Bear Raid Quick Passing Game

9,401 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 12 yr ago by Big C
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've got a new post up here: http://calfootballstrategy.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-bear-raid-quick-passing-game.html

Like last time, if anyone has any questions I think it's easier to talk about them in this thread rather than in the comments section of the blog itself, so fire away.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, we weren't able to do video for this post, but if you've downloaded the games and you want to see these plays in action here are some examples:
Northwestern: 4:02 in the 1st, 11:09 in the 3rd, 3:27 in the 3rd, 12:45 in the 4th, 3:48 in the 4th
Portland State: 9:05 in the 1st
Ohio State: 14:38 in the 1st, 13:07 in the 1st, 8:37 in the 1st
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
question ... do not if this is related to the new post ..but im curious as to why the WR blocking was not as good as the year before .. is this scheme related


http://pac-12.com/article/2012/10/09/tuesday-tape-room-cals-freshmen-wide-receivers-compete-without-rock


not trying to bag on likens < chandler but something was defiantly off in 13

hope it gets fixed this season
Cal_Fan2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842280269 said:

I've got a new post up here: http://calfootballstrategy.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-bear-raid-quick-passing-game.html

Like last time, if anyone has any questions I think it's easier to talk about them in this thread rather than in the comments section of the blog itself, so fire away.


thanrks berk. I always feel I should be getting semester credits for reading and comprehending your good work....
tenplay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842280279 said:




not trying to bag on likens < chandler but something was defiantly off in 13

hope it gets fixed this season


"defiantly"? You probably mean "definitely". Don't mean to pick on you. But I have noticed more of my college students making the same error a lot, which I don't understand because the two words are not that similar and have drastically different meanings. Has anyone else seen the same spelling or word choice mistake?
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just a heads-up for people who've read it already, I've put together some video for each of these concepts and added it to the post so you guys can see what these look like on the field.
freshfunk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good stuff, berk. Interesting read. I don't know if you've looked at this but I was wondering whether these concepts seemed to be less successful as the season went on and opposing teams had tape of our concepts. I ask because I noticed you gave stats and took video against NU against whom our offense looked pretty productive.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
freshfunk;842280395 said:

Good stuff, berk. Interesting read. I don't know if you've looked at this but I was wondering whether these concepts seemed to be less successful as the season went on and opposing teams had tape of our concepts. I ask because I noticed you gave stats and took video against NU against whom our offense looked pretty productive.


I haven't done that analysis yet, but I will. These first few posts are just introducing our most common concepts. Once this basic vocabulary and way of thinking about football is in place, I'm going to go through the season in three game groups looking at broader elements of game-planning and strategy. I will say, though, that the offense added a lot over the course of the season.
kad02002
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great stuff. Shows why those of us who have coached believe that there are solid fundamentals and proven concepts behind the scheme.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kad02002;842280494 said:

Great stuff. Shows why those of us who have coached believe that there are solid fundamentals and proven concepts behind the scheme.


This is a good point to add regarding freshfunk's question above. These concepts are old and ubiquitous. There's no way that Northwestern and Ohio State weren't expecting them, didn't know how to defend them, or didn't practice against them. The main thing that teams would know late in the season that they wouldn't know earlier is about our specific tendencies in using those plays. Tendencies will differ when a coach switches teams and also from season to season at the same school. Also important and related to tendencies: Within each play we aren't equally good at hitting all the routes yet. The concept might, on the chalk-board, be very difficult to defend, but if the defense knows that we can't hit the go route on stick then their coverage choices get a lot easier. That's the kind of thing that becomes very clear as the season progresses.
cccbear04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tenplay;842280327 said:

"defiantly"? You probably mean "definitely". Don't mean to pick on you. But I have noticed more of my college students making the same error a lot, which I don't understand because the two words are not that similar and have drastically different meanings. Has anyone else seen the same spelling or word choice mistake?


