Schemin': Play Action on Obvious Passing Downs
A regular source of grumbling from Brian during the Borges years was running play action in situations where non-draw running is not really tenable -- say, 3rd and 7 or more. That ire came back in this week's UFR, where Brian mentioned he would have been grouchy about running play action on the Speight TD pass had it not worked.
I've wondered about this since I first really started paying attention to it a couple of years ago. Brian has never really gone into too much detail on it other than "duh, they already think it's a pass." But surely there is more nuance to it than that. MGoCoaches, can you explain the reasoning behind these sorts of plays? Is it just that LBs can't resist the action and take a small false step, even though they know there's almost no chance of a run? If so, why do DCs not instruct their guys, "DO NOT bite on any play action on 3rd and X or more, no matter what"?
I'll embed the Speight TD below as an example.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
Do you not see all 3 LB's taking a step forward? That moment of pause is always helpful.
Football is an instinct game but with a lot of assignments, and those can change. It's played by humans who don't always apply the correct odds to every specific outcome. That's what writers do with the benefit of review. LB's play the majority of their snaps responsible for run first. In game play, it's just human nature to draw up in reaction to what looks like a run. OC's know this, especially in college.
I think in the Borges regime it was more pronounced. Plus we were losing.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
It's not quite like lining up in punt formation and running a fake on 1st down, but the play action can help. We saw it with Stribling - he knows "don't let the receiver behind you" but he bit anyway on the double move.
The PA might get a LB to make 1 false step - that might be all you need.
The downside is that the QB turns away from the LOS.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
You're rIght on the money. The throw was an underneath and up-the-middle throw, prime location for a LB to get a bat-down, jam, or interception, if he drops back into coverage. Even the slightest misdirection you can put on your opponent in that case is useful. Cover all the details. The most concise description I've heard of Harbaugh is that he's a "details" guy. Very detail oriented.
There's so many head games going on every play, if you can add anything to the opponents' brains' "process list", it's absolutely pays divedends.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^
That's the of PA in general..sucking up the linebackers. That is much more likely to happen on probable running downs and distances. The OP's question was why LB's would bite on PA on 3rd and 7 or more and consequently the efficacy of running PA in that situation. It's a valid question. Unless you've previously established you're willing to run it up the middle or off tackel on a clear passing down, I don't see why you'd run it. Maybe some teams have pretty bad LB's that always react reflexsively to PA and that's why they do it.
November 5th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
Backup quarterback that looked fairly terrible most of the time he was in... so running the ball isn't outside the realm of possibility.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
We were going to go for it on 4th down. Running PA on 4th and 7 would have been questionable.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
It was 3rd and 10, and I bet we're kicking the FG there unless we get it very close. There was still plenty of time left to stop them and get the ball back, especially given that we had 3 TOs.
November 5th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^
Space Coyote argued that the play action sometimes momentarily freezes the defense even on a third-and-long play. Hopefully he'll show up and confirm or deny that, though.
If you watch the three Minnesota linebackers (maybe one of them is a safety lined up near the LOS) on the play, they all take a small step forward before they start backpedaling. It looks like the play action worked.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
Not to mention we were in a clear 4 down situation at that point, running the ball isn't crazy because it could either catch the d off guard or get you like 6 or 7 yards and give you more options on 4th down.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
In this specific instance, it actually wouldn't have been that crazy to run, especially given some of the success we were (finally) having.
In general, it must have to do with freezing LB's (which happened a tiny bit on the TD above), but I'm sure there's an argument to be had about that benefit vs the extra time where the QB is able to actively read the defense were there no play-action fake.
Interesting topic for discussion.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
It maybe made a tiny difference in making #26 take one extra step forward with his left foot, but yeah in practice the difference was quite negligible.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
Not a coach, but a couple of thoughts.
First, in that situation, I don't think it's unreasonable to run. New, untested QB, 3rd and long, and the one thing you absolutely cannot have is a turnover. So play action isn't as ridiculous there. And watch in the video - all 3 LBs take a step towards the line.
But I think you're right that it's all about that false step. LBs jobs are to stop the run at all cost, so they see any type of run action and they're thinking run. If a defense is in zone, even that one little false step might be enough to complete something over their head that wouldn't be there without the playaction. Or you could get something slightly easier in the flat - look in this play, Houma is open with a chance to get a first down partly because the LB's false step.
