Some General Thoughts on Defending Spread Tempo Offenses

Well, now that the bowl season is finally over, and I have almost completely overdosed on watching games, I must say I do have some thoughts on what I have seen defensively.  Now mind you, this is purely observational, and not stitch of what I'm talking about or illustrating has been confirmed with film, so basically this post is me bullshitting with you over a couple of beers at the local pub.  Now that we got that out of the way, let's look at my thoughts on what I viewed over the bowl season.

1. There is no, and will never be any, substitute for fundamentals.  The teams that did the best job on defense not only tackled well, but tackled well in space.  They fought off blocks, reacted well to schemes, made reads and utilized very good footwork and technique.  The biggest skills by far is coverage footwork and transition and tackling.  
1. Tackling- The spread schemes have an inordinate amount of ways to get players out-leveraged, out-flanked, and just generally in a bad position to defend whatever play is being run at them.  The packaged plays concept, along with multiple formations, reads and options being utilized has made many a great athlete look silly whiffing at air.  Good teams tackle, but great teams tackle with a purpose...EVEN IN JANUARY.  I don't give a damn what time of year it is, you must tackle.  I do tackling drills everyday during the season up until about games five or six, then I taper off, but even if I'm in the playoffs we are tackling once a week and still doing form/fit drills everyday.  The hardest thing to recreate as a defensive coach is open field tackling, but it MUST be done if facing these types of offenses on a regular basis.
2. Coverage footwork- The good teams have not just had spectacular athletes in the secondary, they've had great technicians in the secondary.  A DB has got to be a master at his craft.  This was no more evident in the BCS National Championship Game where Chris Davis in the beginning of the game used poor footwork on underneath routes to allow a couple of easy first downs.  Later, Davis (yes, I'm being critical of him) made huge error in the way he played the ball, receiver and the route on the pass interference call that led to him making the most critical error of the game (which had nothing to do with fundamentals).  On the goal line, playing in man coverage Davis aligns head up, yes HEAD UP on Kelvin Benjamin and allowed the big 6'5" receiver to body him up on a slant route in the end zone for the game winning touchdown.  Facing spread attacks requires that DB's have meticulous footwork and they must be able to play the ball in the air well.  This was never more evident than vs. one of the best defensive back coaches in the country than Nick Saban himself.  Saban's DB's time and time again found themselves in poor position because of poor technique.  Now, I will agree, there were some mismatches.  As one person put it, some teams just don't match up well against others.  May not mean one is better than the other, but the end result is the same.  The match up issues led to technique breakdown, and well, you see what you got.  The same could be said of Texas A&M's DB's or Baylor's.  
2. Schematically, I honestly feel man to man coverage HAS to make a major return to college football.  I know "living" in man, is not for the faint of heart, but even the match up zone coverage gurus are going the way of pure man on even their zone pressures.  Three-by-three zone blitzes are going back to the old grass roots man free blitzes of yesteryear, but with better eye control and leverage setup in the general attack of the blitz itself (blitzes must really be option centered now or spread option offenses can seriously gash your defense).  Man free and Cover Two Man have to make a comeback, at least until the time being.  I mean, hell, let's be honest, even Saban's version of Cover 3 (Rip/Liz) is basically man free.  Man to man cuts down on the amount of open grass receivers are allowed to attack, and not going pure cover zero all-out man allows you to have a match up problem with help over the top or trailing help underneath.  
3. Zone coverage is not dead however, but must be disguised, which leads me to my next point that the defenses intentions MUST be disguised.  From blitzes to stunts, to coverages, EVERYTHING must not appear as it seems.  The QB is not the only cat you have to fool either, the offensive lineman are the keys you must really fool.  I'm really surprised at the lack of amount of stemming you see defenses doing these days.  Stemming is easy and can be added to any call.  Regardless of tempo, most offenses at least take a second to look over the defense pre-snap, this is when you shift, then shift again.  Build in good hard fast rules too for when caught in a shift.  I always tell my guys when caught, keep working to your gap, don't stop and smell the roses and more importantly DON'T PANIC!!!  Disguise is a must because offenses have become so successful at reading a defenses' intentions and then changing the play, gashing the defense, aligning quickly and doing it again.  This disguise can help slow down the up-tempo schemes of today by making the offense have to reset or "re-audible".  

