X/O questions - now with more OCs!

Most defenses now, well elite ones, pretty much adjust their coverage based off route recognition.
The coach will call basic cover two, but if, for example the wr the corner is lined up against run a streak and no one is in the flats, he's gonna follow the streak. Easy example.
Alabama does this.
I think that this is why many of you are giving d'onofrio a hard time. He'll call that type of defense but his players aren't recognizing route concepts, and that's really hard to coach and understand, but once they get it life is good, and you don't need to change personelle.
What this route concept recognition does, well supposed to is make the qb make the hardest throw.
In Canada this coverage concept is called match coverage, it basically protect you from ever getting beat deep and the linebackers jobs are to wall off anything that goes over the middle, ie. overs, drags, ins and so forth. I don't know how it works in the states but I'm sure it's extremely similar.

we tried doing pattern matching last season and we had a big ole debate about it last year because some were dead set on the fact that we just do drop zone just like people think we just do 2 gap only. I even posted screenshots of our players doing it. Problem is like with most of the things we did last season we sucked at it as a team (coaches and players). Hopefully they all have finally figured it out (teaching it and learning it) because that would do wonders for this defense.

I don't think we 2-gap every play but I'm convinced that we don't play match coverage. (until I see proof) I've never seen our LB's turn their heads/eyes directly to a WR and match his depth and/or meet him at the apex of his route. We're always dropping back and looking at the QB. There's routes running right behind us or right next to us and we have no clue. We allow WR's to catch the ball near us and then we tackle them.

I've also never seen a LB run underneath a seam route. Matter of fact, there were several times during the spring where the offense completed seam routes to the TE right behind our LB's head.

From what I can see we've put a lot of emphasis on collisioning and re-routing WR's, not walling them off and/or "carrying" them. (or matching their routes)

The simplest way to describe pattern-matching IMO is that it's a zone defense that turns into man. I just don't see that from our intermediate defenders. Our guys appear to be sitting in their zones and reacting to the ball.

Pattern-matching allows the defense to contest throws more effectively. It allows you to play zone but contest throws aggressively like you're playing man. (i.e. tighter passing windows) I don't see that when we play zone. When we play zone there's usually adequate windows for the offense to complete passes. The only time our coverage looks tight is when we play man.

For example:

Offense is in a 2x2 formation.
We're in Cover-2.
The LB's should be reading 2-to-1.
If #2 goes vertical then the LB gets depth and looks for #1 to run something inside.
If #1 runs an inside route then the LB breaks off of #2 and drives on the inside route of #1 aggressively.
The Safeties are also reading 2-to-1.
If #2 runs out or in then the Safety aggressively drives on the route of #1. It could be a vertical, a slant, a dig, a post, etc.

So let's say #2 runs a shallow crosser and the #1 WR runs a dig. The LB jumps on the shallow route and the CB and Safety double-team the dig. That Safety drives hard on the dig and can either pick it or drill the WR as he's catching the ball.

I've literally never seen us do that^
 
Advertisement
Most defenses now, well elite ones, pretty much adjust their coverage based off route recognition.
The coach will call basic cover two, but if, for example the wr the corner is lined up against run a streak and no one is in the flats, he's gonna follow the streak. Easy example.
Alabama does this.
I think that this is why many of you are giving d'onofrio a hard time. He'll call that type of defense but his players aren't recognizing route concepts, and that's really hard to coach and understand, but once they get it life is good, and you don't need to change personelle.
What this route concept recognition does, well supposed to is make the qb make the hardest throw.
In Canada this coverage concept is called match coverage, it basically protect you from ever getting beat deep and the linebackers jobs are to wall off anything that goes over the middle, ie. overs, drags, ins and so forth. I don't know how it works in the states but I'm sure it's extremely similar.

we tried doing pattern matching last season and we had a big ole debate about it last year because some were dead set on the fact that we just do drop zone just like people think we just do 2 gap only. I even posted screenshots of our players doing it. Problem is like with most of the things we did last season we sucked at it as a team (coaches and players). Hopefully they all have finally figured it out (teaching it and learning it) because that would do wonders for this defense.

I don't think we 2-gap every play but I'm convinced that we don't play match coverage. (until I see proof) I've never seen our LB's turn their heads/eyes directly to a WR and match his depth and/or meet him at the apex of his route. We're always dropping back and looking at the QB. There's routes running right behind us or right next to us and we have no clue. We allow WR's to catch the ball near us and then we tackle them.

I've also never seen a LB run underneath a seam route. Matter of fact, there were several times during the spring where the offense completed seam routes to the TE right behind our LB's head.

From what I can see we've put a lot of emphasis on collisioning and re-routing WR's, not walling them off and/or "carrying" them. (or matching their routes)

The simplest way to describe pattern-matching IMO is that it's a zone defense that turns into man. I just don't see that from our intermediate defenders. Our guys appear to be sitting in their zones and reacting to the ball.

Pattern-matching allows the defense to contest throws more effectively. It allows you to play zone but contest throws aggressively like you're playing man. (i.e. tighter passing windows) I don't see that when we play zone. When we play zone there's usually adequate windows for the offense to complete passes. The only time our coverage looks tight is when we play man.

For example:

Offense is in a 2x2 formation.
We're in Cover-2.
The LB's should be reading 2-to-1.
If #2 goes vertical then the LB gets depth and looks for #1 to run something inside.
If #1 runs an inside route then the LB breaks off of #2 and drives on the inside route of #1 aggressively.
The Safeties are also reading 2-to-1.
If #2 runs out or in then the Safety aggressively drives on the route of #1. It could be a vertical, a slant, a dig, a post, etc.

So let's say #2 runs a shallow crosser and the #1 WR runs a dig. The LB jumps on the shallow route and the CB and Safety double-team the dig. That Safety drives hard on the dig and can either pick it or drill the WR as he's catching the ball.

I've literally never seen us do that^

Come on man seriously. It was a **** thread you started during the season that I posted visual examples of us doing it in at the behest of Lu because he wanted examples. I'm out with the family but when I come home if no one posts it here I'll do it. We did do it but with most things last season we didn't do it well.
 
