Film Study: Check-With-Me Option
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. Rely on the following analysis at your own risk.
-------------------------------------------------
So one of the new wrinkles to the Cal offense in 2011 has been the addition of Check-With-Me ("CWM") plays. This are the plays were the offense will line up at the line of scrimmage, give a hard count, and then look to the sidelines to see if the coaches want to run the original play or call a second play.
Before I break down one of these plays, I suppose it's prudent to explain why a team might want to run a CWM. The purpose of a CWM is to better counter what the defense is doing. When the offense lines up at the line of scrimmage, the defense will line up in response to the offense's formation. The offense will be looking at how the defense is aligned and will attempt to read the defense (guess the defensive play) based on the formation.
However, defenses will often "mask" their defense. In other words, they'll pretend to show one defense before the snap, but as soon as the ball is snapped they'll switch into a different formation. And this is where the hard count of a CWM comes into play. The offense, after lining up at the line of scrimmage will hard count. This is done deliberately to try and trick the defense into believing that a play is going to be run, and thus the defense will unmask their defense.
After the hard count, the offense will look to the sidelines. There, they will wait for a signal from the coaches on the sidelines. That signal will either tell the team to run the original play or run a different play. The play that is called is a play that the coaches feel will best counter what the defense appeared to be showing based on their formation and after the hard count. In other words, by using a CWM, it's as if the offense basically knows beforehand what play the defense is going to run, and thus the offense can run a play which counters that defensive play.
So let's get to the play I want to break down.
The play is from the Utah game. Cal is facing a 1st and 10 from their own 30 yard line in the 3rd quarter.
Cal has 11 personnel on the field (3 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE). The formation is a pistol formation (QB in shotgun with the RB behind the QB), and the receivers in a 2 x 2 set.
The offense, after lining up at the line of scrimmage, gives a brief hard count, and then looks to the sidelines to see what the coaches want to do. And here's where the "chessmatch" between the offensive coordinator and the opposing defensive coordinator occurs.
So let's pretend we are Cal's offensive coordinator (Kiseau). What does he see the defense showing? We see the defense basically showing a Man Free (aka Cover 1) defense. As you can see from the picture above, the defense only has one high safety. The defense also has lined up defenders directly across from Cal's receivers, and close to the line of scrimmage in bump and run. This is clear man defense.
What are the Utah Linebackers doing? I don't know. I put a question mark behind them. They could be in zone, or they could be in man coverage with one basically covering the QB and the other covering the RB. But you know what? It doesn't really matter what they are doing.
Why doesn't it matter? Because regardless of what they are doing, Cal has a play which will beat them regardless of whether they are in man or zone.
So what is this play? It's an option to the offense's left. Maynard (Cal's QB) gets the playcall from the coaches on the sidelines. Maynard relays the playcall to the offense (he doesn't actually yell "option left" because then the defense will know the play too, Maynard relays the playcall in Cal's playcall language).
Maynard settles back into the pistol to take the snap. You'll note that the defense still hasn't changed their defense. They are still showing a Man Free (aka Cover 1) defense.
Here's a picture of the play just after the snap. You can see the option starting to form. The playside WRs (the WRs to the side that the run is being run to -- the offense's left) block down (inside) on their defenders. The QB and the RB then start running to the left.
When running an option, the QB and RB should try and keep, at the closest, a 4x4 yard pitch relation. Some coaches might like a little more space, and thus a 5x5 pitch relation, but either can work. As you can see Cal is more or less in a good pitch relation.
Now, before we get to the end of the play, let's look at how Cal wants to block this option play. So let's go to the endzone cam view. Here's the pre-snap look.
Here's how Cal will block this option. First of all, let's remember that the playcall is an option left. Cal has five offensive linemen. The Utah defense has six defender committed to stopping the run. Cal immediately wins this matchup.
Huh??? Yes, you heard me right. Despite Cal only having FIVE blockers, and the defense having SIX defenders dedicated to stopping the run, Cal will WIN this matchup.
Why?
Remember, this is an OPTION. The QB is a runner. And the RB is a threat to be a runner too. In other words, the defense CANNOT discount the QB and the RB. In other words, Cal has SEVEN players which must be accounted for on a run play (5 OL, 1 QB, 1 RB). The defense only has SIX defenders to stop SEVEN Cal players. Defense loses.
