Discussion of Offensive Schemes
I thought that, for a slight conversational change-up, it might be nice to momentarily stop lusting after the Harbaugh and discuss football as a sport. In particular, offense, since that was the big issue this year.
I will preface this by saying that I don't think Michigan should hire or not hire a coach based on that coaches play style. All good coaches can adjust to what they find on a roster; this time, my hope is that we are hiring someone who can do just that.
With that said, I wanted to look at a few offenses that have always intrigued me and why. I also wanted to open this up to other MgoReaders and posters, since as a whole, I think we are all pretty interested in football at a schematic level.
Popular offenses now:
Pro-Style: This offense is generally mischaracterized as being "under-center" or "I-form" MANBALL. What a Pro-Style offense really is, as many successful NFL teams and College squads have shown, is any football scheme designed to be complex in its blocking and route running. Generally speaking, Pro-Style passing routes use a "Levels" concept, which forces defenders to commit to one particular level, those being shallow, middle and deep on every play. The advantages of this, is that it allows superior, NFL level talent to work. The downside, is that it forces a Quarterback to make complicated, multi-dimensional reads (both sides of the field, and depth) in less than three seconds, while also maintaining route timing (in regards to outs, slants, ins and curls).
Air-Raid: Air-Raid offenses are a form of the spread obviously, but when people say "spread" they usually think only of the Rich Rodriguez style read-option spread. Air-Raid then, for the purposes of my post, is the offense that is run by Mike Leach at Texas Tech and now at Washington State. This offense relies on the same match-up advantages seen in all spreads, with the goal being to put players with talent in space against sometimes superior talent in space, and see who wins in a one on one. However, the Air-Raid's major component is an option based system of route trees, which take years to actually ingrain in players, since the Quarterback and Receiver need to know which option the other will take in an instant. The beauty of the Air-Raid, from a coaching standpoint, is that it nullifies talent deficiencies, particularly at the Quartback position, by keeping all of the routes in a given pattern to relatively short patterns and giving "space" to throw to instead of relying on timing. Basically, receivers are taught to "find grass" and sit there against zone, or Mesh together against man, forcing defenders to essentially pick themselves out of the play, leaving to open grass for the QB to throw to.
Read-Option: This is an offense that most of us who have lived through the late 2000's remember well. When it works, it is perfect, (see OSU) when it does not, it looks bad (see us vs OSU in 2008-2010). The whole principal of the offense is to present the threat of a running quarterback, which evens the match-up numbers. Basically, in ANY other offense, the defense only has to worry about 10 men on a running play, since the QB serves only to hand the ball off. The read-option forces the numbers to at-least be even, since the QB himself is a legitimate running threat. Where the idea works to its ideal, is when the back-side defender is left unblocked and presented with a split second choice: take the RB and allow the QB to break contain (which usually results in a HUGE play when you have someone like Braxton Miller or Denard Robinson at QB) or you take the QB, which allows a back to break off the run inside--which, if everyone is blocked, should theoretically always allow the RB to get to the second level of the defense.
These are all "sexy" offenses. Others that aren't:
Flexbone/Wing-T: This offense, to me, is very cool. That might because I don't know that much about it; it might also be because watching Georgia Tech and Navy run it to perfection is beautiful. It literally neutralizes superior talent at the DLine positions, because it relies on schematic cut-blocking, the idea being that they can't penetrate your OLine or disrupt a play if they are on their backs. It then forces receivers to block, as the play could come to their side of the field depending on a pitch or dive. If any one else knows anything about this offense, please post, I love watching it.
My whole point with this, besides generating some non-CC football talk (since I love football but am stressing out massively during this search) and see what people think. I personally don't care what a coach runs, as long as it works. If Harbaugh wants to come in and run a Wing-T or an Air-Raid or whatever, I will let him. If Dan Mullen wants to come here and install his spread, I will want him to.
I just want to win. Period.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
Pro Style - This offense is the most complicated to run for a college team, but translates immediately into the pros. This will get well trained QB's into the NFL more often even if their talent isn't really amazing (See MSU). They really focus on matchups, using formational changes to get an advantage. Lane Kiffin does a good job of this with Cooper.