Most defenses now, well elite ones, pretty much adjust their coverage based off route recognition.
The coach will call basic cover two, but if, for example the wr the corner is lined up against run a streak and no one is in the flats, he's gonna follow the streak. Easy example.
Alabama does this.
I think that this is why many of you are giving d'onofrio a hard time. He'll call that type of defense but his players aren't recognizing route concepts, and that's really hard to coach and understand, but once they get it life is good, and you don't need to change personelle.
What this route concept recognition does, well supposed to is make the qb make the hardest throw.
In Canada this coverage concept is called match coverage, it basically protect you from ever getting beat deep and the linebackers jobs are to wall off anything that goes over the middle, ie. overs, drags, ins and so forth. I don't know how it works in the states but I'm sure it's extremely similar.

we tried doing pattern matching last season and we had a big ole debate about it last year because some were dead set on the fact that we just do drop zone just like people think we just do 2 gap only. I even posted screenshots of our players doing it. Problem is like with most of the things we did last season we sucked at it as a team (coaches and players). Hopefully they all have finally figured it out (teaching it and learning it) because that would do wonders for this defense.

I don't think we 2-gap every play but I'm convinced that we don't play match coverage. (until I see proof) I've never seen our LB's turn their heads/eyes directly to a WR and match his depth and/or meet him at the apex of his route. We're always dropping back and looking at the QB. There's routes running right behind us or right next to us and we have no clue. We allow WR's to catch the ball near us and then we tackle them.

I've also never seen a LB run underneath a seam route. Matter of fact, there were several times during the spring where the offense completed seam routes to the TE right behind our LB's head.

From what I can see we've put a lot of emphasis on collisioning and re-routing WR's, not walling them off and/or "carrying" them. (or matching their routes)

The simplest way to describe pattern-matching IMO is that it's a zone defense that turns into man. I just don't see that from our intermediate defenders. Our guys appear to be sitting in their zones and reacting to the ball.

Pattern-matching allows the defense to contest throws more effectively. It allows you to play zone but contest throws aggressively like you're playing man. (i.e. tighter passing windows) I don't see that when we play zone. When we play zone there's usually adequate windows for the offense to complete passes. The only time our coverage looks tight is when we play man.

For example:

Offense is in a 2x2 formation.
We're in Cover-2.
The LB's should be reading 2-to-1.
If #2 goes vertical then the LB gets depth and looks for #1 to run something inside.
If #1 runs an inside route then the LB breaks off of #2 and drives on the inside route of #1 aggressively.
The Safeties are also reading 2-to-1.
If #2 runs out or in then the Safety aggressively drives on the route of #1. It could be a vertical, a slant, a dig, a post, etc.

So let's say #2 runs a shallow crosser and the #1 WR runs a dig. The LB jumps on the shallow route and the CB and Safety double-team the dig. That Safety drives hard on the dig and can either pick it or drill the WR as he's catching the ball.

I've literally never seen us do that^

Come on man seriously. It was a **** thread you started during the season that I posted visual examples of us doing it in at the behest of Lu because he wanted examples. I'm out with the family but when I come home if no one posts it here I'll do it. We did do it but with most things last season we didn't do it well.

Sorry, I don't remember. I watch the games though. Pattern matching is pretty easy to see IMO. I can post hudl videos from my defense where you can easily see kids pattern matching and not sitting stagnant in a zone, covering grass like our guys appear to do.
 
Sorry, I don't remember. I watch the games though. Pattern matching is pretty easy to see IMO. I can post hudl videos from my defense where you can easily see kids pattern matching and not sitting stagnant in a zone, covering grass like our guys appear to do.

you don't have to post the vids we're good I know what it is and we did it last season at times. I saw it live with my own eyes and I've been told that it's in our PB. It wasn't a staple of the defense but that maybe because we sucked at it.

here's the post from that thread from the season, it was one of the examples I remembered from a game and there were more, but the convo never really went beyond my post so I assumed the issue was resolved. I can look for more examples but honestly since we don't have coaches film if it's not a play I can remember seeing live that I had to full field vantage view of I don't even want to bother with it because the TV broadcast won't tell the entire story. I'll spoiler the post because it's long.

It's your opinion that this isn't spot dropping? Just one game I remember clearly, so went and took a couple quick screenshots. Please see:

WR ran a shallow cross almost directly next to the LB.

View attachment 23959

QB held the ball because there was no rush, which allowed WR to find a bigger window, as our LB didn't really move very much.

View attachment 23960

I'm all for differing opinions and would love to keep this discussion going, but I encourage everyone to at least try to back up their statements with video, images, or something. I think it'd help everyone who hopes to learn.

Sorry took so long to respond but really busy lately, anyway I have no doubt we spot dropped last season and we may still do it at times this season, but I just think it's wrong to think that's all we do when we clearly zone match along with other coverage we didn't touch last season (i.e. cover 1). I tried to get the best example I could remember from games I saw live because the TV broadcast doesn't give you full view vantage point of the field like being in the stadium does, but even with that I'm still just guessing coverage.

My Non expert opinion

This is from the UF game in the anyway although it looks like we are in a Cover2, I'm assuming we are in a Cover 3 Cloud but who the heck really knows that's why it so hard to take a stance one way or the other imo

70.jpg

71.jpg

72.jpg

At the bottom of the screen you can see the#2 (Burton) is going to do a shallow cross. Because of this Gunter will play the #1 Pattern (Dunbar??) squeezing the inside cut. TC is going to drop inside the #1 keeping that curl window close from inside out. He's also will maintain periph on on the #3 (Jones) whose releasing to eventually play stack from high/low. Since Jones is releasing outside DP is going to carry the #2(Burton) inside to the ball. Dallas will reroute the (the TE) so that he doesn't get the seam.

Here's a look from behind the QB and in the second pic you can clearly see our LBers reading their keys not just blindly spot dropping. Also in the last two pictures you'll see Tracy has 1/3 of the field to himself, AJ has middle where he eventually picks up the TE post, and Jenks over the top of Gunter which is why I'm assuming it's a Cover 3 cloud.
73.jpg

74.jpg

75.jpg

76.jpg

77.jpg
all of this is just my non expert opinion from what I see while at the game and I can key on certain players (I would've given more examples but just cutting up this one play took 4ever), but because there is so much missing info it just a big guess. I just feel like some people (not you or WC) are just looking at the end result of the play and feel like we aren't doing anything but playing patty cake until the WR catches the ball and that's simply not true. Even Saban's defenses allow catches but he stresses maintaining middle protection and keeping everything in front of you. This is from his LSU playbook, but his Michigan State and Bama playbooks have the same philosophy.

78.jpg

sorry the image is so small I'm not an expert at this.

