|
|
Post by chiefscoach on May 30, 2006 13:29:31 GMT -6
I was wondering if any 4-3 defenses you face give you fits. I know from talking to coaches that a 3-4 seems to be the best defense against the spread but we tried that and we just had a really bad experience for it. Our guys just are not built to be in a 30 defense. So if there are any 4-3 defenses that give you a hard time, what are some of the things they do? Blitz alot? Disguise Coverages? Any help would be great. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on May 30, 2006 15:52:14 GMT -6
Any defense that has 2 hi safties is good for the Spread since we are going to be able to run the ball. The 4-3 really doesn't cause any more problems than any other front we face. I don't think there is really much you can do in the way of stunting that will cause us problems, but let's face it - this is HS ball and movement is always an issue. You probably don't want to blitz if you are playing a gun team - the ball just gets out too fast. Disguising coverages can work. Edge pressure can be a problem.
If you are playing a one-back gun team, you will probably want to watch film to see if they have any tendancies - especially with their back alignment. If they are an IZ read team, you may want to mess with their reads . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 30, 2006 15:56:01 GMT -6
If you are a spread team that has the ability to be balanced, then very few of the fronts should be a problem. I've seen pass heavy spread teams have problems with various types of coverage and fronts, but that's because they don't spend enough time working on the ground game.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on May 30, 2006 16:00:34 GMT -6
Thanks for the input. I'm a defensive Coach so I'm trying to figure out how to defend the spread better but we are a 4-3 defense and we want to stay that way. Thanks again for the input, please keep it coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by oguru on May 30, 2006 16:30:09 GMT -6
In my experiences the toughest defense we face is the 3-3 stack. As it complicates things for our offensive line. More calls are needed because of the stacked linebackers, and who comes off to block them and what not.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on May 30, 2006 16:40:10 GMT -6
4-3 wide, with the olb's hipped or splitting the difference is tough
it looks like 5 in the box, but they can read run/pass out on the edge and fall in on the run plays that may not account for them
|
|
moose18
Junior Member
"If it didn't matter who won or lost, they wouldn't keep score"
Posts: 284
|
Post by moose18 on May 30, 2006 17:35:20 GMT -6
When we see a defense that is playing "tweeners" as you mentioned tog, we like to go 2x2 and stack our receivers. It makes those guys declare their intentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachmyers on May 30, 2006 21:01:12 GMT -6
4-3 wide, with the olb's hipped or splitting the difference is tough it looks like 5 in the box, but they can read run/pass out on the edge and fall in on the run plays that may not account for them Swing pass/bubble screen them to death, or till they bump out a backer. |
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on May 31, 2006 15:21:37 GMT -6
4-3 wide, with the olb's hipped or splitting the difference is tough it looks like 5 in the box, but they can read run/pass out on the edge and fall in on the run plays that may not account for them Coach so does this give you problems because it becomes more difficult to determine how many are in the box? |
|
|
|
Post by tog on May 31, 2006 19:46:18 GMT -6
for the stuff we run it doesn't bother us more than anything else really, but for traditional spread teams that run zone and gt as their base run plays it is tough
yes you bubble them to widen the olbs, but they can do a lot with the safties stacked over the top to toy with you
trips is a good thing for this kinda stuff
|
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Jun 1, 2006 5:19:21 GMT -6
We are a spread team, and we have had some teams hurt us w/ the 4-3, during years when our athletic ability at WR was lower than normal. They would cram 7 in the box and lock up man. Teams that have done this and have had better athletes have given us fits, teams that have done this with lesser athletes, we have hit alot of big plays on, throwing the football.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigdaddyd on Jun 1, 2006 9:47:23 GMT -6
43 cover 2man (look) gives us fits. There's a lot of coverages you could roll into out of this look. Off course your W&S would have to be studs when they're locked up in man coverage. You're also more venerable to the run (from this look), but in terms of our passing game vs. the 43, this seems to confuse our QB's some.
.....................F....................R...................
................................................................
..C.........W................M..................S........C
......................E....T........T.......E................
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Jun 1, 2006 10:52:33 GMT -6
we don't see a lot of 4-3 stuff but we do see quite a bit of 5-2, which is the same kind of principle. 7 in the box is a problem because it complicates blocking in the run and pass game. we only have 6 because we don't have a te or fb. we go to the quick game and outside runs like swp and option but its still tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jun 1, 2006 10:59:07 GMT -6
we don't see a lot of 4-3 stuff but we do see quite a bit of 5-2, which is the same kind of principle. 7 in the box is a problem because it complicates blocking in the run and pass game. we only have 6 because we don't have a te or fb. we go to the quick game and outside runs like swp and option but its still tough. So being a 4-3 team you think we could give you more fits being in the Under Front? With Sam walked up on the line? What coverages do they give you out of the 5-2 looks? Again thanks to all of you that have thrown out suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Jun 1, 2006 11:43:44 GMT -6
for us the under look is tougher, mainly because we don't have a te or fb. i'd rather see 4 dl's than 5, just makes it easier for us to block 4 with 5 than 5 with 5.
coverage wise we see a lot of 1/4's and 0, usually a off man idea like match up zone stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Jun 1, 2006 17:17:03 GMT -6
Last year in the playoffs , first round we ran into a spread team that was 10-1 and #1 seed. Our DC adjusted to a 5-2 and bump and run coverage.
Then substituted our all section RB into DE on 3 and long situations for a speed rush straight to the QB. Same with the other DE. NG and Ts rushed the gaps hard and our quick LB's sat back and read, then fly to the ball.
And on running downs, it was just 5-2 gap control with the DE's having outside contain.
Totally took them out of their offence.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jun 1, 2006 19:35:09 GMT -6
Last year in the playoffs , first round we ran into a spread team that was 10-1 and #1 seed. Our DC adjusted to a 5-2 and bump and run coverage. Then substituted our all section RB into DE on 3 and long situations for a speed rush straight to the QB. Same with the other DE. NG and Ts rushed the gaps hard and our quick LB's sat back and read, then fly to the ball. And on running downs, it was just 5-2 gap control with the DE's having outside contain. Totally took them out of their offence. Coach so you just played man press the entire game? Did your DC blitz alot or not so much? |
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Jun 2, 2006 0:28:52 GMT -6
I just pretty much summarized what we did. Majority of the time was straight man.Only times we went zone was 3rd and over 15yards. Never blitzed our corners. But that entire week we had very intensive film study. We were fortunate to obtain film of every game they played, and charted every tendency they did on offence. Down and distance, field position, personnel packages, right/left hash, which side the QB likes to throw and to who. So that had a lot to do with the outcome and the success we had. Our kids pretty much knew what was coming before they even walked up to the line.
In our case the 5-2 worked the best because 1. from the films, they saw 5-2s, but was mostly cover 2 and 4 , no man, and especially no bump and run 2. going to man press took away their bubble screen game, the QB would look to throw and if the WR was covered, he tucked and ran. Again, we picked that up in film study, so that's why we had speedy ends that could run him down. 3 their spread was pretty vanilla and predictable, like I said our kids knew the situation, and had a good idea what was coming, the other teams coaches never really adjusted when we took away the screen game. And finally, it's what we did all year on defence. Just added speedier players
On the option, it was the assignment of our ends to hit the QB after the fake, every fake. When he would give the ball and carry out the fake, he got hit. Kept the ball, got hit. So regardless what happened , back side DE hit the QB, legally ofcourse. After the first quarter, he wasn't so fast, and all his passes were hurried and didn't carry out his fakes very well. Also our intrior lineman got good penetration and blew their timing up on a few plays
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jun 2, 2006 5:08:32 GMT -6
I just pretty much summarized what we did. Majority of the time was straight man.Only times we went zone was 3rd and over 15yards. Never blitzed our corners. But that entire week we had very intensive film study. We were fortunate to obtain film of every game they played, and charted every tendency they did on offence. Down and distance, field position, personnel packages, right/left hash, which side the QB likes to throw and to who. So that had a lot to do with the outcome and the success we had. Our kids pretty much knew what was coming before they even walked up to the line. In our case the 5-2 worked the best because 1. from the films, they saw 5-2s, but was mostly cover 2 and 4 , no man, and especially no bump and run 2. going to man press took away their bubble screen game, the QB would look to throw and if the WR was covered, he tucked and ran. Again, we picked that up in film study, so that's why we had speedy ends that could run him down. 3 their spread was pretty vanilla and predictable, like I said our kids knew the situation, and had a good idea what was coming, the other teams coaches never really adjusted when we took away the screen game. And finally, it's what we did all year on defence. Just added speedier players On the option, it was the assignment of our ends to hit the QB after the fake, every fake. When he would give the ball and carry out the fake, he got hit. Kept the ball, got hit. So regardless what happened , back side DE hit the QB, legally ofcourse. After the first quarter, he wasn't so fast, and all his passes were hurried and didn't carry out his fakes very well. Also our intrior lineman got good penetration and blew their timing up on a few plays Thanks for the info coach. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on Jun 2, 2006 9:49:15 GMT -6
chiefscoach - I would just caution you that you should be ready with several schemes to try and stop your opponent. One of the great things about the spread is the defense is limited in how they can align and schemes they can use. Most of the good spread OC's know this and they are prepared for any situation. They will have a response to just about anything you will do defensively. Man coverage in particular will be exploited - most of us would not try to bubble screen vs. man - there are many other things we can do. Most of the good OC's don't really pay as much attention to down and distance as they pay attention to the defensive alignment and scheme. They will run plays that are good against the defense that is shown on the field.
For example, we didn't really see any man-press last year. But we still practice against it every day. If we every see it, we will be excited, because we know we are going to abuse the defense. And mostly, you can't be predictable in your scheme (getting into certain D fronts/coverages in certain down/distance situations). That really helps the OC.
|
|
|
|
Post by chiefscoach on Jun 2, 2006 11:19:26 GMT -6
Thanks for the info Bulldog. I know the most important thing is to not stay still in the same thing and to never become predictable but I'm just trying to get some suggestions as to different things I can throw at a spread team to give us a chance eventhough we really are not willing to go to a 30 front.
|
|
