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.

Rip / Liz (Revisited)

As touched on earlier, this coverage adaptation to 3 deep zone fills the holes of 8-man fronts vs 1-back.  I’ve consolidated the lecture and video for (hopefully) a better illustration of the concept.

Nick Saban: Split Safety Coverage (Cover 7)

Last year, we covered Nick Saban’s 1-high defensive principles, so its only fitting we review his 2-high concepts now. The bulk of understanding Saban’s philosophy resolves around digesting his vocabulary. This ‘vocabulary’ provides a comprehensive communication method for technique or concept that remains universal though his different sets.

With the propensity of 1-back attacks, and as illustrated with the 3-deep coverage series, a defense has to have a competent answer to the threat of 4-receiver vertical stretch (2x2 or 3x1 formations). This is why we see most every defense basing out of a 2-high coverage shell. This provides a comfort zone for defenses to match 2x2 formations and will illustrate why the 3-4 becomes a choice to achieve this balance (can adjust to two detached receivers to a side while keeping a 2-high coverage shell).

nothing wrong with being 2-deep

The easiest way to immerse yourself in his 2-high concepts is to start with Saban’s do-everything Cover 7. Cover 7 is man-to-man match quarters; 4-on-3 strongside / 3-on-2 weakside. At its most basic application, it is just a standard quarters defense. Each side will match according to the split of the formation and game plan. Because it can be adjusted in so many ways, the consistent 2-high shell can give a myriad of looks but remain constant before the snap.

TRIANGLE


To help digest this, its best to think of this in terms similar to the TCU coverage concept (with the exception of MOFO safeties). Away from the passing strength, you will have one receiver split, and at the most, two. This is referred to as the ‘triangle’ side, for the 3-on-2 apex the defense has (safety, corner, backer against a receiver and back). Typically, the dominant receiver will align as the passing strength (X).

With Cover 7, he can easily be accounted for in a few ways;

• aggressive man-to-man with corner (“MEG”) or
• double-coverage bracket between the corner and safety (“CONE”)

A “MEG” (technique) call will be made that declares the corner will man up with the #1 receiver wherever he goes (#1 will be matched by the corner).

A “CONE” call will double the single receiver much like how traditional quarters is played to the single-receiver side (if X is shallow, corner gains depth to his ¼ and safety constricts his deep middle ¼ ).

This leaves the #2 receiver or back-out as the only threat to be matched by the safety and backer (Will). The Will matches the fourth receiver (X,Y,Z are accounted for – so whoever becomes the 2nd receiver away from strength) or the 1st crosser (coming from the passing strength).

If second receiver aligns (outside the box) the Will adjusts and walks out to split the difference. Typically, if a second receiver shows to the ‘triangle side’, any “MEG” call would be adjusted to “MOD”, which simply has the corner playing off-man on the first receiver.

The “MOD” call declares that the corner will not take #1 on anything under 5 yards and will be anticipating some kind of 2-man China/Hi-Low concept from these two receivers (Will would now match #1 receiver short / corner would now match #2 receiver high). These adjustments can be called / declared by the safety, but more often used per game plan.

STRONG / PASSING NUMBERS


Believe it or not, that was actually the ‘hard part’. Quarters into the passing strength is actually quite simple, as it really is just standard quarters rules. With two receivers to the passing strength, you have the vertical stem of #2 being controlled by the deep safety, and any vertical by #1 being handled by the corner (unless in “MEG”). The SLB / Nickel will take the first receiver to the flat, the Mike will match the final #3. This should sound extremely similar to how pattern match coverage is introduced and used in 3-deep zone and fire-zone pressures.

The “MEG” / “MOD” adjustment is available to use on this side, as well. Why would you use this? Why wouldn’t you just hang back in standard quarters? Because the common weakness of quarters in the perimeter distance for the OLB to respond to. By modifying how the #1 receiver is played, you can remain in the same coverage with a minor tweak on the (standard) routes that will be used to attack quarters coverage (underneath). With a corner locking down the #1 receiver, it will become a 2-on-1 match between the OLB and deep safety.

