Skycam, bump and run coverage, and Eli Manning fumbling (again)

Right then, picture time.

I should point out before we get onto the pictures themselves that they are screen captures taken from a playback of a Fox broadcast. No editing has been done, the pictures are as broadcast. I'm sure Fox won't mind, not least because of "small fish, big pond" type stuff.

So anyway, yes, pictures. The reason I want to show you picture number one from the Seahawks/Giants game is simple. It's a picture taken from their Skycam, that's the camera that runs on four wires and sits above the field of play tracking back and forth to follow the action. And to me personally, I think it's the best angle to watch a game of football from. Just take a look;

That - to me - is a great shot. Maybe it's just because I'm a football nerd, but in that picture I can see the splits of the offensive line, I can see the defensive front (the actual screen image is slightly larger than the capture, that's just how the picture came out when captured), I can see the safety on the right hand side who's sitting about 20 yards deep off the ball. When the ball is snapped, you get a great view of the pass rush, including any blitzes. You can also often see the receivers when the camera begins to back up and zoom out after the snap.

But most importantly, you get right into the game. The reason the 'Madden' franchise uses a game camera angle like this is because it offers you the best look at the game. And surely that's what a TV broadcast is all about? Getting the best possible angle for the viewer? Helping people to immerse themselves in the game? If I was the director I think I'd show a wide shot of the field, like the traditional camera angle used in broadcasts now, just to show the audience how the receivers are lined up. Then I'd cut to this shot to give fans the "quarterbacks eye" view during the action (assuming the quarterback has grown... significantly).

I just think the Skycam is such a great tool for TV and yet it barely gets any attention. God knows why. With the league now fining Centers and offensive guards for not wearing microphones because they want to immerse the audience in the game (hint; hearing the snap count doesn't really do a lot to enhance the viewing enjoyment) why would the league not encourage TV networks to make greater use of this awesome angle? It doesn't make sense to me. It can't be cheap or easy rigging up all the wires to the trucks outside etc, so why not make more use of easily the best camera angle in football?

Anyway, if you're wondering what happened on that particular play, here's the end result;




Eli Manning turning the ball over? Are you sure? That NEVER happens!



Yes, that is Eli Manning fumbling the football, which would be recovered by the Seahawks. Same shit, different season.

Moving on, let's talk about Manning's team mate, corner back Aaron Ross. Because not only did Ross play his part in what was actually a pretty good performance by the Giants defense by getting a pick, but he did it using a technique that I love and that seems to be a dying art in the NFL. Like tackling. Or Fullbacks.

It's the bump and run technique.

Basically the under lying assumption of the bump and run technique is this; you're lined up opposite a wide receiver. You're probably standing withing a yard or two of the line. You have safety help over the top. As soon as that receiver crosses the line of scrimmage, you're going to get your hands on him and delay his release upfield. If he knocks your hands aside and beats you then it doesn't matter because you have safety help over the top, just as long as you turn and run in order to get underneath the guy.

The purpose of all this is to disrupt the receivers route and the timing of that route. See, pretty much every pass offense in the NFL runs on a timing basis. What this means is that the routes being run by the receivers have been specifically chosen because they match the quarterbacks drop. for example an "out route" at 10 yards (12 once you take into account the slight bend upfield that occurs) is matched to a 5-step drop by the quarterback. By the time the quarterback has taken five (quick) steps and reached the top of his drop, the wide receiver running the out will just be making his break to the outside.

The stated goal of this timing is to avoid two problems encountered with older passing offenses; 1) If the quarterback is standing around waiting for the receiver to get open, defenders can follow the quarterbacks eyes and jump the route, 2) if a receiver is standing around waiting for the quarterback to finish his drop, nearby defenders can close in on him, potentially jumping the route.

So by timing the receivers break with the quarterbacks drop (which is the real crux of the matter), you can avoid the two problems above. The ball is often in the air before the receiver has even turned his head back to look for it. If the receiver doesn't see the ball coming till the last second, even though he knows when the ball will be thrown, then what chance do the coverage defenders have of making a play on the ball?

Which is where the bump and run comes in. By getting his hands on the receiver, the corner can mess up the receivers otherwise beautifully timed route. Almost all receivers time their breaks by counting their own footsteps as opposed to running a mental clock in their heads. This is why receivers always start with their inside foot forwards when they line up. They know that on a quick slant they need to take three steps and then break to the inside quickly on that third step.

By bumping the receiver, the corner throws off the timing. The receiver can't count his steps and make an efficient, clean break when he's having to take multiple steps as part of a pushing fight at the line of scrimmage. All that timing and all that practice against air on the practice field goes right out of the window.

It's for this reason that most teams, in the past at least, would tell their receivers to convert a significant number of their routes into fade routes when the corners played bump and run. It was basically an admission that against bump and run coverage, precisely timed routes were near useless.