Also playing match zone doesn't mean guys will just be running willy nilly from one spot to the next, they still have zone principals so they have to maintain vision with keys and qb. Again sorry so small
79.jpg


and here's a vid of him explaining his Rip/Liz match and you can see the LBer's going through the principals I'm talking about.
[video=youtube_share;kM21euJf74g]http://youtu.be/kM21euJf74g[/video]

I'm sort of out of it but I think we've been doing some of the things Saban does with his defense. I mean I don't think we give up many middle plays, just sideline and underneath stuff but I maybe wrong. However our defense sucks imo because a) we don't get a good pass rush (which was key in the play I posted) and b) we aren't excellent tacklers (we give up to many big plays ie 1st downs on 3rd and long/tds because of **** poor tackling) and that's something to complain about iyam.

Anyway I've rambled on enough and probably way to much. Maybe I'm just to patient because I saw Canes fans to a man (including myself) all agree that Walton was a buffoon, however apparently he wasn't since the guy that fired him could barely get a position job and Walton was a hot commodity in the NFL for Coordinator positions.
 
Looks to me like Howard and Gunter are playing man on the #1 WR's. Howard certainly is. He took a "man turn" and has his eyes on the WR. And I'm assuming our Outside LB's have curl-to-flats. If #2 curls up they grab it. If #2 runs an out-route (flats) they grab it.

Now I see why we can't cover RB flare routes.

If #1 runs the CB off vertical or inside...
Then #2 hooks up in front of the Outside Linebacker... (the LB has to grab him by rule)
We have no flat defender.
There's nobody to cover a RB flare. He'll catch the ball with a full head of steam and get a minimum of 10 yards before he's touched.

Sound like a reoccurring theme from the last couple seasons? Sure does to me. It would also explain why/how our Outside LB's get beat to the flats by #2 WR's so often. And my examples of our OLB's covering flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Canes game the last couple years.



Anyways... (moving on)

It's kinda hard for me to consider those pics as proof of pattern matching. It appears to be nothing more than a standard Cover-2 technique by our Linebackers with man coverage on the outside. This coverage forces our Outside Linebackers to cover #2 WR's on the out-routes or wheels, where we'd definitely be at a disadvantage. If #2 (Burton) runs a wheel then who's covering him? Cornelius? Or the Safety who's driving down on the inside route of #1? Or if #2 runs out/wheel maybe the Safety doesn't drive on the inside route of #1, maybe he's stays outside half. Now the offense can steal an easy completion to the inside route of #1 since Gunter has let him inside or just dump if off to the RB for an easy 8+ yard gain.

Tell me if I'm wrong, dude, cause I'm genuinely just asking questions. I see holes and liabilities in this particular coverage IMO, particularly to the RB side of the field.

I also see why we struggle with shallow crossers. Let's look at the top of the screen. #1 runs Howard off vertically. Let's say #2 (TE) runs a flat-route or a deep-out. The Outside LB or Nickel (Crawford) has to cover him. So who's covering Burton (#2 WR at the bottom) when he crosses the field? Is Perryman supposed to pick that up and run with it all the way to the hashes? How many times have we seen Perryman take his drop, point to a crosser, only to have nobody near it? The crosser catches the ball and marches up field.

Having our CB's play man on the outside and our OLB's play #2 to the flats makes this defenses vulnerable IMO.


Again, just making conversation and asking for answers. Feel free to shoot holes.

My whole point is void if Gunter isn't playing man, but it appears to me that he is. Cover-2-Read normally doesn't line-up pressed on the #1 like he is and Howard is definitely playing man up top. And the examples I give of our OLB's playing flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Cane's game the last couple years.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
We do pattern read...we simply have sucked at it.

There's a play during last year's spring practices where Antonio Crawford clearly is pattern matching and gets a pick.
 
We do pattern read...we simply have sucked at it.

There's a play during last year's spring practices where Antonio Crawford clearly is pattern matching and gets a pick.

I wouldn't necessarily call that play by Crawford proof either. Looked to me like he was playing Cover-2 and jumped underneath a 7-route for a pick. He just kept sinking and ran underneath the route.

I'm more concerned about what we're doing with the Linebackers.
 
We do pattern read...we simply have sucked at it.

There's a play during last year's spring practices where Antonio Crawford clearly is pattern matching and gets a pick.

I wouldn't necessarily call that play by Crawford proof either. Looked to me like he was playing Cover-2 and jumped underneath a 7-route for a pick. He just kept sinking and ran underneath the route.

I'm more concerned about what we're doing with the Linebackers.

Linebackers when in this "Match" coverage generally get depth if they see something that threatens the seam, if not they expand at a 45 degree angle and from their starting spot and begin to cover the flats, well this is the OLBs. As a 4-3 Mac backer against a traditional I formation with TE on the strong-side of the field, he would play a robber spot and try and get under those mid-posts, dig over the middle and overs.
 
Guys who I think should be catching bubble screens:

Coley
Duke
Gray (if he gets here)
Berrios
Waters?

I agree.... All of these guys have a little wiggle in their game..... Just keep Dorsett out of these plays..... All speed not one shake in his whole body
 
Advertisement
Looks to me like Howard and Gunter are playing man on the #1 WR's. Howard certainly is. He took a "man turn" and has his eyes on the WR. And I'm assuming our Outside LB's have curl-to-flats. If #2 curls up they grab it. If #2 runs an out-route (flats) they grab it.

Now I see why we can't cover RB flare routes.

If #1 runs the CB off vertical or inside...
Then #2 hooks up in front of the Outside Linebacker... (the LB has to grab him by rule)
We have no flat defender.
There's nobody to cover a RB flare. He'll catch the ball with a full head of steam and get a minimum of 10 yards before he's touched.

Sound like a reoccurring theme from the last couple seasons? Sure does to me. It would also explain why/how our Outside LB's get beat to the flats by #2 WR's so often. And my examples of our OLB's covering flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Canes game the last couple years.



Anyways... (moving on)

It's kinda hard for me to consider those pics as proof of pattern matching. It appears to be nothing more than a standard Cover-2 technique by our Linebackers with man coverage on the outside. This coverage forces our Outside Linebackers to cover #2 WR's on the out-routes or wheels, where we'd definitely be at a disadvantage. If #2 (Burton) runs a wheel then who's covering him? Cornelius? Or the Safety who's driving down on the inside route of #1? Or if #2 runs out/wheel maybe the Safety doesn't drive on the inside route of #1, maybe he's stays outside half. Now the offense can steal an easy completion to the inside route of #1 since Gunter has let him inside or just dump if off to the RB for an easy 8+ yard gain.

