What Could Fans Learn from the NSU Game?

[jellyman]

I posted this on the Round Table yesterday, thought you all might like to read it here, also.

In the next few minutes I will also have several add-on posts, where I did additional analysis in that thread.

I had a wonderful time at the RU-NSU game ... great weather, new seats where we wanted them (meaning shade before the end of the 1st quarter) and under the over-hang), good new seat neighbors, and blow-out RU win, and saw almost all the RU players play.

But what do we, as fans, actually learn from a game against an opponent like NSU? There are some things we can learn - but we should be careful not to read too much into what is really an exhibition game.

Here is what I think we, the fans, should draw from the game:

1) The QB battle is not over. Both QB's showed good things - but different things:

a) Rettig: He showed he has more mobility than many fans thought; he showed he has a strong arm; he showed his arm is pretty accurate when he is not under pressure; he showed he could move the ball in sustained drives with only a little rushing game support - albeit against a weaker team; he showed he could read his progressions and spread the ball around to different receivers. And he did all this without the benefit of having RU's best player on the field with him (Caroo).

b) Laviano: He showed he can play-action and roll out pretty well; he showed he could get the ball to Caroo; he SEEMED to show he could run different and more varied plays than Rettig.

c) So where are we? We will know a little more this week, if and when Flood makes an announcement, or failing that, who starts against WSU. I think fans learned that there is a reasonable chance EITHER QB has a chance to be effective. Personally, I would like to see Rettig earn the initial shot at the starting job, as he seemed to show more use of progression, a cool head, a bigger and more accurate arm. BUT ... Laviano, even though he only threw 4 passes, seemed to be given the chance to run more variety of plays - perhaps he still has a greater command of the playbook? I though Milewski put it well in the post game commentary. He said that when the coaches review the film, they will look at more than just pure stats, but also at the types of throws each QB made, the types of situations each QB had to react to, etc. And by that measure Rettig very likely showed better.
2) The defensive secondary needs a lot of work. This is not surprising, given the circumstances. I have been away, just back, and have not had a chance to review the game again (saw it live, but have it on tape). But clearly there are communication problems, almost certainly due to lack of experience, between the CB's and the safeties. This needs to be reduced, but I fear only experience will change this ... but that takes many games, not one game.

3) The coaching staff can adjust during the game, and the players can execute adjustments. The DB's did a lot better after the 1st quarter, and especially well in the 2nd half. You have to give SOME credit to the coaching staff for making instructions, and adjustments in-game ... and some credit to the young DB's for executing those changes. In particular, the staff made some small changes in personnel packages - using Hampton and Hunt is slightly different ways in the last 3 quarters of the game, and inserting Adams at CB (for Austin, interestingly enough, not for Wharton) in the 3rd quarter.

4) RU has pretty good running backs - and we now know their primary roles. James and Hicks are 1A and 1B - the hot hand will get the ball more. Martin is #3, and will get chances - and if he gets hot may get more carries in any one game. Goodwin is the 3rd down, passing situation, RB. James still has the most patience and the best cutting ability - but he may not be all the way back. Hicks is the hardest runner. Martin may have the most speed of the top 3. Goodwin is the receiver.

5) RU may not have a back-up FB to Bergen. I did not see anyone play FB other than Bergen.

6) Pass Rush is still lacking. Without RU's 2 best DL, and RU's 2 best pass rushers (Hamilton and Turay - Turay only played 10-12 plays), RU still has trouble pressuring the QB, even with the blitz.

7) We have a MUCH better idea of the depth chart - which for fans is one of the greatest value of these types of games. In a game like this, the coaches rotated quite a bit on defense, especially the DL - and did so early and often. Here is the depth chart as I saw it develop throughout the game:

Offense:

QB: Rettig OR Laviano, Rescigno
RB: James, Hicks, Martin ... Goodwin as 3rd down RB
FB: Bergen
WR: Caroo, Agudosi
WR: Patton, Grant, V. Matthews
TE: Flanagan, Arcidiacono, Scarff
LT: Lumpkin, Heeman
LG: Miller, Cole
C: Nelson, Miller - I thought I saw Mller in at the end of the game at C, with the other subs (a #60 was at C)
RG: Muller, Applefield ... and Applefield is probably the 1st OL sub, regardless of position
RT: Denman, Brodie ... I may have Cole, Brodie and Heeman switched around a little.

Defense:

DE: Mera, D. Davis (or at other DE?), Hogan (do I have Hogan and Nash reversed? I do not think so but I might)
NT: Joseph, Wilkins
3-Tech: [Hamilton], JPO, Wiafe, Bateky (? Or was he at NT?)
DE: [Turay], Lambert, Nash
Will OLB: Gause, Margolis (I may have the Will and the Same mixed up, but not who was backing up who)
Mike LB: Lewis, Johnson
Sam OLB: Longa, Roberts
CB: Austin, Adams
CB: Wharton ... R. James (but James only in true mop-up time)
SS: Cioffi, Hunt
FS: Jacobs, Hampton

NICKEL: Hunt or Hampton subbed for Gause; Cioffi played role of the 5th DB, the Cover-DB.

DIME: Whoever between Hunt and Hampton had not gone in for the nickel, went in, for Lewis. DL was JPO, Turay (only later in the 2nd quarter) and I think Lambert - maybe a 4th DL, but would have to look at the DVR'd game to be sure.

On the depth chart, to me the most interesting situations besides QB are:

a) Goodwin clearly the 3rd down back - that will be his role.

b) Flanagan is clearly ahead of Arcidiacono at TE.

c) Applefield is the #6 OL, ahead of Cole.

d) When Adams was put into the game in the 3rd quarter he subbed for Austin, not Wharton ... and left the game when RU went to the DIme, replaced by Austin. This tells me Wharton played better in this game than did Austin, and that Adams has not yet had enough time to learn the Dime DB scheme.

e) Darnell Davis (#59) played ahead of Hogan or Nash at DE.

 

[jellyman]

Next post of thoughts:

One more thing we learned as fans - as if we did not know this already - but totally reinforced:

Caroo is the best player on the RU team. Maybe by a margin. Sure, maybe Hamilton or a fully healthy James may yet challenge. But also, Caroo's ability gap versus his opponents will be greater than Hamilton's or James' ability gap versus their opponents.

And Caroo seems the best bet to be the best player on the field (on RU or on their opponents) against most of RU's opponents.

Nice to have the best player on the field in many of your games.

 

[jellyman]

Next post:

So ... just started rewatching the game, only watched the 1st drive so far:

1) The 1st big completion was on a 6-man blitz (RU blitzed 2, on top of the 4 DL). Austin got caught one on one with the inside WR, and was 5-6 yards away - too far away. Hampton made the saving tackle.

2) The 2nd big completion occurred when Austin let his man go right past him, before safety help had any chance to coming over. Hampton again made the saving tackle.

3) The 3rd big completion, for a TD, occurred when, again, Austin let his man run right past him, and the safety could not get over in time.

I believe each time, but in particular the 2nd and 3rd completions, were Austin's mental error.

I would also say that Hampton did just fine, taking good angles to the WR running free to make saving tackles ... something that did not happen often enough last season (i.e. a safety taking good angles to make a tackle).

More later - though I am going to play ball much of this afternoon, so it may not be until much later.

 

[jellyman]

Last copy and paste from that thread:

OK .. re-watched the game in entirety ... still had trouble with the numbers on the uniforms, and occasionally had trouble identifying who was running the ball.

Here is my count of the team results on Zone Blocking Scheme versus Pull Blocking Scheme:

1) Zone Blocking: RU used the zone blocking scheme 29 times, rushing for 171 yards and 1 TD, for 5.9 yards per carry.

2) Pull Blocking: RU used a pull blocking scheme 14 times, rushing for 81 yards and 2 TD, for 5.8 yards per carry.

There was also a screen pass that was a backwards pass, to James that counted as a 16 yard run.

Individually, Hicks split his carries roughly in half: 9 Zones and 9 Pulls. He averaged over 6.5 yards per carry with pull blocking and less than 5.5 yards per carry with zone blocking. James ran all but 2 of his carries in the zone blocking scheme, averaging just over 5 yards per carry in the zone blocking scheme. Martin had just 1 pull blocking run, with 8 zone blocking runs, averaging over 7 yards per zone blocking run. Goodwin ran twice, both in the pull blocking scheme.

Also, as a team, all 4 times RU ran in short yardage situations RU used a pull blocking scheme. RU also used the pull blocking scheme the last 5 times RU ran the ball, towards the end. Prior to those runs, RU had run the ball using the zone blocking scheme 29 times, and used the pull blocking scheme just 9 times (4 of which were short yardage situations).

My conclusions (all speculative, and based on just 1 game, against a weak FCS team):

1) RU is primarily a Zone Blocking scheme team this year, but it uses pull blocking for shorter yardage situations.

2) James and Martin are better using the zone blocking scheme, and almost never ran the ball with the pull blocking scheme. Possibly due to their style of running (especially James, with his patience and cutting ability).

3) Hicks can run effectively in both run blocking schemes, but because he is a more of a power back might be more effective than James or Martin when RU wants to use the pull blocking, or in short yardage situations.

