in town for free camps
- Member for
- 3 years 42 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|38 weeks 4 days ago||Aaron Kromer||
Chicago Bears OC. Good knowledge of the Sean Payton & Marc Trestman passing games.
Miami (NTM) graduate and assistant coach for 8 years. Some B1G experience at Northwestern.
O-line guy, could help develop the oline talent at UM.
Was a finalist for couple HC gigs in the NFL. I think for STL before they went with Fisher and Chicago before they went with Trestman. Was the brief intertim coach for the then interim coach Joe Vitt in NO during the bounty scandal.
|46 weeks 2 days ago||And this sentence||
And this sentence regarding whether Kalis would be starting: "From the point that we were before he got hurt yeah, there's no question." Seems like he has had that breakthrough everyone has been waiting for. Now on to Bosch...
|46 weeks 3 days ago||Presser||
I agree. After watching the press conference I think the tweets don't really tell the whole story. I think there are three important things Hoke said:
1. Kalis would be starting if he wasn't hurt. He even said "there's no question", which it isn't often that he gives that definitive of an answer. The remaining question on Kalis would be is how serious is this injury?
2. Miller is outplaying Glasgow at center. I'm really 50/50 on this. There are a lot of people on the MIchigan boards claiming to have inside knowledge that Miller is out playing Glasgow. So maybe Hoke is telling the truth. But I also wonder, does Hoke really want Miller believing he is only starting vs. App St. while Glasgow is out and then he's back to the bench? Or does he want him thinking he has a legitimate chance of winning the job out right.
3. He seemed to try to make it clear that Cole is the starter "today", and that is subject to change. It was much different tone than he had when he talked about Kalis being a starter. So I don't think we can write that left side of the depth chart down in ink just yet.
|46 weeks 5 days ago||Path||
There is a difference, but I don't claim to be an expert on the RR style of OZ, so I hope some others can chime in as well.
But the big difference here is the path of the back and some of it has to do with be in the gun vs. under center. Its hard to take that "downhill" path from the gun just by the way you align. That's why you see a lot teams setting the RB back a yard or from the QB to try to get a little more down hill. And this is another reason the pistol become so popular also, to get that downhill path.
But RR style doesn't run it that way just because the alignment makes him. That is his preferred way. And it's not just a spread thing either. There are plenty of pro teams that run a style of OZ that has the RB on a path to the sideline and his shoulders are actually square to the sideline and not the endzone. I never played, coached or really studied this philosophy in that much depth but it kind of works in the opposite way. They are 1) trying to beat the defense to the edge or 2) get them flowing so aggresively to the edge and then cut up field. Whereas the Broncos style as SC points out would get the linebackers to fill downhill and then maybe the bounce was there. But the bounce or not bounce is determined by the EMLOS no matter what, not whether the LB came downhill or not. I don't want to confuse that.
|46 weeks 5 days ago||It can cut back||
Because the play can very well cut back to those defenders. The first read is EMLOS and if he goes out the play will be inside. The second read in the next downlineman. If that guy works out too the back will cut underneath him. So you can't let the backside defenders flow down the line.
There is a difference in philosophy on the backside cutting. I was taught just like Gibbs taught it. All backside guys were cut on OZ away from you. Joe Bugel & Joe Gibbs were against this. They thought it was kind of bush league.
In practice you didn't cut your own guys. You form tackled them. It really pissed the dlineman off b/c they were trying to get work done too. But they would rather you do that than risk hurting them in practice. The form tackle is a nice exercise though because it forces you to really move your feet and get your head on the guys playside shoulder. So it would help with not getting lazy cuts when you actually did cut in the game.
|46 weeks 5 days ago||Bounced||
Yes it is rare. Like you said its unsound defense (or maybe a bad stunt call) if you're bouncing it in this style of OZ scheme. The Pin/Pull scheme is trying to bounce the play from the start. The Wide Zone play is an off tackle running play. I think it gets people confused a lot when they hear outside zone and think its like a variation of a sweep or toss designed to get to the sidelines. Its not, its a downhill play with the option of taking it outside. Thats why I think wide zone is actually a better term for this style than outside zone. But I know there are a few differen't styles of OZ these days and I'm only referring to the Broncos/Gibbs style.