A ton of examples of Cover 7 (with and with out meg/double meg)

Vs 3x1
Cover 7 can adjust to all formations, but what happens when faced with trips, as is common with most ‘spread’ or 1-back formations? The answer is, “ZEKE”, which is just a banjo matchup for the linebackers. We’ve seen this before with the Rip/Liz post on 3x1. It is essentially saying the outside linebacker takes the first out route, the inside linebacker will take the second out route.

The inside linebacker will take the first inside route, the outside linebacker will take the second inside route.

Away from trips, “MEG” will be played against any single receiver The Will matches man-to-man on any back release as the 4th receiver releases.

If the #4 receiver aligns as a slot (now a 2-man receiver threat is present), the “MEG” is off and adjusted to “MOD” technique by the corner.

If the #4 receiver flow strong (to the trips), then they will be playing ‘3 Buzz Mable’, which is just man-match banjo with the safety dropping into the hook area (and Will expanding as force player). This rule also applies to 2-back flow (both backs release to the strong side) action.

This post has been in the works for a while, but possibly more apropos after the Arkansas game where there was considerable controversy of ‘blown assignments’ regarding the Razorback’s first score. On paper, it actually wasn’t an impossible matchup; 2x2 matched with an even Cover 7 coverage, the field corner is man-to-man in MEG. It really became a 3 receiver flood, so the Will would've matched first outside (F), Mike would cut the crosser (Y) and with #2 shallow and away, the Sam would've dropped into the dig.

With having given a basic overview of Saban’s quarters coverage, it will provide context in which to gain understanding in how he handles slot formations (where the real tweaks in the scheme come from). I hope to be able to provide an addendum to this by going over Saban’s Cover 2 package, as well as other slot adjustments from 2-high.


Possibly, in the future we will explore his other coverages, but in the meantime, here are how he defines other zone coverages….

Cover 4 - is a 5 under / 2 deep (corner & free safety) against slot formations.
Cover 2 – is 2 deep (free and strong safety) 5 underneath
Cover 6 – is 3 deep 4 underneath with a weakside rotation
Cover 8 – is quarter halves matched (strong side plays quarters / weak side plays cover 2)
*cover 5 (man under 2 deep)
*leach – 4 under 2 deep where the star (nickel) is man-to-man on the slot receiver

Slot coverage variations:
Fist(c3)/Cover 4/slot (c1)/cora(c2)/switch(c2 corner over)/R (robber to 2 open)/thumbs(C3)/iowa (3on2bracket)

Source Material
1996 Michigan State / 2001 LSU Playbook located here

Match Zone or Match Man: An Alternative Perspective

Hopefully, this will jumpstart me a bit so that I can start fulfilling my obligations to this blog again.

Recently, on this site, as well as on others, the term “match zone” has gained a great deal of currency. There is good reason for this: without question, match zone is the defensive technique in pass coverage that is currently most in vogue throughout all levels of advanced football. No doubt because of the pioneering advances made by Nick Saban, Gary Patterson, and a few others in diagnosing the pattern combinations and route distributions that are the hallmark of every sophisticated passing game, match zone techniques and coverage concepts serve as the foundation of virtually every defensive structure. In a sense, match zone has breathed new life into the 1-Hi looks that for a while looked incapable of handling the vertical threats posed by today’s spread offenses. However, in another sense, and I will be the first to admit that I may be completely wrong here, match zone may simply be today’s Tampa 2, another knot in the tactical and strategic evolution of defensive football.

This will be short piece, and much to my chagrin, one bereft of the ever useful power-point diagrams of my colleagues on this site. My goal in writing is to play a little bit of devil’s advocate, to point out what I view as some structural deficiencies that undergird match zone concepts, and in so doing, suggest that perhaps the old way of defending space is not as antiquated and insufficient as the prevailing defensive orthodoxy of today seems to suggest.

