Tampa 2 Install

Fritz Shurmur - Nickel / Dime Defense

Buddy Ryan, Dick Lebeau, Jim Johnson? Meh....amateurs!

Shurmur was the grand wizard of defensive minds

Apparently, publishing of his defensive bible has become impossible (?), so here they are ....

COACHING TEAM DEFENSE

COACHING THE DEFENSIVE LINE

No-Huddle Check-With-Me Defense

With as much wide-open spread and tempo offenses out there, surely there has to be a defensive solution to match this attack.  In this post, we’ll attempt to explain and explore the concepts a defense can use to take the wind out the sails of the no-huddle spread.

In today’s game, the true 2-back tight end has become rare. The order of the day has become a standard fare of 2x2 and 3x1 with a variety of 1-back run games and basic route concepts.  Huddling has become passé, passing games more prevalent and fast-strike offenses look to jump on sleeping defenses.  Again, we can distill the conversation down the basics; with only 5 offensive linemen and 1 back, the need for an 8-man front just isn’t there (you can live in split-safety with a 7 man box). When you couple that arithmetic with no tight end, now you can control the box with just 6 defenders (necessitating a nickel look) and control the receiving threats with 5 dedicated defensive backs. 

The numbers really never change up front. You can game and align how you like, but you’re going to account for those 6 offensive gaps with your linemen and linebackers. This leads us to what you are going to do against the only other formations you will see with 1-back; 2x2 and 3x1 (and its lovechild, 3x2). We’ve dealt with this before (twins coverage variations), but we’re going to attempt to take it a step further, going beyond old-school defensive adaptations and TCU’s swimming-in-vocabulary-system, to look at the practicality of using a ‘self-correcting’ nickel. 

This is something more than just looking for a blanket 'defense' solution (“ah, well we’ll just run Cover 2!”), but using a system with built-in answers for coverage/run support that adjusts on the fly.  It requires much more player indoctrination and processing up front, but once you’ve laid the framework, it can be anything you want it to be and essentially “run by itself”.  The simplicity is tied to the communication between the safety, corner and overhang player.  They communicate every snap so there leaves little room for ‘blown coverage’ (players not understanding what each other is responsible for).  Much like match-up zone basketball, it can be reduced down to multiple 3-on-2 banjo to each side of the offensive formation.

A brief outline of the benefits of moving towards this defensive system would be:

• 2 high all the time
• as many coverages as you want
• complete carry over for all defensive backs
• consistent with quarters / 2 read basics
• adjusts to all formations and splits without needing to alter alignment
• adapts per game plan
• no more zone 3 deep 3 under wait and react....jump everything aggressive like banjo

Coverage is premised on playing man (after distribution), but with a quarters feel; each side independent of the other.  The Strong Safety and Nickel travel to the passing strength / field, while the Sam and Free Safety align away / boundary.  All routes are intended to be aggressively matched with a banjo principle and as such, there is no spot-dropping.  This plays into how pressures will be run.  The traditional 3 deep / 3 under fire zones, with underneath defenders dropping to areas without aggressively jumping receiver distribution only creates more opportunities for the offense to find the voids.  Whereas in the late 90’s and early part of 2000s, defenses could just provide a +4 to a side pressure and overwhelm protection.  The area drops sufficed at that time.  In today’s game, offenses have more protection alternatives available, more streamlined concepts with built-in rush routes, and quarterbacks are becoming better suited to handle the blitz.  This is why aggressively matching (it looks like true man coverage when executed) is where more and more defenses are headed to.

By packaging your defense into fronts and coverage, there is no need to huddle. Your personnel can just line up for the next play based on the ball spot.  The front / game can be signaled from the sideline if necessary.  Coverage can be signaled but most times it is decided by each safety once the offense sets the formation.  The check-with-me is controlled by each safety, who will coordinate with his corner and nickel/backer on how to handle the receiver split they face.  Each side will act independently of the other. The secondary aligns in the same 2-high look for every snap, with corners inside #1, cocked inside facing the ball.  This position allows them to easily get a hand-gesture-signal by his safety, acknowledge it, and be ready for the play.  The no-huddle check-with-me allows the players more time to receive more information from the sideline (personnel) and anticipate what the offense will likely do in this down and distance once the formation is set.  You can establish some basic principles and work the exceptions based on game plan.
Now, let’s take a look at various ways the check-with-me coverage works against formations…... 