The problem arises from spelling definitely as definately or some similar mistake. Many people especially on phones don't notice autocorrect fixing to defiantly. Source: personal experience
StillNoStanfurdium
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cccbear04;842280505 said:

The problem arises from spelling definitely as definately or some similar mistake. Many people especially on phones don't notice autocorrect fixing to defiantly. Source: personal experience

That defiantly seems to be the case.
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842280503 said:

This is a good point to add regarding freshfunk's question above. These concepts are old and ubiquitous. There's no way that Northwestern and Ohio State weren't expecting them, didn't know how to defend them, or didn't practice against them. The main thing that teams would know late in the season that they wouldn't know earlier is about our specific tendencies in using those plays. Tendencies will differ when a coach switches teams and also from season to season at the same school. Also important and related to tendencies: Within each play we aren't equally good at hitting all the routes yet. The concept might, on the chalk-board, be very difficult to defend, but if the defense knows that we can't hit the go route on stick then their coverage choices get a lot easier. That's the kind of thing that becomes very clear as the season progresses.


Not sure it's possible but have you done any analysis on the effects of the OL on the passing game, that Ds know how and when to attack based upon passing tendencies, especially when such big leads early in the game made passing more necessary and obvious.

As usual, great stuff, Berk.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SonOfCalVa;842280539 said:

Not sure it's possible but have you done any analysis on the effects of the OL on the passing game, that Ds know how and when to attack based upon passing tendencies, especially when such big leads early in the game made passing more necessary and obvious.

As usual, great stuff, Berk.


I'll definitely have some stuff on the OL when I talk about game-planning/adjustments more generally. A few things do jump out from looking the spreadsheets. In the first three games, all of our sacks came on second/third and long. This is true even though we threw down-field a fair amount on first down and had several first and long situations thanks to penalties, so there is clearly something situational going on as you suggest. What's surprising is the number of sacks that come on three man rushes. We aren't getting crazy blitzes or anything like that on passing downs. I don't think any sacks were the result of a blitz in the first three games. Instead we're getting into trouble because, in long yardage situations, the DE's are given 2-way go's. This means that they have no specific gap responsibility in the run game and can do what they need to do to get to the QB. DE's that weren't beating our tackles in other situations all of the sudden do on 2nd/3rd and long. We need a general upgrade both in strength and athleticism/technique to keep this from happening.
Haashole
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are all defiantly hatters
SonOfCalVa
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842280553 said:

I'll definitely have some stuff on the OL when I talk about game-planning/adjustments more generally. A few things do jump out from looking the spreadsheets. In the first three games, all of our sacks came on second/third and long. This is true even though we threw down-field a fair amount on first down and had several first and long situations thanks to penalties, so there is clearly something situational going on as you suggest. What's surprising is the number of sacks that come on three man rushes. We aren't getting crazy blitzes or anything like that on passing downs. I don't think any sacks were the result of a blitz in the first three games. Instead we're getting into trouble because, in long yardage situations, the DE's are given 2-way go's. This means that they have no specific gap responsibility in the run game and can do what they need to do to get to the QB. DE's that weren't beating our tackles in other situations all of the sudden do on 2nd/3rd and long. We need a general upgrade both in strength and athleticism/technique to keep this from happening.


Looking forward to your comments.
We're returning a QB with a season of learning under his belt and other very promising freshman; the WRs, some individuals but as a group, might rank near the top nationally.
They've all had a year with the system.
But, no wisdom here, without an effective OL, run and pass blocking, any offensive scheme is doomed. Games are won and lost in the trenches.
The pass blocking technique, vertical drop, is a bit suspect.
bearingup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And while Goff did some nice work at times, and seems to have a great mental attitude, he needs to hit the open guy 30 yards downfield far more often than he did as a frosh. That would open up a lot more for the run game as well. Hasn't been touched on much on this board lately, but he misfired on a lot of long passes that were there to be made.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearingup;842280604 said:

And while Goff did some nice work at times, and seems to have a great mental attitude, he needs to hit the open guy 30 yards downfield far more often than he did as a frosh. That would open up a lot more for the run game as well. Hasn't been touched on much on this board lately, but he misfired on a lot of long passes that were there to be made.


One of the big take-aways from this series for me is that Goff can be much, much better than he was last season in all aspects of the passing game. That's not surprising since he was a true frosh, but when you watch the games you can see how many yards we're leaving on the field even on passes that are completed, and how much more efficient the offense would be with more precision (not only from Goff but from everybody). It's not just the long passes that will hopefully be completed instead of overthrown, but also the short passes that will go for 10 yards instead of 5. One of the early mottos of the Air Raid was "Throw short to people who score," but right now we're throwing short to people who get tackled.
jamonit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearingup;842280604 said:

And while Goff did some nice work at times, and seems to have a great mental attitude, he needs to hit the open guy 30 yards downfield far more often than he did as a frosh. That would open up a lot more for the run game as well. Hasn't been touched on much on this board lately, but he misfired on a lot of long passes that were there to be made.


