Saturday, July 3, 2010

4-2-5 Alignments-Part I
QUICK NOTE

This is part 1 of a 2-part series on alignments. The alignments I will discuss are in no means
things I would do every time. Doing the same thing every time to a particular formation is a
recipe for disaster. The offense will be able to scheme you, because they will be able to
predict what you are doing. Also, you will be in a position where the offense will predicate to
you what you will be in defensively. So when looking at these alignments, consider them a
solid base alignment that can and should be adjusted to keep the offense off balance.

In this part, I will discuss alignments versus 10 personnel. Doubles and trips variations will
be the focus. In part II I will cover spread sets that involve tight-ends and pro running
formations.

BASIC PHILOSOPHY

The 4-2-5 Defense is very flexible to multiple formations. The fundamental thing to keep in
mind when aligning to various formations is common sense. The quarters coverage
concept is very self-adjusting and does not require too much movement. An important point
is linebacker alignment versus 10 personnel spread formations.

The idea behind alignment and coverages in this scheme, is to create an advantage where
there is one more defender to each side of the formation (+1 Rule). If there are two WR's to
a side, the defense wants to put 3 people in coverage to that side. The linebackers are the
people for the most part that allow for this advantage to happen.

As a rule of thumb, the linebackers should slide over to the side that is needed to create this
advantage. This usually fits into two rules.

1. Versus a 2x2 formation the backers should slide towards the away-side of the coverage.
2. Versus a 3x1 formation the backers should slide towards the trips.

ALIGNMENT vs 2x2


Versus doubles in the middle of
the field, the alignment is simple. If the call is 2-blue-solo. The read-side would be in cover
2 (robber) and the away side is in blue coverage. I will not go into the rules of these
coverages, I have discussed this in a previous post. The linebackers slide toward the away
side. In the above diagram, the read side is arbitrarily to the left, not because of the back.
The read side could just as easily be set to the right. When the ball is in the middle of the
field, other factors (devised by game-plan) dictate which side is the read side when the ball
is in the middle of the field. A particular receiver, the quarterbacks preferred side to throw,
and the opponents bench could all be factors that push one side to be the read side over the
other. The time the back plays a role, is the option. If the team is able to run the option
well, then the back is an important consideration. However, the offense can easily move the
back to the other side and or stack the back behind the QB. This is why the back should not
be a dominating factor when setting the read side.

The backers slide to the away side in order to get the mike backer closer to his coverage
responsibility and maintain effective positioning on the run. Also, the FS will be involved
aggressively to the read side. This allows the backers to slide toward the away side.

One problem with this coverage to the middle of the field is the soft cushion to the slot on
the away side. If you sit in this look the offense will attack the away side heavily. The
smash, All hitch, and other quick combinations are difficult to cover consistently from away-
side blue coverage in the middle of the field. In short, the away side is susceptible to the
quick game.

Fortunately, there are a couple things that alleviate this problem. First, the ball is not in the
middle of the field often. Usually the ball is on a hash. With ball on the hash, these
problems are not as significant.
Blue coverage is much more
sound on the hash. The rule for setting the read side in this situation is the field. Versus 2x2
on the hash the FS should set the read-side to the field side. Away side blue is better on the
hash for two reasons. #1 The mike is in a better position to get under both WR's, and #2
the receivers do not have as much room to maneuver.

The other thing that alleviates coverage problems when the ball is in the middle of the field,
is the ability to mix in coverages to the away-side. The easiest adjustment to the away side
is to get into man. Man coverage is designed to take away the quick passing game. If the
offense has to guess whether or not the away side coverage is in blue or man, then they will
have a harder time attacking you. They will have an even harder time if the WS and away
corner do a good job stemming their looks. The backer does not need to stem coverage
because his alignment is the same.


The backers do not have to change their alignments. The only thing that changes, is the the
away-side backer (mike) is now responsible for forcing the ball and covering the pitch on
the option. Again this is not an adjustment that you do all the time. But mixing in blue and
man to away-side, when the ball is in the middle of the field, is a solid strategy for dealing
with 2x2 formations.

Another important consideration versus 2x2 sets is the splits of the WR's. There are many
different variations in their splits, too many to cover in this post. The important point is this:
receivers usually alter their splits and alignments for particular reasons. If a slot receiver
aligns closer to the core of the formation, he is usually leveraging an outside cut,
conversely, if he aligns closer to the sideline, he is leveraging an inside cut. These variations
must be accounted for. Here is a common example.


When the receivers get closer to one another, they are usually going to cross somehow. In
this particular variation #1 has closed his split and # 2 has widened and deepened his. This
is a common adjustment by the offense when the defense puts a defender in outside
alignment on the slot. In robber coverage the SS aligns outside the #2 WR. However,
versus this variation this would be a bad idea. The offense aligns like this to put the SS
closer to the #1 WR. This allows the #1 WR to get around and inside the SS on a slant
route easily. The FS will not be in a position to stop the completion. The play to expect here
is a Bubble by #2 and a quick slant by #1.

The adjustment in a quarters concept is to adjust the coverage to leverage the most likely
route combination. Versus this variation the read side should check into blue coverage. This
moves the SS inside the slot in a position to slice the #1 WR, in this case, the slant route.
If the offense does run the
bubble slant combination the coverage will be able to play it perfectly. The diagram below
shows how the defense should cover these routes.

ALIGNMENT vs 3x1

Versus trips the alignment is simple. The backers should now slide toward the trips side.
The base coverage adjustment to trips is to play SOLO coverage. Solo allows the read side
to play cover 2 on the #1 and #2 WR The read backer and WS will be responsible for
covering the #3 WR.
The backers slide to create a 4
on 3 advantage. The read-side backer is responsible for the short wall of the #3 WR. What
this means is he cannot let #3 run a short crossing route. If he lets #3 get across the
formation there is going to be a problem, because there is no one on that side to pick him
up. The away backer and away corner are both in man coverage, and are not guaranteed to
be there. The WS is responsible for covering the deep vertical and post routes by the #3
WR.

Not all trips are created equal. Offenses think too! (For the most part.) Different trips
variations are common place in today's game. Some of these variations will make x-out
adjustments (like special) more effective. Versus displaced trips alignment should look like
this.
The read-side corner will man
#1 (x-out), the SS and read-backer will banjo the in and out routes of #2 and #3. The FS
will be in deep 1/2 to provide deep support. The SS, FS, and read-backer are playing blue
coverage on these WR's. The away side can vary their coverage. In the above diagram I
have shown man with the WS in 1/2's. You could also run a 3-way with the backers and SS.

ALIGNMENT TO EMPTY BACKFIELD

Empty backfields are not a major alignment problem either. Keeping with the idea
of common sense and the +1 rule, aligning to empty is a simple process of following the
rules. If a team run an empty backfield, there are only two things they can give you. 3x2 or
4x1. The same split variation principals apply here as well. Versus a 3x2, alignment should
look like this.


The backers should stack behind their respective ends and read for the QB draw. Once they
clear the draw they are on slice responsibility. To the read side the corner x-out's #1 so the
read backer is slicing #2 and #3. This is the same technique he would be in versus any trips
with an x-out adjustment being run. This is not different. To the away-side the backer plays
the same technique that he would play versus a 2x2 set. To him it is still just two WR's.

If the offense runs a quads set, there is only one simple variation. Because the offense has
4 WR's to a side, a backer need to now get out of the box entirely to remain consistent with
the +1 rule.

By bouncing the backer out, the
defense now has a 5 on 4 advantage. The mike is now the short wall player and the WS can
run his solo technique, this time reading the #4 WR. Again the #1 WR is discounted
because the corner has him on an x-out.

SUMMARY

Again these are just some of the things you can do in split-safety coverage in the 4-2-5.
The rules are simple and allow you to leverage the formation and plays the offense is in a
position to run. In the next part I will cover TE spread formations and 2-back sets.
4-2-5 Alignments-Part II

PRO-I SETS

Alignments to the pro I is very straight forward and allows room for flexibility and
imagination. In this part I will focus on base alignments with a few other options.


CALL: TITE-2

The front and secondary both declare the strength the same way in this alignment. The TITE
call puts the 3-tech towards the TE, the strong DE aligns in a 6. The backers align in 30
techniques. Some people argue that the backers should align in their gaps. ie, the RB
should be in a 10. However, in the 30 alignment the RB can still defend his A-gap and is in a
better position to play outside and off-tackle plays towards the TE.

The secondary calls "read-left" and sets the SS and FS in coverage to the left. The strong
safety aligns 5-7 yards outside the TE and about a hard from the LOS. Also, the SS cocks
his stance in and places himself perpendicular to the LOS. This alignment allows him to get
under routes by the #1 WR, have a good angle to force the ball, and make it difficult for the
WR to crack block him. The last reason needs further explanation. Teams like to run
outside, will get tired of the SS forcing the ball back inside. So, they will attempt to crack
him inside in order to get around the edge.

Making the crack difficult is accomplished by this alignment for a couple reasons. First, his
back is turned to the WR. The receiver cannot legally block him in the back. Second, if he
does attempt to crack block him, the crack will occur near the LOS. By making a crack
happen at the first level, the corner is free to replace the SS as the force man. If the crack
occurred further from the LOS, the corner could not replace as quickly, because he has to
respect the crack and go. By attempting the crack at the first level, the threat of the crack
go is eliminated. It is difficult to fake a first level crack and turn it into an effective go route.

The WS aligns in a postion to force the edge to his side and play the cutback on plays
toward the TE.

VS TWINS

CALL: TITE-25

Twins is a formation where the front and secondary call the front in opposite directions. The
AB is aligned in 10 in the diagram, but he could just as easily be aligned in a 30, it makes
little difference. The SS and FS align to the twin WR's just like they would versus the
spread. On the TE side the corner is shown close to the edge playing force. The WS could
just as easily be there. The alignment each year might be different depending on the type of
corners and WS you have. Below is a diagram of TCU from this past year aligning to twins.

Versus the Full-back set strong




Here the backs slide over and WS comes up into the nest, this call a "scoot" adjustment.
Everything else is the same as regular pro-I alignment.

FLEXBONE



Here the alignment follows the base rules. The strength in the diagram is arbitrarily to the
left. Versus the balanced front and the motion based nature of the flex-bone, the free safety
will declare the read-side upon motion.


GOAL-LINE

The last view diagrams are an example of how TCU aligned versus Clemson principals. The
particular scheme they employ is not really special to the 4-2-5. I am showing it as a way of
understanding how the particular positions are aligned.


A safety has replaced one of the corners on the right edge. The DT's are hard A-gap player,
and the backers are cheated-up into their gaps. There are two safeties to each side aligned
on the edge and behind. The corner in the middle is adjuster who moves with any motion by
the backs. This allows the front to stay relatively focused on the play by leaving
adjustments to the corner. The next diagram shows the formation after motion.




Friday, January 6, 2012
Exploiting Situations: West Virginia vs Clemson


Dana Holgorsen has earned a reputation for himself by fielding offenses that light up the
scoreboard and put up monster stats. He doesn't do this by playing small ball; picking up a
few yards here and there. He does it by creating explosive plays. Big plays happen when the
offense exploits a weakness in the defense or a defender or two blow their assignment. In
the first quarter of the Orange Bowl, the West Virginia offense completed a 34 yard pass to
a wide open receiver. This play is an example of how the offense can create explosive plays
by exploiting a weakness in the defense.

The play that will be analyzed can be seen here:


This play was created by exploiting 4 primary factors:

1. Situation (Down and Distance)
2. Ball Position
3. Formation
4. Personnel
The first factor is probably the biggest one on a football game meta-level. The final 3 can be
chunked together into one thing.

EXPLOITING THE SITUATION

In a previous post I covered down and distance strategy. The goal for the defense is to get
the offense into a manageable 3rd down situation (3rd and 7 +). The way to do that is to
limit gains on first down to 3 yards or less. This is why the running game is so important to
the offense because it can keep the offense out of difficult third down situations.

This play occurred on first down. It is in Clemson's best interest to keep the West Virginia
offense from gaining more than 3 yards. In order to do that they can't be overly worry
about the big play. This does not mean you allow the big play, but that you get defensive
calls in that are more aggressive towards the run. Because of this principal, Clemson would
most likely be run conscious in this particular situation. "Run Conscious" meaning probably
in a base front with zone coverage.

BALL POSITION, FORMATION, PERSONNEL

These next three factors work together.



Ball Position

The ball is on the hash, it is on or around the hash approximately 80% of the time. Modern
defenses are even more concerned with ball position because opposing offense have
become more creative in utilizing it. The hash is such a concern that many defenses will call
coverage strength to the field the majority of the time. One of the few things that will keep
a defense from calling its passing strength to the field is trips formations.

Formation

This brings us to our next factor. Holgorsen uses a trips formation on this play. Defending
trips involves a varied plan of attack in and of itself. When you combine the formation with
the ball position a very particular set of circumstances need to be considered. First, the trips
are into the boundary. This is not a common occurrence for the defense. Most defensive
trips schemes are built on the premise that the offense is running trips towards the field.
Boundary trips is in the back of the defensive coordinators mind, but does not call for
concern like field trips does.

How does boundary trips effect the defensive thought process? First there is one WR with a
ton of field to work with. This makes you think twice about putting a corner one on one with
him. Second there is more space to work with for outside running plays, option or stretch
being the most probable in this situation. Third, the constricted area that the 3 WR's have
makes many trips side passing plays not likely. Finally, the offense can still out-flank the
defense albeit with less space. This is still a cause for concern, because if not properly
aligned, the defense can be hit for a 5-10 yard running or passing play easily despite the
lack of space.

Because of this the defense still needs to align properly to avoid getting out-flanked while
being concerned (even more so) with weak-side (field side) runs or passes.

The defense has the classic trips problem, but magnified to the open side. Which side has
priority? The trips or open side? One of the things some defenses factor in is the alignment
of the back. However, in this particular formation this is no help, because he is aligned
directly behind the QB.

Personnel

Finally the personnel is a cause for concern. In this particular play one player is the main
concern. The single side WR Stedman Bailey #3 does not have the most catches on the
team, however, he leads the team in yards per reception, yards receiving, and touchdown
catches. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he is doing it on big plays.
Bailey's alignment is a concern as well. He is in a position to run a quick out, comeback,
fade, or anything else. His alignment opens up a large range of potential routes.

Putting it Together

Factoring all things together it is probably in the defense's best interest to free the field side
safety up and have him help on the run and with coverage on Bailey. Calls
like Solo or Mable would not be ideal for this situation.

THE PLAY

Clemson's Defense

They opted for a basic 4-2 front alignment and the backers are not overly cheated one way
or the other. This is considered typical for this formation. The secondary is showing a two
shell, which could mean anything. This could be a disguise for any number of things. The
alignment that stands out is the boundary side corner. He is aligned outside the #1 WR 7
yards deep. He is not likely to come down into a 1/2's concept. Plus if the corner was
playing a 1/2 concept he would need the field side safety to cover #3 vertical or a backer(
vs this play that would not have been a good idea either). He appears to be getting ready to
bail out.

They end up playing some type of 1/4's concept to the trips side with a 1/2's concept to the
open side (could be a bracket).

WEST VIRGINIA'S PLAY

It appears that the QB might have been (don't know for sure) looking towards Bailey 1st on
some type of Air-Raid "Choice" concept.


Upon seeing the double coverage, the QB would work his progression back to the trips side.
This is where Dana Holgerson's play call most clearly exploits the situation. If he gets Bailey
one on one, then great, throw him the ball (he actually still gets behind the double team). If
they double cover him, then he has a play that will exploit the likely coverages that a
defense would run on first down.


If you look at the routes, this play type can be effective versus most first down defensive
calls. It really hurts Clemson's quarters concept.


The H vertical route draws the
Strong Safety's attention. He cannot play the post route by the Z because the H would be
wide open. The corner cannot get into coverage of the H or Z because of his outside
alignment. The only thing the defense could have called to be solid versus these routes is a
1/4's bails (pure zone). That is not a sound call on first down.

This play makes the corner irrelevant and forces the SS to make a decision. He chooses to
cover to the H (wise choice) and allows the z to come open on the post.

The defensive coordinator had to recognize the possibility of these play types, so he must of
had a plan for them. Many defense's use backers to play wall technique on the first route to
work towards the middle of the field, this forces QB's to throw high balls that give DB's time
to break on it.

So where were the backers?

Its was a first down situation, and the offense showed run first. The play action kept the
backers from assisting in coverage. You can't blame the backers either. Its first down,
Division I linebackers are taught to play run first especially in a 1st and 10 situation.

The play action draws the backers up and because of the coverage called the Z is able to
get wide open. What other zone coverages could cover these routes effectively and keep the
defense from covering Bailey 1 on 1? Besides pure zone quarters, none really without
linebacker help

I am not gonna draw them all up, but think about it.

1/2's: Who is gonna cover the post? There is 3 vertical routes to stress the safeties.

Cover 3: The H is gonna open on the seam with no-one to jam him, unless you play a mable
tech and drop the SS down. I already discussed that this is a bad idea considering the other
things the offense could do in this situation.

Special: Same problems that Clemson had, the SS is in a tough situation.

CONCLUSION

This play shows how the defense can be manipulated on 1st down. Given the situation,
formation, ball position, and personnel the defense will be influenced to do certain things. If
the offense understands what the defense will do, then they will be able to create big play
opportunity. This shows why Holgorsen has been successful


Posted by aelephans at 5:33 PM 2 comments:
Labels: Backer Reads, Brackets, Play Calls, Quarters, Spread Offense, Strategy,Trips Coverage, West
Virginia, Zone Coverage
Thursday, October 6, 2011
DEFENDING TRIPS- DISGUISE AND SCHEME


In this post I will focus on defending the trips side of a 3x1 formation. There are certain
considerations that need to be made when planning out a strategy for dealing with trips.
Here is the good news, usually, defending 3x1 is much easier than defending 2x2
formations. The defenses that have trouble with 3x1 formations are usually defenses that
prefer to play the game with balanced fronts/coverages (hence the discomfort with the
overload that trips create) or don't understand that defending trips like anything else is a
risk reward game. The defense cannot stop everything, every play. The goal is to have the
defense in the best position to defend the most likely range of plays the offense can run in a
particular situation. Lets look at some different options you can run towards trips.

