Question for the Coaching Minded: Why no motion?

Submitted by brewandbluesaturdays on

I will preface first... I love RR have supported him all along and will continue to until he's not the coach at M... That being said, is it just me or did the past couple of years we see more, motioning, jet sweeps, and play action off of motion and by more I meant some at all because I dont recall seeing any of that this year what so ever. Any ideas to why not?

Edit: Just incase this has been touched I did a search for "motion on offense" and didnt come up with anything.

fredsaysbtdabks

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^

Roh is not a linebacker. I attribute many of the yards in the first two drives to him as he rushed himself out of position over and over (at least to my eyes)

And the bloom is off the Demens rose I think. Often he did not read the pulling guard and was on the wrong side of the run play (my opinion as I'm no coach).

Can someone explain the keys the MLB reads on a trap play?

Magnus

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^

The reads are different from front to front, defense to defense, coach to coach, and offense to offense.  Some MLBs are taught to read the guards.  Some are taught to read the FB.  In some calls, the MLB in a 4-3 might read the guard to his side, but in a 3-3-5 he might be reading the FB.

Basically . . . without looking at a specific play, it's hard to tell what he should be reading on a trap play.  My high school team's defense has the inside linebackers reading the guard to their side.  If he reads trap, he's immediately plugging the interior lineman who releases.  However, we played a team on Friday that had their ILBs reading our fullback.

fredsaysbtdabks

November 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

If you have a moment to look at the trap plays in the first half (where it seems that the guard has pulled over but demens is still looking at the handoff exchange / FB (not sure what) and let me know if this is a late read or a bad scheme or what.  I saw that a few times and there were way more PSU hats than M hats which gave quite a lane.

 

Also, are our LB's dropping too far in pass coverage?  Seems like they drop so far that there's 15 yards between the line and the lb's and we're getting folks underneath all the time with free plays.

 

One comparison, seems like the LB's for penn state take one hop and either drop or rush while our LB's seem to take a bit longer to make a decision.

 

Again, thanks and looking forward to your thoughts

ish

November 2nd, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^

there are many fewer problems on the offense than on the defense and to the extent there are any problems on offense, it's consistency and production from the running backs.  pre-snap motion doesn't address any of those problems.

dennisblundon

November 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^

Just a guess but we have a sophomore QB and motion causes a defense to shift. This could effect his presnap read and create some indecision. As Denard matures I think you will see more motion in the offense. Again just a guess.

RONick

November 2nd, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

To add to this, I believe that Michigan likes to keep the tempo up on offense in most situations.  Slowing down the read slows down the offense, thereby giving the defense a chance to catch their breath and thoughts.  With the speed that we have on the field (see also: dilithium), it doesn't necessarily make sense to do any pre-snap motion if we can already exploit the defense as is.

Magnus

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^

FWIW, I agree with dennisblundon.  Each and every year under Rodriguez, we've had a young, first-year starter.  And of all those first-year starters, Denard looks like the least poised.  I don't mean that he's bad, but it always looks like he's in a little bit of a frantic state.  As a junior and senior, he should calm down a little bit and the offense will be able to open up.

Jeff

November 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

It seems to me like the benefits of pre-snap motion are not as great in this offense as in others.  With the zone-read runs can go to either the strong side or weak side on the same play so changing which is which isn't as helpful.  We do sometimes see the running back change sides of the qb, which is more useful.

While it could still be helpful to determine man vs. zone, the quick passes and the Denard run fakes minimize that a little.  So the benefits of determining the pass defense don't outweigh the speed of the offense and simplifying Denard's reads.

Maybe we'll see some more in the next years, but possibly still not a lot.  Just my thoughts, and I'm curious what others think.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying that pre-snap motion is useless in our offense.  As someone below says, Oregon uses motion to some extent.

Mgobowl

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^

I was just going to ask how beneficial it is to use motion to determine man vs. zone, but as you said it does not help much because of all the short passing. Is the lack of downfield passing also a function of Denards balky shoulder?

 

JD_UofM_90

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

I would say that is a valid arguement. 

But, just to give a counter point and play the devil's advocate....look at Oregon's team.  They have a first year, sophmore quarterback starter and they are running motion and shifting formations constantly.  PSU started a walk-on QB last week and they used motion and drag/crossing routes against us left and right to exploit our defensive weaknesses. 

