Question About Navy Offense

[Cricker24]

please don't kill me for bringing up what happened this past Saturday, but I have a question about what BK said to the sideline reporter before the start of the second half. he said something about how Navy was running the veer (sp?) offense in the first half, which was something Navy hadn't done this year. what exactly is the veer offense? I thought their option offense looked the same to me, but obviously something was different. I've heard of the veer offense in the movie Remember The Titans, but I don't know what it actually is. would someone mind explaining it to me please? I'm sure I could Google it, but there are a lot of people on here that really know their football and I'd appreciate it if you could please help me understand it. thank you ahead of time!!

Chris
GO IRISH!!

 

[Zibby32]

regular triple option focuses on the guard tackle gap, that is where the fullback will be backing most of his dives....

Veer is almost off tackle, guard, and if there is a TE all down block hard, full back hits off tackle...

midline happens right at the 0 gap, over center. midline is designed for more of a QB/FB game (which NAVY has both good FB and good QB). you will see alot of QB runs out of midline as the nose tackle will be unblocked, and the center moving up to the second level immediately.

Midline, Veer, or regular triple....you have to prepare for all three. If you are an option offense, you of bits and pieces of these variations into your play-book. Looks very poorly on BK and co, for them to not have an immediate answer for the veer. Considering that they have been..."practicing" the option attack since the spring!

 

[Mr. McGibblets]

With regrard to Zibby32's response---

Does this have anything to do with the fact that they had an extra down lineman (who was not eligible) almost the entire 2nd half? They were either heavy left or heavy right.

 

[Zibby32]

http://espn.go.com/media/ncf/2002/1017/photo/bd_7.gif

 

[Zibby32]

its not called heavy, its called unbalanced....or "tackle over"

heavy would be a reference too type of personnel

and you can run all 3 schemes out of unbalanced, it just changes the blocking scheme for the offense....This is a classic option team change up, and BK and Co should have had an answer for it right away. Typically a team will run a few plays in unbalanced, if it works they run it into the ground, if not they get right out of it.

 

[IrishinSyria]

With regrard to Zibby32's response---

Does this have anything to do with the fact that they had an extra down lineman (who was not eligible) almost the entire 2nd half? They were either heavy left or heavy right.

I don't know the answer to your question, but that reminds me that Stanford ran against us with a lot of success using a lot of *unbalanced formations as well. Seems like we struggle when teams adopt extreme approaches: empty backfield and we're covering WRs with backers or unbalanced formations and our line and backers are being pushed around by down linemen.

 

[Cricker24]

thanks Zibby. I said the same thing to my Dad during the first half that BK said he's been having the team "practice" against the option since the spring and this is what we get? I still think BK is the right coach for ND and I said 8-4 wwould be an amazing first season even though some thought 8-4 would be an average first season. I was just taken back by how uninspired the entire team looked. this Saturday will be extremely interesting to say the least. Tulsa can score a lot of points and if the team plays anything like it did against Navy, we could be looking at one of the most lopsided loses at Notre Dame Stadium.

Chris

 

[Zibby32]

Stanford also had success with an unbalanced line...Their spin included a jumbo TE, they were running a basic lead play essentially....the guard, 2 tackle, and TE down block, and the FB kicks out the first man along the line of scrimmage, typically the LB.

I do not think NAVY was running unbalanced as a result of the ND vs Stanford. Typically option teams do what thye want, not really comparing apples to apples there...

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Well, the original veer used split backs, so the dive option could be run to either side, with the near back diving inside tackle and the QB optioning off the tackle. Line would typically down block. QB would have to haul *** to get to the first option with the back.

Zibby's first schematic is not a true veer. The second schematic is what I think Kelly may have been alluding to, but Navy did nothing like that.

I was so confused by Kelly's statement at halftime. The Navy fullback was diving straight up the center's *** to the play side. QB stepped back, not out to the tackle, for the first read. The only thing "veer" about it I guess was the downblocking of the line, but even the blocking schemes changed.. I have the game on DVR as I type this. I could only muster enough masochism to watch their first series, but sure enough, fullback was straight up the center's ***.

Off topic, but I wondered how the hell Navy's first screen was so uncontested. Backers dropped too far, and when Manti finally approached the carrier way downfield, he got tackled by the blocker. No flag. Carlo came in late, and just before he made any contact, he kind of hopped, appearing to avoid any contact. Only thing I could figure is thought he had no chance to stop the play, he stepped wrong and hurt an ankle, or he felt his hamstring about to go. The way he hopped looked exactly like someone hurting their hammy or twisting an ankle.