1. A Cover 3 concept.
2. An X-out concept like Special
3. A Pattern-match coverage with a safety poaching #3 (solo)
4. The Classic: Straight up Man or Man-Free

Using these 4 options we can up with a plan for handling trips in a general strategy. I am
not gonna get to much into the technique or scheme of each of these, the links provided
offer that. The first thing to consider is disguise.

DISGUISE

Disguising coverage in football is done in 2 primary ways.

1. Stemming and Moving around constantly every play to the extent that the offense does
not know what you are in pre-snap

2. Show the same look every-time and then stem to your coverage right before the snap.

Either approach can work, but I will discuss the 2nd because it will easier to explain, and in
my opinion is easier to execute.

I like running 2-Solo, so I prefer to base my trips look out of that.


From this look you can stem and work into the other looks without much difficulty.

Lets look at the others.





Looking at these alignments it should be evident that there is not too much movement
involved in the stemming of each.





Again these are simple examples, but even in their simplicity they can be difficult for the
typical High School QB to read. The other disguise principal involves the movement of the
SS. Since it is harder for the SS to align himself out of position, he can be the defenses
most liberal person stemming. He can move around, show blitz, man, ect.

WHEN TO CALL WHAT

This comes down to game-planning. The generic rule is to understand the strengths and
weaknesses of each coverage. Here is a simple list. It is not complete nor detailed, but
sufficient to illustrate the point.




Ideally, the defense wants to be in a coverage that best defends what the offense is trying
to do. If the defense expects run toward the trips, then 3-Mable or 2-Solo are best. If the
defense is worried about middle and quick game, then cover 1 is the best bet. Finally, if the
single WR is a concern, then special bracket is optimal.

No matter what trips coverages the defense has in its package, they need to be coordinated
and planned. The best way to protect each one is to mix them up and have a sound disguise
for them. This post was a simplistic look at disguising and calling different coverages to
trips. If anyone has any questions about anything let me know in the comment section.

Posted by aelephans at 2:02 PM 3 comments:
Labels: Cover 3, Coverage, Man Coverage, Quarters, Trips Coverage
Thursday, September 15, 2011
I'll be back!



Sorry guys for not keeping up with my posts, I have been in transition. I am getting
everything together, and should start getting some posts back up in the next week or two.

Some of the topics will be

*defending trips coverages, strategy, and technique (disguise) By Request

*Drills and Technique for coaching Safeties

*Man Coverage

If any of you have any suggestions please leave a comment, it is a lot easier to write posts
when someone gives me some ideas of what people are interested in.

-Mike



Posted by aelephans at 2:24 PM 1 comment:
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Stopping the Power Running Offense with the 4-2-5 Part II: Double
Tight I
In this part, I will look at run fits and alignments versus Double Tight I formations. These
are not hard fast rules and techniques. These are not always ideal given the talent or
distribution of your players. This is just a base to work from that works the majority of the
years. If you want more detail on basic alignment, look at this post.

ALIGNMENT
The call is TITE-2 SKY. The front
can set the strength either way, the ideal situation is to have it set towards the WR side.
However, you can't always count on that; motion will have jumping and shifting all over the
place. The read side is normal, nothing has changed. The FS, SS, Corner, and front align
like they versus regular pro-I. The away-side is where things change. The WS shifts to a
tighter alignment (anywhere from 1x1 to 5x5; it really depends on the player) angled in 45
degrees. He is the force player. The corner is aligned 4-6 yards behind the DE. Finally the
nose shifts to an inside shade on the guard versus the TE. (You could put the corner in force
alignment and stack the WS behind the DE, all you would need to tag is TITE-2 Cloud)

The big change here is the play of the corner. The corner is pass conscious but as soon as
he gets his read he is into the run fit. If you don't like your corners playing like this, you
could personnel another backer/safety into the game or just run cloud on the back side.

The corner has a flat foot read of the TE. If pass shows he has him up and in. If he is out
the WS will play him and the corner will gain depth. On run he is a fill player. He works
inside out on runs to, and plays the cutback on runs way. You can't let the TE worry the
corner too much, you need him active into the run fit. He is essentially a player that has
linebacker type run fits, with corner coverage responsibilities. Again, find which player is
best at this role.


You really have to get the corner confidence in this technique. You don't want the offense
running the ball right at you, with the corner over a nub TE running backwards worried
about a TE beating him on deep ball. However, if its third and long and the offense is still in
double tight I, then the corner should know that he is not needed in the run fit as much,
and can play more pass conscious

ISO STRONG




Isolation plays create an EXTRA GAP. To remain sound versus this play, the Defense will
need to either have a player 2-gap or involve a secondary player in the run fit. This is where
the corner playing cutback comes into the picture. When defending the ISO an important
thing to consider is how the backers leverage the fullback. Brophy wrote an article about Bo
Pelini's defense, and specifically the lever/spill/lever concept. This is one way to treat run
fits. I have become a believer in the linebacker making good contact head up to across, and
letting the other backer and cutback player, fill where needed. Carl Pelini mentioned the
concept at clinic. He explained that offenses were getting better at scheming run-fits. To
combat this his linebackers needed to change up the way they hit and leveraged fullbacks
and other pullers.

In the diagram the Sam hits the fullback as close to LOS as possible. (If the backer cannot
physically handle the fullback then cut him) The Mike will then fill off the Sam, and the
corner will work to cutback. The FS will work downhill and fill off the linebacker. Finally the
SS and WS will fold and play reverse to late pursuit. The FS and corner need to be
aggressive about filling in the run. If the backers and D-line cannot stop the play
themselves they should at least force the back to make a cut or two laterally, or cutback in
the corner. Either way you want the FS/corner making a play on the back as close to the
LOS as possible. If you allow the RB to get out of the hole and into open area at all, you
corner/FS is stuck in an open field tackle situation. You are lucky to win those 70% of the
time. Getting a tackle made close to the LOS is a higher percentage play.

A Side Note

Do you play the secondary this aggressively every play? No. You don't even do it every 1st
down situation. You should do it a good amount of the time, but you need to mix in some
more conservative pass coverages to keep the offense from play-passing you to death. In
this particular call, the secondary should be alert to the game-plan, and that they need to
be aggressive run players.

COUNTER WEAK

These fits apply to the counter
GT and power plays. When planning for these types of plays, I try to simply them down into
a concept for my players. So for simplicity I call these kick-seal plays. The PSDE will spill
the ball (wrong arm the puller); he does not need to go to the ground just work inside the
kick man. If this is done correctly the back will have to bounce the play a gap wider.
Hopefully, the spill will deter the sealer and allow the backer to scrape off of the spilled kick
player free to make the play. If the sealer works around the spill then the backer will need
to fit up on him. The Mike needs to attack the sealer close to spill and rip across him. This
action will turn the lineman's body and cloud the running lane for the back. The back will
have to change direction to try to cut up in the small hole between the kicker and sealer or
continue to bounce at an angle that's vulnerable to pursuit. The backs vision is clouded by
having the backer rip across and turn the corner on the seal man.

The corner will work off the back. If he bounces or takes the inside route the corner needs
to fly in there and fill. The back-side backer needs to avoid the double team on the nose. In
circumstances like this I like this backer to work behind the double team and make the play
in the backfield. (If the double team pushes the nose lateral, then the best thing for the
Sam to do is work over the top.) Many times kick-seal scheme are stopped by the back side
linebacker running through. Its hard for the offense to account for him. Ask O-line coaches
that run the counter about it, they will tell you that the back side backer is the biggest
problem for them.

On the backside of the D, the SS works to play reverse to late pursuit, and the FS will work
and look for any cutback.

TOSS STRONG

The linemen can't get reached or
put on the ground. The tackle, nose and BSDE need to work laterally down the line. The SS
sets the edge at a good leverage angle and forces the back to cutback or bounce outside at
an angle vulnerable to pursuit.

The play of the PSDE on the TE is key. If the O-line works a full zone like the picture above
he needs to push vertical on the TE and stay square on him. He works in this position until
he sees the O-tackle release inside. When this happens he can become a c-gap player
again. If the tackle keeps working with the TE on him, he needs to slowly work to the D-gap
and let the backer worry about the back cutting back inside. The Sam has to be similarly
alert to a full zone. He needs to work to a position behind the DE. if he sees the DE work
inside to the C, he works around him and the TE and fills.

The FS fills the alley inside out. If the defense executes these assignments there should be
nowhere for the back to go. Two players should be hitting the hole unblocked. If the TE
happens to work down and block the Sam, then the DE will be free to make play along with
the FS.

CONCLUSION

Again there are different ways to do things, these are the way I like to play the power
running game. It part III I will look at defending unbalanced and 3-back running formations.
If any of you reading want me to look at some other formations and plays leave a comment
and I will try to fit it in.


Posted by aelephans at 2:12 PM 6 comments:
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Stopping the Power Running Offense with the 4-2-5 Part I:
Principals
This is part I in a multi-part series. (Not sure how many yet.) In this part I will cover the
basic principals to stopping the power running game with the 4-2-5. In part II, I will look at
alignments and run fits/techniques versus double tight-I. In the part(s) I will cover
unbalanced formations and adjustments like "Flip" and getting the safeties on the LOS to
form solid fronts. (ie 4-3 under looks)

People new to the idea of using a 5 man secondary are skeptical, because it seems like it
would be difficult to stop a power running team that uses bigger personnel. At times being
smaller can put the D at a disadvantage, however, with proper game-planning and practice
the 4-2-5 can become an excellent defense for stopping the power run.

I am going to cover some principals and show alignments with run fits versus different
schemes. There are so many scenarios and play variations in football it would be impossible
to cover them all. Understanding the principals and their applications to various formations
in plays will put you on your way to using the 4-2-5 versus power running teams.

PRINCIPALS

1. Align Properly

This is the most important aspect in defending any offense. It is important that you not only
align soundly, but align in a manner that the offense is not sure what you are doing.

2. Spill and Overlap

When using a defense based on smaller faster players, you have to keep the ball moving
laterally. Having the DE's wrong-arm plays is a must. You could try to squeeze or box
pulling plays, but if you run into a team stronger than you, big holes are going to open up.

3. Attack the play before it develops.

There are many things that go into this. If I had to break it down into separate parts, I
would say:

-Be Aggressive about getting people to the point of attack. (Be willing to play the secondary
on the run more aggressively.)

-Don't let the back hit the hole running full speed. (This is why the spill and overlap concept
is a big part)

- Force the back to either dance or make a quick decision into a free defender.

4. Play to win the down and distance game

The other principals are developed from this one. You ideally want the offense to go 3 and
out. That can be difficult versus many of these offenses. The power running offense is
predicated upon keeping the chains and clock moving. Before I get into the Down and
Distance strategy for the defense, I will first look at the strategy for the offense.

Power Running Strategy

On first down the offense is happy getting 4 yards and into a second and medium situation.
If they happen to get into a second and short situation they will be really happy. Second
and short is the best down for the offense; this is where they will use play action passes and
other plays with big play potential mixed in with enough running plays to keep the defense
off balanced. If the offense ends up in 3rd and short, they are comfortable running any of
their base plays. They feel they can get 4 yards at will with this offense. What they want to
avoid at all costs is the dreaded 3rd and long. In this down they can't consistently rely upon
their running plays to get the necessary yardage, nor can they utilize their play-action
passing game effectively. The options they are usually left with are: 5-step passing, Sprint
out passing, screens, draws, and a maybe a spread package. These things are outside the
comfort zone of their offense. In short, the power run offense tries to avoid 3rd long more
than other offensive systems.

Defensive Strategy

The goal of the defense should be to get the power running offense into a 3rd and long
situation. How is that accomplished. Simple by getting the offense to gain 2 yards or less on
1st and second down. OK, its not that simple, but that's the general idea. The best thing the
defense can do is get the offense to gain 2 or less yards on 1st down. This will put the
offense into second and long, again this is a down that the offense wants to avoid, because
it makes 3rd and long a real possibility. The offense has pressure to move the ball on
second and long.

The general point is, you want pressure on the offense on 2nd and 3rd down. To accomplish
this, you have to be aggressive on 1st down. This is the down to be aggressive versus the
run. Most power running teams are not going to go for a pass or play pass on 1st down
(unless they feel its high percentage). Because an incomplete pass immediately puts
pressure on the offense. They don't want to pass unless its high percentage.
The goal of the 4-2-5 versus power running teams is to get them into
a 3rd and long situation.

5. Play to get 3 and outs early in the game rather than later in the game.

This is especially true if you have a decent offense on your team. If you get them to go 3
and out on its first 2-3 drives, while at the same time score 10 or more points, then you
have put them in a bad position. 1st, they won't have enough plays run yet to be sure of
their adjustments. 2nd, they will not be controlling clock, which is a big part of their
scheme. 3rd, they will be playing catch up with a ball-control based offense. If they are
down by 10 points or more, then they are gonna have to play more aggressive themselves,
this usually leads to turnovers and even more mistakes because they are stuck doing
something that they are not as comfortable doing as they are in the running game.

In the next part we will look at the application of these principals by using alignments and
techniques versus the double tight I.



Posted by aelephans at 1:21 PM 5 comments:
Labels: 4-2-5, Philosophy, Running Game
Sunday, January 23, 2011
BRACKET COVERAGE PART III: Combination Brackets
This is part III of the series on Bracket Coverage. You can read PartI and Part II to get
caught up to speed.

Combination brackets are match style brackets. At times the coverages can appear like
quarters coverage after the pattern distribution. The difference between combo brackets
and match-up zone, is the more aggressive man nature of combo-brackets.

I use the term combo brackets for these coverage because they usually involve bracket
concepts combined with a man read concept. Before I get to confusing about the whole
process, lets jump in a look at 3 different combination brackets.

COVER BLACK

I have already discussed this coverage previously, but it is the first and easiest combo
bracket to understand.


This coverage involves "cone"and "bracket"technique put together. The SS is playing out
and up on #2 and the corner is playing out and up of #1. The FS is in the read technique.
He is looking to cut and match the 1st inside cut of speed. The Bracket concept becomes
clear when the 1st inside cut of speed occurs. If the slot is the first cut, the coverage works
like "bracket" if the #1 WR is the first cut it plays like cone.

The key to a coverage like this is to know what it is great against. This coverage is designed
to stop routes that involved people breaking to the outside. Specifically it can cover double
out routes with no problem. Typical sprint out concepts have trouble versus this coverage.
For Example:



MIX COVERAGE

Mix coverage combines the two main bracket types, in/out and under/over.

This is confusing for the
quarterback and offers bracket coverage on both #2 and #1. This coverage is trying to get
double coverage on 2 receivers using only 3 defenders. This might sound like a paradox but
it really isn't. The underneath routes of #1 are handled by the SS exclusively hence the trail
technique. The under routes of #2 will be handled by either the corner of FS. If both #1 and
#2 are vertical the FS will be pushing #2 towards him while the SS will force a high throw
to the #1 WR. In both cases the QB's throwing window will be an air ball towards a deep
corner who will be in position to make a play on either WR.


If #2 breaks in you will have under/over coverage on #1 with the corner and SS:


If #2 breaks out, the FS will play
#1 over while the SS plays under.

If the #1 WR breaks off his route
the SS will take him, and you will have the FS and corner playing #2 in and out.

You can see this coverage is
strong versus underneath routes. The major benefit to this coverage is that it can be
disguised easily.

SQUEEZE COVERAGE

Squeeze might be my favorite combo-bracket of all.


I don't want to get redundant, but if you understand the principals behind the other
coverage I have discussed in this article, then this should make sense. This is simply a
combo bracket that closely resembles a pattern read cover 2. The corner is M/M out and up
of #1 unless #2 works out. Essentially "Cone" with a read on #2. The SS is the inverse of
the corner. Essentially playing deuce with a read on #1. The FS is looking to double the first
up field route or split the difference between double verticals.

This bracket squeezes both WR's and allows most vertical and interminably routes to be
played effectively. The problem routes are those that involve both WR's working in or out.




I am sorry these posts are coming out later than expected. Off-season, power-lifting, and
standardized testing are in the full swing of things. I am looking to do more work on split
safety zone blitzes, playing the power running game from the 4-2-5, and scheming empty
formations. Is there anything anyone in particular is interested in reading about? Leave a
comment if you have a suggestion; I want to write about stuff that people are interested in
most.
Posted by aelephans at 4:38 PM 4 comments:
Labels: Brackets, Coverage, Defense
Monday, January 3, 2011
DOG BLITZES (TCU vs WISCONSIN)


One of the most pivotal plays of the Rose Bowl was Tank Carder'stipped pass on the
Wisconsin failed 2 point play. The crazy thing about football is that Wisconsin had the right
play at the right time, but still came up short. At the same time TCU was not in too bad a
defense for the situation, and despite two major mistakes, they managed to keep Wisconsin
out of the end zone. In this post I will examine TCU's DOG Package and analyze the Dog call
on Wisconsin's two point conversion attempt.

DOG BASICS

The Dog package at TCU is a simple concept. 4 Guys are bringing pressure on one side of
the offense. The usual way to run it is to bring a safety and linebacker from the same side.
This creates enormous pressure and will likely leave at least one person free. In the TCU
system a "Dog" call is a combination of a "Bullet" (backer blitz) with a "Smoke" (Safety
Blitz). Man coverage is run behind it. The man rules are easy: The FS covers the #2 WR to
the side of the dog, the corners cover the most outside guys. The other linebacker accounts
for a back, and the WS accounts for a 4th WR or another back. Lets look at some examples.

If you don't understand the
jargon of the call here is a quick explanation. The first "T" Refers to the way the 3
Technique will be set. "T" Means he will align towards the TE (Y). The second "T" Refers to
the side which the blitz will be run from, this is also the TE side. Dogs is the type of blitz
that is being run, and the "A" at the end is the gap the linebacker is assigned to run
through.

The Left Corner has the Z, the FS has the Y, the WS and Mike will work off on the backs and
the right corner will cover #5. This is a pretty straight forward process. This is an easy
example. The Use of strength calls and blitz directions is crucial for the effective execution
of the DOG package. Lets look at another example versus a 2x2 formation. Here you will
see how the double strength calls are needed to get the defense coordinated properly.


Everything should be straightforward except for the "S" in the call. The "S" tells the
secondary that the blitz will be coming from the "Split" side which is the side away from the
TE(Y). That is why the numbers are reversed in this example.

FIRE TECHNIQUE

The last important part of the Dog call is that D-End to the side of dog is on an Auto-Fire
call. The TCU system can tag a Fire call onto a play even if it is not Dog blitz. However, the
fire call is a must when a dog call is on. A Fire call is simply an alert to the D-End that he
needs to take an inside rush on the offensive tackle if the tackle pass blocks. If it is a
running play he just attacks the C-gap. This allows the offensive tackle to get into a lose-
lose situation that results in somebody coming free on the DOG. Here is an example.


DOG CALL VS
WISCONSIN

Lets look at the Dog call that was used versus Wisconsin on the 2-point conversion attempt.
The call is F-Tag W-DogsB. (I am not sure if this is the exact wording that TCU used but it
will suffice for the example.) From the offensive perspective, Wisconsin aligned in a TE trips
formation.




Versus this formation the blitz and assignments woulds look like this.

The "Tag" call is to the D-Tackle,
alerting him to slant into the A-Gap. Usually on Dog calls versus trips, TCU will elect to
make a "switch" call and simplify the coverage via alignment. A switch call looks like this.
The "F" call sets the 3-tech to the field, and the "W" means "wide" as in run the Dog from
the wide side of the field. (The secondary works off the wide/short concept, as the front
uses Field/Boundary.)

Versus a pass the "switch" call is
much better because of the alignment of the safeties. However, it is not as good versus the
run. Any cutback or run away from the Dog would score easily. Given that Wisconsin was
pounding TCU all night, this would not be the best way to run a Dog. TCU probably elected
not to go with the switch call, because they wanted to remain stronger versus the run. (by
keeping a linebacker in to play the weak-side run). (This is just speculation.)

You can see this alignment and
assignment is more sound versus the run then the "Switch" call would have been. What you
will see in this play, is that TCU makes two big mistakes on the execution of the blitz. One
in the coverage, the other on the actual pass rush.

Coverage Error

The Weak Safety for TCU #9 Alex Ibiloye fails to cover the #3 wide receiver on the settle-
out route.

This left a receiver wide open .
Starting with alignment, the Weak Safety was in bad shape, even if he did try to cover the
#3 WR he was out of position to cover the particular route the receiver ran. TCU has shown
on blitzes that their players will stem to effective alignments regardless if it is safety or
linebacker in coverage.

If you look at the highlights, you can see Gary Patterson pointing and yelling after the play
was over. Like any good coach he was more concerned with correcting errors than
celebrating one of the biggest defensive plays of his career.

Blitz Error

The blitz error was more subtle and shows that the person who made the second best effort
on this play (behind Tank Carder) was the right tackle #58 Ricky Wagner. Lets look at the
Wisconsin protection scheme.

Wisconsin used a 4 man slide to
the right to pick up the TCU blitz. This should not be problem for the DOG blitz, because 5
men will be coming with only 4 to protect. (4 From the dog side plus the nose).

Just looking at the side of the
Dog, someone should be free. Even if the Wisconsin center and guard pick up the D-Tackle
and Sam Backer (which they did) the tackle should be in a lose-lose with the D-end and SS.
The breakdown happens here. Wagner made a great play by pushing the D-End down to the
ground preventing the end from cutting inside of him, and then came off to block the SS
#28 Colin Jones. It was impressive.

I have not seen nor think I will
ever see an O-Line coach expect one his linemen to block 2 guys like this. It goes to show
how good the Wisconsin offensive line is. Here is the highlight of the play.




Even though Wisconsin had the right play called and did a great job protecting it, it still
comes down to play-makers. Tank Carder got blocked and saw the QB get ready to throw,
then did what play-makers do, make plays! He bats the pass down and essentially seals the
win for TCU.

From ESPN Dallas Carder is quoted saying:
"I was definitely on the blitz," Carder said. "We thought they were going to run. Coach
[Gary] Patterson put me on the blitz. I got blocked so I stepped back and he [Tolzien]
cocked his arm back and I jumped up and swatted it down."

CONCLUSION

This post was in no intended to downplay TCU and the game they played. They showed that
they are the #1 Defense in the Nation. Its a tribute to them that even on a play with a
couple of busted assignments, they can still find a way to make plays.

The Dog Blitz is very effective and great versus the run and pass. TCU blitzed a lot in this
game, and they needed too. Wisconsin was pounding the ball better than anyone I have
ever seen against TCU. The frogs played the run aggressive all night, and not just by
blitzing. The safeties were in hard flat-foot reads that ended up with tackles close to the
LOS. The top two tacklers from the game were safeties. #28 Colin Jones and #3 Tejay
Johnson each had 10 tackles. It was a big win for TCU and for the 4-2-5 defense in perhaps
the biggest stage the defense had ever been on
Haven't posted any links in a while, so I thought I'd give out some good info. Posting may drop off for a
while as I might be an interim head coach. I will have to wait and see on what the future holds, but to be
honest, I'm not looking forward to being the head man again. Anyhow, on to those links!

Man, Coach Hoover caught my ugly mug in an otherwise good video of OJW (from the Huey board)
talking about the 4-2-5 and the flexibility the defense offers when defending today's offenses. You can
check out the video here. This video was from our FREE clinic back in early July, if you missed it, I think
we might have some more, as we may have started a tradition! Stay tuned for more information.

Brophy has a good post on Check With Me Defense, which is really becoming the wave of the future. I
mean why not? Who says the offense has to dictate the tempo of the game, as well as what they are
going to do by how you line up? This is a great concept, in its infant stage that I believe will catch on as
the collegiate game evolves. I don't know how much this trickles down to high school ball, but I could see
it being something high school coaches could take and adapt to the smaller scale for varsity football. As
usual, Brophy also has some great links to good videos and free stuff here as well.




Over at Smart Football there's a good article on Spread Punt Protection. Many folks have moved or are
moving to this concept of punt formation. I plan on writing an article on an interesting punt formation I
have used in the past. There never is enough information on the most important 33.3% of the game out
there...special teams! Well, Chris, over at Smart Football has got a good post, that is a must for any
coach getting ready to start installing those ever important special teams! Remember, special teams are
special! Oh, and by the way, if you haven't bought the book yet, The Essential Smart Football then
please proceed to your nearest psychologist and have your head checked!



Teach to Win is a cool blog I found when searching the Internet. Not much on X's and O's, but a lot on
philosophy and coaching here. Haven't had a ton of time to look around on the site, but definitely worth
checking out.

Anyhow, season is here, so look for a post slowdown for a while. Like I said earlier I'm working on some
special teams stuff, but it probably won't be ready until after the start of the season. Sorry, I've just been
too busy. Also don't forget to check out my other blog, The 12th Man! A little off kilter, and more
opinionated than here, but worth reading.

Later dudes,

Duece
Posted by Duece at 7:36 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 12th man blog, 425, blogs, Brophy, Coach Hoover, defensive football, links, special teams
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Why Install Both Special and Solo Coverages?




I get this question a lot from guys, and I guess things are not making sense, so I'm going to try and set
the record straight with this post. First off, we must understand, that everything is done for a reason. Solo
and Special Coverages are overloaded zones pushed to the passing strength to help with 3x1, 3x2 and
4x1 offensive sets. So let's take a look at what each coverage is, and why each coverage is needed.

Solo
Solo, often referred to by old-school Quarters coverage guys as "Poach" is basically Blue (2 read) to the
number one and number two receivers on a trips side. In the TCU 4-2-5, the read side corner, strong
safety (SS) and free safety (FS) will all play blue coverage to the number one and two receivers. The
number three receiver strong is handled by both the read side linebacker and the away side safety. The
weak side corner will cover the single receiver man-to-man, and the away side linebacker (LB) will take
the running back in man coverage also.


Here are the individual rules:
Read side:
Corner: All of 1 vertical/Swing deep of 2
FS: All of 2 vertical; 2 not vertical and in, rob curl to post of 1, 2 not vertical and out, man 1.
SS: Curl/Flat/Swing deep of 3.
LB: Strong hook, short wall 3.

Away side:
Corner: Man #1.
WS: Deep 1/2, all of 3 vertical.
LB: Man #2.

Pros of Solo Coverage
Right off the bat you can see that the simplicity of the coverage is that the read side needs no new
teaching (with the exception of the wall off technique by the read side linebacker). This is nothing more
than the simple "X-out" concept many loaded zone coverages employ. The away side is also a relatively
simple assignment as well, since kids have been playing man-to-man since they were first put on
playgrounds. Also, the run support to the read side is very solid, with the SS still being in a great position
to force the football from his normal alignment.

Cons of Solo Coverage
The weak side run support is the biggest issue I know of with Solo coverage. The WS is put in a bind in
that if the number three receiver goes vertical, he MUST honor that release, leaving the force player late
to the party on the away side. However, you must remember, the read side is always set to the wide side
of the field when the ball is on a hash, so there is not much room for the offense to maneuver to the single
receiver side. In the middle of the field though, I would say this could be a recipe for some big gains,
particularly if your opponent is used to sending its receivers vertical. The other issue is the WS's ability to
get over the number three receiver when he is running vertical. Another tough issue, is when the vertical
of three becomes a corner route. There is some much needed seven-on-seven time with Solo
coverage. Another issue that arises is that most times the single receiver in a trips set is the best receiver
of the bunch, and if they pit him against your corner, you could see some mismatches based on
personnel.

Another con is flood routes to the read side. Depending on how you declare receivers vertical, you can
be caught in a pinch if you are not careful. The flood route is as dangerous as one may think, but does
take some work to perfect.



Special
What Solo isn't, Special is. That's about as simple as you can put it really. Special is an excellent 3x1
coverage, that is also an "X-out" concept, however this time the manned receiver is on the read side
instead of the away side.



The individual rules are as follows:

Read side:
Corner: Man #1.
FS: All of 3 vertical; 3 not vertical and in, rob curl to post of 2; 3 not vertical and out, man 2.
SS: All of 2 vertical, swing deep of 3.
LB: Strong hook, all of 4 vertical.

Away side:
Corner: Play call (can play sky/cloud,bronco etc).
WS: Play call.
LB: Depends on call.

The away side has a ton of freedom. You can do any of the following options.



Cloud
TCU would refer this as cover five, however in my system when the corner is the flat player, then we
simply tag it Cloud. In cloud, the corner is the flat player, and is also the swing deep of two player. The
WS then becomes the deep 1/2, all of one vertical player with the away side LB playing the weak hook to
curl, and has all of number two vertical.

Sky
Sky is simply the opposite of cloud for the WS and weak corner. I like Sky coverage because it has
safety run support, and I prefer to have my safeties force instead of my corners.

Blue
You can run blue coverage to this side as well, but you do have a rough time defending the curl from blue
coverage, so I only recommend this if your opponent does not attack the curl area, or if you on a hash.

Bronco
Bronco is a better option than Blue, because you can tighten the WS's alignment to assist in supporting
the run. Bronco is played many ways, I simply man the corner on the number one receiver and the WS
will take all of number two vertical or out.

Solid
Solid is the way to truly get 3x1 teams out of trips. In Solid you can run Solid Backer, Solid Smoke, or
Solid Cobra. All three are shown below.



Solid Backer


Solid Smoke




Solid Cobra

As you can see, the defense is taking advantage of a three-on-two match up and attacking the offense
with this match up. Solid coverage is one of my favorites because the offense does not expect this from a
zone look on the backside of a 3x1 formation.

Pros of Special Coverage
The top reason I like Special is the fact I can cover my opponents best receiver with two players. You
can mix and match either having the safety over the top, or the corner, thereby keeping your opponent's
quarterback (QB) guessing as to which player is responsible for what zone.

The addition of Solid coverage on the away side is another great reason to play Special Solid. Attacking
the offense is what the defense should ALWAYS have in mind, and Solid does just this.



The weak side run support in Special is much better than Solo because either the corner or WS has deep
help to their side. This frees this player up to attack the line of scrimmage (LOS) on run looks, as well as
helping to play the cutback on runs to the strong side.

Cons of Solo Coverage
The cons most often come to the read side. The read side run support is tricky at best. The SS should
be the force player, but can easily be influenced by the release of the number three receiver. The FS and
read side LB can alleviate this somewhat, but the run support to that side takes some work.

The cross-training of the SS as a corner also takes some work, but is not as tedious as many may
thing. However, this does add to the complexity of the coverage.

Conclusion
So, looking at what both these coverages are and aren't, really shows why both are a compliment to each
other. The biggest reason to run both, is quite easy, run support. I did not run much Special for fear of
the complexity and did just fine, however flood routes and away side runs did take their toll on my team. I
would have benefited from installing Special, to combat the problems that are inherent to Solo coverage.



Yes, both coverages take time to implement, and I recommend installing Solo first, as it is an easier
coverage install. However, I do think, as the season rolls along, you should have Special installed by
your third game at the latest. This is just my opinion, and obviously the earlier the better.

Duece





Posted by Duece at 11:53 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 2 Read, 425, Blue Coverage, defensive football, Gary Patterson, Robber Coverage, Run
Support,safety, TCU defense
Monday, June 18, 2012
Creating an Eight Man Front to Defend the Spread Offense
III





In the first post I touched on various ways that one-high (MOFC) coverages can be utilized in a sound
manner to defend the spread offense. The second post touched on some adjustments you can make via
the front and the coverage to attack certain things the offense is attempting to do. Now, I want to touch
on a couple of the finer points of the eight man front such as:
The Free Safety (FS) and his role in MOFC coverage in the eight man front.
Simplifying alignment in the eight man front.
Blitzing in the eight man front.




The Free Safety's Role in MOFC Coverage
The FS in most MOFC defenses has a tough job, especially if the coverage is cover one, or some sort of
two-deep rotational coverage. Robber, and Cover One are not too strenuous on the FS, the reason
being, in Robber the FS is pattern reading, and it's basically man, and in Cover One, the FS is free to
roam based on the QB's eyes. However, introduce Rip/Liz Cover Three and you now have the best of
both Cover Three and Cover One. Let's look at the pros cons of each and then display them with Rip/Liz
and see what we get...shall we?

Cover One-Pros
Aligns to and covers virtually everything with guaranteed MOF help.
Simple, cover your man, run with your man if he goes in motion (you can bump, or motion blitz if
you'd like, but again, this is simple man-to-man defense here).
Provides a stable defense for the MOF, having both a MOF deep player and a MOF shallow
player (Rat-in-the-hole).
Affords sending up to six defenders on a blitz if using peel coverage rules.
Cover One-Cons
Run force-the force defender can be "run off" by a receiver he's supposed to cover man-to-man
(although catch man alleviates some of this, it is still, nevertheless worrisome).
Not all 11 eyes on the football. Zone defense affords 11 eyes watching the football, whereas man
defenders cannot always eye the football for the threat of being beaten in pass coverage.
Outside 1/3's vulnerable to match up issues. Corners are on an island in Cover One.
Suspect to picks and rubs, as is any man-to-man defense.
FS must have very good range.
Cover Three-Pros
Aligns to everything.
Very simple to install (should be able to do this in one practice).
Good run support (dedicated force players at or near the LOS with a solid MOF alley player).
Cover Three- Cons
Covers nothing.
Weak in the seams.
Weak in the curl.
Weak against flood routes.
Every offense in the country has several "Cover Three Beaters" installed in their offense day one
(which means EVERYONE's seen it).
FS has to have excellent range.
By utilizing Saban's Cover Three, you end up with the following:

Rip/Liz-Pros
Aligns to everything.
Excellent MOF defense with a MOF safety deep and MOF underneath player (ROBOT).
Can keep same rules for zone blitzing (Number one and two droppers are identical in both Cover
Three Rip/Liz and most three deep, three under zone blitz schemes), which alleviates teaching time(multiplicity
through simplicity).
Force players not as apt to be run off by receivers.
All 11 eyes are on the football at the snap.
No need to worry about picks and rubs (you're not in man-can run banjo schemes).
With flat players funneling the number two receiver inside the hash, FS doesn't need to be as
"rangy".
Has the same run support structure as "Country Cover Three".
Very strong in the seams and curl areas because of the pattern read.
Works against most "Cover Three Beaters" and is hard for offense to distinguish between Cover
Three and Cover One.
Rip/Liz-Cons
Not as easy an install as "Country Cover Three" or Cover One, due to the pattern reading nature.
Force players can still be run off somewhat, providing for a "soft edge".
Corners are still on an island (match up).
Whew! I know there are some more, but these are just the basics. What you can see here is you get a
lot of bang for your buck with Rip/Liz. You can still run some Cover One if you need to and it's a great
disguise for when you do. You also can zone blitz from the one-high look and don't have to afford any
pre-snap rotation to give away what you are doing (which many QB's are being taught for what to look for
pre-snap nowadays).



The biggest benefit I think is the protection of the seams, and the fact that the FS doesn't have to be a
guy that can cover a TON of ground. Sure he has to be able to move, and read on the run, but he doesn't
need to be a Major Wright! The funneling of the number two receivers also helps the FS in the run
game. The FS can get a clearer read because the number two receiver is being pressed and thereby has
to make his intentions pretty quickly (am I blocking or running a route) so the FS can get into his run/pass
read quicker and is thereby a little better factor against the run than a traditional Cover Three FS.



