Breakdown Sports: Michigan Offense vs Defense Power RPS

Breakdown Sports: Michigan Offense vs Defense Power RPS

Submitted by Space Coyote on May 6th, 2016 at 1:17 PM

I haven't been providing as much content, either here or at my blog, recently due to a variety of reasons (baby, job promotion, travel, computer breaking, etc.). Still, I have recently written three different pieces, two concerning Michigan and one concerning OSU.

The two about Michigan discuss how Michigan's defense plans on agressively stopping teams from adding blocking to the point of attack (i.e. pulling OL). Brown is a very aggressive DC, and his goal is to be more aggressive than the opponent at the POA. Effectively, this looks at how McCray performed during the spring game, both good and bad.


But Harbaugh is used to teams doing this. Teams like Virginia Tech, Michigan State, and others have been aggressively attacking pullers with the best of them. Last year, Michigan couldn't really get enough out of the OL to pull off many of these tricks, but still managed some. In the future, you can expect even more. Here's what is up his sleeve.


Lastly, if you're interested in the rival, I look at OSU's Pivot Follow concept, an iteration on the mesh concept that Seth diagramed a bit recently (I went into a bit more detail).


Harbaugh's Utilization of Space and Width Despite Condensed Formations

Harbaugh's Utilization of Space and Width Despite Condensed Formations

Submitted by Space Coyote on March 26th, 2015 at 11:06 AM

Many on this site have an affinity for the spread. I, myself, love many of the concepts and philosophies that the spread employs. Way back before Harbaugh was hired to lead Michigan, I had talked about my optimal offense being something very similar to what Harbaugh runs in San Francisco. The offense of the 49ers, while in many ways similar, was not the same as the one that Harbaugh utilized at Stanford. While with the Cardinal, Harbaugh began implementing many spread concepts into his heavy formations. For the 49ers, he still utilized a lot of FBs and TEs, but also began spreading the field a bit more and incorporating even more read option concepts.

I expect his offense at Michigan to be a bit of a mix of the two: a bit more spread out and a bit more utilization of the athletes he can pull at Michigan, but closer to the simplified schematic ways of his time at Stanford. Still, Harbaugh has never lost sight of an important concept: utilizing width and space. The spread utilizes width by positioning athletes along the line of scrimmage at the snap. Harbaugh does that too, in some ways. He loves to have wide splits to the field while utilizing multiple TEs on the opposite side. Borges talked about preferring to get to the edge through blocking rather than throwing to the edge, and Harbaugh does a lot of that. But Harbaugh also utilizes a few WR screens to get to the edge.

And at the heart of the pass game is the preferences for gaining width to support the interior run game, and gaining depth to keep the safeties honest. That’s what a West Coast passing attack does. And while Harbaugh is still very much run to set up the pass (rather than the Walsh view of pass to set up the run), he maintains that constraint and element of his attack to keep defenses honest.

So here’s my look at how Harbaugh utilizes space, width, and athletes outside of the Power O and Inside Zone that he’s most famous for.


Breakdown Sports: Jim Harbaugh's Michigan Offense Preview

Breakdown Sports: Jim Harbaugh's Michigan Offense Preview

Submitted by Space Coyote on March 2nd, 2015 at 9:09 AM

Over the past month or so, among other things, I've been pulling together information about what to expect Jim Harbaugh's offense to look like. I started out with a preview of the man, that included information culled from a variety of places, including this site. This looked more at the philosophy from a wide angled lense.


Next, I went into more depth with the run game. I looked back at his time at Stanford through his time with the 49ers. It's interesting to note that outside the scope of this article, he did some other interesting things. Back in the early days, Harbaugh utilitized as much, if not more, inside zone than he did Power O (which can make for some interesting offensive transition discussion). He also not only ran zone read dating back to the Stanford days, but Power Read with the 49ers as well as Triple Option (from gun, typically involving a slot as the third option) and PA Draws (where the QB fakes the Power O or Inside Zone and then follows the RB into the gap, using him as a lead blocker).

I don't expect all these schemes to be implemented immediately, though they'll be in the playbook. A commenter at the bottom of the post asked what I expected to see, and my response was "Power, Inside Zone, Crack Stretch (or sweep), and Counter F. The rest will come later when the base is mastered.