A lot of the times, the problem under Borges was just that there was no running game. The LBs didn't need to attack run plays because they weren't necessary. Here, even though the running game didn't have a great night, it's successful enough to get the LBs attention. And yes, the longer the 3rd down, the less useful it is.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
I'm not a coach either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
It is a chess game - yeah it's 3 and 7 so they are going to pass - right?
But once in a while it's a designed QB run in that situation.
After the linebacks get used to dropping back in coverage on the TEs and WR over routes then maybe the 4th - 5th time in 3rd and long you run the QB,
Then, the LBs must now give a moments respect for that and this loosens up coverage.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
But a designed QB run is a totally different threat, and the play action doesn't threaten it. When was the last time you saw someone do a straight back, non-draw handoff on 3rd and 7 or more? I can't think of a single time, outside of "give up and punt" 3rd and 20 situations. And even still, those are almost always draw plays.
The real question is, why does it work? Why do LBs respect that run at all, when it's almost never coming?
November 5th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
Because your keys are your keys. You can think that "3rd and long, no run" but you see the QB turn and you think "Running lane Fill"
Instincts take over.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
That's really the only plausible explanation I've been able to come up with.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
Brains are dumb is onto the right answer in my mind, but it's not exactly that. High level sports happen so fast that you literally do not have time to think out there. It is all reaction. So by the time you think that it's a pass, it's too late and you've taken that wrong step.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^
It's possible that the LB's reacted more to the PA due to the proximity to the endzone. You cant let a team run it right up the guy in that situation. Perhaps the same down and distance at Michigan's 35 yd line wouldn't have induced the same run stopping instinct.
November 5th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
1. At that speed it's all instinct.
2. Michigan was in 4 down territory (not necessarily determined only by field position)
3. They were pretty deep in the redzone and that changes things for the defense.
4. to a much lesser extent, they had less idea of what Speight was capable of.
5. Profit?
November 5th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
Training - muscle memory - LB are run-first defense they always take a step or two to the gaps then back pedal. That's why a tall TE with good hands and speed are invaluable, they are always open. Gronk, Graham and Olsen are nightmares to defend. I can see Butt being at that level in 4 years or earlier.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
Yeah, but if you ever want to do the designed QB sneak, the last thing you want is anything that puts the linebackers in the mindset of run defense. You want to wave the IT'S A PASS flag as hard as you can and have the routes clear out one part of the field to open up wide swaths of green space.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 5th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
like to know the playing experience of our mgoblog members. I love this blog but to often we are fed information from people who learned all they know about football from the internets. Backup QB on the rd,obvious 4 down situation, and inside the 10 yd line is a great place for a play action call.
November 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 5th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Great contribution. Thanks.
November 5th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^
Wangler to Carter against IU was a play-action pass, although everyone knew it would be a pass. Your explanation about timing helps to explain why there wasn't a simple (non-play-action) pass call for that.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
Also great. Thank you. This website continues to be rad.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
November 5th, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^
This isn't Madden where you just easily audible out of the play-action and the robotic players do the right thing. They've practiced the play with play-action and even if the PA is worthless it is most likely better to just run the play as practiced than to try and dump the PA on the fly.
November 5th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^
to the Wangler-to-Carter pass before I posted above.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
The only caveat I would have is with the "hard sell" vs "soft sell".
A "hard sell" is really actually very risky. Extending the ball with an outstretched arm, to a running back with striding arms and legs, is inherently a VERY risky move (not even to mention if a lineman gets penetration). And ball security being what it is, red-zone, 4th quarter, end of game drive, new QB. There is lots of room for error, and a with a new QB, at the end of the game, it would be asking a lot when you're already asking a lot.
Also, the TV viewpoint shows it looks "soft", but as a linebacker, when you're in the wash, it's incredibly rare (and schemed for) to see the handoff point (or even worse, false-step to see the hand-off). Just because it's soft on TV doesn't mean it's soft on the field.
Of course, without knowing more, we can't, know more.
But you don't have to be "super-selling" to get the effect. Not even close.
Package alone can do that for you.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
In the latest UFR, Brian lamented play action on the 3rd and 10 touchdown play. I think that may actually have been a higher level move by Harbaugh that makes sense.
We were playing with a backup QB who clearly came into the game appearing rattled and gun shy. We were down 5 points with 5 minutes left, meaning two FGs wins, so on 3rd and 10 it's reasonable to anticipate that the team would just go ultra-conservative and run the ball to preserve the FG and then play for the defensive stop with time left to get a second FG.
Harbaugh calling play-action there makes sense because lots of coaches do go into conservative shells with backup QBs and 3rd and 10 is precisely when coaches decide to cut their losses and avoid a turnover with a safe playcall. I think it's totally believable that we'd run the ball up the middle there.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
Eh, I'm pretty skeptical of a run here. If the plan is to kick the FG here, stop Minny, and get the ball back, you're still going to have to trust Speight to throw his way down the field on the last drive to kick the winning FG. Why not just let him try here, where 1 good throw can get the job done? You're going to have to do it at some point either way.
The alternative is to run, hopefully get close, and then go for it. I suppose that could work, and make the play action here more of a real threat. But I think the other explanations -- PA helps the timing, Speight is used to running it, etc -- makes far more sense.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
If Harbaugh is banking on his defense going 3 and out, he may be hoping for a short field to work with. Punter had shanked his previous kick, and if he does boom it 50 yards, we have Peppers.
Depending on how much time is left, the run could still be an option. Obviously JH was going pass, but I could see him trusting his defense, special teams and kicker to win the game.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
I guess. I just think that if you play for the FG here, you're virtually guaranteed to end up asking Speight to do something at least as difficult as what they asked him to do here.
November 5th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^
May be that's why this play call was there. Even if the pass falls incomplete, the coaches would know if Speight can deliver the ball. Kick a field goal on the 4th down, hold Minnesota to a 3 and out and then see what happens. In that case, the coaches know if Speight can do it.
On the other scenario of running the ball, kicking a field goal, holding Minnesota to a 3 and out, does not tell the coaches if Speight can deliver the ball to the right receiver.
I think it was more of what Reader71 mentioned, a practiced route opening up for that play. I don't think there was anything more to it.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
From the outside looking in, it seems like it doesn't make any sense. Who would be fooled by a run play here?
However, the beauty of the Play-Action pass is not the schematic subterfuge, but the reactionary one. LB's are responsible for stopping the run and are trained to react to what they see. Usually, even the slightest hint of a run play means the LB's are trying to fill the run their lanes and make the tackle. LBs (and safties, for that matter) are valued for their ability to read and react, and Play action passing takes advantage of this.
The reason that Play Action passing didn't work for Borgeous is that the RUN game never, ever worked. Even our below average run game is enough to get LB's thinking about the run. "27 for 27" isn't enough to get LB's used to seeing runs develop enough that they can start cheating.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:21 AM ^
Practice time probably contributes, in addition to the good points others have made. You probably don't rep versions of the same play with and without the play-action, so in the game you just go with what you've practiced, whether or not the fake is likely to be convincing or not.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
Another thought - remember that play against Maryland where it was 3rd and 10 and Maryland was on their 5? They ran play action, Bolden bit HARD, and they got the first round. We were all over Bolden for that, but that is an example of why playaction on 3rd and long can work.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
Ignore - my bad.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^
...make me happy.
Good stuff.
November 5th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^
I don't really agree with the comments about teams' route combinations being based on play action. For example, we have the same route combinations that can be called out of a straight dropback from under center, shotgun, play action, or a rollout. All it takes is a change of a word or two to tell us what's going on in the backfield.
I think what a lot of people forget is that these defenses are not watching the game on TV. They're not saying "It's 3rd-and-15, so if the QB puts the ball in the RB's belly, he's just messing with me so I'm just going to drop to my hook-curl zone." Those guys are taught to read and react to what's going on on the field. Sure, 1/2 or 2/3 linebackers might not respect the play action because of the game situation, but if you get just one linebacker out of position, then that might be all you need.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would be too upset about play action on a long play. It's not that distracting for a QB or RB to run a fake handoff. Personally, I think this is only something that fans get worked up about. Obviously, lots of coaches make a conscious decision to run play action on third- or fourth-and-longs, so it's probably not a big deal.