Tackle Power
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?
September 11th, 2013 at 2:23 AM ^
Was the play run again? Maybe Funchess got mixed up and was supposed to block the SAM? Just seems extremely unlikely the SAM would be overlooked or dismissed as unable to chase down the ball carrier.
Not sure that they could count on the SAM following Funchess on his route either, especially if they don't know what kind of help he has from the secondary.
I also thought maybe Devin was reading the SAM, and for a second it looks like maybe he's looking somewhere else during the handoff, but I might just be trying to talk myself into seeing something.
September 11th, 2013 at 2:33 AM ^
I'm not an expert, but I think the expectation is that Lewan will toss the WILL aside and then crush the SAM.
September 11th, 2013 at 3:06 AM ^
September 11th, 2013 at 3:08 AM ^
September 11th, 2013 at 7:17 AM ^
My guess is Funch got mixed up and missed the assignment.
September 11th, 2013 at 7:22 AM ^
In your diagram above, I think that looks about right. It seems to me that it would be much more leathal if Funchess does indeed release downfield as a receiver. If the SAM crashes down in an attempt to tackle Fitz, then the next time you run this play you can instead use play action (believing the SAM will crash down again). If he realizes the ball was not handed to Fitz then perhaps Gardner can shake him and run for yardage, or if he does follow Funch or Fitz, Gardner could hit a different receiver or run. The way M was running that play gives you multiple ways to attack the defense.
During the ND game I was wondering about blocking assignments as well. I'm no expert, but I feel like Miller is a mobile lineman, why not move him around the two guards more?. I felt like the guards stood up OK when blocking Nix straight up. When they ran those outside zone runs, Nix would just hop in Miller's back pocket and crash through his gap. Especially at the end of the game when they ran the ball left twice in a row... Nix got two TFLs. It seemed impossible to me that Kalis was going to be able to manuever around Nix even with help from Miller. Why not have Glasgow crack back to the right on Nix and pull Miller around to pick up one of those blitzing LBs? Doesn't matter since Gardner was able to run for the 1st to seal the game.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:13 AM ^
You just don't have the numbers necessary to do this when two of your guys (QB and RB) can't block. Instead, you leave a guy unblocked and run away from him, leaving a mess of blocking in his way so he can't get to the RB.
What I would be more worried about is that every block on this play is a single block. There is not one double team in there, and with some inexperienced guys (not saying they aren't good), there's the chance that they get beat on a single block.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:11 AM ^
He's the back-side linebacker, which doesn't make him crucial to a successful play. I think if you put a fullback in, you pull more defenders toward the play-side, as there's a chance the safety or whomever was lined up on the strong side TE/H-back would instead align over the middle of the formation.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:18 AM ^
If that's the defensive formation, Michigan should audible into a zone stretch to the left or something like that because there is absolutely no way for the defense to not get sealed. Basically, you have 4.5 blockers for 3.5 defenders to the left and 2.5 blockers (+1 with pull) for 3.5 defenders to the right. If you can find out what Minnesota runs most of the time (my guess based on nothing is a 4-3 over) then I would kick your strong side DT into a 3-tech and your SDE into a 7-tech. I'd then stack your SAM. At that point, your U-back and Y-TE can doulbe SDE to SAM.
Your WILL most likely should also be lined up inside the playside OT (or the DE should be and the WILL will will have leverage responsibility). As is, you have two defenders playing the same gap on the playside.
Now, if you insist on using the formation above, you can scoop block the SDE with the Y-TE and have the Y-TE go to the SAM. By the time the Y-TE crosses the face of the SDE and passes him, the U-back should have that gap between the Y-TE and BSG sealed.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:21 AM ^
September 11th, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^
The whole tackle power play is supposed to be a counter off of the regular power left we run. If the defense is aligned the way you have it, then we would be better off audibling out of the counter.
[EDIT]: I see you drew up the defensive formation off of what CMU really had aligned. So I retract my statement above.
I think you are supposed to forget about the SAM entirely. The counter action is supposed to make the SAM hesitate, or at least take a step toward the LOS. If Lewan pulls properly, the SAM either has to chase Toussaint from the back side of the play, or he will get tangled in the mess being created by the MIKE and the Center. Lewan's pull slows Toussaint down so much that the MIKE breaks free and the SAM has been able to get to the playside. This allows for the cutback, but should never have happened if ran properly.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:29 AM ^
We have a play like this in our playbook, and the SAM would not be blocked on that play. The idea (as others have mentioned) is that he would have to come over the top of the ACE block to get there, which means the RB could gain several yards before the SAM got there and potentially leave him in the dust altogether. Depending on personnel, too, a lot of SAM linebackers aren't the type to read-and-react quickly and slice into backfields like Brandin Hawthorne, James Ross, etc. could do. I wouldn't put it past Jake Ryan, but Cam Gordon and Brennen Beyer could never make a play like that in the backfield.
September 11th, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^
Which helps, believe it or not.
What CMU is running is a 4-3 over Stack. WILL and SAM are stacked over the DE. This allows them to correct the DE at all times (and allows CMU to do some stunting). The goal here is that the counter motion will force the SAM to hesitate. By the time the he properly reads the play, the double should get out to MIKE and effectively seal both the MIKE and SAM unless the SAM essentially is taking an angle backwards to get back to the ball, by which point the RB would be down field. Funchess is protecting the blind side from the boundary corner and then moving on to the GTS (greatest treat safety). A lot of times in these formation, with two TEs to the boundary side, defenses like to blitz the corner off the knub look. Because it's a speedy corner, if he gets a free run, he can track the play down from behind. Funchess is making sure there is no such free run before releasing down field.
September 11th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
Very informative--I'm glad I posted the question.
According to last year's Minnesota UFR, the Gophers' base defense (or, at least the one they ran against us most of the time) is a 4-3 even. From what I've been able to find, the 4-3 even has the DEs both in 5-techniques, the weakside DT inside shade on the guard ("2i"), and the other DT head-up on the other guard (2-tech). I also watched most of their UNLV game from this year and if they've changed, it hasn't been a radical change.
It's kind of hard (for me, at least) to distinguish a 3-tech alignment from, say, a 2i alignment, so in the diagram I have Central's DL in the 4-3 even positions that I am expecting from Minnesota, but it's possible I might have one or both of the DTs off a bit.. For the LBs, I just them where the CMU linebackers were standing before the snap; I should probably review that in case Minnesota's 4-3 even would call for different LB alignment than Central's 4-3 stack.
September 11th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
Your audience will still get the idea regardless of the shade. It looked to me like CMU moved their LBs just before the snap to get into a stack position, which allows them to be much more gap sound then what is drawn above. My advice, as far as drawing up plays, is just to get something that is somewhat similar and describe the concept as you're doing. Don't get bogged down in some of the details as that can just lead to confusion in this format.
September 11th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
Yes, to many above, SAM is not in the play unless the center gets no downfield movement and /or the handoff or pulling guard are too slow.
If the play is done correctly with a line surge and a good pull and handoff, the SAM cannot get there.
September 11th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^
September 11th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
THIS, my strange bedfellows, is what you do with a TACKLE -- watch the first video of a play by FSU (NTFSU) embedded in this SI article (which is not about OSU (NTOSU, and NTOOSU)):
Teaser: It's the hook 'n lateral (or, do you say, hook 'n ladder), but in a way the Dolphins didn't exactly run it. Oh, the tackle. For the record, however, why haul this out when you're up 20-0 on some nobody? Seems you'd run it for a 2 point conversion when you're playing Boise or something equivalent.