- Joined
- Feb 9, 2021
- Messages
- 14,395
Since football season is around the corner (thank ****), I have decided to, once again, question my sanity and take the spare time (being an intern and doing my masters degree whilst trying to be in shape at the same time is annoyingly tiring, if anyone even remotely cares) of my life to write this short analysis about what I believe is a key driver for our offensive performance: The run game.
For those who want to know my stance in regards to the run game: In the pro level, the run game isnt that important anymore. Most production can be replaced with "lower" level talent, the running back position is correctly devalued and offensive line performance has hit a low in performance based on a number of reasons. In college, however? Completely different story. Over the course of the past few months, I have gone back to watching some Miami tape every once in a while to figure out our best running performances. This post is aimed to point out when we did well and what we should do, and when things went to **** and what we should not do.
NOTE: I am aware that our offense is different now, different personnel, different QB, likely slightly different scheme as a result, but still, neither the OC nor the O-Line-Coach have changed. I am also aware that, because of the QB position and the improvement at both TE and WR *should* make it easier to run the ball. Again, should.
The top three running performances that I have identified were, based on the opponents faced, were Clemson, Louisville and Miami-OH. The last one gets an asterisk, although they performed well in defense metrics, they played some of the worst opposition in the country. But we start off with them.
First drive of the season and Dawson brings out the wide splits. I had some hope that we would see more of these throughout the season, but... anyway, underlined in blue you can see the amount of players in the box (in numbers, 5). Red is Smith going in motion. Its a simple IZ play, but with some candy attached to it. Makes the LB freeze in the backfield and then, its a simple 5v4 matchup up front. It "set up" the TD play to Young on the bubble screen.
This play is also something I want to illustrate, because motion up front is just deadly. Heavy personnel, McCoy as the swing tackle (I can see why he may start at LG, dude explodes off the snap here) shielding with grandpa and the rest of the bunch on a 7v8 matchup. Purely on the numbers, this should not work, however, because of the execution and us overloading one side of the ball with a pulling guard, Fletcher runs in without being touched. Running the ball is not just exposing more will and fizzicality, its schematics, technique and numbers.
Moving forward to the next game, which was vs Louisville. The first play here is the TD run by Fletcher, who had an enormous game (17 for 126) against a tough defense. Not much to draw here, 8v8, hat on hat, something we did IMO way too often as the season progressed, however, teams that did go hat on hat vs us usually lost out. Tight formation, but the push and the hole opened was big enough for Fletcher to run through for about eight yards deep. This is what we have to do, allow our big backs to take on tackles at the second level:
The other play is an illustration as to why our run game was good and bad last year for equal reasons. It was good, because in hat-on-hat-situations, we won. It was bad because we relied on it and became inconsistent as a result. Vs Miami OH, we had receivers in motion, did wide splits, pulled guards and basically moved horizontally first to create vertical lanes second. This is a split zone play about to be destroyed, but grandpa remembered he can still run and just got there in time to make a block. The rest is us shielding well and #11 on Louisville overrunning the play big time. Its a solid gain if the LB clean up well, it became a big play because they did not. But we cannot, and should not, rely on this schematically next season. Fletcher had an 18-yard-carry in the 4th quarter where it was a tight formation, hat on hat blocking, Louisville crashing it heavily and Fletcher making a move behind the LoS. Its good talent showing itself, but relying on that leads into inconsistency, which was the story of that game in particular.
Now moving forward to Clemson. I remember this game for being the most caveman mentality I have seen us play with and it somehow ended up working. We were forced to do it, based on QB health, but ultimately, there are some plays in there where we should schematics and numbers, rather than going full fizzicality mode. The big TD play by Smith (where we got lucky), is a perfect illustration:
Clemson has to respect the screen game, knowing that we will just throw it out, but they do a poor job playing it. Make it an easy read for Emory, who simply hands it to Smith on a IZ play, Lee dominates the LB crashing in and its a 5v5 matchup with Smith outracing the S at the top coming in late. Its schematics making a 5v5 and softening the defense with the threat of a RPO and I see this every week in College Football on a play-per-play-basis. Insert the talent into good schematics and this happens.
Its the only pic I will show from this game, as the rest of it became a bulldozing fight in the trenches. Clemson is, despite them sucking *** for most of the year for their usual standards, still one of the top defenses in the country and really annoying to play against. It basically came down to us pulling them down to the game we wanted to play and them being worn out at the end of it. Biggest run play was a IZ play from another tight formation with poor LB play by Clemson on a 3rd down in the 4th quarter.
The worst rushing performance we had, both according to the numbers and from a pure gut-feel was Texas A&M. The Aggies performance can basically be explained by two things: One is us not taking advantage of their run sets and two is them playing 33 stack fronts where IZ and everything inside of the tackles is hard to run against (however the passing game worked, so...). Here is one play where we had something schematically set up:
This is the Stack that I mentioned, it was introduced as a counter to stop the IZ and the read option dominating football. You have a NT over the C, two ends covering the tackle and the LB usually behind them being able to crash either the inside or the outside gap. We run a double pull against it, because thats the stuff that works against Stack. Lincoln Riley ran this at Oklahoma all the time, especially against 33 Stack, it shields the inside off the RB and you get a lead block from a H-Back or a RB that clears the path. Mauigoa and Cooper see the inside crash going vertical, they shield off with angles and Fletcher goes out lead blocking. Talent and schematics, I can only repeat myself.
