There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about M's need for counters, and reference to the tackle power that we ran against CMU on which Toussaint picked up a nice 20 yard gain even though Lewan got too deep on his pull. So I was studying that play for use in an upcoming diary (part 3 of my "Four Plays" series, which I plan to have ready in time for the B1G opener against Minnesota), and here's how it appears to have been drawn up:
Schofield has to kick-out the WDE, Miller & Kalis double their DT, while Glasgow and Williams have to single-block the two backside DL. Miller's supposed to then pop off the double to block the MLB, while Lewan pulls, leads Toussaint through the hole, and blocks the first guy he sees--presumably the WILL.
What is bothering me, though, is that there does not appear to be any plan for blocking the SAM. In the CMU game, Michigan ran this play out of a 2-TE set, with Williams on the LOS and Funchess in the slot but tight to the formation. Yet Funchess then ran a pass route which leads me to believe the idea was to fool the SAM into following Funchess rather than try and block him. It didn't really work, and the SAM would have been able to hold the play down if Toussaint hadn't made a sick move and spun the SAM onto his ass.
I was thinking maybe a better way to run this play would be with a FB, and have the FB block Williams' guy so that Williams can get out on the SAM--but then I wonder if that ruins the play's effectiveness as a counter? Anyway, I was hoping to get some opinions on this play--am I wrong to think that somebody needs to block the SAM? Is there a better way to block him? Did somebody target the wrong defender in the CMU game and so what looks like a flaw in play-design was really an execution issue?