SDSU vs Navy Bowl Game Offense
So it's February and I've been longing to watch football like the rest of you so I decided to see this MANBALL offense for myself and I thought I would take some notes and see what I came up with. There were a total of 55 plays that I noted (all but the last drive). (Thanks Boyz n da Pahokee for this: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/sdsu-vs-navy-full-game)
| Shotgun | 16 |
| Under Center | 39 |
30% out of shotgun surprised me. To be fair the first drive, six snaps, were all run in shotgun no huddle which seemed atypical based on the rest of the game. 30% is probably inflated because of that, without the first drive that drops to 20%. Ugh, that is a huge change for a quarterback and a center to go through.
Next I looked at formations. I really think that one of the strongest parts of our team next year will be the receiving corps so my worry was that slots would never be used.
| 3 WR, RB, TE | 19 |
| 2 WR, RB, 2 TE | 13 |
| 2 WR, RB, TE, FB | 12 |
| 4 WR, RB | 3 |
| 5 WR | 1 |
| 3 WR, 2 RB | 1 |
| 2 WR, TE, 2 RB | 2 |
| 3 WR, RB, FB | 1 |
| 3 TE, 2 RB | 1 |
| WR, 2 TE, RB, FB | 2 |
For these numbers I only considered a player a FB if he lined up in front of the RB. In the case where there were 2 RB it could have very well been that one was a FB and I didn't know the players well enough to make the differentiation.
Breakdown by usage:
| 4+ WR | 4 |
| 3 WR | 21 |
| 2 WR | 27 |
| 1 WR | 2 |
| 0 WR | 1 |
| FB | 15 |
| 1 TE | 33 |
| 2+ TE | 16 |
Oh that's why they are offering so many tight ends right now. Because they used at least one on all but six plays and are more likely to have two or more on the field than a FB.
So what does this mean?
Well, I'm not really sure. Coach Borges has said that he will alter his offense to fit the personnel that he has. To me, that should mean that 3 WR are deployed more often than 2 and that he utilizes four more frequently. It also shows how crucial the late signing of Chris Barnett was to the offensive strategy. He now becomes our third-string tight end and if there is an injury he will be looking at some serious playing time. The other big change is the percentage under center. I guess it should be encouraging that they could run their offense just fine out of the shotgun, it wasn't just on obvious passing downs. FWIW, they ran the read option on one of their first six plays. Which, if you can, check out those first six plays, they might give you some confidence that coach Borges may be able to adapt to Denard's skill set. I'm not saying that that is what our offense will look like next year but I do think those plays are closer than the rest of the game. Five years down the road is a different story, but for next year check out those plays.
I'm hoping to watch more games in the future and will post if anything else sticks out. Hopefully that will hold me over until the spring game after which all of this will be completely irrelevant.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
You're border line diary. Maybe if you could somehow reference the Smiths...
February 24th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
Re: the zone read that they ran. I saw that play too. I assume they weren't zone blocking, as Hoke doesn't like it. I also don't think that the QB was really making a read on the play. I think he was supposed to hand off all the way and then run around the end as if he had the ball. It will be interesting to see if Borges can turn the play into a real option. I don't see why he couldn't, but it's also not his bread-and-butter a la Rodriguez (obviously).
February 24th, 2011 at 8:17 PM ^
Re: the zone read that they ran. I saw that play too. I assume they weren't zone blocking, as Hoke doesn't like it.
Urge to kill rising, Rising, RISING.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
What are you talking about?
February 25th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
Sorry, the whole "Hoke hates zone blocking" meme drives me crazy.
See, for example, this post.
I really need to ask Tim or somebody just how unethical it would be for me to bribe them to ask Coach Hoke at a presser or something what he actually thinks about zone blocking.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
I was just commenting on one play. As I said, I was assuming that they were not zone blocking on that play. I'm not versed enough in blocking to say for a fact whether they were or were not.
I am pretty convinced that that play was not really a read option. I think it will be interesting to see if Borges can fully utilize read options and, if he tries, whether Denard can get better at making those reads.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
"I assume they weren't zone blocking, as Hoke doesn't like it."
Hoke never said he doesn't like zone blocking. He said he doesn't like to zone block all the time. SDSU did run zone strech plays in their bowl game.
It makes sense to mix up our blocking schemes, especially since the zone plays and power plays are good counters to each other. There were a few games last year where RR blocked down and pulled his guards.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
This is a great post, props to you WestMighiganMan. I'm about to go check out the shotgun snaps instead of listening to "accounts receivable issues" in Healthcare Finance and Policy.