Air Raid - This offense works really well for small schools that need an advantage to even the playing field. One problem is that this offense is nothing like the NFL, and successful QB's in this system have yet to be able to translate it at the next level. This system is almost like the passing version of the flexbone in that it tries to negate the advantage that your opposition has on the line. Read Option - I would call this offense "Spread to Run." Rich Rodriguez invented this really cool innovation in offense and it has spread all over the nation like wildfire. It also allows smaller teams to compete with behemoth lines as they spread you out and gash you with misdirection. When combined with bubble screens and play action, this offense is hard to stop. When a defense does figure it out, it is a nightmare however because the up-tempo creates a long game for your defense. Flexbone: The triple option has been around for decades, and it really forces you to be more "gap sound" than any other running attack. They will test you up the middle, off tackle and on the edge. As mentioned above, the lineman cut block the defensive line in an attempt to speed past them before they get up off the ground. This offense also gets really hard to stop when the QB/OC is really good mixing up misdirection. While I agree with the OP that the most important thing is the talent of the coach himself, I really hope we don't go back to a spread. It took Rich Rod about 3-4 years to assemble the different type of player that suits that system. Brady has been slowly overhauling our roster to go back the other direction. Swinging back again could take another 3-4 years, and that just seems awful to me. I would like to see a power running coach that has a good track record of success take over the helm. I know this is not a popular desire around these parts, but it is the past of least resistance IMO.December 8th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
When people say "Pro style" they're actually usually commenting on three divergent offensive philosophies, that utilize 2 RB / 1 TE, 1 RB / 2TE sets with a QB under center.
1) Pro-style power run: think Parcells era Giants, classic Jerome Bettis steelers, etc. Use power running schemes to control time of possession and pickup consistent but short chunks of yards and then utilize play action to hit curls, outs and crossing patterns to keep chains moving. Relies on dominant offensive line, sizeable RB's who can "fall forward" for yardage, and receivers / TE's who run good routes in combo with an accurate (but not necessary strong armed) QB.
2) Pro style West coast: think Bill Walsh, MIke Holmgren, Denver Mike Shannahan, Grbac/Collins/Driesbach/Griese/Brady UM teams. Utilize impeccible timing between QB & WR's in a short distance throw game to isolate individual defenders either in man or zone coverage. Running game uses misdirection and delayed actions (counters and draws) with occasional OT runs to keep defenses honest. (Shannahan modifed this with significant use of zone blocking stretch plays to defeat Tampa 2 and 4-3 defenses) QB has to be a superior decision maker and accurate thrower (and slightly mobile to utilize bootlegs and mobile pocket blocking concepts) to open up passing lanes and exploit overpursuing defenses. OL focus on mobility and combo blocking techniques instead of strength.
3) Pro style Coryell: see classic Oakland Raiders / Washington Redskins / Lions under Bobby Ross; utilize inside running power schemes and heavy play action passing with fast WR's / TE's to force 3-4 yard running plays clumped with over the top big pass plays for chunks of yardage. Lots of deep throws (streaks, deep outs, flag routes) requires QB with big arm (not necessarily accurate), RB who can break first tackle attempts, and ideally an all-star caliber TE who is either (A) fast enough to run by a LB in coverage, or (B) a big enough target on over the middle crossing / curl / drag routes to force a safety to cover / account for him thereby opening up the streaking WR.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^
I didn't really think about the "small schools" angle, but then you look at Mike Leach, Sonny Dykes, Hal Mumme and other coaches that have run it and then look at where they coached mostly, there are not many destination names in that list of schools.
The split lineman concept in the air raid always threw me - I get it in that it will force a DE to make a farther run in the attempt to get a sack, allowing for a short pass (speaking of, the Shallow Cross came out of the development of the air raid and a lot of offenses have a similar play now), but it still odd to look at an OL spread out like the do in some Air Raid formations.
December 8th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^
The wide splits also allow for a more defined and clear throwing windows for the short passing attack and allow the QB to move slightly to find an open window to throw to shallow receivers. It also helps some of the run concepts that they use to keep defenses honest, such as trap-draws and things like that, because it spreads the DL out and opens gaps without necessitating movement from the OL vs the DL. Because the run schemes aren't based on deception (such as the flexbone which has splits of about 1 ft to 1.5 ft) you aren't really attempting to block the view into the backfield (LBs are so threatened by the underneath game that their eyes are often elsewhere).
December 8th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^
That run Air-Raid are Texas A&M. Oklahoma was for a while, but Heupel seems to have adjusted the scheme to fit the more mobile and less accurate QBs he has. They also have a pretty awesome stable or backs.
