Consider helping MosleyTheCat keep the web hosting hamsters fed and happy. Please Donate.

Author Topic: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense  (Read 6982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:34:03 AM »
Hello all.  I have been doing a lot of research on the 10-1(the true 10-1, not the 'Bears' variant) and am seriously considering using it in our upcoming season.  I am sure my assistants will be initially resistant, as I plan on using  it in it's truest form, with 10 up and the 1 only 3 yards off.

I like it I for the following reasons:

simplicity-players' assignments/alignment is very easy to teach, which leads to...

aggression-not much for the boys to think about, which(I hope) will lead to them carrying out their assignments very aggressively

penetration-for me, this is the biggy.  last year we ran a 4-4 defense, which actually was very effective for us.  we let up almost no home run plays.  we had three really strong kids at LB and excellent tacklers at safety and one CB position.  however, teams were able to possess the ball against us, as our defense was predicated on pursuit, not penetration. 

'all in one' principle-while our 4-4 let up, I believe, only two scoring drives last year, we also employed a 6-2 for our minimum play guys.  the idea was to use these kids as the linemen and give them gap responsibilities, backing them with some of our stronger kids.  this worked well in the 4 games we won by multiple scores, and we got our MM play kids lots of playing time.  but in the 4 games that were close, it was a real handicap, and was  a big contributer in our two losses.  so I like the idea of getting the MM play kids in with the first team, trying to use them as the down 4 in the 10-1, working them in.  also, I like the idea of those kids being subbed in all game long, not just playing two series, as it keeps them involved.


so my question is, have you guys tried this?  of course it looks great on paper.  what defense doesn't?  and I think the pluses are obvious, as stated.  I guess my largest worry is the big play, which will be unavoidable.  but how can we minimize it?

any feedback would be much appreciated.
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline Bob Goodman

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9207
  • Total likes: 311
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: 4-4 Stack
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2015, 04:57:23 PM »
We've brought 10, a couple times even all 11.  I don't know if doing those things count.  Not the same as sitting in a 10-1 that the other team can scheme against!

Offline ZACH

  • Administrator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 10267
  • Total likes: 858
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2015, 07:04:42 PM »
If you face teams in a lot of closed sets the 10 is awesome...the more spread out the less 10 you can run even in special.

10 is simple so if kept simple things go the right way.

I like old 10-1 vs 23 personnel nothing better imo
"Some athletes have division 1 dreams and jv work ethic" - random

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2015, 08:44:01 PM »
Zach, what do you mean 23 personnel? 

reading through this sight, I don't think the coaches in our league scout/scheme as well as some of the leagues you guys are in.  but you make a good point, I might need to have another 'look' at least, even if the responsibilities don't change much. 

i'm gambling that the unique pressure of the 10-1(if well executed) can put enough pressure on their offense that they won't be able to adjust until too late.

our league is predominantly a 5-2/5-3 league with a  few even fronts(mostly vanilla, in other words).  most coaches won't have seen a true attack 10-1.

still, you guys are right-if they can crack it, we'd better have something else up our sleeve...
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline CoachDP

  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 17995
  • Total likes: 4099
  • "Want to Get Better Players? Be A Better Coach."
    • Coach Dave Potter
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2015, 10:35:00 PM »
Zach, what do you mean 23 personnel?

Two Runningbacks and three Tight Ends.

--Dave
"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement:
"I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go." #BattleReady newhope

Offline CoachDP

  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 17995
  • Total likes: 4099
  • "Want to Get Better Players? Be A Better Coach."
    • Coach Dave Potter
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2015, 10:48:39 PM »
simplicity-players' assignments

--What will be their assignments?

penetration-for me, this is the biggy.

--I'd run Trap against this all day.

teams were able to possess the ball against us, as our defense was predicated on pursuit, not penetration.

--Why are these mutually exclusive?  Why can't you have both? 

I like the idea of getting the MM play kids in with the first team, trying to use them as the down 4 in the 10-1, working them in.