I would say even 20 yards down field... He struggled and that really hurt us. Forget wide open passes, but even in one on one he has a bad habit of throwing way to long or out of bounds. He wasn't giving his WRs a chance to make plays. When he did a few times keeping the ball in bounds we made plays. Because of this it leaves other teams not worrying about a pass over 20 yards. Any route past that is one on one and everyone else is up stopping the short pass and running game.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jamonit;842280617 said:

I would say even 20 yards down field... He struggled and that really hurt us. Forget wide open passes, but even in one on one he has a bad habit of throwing way to long or out of bounds. He wasn't giving his WRs a chance to make plays. When he did a few times keeping the ball in bounds we made plays. Because of this it leaves other teams not worrying about a pass over 20 yards. Any route past that is one on one and everyone else is up stopping the short pass and running game.


On the surface, it sounds like an accuracy problem, but I'm guessing there's a LOT more to it than that. A QB who is simply not an accurate passer is probably stuck with that, and doomed to a limited career.

jamonit (or Berk, or anyone else), could you comment on Goff's prospects for improvement over the next year or two?

My take was that I thought he did a great job for a true freshman, which usually bodes well for the future, but I didn't have a feel for what his upside is. Things I think he can improve on are his strength and mobility, his command of the offense and his being on exactly the same page as his receivers, as they grow together. One thing I thought I noticed was that his release seemed to become slower and more labored as the game wore on and he got up over 30-40 passes.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearingup;842280604 said:

And while Goff did some nice work at times, and seems to have a great mental attitude, he needs to hit the open guy 30 yards downfield far more often than he did as a frosh. That would open up a lot more for the run game as well. Hasn't been touched on much on this board lately, but he misfired on a lot of long passes that were there to be made.


You make a good point. As many of us noted during Spring and Summer Camps, Kline was a better long passer and Goff was a better short passer.
When SD chose Goff, I did not complain much since SD's BearRaid relies more on short passes than on long passes. But Goff's weakness was clear. My only hope is that Goff will get better at the long passes as he gets older and stronger. It is harder for a passer to acquire accuracy than for him to acquire strength.
But the real problem was poor performance by the OLine. With poor blocking, neither Goff nor Kline had much time to wait for the WR to get open downfield.

With poor blocking, the run game never got off the ground and the opposing D could simply sit back and clog the throwing lanes.
cal85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842280269 said:

I've got a new post up here: http://calfootballstrategy.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-bear-raid-quick-passing-game.html

Like last time, if anyone has any questions I think it's easier to talk about them in this thread rather than in the comments section of the blog itself, so fire away.


What is the PSR or key that the QB needs to check and what is the progression on each of the plays? I know that the triangle read makes it easier, but who should he be looking at first?

Great stuff!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842280503 said:

This is a good point to add regarding freshfunk's question above. These concepts are old and ubiquitous. There's no way that Northwestern and Ohio State weren't expecting them, didn't know how to defend them, or didn't practice against them. The main thing that teams would know late in the season that they wouldn't know earlier is about our specific tendencies in using those plays. Tendencies will differ when a coach switches teams and also from season to season at the same school. Also important and related to tendencies: Within each play we aren't equally good at hitting all the routes yet. The concept might, on the chalk-board, be very difficult to defend, but if the defense knows that we can't hit the go route on stick then their coverage choices get a lot easier. That's the kind of thing that becomes very clear as the season progresses.


The prior year Bigelow torched Ohio State at the Shoe. Louisiana Tech under Dykes/Franklin had a good running attack. Most of our plays start with play action. Being early in the season, I think Northwestern and Ohio State were quite reasonably focused on stopping Bigelow and the running game. As the season progressed, opposing teams saw that they did not have to worry about our running attack and our scheme lost some of its early effectiveness even as we added elements.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal85;842283433 said:

What is the PSR or key that the QB needs to check and what is the progression on each of the plays? I know that the triangle read makes it easier, but who should he be looking at first?

Great stuff!