That moment when you realize this was a poor disguise...

1. More to elaborate on disguise, one thing I liked was how Missouri would show 1 high coverage, then rotate pre-snap to 2 deep, or even, rotate the deep safety down and down safety deep.  I was amazed watching a defender, aligned 5-6 yards off the ball, bailing before the snap to become the MOF defender.  Some of the coverages looked like zone, but some were also man free as well.  I thought the idea very ingenious because you rarely see one high, MOFC coverages morphing to two high, or better yet, rotating much in the way a four-spoke secondary would.  These types of adjustments must be made.  In other words, make the unordianry, ordinary.
1. Obviously pressure must be a consideration when facing these types of offenses.  I think pressure for pressure's sake is not a good mantra however.  I think you have to the standard stuff of evaluating protection schemes, QB strengths when pressured versus when not pressured, run pressures versus both gap and zone schemes etc.  The no huddle presents some issues with pressures in that they must be simple, so they can be signaled in quickly.  These pressure packages must be dynamic so they can adapt to the myriad of formations, shifts and motions that your players may see.  Making your pressure packages multiple, but simple is key.  A backside twist added to a field dog blitz is an easy adjustment, but must be communicated and taught as such.  I think being able to "tweak" a pressure with such nuances is very important in being able to give an offense multiple pressure looks throughout the course of the game.
2. Anti-pressure is another schematic theme that I think defensive coordinators, especially at the high school level should embrace.  Several years back I was facing a very good running QB, with some highly talented receivers (one is entering this year's NFL draft).  We had no answer in our base 4-3 package.  I stole an idea from good ol' Gus Malzahn and utilized a three man front where I simply changed out our 3 technique for another linebacker and played my traditional Mike linebacker about 8 yards deep so he could drop down the middle in a Tampa 2 look.  We went into that game with 4 pressures, 3 zone and 1 man.  We were a 24 point underdog and only lost by 11, confusing the hell out of our opponent with this look.  Now we ended up down by 21 at the half, because as the score got further out of hand, I kept bringing more and more pressure, which led to mistakes, and our players feeling like they needed to press.  In the second half, I called a man blitz, our safety slipped covering a dig route and we were down by 28.  After that I simply quit blitzing and dropped eight into coverage.  On the first possession they threw a pick that led to us scoring.  Second possession we forced the first punt of the night.  The less we pressured, the worse their QB played.  What was happening was we were reducing the size and number of windows this young man had to throw through.  What he began to do then was tuck and run when he got nervous about throwing a pick.  So we quit rushing our Nose, and let him and the stacked Tackle spy the QB.  This made things more and more frustrating leading to two more second half turnovers.  My point is this, don't always think you have to put the pressure on the QB by rushing him.  Sometimes it's better to put the pressure in front of him with coverage and a minimal rush.  I've actually done this more than once, and had it work quite well on more than one occasion.  I think DC's don't need to get caught up in drawing up these wide arrays of blitzes that send safeties and drop tackles etc. just for the sake of trying to sack the QB.  If you are having trouble getting to him, my answer would be, then make him have trouble finding anyone who is open.  What bigger waste of a player than having five offensive linemen blocking two or three defensive linemen, while the other eight or nine players are in coverage, confusing the QB?  I know it's contrarian, but think about it, once I made the leap, the dropping eight or nine has been a part of my spread defense package ever since.