IMHO, if our coaches wanted to do this more or "believed" in the players ability to do this stuff now, they could do it.  It is a "choice" the coaches have made.  Maybe this lack of creativity, adaptation and expanding of the offense as the year progresses, is hurting our ability to put up the same kind of "numbers" (see the Offensive Inconsistancy post in the diary section for more details) we did earlier in the year. 

Watching the PSU game film again, I noticed everytime we ran a zone option play, the PSU LB's were charging the LOS to meet the running play.  The middle of the field was WIDE open everytime we ran this kind of play.  If we would put a slot guy or RB out of the backfield in motion, who then would run a pass route to the middle of the field, we would eventually make the PSU LB's have to respect that pass play.  In turn, having them try to "cover" both potential plays, it causes the zone read play to be even more effective when you run it.  We ran a TE seam route once in the first half down the middle of the field to expoit ther aggressive LB play, and it gained 15 to 20 yards on the play.  I have no idea why, but we never went back to that play again.

I think our offense is pretty darn good.  I also believe we could be even better and have defenses more on their heels if we threw in some motion plays once in a while and did something to counter their "plans" to stop our base read option plays....

Magnus

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

In the last three games, we've averaged 26.3 points per game.  Yeah, we're putting up big-time yardage.  But 26.3 points per game isn't exactly lighting the world on fire.  It's not out of line to question some things about the offense.  Besides, the OP seems to want to learn more about football strategy, not just bash Rodriguez.  Why do you have a problem with that?

His Dudeness

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

Excuse me sir, I have a problem with adding bells and whistles that would complicate our offense that seemingly is already fairly dumbed down. From what I can see we have no more than 4 passing plays and probably fewer than 10 variations of run plays. I still think that RR knows more about how football is played than you or the fucking OP. I have a problem with you personally because of how you word your snarky, short and rather dick headed retorts. GFY.

Magnus

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^

I still think that RR knows more about how football is played than you or the fucking OP.

Nobody's arguing that.  The OP's question was a question, not a criticism.  I see nothing in the original post that says Rodriguez SHOULD be running motion, just asking why motion is absent.

I have a problem with you personally because of how you word your snarky, short and rather dick headed retorts.

I don't know what that has to do with anything . . .

. . . but pot, meet kettle.

I think it's funny that my comments are snarky/sarcastic, but you openly call people "dickheads" and say "go fuck yourself" . . . and yet you think I'm the evil one.  By the way, if you look at your original post in this thread, isn't it "snarky, short and rather dick headed"?

You're awesome.

MightAndMainWeCheer

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

I agree with you that the offense isn't beyond critique, but that 26.3 points per game stat is a little misleading.  The 17 we hung against MSU appears to be more of the exception than the rule with respect to our offensive output (we'll obviously see over the remaining 4 games if that holds true). 

Is it unreasonable to say that we left at least 10 obvious points on the field against MSU (2 redzone INTs and the miss to a wide-open Stonum that lead to a FG)?  Obviously those breakdowns are part of the game and they shouldn't be completely disregarded, but I don't think they represent any sort of major breakdown like a schematic/strategic error or some sort of talent deficiency.

Taking out the MSU game, we have hung at least 28 points on every Big 10 opponent so far (obviously the Indiana and PSU game may not say much), and I think the 28 points against Iowa was very respectable. 

You can't just cherry-pick numbers; it gives too much weight to outliers (e.g. 65pts against BG: bad defense; 17pts against MSU: good defense and bad game by Denard). 

I still believe our offensive points per game numbers are a little lower than they should be because of turnovers and more importantly because of poor special teams (not having a reliable FG kicker and poor field position from less than average returns) rather than any schematic or talent issue.

Jeff

November 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

That's a good idea. 

We can have a blue party for all the people who are depressed but are still calm and have an ocean of support to draw on for Rodriguez.

Then we can have a maize party for all the yellow-bellied cowards who want to cut tail and run people who think it's time to fire Rodriguez.

The people who are undecided can wear the away whites.

Space Coyote

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^

I like presnap motion in an offense.  I think those stupid things that Carr used to do (switch the offset of the FB, move outside receiver to slot, etc) and that OSU, Wisconsin, MSU, and PSU do with shifting TEs are good things.  They bring one more thing for the defense to quickly recognize and adapt to.  Even the small things (again, like shifting the FB) gives the defense a bit more to think about.

