forums

4-3 Under - Secondary and Blitz Packages

Correct me if I'm wrong but is t the cover 1 in this scheme what we Cowboys fans used to call the "we need to trade Roy Williams Zone package"?
 
Advertisement
Cover 1 is a Man defense with 1 safety in the deep middle and LB's blitzing or picking up RB/TE in coverage
 
MIA42178 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but is t the cover 1 in this scheme what we Cowboys fans used to call the "we need to trade Roy Williams Zone package"?
Click to expand...

RWilliams was always a box safety, even at OU his game was centered around providing run support and hook/flat coverage in passing situations. In cover one, RWilliams would likely take a slot receiver or back in man coverage. It's when teams would isolate his *** by formation or motion that caused problems. Dude just couldn't cover in space.
 
I think we're going to see a bunch of blitzing off the slot and from the Safety we drop down. I think we'll actually see it on early downs. Careful with the play action on 1st down.
 
One of the reservations that I have with this defense is the apparent fact that nobody seems to know what they want to do. Based upon last year and the personnel, I would *think* that this would be a zone-based team that wants to try to get to third down then utilize the zone blitz. The reason is because D's favored coverage last year SEEMED TO BE cover 3--even that is hard to establish. I am not confident that we have an effective edge rusher so I think that we will have to blitz frequently to get pressure. Given that we semeed to be fundamentally a zone team, I figured that zoning behind that with 3 under 3 deep was a fair likelihood. Then you mix in some basic cover 2/4 and robber and you could essentially run a defense off of that.

I don't watch all these highlights but I take the board's word that we're playing a lot more man. Given that, all bets are off. Maybe Donofrio now wants to run primarily cover 1 mixing in some cover 3 as an adjunct--the mid Shannon years were like this. It's hard to know, which is what makes me a little concerned frankly. For 3 years I've been waiting for this defense to establish ONE reliable thing, and I still get the feeling that we're mixing umpteen things and not necessarily good at any of them. I've always thought we should put more effort into tailoring our base defense to the opposing offense so that we have a staple to go to. Hopefully we have that. But, I consider it just as likely that with all these new toys and a bit more experience we'll be trotting out even more personnel groups and defensive plans without the players excelling at any one concept.
 
Advertisement
One caveat about my and others' observation about seeing more man coverage in practice vids - there's no telling if, when, or how Coach D will implement those coverages on gameday.

I do think our base set will lean more toward 3-4/4-3 Under and then go from there. It's the "from there" part that has us all concerned...
 
LuCane said:
I think we're going to see a bunch of blitzing off the slot and from the Safety we drop down. I think we'll actually see it on early downs. Careful with the play action on 1st down.
Click to expand...

If I were running UM's defense, my approach would be to play solid zone defense on first down. I would show a split safety look with the corners rolled up hard and rotate the free safety down late. The primary object would be to shut down the ground game and get ahead of the chains. If the play happens to be a pass, choke off the interior passing lanes and hope the corners can defend their deep thirds due to their hard alignment. I would play the corners with inside leverage and use the sidelines as an extra defender. The field corner doesn't need to align too tight, but he needs to give the appearance that its a shell look. In addition, the corners first step should be to backpedal because they don't have force. If number one goes vertical they need to get on their horse and run while trying to force the receiver to the sideline. No peeking into the backfield. If number one goes away, look up number two for the vertical.

Second down is the down where pressure comes. It's a sub-package down providing the defense can force second and long. Cover one would be the preferred coverage here. Solid man coverage across while bringing five defenders verses the run or pass. The objective is to make the quarterback get rid of the ball as quickly as possible and throw short. Providing the pass is complete, smother the receiver and try to knock the ball loose. I want the ball! Hopefully, the down and distance is in our favor here, so the linebackers shouldn't over react against playaction. Still, if they bite, we're playing near back, so attack the respective back and pocket. If one of the 'backers is aligned against an inside receiver, read the hips of the receiver before sticking nose into the backfield. I want to be balanced on this down against both the pass and run.

Third down is the transition down. It's time to transition off the field. Hopefully the defense has forced third and long. If possible I would want a sub-package group to get upfield on what I deem is a passing down. While still trying to remain balanced, we would not hesitate to bring pressure. Although I'm not a big fan of fire zone blitzes, they would be an option here. Another option would be to play combination coverages of man and zone. The objective would be to force the quarterback to read and hold the ball, hopefully allowing the front four/zone blitz to cause havoc.