So, we can see, the addition of a pattern reading Cover Three is the top priority if you are an eight man
front and you want to consistently defend what spread teams will do to attack you. It does not hurt to mix
in some Cover One however, which will keep the opposing coach guessing and off track when trying to
call certain plays.

Simplifying Alignment in the Eight Man Front
The eight man front is one of the easiest of all defenses to align. The reason is, it's balanced with five
defenders on each side of the ball and a MOF safety. The thing I recommend, is to take a page out of our
split field concept brethern's playbook and play field and boundary. Let's look at the alignment shown
below and I'll explain.




I chose the 3-3 defense for it's simplicity, but you can use the 4-4, 4-2, 5-3 or whatever eight man front
you run out there. However, the simplicity is that the Strong Safety (SS), who is usually the better of the
two overhang safeties always goes to the field. The WS (B in the illustration), would be the weaker of the
two, and would be set to the boundary. In most 3-3's I've seen, most coaches utilize right and left
defenders which is super simple. However, if you wanted to, you can easily set your strength to the field
and still be quite sound. Putting your best players to the field is not a bad idea either. Here is how the 4-
2-5 would align to the same look using field/boundary alignments.





Again, the defenders on the right side of the image are the strong side defenders, and are probably your
better football players whereas your lesser player play into the boundary and are on the left side of the
illustration above.

The simplicity of aligning the eight man front, affords your players one less thought that must tumble
through their testosterone laden minds during the course of a game. This lack of thinking keeps these
players comfortable and playing exactly how we want them to...FAST.

Blitzing in the Eight Man Front
For years most folks new me as a Miami 4-3 guy, and to this day I still love that defense. The one trouble
I always had though, was blitzing out of it. It may have just been me, but having been introduced to the
TCU blitz scheme and after studying tons of 3-3 playbooks over the past few months, I can see there is
no simpler front to blitz from than the eight man front. Again, the balance affords simplicity in alignment,
so teams have trouble getting you out of your base alignment. What this does is affords for less of a
chance that a blitzer will have to widen with an adjustment and thereby be caught out of position on the
snap of the football. The "six-in-the-box" concept keeps blitzing simple as well (both the 3-3 and 4-2, as
well as some 4-3's keep this principle as well). What I will show you, is some blitzes I used out of TCU's
playbook, that despite us being a MOFC defense, we were still able to execute.



Bullets Away, my favorite!


Smokes


Strong/Wide Dog




Weak/Short Dog


Mob (cop)

As you can see, quite simple really. All the blitzes listed in TCU's playbook can be run with the same
adjustments and calls that TCU uses. You don't have to limit yourself there either, the 3-3 defense has a
myriad of blitzes that can be run from a MOFC defense. Whatever front you choose to run, will find
blitzing is quite easy and not too terribly taxing either. Another "cheap" blitz from the 4 man front is the
zone blitz sending one LB. The rules for coverage are very simple, with the number three dropper being
the only one who really changes from the standard Rip/Liz coverage rules.




Sam "B"

Corners- Deep 1/3, all of 1 vertical
OSS- #2 dropper, all of 2 vertical and out. 2 shallow and inside squeeze to the 3 dropper.
ILB- #3 dropper, cut all crossers.
FS- Deep 1/3, all of 3 vertical.
There you go! Very similar to standard Rip/Liz reads and assignments. Again, this is multiplicity through
simplicity, which is a time tested manner for being able to attack your opponent in multiple ways with very
little teaching time.

In conclusion, I think it is VERY possible to be a one-high, MOFC defense and succeed against today's
spread attacks. I think there are multiple reasons for doing so, from anything to poor match ups or
solving tricky alignment problems to being able to bring pressure without having to roll coverage are just
some of the numerous benefits you get from staying one-high. Hopefully you've been able to use this and
can couple this with some other things I've posted on the site to have a very successful defense in the
near future.

Don't forget to check my other blog, The 12th Man, and as usual you can follow me on Twitter
@theduece02.

Duece
Posted by Duece at 4:27 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 12th man blog, 3-3 defense, 425, Blitzes, Cover 3, defensive backs, defensive football, fire
zone,Gary Patterson, Run Support, TCU defense
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Creating an Eight Man Front to Defend the Spread Offense-
II


The drink of all eight man front coaches!
In the first post, I gave you a brief history on the defense my staff and I developed out of the 4-2-
5 personnel to defend a schedule, heavily laden with spread offenses. In this post, I'm going to talk
about our match up issues and what we did to alleviate these issues to help with being able to compete
against vastly superior athletes. Now this isn't to say we were successful, however, the ideas that were
learned through a season of innovation, I think, are worth sharing.

Force Issues
Rip/Liz cover three is a great adaptation to defending the spread offense, but does have one drawback,
and that is that your force player is responsible for the vertical of the number two receiver. But Duece,
that's no different than in any Quarters coverage scheme, so what's the big deal??? The big deal is the
Quarters coverage force player is doing this from a depth of eight to 12 yards. In the eight man front, with
a one high safety look, these players are doing their job from an invert depth of five yards off the
LOS. This means that these players, must make their reads very quickly. The other issue, is that the
outside safeties (OSS's) must align in outside leverage on the number two receiver, which means they
can be out leveraged to be able to engage in their role as the force player.




SS has a long way to go to force the ball, but must also handle the vertical of #2



The way my staff and I handled this issue, was in a couple of ways. The first thing we did was not to
change anything but the way our defensive line (DL) would play, a topic that we've already talked about,
the Two-Gap/One-Gap scheme better known as TGOG. We would set the three technique to the field, so
that the DE to the field side would be a one-gap player, thereby having him come up field hard and "box
in" the play.


This technique serves us well on inside runs that spill outside, however, the jet sweep killed it, and we
had to do something else. I looked high and low, and came up with two solutions, the first was to align
the tackles in double 2I techniques, and the ends in five techniques. Utilizing TGOG principles, this
meant the tackles were one gap players and the DE's were two gap players. By doing this, we were able
to move our LB's out to a "hip" alignment stacked behind the DE's which allowed them to "fit" better on
outside run plays.


Now even though the LB is not the force player, by making taking away any reads he has and forcing his
"flow to" read to be an automatic C gap fit, the offense is not in a position to block this player very
well. Even if they lead the back, the LB will allow the WS (in the diagram above) to get his read, come off
any block that may occur and force. Ok, I know, what the heck do you do with the inside run game, as
those B gaps sure to look inviting. Remember, utilizing the TGOG principle, makes things seem as
though they aren't!




Another thing we did to add confusion was the 3-3 stack front talked about earlier, and we simply had the
DE's play the two gap responsiblility and had the two tackles attack the A gaps in tandem based on our
call.




As you can see, the idea was to alleviate the immediate pressure on the force player by putting the LB's
in a position to support the C gap immediately. However, our defense against the run was less than
successful that season. It was not the outside run that hurt us as much as the inside run, and it had little
to do with scheme, as we once again saw a weakness in our match ups. Teams really hurt us with a
good running quarterback and running isolation and power run plays. Desperately seeking a solution,
one presented itself via the Huey board in the form of an old defense, made popular by Buddy
Ryan...yep, the 46!





Defending the Inside Run
Now, the 46 Nickel was something that was born out of this, but how I actually got in the 46 was very
interesting. At first, the idea was to simply have the tackles align in three techniques and be one gap
players as well as letting the DE's align in wide nine techniques and also play a one-gap technique. The
strong side LB would walk down and stand over the nose while the weak side LB stacked behind as
shown below:


We did several things out of this. The first was have the Sam read the hat of the center, and go to the
opposite A gap if the center tried to cut him off. This allowed the Mike to scrape to the play, virtually
unblocked. Coverage wise, the Sam would always drop to the short side of the field if he got a high hat
read, and Mike would drop to the wide side of the field. If the ball was in the MOF, then the Sam dropped
left and the Mike to the right.



The other great thing about this was we could rush the Sam, play cover six (three deep three under fire
zone) and have the Mike be the three dropper quite easily. Another less expected result was to bring the
Mike, and drop the Sam, all the while playing a fire zone coverage behind it.



Sam rushed based on call (strong/weak/right/left), Mike responsible for A gap away from call



Bringing Mike and dropping Sam yielded some good results!

The fire zone coverage was an easy install because relatively little changed for the underneath
droppers. The only changes were that to the weak side or the short side, these defenders would play
pure man to man defense. On the strong side, or wide side of the defense we used fire zone principles
with a true number two dropper (SS) and a number three dropper (Mike/Sam-whoever dropped). So the
final outcome would look like the illustration below:





Because of our athleticism at DE, we eventually went pure cover one for simplicity's sake. As you can
clearly see, you can run the fire zone concept from this look quite easily.

The three, zero, three alignment freed up our LB's to play the run so much better because it eliminated
the double teams that are present when you leave two gaps open instead of one. Once this was installed
teams really struggled to run on us. We did give up some passes across the middle, and we began
mixing in some cover one. We could do this because of the wide DE's as we could use them to force
now.

A lot of folks would argue, "Duece you are no longer really a 4-2 anymore!", to which I would say, no we
are, we just had to use some tricks to make things work better for us in areas where we did not match up
very well. I think this is the goal of any good coach, as the idea that you must "stick to the scheme" will
eventually get you fired. Adaptation and teaching are what are traits of all good football coaches. This
ability to "make the parts work" is essential in finding success. For us, the schemes shown above took a
defense that was giving up an average of 450 yards per game of total offense and allowed us to reduce
that number to around 240 yards per game. Still not great, but the schemes helped to stop the
bleeding. I know, scheme isn't everything, but when you are teaching the players correctly, and their God
given abilities are failing them, you have to try to find ways around these deficiencies to try and find
success. These schemes did just that.




In the last post, I'm going to discuss the role of the free safety (FS) in making the eight man front
successful against the spread. I hope you find these post insightful as you do your off season
homework. Remember champions are not made overnight!


Duece
Posted by Duece at 7:58 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: 3-3 defense, 425, Cover 3, defensive football, Fronts, TCU defense
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Creating an Eight Man Front to Defend the Spread Offense

Did someone say eight man front?

When I first went to the 4-2-5, my team struggled to grasp the concept, but it wasn't just the concept alone
that hurt us. There are some glaring weaknesses in the "Pattersonian 4-2" that if you are "out-athleted",
you simply are setting yourself up for failure. I will explain further, but after some miserable seven-on-
seven outings, I had to do something. Well, what I'm going to present you is what I came up with, and a
bit of it was stolen from our 3-3 brethren, as well as from Brophy's blog on Nick Saban's adaptation of
Cover 3 to the spread offense.



I was forced into the 4-2, because like a lot of coaches in struggling situations, we needed answers which
correlated to wins. Now, this story doesn't have a happy ending, however, there are some excellent
things to be learned from the trials and tribulations of ANY coach. So when the switch was made, things
looked good on paper, then enter the seven-on-seven league we played in. Where we got hurt the most
was in the curl area to the away side of the coverage. Blue is a great coverage, however to the away
side, you are essentially giving up the curl, and if you play Bronco, you are giving up that out route to the
flat due to the leverage issue of the Weak Safety (WS). Well, after four disappointing games, and four
weeks of not seeing any progress, I became enamored with finding a solution. I needed something
simple and quick to install. Well, I found my answer on the pages of Cripes, Get Back to Fundamentals in
the posts on Saban's Rip/Liz adaptation. So, the following Monday we installed Cover 3, and Mable, and
went on to look a whole lot better in seven-on-seven. After losing our first four games, we ended up
winning three out of the last four, to finish three and five for the summer. The kids liked the new coverage
better and I just knew we were going to succeed. Well, enter the pre-season!



Prior to the start of the season, the goal was to keep the defense simple so the kids could play fast. Well,
our base coverage to any 2 back set was Robber, and then if we got any one back set, we moved on
Cover 3. Trips check would be Mable, and we were going to blitz empty if we got it (we only saw empty
five times that year, even though we played seven spread teams). What I'm going to do in the following
paragraphs is explain the coverages we used, and then go through the "rights" and "wrongs" that we did
so you can see how we came to an end result which was an eight man front that was sound against the
spread.

Robber
Robber coverage is nothing new, and since I was a Quarters guy, it fit with my mentality of pattern
reading. Trouble is, we only faced two, two back teams that year, and both were at the end of the
season. Sure, we saw some mix of some spread two back, but not much, so Robber was no the first
coverage I taught. Now, the Robber I ran, was the typical Virginia Tech Robber scheme that so many
people have become familiar with over the years. There's been so much written on the topic that for me
to write more, would simply fall into the category of "white noise" as there is very little I can bring to the
table on the subject that hasn't already been written about.

Cover Three
Cover three, has also been written about a lot, and most know, by now, the links to Brophy's site where
he speaks about Saban's adaptation to this age old fundamental coverage. Most who really know me,
know I can't stand cover three. Anyhow, after reading the beautifully written pages of Brophy's blog I was
hooked. Saban's cover three is everything you love about cover one, and everything you love about
cover three, all rolled into one. I heard one person even comment to Brophy that Saban's cover three
was much like a one-high version of Quarters. This comment really caught my attention, and got my
wheels to spinning. I'm going to re-hash the rules for Saban's cover three, in case anyone missed them.

For the corners, Rip/Liz (what Saban calls his adaptation), is basically like cover one with some zone
principles. The corner's rule is he has all of the number one receiver vertical. If one is shallow and in or
out, he zones off his deep third. Pretty standard, yet vague enough of a description to be
dangerous. What I added to this to help our corners was to put in a depth of the route, and more
specifically a time. If the corner was able to count to three after the snap and the receiver was still running
vertical, then he locked on to him man to man (ala cover one). If the receiver had made a break before
this, then the corner would zone off into his deep third. This gave the corner a feel for the three step
game, since you can roughly count to three and be at the third step of the quarterback, and allowed the
corner to anticipate whether he was getting a three or five step drop ( I can't tell you the last time I've seen
a seven step drop in high school football). Anyhow, that was really the basis for the coverage for the
corners. Now I did tweak one thing, that if the number one receiver broke off his route in a hitch or out,
that the corner could cushion back and think smash and help play under the deep corner route. This
technique helped our outside safeties (OSS) who were sometimes a little outmatched by the opponent's
slot receiver. Ok, speaking of the OSS's, let's move on to their reads and techniques.



Corner reads


The OSS's rules for Rip/Liz were that they were to take the vertical and out by the number two
receiver. Here I had to tweak the term "vertical" a bit more as well. What I found out worked for us, was
that if the receiver took two steps up field, he was vertical. I know this is slightly different than the
corners, but had to be done this way to combat some of the spacing concepts such as all hitches or all
slants. This allowed us to play the short throws much like cover one would, in a basic man-to-man
concept. The OSS was to align in outside leverage so long as he did not cross the top of the numbers if
the ball was in the MOF. This allowed the OSS to maintain leverage on his run assignment of playing
force. If the number two receiver went shallow and inside, then the OSS would break immediately to the
flat based on the corners call of what the number one receiver had done (in or out). If the call was out,
the OSS would flatten his drop and look to get in the "window" of the quarterback's vision. If the call was
in, the OSS would "sit down" and hang on the edge of the curl/flat zone boundary line looking for the slant
or dig routes. Again, we can see, Saban's adaptation has taken two of cover three's known weaknesses,
the seams, and the curl flat divider and removed them from existence.

OSS reads/reactions to number two vertical or out







The free safety had the very simple rule of playing the middle third of the field. What I liked about the
coverage is it took a huge strain off the free safety playing those seam routes against four vertical
teams. The free safety did not have to be such a good athlete as a typical MOF safety does, which was
our case.





So, in summary, the Rip/Liz adaptation really helped, and this help immediately showed in seven-on-
seven. However, like anything else, this adaptation had it's disadvantages too, which I will speak of
later.




Video Courtesy of our main man Brophy
Mable
Mable, which is Saban's adaptation of cover three to defend trips, is a very sound way of playing any
three by one set you may see. However, one weakness that stood out in seven-on-seven was that by
pushing the linebacker to the trips, he was barely in the box, and really was asking a tall order of one of
my inside linebackers to do what his rules were. The rules are simple, but my adaptation was shown
below, in what a friend of mine (Outlaw Josey Wales on the Huey board) called "dogs over". This concept
was one of many I borrowed from the 3-3 Stack guys, and it was simply to move the weak OSS over to
the trips side and slide the linebackers one full shade to the weak side of the coverage. This did two
things, first it put our linebacker in man coverage in a situation with a better match up, our linebacker
against their running back (which was much better than our linebacker against their number three
receiver). Second, by sliding the linebackers away, and utilizing our Two-Gap/One-Gap defensive line
play, we were able to use this weak side linebacker as our force player. Thirdly, this scheme, which I
aptly named "30 backer" (cover three strong and cover zero weak with weak backer force) put our three
better athletes on our opponent's three receivers creating the match ups that we wanted.






"Dogs over" adjustment to trips in the 3-3 stack




"Dogs over" adjustment in the 4-2


Mable's reads are not that tough, and is nothing more than an overloaded zone pushed to the strong side
with a man to man concept on the backside. This is nothing new, and Brophy has detailed this quite a bit
in his posts on Mable. The key to Mable is that the two underneath droppers (the strong and weak
safeties) have got to get the number two or number three receiver on a different level if the offense is
running four verticals. Fortunately for us, we didn't see four verticals from trips, and even though we
worked the dickens out of it, this concept still concerned me.

Coverage Summary
As you can see, that is a very simple and small list of coverages. Much smaller than the
standard TCUfare I've talked about in the past. I'm not knocking TCU, I'm just saying, that it does require
some athletes at certain positions to run. If you don't have these athletes, you don't scrap the defense
(although some would), you make the defense fit what you have. Saban's adaptations have made this
possible. The ability to play an eight man front against spread teams, and especially the spread option
teams has been a huge victory for defenses around the country fighting to keep up with spread
football. Sure, are there weaknesses, yes there are, and I will talk about those in the next post. I'm going
to cut this one up into a few posts, so hang in there, these should be some informative posts to those who
don't have the athletes to run some of the seven man front coverage schemes!