CB's playing off 10 yards, why?
I have a question that has been nagging at me since, and during, last season. Why do we line up our CB's 8-10 yards from the LOS?
This seams to me to put our CB's at such a disadvantage as they are forced to be re-active, rather than pro-active. The receivers are wide open for quick outs and easy 5 yard, or more, gains. Our CB's are on their heals, and the receivers have a free and clear 10 yards to gather momentum and run uncontested routes.
Why aren't our CB's up on the line of scrimmage disrupting the receivers? Why are they back 8-10 yards waiting to get burned? I am watching the Spring Game (again) and the frustration boiled up again to the point I had to beg this question. Anyone in the know?
Go Blue!
Have you not watched our safety play lately?
It's better to give up a 5 yard play then a 50 yard play.
Yes, but today's QBs have become so accurate that offenses can easily make up those 50 yards by throwing short passes against soft coverage. That's the problem. Tight coverage may make it easier for the offense complete a long pass downfield (it's debateable), but it almost certainly makes it harder for the offense to complete a pass at the sticks. Do you want to give up a ton of first downs and no "big plays," or a few big plays but a low completion percentage? DCs have traditionally gone with the former, but I think it may make more sense to go with the latter.
Oh come on. Can qb's of yesteryear not hit the broadside of a barn? Don't make sweeping generalizations without some kind of data, even is anecdotal. Jim Harbaugh had better career completion percent (62.4) than Chad Henne (59.7)
That's not exactly a fair stat either. Chad Henne was asked to do a lot more, including much more reads, against much more varying coverages. Henne was more accurate than Harbaugh, though Harbaugh probably didn't need to be as accurate to complete his passes. Now, it doesn't excuse his reasoning, which has valid points, but is more flawed than correct with respects to our current team.
I know it's not a fair stat, but I don't like people making generalizations based solely on their opinion of reality. To say that old school qb's couldn't throw accurately is just wrong. At least go out and cherry pick some data to make your point.
Except that you are the one making inaccurate generalizations. Check the numbers on the NCAA's database. Completion percentages have steadily increased over the past 30 years. Harbaugh's numbers made him a first-team All-American in 1986. They'd be routine for a QB today.
Not trying to be snarky, but do you have a link? I can't find records going back past 1999 on the NCAA website.
Not trying to be snarkyReally? David When I look up snarky in the dictionary it has a picture of your avatar, with a link to david from wyoming. Did you have an awakening, did God talk to you? I for one will MISS YOUR SNARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/s…
I guess I missed that attendance records go back to 1998. Sorry. I'm not joking, I am asking for a website that has full archived stats from college football.
And you base this on what? The stellar defensive performance we've turned in the past two seasons? Given that we're coming off the two worst seasons in school history on the defensive side of the ball, it's very much up for debate whether the strategies we employed were optimal.
As for the delightfully cherry-picked Harbaugh/Henne comparison, it's worth pointing out that Harbaugh was a first-team All American, the only QB in school history to receive that distinction. Take a look at the completion percentages of most of the other QBs from that era - and the yardage totals they put up. TV broadcasts used to keep track of "150-yard games" from QBs.
But, as I believe I have talked enough about below, I believe your wisdom is flawed. I'm not going to repeat it all here because then it would be a novel and Brian would be pissed I put out a novel before him that was of much poorer quality than what he could write and because I would take up a bunch of memory. But, in my opinion, if they would have played a bunch of press coverage last year and allowed more huge plays, our defensive stats last year would have made what our actual stats were look reasonable by comparison.
Many coaches are more comfortable surrendering yards in 10-yard chunks and then trying to tighten up in the red zone than playing tight man from the start and potentially giving up a huge TD. This strategy likely made excellent sense a generation ago, when most QBs weren't that accurate, but I question the wisdom nowadays. Receivers are open at the snap, making QBs' decision-making easy, and it makes it very difficult for our pass rush to get there in time. Playing our CBs well off the line also forces them to come up and make more difficult open-field tackles.
When a third-string Purdue QB (a guy who had recently been playing a different position and had just been moved back to QB threw for a ton of yards on our soft coverages in the 2008 game, that seemed to be confirmation that this strategy is making it too easy on opposing QBs. I'm in favor of press coverage. If we get burned sometimes, we get burned. I'll take that over coverages so soft that every opposing QB can get into a rhythm.
that is what i am getting at, thank you jmblue.
here is my reaction: if you have your CB's up, you can disrupt the receivers, and force the longer passes - which is what allows the safeties to come over and actually have a chance to get to the ball and make a play. if your CB's are back then those 5 yard passes can turn into 50 yard plays as you are getting speedy players the ball uncontested in space.
jam them, disrupt them, make them throw it deep, which is higher risk, and it allows our safeties to get a chance to get there and make a play.
