Strategic Evolution

Submitted by The Bugle on

One of the questions from Brian's mailbag really got me thinking about the strategic evolution of opposing defenses against Tate from WMU and ND to today. Unfortunately, this is a topic way out of my area of expertise. I was hoping some of you guys may be able to weigh in on this.

First, here is the quote:

As the season has gone on, I’ve noticed that Tate hasn’t been scrambling around a lot like he used to. this is probably because the of the coaches, but is it possible that that’s just the kind of quarterback he is? It might mean having to deal with some of those stupid grounding penalties and terrible Favre throws, but that’s what he was doing early in the year, and his stats have been regressing. Just something to keep in mind?

Brian's response was basically, teams have evolved to keep Tate in the pocket and Molk's absence has really hurt. For the purpose of this I want to ignore the Molk aspect of this, which is a leap, but ATM I am more interested in the strategic aspect of this.

So I'm assuming the other teams have been trying extra hard to keep Tate in the pocket. It would seem logical that this would lead to other teams diverting more players to keep Tate in check. If this is true, has this created more soft spots in the defense for us to take advantage of? I really don't know football well enough to evaluate this hypothesis at all. So, to the football strategists among us I have a few questions:

1. Are there new weaknesses in the defense associated with trying to keep Tate in the pocket?

2. If so, are we using any novel approaches to attack these weaknesses?

3. If there are weaknesses that we aren't attacking, how would we go about doing it if we had optimal personnel?

4. Finally, if we aren't exploiting these weak spots what do you think the rationale is? (Lack of experience, coaching, lack of a big-play receiver, saving our tricks for OSU, etc?)

Thanks in advance for any insight. Also, I know its a huge leap to just ignore Molk's effect on the OL, but for the sake of discussion I want to ignore it and look at our current situation which is unfortunately Molk-less. If I'm way off on any of this (which is completely possible) let me know.

Todd Plate's n…

November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 PM ^

Simply cannot remove the Molk aspect from this. The "weak" spots the D leaves as they keep Tate in check can only be exploited if he has any time to throw, i.e. Roundtree open over the middle...he simply hasn't had much time when he drops back to pass.

The Bugle

November 5th, 2009 at 2:39 PM ^

It doesn't answer the question. The reason I brought up Molk was so people didn't just say our OL isn't half as good as it used to be now that he is gone. I understand that. I realize that this is a big leap , but to have the discussion I was looking for it is necessary.

Here is an anecdote, in intro physics when we are looking at simple motion we choose to ignore all the other effects like friction or air resistance so that we can simply look at the true effects we want to study. In the case of this physics example that would velocity, displacement, acceleration, etc.

In this case I thought it would be cool to look at the defensive play theoretically and try to examine what defenses are doing differently. Look at how this changes what we should attack, how we should attack. Maybe examine we may be doing wrong. Like I said, I know Molk plays a big role. But in this Football proof, if you will, I'm looking to say Molk is like friction, we know it has a big role on everything, but for the sake of this intellectual exercise let's ignore him.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 5th, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^

It makes sense to ignore the Molk factor because that is the reality of the situation (sadly). He is out for the remainder of the season so taking him into account would make little sense. However, I am not one of the strategists either, so I can't be of more assistance to you. Interesting thoughts though....+1.

PurpleStuff

November 5th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^

I think a lot of coaches' first instinct is to blitz the hell out of a young quarterback and force him to make quick/bad decisions. I imagine this was normally blitz-happy Tenuta's plan in the ND game (I'm sure someone who remembers the UFR from that game can correct me if I'm wrong) and the defense got burned a number of times because Tate's mobility allowed him to elude the rush and find guys in single coverage with lots of time to get open (or Tate just made one guy miss at the line and took it to the house himself). Now that there is more film on Tate, teams are most likely looking to force him to sit in the pocket and throw into coverage (like Iowa did with much success). My guess is they are bringing fewer guys/blitzes (maybe explains why we've seen less need for the H-back in pass protection) while keeping their safeties deep, and that Tate, like most true freshmen quarterbacks, hasn't been great at throwing into tight windows. Since the offense has been so turnover prone and inconsistent, they haven't been able to consistently make teams pay for keeping their safeties back by pounding the ball on the ground. On top of all that, the line (especially without Molk) isn't terribly strong in pass protection so teams are still able to get pressure with just four pass rushers.

If I remember correctly, both big throws against Illinois (Roundtree and Hemingway) came against the blitz.