But when they had Bradford, that was basically straight up Air-Raid.... kid had several 500 yard games in a row that year they played for the Championship.
That's my point--Bob Stoops and Heupel will change their look to match what they have on a given year. If they get a beast back (like a Green, for example) they will mix it up and run the ball CONSTANTLY (out of everything from a spread, to a diamond, to a wing, and a lot of Pistol Veers) but when they have phenomenal QB talent (I don't know who we would have to compare to a Bradford or a Landry Jones, so this is a meh point) they air it out. He started out as a DB coach then a DC then a head coach. He essentially lets his OCs (he has two, I believe) run their offense with very little oversight, and they adjust YEARLY.
This is a point made even more obvious in their OU Training days thing for ESPN (which you can watch on Youtube if you're inclined) where Heupel straight up says in the Offense meeting "don't worry, we expect you to learn a lot, but it will be an offense built for you, as a team, that you can succeed in.)
That's a nice thing. And I think we all don't care how it gets done, just that it gets done.
December 8th, 2014 at 11:10 PM ^
I think the "what talent fits the system" argument is kind of invalid in an Air-Raid. Obviously a Navarre isn't going to run zone-read; but I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) that when Stoops took over at OU they were running a very antiquated style of manball and he brought Mike Leach over from Kentucky and told him "Have fun." That first year they won 7 or 8 games. The next year, a BCS National Championship.
When you have talent open in space with room to work, magic happens. But like I said before, I don't care what system we run, as long as it works. I went back and watched Harbaugh's Stanford team in the Orange Bowl; that's a straight up MANBALL squad and they averaged 40 pts a game that year.
That's more than fine by me.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
I think we should run pro because that's what our personnel is best at currently. In 2007 everybody was clammoring for the spread. In 2010 everybody was clammoring for manball. In 2014 everybody is clammoring for spread. Part of the reason we suck so much is we can't make our minds up what we want to run.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
To dismantle Wisconsin
December 8th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^
If that's true (I don't know because I don't analyze OSU's games), I would think it be more because of Cardale Jones being QB, not necessarily because Meyer planned to kill Wisconsin with a master plan.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:35 AM ^
Also if we run a spread I want a qb who throws better than runs and is big and durable so he's not constantly getting injured.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^
Big and durable? Throws better than runs? Never gets hurt?
Sounds like John Navarre. Who was one of my favorite players ever at Michigan, but I wouldn't want to see him running a spread.
December 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
I mean like Terelle Pryor or Devin Gardner if he could throw better.
December 8th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
There are moments in my life where I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe, and this is one of them.I realize that Navarre has several Michigan records for a QB, and that our team was miles ahead of where our program is today. Having said that, I couldn't stand watching him just stand tall in the pocket and get smashed over and over again. He was the least mobile QB in the history of football, and it's odd to me that you are on the other end of the spectrum. To each his own, I guess...
December 8th, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^
I want to run whatever offense that is going to call the touchdown play most.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
used a Wing T early on then switched to a Flexbone in the 90's.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
The read option is a play, not an entire offense. I think the most successful offenses need to be balanced, not necessarily run/pass, but in having a base play and constraints. The pro style simply hasn't been as effective at the college level with the exception of some power running teams (Stanford, Wisconsin,Arkansas, MSU) who are balanced by good to great defense or they aren't and lose quite a bit (Arkansas).
With the practice time limits, I do prefer some sort of spread up tempo offense, but I'm not dumb enough to think Harbaugh isn't the best choice. His record speaks for itself, but I will say if he doesn't continue to adapt schematically to an ever changing game, he will suffer the same results as the many other coaches who refuse to change outdated ideas or schemes. I think he's smart enough to move with the game and coach his kids up, and we all know what kind of competitor he is.
I'm sorry, this wasn't supposed to be another Harbaugh thread........
I like offenses that score lots of points.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:53 AM ^
And I'm of the belief that every scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, any scheme can be successful, and any scheme can be stopped.
The fad right now is spread, but I think the FEI ratings make an interesting point.
