Harbaugh's Utilization of Space and Width Despite Condensed Formations
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.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Harbaugh will need to work with the talent he has and make the best of it! AND HE WILL!
March 26th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Outstanding work as always Space. FWIW Brian showed a clip when he was here of Standford literally changing their formation 5 times pre-snap to screw with the safety reads. By the time they ran the play the Virginia Tech safety was literally running back and forth between the hash marks and looking to the sidelines for help. It was hilarious.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
Harbaugh utilized 11 different motions plus more formation shifts in the first half alone. He uses motion and shifts almost every single snap (which is a big reason I have the clips start so much before the actual snap of the ball in the article) and uses them to leverage defensive fronts and coverages consistently and to great effect.
That may take a little more time to implement all of that stuff at Michigan, just because the main focus will be on actually running the plays at first, but motion will be, regardless, a huge strength and aspect of his offense. Changes blocking angles, forces defensive communication, changes defensive assignments and gaps, and doesn't allow defenses to always "optimize" to the initial set. It forces all defenders to be good at all things, essentially. It's something I plan on focusing on in the future.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
Just curious. Last year the emphasis was on simplifcation. The 2013 complaint was Borges was too sophisticated. Dumb it down - simple it down so the players could execute. Now it sounds like we are going back to sophistication. Which I am not against. Obviously if you can hack it the more looks you can show the better.
But wasn't that the argument last year - its too difficult for the players? Are we lauding it only because it is Harbaugh's complication v Borges complication?
March 26th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
Harbaugh's eventually run game is similar to Borges's. But I think his pass concepts are much more simplified. From what I've seen, I think Harbaugh utilizes much more simplified "rules" for his blocking schemes (both run and pass pro) as well, particularly at the college level.
Don't get me wrong, I think over time, if Harbaugh could, he'd have something similar to what Borges did in terms of complication within his scheme (run game variety, protection variety, pass game variety). Both, if under optimal conditions, would reach for a similar degree of complication. But Harbaugh's college playbook, particularly the pass game playbook, was fairly small.
I think more than anything, their would be a difference in their approach to 2013. I don't think in 2011-2012 Borges was all that complicated in many ways. He had new wrinkles he introduced each week, but it wasn't overhauling the offense. His run schemes were fairly standard and constrained at that time, his pass concepts seemed to differ a bit week-to-week, but he was using standard concepts, mostly to the outside of the field, to try to help along Denard and then inexperienced DG. I think he generally freaked out in 2013 when nothing was working, not even what they repped a ton, and started trying to scheme victories rather than build his personnel. That led to the wide variance in results.
Harbaugh will build. You hear it in the way the assistants talk and the way Harbaugh talks. Harbaugh will do the things he believes he needs to do well before moving onto the next thing. That's why I think Harbaugh's scheme will be closer in simplicity to his Stanford playbook. It's not drinking from a fire hose all the schemes. And besides, the 2015 Michigan OL is night and day in college experience, even if it is with a less than adequate coaching staff, than the 2013 OL was, so a bit more complication is warrented at this time (and you would have begun to see it even if Nuss was still around).
March 26th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
Thx.
"the 2015 Michigan OL is night and day in college experience, even if it is with a less than adequate coaching staff, than the 2013 OL was,"
Are you saying that our 2015 staff is less than adequate?
I was saying even if the college experience came under a less than adequate staff.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
The indictment of Borges is that he'd call plays that were difficult for the offense and easy for the defense. For example, only bringing in Norfleet for a sweep, or tackle over. The O has to rep the play, it works for a while, but once it's on tape the D just sees the personnel or formation and is all over it.
In his defense, he also racked up some 40-point games with raw-as-a-slaughterhouse O-line; we often forget that. He'd just run out of tricks at the worst times and that got him fired. Nuss was consistently bad but that's because he was trying to rebuild the offense; I wouldn't trade Harbaugh for any other coach but I do wish in an alternate universe we could see what Nuss was going to make in 2-3 years.
Harbaugh's offenses, as I understand them, are difficult to learn but conceptually easy. The O-line will shift like crazy before the snap but that's to make the defense's job hard. Once the ball's snapped everyone should have simplified reads.
I'm OK with simple or sophisticated as long as it works.
Can you please share the clip?
March 26th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
Brian approves this message.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 26th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
But there are a ton of commonalities across any strategy or philosophy. I can (and intend) to eventually get into the adjustments to basic gameplans and things that Harbaugh utilized based on defensive tendencies and such, and that can get complicated. But as I stated in the OP, the basic tenets of threatening the width of the field, leveraging the defense, forcing the defense to play honest, those are common across all things, just there are different ways to go about it.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
I call it girth.
