?

I know that great spread teams are hard to stop by anyone, but I fear an approach of "doing what we do" as opposed to adapting to your opponent, especially when the opponent is your biggest rival.  I'm hoping that last game is looked back on as the blemish of the Harbaugh era.  Urban ran his basic offense with little to no frills right down our throat and I hope that's the last time it happens, but I fear otherwise.  Talk me off the ledge (or push me off).

MGoBoard
Football

Indonacious

December 7th, 2015 at 10:28 PM ^

MSU didn't seem to have much trouble stopping it. I don't think it's an issue with our offense/coach being pro style. I think it will be a significant point of emphasis in the offseason for the coaches and for harbaugh's next DC hire. 

Joined: 01/03/2012

MGoPoints: 16597

FreddieMercuryHayes

December 7th, 2015 at 10:47 PM ^

MSU had could literally not stop it last year. Nor could they stop Baylor. Nor could they stop Oregon. Hell, they couldn't really even stop Oregon this year when the QB had a broken finger. This year's OSU game will be remembers by OSU fans for all times as one of the worst called offensive games in their history.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/29/2010

MGoPoints: 40856

WeimyWoodson

December 8th, 2015 at 9:48 AM ^

OSU ran the same thing the two years against MSU and people were complaining about.  Both games they basically ignored their beast of a running back.  Hyde two years ago and Elliott this year.  After the game two years ago people were freaking out wondering why they didn't keep giving Hyde the ball despite him getting massiave amounts of yards when it had the ball.  

It seems like when a team like MSU goes all out to shut down the qb run Urban tends to crap himself and wonder why his qb is not getting free for bigger chunks.  He replies by continuing to run his qb over and over until the game clock ends.

 

Joined: 08/25/2015

MGoPoints: 14624

Cromulent

December 8th, 2015 at 9:11 AM ^

Last year MSU's back 4 weren't all that good. Against Oregon, OSU & Baylor watch how early before the snap the safeties would bail from their normal 8-9 yard depth. It was an admission they couldn't play their base D in those games.

BTW, in recent years Baylor has demolished teams that play a one-high deep safety. Worse than usual for them.

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 4534

wahooverine

December 8th, 2015 at 12:10 AM ^

Poor scheme leaves players out of position to make plays other than after the damage is done. The scheme we saw against OSU repeatedly left an unutilized free safety far from the play without any compensating contraint on OSU's offense (unless you want to argue it successfully prevented the deep pass but I doubt you do).

Joined: 11/14/2011

MGoPoints: 6799

Gofor2

December 8th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^

But let's not kid ourselves. OSU's offense can be called a spread, but it's not a Oregon style spread. OSU runs a power offense from spread formations. MSU's defense wasn't as much a factor in OSU losing as OSU's own failure to execute. OSU had many, many chances to win that game but just failed to take advantage when they came. They ran basically the same scheme against UM, difference being they executed well. The point being that OSU's offense is hard to stop when they are executing well because it's geared to take advantage of individual match-ups. But to the OP's question. If you look at UM's offense it obviously looks a lot like the Stanford style when Crazy Jim was at Stanford. It is very well coached and executed, makes few mistakes and controls possession. But it has a ceiling, it's not designed to score a ton of points, and when the defense struggles it often results in a loss. Stanford had some success against Oregon, but that's because Oregon doesn't have the type of Defense a OSU has. When the Defense can stop the run game of Crazy Jim's offense it typically results in a loss. I feel that Harbaughs offense can win 10+ games a year, but when it's matched up against a elite defense and a high scoring offense the result will be a loss more often than a win.

Joined: 12/13/2014

MGoPoints: 549

Sideline

December 7th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^

If you have a dominant D-line, who cares what they run... I favor the 3-4 vs the spread because you can put speed (DE-2 LB-4) on the field to combat speed(HB-2 WR-3) and put the pressure on the QB to make a decision.

You need a decent defense to stop any offense... Every team in this playoff has had their Defense talked about for a portion of this season...

Joined: 12/09/2009

MGoPoints: 2378

UMxWolverines

December 7th, 2015 at 10:37 PM ^

We really lack speed on defense to stop it. I know it sounds generic, but it just is what it is. Hoke did not recruit speed whatsoever. We essentially saw in the OSU game what we saw for the Carr years against the Syracuse, Oregon, Texas, OSU with Smith and Pryor, and App State.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65295

jsquigg

December 7th, 2015 at 10:42 PM ^

I totally disagree.  Our scheme (which has been talked about here ad nauseum) was dependent on our depleted line dominating and the adjustment was to put more responsibility on our LBs.  We have plenty of speed in our secondary, but unless you're playing less man free (which is what Michigan loves) and more zone that speed isn't as big of a factor.  Our LB issues have less to do with speed and more to do with indecisiveness and in that game, poor tackling.  Michigan also rarely ran a scrape or a run blitz and often played with fewer in the box than there were blockers.

Joined: 09/06/2009

MGoPoints: 9561

reshp1

December 7th, 2015 at 11:38 PM ^

I don't think speed was a major factor. They ran right over us most of the time. When they did flank us on their constraint plays, it was usually due to the guy with contain responsibily getting crushed and sealed (probably cheating to stop the base play). Our DBs are as fast as anyone's and the LB's athleticism, or lack of, was never really exposed except on a wheel route here and there. Almost all the damage was done by winning individual matchups on the line so they could get clean releases and sustain blocks at the LB level.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

A Fan In Fargo

December 8th, 2015 at 12:58 AM ^

It is far more effective to have quickness and athleticism to maneuver just enough to shun them blocks. It might seem to you guys like small distances down there and that speed doesn't count much. The truth is that in the trenches when you have strong and quick footed backers busting shick up, it's like night and day. Don't lie to these guys reading this stuff. Are there any Penn State fans on here that can back me up? Geezus k-ryst. Or how about you ask Larry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kea6kM3kbSY

Joined: 02/16/2014

MGoPoints: -9997722

twohooks

December 7th, 2015 at 10:41 PM ^

To Indiana game, just had better players on D than Indiana did. Not ready for prime timers Strobel and Godin were clearly not ready, Hurst and Henry couldn't hold their exceeded workload. Add Glasgow and Mone -or just one of them- it makes a dfifference. Harbaugh was 1-3 vs lost one game by 7 IME this was Oregon's best stretch ever.

Joined: 01/21/2010

MGoPoints: 4776

Erik_in_Dayton

December 7th, 2015 at 10:42 PM ^

...this year's game would have been different if Michgan had Glasgow and Mone. If that's an excuse, fine, but it's also true. I don't mean to say Michigan would have won, but Durkin likely doesn't have to turn to the 3-3-5 as much as he did if he has those guys. And then the LB problems are less exposed. A better Michigan running game could have helped the defense too.

Joined: 12/03/2008

MGoPoints: 58983

brad

December 7th, 2015 at 10:52 PM ^

Based on my unprofessional viewings of defenses that stop spread option offenses, you need to flood the backfield with defensive players, force the offense to dodge defenders which slows it down, and tackle well. So, imo, we should bring someone in who is willing to do that and able to carry it out.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 15504

Yeoman

December 7th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^

Go back and look at the 2010 title game sometime.

What defeats a spread is when the guy they're optioning off of--and they had to option off Fairley because they couldn't block him--is so fast he can take away both options simultaneously.

Recruit that guy and the problem is solved. (And, yes, I know he's easier said than found.)

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21367

Ghost of Fritz…

December 7th, 2015 at 11:35 PM ^

To stop a really good run-spread, the D must have a disruptive d-line.  They have to get into the backfield.  A stalemate at the line of scrimmage will not get it done. 

Thereafter, speed (either pure speed and/or super quick read and react) from other defenders seems to be important also.

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 23879