Two Ways to Run the Smash Concept
Burst corners and play action rollouts, a story about how Florida State got the smash concept open against Virginia Tech in 2023.
The smash route is commonplace in many offenses, but it’s not without its issues. There is the concern of running it as a mirrored concept that forces the QB to make an educated guess as to which side will be better. Then there is the concern of baiting cornerbacks who can play both the underneath route and the corner route. Another concern is the break of the corner route — should it be flat or steep? Will the QB and WR be on the same page concerning the break?
So like any other play in football there are issues to overcome.
Florida State ran the concept four times against Virginia Tech in their 2023 matchup. I am always curious to explore why a team runs the same concepts in a game, and moreover, to explore how and why they run them differently each time. Time is limited, plays are limited. The dedication a team makes to making one play work must mean that they believe in the play. And if they run it multiple times, it means they’ve figured out how to make the play work against a variety of different defensive looks. In turn, that means they’ve game planned well.
So that is the lens through which we’ll take a look at how Florida State ran two variations of the smash concept.
Switch Release Number One
The Hokies make no real adjustment to the Noles’ motion from 3x1 to 2x2 other than the left overhang bumping out a smidge. Perhaps the right overhang’s blitz was a reaction. Either way, it doesn’t concern us here.
This smash variation is of the burst corner variety:
It’s smash with a switch release — the goal remains the same, find a way to high-low the flat defender. What’s unique about this variety is its ability to open the corner route against a deep corner. Smash is often taught and understood as a high-low on the cornerback. But really, it’s whoever is in the flat.
Against a MOFO structure, that high-low is usually on the cornerback. Think a Cover 2 hole shot. In combination with what we’ve learned coaching the concept, and this clip here, the deep corner opens up space for the burst corner route to break flat for a completion.
In this example, the corner route becomes not only viable but necessary because the overhang has outside leverage on the out route. The motion inadvertently forces this issue, so the Noles somewhat catch a break with the deep corner losing the outside leverage he was supposed to have. The cornerback doesn’t have immediate and deep inside help, so the WR’s inside release and head-bob to the inside prove too much for him. Result, touchdown.
Switch Release Number Two
Same play.
The Hokies bring the overhang and now play man behind it. This smash concept works well against man because of the switch release’s potential for an “inadvertent” rub. The new overhang’s slow reaction helped him avoid the rub, but it didn’t help him cover the route in time as to force a move-on from the QB or an incompletion.
So this play presented a different picture to the QB. Whereas the play prior saw the overhang with obvious outside leverage, this overhang has obvious over and inside leverage. This leverage gives the green light to the QB to let it rip quickly, but his ball is behind the WR and the play goes for the minimal gain as determined by the depth of the route — a disappointing but known result of thrown-behind balls on out breaking routes.
Bootleg Number One
Now the Noles run smash from a gap-scheme bootleg with a corner route from the number two receiver and a quick out from the number one receiver.
This concept is good for the rollout because the out route is moving with the QB, as is the corner route. The WR on the out route does a great job beating the leverage of the cornerback who moved with him in motion. This motion was curious to me at first because it doesn’t seem to have potential for getting the inside leverage you’d want on an out route. Whether the outside WR lined up next to the inside or motioned to him, you’d expect outside leverage from the cornerback. However, the motion gets the cornerback to forget his purpose for just the right amount of time. The cornerback follows the WR square to the line of scrimmage and seems to forget the inside help he has from the safety. There is no real reason that I can think of as to why he would abandon outside leverage.
Regardless, this play is a demonstration of the power in knowing the purpose and intent of your route as a WR. The out route, naturally, is best against a defender with over and inside leverage. So if that’s not the reality, the WR better make it a reality if he wishes to get the ball. This WR does a great job taking the sliver of outside leverage that was available to him pre-snap, and turning it into solid separation that gave the QB an easy read.
Bootleg Number Two
Same idea as before, bootleg smash, but different routes on the smash. Instead of the inside motion with an out route, the outside receiver runs the hitch. This route pattern for smash is the most common, or at least, the one most people think of when they think about smash.
Once again, the Hokies bring the overhang on a pressure (though now they play a Cover 2 concept behind it instead of man). The pressure provides problems for the QB, but the smash concept does its job against Cover 2 in getting the corner route wide open on a flat release.
In similar fashion as the first smash concept we looked at, the corner route breaks is flat when that deep defender is making an effort or a threat to win over and outside leverage. Because of this potential for varying leverages played by the deep defender, the corner route requires a WR with a solid understanding of space and leverage — as demonstrated successfully by the WR on this play.
Until tomorrow,
Emory Wilhite
Thanks for reading — Subscribe to get the next post in your inbox tomorrow morning: