Collins/Thacker Defensive Scheme Question

[Ibeeballin]

Really? Kudos to them! I got a headache just reading about it. Is it common as a base or does it tend to be more of a situational thing (like 3rd and long, for example)?

It’s combo coverage

To the strongside or to the wide side of the field it’s cov 4 and 2 to the boundary or to weak side

 

[TromboneJacket]

It’s combo coverage

To the strongside or to the wide side of the field it’s cov 4 and 2 to the boundary or to weak side

That’s way more succinct than what I was reading. So in that case, I would assume that it’s a 2 high safety look? If so, do you think it would reduce confusion if we scrapped the single high safety stuff in the short term? Is it easier to switch between Cover 2, Cover 4, and Cover 6 as opposed to switching between Cover 2 and Cover 3?

 

[alagold]

Like a blind hog finding an acorn--That switch to a 3-3-5 DEF vs unc was AMAZING in result.But EVEN MORE amazing was what happened ( how BAD it was ) the rest of the season.

I had a bad feeling that when we played touch football in our Spring "game" our DEF would stink.I hope that crap changes very soon . also-If I hear how our weight /strength program is "killing it" again I think I'll puke.
Forget 404,etc--How about "Promise less and DELIVER MORE."

 

[Randy Carson]

If I remember correctly, we tried three down lineman a few years ago, and it was a disaster because we didn't have that MONSTER nose tackle the 3-4 requires. Am I right?

 

[slugboy]

If I remember correctly, we tried three down lineman a few years ago, and it was a disaster because we didn't have that MONSTER nose tackle the 3-4 requires. Am I right?

We’ve done 3 down linemen multiple times in the last decade. Groh had the classic 3-4 defense but did pretty well with the NTs we recruited. Woody ran a 3-4 that did not require a massive NT. There are variations with 3 down linemen that don’t require “war daddies”.

 

[cthenrys]

It’s combo coverage

To the strongside or to the wide side of the field it’s cov 4 and 2 to the boundary or to weak side

I’m 50 and have watched football all my life. Im an engineer so analytical by nature. I really try to understand this stuff, but really enjoy the input from @Ibeeballin and @ilovetheoption. I also feel pretty dumb when I read it. I don’t always agree, but I always learn something. Thanks. You’re a real asset to this board.

 

[Techster]

thacker rehab...

In fairness to Thacker, we had a 2nd Team All ACC LB (Quez Jackson) and honorable mention LB (Charlie Thomas). That's probably the best we've done in terms of accolades for our LB corp in a long time. Ace Eley also finished 5th in the ACC in tackles (Jackson finished 3rd).

 

[gville_jacket]

We’ve done 3 down linemen multiple times in the last decade. Groh had the classic 3-4 defense but did pretty well with the NTs we recruited. Woody ran a 3-4 that did not require a massive NT. There are variations with 3 down linemen that don’t require “war daddies”.

This right here. Everyone thinks 3 down needs to be like the Steelers with just a giant in the middle who can take both guards and the center themselves. Theres more than one way to execute any DEF. Just depends what the scheme is. Groh needed big man in the middle which we didn’t have and Woody needed more speed at LB/DE (and just more time, he only had 1 season).

 

[augustabuzz]

4-0-4 formation

But, you still need 3 big guys and 4 linebackers/DE that look like edge rushers.

 

[SteamWhistle]

That’s way more succinct than what I was reading. So in that case, I would assume that it’s a 2 high safety look? If so, do you think it would reduce confusion if we scrapped the single high safety stuff in the short term? Is it easier to switch between Cover 2, Cover 4, and Cover 6 as opposed to switching between Cover 2 and Cover 3?

It’s Tampa 2 with the Boundary Corner and Free safety. Field Corner has a deep 1/4th responsibility (same as cover 4) with SS ina deep 1/4th. Combined with Sam and Mike you have that side in Cov 4. Sometimes with your cover 6 you can have the Boundary Corner in Man with the Will backer having the flat if you want.
You can switch from Cov 6 to any coverage, FS slides over into a deep 1/3rd with the corners in deep 1/3rd SS and Will cover flats and you have cover 3. Cov 4 is easy and doesn’t even require realignment just assignment changes as the Field Corner and FS just have a deep 1/4th instead of Tampa 2.

