Chalk Talk: Cover Three

[jtyler42]

This is the type of back and forth I seek to avoid, after all I come here to talk about football not to bicker.

How posters engage each other is a two way street.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you, and I'm not going to bicker with you. I was raised to let someone know when they are doing/saying something to you that you don't like, and that's all I'm doing.

You choose to completely ignore some response posts, like the post with the link to Lou Teppers book where he explains the disadvantages of man defense.

I didn't ignore it, I read it, and chose not to respond. Like I've done with some of yours, and others responses. I know what the disadvantages to playing man to man defense are, and have conceded them. So I didn't think that the post added anything to the discussion.

In your last post you responed to my post toward Silky and asked me a leading rhetorical question, where I'm from that's not the fairest way to approach a topic/question. So for you to get bent out of shape with me saying 'slow down' is a bit hypocritical; but to each there own.

If you viewed that question as leading, or rhetorical, it wasn't intended to be. I was simply asking a question, but what about it exactly was leading or rhetorical? I'm not bent out of shape at all, but your increasingly sarcastic, and smart assed responses towards me, from not only this thread, but the draft thread as well, and I felt it warranted me calling you on it. It wasn't just you saying "slow down".

Just because you view Saban's pattern read defense as something new doesn't mean its new to everyone and even prior to Silky posting Saban's article I posted this:

Where are you getting that I view this style of zone D as new? It's not new, I've know about this style of zone for a while now, but there are also others who are reading this thread that don't. My suggestion that KDawg could possibly further the thread by explaining for the uninformed the difference between the two styles of zone coverage, was to help the less informed understand exactly what us football geeks are talking about. IMO KDawg does these Chalk Talk threads more for the uninformed, than the informed, and it is a great way to introduce X's and O's to the casual Redskin fan.

Disagree.

Why do you disagree? What they developed back in the early 90's has changed the way zone is played today.

We'll you're right you didn't say 'spread' you said 'modern passing offenses'.

But, aren't the spreads concepts that the Packers use part of a modern passing offense?

And don't you consider Cover 2 to be "spot drop" zone?

My post was just pointing out that the Bears Cover 2 (however you define it) was very effective against the Packers offense (however you choose to define it).

Well I was more reffering to the actual route combos that teams use now, to attack defense, but yes formation variation plays a part in that also. Cover 2 zone can be both, you can "spot drop" it, or "pattern match" it...I don't think a "spot drop" Cover 2, would be very effective versus a spread look, but that is neither here nor there. The Bears D is very effective against the Packers, but it isn't all Cover 2 zone, they play a lot of 2 man under(trail technique), and Quarters coverage, as do most 2 deep shell teams, but I get what you are trying to say.

I disagree. NFL defense are very complex and even the most basic defensive zone call will have pattern read/recognition built in.

Yes some NFL defense are complex, but a "spot drop" zone doesn't involve pattern reading/matching, all that "spot drop" type zones entails is getting to your landmark and breaking on the ball when the QB throws. That is why this type of zone D is so ineffective against modern passing attacks.

Again disagree. When a zone is flooded the defender out numbered regardless.

Against a "spot drop" zone this is true, but against a pattern match D, once the #1, #2, #3, and #4, etc, are identified, the CB's LB's, and SS, all match-up man to man with each, according to each's responsibilities, and once that happens the D essentially becomes Cover 1. You can't flood man defense.

[Oldfan]

..

Silky, in reviewing the early posts, I came across this one from you which I missed

Oldfan in essence it sounds like ur saying if a pitcher concentrates on his amazing fastball and only uses it it he would be successful, because he never worries about, a breaking ball, a changeup or a diff fastball. Just concentrate on 1 pitch and he'll be unstopable?

That works in high school, middle school, grade school, hell u may get away with it in college. As a professional having 1 trick in ur bag no matter how much its practiced means ur out the league in 3 years.

