Offense - goal line snaps
I had seats in the Michigan section last Saturday, luckily sitting next to some GREAT U of M fans (except for one guy in front of me - who did nothing but complain that the defense looked like RichRod's defense - dude was a downer !!!). It was a great college football game and yeah, it wasn't the type of game we're use to seeing, but the bottom line here is that in clutch situations this teams responds better than anything we've seen for a long time.
However, It is distressing watching us try to MANBALL on the goal line, when clearly the offensive line was not effective in run blocking the entire game. We ended up with a late FG once because we couldn't punch it in from the 2. The kid next to me (OK he was like 18 yrs old) mentions that we should have Peppers in the game on goal line snaps, because he is a dual threat. Putting him in motion requires the defense to react, and movement on the defense helps the offense. That made sense to me !
So taking this even farther - I maintain that on anything from the 2 - 3 yard line in, I would go 4 wide all to one side of the field and have Peppers as the tailback. That takes 4 men off the D line - so we have 5 blockers against 7 defensive players. I would then put Rudock in motion away from the 4 wide set which takes another defender away and its now 5 against 6. I would direct snap to Peppers and then let him find the endzone. I'm not sure how anyone could stop this - unless they simply refused to cover a wideout or Rudock. And if they don't cover Rudock in motion, then Peppers can just toss him the ball.
I'm certain that when Coach Harbaugh has "his" offensive linemen we will be able to MANBALL, but while this line does pass protect well, they are not MANBALL ready.
Go Blue!
November 17th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
to show a little bit more creativity on first and second down in our goal line offense. There have been countless times where we have been forced to third down and later on series beginning at or near the one yard line. We were actually lucky against State when we scored that "touchdown" with Houma. I would not mind first down play action or something a little less predictable.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
One of the 9ers fans I talk to said that he loved Harbaugh as the 9ers coach...his only pet peeve was his stubbornness when it came to goal line situations. He said he'd always run it between the guards with either the FB or RB dive. I'm starting to agree with him.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
That this gripe will become Harbaugh's "zone left" should it continue.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:20 PM ^
And scored a TD with a great Houma block in space.
They tried it again against Indiana and lost 4 yards.
The biggest threat down by the goal line is defensive penetration. Going laterally allows for that, and leads to TFLs. TFLs down by the goal line are huge TD killers because it's that much harder to pick up yards down there. Getting outside requires you've forced the defense to over commit to the inside run.
You can spread it a bit but you need lead blockers. If you want to spread and pass, you need a highly accurate and on-time QB (which he didn't have in San Fran). So what do you do? You add to your run game. You add gaps, you add keys, you add movement, you force the defense to think so they can't penetrate and the blockers can get out and you can pick up the couple of yards you need. The rest is just to keep the defense honest or take advantage of teams cheating, unless you have a great passer.
Bottom line, the OL needs to get better. I also thought Michigan should have run the FB dive (there most successful play down by the goal line) on the 3rd down play on which they went outside with Johnson. Quick hitter, threat of Johnson outside pulls the LBs, Houma runs hard. That's what I called for at the time, but the success (or lack there of) of the outside run is obviously with hindsight.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
What are your thoughts on the OL in general? They seemed to struggle in both run and pass-blocking Saturday. Are they regressing or is Indiana's DL better than advertised?
November 17th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^
And with how hard they were crashing from the back 7 (which is why the pass game was so open), I think they were plugging a lot of the gaps.
I didn't think the pass pro was much of an issue on Saturday. A lot of it was hard PA sell, so they weren't in optimal pass pro spots, instead relying on the D to bite on the run action, which they typically did, but it forces the QB to get the ball out, which he typically did as well.
The run game is a combination of an average unit going against an aggressive front scheming to take away the run (in an effort to force the QB to win the game) and still having some struggles identifying targets. I think their struggles identifying targets limits how often Michigan can run outside the tackles, which allows teams to stack up between the tackles and fire down at gaps. So it's one major weakness of the OL (targeting), one weakness going into the game from the passing attack (down field threat), combined with otherwise average OL play. I think if Michigan could have had a couple successful runs bounce outside that they would have got going better on the ground.
I also didn't think Indiana's DL was as bad as advertised going into the game. They are disruptive. They just take themselves out of plays at times, but when the defense is as aggressive as they were against Michigan, there are more bodies around the ball to make up for that.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
that the threat of Johnson running outside would have been credible since IU saw that against Minnesota making the dive to Houma off of the same action (Drake taking off outside) even more effective.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
They would stop it by having someone win a block. This also involves peppers having to bowl over a lb in a hole since you don't have enough guys to block him and while its certainly possible peppers does it you don't know for sure. But this is pretty much what Indiana did with Jordan Howard, they spread us out and then just had Howard run over our lb's into the end zone.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
coaches have been addicted to tight goal line formations. Even Rich Rod. Every time we would go tight at the goal line after spreading it out all the way down the field I shook my head. He actively and consistently went to the plays we ran infrequently and horribly on the plays we most needed a score. It was bizarre. It looks to be a rule at Michigan that you only score by MANBALLL inside the five.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^
I would also add a team could defend this alignment by not really respecting peppers arm, put two cb's over the 3 wr's with a safety shaded in between able to come off that edge or cover a slant to the inside from one the wr's. Since its at the goal line the cb's will be playing press coverage eliminating a bubble screen and assuming Peppers can't throw a perfect fade route to the far side of the field a the only real routes they can run are slants making a 3 wr bunch a pretty ineffective formation. It would work better with Rudock still under center.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^
In one of the early games we ran a rub on the goal line with Butt and Hill that commenters (maybe Brian) mentioned is something straight out of the Patriots' playbook. Do people remember that play? It worked perfectly and the defense had little time to react. I'd like to see us go back to that again.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
It's hard scoring there no matter what. It's why having a dual threat like Gardner is so valuable. Because you can call a run and pass at the same time with a rollout.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
We will find out going forward whether or not this staff thinks the problem with the running game falls mainly on the OL or the RB's.