Regardless, what makes it difficult to defend comes down to this. The chart below is the direction each blocker will go on a given play (to means in the direction of the play, for example, a zone block; away means away from the play, for example, a down block; pull means pulling to the playside). This is against a standard 4-3 Over defense, FWIW (zone schemes won't really change, but who pulls or the away/to combination blocks on gap/man schemes may change).

Here's the link to that post.


Lastly (so far anyway), I previewed the blocks that FBs and H-Backs are tasked with making. I felt there was some misunderstanding when it came to Pallante moving over to FB and what that would mean with him as a full time FB. I had some reservations, not because of his ability to smack people or understand leverage, but because of just how much is asked of a FB to do, and the combination of bat-shit crazy and athletic that these guys really have to be. So this post discusses many of the responsibilities of being a lead blocker in any scheme (including when the RB is tasked with being a lead blocker for the QB in a spread scheme).


I hope to have another post up about Harbaugh's offense this week, and have a few more planned out. I'm also working on previewing Nebraska (Mike Riley preview here) before switching over to more of the defensive stuff to expect for both Michigan and Nebraska, while continuing to take periodic glipses at other B1G teams. So be on the look out for that.

Inside the Playbook - Spring Links

Inside the Playbook - Spring Links

Submitted by Space Coyote on June 6th, 2014 at 9:51 AM

Thought on a slow Friday leading up to what appears to be a wonderful weekend, people wouldn't mind wasting away several hours touching up on their football schemes and techniques. I've gotten back into the flow of things a bit the past month or so, and thought I'd provide some links to some of what I've put out this spring. Some are applied to other teams, but will related to Michigan as well.

Last year, Michigan really struggled defending Nebraska's speed option out of their Cover 1 defense. But it wasn't because theory was incorrect. Michigan, looking like they'll likely run even more cover 1 this year, needs to solidify their teaching of techniques if they want to be able to defend the speed option this year. Here's how that should work.

LINK (Preview)


Minnesota runs a ton of pistol, and with a strong running pair at QB and RB, they really threaten between the tackles. But how do they also work to threaten the edge? In this post we look at Minnesota's base offense and how they utilize WRs in their run game. Michigan may do some of the same at times, and OSU certainly does as well, among other B1G teams.

LINK (Preview)


Two links looking at the 4-3 Over. First, the basics of the MSU Over front (which in many ways is similar to Michigan's), and a look at what it means for Michigan switching from an Under front to an Over front (pre-spring game, but still applicable with a bit more 1-high coverages than anticipated).


LINK (Preview)


Here we look at two pass concepts that MSU has put into their playbook and how they are intended to work. Both of these concepts are a notch above your standard "double slants", but are far from some of the complicated route structures that Borges preferred. Likewise, they are much more similar to a Nussmeier passing structure, though not exactly (you'll have to read HTTV for that). In this post, we examine these pass plays.



Counter Argument - Picture Pages: Blowing Up The Inverted Veer

Counter Argument - Picture Pages: Blowing Up The Inverted Veer

Submitted by Space Coyote on November 12th, 2013 at 9:08 PM


In the picture pages post today, I feel I noted something of some significance. This isn’t supposed to be a post to puff out my own chest, rather, I merely want to give the other side of the argument my side of the argument for what it really is.

As an aside, there have been numerous people that have constantly misconstrued my argument lately. I understand that by taking a particular unpopular stance so strongly, that I have opened myself up to criticism. But within this article I also want to make clear up some of my stance, so towards the end I will get into some of that. Much of these will be related to the comments I made earlier (if not copy and pasted), the major difference is that I now have the opportunity to add accompanying pictures and diagrams to go with it. This is of importance because football isn’t really a sport that is best described with words. You can try to be as descriptive as possible, but there will always be a certain amount of failure to accurately convey your thoughts through this medium. So the pictures/diagrams help in that regard. So let’s begin.


Set Up and Play Design

I’m going to copy and paste Brian’s set up to his post as he does a good job getting us there.

Michigan comes out with an H-back and two tailbacks in a twins formation, which necessarily means that the slot receiver is not an eligible receiver. Nebraska responds with 7.5 in the box, with the gray area defender just about splitting the difference between Funchess and the tackle.


I’ll get to the covered receiver part later, I want to start off with the basics here about what the intention of this play is. Let’s first start with the most fundamental concept of any run play: the blocking scheme.