Best pitcher I've ever seen Mariano Rivera has basically 2 pitches, fastball and a cut fastball. They work because one's effectiveness enhances the other. A leap of logic on ur reasoning would stand that if a team just concentrated on running and never messed around with that newfangled passing thing, they could be successful just running every play. In theory maybe, but its much like Ron Paul and his views, in theory they work we'll, in practice not so much.

Its been said and the more it is said the more determined u are to show that ur way is right, but running 1 type of defense solely, no matter how well played. Is disadvantageous. Sun Tsu once said in The Art of War, beating your opponent without fighting is the greatest of all victories, and the disguise is one a generals greatest weapons. Far be it from me to go against one of the greatest military minds of all of humantime. Maybe u feel greater in ur expertise in how to defeat an enemy than Sun Tsu, or Bill Bellicheck, or Rex Ryan, or Dom Capers etc. Man to man has its place I agree not doubt about it. But any team that exclusively uses man to man will ultimately be unsuccessful. Football is chess not checkers.

Here, you begin with a comparison to a pitcher with only a fastball,. This is a false analogy. The only thing predictable about playing a man coverage team is that you are going to see man coverage.

The deception in man coverage is mainly in the fact that each defender will vary his approach to coverage. The receiver and the QB are going to get different looks every time. Furthermore, defenders can switch assignments, they can come off their man and help out, or they can double from the get go.

There's no lack of deception in man coverage. On the deception issue, the main difference between man and zone is that the deception in zone coverage is more in the control of the coaches than the players. When you train a player to cover, you train him in the art of deceiving receivers and QBs. Then you let him go out on the field and play the game.

You said that "Football is chess not checkers." Yes, football strategy is more complex than in other sports. However, football coaches should be like the engineers who designed the car you drive. They should keep the complexity under the hood while making it easier for their players to operate their scheme.

You mentioned Sun Tzu and the Art of War. That's the level I'm working at -- very basic strategic ideas. One of them is that doing things the way most of the 32 NFL teams do them, is a sure fire approach to mediocrity. I think you need to be sound but different.

The Bill Belichik/ Ernie Adams combo is the leader in innovation. I think their Achilles Heel is the same as almost all the leaders in any competition throughout history -- high-grade egos. I think Belichik, and most coaches, love zone because it gives them more control and their players less. In Business terms, they want to "micromanage."

[darrelgreenie]

I'm not bent out of shape at all, but your increasingly sarcastic, and smart assed responses towards me, from not only this thread, but the draft thread as well, and I felt it warranted me calling you on it. It wasn't just you saying "slow down".

Again; the way posters in any forum engage each other is a 2 way street.

I don't respond to you any differently then I respond to any other poster.

Nor do I harbor any feeling one way or another about you, for me there is no carry over from any other thread.

I'm sure you feel you haven't done anything to cause the current tone of our discourse; likewise I don't see 'slow down' as an inflammatory statement either.

Where are you getting that I view this style of zone D as new?

I said they "revolutionized" zone defense by developing the pattern matching concept

Why do you disagree? What they developed back in the early 90's has changed the way zone is played today.

I disagree that they developed it.

Yes some NFL defense are complex, but a "spot drop" zone doesn't involve pattern reading/matching, all that "spot drop" type zones entails is getting to your landmark and breaking on the ball when the QB throws. That is why this type of zone D is so ineffective against modern passing attacks.

I think all NFL defense have some form of pattern read/matching.

Against a "spot drop" zone this is true, but against a pattern match D, once the #1, #2, #3, and #4, etc, are identified, the CB's LB's, and SS, all match-up man to man with each, according to each's responsibilities, and once that happens the D essentially becomes Cover 1. You can't flood man defense.

Disagree.

If the number of receivers in an area out number the defenders there are simply more receivers then they can match up with.

[Oldfan]

DG said to jtyler: Again; the way posters in any forum engage each other is a 2 way street.

I don't respond to you any differently then I respond to any other poster.

If you'd like to avoid bickering, then I'd suggest you make a better effort to avoid drawing first blood. I had to overlook this comment from you earlier to avoid bickering.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

Such personal comments are not debate-worthy.