Let’s begin by boiling away the fat of match zone. In layman’s terms, what is match zone? At its core, match zone is a man/quarters concept predicated on upon a 3 on 3 triangle with a linebacker. Now, if we pause to think about it for a second it is not difficult to see from what match zone as both a concept and technique and concept evolved, and here, I’m not simply repeating Brophy’s citation of Saban’s remarks on its historical evolution dating from his days with the Cleveland Browns. Match zone evolved out of the Banjo bracket concepts that dominated college football throughout most of the 1990s. I coached in the then Big 8 when Kansas State was making its rise in football and very well remember the aggressive Banjo concepts they used in the their under-coverage as a way of bracketing and walling off the shallow routes that were then gaining in popularity amongst college offenses. And I think we all know that Banjo is essentially a man technique played within a defined zone: defender plays his man until said man leaves his zone and is then passed off to the adjacent defender.

Match zone builds on banjo by adding a number of additional elements into the mix, the most important two being a hyper-developed concept of pattern reading, or pattern matching to be precise, and the RAT, about whom I will write in a future post. For now, I will focus primarily on pattern matching. I use the term “matching” and not “reading” here not simply to reinforce Saban’s language, but because pattern matching and pattern reading are not interchangeable concepts. To match a pattern, it is necessary to first read the pattern. A defender matches an offensive players route when he diagnoses his intention; he’s then matched on him in what amounts to man-to-man coverage. This here is what I see as the rub about the very term “match zone,” for it’s really a misleading coinage, because what it is in reality is not match zone, but really match-man. What distinguishes match-zone from pure man is the way in which “matching” as a technique is integrated within the schematic structure of the defense as a whole. This is where the pattern reading aspect of match zone comes into play, the aspect that enables it to diagnose threats and cover them not simply with a lone defender, as in pure man, but in coordinated collaboration with another defender whose action’s are predicated upon his ability to read, diagnose, and match the pattern in question.

Now, I think it should be pretty clear where I’m going with this. Because defenders are taught to match the route of the receiver they by default become chasers. In other words, when defenders match a route they are in effect chasing it; defenders thus are not covering space, but rather receivers. This is why I prefer the term match man to that of match zone. The term zone implies space and area; match zone teams do not cover space, but people.

Why am I making a big deal about this? I’m harping on this because I believe that there are some profound structural issues with this concept as a whole, especially versus spread offenses. The first problem should be self evident. Since everybody is chasing in match zone the concept is suspect versus any team that has a QB that can run. A good friend of mine who coached for a long time in the Big 12, a predominantly match zone conference, told me that if Vince Young played today he’d run for over 2,000 yards. I have no reason to doubt him. With the exception of Robert Griffin at Baylor the Big 12 today is quarterbacked by kids who can chuck the ball, but who are not much of a threat with their legs. Today, if I were still coaching, I’d be tempted versus a heavy match zone team to line up in Empty a lot and run a great deal of QB draw, as well as motion a back into the backfield from Empty in order to run zone read, and later Jet.

Another problem with Match Zone is its lack of physicality. How is it possible to blast a receiver if you’re always chasing him?

Now, I’m aware that the RAT, to a degree, functions as the punisher in most match concepts, but RAT is only one player and thus one that can be identified and schemed around. I know this sounds counterintuitive, man teams are rarely ones that punish receivers on a routine basis. Here, I’m drawing on my friends insights regarding the 2006 Colorado defense. CU was a 2 shell team that played a lot of quarters, 2, and Tampa 2. They did nothing fancy except squeeze down zones and tackle extremely well. All one needs to do is to watch their tape against Texas Tech and Kansas. Versus both teams, CU aligned in some type of a two shell or four across look and pretty spot dropped the entire game. What made their spot dropping effective, as opposed to, let’s say, what VaTech did versus Boise State earlier this year, was that CU’s people were dropping and reading at the same time; in a word, they a had a keen sense of what was developing behind them.