And coaching the RB's steps, path, and reads is so important. An overally anxious back or a indecisive back can really kill this play.
|46 weeks 5 days ago||Exactly||
The TE just has to force that guy to do something. Don't let him anchor down. Take him somewhere and let the back read it.
And Gibbs says the Broncos ran to the open side just as much if not more than they did to the TE side.
|46 weeks 5 days ago||He's great||
His tapes are filled with a bunch of that stuff. Same with Joe Bugel and Russ Grimm. Just old school oline guys with great one liners and nasty vocab.
One I remember from the Gibbs OZ tape is when he talks about teaching the RB how to read and how many old school guys didn't believe that. And he talks about coaching under Woody Hayes and Hayes would say something along the lines of "if he got us yards he was our guy and if he didn't we got him the fuck out and found another fucking guy"
|46 weeks 5 days ago||Nice write up||
Nice write up.
I own the Alex Gibbs OZ and IZ dvd's so I will offer a few more points here. (I am at work and cant here the audio on the video I a might repeat a few things)
Wide Zone - Gibbs didn't really call the play "outside zone". They had two zone runs. Wide zone and tight zone. His ultimate goal wasn't really to get this play to the edge. In an ideal world he wanted the EMLOS pushed out and the play to come up under the EMLOS. Only if the EMLOS slanted in did the play go outside.
EMLOS - was the first read for the back. A SAM linebacker walked up in a 43 under for example was not counted as the EMLOS. Only downlineman were counted. So in a 43 under if you were running to the strong side the 5 tech would be the first read. Like I said above he really taught the TE or T to try to force that guy outside but if he went inside that was okay the play would just bounce out. The worst thing that could happen is the DE holding his ground, keeping his shoulders square and being able to toss the blocker away and fall in/out to make the play.
RB Path & Reads: The RB was taught to stay on the path to the TE's ass. If there was no TE he would imagine a TE there and keep the same path. He stresses keeping this path no matter what and explains thats why he doesn't like the "bounce" play where you get down blocks and pulls and the back turns his shoulders to the sideline. As stated above the first read was EMLOS. That told the back if it was going inside or outside. The second read was the next down lineman inside. In our same example of the 43 under it would be the 1 tech. This read he made the cut off of. The back got one cut and had to live with it.
Gibbs explains the reason they chose this play was they could guarantee positive yardage. They didn't want plays that could hit big but also result in -2 yards. They would rather take the 4 yards everytime.
The other thing Gibbs explained about their system is how important is was to be able to run wide zone strong, wide zone weak, tight zone strong and tight zone weak all from the same formation or using motion to get into the same look. It forced the defense to remain balanced. Their favorite formations were double tight and I-form with the FB offset weak.
One more thing. Gibbs talks about not letting the 8th man in the box take you out of the play. Whether its using what they called "force zone" with the FB leading playside or using the WR in motion as an extra backside blocker. BUT he stresses not being too stubborn to run into a 9 man box. Can't be done he says. Don't have too much pride, go to the pass if they are doing that. Now he is talking about normal situations. Obviouslty short yardage, goaline and 4 minute you have do your share of running into stacked boxes. But he says he has learned the hard way from trying to run into impossible looks.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Base Alignment||
I don't know how much you're going to be able to see the Michigan defense even align this way. If they could, I don't think they would have felt the need to switch to the over front and put Ryan at MLB. The problem was that the offensive alignement was forcing the SAM out of the box and out on a slot WR. This wasn't allowing Ryan to make an impact on inside run plays. So I'd imagine they were willing to sacrifice Ross and RJS at SAM to get Ryan more involved. Then you switch the over because if you do see a pro look the SAM in the over fits Ross and RJS more than the under. If they aren't expecting this then I just don't see the need to make the switch scheme wise or personnel wise. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe a part 3 of this series can look at the adjusted alignments vs a spread look.
|1 year 9 weeks ago||4 years||
Did he do any of those things in his first 4 years?
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Friends||
Is it possible they are still employed because the are good and qualified coaches?
I wonder how the hell MSU went from 7-6 2012 to B1G champs and Rose Bowl champs in 2013. Didn't they change coordinators and keep the staff?
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Tangible evidence||
Nice rant but none of it addresses your tangible evidence that Hoke makes his OC run "his" offense.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Borges Offense||
And how do you know Funk and the balance of the staff was coaching "Hoke's offense" and not Borges's offense?