 

[TDHeysus]

you learn to deal with unbalanced lines in pop warner football. it should be no mystery, i blame the coaching the staff.

 

[Zibby32]

1st picture is midline, 2nd didnt come out i dont think, 3rd picture is veer

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Yeah, I think the 3rd pick is what Kelly may have been alluding to, but Navy did nothing of the sort. Closest to it I saw was not an option, but a set call with a cross block toward the end. Otherwise, FB was diving straight up the gut for the first option. No veer AT ALL.

 

[Zibby32]

sounds like the blocking scheme was veer then, and different fb read, possible...

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

sounds like the blocking scheme was veer then, and different fb read, possible...

Yeah, but Navy didn't always down block. Sometimes they went more or less head up, then other times they seemed to reach out. The set plays, which start with the option look, had cross blocks. Again, I have not reviewed the entire game though. Can't muster enough masochism. I was just dumbfounded by Kelly's comment.

I thought ND could have used more interior slants or stacks or crosses with T-N-T and backers. They were sitting ducks for the most part. Although, that being said, the one time I noticed the T-N-T appear to slant, they slanted to the wrong side and completely missed the play. lol. They looked silly, but that's the risk you take with a slant call.

 

[Zibby32]

thats the dangers of the slant....works sometimes, looks foolish on other. I think their general gameplan was very basic, which isnt a bad plan at all...I think Diaco and Co assumed they could be more physical at the point of attack, and they were mistaken!

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

thats the dangers of the slant....works sometimes, looks foolish on other. I think their general gameplan was very basic, which isnt a bad plan at all...I think Diaco and Co assumed they could be more physical at the point of attack, and they were mistaken!

Agree completely. I actually really like the 5-2, especially with Manti and Carlo back there. A problem I noticed more than once though was overpursuit. D needs to get lower and ready to break down and prevent the cutback. Seems to happen too often. Otherwise, I still think Diaco is the best coordinator since Alvarez, although not quite on his level yet.

 

[lookingdeadred]

I am guessing Diaco assumed a conservative philosophy

I am guessing Diaco assumed a conservative philosophy

combined with ND's "better athletes" would allow them to control Navy's option offense. That theory does make sense but only if your athletes are much better, and it appears that ND's players are not all that much better.

thats the dangers of the slant....works sometimes, looks foolish on other. I think their general gameplan was very basic, which isnt a bad plan at all...I think Diaco and Co assumed they could be more physical at the point of attack, and they were mistaken!

 

[Zibby32]

I wouldnt necessarily label it a conservative approach...just simple! the more you stick to your base defense the easier it is for your defenders to run and make plays!

 

[Old Man Mike]

To Zibby and Neutered: thanks for the discussion. That sort of detailed "bringing something to the table" was what I've hoped for every time I've logged on and rarely get. Please post at these high levels whenever you find it appropriate. The folks who are just amusing themselves don't have to read it and can head for the Leprechaun Lounge. Thank you again.

 

[IrishLax]

Am I the only one who thought the problem was our safeties not flowing/filling fast enough? I remember when Zibby and Chinedu would have like 20ish tackles in a typical ND vs. Navy game.

 

[Anchorman]

Am I the only one who thought the problem was our safeties not flowing/filling fast enough? I remember when Zibby and Chinedu would have like 20ish tackles in a typical ND vs. Navy game.

I haven't had a chance to thoroughly rewatch the game yet, but many teams give safeties pitch responsibility.

 

[phork]

Doesn't matter what they run. If they have a great running attack they will kill our D. Hasn't changed in 6 years. Can't stop the run, you can't be a championship contending team.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Agree completely. I actually really like the 5-2, especially with Manti and Carlo back there. A problem I noticed more than once though was overpursuit. D needs to get lower and ready to break down and prevent the cutback. Seems to happen too often. Otherwise, I still think Diaco is the best coordinator since Alvarez, although not quite on his level yet.

To Zibby and Neutered: thanks for the discussion. That sort of detailed "bringing something to the table" was what I've hoped for every time I've logged on and rarely get. Please post at these high levels whenever you find it appropriate. The folks who are just amusing themselves don't have to read it and can head for the Leprechaun Lounge. Thank you again.