I will conclude my remarks with some words as to how I, as Run-N-Shoot guy, would treat match zone. To be totally honest with you, I would rather face a match zone team as a Run-N-Shoot coach than a pattern reading – spot drop team (more on this formulation in my next post). Why? Pure and simple: match zone teams, especially those that are heavy fire zone ones, by and large, always end up, regardless of shell, in a 1 Hi look. I can thus tell my people to disregard the other 6 generic shells we use to categorize coverage and instruct them to focus their attention on attacking the technique of the defender charged with matching them. So, for all intent purposes, match zone takes the thinking out of things for my receivers because for as far as they’re concerned all they’re facing is man.

What is interesting about this, historically speaking, is the fact that match zone as a both a technique and concept reinforces something that John Jenkins spoke about frequently during his days with the USFL Gamblers and later with the Houston Cougars: all zone coverage eventually becomes man at some point or another. Jenkins remark was particularly on point for his own offense, because the Run-N-Shoot is a vertical stem offense, especially his variation of it. Even back in the 1990s Jenkins was teaching his receivers, regardless of coverage, to attack the individual technique of the man against whom they were stemming their route; he was less concerned with the overall scheme of a coverage than with the individual technique of a defender. The explicit goal of every receiver, even versus soft looks was to collapse the cushion and the force the defender to play man. In a way, match zone does this, but in a more economically effective way; for, the receiver does not even have to collapse the technique in order to get the match man technique he desires.

Nick Saban: Cover 3 Adaptation (Mable/Skate) To 3x1

Continuing the review of handling one-back spread formations, the next logical step after you've accounted for 2x2, is how do you handle 3x1 (trips/trey)? All your adjustments to 2x2 can be pointless if you don't have a viable solution that can be 'broken' by a 3-receiver formation.

The Saban way of handling 3x1 out of Cover 3 is known as "mable", which is code for 'man'. This is actually a standard adjustment to trips if you're basing out of quarters. "Mable" (the same thing as "skate" in Cover 6), is manning the single-receiver backside, and pushing the zone coverage to the passing numbers. You're essentially playing zone front side and man backside.



The front side players will simply match the receiving threats as they normally would out of Cover 3. A lot can be assumed that the Cover 3 adjustments to spread are philosophical changes in how the secondary is played. Actually, that isn't the case - the 'secondary' teaching is quite subtle. The fulcrum of the Rip/Liz/Mable (3 deep zone) success is going to come with your inside linebackers. Those two players will control the guts of the coverage, and fully support everything that is being handled by the secondary.

As you can see by the diagram, nothing much changes with the secondary players. We will go over how the "alert" players (M&W) are to handle 3x1 formations:


btw - this becomes the "Zeke" adjustment to any trips look


This isn't a different coverage, just a built-in system for handling stressors of the base concept, and doesn't deviate much at all (from the call side) the standard pattern-match rules.

Let's go over the rules.....

In 3x1 (mable)
Will – backer to the single split side.

• Back flow TO – match it (jump the flare)
• Back flow AWAY – cut the 1st crosser

Mike – backer to 3 receivers (final 3 player) Related to #3 receiver after distribution

• #3 is inside - ROBOT, depth and jump underneath inside breaking route
• #3 is outside - push the strong hook

Sam – (to trips) Relate to #2 receiver after distribution.

• #3 inside (M has him) depth and jump #2
• #3 outside carry inside-underneath

Strong Safety – (to trips)Looking to jump the first underneath receiver. Relate to #1 receiver after distribution)

• #2 outside – jump it
• #2 inside (S has it) buzz underneath

Corner (to trips) simply plays old 2-to-1 read Cover 3 because he has to match the 1st vertical threat.


Again, as you see the reaction of the inside linebackers becomes the fundamental under current of Rip/Liz/Mable/Skate, allowing them to aggressively play run (flow) and put them in great leverage position based on this reaction. If those inside backers are trained appropriately, you will have an automatic response to handle most every route combination.

