Is there a reason not to run bubble screens?
I don't understand why the offense isn't incoporating the bubble screen. As Brian noted recently, it appears like defenses are giving it away at times. The pros of running bubble screens seem to me to be that it would give Denard some confidence by getting him easy completions, that it would keep the WRs in the game by getting the ball in their hands (though, to their credit, they all seem to block hard whether they're getting the ball or not), that it would stretch the field horizontally, and, of course, that it would gain yards.
To the football coaches out there: Am I missing something? Is there a downside to running that play several times a game?
Note: I'm not trying to bash Al Borges. I'll be the first to admit that his little finger knows more about football than I do.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
Saving it for B10? I don't know honestly...I am surprised we didn't use it more on ND honestly, I thought that they were just giving it to us at times.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
we didn't go full spread till 2nd half
and at that point we were down andneeded to throw the ball downfield
September 26th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
May well be. We clearly either held some things back or hadn't installed some things even against ND, as the speed option indicates. Bubble screen might be a held back/not installed element. I would certainly like to see it as it'll be good for Denard and keep the D honest.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
I'm with you 100% on this.
The problem is that I'm sure you will get a lot of "we don't know???" type posts without much substance. If I had one major gripe with the way things have gone offensively it would be bubble screens and other high percentage passes to get Denard more involved with his arm and not his legs.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
Gallon and Roundtree (as he showed last year) are great YAC producers and would be dynamite on bubble screens. Bubble screens were a staple of Carr's offense and RR's and would seem to work in the I-Form, Spread, or whatever offense is being run.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
Look what happend to ND when they tried running that 30 times against PItt. ya ya they still won but bearly!
September 26th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^
I don't even know what this means. And why was a bear at the ND-Pitt game?
September 26th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
he's tight with the panther
September 26th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
ND ran the bubble screen and it was very ineffective. They ran it several times against PItt and it got them nowhere.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
Well, shit, something didn't work for Notre Dame. Guess we should never run it!
September 26th, 2011 at 10:06 PM ^
Didn't know what else to do so he went to a Pitt game.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:55 PM ^
I feel the exact same way. I saw several obvious bubble situations on Saturday. Widening the field would help our run game immensely. Denard hasn't been able to stretch it vertically despite safeties lining up on the LB's shoulders. RR was very good at stretching the field horizontally to keep running lanes from getting crowded.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
Because a bubble screen is easy to throw, whereas the coaching staff wants to use OOC games for Denard to work on harder, lower-percentage throws? Why get in-game practice for a pass that almost completes itself? Clearly, WRs and QB need MORE work on other routes.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
They ran a wide receiver screen with gallon saturday, and denard horribly overthrew odoms on a screen-like play that could have gone for 30+ yards. He's done plenty of HB screens too. I don't really see what the difference is if its a bubble or a traditional WR screen.
The big downside of a bubble is the risk of a lateral pass that's dropped and becomes a fumble.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
I difference that I see between the screens to Gallon that they've run this year and the bubble screens of the past three years is that Gallon has been coming back toward the middle of the field to catch the ball, whereas the bubble screens took the receiver toward the edge of the field...Also, Denard has missed a few this year but did well throwing those passes last year.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
*Citation needed
September 26th, 2011 at 5:43 PM ^
The tunnel screen is a great play against SDSU because they blitz a lot. This forms natural "tunnels" in the defense that you can hit for big yardage up the middle. Against teams that run more run blitzes or blitz up the middle more, bubbles can be very effective.
By the way, the zone read works really well with the bubble for 2 reasons
- Counter flow makes the safeties and LBs flow the opposite direction as the screen is going. The lineman can even follow through with the blocks for the most part.
- Because the DE can't crash into the throwing lane because he has to respect the QB read or a draw play off of a fake bubble.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
That Gallon play was a tunnel screen, which they've been running all season to little effect. Tunnel screens need the playside tackle to pop out and block the DB over the receiver, so the receiver runs back toward the QB. Takes longer, requires an athletic tackle, and send the receiver back towards the middle of the defense.
In bubble screens, the outside receiver blocks and the slot runs parallel to the line of scrimmage and gets the ball going away from the middle of the field. Theoretically, you (quickly) get your slot guy one on one with a DB. Works even better if the DB's are lined up 10 yards off your receivers.
I have no idea when Borgess insists on running tunnels when, given UM's receivers, they seem inferior to bubbles. The only thing I can come up with is that he thinks that the tunnel with the receiver facing Denard is an easier completion than the bubble when the receiver is running away. Still Denard successfully made bubble screen throws all last year, so I have no idea.
September 26th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
would we have to take out the TE or at least reposition him? thus giving it away
September 26th, 2011 at 5:16 PM ^
A. Koger can split out, it's not unfathomable that that happens
B. Turns out that you can run all of the same plays with 4 WR as with 3 WR and 1 TE.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
There's a reason not to throw short passes in general: defenses are bringing up safeties. They're doing it more so they can stop the run, but when they're there, they can also often shut down the short passing game as well. Note that a lot of our screens are being thrown in heavy traffic. We saw this last year, too, especially in the second half of the season. The bubble screen was effective last year early in the season, but down the stretch it was being snuffed out consistently.
IMO, we've got to stretch the field vertically more than anything. That's what defenses are giving up. Junior Hemingway was criminally underused on Saturday. He faced single coverage all game long, and we threw only one pass his way. Given his physical strength and excellent leaping ability, he'll win most jump-ball battles against corners. We should be giving him a few opportunities downfield each game until defenses back off.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
I'd love to see Hemingway involved more downfield too. I just wonder if a few of the types of screen passes that we saw last year (often to Roundtree) wouldn't add something to the offense.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
I think we need opposing safeties to back off before the screen game can really get going. WR screens are basically just outside running plays. They don't really exploit a defense that's geared to stop the run. They exploit a defense that's staying honest. What people forget about RR's offense is that his ideal passing game was not just horizontal. Chris Henry was a 1,000-yard receiver, exploiting the single coverage defenses were often in.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^
If they are in the box then the bubble is a great play. It stretches them horizonally. If they are aligned outside the tackle/end, then you may be correct with regards to the safeties aligned close depending on the placement of the ball (ie. hash, middle of the field). If a safety is inside and playing like a linebacker then it would be very difficult for him to get out on the edge. It is up to the WR to beat his man 1 on 1 before the safety gets there. I saw quite a few times against Eastern when the bubble would have worked great (it doesn't need 3 WRs, you can essentially do the same thing to a 2 WR side). Against the 3-3-5 that SDSU ran it's much more difficult because of the safety alignment I described above. Also because you have to watch edge pressure getting in your passing lane (fake bubble draw behind it would work great there. RR ran that a few times last year). The rest I basically said below and don't think it's worth repeating again.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^
Safeties in the box isn't necessarily a bad thing for bubble screens. The more important thing is CB depth and how they are playing. If the safeties are in a box and there is misdirection (usually you would give a QB read type look with lineman and RB flowing away from play side) then the safeties are taken out of the play and actually given more favorable angles for blocking.
What's more dangerous is actually the CBs jumping routes early. This is why you've seen so many double moves and deep balls, because this is how the corners are playing us (they don't respect the deep ball, which, why would they at this point). The other short passes (screens, ins, hitches) are being taken away by the shallow safeties, Denard doesn't have the timing/ arm strength, accuracy to throw the out, and corners are jumping short routes.
I would still like to see bubble screens with the counter flow to get safeties and LBs flowing the wrong way or at least have to think before flowing and thus slowing them down. I think the thing to make sure is that you have the fake bubble where the guy that typically would block runs the seem. This makes the corners respect the down field threat. Again though, Denard needs to hit some of those passes to get that respect.
September 26th, 2011 at 8:28 PM ^
I happily accept you as my spirit guide through the golf course.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
And you don't want to piss off Gruden
September 26th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
Now, every time I see Gruden I see Chuckie and it unnerves me. Thanks a lot, internets.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
I just googled what you said and found that Gruden said he didn't like bubble screens when he was doing the TV show w/ Pryor. I can't find a clip of it that will play, though. Did Gruden say why he doesn't like them?
September 26th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
and he was saying that bubble screens were cheap ways for college QBs to get completions and yards. That they are easy 0 effort throws and the QB gets tons of yards - depending on how the guy with the ball does
September 26th, 2011 at 5:31 PM ^
Damn straight, we ought to be earning those yards, not getting them easily.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^
Did he elaborate on why getting tons of yards is not a good thing? Who cares who gets the stat - just seems like more Gruden playing to his audience, which he does relentlesly.