One more item I noticed: Adams did come in for Austin at CB - he came in after the first series RU played defense in the 3rd quarter, after Austin was beaten 2 more times, once on a slant and once on a zone coverage (though the zone pass was not completed - the ball was overthrown a ridiculously wide open WR, who was open because Austin did not track him).

I thought Adams played very well. He really stuck the RB 2 times on run support, and he was right on a WR 2 times on slants - one a pass break up and one a completion but immediate tackle.

 

[75liteweight]

Thanks Jellyman. As always enjoyed your insights

 

[Knight Shift]

Thank you Jellyman. Please keep posting these on this board. Your analysis is outstanding.

 

[cRURah]

Thank you Jellyman. Please keep posting these on this board. Your analysis is outstanding.

Great analysis Jellyman. It really helps as I had no idea who was even in the game or making plays watching on TV.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I don't understand what you mean re: zone v. "pull blocking scheme"

teams pull out of zones all day long. they aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[RoxboroughKnight]

Awesome posts. Lots of good analysis.

 

[jellyman]

I don't understand what you mean re: zone v. "pull blocking scheme"

teams pull out of zones all day long. they aren't mutually exclusive.

Teams may "pull" out of zone blocking schemes. The 2006 and 2007 RU OL's did not generally have any lineman "pull." In those cases, each OL would block in a "zone, with certain OL releasing to block 3-5 yards downfield against a LB and/or safety.

And watching the game Saturday, and re-watching it today, it was easy to tell the difference:

1) On the plays I describe as "pull" blocking schemes, a guard, or the center, or sometimes even a tackle, would pull out of the line and trap to create a hole ... the OL sort of criss-crossing. This is sometimes also called "man" blocking. In this scheme each OL is assigned a specific defender to block. In this scheme the running back is supposed to hit a specific hole.

2) On the plays I describe as "zone" blocking schemes, you see the entire OL slide, almost in unison, with at least 1 OL releasing downfield on one side or the other, to block a LB or safety. In the zone-blocking scheme the entire OL has to both keep moving and reading the defenders, plus hold their blocks, and the running back has to read where the creases and seams are, being patient, and then bursting quickly through the seam as it opens. It also helps when a running back has the capability to cu more than once inside a hole or crease. The best example I have seen in the last 10 years or more is Ray Rice, who was one of the running backs best suited to taking advantage of a zone-blocking scheme. Michael Hart of Michigan (I think this was his name) was an exact contemporary of Rice in college, and was similar, but inferior, to Rice, in this regard.

The strength of "man" or what I labelled as "pull" blocking is that it is simpler for the OL to execute, and for the running back to execute. The weakness is that if an opponent plays 8 and 9 defenders in the box it is almost impossible to have enough blockers at the point of attack to account for all the possible defender, making it a pure guessing game. Also, man or pull blocking schemes can be vulnerable to run blitzes.

The strength of the "zone" blocking scheme is that it can very much negate a defense with 8 or 9 men in the box, since it basically ignores the back side of the defense (or walls off the backside with limited number of blockers). It also allows the running back to choose from a variety of potential holes or seams, depending what the defense allows. The weakness is that OL need to be more athletic and SMARTER (better film study) to execute the scheme properly. Plus, you need top quality running backs with both vision AND the ability to make quick decisions, AND can accelerate quickly.

With a stable of good running backs, and big and athletic OL, plus inexperienced QB's, it would seem that opponents could try to force RU to pass by running 8 and 9 man in the box defenses. A zone blocking scheme, if successfully executed to both allow RU to run the ball anyway, AND open up easier passing decisions for RU's QB's. I believe RU has the running backs, and the OL athleticism to pull this off more often than not. The question will be does the OL have enough experience, smarts and film study to pull the zone blocking scheme off.

 

[mikefla]

One thing I learned about myself.......that I am gradually realising THESE are wonderful times in RU football. We join the B10...we still go to a bowl.....FB talent seems to want to play with us in the B10

I have always joked that the BIG TEN,,,is like the Ivy League with better sports

I am "over the moon" happy with our circumstances

 

[PhDKnight]

Great analysis. I understood how zone and man blocking worked prior to this post, but I did not understand that zone blocking can be used to negate stacked boxes.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Teams may "pull" out of zone blocking schemes. The 2006 and 2007 RU OL's did not generally have any lineman "pull." In those cases, each OL would block in a "zone, with certain OL releasing to block 3-5 yards downfield against a LB and/or safety.