Tell me if I'm wrong, dude, cause I'm genuinely just asking questions. I see holes and liabilities in this particular coverage IMO, particularly to the RB side of the field.

I also see why we struggle with shallow crossers. Let's look at the top of the screen. #1 runs Howard off vertically. Let's say #2 (TE) runs a flat-route or a deep-out. The Outside LB or Nickel (Crawford) has to cover him. So who's covering Burton (#2 WR at the bottom) when he crosses the field? Is Perryman supposed to pick that up and run with it all the way to the hashes? How many times have we seen Perryman take his drop, point to a crosser, only to have nobody near it? The crosser catches the ball and marches up field.

Having our CB's play man on the outside and our OLB's play #2 to the flats makes this defenses vulnerable IMO.


Again, just making conversation and asking for answers. Feel free to shoot holes.

My whole point is void if Gunter isn't playing man, but it appears to me that he is. Cover-2-Read normally doesn't line-up pressed on the #1 like he is and Howard is definitely playing man up top. And the examples I give of our OLB's playing flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Cane's game the last couple years.

I'm gonna chime in here with a few pattern read-zone tidbits:

We base out of a 425 (TCU model) and every coverage contains a 5 yard no cover zone. In cover 4 and cover 3 our "flat defenders" are covering the curl and tackling the flat. We'd rather take away the deeper throws first. You almost need to come to terms with the idea that you can't cover everything. It's only in cover 2 and 2 invert (robber) that we're playing hard flat or a zoom flat. Even then, we're not jumping a back. It just creates massive windows.

Every pattern read features a spot aiming point. if you're a curt/flat guy and your man releases outside, our guys (like TCU's) are dropping to a predetermined spot [they aim for the numbers @10-12], then adjusting to the route they see. You almost need to have an aiming point in mind, otherwise the player might start playing slow.
 
Looks to me like Howard and Gunter are playing man on the #1 WR's. Howard certainly is. He took a "man turn" and has his eyes on the WR. And I'm assuming our Outside LB's have curl-to-flats. If #2 curls up they grab it. If #2 runs an out-route (flats) they grab it.

Now I see why we can't cover RB flare routes.

If #1 runs the CB off vertical or inside...
Then #2 hooks up in front of the Outside Linebacker... (the LB has to grab him by rule)
We have no flat defender.
There's nobody to cover a RB flare. He'll catch the ball with a full head of steam and get a minimum of 10 yards before he's touched.

Sound like a reoccurring theme from the last couple seasons? Sure does to me. It would also explain why/how our Outside LB's get beat to the flats by #2 WR's so often. And my examples of our OLB's covering flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Canes game the last couple years.



Anyways... (moving on)

It's kinda hard for me to consider those pics as proof of pattern matching. It appears to be nothing more than a standard Cover-2 technique by our Linebackers with man coverage on the outside. This coverage forces our Outside Linebackers to cover #2 WR's on the out-routes or wheels, where we'd definitely be at a disadvantage. If #2 (Burton) runs a wheel then who's covering him? Cornelius? Or the Safety who's driving down on the inside route of #1? Or if #2 runs out/wheel maybe the Safety doesn't drive on the inside route of #1, maybe he's stays outside half. Now the offense can steal an easy completion to the inside route of #1 since Gunter has let him inside or just dump if off to the RB for an easy 8+ yard gain.

Tell me if I'm wrong, dude, cause I'm genuinely just asking questions. I see holes and liabilities in this particular coverage IMO, particularly to the RB side of the field.

I also see why we struggle with shallow crossers. Let's look at the top of the screen. #1 runs Howard off vertically. Let's say #2 (TE) runs a flat-route or a deep-out. The Outside LB or Nickel (Crawford) has to cover him. So who's covering Burton (#2 WR at the bottom) when he crosses the field? Is Perryman supposed to pick that up and run with it all the way to the hashes? How many times have we seen Perryman take his drop, point to a crosser, only to have nobody near it? The crosser catches the ball and marches up field.

Having our CB's play man on the outside and our OLB's play #2 to the flats makes this defenses vulnerable IMO.


Again, just making conversation and asking for answers. Feel free to shoot holes.

My whole point is void if Gunter isn't playing man, but it appears to me that he is. Cover-2-Read normally doesn't line-up pressed on the #1 like he is and Howard is definitely playing man up top. And the examples I give of our OLB's playing flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Cane's game the last couple years.

I wouldn't pay to much attention to the turn TH took, because iirc (and someone can look it up) Tracy wasn't ready when the ball snapped he was messing with his helmet or something when UF snapped the ball and just started reacting. Besides on the strong side Gunter def wasn't playing it that way. Anyway our LB clearly are not spot dropping there are hundreds of examples of our LB's spot dropping and we can't even deny it bec they are just sitting in grass and don't move an inch.

In my example TC goes from closing the curl window to immediately jumping Jones in the high/low stack. Also DP goes from initially playing a hook to carrying Burton to Crawford who is jumping that route since he already protected the seam and Ali has picked up the TE on the post route.

As far as what would have happened if Burton did a wheel Gunter would have been getting the depth on that route not TC and Jenkins also would have been deep there instead of them jumping the inside route that Dunbar ran(again this is an assumption based on how everyone reacted to the routes on this play).

As far as the second hypo well like I said one of the problems we have playing match zone is how bad we were at it especially DP. I remember a crucial play in the VT game where he released a route to nobody instead of carrying the TE across which is what he was supposed to do. It was a critical play in the game iirc. The fact we are so bad at it imo is 60/40 coach/players. I get that it's hard to teach it down here since majority of kids never even heard of a **** zone outside of playing Madden until they get to college, but you're talking about upper classmen who still sucked at it so that is a big teaching problem.

sorry I could really break it down better because I want to but family is in town so I can't really get as in depth as I'd like to and I didn't want to just leave it unanswered.
 
Last edited:
Looks to me like Howard and Gunter are playing man on the #1 WR's. Howard certainly is. He took a "man turn" and has his eyes on the WR. And I'm assuming our Outside LB's have curl-to-flats. If #2 curls up they grab it. If #2 runs an out-route (flats) they grab it.

Now I see why we can't cover RB flare routes.

