Exploiting Situations: West Virginia vs Clemson

Dana Holgorsen has earned a reputation for himself by fielding offenses that light up the scoreboard and put up monster stats. He doesn't do this by playing small ball; picking up a few yards here and there. He does it by creating explosive plays. Big plays happen when the offense exploits a weakness in the defense or a defender or two blow their assignment. In the first quarter of the Orange Bowl, the West Virginia offense completed a 34 yard pass to a wide open receiver. This play is an example of how the offense can create explosive plays by exploiting a weakness in the defense.

The play that will be analyzed can be seen here:

This play was created by exploiting 4 primary factors:

1. Situation (Down and Distance)

2. Ball Position

3. Formation

4. Personnel

The first factor is probably the biggest one on a football game meta-level. The final 3 can be chunked together into one thing.

EXPLOITING THE SITUATION

In a previous post I covered down and distance strategy. The goal for the defense is to get the offense into a manageable 3rd down situation (3rd and 7 +). The way to do that is to limit gains on first down to 3 yards or less. This is why the running game is so important to the offense because it can keep the offense out of difficult third down situations.

This play occurred on first down. It is in Clemson's best interest to keep the West Virginia offense from gaining more than 3 yards. In order to do that they can't be overly worry about the big play. This does not mean you allow the big play, but that you get defensive calls in that are more aggressive towards the run. Because of this principal, Clemson would most likely be run conscious in this particular situation. "Run Conscious" meaning probably in a base front with zone coverage.

BALL POSITION, FORMATION, PERSONNEL

These next three factors work together.

Ball Position

The ball is on the hash, it is on or around the hash approximately 80% of the time. Modern defenses are even more concerned with ball position because opposing offense have become more creative in utilizing it. The hash is such a concern that many defenses will call coverage strength to the field the majority of the time. One of the few things that will keep a defense from calling its passing strength to the field is trips formations.

Formation

This brings us to our next factor. Holgorsen uses a trips formation on this play. Defending trips involves a varied plan of attack in and of itself. When you combine the formation with the ball position a very particular set of circumstances need to be considered. First, the trips are into the boundary. This is not a common occurrence for the defense. Most defensive trips schemes are built on the premise that the offense is running trips towards the field. Boundary trips is in the back of the defensive coordinators mind, but does not call for concern like field trips does.

How does boundary trips effect the defensive thought process? First there is one WR with a ton of field to work with. This makes you think twice about putting a corner one on one with him. Second there is more space to work with for outside running plays, option or stretch being the most probable in this situation. Third, the constricted area that the 3 WR's have makes many trips side passing plays not likely. Finally, the offense can still out-flank the defense albeit with less space. This is still a cause for concern, because if not properly aligned, the defense can be hit for a 5-10 yard running or passing play easily despite the lack of space.

Because of this the defense still needs to align properly to avoid getting out-flanked while being concerned (even more so) with weak-side (field side) runs or passes.

The defense has the classic trips problem, but magnified to the open side. Which side has priority? The trips or open side? One of the things some defenses factor in is the alignment of the back. However, in this particular formation this is no help, because he is aligned directly behind the QB.

Personnel

Finally the personnel is a cause for concern. In this particular play one player is the main concern. The single side WR Stedman Bailey #3 does not have the most catches on the team, however, he leads the team in yards per reception, yards receiving, and touchdown catches. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he is doing it on big plays. Bailey's alignment is a concern as well. He is in a position to run a quick out, comeback, fade, or anything else. His alignment opens up a large range of potential routes.

Putting it Together

Factoring all things together it is probably in the defense's best interest to free the field side safety up and have him help on the run and with coverage on Bailey. Calls like Solo or Mable would not be ideal for this situation.

THE PLAY

Clemson's Defense

They opted for a basic 4-2 front alignment and the backers are not overly cheated one way or the other. This is considered typical for this formation. The secondary is showing a two shell, which could mean anything. This could be a disguise for any number of things. The alignment that stands out is the boundary side corner. He is aligned outside the #1 WR 7 yards deep. He is not likely to come down into a 1/2's concept. Plus if the corner was playing a 1/2 concept he would need the field side safety to cover #3 vertical or a backer( vs this play that would not have been a good idea either). He appears to be getting ready to bail out.

They end up playing some type of 1/4's concept to the trips side with a 1/2's concept to the open side (could be a bracket).

WEST VIRGINIA'S PLAY

It appears that the QB might have been (don't know for sure) looking towards Bailey 1st on some type of Air-Raid "Choice" concept.

Upon seeing the double coverage, the QB would work his progression back to the trips side. This is where Dana Holgerson's play call most clearly exploits the situation. If he gets Bailey one on one, then great, throw him the ball (he actually still gets behind the double team). If they double cover him, then he has a play that will exploit the likely coverages that a defense would run on first down.

If you look at the routes, this play type can be effective versus most first down defensive calls. It really hurts Clemson's quarters concept.

The H vertical route draws the Strong Safety's attention. He cannot play the post route by the Z because the H would be wide open. The corner cannot get into coverage of the H or Z because of his outside alignment. The only thing the defense could have called to be solid versus these routes is a 1/4's bails (pure zone). That is not a sound call on first down.

