Tag Archives: ksu football

_FANalysis – Central Florida

Offensive focus; Game Planning, Establishing the Line of Scrimmage, and Handling Speed

This week’s focus from the close win over Central Florida will look at how Saturday’s storm delayed game really showed us what happens when teams are able to win the battle of the line of scrimmage against K-State’s offense.  It certainly makes for an ugly performance, but fortunately for us Central Florida made enough mistakes and the Wildcats finally made enough plays to pull out a victory.  You never apologize for a victory, even this ugly, but the lessons taken away will be huge for the rest of this season.

It appeared to me the K-State coaching staff game planned as you would expect against a speed team; run right at it with the power running game (pulling backside offensive linemen) and inside zone, utilize the quick passing game, try to exploit over pursuit with option and misdirection, and eventually try to get the ball vertical in the passing game.  All of this is to create vertical creases somewhere in the defense.  You must hit these creases quickly because while speed teams will often get themselves out of position, when those creases close without being exploited it can lead to a long game for the offense. Granted, coming into this game UCF had done a very good job not allowing this by their opponents, but we thought we had the size up front and athletes at the skill positions to get it done.  Unfortunately outside of a few plays (that we badly needed) we failed to create much of this.

Throughout the game our formation of choice for the running game seemed to be 1 back, 1 tight end, 3 receiver sets, usually a trips formation.  This allowed us to isolate CFU’s stud DE against our TE and OT on the short side of the field.  The mentality was that we could run right at him, getting a push with a double team, and then handle their 2 young DTs one on one, allowing us to pull backside offensive linemen and get numbers at the point of attack.  Unfortunately this rarely worked because the DE blew up the double team, the young DTs defeated one on one blocks and got penetration, or we missed blocks out in space on the LBs and safety.  Simply put, for nearly three quarters of the game we got whipped up front, especially by CFU’s two DTs, and I don’t think we saw this coming.  As the game progressed we tried to utilize Wilson a bit to provide an extra blocker in the backfield so we could double team the DTs more, but still we struggled to find creases and maintain blocks.  This also created problems in the passing game, as early in the game UCF’s DTs created a bunch of pressure, and then as the game went along the DEs made some plays as well, specifically batting down several passes and getting pressure on Coffman several times flushing from the pocket or making him throw sooner than he wanted.  This was then compounded by some poor play in the passing game by Coffman in the first half and early in the 2nd, namely a couple misses to Smith and the interception off of play action.  The interesting thing about the INT is that earlier that same series we ran the same play; play action off of lead zone to Thomas, and after looking deep to the TE, Coffman checked off underneath to Wilson for a nice gain.  I’m fairly certain on the 2nd throw when Coffman went deep that he anticipated the safety to help double on Smith, leaving the one on one match-up with a TE on a LB, which is likely what happened on the first throw.  The check down throw to Wilson also wasn’t there the 2nd time as a CFU defender picked him up out of the backfield.

We eventually did get some offense going, gaining 213 yards on 23 plays on the last 4 possessions leading to our 17 points.  Granted, we again saw Thomas’ biggest weakness when we really didn’t need to; a propensity to not keep the ball protected in traffic.  Fortunately the defense held to a FG leading to the Coffman-led game winning drive.  The success started initially by getting enough protection to find those vertical creases in the passing game.  Both the big throw to Thompson to set up the FG, and the Quarles touchdown to tie the game, were set up only because the offensive line gave Coffman enough time to find the open vertical route. These looks were likely there all game considering the numbers UCF kept committing to the box to stop Thomas, but only when we got protection and Coffman made the correct throw and read could we take advantage.  Then finally the last drive saw us play the type of football we likely expected the entire game, some nice running lanes for Thomas utilizing the game plan we had the entire game, power run game and inside zone.  Add to that the two nice throws on 3rd down by Coffman, first the throw back to the TE that exploited UCF’s over pursuit of the roll out passing game, and then the bootleg pass, with Coffman showing incredible patience in the face of great pursuit to get the ball to Smith.  Finally we ended the game with a well executed version of the “modern era triple option”; utilizing a great Coffman decision to not throw the shovel pass to Thomas, nor throw the pitch/bubble to Thompson, but to keep the ball himself for the score.