The other thing that bump and run coverage does is to force the quarterback to hold onto the ball. He takes the snap, takes five steps back and then looks up only to see that his receivers aren't where they're supposed to be and in fact all of them are heavily covered. His only option now is to hold onto the ball, moving around in the pocket to buy time for one of them to get open. Either that or make a very risky throw.

This in turn buys time for the pass rush to get home. People always think of good offensive linemen as a strong, almost impenetrable wall. This is a grand misconception. Every O-line, no matter how good, is merely delaying the inevitable. The difference is that a good offensive line can often delay the inevitable for just long enough for their quarterback to get the ball out. Whereas the Bears O-line can often delay it long enough for Jay Cutler to breath in and not do a lot else.

Bump and run coverage is therefore an incredibly effective technique, one which was demonstrated aptly by Aaron Ross against the Seahawks. Here's the starting look, just as the ball is being snapped;

As you can see, Ross is lined up head to head with the receiver, just waiting to make contact and 'chuck' the receiver as he crosses the line. Notice that the receivers feet are by the big "50" marker and Ross is standing on the 45 yard line. Now look at this picture;

The receiver has travelled all of about 3 yards and still has Ross all over him, busting his route up. Ross also has his eyes still in the backfield, so if this was a run he'd be able to see it and come down to make the tackle. By this point the quarterback was just hitting the top of his drop. He looks right and this is what he sees; his receiver, with Ross hanging all over him.

The receiver made a break to the sideline and Ross undercut him, knowing he had safety help over the top in case this was a double move. Tavaris Jackson was still in at the time and made the throw, presumably without looking first. It was Ross who made the catch for the interception.

The receiver? He'd covered all of about 7 yards downfield in total when Ross caught the ball. Off a five step drop by the quarterback. That makes a big difference and it shows the strength of the bump and run technique.

Now there's probably a reason why teams don't use this coverage more often, I just can't figure out what it is. If I was facing Wes Welker of the Patriots for example, I'd much rather have my corner, especially if he's a less talented nickel corner, bump Welker off the line of scrimmage and significantly disrupt and shorten his route. Yeah sure, they'd complete some passes to him eventually. It's Brady to Welker we're talking about here. But at least I'd reduce the amount of easy passes. At least I'd make that throw as tough as possible for Brady. And at least I wouldn't be letting Welker run free right up the middle seams of my defense for 70 odd yard gains, which is something teams seem to be doing a lot lately.

Is the bump and run a silver bullet? No way. Big receivers are harder to bump and indeed there are techniques to defeat the bump and run coverage. But even the application of those techniques takes time, time that the receiver isn't blazing down field through the middle of your defense.

I just think that in the pass happy league that the NFL is today, there is plenty of life left in the good old fashioned bump and run coverage.

And the Skycam.

I'll be back tomorrow with my picks for week 6. See you then.

Trawling the net for Football gems.

So today I've been browsing around the web etc and checking out what's generally going on in the football world and so here I present to you some of my humble observations: 1) I read an article about Quarterbacking, which to cut a long story short, bemoaned the lack of quality teaching today regarding a QB's arm position during the throw. The writer included a piece by a well known QB coach (who advertises on his site. Just thought I'd mention that). In the way that seems all to typical of college coaches now (which both the writer and his sponsor, sorry, contributor are), he levelled the lofty finger of criticism at the pros. It was the usual, "they don't really understand football, not like we do in Division 3...." type of thing. The most severe critique was saved for the way pro coaches obsess over footwork. And to be honest, the pro coaches have this one in the bag. Stand in the middle of a field, feet shoulder with apart and facing forward, and throw a ball to a friend using nothing more than your arm motion. Good luck with that by the way. It probably didn't travel very far. Now introduce the hips. And now finally the legs and feet, allowing yourself to coil back and throw. The power in the proverbial "Big arm" comes from using the whole body as a sling. Generating power begins in the legs and the hips. To do this properly, to allow yourself to follow through completely, you must first plant your feet properly. Hence the seemingly inordinate amount of time that top QB coaches devote to footwork. 2) Talking of QB's, Brett Favre comes to mind. The stats are good. He's completing about 68% of his passes (174/256), for 1,925 yds total and an average of 7.5 yds per completion. But what really sticks out is the business end of the numbers. 16 TD's, matched only by Matt Schaub and Drew Brees. But what he has that they don't is just 3 INT's, (compared to 6 & 7 for Brees and Schaub respectively). This is what is marking him out for possibly his greatest season yet. The old gunslinger from the south has tempered his game a little, reducing turnovers to help a team that features a fantastic RB and a great D. All the while, still finding time to put points on the board. Watching him in action, he really does look superb this season. If he and the Vikings were to win the Superbowl this year, it would be thoroughly, thoroughly, deserved. 3) Lot of talk around about firing head coaches. Eric Mangini should top that list. The Redskins, the Rams, the Lions, the Titans and the Raiders have all hardly set the world alight this year, but at least they've tried. At least they've gone about their business with a bit of guts in some places. Meanwhile the Browns trot out week on week and seem to dissolve in front of our very eyes each week. Complaints among the players about their coach are rife. God knows how he acquired the title 'Man-genius', but I wish people would stop giving him that much credit. The argument currently in vogue is that firing Mangini now would serve no purpose, and that the Browns would not really progress at all as a club. Well hey, newsflash, this season the Browns have, somehow, regressed since last season. Mangini has made this team worse. A new coach may not fix all the problems now, but at least you'd be solving the franchises biggest problem, i.e. Mangini. 4) The consensus opinion among the great and the good of football analysis and commentary seems to be that the New Orleans Saints are the best team in football right now. And it's simply not true. There seems to be no other evidence for this decision that's been made than the fact that they're 7-0. Which on the surface seems fantastic. Except that the Colts are also 7-0, and they're a much better team. And lets not forget about the Denver Broncos, who at 6-0 were being touted as the previous best team in the NFL, the team that everyone now had to beat etc... until the Ravens torched them 30-7. Remember the Saints vs Dolphins a couple of weeks ago? You should, because were it not for some shocking play calling the Dolphins would have utterly embarrassed the "best team in the NFL right now". Then this week, they scrape past the Falcons. Yes people, the Falcons. Looking at some of the quality sides in the NFL who year on year produce great results, it's hard to get to excited about the Saints just yet. 5) In an interesting addition to the above, I thought it was quite amusing to see Darren Sharper lauded for his pick in last weeks game. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with misplaced praise. It was a jump ball. There were at least 5 or 6 Saints just clamouring for a piece of that ball. Sharper was the one under it. Suddenly that's the mark of a great player, with the so often quoted phrase "ball hawk" being rolled out. If catching a last second desperation jump ball on the 20 yard line makes you great, then there's still hope for many a rubbish defensive player in the league. And all the while no-one is talking about the Saints combo of cornerbacks, Jabari Greer, Randall Gay and most importantly, Tracy Porter. 6) The praise so far for Vince Young has been overflowing from pretty much every orifice that the Internet has to offer. People saying how well he controlled the game, made no mistakes and just did enough to help the Titans win. Well I hate to point this out, but that's exactly what Kerry Collins did last year, except Collins is going to be a ton cheaper next year. Being a game manager is pretty easy for most quarterbacks, especially ones in Tennessee right now. Hand the ball off and let Johnson and White do all the damage. All you have to do is limit (read: eliminate) turnovers. Young can do that. Collins can do that. Hell, I could probably do that. What the Titans need to see from Young is this; if we get ourselves in a situation where we cant run the ball, can you lead us to victory? Flacco is starting to do it in Baltimore. Roethlisberger did it for Pittsburgh last year. That's the question that needs to be answered of Vince Young. Not, "if we play our normal style of running football, can we trust you to hand the ball off correctly?". 7) Everyone is crying about the recent slump of Giants Quarterback Eli Manning. Now, this deserves a reality check. No, that's not quite sufficient. It deserves a hard slap in the face. Eli is not his brother. He's not Philip Rivers, he's not Tom Brady, he's not Drew Brees, he's none of these people. What he is, is the brother of one of the best quarterbacks in the league, who happened to be the guy that was asked in Superbowl 42, to chuck what was for all intended purposes a 'hail mary' pass into the endzone, which was caught for a game winning touchdown. No more, no less. He's an average QB. He's ok, he's better than Brady Quinn or Derek Anderson. He's better than JaMarcus Russell. But he's still not good enough to take the game out of the hands of Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw, who would probably very much appreciate the ball not being constantly turned over at the QB position. That's just the facts. Manning is good. But he's no Manning. 8) The Packers defence is drawing a lot of heat lately, with a lot of talk about whether one of the defensive ends should line up on the LOS or 1 yard off it. Yes people, it's the old 4-3/3-4, let's-all-pretend-it-makes-a-huge-amount-of-difference debate once more this season. I'm always told in the greatest of confidence and without any hint of shame by people that it's to do with getting the right personnel in the right spot. Because of course, if you had a 330-pound nose tackle, you wouldn't dare put him in a 4-3 defence. God no!! Only a 3-4, etc, etc, the arguments go on. What the Packers might want to do is focus a bit more on their appalling O-line and their abysmal rushing attack. 9) Maurice Jones-Drew. So the story goes, he chose 32 as his Jersey number to remind him (and doubtless the world) that 32 teams passed on him first time around. It is widely believed that most teams considered him too small to succeed (approximately 5ft 7in). Only in the NFL could a short player like Jones-Drew be considered unsuitable for a position that requires a quick burst of speed, the ability to change directions rapidly and the ability to get your pads low on a tackler. That is all.