the Polo Grounds

Back to the forum index
Linear

Purdue run play cut-up

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:38

This is our 2Q drive that starts about 5:00 before the half. We have just stopped Purdue on a 4th & 1 (after giving them great field position having to punt out of our own end zone).

We get the ball back on our own 28. First play is a handoff to Folston.

link should go to the play:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x25xwxk_nd-pu-2q_sport&start=1460

presnap read:

- 3x1 personnel
- Folston left
- Koyack slot right
- Robinson split right

defense:

- six in the box
- looks like cover 1 man under

[image]

At the snap it will be a handoff Folston right.

* Hanratty at LG pulling right
* Elmer slanting inside
* Koyack releasing to the second level

[image]

Watch the two guys in red (DE and LB). They will be unblocked and wrap up Folston in the backfield for an easy TFL.

[image]

I cannot figure out the blocking assignments on this one. There are multiple problems here:

1. Obviously Hanratty is way too late to get over for any kind of lead block. The Purdue players are in the backfield and past him before he can engage.

2. Elmer ignores the DE over him to slant inside.

3. Koyack ignores the LB to engage the cover man over him.

4. Folston is dead in the water.

For this play to be successful, what should happen?

Tags:
cut-ups

locked
  586 views

Thought on running against Purdue

by CK08, Friday, September 19, 2014, 10:42 @ Jay

This is now three years in a row that we haven't been able to run the ball against a Purdue team that couldn't stop anyone else.

Reading this and the OFD post, it seems to me that part of the problem is these plays need either a lead blocker or a well-executed constraint element, and we're not doing either. However, we've shown both of those against other teams.

Is the problem maybe that we just assume we can beat Purdue consistently in one-on-one matchups and we just use a very simple stripped-down running game against them? And then Purdue's front seven plays way over their heads, just like the rest of the team, and we start losing those one-on-one battles and are unable to run the ball?

locked
  286 views

that seems pretty reasonable

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, September 19, 2014, 10:47 @ CK08

The good news is that at least the past two years the running scheme and execution have gotten better after the Purdue game.

It seems like Hanratty and Elmer were really struggling. There was a run early in 1Q where McDaniel had to beat two guys to the edge because Hanratty couldn't get his hand on either during a pull. The line played well at times, but I'm hoping getting Lombard back on the field will make a big difference.

locked
  275 views

It's not cover 1

by terribletr, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:26 @ Jay

It's cover 2 to the field and I would guess cover 3 to the boundary.

It's mostly a matter of missed assignments. If Golson has the option to pull the ball, he would still be running thru. The B gap.

Bad execution and missed blocks.

This is where not practicing the run game much shows up.

locked
  379 views

thanks. was just a guess based on presnap read

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:33 @ terribletr

[ No text ]

locked
  319 views

Check to a pass with a 1-high safety

by Mo, Charlotte, NC, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:24 @ Jay

I say that because it seems the LBs seem to be playing run the whole way, being so close to the LOS.

locked
  339 views

Also, what are the benefits of that formation?

by Mike (bart), Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:21 @ Jay

For a spread team, we certainly aren't using much of the field there. Not only did we fail to put any constraint on the defense, but we really congested the number of potential blocking assignments for our guys to choose.

locked
  346 views

Yeah, we ran outside to the near side a few times

by Brendan ⌂ @, The Chemical and Oil Refinery State, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:23 @ Mike (bart)

I never understand that. Why not run to the far side and have the keep read run to the near side?

---
Listen to the voice of Life, and you will hear Life crying, "Be!"

locked
  349 views

cue the entire Holtz era

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:33 @ Brendan

"Why the hell is he running option to the short side?!?"

locked
  338 views

Couple of thoughts

by Mike (bart), Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:09 @ Jay

1. What are the backside receivers doing? Are they running routes or stalking the DBs? This could have been a run/pass read that Golson screwed up on

2. This could also be some kind of inverted veer concept in which Golson is actually supposed to shoot up the middle on a pull.

I suppose it's possible that 1 & 2 could both be true

locked
  371 views

Elmer on lb

by Supe ⌂, VA, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:07 @ Jay

It looks like the whole line counted one off. The guard was to kick the guy out. OT on LB, guard on Dt. Both OT and guard took one guy too far in

locked
  369 views

Looks like an inverted veer

by burger23 ⌂, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:03 @ Jay

Golson reads the DE with the BS guard pulling as a lead blocker for the QB.