3 man front 4-3 personnel Tampa 2 coverage

1. Also to note, this past season, because we had kids that were so new to doing what I was asking them to do, I kept it quite simple.  If we added a "drop" call to any coverage call, that told the tackle (three technique) to drop on passing plays to the low hole zone.  Allowed us to play coverage with our Mike linebacker a bit different, and also allowed us to play our quarters scheme with an extra underneath zone defender allowing the outside linebackers to get to the flats quicker.  Again, just thoughts on paper, but knowing some body's tried them and had success with them sure helps.  

Drop call given to 3 technique

1. Brophy had mentioned this before, but developing simple defensive concepts that can be communicated effectively and quickly are going to become more and more the norm in at least college football.  I think high school coaches have a bit of time on their side before we see the tempo of the college game, but it looms in the very near future.  None of this was more evident than when Alabama played Oklahoma.  Oklahoma, who throughout the year had done some tempo, wasn't anywhere near the Oregon's or Texas A&M's in terms of playing speed or number of plays, however with the break, and what Stoops knew about Saban's defense, they obviously worked on it and exploited it.  I may make a bold prediction here, but Saban's days may be numbered due to his inability to adapt.  He's had two years now of dealing with both Texas A&M and Ole Miss, both of which operate at high speeds and he's had trouble with these.  That's because Saban, like all of us, likes to be right.  Many a master craftsman wants his hands in everything, and it takes those of us who pride on using our minds to stop our opponent to a dark place when we have to rely only on fundamentals.  However, that is where the game is headed.  Fundamentals, who at some point in the collegiate game had taken a back seat to scheme, will now prevail (as it should).  If Saban doesn't adapt, as other college coaches, it could get ugly for them and ugly in a hurry (no pun intended).  Saban himself, along with Will Muschamp have already talked about scrapping their time eating offenses for the more glamorous no huddle, speed-in-space, up-tempo offenses.  
1. Where this takes defenses is they are going to have to educate the signal callers on the field even more so than before.  The signal callers are going to have to work in a way that they are essentially the coordinator on the field and get the defense in the right front and coverage in a very short amount of time.  The problem with this, as with defensive football in general is that it is reactive, where the offense is proactive.  Sure they have to snap the ball, but even if they aren't right all the time, a short throw to a great athlete that's well covered can still turn into six points.  The defense has this to worry about, and then having said short throw (could be a run, just using the short throw as an example), NOT be covered due to a bad pre-snap read, and it also turns into six.  This is where the teaching responsibility lies with the coordinators and their ability to put their scheme inside the head of a 20 year old.  In the case of high school, sometimes that guy may only be 15!  

What I drew on a napkin from Missouri game, no DVR, so may not be 100% accurate, but you get the gist.  

These are just some of my general notes I've basically jotted down in my phone, or on a napkin as bowl season unraveled before our eyes this season.  I think we could easily be five to six years off before defenses really "catch up", and I use that term lightly because defensive football is behind the eight ball already as the game is designed to be entertaining, and a nine to seven ballgame isn't really appealing to the average fan.  I also agree with Brophy on his new standards of measuring what a good defensive outing will be in the near future.  I think the time is gone where you see shutouts, or very low scoring affairs.  For those of us who are "defensive minded" this may be an issue, but it's like anything else, you either adapt, or you die.  

I'm thinking very seriously about working on a collaborative effort to look at this more closely.  I have contacted a couple of other bloggers about this, as I think it was our readers would want, and could greatly use.  If you have any suggestions or comments, shoot me an email or hit me up on Twitter @FootballIsLifeBlog.  Hope everyone had a great holiday, and is ready to hit the off-season in full stride!

Duece

TGOG Film

Well, it's finally here!  For those that have doubted the technique, a dear friend of mine, and colleague, Coach Barry Hoover, who runs Coach Hoover's Football Coaching Site, has done all the leg work for me in finding the proper cut-ups for the film and putting it all together.  I can take no credit here, Coach Hoover's a fine individual, who by the way, can tear up some BBQ!!!  Anhow, here is the film, hope everyone enjoys it!

Some other things to look at this off-season:

Brophy stirring the pot with Florida State and Mickey Andrew's famous "jet" technique and pass rush technique in his latest blog post.  He also has another good post on the "In, At, Out" Drill for LB's.

Some other sites to check out are in my blog roll.  Always give these guys a look, there's some good stuff out there!

Smart Football
Hit Em' Hard
Spread Football
Blitzology
Compete in All Things

These are just a few in my blog roll.  Great stuff out there written by great coaches that take time out of their busy schedules to help us out.  Thanks guys!!!  Dog days of summer are here, don't get lacidasical!!!!  Season's right around the corner.

Duece

Split Field Coverage Concept - The Underneath Players

What's underneath there???

I get a lot of questions about this topic, especially regarding TCU's Blue coverage and how they deal with crossers.  Now, I've not heard it from the man himself, but from what I've watched on film and broken down, here is what I've come to find out.  To first illustrate, we need to look at how traditional zone coverages, that are not split field in nature deal with crossing routes.

Traditional Zone
In a traditional zone, much like in basketball, routes get passed off to other defenders when the run through a zone.  In the early years, if you were to have run with the receiver after he passed through your zone, you surely were getting yelled at as a player.  The idea behind zone is that all eyes are on the football and that in an attempt to minimize spacing, you pass routes off to one another.  This works good in basketball where things work on a much tighter scale, however in football, OC's found out that there was just too much ground for a traditional zone player to have to work with to effectively control passing concepts by simply passing one receiver from zone to zone. This "passing off" is where many zone coverages fail and it's for two major reasons.  Reason one, is sheer athleticism.  Most underneath zone guys are linebackers or inverted safeties who are not as fleet of foot as their cornerback counterparts, yet they are still having to cover receivers within their zones.  As the spread has evolved, instead of the number two receiver being a tight end or a running back, he's now a slot receiver, which makes this match up that more lopsided in the offenses favor.  Secondly as offenses have advanced through the years, passing concepts have become more and more advanced, and are using this "passing off" technique against the defense by overloading zones with multiple crossers and/or high lowing a zone AND adding a crosser.  These two factors are the single most important reason to pattern read in my opinion.  That's for another post however...

Anyhow, in traditional zone, if a hook to curl defender expands to his landmark and gets a receiver coming into his zone, he runs with him, until something makes him stop.  Now this can be the edge of zone, or another receiver entering his zone.  A lot of people call this passing the route and looking for work.  In the beginning of pure zone coverage concepts, I'm sure this was the bees knees, however as offenses have figured this out, the stress put on these underneath coverage guys by both horizontal and vertical stretches have become so great, most folks are not using any "pure zone" concepts anymore (if you are, please proceed to the nearest mental hospital, put on one of their fancy white coats and stay awhile).  With two speedy receivers crossing in a linebackers zone, or high-lowing his zone, the idea that you ask him to split the two and rally was a good answer in the beginning, but as QB coaching has progressed, even in high school football there are kids who can fit the ball into the tightest of windows.  So now you get pattern reading.  But how does pattern reading and the split field concept tie together?  Let's take a look.

Reading...you're doing it wrong!