Good question. The decision to work the frontside vs. the backside is pre-snap. If the QB sees a lot of open space for one of the slants, he throws it. You'll note that on stick we threw backside more than we threw playside, and completed over twice as many passes to the backside.

On the front side of all these plays I'm not sure how they coach it, but it looks to me like we're reading low to high and keying the flat defender, whoever it happens to be in a given coverage (so the QB's ability to understand the structure of different coverages is really important). If the flat defender steps outside we throw to the inside point of the triangle. If he stays inside we throw to the flat. If we get a CB in the flat, we'll throw the go route. In the first three games we never saw this against a clear Cover-2 read so it's possible that we're taking a peek at the go-route first, in which case the progression for stick and out is something like go, stick/out, flat, with the understanding that go is rarely going to be the throw. For corner the progression would probably be corner, flat, slant, but once again we expect to throw one of the short routes unless circumstances are really favorable for the deep throw. Goff never looked first to the deep route on any of these plays, so if that is his first read it was probably dismissed by alignment before the play started.
68great
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842283480 said:

Good question. The decision to work the frontside vs. the backside is pre-snap. If the QB sees a lot of open space for one of the slants, he throws it. You'll note that on stick we threw backside more than we threw playside, and completed over twice as many passes to the backside.

On the front side of all these plays I'm not sure how they coach it, but it looks to me like we're reading low to high and keying the flat defender, whoever it happens to be in a given coverage (so the QB's ability to understand the structure of different coverages is really important). If the flat defender steps outside we throw to the inside point of the triangle. If he stays inside we throw to the flat. If we get a CB in the flat, we'll throw the go route. In the first three games we never saw this against a clear Cover-2 read so it's possible that we're taking a peek at the go-route first, in which case the progression for stick and out is something like go, stick/out, flat, with the understanding that go is rarely going to be the throw. For corner the progression would probably be corner, flat, slant, but once again we expect to throw one of the short routes unless circumstances are really favorable for the deep throw. Goff never looked first to the deep route on any of these plays, so if that is his first read it was probably dismissed by alignment before the play started.


IMO, one reason why is that the OLine usually did not give Goff much time to go long.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus;842283454 said:

The prior year Bigelow torched Ohio State at the Shoe. Louisiana Tech under Dykes/Franklin had a good running attack. Most of our plays start with play action. Being early in the season, I think Northwestern and Ohio State were quite reasonably focused on stopping Bigelow and the running game. As the season progressed, opposing teams saw that they did not have to worry about our running attack and our scheme lost some of its early effectiveness even as we added elements.


This'll be one of those interesting things to keep an eye on as I look at the rest of the season. In the tOSU game the majority of our good plays came on our basic runs/screens and our deep passing game was abysmal, so if tOSU was keying the run and leaving themselves vulnerable to the pass then the stats are completely flipped from what you'd expect.
cmfan64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is easy to forget that Jared was only a true freshman who just arrived from playing HS football. He is only going to get bigger, stronger and probably more accurate in his first full year of off season training. I expect to see a big improvement in his performance in 2014. If the staff is able to strengthen his supporting cast (which seems likely), we will be able to see the Bear Raid function the way Sonny and his staff designed it. I think a winning record is unlikely in 2014, improvement seems probable. Whether Sonny succeeds or fails in keeping his job, I don't think Jared will be the cause. The biggest worries are on the defensive side of the ball.:gobears:
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
68great;842283485 said:

IMO, one reason why is that the OLine usually did not give Goff much time to go long.


On these plays the drop and throw happen so fast that I don't think the OL makes a huge difference in the read. That'll probably be different for the plays in my next post, though.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842283498 said:

This'll be one of those interesting things to keep an eye on as I look at the rest of the season. In the tOSU game the majority of our good plays came on our basic runs/screens and our deep passing game was abysmal, so if tOSU was keying the run and leaving themselves vulnerable to the pass then the stats are completely flipped from what you'd expect.


Interesting--looking forward to your analysis!
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842283503 said:

On these plays the drop and throw happen so fast that I don't think the OL makes a huge difference in the read. That'll probably be different for the plays in my next post, though.


But doesn't it take longer for the deep pass to open up.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe;842283518 said:

But doesn't it take longer for the deep pass to open up.


