Picture Pages: He Just Used Power, Part I Comment Count

Brian

"He just used POWER"

–Kirk Herbstreit, every play, every edition of NCAA Football since 2003

Michigan spent half its day with Michael Schofield tucked just inside of a tight-end-ish Taylor Lewan, and ran ran ran ran ran ran ran out of this. Your "tackle over" breakdown:

  • PASSES: 2, one incomplete to Chesson, one 30 yard post to Gallon.
  • POWER: 11, one each for Green and Gardner, nine for Toussaint. 54 yards acquired, all but one on Toussaint's carries. [Includes playside G pulls.]
  • ISO: 3, two for Toussaint, one for Green. Five yards total.
  • STRETCH: 4, for 28 yards. Green picks up basically all of his yards on two of these.
    [Excluded are four goal line plays that were all runs; those were a pair of two-yard touchdowns, one successful play that got M from the 4 to the 2, and a zero-yard iso.]
    All told, when Michigan lined up Lewan next to Schofield they acquired 4.8 yards a carry. One the one hand, woo-hoo BFD Minnesota is terrible and that's a mediocre YPC once sacks are put somewhere sensible. On the other hand, woo-hoo, only two TFLs and a screw-you performance against a team dropping eight or nine guys in the box. When Michigan did deign to pass from this, Gallon and Funchess were both open on deep posts and Gallon picked up 30 yards only because Gardner threw the ball behind him; an on target pass may have been a 60-yard touchdown.
    Let's delve. We'll cover three plays eventually, all of them relatively successful but not that successful: Michigan's first two snaps and the 12-yard touchdown that was like "oh, I guess that was easy."
    Michigan's first snap comes from the opponent 35 after a fumble. Michigan comes out in what I dubbed "tackle over I-Form Big H," a set with one WR, two TEs, and two RBs; Butt motions to the usual H-back spot:

power-1

Minnesota responds by singling up Gallon and putting everyone else within seven yards of the LOS. Could Michigan have bludgeoned this repeatedly with easy Gardner/Gallon hookups? Yes. They were intent on establishing the run, though.

power-2

Power rules, like zone rules, depend on how the defense lines up. Minnesota was mostly an over team in this game, so Lewan would kick and the hole would be between the two OTs. Here they're shifted under, so Lewan will block down, Butt will kick, and Michigan will shoot the pulling G and fullback into that gap between the two.

power-2

This all goes just fine. By the next frame you can see that both Schofield and Lewan have easy control of their end, Bryant is coming down the line, and a gap will develop.

power-3

By the time Toussaint gets the handoff, the gap is truly massive. The playside end has been clubbed inside to the hash, with Lewan popping off on a linebacker. Meanwhile the SAM is three yards upfield, 2/3rds of the way to the numbers.

power-4

Part of this is bad play. Ace pointed out in the Minnesota FFFF that Minnesota's ends tended to get way upfield, and that was the case in this one. (It's a SAM, but same thing. End man on the LOS.) The gaps the Gophers were trying to shut down were difficult for them to do so.

Also bad play: Minnesota's #9, who should be reading power all the way and attempts to shoot a gap upfield and to the inside of the POA. If it's third and one, okay maybe you make a play and boot the opponent off the field. On first and ten this is asking to get a huge play on your face.

So now Michigan has two guys plunging through a large gap with one linebacker showing because #9 is exiting the play on his own recognizance. That leaves an extra guy for the overhanging safety, right?

power-5

Note gap even larger now.

Uh… no. Bryant hits the guy Lewan has already blocked.

power-6

power-7

That guy tackles, but not before Toussaint picks up six yards.

Video

Slow:

Items of Interest

He used power just like he would have in any other situation. Over the last few days I've scoured the internet for anything it has to tell me about unbalanced lines, and found that when it's in use it's either 1) a package designed to futz with alignment keys as teams try to find a tight end and locate him in an unexpected position, or 2) Stanford HAM.

Naming your 7 OL package after notorious steroid case: Stanford football.