Funny how the Hoke haters use both the "Hoke is too hands off" argument and "Hoke dictating the offense" argument. Whichever one serves the agenda better in the given thread.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Don't recall||
I don't recall this happening. I do recall Dawson pulling right and going to block the same linebacker that FB/HB was already blocking while his linebacker shot the gap and made the play at the LOS. This might be the play you're referring to.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||I agree||
Especially since they will be used more as an H-back and less of a true I form fullback in a 3 point stance.
I was pretty impressed with way Houma got after in the spring game too. He's pretty phyiscial.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Run Schemes||
I would lump those together for sure.
IZ and OZ are the same scheme, different techniques. Unless as you mention you use pin and pull for OZ and then you can MAYBE consider it a different scheme.
Power and Counter are both the gap scheme. The BST, C, PSG, PST, and TE all do the same thing on power or counter. Only the BSG and F/H switch.
Iso and lead draw are the same scheme with different techniques by a couple guys.
Almost all college and pro teams will have those 3 schemes (zone, gap, iso/base). And with a young oline I am sure they are treating it as 3 schemes and not 6. Anything else will be special variation and game plan type stuff. Wham and Cutback/Seal might be your zone variations. G stuff and Jet stuff might be a special etc...
I know this is exactly what you are saying I am just saying I would for sure lump these together, especially when teaching a young oline.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Not as bad||
I re watched almost all the run plays. And I don't think its as bad as people think. They still have a lot of work to do but I actually saw some nice things across the board. It only takes one missed assigment, blown block, or bad read by RB to kill these plays. And most of the bad plays were just one of these things. I know people are sick of hearing that but its true.
Most of the bad plays were 2-3 yard gains and not 2 yard losses. So they did a better job of securing their initial assigment at the LOS. From there I saw some confusion on combo blocks, a bad read by a back, and not finishing blocks. These stopped a lot plays at 3 yards but you could see it had big potential.
Cole held his own but Magnuson will be an upgrade for sure. LTT did a nice job on zone combos getting to level 2. He also showed nice footwork sealing the backside on power.
Bosch and Kalis did some really nice things and each had 1 or 2 duh moments. Bosch whiffed on a LB bad. Kalis burried his head in the combo and let Ryan run thru un touched. Both got a little lazy with their steps at times on zone. But both also showed some really nice feet and leverage against a slanting defender a few times. I remember Kalis doing a real nice job against Mone. Bosch had a nice pull on one of the succesful power plays. Dawson had a rough day. He was slow with his zone step against the slanting lineman and constantly gave penetration on his playside gap. He missed a LB on a power play that would have been a 50 yard TD had he picked him up.
Miller did a pretty nice job for the most part. One zone play he got to the playside shoulder of the nose and sealed him off with no help. Kugler didn't embarass himself either.
Braden and Glasgow were pretty even but I'd give the slight edge to Glasgow as one time Braden blantantly went the wrong way and caused a TFL. Another time I couldn't tell if him or Kalis messed up but he left his man early and Kalis was already gone to the LB. But when Braden did know what he was doing he wasn't bad. Glasgow didnt seem to have any mental errors.
Obviously as I said this is just run plays. So its only half the equation. But after a second watch I came away feeling better than the first time I saw it on Saturday. Also consider how vanilla the offense was. That put them at a disadvantage as well.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||LTT||
To add to your points, I really didnt think LTT looked all the bad on Saturday for someone who came in raw and out of shape. Then missed a part of the spring and is now playing with a club. He got bull rushed pretty bad by Ojemudia once but seemed to hold his own overall out there. I thought he made it to the second level on zone combos a few times and broke down nicely to pick up the LB. I do not think he is pushing to start but I think he is progessing.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Run||
Until Taco plays the run on a consistant basis the rotation will favor Beyer. I saw Taco get washed down the line by AJ Williams on one play. And as we know AJ is no devastating blocker.
With that said I think this is the best spot for Taco going forward. I just don't see him taking too much playing time from Beyer on 1st and 2nd down situations IMO.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Different||
The WILL in the Under is quite a bit different than the SAM in the Over. They are more similar than the SAM in the Under but still different. In the Under the WILL is covered by the 3 tech and is more of an A and B gap player. The Sam in the over is going to be outside the box a lot of the time and will be more of a C gap or contain player depeding on the call.