--With four MPR players inside, backed only with one Linebacker, Wedge should kill you.

so my question is, have you guys tried this?

--In an occasional goal line/short yardage situation, yes.  I don't like it beyond that.  It can be Trapped, Wedged and is more susceptible to the big play because you have only one 2nd-level player and no 3rd-level.  Also, you're vulnerable to a pop pass, or 3-yard out.  Both are simple, safe and high percentage pass plays at the younger level.

I guess my largest worry is the big play, which will be unavoidable.

--If the big play is unavoidable, then I can't understand implementing this.  The ONE thing we look to stop defensively is the big play.

--Dave

« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 12:09:52 PM by CoachDP »
"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement:
"I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go." #BattleReady newhope

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2015, 06:47:08 AM »
basic assignments, without scouting report-

down4-'tunnel' under o linemen, come up, pursue to the ball.  B gapers pause for counter.  the hope there is that the B gaper can pick up counter

Es-contain is #1, sweep is a dangerous play due to the lack of 2nd and 3rd level players, as u pointed out.

C-widest receiver, jam coverage with inside leverage(take away quick slant, allows direct pursuit to the ball

LBs-second widest receiver-same technique as CB, if TE, attempt to jam, and drive him back, keep him at arm's length(probably need two of our best athletes here, demanding position)

MB-best instinctive player, get to the football.  get deep if you read pass.

this is all hypothetical, by the way, since I have never coached this D, so please punch holes in any problems you see.

the trap is an issue DP, it's a good point and I recognize it.  I have nightmares about our guys tunneling through, popping up to get to the ball and getting plowed over by a pulling guard.  for the record, I wouldn't put four MP guys in at once, would likely be rotating one or two at a time.

also, I didn't mean to de emphasize pursuit.  pursuit, it would seem to me would be hugely important in this defense.  I guess what I was trying to say(poorly) is that using the 4-4, our kids did a really good job of running to the football(we harped on that EVERY day) but often they were making the tackle 2-5 yards down field, particularly vs well coached power teams with north/south runners.  My hope was by using this type of defense, we could engage them in their backfield more often, and also it might help the players who didn't have great instincts to get to the ball due to the fact that it seems to be an 'assigment' defense, where our 4-4 was more of a read and react type of thing.

but you make another good point-in the long run, is it better to give  up the big play more often in order to generate more negative plays? 

do you recommend a different scheme that might accomplish both?  at this point, all I've got invested in the 10-1 is a bunch of time online and some book learnin'.  we don't have spring practice or anything.  If there is a better way, believe me, I am all ears.




Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline Bob Goodman

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9207
  • Total likes: 311
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: 4-4 Stack
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2015, 10:24:58 AM »
If the offense knows those are your assignments, it shouldn't be hard for them to execute a QB sneak whereby their OL releases past your submariners & containing ends, and then they've got a multitude of blockers on your only remaining defender.  It's the sort of play the offense could "install" during a time out.

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2015, 10:31:01 AM »
Yowza. Glad u don't coach in our league friend...
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline CoachDP

  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 17995
  • Total likes: 4099
  • "Want to Get Better Players? Be A Better Coach."
    • Coach Dave Potter
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2015, 01:15:26 PM »
down4-'tunnel' under o linemen, come up, pursue to the ball.  B gapers pause for counter.

--And this is the responsibility you want to give to MPR players?  Tunnel and then pursue is a challenge for even a talented defensive lineman.  Keep in mind that your opponent is probably putting non-MPRs on his O-Line for the majority of his offensive reps.  Your D-Line is already at a talent disadvantage.  Having them "tunnel under" and then pursue, you will likely get an either/or scenario: they will tunnel (engage) and then get squashed (blocked), or they will only pursue.  What is it about the "tunnel under" responsibility that you are hoping to accomplish?

the hope there is that the B gaper can pick up counter

--If you are living on "hopes," then you will be quickly disappointed.  If that is to be the B-gapper's responsibility, you're are going to have to drill it (over and over) for him to a) recognize it and then b) stop it.  If he's not the right player for that spot (and as an MPR) he might only be able to recognize it, but not do a thing about stopping it.  Or, he might have the physical tools to stop it, but never be able to recognize when it occurs.  Regardless, you need to make sure that you already have a successful drill that you can teach him to get him to do it (to recognize counter and to stop it).  Then you have to understand it may not be cost effective for you to teach that player, meaning that your opponent may only run Counter 3 or 4 times in a game.  How much "recognition and reaction" do you want to spend on a player who may only see Counter 3 to 4 times?  And might not be in the game when the Counter occurs?  Just askin'?

LBs-second widest receiver-same technique as CB, if TE, attempt to jam, and drive him back, keep him at arm's length(probably need two of our best athletes here, demanding position)

--How much passing do you see and are your opponents proficient at it? (I don't know how old your players are).

MB-best instinctive player, get to the football.  get deep if you read pass.

--Is he only 3 yards off the LOS?  If so, how does a player only 3 yards off the LOS in the middle of the field cover any deep balls?

the trap is an issue DP, it's a good point and I recognize it.  I have nightmares about our guys tunneling through, popping up to get to the ball and getting plowed over by a pulling guard.  for the record, I wouldn't put four MP guys in at once, would likely be rotating one or two at a time.

--But Trap is Trap, regardless of whether you're playing with four MPRs or four all-stars.  With no 2nd-level player except the Mike, your Mike could get doubled by the playside T and TE and Trap goes for a touchdown.  Even if your Mike doesn't get blocked, he could get shielded (covered) and it's 6 points.  Or, he could get himself out of position responding to Jet motion and then he doesn't even have to be blocked and it's 6 points.  Nothing wrong with running a 10-1 IF IT WORKS, but your opponents are going to have to be running an offense that is conducive to your defense.  And in the end, that's all you really need to find.  If your opponents don't run Trap, Wedge or pass well, you certainly have a scheme that could be successful.  And if you have more talent than anyone else, it's not really going to matter what scheme you have, you'll still do well.

I didn't mean to de emphasize pursuit.  pursuit, it would seem to me would be hugely important in this defense.  I guess what I was trying to say(poorly) is that using the 4-4 our kids did a really good job of running to the football(we harped on that EVERY day) but often they were making the tackle 2-5 yards down field, particularly vs well coached power teams with north/south runners.

--I don't know how your 4-4 was aligned or taught, but I don't see the above as a scheme issue.  BTW--Was yours a 4-4 Stack, Split, with 4 Linebackers, or with 3 Linebackers with an overshifted Safety (Monster or Rover)?  Regardless, I don't know your responsibilities for your players in it so it's hard to say why power teams gave you problems.  You did say they were well-coached.  Well-coached teams can give anyone problems.

My hope was by using this type of defense, we could engage them in their backfield more often, and also it might help the players who didn't have great instincts to get to the ball due to the fact that it seems to be an 'assigment' defense, where our 4-4 was more of a read and react type of thing.

--Okay, I hear you.  Now I think we're speaking the same language.  I want my defensive line living in the backfield of my opponent.  And if I can blow you up using MPR players (and we have) so much, the better.

but you make another good point-in the long run, is it better to give up the big play more often in order to generate more negative plays?

--We want to stay away from the home run at all costs.  I remember a game that we were leading 32-0, when we gave up a home run in the 4th quarter.  My players were terrified because they knew they had allowed the unpardonable sin.  They paid the price, come Monday's practice.  In youth ball, a home run has the potential to break the spirit of an opponent (even though it's only one play).  Time consuming drives (and I'm a Double Wing guy) can frustrate an opponent but don't break an opponent UNLESS you are also physically beating them up.

do you recommend a different scheme that might accomplish both?  at this point, all I've got invested in the 10-1 is a bunch of time online and some book learnin'.  we don't have spring practice or anything.  If there is a better way, believe me, I am all ears.

--I wasn't aware there was a lot of 10-1 info out there, but then again I don't run it.  I do remember reading Reed's book about it (years ago) and it frightened me due to the lack of down field help.  Heck, we had 2 CBs and 2 Safeties when I coached 7-9s, just so that I could have three levels of help.  It was very difficult to hit a homer against us because of that many levels their ball-carrier had to get through.  On a 10-1, if there's a glimmer of daylight, their ballcarrier could be gone.

--We run a Split 4-4.  I'd like to think we are physical and aggressive.  It's certainly what we aim for.  But aggression and physicality aren't about scheme, they're about aggression and physicality.

--Dave
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 06:46:12 PM by CoachDP »
"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement:
"I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go." #BattleReady newhope

Offline ZACH

  • Administrator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 10267
  • Total likes: 858
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2015, 05:21:56 PM »
10 is simple if you make it that way

You're in a gap- get the ball
You're not in a gap you have a man until you find the ball

That's it ...the 10 is easy

The 10 is also an adjustment from a 4-3...

In youth it kills because someone is always left unblocked

Simple scheme = more time for funds (what wins games)
"Some athletes have division 1 dreams and jv work ethic" - random

Offline CoachCalande

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 7962
  • Total likes: 691
  • Its never been "My bad"
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: 46
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2015, 05:39:24 PM »
Hello all.  I have been doing a lot of research on the 10-1(the true 10-1, not the 'Bears' variant) and am seriously considering using it in our upcoming season.  I am sure my assistants will be initially resistant, as I plan on using  it in it's truest form, with 10 up and the 1 only 3 yards off.

I like it I for the following reasons:

simplicity-players' assignments/alignment is very easy to teach, which leads to...

aggression-not much for the boys to think about, which(I hope) will lead to them carrying out their assignments very aggressively

penetration-for me, this is the biggy.  last year we ran a 4-4 defense, which actually was very effective for us.  we let up almost no home run plays.  we had three really strong kids at LB and excellent tacklers at safety and one CB position.  however, teams were able to possess the ball against us, as our defense was predicated on pursuit, not penetration. 

'all in one' principle-while our 4-4 let up, I believe, only two scoring drives last year, we also employed a 6-2 for our minimum play guys.  the idea was to use these kids as the linemen and give them gap responsibilities, backing them with some of our stronger kids.  this worked well in the 4 games we won by multiple scores, and we got our MM play kids lots of playing time.  but in the 4 games that were close, it was a real handicap, and was  a big contributer in our two losses.  so I like the idea of getting the MM play kids in with the first team, trying to use them as the down 4 in the 10-1, working them in.  also, I like the idea of those kids being subbed in all game long, not just playing two series, as it keeps them involved.


so my question is, have you guys tried this?  of course it looks great on paper.  what defense doesn't?  and I think the pluses are obvious, as stated.  I guess my largest worry is the big play, which will be unavoidable.  but how can we minimize it?

any feedback would be much appreciated.


When you are ready, come talk to me about the 46.

WE do enough with our package to give us that gapped up goal line look, left and right side overloads, a nickel a prevent too...all very very simple.
MOJO    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcRmKnRcsA

Go to WWW.COACHCALANDE.COM  for Double Wing DVDs, Playbook, Drills Manuals, Practice footage and emagazines. Ask me about our new 38 special dvds!

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2015, 06:02:32 PM »
some fantastic food for thought here. 

some quick responses-

Coach DP-

1) U R right about the backside B gap player picking up counter.  it's probably a pipe dream, even if I spent an inordinate amt of time on it.  it certainly would be with a  player who was doing his best merely to hold his own(MP kid).  in general, the idea of the down 4 is to stop blast/dive and never get knocked out of the hole.  the 'tunnel and then come up and pursue' is probably too ambitious.

2) last year we just didn't get hurt by the pass.  we got a decent push from the front four, and pressed all eligible, meaning most kids couldn't even release.  when people did complete passes, they were off target, meaning the receiver had to wait for the ball, and we had many tacklers there b4 he could gain any real yardage.   the impotence of opposing passing attacks is a large part of my interest in the 10-1.  of course, this is a different year...

