Re-Opening Old Wounds, Revisiting 2009 Cal @ Oregon Part V: Passing to Dickson Again
In case you missed the previous posts in this series, you may find them here: Part I: The DL Zone Read. Part II: A Defensive Stop. Part III: Baited & Busted. Part IV: Passing to Dickson.
-----------------------------------
In part IV of this series, I demonstrated how Oregon TE, Dickson, got open on a few of his catches. In fact, more specifically, I showed how Oregon called the very same play twice and completed passes to him (a play I shall herein refer to as the "sprint out pass to Dickson in the flat").
Well, I'm not done. Dickson had 11 catches on the day; a few of those are interesting enough to look at again, so we're back again examining how the heck he had such a great day.
Join me, please, as we slog our way through these horrible memories...
Dickson's 7th Catch:
Above is the pre-snap picture of the play. Oregon has 12 personnel out on the field (2 WRs, 2 TEs, 1 RB). They have placed two TEs to the right side of the offense, and twin WRs to the left side of the offense. The RB is towards the side of the WRs, and the open side of the field.
Oregon motions the TE off the line of scrimmage (LOS) across the formation.
Oh, and who is that TE? It's none other than #83 Ed Dickson. I've shown him above with his numbers.
And does anything else look familiar about this play? I SURE HOPE SO. If you read my previous post (part IV) [link needed], then something should seem oddly familiar.
Doesn't this formation look familiar? Doesn't this pre-snap motion look familiar?
COULD OREGON BE RUNNING THE EXACT SAME PLAY AGAIN???
Answer: Yes. It's the play from the previous part of my series. It's the "sprint out pass to Dickson in the flat" play.
Above is the post-snap picture of the play. Again, the play is a sprint out. The offensive line slides its protection over to the left, towards the open side of the field, the WRs, and Dickson. The Oregon QB, Masoli, rolls out to this left too.
It's the same play!
Nothing changes! The WRs push deep. The outside WR runs a "go." The slot WR runs a skinny post. (see below footnote) The outside WR runs a deep comeback, and the slot WR runs a deep out. These routes push the defensive zones back. And Dickson, runs his little easy flat route underneath the WRs.
[footnote: Upon further review of more game film, it has come to my attention that the routes run by the outside and slot wide receivers are a "deep comeback" and a "deep out," respectively. When I originally watched the film of these earlier plays, I could not see the WRs because they were off the screen, and made a guess as to their routes. However, the offense ran the same play in the 3rd quarter and the ABC video feed offered a better view of the play where the receivers seemed to be running a deep comeback, and a deep out. And actually, these routes make more sense as since they are in the direction of the QB's rollout and are more conducive to the offensive play than a "go" or "post" route.]
Masoli spots the wide open Dickson (green vision cone), and makes an easy completion (I've spared us all the horror and omitted that picture).
So what was the defense doing on this play? Was it doing anything different, new, or interesting? Well, let's see. They do rush three four pass rushers.
What's the coverage? From the looks of things, they drop four into deep coverage (2 Ss, and 2 CBs), and have three underneath zones (3 LBs).
What do we have here? It looks we have the defense playing a quarters defense with three under zones. A quarters defense has four deep defenders each playing 1/4th of the deep zone.
What's the weakness of such a defense? Quite easily, it's the areas underneath the quarters coverage, and to the sidelines just outside of the outer underneath zones -- in other words, exactly where Dickson is catching the ball.
In the picture above, you can see the huge void where Dickson is making an easy catch along the sideline for an uncontested three to four yard gain. The nearest Cal defender, linebacker #30 Kendricks, is still a good five yards from Dickson as he makes the catch.
What is Oregon offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich thinking? This is easy. It's like stealing from a baby.
Indeed it is.
Conclusion:
When I first started off this series, in Part I [link needed], I mentioned how you might so plays being run again and again:
This is actually a theme that you'll see in the remaining posts of this series: Oregon offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich running the same play again ... and again.
And without a doubt, we're seeing it here. Some offensive coordinators will call a play, and cross it off their list to never use it again. Oregon offensive coordinator Mark Helrich clearly isn't doing that here. And why would he? The play is working. He's not getting huge yardage every play. But so what? He's getting an easy three to ten yards per catch with this play. And so far, the defense hasn't done anything extraordinarily different which has stopped this play.
Dickson's 10th Catch:
Continuing on, let's look at another Dickson catch.
Above is the pre-snap picture. Oregon has 12 personnel out on the field (2 WRs, 2 TEs, 1 RB). To the offense's right, and on the LOS is one of the TEs. To the offense's left is a trips formation consisting of 2 WRs, and 1 TE. Dickson, #83, is in the near slot of the trips formation. Oregon's RB is towards the trips and to the open side of the field.
Hey! Look at that! Finally! A new formation! This formation is different from the prior three formations that we've seen where Dickson had a catch. Perhaps the play will be different too? Let's look at the post-snap picture...
Above is the post-snap picture. The offense is sliding its protection to the left again, towards the WRs and open side of the field. The Oregon QB is rolling out in that direction too.
Hey, this look strangely familiar...
Let's look at the routes being run by the Oregon receivers. The outside WR runs a "go." The slot WR runs his skinny post. (see above footnote in italics) The outside WR runs a deep comeback, and the slot WR runs a deep out.
DO I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD? Does something seem REALLY familiar?
UM, YEAH.
IT'S THE SAME FREAKIN' PLAY.
It's "sprint out pass to Dickson in the flat" again!
SAME FREAKIN' PLAY. SAME FREAKIN' PLAY. SAME FREAKIN' PLAY.
Did you see what Oregon offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich did?
Let's go back to the pre-snap picture seen above. At first glance, this might seem like a new formation. But it's really not! IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME FORMATION AS THE FIRST PLAY. Oregon just omitted the pre-snap motion of moving Dickson across the formation, and just put Dickson across the formation as if the motion already happened!!!
SAME PLAY, DIFFERENT FORMATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FORMATION!
A mild disguise, at the most.
Does the Cal defense stop the play?
Nope. Like usual, Masoli sees the wide open Dickson (green vision cone).
Masoli passes the ball to Dickson, who makes an easy catch along the sidelines for an uncontested four yard gain or so.
So what was the defense doing on this play? There was a three four five man rush, with two deep defenders (both safeties), and four underneath defenders (2 LBs, 2 CBs). The defense is playing a two-deep, four under zone defense (not to be confused with a Cover 2, which is different).
Conclusion:
So, in Part IV of this series, you saw Oregon run the same play and complete passes to the TE Dickson for easy gains. In this part of the series (Part V), I've shown you that Oregon was ran the same play twice more with easy completion completions to Dickson. In other words, four of Dickson's eleven catches came from this exact same play.
Why didn't Gregory catch on? Why didn't he do something else? Was he doing something else? Surely, by now he must have realized what was going on, right?
Right. He did know what was going on. The players knew what was going on. Gregory was trying something else.
When did the first play of this post (Dickson's 7th catch) occur? If you look at the pictures above, you'll see it occurred in the 2nd quarter.
When did the second play of this post (Dickson's 10th catch) occur? If you look at the pictures above, you'll see it occurred in the 3rd quarter.
Most defensive coordinators make adjustments at halftime. Did Gregory make adjustments at half time? Yes, he did. And these adjustments will be the topic of another post in this series.
Are these adjustments reflected in the second play of this post (Dickson's 10th catch) which occurred in the 3rd quarter, and after halftime, and after Gregory made adjustments?
No.
Why not? Just bad luck. Gregory did make adjustments at halftime (and I will show you these adjustments in another subsequent post), and was using them here and there throughout the second half of the game when he thought appropriate; however, on the play where Dickson caught his 10th pass (the second play above), Gregory just so happened to not call a play that utilized the adjustments. Gregory was trying to mix things up. The offense had been moving the ball well. That play was the 11th play in the offense's drive. They had been moving the ball, even against Gregory's adjustments, and Gregory tried to throw a curve ball at the defense with a different play. And unfortunately for Gregory, the timing was just bad as since the offense had called "sprint out pass to Dickson in the flat" play that feasts on the defense that Gregory had called.
It's just bad luck.
-------------------------------
Stay tuned, there are still a few more posts in this series, including the one where I will reveal what halftime adjustments Gregory installed.
33 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks again for these posts.
I could have sworn I saw our ILB Mohamed cover the running back wheel route on Saturday’s game vs Davis while the OLB blitzed. One of the safeties came in to help underneath and the corners were on man coverage… hope mixing up our defenses like that will help stop plays like this from being so effective over and over and over and over again…
So, something has been bugging me while reading this series (which, by the way, is super awesome — major kudos). I’ve started noticing something a bit odd, but I have no idea if it is significant or not. There’s now been several times you’ve showed us a play out of a formation, and then noted when the play is the same subsequently but the formation has been flipped. Fair enough, offenses do this sometimes. But what sticks out to me is the formation always appears to be flipped when the team is going in the opposite direction. That is to say, the strong and weak sides of the formation are always aligned with the same sidelines. When the quarter ends and the play goes in the opposite direction, the play flips… and stays flipped. I noticed this when reading Part IV just now but I figured I’d comment here since I don’t think anyone would see it there.
Obviously, the plays you are diagramming are just snapshots of an entire game, so I might be jumping to conclusions based on a small sample set. Or, maybe it’s just a normal football thing that I am ignorant to?
Without going back and looking at all the pictures, you may have picked up on the wrong pattern. I think the pattern that exists is that they’re running the rollout to the open side of the field, and that just happens to be the same sideline. By open-side I mean, the side with more space from where the ball is being snapped. This makes sense when they’re rolling out and running out routes, they’d want more space for Masoli and the receivers to run to.
By out routes, i actually meant any routes that are run toward the sidelines, not out routes specifically.
By sidelines, do you mean lines that are on the side of their unis, and not the sidelines?
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 7, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the pattern that exists is that they’re running the rollout to the open side of the field, and that just happens to be the same sideline. By open-side I mean, the side with more space from where the ball is being snapped. This makes sense when they’re rolling out and running out routes, they’d want more space for Masoli and the receivers to run to.
Yup, this.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
DBBG
(Don’t be Bob Gregory)
Hydro, excellent work, thank you. You mentioned previously that SQT was always on the strongside. Seems to me this is a real blatant tendency on the part of BG because all of these Dickson passes are to the weakside, so our best defender has been out of the play on every snap you’ve dissected in your Dickson analysis. I think an idiot, much less Helfrich would be able to exploit this over and over. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have SQT’s position based on some other criteria?
by CGK on Sep 8, 2010 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
The options I see are this:
Choose a side based on strongside/weakside.
Choose a side based on right/left.
Choose a side based on a specific matchup (follow one receiver around).
Randomly assign him a side, so vary it by play (not sure how plausible that is).
I’m not sure which makes the most sense, personally.
by Missing Barry on Sep 8, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not sure why Gregory decided to play Thompson on the strong side of the formation. Perhaps it was in belief that having Thompson on the strong side would help in coverage against the TE (Dickson) — this assumes that Dickson would release on his route to the same side of the field that he was aligned pre-snap. However, then Oregon would motion Dickson away from Thompson and to the other side of the formation away from Thompson.
In hindsight, it would definitely make more sense to have SQT placed on the field based on some other criteria. And in the second half of the game, Gregory did make adjustments and located SQT on the field based on a different criteria. I will cover this in the last part of this series.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Hydro, I love your work. But how painful it is to log on to CGB for the first time after our opener and have these wounds ripped open once again.
The The is above making sense.
Painful no more
With regard to the quarters defense, isn’t that geared toward a situation where one expects a longer pass play? I’m not sure that it was a good call on 1st and 10 with (up till that game) a non-passing Masoli. At any rate, I say this is painful no more since we’ve started a new season, and we have a new defensive coordinator, and really, it can’t get much worse than 42-3. In other words, I’ve reduced my interest to only an academic interest, and this season’s kool-aid is still sweet and icy refreshing.
Yeah, Quarters is meant to protect against deep passes but a lot of teams will sometimes still use it on downs where the offense could run because it allows for a lot of eyes on the ball, and the LBs can still be pretty aggressive against the run since they have deep help in case the offensive play is actually playaction.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
New idea for defense: everyone plays zone except assign Mohamed to cover the TE.
CGB: Come join the LOLigarchy
The defense is playing a two-deep, four under zone defense (not to be confused with a Cover 2, which is different).
Please explain, how are they different?
Is that entirely true? My understanding is that Cover 2 referred to both the group of plays with the “two-deep” shell, as well as a specific play that had a two deep shell with 5 underneath zones. It just depends on how specific you intend to be with “Cover 2”.
(Not saying the description is wrong, just that there are multiple meanings of the word. Just like Classical music can refer to a huge genre of music or music from the Classical period within that Classical music genre)
My understanding is that “Cover 2” explicitly is referring to the defense which has two deep defenders, and five underneath zones. Whereas “two-deep” is solely just referring to having two deep defenders. Thus, if a defense is playing with two deep defenders and man coverage underneath the proper description would be “two-deep man” rather than “Cover 2.”
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I thought that could also be described as “Cover 2 Man” or “Man with a Cover 2 Shell”, but really, at this point it’s just semantics and I think everyone understands what is meant here.
On another note, thanks for this post. These analytical posts are great.
I may have been overserved at this point, but it was nice to see Cal’s CB’s up on the WR’s and the safeties within 10 yards from the LoS. Perhaps it was because of the opponent, but it was welcomed nonetheless.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
We should probably wait until we play conference opponents before we decide on the prudence of this strategy.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 7, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, playing man coverage against UC Davis’ WRs is fine because (1) our guys are probably more athletic; and (2) our defenders are probably better than than their receivers.
Playing man coverage against better teams in the Pac-10 will be riskier. Man defenses require a greater level of athleticism from your defenders than zone coverage.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by 


































































