Why the naked bootleg isn't working

MGoBlog has been railing against the use of the naked bootleg/waggle that Michigan has deployed a few times this season, and for good reason: it hasn't been very effective. Brian has chalked its lack of effectiveness up to teams being unconcerned with Michigan running from under center. But after seeing Minnesota defend it, I think there's another reason it's been suboptimal: no matter where Michigan is running from, the quarterback is always more of a threat.

It's in the third quarter and Devin Gardner has already been put into the game. Michigan is marching down the field when they get under center. Brandon Moore is lined up as an H-back. Minnesota is in its 4-3 formation with a safety pulled into the box.

Michigan is running a naked bootleg, which means that there won't be a blocker for Gardner once he rolls out. As such, Minnesota's weakside defensive end is unblocked. Moore will pull across the formation and head to the flat as a check down.

A moment later and Gardner has turned his back to the weakside to for the play action. The Minnesota defensive end isn't heading toward the handoff. Instead, he's playing contain and getting upfield with Gardner.

As Gardner fakes the handoff, Moore has pulled across the formation and headed to the flat. The defensive end is keying on Gardner.

As Gardner turns, he's staring down a defensive end and will scramble for the most impressive four yard run of the season.

The most disappointing part of this play is that the handoff would've worked. A few screens up, you can see Stephen Hopkins entering the B gap as a lead blocker. If Gardner hands the ball off here, Toussaint has nearly a clear path to the endzone. Instead, Gardner turns into an unblocked defender.

The reason there always seem to be defensive ends in the QB's face on these plays is that Gardner and Denard are both far more dangerous than any of Michigan's running backs. So when a defensive end finds himself unblocked, he's already been coached to stay with the quarterback, whether it's under center or in the shotgun versus the zone read. Honestly, the only way to make this play effective is to actually hand the ball off more. Michigan is trying to get teams to cheat from a formation that they don't have a base play. Here, you can see the hole created in the run game for Toussaint despite never getting the ball.

Now whether or not running more from the I to set this up is a smart offensive strategy (Michigan would have to play from a formation that they are statistically less effective from) is up for debate, but if Michigan starts running out of the I formation more often, this play will be more effective. If Borges really does abandon the I formation running game entirely, this play will be removed from the playbook as well.

Michigan shows triple option (kinda)

In Brian's Minnesota game column, he speculated about the potential for the "Fritz" (sure) formation--the diamond formation with Denard and Devin Gardner on the field at the same time--that Michigan used. In particular, he wondered whether or not that would be a precursor to the introduction of the triple option. In reality, Michigan already tipped their hand with the triple option against Minnesota.

It's 2nd and 2 in the third quarter. Michigan is in their two-back set with two receivers to Denard's left and Koger lined up on the right side of the offensive line. Minnesota is in its 4-3 front with basically 9 defenders in the box.

On the snap, you can see that the weakside defensive end is unblocked like he would be in a traditional zone read. Stephen Hopkins is approaching the mesh point with Denard. Rather than acting as a lead blocker, Fitz Toussaint takes a step to his left behind Denard.

As Hopkins and Denard engage in the mesh point, you can see Toussaint swinging around to the weakside of the formation behind Denard. He will be the pitch man if Denard pulls the ball.

Denard (incorrectly, I believe) hands the ball off to Hopkins for the dive play despite the defensive end crashing down on the handoff. As you can see, Toussaint is continuing to swing behind Denard. If he pulls the ball here, Denard and Toussaint are off to the races.

This is how the play ends. Minnesota has nine defenders in the box while Denard and Toussaint turn the corner with a blocker ahead of them.

I'm relatively certain that this was a bad read by Denard, and the results bear that out. However, there's little (to no) reason to show this play were it not already installed in the offense. We should expect to see this play (hopefully with the proper read) on Saturday against Northwestern and beyond.

This is yet another example of Borges adding wrinkles to the offense to catch defenses off guard. One of my biggest complaints about Rodriguez's offense last year (there weren't many) was that there didn't seem to be enough new packages/plays installed on a weekly basis. Through five weeks, Borges has shown an increasingly diverse attack while streamlining the playcalling by removing the plays that don't work (the I formation). As the season goes on, Michigan will have an increasingly diverse set of plays that could potentially make this offense just as lethal as last year's.

Mississippi State: Jumping the screen

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings, Defense vs. Auburn, Screen defense

Continuing my dissection of Mississippi State's defense against Auburn, I want to take another look at a screen pass example. As I've mentioned several times now, the Bulldogs' defensive alignment was schematically unsound against Auburn's 3x1 alignment. One of the ways they counteracted this was to send their playside linebacker directly at the H receiver (who runs the screen route). In the other example today, Auburn sent their strongside receivers downfield and allowed Cam Newton to make the proper read: throw the screen pass or hit one of the outside receivers on a seam route. In this example, however, they ran an all-out screen pass that almost resulted in catastrophe.

Auburn is in the 3x1 formation they'd shown all game. Mississippi State is once again in their base 4-3 set with two stand-up DEs and the strongside linebacker shaded over the slot receiver. The difference between this defensive alignment and the previous one is that Mississippi State's strongside cornerback is closer to the line of scrimmage.

On the snap, the H receiver starts to bow out for the screen pass. Newton is going to run a play-action in the backfield. You can see the playside cornerback crashing down on the screen pass. The X and Y receivers are headed upfield to block the playside linebacker and cornerback.

Newton is engaged in the play-action mesh and about to pull the ball. It looks like he's reading the playside cornerback, but that seems unlikely given the throw he makes. The interesting part about this play is that the wide receivers don't appear to have the same option that they did in the previous play; they're strictly blockers in this play.

Newton is in the process of throwing the screen, but both the playside cornerback and linebacker are running unblocked toward the H receiver. They've cut under the X and Y receivers and are headed into the backfield. It should've been a pick-6...

...but the cornerback can't quite get a hold of the ball and it falls harmlessly incomplete.

As I mentioned in the comments of the Mississippi State NCAA rankings post, this is a high variance play: if the cornerback makes this interception, it's a pick-6 unless Newton can catch a streaking cornerback. If this pass somehow gets through, or if Auburn's receivers run vertical routes like they did earlier, this is almost certainly a touchdown. Instead, the ball falls harmlessly and we get a look at how Mississippi State tries to defend a screen pass in a structurally unsound formation.

What does it mean?
The philosophy behind this play is more revealing than the result of the play. This was much later in the game after the Bulldogs had been burned multiple times by the screen pass. But instead of shifting their alignment to limit or remove the screen option, they decide to stay within their base formation and attack more aggressively, which tells you something about the Mississippi State defensive coordinator. Michigan has thrived on exploiting opponents' aggressiveness this year. The coaches have enough film on this defense to formulate an attack plan against plays like this.

Again, unless the defensive alignment shifts later in the year, Michigan is going to show a lot of 3x1 offensive formations against Mississippi State. I'd also expect that, in most instances, Michigan's outside receivers are either going to be given an option route (block if the playside defenders stay home, run routes if they crash on the screen pass) or be told to run routes upfield.

This defensive alignment is similar to what Michigan saw against Notre Dame: a strict 4-3 and a coordinator too stubborn to change his personnel when the offensive alignment warrants it. Michigan should be able to exploit this throughout the game, that is unless Mississippi State's defensive alignment becomes more malleable throughout the year, which is pretty likely. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this in other Mississippi State games.