[darrelgreenie]

If you'd like to avoid bickering, then I'd suggest you make a better effort to avoid drawing first blood. I had to overlook this comment from you earlier to avoid bickering.

Lol, coming from you this post is too funny, seriously.

In most our discussions I have to overlook comments you make to avoid bickering.

This is the wrong direction to take this thread.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

Such personal comments are not debate-worthy.

If you think that's a personal comment then I don't know what to tell you.

[Oldfan]

Jtyler stated ~ You can't flood man defense.

DG replied ~ Disagree. If the number of receivers in an area out number the defenders there are simply more receivers then they can match up with.

If there is a defender covering all eligible receivers man-to-man, it's obvious there can't be too many receivers to match up with.

You are just being argumentative.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Arlight before this thread devolves and a lot of good information and opportunity to explore some things here gets lost. Let's reframe this. Let's now see what ways Cover 3 can be used by the skins effectively, examine what teams, personnel groupings, formations and situations we can use this form of D to our advantage.

DG ur always good at locating excellent video. Id be interested in seeing come of our cover 3 under Blache, as I believe he taught the drop to a spot style, vs Gregg Williams who was more pattern match vs Haslett who had to reintroduce pattern matching to players who had just spent the previous 2 season on spot drop.

JTyler ur understanding of the pattern match should really help the discourse, I'm thinking u could be key to exploring some of the teams, personnel and formation challenges/advantages to look for

Oldfan I think u can provide the proper balance of seeing the holes we all don't see.

KDawg as the father of the thread and with ur understanding it would be cool to see where u take the next step.

This will make this a collaborative effort and something we as ES folks can be proud of

[Oldfan]

Arlight before this thread devolves and a lot of good information and opportunity to explore some things here gets lost. Let's reframe this. Let's now see what ways Cover 3 can be used by the skins effectively, examine what teams, personnel groupings, formations and situations we can use this form of D to our advantage.

I think we can start with this:

KDawg - A safety will be rolled up to linebacker alignment, most likely the strong safety.

Seems to me that Cover 3 was designed to get eight men in the box. So, it's first and foremost, a defense against the run.

[FuriousD]

I think we can start with this:

Seems to me that Cover 3 was designed to get eight men in the box. So, it's first and foremost, a defense against the run.

Or a pass defense disguised as a run defense...

[darrelgreenie]

If there is a defender covering all eligible receivers man-to-man, it's obvious there can't be too many receivers to match up with.

Well that's one big if.

What happens when there are 2 receivers in one defenders zone? In the case of Cover 3 match zone a double seam-go by the #2 and #3 is an example of receivers outnumbering the defender (FS).

Any route combo or concept that poses multiple choices for which receiver the defender in that zone should match up with are examples of this concept in action.

E.g (Cover 3 match vs base I-Form) If #1 and #2 both go vertical that leaves the backs to overload that side of the field.

If #1 goes vertical and #2 goes vertical then runs breaking pattern towards the sideline that open up the underneath flat for 1 or both of the backs.

It gets hard to have a discussion when you can't make simple concessions.

Oh, you mean when like you refuse to accept that there are disadvantages to man defense?

A concession is not agreeing to something just to agree.

Its an acknowledgement of accepted belief.

I don't believe that JT is correct when he claims that a match zone cannot be flooded.

Oh, btw I'm a bit dissappointed in the obviously misleading nature of the quotes in your post:

Jtyler stated ~ You can't flood man defense.

You truncated JT post to suit your purpose when I'm quite certain you realize the discussion wasn't about flooding man defense but about flooding zone match defense.

This was his actual post:

Against a "spot drop" zone this is true, but against a pattern match D, once the #1, #2, #3, and #4, etc, are identified, the CB's LB's, and SS, all match-up man to man with each, according to each's responsibilities, and once that happens the D essentially becomes Cover 1. You can't flood man defense.

You are just being argumentative.

If you call disagreeing being argumentative then sure I'm argumentative.

But, if I'm argumentative then what's your posting style?

