1. Coach_B

    When you talk about the Bama vs. UW schematic battle you talk about bumping the LBs over toward the motion instead of rotating the safeties. I just want some clarification about how this would prevent lost leverage. Baker, Mcintosh and Rapp are the 3 nickel safeties in most situations, and in most of the games that I went to this season they schemed to have Baker as the free hitter from the backside on run plays. Given that you talked about scheming towards testing Hurts’ ability to win by passing, and given that the goal was to prevent UW from having to rotate, wouldn’t this strategy place Baker on the motion side and place him in coverage of the TE? My understanding was that a safety vs athletic TE match up in most cases is ideal.

    • ianaboyd

      I’d usually see them align Baker to the nickel and play him over the more dangerous inside receiver. So I have him as the nickel here.

      The problem I’ve seen single-hi teams have is when the offense motions a slot from the boundary to the field and defense rotates the safeties and then the offense runs into the boundary while the boundary safety is backpedaling and the LB may or may not be ready to replace him as the force player on the edge. Ohio state killed Oregon running counters back into the boundary off motion to the field in 2014 for that reason.

      If you bump the LBs over you can keep the same guys in the run fit, your mike just might have to cover more ground. U-Dub is playing a 210 pound freshman anyway so I don’t think it’ll be that big a deal.

      Where you get hurt from bumping the LBs over is that before you had a safety on a slot or TE and now it’s that mike backer. But to exploit that, Hirts has to throw it. Washington responded to stanford’s motion and trips by bumping the LBs over, worked out really well.

      That all make sense? The goal is to avoid having guys move and scramble around when they’re probably about to have to fill fast and hard against a Bammer run.

Comments are closed.