So going back to that above picture, you'll see how Cal wants to block this play. The Cal left tackle will block the playside defensive end. The left guard will combo block the playside defensive tackle with the center, then the left guard will break off to block the middle linebacker. The center will scoop block and block the playside defensive tackle (who has been momentarily blocked by the Cal left guard). Cal's right guard will block the backside defensive tackle, and the Cal right tackle will block the u[right backside linebacker.
Now, Cal could have blocked this play another way. For example, they could have had the left guard block the playside defensive tackle, and have the center just block the middle linebacker. This is probably a simpler way to block this play than how Cal actually blocked the play (shown above). Why did Cal choose a harder blocking scheme to block this play? I'll get to that in the next picture.
Also, I've drawn a circle around the playside linebacker. He's the guy that the offense is going to option. He's the target.
Here's the play after the snap. As you can see, the Cal LG has combo blocked the playside DT (with the Cal center scooping to block the playside defensive tackle), and the LG is now moving to block that Utah middle linebacker.
Now, here is why Cal blocks this option play with a combo/scoop block between the LG and Center, as opposed to just a straight man block; it's because then the LG has a better angle to block that middle linebacker.
Why is that middle linebacker so important? Because he's basically the only guy that has a chance at stopping this play for little to no gain. Why is he the only guy that has a chance to stop this play for little to no gain? We'll get to that next.
So here's the entire concept behind an option play. An option play basically pits one defender against two offensive players. It doesn't take a genius to know that the defense (should) always lose this matchup.
If that defender attacks the QB, then the QB will pitch the ball to the RB.
If the defender takes the RB, then the QB keeps the ball and runs upfield.
Now, which guy should the defender choose? Should he go after the RB or the QB?
Take a moment to think about it. I'm betting some of you are probably thinking there is no right answer. Wrong. There is a right answer.
Think about it for a moment before scrolling down.
Give up? The correct answer is that the defender should take the outside threat -- in other words, he should take the RB.
Why is that? It's because of a few things. First, the offense is trying to get the play to the outside. Why is that important? Because that's where the big gain is. Note how the WRs are blocking INWARDS on those defensive cornerbacks. That's because they want the ball carrier to get behind them, and outside. Secondly, the option defender needs to take the RB to force the QB back inside towards his help. Who is his help? The lone safety, who I've circled above.
And so the defender correctly does his job. He goes for Cal's runningback. Smart defender! And of course, he knows he's going to be wrong. And he is. Maynard sees the option defender take the RB, so Maynard keeps the ball and runs inside for a big gain.
Conclusion:
So there you have it. That's how a Check With Me works, as well as how an option works.
Cal isn't the only team that runs CWMs. In fact, we certainly aren't the first. I'm not sure who might be the first to do this stuff, but some notable teams which do CWMs are Oklahoma and Oregon.
I personally don't like CMWs because I'd rather see the QB making the adjustments rather than the coaches. But, the unfortunate reality of the situation is that a lot of QBs may not have the intelligence or coaches' trust to do their own playcalling, and thus why teams run CWMs. Does Maynard have the ability to call his own plays? I don't know. He certainly hasn't done it yet this year. All of Cal's pre-snap playcall changing has been done through CWMs.
I'm pretty sure Tedford probably doesn't like CWMs. They're not "pro style". Tedford would probably prefer having his QB doing his own playcalling (it looks better for the team, the QB, and for scouts who are scouting the QB). But Tedford certainly must recognize the benefit of CWMs -- the ability to perfectly counter what the defense is doing.
___________________________
Special thanks to TouchedTheAxeIn82 for making this torrent, and everyone who helps seed them. Without all ya'll's effort, I wouldn't be able to make these analysis posts.
73 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice Writeup!
Always appreciated Hydro.
I agree that CWM is likely not the preferred route for an offensive mind like Tedford, but like many things this year, the coaching staff has done a nice job understanding their offense’s strengths and weakness and adjusting accordingly. The CWM like you said, is probably the best option for the time being.
With that said, I wonder if Tedford and company will eventually try to move Maynard into the role of calling his own plays at the LOS. Not quite Andrew Luck-esque, but still giving him two play options for certain formations and letting him adjust accordingly.
www.bearswithfangs.com
Thanks
I think it would be very interesting to ask Tedford why he decided to use the CWMs this year, and also why he decided not to give Maynard the ability to audible (as you said, not exactly go all Peyton Manning out there, but have two plays to possibly run).
I’d say it’s a good way to help teach your quarterback how to make his reads. If he’s just being a gopher, then you’re doomed and will be stuck using the CWM system for as long as he’s your starter. But I think if you have a QB with a good head on his shoulders, he’s going to be studying the defenses’ looks/movements and the coaches’ reactions. I’d say had we run this the entire year, Tedford would trust Maynard’s in-game calling a lot more next year. As it is, I honestly think we’ll be seeing this system a lot next year. Not taking anything away from Maynard, but he would’ve been much better off starting in a real D1 environment instead of Buffalo; I feel like it’s a bit too late for him.
nice post as usual
I was surprised in one of your other threads to hear that Maynard doesn’t audible, and appreciate the explanation of the CWM scheme. I am old enough to remember QBs calling their own games.
I don’t know if Utah scouted this at all, but their weakside DE played this pretty poorly. He started out a yard outside the tackle, butt to the wind, and ends up completely and totally walled off at the line of scrimmage (and possibly held, but still). Had they known the option was coming he probably should have had the contain assignment, and since there’s no LB outside of him he must have had outside responsibility (i.e. “don’t get sucked in”) no matter what they had scouted.
He doesn’t even have to make the tackle or beat the left tackle; all he has to do is get two or three yards upfield to mess up that nice little box you drew. Which forces Maynard to pitch early, or turn inside, or to run deeper into the backfield, all of which are death to the option, and corrects the imbalance you noted. They’re not so much outmanned as needing their DE to not get completely schooled. Then again, it’s 20-0 in the 3rd, so maybe Utah’s third string DE is not up to the challenges of the Pac-10 (yet).
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
It doesn’t seem that simple to me. If the DE shoots upfield to get depth for containment, he would have opened up a giant hole in B gap for Maynard. The only player left in position to tackle the QB would be the LB covering Sofele, and he’d have to recognize this and abandon his man. Looks like there’d be a good gain either way.
that's exactly the idea
because there are two linebackers and a safety there. Plus offensive linemen in the way. The worst outcome is the one hydro outlines: Maynard and Isi running upfield towards a single defender.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Dec 8, 2011 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
and as importantly
you’re then in between the QB and pitch man. He’s gotta keep it or pitch it.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Dec 8, 2011 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Well, if you actually watch the video of this play, the DE you are talking about does get upfield pretty quick and forces Maynard to run backwards a little bit (or at least more horizontally rather than vertically). This isn’t really evident from the screen caps.
Yeah, not enough. And getting completely walled off by a lineman playing on your inside shoulder is bad. That pic with 75’s back showing is a perfect wall.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Dec 8, 2011 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks. Nicely done as usual. We are spoiled, and love it. Especially liked the blocking explanation.
Great post
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it’s posts like these that got me hooked on CGB.
(But it’s the banter that keeps me coming back) =)
Fixed
(But it’s the inane banter that keeps me coming back) =)
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
by SoCal Oski on Dec 8, 2011 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
We’ve run this play a lot this year, and the toss sweep as well. I interpret this to be because the coaches like the speed of our lineman, RB, Maynard to beat the defense’s front seven to the outside. They also trust our WRs to block well on the edge. So, why were these plays so successful against Utah, Wash St. Oregon St, etc, but not so good against Oregon, $C, and UCLA? Is it because of poor execution on our part, or is it that those teams match up better with us (better speed on defense), so our personnel advantage isn’t really there?
I think Oregon and USC had better defenses which were able to match up against us better. I think we just laid a huge phat egg against UCLA. In other words, Oregon and USC were executing better than us. Against UCLA, we should have been executing better than them, but we weren’t. UCLA executed better than us that game and we lost to them too.
I’ve learned so much…thank you!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I’m with bearswithfangs on the whole hoping Maynard grows enough and gets enough experience to allow him to audible plays next year.
The CWM is a nice crutch when used effectively (as in the example here). But it can be a hindrance in instances in which it isn’t used when it ought to have been (such as in that example you had of the USC game).
Giving the Honeybadger the freedom to audiblize would sort of balance it all out. Provided he has the awareness to recognize a problem and the familiarity to call the proper adjusted play.
Here’s hoping.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Quick question:
What is a hard count? Vs. a soft count?
A hard count is basically when the QB accents his cadence (yelling louder and harder) to try and get the defense to jump offsides or trick the defense into thinking that a play is about to be run (so then the defense will un-mask their defense). I don’t think there is an opposite of a hard count — such as a “soft count.” So, I guess the opposite of a hard count would just be a regular cadence by the QB.
uh dumb question but
what do QB’s actually say when they want to hike the ball? It’s not “hike”, is it?
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 8, 2011 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
There’s usually a set cadence so that the offensive lineman knows when to snap the ball, regardless of whether the QB does a hard count. This is why the hard count works: You usually see the QB stomp their dominant foot with the hard count (I’m sure there’s a more eloquent way to put this…) in order to throw the defense off, but the center is counting in his head and ready to snap at a given time. There’s communication if the QB wants to audible or whatever.
Thanks, Hydro!
It’s like I asked and you delivered. Love CGB.
I would say the thing I’m happiest about with the coaches is overall adjustment to the players’ strengths this year. It made them do things they might otherwise not have wanted to do. It was a break with conservatism – and stubbornism! – to admit to themselves “OK, I’d like it if our guys could execute X, Y, Z, but it’s not happening – let’s give them something they can execute.” And even then, we didn’t execute it all season long, because we are a really inconsistent team. But we were put in a position to win many times this season, and I appreciate that from the coaches.
They have a long history of stubbornly sticking to plans that weren’t yielding results on the field. I think they would just try to practice hard things harder, hoping it would turn out good on game day.
I also think that the defense masking their play is what killed us against some teams this year. Maynard probably got fooled a bunch of times, and maybe our coaches did, too (of course I don’t really know) – and I think that’s a situation where you have to progress in practice on offense. First level of competency is just executing the ‘as drawn up’ version of the play – and that’s hard enough to achieve (false starts anyone? Ran the wrong route?)! But the 2nd level is dealing with real game time situations. What if they show man and go zone? What if one of your blockers misses his block? What if a receiver falls down? What if a defender makes a strange move into another part of the field?
First, you can be a football genious and pick plays to practice that are A) suited to your physical skill set (do we have 3 TE starters available this year?) B) flexible in the face of the defenses on your schedule (infinite hours of film study and getting in the other guys head here), C) your players can handle mentally and have confidence in.
Hypothetically, you can make good plans for all these what if’s, but you only have limited practice time, and kids can only absorb so much. That’s why seniors on average play better than freshmen! I think we can see that Cal worked through a certain level of ‘what-ifs’ this season, but not as far as they needed to be unbeatable.
They also got lucky sometimes – other teams made plenty of mistakes against us this season – because this is college football. You must take what they give you in college football and capitalize. It’s sometimes the only way to win as an underdog.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Dec 8, 2011 10:23 AM PST reply actions
Yes, I agree that the first level of competency is just executing the drawn up version of the play (not false starting, knowing your assignments, etc.). And yes, the second level is dealing with on the fly adjustments in real game situations. Cal, unfortunately, had some problems with just the first stuff.
And I do think masked defenses have messed us up a few times this year. Against Presbyterian, Maynard got fooled. Against USC he got fooled (USC was also big time baiting him though). Reading defenses is tough. Not that I’m an expert, but I get fooled at times too — even when I’m sitting in my nose bleed seats at AT&T. Football is a tough game. Just like excelling in anything else, it takes a lot of time studying to become really proficient.
genious is spelled genius
but I am a doofus who just felt like spouting off about football when I’m far less of an expert than Hydro.
The interwebs are funz!
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Dec 8, 2011 10:24 AM PST reply actions
To be fair, it's probalby easier to read a defense from the booth
Kiesau is up in the booth calling the plays. Now, in this case, I can’t imagine it’s that hard to read this particular defense from the QB position. But that isn’t always going to be true. So Kiesau is not only likely to be better at reading defenses than Maynard, he’s also has a better viewpoint. And since he’s not focusing on getting the team out of the huddle in time, making the playcall, and actually executing the play, he can devote his full attention to scheme.
Makes one appreciate just how much work and ability goes into a QB like a Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers to do these things themselves. But we can’t expect most of our QBs to be able to do it as well as our offensive coordinator can.
Yes, it is always a lot easier reading defenses from the booth. That is probably one of the reasons behind using a CWM as opposed to having the QB do it all himself.
I disagree
If this were the case, Andrew Luck wouldn’t be calling his own plays. Once the linemen are set, it’s easy for the QB to see where everyone is lined up. The guy in the booth doesn’t have a time advantage since the defense may initially be disguising the coverage. I think it just comes down to experience and the ability of the QB to learn everything that the OC knows. I’ll be disappointed if Maynard isn’t making a lot of the adjustments himself next year. I’ve always hated the “look to the sideline” crap.
by TouchedTheAxeIn82 on Dec 8, 2011 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
It could very well be easier to read a defense from the booth, but still possible to read the defense from under center. In fact, I can’t see how it wouldn’t be easier to read a defense from a booth above the field. I agree that an experienced QB can do well, and probably has an advantage over looking to the sideline in terms of time saved, and certainly is advantageous on plays where there is no planned sideline check, but the current play call is mismatched with the defensive formation.
Well, certainly QBs can read the coverages from the field, but I think it’s harder. I don’t think it’s quite as easy for the QB to see whether the CB is using inside leverage or outside leverage, or the depth and width of the safeties, or what the other side of the defense is doing when the QB is looking one way. The OC can see all that very easily from upstairs.
I suppose the QBs have an advantage over the OC because the QBs can see the defenders’ eyes better, and perhaps even hear what adjustments the defense is making.
As for Andrew Luck… yes, he calls his own plays. I think he’s more of an exception rather than proof of a rule that it’s easier for QBs to read the coverages.
Great post, as always
I wonder if defenses have started trying to counter this. I know in high school, when the offense showed something surprising (e.g. lining up their TE outside of a WR) we had check-offs to change the defense. It would be interesting to have auto-checks where, e.g., if you are in a Man-Free and the offense does a check with me, the defense does not change positioning but automatically switches to cover-2 or something.
Yes, I feel like the defense needs to do something after a CWM to offset what the offense just did. For example, if I were the Utah Defensive Coordinator, then from scouting prior Cal games, I would know that they like to run options out of CWMs when they have a numerical advantage in the box. So, when I see Cal do a CWM, and based on my defense, I know that I gave them a numerical advantage in the box, then I know that they would likely run an option. Thus, I would maybe start telling my defense to adjust after the offense’s CWM into a Cover Zero. Why the Cover Zero? That would bring that high safety (the free safety) down into the box to cover the QB (7 defenders vs. 7 offensive players) and I’ve just neutralized the numerical advantage. But this is hard to do in that few seconds that the defense has prior to the offense doing the CWM and before the offense snaps the ball.
So here’s a silly question: Since the offense has control of the ball, can they just snap it when the defense is adjusting, thereby throwing them off balance?
In other words, Go Bears!
Oregon does this constantly to great success.
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
Meanwhile...
Cal can’t even snap the ball when a DL or LB is offsides and having a hard time getting back out of the neutral zone. I saw it so many times this year.
by TouchedTheAxeIn82 on Dec 8, 2011 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
This is why I think it would have to be automatic
No verbal check (except as a safety measure). If you’re playing man free and you see a CWM, you don’t need to hear a verbal audible, you just know to play cover 0 (e.g. the FS covers the WB and everyone else just takes note that they don’t have deep help).
Of course, to remind your teammates, as soon as you see the CWM, you start yelling something (i.e. whatever predetermined codeword you want to use)
by Oski4Heisman on Dec 12, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Defense CWM
I may be mistaken, but in the photo where you had the safety circled it looks like he is looking at his sideline while we are looking at ours. Maybe they can check out of their defense if they feel we are making a play change?
Also, do we really call a new play or do we chose from one of our audibles? I would guess that we would also have a signal that keeps the same play but Maynard makes it look like we are changing the play. Sort of like Manning except he does it all himself.
by iwasthere4theplay on Dec 8, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, they have a set selection
of plays that will be choices in a given situation.
so the sideline is saying ‘play B’ or ‘play C’ or ‘stay’
and everyone does something like this. watch Alex Smith of the 49’ers. he often in an audible situation makes various hand gestures to the recievers, and calls to the linemen. often as not they probably are ‘run the original play’.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Dec 8, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
I suppose the defense might be looking for their CWM. If the defense isn’t doing their own CWM, then perhaps they’re just looking at the coaches for guidance as to what play the offense might run (for example: Utah’s coaches might be saying “look out for the option!”).
Do we call a new play or choose an audible? Well, I guess this depends on what you consider an audible. A long time ago, I had a discussion with Ken Crawford about whether our QBs truly audibled. Our QBs don’t audible in the sense that they can call any play their heart desires (such as Peyton Manning, or create a play on the fly like Peyton Manning). Instead, the coaches usually have a few select plays that they would like to run based on what the defense presents. So, in a sense, yes, the offense is choosing a new play, but it’s a play which the offense already knew they might run if the defense showed a certain look.
What about learning signals (not stealing them)
Does it do any good to attempt to learn the simple signals the O is using to help you on D? For example, if we’re saying something as simple “Plan B, Plan C, or stay”, is the option to go with plan B going to become obvious after it’s used 3 times in a game?
Do we have to refresh our signals and codes from game to game, so we haven’t done exactly the same thing 5 games into the season?
This could include the words said by Maynard to the other players, or hand signals…
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Dec 8, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
Plan B could be a different play every time. An example of this is Manning. Every time he goes to the line, he has let’s say 3-4 plays in mind. He reads the defense pre-snap and decides which play to use depending on what he sees. They just run the base play if he wants a quick snap or if he’s happy with the read. Otherwise, you see him running audibles. Manning takes FOREVER to snap the ball because he’s making his reads and doesn’t want to leave any patterns that would let the defense know what he’s doing.
So Manning has a Plan A/B/C/D every play. Just because he decides to go with Plan B every time, it doesn’t mean he’s calling the same play every time. He’ll have a different set of plays every time he goes to the line, all of them based around the personnel they have from their base play.
Yes, the defense can learn offensive signals or terminology during the game. If Cal keeps going with “plan B” multiple times a game (based on a certain defense the defense presents), then yes, I would think the defense would begin to better defend against Cal’s CWMs.
I do not think the team changes its CWM signals from game to game. I know in previous years, the team hasn’t changed many of its hand signals from game to game (because I know some of them and see that they’re still used game after game, and sometimes year after year).
Absolutely a great post, Hydro. I really appreciate the attention to detail that went into this one. The insight on blocking angles and assignments was particularly interesting.
As far as countering CWM, did USC try to counter this by using late shifts in their defense? I thought that it was disguising man vs. zone that really threw Maynard off in that game.
It makes sense to use CWM to counter Maynard’s inexperience and to take advantage of the coaches’ reads, but do you think that Tedford would stick with that moving forward with a more experienced QB? Seems like it could be a significant disadvantage in a hurry-up or 2 minute situation.
Old Toothwrangler
I think they will ease out of it
it seems like the observation from above would be most valuable in situations where the pass defense set up matters to how the running plays called are executed.
such as if Utah morphed into a zone defense, we probably run the straight pistol dive read play brining one of the recievers in motion to the optimum side. as you lose the ease of blocking by the wide recievers you get in bump and run man pas defense, but we still have an option advantage in the box.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Dec 8, 2011 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Defenses can minimize the ability for an offense to run a CWM by shifting late, or making sure they don’t shift at all pre-snap (due to the hard count). Ideally, they’d prefer the latter. If the defense doesn’t shift at all based on the hard count, the offense can’t really tell if the defense is masking their defense or not.
I think if Tedford would prefer his QBs doing their own audibles. Doing CWMs does slow down the offense and is not ideal for a hurry-up or 2 minute situation.
Great post thanks
I would argue that the linebacker, end, safety, cb or whoever is – that his role isn’t as simple as just choosing the right guy to take per play but more about contain, contain, contain. Even if he does take the RB, it’s more about the angle he takes to contain the RB to keep the QB honest as opposed to blindly covering the RB (just pointing this out, I’m 100% sure you know about this) .
I mention this because we got destroyed when our guys couldn’t contain and took terrible pursuit angles when deciding to take the inside or outside lanes away from the opposing team. It happened almost every drive in that Oregon game and those led to some easy touchdowns. Sounds easy to do but that one yard of misjudgement can be the difference between a almost no-gain play for the offense and a touchdown.
Also, I personally thought the coaching staff did a great job not to be lured into using the qb option as much this year even though it was damn effective whenever we did use it. I always felt Maynard was one big hit away from a big injury.
But you ARE an expert!
Not only was that post informative, it was so well-written, well-illustrated, and easy to read that I sent it to my mom. I always look forward to your posts, Hydro. Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks for the great write-up
I knew very little about these plays, much less that they were called “Check-With-Me”, despite seeing them with increasing frequency throughout college football. It’s also an great breakdown of the option play.
Question: How is it that everyone on offense coming out of their ready stances isn’t a false start? I’ve never quite understood this. Is it because everyone is doing it simultaneously, or because the QB checks out first?
Also, thanks to PRD74, this play is viewable on YouTube at 2:38 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkx3mqVwtQ#t=2m38s
False starts are very much open to interpretation. An offensive player will be flagged for a false start if he makes a movement which appears like he is executing the play (coming off the ball, taking a step, etc.). The offensive players, when looking to the sidelines, will often look in a very jerky and quick manner which looks like a false start. But I suppose, like you suggest, the offense isn’t really flagged for it because they’re doing it together, it’s clear that the players weren’t running a play, and nobody flinches or takes a step, etc.
I do think the offense sort of gets away with what they do (quickly looking to the sidelines). The defense is trained to respond to movement (snap of the ball, movement of OL or WRs), and the movement of the offensive players looking to the sidelines could get a defender to jump offsides. So in a sense, I kinda think the offense is abusing the rule a little bit.
One thing I noticed with CWM is that the play clock is integral in order to make this work. If there isn’t enough time for the QB to make the necessary play change, move personnel into another formation, then I think it’s usually not done. I’m curious as to how the offense even knows to CWM when they go to the line. In the ASU game, we ended up burning a time out or two because we went to the CWM with too little time left for Maynard to change the play.
I do notice that Oregon does this quite a bit, particularly in that last drive in the 2010 game when they wanted to burn as much clock as possible. The other thing that makes it effective for Oregon is the no huddle offense and pace with which their offense moves. It gives them enough time to make the CWM adjustments pre-snap.
The other thing I wonder is how all of that standing up and looking to the sideline isn’t a false start (minesweeper beat me to it). I’ve seen many a defensive player nearly jump out of their shoes when a CWM happens and the entire offense stands up to get the play call from the sideline.
As usual, fantastic post. Awesome Hydro.
Thanks
Yes, there has to be enough time on the clock to do a CWM.
I think the playcall the QB gets will let him know if the play is a CWM play. Thus, he knows he has to quickly get the Offense lined up, and do the hard count, in order for their to be enough time to execute the CWM. I do not think that ever play is a CWM, and whether the CWM is run or not depends on if there is enough time on the clock.
Yeah, I’ve actually looked into those. I’m very interested in decoding those. The only thing is, I need (1) film of every play run; and (2) film of the entire Oregon sideline when the playcall is being sent in.
I need the entire Oregon sideline because I’m not convinced the entire playcall is on that single card. I think part of the playcall is still sent in via the coaches.
Thanks Hydro
This was a great break down of this option play, and I do think the CWM have helped the offense this year, I’m glad Tedford has incorporated it.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Thanks
When I heard during the off season that the team was using CWMs I didn’t think they’d actually stick around and make it into the playbook. I didn’t think it was Tedford’s style but he’s shown a willingness to try new things here and there.

by 










































