Really, does what he is saying make much sense?
September 26th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^
I think it's more of a knock on the QB for NFL evaluation purposes, moreso than a criticism of scheme. He doesn't want college QBs who got most of their yards from easy throws. He wants a kid who got the yards by surveying the defense, and making great NFL-like throws.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^
One reason why we are seeing so much success on the few screens we run is that it is a constraint play. You do have to be a little careful not to run it too much, because then defenses will be scheming against it and you will run a higher risk of fumbles, picks, and big bone jarring hits on our receivers.
It all comes down to balance. If Denard runs too many times in a game, his runs become incrementally less effective. When the defense is keying on Denard's legs, that's when you go to the playaction off QB run looks, including the WR screen from Saturday's game that could have very well been a touchdown if Lewan had connected on his block.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
having to run 15 yards to try to make a block on a DB? Especially since our WRs are such good blockers. There is no way that play would have gone for a TD even if Lewan got his block as three guys were in on the tackle on a play that gained 7 or 8 yards. The bottom line is Borges prefers the tunnel screen for what ever reason.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:54 PM ^
Borges ain't no fool. He isn't showing his full hand, taking the criticism from the media while keeping his pokerface.
I'm sure he's watched all the film from last year, and saw what worked well, what didn't. RR was an offensive innovator, but it's not like Borges is some bum off the street. I am looking forward to the Big Ten season.
September 26th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^
I'm with you snoop - Hoke is all about winning the B1G. While they don't want to lose a game, losing a non-conference game wouldn't have been the end of the world. I think Borges will show us more and more as the season progresses and is experimenting a bit here and there. I wouldn't imagine he will need to break out too much the next couple of weeks, but hopefully Denard is "fully operational" against Sparty.
September 26th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^
Other than all the pressure that comes from coaching a program like this, its gotta be at least a little bit fun to come into a situation this far into his career where he has to do so much innovation outside his comfort zone.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
I like this idea. It would probably work well with the receivers that we have, but here's what troubles me a little -
Even though it seems likely that Denard would make these throws with ease, when you're playing against teams whose defense is not about to let you or anyone else run the ball unless you come by it honestly, they'll play their backfield relatively close to the line too and you're still looking at possible (probable, in some cases) trouble. This is perhaps where you're going to need to watch defenses and see if they accidentally telegraph their intentions. If you see the backfield in, you're going to need to find a way to get someone behind them.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
run a successful tunnel screen to Gallon Saturday. And I agree with jmblue that we've got to get the ball to Hemingway when he's not doubled. Also I think we have to try passing on first down and not waiting for 3rd and long when the chances are slim we get a completion, which just causes further discouragement for Denard. I don't think we threw once on first down in the second half.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^
I have been saying this to myself all year...the bubble screens will help the LB's honor the outside, which in fact will help open up lanes in the middle. The pump fake Bubble screen - QB draw was huge for Denard last year. I just think it opens up more holes and spreads the LB's out more.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^
My one thought of this is maybe Borges sees that Denard is comfortable with them, so we don't need to run them now. Use the non-conference slate to try and get Denard experience with downfield throws, and then unleash the bubble screens in B1G play.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^
is a good constraint play for spread option offense to keep the defense in check from loading up the box to ensure that they can run their bread and butter play which is zone read.
September 26th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
We've had two very successful screen passes so far:
1. To Vince Smith against ND that went for a TD.
2. To Vince Smith against SDSU that picked up 30+ yards.
Borges is calling screens and there have been a few that have been very effective. Much like the spread n shred I think he'll continue to tinker and go with what works best.
September 26th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^
I suspect that we'll see that V Smith screen from SDSU against somebody else with over agressive blitzing. It ended up that Smith was tackled by a guy that Hemingway couldn't quite keep blocked, but he was out there with Molk, Schofield and Omameh all trucking at full steam 25 yards downfield looking to roll some safeties. I'll take that any day.
September 26th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
It would be nice to see more bubble screens, slants, and tight end targets early in the game to get Denard comfortable.