Inverted veer works with a Power O blocking scheme. Power is a type of man/gap blocking scheme, while “O” indicates the pulling of the backside guard. A simple power play looks like this.


The inverted veer meanwhile, takes the fullback and erases him. It utilizes the option read to kick out the DE because the DE must commit to the QB or the RB. If the DE commits to the RB, the QB reads this and shoots through the lane inside of him. If the DE commits to the QB, the QB gives to the RB and the RB attacks the edge. Here’s how the inverted veer looks:


Now, let’s first act like there is no FB involved in the play so we can address the offensive line and TE first. As noted, this is a standard power blocking scheme. No one, from any of the offensive linemen, to the TE, do things differently than they would if this was a Power O run from under center. But the defense aligns in a way that makes running power difficult. This is an even front, stacked front, meaning the DL is aligned 5-2-2-5 as far as gaps. That’s outside shoulder of the OT and inside shoulder of the OG. The stack indicates that the OLBs are stacked over the DEs.

Well, to the front side this is similar to what a 4-3 Under will look like, but instead of the LB brought up on the LOS like Michigan often does with Jake Ryan, they’ve stacked him behind the DE.

This isn’t the exact defensive formation, but the blocking scheme is exactly the same (the only difference is the OC has one less shoulder to down block the backside DT and that the LB are shaded further from playside).


If you’re wondering what some of the things are in the diagram, the green boxes are the blocking calls that should be understood or made. As for the defensive formation, just for reference, the “G” means the NT that is usually lined up in a 1-tech slides out to the guards inside shoulder (often utilized to stop Iso) and the Loose is the SAM position loose from the LOS.

What you see is an adjustment in the blocking scheme. This is automatic and should be called and understood. Any team that runs power should make this adjustment. Why? Because that playside DE is very tight to the formation and becomes extremely difficult to kick out. His position pre-snap is already squeezing the hole that power is intended to go through, so rather than slam into that wall, it’s easier to down block him and seal the outside for the RB.

Now, here is how that applies to the inverted veer.


You see now that the person being optioned is that OLB (SAM) rather than the DE because of the defensive alignment.

Now let’s add the FB in the inverted veer. Power blocking makes another small adjustment when you have two lead blockers. If you remember back in the Tackle Over days, Michigan would utilize the U-back as a first lead blocker and a FB as a second. It was the U-back that was first through and responsible for the kick defender. The FB has some reads, but generally will try to get beyond the kick player and knock the first odd color jersey he sees.

More accurately, let’s look at it with an overhang defender. The way the FB is going to treat this is to go block that guy. If that guy tries to gain depth into the backfield, the FB will just carry him with his momentum. If he tries to go inside of him, he’ll simply arch block him. This is what that looks like:

Now let’s apply that to the inverted veer. It’s the same exact thing. The first lead blocker through takes the kick defender (here, that is the playside OLB). The fullback goes and finds the next off color jersey, typically to the outside. Generally, he will block this in a somewhat similar way, erring on the side of scooping the gray area defender. What that does is give a massive alley for Fitz to run through. It also forces that gray area defender to fight that block, regardless of if it blocks him from DG because he knows he must respect Fitz to run. That means if the blocking up front is done properly, DG has more than enough room and time to go straight up field and beyond that gray area defender before cutting out into the same lane that Fitz would run in.

So that’s how the play is designed to be run. Combined with the slot receiver taking the playside safety, everyone on the playside is blocked and a defined seam is established.


Why Run This Play?

I’m not really going to get into why you run the inverted veer, as that’s just a play more or less that has some pretty clear positives as far as reading a defender and threatening a defense with the RB and QB. But why put in the FB?

A common way teams defend the inverted veer is similar to ways that defenses have adapted to defend the read option: they force the QB’s read to be wrong. Essentially, this is a scrape exchange.

In the instance of an inverted veer, they’ll bring a defender off the edge that the QB can’t read or see because the QB is busy reading his key. The key typically is the DE.

Here’s a give look:

Here’s a keep look:

And here’s how a scrape exchange looks:

See that the read is still the same player for the QB. The QB’s read is to give. What the QB doesn’t see is the guy that is coming right into Fitz at the handoff. The defense is making DG’s reads wrong and there is nothing he can do about it.

