Contain trouble

[CoachAD]

OK...JT,  (edited to say 11/12's)

  I only had a few hours of practice and no help from knowledgeable AC's to put in a defense.  This led me to cheat a little and go with a 4-4 Stack vs. the Split 4-4.

  We played a very good Power I team that used a lot of misdirection, fake speed sweep, fake FB dive, etc....killed our contain as I could not get my outside guys to stay disciplined.  I know this is mostly a coaching failure, however I am thinking of going to a split 4-4, at least in alignment.

    As I recall, against a TE your OLB walks up into the C gap and your DE rips through TE shoulder.  Against a double tight Power I set this would at least put my best tacklers, and most aggressive players, in a place to get into a gap and blow a play up, or at least influence a play instead of BEING influenced inside.

   My problem is that it would leave my W, fast athletic but ADD and influenced by a fly in the stands as my most athletic second level support.  My M is not fast but if I can have him key the FB I ought to at least get some physicality in the middle.  I have one massive DT that has showed up to play this year, and have 3 other DT's that have not earned the PT, I have a CB spot and a DT spot up for grabs in practice tomorrow to see who will step up.

  It just scares the living daylights out of me that in a double tight formation, I will have trouble containing a deep pitch.  My thoughts are one of my studs will break through, if one of them goes down, or is simply over-matched, I think I am in trouble!

  I guess I want to to pat me on the head and reassure me that there is a contain element I am missing.  I hope it is the fact that the OL will be much more occupied and facing much more athletic kids.  If that is it, then I feel like I may be ok.

[JrTitan]

OK...JT,  (edited to say 11/12's)

  I only had a few hours of practice and no help from knowledgeable AC's to put in a defense.  This led me to cheat a little and go with a 4-4 Stack vs. the Split 4-4.

  We played a very good Power I team that used a lot of misdirection, fake speed sweep, fake FB dive, etc....killed our contain as I could not get my outside guys to stay disciplined.  I know this is mostly a coaching failure, however I am thinking of going to a split 4-4, at least in alignment.

    As I recall, against a TE your OLB walks up into the C gap and your DE rips through TE shoulder.  Against a double tight Power I set this would at least put my best tacklers, and most aggressive players, in a place to get into a gap and blow a play up, or at least influence a play instead of BEING influenced inside.

   My problem is that it would leave my W, fast athletic but ADD and influenced by a fly in the stands as my most athletic second level support.  My M is not fast but if I can have him key the FB I ought to at least get some physicality in the middle.  I have one massive DT that has showed up to play this year, and have 3 other DT's that have not earned the PT, I have a CB spot and a DT spot up for grabs in practice tomorrow to see who will step up.

  It just scares the living daylights out of me that in a double tight formation, I will have trouble containing a deep pitch.  My thoughts are one of my studs will break through, if one of them goes down, or is simply over-matched, I think I am in trouble!

  I guess I want to to pat me on the head and reassure me that there is a contain element I am missing.  I hope it is the fact that the OL will be much more occupied and facing much more athletic kids.  If that is it, then I feel like I may be ok.

The Split 4-4 alignment will give you better contain support on the sweep since the DEs are aligned on air.  This is an advantage that the akignment has over the stack alignment particularly at the youth level.   Containing a deep pitch play should not be a challenge if your DEs are playing the right technique to the TE side:

• Wide 9 tech - one yard outside the TE - wide enough not to get reached by the TE
• Take two read steps across the line of scrimmage and squeeze down inside. 
• The read steps should be on a line that is at a 45° angle to the line of scrimmage through the stance of the near back (no halfback key fullback).
• Do not attack beyond the heels of the TE.
• On his second step, he should have his outside leg and arm free and his shoulders square to the line of scrimmage.

The OLB (7 Tech) needs to work accross the face of the TE and pursuit the ball inside out.  That gives you wth DE conatining, withe MIke, Will, OLB and the saftey (alley player) pursuiting inside out.  You may want to consider switching Mike and Sam if you are worried about him making plays to the outside.

[Wing-n-It]

  You may want to consider switching Mike and Sam if you are worried about him making plays to the outside.

Does this mean that you have your mike as a player who is faster than sam or am I miss reading this?

[JrTitan]

Does this mean that you have your mike as a player who is faster than sam or am I miss reading this?

You are reading more into it than intended.   CoachAD is concerened that his Mike may not be fast enough to be scrape C and D gaps.  Our Mike is often the "slowest" of our linebacker group and generally more physical.  Our Sam is generally our best linebacker, but we have switched them before particularly when we are less concerned about pass coverage (man on the TE or flats in zone).  Th eadjustmeht gives us a tough physical player in C gap and player with more range at inside linebacker.

[Wing-n-It]

Just wanted to make sure I didnt miss something

Thanks for the clarification

[Dagger D]

I am having contain trouble as well.  Particularly last night vs. UBSW to the weak side.  A big part of the problem was our alignment.  HOwever, we should have been able to make the plays.

I am thinking about moving one of best defenders and fastest kid on the team to DE.  What do you guys think of this?

[JrTitan]

I am having contain trouble as well.  Particularly last night vs. UBSW to the weak side.  A big part of the problem was our alignment.  HOwever, we should have been able to make the plays.

