For those wondering about Formations and Back 7 Depth

[miamifan007]

Lu, could you compare some screen shots of our old 4-3 defense (Schiano/Shannon) in the early 2000's. Just curious how the alignment and depth compares. I always remember our safeties playing very deep, although I believe our front was meant to penetrate, so it would be interesting to compare and contrast styles.

Good idea. Just a quick answer as I have to get back.

Two things:

1) As I said in the OP and you stated above, different front. We were a big time upfield DL. Some would say guys like Mcdougle were too upfield and lost contain at times. It changes the flow and timing of a play, naturally.

2) Offensive formations have changed a lot. Zone-read is popular now. 4WR sets are as common, sometimes more, than 21 personnel groupings. The easiest way to compare is to compare how we look against 21 personnel in the original post (so picture #5 from the top), to the below:

View attachment 25868

Like I alluded to, the numbers aren't altogether THAT different. It's the style and broader philosophy. In the picture above, we're headed upfield. 2 of our LBs are standing up at the end of the LOS. The remaining LB isn't at 5+ yards. Our Safeties can be 30 yards deep and I wouldn't care because they're not being asked to fly down and set the edge for the defense. See some of the differences in theory? It's riskier, no doubt.

That picture looks like a pack of nine sharks about to attack some baitfish. The ones from this year reminds me of three guys splashing in the surf with a bunch of sunbathers looking on for a distance for fear of getting wet.

That picture was 2 and 10 and we were still all on the line. Why, because friggin NE only runs the ball. Flash forward to this year and how many 3 and 2's were our LBs STILL five yards deep-- even on the 6 or 7 yard line.

All this is so depressing. I want to focus on the simple fact that we now have REAL QB. Kid still has problems under center but is deadly from the gun up the field and over the middle. Take Coley little fsu love child WR screen out of the playbook and Kaaya is a classic Miami QB. I like QB under center but watched Brock get tortured by it so just leave the kid in the gun and let him fly. Our Oline is can seem to go smash mouth anyway and looks better in gun.

There is no hope for this defense, but our new coach will have a heck of a QB and that means a lot, a whole lot. Al is done. He can't even show up in public. The only question is firing him Donna's last act or the next president's first act. If we had a real OC, Kaaya might save Al's job but Coley can't get out of his own way(he is to stubborn to see that HIS plays don't work too) so they are all gone.

I don't know about Coley being stubborn. We ran draws against Nebraska. Something I haven't seen. More tosses. Less stretch plays. The offense and the playcalling continues to grow. As far as the screens go those usually get us 4-5 cheap yards. I don't have a huge problem with them. Sad that the less experienced coordinator doesn't have the "smartest guy in the room" complex and is willing to adapt so far.

This.

 

[skyman]

Lu, or anybody wit capabilities. There was a play where Nebraska literally took 2 wr and put them on far sidelines stacked together while ball was on opposite hash, they literally tried to take 3 defenders as far from the ball as possible even though their Qb would not have been able to throw that ball safely and accurately at least 40 yards across field. The wr were stacked along sideline, it was wild how they tried to get us as far from box as possible. The lb did try to split difference and offer support...


Also someone mentioned Pete Carroll, wasn't he the one with access to any talent across nation at the time at sc who said you cannot two gap in college and ran more aggressive scheme while in nfl he felt it was doable. Yet we try and fail year in year out. Why are we trying when it is soo dam hard to do

 

[Arehel]

One thing I've noticed is, whoever is playing the position of Thurston Armbrister, whether it may be McCord, Armbrister or AQM. They have the simplest job in the world, but I don't like how they are being used.

If their is no TE and two WR split to their side they jam inside receiver and play flats (or rush the passer, depending on the play call I guess)
If their is a TE they're now in the box and set the edge or rush the passer, pending what they see.

Seems like that's all they do. Same goes for the opposite side linebacker. Hence why McCord can play both positions, they're interchangeable.

So if there has been any coach who watches 2 minutes of film they'll notice, like the pictures displayed show, if you go 4 wide, you automatically get 5 in the box every time, as consistent as the sun coming up in the morning. This is why we get gashed iliek crazy.... a loser SCHEME.

 

[3FW]

He plays like he thinks he has DBs who can't cover or tackle.

