Comments on: The slant concept: Iowa’s game winner

By: brophy

brophy — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:35:37 +0000

For additional thoughts on throwing the quick game, including slant/shoot;
http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/slack-r4-with-coverdale-quick-game.html

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:57:14 +0000

I would of used Cover 7 (Pattern Read Zone Coverage used from 5 yards on in) in this situation. Basically it it 7 defenders in pass coverage with 4 rushers Corners outside leverage #1(Flat) safeties inside Leverage #1 (Curl)Outside Linebackers inside leverage #2(Hook) and Mike Linebacker Inside Leverage #3 (Short Middle) Weak Linebacker (Aligns in the Box and has the Weak Curl) and the Free Safety aligns inside leverage #1 on single receiver side and has Weak Curl. This Coverage robs the slant shoot concept…

By: rockyh

rockyh — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:25:54 +0000

According to the receiver that caught the play, MSU was playing outside technique the entire stand, expecting fade. This was a good defensive call because Iowa has consistently gone to the fade to its tall receivers throughout the year inside the red zone. However the offense noted this and convinced the offensive coordinator to switch the final play call to the slant.

By: MTK

MTK — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:07:00 +0000

That the defender crossed with H-back/TE indicates (most likely) that HE is playing man. But it is not always true that when a defender mirrors a man in motion that the secondary coverage across the board is man-to-man. I hear folks all the time watch the mirroring defender and scream “man coverage” only to watch the rest of the secondary drop into cover 3 or 2.

In this case, since every defender was on the LOS, it clearly was man coverage, and Stanzi chose wisely. I do love the simplicity of the call.

By: Saturday Hawkeyes Reading Room – One site’s slant on “The Slant,” plus Indiana-Iowa predictions from all over | GazetteOnline.com

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:00:26 +0000

[...] For the entire piece, including a video of the play and a diagram of what Iowa’s entire offense did to make the play succeed, click here. [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:55:39 +0000

Being that I only coach 8-10 year-olds,
I feel slightly (more than slightly,)
out of my league here; but it appears
to me that not only is the defensive
play call a dubious gamble, but both
CB’s gaurding the split end and the inside
slot made mistakes as well. In other
words, not only was it questionable
to leave the middle of the field so
obviously open, (without, say, blitzing
LB’s from 3-4 yards back, as opposed to
all 7 on the line) but both corners
gave up the inside as opposed to the
outside.

In essence, if both corners knew, as I
assume they would, that the LB’s would
be vacating the middle, why on earth
would they give up the middle? Is it not
only a bad play call, but also a bad play
by the DB’s? This may have been addressed
in an earlier comment; bear with me, I did
not play high school ball, and as I have
already admitted am thus at a disadvantage
to you all here.

P.s. 1st-time visitor, LOVE the site;
I’ve been a football strategy geek for
the entirety of my short 19 years.
Thanks so much for making it.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:36:15 +0000

I just found this site a week ago: it’s awesome. Thanks for all the technical analysis.
Can you elaborate on how modern defenses disguise whether they are in man or zone coverage in response to motion in the backfield?

By: brophy

brophy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:36:16 +0000

Well, for one, it isn’t the same coverage.

Cover 0 was used because it facilitated the blitz/front. Its all related. C0 is par for the course for defenses inside the red zone

By: Linus

Linus — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:39:51 +0000

Great point, brophy, I was thinking of that myself. If you’re going to go with the sellout, with 2 seconds left, knowing you’ll send more than they can block, why are you playing the same coverage set up as though it’s 1st and 10 in the 2nd quarter? It’s a little weird when you think about it.

By: brophy

brophy — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:53 +0000

in MSU’s defense of their defense, the gap 8 cover 0 approach probably held the most probability of success for them. With only 2 seconds left in the game, anyway, forcing Stanzi to read/be pressured offered the greater likelihood that he couldn’t make the winning throw.

Sending 1 more than they could block ensured the best possible pressure to take Stanzi out of rhythm, get him out of his hitch, and/or throw it away.

The error lays in poor leveraging of the receiver.

If Stanzi has to throw the ball outside to the shoot (or outside and deep with a fade to the short-side receiver, Brown), the defense still has leverage on the receiver (inside the ball) and creates a further / more difficult throw to the sideline.

The fact that the DB is high shouldering and outside of WR Brown, with such little distance from the goal line (and with no inside support), makes this a perfect example of what you DON’T want to have happen to you (because you are allowing the very thing you really can’t have an answer for). With man coverage, especially, you need to pick your poision and leverage yourself to take away the thing you don’t want to have happen (short, inside throws) and open up things you can live with / allow to happen (deep / outside throws) when you play without a safety.

In any event, I would welcome seeing the Hawkeyes advancing into a BCS bowl and believe they would offer a much better opponent to their eventual SEC challenger.