As a footnote, I'll just say that we've covered adaptations, the evolution, of standard zone coverage (by one who has been setting successful trends for a few decades). Saban, himself, doesn't just sit in one coverage throughout a game or rely on these rules / adjustments to beat-all. His defenses and how he uses/employs them is actually quite different. Using a 'pro approach', the defense is purely situational and will handle formations, D&D, areas of the field, differently and on a situation-by-situation basis.

Nick Saban: Cover 3 Adaptation (Rip/Liz) To The Spread

After providing an overview of playing Cover 3 with pattern-matching principles, we'll now take a look at the adaptations utilized to strengthen this basic concept.

A mantra comically repeated within the circles of "Air Raid" offenses is, "everything works against Cover 3", meaning whatever the concept, you can pass at will against most cover 3 defenses. With natural voids in the defense in the flats and in the seams, the four underneath defenders are typically the lynch pin of how successful a cover 3 defense will be.

The easiest threat to victimize cover 3 is the #2 receiver in the seam. The defense must be able to account for this threat or it will spend much of the game seeing the free safety 'wrong' on a 4 vertical threat.

and so the chess match, begins

To accommodate for this deficiency, Saban's defenses have evolved through the last decade with a "Rip/Liz" match based on where the safety drops into the box (Rita / Linda) against the 2 quick threat (2x2).

From Coach Saban, himself

When you’re playing a passing team you always have a better chance with split-safeties, but with all this zone read / zone option stuff we see…all the spread stuff, sometimes you’ve got to be able to play middle-of-the-field coverage to get an extra guy in the box.

We got to the point where, this is the reason that we do this, when everybody started going spread we couldn’t play 3 deep zone. This started with the Cleveland Browns, I was the defensive coordinator in the early 90s and Pittsburgh would run 'Seattle' on us , four streaks. Then they would run two streaks and two out routes, what I call ‘pole’ route from 2x2. So we got to where could NOT play 3-deep zone because we rerouted the seams and played zone, and what I call “Country Cover 3” (drop to your spot reroute the seams, break on the ball). Well , when Marino is throwing it, that old break on the ball shit don’t work.

So because we could not defend this, we could not play 3 deep, so when you can’t play zone, what do you do next? You play Man (cover 1), but if their mens are better than your mens, you can’t play cover 1 .

We got to where we couldn’t run cover 1 - So now we can’t play an 8 man front.
The 1994 Browns went 13-5 , we lost to Steelers 3 times, lost 5 games total (twice in the regular season, once in the playoffs). We gave up the 5th fewest points in the history of the NFL, and lost to Steelers because we could not play 8-man fronts to stop the run because they would wear us out throwing it

We came up with this concept; how we can play cover 1 and cover 3 at the same time, so we can do both these things and one thing would complement the other. We came up with the concept “rip/liz match”.

The "Rip" / "Liz" call will alert the OLB to the call side that he has a safety coming down who will be assuming the Curl/Flat responsibilities. With the Rip/Liz declaration, the backers away from the call will alert to "Match" ("Rip - Match Left") their quick away from the call, and how the corner to his side will match their receivers. It is all premised on controlling #2 deep in the seam, by catching and carrying #2 vertical or outside past 12-15 yards (this should start sounding familiar to BRONCO/SCIF technique). If there is no threat of 2 verticals to a side, it really becomes your standard fare Cover 3. If #2 crosses / goes inside, he communicates with an "Under" call (alerting the backers inside to cut the receiver) and turns his focus to rob #1 underneath (like standard Curl/Flat Cover 3, robbing inside and underneath #1).

It is essentially saying to the corners and C/F player, "versus two quicks, we're man-to-man all the way, unless our guys breaks inside". The communication is the vital part of the equation. Because the defense is presenting a 2-high shell, you could be playing a Cover 2, 4, 7, or 8 concept, but when you drop the safety down, you have to have a fast and efficient way to communicate which safety is dropping and how the backers away from the drop will respectively handle their threats.

