What is the Source of Our Run Blocking Issues? - In Pictures
[ED-S: Bump]
In the “What is the Source of Our Run Blocking Issues” thread, I offered my list of things we are doing poorly (hint: everything). This Diary delves deeper into each of those items by examining an example of each in a brief picture page format. Let’s jump right in.
1. Bad individual technique. A lot of plays start from a fresh line of scrimmage 2 yards behind where the ball was snapped because of just plain getting beat 1 vs 1.
Example: First play of Michigan’s second possession.
Pic1: Butt motions next to AJ Williams, who is the defacto LT since Lewan is lined up outside of Schofield on the right in "Tackle Over."
Pic2: Michigan runs outside zone away from Lewan/Schofield. This goes about how you'd expect. Bryant and Williams both take a step laterally and allow their guys to get in on them with leverage. Before the ball is even handed off, they’ve each ceded 2 yards. Bonus: Schofield releases without chipping the DT, leaving Lewan an impossible angle.
Pic3: By the time Fitz gets the ball he has a wall of bodies in front of him 5 yards behind the line. The DT Lewan had no chance at is also there to prevent any hope of a cutback. Michigan would go on to throw for short gain on 2nd down, then Gardner throws his first pick on 3rd.
[Jump]
2. Guys not getting clean blocks on second level defenders. Guys are releasing downfield and letting guys run by them or force them to give ground to recover a good blocking angle.
Example: 2nd Quarter, 11:51. 1st and 10
Pic 4: Michigan is in Tackle Over again with Lewan outside of Schofield on the left side.
Pic5: Michigan runs to the stacked tackles this time. This pretty well blocked. Lewan has kicked out the end and Schofield is sealing(ish) the DT, leaving Kerridge 1 on 1 with a LB in the hole. Thump that guy and Fitz is out to the safety (who came roaring down at the snap, but still)
Pic6: Kerridge isn't able to shove the guy out of the hole. He lets the guy side step to his left and now there are two bodies in the way. The LB gets an arm around Fitz and hold him up until the cavalry arrives and TFL.
Pic7:On the very next play, a read option, Bryant pulls around and has a LB dead to rights. Dileo is already harassing him and has him sealed to the inside, all Bryant has to do is aim for his right hip, latch on and Gardner is off to the races.
Pic8: Instead, Bryant puts his head down and goes for the kill shot, which not only misses the LB but almost takes out Dileo, forcing Dileo to step aside. The LB goes from being 2 vs 1 to 0 vs 1 and is all alone with Gardner to tackle for minimal gain, bringing up 3rd and 8. Gardner throws to Chesson on the 3rd down, but it’s dropped. Punt.
3. Lack of cohesiveness. Guys not feeling what the guy next to him is doing or how much help they need. You have guys holding combos too long to release on one play, then on the next they'll leave to go block a LB while the other guy gets smoked by a DT he has no angle on.
Example: Michigan gets the ball back following PSU’s score right before the end of the half.
Pic9: They need a yard on 2nd down, and line up in standard OL formation. Lewan is injured so the line is Schofield, Bryant, Glasgow, Kalis, Magnuson, with Funchess at TE on the left side.
Pic10: At the snap, Glasgow barely gets a rub on the DT before heading out for the MLB, leaving Kalis in a bad spot. Notice how much further downfield he is than Schofield, who is also releasing on this play. Kalis maybe can do a better job moving laterally to scoop that guy too, but that's a tough play.
Pic11: A couple seconds later, Kalis is fighting the good fight, but the DT is steadily getting play-side of him.
Pic12: Bryant and Funchess both do a decent job sealing the hole long enough for Fitz to burst through, but Kalis eventually gets beat to the spot by the DT who is free to tackle at the LOS. Downfield blocking looks decent enough to at least let Fitz fall forward for the first down otherwise.
Michigan goes from trying to score to running out the clock. They run into a 10 man box on the next play and punt it with 14 seconds left.
4. Targeting issues. Guys are not identifying the right guy to block, resulting on some guys blocking air and/or defenders being blocked by air.
Example: This is Michigan’s first play of the game.
Pic13: Schofield motioned to tuck in between Lewan and Bryant on the left side in "tackle over."
Pic14: At the snap Glasgow inexplicably goes to block the 3T, who Bryant and Schofield are already doubling. Kalis is pulling, leaving a giant hole for the NT to charge through untouched.
Pic 15: The NT steps behind a pulling Kalis and meets Fitz in the back field. Michigan would go on to punt after a Gardner run and INC.
Two other issues I noted were running into a stacked box with infuriating predictability and RB hesitation. I won’t get into these because you know what it looks like in the case of the former, and honestly Fitz played pretty well this game in the case of the latter.
Conclusion. I can only imagine how frustrated the coaches are getting at this point. There is no one problem or even one guy. Quite the opposite, on any given play, we have the ability to screw up in 4-5 different ways, by anyone on the line save maybe Lewan. That’s wack-a-mole futility right there, where do you even start? I was able to find an example of each type of issue in the first half alone, often more than one case of each. This wasn’t an every once in a while thing, it happened with alarming regularity. The proof is in the pudding, we had one good RB running play and every other one died in its infancy due to one or more critical mistakes. As Brian said last week, it only takes one.
What’s even more interesting or frustrating, depending on your level of optimism, is that every one of these directly lead to the end of a drive. It’s not really surprising, we’re just not good enough to play with 2 or less productive opportunities to gain a fresh set of downs.
I’m not sure where we go from here. We’ve all but exhausted personnel tinkering options and the guys that are starters by virtue of marginally being better aren’t improving. In fact, in the case of the fullbacks, it’s actually getting worse. My hope is a light will go on for one or two guys late into the season just from sheer repetition. That’s all it is at this point though, a hope and a prayer.
(disclaimer, I’ve never played nor coached a down of football in my life so if I’m totally off on something, please correct me in the comments).
October 15th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
this whole combo blocking and release technique. Like when the center chips the DT and then passes him off to the OG to finish. Like the play below. The OG has no leverage on the DT. All he can do is push him right into the hole where the RB is going. Why don't we just have the center block down on the DT and kick him out away from the hole and have the OG "pull" around the center and get to the 2nd level to go after a LB. You are asking the OG to do almost an impossible block for this play to work.
And of course 8 PSU defenders in the box vs. 6 UofM blockers. Chances of this play failing approaches infinity.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
The technique you describe is the "pin & pull" and that is an adjustment you can make on an outside zone play.
I can't tell the exact alignment of the DT here but the problem appears to be that Glasgow could give Kalis a little more help on his chip and Kalis needs to get a little more depth so he has chance of getting to the playside shoulder of the DT. If the uncovered guy takes a flat step on outside zone he has no chance of hooking him. He ends up just leaning on the guy and allowing him to get down the line and make a play. Tough for Fitz to cut back against that.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
Combo blocks are necessary in both zone and power schemes. In this case, the backside G isn't pulling because it's not a power play. If Glasgow gets a good chip in, Kalis' angle should be fine. This is just an example of what happens when the OL doesn't get it.
At this point, it's become obvious to me that there is a coaching problem. Yes, there's some youth, but 3 of the starting 5 are in at least their 3rd year in this system, and the other two are in their 2nd year. This line is not very young. They shouldn't be repeating the same mistakes on basic blocking schemes.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
and that worked out. Coaching is the problem.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
The offensive line was another uncertainty for the 1997 team. Three linemen from the 1996 team had been selected in the 1997 NFL Draft: center Rod Payne (3rd round, 76th overall), offensive guard Damon Denson (4th round, 97th overall) and defensive tackle William Carr (7th round, 217the overall).[14] As a result, Michigan began the season with only one offensive lineman, offensive tackle Jon Jansen, who had started a game.[15] Jansen, a junior, had 25 consecutive starts entering the season. The offensive line was further weakened when left tackle, Jeff Backus, suffered a ruptured appendix. In spring practice, offensive line coach Terry Malone made a plea for help during a staff meeting. was searching for talent to fill in on the line.[16] To fill the holes on the offensive line, two defensive linemen, Steve Hutchinson and Chris Ziemann were moved to the offensive line
October 15th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
Worth noting, though: the "working together" issue the OP mentions is going to continue to be a problem with all of the different lineups that they are throwing out there; little wonder that there is no cohesion.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
I agree, these stretch plays have made no sense. Kalis, Glasgow and now Bryant all seem pretty adept at pulling and less so at David Molk style reach blocking. It sorta made sense as a way to paper over some of Miller's weaknesses, but now he's gone. The remaining guys are gap blocking guys all the way.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
if Kalis leaves for the 2nd level and Glasgow stays on the DT. Dunno if it is coached that way. But it seems whoever has better leverage should stay, while the guy getting slanted away from goes to the 2nd level.