It's a simplistic take, but this would be strategy. As I mentioned once before, it all starts on first down. UM has gotta stay ahead of the
chains if this defense is to take the next step. Regardless of what coach D decides, we must get better production against the run. If we can stuff the run to the tune of about 3.0 ypc, and choke off the short passing game, this defense will remind us of the vintage Canes D of old.
 
This thread is just...

148.gif
 
Advertisement
Dynasty said:
LuCane said:
I think we're going to see a bunch of blitzing off the slot and from the Safety we drop down. I think we'll actually see it on early downs. Careful with the play action on 1st down.
Click to expand...

If I were running UM's defense, my approach would be to play solid zone defense on first down. I would show a split safety look with the corners rolled up hard and rotate the free safety down late. The primary object would be to shut down the ground game and get ahead of the chains. If the play happens to be a pass, choke off the interior passing lanes and hope the corners can defend their deep thirds due to their hard alignment. I would play the corners with inside leverage and use the sidelines as an extra defender. The field corner doesn't need to align too tight, but he needs to give the appearance that its a shell look. In addition, the corners first step should be to backpedal because they don't have force. If number one goes vertical they need to get on their horse and run while trying to force the receiver to the sideline. No peeking into the backfield. If number one goes away, look up number two for the vertical.

I think you saw a clip of Howard playing this exact coverage. I played Cover 3 and it has it's pros for sure. It also has some serious flaws against speed and flooded areas. I remember corners staring back to me and wondering wtf to do when the offense motioned to trips. The reason people see this style/coverage as "bend but don't break" is that you need the QB to be inaccurate, OR the WR to be slow, OR or you have to be really, really tight in your communication. On top of all of that, your corners need to be disciplined (like you said, quick turn and run), plant hard and come up to tackle. Remember some of the underneath throws and missed tackles over the past couple years? No bueno against this coverage especially.

I think it's a fair look on 1st down, but I really would use it as a shell and would mix and match it with Cover 1 and even Cover 4 on later downs. It's really not all that hard to roll into a Cover 3 from the 2 Safeties deep look and vice versa. The problem is...did everyone hear and see it? The change from 3 to 4 or from 4 to 3 changes all the outside responsibilities and communication. That **** worries me a lot given how bad we've been.

My suggestion: I'd be more inclined to send Deon down on 1st down and get a numbers advantage. We've always differed in that I like fire zone looks more than you do. They can often be used as a balanced way to get some pressure and hedge against the run. I also liked what Bill Young did on early downs with cross-blitzes. He was just awful in transitioning away from his base look on later downs, and we often got smoked on 3rd and long.

Second down is the down where pressure comes. It's a sub-package down providing the defense can force second and long. Cover one would be the preferred coverage here. Solid man coverage across while bringing five defenders verses the run or pass. The objective is to make the quarterback get rid of the ball as quickly as possible and throw short. Providing the pass is complete, smother the receiver and try to knock the ball loose. I want the ball! Hopefully, the down and distance is in our favor here, so the linebackers shouldn't over react against playaction. Still, if they bite, we're playing near back, so attack the respective back and pocket. If one of the 'backers is aligned against an inside receiver, read the hips of the receiver before sticking nose into the backfield. I want to be balanced on this down against both the pass and run.

Third down is the transition down. It's time to transition off the field. Hopefully the defense has forced third and long. If possible I would want a sub-package group to get upfield on what I deem is a passing down. While still trying to remain balanced, we would not hesitate to bring pressure. Although I'm not a big fan of fire zone blitzes, they would be an option here. Another option would be to play combination coverages of man and zone. The objective would be to force the quarterback to read and hold the ball, hopefully allowing the front four/zone blitz to cause havoc.

Ha. I just saw the fire zone comment. I think you're going to see a good amount "sending 5" this year. Think you'll see it from the slot, as I've noted. Think you'll also, hopefully, see more of the pressure coming off the edge from the blitzer, which we were scared to do last year because our DL couldn't play their responsibilities.

It's a simplistic take, but this would be strategy. As I mentioned once before, it all starts on first down. UM has gotta stay ahead of the
chains if this defense is to take the next step. Regardless of what coach D decides, we must get better production against the run. If we can stuff the run to the tune of about 3.0 ypc, and choke off the short passing game, this defense will remind us of the vintage Canes D of old.

I used to get frustrated when we'd play too vanilla, but I've kinda come around on keeping things simpler. That doesn't mean give one look the entire game. It just means it's not necessary to switch between coverages as much. What I do believe is necessary is to give and hold looks for long pre-snap. We've been pretty bad at that. I think some of the guys have mentioned being more comfortable in their disguises. I hope that's true and it comes to fruition.
Click to expand...

My comments in bold red. Thanks for the discussion. Fun stuff around here lately.
 
Last edited:
Dynasty said:
Basically, the 'hawks play an eight man front which is why you see a lot of single high in the secondary. Their primary objective is to stuff the running game. I think coach D would like to implement something similar because it appears that his base coverage is cover 3. DBush as the free safety would basically play the position that the late Al Blades played during the Davis' years. Thinking back to the '00 season, UM's defense was very solid against the run, but had some issues against good passing teams.

As it pertains to coverages, I think the next step in terms of disguising could be how alignment and leverages are played. For example, cover four would typically align the corners soft off the outside receivers at about 7-8 yards with inside leverage. I've seen Mich St. play cover four with a hard look. The corners would align 4x2 with inside leverage. It looks like cover two with the exception of leverage.

Also, I've notice that 'bama runs its cover 3 a little different from the traditional cover 3 where the corners stay over the top. The way Satan coaches it is that the free safety must get underneath any deep pass in the middle of the field. Georgia run a combination route with the Z running a deep dig and the playside X running a skinny post. The Z receiver occupied the free safety and the playside corner always stayed over the top. Georgia hit that play a few times for big chunks of yardage. Satan never adjusted.

For UM zone coverages, the effectiveness will be determined by the interior underneath defenders. They are the heart and soul of any coverage, whether its man or zone. I still am not sold on UM's spot drop principles. Perhaps with an additional year of experience we will see better results. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

That play is a real ***** for defenses.
 
Dynasty said:
Basically, the 'hawks play an eight man front which is why you see a lot of single high in the secondary. Their primary objective is to stuff the running game. I think coach D would like to implement something similar because it appears that his base coverage is cover 3. DBush as the free safety would basically play the position that the late Al Blades played during the Davis' years. Thinking back to the '00 season, UM's defense was very solid against the run, but had some issues against good passing teams.

As it pertains to coverages, I think the next step in terms of disguising could be how alignment and leverages are played. For example, cover four would typically align the corners soft off the outside receivers at about 7-8 yards with inside leverage. I've seen Mich St. play cover four with a hard look. The corners would align 4x2 with inside leverage. It looks like cover two with the exception of leverage.

Also, I've notice that 'bama runs its cover 3 a little different from the traditional cover 3 where the corners stay over the top. The way Satan coaches it is that the free safety must get underneath any deep pass in the middle of the field. Georgia run a combination route with the Z running a deep dig and the playside X running a skinny post. The Z receiver occupied the free safety and the playside corner always stayed over the top. Georgia hit that play a few times for big chunks of yardage. Satan never adjusted.

For UM zone coverages, the effectiveness will be determined by the interior underneath defenders. They are the heart and soul of any coverage, whether its man or zone. I still am not sold on UM's spot drop principles. Perhaps with an additional year of experience we will see better results. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

Yes sir.
 
Advertisement
Pennmed Canefan said:
One of the reservations that I have with this defense is the apparent fact that nobody seems to know what they want to do. Based upon last year and the personnel, I would *think* that this would be a zone-based team that wants to try to get to third down then utilize the zone blitz. The reason is because D's favored coverage last year SEEMED TO BE cover 3--even that is hard to establish. I am not confident that we have an effective edge rusher so I think that we will have to blitz frequently to get pressure. Given that we semeed to be fundamentally a zone team, I figured that zoning behind that with 3 under 3 deep was a fair likelihood. Then you mix in some basic cover 2/4 and robber and you could essentially run a defense off of that.

I don't watch all these highlights but I take the board's word that we're playing a lot more man. Given that, all bets are off. Maybe Donofrio now wants to run primarily cover 1 mixing in some cover 3 as an adjunct--the mid Shannon years were like this. It's hard to know, which is what makes me a little concerned frankly. For 3 years I've been waiting for this defense to establish ONE reliable thing, and I still get the feeling that we're mixing umpteen things and not necessarily good at any of them. I've always thought we should put more effort into tailoring our base defense to the opposing offense so that we have a staple to go to. Hopefully we have that. But, I consider it just as likely that with all these new toys and a bit more experience we'll be trotting out even more personnel groups and defensive plans without the players excelling at any one concept.
Click to expand...