Stanford's stuff endeavors to screw with your brain by putting four guys to one side of the center, which conventional defenses don't have a great answer for. It's something you have to prepare for. There's not much to prepare for here, at least in terms of "we haven't seen this before."

Here Michigan was confronted with…

FACT: our tight ends can't block
FACT: our tackles are the only upperclass OL we have and they're both pretty sweet
FACT: manball
FACT: especially after inserting Chris Bryant

…so they just swapped Lewan and AJ Williams and ran normal power out of normal power sets. There is absolutely nothing about this play that would be any different if Michigan ran it from a normal line, except that AJ Williams is a lot less likely to execute his assignment with this authority.

Michael Schofield was a revelation in this game. Traditionally he has been the least-involved Michigan OL in the run game charting because that stuff doesn't bother with "hinge" blocks on the backside of power, which are executed literally 99% of the time by anyone—say, nice place to stash a TE—or blocks on the backside of stretch plays that are tough to evaluate without a cutback and often patently unfair to expect the backside T to execute. Schofield's gotten a lot of those because Michigan runs towards Lewan, a lot. Surprise.

That said, Schofield has always been regarded as more of a finesse player by everyone including his offensive line coach. He has never consistently moved guys off the ball. In this game, he did. Minnesota isn't good, sure. It's still going to be a record positive day for him.

The art of the kickout. Kickout blocks get relatively short shrift from me in UFR charting because they are by their nature a compromise between offense and defense. The defense says "I'll stay out here so the play turns back inside," and the offense says "I will push you a bit and make sure you stay out there."

Here Butt and the SAM compromise in a way very detrimental to Minnesota's chances, but that's mostly on the SAM. If he sets up better, Butt walls him off and the hole is narrower. He rarely has to actually deal with the guy trying to beat him, because if that guy succeeds he may have just given up the corner.

Minnesota saw this and was like NOOOOPE. This is almost the only under front the Gophers ran all game. After this play, Minnesota shifted their line towards Lewan, which meant that Lewan would kick the DE. This started a parade of plus-half-points for him as he shoved guys to create large holes, but did remove him from the kind of facecrushing blocks he executed on this play. This under front gives Lewan a hard-ish job he does really well; the over gives Lewan an easy job he does really well, shifting the hard-ish bits to other players.

Identifying guys to block: issue. Neither Kalis nor Bryant was particularly good at figuring out what they're supposed to do when they reach the hole. (This is at least better than the situation last year, which was "OL cannot reach hole.") Here Michigan has an opportunity to bust a big play because one of the Minnesota linebackers goes under a block and eliminates himself; Bryant can go all the way to the safety, whereupon Toussaint probably scores a touchdown. Instead he doubles a guy that Lewan is blocking, which… cumong man. Of all the people to block a second time you pick the one Taylor Lewan has.

As discussed previously, that's one error that costs Michigan 30 yards.

Comments

gbdub

October 9th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

You may be right on the play design, but the way it turns out, wouldn't it be much harder for Schofield to disengage than for Lewan? They drive the end so far inside that Schofield would have a very tough time getting even more inside to take the WILL. Wheras Lewan just has to stop and let go, and he's free to engage the second level. Now maybe this doesn't happen against a decent DE, who would stand up to the combo better.

I think Brian has a point - it would seem odd to expect Schofield and Lewan to drive a guy inside, then have Schofield disengage and try to go around the guy already moving in that direction. Maybe Schofield is only supposed to disengage if the lineman slants outside? If the DE is slanting to the inside, then it would be weird for the WILL to try to shoot a gap that his lineman is slanting towards. So maybe the WILL is screwing up here.

You can see as the play develops that, despite the WILL's mad dash, he's basically stuck overrunning the play - in order to get around Schofield and the DE he places himself too far inside of Toussaint to be able to get to Toussaint with any hope of making a tackle. He basically has to stop and go flat footed to even get a shot at an arm tackle.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

Lewan leaves so early its hard to see what it would look like if he stayed hip to hip with Schofield. I think 1 of 2 things would of happend:

1) Schofield would have gotten his head across and picked up the will.

2) Schofield would wash down the end and Lewan still being on Schofield hip would have a fairly easy pickup on the will.

 

 

stephenrjking

October 9th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^

I'm sorry, but reading this whole thread of debate... This is all kinds of crazy. I don't know anything about you, so I don't know if you're the sort of person to sharply disagree about something like this just to get attention. So I'll assume you just genuinely think Lewan should have charged at an out-of-position LB who had no angle to make a play.
And while you are making passionate and not-trolling arguments, which I respect, I think your conclusion is totally nuts.
1. Lewan has no angle to make that play. If he goes for 9, he will be grasping at air in much the same way that Miller or Kalis or Funchess would when they totally blow a block.
2. One of the important skills in blocking is knowing how to adjust to the play as it develops, rather than just locking in on something even if the defensive action has rendered it irrelevant (passing guys off on stunts, for example).
3. Suggesting that Lewan is the one major mistake here, on a play where he blocked a guy that had a chance to make a tackle and neglected a guy who did not have a chance to make a tackle, is bonkers.
4. Suggesting that Lewan messed Bryant up by taking his man is also bonkers. Pulling OLs do not zero in on a linebacker or safety on the other side of the formation before the snap; they run to the hole and block the guy that is there.
I appreciate that you appear to be arguing this in good faith. You are completely wrong, but in a polite way.

LJ

October 9th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^

I'm not sure if he's right, but he's not saying Lewan should pick up the WILL (#9).  He's saying that Schofield and Lewan combo the END, and Schofield levaes for the WILL once Lewan has the END under control.  Since Lewan left for the MIKE, Schofield couldn't leave the END and the WILL goes unaccounted for.

MVictors, are you saying the playside End and Tackle never combo the playside Defensive end and Mike?  That's seems counter to Space Coyote's primer on this, which comprises about 99% of my blocking knowledge--according to that, this is a standard EAT MIKE combo block: http://www.maizenbrew.com/2013/8/29/4670604/michigan-football-2013-run-offense-power-o-blocking-primer.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

There are execptions where the MIKE is picked up.

1. weak side power

2. load power - where the 2 extra TE's combo the end to the mike and the T and G combo the DT to the will.

3. If the safety walks up into the box at linebacker depth. Then you will leave the backside back go.

And there are other philosophies that say he can pick up the MIKE. Thats fine. But watch every other power they run in this game and the playside combo is looking for the will.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^

I should add that this is a TREY block we are talking about. If it was a deuce block where the combo is the T and G (not the TE and T) then the TE (in this case is Lewan) will go to the Mike.

Space Coyote

October 9th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^

But point 3 should be taken into consideration here. I think that's what Lewan is reading and why he releases off the DE so quickly, because now his block (the guy that was originally MIKE) is so close to the intended hole. Lewan is looking at the walk down safety as the figurative MIKE in the blocking scheme.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^

I am not wrong. I respect that you are being civil though.

First of all that WILL LB is not out of position and has an angle to make the play. He is a bit late though.

1. I am not saying Lewan needs to go for #9. I am saying Lewan and Schofield are working together in a combo block from the DE to the WILL.

2. Very true. They have to adjust and react but they are still responsible for the END and WILL.

3. Bryant would have picked the MIKE. By your logic everyone should just pick who they think can make the tackle.

4. True that pulling OL do not have a single guy but most times we know who that guy will be. In this case the MIKE should have been left him.

I see why everyone thinks what Lewan did was fine because how the play developed. But there are rules built in already that account for all this. The end slanting doesn't make the MIKE anymore of a danger to the play than he already was.

You think I am arguing just to argure I am not. Look at my track record, I like to talk about OL blocking schemes because thats what I know and like. I dont pick fights. Everything I am saying goes along with gap blocking scheme rules.

BiSB

October 9th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^

THESE are the kinds of debates we should be having around here. Schematic debates are WAY more fun and WAY less personal. The "suck it up" vs. "FIRE BORGES" debates are pointless and hurty. I don't think anyone thinks anyone else here is trolling or being a jerk, which makes life much better.