[Oldfan]

DG:

jtyler presented THIS hypothetical:

Against a "spot drop" zone this is true, but against a pattern match D, once the #1, #2, #3, and #4, etc, are identified, the CB's LB's, and SS, all match-up man to man with each, according to each's responsibilities, and once that happens the D essentially becomes Cover 1. You can't flood man defense.

You said you disagreed with his analysis and conclusion. Now, you're trying to weasel out by offering a DIFFERENT hypothetical.

What happens when there are 2 receivers in one defenders zone?

This is a common trick of an argumentative poster.

Oh, you mean when like you refuse to accept that there are disadvantages to man defense?

This is an absolutely false statement. I said earlier that all strategies have advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I was the very first to point out that man coverage was susceptible to picks.

If you call disagreeing being argumentative then sure I'm argumentative.

You were probably creating a strawman with this question, but if you truly don't know the meaning of "argumentative," here's a definition:

–adjective

fond of or given*to*argument and dispute; disputatious;contentious: The*law*students*were*an*unusually argumentative*group.

[darrelgreenie]

You said you disagreed with his analysis and conclusion. Now, you're trying to weasel out by offering a DIFFERENT hypothetical..

Talk about a hypocrite.

You don't want to bicker and say I'm argumentative then follow up by calling me a weasel because you don't understand my point.

There is nothing different at all about the hypothetical.

If you think there is something different about why don't you tell us?

This is a common trick of an argumentative poster.

Asking a question is now a trick?

This is an absolutely false statement. I said earlier that all strategies have advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I was the very first to point out that man coverage was susceptible to picks

Do you agree that man is susceptible to scrambling QB?

[s0crates]

Wow. You two have been at this for days.

One thing I will say for Oldfan, he is nothing if not persistent.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ Talk about a hypocrite.

You don't want to bicker and say I'm argumentative then follow up by calling me a weasel because you don't understand my point.

I understood you perfectly. In fact, I knew you would change the hypothetical before you did.

There is nothing different at all about the hypothetical.

If there's nothing different, why did you need to assume a new set of facts? Why didn't you just work with what you were given?

If you think there is something different about why don't you tell us?

You assumed a new set of facts completely different than jtyler's.

Asking a question is now a trick?

Changing hypotheticals is a common argumentative trick. And strawman arguments, like the one you just created, is the absolute favorite.

Do you agree that man is susceptible to scrambling QB?

Rather than admit you made a false statement, you jump into a new question? Shape-shifting arguments -- yet another argumentative trick.

To answer your question: Scrambling QBs are problems for any defense. If defenders are trained well in coverage, they usually know where the QB is, they avoid playing with their backs to the QB as much as possible, so it's probably no more of a problem for them than it would be playing zone.

---------- Post added May-29th-2011 at 05:44 PM ----------

Wow. You two have been at this for days.

One thing I will say for Oldfan, he is nothing if not persistent.

My mission here is altruistic.

I'm going to rid DG of his argumentative bent and make him a better debater.

[jtyler42]

Arlight before this thread devolves and a lot of good information and opportunity to explore some things here gets lost. Let's reframe this. Let's now see what ways Cover 3 can be used by the skins effectively, examine what teams, personnel groupings, formations and situations we can use this form of D to our advantage.

DG ur always good at locating excellent video. Id be interested in seeing come of our cover 3 under Blache, as I believe he taught the drop to a spot style, vs Gregg Williams who was more pattern match vs Haslett who had to reintroduce pattern matching to players who had just spent the previous 2 season on spot drop.

JTyler ur understanding of the pattern match should really help the discourse, I'm thinking u could be key to exploring some of the teams, personnel and formation challenges/advantages to look for

Oldfan I think u can provide the proper balance of seeing the holes we all don't see.

KDawg as the father of the thread and with ur understanding it would be cool to see where u take the next step.

This will make this a collaborative effort and something we as ES folks can be proud of

This sounds good!

[darrelgreenie]

-Oldfan

As soon as you're ready to actually talk about football let me know.