And EVERYONE loves girth.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 26th, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^
Yeah, I think that's what he was getting at.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
Didn't think the explanation necessary, but my humor often lives inside my own head and needs to be deciphered for others. :)
March 26th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
the Space-time theory and how the prodigy/genius
might apply the theories of his mentor
read this somewhat simplifed explanation:
March 26th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
Yahoo! Forbidden
March 26th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
Roughly put, everyone knows what a forest is, but Harbaugh's good at seeing the forest from the trees. These aren't a bunch of plays thrown into a pile; they work together to stress the defense. Opportunities are created by forcing the defense to account for something you're NOT doing in any given play. A QB spy is one less guy to play a gap. Bringing up with a safety leaves one less guy in coverage. Etc., etc. If defenses know what you're going to do, they have the advantage. If they don't, you have it.
In this case:
If I'm reading this right, the WR on the top of the screen is playing off the LoS so the guy just below him is the TE. Because he's a lineman the front 7 have to account for the gap between the RT and TE, but if the guy fakes the block and curls out into the flat on play action he's in acres of space. The defense HAS to account for the space. AND the gap! If the field safety covers then the WR is one-on-one with the CB. If it's a run and the SLB hesitates there's a lane. This isn't to say this can't be defended (there's an answer for everything), but making the defense think "what if" really puts stress on their assignments. There's like ten yards between the WR and TE and the D has to account for every inch of it.
This is, of course, Offense 101. Every OC wants a balanced offense that keeps defenses guessing. Here's where the ol' "execution" word makes its infamous apperance. I'd like to tweak that, not just to mess with jargon but to also address its limitation. Fairly or not, "execution" implies a play can succeed if you run it perfectly. That's not the case if the defense sees it coming, and MGoBlog goes 'round and 'round on this, in part because I think people talk past each other. So, the word I'd use is implementation. Execution is part of implementation. The play needs to make sense in context (scheme/playcalling), it needs to stress the defense (Xs and Os), it needs to be something the players can do (jimmies & joes), AND they need to do it (execution). You can draw up a play that's supposed to stress the defense, but if for some reason the defense can stop it out of their base (easy read, bad execution, etc.), it's not really a constraint.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
Thanks for including all those clip examples as well, really helps to see the diagrams come to life.
I wasn't under the impression that Harbaugh ran a lot of zone read/option looks with Luck. Do you know, is that the case? Did he run more when Pritchard was the QB? It's not going to be ideal for all of our quarterbacks but I love offenses that have some of those zone reads in there, just to keep the backside defender honest.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
And had more boots and designed QB runs with him (he used a few types of draws and run fakes with the QBs before, including what looks like zone read but wasn't a read at the time).
He began truly implementing zone read with Luck though, and Luck would get around a handful of carries a game but keep the defense honest. Obviously, in San Fran, he began using even more option/ read option schemes. But he always threatened the defense with the QB's legs, and particularly in the case of Morris, I think he'd be remiss not to continue doing that. I think he wants a QB that can at least threaten a defense when they start over-reacting to the RB run game.
I'll add, there is also a significant focus on the QB escape lanes on pass plays. The design of the plays combined with the leak options from TEs/RBs is such to give QBs clear escape lanes into space. The last option is always QB run in the pass game, and it is drilled into the QB's heads how to get into space and pick up chunk yardage. All of Harbaugh's QBs I watched were excellent at doing that.
One of, if not the, most effective ways of relieving pressure and break contain instantly. The problem is that it requires you to actually step into the pocket (which helps your OL, helps you make throws, and can be very dangerous as a scrambling method) to be effective. If you try to spin out every time it's a terrible strategy.
I remember doing something similar as a kid in basketball. Fake take the ball to the wing, reverse spin on the baseline, easy lane straight to the basket every time. Then help defense and taking away the baseline game along and it just ended in me getting trapped in no man's land.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
I am looking forward to a balanced offense this fall. I think we can expect a solid running game from this team, since that seems to be a point of emphasis. The passing game will be most interesting, mostly beause of the uncertainty at QB.
I think it will be interesting to see how Harbaugh handles the quarterback situation. Will he still utilize some read options and bootlegs? I think that is going to depend on the QB he gets. I think Morris is fast enough where he can definitely pose a threat to run.
For once it sounds like we will have a consistent offensive philosophy- unlike anything we experienced with Borges.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
Question: why did the SF offense struggle so much last season?
And why did SF always seem to struggle against the Seahawks defense? This one makes me worry a bit against Sparty - if the Seahawks D is similar to Sparty's, Harbaugh never really solved that.
Of course they along with everything else will be HARBAUGH'd, but just a question.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
So I'm not a great judge of why it struggled this past year.
As for the Seahawks: a lot of offenses were really bad against them, not just the 49ers. Furthermore - and this isn't saying that Michigan is going to light up the MSU defense by any means - but Seattle does two things significantly different than MSU: they are mostly single high and they are mostly an Under defense.
