Monday, July 13, 2009

Minimize Liabilities (Defending Formations)

There are smarter people than I to get into detail, but my experience (shaping the philosophy) has shown.......

Nothing set in stone, but generally speaking;

even formation = even shell support

  • 2,4 immediate vertical threats (twins, doubles)

  • Cover 2, Cover 4

  • wings are not considered vert threats (slots are)

odd formation = odd shell support

  • 3,5 immediate vertical threats (pro, empty, trips)

  • Cover 3, Cover 1, Robber C6

  • ** C6 is the loaded zone that bridges the gap between C3 & C2 for (me)


...because the whole point is to contain the gimme-candy shots (easy), bottle it up and let our players play for the most part (keep their roles simple). If the candy is gone, then now earning those yards becomes a little more challenging.

Game planning by Areas of the Field:

out of the 10; momma! (open it up, because their back is against the wall)
out of the 20 - 35;C3 / Robber - keep you from running / work the perimeter game
between the 35's; more C2 / C4, but the entire playbook is open for both the off & def - love fire zones here
inside the 35; C3 - C0, more pressure is required (with less emphasis on the deep threat)
inside the 20; C2 the vertical threats have been truncated
inside the 8; C0 gap 8

Now the EASY part.........the front.
What fronts can you support from these coverages?
Just fill in the freaking blanks
1) Coverage is dictating who your force players are (flat player)
2) Coverage is dictating your alley player is (Curl, Deep hole)
3) Coverage is dictating who is removed from immediate run support (deep halves / deep 1/3 / ANY 'man' player)
4) fill in the blanks with kooky alignments based on immediate run responsibilities (gap)

Just make sure you call them really cool names so people will think you are awesome

An example;
The formation below, is it an odd or even formation? 1,2,3.....odd

Cover 3, Robber puts you in a real good spot to take care of both those threats.field position is essentially trumped by the formation (for me at least), which is why we (players) are keenly aware of what formation is presented (whats important NOW).

There is nothing 'bad' about C2 to pro, and I really like it (against any set).It comes into the amount of 'stress' you put on the deep defender.

Versus C3 the FS can nullify the Y and the CB can nulify the Z.

Versus C2 the FS has to manage the Y attacking MOFO or the Z going vertical - it puts considerable stress on his ability to do his job.

I'm not saying it is impossible or unfavorable based on certain matchups - just a general rule of thumb.

Is there a real nead to re-route (+1) the X inside (+1) AND cover him over the top deep (+1)?

Or can you get away with just covering him deep with only 1 defender and a support player in the curl (curl-to-flat) player?

Is one player worth 3 defenders or 2 defenders?

It just boils down to the 'economics' of the much are you willing to spend (in player numbers) to pay for defending each side of the field? How do you justify the cost?
The bottom line becomes an algorhithym of;
  1. Defend the end zone
  2. Defend the field
  3. Defend the formation
  4. Defend the personnel
  5. Defend the tendency
  6. Attack the tendency
  7. Attack the personnel
  8. Attack the formation
  9. Create a takeaway
  10. Score
And follow that basic calculus in simple, modular concepts to play FAST

No comments: