OT - 100+ Run Plays Diagrammed

I've seen Patterson specifically "Kill" a few plays, but that most likely is a situation where they have a specific playcall that they are looking to go against a specific look (i.e. a play action deep shot vs single-high coverage; or even box numbers) that they "kill" (typically to a run play).

What I haven't personally seen is any actual audibles. It felt like they did more of that under Speight, and even "killed" more plays with him, particularly early in 2017. But Speight had also been in a pro-style type of offense for a while that knew what to look for in terms of coverages, rotations, etc., whereas Patterson I don't think learned too much of that outside the basics (number of safeties, box count, CB leverage; pick half the play based on one of those, but not switch plays). That may be something they include more this upcoming year (more RPOs can cover for some of that because theoretically the read makes you always right, but there are still some things defenses can do that would be better to check out of, particularly at the college level where post-snap adjustments are more difficult to execute due to limited practice reps).

My two cents on the offense:

I think the overall design of the offense was mostly fine. Plays connected well together and mostly built off each other.

Michigan's OL was best built for interior runs, which they leaned on. When they went outside, they avoiding some of the weaknesses of the OL and TE blocking by running down G instead of stretch or pin and pull.

For the pass game, overall, the receivers/TEs are much better at the long developing plays, and so is Patterson. Patterson's biggest weakness is that he doesn't read defenses quickly enough, which makes quick passes difficult. Outside of DPJ, both Black and Collins are better downfield threats to help them gain separation through route structure, rather than just simple routes. 

Michigan's OL improved a ton, especially in pass pro, but they still weren't great at it, and required a bit of protection because of it. The multiple TE sets helped sell run and give the ability to utilize a lot of different protection combinations to avoid allowing the D simply attack (as you saw specifically against ND).

So, in whole, there was a reason Michigan's offense was shaped the way it was, and for the most part, it was pretty successful.

However, because of that shape, and possibly other reasons, it left Michigan reliant on the run to set up the offense. It didn't have a quick passing attack to stay balanced in terms of staying on track. People asked for more, but honestly, even when they ran it, it wasn't terribly effective (there are possible reasons for that, but this post will get long enough). It's my feeling that this is a major focus of the Gattis hire (and would have been the focus for the O going into next year regardless).

On top of that, Michigan was ineffective at executing their secondary plays. They had a strong number of them, and in my opinion, not too many or too few necessarily, but when they ran them, even when they got looks they wanted, they didn't really do well with them. So when opponents could stop the base plays, Michigan effectively struggled.

The goal for Michigan should be to develop that quick pass game/RPO over the offense to gain some balance on early downs without having to be so reliant on the run. Secondly, it should adjust some reps to have more confidence in those secondary plays off of the base. This doesn't take a drastic change in the offensive structure, some new wrinkles, new focus on reps, etc., but the overall structure isn't out of whack.

My two cents.

Is another name for Counter OT because it typically has a "Trey" block on the frontside. That said, it's not an accurate description because that "Trey" block depends on the front, so it's really a poor name for the play.