Mississippi State: Screen defense

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings, Defense vs. Auburn

I mentioned in the Mississippi State defensive overview against Auburn that the Bulldogs defensive schemes showed serious problems when handling the screen game. Presumably because of Cam Newton's running ability, Mississippi State continuously put six or seven men in the box and left themselves structurally unsound against screens. For example:

The screen will be thrown to the receiver lined up behind the line of scrimmage on the strong side of the field (for ease's sake, we'll call him the H receiver). The thing to note, however, is the alignment of Mississippi State's defensive backs: they were playing with this deep of a cushion the entire game, not to mention that the numbers are decidedly in Auburn's favor (3 vs. 3). This play ended up going for a touchdown as the playside linebacker came off the edge on a blitz, leaving Auburn with two blockers and two defenders. But primarily, this is just to show another example of (and attack plan against) Auburn's screen game.

One of the more interesting plays is a screen/seam route similar to the Roundtree play-action that Michigan has shown this year.

I posted this picture yesterday to show the weakness in Mississippi State's defensive alignment. Auburn is in the 3x1 formation they showed for much of the game. The Bulldogs are in their 4-3 (with stand-up DEs) and have a linebacker shaded over the slot receiver. With a 15-yard cushion between the line of scrimmage and the deep, strongside safety, this play is certain to be a screen (or at least have a screen option, as we'll see).

(Sorry about the framing, the TV cameras panned in on the play.) On the snap, Auburn runs a play-action. The H receiver is starting to bow out for a screen. The Y and Z receivers are both heading upfield. Rather than blocking the playside linebacker and cornerbacks, however, they'll both run vertical routes.

When Newton pulls the ball down, his first read is the playside linebacker (bottom of the screen) who was lined up over the slot receiver. That linebacker is crashing down hard on the screen pass. The Y and Z receivers are running straight to the second level. I'm pretty sure the Y and Z receivers have a read here too: if the linebacker stays high, they probably stay in to block on the screen. If he crashes on the screen pass, they both run vertical routes.

You can now see the playside linebacker headed directly for the H receiver. The linebacker will end up drilling him in the backfield despite the ball never going to the him. The Y receiver is curling under the middle linebacker five yards down field. The Z receiver is out of the picture but running a similar, deeper curl route underneath the strong safety. Newton recognizes it and is getting ready to throw.

This is just after the Z receiver catches the ball. You can see he still has a seven-yard cushion from the strong safety and no linebackers anywhere near him.

Mississippi State spent the entire game in this sort of coverage. Not only did they leave either the H or Y/Z receivers open, but they failed to compensate for this by aligning their defense in a way that would shut down the screen. Auburn frequently went to the 3x1 alignment and ran similar variations, almost always to resounding effect--save one time, which I'll discuss later, when Newton threw the screen pass to the H receiver despite the linebacker crashing really hard on the play, almost resulting in a pick-6.

What does it mean?
Possibly a lot. Despite a slight alignment shift by Auburn, this 3x1 formation and playcalling have become staples of Michigan's offense, except when teams schematically limit it (i.e., committing another defender to the strong side of the field). If Mississippi State is going to allow Michigan to throw these sorts of passes all game, moving the ball against their defense should be simple so long as Michigan's slot receivers can hold onto the ball (Roundtree...).

This defensive alignment also gives a possible window into the disparity between Mississippi State's rushing defense (20th) and passing defense (89th): they simply sell out on the run. If that's the case, the ball will be put in Denard's hands and we have to hope he's fully healthy and making the proper reads. Then again, a Forcier cameo against this kind of defense would be ideal.

Unfortunately though, this was the second game of the season. I'll be watching many of Mississippi State's games over the next few weeks and looking specifically for their defensive alignment against similar 3x1 attacks. If they don't show any shift in their defensive philosophy against similar looks, expect Michigan to go to this play and variations on it early and often. Not only will it net yards and keep their linebackers honest in the run game, but these are relatively safe passing plays in which Denard won't have to worry too much about making the right read.