Worst case scenario in Cover 3 is the 4-verticals concept (4 receiver on 3 deep defenders). Rip/Liz match specifically handles this. If you accommodate for 4 verts, you aren't left with many other issues that can hurt you because you will still have 6 in the box. Getting down to brass tacks, lets review how this concept fleshes itself out.

If #1 is vertical and #2 is vertical (VERTICALS)


#1 presses vertical, the corner takes all of #1 - #2 presses vertical, the C/F players takes all of #2
The inside linebackers will match #3 as he presents himself, looking to expand from the hook zone. By carrying the two inside verticals, remember you still have a middle of the field safety, so the backer/safety carrying #2 can maintain a low-shoulder, outside leverage on the receiver. This puts him in great position to discourage the SAIL (or 'pole') deep out break of #2 if it were to develop (past 12-15 yards).

If #1 is vertical and #2 is outside (SMASH)

Looking at the quick game smash concept (backside 5-step check), you can see how this is handled. #1 into the smash (right side of the diagram) takes all of #1 because he hasn't stemmed inside ("under" call, remember) and the C/F match player here handles all of #2 (vertical-outside). On the backside (here the 'rip' adjustment ~ left of the diagram), #1 stems vertical, so the corner matches all of #1. The #2 receiver runs a speed out, so the safety takes him man-to-man.

If #1 is inside and #2 is vertical (DRIVE)

Now a little tricky, the backside match (left diagram, away from 'liz'), has #1 immediately inside on a shallow, so the corner can sink and be over the top of #2, who is running a vertical (past 12 yards) stem into a dig. Because #2 is not inside ("Under"), the C/F safety matches #2 outside and underneath. With the shallow by #1, the backside inside linebacker is looking to cut the crosser (X) and the nearside inside linebacker will ROBOT the dig (depth and rob underneath).

If #1 is vertical and #2 is inside (SHALLOW)

Here, you see (right side of diagram) the match principle of the backer does NOT have a vertical stem of #2, so he declares the "Under" call, alerting the backers to ROBOT and CUT, as he will play standard Cover 3 curl-to-flat rules (with not threat to the seam), gaining depth and width (underneath #1 to his side).

If #1 is inside and #2 is inside (QUICKS / YOGI strong flood)

With the vertical stem of #2 (right side of diagram) the C/F match player carries him and since he is playing outside-underneath leverage, can easily take all of #2 with the outside break. With #1 vertical, the corner can match all of #1, as he would on a vertical #1 in Cover 3. The nuance here is that #3 is immediately releasing to the flat. The inside linebacker to flow (M) can be the final 3 player as there was no "Under" call. This eliminates the easy flood against Cover 3 (and remains consistent with Cover 4 rules and SCIF/Bronco rules).

"Rip/Liz" is an adaptation of 3 Deep zone. How the corners and backer/safety support is primarily a game plan adjustment and can be tweaked on how your opponent actually uses 2x2 route packages. Now, you may be saying, "thats all well and good, but what about trips and empty"? Right, that will be up next, when we explore Saban's "mable" adjustment to Trips/Trey formations.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out the 'breakout' session in the comments section below. Also, the adjustment to 3x1 "Mable" is located here. In addition, here is the only film representation of Rip/Liz I could find (outside of a broadcast) of the safety spin, Cover 3, versus 2x2. It doesn't represent the pattern match well because it was a bubble screen, but you can pick up on the fits, backer response, and leverage of the C/F players

FYI - I will update THIS POST with coverage cutups soon, illustrating this being used in game situations. Much respect to my guy, Chris Vasseur, for helping me flesh out the details here and who is also running this with the program he's at now. Also, to coach Chip Bilderback, who's contributions to providing Saban's adapations have proven invaluable.


This blog is primarily just a way of sharing and exchanging coaching information; just trying to pass along nuggets that may help you and your team. Handling spread is an interesting task, and this was one way of adapting a 1-high defense to meet the needs of a threat. Next, we'll take a look at a defensive coordinator's other option for handling the spread, by going into detail of Gary Patterson's TCU "2 Read" handling 4-verticals.