It's hard to run Power against a 7 technique. There are ways of handling it, but it will always be less than optimal. This forces you away from your base a bit more (and why Harbaugh typically prefers Lead IZ to the weakside in that case; also Wham in the NFL). The way the Seahawks align simply make it very difficult to run the ball though, which when you are run first, it hurts. Combined with pressing on the outside (Harbaugh doesn't use a ton to help against the press on the outside from my viewing), it's just a bad combination.
Harbaugh should be able to pick a bit more on MSU's two-high safety look from inside-out though. Playing Cover 4 safety is really damn hard, particularly if you can run the ball. MSU will likely adjust their front a bit to account for Power a bit more than their standard Over front, but still...
March 26th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
First and foremost, excellent work, SpaceCoyote.
Above the technical details, I actually liked the brief lookback to Tressel (I didn't think about the fleeting philosophical connection before), and it is relevant really because I believe that - like Tressel - Jim Harbaugh has been / is good when it comes to getting the defense to respect the entire offense and have to worry about the entire width of the field.
They have said they'll tailor the offense - by which I assume they mean the distribution of playcalls from the broader playbook - to whoever stands out ultimately at QB. It would be interesting to see how the same basic philsophy expresses itself in that regard.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:33 PM ^
I don't think it'd change much. If the scheme is a meal, the plays are recipes and the players are ingredients. The core concepts will be the same regardless of who's QB.
But if you're preparing a meal and one of your recipes calls for an ingredient you just don't have; it doesn't necessarily work if you go to "the next best thing". A great chef takes what's in the kitchen and doesn't mindlessly substitute but changes the recipes as needed. But the result still has to go together with everything else.
As for playcalls, that depends on what's working, not the plays per se. The limitations of a player shouldn't reflect on the playcalls but the expectations of the play. For example, you can probably get away with a play that assumes a DE can't beat Denard to the edge. The same play with Navarre is asking for trouble no matter how flat-footed the defense is. You can still run a bootleg but the countermeasure for a DE in pursuit can't just be, "run for it". The threat has to come from somewhere, such as a TE in the flat or a RB maintaining pitch distance. But if that's there and the opponent isn't defending it, run it with Navarre thirty effin' times if it keeps moving the chains.
TL;DR: Whoever winds up at QB, the QB runs will be there and Harbaugh will call them whenever they make sense. If there's any variation, I think it'll be not in the playcalls but the plays -- the expectations of the players depending on what they can and can't do.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
we trust.
Long live the Spread.
Really enjoyed that write-up, esp in this low season (not a CBB fan).
One thing that strikes me watching play after play is how Jim seems to prefer getting big guys into space to block little guys over trying to get little guys to make other little guys miss in space. That seems really sound in that you don't rely on having quicker little guys all over the place, rather you can do a lot with somewhat lesser athletes in the skill positions.
It does put a lot of pressure on the TE, H-back, U-back, fullback types to be able to target a smaller DB and not just be trees out in space. However, all of those Stanford guys with the ball in their hands did a lot to make use of the big guy coming out to block, setting up the block so the big guy could do his job.
This seems a lot less random than relying on your quicks to be better than the other guys' quicks. It also may be a clue into the Seahawk Dilemma -- they are big and tough at DB positions, fast at LB positions, and may be able to defeat all those big-guy-in-space blocks. It's really tough to be that good on defense through just the quality of your guys, the Seahawks being less dependent on scheme and relying more on their superior Jimmys and Joes. Not many teams can collect that kind of crowd and keep them on the field.
Jim seems to prefer being able to block a guy rather than deke a guy as part of putting guys in position to succeed. I may be getting overly charged on this, but blocking scheme in the base and to get mismatches in blocking, and blocking technique all over the field is the foundation for what he wants to get done. Blocking seems to be the great equalizer in the Harbaugh scheme.
I also like some of the practice video showing the offensive line how not to give away depth on run blocking, permitting quicker lateral action on the line for pulling, doubling, etc. It used to drive me crazy to see the Michigan guards pulling and going two yards deep into the backfield, not able to get to the hole ahead of the ballcarrier. That part seemed to get fixed a bit last year, with pulling happening a lot more laterally and not turning shoulders from the line of scrimmage, more able to attack downfield.
March 27th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
The Stanford offence - and the Bill Walsh style West Coast generally - utilizes the fullback to attack the flats in the passing game with bench routes and and the occasional chip and wheel. Point is, we don't have a Owen Marecic/William Floyd type of fullback on our roster. How do we incorporate these concepts with our current roster? Do we use an H-Back to do this, or rely on the fullbacks we have on the roster? New role for Wyatt Shallman perhaps?
BTW, Gruden's break-down of Spider 2 Wide Banana is absolutely delicious - thanks for the link!
EDIT: The link to the Gruden footage is from Coyote's article on Breakdown Sports. Link: http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2015/03/inside-playbook-harbaugh-mi…
March 27th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
Very informative breakdown, Space Coyote, don't want to wish my life away, but must admit to looking forward to football season