Mississippi State: Defense vs. Auburn

A series on Michigan's Gator Bowl opponent. You can find all of this content on the 2011 Gator Bowl page in the sidebar. Previously: NCAA rankings

For scouting purposes, Michigan couldn't get much luckier than to have a full game of film of Mississippi State playing a team with a similar offensive style (and personnel) to Michigan. As such, the early-season game between Mississippi State and Cam Newton's Auburn squad can give at least a little information on how the Bulldogs might try to defend Michigan's attack.

Formations
Mississippi State's defensive formations were a little unorthodox in this game upon first look. Most of the game, the Bulldogs were in a defensive front with two down linemen and two others in a two-point stance on the line:

As you can see, the two defensive tackles are both in a three-point stance with the defensive ends standing up in a two-point stance. At first, I thought that this was in an effort to get more speed on the field, but when I started to look at the personnel, it was a little more confusing: the stand-up defensive ends are actually defensive ends, not faster linebackers to match Auburn's speed. At times, this allowed the DEs to diagnose the play and attack the proper gaps, but for the most part, it played almost exactly like a traditional 4-3, which is what Mississippi State was in for the majority of the game. They also showed a fair amount of 3-4, but primarily, they were in a 4-3.

More interestingly, however, is that the Bulldogs' defense looked fundamentally unsound for a lot of the game. To steal from Chris Brown at Smart Football again, "football begins as arithmetic". Over and over again during this game, Mississippi State was giving Auburn numbers in the screen passing game. For example:

I'll talk about this play later this week (Auburn faked the screen and ended up throwing a vertical route similar to the Roundtree touchdown against Notre Dame), but you can see from the alignment that Mississippi State is conceding the screen pass. And oddly, they seemed content to run this all game. There was one play in which they baited Newton to make a bad throw (I'll discuss this later this week as well), but for the most part, they sat back and gave up seven-yard screen passes all game. Much of this was because they needed to compensate for Newton's speed and put extra players in the box, but there's no reason to think they won't have to do the same against Denard.

Attacking
Mississippi State was pretty blitz heavy throughout the game. I didn't take note of their blitzing percentage, but safe to say it's high. For most of the game, they blitzed from only one side of the field, trying to force Newton out of the pocket, which he exploited either by scrambling for large chunks of yards or rumbling in the pocket long enough to find an open receiver. Denard's increased tendency to run out of the pocket against Ohio State (despite the one fumble) may being the Achilles heel of Mississippi State.

How did they slow down Cam Newton?
They shut him down occasionally with blitzes, but that was about it. The reason this game was as close as it was is because Mississippi State slowed the game down pretty significantly, reducing the amount of possessions Auburn had (that and a muffed punt that lost Auburn a possession, as well as a recovered surprise onside kick). Auburn had the ball nine times excluding end-of-half possessions. Those resulted in two touchdowns, one made field goal, an interception, a missed field goal, and four punts.

The punts largely came on the heels of big negative plays resulting from Mississippi State's blitzing. But those same blitzes also cost them on a number of plays. The Bulldogs' defensive scheme was primarily to put pressure on Newton and live with the outcomes. For the most part, it was successful, but with more time to prepare, Michigan may be able to counteract a lot of these blitzes.

The interception wasn't really anything other than a bad throw by Newton. Mississippi State didn't bring pressure or show different looks, but Newton threw into double coverage against cover-2, and it ended about as you'd expect.

What does it mean?
With the caveat that this is only one game early in the season, Mississippi State's defense looked vulnerable against a similar offense with a similarly dynamic player. They repeatedly had schematic holes, primarily in the screen game, that Michigan's offense will aim to exploit. The Bulldogs didn't do anything all that interesting, aside from their faux-4-3 with stand-up DEs, but otherwise, they ran a blitz-heavy scheme that sold out on the run. IMO, Rich Rod's gameplanning to counteract this sort of attack throughout the year was far superior to Gene Chizik's in this game. But this was early in the season and we can presume that Auburn didn't have its full offensive arsenal. Regardless, this was an encouraging display, despite holding Auburn to just 17 points.