Overall there is a lot for the offense to learn, namely to not underestimate or handle UCF’s defensive tackles.  Not doing that really created a ton of problems for us, as it was apparent that was the game plan for Saturday’s game.  Perhaps some of this was caused because we gave CFU’s two DEs too much respect, and thus not effectively accounting for what their young DTs could do.  Fortunately the defense did enough to avoid an insurmountable deficit which allowed the offense to make enough plays to win the game.  And that’s good enough to get the Cats to 4-0, in what was likely one of the toughest ( if not the toughest) opening 4 game stretches to open a season for any Bill Snyder coached team.

_FANalysis (Farmageddon)

Once again Farmageddon featured two evenly matched teams and once again the Cats won a game that came down to the fourth quarter. Both teams showed strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day K-State was the better team. Each team had its fair share of mistakes; if K-State had eliminated mistakes they may have won by 14-17 points and if ISU had eliminated mistakes they may have won by 3-7 points. In the end, IMHO the better team won the game with a solid, but far from complete performance. My focus for this week is breaking down what both teams do to put pressure on opposing defenses; both feature the running game as their strength, but attack in very different ways.

K-State Defense

While far from perfect, the Wildcat defense was able to get enough stops when needed, holding ISU’s offense to 13 points and less than 300 yards. At times it seemed ISU was moving the ball at will, and they did some things to cause problems, especially with their zone read running game and trips formations.

First, ISU’s offense puts a ton of pressure on defenses because they do an excellent job spreading the field by formation. On nearly half of their snaps, ISU had 4 WRs to spread the field using a variety of formations, mainly trips open (trips to one side, isolated split WR opposite) and doubles (2 WRS to each side) formations. The other half of the snaps ISU had 3 wide; on only a couple of snaps did ISU have only 2 players split out. Plus, they have a very good tight end, both blocking and in the run game, and he still puts pressure on a defense in 3 wide formations. Granted, some of these utilized the fullback in a slot position, but even then defenses have to treat the formation as a 3 wide or 4 wide set. This caused K-State to have to spread the field, usually leaving only 6 in the box to defend ISU’s running game.

ISU’s offensive strength is the zone read running game, and over half their play calls are zone reads, run plays off of zone read, and play action passes off zone read. They then mix in some speed option, some power running game (meaning they pull offensive linemen to get more bodies at the point of attack), and a few counter plays. The rest of their offense is mainly quick drop back passing game, usually looking for quick outs, curls, or slants. Then a few deep looks, including the RB follow route that they nearly scored on late to Robinson. This was a great play call because the leaked the RB late, after Hrebec had turned to help on the inside WR to the wide side of the field, leaving Robinson open down the middle which Arnaud fortunately missed. ISU gave us the biggest problems with zone read in trips formations because of the bubble threat to the trips side and the use of the fullback as an extra blocker at the slot position. This puts a ton of pressure on the safeties and linebackers because they have to pursue when the bubble is thrown, but still get run fits on both the RB and QB in the zone read scheme, which ISU runs very well. With the fullback the defense is still spread to defend the trips look, but ISU adds a better blocker, and utilized some motion, to add an extra body at the point of attack.

Considering our limitations in depth and talent on defense, we did a good job defending ISU’s scheme. Our DEs did a nice job keeping contain on zone read runs and our LBs did a nice job filling and getting off blocks. Granted, we had plenty of missed tackles and too often we are making first contact 2-4 yards down field, but some of that is because ISU’s big offensive line did a good job blocking our smaller front one on one allowing offensive linemen to get down field and get bodies on our LBs. And as I addressed on the message board Sunday, we definitely game planned to keep Arnaud in the pocket and force him to beat us with his arm. Most of the game in obvious passing situations we only rushed 3 and dropped a defensive lineman in attempt to have someone to account for Arnaud when he broke contain. We were very sound with this plan, unfortunately we missed some tackles when Arnaud did get out and run. On the last possession we finally started bringing more pressure, and several times flushed Arnaud from the pocket and got one sack. One time Arnaud did break contain and was able to find an open wide receiver down the sideline for a first down. In the end we were able to pressure enough to keep ISU from scoring a potentially game tying touchdown.

One final thought on our defense is the look we present to the opposing offense. Cosh’s philosophy is to present essentially the same presnap look to the offense, 2 high safeties, 4 down linemen, 2 inside LBs, and then covering up the split WRs in the formation. Given that look, we rarely run a zone or man coverage that utilizes 2 high safeties, most often our coverages are some sort of mix; zone on one side man on the other, man with 1 or 2 free, man outside and zone inside, etc. This often requires a tough match-up for our safeties, coming from their high safety spot 12-15 yards off the LOS to cover an underneath WR in man coverage. This contributed to ISU’s first score, a well designed route out of a doubles formation. The inside WR to the play side ran an outside route, turning our inside defender outside so he couldn’t help under the post route which Hartman was a little late getting to from his safety spot. I think this has been Hartman’s main issue this year, it is a tough adjustment for our safeties to make.

K-State Offense

K-State does some of the same things as ISU, but our running attack and use of formations is much more diverse than ISU. Instead of having one main strength in the run game like ISU’s zone read, we run a very wide variety of formations and a very wide variety of running plays to attack a defense. This puts a ton of pressure on personnel and requires defenses to put in a ton of prep to get ready to defend us. Against ISU we ran 2 TE sets over 20% of the time, 3 WR sets around 40% of the time, and 4 WR sets a little under 20% of the time. We ran out of the I formation about 20% of the time as well. We ran out of the Wildcat a little under 20% of the time. The schemes we use vary widely as well; we come out and run leads, counter leads, power O, tosses, and speed option, all out of the I formation. From the shotgun we run speed option, zone read, zone read leads, and reverses. Then we’ll come out in power sets with 2 TEs and 2 backs, and even 3 backs Saturday, and run power football at the goal line. In the passing game we run various play action off our running game, in addition to some quick and intermediate passing routes, against ISU trying to find holes in their zone coverages. Out of the Wildcat our most successful play was a simple lead with Wilson leading for Thomas on a simple delay draw. We did try the option and a pass route, neither of which was very successful. In any case you can see a very diverse attack that will make it difficult for opponents to stop our running attack, even when they know its coming. You simply can’t completely be prepared for everything we can bring in our offense. After that, its up to execution and I believe our offensive line is solid enough to handle most of the teams we face.

Much of the time with our offense Saturday we gave Iowa State all kinds of issues. Even on the drives where we went three and out, we had some good play calls, but missed blocks or didn’t sustain blocks to allow for running lanes. And we did have a few miscues in the passing game that kept this game from being a comfortable win. Coffman had the miss to Smith on the sideline route between the squat corner and safety in cover two, but we overcame that mistake. Two stood out the most. The first was the miss on the seem route to McDonald. There was slight pressure, but when throwing to a target that big, that has to be completed. And then on the interception returned for the TD, Coffman actually did a nice job looking off the route initially, he just made a poor throw into a very tight coverage spot. But to be fair to Coffman, he made a great play before the McDonald miss by buying time outside the pocket and then lofting a perfect throw to Quarles that the ISU defender came in to knock away at the last moment. He also made several tight throws into coverage spots on slants. The deep throw off play action was mostly a great play by Smith.

We all know we are going to face more talented, faster defenses than we saw from the Cyclones Saturday. But what we did see was a very disciplined defensive scheme that we were able to find plenty of success against. It will be interesting to see how we prepare when we face some tougher opponents, but I think we have a system, even with our limitations, that will allow for success against nearly anyone on our schedule as long as we make good decisions and minimize mistakes.

Overall I’d give the defense a B- and the offense a B for Farmageddon. We had a solid plan on both sides of the ball, though a couple ISU wrinkles did cause our defense some problems and mainly our own mistakes on offense prevented us from putting up an additional 14-17 points. For the first league game a solid performance overall.

_FAN’S X’s/O’s

Missouri State
1-AA games like this one always bring predictable message board reactions, especially when you are a decent, but far from dominant team like K-State is this year.  It was a fairly comfortable win, like most expected.  K-State excelled in some areas, exploiting a less talented opponent.  And certain areas should casue concern, showing that we are a team with multiple flaws.

Defense seems to be the area that brought out the best of the pessimists, and there were plenty of legitimate complaints.  Namely a defensive line that showed an inability to put pressure on MSU’s quarterback, several defensive backs that struggled in man coverage, and a failure to create any turnovers.  That said, it was apparent most of the game that we were not going to take many risks defensively, blitzing very little and mainly playing variations of man defense with 1 or 2 safeties over the top, mostly leaving 6 or 7 men in the box to defend the run.  It was only as the game went along did the weaknesses show up more glaringly.  Keep in mind that through MSU’s first 6 possessions the Cats only gave up 0 points and 75 yards in 29 plays.   Even after 10 possessions and 35 minutes of football, MSU only had 7 points and 208 yards on 45 plays.  K-State led 34-7 at that point, had held the ball for over 19 minutes compared to 16 for MSU, and for all intents and purposes the game was over.

That said, those weaknesses that showed up are still things that can (and will) bite this team as the season goes along.  There isn’t any good reason that we allowed MSU to control the game with 17 points and 261 yards on 41 plays as they held the ball over 16 minutes during the last 24 minutes of the game.  But at the same time this wasn’t completely surprising from a team we know has a decent, but not dominant defense, and a team that doesn’t have a ton of depth on that side of the ball.  MSU had enough talent that they were going to exploit it if we allowed them to control the football and over the last 1/3 of the game that’s exactly what we did.

The offensive performance was more impressive, even if it was only against 1-AA competition.  We showed explosiveness both in the running and passing game, which should be expected, but most importantly some playmakers besides Daniel Thomas made plays.  Still, the pressure we allowed, two 3 and outs in our first 3 possessions, and the inability to finish drives early are areas of concern.

The biggest positive out of this game was getting the passing game going.  Part of the reason we started so slowly is Snyder was intent on running Thomas as 7 of our first 8 plays were Thomas rushes, mostly against 8 and 9 in the box.  And he was still able to take one of those 45 yards for a score, largely on his own.  The next possession Snyder finally brought on the Carson Coffman show, but K-State still struggled to finish off drives with a missed FG and resorting to a fake FG to finally score a second TD in the 5th possession.  Still, as the game went along Smith and Quarles showed an ability to make some plays at the WR position, and Coffman had some nice throws, the most impressive ones were finding targets on the move after being flushed from the pocket.  He showed some decent arm strength with down the field throws, but at best it is still average.

Still, while the first 2 games have shown that our big offensive line will allow us to move people much of the time off the line of scrimmage and lead to an effective running game, they seem to struggle against smaller and quicker defensive players in the passing game.  Granted we only gave up 1 sack, but many of the issues that UCLA brought with their pass rush were still there this week, fortunately Coffman did a much better job escaping and getting rid of the ball.

Overall the impressions from this game still show what this team is going to be; a team that likely should finish .500 and go to a bowl, but it will take more guys making plays from the defense, and guys other than Thomas on offense to go beyond that.  The next two weeks will show us a lot as we face two solid, but not great football teams.