Pattern Read: Hi Low

The last example that we'll show is the only other concept not threatening Cover 2 with a vertical concept. The high-low ("China" or "Smash") concept merely looks to create a vertical stretch on an underneath defender, putting him in a 2-on-1 conflict. As noted in the previous posts, watch the linebacker expand to the hook (underneath) with the safety (over the top) . This concept is evidenced with a shallow #1 and a vertical #2 or a vertical #1 and a shallow #2.

Pattern Read: Sail

Continuing on the same theme as Verticals, the "Sail" ("drop out" or "Ohio") concept relies on the same principles, but providing a deep high-low of the outside defender. This can be a difficult throw, but even more difficult to successfully defend. As detailed earlier, be sure to watch the linebacker wall and expand #2 as he vertically stems then drops out to the sideline.

Pattern Read: Verticals

As outlined in previous posts, the (all) verticals concept likely puts a 2-high defense at a disadvantage when 4 receivers go deep. Pay special attention to how the linebackers wall and carry #2 vertically into the seam, as well as how the corner sink and carry #1 vertical. Also, note how 3x1 formations cause a 2-high defense stress with #3 stemming into the deep middle hole.

Pattern Read: Safety Response

The last step in this Cover 2 discussion ends with the ½ field safety. Obviously their job is to put the roof over the defense and allow all other defenders to play underneath. To do this job effectively and consistently, they must know how they relate to the pattern distribution. This will reveal how they will compensate for coverage liabilities and better support the coverage shell.

Their first response is to key and recognize the #1 receiver to their side. The position of the #1 receiver will determine the immediate threat to ‘break’ the defense by an outside and vertical throw. The safety should know who the #2 vertical threat is on any given down based on formation (2x2 or (3x1).

At the snap, the safety will key the EMOL for run/pass key. After a pass key recognition, the safety reads #1 receiver – to quarterback – to #2 receiver.

#1 Vertical - #2 To The Flat

The safety should overplay the vertical threat and keep inside leverage on #1. He is anticipating the curl-flat concept.


#1 Hitch - #2 Vertical

With #2 vertical and #1 remaining shallow, the safety should expect the smash or seam concept. He will peddle back and inside read #2 as he presses into the seam. The safety should be defending the seam-to-post-corner route with inside-out leverage.

Double slant

With #2 and #1 breaking shallow inside, there isn’t much help a deep half safety can provide. He should be anticipating the slant-and-go (“sluggo”) and remain over the top of #1, leveraging inside-out.


#1 Vertical - #2 inside or hitch

Since #2 remains shallow, he is no threat to the deep half, so the safety should look to overplay the vertical by #1. With #2 shallow, he should keep inside leverage on #1and anticipate a deep, inside breaking route (dig) from #1.

Pattern Read: Linebacker Response

After reviewing corner responses, we'll work our way outside-in, addressing the outside and inside linebacker responses to pattern distribution in Cover 2.

Outside Linebacker (weak)
The weak side linebacker who responds to the displaced #2 receiver should be playing a "vertical hook technique". This simply means he is controlling the vertical stem of #2 into the hook zone and will treat this area as a priority. He should be thinking vertical-in-the-seam by #2 on pass key, and defend this throw first. On pass, he must relate to #2 receiver. He will peek to #1 receiver to identify the route concept he should play. As the front will vary depending on formation, we'll focus on just the pass coverage of Cover 2 for the displaced outside linebacker.

#2 Vertical - #1 Outside Vertical

If #2 presses vertically, the WLB will wall and carry #2 into the seam, peeking to see that #1 is vertical (and outside). With #1 gaining depth outside, the WLB can expect the "all vertical" and / or anticipate a deep drop out / Sail from #2 (and rob from low-shoulder leverage.

#2 Vertical - #1 Inside Vertical

As with the above situation, the WLB walls and carries #2 vertically into the seam, expecting "all verticals". With an inside/vertical stem of #1, the WLB may anticipate a deep, inside breaking route (dig).