- Georgia Tech - Flex Bone
- Auburn - Spread to Run (emphasis on single wing/veer concepts)
- Oregon - Spread to Run (emphasis on speed, read option)
- UCLA - Pro-style/Multiple (mostly gun, but mixes zone read and classic pro-style concepts)
- Alabama - Pro-style (Single back offense, sprinkled in spread concepts)
- S. Carolina - Fun and Gun (mix of run and gun, air raid, spread-to-pass concepts)
- FSU - Pro-style (mostly gun but not exclusive, mixed backfield)
- Navy - Flex Bone
- OSU - Spread to Run (emphasis on power concepts and IZ)
- Georgia - Prostyle (mix of 21 and 12 personnel)
I think what you've seen is that so many teams have gone to spread concepts, that defenses have began adjusting. This has lead to several of the pro-style teams to be able to work their way back toward the top of football (FWIW, 11-20 is Pitt, Baylor, Oklahoma, Old Dominion, KSU, UNC, Miami, Boston College, Colorado St, Arizona; this is a healthy mix as well). So yes, it's very cyclical. And I know people like to say Michigan the past few years was a stubborn attempt at "MANBALL", but Michigan was in gun as much as under center, was in 11 personnel nearly as much as 21 or 12 personnel, and up until DG was very clearly injured, averaged over 15 QB runs per game. So all offenses are adapting and intermixing concepts, and no offense is defined within a pure box.
I have an offensive preference that I believe in, and the closest I've seen to that offense is Harbaugh's. I actually agreed with Hoke on where his emphasis should be (downhill, between the tackles run game), though obviously their execution and ability to teach it was unsuccessful. But Meyer's philosophy has been in the same broad concept. Why do I think that's the way to go? Because I think football is cycling back. Defenses have adjusted to speed by putting out more speed, and what you've seen is the OSU and Auburn spread variants become stronger in that time frame and you've seen some classic schemes (all with modern twists, they aren't dinosaur offenses) come back to the top of college football.
Now, like I said, each system has its strengths and weaknesses. Many classic spreads have issues with a lack of multiplicity. They over-emphasize 5-man pass pro schemes (killed Kelly last night, has always caused him to struggle against elite DLs) and a limited number of blocking adjustments (simply for have fewer blockers) and limited route structures (because the QB reads are forced to be simpler due to practice time being spent more in the run game, etc).
More pro-style type schemes have more multiple aspects down in the minutia. More details in the route structures (route adjustments are subtler, routes are more varied, each players role is more varied) but forces each player to learn more of the details. Blocking schemes allow more variations, but again, less emphasis on a few core concepts. QBs must read more complex concepts. So you allow yourself to adjust to anything, but limited practice time can make things more difficult.
Flexbone puts such a strong emphasis on QB reads, footwork, and ball handling that a bunch of time is forced to be focused on that. Blocking concepts are simplified in some ways for the OL, but made more complex for the backs and wings. Lots of emphasis on ball handling to carry out fakes. There are some "shoot" pass concepts, as stated above, but because of the practice time dedicated to the other aspects of the offense, much of the pass game is relegated to success based on the threat of the run. It's something very different for opposing defenses, giving a leg-up week-to-week (but perhaps less-so for a bowl game), but is also a little harder to recruit elite players for.
Etc, etc.
I have my personnal preference. I think any coach that is brought in should be allowed to work toward his goal offense, because he likely has his preference and something he's most comfortable with. I'd like him to be able to adapt to his talent, but you really can only ask him to go so far (Rich Rod wasn't going to a power-based scheme in year one, regardless of talent at Michigan, regardless if how bad he wanted to implement an I-form scheme within his offense; Borges was only going so far with spread concepts; Nuss was only going so far in adapting his route concepts to fit Borges's WR personnel, etc). But I'm not really worried about scheme and what that means for success at Michigan. Michigan can recruit good players most likely to fit any scheme (as stated in a previous thread, I do prefer some differential in scheme away from Meyer's scheme, as I think it would be setting Michigan up to highly struggle recruiting against OSU and put them at a disadvantage); what I'm more concerned about is coaching players so that they can successfully execute. If it's limited concepts in a spread scheme, fine (Nuss limited concepts greatly), then they need to execute at a very high level and be taught how to do so. If it's more complex like Harbaugh's scheme, fine, but they must be taught to execute (at a little lesser of a level) the multiple schemes.
But in the end it comes down to coaching and getting players to execute. That's where the last two staffs blew it at Michigan.