2x2 – So How Do You Handle Twins?
That depends – there are host of possibilities available, but the best way to look at this is how the offensive threat changes based on known variables.  This deductive method for packaging the coverage helps indoctrinate players to how they need to understand/process offenses.  As a footnote, I’ll mention that much has been explained about Rip/Liz from a 1-high coverage as a way of adjusting to spread.  However, this was created as a necessary adaptation for the time.  Despite leading the innovation for a decade, Saban rarely uses it.  In numerous seasons worth of film dating back to 2002, I was only able to locate a handful where Saban actually used true Rip/Liz against 2x2.  Why? Because he (like most defenses of today) remain 2-high every snap.
 
The illustrations here will display scheme with zones, simply to represent the banjo concept of denoting the route the defender will attack.  We will use basic terminology (it doesn't matter how you call the adjustment, just make sure there is a way to communicate the idea) as much as we can to explain each situation.  I'll say that NONE OF THIS is all that revolutionary (its been done since the 80s when teams were double calling their coverage based on pro/slot), but it does set a framework to begin building the concept of a no-huddle defense that can call its own plays.  As a preface to this discussion, please reference this post on coverages ( basic coverages ).

Field / Boundary

Facing 2 quicks to the field creates some horizontal spacing issues.  With really only 3 defenders to cover a 35 yard swath, you will need some creativity and flexibility to put numbers in your favor.  To the wide side of the field, you could drop the safety to cover this horizontal stretch, with a modified version of the old Robber coverage.  Here the safety will be force on run-action to him and jump the first threat outside.  The Nic will have help outside and maintain inside leverage on #2 and fit the alley in run support.  Since the Nic will be used in outside blitzes frequently, offenses can never really be sure what his alignment represents.  The Strong Safety will drop on 8-10 yard curl and cut outside breaks of #1 or #2.

With limited space into the boundary, the horizontal stretch of the coverage just isn't there.  You may see more leveled routes (China/Smash).  To the short side of the field, the preferred call is “Sink” or what amounts to 2 read (we called this 'monster' at my last stop).  The corner will carry a vertical of #1 and retreat to the deep flat if #2 appears (out).  The Strong Safety is in position to match #2 vertical.  The backer (Sam) will wall #2 on the receiver's stem.  On run action, safety is primary run force with corner over the top.  2 Read / Sink can be played on either side, but is particularly effective against flat/curl types of throws.

Back To / Away

Having a coverage preference based on field position is logical because you want to protect against getting leveraged.  You can also incorporate how you would like to adjust based on where the single back sets to account for likely route/run pairings.  

• Back away: stretch/power, back flare
• Back to: speed option

Naturally, with a back offset to the twins side, you end up with a potential threat of three receivers.  With passing strength set toward the back, in addition to running Robber explained above, you could opt to cloud (corner force) that side to include an immediate perimeter defender, expecting quick 3-man game.

With the back away from the passing strength you won't be threatened with being outnumbered immediately on the perimeter (still have a 3-on-2 advantage). An efficient way of using personnel would be to declare 'buzz', allowing the Nic to be the force defender (buzz = backer force) with the safety dropping in late to the curl/alley.  This also is a solid alternative into the boundary.

At any point, if the split is wide enough between #1 and #2 where the safety doesn't feel he can provide deep over-the-top help on #1, he has the ability to make a "swim" call that denotes that he will take #2 man-to-man.  This leaves the corner with no deep help and will be man on #1 for anything other than an immediate inside route.  This prevents being out-leveraged by #1 and #2 (works like MEG in Cover 7) but also provides a confusing change-up because the the safety exclusively matches #2 everywhere.

Another change-up that remains consistent with the relationship split-field personnel is dropping a safety into the middle of the field hole as a box player.  This is particularly effective against 2-back sets when the linebackers will be bubbled in 50 techniques (versus a single-split the corner will likely be in man coverage, anyway).  With a pro formation you'd be fine dropping both safeties outside (ala Sky) or try something else.  Here we call this "Zebra", but you can name it as you like.  The point is without a need for 3-on-2 outside based on formation, the deep safety may be better suited added to the box for run-support gap integrity. 

3x1 – You’re Only Left With One Coverage To Play Against Trips
The standard quarters answer to 3x1 was always to man the single-split and zone combo the 3-man side.  Here, we'll provide some more alternatives to this with zone matchups that will play into the field area packaging.  

Another way to play 3x1 is with “Stump” where the the corner mans #1 completely and #2 and #3 receivers are banjoed by the inside defenders (Nic, Strong Safety, and Mike).  This is particularly useful when #1 is considerably detached from the other receivers (much like "swim" outlined above). 

"Stick" is the alternative to Stump, where #3 is manned up and there remains a 3-on-2 with #1 and #2.  This is particularly effective against quick game out of trips and bubbles by #3. The Mike provides support to cut the 1st crosser of #1 or #2.