Then again, maybe the decide who releases based on the LB's position, or maybe they decide that before the play.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
control passing game to get this team in gear? Obviously, running into a brick wall isn't working and just plain stupid. We better do something different or this season will implode. Not sure changing a young OL-man with another will change anything. Also, not having a stable line seems to be adding to the problems and is a knee jerk reaction. I feel like I'm returning to the RRod era of heading out to AA looking forward to the tailgate ... since no matter who the opponent ... the game experience is miseable.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
There are 9 men in the box, one safety lined up even with Michigan's center and not terribly high, and one corner isolate on Gallon giving him a 12-yard cushion.
If you read my recent posts, you'll see that I don't say crazy stuff, and I have repeatedly said that I think Al's play calling is getting too much blame here. So know that I do not say this lightly:
Why in the world isn't there a check to throw Gallon the ball? It's a free five-seven yards! There is NO HELP out there, so if Gallon makes one man miss it is, minimum, 35 yards and maybe a touchdown. Gallon 1-on-1 with anyone is a mismatch! Even if he runs a pattern you have to believe he has every chance to make the play. THROW THE BALL TO GALLON!!!!!!
10 guys within 10 yards of the center, Gallon alone... And they run. Yes, they should have gained a couple of yards. But the throw to Gallon should be automatic there.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
I don't think that check is even in the system right now. I can't recall Gardner checking from a run to a throw ever. He's changed running plays, called an option once, but I can't remember a single instance of Gardner seeing 1 on 1 coverage and changing the play, or Denard for that matter.
Also, the way we come out of huddles means there's very little time to check the play. Especially in a hostile environment where the QB has to run around and make sure everyone gets the call.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
Its coaching. Don't blame young players. These young players have talent. They need to be coached. I thought Gardner watched a lot of film. Send Al Fester the link to thi page.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
Agreed. I tire of the bubble screen meme somewhat, but he isn't even calling any quick pitches (his favored alternative to the bubble that still takes advantage of a stacked box). At this point it isn't even about his offensive philosophy -- which at least makes sense even if I think it's a mistake -- it's about his refusal to take what the defense gives him.
I've started to wonder if Borges is the self-flaggelating type who thinks that the more difficult thing is the superior thing.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^
I have been a staunch Borges defender but it has become very concerning. I understand Borges's responses when people ask him why he doesn't use successful spread concepts in his offense but to not check to an uncovered WR is very concerning. This is something I did as a frosh in HS. If the WR feels he's getting a big cushion or is actually uncovered he just signals to the QB and the QB confirms back to the WR with a signal that he will throw a quick pass. The rest of the offense doesnt even know the play changed.
I'd love to hear Borges's reasoning behind this. I know some college and pro coodinators don't like to give the QB too much freedom to check out of stuff because then you never end up establishing what you want. But I don't feel thats the case here.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
I think "giving the QB too much freedom" is self correcting for simple checks like that though. If the QB goes to that check too often, the defense will start cheating on it - which will open up the run game you're trying to establish. Win-win.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
If you check too much what the defenses will see on film is what situations you check in. Then they will give you that look to trick you into checking into the play they know you will run.
There has to be a balance. You have to take what the defense gives you, but you can't let the defense dictate the game to you.
October 15th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
Fair enough, but the answer to "I'm worried the QB will check too much" is not "never ever check". The point I was going for is that eventually the checks will stop working, but only when the defense stops overplaying the run (and then you don't need to check). It's a learning process for the QB, certainly, but he's never going to learn if you never let him check.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^
Like you, it's issues like this that bother me. Leaving yards on the field that are available. It's not like Borges can't see it--it's just that he, for whatever reason, doesn't use it. The huddle speed is another one of those issues for me.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
...what if the coaches are right? They see a lot of practice reps that we don't get to see--maybe when they try to run that quick hitch against a soft corner the throw's inaccurate too often to risk? If that throw gets picked there's nobody going to make a tackle, and if you're giving up a pick-six 10% of the time I can see why you might be uneasy taking the "free" 8 yards.
They seem to be trying to make sure Gardner's throws are into areas where the damage is minimized when it's thrown badly. Maybe that's by design.
I just have trouble buying the "Borges is stubborn/stupic" argument when the things he isn't doing--the no-huddle's another good example--are things he's done in the past, and with Hoke.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
Bingo!
Haven't we seen several INT's returned for TD's on those "easy" throws? IIRC, one against CMU, one against Akron, and another that could have been a pick 6 versus PSU.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^
Well then I guess we better just run to set up the punt. No sense risking turning the ball over now when you know our shaky kicker and lousy punt coverage can move the other team back between 0 and 40 yards three plays from now.
Snark aside if one of the defenders can intercept a screen pass to Gallon out of that defensive alignment, he is a god and we should bow to him. The INT against Akron came out of great LB play from a receiver starting near center field. The bubbles that are wide open in the picture pages are a whole different animal.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^
I've said this repeatedly; why on earth don't they just check into a quick throw to the WR with the DB playing 10 yards off of him. The thing is, it's not even a complicated check. Only 2 people have to be on the same page, the QB and the WR with the DB playing 10 yards off of him. The rest of the team continues to block the play as called, Gardner would take the snap, take one step back and immediately throw it out to Gallon. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers do this all the time!!!! There is a reason as a relatively crappy running team they have been able to run the ball effectively the last 4 games and I believe the main reason is they pass the ball to get guys out of the box and then run.
October 15th, 2013 at 12:53 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
Not the players.
October 15th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^
Whatever the problem is I'm not sure can be fixed, at least not this year. Maybe they can bandage it but I'm not expecting any kind of turnaround.
They are getting physically overmatched and it's a sad thing to see. I'm pretty sure MSU is licking their chops to get a crack at this group.
If they can't learn the plays or blocking responsibilities than the coaches should keep stripping/changing the offense until they get it.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
Top 5 schools in rushing so far this season, start numbers pre-season
School - Avg. # of Starts for OL - # of OL with no starts
1) Army
6.2 starts per OL
2 OL with zero starts
2) New Mexico
16.4 starts per OL
0 OL with zero starts
3) Oregon
10.6 starts per OL
1 OL with zero starts
4) Baylor
8.4 starts per OL
3 OL with zero starts
5) Wisconsin
8.8 starts per OL
2 OL with zero starts
Michigan?
11.6 starts per OL
3 OL with zero starts
Baylor is starting just as many guys with no experience - and their two experienced starters are significantly LESS experienced than ours.
LT - RS Soph, 13 starts
LG - RS Senior, 29 starts
C - RS Senior, 0 starts
RG - RS Soph, 0 starts
RT - RS Senior, 0 starts
October 15th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
Again, very interesting, thanks for posting!
One of the things that I think is important to note is that Art Briles has been the coach of Baylor since 2008, i.e., they've been running the same system for 6 years now. If you look, you'll see that under AB BU went 4-8, 4-8, 7-6, 10-3, 8-5, and are now 5-0. So, the the three RS Sr's on the OL for BU have been developed in ONLY ONE system, not 3 (RR's, DR-AB fusion, Manball) like Michigan's RS. Sr's. Similarly, the RS Soph.'s on BU's line (in there 3rd year) have been developed in ONE SYSTEM, as opposed to Michigan's RS Soph's who are now in their 2nd system.
I am not making excuses. I am just pointing out that continuity MIGHT be an issue with Michigan's OL performance, or lack there of.
Thoughts?
October 15th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
Interesting, thanks.
It seems to me there's two aspects to experience--game reps and practice reps. A RS senior with zero starts is a lot more experienced than a RS freshman or sophomore with zero starts.
October 15th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
I will probably need to be corrected as I'm no scheme guru, but if there's trouble blocking + defense is being overly aggressive, isn't one solution to sort of let them thru and throw a screen pass right over them?
Realizing that such a pass got turned into 6 Akron points not so many weeks ago, but it seems like that might tone down some of the box stacking that seems to be so effective against our offense.
More or less I like the idea of short passes if the run game isn't working.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
On your first example pic, Penn State has 10 in the box! 10! Don't know if good individual technique can overcome that.
October 15th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
Yeah, I mean that was probably doomed, but bad individual play is the difference between burrowing into the line for 2 yards and losing 5. The safety walked down at the snap, so pre-snap read was 9 in the box. We had 8 blockers, so it's not *that* bad of numbers, especially if you assume some back side pursuit gets lost in the trash on a stretch play.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
It seems like it was fairly common for PSU to have 8, 9 and even 10 in the box by the time the ball is snapped. At some point, shouldn't you have the wr run a deep post or straight fly pattern and see what happens? He's one on one with the db.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:34 PM ^
Well, to be fair, that's how Funchess got so wide open, so yeah, we did take advantage of it at times. The play shown above was the 1st play of the 2nd series, the 4th play overall, so I give Borges a pass for still getting a read on what the defense was doing. I said this elsewhere, but I have zero issues with how Al called the next series through the 3rd quarter. We did still run into stacked boxes here and there, but for the most part were throwing away from it, or using Gardner to option off a defender and/or get the RB as an extra blocker.
It's only when we were trying to bleed clock again that Al decided to pound his head repeatedly into the wall. I can understand not wanting to throw, but we went away from any semblence of misdirection and lined up to do what we're the worst at doing into formations that didn't favor doing it.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
One of Funchess's TD's came when he was double stacked with a another wr, and I thought both of Funchess's TD catches came from that same formation (double stacked with another wr). I could be wrong as to whether both TD's were from that formation formation.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:04 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^
I get your point, and very much appreciate your in-depth analysis. I just couldn't get past that first pic as a glaring example of us running into a brick wall all night last Saturday.
October 15th, 2013 at 5:17 PM ^
I realize Borges is taking a lot of heat and rightfully so, but what about Hoke and the rest of the offensive staff?
This whole issue of letting the db line 10 yds off the wr and NEVER make the defense pay is not something new to this year. Either Borges has dictatorship control over the offensive staff or most, if not al,l of the entire offensive staff is on board with the lack of these short pass plays. What about Hoke? If if everyone and their mother is seeing how open these plays are when the game film is being reviewed, I gotta think Hoke sees it too. Hoke could/should be putting his foot down and telling Al they need to start working these plays in, no? But yet, Heiko and Brian (as well as just about everyone else on this board) are yet once again this year pulling their hair trying to figure out why the offense isn't making the defense pay for how they align to stop the run.
October 15th, 2013 at 6:13 PM ^
I've watched the first four drives so far of the game (missed it Saturday because of a wedding). This diary is exactly correct. People claim play calling, which wasn't necessarily great, but so far in the game I have seen more correct play calls that Michigan's OL has just completely crapped the bed on. Targeting is awful, I mean absolutely awful at this point. But a lot is awful, like stated above.
I would also add "Missed assignments". First play of the game, Michigan has a good call on a Power run from tackle over in which PSU has 8 in the box. Then Glasgow doesn't down block, and instead tripples the playside DT, leaving the backside NT untouched to scrape across the formation to reach Fitz in the backfield.
The OL is much more the source of this teams problems then the play calling or any of the other simplistic things people are reaching for. I defended Funk a bit earlier, calling his grade incomplete. Some things could afford to be simplified to help the OL out a bit, but at this point they are still making mistakes that they shouldn't be. The OL is far and away the biggest issue for this team right now, and it's not even close.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^
Sure, but this seems like a red herring. Obviously the OL sucks at run blocking right now. The issue seems to be that Borges refuses to acknowledge this. At what point is it better to do something that, sure, might be more risky when the alternative is running for an average of 1 ypc?
I also think you downplay the insanity of running into a stacked box too much, but I agree that the OL being incompetent is the main issue. And it frankly seems obvious that this incompetence is at least somewhat due to poor coaching. Either way, the major issue seems to be coaching.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:15 PM ^
It gets down to the fact though that these are simple things that should be executed no matter what. If you can't expect your team to execute the simplist of blocks and assignments, what can you expect them to do in the run game?
Now, granted, I'd like to see some things change too. And I'm far from calling it perfect or anything close to it. I'd especially like to see more of a mix up on first down calls. But each position above is a position, as an OC you should look at, and see what you want to see out of the defense for what you want to do. Borges could help them maybe by going away from it a little more, I agree, but overall the OL is far and away the biggest issue, and it really isn't even close. And I've defended Funk a bit in the past because of youth, and youth is certainly a part of it and can be a little excuse, but it should not be as bad as it is right now.