I'm hoping we still see a lot of shotgun next year, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for Denard to run. Good to see Borges has a track record of being flexible and running multiple sets.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:48 PM ^
Great Post, the spring game is going to be oh so telling. I am sure I share the same sentiments as everyone else when saying that, I have anxiety attacks on a daily basis wondering what the heck the offense is going to look like next year...
February 24th, 2011 at 7:31 PM ^
Ah thank you. I went to look at the embedding how-to video, but I don't have the source button like on that screen. How did you do it?
February 24th, 2011 at 7:49 PM ^
1. Click "Embed" underneath the Youtube video.
2. Copy the html code that appears in the text box underneath the Youtube video.
3. Switch to a Plain Text Editor on MGoBlog (by clicking button underneath text box).
4. Paste the html code in the plain text editor.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
So plain text editor is now my friend? Thank you.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
This game was available on ESPN 3 last time I looked. That's where I watched it. I really liked the offense. I'll probably sit down and watch it again some time soon. The other game I wanted to try to find was the SDSU vs TCU game.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^
I watched it live on TV with one of my best friends, who happens to be a Naval Academy Midshipmen; he did not like SDSU's offense.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
If you look in that link of the game (Pahokee's), you'll see mgoblog user tenpercent posted a few links to some analysis he did of the game. It's very good
I did exactly what you did, watched the game and took notes. Then I read what this guy did. But you've got it listed in a very succinct format and I love when analyses like this find their way to the board. BTW by my count, 13 of the shotgun formations occurred in the first half, balanced very nearly to the 16 formations run from under center. Borges can look a lot like RR's O if he wants to, at least from a formation standpoint. But they ran 34 (!) different formations overall. I don't know if they can install that much and run it all well, I don't think so. Borges may very well find himself leaning on what the players already know.
http://offensivebreakdown.blogspot.com/2011/01/san-diego-state-offense-vs-navy.html
http://offensivebreakdown.blogspot.com/2011/01/san-diego-state-offense-vs-navy-part-2.html
http://offensivebreakdown.blogspot.com/2011/01/san-diego-state-offense-vs-navy-part-3.html
http://offensivebreakdown.blogspot.com/2011/01/san-diego-state-offense-vs-navy-part-4.html
February 25th, 2011 at 1:52 AM ^
If Mike Shaw could be used in a similar was as Hillman. Similar backs in my mind, Hillman (5-10, 175) and Shaw (6' 181) are both quick backs that like really light on their feet.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:02 AM ^
I think the first drive can be something they scripted that was maybe different than their "normal" offenses. I feel that in bowl games teams are scouted so much that coaches might call plays or formations that the other defense has not seen before.
I can't speak to SDSU, but maybe running no huddle and lots of shotgun to start the game was a wrinkle in their playbook.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:45 AM ^
They did it in the regular season on a few occasions. They did against Utah, maybe against Air Force and Missouri as well, I can't really remember.
February 25th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
I also recently watched the SDSU Bowl Game and was very impressed with their offense, especially when you consider that most of those kids are probably 203 star recruits.
Perhaps the most impressive thing that I saw, and I think that the OP's analysis really makes this point, is that the offense is VERY diverse. It is not Bo's 3 yards and a cloud of dust. It is not even Lloyd's offense. It is a true hybrid offense that can show multiple looks out of multiple formations. To me, the advantages of this are (1) that it makes us harder to defend, and (2) it allows us to modify our offense to the opponents that we face.
Count me in the excited column.
February 25th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^
I'm excited too. The offense kind of reminded me of what OSU has done since Pryor has been there. Multiple fronts going from an under-center play action pass to a zone read play.
Hard to defend, especially when you consider that Denard is far more dangerious than TP or the other multiple front guys I can think of.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
I watched most of the first half of the SDSU Utah game. I had meant to click the Navy game but misclicked or summat--no idea.
Anyway, it was a big game for them so I went ahead and watched it.
SDSU did the same no-huddle, all shotgun thing on the first drive. It were beautiful. The Utah D was completely gassed and confused. In fact, it looked a lot like what RR's offense was supposed to look like.
The plays and formations are there in the Borges offense. He clearly is capable of coaching the players how to do all the no-huddle, hurry up, spread type stuff. I am confused why people are gnashing their teeth about Denard under center in an I form. I don't see any reason to assume Borges is going to do that.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
Even if he did have to go under center, people are quick to forget that Denard only took snaps under center in High School. With this in mind, I think we see plenty of shotgun, as it just makes sense and Borges sounds like he's going to adapt. All the people fretting about a return to three yards and a cloud of dust have very obviously not done their research.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
I like that they broke tendency and started the game in the gun.