#2 Vertical and Outside - #1 Hitch

With a vertical press by #2, and #1 remaining shallow (hitch), the WLB should anticipate the "smash" concept and push to the flat. Knowing his corner should be sinking to take the "corner" route, he should be robbing the hitch from inside-and-underneath leverage.

#2 Flat

Maybe the easiest throw to respond to for the WLB in Cover 2, once the #2 receiver quickly "shoots" to the flat, the WLB should recognize the flat-curl concept. He should expand and wall to the #1 receiver, looking to rob the inside-breaking curl.

Cover 2 Inside Linebackers

In Cover 2, the inside linebackers, both strong and weak, will be keying for run as their primary responsibility. Their gap assignment and key will vary depending on the formation and defensive front they are in. They are reading run-to-pass, and respond accordingly. For the sake of discussion, we will just concentrate on their response after getting a high-hat pass read.

The inside linebackers will match their respective threat based on alignment. This will typically put the SLB or MLB TO or AWAY from the callside based on the strength of formation. An example would be;

2x2 set

The MLB will relate to the back (#3) strong or weak, based on back flow.
The SLB/Buck become relates to #2 strong and becomes the vertical seam player him.

3x1 set

Here the defensive front would be adjusted to accommodate the passing (number) threats. The MLB now relates to #3 receiver and the SLB/Buck will relate to the back.

This is a rather simple accommodation as I hesitate to call it an "adjustment". The inside (run) linebackers are simply going to cover down their immediate passing threat. An example of matching the backs with the linebackers is shown below;

Pattern Read: Corner Response

One of the advantages of the 7-man front is ability to eliminate the perimeter with a corner as a force run defender (essentially allowing 9 to stop the run). Consequently, the one drastically different response in Cover 2, will be from the corners. The following will outline how corners are to handle and respond to threats in their zone, and whom they should be relating to.

In Cover 2, corners relate to the #1 receiver and keying the end man on the line of scrimmage for a pass/run key. On run action TO him, the corner should maintain (outside) leverage on #1 and squeeze the running lane to shut off the perimeter from the ball carrier. On run action away from him, he should sink and expand in relation to #1 (again, maintaining leverage as run force).

On pass read from the EMOL, the corner should immediately scan the stem of the #2 receiver, to determine how he responds to the route.

#2 Inside - #1 Vertical

If #2 takes an immediate inside release, he can rest assured that #2 will not be threatening the flats (no longer a threat) and can focus his attention on the #1 receiver (who will likely be running an inside breaking route). When #2 does not present a threat to the corner, he will reroute and carry #1.

#2 Outside - #1 Vertical Inside

If #2 releases outside (again being the key the corner looks to on pass read) AND #1 stems vertically and inside, he should expect a high-low pattern and sink and carry #1 (the deeper of the two routes). Much like the 'smash' route below, if the corner does not sink on the deeper throw it will create an unwinable situation for the defense, as the corner will be too shallow and the safety to contracted to defend this deep, outside throw.

#2 Flat - #1 Vertical Outside

With #2 shooting to the flat (immediate threat) and #2 stemming outside and vertical (fade), the corner should look to expand #1 for width to the sideline and spy the QB's vision/shoulders on which throw to pursue. By expanding and delaying #1 vertically, he is buying time for the playside safety to cover ground on a downfield throw outside the numbers. The corner should expect the flat throw (as he is eliminating the deep throw confirmation read from the QB)

#2 Vertical - #1 Shallow

One of the most susceptible throws against Cover 2 is the shallow by #1 and the expect Smash , open hips play the '7' (corner) route. As mentioned above, this is a situation where if the corner bites on the shallow hitch, he opens the width to the deep sideline to a point where the half field safety is helpless to defend.

#2 Vertical - #1 Vertical

With #2 vertical and #1 vertical, the corner should expect "all go" (no other threat to the flat) and should collision #1 and carry his route vertically. With nothing left to defend, he can help the safety out (hopefully collisioning #1 enough to prevent both receivers getting vertically at the same level).