That being said, this offense is predicated on tempo.  It is also designed to make presnap reads based on alignment and during the actual play (read option).  It is much less predicated on the QB being able to decipher if the other team is in man or zone (WR motion).

With all that said, I personally would like to see more motion at the start of games, and have our tempo decreased a little bit.  The reason I say this is because lining up in say trips, then motioning a receiver across the formation or switching the side of the RB allows the offensive staff to see how the defense is aligning against two different formations.

Again, my guess is it's more of a tempo thing.  In the no huddle motion becomes problematic, and even last night it didn't appear the colts used much motion when they ran the no huddle.  I think the coaches like the quick tempo and the threat of snapping it at any time.  And also the whole Denard is extremely good at reading changing defenses right now so simplify it for him.

NOLA Wolverine

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

Rich Rodriguez doesn't use a lot of motion, even with Pat White in year three. We don't have any player in the slot worth getting the ball to in the running game, so I don't see an advantage to using motion (Well I don't see it in any case, but the only offense I've ever cared to delve into was WVU's).

West Viriginia run cut-ups: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z29OBPwRjaY

That suggests that you probably won't see much of it here.

mgoO

November 2nd, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^

It was mentioned that we don't have any slots that would be of any use in the running game.
<br>
<br>Perhaps, but personally I would love to see Gallon, TRob, and even Grady get some additional attempts either on the bubble, end arounds/reverses, etc.
<br>
<br>Gallon and Robinson both have excellent quickness/ball skills and were ballcarriers in their prep days.
<br>
<br>I have more quibbles with the lack of counters in our game plan vs. lack of motion.
<br>
<br>We are not taking advantage (enough) of Denard as a decoy and the necessity of the opposing D to flow towards him en masse.

BlockM

November 2nd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^

These are the kinds of threads I appreciate around here. I hadn't really thought about it, but it does make sense that the defense would be a little tougher to read if they were reacting to motion.

BleedingBlue

November 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^

I thought the purpose of motion was in order to determine if the defense is playing man or zone though?  wouldn't it make it easier to read if we used motion?  

I guess I could see the argument that we only are running the play one way anyway, so why move the defense around, but wouldn't using motion create the appearance of our offense attacking zone and man defense differently?

eh... never mind...just call me Henri

MQues

November 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

I thought the purpose of motion was in order to determine if the defense is playing man or zone though?  wouldn't it make it easier to read if we used motion?

 

On occasion teams will use motion to determine coverage, but it's honestly not necessary. Safety and cornerback alignment will give you a read on man vs zone coverage without motion. Even when a defense is trying to disguise coverage, there is almost always 1 player who gives the coverage away. A QB will generally first count safeties and determine their alignment. They will then look at corner alignment followed by reading the front and linebacker positioning. Post-snap, they will scan the safeties and corners (eg. is the corner chasing, sitting or bailing?) again to determine if their pre-snap was correct and decide if any adjustments need to be made.

Indiana Blue

November 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

who is rather successful using RR's spread style ... they often use motion.  Why not try it ?  Its one more thing the defense has to account for.  The motion man can take the handoff, go wide for a pass in the flat, or even be a lead blocker.  When you can combine and USE all 3 options then the defense definately has to account for him.  Accounting for this motion man means one less defender Denard has to be concerned with.

Sounds like a great idea to me !!!   +1

Go Blue !

steve sharik

November 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

...is most often used in order to outflank an opponent.  Since the spread tries to do this by formation, coupled w/the ability to change the play at the line w/o the formation so that the play call combined w/the formation already outflanks the defense.

Motion cannot always determine zone/man, unless the defender over the motion guy runs w/him.  But often teams will bump their man assignments such that even if defenders don't run w/motion, it still can be man.

fballcoach12

November 2nd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^

I Tried to bring up this idea of motioning a few weeks ago after the Iowa loss and got negged for it by a few posters. Why?? Have no idea, and I bought up how the Oregon offense used it as well and how effective it is with Jet sweeps/Fake Jet Sweeps. The thing I love about it is LB's look at that stuff and causes them to play out of position. Players tend to go with Motions and causes the defense to think more. They have more to worry about and more chaotic for them when there is moitons. I also love the the idea of motioning a back from the backfield to a receiver . Sure our offense is not bad or certainly not the problem........but to say there is no room for improvement is ludicrous. We can always get better and I think little things like this will make us tougher to cover.