Thanks Mike (the old man part cancels itself out between poster and postee. You have a way of saying exactly what is on my mind, only in an inteligent fashion. As you said, "Thanks, Zibby and Neutered!"

You guys have forgot more "X's" and "O's" than I ever knew. But I do know personnel. Whenever anyone talked out grading players, the conversation stayed away from our DE's and OLB's. I think that everyone in the nation (that we play) will be running right at them. That was the point of the adjustments that were made.

They got an extra man out there and manhandled some contain around our ends, blocking down inside. Neutered. Were they really running up the center's orifice, or was the hole they created just that breathtakingly wide? (The Grand Canyon is breathtakingly wide.)

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Well, the first big run by Navy's fullback appeared to have a veer blocking scheme where the O Line downblocked on playside and left the D tackle unblocked. Difference is, FB ran straight up centers playside cheek. That is not a veer. Next decent run on a similar "looking" play, FB again started straight up the center's playside cheek, but this time the O Line went straight up blocking. Only time I noticed what could be called a veer, seemed to be a set play call, with QB reversing out and handing off to fullback aimed at the tackle. Cross block by the line.

This link is the exact play I noticed, but I think it was set called play and not an option.(look at the second play, double wing, 32 option.) Many teams call that the "belly" option. Nebraska Playbook: BellyOption

Thing about a true veer, is QB and either FB or halfback are hauling it toward the D tackle, where the first option is made. Tackle is left unblocked, as is the DE. If tackle crashes on back, QB pulls and next reads the DE, or OLB. IF OLB is too far out, QB keeps inside. etc... Line splits are rather critical to the veer. Big splits further down the line.

 

[Zibby32]

Phork, hate to break it to you but this run defense was coming to form the last few weeks...

 

[phork]

Phork, hate to break it to you but this run defense was coming to form the last few weeks...

Against... WMU, Pitt and BC? Are you seriously kidding me? How about the season as a whole?

102 vs Purdue
290 vs Michigan
210 vs MSU
164 vs Stanford
34 vs BC
116 vs Pitt
39 vs WMU
357 vs Navy

Yup, everything is OK here. Nothing to see, please move on. Next time the TV crew sucks you into a stat (50 yards per game the last 3 games), also remember that ND is undefeated in every game they have scored more points.

PS: Georgia Southern held them to 111.

And I also find it funny that at this same time last year I was saying the same thing and people were killing me on it. It was the beginning of the end, just as it might be this year.

 

[Zibby32]

last few games...read much, lol? BC, Pitt, and WMU...and i would throw in that 164 against stanford as a posotive...the offensive kept the D on the field way too much!

 

[phork]

last few games...read much, lol? BC, Pitt, and WMU...and i would throw in that 164 against stanford as a posotive...the offensive kept the D on the field way too much!

Did I not address your point about the last few games? RE: The next time the TV guys suck you into a stat (50 yards per game).

 

[Zibby32]

what TV guys, thanks for pulling those stats for me...saved me forom doing the extra leg work. To my point LAST FEW GAMES, not all of them... they were bad against michigan state and michigan, ahaha 2 games? hello?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Actually, my read on the wildly variant rushing defense stats is that statistically you could make a defensible [at least not obviously crazy] hypothesis that the defense was trending in a good direction and the Navy game was a statistical anomaly. Any defense of the concept of an anomaly would rest on the fact that Navy is totally unlike any of the other teams [the closest analog being a healthy Denard Robinson Michigan --- I say this only because his QB running and scrambling are the only other truly unconventional thing we've seen]. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------But giving devils their due: what if we considered the normal statistical practice of tossing out the "high" and the "low"?? In doing this it could be defensibly said that a true "fairness" existed, since our strangling of BC was followed by nearly two hundred yards by their stud back vs Florida State. This begins to make us look like a team which gives up about 160 yards or so [I'm just flash reading the numbers--you can do the exact math] per game, which doesn't sound catastrophic. If one objects to including WMU in there, then also toss the Denard anomaly out [fair's fair--another high/low], and the rushing per game is right around 150/160 again. Whether any of us judge this as acceptable or not, what it says to me is that we've been unusually stressed by two odd situations and otherwise seem to hold up. Also, the fact that the four games previous to Navy were at or better than the 150-160 "average", goes to Zibby's point---which in the end I agree with, but like a good scientist will await further data in the next games. Hey, it's my view, could be wrong but no offense [no pun intended].