Another way to handle automatic coverage against 3x1 is with pressure.  This is best introduced from empty...

3x2 – The Rules Hold True
After already establishing how you want to play 3x1 and 2x2, these ground rules help establish a base look to stay sound against empty.  When facing a quarters defense, you can expect to see coverage rolled to the passing strength.  The standard answer against trips is to solo the backside single-receiver and end up with some type of banjo concept to the 3 receiver side.  For many defenses this is really the only solution and when faced with 3x2 empty, conventional wisdom zones everything to play it safe or go-for-broke and bring man-free pressure.

To deviate from these basic standards you would want to be able to break from conventional expectations (offenses going to trips for the purpose of getting single coverage on a receiver), but also be flexible to adjust against motion and/or passing strength changes. Previously, we discussed how the fire zone would handle trips and empty, for a more aggressive method we can flip these rules on their head.

Man Side Becomes Zone Side
The trick with no-huddle defense is always giving a static pre-snap look so an offense never really knows what it is dealing with.  Even when safeties drop, you still won’t be sure what coverage it is until the receivers are into their break.  The same holds true here for empty.

With "MASH" (Mike and Sam blitz), the 3-man side will man-free each receiver (Corner, Nic, Strong Safety).  To the 2-man side, they will banjo zone the split (often times this is going to be to the boundary) between the Corner, Mike, and Free Safety.  Corner takes first to the flat, Mike takes second out.  It all boils down to a read on #2 as to how the receiver distribution will play out (again, consistent with quarters/2 read principles).  Meanwhile, the backer away from the zone side will be a part of the 5-man pressure up front.

Empty to 3x1

This pressure also works against 3x1 or the likely shift of the the weak slot to the backfield.  If 3x2 becomes 3x1, you still have the 3-man side manned up, but if there is no immediate inside vertical threat weak, then the Mike is now included in the pressure and the Free Safety drops to replace his ‘zone’.  The Free Safety will cut the first crosser with no deep help.  Nothing really changes here, the Mike just gets replaced by the safety.

With a back in the backfield, the End away from the Free Safety will peel if the back cross releases (to the 3-man side) in an effort to help coverage.

Empty to 2x2

In the event that 3x2 becomes 2x2, likely from one of the trips side receivers shifts to the backfield, you end up with a push.  With a back in the backfield, you have a trigger to engage the Mike in the pressure (both linebackers are blitzing).  Now the only thing to figure is where the back offsets to.  The side the back sets to weighs the twins to his side as the 3-man side.  In the ‘flipped’ example below, the back sets to the former weak passing strength.  The former passing strength (to the Nic side) has shifted away, therefore the 2-man side to the Nic is now the zone-side.  The Free Safety’s side is now the passing strength with the back added to his side.  This now becomes the man-side.   The corner and Free Safety man #1 and #2 and the remaining back will be fiddled between the same-side Mike (if back releases to the Free) and the away-side DE (if back cross releases to the Nic).

An additional change up against empty is to use a Tampa 2 coverage with the Nic retreating to the deep-middle of the field. This has the exact same look as the coverages above, but becomes completely different.  Now, instead of expecting man-coverage to trips, you’d be getting a true  3-deep 4-under zone defense.  Using nickel and setting the Nic to the field, you can feign him on a blitz (will be used quite a bit in pressures, anyway) bringing him closer to the box giving him less distance to travel to get to the middle of the field.

This has been a basic overview of using a no-huddle defense against the spread with coverage alternatives.  I believe this is truly where defenses are headed in the future (many are already there now) and the need to be creative and thoroughly prepare your players to think for themselves should force us coaches to live on the bleeding edge of the game's innovations.

Good luck this season.....

now presented without comment, a game with two full-time no-huddle nickel defenses...

Catch-Man Technique

We’ve touched on this trend before and I believe it will be the trend for the future of defenses as they continue to aggressively adapt to passing offenses.  It used to be that when you played man coverage, it was required that you dogmatically adhere to tight or press-man technique and relied on disrupting routes and pressuring the quarterback.  This pretty much meant your defense needed to out-athlete the offense you were facing as well as showing your intentions pre-snap if the offense ever presented a one-back formation.

As defenses adapted through the 90s and offenses began finding more and more success passing the football, zone defenses were forced to evolve to pattern-matching routes.  Matching out of zone with six defenders would leave an extra hole player against five receivers.  The natural progression from this was the fire-zone, adding a zone defender to an overloaded pressure while accounting for all receivers.  Fire-zoning became (and continues to be) a catch-all solution with static pre-snap defensive looks.  The only issue would be the ability to retain alignment leverage without giving away your intentions   For this reason, fire-zones are largely packaged by field and boundary rather than strength of formation.

So what would be the next step for defenses to get a jump on playing a variety of routes while providing the capability of overloaded pressure?  In the perfect world, the defense that could ensure it:

• retained its pre-snap coverage shell (consistent look)
• got the favorable personnel matchup
• was able to generate an overload pressure on the passer

A defense that could do that would be able to hold the chalk last in this new age of offensive football.  "Catch Man" or "off-man" coverage means exactly that; the defensive backs catch the route as it develops.  Because this 'catch' won't happen until well into the route, the overall defense can assume any shape/structure (1-high / 2-high) it wants without giving many pre-snap clues to the offense.  From basic pre-snap zone looks, the defense could be fire-zoning or playing man and very likely will be bringing pressure, but from where?

This ‘answer’ kind of becomes a full-circle evolution, where many successful defenses are returning to a formula that was relied upon 30 years ago.  It isn’t surprising that the leaders of catch-man defenses are protégés of the Buddy Ryan school of defense (Gregg Williams, Rex Ryan, Rob Ryan, Dom Capers) of the 80s.  Many of the more advanced elements of Buddy Ryan's late 80's-era 46 defenses (catch man, loaded coverage, fire-zones, swipe/thumb coverage, and a reliance on man-free) are what is now en vogue in today's game.  This wide array of skill sets also begets a need to include multi-functional personnel on the field, where a 3-man fronts (or less) are preferred (see psycho posts).

 
In this post, we’ll try to provide some coaching insight into developing the skills for effective catch-man coverage. This concept was admittedly difficult for me to get comfortable with many years ago, as I really believed in the old bump-and-run technique of man coverage. I felt that you had to immediately disrupt routes and out-leverage a receiver before he even began his release. While there are benefits to holding up receiver stems and immediate reroutes, there is limited flexibility in adapting to formations using this technique. The effectiveness of press can be diminished with pre-snap movement from the offense. With catch-man, you can get the best of both worlds because the coverage structure remains consistent, you can effectively play quick and deep passing game, while still disrupting receiver stems.

Added for illustration purposes, this Revis 1-on-1 footage highlights how to leverage a receiver from many different alignments (some off, some press but they all essentially turn into the same type of coverage by the time the receiver makes his break).

 
With the help of video, I hope to illustrate some of the techniques and methods of leveraging routes from an “off” alignment. The skill sets used for catch-man are also helpful in other coverage (press man / pattern-match) techniques, so using these drills will have carry-over (high ROI) for your secondary. The depth of alignment for the defensive back usually starts at 8 yards. From this depth, a defender could essentially stay put and the receiver would likely make his break in front of the defender. As the player gains more confidence (athletic ability allowing), this pre-snap cushion can be shortened and stemmed in and out of. The beauty of this is that just aligning in the path of a receiver’s stem, the defender has already re-routed the receiver; either the receiver runs over the defender (not conducive to actually running the route) or he is forced to make his break early, declaring how the defender will play the route.

Just like pattern-matching in zone, secondary defenders will play routes based on the drop of the passer, then anticipating route breaks based on a process of elimination. Once the route is identified/confirmed, the defender can jump the interception point or secure the tackle.

Catch-man is best delivered to players by staging teaching into depths of the quarterback drop. Just like pattern-matching, you will get specific routes based on the depth of the drop.

• With quick-step or 3-step (quicks 0-5 yards), a receiver could really only run one of the following routes: Screen, slant, hitch, speed out
  
• With 5-step routes (intermediate 10-15 yards), the receiver would likely run: out, curl, hook, dig, comeback
  
• With deeper routes (15+ yards off of 5-7 step drops / sprint out and play-action) you could expect: post, corner, fade wheel

As you’ll see in these videos, defensive backs start at a depth of 8 yards and are keying the quarterback in their initial pedal.

 
While eyeing the quarterback, the corner will slowly come out of his stance in a crossover step (or backpedal). The key here is for him to remain in control of his body with an arched back with the intent to be able to mirror the receiver perpendicular to the line of scrimmage (inside/outside break under 6 yards). If the receiver stems inside, the corner should laterally step inside to mirror him. Again, it should be stressed that the corner should walk out of his stance, reading the quarterback in slow motion, keeping horizontal leverage on the receiver (mirror him). By using this horizontal leverage, he can easily recognize where the quarterback is going with the ball (based on the angle) and attack the interception point.

