Usually you settle behind the under zone defender, just inside of him. Then as he widens the window comes open. So the wideout is running this to avoid a collision, not unlike the way he is coached to run a Mesh with his team mate. Does that change if he reads players chasing?

If the corner chases the Snag you throw corner to the slot, or is the back still a primary. Man, snag(quick) to back to corner(rhythm); zone back(look off) to corner(rhythm) to snag(settles)?

If he pump fakes on his third step you can start a five progression to the other side? Read the squeeze on snag from outside in opposite the slants rotation, if squeezed from out go lo to hi flat to corner, not squeezed see how snag settles to corner on five.

Here people have said the Run and Shoot now changes the routes on a pump fake. Consider the Snag side to be your change side. We would usually run a short in route and then read off it like you’ve written on the Smash concept. Get around, settle and see the rotation, work back from it while the corner route goes over the top of you.

The Snag comes open or helps you look off the outside routes that way.

I’m also looking forward to another post on packaged sides, especially 3-step and 5-step stuff packaged together. I’d love your thoughts on protection (as Will wrote) and QB footwork, especially from the gun.

Never said you personally didn’t grow up watching Big Ten ball. I had no way of knowing what you do follow, so I simply involved what I’ve recognized to be a trend amongst commentators on this topic in the past.

Really, the last time the Big Ten has run “3 yards and a cloud of dust” was in the late ’80s, maybe early ’90s, Wisconsin notwithstanding.

Penn State, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio State ran pro-style offenses with pro-style concepts throughout the ’90s and they dominated the conference.

And not to associate spread formations with modernity, but Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Purdue, and Northwestern all run a strict spread system, with Penn State and Minnesota loosely flitting between spread and tight formations. Heck, even Ohio State was largely spread with Troy Smith for 3 years.

The information on their offenses over the past 20 years simply doesn’t support the idea that the Big Ten is behind in offensive scheme.

I think, and this isn’t directed at you, that non-Northerners primarily see three Big Ten teams in the Capital One and Outback Bowl yearly (Non-BCS New Years Day Games) and think the entire conference runs their style of offense. Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan State have been in the traditional Big Ten bowl games so much over the past ten years or so, that people assume these teams are all the Big Ten has offensively.

Glad to see you posting again Chris

There is nothing wrong with that, spreading out doesn’t equal success. It is just nice to see people willing to embrace change/different ways/styles of play.

This notion that the Big Ten is somehow “backwards” in offense is vexing to me, and mostly comes from people who don’t watch Big Ten football. The Big Ten has had plenty of interesting schemes over the years, but, at its heart, it is a ball control conference.

Purdue had a ton of success in the late 90′s with their controlled passing game, but the conference defenses improved enough to force a change in their scheme.

Northwestern has had sustained success with their spread option offense.

Michigan State, under John L. Smith, ran an Air-Raidish offense during his tenure there.

The style of the conference just isn’t open like the Big 12 or Pac-10. Really, the Big Ten and SEC are very similar in style- the Big Ten just lacks the athletes that the SEC has.

As for having a 3 step combo to one side and a 5 step to the other, I’ll be interested to read that post. I have always taught 3 step protection as more aggressive than 5 step, to keep the d-linemen’s hands down without having to worry as much about getting beat by a slow developing pass rush move or twist, so I hope you go into some detail on pass pro in that article.

Again, great stuff.