Anyways I am not arguing how good a player he has been or that on paper he should start. I just think its less unlikely than people think that RJS could start over him.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Glasgow at RT||
This isn't all that surprising. He has repped all over the place the past couple years. Last year he was getting reps at multiple spots until he settled in at C. Hoke said something earlier in the spring about his versitility and repping some at LT as well. So if the true goal is to get the best 5 out there I think Glasgow has a legit shot of taking over RT from Braden. He has the size for RT and he has the most game experience. With Miller, Kugler and possibly the transfer from Bama they have more options at center than at RT.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||SAM||
Why coudn't RJS beat out Ross? They are both playing a new position so he is not supplanting Ross. And RJS is playing well enough to at least be considered ahead of Ross or at very least tied. The "best player plays" is what we hear all the time. So I don't think Ross's past success at Will or constant media hype will keep RJS from nabbing the spot if he outplays him in fall camp. But regardless of who trots out with the 1's I think we will see 6 backers constantly rotating (RJS, Ross, Ryan, Morgan, Bolden and Gedeon).
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Glasgow||
Pretty sure Glasgow was the 2nd RT. And Bars was the 3rd.
For Kugler, I might not be remembering correctly but I thought was the 2nd C and Pliska was the 3rd. Might be wrong but heres how I recall the groups:
1 - Cole, Bosch, Miller, Kalis, Braden
2 - LTT, Dawson, Kugler, Kalis/Bosch, Glasgow
3 - LTT, Froelich, Pliska, Samuelson, Bars
No sign of Fox as far as I remember. I wonder if he will be working at RT or inside. Burzynski would probably be the 3rd LG over Froelich if he was healthy.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Not SC||
I'm not Space Coyote, but I'll offer my thoughts.
I think that is part of what Nuss was referring to but I think he is also including blown assingments due to miscommunication that allowed 1st level players (dlineman) to come unblocked as well in the run and pass game. And also blown combo blocks that allowed either LB's to run free or dlineman to split double teams.
Running into stacked box is always going to cause some problems, but if you hang your hat on being a running team you will have to do it from time to time. Think 4 minute offense. And to solve those problems he may want to work with Devin in being able to identify the 8th or 9th man and running away from him. Thus leaving the unblocked "hat" out of the play.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Zone Chemistry||
While the zone scheme may be a bit more simplistic assignment wise there still needs to be good chemisty and communication between the starting 5 (plus TE and H). I just hope they can determine their best group early on and get them a lot of reps together. And with Mags and LTT out for Spring thats not a good start because now you have guys repping at LT that might not even have been on the depth chart there had everyone been healthy. I'm not saying they are doomed already or anything but if they are still tinkering late into August like the past two years that could be a problem.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Could be||
That very well could be true. I think they will probably split a lot of the playing time. Taco has by far the greater upside and should be a future star on the defense but Beyer has played a lot of football here in 3 years and I think Mattison really trusts him a lot.
And I think this spot in the Over defense is probably the closest to Beyer's natural spot. He wasn't quite athletic enough at the rush end or sam to make impact plays and wasn't quite big and strong enough for the 5 tech spot.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||No more 5||
They aren't playing the 43 under, they are switching to the 43 Over. There is no 5 tech. The strong end is a 6tech or 9tech. So Beyer is just fine at 6'3" 260lbs. Charlton, Poggi and Strobel are the other strong ends all about 270lbs.
The strong end in the over doesnt not have to take on those double teams like the 5 in the under. So they do not have to be 285+ to hold their own.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Yes||
By moving to the 43 Over the SDE is no longer a 5tech that has to take on doubles from the OT and TE. They will be a 6 tech or 9tech and a lighter more athletic guy can play there. The RVB style SDE like Wormley and Godin will now play mostly 3 tech id imagine.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Charlton||
I think Charlton will be working at the strong end now along Beyer, Poggi and Strobel.
I think at 6'4" 240 McCray will still be a MIKE. And Winovich will probably start out at SAM.
It will be interesting to see how the oline depth chart plays out. We know for the most part who's in the mix to start but I have no idea how the rest of the 2-3 deep will look.