Developing a Quarterback with Jim Harbaugh

Talking ball with Harbaugh as he shares his secrets to creating a better passer...

Football’s Illusions

We want diversity, but we don't want it to be an argument. But that's what diversity is.

Sometimes the arguments are creative. When you start a dialectic between people who are different, it benefits... I believe in arguing.

I'm often accused of being opinionated and argumentative, I plead guilty to that, but I've never had anything not end up better because people in the same room were arguing back.
-David Simon

This post is an attempt to articulate a deeper response to understanding today’s game of professional football and the culture that surrounds it. Please understand that there are various nuances to consider and this is not intended to be the cynical fire-starting rant that it may appear to be at first glance.

Hemlock and I are presenting our views on this subject for posterity and reflection on the impact of mass media in shaping the game of football in the current age. In a recent discussion at Coach Huey.com, the issue of NFL scheme variety was presented. Is there really a difference between one team from another, when they all essentially are running the same thing? And if they are the same, why are we being constantly told about / sold on the facets that are unique to such-and-such scheme?
Influence Of Mass Media Shaping Perception



NFL

According to many reports, professional football got its start primarily to serve gambling interests.
It was just too difficult to influence the outcomes of so many college games at the time and the money to be made through industry-sponsored teams was too good to pass up. In any event, the professional game we have today is primarily propped up to serve the interests of franchises and advertising revenue. While many professional ball clubs have a storied history of games played and athletes who forced an adaptation along the way, the system in place was really only concerned on the amount of “units” sold. In short, the Cleveland Steamers exist to turn a profit as an entertainment franchise, it just happens to be that winning games is a great way to turn a profit. “The game” is an afterthought to the bottom-line of the organization.

If the NFL captures your attention and sparks a passion for the game of football, great. Hopefully, this interest draws you into a greater appreciation of the sport, itself. Be aware that much of the NFL is competition and strategy in Kabuki form, which is fitting after all, as a night at the theatre has now been replaced with an afternoon at the stadium in our current culture. It is a marketing device that wraps itself in the flag, never-ending 9/11 tributes, breast cancer awareness, and any other maudlin trigger it could hope to entrench itself to. Anything to get you to cauterize your personal identity to socially affirmed beliefs. This has great effect for creating an illusion that the game and it’s trademark are bigger than they are (“Peyton Manning isn’t just a man, but Peyton Manning”); nurturing hero worship.

The NFL is, far and away, the most egregious, self-absorbed and greedheaded entity when it comes to displaying any logo, player, uniform, jersey, game film, highlight. If money isn’t shoved into their pocket at every single opportunity and if the script itself doesn’t extol the NFL and American football as the saving grace of our civilization, then they reserve all rights to the depiction of football as it exists in the lives of regular folk. They include in that regular folk who suffered through Katrina and its aftermath and took real solace in the Saints. They don’t give a fuck about depicting your reality or what the Saints meant to you. They give a fuck about glorifying and gilding their image and getting paid ridiculous sums of money. That’s all they care about.

- David Simon, creator of Treme

---

ESPN



Jesse Palmer wasn’t hired because he possesses some great insight into the game. He is the face of the game because he provided a draw for ABC’s “The Bachelor”, has a TV-polished delivery, and can accentuate the game experience. There isn’t anything wrong with that in itself. Networks exist to serve their share-holders and anything that beefs up the bottom line. Whether it’s a pretty face in the booth, a skirt on the sideline, and computer graphics peppered through the broadcast, its all about selling their brand.

This isn’t even hating on the world-wide leader in sports. They do a good job of expanding the game to a wide-reaching market. Simply understand that the 24/7 information cycle exists not because of necessity (there is so much that doesn’t need to be reported or evaluated), only because it is profitable. The bottom-line for ESPN is advertising revenue, and this is the entire thrust of this post. There are 3-hour pregame shows not because there is 3-hours of content to deliver, but that is the maximum draw ESPN can offer prime content advertising slots. To entice the viewer’s attention, they have to offer different hooks; human-interest stories, personal stories, and secret matchup scheme advantages you should watch for in a game. Again, not because you are really gaining anything out of this, but they want to build on that emotional identity you are associating with.



ESPN began taking off in the mid-1990s and has expanded its exposure over the last few decades. Try to remember what ‘sports reporting’ was like in the 70’s and 80’s. Even in the 90’s, before broadband speeds of the 2000s, they were primarily content-driven. Currently, they essentially reign without competitor, serving as king-makers and breakers depending on the chosen narrative.

So when you get done viewing one of their next “specials” or “analysis”, ask yourself if you really learned anything of substance, could the statements they made hold any relevance or be validated? If the answer is “no”, you may want to question why the fuck you watch this shit in the first place.