 

[Jmonty71]

It’s Tampa 2 with the Boundary Corner and Free safety. Field Corner has a deep 1/4th responsibility (same as cover 4) with SS ina deep 1/4th. Combined with Sam and Mike you have that side in Cov 4. Sometimes with your cover 6 you can have the Boundary Corner in Man with the Will backer having the flat if you want.
You can switch from Cov 6 to any coverage, FS slides over into a deep 1/3rd with the corners in deep 1/3rd SS and Will cover flats and you have cover 3. Cov 4 is easy and doesn’t even require realignment just assignment changes as the Field Corner and FS just have a deep 1/4th instead of Tampa 2.

That's a complexed coverage scheme and can work... However; you got to have the speed up the middle to prevent the slot WR from running up and down the field. So, it has merit, but also gaps.

 

[Ibeeballin]

That’s way more succinct than what I was reading. So in that case, I would assume that it’s a 2 high safety look? If so, do you think it would reduce confusion if we scrapped the single high safety stuff in the short term? Is it easier to switch between Cover 2, Cover 4, and Cover 6 as opposed to switching between Cover 2 and Cover 3?

Yes it’s a 2 high look.

The confusion comes of guys just not quite sure of the assignment or recognizing the formation

It’s about presnap disguise. I suggest making every initial look to look like cov 2 and Cov 4 and you rotate based on anticipation of the snap that you’ve studied

 

[ilovetheoption]

That’s way more succinct than what I was reading. So in that case, I would assume that it’s a 2 high safety look? If so, do you think it would reduce confusion if we scrapped the single high safety stuff in the short term? Is it easier to switch between Cover 2, Cover 4, and Cover 6 as opposed to switching between Cover 2 and Cover 3?

So, honestly, QQH/Cover 6 plays a lot like Cover 3, a lot of the time. The simplest way to get QQH out of a MOFC look is you just rock your Free Safety to the strong seam, and your weakside corner gets deep 1/2, while your strongside corner gets deep 1/4.

But really, while it's sometimes simpler to have a MOFO coverage out of 2 high, you can do whatever coverage with whatever alignment, you just have to have dudes that can do the job.

Like, TCU made its name playing Palms coverage (which is at heart a 2 high coverage) out of a 1 high look (425).

The thing to remember is people get hung up on formations, but formations really aren't as important as fronts and coverages. The formations tend to lend themselves better to certain fronts and certain coverages, but you can stunt and shift and blitz from any front to any front, and from any coverage to any coverage.

THe REAL devil is matching the fronts and the coverages, not so much the formations.

 

[ilovetheoption]

*Matching the fronts TO the coverages, I should have clarified. Certain fronts will work with certain coverages, others will not.

A lot of it revolves around where to put the Force player (the guy responsible for the "kill" in "spill and kill" schemes).

 

[MidtownJacket]

*Matching the fronts TO the coverages, I should have clarified. Certain fronts will work with certain coverages, others will not.

A lot of it revolves around where to put the Force player (the guy responsible for the "kill" in "spill and kill" schemes).

This is the gold folks. CAT talked about the same thing after trotting out the 3-4 lineup the first time. The scheme is window dressing.. what matters is matching the patterns that the O is running and getting leverage to deny or bring the dude with the ball down.

 

[SteamWhistle]

One thing you will realize is The Free Safeties alignment tells you the coverage 95% of the time.

 

[ilovetheoption]

One thing you will realize is The Free Safeties alignment tells you the coverage 95% of the time.

Between that and corner leverage, you've got some REALLY good clues.

 

[Jmonty71]

I think the key takeaway isn't about the scheme. Its about the players and using or adapting a scheme that fits them. Frankly, we've been trying to pound a square peg, through a round hole. Instead of using the right peg, the coaches have just hit the peg harder. I don't think we have the right players for a 3-4 or 3-3. You see that with the lack of pressure and the field day other QBs have. A good coach uses the talent they have and is able to adapt. Thacker hasn't shown any ability to adapt. Maybe something changes