Help MosleyTheCat keep the forum running smoothly. Please DONATE using PayPal!

Author Topic: the split 4-4: zone vs man  (Read 605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline user007

  • Silver
  • Posts: 1079
  • Coaching: 6 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: Undecided
  • Title: Other
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2017, 01:11:10 PM »
They are secondary QB defenders in the grand scheme of things.
When the Qb pulls they are gonna bounce off of the slot receiver's half-hearted stalk block and pursue the Q who should be tackled by the C gap defender.

In actuality they are my pitch defenders vs triple option.
I am in complete agreement with you.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15

Offline ZACH

  • Moderator
  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9666
  • freedom of choice, not consequence - N. Saban
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2017, 12:01:54 AM »
I man all spread teams mostly some form of cover 0. Cover 1 vs a good rb

We bring as much at them as possible... the "10" is where i learned the importance of "in your face" defense vs spread. Then mahonz auto blitz, coltsy auto blitz, mountjoys tiger cat and zone read keys from a va tech clinic sold me at least in youth to jr high ya can never go wrong with being aggresive. If they score quick its ok... aslong as you can score too. Ya cant score ya cant win regardless of zone vs man.

Just my thoughts.
"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 parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 690
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2017, 06:05:44 AM »
i really like the 2 v1 blitz against the weakside(rb).  out of the 4-4, you can disguise it really well, and we had luck with two guys getting in clean a high percentage of the time vs a rb.  even if one blitzer got clipped on the way in, some HS rb aren't proficient in blitz protection.

the bonus is, if you guessed wrong and they ran read option, you had a lot of guys at the POA.
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 690
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2017, 08:46:16 AM »
well, we had a meeting.  i looked at all of the suggestions here and although i think they were all excellent, i decided to present the inverted cover 2 approach.

the reason for this is, i knew there was no way they were going to bend on how they play their front 8.  they are pretty rigid on that, been handling things the same for years.  sometimes secondary play is treated as an afterthought, so i thought there might be a bit more wiggle room there.

anyway, we'd talked about the possibility of more zone, and i tried to explain how an inverted cover 2 would be simple to coach, put the S in position to support the WOLB, and still give us two good athletes over the top, and allow the LBs to never turn their back on the LOS.

well, i meant to explain that.  i got as far 'inverted cover 2'  and got shut down.  'we aren't a zone team'(hadn't we talked about more zone 10 days ago???) and 'this isn't the NFL-the kids will never get all that'

ahhh well.  all that would be teaching halves and showing the S how to play robber-i honestly think we could have had it roughly installed in 20 minutes and then polished it up.  but that isn't the point i guess. 

i wonder if the resistance is more not wanting to have to look at something new, or if it isn't their idea, and therefor not acceptable.

if i could do it over again, i'd have met with the secondary coach and had him present it.

I'd really like to be part of a committed staff that was eager to improve.  but hey, coaches all over run into this.

anyway, i learned a lot on this thread, and i appreciate all contributions.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 09:06:28 AM by parone »
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline coacharnold

  • Copper
  • Posts: 204
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
  • Title: Assistant
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2017, 12:42:23 PM »
Sounds like the other guys on staff don't know what "inverted Cover 2" is so they assumed it's some crazy, fancy thing.  It's not--CBs just bail to the hash instead of the numbers and the FS comes up--but they're insecure and unwilling to learn, so that's their call to make.

Stuff like that is one of the things about coaching that really kills me.  Guys let their ego get in the way of even trying to learn anything else and squash anything that's not their idea because they don't want to admit they don't understand or have experience with it.

If the secondary remains an afterthought in the defense, you're always going to have issues defensively.  Especially if the DC doesn't get the concepts of run force, alley pursuit, etc. and how the secondary's run fits need to work with the front.

Offline user007

  • Silver
  • Posts: 1079
  • Coaching: 6 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: Undecided
  • Title: Other
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2017, 12:58:44 PM »
well, we had a meeting.  i looked at all of the suggestions here and although i think they were all excellent, i decided to present the inverted cover 2 approach.

the reason for this is, i knew there was no way they were going to bend on how they play their front 8.  they are pretty rigid on that, been handling things the same for years.  sometimes secondary play is treated as an afterthought, so i thought there might be a bit more wiggle room there.

anyway, we'd talked about the possibility of more zone, and i tried to explain how an inverted cover 2 would be simple to coach, put the S in position to support the WOLB, and still give us two good athletes over the top, and allow the LBs to never turn their back on the LOS.

well, i meant to explain that.  i got as far 'inverted cover 2'  and got shut down.  'we aren't a zone team'(hadn't we talked about more zone 10 days ago???) and 'this isn't the NFL-the kids will never get all that'

ahhh well.  all that would be teaching halves and showing the S how to play robber-i honestly think we could have had it roughly installed in 20 minutes and then polished it up.  but that isn't the point i guess. 

i wonder if the resistance is more not wanting to have to look at something new, or if it isn't their idea, and therefor not acceptable.

if i could do it over again, i'd have met with the secondary coach and had him present it.

I'd really like to be part of a committed staff that was eager to improve.  but hey, coaches all over run into this.

anyway, i learned a lot on this thread, and i appreciate all contributions.
Listen to both those videos. Will solve some of your problems.
The other part of the problem, I cant stand. "kids will never get that." 
Wrong as wrong can be. The kids are not the issue.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15

Offline Dusty Ol Fart

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 6578
  • Coaching: 13 & Under
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
  • Title: Administration
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2017, 01:51:35 PM »
jmho here.  Inverted or Tampa 2 Coverage is not that difficult at all. 

I've used it with JR's Split 4-4 and Jacks 6-3 from 4th Grade - 8th.   In Fact I would be so bold as to say that, unless our opponent was in "Chuck, Duck, and Pray Mode" our Mike rarely got involved in actual coverage (Tampa).   

 ;)
Not MPP... ONE TASK!  Teach them!  :)

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 690
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: the split 4-4: zone vs man
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2017, 07:14:39 AM »
Dusty-

i couldn't agree more.  that's another reason i thought it'd have a chance, because it is so simple to coach, and yet would help us get a 9th man in the box quickly.  all the under drops are the same, you're just giving the CBs a new landmark.

it's a long road, maybe i can get it revisited.
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.