Golson probably should have kept but Elmer didn't keep his block anyway. It was a doomed play.

locked
  382 views

I agree with Burgs

by PBurns ⌂ @, Ah Denver, the Sunshine State. Beautiful, Friday, September 19, 2014, 11:22 @ burger23

Inverted veer. The fact that the end actually slants outside and Golson STILL gives is upsetting to me.

---
Just run 4 verts

locked
  256 views

I don't disagree

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, September 19, 2014, 11:37 @ PBurns

But at the same time, I can't blame Kelly and Denbrock for limiting Golson's pitch-count. If he takes a hit and misses time, this team is in big time trouble.

locked
  248 views

I would put this read squarely in the

by PBurns ⌂ @, Ah Denver, the Sunshine State. Beautiful, Friday, September 19, 2014, 12:15 @ HumanRobot

"UNLESS IT'S REALLY OBVIOUS" camp. The end is a full yard outside of where he started the play.

---
Just run 4 verts

locked
  242 views

I completely agree on that

by burger23 ⌂, Friday, September 19, 2014, 11:49 @ HumanRobot

But if Kelly isn't willing to cut loose with EG, why is he calling an option play in the first place? Just call an outside zone if you want to give Folston the ball on the edge.

locked
  249 views

putting apparent incompetence on tape

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, September 19, 2014, 12:02 @ burger23

to TOTALLY FOOL Stanford and FSU into SUPER EFFECTIVE PLAYS.

locked
  237 views

if it's inverted veer

by HumanRobot @, Cybertron, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:36 @ burger23

It should be a Golson keeper with Folston throwing a block on his eventual tackler, right?

locked
  325 views

That seems right

by burger23 ⌂, Friday, September 19, 2014, 11:08 @ HumanRobot

With that LB flying upfield I don't think there's any way he would have tackled Golson if he had kept it anyway. Folston probably would have just kept executing the fake to the outside, taking the DE and the LB with him.

locked
  252 views

Inverted?

by Greg, the 'Dena, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:26 @ burger23

At what range?

---
#asshat

locked
  323 views

First off, 6 players to block 7 defenders.

by PAK, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:56 @ Jay

5 linemen and Koyack to block 4 DL, 2 LB, and a SS. And since Hanratty is pulling, that's not really a traditional zone read look, correct?

There almost has to be an OL communication error here.

For this play to be remotely successful, I think that RT has to take the circled LB, the RG has to take the right defensive tackle, and Hanratty can kick out the DE with his pull. This leaves any free runners coming from the backside rather than right into the teeth of the play.

locked
  390 views

Golson's read

by burger23 ⌂, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:06 @ PAK

should have evened up the blockers vs. defenders numbers, but Purdue read it all the way with the LB scrapping down to take Folston. Unless EG learns to pull the ball these option plays aren't going to work. Teams will never respect the QB run.

locked
  362 views

I'm no OL coach, but my guess

by ndroman21, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:54 @ Jay

LT engages right DE.

LG pulls to kick out left DE

C engages DT

RG engages DT

RT chips DE before engating left LB

TE engages safety.

right LB gets caught up in the line scrum

locked
  391 views

Maybe if Koyack were attached and taking the DE?

by Brendan ⌂ @, The Chemical and Oil Refinery State, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:44 @ Jay
edited by Brendan, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:50

Koyack and Elmer combo the DE, then Elmer takes the LB. Hanratty would be pulling to take on the second level guy that Koyack apparently had. I'm not sure I have a lot of confidence in Koyack being able to handle a DE one-on-one, but maybe that would work.

EDIT: Just went and watched the clip. What a complete cluster of a play. Elmer's instructions can't possibly have been to ignore the two closest defenders, right? Man, OL play in that game was so below par.

---
Listen to the voice of Life, and you will hear Life crying, "Be!"

locked
  395 views

Could Golson pull it there?

by Buffalo @, The Dirty South, Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:50 @ Brendan

Seems like we had numbers on the backside of that play. He seems to be watching the DE on the play-side before completing the give to Folston. Had he pulled it and taken on off on the backside, isn't that a big play?

locked
  378 views

If Stanley holds his block, I think so

by Brendan ⌂ @, The Chemical and Oil Refinery State, Friday, September 19, 2014, 08:21 @ Buffalo

I'm not sure where the high safety went - presumably he dropped on the snap and would've come back towards Golson if he took off backside. But aside from him, we had a hat on a hat on the backside and it could've at least been a decent gain.

---
Listen to the voice of Life, and you will hear Life crying, "Be!"

locked
  350 views
374449 Postings in 32693 Threads, 204 registered users, 126 users online (4 registered, 122 guests)
Contact
powered by my little forum