On many other deep passes yes, especially deep crossers and the like. Here, though, the go route is really a hole throw. It's meant to hit a window between the squatting CB and the safety coming over the top. It should really be thrown in under two seconds. If this is a 30 or 40 yard throw it's way too late, which is what happened on the killer INT late in the Northwestern game (you can see this in the youtube video for "stick" on the blog).
pjlbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Berk18,
Thanks for educating me/us about our offense. In viewing Goff I think I noticed that Goff was telegraphing where he was going to throw the ball - at least on short passes he seemed to lock on to a receiver and the linebackers/db's would then race to the receiver before Goff even released the ball leading to next to zero yards after catch. Perhaps a fake to one receiver and then throw to another would give our wr's more space.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this - I'm just an amateur and die hard CAL Golden Bear.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pjlbear;842283661 said:

Berk18,
Thanks for educating me/us about our offense. In viewing Goff I think I noticed that Goff was telegraphing where he was going to throw the ball - at least on short passes he seemed to lock on to a receiver and the linebackers/db's would then race to the receiver before Goff even released the ball leading to next to zero yards after catch. Perhaps a fake to one receiver and then throw to another would give our wr's more space.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this - I'm just an amateur and die hard CAL Golden Bear.


YAC is something I think we can definitely improve on next year. It sounds like you're talking about the quick game specifically, so I'll mostly comment on that.

When LB's race to a receiver in the quick game, it's not necessarily because the QB is looking at that receiver. In most college defenses, in any given zone coverage the LB's are dropping to specific receivers, not to specific spots, and they'll drop to that guy when they read pass no matter what. We get no YAC's for two major reasons: One is that the LB's could be really athletic and disciplined in their zone drops. This accounts for some of it, but the majority of our problems come from our execution, which is reason #2.

Execution involves the QB making a quick decisive read. The faster he gets the ball out, the less time the LB has to get to the receiver. Goff was pretty good at this, at least early in the season, but he can probably get even faster. Execution is also about precision, though. On any play where a receiver is settling down in an inside void, where the QB throws it is as important as when he does. Let's say that the LB covering the receiver is coming from the left side. When the offense is running with a high level of precision, the QB will throw the ball to the receiver's right shoulder. This tells the receiver to spin upfield to the right, taking him away from the defender. The QB essentially throws the receiver to open grass. This is the kind of thing we didn't execute very well last year, at least early.

If we're having trouble with LB's, the best way to keep them out of their drops is actually with play-action. Remember that above I said that when the LB's read pass they'll drop over a specific receiver no matter what. Well, if they read run initially, they're going to have a hard time doing that and YAC's will result. Some of our best plays in the quick game came from using play action to create non-standard variants of the plays that I discuss in my post. This is something we did very sparingly early in the season, so we'll see how it develops as I watch the rest of the games, but this is something I think we could do a lot more of to suck LB's up and away from these quick routes.

Anyway, those are some thoughts on this problem. It'll be interesting to see how these kinds of things develop throughout the last 9 games of the season.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Berk: I'm finally getting around to reading your piece.

So here's my take: From an X's and O's standpoint this scheme makes sense because it assumes that all players are equal in speed. But it seems to me that Cal has under-estimated the degree to which pac-12 defenses have been upgraded. More specifically, the speed and athleticism in the pac-12 has changed the identity of the conference from primarily offense to much more defense. The following teams were supposed to offensive teams last year but won games on defense.

WSU
UCLA
USC
Utah
Washington

It is my opinion that the bear raid has seriously miscalculated the ability of our offensive skill players to win match-ups against DBs and LBs. Guys like Miles Jack are becoming more frequent and just don't exist in the WAC. These type of defenders can close in on whatever spaces seem to be there for Goff. The interception Goff threw to Ibraham Campbell, Northwestern's all conference safety is a prime example of this. Harper was open but Campbell's speed and athleticism gave him the opportunity to close and make a last second play, snatching the ball from Harper. And Harper was/is our best playmaker on offense. Even in the NFL, QBs often make the mistake of under-estimating the speed and athleticism of a defense. We all saw how that can completely neutralize a prolific passing game in the Super bowl.