If the corners are consistently aligning with 8 yards depth, they will likely see a lot of quick game to attack the cushion. When the receiver breaks under 8 yards, the corner shouldn’t attempt to come underneath the receiver for the interception unless he is certain he can get two hands on the ball. Otherwise, he should look to secure the tackle by coming in low, with arms clubbing up and expanding the receiver’s noose. It should be acknowledged that playing 3-step is difficult. The important thing is that the defender doesn’t give up a double-move or lose the 1-on-1 tackle if the ball is caught. In the event the DB gets beat here, he should cut his loses by collisioning the receiver or actually pulling him down (preventing a sure touchdown).

 
Once the defender sees the drop is greater than 3-step, he accelerates his pace and immediately snaps to the receiver, keying the inside hip. The defender will then fight for control of the receiver with leverage (either hip-to-hip or at least be at arm’s length). If he loses this control (out-of-phase), the priority is just to catch up to the receiver and never look back. To help against false stepping or getting beat on double-moves, its important to rep receiver jukes, that a cut can only be made when the receiver’s shoulders rise up. Once the DB recognizes the drop is greater than 3-step his thinking is to “slowly absorb the route” and close any air that exists between the receiver and defender. With the accelerated pace of this deeper route, the defender’s concentration should be solely on the receiver’s inside hip. From this point, there is little that differentiates itself from traditional (press) man coverage. The defender should work for total control of the receiver with the progression of “receiver – recognition point (break) – ball”. Only until the receiver is controlled with leverage and the route break is identified, should the defender actually play the ball for the interception. Always finish – play the man, THEN the ball.

Like I said, this will likely be a defensive flavor we’ll see more of in the future and your thoughts and experiences on the matter are certainly welcome.  For an added bonus, some more video on leveraging receivers (from a press position, but its all relative).  Key points to take note of are the solid base and stuttering of the corner's feet until the receiver truly commits to a release and then the flipping of the hips (and footwork) to maintain the in-phase relationship….

Slot Coverage Variations

After covering front matching previously, we can now explore options available to handle slot sets that are separated from the box. Typically, this is best understood from a 2-back look with a single receiver on the other side of the slot (allowing a variety of bracket looks and the linebackers matching back flow). The passing strength is immediately identified (slot) and the safety, corner, and overhang player can communicate how they would handle the 2-man routes out of this. These methods can also be applied independently to each side (split-field) when facing 1-back, as well.
 
With two receivers split from the formation (slot) you end up with a 3-on-2 advantage for the defense. As we covered before, there is a variety of ways to handle this. In attempt to tackle two things at once, we’ll cover these concepts using Saban-speak (out of Nick Saban’s playbooks). It should be noted that Saban’s “system” is extremely concise, flexible, and modular (in its application). What comes with those benefits is a dictionary full of terminology to communicate every conceivable action and response on the field. We’ll use his method as a way to keep a central thematic framework, but these concepts are relative to what everyone else does (so don’t get hung up on the verbiage).
FIST

The first is basic Cover 3 Sky (“Fist”) with what amounts to be the old “country cover 3”. Fist brings the overhang player down outside of #2 receiver serving as primary force. This defender will drop into the seam and not carry any route by #2 deeper than 12 yards and jump the first receiver to the flat. The corner would play all of #1 receiver vertical (or #2) out and up. The free safety would play middle of the field to the #2 receiver. Because these two receivers are handled by these three players, additional receivers (releasing back) would be immediately jumped by the next linebacker inside (Will) unless #1 or #2 released inside.
 
Examples of matching in Fist

     

Exceptions

• Vs 1 back – the FS will check to Rip/Liz rules (match left/right away side) and man #1 and #2.
  
• Vs Wide slot split (horizontal stretch) – with a great deal of space underneath to cover, a “TOKYO” (smash rule) call can be made to have the corner take all short routes and have the overhang defender carry a vertical stem.

 
Sky (Fist) remains an all-purpose coverage solution to slot, but can face limitations with quick 2-man games against the overhang player.



 
COVER R - ROBBER

We’ve covered robber coverage before and this version would be just like Virginia Tech plays it. This is best against a tight #2 with the FS dropping into the seam and the overhang player immediately expanding to the curl. This isn’t much different than TCU’s ‘2 Read’ (covered before). The FS acts as the robber, reading #2-to-#1, playing the front hook with a #2-to-QB-to-Alley fit progression.
 
The corner immediately drops to the deep third with the overhang defender jumping first receiver to the flat. With the corner committing to the deep half, any vertical route by #2 will be bracketed inside-out by the FS and corner.
examples of matching in robber

    

Robber coverage remains arguably one of the best run down solutions, especially to the field.  1-back looks can be handled by robber, but do not provide the leverage security that 2-back does.
 
 

COVER 2 - CORA

This is traditional cover 2 cloud with the FS over the top in deep half coverage and defenders in the curl and flat. The overhang player will align inside #2 and the corner outside of #1.  With two outside underneath zone defenders on top of two split receivers, you have the ability to aggressively attack the quick game.  With any slot coverage, you are only as good as your answer to the smash route.  With true ‘Cora’, the force corner will sink in the flat (playing “TOKYO”) and the overhang will carry #2 vertical.

 
examples of matching in Cover 2  

 
Cover 2 is great against quick game and perimeter run game.  How a defense matches vertical routes in Cover 2 will typically be its weak spot.
 
 
One adjustment to this Cover 2 look is known as “Leach”. It is exactly the same with the exception of the overhang defender is man-to-man #2 (slot/curl). This would afford the (usually exceptional) slot receiver to be double-covered underneath or deep with the surrounding zone defenders.
 

COVER 4 - THUMBS

Thumbs is a 3-on-2 quarters principle that can morph itself into swipe bracket when only one receiver is vertical. The FS will double #1 or #2 from inside out with the corner playing deep third outside.  The overhang player is the sole underneath defender and will take first shallow out / in receiver between #1 & #2.
examples of matching in thumbs 

    

Quarters is great against vertical game and play-action, but the lack of underneath support can cause perimeter leverage issues the offense can exploit.
   

COVER 5 – COUGAR / IOWA
Adding this as a final thought, Cover 5 is the man-under with deep half help. The FS will rob everything inside with the ability to double either receiver deep.  I didn’t provide any illustrations as it is pretty self-explanatory and is the ideal passing coverage.  The FS will rob everything from the inside.  Because the corner (your best cover guy) will be man-to-man on #1 outside wide “on an island”, you will typically have a 2-on-1 cone/bracket on #2 between the deep safety and the overhang player.

Unbreakable Fire Zone

As touched on earlier this year, Manny Diaz makes a great point when he says that his fire zone “is the safest thing I can run”. Coupled with pattern-match principles it allows the defense to congeal itself into whatever form the offense runs like a veritable coverage jiu jitsu.

 
The point of this post will be to illustrate the flexibility the concept provides where most blitzes would ‘break’ or require a check out of. We will concentrate on how coverage defenders should respond to challenging patterns from typically stressful formations of 1-back and empty. This is an element that we enjoy discussing here; the evolution and adaptations within the game of football.

 
The key to the success of this type of defensive application remains the teaching methodology that carries concepts over from Cover 1, to Cover 3 pattern match, to Rip/Liz match. The combination of these fundamentals are what the success of the fire zone is built upon. Neglecting or not thoroughly teaching the roles will limit the effectiveness of how players operate within the fire zone.



For the sake of discussion, we’ll narrow the application to the “NCAA Blitz” fire zone that everyone runs, but keep in mind, just plug-and-play personnel groupings because it’s all relative regardless if it is a safety, backer, or lineman taking on the role of one of the underneath defenders. For the sake of clarity in this review, terminology varies from staff to staff, but I will refer to the wall/flat player as the ”SCIF” player and the middle hole/hook player as the “final 3rd” defender.

 
As we’ve discussed before, any defense can line up against 2-back pro formation, it’s what the defense has to become when confronted by 2x2 or 3x1 sets that determines what the defense actually is.

 
The best way to conceptualize the coverage matching is that you will zone into the pressure / man (match) away from the blitz.

 
2 x 2

With the fire zone you’re essentially getting 3-deep coverage, a seam player, and one final defender to match the third receiver to either side (or cut any crossers). Because 2x2 is one-back and essentially a ‘spread’ set, the Rip/Liz check becomes the standard way to aggressively handle the two seam receivers. Instead of passing off receivers or spot-dropping, letting voids develop – this method ensures the routes will be accounted for while still avoiding the inflexibility of true man coverage.


How the remaining back will be accounted for is all that really differs from Cover 3. This also plays into how shallow crossers will be handled (with inside verticals compensated with Rip/Liz). Without the ability to funnel the back between two linebackers, you only have one backer (and lose the ability to ROBOT away inside routes). This essentially has the middle hole player assigned to aggressively match the back (who is #3 receiver to whichever side he releases).

2x2 out of a 3-deep concept (fire zone) will be handled simply by Rip/Liz in all cases. This remains true unless a receiver immediately breaks inside under 5 yards. With inside breaking routes, the defenders will not chase but alert the final 3^rd player that he has a route approaching (“cut” as the hole defender). The final 3^rd defender will receive an “UNDER” call from one of the outside defenders (an inside breaking route under 5 yards). This is a post-snap call on Rip/Liz to zone off into a 3 deep principle (#1 or #2 takes route inside).



Typically with a shallow, it is paired with a back flaring to the side of the field where the shallow originated to serve as an outlet receiver. This makes for an easy exchange, just like a “rat” call in Cover 1. The SCIF and final 3^rd player just replace one another’s receiver, though the distribution remains consistent (the shallow becomes the 3^rd route, the flare is the 2^nd route, and the post is the 1^st route in the distribution).



A more challenging route package for matching would feature the shallow to the same side as the flare. In this example, both SCIF players would carry #2 vertical with the Rip/Liz rules and the final 3^rd player would pick up and carry the crosser after receiving the UNDER alert. With all threats leaving his area, the away-side corner would sink and high-leverage the dig route.

 
3 x 1

Trips formations can be a bit more challenging to the fire zone because it can immediately out-leverage defenders by alignment (3 receiver side). Even though it presents a horizontal stretch, the 3 receiver set can be handled using the same method as the zone-push concept, “Mable”. The first outside receiver would be manned by the corner. The second and third receivers will be (banjo) matched by the SCIF and final 3^rd player underneath with the corner to trips manning on the #1 receiver. The away-side SCIF player would immediately look to match the back or whoever became the #4 receiver in the route distribution.



Here, just like in 2x2, the shallow by X precipitates an UNDER call by the corner letting the final 3^rd player know he has a receiver crossing the formation (becoming the 3^rd receiver / 1^st receiver inside to trips) to cut. The away side corner would high-shoulder squeeze the shallow into the formation until picking up the (meshing) drag by Y. This leaves the away-side SCIF player free to jump the back releasing to his side.



The previous two examples showed #2 in the trips being the first underneath out route. What happens if #2 releases inside (such as with spacing shown here)? The H receiver would become the first receiver inside, with the Y being the first receiver outside. Since the H is no longer the #2 route in the distribution, he is passed off to the final 3^rd player. The SCIF player matches the Y as the first of these two ‘outside’ underneath.

Empty



With empty, the only check required would to be ensure that the rush is coming away from the 3-man surface due to leverage issues. With two receivers away from trips essentially in man coverage and zoning to the trips, it would require the zone defenders to the trips side to be afforded the best possible positioning on the two inside receivers (just flipping where the overload is coming from).  Just like against any trips set, the trips-side defenders would Mable (zone push) into the route dispersion. The away-side would aggressively man the remaining 2 receivers and retain the middle-of-the-field safety.

** PS **
The slot coverage post is coming.  This pattern match post just happened to be ready first and I don’t want to sit on anything that could help.

Also, if you haven’t figured it out already, our former YouTube account that included many of the cut-ups featured in previous posts has been deleted by Google/NFL Properties.  Hope you downloaded / picked up on those video illustrations while they were up.

Coverage: It’s Academic

Believe it or not, we’re entering the fifth season of this blog, though only getting the hang of it for the last three.  That being said, the next few posts will lean heavily on archived content so not to insult any of you readers by retreading previous topics.

As we’ve covered before,  remaining gap-sound in run-support is a fundamental equation that is addressed every snap based on the formation.  In this post, we’ll look to set a foundation of defensive concepts through fragmentation.  After setting this ground work, it will be followed with different alternative coverage adaptations available to a defense.

One of the biggest mistakes for those learning the game of football is to fixate on the minutiae of various “brands” of defense.  Tying oneself to the dogmatic thinking and going-through-the-motions of “how we’ve always done it” without understanding the rationale of how it all works creates an intelligence rut that becomes a liability.  Defenses exist to defense an offense – they do not exist within vacuums.  On every play you’re defending something the offense is doing to advance the ball.  For this reason, defenses aren’t static entities – they must respond (adapt) to the stimuli they are presented with.   You will hear people declare, “we are a 3-4 Quarters defense” or something to that effect.  That’s great, but there is a reason a defensive concept is employed on a given down, and there is no catch-all defense available.

"Exhibit A"
Belichick on Defense

“At the Browns we played a 4-3,” Belichick said. “We won two Super Bowls playing a 4-3. In ’01 and (‘04). Second half of the ’01 season, we played 4-3 after Bryan Cox and (Ted) Johnson got hurt.”
“In all honesty, most people thought we played a 4-3 at the Giants,” Belichick said.

“Lawrence Taylor did a lot more rushing than he did pass dropping. He was probably 90 percent of the time, 80 to 90 percent of the time he was the rusher in the defense. Now not every play was a pass, but certainly in passing situations and on a lot of pass plays, he was the designated fourth rusher which really put us in what amounts to a 4-3. I think honestly that’s somethingthat’s a media fabrication. There are a lot of different alignments out there, you see 4-3 teams use odd spacing, you see 3-4 teams use even spacing.”

“Look, you have 11 players,” Belichick continued. “You can put them in various positions. Whether you want to put it in the pregame depth chart as one thing or another I think is a little bit overrated. You play different fronts, you play different spacings and you teach the techniques of your defense and that is what is consistent. The techniques that are taught in the different defensive systems, whichever one you want to talk about, are consistent within those systems.

A defense really just needs to be concerned about offensive numbers (and how to match them) and the offensive capabilities from their alignment.

While touched on a while ago with TCU’s split-field philosophy,  the divorcing of the secondary from the front minimizes the detail of checks a defense would need to concern itself with as well as compartmentalizing the teaching method for each player position.  While coverage and front remain related by arithmetic, they can become independent of one another and still function together seamlessly.

its nothing but numbers

First things first is to match the front.  In every offensive formation you will have 5 offensive linemen, creating 6 gaps for an offense to attack.  The defense should have a plan to account for these 6 gaps presented, typically with 6 defenders (i.e. “the box”).  If we (continue to) use the 42 Nickel as a base concept (all of this remains true if you’re a 4-3, 3-4, 33, 50, etc), your bare minimum in the box will be 6 defenders that won’t ever have a reason to “break” their alignment because they ARE the box (they are the minimum gaps being defensed).

As more offensive players are introduced into the box, they create additional areas of attack through leverage (gaps).  The defense will fundamentally respond by adding more defenders to this area or risk being out-numbered at the point of attack.



Adding an additional back or tight end to the formation creates even more running lanes, necessitating yet another defender into the box to compensate.


All of this becomes a very academic application that generally gives you a clue as to what and how an offense is trying to set up its next play;

• if you get 1-back you’ll have 7 gaps
  
• if you get 2-back you’ll have 8 gaps

It also lays a conceptual ‘budget’ for the coordinator.  If you get X personnel grouping, you need to respond with Y defensive package and anticipate a limited selection of attacks.

After addressing the numbers in the box, you will have to figure out what you’re going to do with those other guys left in the secondary.   For the remainder of this post (and subsequent posts), we will ignore the box defenders and fragment our discussion into the leftovers of the formation.
With 1-back, we’ll have 2x2 (4 immediate vertical threats) and 5 defenders to match them.
With 2-back, we’ll have 3 immediate vertical threats with (essentially) 4 defenders to compensate.  With 2-back (or 3x1), you can get away with doing some flexible things to the single-split side without carrying tremendous risk.

 

Like we discussed in the earlier TCU 2-Read post, we’re going to narrow our focus on the 3-on-2 matchup to the slot receiver side.  When the defense is presented with two split receivers it faces an immediate horizontal stretch (away from the box) while being threatened with a vertical / levels attack.

Fortunately, because of the numbers advantage, there are several ways to play this set between these three defenders (with each having distinct advantages).  Keep in mind, the variations listed below could plug-and-play any one of these defenders into a role (hence the multiplicity in how slot is treated).

You could feature 1 underneath force player and 2 deep coverage defenders (sky, cloud,  buzz).  This could be country Cover 3, quarter-halves, or bracket coverage on the #1 receiver.
You could have 1 deep defender over the top of 2 underneath defenders.  This could be anything such as traditional Cover 2, robber or bracket coverage on #2.
Or have 1 deep defender with 1 underneath (seam) defender that could be Quarters (Meg) or fire zone.

Or it could simply be man-under coverage with deep help.
All of these alternatives can be played from one defensive (presnap) alignment, yet create a world of hurt if an offense filtered their throws through defender reads.

A feature of this exposition should be to illustrate how "what TCU does" (in the secondary) is actually what every other defense (NCAA/NFL) does - they both end up in the same scheme when its all said and done.  With TCU's patented "3 coverages", you end up with a combination of 9 coverages available (2, Blue, 5, 25, 2 Blue, Blue 5, Blue 2, 5 Blue, 52).  All of this is a result of how the slot is played.  Whether you are the Horned Frogs, the New York Giants, or the San Diego State Aztecs.....whatever scheme you call yourself playing; you arrive at the same destination.

With this preface set, in the next few posts we will discuss the many different slot coverage adaptations available to a defensive coordinator.  We’ll explore how they work within the overall scheme, why it is advantageous to not only treat slot sets differently, but also how to effectively keep quarterbacks guessing when confronted with all the variations the defense can give them.