Well that's one big if.

What happens when there are 2 receivers in one defenders zone? In the case of Cover 3 match zone a double seam-go by the #2 and #3 is an example of receivers outnumbering the defender (FS).

Any route combo or concept that poses multiple choices for which receiver the defender in that zone should match up with are examples of this concept in action.

E.g (Cover 3 match vs base I-Form) If #1 and #2 both go vertical that leaves the backs to overload that side of the field.

If #1 goes vertical and #2 goes vertical then runs breaking pattern towards the sideline that open up the underneath flat for 1 or both of the backs

.

Come up with a sensible response to the above and try to avoid the personal attacks like weasel and using 'tricks' or you'll just be having a discussion with yourself when you respond to my posts.

I know it will probably be difficult for you.

[Oldfan]

DG whines ~ As soon as you're ready to actually talk about football let me know.

Nah. I'm done with you. You have a good knowledge of Football, but your argumentative habit makes debating the game with you a waste of time.

Well that's one big if.

Yes, that big "if" was jtyler's hypothetical. And this is where you changed it to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong to disagree with his conclusion.

What happens when there are 2 receivers in one defenders zone?...

[jtyler42]

I disagree that they developed it.

Who developed it then? If I'm wrong let me know the correct person/persons please.

I think all NFL defense have some form of pattern read/matching.

We'll agree to disagree here...

Disagree. If the number of receivers in an area out number the defenders there are simply more receivers then they can match up with.

DG, If a team sends four receivers to the strong side of the field, the D has four defenders there, that can match-up: The CB, the SS, the SLB, and the MLB. I can't really see the offense sending more than four receivers to one side of the field, b/c at a certain point the D can guard more than on receiver at a time b/c it would nearly be impossible for the offense to space the field properly.

Well that's one big if.

What happens when there are 2 receivers in one defenders zone? In the case of Cover 3 match zone a double seam-go by the #2 and #3 is an example of receivers outnumbering the defender (FS).

I know this was directed at Oldfan, but I'm sure you probably wanted an answer regardless. So I'll give it a shot.

Well in this example the FS, wouldn't be out numbered b/c the CB would take #2, after the SS re-routes him, the SLB would re-route, and then carry #3 to the FS...You didn't say what #1 is running here so lets say he runs an out or curl, the SS would take him. If he runs an in or hook, the SLB would take him...It's still two on two deep though.

Look at the "Pole" route diagram

Now lets say #1, #2, and #3, all run go routes...I'll let the diagrams explain...Look at the one Titled Yale, or the one titled Seam. These are two different ways to cover the 3 go's...

Any route combo or concept that poses multiple choices for which receiver the defender in that zone should match up with are examples of this concept in action.

E.g (Cover 3 match vs base I-Form) If #1 and #2 both go vertical that leaves the backs to overload that side of the field.

If #1 goes vertical and #2 goes vertical then runs breaking pattern towards the sideline that open up the underneath flat for 1 or both of the backs.

If #1 goes vertical, the CB takes him. #2 runs an out/corner, the SS runs with him on vertical portion of the route getting width(maintaining outside leverage on #2) then breaks up on flat when #3 crosses his face(goes out into the flat), the SLB also squeezes the vertical portion of #2's route from the inside, then breaks with #2 on the out breaking part of the route...If the O sends another back on a swing route their isn't a zone that covers routes behind the line of scrimmage...Look at the section of the above diagrams entitled Sail...

I hope this helps...

[KDawg]

If #1 goes vertical, the CB takes him. #2 runs an out/corner, the SS runs with him on vertical portion of the route getting width(maintaining outside leverage on #2) then breaks up on flat when #3 crosses his face(goes out into the flat), the SLB also squeezes the vertical portion of #2's route from the inside, then breaks with #2 on the out breaking part of the route...If the O sends another back on a swing route their isn't a zone that covers routes behind the line of scrimmage...Look at the section of the above diagrams entitled Sail...