Another way to problematize what ESPN, FOX, and the new new kid on the block VERSUS do is locate it within perspective of the cheap drama of the average television sitcom. I add "cheap" here not to be snarky, but just not to disrespect the medium of drama. But back to my point: with their various pregame programs ESPN creates a narrative mode of emplotment for viewers to latch onto and follow; in a sense, its akin to the old Soviet master plots of Socialist Realist novels that, by and large, went something like this: boy meets girl, girl meets tractor and bam we got Utopia. These make for very nice page turners and the like, the one problem being that the players in the text no longer really matter at all; they are all interchangeable because their actions as indivduals have been subordinated to the needs of the plot. ESPN effectively offers a moderated form of this narrative, but from a slightly more capitalist perspective. ESPN is not interested in building socialistic Utopias, but in feeding an infernal system of consumption with the aid of maximizing share prices and returns.

I suppose that so long we are aware of the existence this plot then nothing is too problematic. Problems arise, however, when people actually begin to believe the plot, to believe, in other words, that what ESPN is offering is not reality, but a simulacrum of reality, a shiny, varnished, troping of a well played plot. Succinctly put, ESPN reinforces the point that perception is now reality.

And to this we can add one sidebar of sorts that is directly related to the way the plot of the NFL is executed on the "gridiron," where the fuck are you George Carlin when I need you. The subordination of the game to the plot of profit in the form shares and returns is evident in the commodified, big-box way the game is played. Small roster, smaller than those of any college program, as well as some high-school programs, combined with the intensified commodification of the game via free agency forces teams to play a generic "pro-style" of offense and defense. This combined with the odic figure of the QB, the "face" of every franchise, makes it exceedingly risky to employ a system, especially on offense, that would risk injuring the hero of the NFL-ESPN-FOX story. The reason we do not see the option, the Run-n-Shoot, or a true spread in the MIZZOU sense is not because they would not work or that NFL players are too fast, but because these styles of play would force teams to re-trope themselves in a way that departs significantly from the NFL script. The option could work in the NFL; a team would just need to design itself around the option, carry four QB, an make this their identity. What's Pat White doing these days anyway...?

---

RADIO


Before there was BooYah analysis, there was sports radio and the bombastic, concision-driven, dead-air killing rants of disc jockeys who troll for lulz on fan bases. The more obnoxious they could become, the greater the market share this personality could draw, and command a greater demand for advertising dollar. This type of format only exacerbated the one-liner simplicity that host and fans used. Deep and layered discussion was not embraced (boring) and inciting rivalries and spiking blood pressures is where the payoff resided. This formula, is what much of the network/Internet fan experience is founded upon. It isn’t because it is a natural course of sport appreciation, it is because that is how the game is sold to us as consumers.

Who the hell listens to radio anymore, though, amirite? It should be noted, though, that this very same cheap audience gimmick plays out daily in any medium you’re receiving sports information. This manipulative practice is what serves as the rudder in dialogue, which in turn drives the decision-making process of those selling the goods (i.e. the sports franchises).

In fact, I have the habit when I'm driving of turning on these radio call-in programs, and it's striking when you hear the ones about sports. They have these groups of sports reporters, or some kind of experts on a panel, and people call in and have discussions with them. First of all, the audience obviously is devoting an enormous amount of time to it all. But the more striking fact is, the callers have a tremendous amount of expertise, they have detailed knowledge of all kinds of things, they carry on these extremely complex discussions...

...And when you look at the structure of them, they seem like a kind of mathematics. It's as though people want to work out mathematical problems, and it they don't have calculus and arithmetic, they work them out with other structures...And what all these things look like is that people just want to use their intelligence somehow...

Well, in our society we have things that you might use your intelligence on, like politics, but people really can't get involved in them in a very serious way -- so what they do is put their minds to other things, such as sports. You're trained to be obedient; you don't have an interesting job; there's no work around for you that's creative; in the cultural environment you're a passive observer of usually pretty tawdry stuff...So what's left?

...And I suppose that's also one of the basic functions it serves society in general: it occupies the populations, and it keeps them from trying to get involved with things that really matter. In fact, I presume that's part of the reason why spectator sports are supported to the degree they are by the dominant institutions.

-Noam Chomsky

---

INTERNET

"We're a little too into sports in this country, I think we gotta throttle back. Know what I mean? People come home from these games, "We won! We won!" No, they won - you watched."

-Seinfeld stand-up quote from the episode "the Chaperone"

You have websites prepackaged with content selling subscriptions, run largely by individuals who have little experience /knowledge in writing or fact-finding journalism, nor especially the game. Its one thing to deliver fan-centric content such as stats and tailgating experience and impressions from the game. It is quite another thing to provide analysis of coaching decisions with absolute certainty of the outcome when you have little understanding of what is taking place on the field and no experience what goes into teaching, applying, and managing a game (coaching staff).

You don’t have to be a Michelin-rated chef to be able to discern if a meal was palatable or if your dining experience was one to be remembered. It does help my critique as well as substantiate my perspective if I understand what goes into the process of food preparation, nutrition, presentation, and how tastes are to complement each other. If I do not have an understanding of these elements, I won’t be grounded in key factors to provide objective feedback. Unfortunately, much of the ‘analysis’ by these content providers is tantamount to a steak house review where the critic clamors on about how the steak was too rare and needed more ketchup. Don’t mistake snark for being insightful.