I'll echo MattC87 here....have you seen our safeties lately? This isn't the NFL, where every player on the defense is top notch. In college you have to 'hide' the weakest part of the defense by not forcing them to make plays on every down. You can't have corners jam receivers and expect help over the top from the safeties if that help isn't going to be there.
Giving a 10-yard cushion does nothing to help the cornerbacks. It forces them to react to balls thrown shortly after the snap and make difficult open-field tackles before the safeties have time to arrive. If they make the tackle, it's still probably a first down. If they miss it, it's a TD (see, for example, ND's final TD against us last year). It makes it very difficult for them to be playmakers; they're forced to make up so much ground that they'll almost never get to the ball in time unless it's horribly thrown.
Your argument goes along with conventional wisdom, which is basically that coaches should avoid great risks as much as possible. Sometimes conventional wisdom needs to be challenged. Not long ago, almost no coaches would go for it on 4th down; now it happens all the time.
The fundamental problem I see with giving the 10-yard cushion is that it gives the offense the initiative. It has a virtually guaranteed completion on the sideline anytime it wants, giving it a significant pre-snap advantage. I don't see this as a healthy way to play defense. You want your D to force the issue.
i am not sure just how detrimental this was to our defensive struggles last year, but i believe it to be significant. if we allow uncontested passes and allow receivers the ball in space, does that not start to open up the running game as our whole defense gets back on their heals?
i understand our LB's were less than desirable last year, in fact our whole defense was, and could it be that this soft coverage was a significant reason for that?
michigan football is not about soft coverage, its not about being reactive. Michigan Football is about smash-mouth, bone-crushing hits, forcing the issue and being the aggressor.
So, i continue to be frustrated by this, as i continue to see it as I watch the Spring Game now. Is this not plainly obvious a significant problem to GERG? And if so why not? I have a hard time believing its that we do not have the talent. This is Michigan Football. Not Syracuse foosball.
I have a hard time believing its that we do not have the talent.
HAVE YOU NOT SEEN A GAME THE LAST TWO YEARS!? The talent level on defense has been quite low.
This is Michigan Football. Not Syracuse foosball.
Hur hurr bler. UNACCEPTABLE. Not goodt enough.
DickRod doesn't understand the rivalry because he isn't a MICHIGAN MAN like Bo! He chased away Lloyd's consistently top 3 recruiting classes!
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/decimated-defense
I have an easy time believing that we do not have the talent because there is this little thing called "data" which supports that assertion.
But not completely true. Rather this is your opinion that they were chased off. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on this site. I think you will find that the change of systems forced changes in personnel, there was a lack of depth to begin with,... there is quite a list.
At the end of the day we were left with poor defense - the only fact in this thread.
And name calling is so mature...
Please look at the link I provided, then look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary. Upon doing this, you will feel less than intelligent.
I'm starting to think that reading posts before replying to them is now optional on mgoboard.
I like the picture of the fish which you posted.
I discussed below a little why it makes sense to play off, so I won't repeat those arguments. I'll attempt to make counter points to your arguments here though.
It may force the CBs react more, much of being a corner is reacting to what you see. Yes, you can impact routes and things by jamming, but if they get by your jam you are no longer reacting, you are simply playing catch up because you just got beat, whether on a Go route or a slant. Our corners weren't athletic enough and didn't have enough recovery speed once they got beat off their jams. No one can jam forever, people get beat off of them, and to have a team effectively jam WRs they need to be atheletic enough to run receiver's routes for them after they are beat. Our corners were better at reacting and being in apporpriate, more favorable positions to make plays rather than being out of position prior to the ball already getting there.
Example: RR talks about wanting his QBs to run the plays before scrambling. This is because the designed play put them in a better position to succeed then scrambling did. Does it matter when you have Vince Young, not as much. Pat White, not too much either. John Navarre, yes, very much. Tate Forcier, yes, it still does. Our corners are like Tate, sometimes it would be nice to press them, but they are better off being in a favorable position rather than forcing them to make them do things they aren’t capable off. Tate doesn’t throw the ball 50 times every game and doesn’t run the ball 50 times during the game because it is putting things on his shoulders he isn’t capable off. We mix it up for him, we want him to run the designed play more often than not, not run the ball as much. Sometimes the corners need to mix it up and press when the coverage is called, sometimes we need to make plays, run a “trick play” per se. But it doesn’t make sense for our team right now to do that all the time.
