Smart Football: TCU Play
http://smartfootball.com/defending-spread/tcus-inverted-veer-option
In the link he talks about a play that TCU ran against Clemson that is similar to, but not the read option. It seems like this play would fit right in with the rest of our counter-punches we have been using lately. In one of the comments, they note that if the guard had been faster and gotten to the safety, it would have been a TD. That is definitely something that our guards could do for us in this play.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
i think we've actually run this some with denard, but i'm not sure
September 30th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
I that with Minor being such a strong runner between the tackles and Tate/Denard being slightly undersized I don't really see Michigan running this play with any sort of regularity. I certainly wouldn't mind it being run a few times throughout the year with Denard in at QB as he can turn just about anything into a TD if he gets as much space as TCU's QB did on that particular play.
When Devin Gardner is at Michigan I've got no problem with this being part of the offense as Michigan will have more speed backs like Shaw and Smith.
I am intrigued by the possibility of Florida's shovel-triple-option play that Chris linked in that article being used. Any play that gets the ball into Koger's hands is fine by me.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
I don't think speed is the key here as much as quickness, which makes Denard, or any other mobile qb a prime candidate for this. The run isn't much different than a delayed qb power, which we have run quite a bit in the past. It's just made to look like the zone read.
I would be less surprised if RR ever used the shovel option play with a motioning WR. No offense to Koger, but to have a speedier option would seem more like RR's philosophy. That said, that's not necessarily putting a guy in space as they would be very close to the line, which also doesn't appear to be the top goal of RR's offense.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
Not all plays are going to be designed to go to the house, it's a nice play on 2nd and 7 or so that can get you five yards or move the sticks.
As far as motioning a WR instead of using a TE on the play you've got to account for what happens if the QB keeps the ball or pitches to the back and having a TE take on a LB for a block is much better than having Odoms(who is a very willing blocker) or one of the other slot guys taking on a LB.
Lastly, just because a player is close to the LOS doesn't mean he won't have some room to run. Kevin Koger's flat route against ND this year is a perfect example.
Sorry that's so wide, I don't know anything about HTML so I can't shrink it to size.
And back to the topic at hand, we've only run trips about 6 times in the first three games according to the UFRs (not that we couldn't run the inverted veer out of something other than trips).
September 30th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
All good points, and I don't disagree. That said, there is a big difference in that flat play and him taking the pitch on a shovel option.
This play is opened by the threat of Harvin (I believe) running motion and pulling the defense with him. Without a serious jet sweep threat, our TE (presumably Koger) would be in much tighter company. If you take a look at Smart Football's diagram of how the play is supposed to work, the inside guy is going between the playside G&T.
So, yes, it probably isn't so much of a take it to the house play. I also agree that Odoms isn't really the type to run this, and I counter that with a Stonum/C.Brown on the jet sweep to inside option instead. Brown has lined up in the slot once that I remember, so it's not as unlikely.
So yeah, I see your points, and agree for the most part. If anything, I disagree with comparing the flat route to taking a pitch on the inside. That's all.
So, yes, it probably isn't so much of a take it to the house play. I also agree that Odoms isn't really the type to run this, and I counter that with a Stonum/C.Brown on the jet sweep to inside option instead. Brown has lined up in the slot once that I remember, so it's not as unlikely.
So yeah, I see your points, and agree for the most part. If anything, I disagree with comparing the flat route to taking a pitch on the inside. That's all.September 30th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
Florida's return specialist is the motion man in that video. Not that it's really of any consequence.
And know that wasn't exactly the best example when compared to the shovel-option, it was just the most readily available being linked to in a UFR and all. All I was really trying to get across was that you don't have to line up wide or 7 yards off the LOS to get out into open space.
Also, no disrespect to any teams in the Big Ten that aren't Ohio State and maybe Penn State, but their defenses just don't have the athletic ability that LSU does in most years, so I could see this play working a little better against those teams. Even on that play if the DE bites a little harder Tebow just has to make the pitch and Demps has nothing but room down the sideline.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
Yeah, video is really grainy on my end. And again, agreed with the rest.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
Very interesting - thanks for sharing.
I'm awful at defensive schemes, but I'd like to play a D coordinator and try to defend this. Could you tell the DE to favor taking the RB whenever he sees this formation and play develop and tell the LB to read the QB or watch for the guard to pull? From looking at the video it looks like the LB (#20) is the one who blows his assignment.
What are your thoughts on defending this?
September 30th, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^
Like the Clemson coach said, running out of base would have greatly improved their chances. By blitzing the backside LB/S, it works out like a scrape play. The MLB rolled to the backside and was sealed by tackle.
I think this play is risky because you have to hope the playside DE goes for the RB. The QB in the video example on smartfootball only reads the backside DE. If the DE would have clearly seen the ball not being handed off, he should be zeroing in on the QB. This DE looked to have a good position to pull it off as he reacted to the RB after the transition didn't happen. A better DE might blow this play up for a huge loss. It somewhat turns into a gamble on "is the DE committed to the RB"?
I would agree that #20 made a big error, but I'm not sure if he was supposed to roll backside first due to the blitzer on the outside or what. From Clemson's perspective, you'd think he'd read the pulling guard and go that direction. You can see him start leaning right before the play happened, so maybe that was his first priority on the backside.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
Could the pulling guard have blocked that DE then if he went for the qb?
I was thinking that play would work a bit better with Koger or Webb as an H-back lead blocking instead of the guard. Would prevent the qb from running past his blocker as easily.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^
As SmartFootball notes, it appears they are purposely leaving the playside and backside DEs unblocked. The DE already has to have to cover two players (HB and QB). That should work in the offense's favor in most cases. It just seems like the QB doesn't see the playside DE, so I'm not sure how he does that read, or if there is a read at all. It might have just banking on Clemson's defensive coaches telling his players to crash on the HB.
Pulling a guard or an H-back isn't a big deal. In a normal zone read, your backside tackle is going to go toward the LBs. By not blocking the playside DE, they used the playside tackle made that similar seal on the inside linebacker and the guard was able to pull in case a block was needed (not in this case). The premise is that with two guys unblocked, you've got two lineman who can move up field to block.
Theoretically, by putting in an H-back, that's just allowing more defenders in the box. That play was against man cover-1. If they'd exchanged a slot receiver for an h-back, the defense would have another guy defender over him in the box. That limits running lanes, and with the pulling h-back, the defender would follow him, meaning one more defender going toward the play.
I hope that made some sense.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
Great discussion, MGopoints for everybody! It's this sort of intelligent football discussion that makes me love this site... well, that and everything else.