I am thinking about moving one of best defenders and fastest kid on the team to DE.  What do you guys think of this?

How did you align vs. the formation?


By jrtitan at 2009-05-30

DEs do not ned to be the most athletic, but they do need to be disciplined.

[Wing-n-It]

We played a UB SW this last scrimmage that tried to get us to overload then run weak.
We happen to be trying out the 4-4 split and every time they ran weak our Rover had it stopped COLD.

Our Sam made a ton of tackles and they went no where. they used these HUGE splits and our DT got in fast and disrupted the backfield bad. They had to triple team one of my DTs

They even resorted to letting him get through and run their big guy from the side and "earhole" (trash block) our DT to break his will. It just pissed him off more..... hence the triple team.

weak side DE and Rover (IMO) need to work together on contain

[Dagger D]

Yes that is the formation.

[JrTitan]

weak side DE and Rover (IMO) need to work together on contain

That's a great point and goes to the srong side as well.  Contain is a coordinated effort bewteen the OLB, DE and ILB.  You really have to work on the run fits for flow outside and flow away.

[CoachAD]

  I have probably done the exact wrong thing BUT I took an element from the split 4-4 and added a NG.  I moved my slow MLB to DT, he lost his spot after the last game anyway.

  I almost have what I might call a split 5-3 that looks like a 7 diamond against a double tight set, a 6-2 against a one TE set, and a 5-3 against a 0 TE set.

  I put 3 fast players a S,M,W and put my my physical and one of the fastest players on the team at Mike.  He is so physical I have to watch him in drills because he will hurt our players.  I put a kid who is a very good pursuit player, at Sam, he is just a little, OK, a lot ADD.

  So, the perennial league champs run a set like:
They will rocket motion 3 and toss to him

                                 2
                   4            1        3
      5             E  T  G  C  G  T
                E  S    T     N    T    E
                                 M       W 
     C                                       C

                                 F

After watching lots of film they run almost everything to strength, even counters.  So, with this alignment, I would shift F over pre-snap and then shift M and W over on motion to M over T and W over C.  This leaves W and C to watch for counters but gets the numbers back closer to even.

Does this seem sound?  I need something that is easy so the kids can play fast. We aren't very big, but we are pretty fast.  My E's are athletic burners. M, S, W and F are fast. My NG is a big kid that has turned into a beast.

[JrTitan]

  I have probably done the exact wrong thing BUT I took an element from the split 4-4 and added a NG.  I moved my slow MLB to DT, he lost his spot after the last game anyway.

  I almost have what I might call a split 5-3 that looks like a 7 diamond against a double tight set, a 6-2 against a one TE set, and a 5-3 against a 0 TE set.

  I put 3 fast players a S,M,W and put my my physical and one of the fastest players on the team at Mike.  He is so physical I have to watch him in drills because he will hurt our players.  I put a kid who is a very good pursuit player, at Sam, he is just a little, OK, a lot ADD.

  So, the perennial league champs run a set like:
They will rocket motion 3 and toss to him

                                 2
                   4            1        3
      5             E  T  G  C  G  T
                E  S    T     N    T    E
                                 M       W 
     C                                       C

                                 F

After watching lots of film they run almost everything to strength, even counters.  So, with this alignment, I would shift F over pre-snap and then shift M and W over on motion to M over T and W over C.  This leaves W and C to watch for counters but gets the numbers back closer to even.

Does this seem sound?  I need something that is easy so the kids can play fast. We aren't very big, but we are pretty fast.  My E's are athletic burners. M, S, W and F are fast. My NG is a big kid that has turned into a beast.

You are essientially running a 46/Bear front (we call it TUFF).  In the over formation above, is the T on the nub side a receiver threat (he is eligible)?  Here are a couple of adjustments I would consider base on your scouting report:

• Treat the RG as the center and align the T-N-T in a 3-0-3 front (bear)
• Flip E and Sam on the strong side.  The E is ineligible so we never align Sam on an eligible receiver
• Align the right Corner on the inside shade of the nub side tackle
• Play cover 1:  C-5; S-4, M-2, W-3, C-Nub Tackle

[CoachAD]

  MUCH Better.  Our opponent wasn't as good but we gave up 7 points on defense.  This was on the first drive of the game and after a couple of adjustments we shut them down pretty well.

  In a 1 TE, 6-2 type front, the FB was hurting us, although my NT told me it as always through the 2 hole. My LB's would chase the TB and QB and the FB quick hitter was hurting us some.  I had my NT drive the C into that gap, that bounced the play or he cut back into the NT.

  Their defense scored a TD on a fumble return.  Other than that, we were pretty darn good in the second half.

[DumCoach]

What about contain on the weak side versus an SE?  What are the key coaching points?

[CoachAD]

contain on the weak side is the E, on air, the C, playing deep third on pass and getting off the SE on run. F keys QB so a bootleg has a little help from him as well.

If rocket motion, they do a little triple option with FB dive first.  M and W would be cheated over to look like a 6-2. W has FB dive, M has flow/ball, E has Rocket back and S has QB.  C waits and ensures run then attacks ball, if a pass, he drops to deep third