I agree conventional wisdom must be challenged, and sometimes you need to do things outside of the box. But press coverage isn't unconventional. If I remember correctly, last year, at first, GERG wanted to press a lot. I'm sure he saw his talent and realized what was best for them though, and what was best for them wasn't press coverage.
Our team goal is to stop the other team, obviously, but our realitiy is that we would rather allow two field goals than one touchdown. Does it allow 5 yards often, yes, unfortanetly, but one mistake, 2nd and 10, one of those plays gives them 3rd and 3-5, which isn't exaclty what we want, but it gives us a chance to get off the field. That is what is best for us now. Throw in a cover 2 (not press coverage, just allowing the CB to quickly break on that short route) and suddenly it's 3rd and 9 for the other team, and that is exactly where we want them.
is that how a team has the secondary playing (10 yrds off vs. press coverage) partly has to do with the kind of pass rush they think they can get. With the exception of Brandon Graham who was double teamed quite often, we didn't get the kind of pass rush we needed to be able to play press coverage. Basically, if you're not getting a good pass rush the offense has a better chance to break press coverage and get the big play. IMO Robinson and crew saw that the pass rush wasn't where it needed to be and figured that playing off receivers was the best way to go and gave them the best chance to win with what we had last year.
one of the safeties had to essentially play in the box due to poor run defense that you ended up with only one deep safety
Maybe, maybe not. Playing bump and run likely would have helped out our pass rush, giving it more time to get to the QB. I agree that we probably would have given up more big pass plays if we'd played predominantly tight coverage. But we also likely would have given up fewer total completions, and may have gotten more sacks and turnovers. Which is the better of the two options? It's debateable at the least.
to continue that thought, i don't think our CB's should play at the line all the time, but perhaps 75%. mix it up, keep the offense guessing, while pressuring them. soft coverage all the time (or most of the time) gets the results we've seen the past couple years.
force the offense into higher-risk passes, sure we may get burned very occasionally, but it has to work out better than what this soft coverage has done. our defense has been open, used and burned too easily and too often, and i really believe it has a lot to do with this...
Yes, we would do what you're saying. In NCAA Football '05 I always pressure and my defense can't be beat. But in that game I can also recruit the best 25 players every year. No offense to our players, but they just aren't good enough to do that. I think it should be the opposite of what you say. 25% press, 75% bend don't break. Yes, RR and company would love to just shut down every team and force turnovers, but they don't have to the talent to do it on a regular bases, and 75% press would get us beat more often than not. Put it this way, if Michigan plays bend don't break and on four drives they get one punt, one touchdown, and two field goals, and the team that presses gets a turnover, a 3 and out, and two touchdowns, the bend don't break philosophy allowed 13 points, the press allowed 14. RR expects touchdowns no matter where he starts with the ball, our offence is for sure the strong unit on our team. That is why our coaches are doing what they do
If QBs were, in fact, less accurate "a generation ago," wouldn't it have been more prudent to play press coverage because the QB would have been less likely to complete the long pass? According to you, by playing ten yards off the line of scrimmage, defenses would have been ceding the only pass that QBs could consistently make. Therefore, defenses would have been more likely to play press coverage, not less likely.
By the same token, with more accurate QBs nowadays, wouldn't it be more prudent to play off the line of scrimmage, as QBs are then much more likely to expose the safeties deep?
I have trouble accepting your hypothesis. Even if todays QBs are more accurate than their predecessors, I don't think you can seriously argue that QBs have ever been unable to complete easy pitch-and-catch passes to wide open receivers at the line of scrimmage. And even if QBs are more accurate today, then coaches should be more leery of playing press coverages, as good QBs could exploit weak safeties more than the QBs of yesteryear.
ND's corners played off almost every time Tenuta sent a blitz, because there wasn't always safety help over the top depending on where the blitz was coming from. The extra cushion should allow the CB to keep the ball in front of him and make an easier tackle.
First: when the corners line up 8 yards off the line they are not necessarily giving up short routes. It depends on their coverage too. Much of last year our CBs were playing in deep third. However, you don’t press coverage when your responsibility is deep third, because if you get burned a whole third of the field is left uncovered, which is much dumber than not pressing. We were very much a zone team last year because this gave our defense the best opportunity to stop offenses, probably because only our corners could cover well in man. No offense to Williams, Kovacs, and our LBs, but they can’t be expected to cover man to man. They just don’t have that ability. So you have to adjust to that as a D-Coordinator, one of the obvious ways is to play zone.
Two: In the NFL corners are very often lined up 8-10 yards off the ball. Watch Alabama, they are off the ball a ton as well. Yes, they also press, but they have better safety help over the top. Playing 8-10 yards off the ball when your responsibility is the flats allows you to start without initially taking a back peddle, allowing for faster convergence on the wide out. Because we played deep thirds with our corners last year you didn’t see it much. But you did see the spring game where I believe Turner or Floyd blew up the running back out of the back field. That’s the type of thing to expect here.
Press coverage is great, there is a reason many pro teams run it and mix up lining up off the line. And at times allowing a receiver to catch the ball in space could hurt our defense. However, we don’t yet have competent enough safeties to have them run deep halves on their own. We would get burned at the seams over and over again. Our defense tends to play a bend don’t break philosophy. They wait for the offense to make its mistake and capitalize. Once a third and long comes about you can allow those short gains for five yards. Most offensive coordinators won’t take that play all day long and if they do they are risking the one time we run something different turning into a pick six. Of course it’s preferable to just stop the offense every play for no yards gained or create a turnover, but our defense just wasn’t good enough last year. As someone else said, it didn’t help our safeties that our run defense struggled as well, which also forced our corners back.
Perhaps it is a lack of speed by the corners (and maybe there is something in film we didn’t see on Warren and why NFL scouts saw a huge red flag in his game), but our biggest problem wasn’t playing 8-10 yards off the line, it was not disguising it well enough pre-snap. But perhaps, as is the case very often, if our corners aren’t athletic enough to disguise it, then they are forced to start 8-10 yards off the line. Trust me, it really, really, really pisses GERG off when he seeing offenses methodically driving on his defense, but he understands what he is doing, and there is a reason for it.
thank you larsonlo for your comments. i appreciate the insight. in rod and GERG i trust. i love our coaching staff, and trust their judgements. their resumes speak for themselves, and i fully expect constant improvement.
larsonlo, in your opinion, what percentage of our defensive plays were "pressue" and which were "soft"? i believe in mixing it up, and it seems that we've gone with soft coverage too often.
i know we do not have the elite CB and safety talent like some other teams. it just seems to me that we should be playing more aggressive than we are. thank you for the discussion...
If you remember the Western game we were blitzing and playing tight and it looked great. That is because we have the talent to do that against Western. Other games we didn't, OSU we played fairly soft IIRC, but that gave us a great chance to win if we didn't miss 10 chances for points in the red zone. In the first half of the state game we played soft, saw what they were doing (which obviously wasn't what we expected), made some changes, and played well in the second half. I don't think you can take it as a whole but need to look at it game by game or even half by half.
Sometimes it was extremely aggravating last year, but for the most part I think the coaches know their players and what they are capable of. In all honesty, I think nearly every coach in all of college football knows their players and has a pretty good idea of what they are capable of. Coordinators don't get where they are for nothing. The difference in most coaches comes down to a few things, the talent they have, the talent they have relaying to their players what they want them to do, including teaching technique, responsibilities, etc, and the talent of the coaches around them to do the same thing. Now maybe you can complain about a few of these things, but a coach can only expect so much of their players, try to teach them on all points, while in the game play to their abilities. In the future the hope is that they become good enough to do other things. Like pitching, if your Doc Halladay, you throw 21 change ups the other day, but a couple years ago he threw 6 per game. There are some coaches that are better at calling plays than others, but all know that is minimal compared to these other things. All coaches know their philosophies and should know their players, and will work accordingly.
Just a related thought to the 10 yard deal. It drives me crazy when a team plays good D and gets a lead and then goes to the prevent late in the game. Stick with what's working. Prevent = trouble. Yeah you won't get burned for a 50 yard TD. They'll just kill you a clip at a time and it will take about 2 minutes. And this isn't a UM knock. It's a general football knock. I don't know why this philosophy hasn't been abandoned with all the evidence to look back on.
It is a trade-off. If all our corners were like Charles Woodson they would be playing tight all the time. The more doubt in the player's or coach's mind the more the corner will be backed off. It also is tied to the quality of the pass rush. If the D-Line is consistently getting to the QB early the corners can play tighter with less fear of a deep, slower developing pass play.
As our defensive backs mature and gain confidence this season we are likely to see tighter coverage.
instead of 1, you have 10 chances for a turnover. How's that logic for ya?!
by "chance for a turnover" you mean "easy pitch and catch for a gimme first down that causes all of us to grind our teeth and roll our eyes towards the heavens, where we hope the the benevolent one will soon throw off the mantle of disdain for Michigan", then yes - 10 more chances!
I didn't read all the way through all posts; I get that soft coverage in a zone may have been the best strategy given the folks we had on the field. However, I have been led to believe that, especially when playing against college QBs, disguising coverages can be an effective way to disrupt timing, decision making, and confident play. There is no reason of which I'm aware that a corner (or both) can't line up closer to the line and then drop off. Even if he's lined up as though he'll play bump and run at the snap, a corner can forgo the bump and make his deep drop in a timely fashion. Lining up in and playing soft coverage play after plays alleviates confusion for the QB and builds confidence and tempo in the opposing passing game.
it seems to me we've been doing playing back too often, practically all the time. it is too soft, it gets us on our heels against the pass and the run. mix it up, bump them, drop back, all of the above, but this constant (or near constant) soft coverage exploits our already weak DB's. we should offset our lack of elite speed by playing more physical and knocking the receivers off their routes, disrupting their rhythm and allowing our D-line more time/ability to get in and make plays....
You keep repeating this same post, over and over. We get what you are saying. Please tell us which players you have in mind to run this scheme. Was Cissoko capable of knocking receivers around when he is a tiny dude?
you are right David. I am repeating myself. I will try to pull it back a bit...
To respond, I do think Cissoko was capable of knocking receivers around at the LOS. I do believe even a 5'-6" 160 pound DB can get on the line of scrimmage and get their hands on a receiver and push / disrupt them and get them out of their route. By sitting back it gives them time to get unobstructed momentum. Sure it will get burnt occasionally, as will playing back. I would just like to see more physicality out of our CB's at the LOS. As such I wanted to see what the rest of us had to say.
To the OP:
How would the 2009 Notre Dame game have turned out if Michigan played press coverage on Golden Tate and Michael Floyd, considering Cissoko (remember, shoulder stinger from mid-August) and Kovacs were two of the four CBs on the field? 50, 60 or 70 points scored?
Thanks, I'll log out and let you answer that.
We probably would have gotten beaten deep some (though we were anyway). But it also might have given our pass rush more of a chance to get to Clausen. As it was, we never sacked him and only hurried him a couple of times. Last year, Clausen was pretty much automatic when he had time. The teams that held him in check pressured the crap out of him.
what teams held him in check last year?
Clausen's worst game last year against Purdue, who didn't sack him once. So...I don't know what this dude is talking about.
Yeah and that was his first game after getting his toe basically removed from his foot; not to mention still leading ND in the final drive to win the game after being absent for 2.5 quarters.
to respond... i have no idea. we played soft coverage as i recall, the majority of the game if not all. we gave up 34, and it took a magical play by tate to win it. if our CB's did play more aggressively and bump the receivers at the line, and knock them off their routes, giving our D-line more time to get to golden-rod douchebag then who knows...
all i am getting to is that we have appeared to passive, and that our less-talented CB's could perhaps better neutralize their deficiencies by knocking the receivers off their routes early, than to leave them back where they are at a disadvantage.
neither scheme/method is perfect, it just appears that we should be playing more physical...
I think you're missing the point where "Cissoko had a shoulder stinger."
Meaning, had he played press, he would've been burnt repeatedly, say, like he was in the first half against both Eastern Michigan and Indiana which ultimately led to his demotion.
And, that would've led to JT Floyd, who was allegedly not fast enough to play anything other than 10 yards off. Hence, the Michigan State bubble screen hell and Woolfolk's move to CB.
One huge problem you're ignoring:
2009's cornerbacks were Donovan Warren, Boubacar Cissoko (effectively gone after 4 games), JT Floyd (for Sparty and Ohio State), Troy Woolfolk (for the other six), and
NOTHING. Those CBs had to be protected. Had Warren or Woolfolk been injured after the Michigan State game, you'd have had Justin Turner or Teric Jones on the field. And yes, then my prediction of 70 ppg would have been true.