This play makes the corner irrelevant and forces the SS to make a decision. He chooses to cover to the H (wise choice) and allows the z to come open on the post.

The defensive coordinator had to recognize the possibility of these play types, so he must of had a plan for them. Many defense's use backers to play wall technique on the first route to work towards the middle of the field, this forces QB's to throw high balls that give DB's time to break on it.

So where were the backers?

Its was a first down situation, and the offense showed run first. The play action kept the backers from assisting in coverage. You can't blame the backers either. Its first down, Division I linebackers are taught to play run first especially in a 1st and 10 situation.

The play action draws the backers up and because of the coverage called the Z is able to get wide open. What other zone coverages could cover these routes effectively and keep the defense from covering Bailey 1 on 1? Besides pure zone quarters, none really without linebacker help

I am not gonna draw them all up, but think about it.

1/2's: Who is gonna cover the post? There is 3 vertical routes to stress the safeties.

Cover 3: The H is gonna open on the seam with no-one to jam him, unless you play a mable tech and drop the SS down. I already discussed that this is a bad idea considering the other things the offense could do in this situation.

Special: Same problems that Clemson had, the SS is in a tough situation.

CONCLUSION

This play shows how the defense can be manipulated on 1st down. Given the situation, formation, ball position, and personnel the defense will be influenced to do certain things. If the offense understands what the defense will do, then they will be able to create big play opportunity. This shows why Holgorsen has been successful

Game Dynamics and Football: Part I: Base Rules and Talent

Any type of true game is governed by principals and many of these principals apply across many games. There are principals shared in football, backgammon, poker, chess, basketball, and many others. If you look at games in depth enough it becomes easy to see how principals apply. In part I I will discuss 2 dynamics things that play a role in football and compare them to other games.


Dynamic I: Base Rules- Field Size & the Number of Players Effect on Scoring

Fundamentally, base rules have the most significant impact on the way a game is played and developed. Monopoly would change if the players started off with less money. Poker would change drastically, if 6 cards made a hand as opposed to 5. Basic rules are prior to any of the in depth strategies and tactics that influence a game. Two of the most basic rules in football are the size of the playing field and number of players.

In football the field size is approximately 100 x 53.4 yards (120 counting End-zones). At any time up to 11 players from each team may be on the field. The game that we work with and enjoy is fundamentally shaped by those two characteristics. Both of these things influence the number of points that can be scored on average. The relationship of these two factor has an immense impact on the number of points that can be scored in a football game.

Consider this example. If football was played on a 20 x 20 field, with 11 players the game would change dramatically. Passing would not be a big part. Offenses would look more historical, the single-wing, wing-t, power-I, and double-slot would dominate the scene. The game would be one long rugby scrum. Why? Because there would not be enough space to score quickly and throw the ball. The defense would load all 11 guys in the box to stop the run. It would be harder to find "holes" in the defense. The game would be drastically different than the one we see on TV today, just because of 1 rule change.

Now imagine that the # of players allowed on the field increased to 12 and the field size remained the same. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal) the amount of scoring would decrease on average. Adding a 12th player helps the defense tremendously because, they have an extra person to defend the same amount of space. The offense is in the business of creating unprotected space. "Holes" and "windows" are offensive words to describe unprotected space. Conversely, defenses are based around protecting space, by having "gap" assignments and coverage "zones." The basic struggle in football begins with the defense creating a plan to protect space on the field while the offense at the same time maneuvers to create unprotected space. With 12 players the defense would be able to better defend the field. The 12th player would not have an overall net-positive effect for the offense. Think about it. One of the time tested principals "the offense wants to trade the defense 1 for 1 with defense" is a principal for a reason. Trading one for one is a way of creating more space for the offense. The field size remains the same while the # of players active on a play is lower.

The principal holds true if you lower the number of players to 10. The offense would be able to even easier to find unprotected space, Especially in the passing game. If you have ever played 7 on 7 touch football on a full size football field, you will know what I am talking about. The defense would have more players stressed. The would be caught in position where they are needed to play run first and play a major part in pass coverage as well. Also, the limited number of players would make it easier for the offense to get single coverage on a WR. In short, reducing the number of players would allow points to increase.

Arena football is a prime example of this dynamic. Arena football had to create some seemingly bizarre rules to allow the sport to function properly. Why did these rules come into effect? Because there was a conflict with these basic rules of field size and the number of players. The field is essentially reduced 50% in size, but the number of players is only reduced 27%. This created a playing environment that had players defending less space than they would in typical football. Given the logic I presented earlier, Arena football would be a defensive game. However, it is not. Arena football is the exact opposite, a score-fest. Does this mean I was wrong about the previous statements. No! Other variables changed besides the field size and number of players. Rules were put in place to assist the offense. Some rules limited the defenses ability to defend space. For example, rules limit the sides a blitz can from, and until recently, severely limited the mobility of the "Jack Backer." Also, simple rules like forward motion gave the offense an added boost. These rules helped to equalize and overcome the fundamental advantage the defense had in the amount of field each player had to defend. Overall, the rule changes allowed the arena football teams to score more points on average than NFL teams.

Dynamic II: Talent Level Effects on Strategy and Tactics

I should not have to prove to anyone how big an impact the talent of a team has on its performance. Experience tell us that the team with more talent wins more that a team with less talent. No team, no matter how much more talented is a 100% favorite. I will admit at times a team might be around a 99% favorite, but there is always a chance for the underdog to win. What having a talent advantage does give a team, is winning chances above 50%, making them the favorite. Looking at talent in a vacuum, we can begin to approximate winning percentages. However, other factors like a teams overall strategy, tactics, and the level of proficiency a team has at those things can have an effect on a teams winning chances as well. Before taking into account those things we must first consider, the effect talent has on the development of strategy and tactics.

Strategy deals with the overall view and philosophy of how to plan to win the game. Some teams prefer to run the ball, control the clock, and play field position. On the other hand some teams like to turn a game into an aggressive score fest. Tactics is the means by which a team executes their overall strategy.

An Example- Chess

The game dynamics of strategy and tactics play a huge and clear role in a game like chess. Consider a chess game where the black side starts the game with one less pawn. The person with the additional pawn (white), can be considered "more talented" in this example. Lets look at the overall strategy for each side in this example.

The white side wants to play a very straight forward and simple strategy. The best plan for white is to trade pieces off: a rook for a rook, a queen for a queen, and so on. His goal is to trade off enough piece that allow him to turn his extra pawn into a queen. Using the queen the white side will easily checkmate the black side. On the other hand, Blacks strategy is to prevent this from happening. Somewhere down the line, black needs to win a pawn back to equalize the game.

Tactically, both sides want to execute their desired strategies. What type of tactics would each side like to employ? First consider black. Black's will need to keep pieces protected and develop a complicated position. One where each move is difficult to decide. Black hopes that he can make better tactical moves than white can. In short, black wants to complicate the game and put more emphasis on decision making and less on the strength of each others pieces. There is a risk-reward to this plan. The reward is, this game plan will increase the likelihood of white making a mistake that will equalize the game. The risk is that black is more likely to make a mistake himself and get crushed by white. White wants to keep the game simple. He is content to move the game along and trade peaces off. His moves will seek to keep his decisions easy. Ultimately, white wants to avoid mistakes. His strategy will be more defensive and conservative. The goal for him is to keep decisions easy and rely on his advantage in pieces to win.

From chess a simple game strategy becomes apparent:

When you have an advantage, you want to keep the game simple and let your advantage take you to victory. When you are at a disadvantage, you want to complicate the game and lower the impact that your opponent's advantage has on the game.

For both players the goal is to maximize their chances to win.

Application to Football

Does this simple strategy apply to football? Yes, but not as simply as it does to chess. Unlike chess pieces, football players think for themselves separate from the people in charge of game strategy (coaches). Lets look how a talented team might put together a strategy, for an upcoming season. If this team will have a talent advantage over most teams, it would be beneficial to utilize a conservative football game plan. Offensively, this game plan should seek to protect the football by establishing the running game, and using passes only when necessary. The running game will be simple and favor match-ups over misdirection. They should deviate from this plan enough to mix up their calls to keep the defense honest. Defensively, the plan should be to play sound gap control zone defense will force the opposing offense to work to score. The idea behind this strategy is to limit mistakes and allow their talent to win football games.

The strategy for an under-talented team is different. From the opening kickoff the weaker team should be more aggressive. Onside-kicks, trick plays, 4th down attempts, and blitzes will all be a part of their game-plan. This type of team will need to do things to compensate for their lack of talent. If this team were to play the other team mentioned in the previous paragraph, these things would need to be done. If possible, on defense this team will need to be multiple and confuse the up front blocking assignments of their strong opponent. Creating situations where defenders are unblocked due to error, offsets some of the talent disadvantages. If this plan is successful, they will force the other team to throw more, in effect create more turnover opportunities. This is exactly what the stronger team wants to avoid. On offense the weaker team needs to be deceptive and creative. Misdirection, well-planned passes, and trick plays will keep the stronger team on their toes. This game-plan puts the weaker team in a position to get beat by a significant margin more often, but does allow them more of a winning chance.

This is not absolute by any means, and there many more variables that apply to game-planning besides talent. Things like continuity, mixture of personnel, player types, coaching philosophy, and system familiarity all influence the development of football strategy and tactics. Teams with weaker talent have won with a simple straightforward ball control philosophy and strong teams have been successful with aggressive, creative, and deceptive strategies.

The idea behind what I am stating is that talent can play a big role in the development of overall strategy.

If you have a talent advantage it is in your best interest to let it win for you; conversely, if you are at a disadvantage it is in your interest to limit the impact talent has on the game.

This is a complicated way of saying what all great coaches believe: Put your players in the best possible position to win. Teams like Boise State and SMU are examples of sound game-planning when you have a talent disadvantage.


Conclusion

Game dynamics are important to consider in all games. There are too many to consider, I have just touched on a couple of basic ones to illustrate that football is subject to the same dynamics as other games. In Part II I will discuss the game dynamics of the play-calling and scouting.