This will regrettably come across as a stern rebuke of fan-sites on the Internet. It is not meant to be such. They serve a purpose to heighten the fan experience and provide an inclusive support network (at a price?). This piece was intended to provide some perspective of how much of the information is being filtered to the consumer, who in turn shapes the discourse of college/pro football. This isn’t meant to disparage bloggers, either. I would argue that their perspective remains the most relevant and should be the least tainted of sports reporting. The danger lays in their attempts to mimic the ESPNs of the world with pseudo-analysis via clichés, gibberish, and rhetorical logic. These bloggers (network employees included) are often times fresh out of college with the crux of their understanding of the game founded on video games, junior high playing experience, and other cardboard analysis from cable television. It is what it is, let the consumer beware. Pump the brakes on serious analysis of coaching decisions, especially when they concern what programs should be doing behind closed doors or on the field of play. Nowhere is this more apparent than in evaluating the passing game. The fan-analyst will only see ‘bad calls’ and ‘good calls’ if they don’t factor in coverage vs passing concept, protection, concept progressions, and player execution. This is why a majority of sites will stress the run game so much because it can avoid much of the vagaries of passing the football. This insecurity / lack of confidence in subject matter contribute to the retardation of a critical response.



Also, understand the psyche of the single-minded sports fan (the people delivering the content). Emotions run high and each contest is seen through the lens of immediate gratification and pride. Living paycheck to paycheck isn’t a sound plan for financial security and neither is the rabid game-to-game evaluation of a team. As we say in coaching, “it is never as bad as you remember or as good as it seems. Watch the film”. What worked, what didn’t, film puts it all into appropriate perspective.



So what is the purpose behind this tangent? Simply to evaluate statements proffered by these mouthpieces. Don’t accept them just because they feel good, but challenge them (“why is this statement true? What is the counter-argument and what other factors are involved?”). THAT, truly is what the game of football is about. It isn’t about absolute answers, it is about presenting challenges, evaluating solutions, and determining through an economy of resources (time, athletes, odds, knowledge, etc ) what the appropriate response should be. The further you get from the field, the easier the game appears. In a game that elicits so much emotion, this is a petition for dispassionate understanding of what you’re consuming.

** UPDATE - so it's no surprise that both ESPN and the NFL are strong supporters of the obnoxious SOPA legislation
http://gizmodo.com/5870241/presented-without-comment-every-single-company-supporting-sopa-the-awful-internet-censorship-law

Sean Payton: Quarterbacking

Here is a decent resource for getting a young quarterback grounded in some solid fundamentals on throwing mechanics (circa 1992).  Now, granted there are a few things in the video that don’t lead to efficiency, but, hey…..this was over 20 years ago.  You’ll see a young assistant coach named Sean Payton running quarterback footwork and throwing drills.

If you want a great indoctrination of flawless throwing, you’d better invest in Darin Slack C4 and R4 materials.
Darin Slack Quarterback Training

ROD DOBBS: Teaching & Installing Zone Runs

Right behind the Alex Gibbs staff clinic with the UF staff, this has got to be one of the most comprehensive instructions on zone running.  Rod Dobbs, a Gibbs disciple, who is now coaching at Chaparral High School in Denver, CO, clinics a high school staff while he was running the offense for Northern Colorado.  Dobbs goes over the entire scheme, technique, and how to make it work during a season in this 6 hour presentation.

This off-season, why not establish some relationships with other coaches and invite them in to get your staff on the same page for next year.

NC: Rematch Bama vs LSU

Well, its set.....the SEC rematch between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama.  While it may not be technically "fair" from an LSU perspective to have to face off against a team it already defeated on the road in regular season, I feel from a football perspective, these truly are the two best teams in the country.  

As a fan of matchups, I really didn't want to see LSU play Oklahoma State (though it would be entertaining), as I don't feel the Cowboys really had enough dimension to take on this LSU team.  We've included a concise recap of the first meeting this season below (more analysis likely to come).  For what its worth, it should be noted that the majority of LSU's starters (with the exception of QB & 2 LBs) are all underclassmen, so barring a lot of early declarations for the NFL draft, you have a team poised for a run in 2012, too.  Alabama, too, starts a good majority of underclassmen (meaning, this is really about recruiting supremacy more than schemes and strategy).

Poetically enough (for this blog), TCU squares off against Louisiana Tech in the Poinsettia Bowl, in what should be an exciting matchup.  On a personal note, I'll likely be treated to the surprise switch of teams for the Jewella Slumdog, otherwise known as the Independence Bowl, featuring Mizzou and John Shoop's North Carolina Tarheels.

food for thought (and possibly more later)

THE EDGES OF CONCISION

A couple of weeks back, just before the holiday, I was in Washington DC for another profoundly boring, tedious, and ultimately, pretentious academic conference. After giving my talk and fielding an hour or so of numbing questions I went to the hotel lounge to unwind with the help of my two best friends, Mr. Jameson and Mr. Glenfiddich. I was lucky that night because I managed to grab the TV before the fireplace and monopolize it – a good move indeed because the boors who eventually descended like locusts would undoubtedly not have wanted to watch something as stimulating as the game between Iowa State and Oklahoma State that fine evening. Now, no doubt because of the good company of my two aforementioned friends, I was just a bit distracted and unable to fully digest and appreciate what was unfolding in Ames that night, but I knew I had found something quite appealing to my oh so prosaic senses, especially when the Cyclones had the ball.

I got back the next day to Madison in time to watch another interesting match – that between Baylor and Oklahoma. And this is when, with the help this time of two other friends, Earl and Lady Grey, along with a healthy dose of lemon combined with a quick shot Ms. Brandy (muddled, of course), it all started to dawn on me, almost like the initial testament Joseph Smith experienced somewhere in New York state. It all began when one of the prophets, Matt Millen, declared in no uncertain terms that if Baylor wanted to be successful against OU that they needed to move RGIII around so as to change his launch points and prevent the Sooner D from teeing off on him. For a moment, I agreed with the prophet and considered myself, with bit of self-loathing, fortunate to be in a position to take in his divinatory powers. But then something happened: the game continued, Baylor continued, by and large, to keep RGIII in the same place, and eventually the Bears won.

That night I went back and watched the ISU-OSU tilt again and noticed the same thing; hardly any pocket movement. This jogged my memory a bit and sent me back to my Arizona State cutups, which brought my attention to something I had completely taken for granted at some level or another: none of these teams protect their QBs by changing their QBs’ launch points. Does that mean that they do not move the pocket? Of course not. Only that when they do so it’s primarily to isolate a single receiver on an easy throw, usually in a short yardage situation; in other words, when they move the QB it is not because they necessarily believe that it will help them protect him more effectively.

For anybody well-versed in the fundamentals of protection, this all seems counter-intuitive, right? I mean, after all, a stationary QB is a sitting duck just waiting to get blown apart by a defense that simply needs to stay in its lanes in order to bring their pressure home? How then do these teams do such a great job of protecting their QBs, especially when they are most of the time releasing not three, but four and five guys and are thus never protecting with any more than six people? If we pause to think about it for a second or two, the answer becomes self evident: all these teams secure their QBs by ensuring that the A and B gaps are always solid and by protecting their edges by way of their KEY screen games that come off of their inside zone schemes. Since Baylor, OSU, ISU, and ASU aggressively use their KEY games they are able to displace rushers and thus widen the edge thus increasing the distance a potential rusher must cover in order to get home. But this is only applicable if the defense continues to roll the dice, as it were, because the KEY game itself forces a defense to consider the potential costs and benefits of bringing such pressure.

This is yet another example of concision. By formulating and integrating packages so that they protect one another, not just the QB as a physical being, but concepts in and of themselves, they are able to reduce the number of things they need to carry in any given game. For all these teams, the KEY game along with whatever versions of ROSE and LINDA they run work to protect not only their respective 2 and 3 man SNAG games, but also their Shallow and Drive packages as well.

In a perverse sense then, protection is as much about the periphery as it is the center.

Offseason to dos

As offseason has fallen upon us, it’s that time of year to evaluate yourself and your philosophies.  In my current situation, we have had 2 very poor seasons (2 wins in 2010, 3 wins this season) after being 25-3 the two previous seasons.  Obviously, after those two ends of the spectrum it is hard to look at things thru the same eyes.  We are a spread-to-run team.  In 2008 we had a Jr. tailback and a Jr. QB.  The QB missed half the season with a broken collar bone.  The tailback carried the load and was not the same player in week 13 as he was in week 1.  When the season was over, we had a very definite plan.  It was to revamp our passing game to give us the opportunity to be balanced.  We will always be run first but we knew that for an opportunity to advance further in the playoffs we were going to need to be more efficient throwing the ball.  That was an easy offseason.  We visited with the staff at the University of Texas for 3 days and incorporated 4 routes (3 quick game & 1 pap). We also did some addition by subtraction.  We eliminated several routes and really narrowed our focus.  Bottom line…we double our yardage, had more completions than attempts from the previous season, and doubled our TD’s, while keeping the same number of interceptions.  That was a successful offseason.

                Now, after two dismal seasons, where do you start?  Do you being looking closely at personnel, practice plans, philosophy, staff changes, etc.?  There was so much wrong where do you start making it right?  I coach the wide receivers and here is what I decided to do as a start for me.  Our previous head coach left a bunch of COACH OF THE YEAR MANUALS in the field house.  I have seen them there for years and grabbed one or two for trips to the throne before but never really thought of using them as a learning tool.  Just recently, I grabbed one from 1983 and I wanted to share with you some of the things that were in it that have got the mind firing and the x’s & o’s flowing again for me.