3)that's not the case with trap/counter.  your points there are really a concern for me.  either I come up with some solution to this, or i'll have to scout well enough to know if the up coming opponent runs these plays effectively(scouting is really hard due to concurrent game times)

4)looking at this sight, I think the 4-4 we ran most closely resembled the 4-4 split.  it's certainly where we lined up.  but we really sat in it and did very little stunting/blitzing, because I worried about sending my best tacklers in and giving up the big play-we only had 4 really good football players 3 were LBs, one was at free safetly.(if you are scratching your head thinking-this guy is afraid to blitz LBs out of the 4-4 but he wants to play 10-1???, well, yeah, it does sound pretty damn stupid.


as to the other folks that were good enough to post, I think our practice schedule might explain my love of simplicity.  we get 10 total practices b4 our first game, and only 2/week there after.  that's not a lot of time, so any defense has to be pretty darned straight forward.


I think my feeling at this point is, the 10-1 is a bit of a gimmick.  it can be cracked and it may ultimately be very vulnerable to misdirection/trap, and also some other nasty tricks that a good coach might come up with on the fly.   that said, in my situation it may be a valuable tool and a way to dominate certain opponents.   but there'd better be a backup plan.   and scouting will be key.
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline CoachDP

  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 17995
  • Total likes: 4099
  • "Want to Get Better Players? Be A Better Coach."
    • Coach Dave Potter
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2015, 07:05:33 PM »
in general, the idea of the down 4 is to stop blast/dive and never get knocked out of the hole.

--How do YOU stop it?  Shoot gaps, stalemate o-linemen, or some other way?

the 'tunnel and then come up and pursue' is probably too ambitious.

--Perhaps not for some, but it is for me.

when people did complete passes, they were off target, meaning the receiver had to wait for the ball

--Ah, yes...The passing attack at the youth level.

and we had many tacklers there b4 he could gain any real yardage.

--Which is why we never covered anyone (at 7-9) that ran routes.  We knew by the time the pass got there, and the receiver had to wait for it, we'd already be there in plenty of time.

the impotence of opposing passing attacks is a large part of my interest in the 10-1.

--I can understand that.

your points there are really a concern for me.  either I come up with some solution to this, or i'll have to scout well enough to know if the up coming opponent runs these plays effectively(scouting is really hard due to concurrent game times)

--Regardless of what you do, you need to prepare your team for the best possible opponent.  Meaning if only one team you face all year runs Trap, but they're the best team, then you'd better be well-coached to stop Trap.

we really sat in it and did very little stunting/blitzing, because I worried about sending my best tacklers in and giving up the big play

--The same reason I don't like to blitz much. 

we only had 4 really good football players 3 were LBs, one was at free safetly.

--Age group?

that's not a lot of time, so any defense has to be pretty darned straight forward.

--Defense should always be straightforward, regardless of how much time you have.  In addition, there's no point in installing something designed by Bill Arnsparger when you are facing a youth offense.  Youth defenses should be designed to stop youth offenses.  You won't need Buddy Ryan to help design this for you.

I think my feeling at this point is, the 10-1 is a bit of a gimmick.

--Gimmicks aside, a successful team runs what works.  If it works for you, then run it.

it can be cracked

--By those that know how.  If your opponents don't know how, then in the land of the blind, it's one one-eyed man who is king.

that said, in my situation it may be a valuable tool and a way to dominate certain opponents.

--Possibly.  But you don't need to concern yourself with beating the low-level teams; you need to beat the talented team that has the excellent coaching.  A back-up plan is not a first priority.  A defense that can defeat the talented team/excellent coach is what your searching for.  That defense will also crush the lesser teams.

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement:
"I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go." #BattleReady newhope

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 766
  • Total likes: 122
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Low Tech 10-1 attack defense
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2015, 09:30:26 PM »
 the land of the blind the one eyed man is king'  I like that.

but your point that we need to beat the good teams, the BEST teams, rings true.  I'm not sure if the 10-1 can do that.  i'm also not sure it can't. 

time to look at the alternatives and see if there is something better
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.