October 15th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
Scratch the 2nd paragraph, it was covered when I looked again. I agree with the OP and the comments he has made in this thread. Borges didn't help matters necessarily, but blocking was the much bigger issue here.
October 15th, 2013 at 8:53 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 6:51 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 7:12 PM ^
I rarely post something like LOL. But saying technique isn't the problem...
FWIW, on the first play (remember, this is first play of the 2nd drive, Borges is still feeling out PSU, and PSU just showed an 8 man front against this same formation for what should have been good yards). Anyway, PSU backs out the 10th player to have 9 people in the box. The backside DE is irrelevent on zone stretch. So it's 8 blockers on 8 defenders. Not perfect, but not impossible. Play call doesn't help anyone out, but this play can be successful IF execution happens. It doesn't, and because the play call doesn't do any favors, it's a bad play. But the play call itself isn't what doomed it, it just didn't do favors.
2nd play is stretch again, so backside DE is irrelevent. So that's 6 defenders for 7 blockers! Michigan has exactly what they are looking for as PSU is playing this straight up with a 7 man front. This should be an easy 5-6 yard gain.
3rd play I don't see the set up, but there is clearly a blocker for every defender, and extra blocker, and an option. That means Michigan has the equivalent of 2 extra blockers on this play than PSU has box defenders. Should be able to pick up yards.
Play 4: 6 man front in a 3 wide set means you should be able to pick up a single yard if you execute.
Play 5: Again, 8 in the box against 8 blockers, should be able to pick up at least a decent gain out of this.
October 16th, 2013 at 9:34 AM ^
I argee that they "should" have been able to execute against the 8 man boxes they faced. But what I have been arguing is that I'd like to see them get in more 3 wide sets with 1 back and 1 te. Still under center. With all the mental and physical errors on the offensive line I think they are giving themselves a better chance against a 7 man and 6 man box. And its not just about getting the extra guy or two out of the box its also about their predictabilty. It was clear that PSU knew Michigan was going to run out of their unbalanced heavy formation and it wasn't only a #'s issue it was how hard they attacked the play. I noticed several times the MIKE was already in the hole when the guard got there. It was also hard for Butt to root his guy out because he was attacking it so hard.
Now if you want to call yourself a power running team you must be able to run into 8 man boxes on a consistant basis and when the time calls for it 9 man boxes. And the unbalanced set with a fullback and 2 TE's is fine way to do that. But we just have to face it that this team is not at that point where they can do this against a MSU level defense.
Spread the defense with a 3 wide formation. Funchess's flexibility allows him to be your 3rd wide reciever and if you want to motion him back into the formation to get an extra blocker on the power you can. But you can also run your power, counter, and zone with just your 1 TE. You can also have that TE in the off position. This way you can motion him back and forth to run your power o either way or you leave be him and run counter back the other way. And don't just use this formation to get them out of the box you have to hit some quick passes to accomplish it. Doesn't have to be bubble, but a bubble would be good. Can be any sort of short route like slant, hitch, curl, quick out etc. Having Funchess and Butt in this formation also makes it hard for the defense to bring the safety down for run support because they two can hurt you down the field with vertical routes.
And I'd like to hear your opinion Space Coyote on why we havent seen once a straight drop back pass from under center? 3 step or 5 step. We have only seen play action.
October 16th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
And it's not that Borges isn't doing that. Frankly, I have no problem with the big personnel or tackle over stuff (PSU respected pass out of tackle over for most of the day much more than Minnesota ever did). What I'd like to see is the first down and second down play switched more often. Run the veer option on first down. Run the draw on first down. Run the Y-stick more on first down. If the outcome is still 2nd and 10, you can run your tackle over stuff, the defense must respect the fact that you're more likely to pass, and you can pick up 4 or 5 yards and make third down manageable. I think rotating those a bit more would benefit this team.
As for not passing from under center. I dunno man. I thought coming into this year, like they did last year, they would have a lot of the simple three step hitches to the outside. Then hitch and go. Those are in the playbook because they're the simplist plays to run. Why they've completely gone away from those on first down or to make third down manageable I don't understand.
Comments