I would say the notion that the grizzlies aren’t gap sound is a little unfair as the defense is based in leverage as opposed to gaps. I’m not in the meetings with these guys obviously, but have studied and ran some similar schemes over the years.
The plus 1 issue is usually taken care of by spacing as opposed to how many people are on the LOS. For example, when O’Connel hits the B gap from an Odd front they will stunt the nose, which really gets to Over/Under Aka 4 down front. By spacing I mean 1 high vs. 2 high safeties. 1 high is typically referred to as 8 man spacing. 2 high is 9 man spacing. In post high you are a half a gap short in Qb run. The grizzlies play 1 high because they are often athletic enough to play both Qb and RB in the option/zone read game.
The wide zone that State runs negates a lot of the twisting that UM likes to do. I thought they were more stagnant in the 2nd half to offset this but I could be wrong. Also big bodies aren’t great for this. It’s almost too lateral. The one opposing argument for this is that a big nose can 2 gap the center, which actually makes an argument for an 3 man front or even a bear front using Gub or Alford.
I don’t really mean to pose any solutions other than maybe some quarters or trap into the boundary to help base fits. That and more zone coverage to keep eyes on the Qb as opposed to receivers. Just my two cents. Football is hard and the product is what matters. I think the lack of tackling was more noticeable than the lack of scheme as well.