Pattern Reading
I would venture a guess that ALL major college football defenses pattern read.  I'm sure there are a few that still use some landmark drops, but most are now at least using a progression type read, reading from two to one, or one to two and so on.  Other pattern read schemes have very definitive rules, such as "all of number two vertical and out", which gives a clear cut picture of what the defender is doing.  This pattern match principle can be easily seen on display every Saturday afternoon in the fall.  Pattern matching is not really all that new either, but it's refinement is what's really taking pattern matching to new heights here lately.  Anyhow, what I really like about pattern matching is the definitive answer to reacting to what a receiver or offensive player is doing.  This leaves very little gray area for the defender to have to deal with.  Gray areas are what force your players to play slow, because it makes them think. Now many of those that argue against pattern matching, don't really understand the concept and just how concrete it is.  It's the best of both worlds is what it really is.  It's zone in nature, which means we have all 11 eyes on the football at the snap of the football, helping immensely with stopping our opponent's run game.  Secondly it's man in nature in that once the man trigger has been pulled by the defender, he simply covers the receiver man to man.  We all know that man is one of the simplest coverages out there, so all you are really doing, when pattern reading, is giving qualifiers to man coverage.  Anyhow, I could go on for days here, but even in pattern matching, defenders can still pass off routes to other defenders.  In Saban's Mable adjustment to trips, if there are two crossers, the inside linebackers will pass them off to one another, they do not run with them man necessarily, even though their base rule would say to do so.  This can lead to some confusion though and lead to open receivers.  It can also allow the offense to use this passing off feature against the defense, much like offenses exploited it back when it was still a pure zone concept.  So how does the split field concept alleviate the stress put on a defense by crossing receivers?

Split Field and Crossing Receivers
Now I'm speaking of how TCU's split field concept works and what makes it so solid, I'm sure there's plenty of split field coaches out there that will disagree with this approach, however the TCU scheme is by far the BEST I've seen for dealing with crossing routes.  Let's set up a two-by-two set up playing Blue to both sides (though TCU does not do this, we could simply say playing quarters to both side etc.).  Anyhow, does not matter where the read side is, just keep in mind what the underneath players are doing.  Let's look at the following concept (similar to the levels concept) out of the two-by-two formation shown below.

The corner to the away side has to honor the vertical of one to help the weak safety get over the top, so the out will inevitably be open, however the Mike, is the slice player so he will exit 90 degrees in an attempt to undercut this route.  Now, if the read side linebacker (Sam in my illustration), passes off the shallow crosser, the QB can have a field day!  Here's where the man trigger of pattern matching comes into place.

As we can see from the illustrations, if the read side linebacker passes the crosser off, there's a large void and an open area for that receiver to sit down in.  If he runs with the crosser, which he should, then this window is immediately closed.  Also, from the illustrations, you can see there are still elements of pure zone coverage as look at the strong safety, who sees two go inside and knows now I look to work under number one's route.  He is, in effect, "passing off" the crosser to the inside linebacker, which as stated above, is a pure zone concept.

Now, the other beauty of the way TCU plays things, is that behind everything they do, there is a "common sense rule".  Which basically means, "don't do anything stupid".  For instance, one would say, "What about mesh coach?".  This is a valid question, since now you have two crossers and as we all know (or should know), crossers can severely damage man coverage, ESPECIALLY when they cross.  Here's where the common sense rule comes into play though.

The two linebackers will communicate to each other on the crossing routes and come off and switch.  Here the switch makes sense because Mesh attempts to beat the tar out of man coverage with these crossing routes.  Had the two defenders stayed locked in man a natural rub would occur and one defender, or both, could be compromised, thereby leaving a receiver open.

The Weakness
Much of the questions I get on the subject of underneath coverage defenders has to do when one of these defenders is assigned to the vertical of a certain position.  For instance, in Blue, the read side linebacker is the middle hook dropper and will have all of number three vertical.  This scares the hell out of folks, because they are not accustomed to having their linebacker run with any vertical threat.  This is not a big deal IF you've done your scouting homework.  I once faced an OC in that would get in stacked twins, two-by-two look with the receivers out on the top of the numbers and would run the running back vertical down the seam because he knew we were running quarters.  They had a major down and distance tendency for doing this, and had a damn good running back who could catch as good as any receiver on their team.  When we saw this look, or expected it, we simply rolled into good ol' country cover 3.  They ran fade/hitch with the other receivers which cover 3 took care of nicely.  The safety would roll to the MOF and we ended up picking off that route once and breaking up another to where they quit running it.  My point is, don't make one coverage fit everything.  That would be like you waking up in the morning, trying to find an outfit for the office that would also look good for your job interview that afternoon and be comfortable enough at your son's Little League game later than night.  CHANGE YOUR FRICKEN' CLOTHES DUDE!!!  C'mon, don't ask one coverage to cover everything, I mean that's what everybody supposedly loves about cover 3 is that it aligns to everything.  BIG DEAL, it covers NOTHING, so why use it?  If you know a team likes to do a particularly thing you need to have an answer for that.  It may mean another coverage, it may mean tweaking what you have, but Lord knows, whatever you do, don't just "hope" your linebacker can run with their back if he can't.

We have found a weakness!

The other thing I get, is coaches saying "Well that's just man, I don't like my linebackers to play man".  Well why not?  I mean, the best way to see man to man coverage, is to go to a playground and watch kids playing tag or a pickup game of football.  If you watch, there will be mismatches everywhere, hell that's LIFE.  But watch closely and time up the time that the kids begin to run or chase the other kid and the time that one either separates or closes the gap between the other.  You will see this time will be around three to five seconds.  Sound familiar?  Any kid can run with a receiver for three to five seconds, anywhere on the field.  This is not a major issue in my book, and I always roll my eyes at that question, but go check it out for yourself.  The other thing to remember is that 75 percent of pass defense is pass rush.  So if your guys can run with their guys for three to five seconds, you need to be able to apply pressure in that same amount of time.  That, my friends is EXACTLY how good pass defense works.

The face of your pass defense.

To me, the major weakness of the underneath coverage in the split field concept is communication.  If communication is missed it can lead to open receivers or defenders running into each other.  It is imperative that you, as the coach, make sure that your players know not only why they should communicate, but how to effectively communicate.  I worked for a guy that used to have underneath guys yell "crosser" when a receiver would cross in front of them and leave their zone.  I always wondered why, because trying saying the word "crosser" with a mouthpiece in.  I came to him one day, and said "Why don't we just say in, instead of crosser?  It's shorter and easier to say than crosser."  He looked at me, as though he'd never thought of that, which to find out, he hadn't and we immediately changed that and our communication with our underneath players got much better.  These are the things that you, the coach, can do to facilitate your players and help them be successful implementing the underneath coverage in a pattern read scheme.

Conclusion
The underneath coverage  in the split field concept is not as tricky as folks make it out to be, especially if you build communication into your system and a set of fail-safe rules.  I always tell folks, using the word "always" in building your rules is a bad thing, because good OC's find out your "always" and then exploit it.  Keep your rules open and flexible as possible to allow for your players to adapt to what they are seeing.  Just as in the example above, both the inside linebacker's man keys were triggered, but because of communication and common sense (which should be ingrained in how you coach the coverage to your players) these players knew what was coming and were able to adjust.

Always...not "always" a good word...

Duece

Setting the Record Straight

I was talking with a very knowledgeable colleague yesterday and had some things dawn on me about this blog.  As everybody knows, I had a recent meltdown where I got frustrated with some things and basically shut everything down.  Well, I've cooled my heels since then, been keeping my nose to the grindstone, heavily studying TCU's defense and writing my book on the flexbone offense.  This is why my posts have been few and far between lately.  I have some things on the horizon that may get me back into the high school game.  I'm not 100 percent sure of it yet, but hopefully with a little luck, I will be back to coaching on Friday nights.

Anyhow, back to the reason for this post.  My colleague, who is extremely knowledgeable about the game of football, has pointed out some glaring flaws in my blog with some of my posts, especially those about TCU's defense.  Now this flaw is that I have reported in a manner that would leave folks to believe that I was sitting in Gary Patterson's office taking dictation.  This was not my intent.  When I first started looking into the TCU defense, it's manner of divorced front and coverage, split field concept and the pro-style play calling, I did what a LOT of coaches do with college schemes.  I took it and tried to mold it to what "I'd always done".  So instead of an eight word call for Tite Tank Tank S-Dogs B Silver, I made that into Boston Dogs to shorten the call and turn it into a concept call instead of using the pro-style method.  So in those regards, a lot of that stuff was my adaptation of TCU's principles.  My colleague pointed out that this can, and has been misleading.  Not my intent whatsoever.