If #1 runs the CB off vertical or inside...
Then #2 hooks up in front of the Outside Linebacker... (the LB has to grab him by rule)
We have no flat defender.
There's nobody to cover a RB flare. He'll catch the ball with a full head of steam and get a minimum of 10 yards before he's touched.

Sound like a reoccurring theme from the last couple seasons? Sure does to me. It would also explain why/how our Outside LB's get beat to the flats by #2 WR's so often. And my examples of our OLB's covering flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Canes game the last couple years.



Anyways... (moving on)

It's kinda hard for me to consider those pics as proof of pattern matching. It appears to be nothing more than a standard Cover-2 technique by our Linebackers with man coverage on the outside. This coverage forces our Outside Linebackers to cover #2 WR's on the out-routes or wheels, where we'd definitely be at a disadvantage. If #2 (Burton) runs a wheel then who's covering him? Cornelius? Or the Safety who's driving down on the inside route of #1? Or if #2 runs out/wheel maybe the Safety doesn't drive on the inside route of #1, maybe he's stays outside half. Now the offense can steal an easy completion to the inside route of #1 since Gunter has let him inside or just dump if off to the RB for an easy 8+ yard gain.

Tell me if I'm wrong, dude, cause I'm genuinely just asking questions. I see holes and liabilities in this particular coverage IMO, particularly to the RB side of the field.

I also see why we struggle with shallow crossers. Let's look at the top of the screen. #1 runs Howard off vertically. Let's say #2 (TE) runs a flat-route or a deep-out. The Outside LB or Nickel (Crawford) has to cover him. So who's covering Burton (#2 WR at the bottom) when he crosses the field? Is Perryman supposed to pick that up and run with it all the way to the hashes? How many times have we seen Perryman take his drop, point to a crosser, only to have nobody near it? The crosser catches the ball and marches up field.

Having our CB's play man on the outside and our OLB's play #2 to the flats makes this defenses vulnerable IMO.


Again, just making conversation and asking for answers. Feel free to shoot holes.

My whole point is void if Gunter isn't playing man, but it appears to me that he is. Cover-2-Read normally doesn't line-up pressed on the #1 like he is and Howard is definitely playing man up top. And the examples I give of our OLB's playing flats should ring a bell to anybody who's watched a Cane's game the last couple years.

I'm gonna chime in here with a few pattern read-zone tidbits:

We base out of a 425 (TCU model) and every coverage contains a 5 yard no cover zone. In cover 4 and cover 3 our "flat defenders" are covering the curl and tackling the flat. We'd rather take away the deeper throws first. You almost need to come to terms with the idea that you can't cover everything. It's only in cover 2 and 2 invert (robber) that we're playing hard flat or a zoom flat. Even then, we're not jumping a back. It just creates massive windows.

Every pattern read features a spot aiming point. if you're a curt/flat guy and your man releases outside, our guys (like TCU's) are dropping to a predetermined spot [they aim for the numbers @10-12], then adjusting to the route they see. You almost need to have an aiming point in mind, otherwise the player might start playing slow.

I find that the coverage is much tighter if our "aiming point" is the nearest WR. He "apexes" the WR's route. I want my Linebacker getting as close to his WR as possible, as soon as possible.

EXAMPLE:

Cover-2
Outside Linebacker is reading 2-to-1
Ball is snapped and he drops to #2 as fast as possible, almost like that's his man
He collisions #2, forcing him to bend his route outside, making things easier for the Safety
He will carry the vertical stem of that #2 WR with his eyes looking for #1 coming inside
He stays underneath the route of #2 and when/if #1 runs inside (i.e. dig) then he comes off of #2 and breaks hard on the route of #1

This allows us to cover receivers and NEVER cover grass. I call it "finding work". It's as close to man coverage as zone can get. It gives the QB an illusion that there's nobody underneath the dig because he sees the LB running vertical with #2. He doesn't know that the LB has his eyes on the dig from #1 the whole time.

Our aiming points are WR stems/releases, not landmarks, thus we allow no windows.

(4:24) Empty formation. The LB to the trips side is reading 3-to-2. He meets up with #3 immediately and he's looking for #2 to come inside. Since #2's release/steam is obviously vertical he stays (runs) with #3 like it's man coverage. QB doesn't expect that, throws the ball, LB tips it and it's picked. True pattern matching. That's what I'm referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MImhwN6hNSE
 
(2:43) Offense motions to trips from 2x2. ILB at the bottom (#2) knows that his zone drop now changes. He must match the route of the (final) #3 receiver, after route distribution. (who ends up being the original #1, outside WR) Notice how the ILB (#2) snaps his head to the trips side and finds the final #3 as he's dropping. Once he finds #3, he apexes his route and snaps his head back to the QB.

http://www.hudl.com/team/35321/highlights/10123823

Also notice that the ILB to the top (#32) is reading 3-to-2 and the CB is playing Cover-2 with a sink technique and he picks up the first WR to run out.



I've never seen Miami do anything like this and if we are then I don't understand why it's taking so long to pick-up.
 
Advertisement
Worthless play. In fact, laughable. As a gambler I salivate when I see teams abuse the bubble screen because I know I'll have a field day betting against them in the correct matchup. It's still scary that a smart rugged fundamental team like Stanford was only -8.5 points at Washington State last year. But part of the reason is threads like this, with smart people actually praising Mike Leach and his 18 rushes per game.

All I can say is, keep it coming. I'm more than happy to inherit simple wins.

This play is very representative of lazy young coaches. Instead of dislodging massive human beings they want the cheap way out. And it's undeniable that plays like this allow you to terrorize overmatched opponents. Every play waltzes into open spaces, like a high school game.

Then those coaches sit back and admire themselves, instead of recognizing how flimsy they are, a tissue paper castle. Open space offenses are fine as long as they are based on "hurry up and run the ball," which is the Oregon and Auburn approach. When it's hurry up and throw the ball, to ignorantly pretend that sideways finesse plays are a substitute for a running play, you have no chance in the long run or against legitimately rugged teams. I'll never forget Sam Bradford's stunned facial expressions in the championship game against Florida. The Big 12 in 2007 and 2008 started relying on bubble screens to obscene percentage. Third and seven? No problem. In conference games those plays will waltz uncontested for a simple first down. The problem is when you are stupid enough to carry it to non-conference games against teams that know what they are doing. The SEC in particular will rotate forward and attack those plays, wiping them out and asserting a physical pecking order that transfers throughout the field. That's what Florida did on several 3rd and 4th down short yardage plays against Oklahoma. Likewise, Nick Saban destroys those plays when he fields his best defenses. In the national championship game against Texas a few years ago, Saban was irate in the 4th quarter when Texas slipped those plays through for nice gains twice in the fourth quarter. Saban could tolerate anything but that. If you beat him with legit stuff he'll admire you. But if you fool him with garbage he's irate at his own players and staff. His face was red and he was furious. It was delightful. The commentators didn't understand the significance but I was howling. Pantyhose plays like bubble screens aren't supposed to even break the line of scrimmage against Alabama.

BTW, I realize this is an argument I can't win. I was on Las Vegas sports handicapping shows as guest analyst dating to 1988. It's unbelievable how the audience embraces screen passes and anything that abuses cute. Cupcake football. Bottom line, if those plays are working against a top team it doesn't mean anything because every play will work. Your guys are simply superior. But there's far too much danger in becoming enthralled with those plays when they prance against weaklings, and fail to recognize that there's no foundational benefit to them, that you are essentially volunteering to evolve into a pathetic finesse team. Your yards per attempt is crippled against premier defenses when you monopolize parallel nonsense.

When Miami has the athletes again I want to be fortified and legit. North and south. Run the ball often, pass the ball well. As a USC alum I wasn't buying the upsurge two years ago and top ranking entering 2012 largely because so much of it was sideways, the quick outs and screens to Woods and Lee. Those plays became properly mocked on USC boards, and hoisted as symbolic of the disastrous season.
 
(2:43) Offense motions to trips from 2x2. ILB at the bottom (#2) knows that his zone drop now changes. He must match the route of the (final) #3 receiver, after route distribution. (who ends up being the original #1, outside WR) Notice how the ILB (#2) snaps his head to the trips side and finds the final #3 as he's dropping. Once he finds #3, he apexes his route and snaps his head back to the QB.

http://www.hudl.com/team/35321/highlights/10123823

Also notice that the ILB to the top (#32) is reading 3-to-2 and the CB is playing Cover-2 with a sink technique and he picks up the first WR to run out.



I've never seen Miami do anything like this and if we are then I don't understand why it's taking so long to pick-up.

Idk what Miami teaches, but I really doubt we spot drop. They might teach a different technique, maybe we suck at it. Until I actually know, then I can't make any conclusions. Maybe you should go to practice and ask one of the coaches. They're usually helpful.

As for dropping to the apex of the receiver's route, I think everyone needs to do that. We do that too. But do you know what the apex of the next receiver's route is going to be? Whether you're reading 2-1 or 3-2-1, it's always the same. If your man releases outside, your eyes need to move to the next man. When your eyes move to him, your feet need to be doing something at the same time. The ultimate goal is to reach the apex; just like zone defense in basketball you need to place yourself between the offense player and the ball.

When your key, lets say #2, releases outside, you need to ultimately reach the apex of #1's route just like you said. But how do you do that? When you shift you eyes to #1, you have no idea what his route is going to be. Your eyes need to match your footwork. It needs to be the same every time. 2 goes out = my eyes shift to 1, while taking a track to my predetermined aiming point (pre snap you need to check splits and determine your spot). This happens simultaneously. Eventually it happens with confidence and speed. As you're taking that track to your aiming point, you can then adjust to what you see developing in front of you, eventually reaching the apex.

All I'm adding to what you're saying is the predetermined aiming point. Keys and footwork need to match. It allows kids to play fast.
 
Worthless play. In fact, laughable. As a gambler I salivate when I see teams abuse the bubble screen because I know I'll have a field day betting against them in the correct matchup. It's still scary that a smart rugged fundamental team like Stanford was only -8.5 points at Washington State last year. But part of the reason is threads like this, with smart people actually praising Mike Leach and his 18 rushes per game.

All I can say is, keep it coming. I'm more than happy to inherit simple wins.

This play is very representative of lazy young coaches. Instead of dislodging massive human beings they want the cheap way out. And it's undeniable that plays like this allow you to terrorize overmatched opponents. Every play waltzes into open spaces, like a high school game.

Then those coaches sit back and admire themselves, instead of recognizing how flimsy they are, a tissue paper castle. Open space offenses are fine as long as they are based on "hurry up and run the ball," which is the Oregon and Auburn approach. When it's hurry up and throw the ball, to ignorantly pretend that sideways finesse plays are a substitute for a running play, you have no chance in the long run or against legitimately rugged teams. I'll never forget Sam Bradford's stunned facial expressions in the championship game against Florida. The Big 12 in 2007 and 2008 started relying on bubble screens to obscene percentage. Third and seven? No problem. In conference games those plays will waltz uncontested for a simple first down. The problem is when you are stupid enough to carry it to non-conference games against teams that know what they are doing. The SEC in particular will rotate forward and attack those plays, wiping them out and asserting a physical pecking order that transfers throughout the field. That's what Florida did on several 3rd and 4th down short yardage plays against Oklahoma. Likewise, Nick Saban destroys those plays when he fields his best defenses. In the national championship game against Texas a few years ago, Saban was irate in the 4th quarter when Texas slipped those plays through for nice gains twice in the fourth quarter. Saban could tolerate anything but that. If you beat him with legit stuff he'll admire you. But if you fool him with garbage he's irate at his own players and staff. His face was red and he was furious. It was delightful. The commentators didn't understand the significance but I was howling. Pantyhose plays like bubble screens aren't supposed to even break the line of scrimmage against Alabama.

BTW, I realize this is an argument I can't win. I was on Las Vegas sports handicapping shows as guest analyst dating to 1988. It's unbelievable how the audience embraces screen passes and anything that abuses cute. Cupcake football. Bottom line, if those plays are working against a top team it doesn't mean anything because every play will work. Your guys are simply superior. But there's far too much danger in becoming enthralled with those plays when they prance against weaklings, and fail to recognize that there's no foundational benefit to them, that you are essentially volunteering to evolve into a pathetic finesse team. Your yards per attempt is crippled against premier defenses when you monopolize parallel nonsense.

When Miami has the athletes again I want to be fortified and legit. North and south. Run the ball often, pass the ball well. As a USC alum I wasn't buying the upsurge two years ago and top ranking entering 2012 largely because so much of it was sideways, the quick outs and screens to Woods and Lee. Those plays became properly mocked on USC boards, and hoisted as symbolic of the disastrous season.

I don't think people are praising Mike Leach's 18 rushes per game. I praise his concepts and his willingness to experiment in order to maximize the entire field. From that, the game moves forward. In fact, I was one of the guys hammering Fisch for refusal to run the ball consistently.
 
Advertisement
Worthless play. In fact, laughable. As a gambler I salivate when I see teams abuse the bubble screen because I know I'll have a field day betting against them in the correct matchup. It's still scary that a smart rugged fundamental team like Stanford was only -8.5 points at Washington State last year. But part of the reason is threads like this, with smart people actually praising Mike Leach and his 18 rushes per game.

All I can say is, keep it coming. I'm more than happy to inherit simple wins.

This play is very representative of lazy young coaches. Instead of dislodging massive human beings they want the cheap way out. And it's undeniable that plays like this allow you to terrorize overmatched opponents. Every play waltzes into open spaces, like a high school game.

Then those coaches sit back and admire themselves, instead of recognizing how flimsy they are, a tissue paper castle. Open space offenses are fine as long as they are based on "hurry up and run the ball," which is the Oregon and Auburn approach. When it's hurry up and throw the ball, to ignorantly pretend that sideways finesse plays are a substitute for a running play, you have no chance in the long run or against legitimately rugged teams. I'll never forget Sam Bradford's stunned facial expressions in the championship game against Florida. The Big 12 in 2007 and 2008 started relying on bubble screens to obscene percentage. Third and seven? No problem. In conference games those plays will waltz uncontested for a simple first down. The problem is when you are stupid enough to carry it to non-conference games against teams that know what they are doing. The SEC in particular will rotate forward and attack those plays, wiping them out and asserting a physical pecking order that transfers throughout the field. That's what Florida did on several 3rd and 4th down short yardage plays against Oklahoma. Likewise, Nick Saban destroys those plays when he fields his best defenses. In the national championship game against Texas a few years ago, Saban was irate in the 4th quarter when Texas slipped those plays through for nice gains twice in the fourth quarter. Saban could tolerate anything but that. If you beat him with legit stuff he'll admire you. But if you fool him with garbage he's irate at his own players and staff. His face was red and he was furious. It was delightful. The commentators didn't understand the significance but I was howling. Pantyhose plays like bubble screens aren't supposed to even break the line of scrimmage against Alabama.

BTW, I realize this is an argument I can't win. I was on Las Vegas sports handicapping shows as guest analyst dating to 1988. It's unbelievable how the audience embraces screen passes and anything that abuses cute. Cupcake football. Bottom line, if those plays are working against a top team it doesn't mean anything because every play will work. Your guys are simply superior. But there's far too much danger in becoming enthralled with those plays when they prance against weaklings, and fail to recognize that there's no foundational benefit to them, that you are essentially volunteering to evolve into a pathetic finesse team. Your yards per attempt is crippled against premier defenses when you monopolize parallel nonsense.

When Miami has the athletes again I want to be fortified and legit. North and south. Run the ball often, pass the ball well. As a USC alum I wasn't buying the upsurge two years ago and top ranking entering 2012 largely because so much of it was sideways, the quick outs and screens to Woods and Lee. Those plays became properly mocked on USC boards, and hoisted as symbolic of the disastrous season.

I don't think people are praising Mike Leach's 18 rushes per game. I praise his concepts and his willingness to experiment in order to maximize the entire field. From that, the game moves forward. In fact, I was one of the guys hammering Fisch for refusal to run the ball consistently.

Plus I think he's talking about it being a staple rather than as a counter or restraint play as they call it. No one is saying the bubble should be a staple, but its a nice counter to some things like your inside zone out of certain formations. It shouldn't be thrown 15-20 times a game.
 
Since this discussion is leading that way anyway, let's talk about that a bit - is there a legit rationale for toss/stretch plays to the short side? Is it a matchup decision? I can't believe it's just haphazard (even I'm not that jaded yet.)

The hash marks in college football are much wider than the NFL. When the ball is on a hash, you have larger surpluses and deficits in terms of field width yardage (in the NFL, the ball is pretty much always in the middle of the field). That allows defenses to specialize their positions. You often see players consistently lined up on the boundary side or field side, especially corners (we align based on field in our 50 front). Your boundary end can be a linebacker/end hybrid. Your sam (or field linebacker) can be a linebacker/safety hybrid.

In terms of running to the boundary, you may get better blocking match-ups, but more importantly, you might get better alignment match-ups. Double flanker (balanced 2 te, 2 wr set) is one of the hardest formations to defend with a college defense. You can balance up the defense and take advantage of their automatic alignment rules (for example, when facing a 43/44 over (Vtech), forcing a $ to come down into the box and be a force player to the boundary--or even better force the $ to play his force assignment from a deep quarters alignment).

Just found a picture example of what I'm talking about. This defense pictured is a 425, playing cover "blue" (quarter/Cov.4 [at least that's what their alignment is showing]). This is the same front of pretty much every 43 over team these days. You can expect VaTech to look like this most of the time.

The W$ and the Boundary Corner are faced with a bit of a dilemma. With the offense coming out in double flanker, they have a pro look (TE & WR) to both sides of the field. This allows for a 4 vert threat and a running threat to both sides of the field. TCU's basic alignment rules place the W$ 2x10 outside of that boundary TE.

Who's the force player here? The W$. In quarters coverage, the boundary safety is a D gap player. In any other formation, that job is easy. With a solo TE or WR to his side, that's cake. He can do it from his deep alignment with ease--he just needs to take a good angle. With a twins look to his side (Assuming there's 2 or 3 to the field side) he can still play that role fairly easily. The D gap would be outside of the boundary slot. C gap can easily be covered by the defensive end. By alighment, the offense can't get the edge on the End, unless he gets horribly reached or cracked (in which case the W$ will easily replace because he'll see it coming).

With a pro look to the boundary, the W$ needs to stay deep enough to cover the vertical threat by #2 (TE) and shallow enough to play D gap in run action right now. At the end of the day, the offense is already in a favorable alignment. The defense can still succeed here, but they're still in a bit of a bind.

You see TCU sometimes playing "Bronco," which is inside leverage man coverage between the boundary corner and the W$; and keep "cover blue" to the field. They might in fact roll to that later. It allows for better alignment, but the'll lose in coverage, as they would have no help (since it's inside leverage man).

300.jpg
 
Sorry didnt link, this is how Oregon uses the bubble screen to set up the deep ball and inside run game



There is a misconception in the pass game that the more wordy and complex the play call sounds, the more effective it is. Generations of fans and coaches grew up on NFL Films and remember audio of long and seemingly never-ending play calls by legendary coaches. These intricate sounding schemes allegedly created wide open receivers, yet this perception is quite a disconnect from reality. Rattling off “Green Left Slot Flash Pass 312 Weak Double Hitch Quick Lookie” can be as confusing as it is long. An effective passing game is not defined by run-on play call sentences or it’s difficulty to learn; it is defined by its production.
303.jpg
Amazing Moments
Josh Huff

Oregon offense digital film unveiled a passing scheme that generated 35 touchdowns through the air in 2012, often in “explosive” (20 yards or more) fashion. Despite the perception that the Ducks lack a down field element to its passing game, our study came to a different conclusion of the Oregon aerial attack. The Ducks revealed a scheme that attacks all areas of the field and displays the passing concepts of NFL and West Coast offenses. The difference is that Oregon threw more touchdown passes than most NFL teams did last year with significantly fewer attempts and a lot less verbiage!
The best offenses tie in their pass game to the strongest elements of their run and screen games, thus the most intriguing part of the Oregon passing game is how well this is accomplished. The best passing schemes are simple, allowing players to learn them quickly, play fast and subsequently get open. We learned how the Oregon running game was enhanced by the threats off the Bubble Zone Read in this analysis recently. This week’s article will demonstrate how the Oregon offense simply and effectively ties in the Inside Zone Read and the Bubble Zone Read to create big plays down the field. Pretty exciting!
304.jpg

In the play pictured above, Washington tries to slow the bubble screen by playing a Cover 2 look versus a 2 tight end, 2 receiver formation of Oregon. The Cover 2 scheme places a corner close to the line of scrimmage and squarely in the flat area. The 2-deep look, with a safety in the deep half coverage over top of the corner, should discourage passing from this personnel grouping. However, Oregon’s frequent and effective usage of the bubble screen puts this coverage to the test.
305.jpg

Oregon attacks this coverage with a scheme that is simple to execute and beautifully tied in to the rest of its offense. At the snap, the offset running back fakes inside zone to the right. This moves the underneath linebacker coverage (the M and S above) towards the line of scrimmage. The speed of the bubble from the slot receiver and great pump fake by Mariota busts the zone. Both the corner and free safety vacate their coverage areas to defend the bubble. Mariota’s first read is the outside receiver running down the numbers at the bottom of the screen. He delivers the ball into the exact area of the field left open by the defenders reacting to the Bubble Zone Read action for a glorious touchdown that is so successful that it appears the Huskies had a busted coverage!
306.jpg

Against Stanford in 2010 above, Oregon ran a Bubble Vertical concept out of a 4×1 (3 receivers, 1 tight end) unbalanced formation. Stanford counters this unbalanced look with a 3 deep 3 under zone pressure from both edges (this formation is a popular one for Oregon). In this 3 deep zone the 2 corners and the free safety are responsible for the three deepest areas of the field. With 3 receivers and a tight end on the same side. This formation is an Oregon favorite to run the Bubble Zone Read, and the Cardinals know it. The Ducks will use this tendency to set up their play action!
307.jpg

Like all great pass plays, the success of this one starts with Oregon’s pass protection. The blitz pickup negates both Stanford edge rushers, as the tight end stays in to protect and blocks the field rusher (S) and the right tackle picks up the edge rusher from the boundary (R). The clean pocket and throwing lane allows the QB to see the field clearly.
308.jpg

In this formation, the QB will look at the No. 2 (slot) receiver running the seam route (in Red above) first, then progress to outside vertical route. If both receivers are covered he will check the ball down to the bubble runner. At the snap, the running back fakes the inside zone to the right, and the #3 inside receiver sprints his bubble path. The action of the running back and bubble runner, combined with a great pump fake from Darron Thomas, gets the corner and free safety to abandon their deep third responsibility. With the seam uncovered Thomas gets the ball to his first read for the wide open touchdown!
309.jpg

We get a lot of similar defensive alignments in response to our Spread sets at Villanova and our frequent use of Bubble screens like the Ducks. This past season Maine defended our three extended receivers with a Cover 2 look. Much like Washington, Maine wanted to discourage the Bubble throw with a hard corner and the wide leverage of their alley defender.
310.jpg

Our call combines a Post-Wheel pattern concept with our Bubble Zone Read action. Our widest receiver will run a post or vertical depending on the coverage. Against a Cover 2 look he is going to run an inside vertical trying to pull the free safety away from the wheel pass pattern on the outside. Our No. 2 (slot) receiver will show a run block for 5 yards, and after coming to balance at 5 yards the slot will then run the fade/wheel ending up halfway between the bottom of the numbers and the sideline. Our No. 3 inside receiver sprints the bubble; trying to bring as many defenders out of their coverage responsibilities as he can.
311.jpg

When the ball is snapped, both underneath defenders react immediately towards the Bubble screen threat. This leaves the free safety outnumbered in his deep zone, as he is responsible for both No. 1 and 2 outside receivers of Villanova entering his space!
312.jpg

Our outside receiver (Green above) does a great job occupying and then moving the free safety away from the wheel route run by our #2 wide out (Red above). With his #1 look covered, our QB progresses to #2 receiver, who is wide open for a touchdown because of a well set up play call and great execution by the other receivers in their patterns. One thing that Wildcats and Ducks have in common is how we both love to use the threat of the Inside Zone Read and the Bubble Zone Read to create long ball touchdowns!
It is rarely a great scheme or play call by itself that makes the winning difference. A play call is only a good one if it utilizes what your players do well and puts them in position to do it. The beauty of the Oregon passing game is that it accomplishes both by building off of its No Huddle operation, dominant run game, and constraint plays. After studying the Oregon offense over the past few seasons you can see the consistent philosophical thread that combines all these different schemes together. While the Ducks pass game may appear simple, it attacks all areas of the field in a manner that is effective, efficient and explosive. Simplicity like this is one all coaches should strive for!
At Villanova University (near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) “we love to learn about your beloved Ducks!”
Brian Flinn
Receivers Coach
Villanova University
Twitter: @Coach_Flinn
——————————————————————————————————————————-
 
Advertisement
Back
Top