The first page had a tribute to Bear Bryant and his famous words –“Am I willing to endure the pain of this struggle for the comforts and the rewards and the glory that go with the accomplishments?  OR : Shall I accept the uneasy and inadequate contentment that comes with mediocrity? Am I willing to pay the price of success?”

That was enough to get me going.  The rest of these tidbits are just a few things I jotted down that I thought were relevant NOW just as they were in 1983.  My top 10…

1.        You have to know what you are doing and what you want to accomplish.  Don’t do it just to be doing it.

2.       Get excited about the 4 yard play.

3.       DO YOUR BEST.  I don’t want the KAMIKAZE pilot that flew 33 different missions.

4.       Factor of 11 – There are 39,916,800 ways to line up 11 objects for all of you multiple guys.

5.       Roger Bannister was the first to break the 4 minute mile.  It was broken 43 times the next 4 years.  Don’t put limitations on yourself.

6.       Be intense enough to get the job done, but relaxed enough to enjoy it. (AMEN)

7.       Again from 1983…Today a player will want to know why you want him to run thru a wall.  You have to tell him why and then he will run thru it.

8.       You have to be willing AND ready to throw on first down and from any place on the field.

9.       Have people around you that like to work.

10.   Be known for something.  Be known for something you hang your hat on.

So what is your plan? What are you going to do?  For those wanting to share ideas and throw things around….lets do it blog style, or shot me an email cmeans@denisonisd.net.  As you may have seen in my other post, I am a HUDL guy that takes full advantage to the exchange features.  If interested in swapping game films, cut ups, drills, etc… shot me an email.

Mazzone Revisited

I wasn’t quite sure if we captured the premise of the Iowa State lesson of schematic concision well enough in the last post.  Admittedly, it was an off-the-cuff editorial to a climactic match.  I also wasn’t sure if we have done a complete enough job to date on stressing the simplicity of concepts within an offense (hemlock has tackled this exceptionally well in previous posts), particularly as it relates to Noel Mazzone this fall.  Yes, we get that Arizona State has underperformed this season and Erickson will likely be gone at the end of this year (though it is a shame, considering how explosive their offense has been), but I don’t believe that discounts the value of learning what is working with Mazzone.

With this in mind and to serve as a type of sidebar edification on the matter, we’re “reposting” an exchange offered by hemlock and I on COACHHUEY (explaining Mazzone’s system).  So not to break the flow of dialogue (or require any actual work on my part) I’m leaving the posts as-is in the sequence they occured .  Hemlock’s thoughtful prose and profound commentary is in gold, while my rambling gibberish is in diarrhea green.

---

** I realize some of the video (through Vimeo) hosted here is hard to come by.  If you are not aware of how to rip flash already, I’ll direct you to use Firefox and download the video add-on.  Start a video, then enable the download (and its yours).

---

Noel Mazzone is Noel Mazzone. He has always been 1-back. What he's doing in Arizona, is essentially what he's always done, having evolved it through the years.

It IS zone-read, but its all controlled/filtered through a systematic way of horizontally stretching the defense, while at the core being vertically orientated (zone-read, F swing, Stick/Snag/Scat/Drive/Shallows/Verts/and tons of screens). There is an efficiency in his application (which is what we've been writing about) that is worth exploring (certainly doesn't carry near the amount of stuff Air Raid teams currently do). It isn't necessarily the plays themselves, but how they're packaged together and used as punch and counter-punch diagnosis.

How he teaches "the offense" is evident in what you've seen with Threet and Osweiller. They are lightening quick in throwing 3-step and 5-step that appears brutal on defenses (they know exactly what they are looking for based on the concept and process through it all).

I would resist calling Mazzone's offense an extension of the pro-single back. If the source of this thought is Mazzone's stint with the Jets in the NFL then I think it a little off. Too me it's evident that Mazzone went to the NFL not to make that his final destination but as a sort of intense sabbatical in that he went there to see what that game had to teach him. I think his goal was always to get back to the college game.

Brophy and I are going to be writing more about the offense in weeks to come, but here are few things to keep in mind: Mazzone wants to stress the defense's perimeter fulcrum. Watch the USC game; I don't think I have ever scene such transparent objectives in my life; they are constantly trying to widen the defense. When they widen the edge their inside zone game become effective, but you need to remember that it's not a real rugged zone game; they don't do combos and stuff; its only effective if they have one on one matchups. But stretching the defense horizontally also helps his vertical game, because it transforms zone into man.

The thing to remember is this too: they really only carry a few concepts every game, especially in their dropback package. More later...
The thing to remember about their zone game is this: it's bang or bust; if they don't win their individual matchups the play goes no where. Think about some the idiotic comments that Rod Gilmore made the other night. It asked why on second and ten did Mazzone run what he described as an "inside handoff" that went for nothing. Well, it was the right call for the front; they had the numbers to win but simply did not on that play. I like to think of it as "scat" zone. I know that sounds odd, but it's not an inside zone in the Alex Gibbs, Eliot Uzelac sense.

In a lot of ways I think that Mazzone is reviving some old things that Purdue did once upon a time. Think of how he motions his backs; it reminds me of how Purdue, WAZZU, and for that matter Miami of yesterday all motioned to empty as a way of stretching the defense's flanks in order to create windows underneath, but also to put backers and backs on virtual islands.

Also, think of how they use the bubble. People talk about the bubble as an extended hand off, but most teams really do not throw it well enough for it to be considered their stretch or wide zone play; not the case with ASU. I don't think I've seen a team that can run bubbles with the back, from 2x2, or 3x1 as effectively as they do regardless of the look. In a sense, the bubble is one of their plays that they feel that they can run versus anything to make critical yards, regardless of whether the defense knows what coming or not. Their third scoring drive the other night that came of the Vontez's pick was built almost entirely of of bubbles in one form or another.
Chris is right, there is nothing radical about what their doing. We will cover this in a post later in the season, but the one thing that they have done better than just about anybody is to accelerate the speed of their vertical game; when their on their game they throw verticals just as fast as quicks.
Yeah, in a sense it really is just that - big on big; they never really get to the second level; basically, its the back's responsibility to make the backer miss, which is what happens when they get big plays out of their zone game.

In terms of packages they carry, if you watch them closely they basically run four concepts from 2x2 and 3x1: Snag; 4 Verts, Y Cross, and Drive or Shallow. Not a huge Smash team in the conventional sense; when they hit the corner its coming off their 3-man snag a lot.

That said, they do tag the backside with a number of different combos, such as double post, post corner, Dig choice, etc.


Its really about an Economy of Concepts

If you're horizontally stretching a defense and emptying the box (to run.....and run easy) I suppose it isn't necessary to mash and bang with getting vertical movement on IZ and working combos (still not sure if I swallow this just yet) them running IZ will blow your mind ("wtf are they doing!?!") if you're accustomed to how IZ is traditionally run out of 1 back.

watch how they 'zone' against a 3man front....not what you'd think

I would say that Alex Gibbs' one-cut rule is central to the success of the play in for Mazzone's back because of the nature of their scheme, which in part why the back aligns on the QB's heel rather than simply adjacent to him as he does in other zone gun schemes, such as Northwestern's, for example.

 

Against Oregon, the ASU offense relied heavily on motioning the H or Z into the formation.  They barely used motion against Missouri. It is only used to make a more decisive read for the throw (remove a defender from the running lane).

To build on Brophy's point, motion is used here in much the same way as it was used back in the day at Wyoming, Purdue, WAZZU, etc. Yes, it definately clarifies the read for the QB in that it tells him right away which side of the field he's going to work, especially in the Snag game, but it also is a way of putting extreme pressure on the number four to that side, the defense's fulcrum. It's another way of "controlling" this guy and making sure that he is out of the box, that he does not become a 1/5 player in the box.

Though most applications of ASU's offense are pretty basic in each game, the quirks against Oregon would be apparent for most coaches. Whereas most 7-man front defenses, Mazzone can pretty much give his quarterback a very clear picture. With Oregon's nickel/dime (2/1 DL) the picture was extremely cloudy with linebackers and safeties dropping into overhang positions. The heavy use of motion in that game was a product of getting Oregon to declare what they were truly running (where the safeties had to be.....and would the out-leverage themselves from helping their corners against the larger receivers). On the swing, it would primarily require the safety to make the stop because they were playing a heavy dose of C5 and rushing 4 or fire zoning and rushing 5.

What is interesting for coaches, was how Mazzone's system could adapt to it without losing it's shit. Facing something that was as different and that could get into and out of box threats pretty easy (from depth), ASU didn't have to do anything outside of themselves to handle it. With so many defenders outside the tackles on each snap, Oregon really was daring them to run inside and how ASU was hammering the flare/swing to open up the inside. If they threw the swing, it was going to have to be a safety to stop it (leaving X/Z pretty much 1-on-1) . I didn't find many times where Oregon didn't bring 5 every down, so it made the dig/shallow read pretty easy (either the WLB/MLB was widening for the swing or were both dropping to hook) .

What should be interesting for COACHES is not what they are doing but how they are processing the information on the field. Just by segmenting the defense, picking on one particular defender they can make some pretty safe assumptions on where everyone else will fit and who becomes the best ball carrier in that situation.

I think what we have to remember is that all spread offensive systems strive in some way or another to displace defenders and in the process place an inordinate amount of structural stress on the defense's force or alley players. Whether it's RichRod's spread option or Noel Mazzone's version, both offenses are really trying to hammer on a defenses adjuster backer, which in most 2 hi looks is going to be the sam, at least most of the time. RichRod does it with the Zone Read and Zone Bubble, as we've seen in the excellent talks that Brophy has posted on the blog. For Rich, it's really about trying to make sure that the adjuster never gets into the box, he's the guy they need to control. Mazzone too wishes to attack the adjuster, but his objectives are little different; yes, he wants to run inside zone, but, as Brophy noted, it's really more about identifying the defense's anchor player in order to diagnose not the scheme in general, but more importantly, the defense's individual matches, which, if you think about it, in the era of match-zone is more important than ever.