 

[rayray]

has anyone seen a 3-4 team that so consistently lines their OLB on slot receivers, thus diminishing numbers in the box and giving the offense this weird umbrella look? there must be *some* precedent but i can't think of any off the top of my head.

i don't understand what the point of having depth in the defensive backfield is if you're consistently scared to go nickel and/or match up guys in the slot or outside. just seems like a total waste.

 

[AUcane]

has anyone seen a 3-4 team that so consistently lines their OLB on slot receivers, thus diminishing numbers in the box and giving the offense this weird umbrella look? there must be *some* precedent but i can't think of any off the top of my head.

i don't understand what the point of having depth in the defensive backfield is if you're consistently scared to go nickel and/or match up guys in the slot or outside. just seems like a total waste.

rayray, I scour the TV on Saturdays just to see if ANY team plays the way we passively play our 3-4. I don't see any of the top teams, much less any team, play that way.

 

[Savage Cane]

I dont understand how the coaches cant see stuff like this. It boggles my mind

They see it. They know more Xs and Os than everyone on this board put together, I'd imagine. Like I said above, there is difference between what should work in theory and what is happening in reality. This, as I've said for 2 years, is a conscious decision. Ask your 280 pound DL to stack his OT, shed him and make the play. Sure, "player could have been stronger and made a better play." But, you're starting with a disadvantage.

This ^ is the absolute truth. Our coaches are fully aware of what is going down on that field.
They simply would rather dig in, & as we've seen throughout history " Pride comes before The Fall ".
But really for FU•KS Sake does our tradition rich unique beast of a program really need to go down with
these fools ?

 

[Coach Macho]

has anyone seen a 3-4 team that so consistently lines their OLB on slot receivers, thus diminishing numbers in the box and giving the offense this weird umbrella look? there must be *some* precedent but i can't think of any off the top of my head.

i don't understand what the point of having depth in the defensive backfield is if you're consistently scared to go nickel and/or match up guys in the slot or outside. just seems like a total waste.

His reason for doing that is that it's easier to disguise Cover-2 pre-snap. (which is true)

When the outside LB's are lined up near the slots and the Safeties are 2-high, it looks just like Cover-2. Then just before the snap one of the Safeties drop down into the box.

I'd rather have a Safety over that slot so I prefer to run it the opposite way. My OLB that's blitzing will stand near the slot WR and as the QB calls his cadence he'll start moving toward the LOS to blitz. (while the Safety smoothly rolls down over the slot)

I don't want a **** 190lb Safety dropping into the box and playing run...and I don't want some 245+ LB lined up over a slot.

 

[Coach Macho]

Big difference between theory and reality.

 

[Dynasty]

has anyone seen a 3-4 team that so consistently lines their OLB on slot receivers, thus diminishing numbers in the box and giving the offense this weird umbrella look? there must be *some* precedent but i can't think of any off the top of my head.

i don't understand what the point of having depth in the defensive backfield is if you're consistently scared to go nickel and/or match up guys in the slot or outside. just seems like a total waste.

His reason for doing that is that it's easier to disguise Cover-2 pre-snap. (which is true)

When the outside LB's are lined up near the slots and the Safeties are 2-high, it looks just like Cover-2. Then just before the snap one of the Safeties drop down into the box.

I'd rather have a Safety over that slot so I prefer to run it the opposite way. My OLB that's blitzing will stand near the slot WR and as the QB calls his cadence he'll start moving toward the LOS to blitz. (while the Safety smoothly rolls down over the slot)

I don't want a **** 190lb Safety dropping into the box and playing run...and I don't want some 245+ LB lined up over a slot.

It's all about preference. **** v MOFC. Personally, I like cover-4 and man-1

I've always believe that whatever coverage you use as base you need to be pretty good at doing something out of it. It really boils down to executing a simple zone concept and being able to match up in man coverage. That's it.

I'm a split coverage guy. I absolutely love quarters coverage. I want to defend the middle of the field with leverage, and the safeties aligned "tight" at a depth of 9 yards are less allows that to become reality. Granted, let's be clear here, I'm asking a lot of the safeties...they have to cover a lot ground. In order to play this style, we need guys with speed and range, and they need to be excellent tacklers as their primary role is to shut down the ground game as force players and defend deep 1/2,1/4. When I think about great Miami safeties roaming the secondary in this coverage Darryl Williams immediately comes to mind. Do we have any safety with that type of skill set? If the answer is yes, the next question is, is he instinctive? We need instinctive guys, fast dudes at safety regardless of what coverage we're running.

Back to the original point. Can you point to or name anything we do really well from our cover-2?