I fully expect to see A LOT of Peppers on offense (even at RB) these next two weeks as we pull out all of the stops.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 17th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
#FireHarbaugh ?
November 17th, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^
This conversation reminds me of my old fantasy to have Forcier and Denard in the backfield for a goal line set. Endless possibilities in shotgun with Tate as QB and Denard lined up at RB. You have pure option, zone read and screen plays, all of which result in potential throws to the endzone from either player. I think RR might have gotten that creative had Tate stuck around longer.
This could be Gentry and Peppers next year...
November 17th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
was awesome on those short yardage power sweeps. he seemed to always find a a crease.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
Key is he almost always had a lead blocker (typically a RB) and typically Michigan kept in a TE to add an additional gap to the LOS.
November 17th, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
November 17th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
You are now asking for one of the WRs to be covered; therefore, he doesn't need to be defended by a defender. You've only pulled three defenders out of the box for 4 receivers by lining them up on the same side (likely 4 will follow them outside, but they'll attack off the snap), essentially setting the edge.
You've given the offense no chance to have a lead blocker, meaning you cannot manipulate gaps. If the defense knows the gaps down at the goal line, they can simply shoot them and snuff out almost anything. Everything is a blitz, the OL can't release, defenders get into the backfield, especially when you don't have a viable pass threat. Michigan's OL is already having issues with this because they don't have a great deep threat, it would get even worse down by the goal line.
Spreading the field down by the goal line gives you fewer options with regards to blocking. Because the vertical threat is now gone (there is no room), teams can press up, meaning getting outside is more difficult unless you out-flank the opponent, which requires forces the defense into the box, not out of it. Your horizontal threat is mitigated, so by spreading the field, you're often times restricting the field because you have no option to bounce outside the defense.
It'd be difficult for Peppers to get to the edge when there aren't blockers to set the edge. Especially to the Rudock side, the defense can easily account for the outside run and force everything back inside to help (of which there will be because guys are shooting gaps, have momentum on the snap, and the blockers are struggling to block). Peppers without run options is not a good option down by the goal line. Smith would be a better option because he's more likely to run through a one-on-one tackle to get just enough.
Teams that spread the field down by the goal line (NFL teams) are typically great at passing the ball. That means extremely accurate, on-time, etc. Rudock, in this offense, has not consistently shown he can do that. Peppers certainly hasn't shown he can do that.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^
somewhere in that line, we have 1 O-lineman that can win a 1 on 1. Peppers doesn't have to go outside at all. Run a simple trap play and there's no linebacker help, especially because the defense has probably gone to a heavy set anyway.
I'd bet Peppers gets to the endzone 90% of the time ...
Go Blue!
November 17th, 2015 at 1:16 PM ^
It's not about 1 on 1 blocks, it's about gaps. LBs can play multiple gaps (which is how Michigan has been winning up front lately).
6 defenders vs 5 blockers from tackle to tackle isn't a recipe for success.
November 17th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^
but adding Peppers into that 5 on 6 is also a factor, since he can also read the blocking and he is very difficult to tackle straight on. IMO - since we struggle so much on 8 vs 11 (with your lead blocker) - it would be worth a shot. And the "wildcat" (ie Wolverine formation) has been used successfully by any number of teams on the goal line.
Go Blue!
November 17th, 2015 at 2:28 PM ^
Most don't use it out of 5 wide. They either have another back in there or they use TEs to add gaps. Taking away gaps makes it easier for the defense and harder for the offense because there are fewer options.
I'm not against trying new things near the goal line. I'm not against going 5 wide a time or two even (though it's not my favorite). But it isn't a solution to the problem. It's maybe a changeup (similar to Michigan going 4-wide for a TD earlier in the year to Hill or the TD thrown to Butt that Indiana called a TO just before the play). It's a change up, not a solution. And I think Peppers is better utilized when he has space to work with, not in a restricted area.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
Maybe we have a role for Zach Gentry next year if he can't win the starting job--short yardage QB.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
Maybe we have a role for Zach Gentry next year if he can't win the starting job--short yardage QB.
November 17th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
One way to fix the issue is to tell our players to just stop getting tackled down at the 1. Just make sure to punch everything in for a touchdown and we wont have to worry about what play to run from the 1 yard line.
/s
November 17th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad