The UAB Debrief

They say that you see the most improvement between game one and game two. It might be a cliche, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. There’s a reason for that. No matter how much you practice, there are some things that you can only learn about yourself by lining up against someone else.

There are limits to that, though. With all due respect to VMI, they were clearly overmatched in the season opener. I’m not sure how much about themselves the Mids actually learned from that game. The Keydets’ offensive line was swamped on almost every play, and their passing game was almost exclusively sideline-to-sideline oriented. UAB was always going to be a much different challenge, especially for the defense.

And sure enough, they were. In the first half, Navy and UAB appeared destined for a shootout. The Blazers averaged 10.1 yards per play and almost five yards per carry on the ground. Jalen Kitna was 11-13 for 205 yards and two touchdowns. UAB was 4-6 on third down and 1-1 on fourth down. Navy seemingly had no answers.

The second half was a completely different story. UAB was limited to only 24 rushing yards on 1.8 yards per carry. They were 2-7 on third down and failed to pick up their only fourth down attempt. They committed three turnovers. We’re all familiar with Brian Newberry‘s “Get 6” standard for the defense, which requires a combined total of six three-and-outs, fourth-down stops, and/or turnovers. The Mids got all six in six UAB second-half possessions, with two fourth-down stops (including a missed field goal), one three-and-out, one fumble, and two interceptions. Meanwhile, Navy’s offense kept humming along, and a 24-24 game at halftime turned into a 38-24 Navy win.

So what happened? The easy answer is the second-half return of MarcAnthony Parker, who was suspended for the first half due to his targeting penalty in the VMI game. And don’t get me wrong, he played well once he got into the game. However, the explanation is a bit more complicated than that. First, you have to consider UAB’s game plan, which was simple, but effective.

If there’s one player Navy’s opponents will scheme around this season, it’s Landon Robinson. UAB looked to neutralize him by using a zone scheme as their bread-and-butter running plays. With the inside zone, that meant Navy’s all-conference nose guard would be double-teamed. Robinson still made tackles, but they were 4-5 yards downfield, not at the line of scrimmage.

The Mids had trouble fitting these plays, too, sometimes with two players covering the same gap and leaving others uncovered.

UAB also mixed in zone stretch plays that forced Navy’s defensive line to run laterally. Once defenders are moving sideways instead of anchoring, it becomes easier for blockers to use that momentum against them and open lanes for the ball carrier. These plays are also more challenging to stunt against.

The outside zone also sets up cuts to the backside, a tactic that other teams have successfully used against Navy in the past. P.J. Volker took the blame for this play in his weekly Zoom conference, saying he made a “silly” call in this situation.

UAB’s ability to run the ball, especially on first down, made their passing game better. You have a lot more of your offense available to you on 2nd and 5 than you do on 2nd and 10. Navy’s linebackers had to respect the run first, which made play action particularly effective. Kitna’s fakes drew the linebackers forward, creating big soft spots in the zone coverage between them and the secondary. That’s where in-breaking routes and pop passes live. It also made the cornerbacks squat in the flat, making the deep sideline Cover 2 holeshot easier to hit.

In the second half, Navy did a much better job against the run, largely by playing to their strengths. Parker’s return probably helped the linebackers with their run fits, but that wasn’t the only thing. The defensive line used more stunts to get into the backfield:

The Mids also did better at containing the backside on zone stretch plays.

Stopping the run also kept the linebackers from getting too caught up in play action, allowing them to settle back into their zones on pass plays. That’s precisely what happened on Parker’s interception.

On his Zoom call, Volker was somewhat dismissive of the impact of UAB’s running game, saying he “never really felt threatened” by it. And to his point, the Blazers didn’t do much more than the basics of any zone running scheme. However, there’s also no denying the impact that running the ball had on UAB’s performance. In the first half, the Blazers averaged 5.33 yards per carry on first down. In the second half, they averaged 2. Not coincidentally, on their first five third downs, they needed an average of only 2.6 yards to gain. On their last eight, they needed 7.9. That’s the difference between a 67% first-half conversion rate and 29% in the second half.