...

...

(But I'm still right)

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^

I agree with you (On the debates not the scheme). These are always fun. I am happy I have people to discuss blocking schemes with. I don't think my girlfriend would enjoy this as much as you guys.

BiSB

October 9th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^

  • Wife: Why do you talk with your internet friends so much?
  • Me: You won't know this stuff
  • Wife: What, am I too dumb?
  • Me: Uh...
  • Wife: Try me
  • Me: Okay, thoughts on whether Michigan should be using the spread punt?
  • Wife: ...
  • Wife: Carry on.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^

Can't tell if that is directed at me.  Maybe it comes off that way from reading it, but I am not trying to come off that way.  I have admitted when I was wrong before.  But someone has to prove to me why I am wrong with legitimate reasons other than "i think he thought this".

While players need to adjust on the fly and react to different situations there are still rules to follow. It doesn't mean everyone picks he they think is most dangerous at that given point. It would be chaos.

My arguments are in line with the rules of the scheme. I haven't seen anyone reply to me with anything more than how they think the line should adjust to whats happening because their assigned block is "impossibe".

But anyways I will try to come off less like I am declaring myself right.

Colin M

October 9th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^

It was directed at you, but it was just an observation. I don't know scheme from a hole in the ground. Your arguments seem well reasoned, just think your tone can be a bit vehement and dismissive, which may be why you're getting so much pushback. 

To be clear, as BISB said, this is much better than a lot of the arguments on the board. Just a suggestion for further improvement.

TESOE

October 9th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^

Bryant gets one heck of a jump on that snap.  I didn't think he was that mobile and agile.  This is looking good to me.  Bring on PSU.  That is one assignment away from unstoppable.   Agree with MVictors97 the miss is on Lewan.

markusr2007

October 9th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^

Vanilla as hell, but goddamn, they demolished opponents with it. I liked the ISO companion play where they threw in two fullbacks (Power I right or Power I left) for ISOs was pretty demoralizing by the 3rd or 4th quarter.  

http://incolor.inebraska.com/mays/iso.htm

http://incolor.inebraska.com/mays/power.htm

It would be cool to see Michigan in a Power I form with Kerridge, Houma and Green at TB.

El Jeffe

October 9th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^

Didn't we decide in another thread that if a pass behind the LOS he could receive a pass as long as he's not covered up on the line? So even if he stayed 77 he could catch a pass behind the LOS as long as he's eligible and w/out reporting?

Sending up the Space Coyote signal...

steve sharik

October 9th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

Unbalanced is short-hand for unbalanced line, which this is not.  It's simply Lewan playing TE.  Now, if we bring the WR over and cover up Lewan, that's unbalanced.  Doing so would also make #84 Williams eligible as the EMLOS.

Imagine that formation, with Derrick Green as FB, offset weak, on a PAP wheel route.  Game, blouses.

MGoManBall

October 9th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^

Bryant's assignment could be to look to the inside for threat when he gets through the hole. How often does a pulling guard get to loop around and get 3-4 yards deep before he touches anybody?

Most plays I would be tickled pink if everybody was covered and our back was left one on one with a safety. 

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^

His assignment is to look over is inside shoulder and pick up first color. Which should be the MIKE. But Lewan has a happy trigger finger and picks up the MIKE. Bryant has no shot of getting the WILL shooting underneath. Thats why the WILL is for Lewan/Schofield. In this case all Bryant can do is keep moving upfield and look for color.

readyourguard

October 9th, 2013 at 1:10 PM ^

One block here.  One missed assignment there.

Man, I hope we watch a flawless (as much as reasonably possible) game this year.  Or maybe NINE* more.

*Holy crap, think about that.  9 more games left if you include the CCG and bowl.  Wow that's a lot.

TwoFiveAD

October 9th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^

This blog would do itself a huge favor if it brought on MVictors97 to its staff. 

He should be the final paragraph on every picture page and/or offensive UFR.  