Well to be fair, there really isn't any coverage to cover routes behind the line of scrimmage. Man or zone. In man if you get caught in the backfield you're vulnerable to the screen N' go. But the rest of the info you posted here is dead on the money.

Silky, what exactly did you have in mind. I've had a few beverages tonight and I didn't quite catch whwat you're looking for...

[SilkyDiamonds]

Excellent post Jtyler!!

Now were moving in the right direction again. Good debate and discourse. I should prolly get off my lazy ass and do some sorta mini case study, where an NFC opponent is looked at identfy some packages and plays where we would expect to see a cover 3 call and dig into the guts to see who does what and is responsible for what. Prolly better if taking a past game and identifying where things went wrong. So us ES folks can really be in the know when we say "hey why is Player X lined up 10yds off"

[jtyler42]

Well to be fair, there really isn't any coverage to cover routes behind the line of scrimmage. Man or zone. In man if you get caught in the backfield you're vulnerable to the screen N' go. But the rest of the info you posted here is dead on the money.

Silky, what exactly did you have in mind. I've had a few beverages tonight and I didn't quite catch whwat you're looking for...

Yeah, I know there isn't any defensive coverage that typically crosses the LoS, I was just illustrating that fact for DG, b/c he said that the O could send both backs to the strong side flat, which is unlikely. It would be more a flat route by the FB, and a swing by the RB, if they were to do that.

[Oldfan]

As I said earlier, it seems to me that Cover 3 was designed to get eight men in the box. So, it's first and foremost, a defense against the run. That, in turn, means it's more vulnerable against the pass than other zones. And, that thought reminded me of the Skins 2005 season.

In the first half of 2005, the Brunell-to-Santana combination racked up huge yards per game. Then, opponents began doubling Santana which effectively shut down that threat. However, the double team meant that opponents could not often overload the box to stop Portis, so we finished out the season on offense by pounding Portis. Although the passing game stats fell off by half in the second half of 2005, it was the threat of Brunell-to-Moss that made possible the strong running game.

The need to put eight in the box often is, of course, an admission that you can't stop the run very well with seven. And, it's going to be hard to use eight to stop the run without a corner who can match up well with the NFL's best WRs.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm about to run out the door so I have to keep this short, but wanted to say I'm glad this thread is back to talking football.

Will respond more later on.

Who developed it then? If I'm wrong let me know the correct person/persons please.

I know that LeBeau was working on the read/match concepts in his Cover 3 and I know that other coaches used match/read concepts in Cover 2.

Its very rare that 1 coach or 1 staff gets credit for developing.

Gotta run,

[KDawg]

Yeah, I know there isn't any defensive coverage that typically crosses the LoS, I was just illustrating that fact for DG, b/c he said that the O could send both backs to the strong side flat, which is unlikely. It would be more a flat route by the FB, and a swing by the RB, if they were to do that.

Which also is a very rare thing to do. It's kind of stupid to do that, as you'll have the flat defender right in the area to play force man. Even if the other back manages to block him, he still forces the receiver into the rest of the defense. Usually, when I see two backs in the same place, I cringe. It's most likely a screw up. Although, I've seen some clever play designs with that happening as well.

[jtyler42]

I'm about to run out the door so I have to keep this short, but wanted to say I'm glad this thread is back to talking football.

Will respond more later on.

I know that LeBeau was working on the read/match concepts in his Cover 3 and I know that other coaches used match/read concepts in Cover 2.

Its very rare that 1 coach or 1 staff gets credit for developing.

Gotta run,

Okay, thanks! I stand corrected, I appreciate the answer.

Which also is a very rare thing to do. It's kind of stupid to do that, as you'll have the flat defender right in the area to play force man. Even if the other back manages to block him, he still forces the receiver into the rest of the defense. Usually, when I see two backs in the same place, I cringe. It's most likely a screw up. Although, I've seen some clever play designs with that happening as well.

Yeah it's definitely not a typical thing but I've seen some swing screen type plays with the flat/swing concept but it's typically against man blitz type defense where you can clear out the underneath coverage, and get the DL upfield...