Also, some things have been PURE mistakes, which I'm not afraid to admit.  It doesn't mean that what I wrote was necessarily bad or you shouldn't use it, it's just maybe not EXACTLY like TCU does it.  The reason for this is because all I had in front of me was clinic notes, the 57 page playbook most TCU gurus have in their library, and some game film.  Well, I sat down to digest this stuff, because I wanted to install the 4-2-5, but I molded it into "my defense" with my terminology.  Looking at film, it's easy to see where Blue, and Robber look so much alike.  One clear mistake I made is to make the statement that TCU plays Blue coverage to both sides.  Having done further homework, I have been shown that this is actually not the case. They rarely if EVER play Blue to both sides.  However, I do, and have done it this way, because I like Blue better than their cover 2.  My posts on the matter have been a bit misleading in that they are really my interpretation of what teams are doing based on studying.  You have to realize, using this information can come with a price (remember this shit's free, so you get what you pay for).  Again, doesn't mean it's wrong, but if you are arguing with a GA from TCU you COULD undoubtedly look like an idiot.

What I did when I started out with this blog is to try and study the game and put things into terms and perspectives that the high school football coach could use at that level.  I never meant for this to be a blog where I simply reported what teams did verbatim.  I don't have the money or the resources to fly all over the country and clinic with all these staffs to figure all this out.  I, like many of you, am DVR'ing every game I can on Saturday's and then breaking these films down in the off season, studying them and reporting my findings.  Do I misinterpret things?  Yes, hell I'm human too.  The thing of it, is I'm not too proud to admit that I've made a mistake, and here's the correct answer.

Lastly, a LOT of the stuff on here is stuff I have run or friends have run and shared with me that has been successful.  The Two Gap One Gap (TGOG) stuff is something I did YEARS ago BY ACCIDENT.  I wasn't sitting around being a mad scientist in a lab figuring this shit out, I was a quarters coach, trying to figure out how to contain this new generation of running QB's using a pirate stunt when both OLB's in the 4-3 were walked out on number two in a two-by-two set.  We simply stumbled on the principle and a friend of mine actually learned how Iowa does it, and uses it to this day with tremendous success.  The same thing goes for a lot of the stuff I've posted on here (the 8-2-1 kickoff return, the BOSS blitz, the zone read stunts etc.) are all things I've had a hand in using or developing that have helped coaches and I wanted to share them with you.

The frustrating part is the coaches that email and act like I sold them something with a warranty.  Dude, I'm not Sears and you just bought a set of Craftsman wrenches and had one break.  I'm not going to rush right over and help you, if I'm busy doing other things.  This was the major reason I shut the blog down, and the major reason I'm writing this post today.  Now, for those that haven't done this, don't worry, I plan to keep blogging as I feel it's a great outlet, but I want the blog to be special, because since I've started it seems every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they should start a blog too.  Good for them, but I want to do things that set me apart from the crowd.  I'm going to keep writing about things I learn, or do, or develop, from MY perspective and not try and mislead folks that, this is HOW somebody else runs something that in all honesty I haven't heard from the "horse's mouth".  I hope that will clear some things up, and keep folks happy, and yes I plan on getting back into blogging once things settle down a bit.  So have no fear, Football is Life will still be around, just maybe not as many posts as your used to, so please be patient.

For those fixing to start spring ball, I'm hoping and praying I'm among your ranks here soon.  Lord knows I miss those Friday Night Lights!!!

Duece

Links, links links!

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

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

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

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