December 8th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^
As the defenses get faster in the back 7 but the DL's get bigger, I think Joe Gibbs variant on the Coryell offenses (which I think is what Harbaugh is running a version of) are going to be the next trend. OL's which are big enough to handle the DL's 1on1 or 1.5-on-1 with a TE that is more blocker than receiver to mop up QB's, RB's that can run over the first level speedy LB, and then if a S is moved up, *bam* three WR's running verticles or an H-back in the flat for 20 yards. You start bulking up your LB's to defeat the running game, then you better have 3 or more "plus" DB's to cover the WR's. Bama I think was showing this against Auburn where as soon as Auburn starting committing an extra S to the run support, it was over the top with Amari Cooper in the Gary Clark role.
December 8th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
I think you're going to see position groups become more varied, where you have specialized types that can just do enough to keep defenses honest (blocking TE that can catch a pass periodically) and are highly multiple (a TE that can split out wide, can block a bit, can run the seam, etc).
I think you'll see the FB come more into the picture. OSU actually does this quite a bit now by motioning the H into the backfield and using their RB as a FB. Then they handoff to him sometimes, they lead block with him sometimes, etc. This allows you to attack defenses in multiple ways, vary blocking schemes a bit, very misdirection and backfield flow. He may not be as good a lead blocker (Elliot is actually a really good lead blocker though), but he's good enough for what you want to do. More athletic FBs that can get a handfull of carries a game or bulkier RBs that can lead block a dozen times a game can be a real threat. It's similar to an H-back (a guy that can split out, be in a wing, sometimes lead block), but moved to the backfield a bit more.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:53 AM ^
December 8th, 2014 at 9:54 AM ^
December 8th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 8th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^
We should run the Wing-T. Issac, Green, and Drake/Smith in the back field at once. With Chesson blocking on the outside, and Butt as the TE. Could be deadly.
December 8th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
Also, after seeing OSU destroy Wisky with their 3rd string QB, I would be down to hire Herman.
December 8th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^
Personally I have a preference for a spread to run with power. Tight ends and full backs I think can add a lot to an offense. But out of our next coach I want someone who will tailor the offense to their personnel. I do not want them to change their offense completely but I want them to adapt to what they have. Overall, I think we will see a lot more hybrid type schemes in the next few years.
December 8th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
If I remember correctly a QB set up 7 yards from the center and away from the classic T formation under the center, was tried way back in the 1950s by the 49ers - the original shotgun, but the rules of that era were not as pass friendly. Then Tom Laundry help put it back into vogue when he had Roger Staubach near the end of his career use that as a way of making up for a weaker line. The Patriots and others regularly line in a shotgun with an empty backfield, so the so called Pro Set with two RBs, a TE, a WR and a FL is pretty rare.
The Georgia Tech approach is interesting to watch - at times almost a mixture of rugby and football, but the emphasis on the meshing and pitches must cut into passing practice. It showed in the game against FSU when the receiver and QB were just out of sync.
I'm curious to see if all of the passing camps and 7-on-7 camps and leagues result in a lot more capable QBs. It seems unlikely that QBs will ever become as easy to find as a workable NFL RB, but for a college team with regular turn over, maybe a scheme which tolerates knocking out the QB is more acceptable because it is easier to get a replacement.
December 8th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
Recruit well. Develop players to be mentally and physically tough. Find a scheme that the players can execute well and that leads to schematic advantages over other teams. Develop a winner's attitude.
All else is less important.
December 8th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
December 8th, 2014 at 2:38 PM ^
Props to the OP.
I too love the option and wish-bone type offenses run by Navy, GTech, and to an extent the AFA.
But in the ACC Championship game, we saw the deficiencies of them really hurt Georgia Tech. I can't recall a team running that style offense being effective in a 2 minute drill. It's difficult to impossible to ask a QB (who did what GTech's did on Saturday night and run 28 straight running plays before attempting a pass) to manage that type of game, then with the flip of a switch start trying to throw the ball down the field.
One of the reasons I'd love to see some discussion of Troy Calhoun as a potential Hoke replacement is that I'm intrigued by the possibility of installing that type of offense with Michigan level QB and WR recruits, guys who can throw, run, and catch better than what you'd expect at Georgia Tech. Getting run packages with the blocking schemes of a Win-T and combing them with some pro style passing elements would be an ideal fit, but Navy, Georgia Tech, and the Air Force Academy will always struggle to find the necessary talent to make it happen.
Another issue is that if you have a QB capable of throwing downfield well enough, AND has the wheels to run in that kind of offense, how many hits do you want him taking? That's another big reason few try to implement it, even with Michigan talent. The last Michigan QB with the combination of wheels and arm to run that offense would be Drew Henson. Would you want Henson taking 15-20 hits a game?