And watching the game Saturday, and re-watching it today, it was easy to tell the difference:

1) On the plays I describe as "pull" blocking schemes, a guard, or the center, or sometimes even a tackle, would pull out of the line and trap to create a hole ... the OL sort of criss-crossing. This is sometimes also called "man" blocking. In this scheme each OL is assigned a specific defender to block. In this scheme the running back is supposed to hit a specific hole.

2) On the plays I describe as "zone" blocking schemes, you see the entire OL slide, almost in unison, with at least 1 OL releasing downfield on one side or the other, to block a LB or safety. In the zone-blocking scheme the entire OL has to both keep moving and reading the defenders, plus hold their blocks, and the running back has to read where the creases and seams are, being patient, and then bursting quickly through the seam as it opens. It also helps when a running back has the capability to cu more than once inside a hole or crease. The best example I have seen in the last 10 years or more is Ray Rice, who was one of the running backs best suited to taking advantage of a zone-blocking scheme. Michael Hart of Michigan (I think this was his name) was an exact contemporary of Rice in college, and was similar, but inferior, to Rice, in this regard.

The strength of "man" or what I labelled as "pull" blocking is that it is simpler for the OL to execute, and for the running back to execute. The weakness is that if an opponent plays 8 and 9 defenders in the box it is almost impossible to have enough blockers at the point of attack to account for all the possible defender, making it a pure guessing game. Also, man or pull blocking schemes can be vulnerable to run blitzes.

The strength of the "zone" blocking scheme is that it can very much negate a defense with 8 or 9 men in the box, since it basically ignores the back side of the defense (or walls off the backside with limited number of blockers). It also allows the running back to choose from a variety of potential holes or seams, depending what the defense allows. The weakness is that OL need to be more athletic and SMARTER (better film study) to execute the scheme properly. Plus, you need top quality running backs with both vision AND the ability to make quick decisions, AND can accelerate quickly.

With a stable of good running backs, and big and athletic OL, plus inexperienced QB's, it would seem that opponents could try to force RU to pass by running 8 and 9 man in the box defenses. A zone blocking scheme, if successfully executed to both allow RU to run the ball anyway, AND open up easier passing decisions for RU's QB's. I believe RU has the running backs, and the OL athleticism to pull this off more often than not. The question will be does the OL have enough experience, smarts and film study to pull the zone blocking scheme off.

I know the difference. I was confused as to why you set up your analysis as "zone" v. "pull." It's zone v. man or power. What you're describing in # 1 is "gap blocking" which was sorta my point. You're setting up a "pull" v. "zone" dichotomy that doesn't exist-because nearly every team above Pop Warner pulls, regardless of what their base scheme is.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Jelly

Nice stuff

One thing I noticed, and I don't have a stop watch to quantity it, so it more an guesstimate, was that laviano was quicker in his drops with his footwork than rettig....

This has a huge impact on the timing of running plays and whether or not that hole is there to hit or has it closed already

Can't but help to think that this impacted the running game improvement in the second half. I know people will say it's a 1a team beating down a 1aa team and it was hot out, but it was a quick game and it was a very low snap count game

Can't think this weighed into floods decision to start laviano over rettig

 

[derleider]

I would say what we learned is that our O is going to be better than expected, and that our D is going to struggle with the pass until the new CBs (if they ever do) get their stuff together.

63 points is a lot - even against an FCS team. I dont think we get than many if we are truly going to be a poor offensive team. 13 points is alot to give up against NSU - we shut them out the three previous times we played them.

So basically, I would say - if I'm the coaching staff, gameplan for shootouts. This isnt going to be 2012, where we can win scoring in the 20s or even 10s.

 

[jellyman]

I know the difference. I was confused as to why you set up your analysis as "zone" v. "pull." It's zone v. man or power. What you're describing in # 1 is "gap blocking" which was sorta my point. You're setting up a "pull" v. "zone" dichotomy that doesn't exist-because nearly every team above Pop Warner pulls, regardless of what their base scheme is.

Hudson - you are correct in the labelling aspect. Using the term "pull" blocking scheme was a misnomer. It was only when you asked the question, and I went back and looked at other posts I had made in 2006-7 (I copy into Word and keep some of the more technical posts I make) that I realized the proper term is "man" not "pull." And yes, a "man" blocking scheme is also called a "gap" blocking scheme. I say this not for your edification, but for others who might care and not have read a lot about this.

But I disagree that the RU "zone" blocking scheme involves "pulling." At least in the NSU game there was not one example that I could see where RU ran off a zone scheme where any OL pulled.

For others, just because I love this stuff, here are some examples of zone-blocking images, if I can do this right ... the image below shows the OL "sliding" but with 2 OL releasing through the DL to block the 2nd level, the LB's. That image shows how an OL could zone-block against the 3-4 defense (which NSU ran, and which WSU also runs):

And the same type of look, but a picture - and for fun, it is of the Ravens, with Ray Rice in the backfield!!!!:

Notice in both of the diagram/pictures above that the offensive lineman are designed to block at an angle. The goal is to create multiple seams more than one wide hole, giving the running back choices. Also, the goal is to seal at least 1 seam from pursuit from the 2nd level, the LB. Additionally, by sealing one side of the defense, this scheme has the potential to limit the effectiveness of a 8 or 9 defender in the box defensive scheme, since the "seal" basically uses one blocker to remove an entire side of the defense from having a major impact ... at least in theory.

An example of this is the below diagram:

Notice that this diagram basically shows 4 DL and 4 LB (let's assume 1 of the LB might also be a SS coming to the LOS for run support). If you look at the left side of the LOS you can see that the LT slides to block the left DT, while the LG releases to block the left inside LB. In essence, 2 OL/blockers remove from the equation 4 of the 8 defenders in the box (the defensive E and T on the left, as well as the 2 LB on the left). That gives the offense 4 blockers (C, RG, RT and FB/H-back) to block 3 or 4 defenders. The tailback does have to beat the LB on the right side of the LOS to the seam or hole, true enough. Be aware this diagram shows a Veer offensive formation (2 H-backs/half backs over each of the offensive tackles), but the basic principle is the same. Imagine one of the half backs is actually a TE, for example, and the other is a FB or H-back.

And there are a lot of variations possible. For example, in the image immediately above, the Center could block the DT on the right side of the offensive line, and the RG could release to block the inside LB (instead of the RT doing so), and the RT could release to block the FS while the right H-back could block the LB on the right. These are all reads by the OL and blockers - depending on where the defensive tackles and ends line up.

Here is another example, showing how the one OT and 1 C or OG might brush block DT's, then release to seal/block LB's (notice the dotted line showing their potential path to release) ... in this example the FB must block a LB:

And for comparison, one image of a simple "gap" or "man" blocking diagram, with the LG pulling to the right to block into the gap and block the OLB on the right side of the LOS:

 

[Rutgers25]

Last copy and paste from that thread:

OK .. re-watched the game in entirety ... still had trouble with the numbers on the uniforms, and occasionally had trouble identifying who was running the ball.

Here is my count of the team results on Zone Blocking Scheme versus Pull Blocking Scheme:

1) Zone Blocking: RU used the zone blocking scheme 29 times, rushing for 171 yards and 1 TD, for 5.9 yards per carry.

2) Pull Blocking: RU used a pull blocking scheme 14 times, rushing for 81 yards and 2 TD, for 5.8 yards per carry.

There was also a screen pass that was a backwards pass, to James that counted as a 16 yard run.

Individually, Hicks split his carries roughly in half: 9 Zones and 9 Pulls. He averaged over 6.5 yards per carry with pull blocking and less than 5.5 yards per carry with zone blocking. James ran all but 2 of his carries in the zone blocking scheme, averaging just over 5 yards per carry in the zone blocking scheme. Martin had just 1 pull blocking run, with 8 zone blocking runs, averaging over 7 yards per zone blocking run. Goodwin ran twice, both in the pull blocking scheme.

Also, as a team, all 4 times RU ran in short yardage situations RU used a pull blocking scheme. RU also used the pull blocking scheme the last 5 times RU ran the ball, towards the end. Prior to those runs, RU had run the ball using the zone blocking scheme 29 times, and used the pull blocking scheme just 9 times (4 of which were short yardage situations).

My conclusions (all speculative, and based on just 1 game, against a weak FCS team):

1) RU is primarily a Zone Blocking scheme team this year, but it uses pull blocking for shorter yardage situations.

2) James and Martin are better using the zone blocking scheme, and almost never ran the ball with the pull blocking scheme. Possibly due to their style of running (especially James, with his patience and cutting ability).

3) Hicks can run effectively in both run blocking schemes, but because he is a more of a power back might be more effective than James or Martin when RU wants to use the pull blocking, or in short yardage situations.

One more item I noticed: Adams did come in for Austin at CB - he came in after the first series RU played defense in the 3rd quarter, after Austin was beaten 2 more times, once on a slant and once on a zone coverage (though the zone pass was not completed - the ball was overthrown a ridiculously wide open WR, who was open because Austin did not track him).

I thought Adams played very well. He really stuck the RB 2 times on run support, and he was right on a WR 2 times on slants - one a pass break up and one a completion but immediate tackle.

Interesting note about Austin. I hope he grasps the timing of when to let the WR release sooner than later. .....we're counting on him to step up.