Either way, I’m not as concerned about the defense now as I thought I’d be immediately following the game. In the second half, the defense resembled a Navy defense — getting turnovers, being disruptive at the line of scrimmage, and forcing the opposing team off the field. Instead of the biggest improvement coming between games one and two, it came in the ten minutes between the first half and the second half.

The offense, on the other hand, lived up to the hype. There won’t be many complaints when you have 463 total yards.

One of the things I was watching for was how UAB defensive coordinator Steve Russ would handle the Navy offense, given his history at Air Force. As it turns out, he didn’t do anything crazy. In the preview, we predicted that he’d switch between odd and even fronts, and he did. He also used late stemming to try to confuse the Navy OL, but they handled it without issue. The Blazers did charge the mesh on option plays, which led to a few hiccups from Blake Horvath, but it was nothing he couldn’t recover from. Overall, it was a very workmanlike performance from the Mids.

On the first play of the game, you could get a sense of what was about to happen. The Mids ran an inside zone play while showing jet sweep motion. You could see linebackers and safeties following the snipe. That set up the second play, which was a crossing route by Cody Howard opposite that motion.

And that is more or less the story of the game. UAB didn’t use any stunts that might risk catching someone out of position; they counted on their safeties and linebackers to read and react to the play. That made the Navy offense about getting them moving in the wrong direction and making them question their lying eyes.

Early on, the Mids ran outside zone, mainly as a way to convince defenders that they were correct in following motion.

They also ran plays that ran toward the motion, but had the potential to open cutback lanes behind pursuing defenders. We saw counter options, QB power, and the inside zone.

Once the defense was conditioned to bite on the outside motion, Navy took to the air. On this play, both safeties bit hard on the jet sweep motion, and the cornerback was caught flat-footed when Brandon Chatman turned upfield.

After that play, the Mids hurried to the line and gave the defense the same look. With the safeties on their heels after the pass, they ran the jet sweep.

The hesitation in the safeties made it easier for Eli Heidenreich to beat them to the edge. That, and a fantastic block by Chatman.

The Mids went back to the air later in the half using the same idea. On Luke Hutchison‘s touchdown reception, the safety saw the initial motion and made his first step toward the line of scrimmage with his eyes in the backfield. With Hutchison running full speed on the post route, there was no way the safety could recover.

After getting burned through the air, UAB’s safeties became far less aggressive and more interested in keeping the ball from going over their heads, which is why the Mids had 155 passing yards in the first half but only 13 in the second. However, doing so just made outside runs that much easier, which the offense did through jet sweeps and option pitches.

That success on the outside forced the safeties to respect the run again. When they did, the Mids continued to run the triple option, but with Alex Tecza running outside zone away from the direction of the QB/pitch. When he broke through, there was no run support from the secondary.

Throughout the game, Navy also employed some formation trickery. The Mids lined up with an unbalanced line for much of the game, with an extra tackle on one side and the tight end on the other side as a “tackle.” UAB always shifted their defense toward the side with the two tackles. Navy responded by lining up both snipes on the “tight end” side. By doing this, the line might have been unbalanced, but the overall formation was not; there were four blockers on each side of the center. That gave the Mids a numbers advantage on the tight end side. They ran the fullback belly to that side, with the mesh-charging OLB making an ideal candidate for a kick-out block.

They ran the same concept out of the pistol, again with an unbalanced line.

Navy didn’t really have to do anything above and beyond their base offense, which is good news for an offensive line that has yet to put their best five on the field. Defenses will become more complex in later games —maybe even this week —but the line will also become more experienced and confident. It’s a good sign for Navy going forward.

UAB has the talent to surprise a few teams if the locker room doesn’t get frustrated with early setbacks. This may be a win that looks better at the end of the season than it does now. Either way, this was a solid performance from the Mids. There are reasons to be concerned about the defense, to be sure; one doesn’t replace the players Navy lost without some growing pains. However, the unit learned from its mistakes, while the offense continued to roll. Now it’s on to the next one.