In a sense, it shows how motion is being used again not so much as a way of gaining mismatches and what not, the offense's general scheme already takes care of that, but of diagnosing what it is that the defense is doing. So, in a way, it just shows how we are coming full circle with the spread. Motion that was once jettisoned is now coming back as a tool for identifying a defenses seams and stress points.

Also, as was noted above, motion is not used blindly by Mazzone. In the Missouri game they hardly used motion because MU is fairly straightforward structurally; with Oregon, however, it was necessary.

Protecting Against Risk: Iowa State

This is usually a weird time of year for most programs.  The season has ended and now your Saturdays exist in unmetered time with no pressing needs to breakdown the next opponent.  No more cramming as much as you can into your day to make sure no stone is left unturned to find a competitive edge.  Now, all you can do is build for the future and remain hopeful in your underclassmen while you cycle through the flashbacks of your season.  This dead silence at the end of the year always comes suddenly, leaving us asking, “Now what”?

It is this time of the “season” that we can take a step back and slow down without consequence.   When under the deadline of the season, there is little time for introspection or second-guessing.  So now that we aren’t faced with the task of treading water, what would be the best use of your staff’s time? It isn’t researching a new scheme, installing new plays, or trying to innovate a new clinic talk.  This off-season, try re-evaluating the efficiency of your offense.  Rather than making things more difficult by adding plays, find ways to simply reduce the risk within your scheme.   How can you protect your core plays to that defenses can’t simply take them away?

A case in point we can use is the I-35 shocker in Ames this past Friday.  While exciting, I’d hardly call a game with 8 turnovers (and countless miscues) “great”.  However, the game did provide a decent exercise in risk management for Iowa State.  Oklahoma State is one of the best teams in college football this year and truly outmatched the Cyclones in every area.  What aided Iowa State in the overtime victory wasn’t necessarily certain plays, but how their system allowed them to play within themselves and maintain their comfort zone. 

With Freshman quarterback, Jared Barnett, the Cyclone offense could keep his workload light through a minimalistic approach of moving the football.  Much like the modular approach of Noel Mazzone we’ve discussed before, the Cyclones were going to run zone and zone-read to establish their inside run game.  They protected this series through KEY (flash) and MICKEY (flash draw) on the perimeter.  The rationale is, a defense can either put 6 in the box to even up on the perimeter (put them in a better position against the flash screen) and be vulnerable to frontside zone or a backside keep.  If a defense loads the box with 7 defenders to take away your zone and zone-read game, they open themselves up to an explosive play by a free receiver on the perimeter (see the comments section of Mazzone Revisited). 

If these plays are just viewed by themselves, they aren’t all that sexy, and are quite cheap.  What is particularly interesting about this pairing and witnessing it in this game, was how ineffective they were early in the game (particularly the key screens).  Tom Herman and staff stuck to the game plan and used these plays to diagnose the appropriate response, leaving little responsibility to burden their young quarterback with.   Because they continued to stick with the formula (inside-outside-inside compliments), they were able to slow down an athletically superior defense and open them to this horizontal stretch of the field throughout the game, climaxing in the 2nd Overtime ( 3 successive inside zone runs) for the win.

More Running from the Gun: Robert McFarland

With recent stops at Stephen F Austin and Iowa State, Robert McFarland (no longer in Ames), knows a thing or two about getting production with limited rosters (THAT's coaching).

Featured here is an exhaustive teaching tool covering the run game standards from the gun (speed option, power, zone).

Air Raid Adaptation (cont'd)

We've covered this before quite a bit and Chris Brown knocks it out of the park when writing about the loaded backfield of Oregon and West Virginia but just documenting the trend that many teams are featuring heavy backfields out of the same "spread" 10 personnel groupings.

Since most nickel packages don't bother repping 2-back looks (simply because you'll be in base defense vs 21), a spread offense that lives in the 3x1 and 2x2 world can completely ham-fist the defensive personnel on the field when seeing power formations such as this. Although an adaptation of the TFS since about 2007 (Brown/Black gun), the use of essentially 3-backs here by Louisiana Tech against a sound Utah State is exactly the same look they showed Mississippi State, with the exception of the tight end being replaced (and Franklin inserts a linebacker as a lead blocker). 

 

It goes to show that everything is cyclical and if you stay in the same spot (schematically) all you become is a stationary target.

On a somewhat personal note, I find you can discover so much more about actual 'coaching' from the programs that have to fight for wins.  It takes creativity, some guile, and a lot of hustle to manufacture plays that add up to wins when you're playing with a short deck.  While Tony Franklin will never be considered a face for the public, there is no denying his commitment to his players and his humble desire to win.  An interesting note to the season for La Tech is how much their offensive staff (in their first real season after recruiting) is relying on brand new faces to the program.  With transfers (WR) Quinton Patton and (OT) Oscar Johnson, to true freshmen (QB) Nick Isham, (RB) Ray Holley and (RB) Hunter Lee getting the bulk of responsibility in the past four weeks.