Finding a good run play beyond that is difficult, because the Aggies shut it down for the most part and we started to realize that their focus up front made them vulnerable in the secondary. There was one by Allen on a Stack formation where we lightened the box similarly to Miami OH at the top, but we did not do enough of that at all to help ourselves out.
However, this play demonstrates we have, at times, good ideas on paper ruined by poor execution:
We have spoken about the Stack and how it creates trouble for IZ runs. The NT on the inside attacking the C basically creates havoc and any sort of inside run gets crashed. Teams then proceeded to run stuff off tackle, perferably with some form of motion attached to it. This also happens here. How do the Aggies stop it? By playing "Mint" up front. NT over the C, two DT playing 4i and a "Jack" on the edge; Smart created it after the loss to Ohio State, with Urban Meyer not touching IZ in his playbook and Bama being too vulnerable on the edge.
Restrepo in motion signals to the Aggies the run is going where Restrepo goes, as he is supposed to lead for Parrish, and the rest blocks IZ. However, this is my gripe with IZ. Once its crashed, it forces the RB to bounce. If you signal too obviously that the run is going to get bounced and you block it poorly, it gets stuffed. Restrepo, for some reason, completely misses the safety moving in the box and misses the block as a result. Parrish avoided the first tackle, but the S was unblocked and made a tackle for loss. Its why I strongly dislike IZ these days; it gets run way too frequently and it has been figured out.
So, what should we do in terms of the run game and what should we leave out?
1. Stop with the pure hat-on-hat stuff and if you do it, make sure the box is light. I would argue we win 5v5 matchups in run blocking about 95% of the time. Means: More wide splits and more stacks to force the defense wide.
2. Sell the run better. More fake RPOs, more Jet motion. Make the LB freeze, most of the runs we have are not that poorly executed up front, but they get crashed by LB and S.
3. Use more horizontal movement up front to create vertical lanes. The ACC runs Tite and Stack fronts all the time. They want us to get the football outside of the tackle. Everyone up front is big and athletic enough to pull, our TEs can get out in space and block and we do a good job shielding inside. Please use it. We started using it at the beginning, almost every run was successful and then, we stopped doing it after that GT game.
Ward is going to help with the passing game. But the run game needs to be more consistent and schematically better. We have the tools, use them more often. Thanks for my TED talk, here is a booty GIF:
For those who want to know my stance in regards to the run game: In the pro level, the run game isnt that important anymore. Most production can be replaced with "lower" level talent, the running back position is correctly devalued and offensive line performance has hit a low in performance based on a number of reasons. In college, however? Completely different story. Over the course of the past few months, I have gone back to watching some Miami tape every once in a while to figure out our best running performances. This post is aimed to point out when we did well and what we should do, and when things went to **** and what we should not do.
NOTE: I am aware that our offense is different now, different personnel, different QB, likely slightly different scheme as a result, but still, neither the OC nor the O-Line-Coach have changed. I am also aware that, because of the QB position and the improvement at both TE and WR *should* make it easier to run the ball. Again, should.
The top three running performances that I have identified were, based on the opponents faced, were Clemson, Louisville and Miami-OH. The last one gets an asterisk, although they performed well in defense metrics, they played some of the worst opposition in the country. But we start off with them.
First drive of the season and Dawson brings out the wide splits. I had some hope that we would see more of these throughout the season, but... anyway, underlined in blue you can see the amount of players in the box (in numbers, 5). Red is Smith going in motion. Its a simple IZ play, but with some candy attached to it. Makes the LB freeze in the backfield and then, its a simple 5v4 matchup up front. It "set up" the TD play to Young on the bubble screen.
This play is also something I want to illustrate, because motion up front is just deadly. Heavy personnel, McCoy as the swing tackle (I can see why he may start at LG, dude explodes off the snap here) shielding with grandpa and the rest of the bunch on a 7v8 matchup. Purely on the numbers, this should not work, however, because of the execution and us overloading one side of the ball with a pulling guard, Fletcher runs in without being touched. Running the ball is not just exposing more will and fizzicality, its schematics, technique and numbers.