The other concern I have with regard to the bear raid is the short passing game. The short passing game relies on yards after the catch. But, again, the receiver has to be able to outrun the D. We have some great speed guys at WR, but they were often stuffed near the LOS on short plays because the defenses were equally quick. Worse still, it seems that Dykes inherited WRs that are on the small side and have trouble blocking effectively. I noticed that he has recruited guys a little bigger. And, as good as Harper and Treggs are, they don't break alot of tackles unless they are already at speed.

The upshot is that the type of offense that seems to be gaining traction in the conference these days is the throw-back run based offense. Rather than try to out-run defenses in space, teams like Stanford are wearing defenses out at the LOS with punishing OLs. We do not have that type of OL. Of course this kind of offense would be useless without a plus defense that keeps the score low. We do not have a plus defense and our offensive scheme could actually undermine our defense by failing to possess the ball long enough.

So, in a sense, the direction Cal is going, while it seems innovative, is actually somewhat behind the times and is the exact opposite of what is needed as the pendulum swings back away from spread schemes. If Cal had done this 5 years ago, that would be one thing.

These schemes will always look great on paper, and, as Cal has historically proven, are an example of a great deal of ignorance with regard to trends in the pac-12. Some day, we will have a football program that is flexible enough to change with the times. But what we have had instead are coaches that are more married to their schemes than they are to their players.

I conceed that I know very little compared to you. And I do not have charts and stats as I am much more of a regular fan than an expert. So I hope you will prove me wrong, because I really don't want to be right about this.

One hope I have is that Rubenzer will provide an added dimension to our offense as a true dual threat. On long yardage situations he can improvise, gaining 10 to 15 yards per run. That is the only way I think the bear-raid can match-up effectively and neutralize an over-aggressive pass rush. Even with Goff, I think we should run more QB draw plays. It seems that the strength of our OL will be in the middle, which is the best place to run a QB draw. I can see Cochran, Adcock, Borrayo and Rigsbee opening up some pretty big holes. But, based on comments Dykes said about Kline, I'm not sure Dykes wants a QB that runs.

Thoughts?
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842283701 said:

Berk: I'm finally getting around to reading your piece.

So here's my take: From an X's and O's standpoint this scheme makes sense because it assumes that all players are equal in speed. But it seems to me that Cal has under-estimated the degree to which pac-12 defenses have been upgraded. More specifically, the speed and athleticism in the pac-12 has changed the identity of the conference from primarily offense to much more defense. The following teams were supposed to offensive teams last year but won games on defense.

WSU
UCLA
USC
Utah
Washington

It is my opinion that the bear raid has seriously miscalculated the ability of our offensive skill players to win match-ups against DBs and LBs. Guys like Miles Jack are becoming more frequent and just don't exist in the WAC. These type of defenders can close in on whatever spaces seem to be there for Goff. The interception Goff threw to Ibraham Campbell, Northwestern's all conference safety is a prime example of this. Harper was open but Campbell's speed and athleticism gave him the opportunity to close and make a last second play, snatching the ball from Harper. And Harper was/is our best playmaker on offense. Even in the NFL, QBs often make the mistake of under-estimating the speed and athleticism of a defense. We all saw how that can completely neutralize a prolific passing game in the Super bowl.

The other concern I have with regard to the bear raid is the short passing game. The short passing game relies on yards after the catch. But, again, the receiver has to be able to outrun the D. We have some great speed guys at WR, but they were often stuffed near the LOS on short plays because the defenses were equally quick. Worse still, it seems that Dykes inherited WRs that are on the small side and have trouble blocking effectively. I noticed that he has recruited guys a little bigger. And, as good as Harper and Treggs are, they don't break alot of tackles unless they are already at speed.
...



I've attacked the idea that we can't run our plays against athletic defenses in a number of different ways, but maybe a new approach is in order. We can look at your example of the Campbell INT. There is nothing uniquely Air Raid about throwing down the seam vs. Cover-3. The Air Raid isn't distinct because of the plays it uses or the concepts that those plays are built on. You can find triangle reads, floods, etc. in every pro-style play-book. The concepts work every Sunday against the most athletic defenses in the game. The Air Raid isn't distinct because of what it does run, but rather because of what it doesn't. In short, the Air Raid is different in the big picture in terms of its attack strategy and adjustments, but from snap to whistle it doesn't ask its players to do anything that every other offense wouldn't also ask them to do. You can argue that a limited playbook is easier to defend for other reasons, but athleticism isn't the crux here.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.