Rich Rodriguez Spread Offense

Like the Calvin Magee clinic? How about hearing from the man himself, Rich Rodriguez?

Six more hours of spread offense dissection from one of the decade’s biggest names.  This clinic took place just before Rodriguez took over at West Virginia while he was making a name for himself under Tommy Bowden at Clemson.

While nothing went according to plan at Michigan, the innovations Rodriguez spearheaded at Tulane, Clemson, and finally West Virginia, became his thumbprint on many offenses we’re seeing today (particularly in the run game).  What if Rich Rod stayed at WVU instead of trying to resurrect  Michigan? What if they actually landed Terrelle Pryor in 2008 instead of having to pin their last desperate hopes on Denard Robinson?  UM’s defense certainly didn’t help matters, but it makes for an interesting look at how drastically perceptions would change if a few chance events took place.

In the late 90s, while other programs were rediscovering athleticism at quarterback (McNabb at Syracuse / Vick at Va Tech), Rodriguez was capturing lightning in a bottle by paring athletes (Shaun King, Woody Dantzler) with complimentary, multiple option threats from the gun.  If you have the old (now canonized) Alex Gibbs Gilman clinic on wide-zone, you’ll hear Gibbs marvel over what kind of mileage coaches were getting out of Dantzler at the time.  In the infancy of his philosophy, it was applying extremely simple concepts from the gun and capitalizing on the low-hanging fruit of “athletes in space”.  It was by adapting to the talent on the roster to the innovations of defensive adjustments, borrowing from other successful programs (Northwestern), and acquiring an infusion of  expertise (Rick Trickett), that Rodriguez became increasingly successful through the height of his career.

Rodriguez essentially set the table for up-tempo offenses of today (Oregon, Oklahoma State, etc) that have taken the best of both worlds (spread option with proven Air Raid concepts)  and evolved into a multi-dimensional threat to defenses.  Did Rodriguez plateau or hit the creative wall before leaving WVU?  The offense relied heavily on zone read and speed option with the passing game usually a result of play-action or a simplified 2-man-game.  Was he the victim of a program in decline, a dried up well (little recruiting help), or did his offense simply fail to evolve itself to the defense’s natural response? Will we witness his return to the coaching ranks, adapting his offense to the new decade’s defenses?

Most of the second session illustrates what Rodriguez was doing at Clemson.  Since part of this discussion relates to how that offense changed through the decade, here is some supporting evidence:

Quarterbacking with Jim Miller

A collection of quarterback fundamentals with Jim Miller, the grittiest of the gritty.  Grab your pain meds and enjoy these drills from the Michigan State staff and Chicago’s John Shoop.

For the best quarterback instruction, it begins and ends with Darin Slack C4 Method.

Calvin Magee: Rodriguez Spread Offense

It wasn’t long ago that the West Virginia football program was known for an entirely different high-octane offense.  That offense was spearheaded by a coach who is now deemed a pariah after languishing at Michigan for the past few years.  Rich Rodriguez used this simple brand of  fast-paced-spread to pressure defenses during his stops at Glenville State, Tulane, Clemson and West Virginia.

Now at Pittsburgh, Calvin Magee was an integral part in developing this ‘spread to run’ offense that Rodriguez became renowned for.  In his own words and philosophy, here are 5 hours worth……

Air Raid Wrinkle (Part II)

A valiant effort by Louisiana Tech against formerly ranked Mississippi State, coming up short in overtime.
Something new Tony Franklin used in this game was an unbalanced trey 2-back look (like Heavy Over, but from the gun and H is off).

 

Franklin ran power, counter, and reverse out of this set……

and ended up setting up a huge 3rd down conversion in the 4th quarter running 51 Solid off of Rodeo action (02:34:52 of broadcast).

Though they lost, the 17 year old quarterback Isham produced in the passing game using Stick, Levels, Drive, and Y Cross (end of regulation interception in the end zone) even with the running back injured (Creer) and the multi-purpose H-back (Holley) out for the game.  On the final interception, needing to inch closer to convert the downs (5 yards), likely because of the inconsistent short-yardage production from the banged up Lennon Creer, Tech opts for Y Cross isolating standout receiver, Quinton Patton, in the boundary with a double outlet underneath to the field.  Mississippi State presses the line of scrimmage showing press cover 1, essentially baiting Isham to throw the 1-on-1 with Patton.  At the snap, MSU bails out to cover 3, Patton's cornerback retreats deep with deep help from the free safety in the end zone.  Because MSU disguised this so well (discouraging the run with 7 defenders versus the 5 blockers), it was too late for Isham to recognize the Hi-Lo on the lone MSU linebacker to the field.

The rebroadcast can be seen at the link below
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/source/espn3/id/226926/