So, to counter this, you add a FB. This is similar to what Rich Rod did with a U-back to kick the backside on a read option. Essentially, it’s making the QB’s read right by blocking the exchange defender. This means the QB just has to read his key and is fine. This is an adjustment to take advantage of a defensive look and seal the defense inside. Effectively, it’s acting similar to a bubble screen would act as it’s sealing the defense inside and attack the edge and alley with the RB (rather than a slot receiver). It’s a horizontal constraint on top of the normal inverted veer play.




Full Speed:


Half Speed:


Why Doesn’t it Work?

I’ll save some time and copy and paste a bit:

So the problem is two-fold: Kerridge completely whiffs his block because he archs too wide. His goal is essentially to scoop that gray area defender like he's trying to do in the MSU clip, note in that clip how he passes off the read DE and tries to get to the second level where he blocks no one because the safety he wants to block shot the gap instead (in theory here, his eyes are in the wrong place, there should be some adjustment that allows for DG to read the safety crashing and for Kerridge to scoop the DE, and DG should give here in that instance, but was likely hoping that guy would just follow Fitz and he'd have a clear path to a TD by having the option essentially block two-defenders, but as expected, it doesn't). The second problem is the fact that two people (Schofield and the TE) aren't on the same page as to what the power blocking adjustment should be.


The Big Picture

So we see this is messed up here. It is an execution issue. Alright. So what’s the deal. Quasi-rant in copy and paste mode:

Now, I don't think as far as the missed communication that it's because the blocking scheme is too complex. Much and most of their run scheme settles around a power blocking scheme. That should be better. The play against Nebraska should be executed better, but there were two huge botched assignments. The play against MSU is tougher and something that clearly wasn't repped enough (on the coaches). The FB nor Gardner made the correct adjustment to a safety shooting a gap. They might have repped it a few times, but clearly it wasn't enough to be familiar with how to adjust it in game.

It's basic Power O blocking fundamentals with two lead blockers (here, the two lead blockers are the option read and then the FB rather than a U-back and then a FB).

This is the problem that I've had with the "too many things that they aren't good at anything" argument. Veer option is based on a running scheme they utilize anyway (essentially a down G) but you don't have to pull because your kick block is the option. Inverted veer is Power blocking all the way. It is their base run play with the same exact assignments and adjustements. Nebraska does absolutely nothing that shows this play is tipped, they don't play it any way other than how a standard defense would play it. But Michigan can't get out of it's own way.

And this is the argument that I've had since PSU. It is execution. This play should work. It is 100% execution. Borges has Nebraska exactly how he wants them. Michigan is missing assignments in their base blocking scheme that they've repped thousands of times from under center, from pistol, from ace, from shotgun. That's not just on the players. Why the hell isn't the coaching staff able to get the players to block their base scheme? Why is it taking so long? Youth is part of it, yes. But at this point they should be able to block the run they utilize 75% of the time, including on their counters. It's on the coaches but it's not because of the play call. The play call is perfect. Why the hell aren't the players able to execute? Part of that, a lot of that, is youth. And part and a lot of that is they aren't getting through to these kids. It's the argument that I've made that's been misinterpreted since the start of all this. It's the same thing over and over again. Why can't they block their most basic, most repetitively run play in the entire playbook?

It’s not that there is too much in the playbook, I don’t believe that. That seems like a plausible answer when you isolate inverted veer from the rest of the offense. But it's not isolated from the rest of the offense. It's a Power O play with Gardner making a read. Blocking is exactly the same as Power O. It's their most repped play in the entire playbook. 

So how can you make it easier? They've taken out most of the difficult things. 75+% of the runs are the same damn blocking scheme. Counter Power, Inverted Veer, Veer option, Power, that accounts for the vast majority of the plays and all those plays have their roots in the same blocking structure. They still can't get it done. It's not about reducing the playbook anymore, they literally can't without just running from the I formation or just inverted veer. They can literally only reduce it by having the same blocking scheme and the same run action behind it, and that would only make matters worse because blocking is the primary issue.

And I know the execution thing rings of cliché as well, but it is absolutely true. This grab bag theory that all these plays are independent of one another isn't correct. They do have some tweaks. Zone stretch is now intended to be a constraint. Same with the counter. But the base of the run game comes back to power over 75% of the time I can promise that.

So it’s part youth. Certainly youth is a valid reason for some of these issues. But it’s also coaching. I can reiterate that until my face turns blue and some people won’t accept that I said it. But there is a fundamental flaw transferring the knowledge of this scheme to the players. This is not a difficult scheme. It’s a scheme taught to high schoolers all across the country. Sure, it gets a bit more complex at this level, and it gets a lot faster and you have to be much better at executing, but the basic, mental problems?


Why No Vertical Constraint?

Trust me when I say I would like a vertical constraint (pop pass) out of this look as much as anyone. My goal in this section is to try to explain why it may not be in the playbook right now with so many other issues in this offense.

But I seem to remember a pop pass off of it once or twice last year (I believe with Denard at QB). Honestly can't say why Borges hasn't run a false mesh, slide protection pop pass off of this look yet this year. I would like him too as well unless. My guess is that he's uncomfortable with DG making that read in traffic (he's worried about someone undercutting it or scrapping into it is my guess, and DG not processing it fast enough).

This is intended to argue one way or another if that play should be in there (I would personally like it), it's just trying to give perspective on if it's been run before and why an OC may shy away from it.


Why Cover Funchess?

Again, guesses for the most part, but realistically:

As I said, I hate covering receivers. It is a tip to the defense that it's likely run (where, they don't know). That said, you would be surprised how many defenses will still trot a DB out to cover that guy.

Anyway, the reason here is because Borges wanted a guy to block the playside safety. He wanted to form an alley on that side for Fitz. The FB takes the slot defender, Funchess takes the safety, and Gallon takes the CB. Everyone else is sealed inside. That's the only reason he did it, was to get the play completely blocked playside, which it should have been.

They need to cover the TE or Funchess because he wanted to run to strength and wanted that slot blocker. So the TE or Funchess had to be covered. Now, typically I'd say "alright, cover the TE, don't cover your 2nd biggest threat". But a couple things could have gone into the thinking here.

  1. But have the TE off the line you open up plays to the backside of the formation with the inverted veer look (including counter schemes and how the FB would leak out into the flat later). So in a way, it keeps the box defenders more honest, which they succeeded in doing (they didn't all crash playside on the snap before reading the play).
  2. They wanted to know what that slot defender was doing. They didn't want to run him off, they want a clear target for the FB. Funchess covered, that guy comes. Maybe that was something they saw on film and were trying to take advantage of. But there's a real possibility that they didn't want to force the FB to read "is that guy going with the WR, do I pick up the filling alley safety or does Funchess, so do I switch to his guy?" etc.

My guess is more #1 than #2, but it depends on what they saw on film.



So what’s the point in all this? Is it to blindly defend Borges? No. The intention isn’t to blindly defend the coaches. The intention is to look at what is happening and figure out where the issue is. Here is a very, very clear example of a bigger picture. It is execution. The coaches aren’t lying about that and it isn’t a copout answer. This is a play where Al Borges got everything he wanted and more from Nebraska. Nebraska, who had a player say they knew every play that was coming, did nothing to stop this play because of any tip or tendency. They stopped it because Michigan can’t get out of their own way. They can’t execute their most basic blocking scheme that they practice and rep more than any other. This points to youth, and this fails to a failure by the coaching staff to adequately teach these players to do one of their most fundamental plays. Both of those are under the execution umbrella.

And this goes beyond this play. This goes to the pass protection schemes. This goes to how I’ve seen veer option blocked. This goes to how every single run play pretty much ever this year is blocked. There are a few players that seem to “get it”, there are some that get it sometimes and not others, and then there are the young or inexperienced that clearly don’t. It’s a fundamental issue that isn’t play calling, it isn’t scheme, it isn’t about huddling or not huddling. It’s not about if you prefer certain screens (I’d like more screens), it’s not about play action or 3-step drops or hot routes. It is as simple as people continuing to fail at doing their jobs. That’s not just calling out the players; that’s also calling out the coaches for putting out a product, for not teaching their students, in a way that allows them to succeed. They are in positions to succeed, probably positions to the best of what they rep day in and day out in practice, but the mental aspect, the thought process, the confidence to know what they are doing without questioning it or doing it wrong is not there. And that is the major failure in this offense right now. This play only exemplifies that.