SanDiegoWolverine

October 9th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

But he hasn't once stated exactly what he thinks should have happened given what he Mike Will and playside DE were doing. He has mostly just been negating everyone else's arguement. 

Also, I like how Brian gives credit linemen reading and reacting. He consistenly points out when linemen do positive things that aren't neccessarily part of their assignment but are helpful for maximizing that particular play. 

What if Lewan and Shofield left for the WLB and MLB at the same time? What if they both stayed on the DE because neither had a good angle? In either case it would have been a worse result for the play. Isn't it possible that both of them executed correctly given the circumstances? They are 5th year seniors after all.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^

I think Lewan should have stayed with Schofield on the double team. Because Lewan leaves so early it looks more impossible than its is. Lewan stays on Schofields hip and rids that double team. Schofield either gets his head across and picks up the will or Schofield washes him down and Lewan (whos much further down the line) is in a position to pick up the will. Thats what i think should have happened. Space Coyote brings up a good point about the safety on the strong side being about 7-8 yards off the ball. If they treated him as a LB that changes it and the MIKE is now the WILL. Then Bryant was wrong.

Space Coyote

October 9th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^

Lewan/Schofield combo End to WILL, it's as simple as that. I believe if Lewan carries the DE that Schofield can get across his face and make a play on WILL and Lewan can wash the DE down.

However, what is being missed here is that the safety walks down to the LB level and another guy follows the H-back across late. Because of that, MIKE becomes the weakside MLB, and the combo changes from DE to WILL to DE to weakside MLB. Lewan/Schofield make this adjustment, Bryant doesn't. This is why you always call out who is MIKE pre-snap. Gardner/Glasgow should have seen this, pointed out who MIKE is by alignment, and then everyone makes the correct block. This is difficult because it's a last second shift.

So you are relying on people doing things on the fly, but that is why Lewan comes off the DE so quickly, because he realizes that he needs to pick up MIKE now and Bryant will pick up the walk-down safety, who has made himself playside MIKE, so on and so forth.

Space Coyote

October 9th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

And I think that's what Lewan is reading and why he comes off. Now, I don't know how the coaches are telling these guys to make adjustments, but it seems clear with how quickly he comes off the combo that he is reading the playside safety as a LB on this play. That is why neither he nor Schofield look to interested on working their way to WILL, because I, like you, believe that Schofield could have got his hat on the other side of the DE's hat and Lewan/Schofield could have combo blocked DE to WILL, but they clearly chose not to.

Space Coyote

October 9th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^

They should be declaring him every play (Manning does it all the time because MIKE literally sets everyone else's assignments in zone blocking schemes), I just don't think they redeclared once the safety walked down. It was a bit of a late shift, and Gardner may just not have seen him before he got in his cadence.

BiSB

October 9th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^

How do Lewan and Schofield know whether Lewan needs to get across the DE to let Schofield release before they know whether the WILL is going to shoot under or scrape over? If Schofield releases instead of Lewan and the WILL scrapes over top, you've got Schofield chasing him at an impossible angle.

MVictors97

October 9th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^

The WILL has to commit. While your moving level 1, your eyes have to be on level 2. Your right, Schofield can't just assume its him and release. This is where the whole Oline chemisty thing comes into play.

BiSB

October 9th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^

can make a shoot the gap/scrape over top decision much faster than two offensive linemen can position themselves vis-a-vis a DE. If you look at the next picture pages play, the WILL scrapes, and if a combo-block on the end had played out as you envisioned for this play, that's a stop for no gain.

Space Coyote

October 9th, 2013 at 3:10 PM ^

You block the DE, and once you're engaged with him, both OL take their eyes to the next level blocker. You then work in tandem (while making the same read) to determine who takes over the first level block and who releases to the second level block. But eyes work DE then immediately to second level defender.

Again, this is why I think they adjusted to the safety. Their eyes are going DE to who they believe is their second level target (they believe it becomes MIKE). Lewan's eyes are on him immediately and at the first sign of MIKE coming playside he releases to him and gives the DE off to Schofield.