Moving forward to the next game, which was vs Louisville. The first play here is the TD run by Fletcher, who had an enormous game (17 for 126) against a tough defense. Not much to draw here, 8v8, hat on hat, something we did IMO way too often as the season progressed, however, teams that did go hat on hat vs us usually lost out. Tight formation, but the push and the hole opened was big enough for Fletcher to run through for about eight yards deep. This is what we have to do, allow our big backs to take on tackles at the second level:
The other play is an illustration as to why our run game was good and bad last year for equal reasons. It was good, because in hat-on-hat-situations, we won. It was bad because we relied on it and became inconsistent as a result. Vs Miami OH, we had receivers in motion, did wide splits, pulled guards and basically moved horizontally first to create vertical lanes second. This is a split zone play about to be destroyed, but grandpa remembered he can still run and just got there in time to make a block. The rest is us shielding well and #11 on Louisville overrunning the play big time. Its a solid gain if the LB clean up well, it became a big play because they did not. But we cannot, and should not, rely on this schematically next season. Fletcher had an 18-yard-carry in the 4th quarter where it was a tight formation, hat on hat blocking, Louisville crashing it heavily and Fletcher making a move behind the LoS. Its good talent showing itself, but relying on that leads into inconsistency, which was the story of that game in particular.
Now moving forward to Clemson. I remember this game for being the most caveman mentality I have seen us play with and it somehow ended up working. We were forced to do it, based on QB health, but ultimately, there are some plays in there where we should schematics and numbers, rather than going full fizzicality mode. The big TD play by Smith (where we got lucky), is a perfect illustration:
Clemson has to respect the screen game, knowing that we will just throw it out, but they do a poor job playing it. Make it an easy read for Emory, who simply hands it to Smith on a IZ play, Lee dominates the LB crashing in and its a 5v5 matchup with Smith outracing the S at the top coming in late. Its schematics making a 5v5 and softening the defense with the threat of a RPO and I see this every week in College Football on a play-per-play-basis. Insert the talent into good schematics and this happens.
Its the only pic I will show from this game, as the rest of it became a bulldozing fight in the trenches. Clemson is, despite them sucking *** for most of the year for their usual standards, still one of the top defenses in the country and really annoying to play against. It basically came down to us pulling them down to the game we wanted to play and them being worn out at the end of it. Biggest run play was a IZ play from another tight formation with poor LB play by Clemson on a 3rd down in the 4th quarter.
The worst rushing performance we had, both according to the numbers and from a pure gut-feel was Texas A&M. The Aggies performance can basically be explained by two things: One is us not taking advantage of their run sets and two is them playing 33 stack fronts where IZ and everything inside of the tackles is hard to run against (however the passing game worked, so...). Here is one play where we had something schematically set up:
This is the Stack that I mentioned, it was introduced as a counter to stop the IZ and the read option dominating football. You have a NT over the C, two ends covering the tackle and the LB usually behind them being able to crash either the inside or the outside gap. We run a double pull against it, because thats the stuff that works against Stack. Lincoln Riley ran this at Oklahoma all the time, especially against 33 Stack, it shields the inside off the RB and you get a lead block from a H-Back or a RB that clears the path. Mauigoa and Cooper see the inside crash going vertical, they shield off with angles and Fletcher goes out lead blocking. Talent and schematics, I can only repeat myself.
Finding a good run play beyond that is difficult, because the Aggies shut it down for the most part and we started to realize that their focus up front made them vulnerable in the secondary. There was one by Allen on a Stack formation where we lightened the box similarly to Miami OH at the top, but we did not do enough of that at all to help ourselves out.
However, this play demonstrates we have, at times, good ideas on paper ruined by poor execution:
We have spoken about the Stack and how it creates trouble for IZ runs. The NT on the inside attacking the C basically creates havoc and any sort of inside run gets crashed. Teams then proceeded to run stuff off tackle, perferably with some form of motion attached to it. This also happens here. How do the Aggies stop it? By playing "Mint" up front. NT over the C, two DT playing 4i and a "Jack" on the edge; Smart created it after the loss to Ohio State, with Urban Meyer not touching IZ in his playbook and Bama being too vulnerable on the edge.
Restrepo in motion signals to the Aggies the run is going where Restrepo goes, as he is supposed to lead for Parrish, and the rest blocks IZ. However, this is my gripe with IZ. Once its crashed, it forces the RB to bounce. If you signal too obviously that the run is going to get bounced and you block it poorly, it gets stuffed. Restrepo, for some reason, completely misses the safety moving in the box and misses the block as a result. Parrish avoided the first tackle, but the S was unblocked and made a tackle for loss. Its why I strongly dislike IZ these days; it gets run way too frequently and it has been figured out.
So, what should we do in terms of the run game and what should we leave out?
1. Stop with the pure hat-on-hat stuff and if you do it, make sure the box is light. I would argue we win 5v5 matchups in run blocking about 95% of the time. Means: More wide splits and more stacks to force the defense wide.
2. Sell the run better. More fake RPOs, more Jet motion. Make the LB freeze, most of the runs we have are not that poorly executed up front, but they get crashed by LB and S.
3. Use more horizontal movement up front to create vertical lanes. The ACC runs Tite and Stack fronts all the time. They want us to get the football outside of the tackle. Everyone up front is big and athletic enough to pull, our TEs can get out in space and block and we do a good job shielding inside. Please use it. We started using it at the beginning, almost every run was successful and then, we stopped doing it after that GT game.
Ward is going to help with the passing game. But the run game needs to be more consistent and schematically better. We have the tools, use them more often. Thanks for my TED talk, here is a booty GIF:
