|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jul 28, 2007 13:53:10 GMT -6
Here's another twist on Man vs Zone to "Stop a good high school Spread Team". Focus should be on high school since I think most of us agree the typical youth QB is not the same threat as in HS.
If your opponent is runs the spread pass game fairly well, good QB and a couple of decent receivers, how many of you will align and scheme to try and force them to abandon their passing game and run the ball? Is it better to force them to pass or force them to run?
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jul 30, 2007 0:13:55 GMT -6
What we do vs. spread team A is not the same as spread team B.
One spread team on our schedule primarily runs the ball. And from that they, more often than not, motion into two back sets. Unless it is 3rd and 8+ we are playing them man to man with as many in the box as possible.
Another can complete a pass fairly well. We'll primarily play zone and mix in some man or play bear/c1 on run downs (tendencies).
In cases where their WR's are better than our DB's, we play zone much more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 30, 2007 9:35:50 GMT -6
A couple of years ago at the last school I coached where we would throw the ball 30-40 times a game out of 3x2 sets, the most effective defenses we saw were the teams that were able to pressure our QB with a 3 or 4 man rush and then drop 7-8 defenders into coverage.
Typically, we would move the ball at will between the 20s and even the 10s but as soon as we got down near the goal line in that compressed space, we couldn't stretch the field vertically as well and often bogged down. And because we had a very rudimentary running game (basically the QB only), we had a hard time scoring from that area of the field.
Teams that played a true 0 tech nose tackle (especially if the kid was a real animal) also gave us fits...as an OL coach, I would have much rather preferred to prepare for an even front than an odd front. The other thing about the odd front defenses is that the blitzes can come from anywhere...even fronts tend to be a lot more predictable in terms of where the extra heat is going to come from, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jul 31, 2007 11:46:23 GMT -6
We don't see spread, but we run it. Biggest thing that will give us trouble is a cover 4 shell and disguising the coverages, this affects the passing game and the perimeter run game.....
Frontwise doesn't matter much but I'd agree that a tough NG can be an issue sometimes. Also don't care to see 335/353 stack (we run it on defense) because of the come from anywhere aspect of it and also that it can be deceptive in showning blitz (1 or 2 lbs coming) but staying in zone behind it....
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 31, 2007 13:13:12 GMT -6
We don't see spread, but we run it. Biggest thing that will give us trouble is a cover 4 shell and disguising the coverages, this affects the passing game and the perimeter run game..... Frontwise doesn't matter much but I'd agree that a tough NG can be an issue sometimes. Also don't care to see 335/353 stack (we run it on defense) because of the come from anywhere aspect of it and also that it can be deceptive in showning blitz (1 or 2 lbs coming) but staying in zone behind it.... i can pretty much agree with this assessment, as well |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 31, 2007 13:36:20 GMT -6
We've played several "true" spread teams (i.e. pass heavy) in the past. What worked well for us was playing a 3-4 or 3-3 and flooding the zones with 7-8 defenders. Cover 2 was great for us against most of these teams. We played 4 shell and diguised our coverage.
We played a 4-3 normall, so our coverages weren't affected, we just had to teach that extra LB/DB to get to a zone and adjust our under coverage slighly.
We still brought stunts and swtiches, but we ran them as zone blitzes and released a DE into coverage.
The one year we really put the breaks on a spread unit, we watched a lot of film and figured out who their weaknest OL were. They were solid at both tackles, but one of the guards and the center were a step slow. We ran ALOT of our stunts and switches at them and got good pressure on the QB.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 31, 2007 14:28:51 GMT -6
We've played several "true" spread teams (i.e. pass heavy) in the past. What worked well for us was playing a 3-4 or 3-3 and flooding the zones with 7-8 defenders. Cover 2 was great for us against most of these teams. We played 4 shell and diguised our coverage. We played a 4-3 normall, so our coverages weren't affected, we just had to teach that extra LB/DB to get to a zone and adjust our under coverage slighly. We still brought stunts and swtiches, but we ran them as zone blitzes and released a DE into coverage. The one year we really put the breaks on a spread unit, we watched a lot of film and figured out who their weaknest OL were. They were solid at both tackles, but one of the guards and the center were a step slow. We ran ALOT of our stunts and switches at them and got good pressure on the QB. We're a 4-3 base and have had success with 3-3 Cover 2. We use normal personnel (4 DL) when we run our 3-3. We don't bother with teaching the DL who plays Mike to cover. We'll blitz him or spy him. If we do use him as a cover guy on a zone blitz, we just tell him to back up and go to the ball. We don't feel that we have time to spend getting into the nuances of coverage with him. |
|
