On Saturday, Penn State pulled out a direct snap offense, in which they lined up initially like a normal shotgun snap, and then shifted late such that the RB was behind the Center and the QB aligned off set. This sets up for an offense where the QB can still be utilized as a run threat, but the RB can get the ball into his hands immediately and take advantage of some of the interior run schemes while the fairly mobile QB can still threaten the edge. More specifically in this instance, it allows you to run Power O with your RB without being forced to block the "kickout" defender (he's blocked with the read). It's an interesting wrinkle that puts a lot of pressure on the play side of the defense, but it isn't without it's limitations. Now on film, defenses can react based on those limitations. So how can the Nittany Lions grow this package to take advantage of what defenses may show going forward? Let's speculate.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Thursday, October 26, 2017
"Written in Chalk", get it? Like Written in Stone" or "Written in Blood" but chalk because chalk boards. Also a 'Buddy and Julie Miller' album, who I never heard of before but here's a plug. In reality it should probably be "Written in Dry Erase Marker or: Accidentally Written in Permanent Marker on a Dry Erase Board because Someone Put it Here and Now Look, I Can't Erase It, Damnit", but that wasn't as catchy.
Anyway, the idea here is absolutely to be speculative. Yes, I'm going to try to ground this series in logic. No, it's not always going to be logical. That's how great ideas are made. "Written in Chalk" was always one of my favorite parts of coaching that wasn't the actual act of coaching. It was collaborating with the staff, it was drawing some things on the board and constantly asking "what if?" And once you did that someone else asked, "and what if we do this?" And sure enough, someone would say "or what about this?" and you'd either erase the previous thing or draw up this new thing adjacent because it was it's own idea. And this brainstorming activity takes you in all these interesting and far-out directions, but sometimes what comes out of it is pretty awesome.
At times this series will relate to something I see from B1G schools. At times it will be something of my own creation. At times I will think it's something along those lines but it's actually something that's already been done. But either way, the idea is to allow a concept to grow, from a play to a package to potentially a core.
Now let's get a few QBs on the field, shall we
Monday, October 2, 2017
|AP Photo/Al Goldis|
- MSU DL did great job most of the game dealing with the Iowa stretch game. Did a great job getting helmet playside and limiting playside gaps
- A bit of Iowa's success on ground game off gap schemes where DL overcommitted to what they thought was stretch; not really replicable for UM
- Does mean something to UM tho: MSU is great at identifying/defending tendency. Need to strategically break tendency to get them out of pos (this is a common thing for all of Dantonio's good defenses, well schooled)
- LBs/Safeties still flow very hard. Pursuit mostly disciplined but you can catch them out of gaps and can catch open grass away from action
- And you can still play formation games to get matchups you want in secondary. Tight splits/TEs = knob adj = Safety on receiver; etc.
- I think Morrisey matched up well with TEs. Michigan is going to be much better served attacking with a WR as he's the weakness of the backfield. I think both safeties are relative weak spots in coverage and can be exploited. Morrisey more so, but I think other safeties also left some good openings; need to be smart on how WRs/TEs are deployed in formations
- New aspect, MSU plays a lot of C1 especially on obvious pass down. QBs need to be smart about reading safeties before going into progression
- Can still get favorable matchups, throw away from help, but need to understand cov to get into progression. Need protection to give time. MSU DBs not quite a good in technique in C1; obviously not base, but allow receivers to get leverage at times when they aren't really getting the help they expect
- I think UM OL will be already against MSU DL on standard downs for most part. Limited games when on pace. Once behind chains, lots of games
- MSU will likely break tendency a bit based on UM film. UM needs to be prepared to have hots in place to get receivers free in 2nd level
- UM needed to clean up communication issues on OL during bye week or &long will result in heavy, quick pressure, especially from edge
- W/ MSU on offense, OL lost leverage a lot. Was biggest problem for O all day. Lose leverage and quit moving feet.
- Mostly on interior but not limited to it. Iowa DTs able to get into body and control OL at LOS and that clogged up inside runs
- The interior looks strong enough, not consistently pushed back, but lost leverage and lose ability to drive. Need to drive w/ gap scheme
- Still don't like the hand placement of some MSU interior OL. They love to hug, not punch. Results in little first pop to get D off balance
- One player in particular I'm consistently surprised doesn't get more holding calls. Consistently outside frame of body, hugging not driving. Allen had a pretty rough day as well as he got deposited into the backfield a few times and made pulls difficult; Jarvis had some issues with how/where to pull too, which is expected for a FR
- As far as Lewerke, need to get him to reset his feet. If feet are set and he's releasing w technique, he is very accurate.
- When you get into his feet or force him to reset, technique breaks down, accuracy gets v inconsistent, arm strength suffers a lot
- If you can get interior pressure and not let him escape immediately up field, it will be very tough for him
- Interior OL pretty stout at preventing great push. OTs give some ground but mirror well. Should be an interesting match up