Golden and D'Onofrio have been somewhat noncommittal about the style of defense they want to play. They've repeatedly said they want to be "multiple" both in fronts, and coverage looks. I remember D'Onofrio saying personnel would dictate the type of coverage the team would play, i.e. if our CBs are more adept at playing man, then they would mix in more man.

I don't think Golden and D'Onofrio are oblivious to the types of athletes they have at their disposal in south Florida. I think our tenuous CB rotation over the past two years led to heavy zone. In 2011, we had McGee (underachiever), Nicholas (converted SS), Chambers (converted RB), and Finnie (true frosh). In 2012, we had slightly more experience, but the front 7 was in shambles; our already bad run defense was totally compromised in man defense.

When Golden/D'Onofrio have things on schedule, my guess is we'll see more zone on running downs, and more cover 1 on passing downs.
 
Not that anybody cares, but I incorporated a few man+zone combo coverages this summer. (man coverage and zone coverage in the same play) You can run it out of a 2-high look and single-high look.

It's a real ***** for QB's and I'd love to see D'Onofrio install some of that.

If you've got a really good 'man' Corner, you can use him to "cancel out" (man) a WR of your choice and then play zone against the remaining eligibles. If you're lucky, you have a couple good 'man' Corners and you can cancel out 2 WR's. Now you've got atleast 5 defenders to play zone against 2 or 3 eligibles.

The combinations are endless.
 
Our linebackers need to do a better job of reading the routes and moving in their zones. Too many times last year receivers would just run free with no LB's helping to re-route them.

The key to a strong zone defense is everyone working together, passing off their man and looking for someone else coming into their zone.

Also if you have no rush it puts a lot of pressure in the back 7, so hopefully this gets ironed out this year.
 
Advertisement
sstcane said:
Our linebackers need to do a better job of reading the routes and moving in their zones. Too many times last year receivers would just run free with no LB's helping to re-route them.

The key to a strong zone defense is everyone working together, passing off their man and looking for someone else coming into their zone.

Also if you have no rush it puts a lot of pressure in the back 7, so hopefully this gets ironed out this year.
Click to expand...

Zero route recognition last season, lots of just dropping into their "zone" and watching the QB.
 
This is the reason why running an effective defense is so challenging. It's not just about throwing athletes out there. Especially at LB, you need physical guys that have a unique mix of violence/aggression combined with high football IQ. Too much of either leads to open zones because guys overcommit and/or are out of position when they fail to recognize what the offense is trying to exploit. If you listen to some of the former Canes from the 90's, they would say that Miami ran a basic G-defense, designed to stop a pro-style set. With the combination of a strong, pressure-creating D-line, LB's that read and reacted well (with the ability to come on an occasional dog) and DB's that covered effectively and played strong run support (with the ability to come on an occasional blitz off the corner or safety up the gut or off tackle), you had defenses that were rarely behind the chains. When third down came, you rarely saw an offense convert a third and long. Even third and short were a challenge.
Fast forward to last year, the combination of youth, immaturity and lack of strength meant the offense was dictating at all times, rather than the defense forcing the offense to do things it wasn't comfortable attempting. With a stronger D line, LB's that are well balanced in terms aggression and assignment soundness, and DB's that are in a position to play more man, I completely expect this year's D to be much more stout.

http://mgoblog.com/category/user-tags/g-defense
 
I really think that Miami's D will ultimately be a multiple D format utilizing the 4-3 Under, 3-4, & Tampa 2. I think Miami will eventually have the horses to do this effectively & they are still being weaned slowly into this.
 
WildcatDefense said:
Not that anybody cares, but I incorporated a few man+zone combo coverages this summer. (man coverage and zone coverage in the same play) You can run it out of a 2-high look and single-high look.

It's a real **** for QB's and I'd love to see D'Onofrio install some of that.

If you've got a really good 'man' Corner, you can use him to "cancel out" (man) a WR of your choice and then play zone against the remaining eligibles. If you're lucky, you have a couple good 'man' Corners and you can cancel out 2 WR's. Now you've got atleast 5 defenders to play zone against 2 or 3 eligibles.

The combinations are endless.
Click to expand...

TCU runs a lot of Cover 25 so running combo coverages can work if you have the kids. Sounds like you have the kids. The prospects are exciting if you do.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top