Author Topic: Front and coverage  (Read 186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rockets11

  • Copper
  • Posts: 93
  • Total likes: 24
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
  • Title: Other
Front and coverage
« on: October 09, 2018, 02:46:16 PM »
This will probably be the first of several topics i start asking about different defensive concepts since i was once again reminded that i know absolutely nothing and would like to get educated. . So thanks for any responses in advance.

So my question is can somebody explain what is meant about defensive coverages being married/divorced to the front?  Applications? Examples?

I always hear about this when people are talking about college football and i only have a slight idea about what it is and have no idea how these concepts are used in any way.

Thanks

Offline Dusty Ol Fart

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 7281
  • Total likes: 738
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 6-3
  • Offense: Pistol
  • Title: Retired
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2018, 04:04:55 PM »
Generally speaking the type and format of the coverage you decide upon will dictate the "Front" 6 or 7 for the defense.

The more folks involved in Coverage the less folks for the Front. 

Hence you see changes to Run Fits and adjustments in known Passing Situations.

 ;)



Not MPP... ONE TASK!  Teach them!  :)

Offline blockandtackle

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 641
  • Total likes: 341
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2018, 04:17:18 PM »
This will probably be the first of several topics i start asking about different defensive concepts since i was once again reminded that i know absolutely nothing and would like to get educated. . So thanks for any responses in advance.

So my question is can somebody explain what is meant about defensive coverages being married/divorced to the front?  Applications? Examples?

I always hear about this when people are talking about college football and i only have a slight idea about what it is and have no idea how these concepts are used in any way.

Thanks

Coverages Married to the Front: the coverage and front is designed as a single unit, sort of like in the old Slant/Angle 5-2.  That defense would show a 5-2 up front with 2 high safeties, then they'd roll a safety up on one side to play the flat on Cov. 3 so the OLB could be the 4th rusher and come off the edge there while the DL slanted away from all this and the OLB on the opposite side would drop to the flat.  The defense wanted to keep a constant Cov. 3, but who would have the flat or hook zone responsibilities to replace the blitzing LB providing the 4th, or even 5th, rusher.  You couldn't run the defense without both the front and coverage being tightly paired together.  It's an old idea and it just meant you couldn't call one without coordinating it with the other unless you just wanted a mess of a defense on your hands.

Every coverage is, to some extent, married to the front and vice versa, when it comes to run responsibilities.  Someone has to have force, cutback, and alley support on every zone defense, while if you're in a man defense your front needs to handle all those things or leave some unaccounted for.  Even the teams who "divorce" coverage from the front have still designed their defense in such a way that the front's responsibilities will never conflict with the calls they are making in the secondary.  This means they may always spill runs to outside secondary force but will possibly make a call in specific situations where they use man coverage that will tell their DEs to contain everything to their inside.

Coverage Divorced from the Front: this is a newer idea that, AFAIK, is credited to Gary Patterson back in the late 90s/early 2000s.  Basically, you see the front's responsibilities, run or pass, designed in such a way that the front's responsibilities can be called completely separately from those of the secondary.  Patterson-style 4-2-5 influenced teams will go so far as to call the front, boundary coverage, and field coverage separately.  They do this by utilizing the field and boundary in ways that allow them to keep 6 in the box to play C gap to C gap, even when there's 4 or even 5 wide, by having a 5 man secondary that uses half field checks to always accounts for up to 3 receivers on either side and handles everything from D gap on out and behind.  A lot of 4-3 and even 3-4 teams run divorced concepts by taking one of their LBs and basically considering him the same as a 4-2-5 "strong safety" and having him fill the hybrid role from that defense.

It sounds more complicated than it is, but once you wrap your mind around the basic process, it gets simpler.  Essentially, for all the formations an offense may throw at you, there's really only so many looks they can show to a side and they will always have 5 OL creating at least 6 gaps to defend in the run.  So these teams usually take a 6 man box and have it handle C gap to C gap--the LBs responsibility in the coverage is kept bonehead simple and stays the same on each snap--or it could be as simple as "wall off the nearest receiver" or "play hook zone."

From there, the secondary gets taught how to align to some basic looks: 1 WR, 1 TE, 1 WR/1TE, 2 WR, 3 WR, TE and 2 WR, Tight Bunch, Wide Bunch.  They get really good at those, since it really just amounts to how to align to 1 and 2 receiver looks on the short side and 2-3 receiver looks to the field--for all the different stuff an offense may throw at a defense, 99% of formations can be classified one of those ways.  From there, they learn how to defend 1-2 receiver formations on the boundary and 2-3 receiver formations to the field and spend most of their time getting really good at making a small number of checks toward each one to simply and efficiently handle almost all of the formation adjustment that happens outside of a TE.  This sort of separation is something that spread offenses have sort of forced and defenses at the college and pro level now, and increasingly in HS as well.

Offline ZACH

  • Diamond
  • Posts: 10205
  • Total likes: 808
  • freedom of choice, not consequence - N. Saban
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2018, 08:45:17 AM »
Defensive concepts needed to evolve with offensive ones.

The intro of the RPO 10 years ago forced teams to begin to try and defend it.  The pros have used split field and other "divorced" concepts since the 80s.

Married from what i know invovles the secondary in run fits... divorced is not. Secondary does not usually involve 1-2 lbs if divorced. Least according to the stuff ive read on Sabans concepts which the only place ive seen in depth info put out.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 09:53:41 AM by ZACH »
"When a coach said hes going back to fundamentals it usually follows...I just got my butt kicked" - random

"Some athletes have division dreams and jv work ethic" - random

Offline Dusty Ol Fart

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 7281
  • Total likes: 738
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 6-3
  • Offense: Pistol
  • Title: Retired
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2018, 09:39:50 AM »
I believe that, in Youth Ball, the more times you can get 7 or 8 in the box and challenge their throwing accuracy and ability, the better off you will be. 

As they age up, the harder that becomes.  Spread Adage.  6 In the Box, Run. 7 or more, Pass!  Now you have to consider who to bring and from where?   Jim Johnson was a Master at Disusing his Blitzes.  Dom Capers used the Corner Blitz very well off the Edges.  Risk V Reward.

Understanding that and knowing that the Majority of Youth and many HS QB's arent adept at checking more than one or two receivers,  my thought is to get there quick and force the ball out before they really want to throw.  The danger is how well they escape!  :)

jmho 

Not MPP... ONE TASK!  Teach them!  :)

Offline Coach Correa

  • Silver
  • Posts: 1454
  • Total likes: 361
  • Loved by few but Respected by All
    • generalgridiron.com
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2018, 04:05:29 PM »
This also very much depends on your over all scheme choice they all play differently and that alone can change everything . I've made the fatal mistake of trying things i see and like at the expense of who we are defensively....
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 04:36:07 PM by Coach Correa »
Head Coach Tito Correa
Meriden Raiders 14-U
Offense-Hybrid Wing
Defense - Odd- Stack

Offline Wing-n-It

  • Gold
  • Posts: 4574
  • Total likes: 468
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 6-3
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Front and coverage
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2018, 03:20:39 PM »
Generally speaking the type and format of the coverage you decide upon will dictate the "Front" 6 or 7 for the defense.

The more folks involved in Coverage the less folks for the Front. 

Hence you see changes to Run Fits and adjustments in known Passing Situations.

 ;)
There is so much truth in this

I used to wonder what coverage's go with what fronts, NOW its the opposite.
Once I figured out my coverage's dictated my fronts I stopped beating my head against a wall.
Robert

2 Things my offense will always have is a Wing and a Wedge