Chalk Talk: Cover Three

[darrelgreenie]

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.

Right,I agree, but the how and where the receivers are deployed within a defenders area of responsibility can force them to guard more then 1 receiver (flood) or just be in a bad position.

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.

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.

Thanks for the response and you're right that wouldn't outnumber nor put the FS in a bind.

The confusion in the question is my fault.

I was wrongly refering to #3 as the opposite side TE/slot instead of the RB.

It would be so much easier w/ a dry erase board.

But, this is the scenario I was refering to that puts FS in a bind:

The Free Safety plays the deep center 1/3 of the field. Vs. this pro formation, he is looking at the TE, who presents the most immediate inside vertical threat (remember those seams?). If the formation has two such receivers (such as 1 TE and a slot WR), he is praying one of the underneath guys can reroute one of them.

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/2/9/1209031/rufios-playbook-pattern-matching

The FS versus doubles, is to key both inside vertical threats (Y & H) and is praying to God one of the underneath backers reroutes the vertical stem of either receiver. FS must respect both vertically in C3, which is why we stress the QB keys here.

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2009/08/boo-yah-route-reading-pattern-match.html

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...

BTW-Great info, and the links above lead to more info about pattern read/match Cover 3.

I agree with your breakdown of the coverage assignments.

I think we both agree that the CB and either the SAM or SS have been cleared out by #1 and #2.

That leaves the RBs #3 and #4 to occupy the remaining defender the SS

Lets say the #3/FB runs a texas route or a route that occupies the SS

The flat would be open for #4/RB.

Maybe this will help:

Forget the play drawn up in the image, its the only image I could find.

Imagine: (the nearest LB will be our SS the LB stacked behind the DE will be our SAM)

the TE takes off vertical and runs a corner route and the WR is going deep.

#4 in the diagram runs a Texas route or any route that occupies the SS.

That would leave #2 in the diagram open for any route into the flat.

---------- Post added May-30th-2011 at 05:51 PM ----------

One thing this discussion reinforced is how much the pass coverage units have to process.

I've always wondered how much of Carlos lapses in coverage were due to his inattention to the scheme concepts.

Its one of the reason why I liked Barnes so much, I know its only the wonderlic and it might not mean anything but the dude is smart.

But, if a DC wants to mix it up in the secondary they're gonna need smart defenders.

Happy holidays everyone.

[Oldfan]

Cover Three puts eight men in the box to stop the run. That leaves just three defenders whose first assignment is pass coverage. Ordinarily, that isn't a good idea in the pass-heavy NFL. So, we could expect limited use for Cover Three in the NFL. However, teams like the Colts, vulnerable against the run, seem to make more use of it than others.

On the other hand, the Colts seem to have their edge rushers split wide and going hard at the QB full-time, so maybe that accounts for their weakness against the run. Perhaps it's a trade-off -- eight in the box -- but two of the eight are primarily assigned to rushing the passer.

[IrepDC]

Just from a personal preference, and I've played all defensive back positions, I love zone. As a safety I don't have much of a preference, because 9 times out of 10 I'm covering deep regardless. It's just a question of whether I have a third or a half, or sometimes the entire deep in cover 1. Honestly the difference isn't that big to me as a safety though. I just adjust my reads.

However, as a corner, I love love LOVE cover 2 for so many reasons.

1) You can really get physical with receivers off the LOS because you don't have to worry about them beating you with your safeties over the top.

2) You can play the outside run to your side much more aggressively because you are looking in the backfield and your responsibility is already the flats.

3) You can bait the QB into so many interceptions by undercutting any out routes from the slot or curls from the outside WR.

4) Typically, even when you allow a catch in your zone, you get a shot at a BIG hit. Think Reggie Bush getting whacked against the Eagles.

I could go on, but those are the main reasons. Corner just isn't as fun when you have to chase one man all over the field in man coverage, imo. Cover 3 just feels like playing safety. Cover 2 is kick *** though, in my opinion.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 03:39 AM ----------

I should get back on thread topic, though; one of my current coaches actually said something about cover 3 not being very popular nowadays. I haven't had the chance to actually research this, but I was wondering if anybody else had heard or noticed this. He claimed it's usage was shrinking on all levels. He's a new coach for me, though, so I don't know how accurate his comments are.

[KDawg]

Imagine: (the nearest LB will be our SS the LB stacked behind the DE will be our SAM)

the TE takes off vertical and runs a corner route and the WR is going deep.

#4 in the diagram runs a Texas route or any route that occupies the SS.

That would leave #2 in the diagram open for any route into the flat.

This is confusing to me. Your language is, actually. Number 2 in the diagram is the TE. You said he's running a corner route. How is he going to be open in the flat? Unless when you say "2" you mean the tail.

Second, the premise is incorrect. #1 (The W in the diagram which is a Split End) goes vertical. The corner runs with him and plays him as if he's in man.

If the #2 receiver (The TE) runs a corner route, the free safety will likely pick him up. The SS will carry him vertical until the back crosses his face. Then he'll break off into the flat to watch #3.

#3 to the strong side is the tail... who is labeled at '2' in the diagram. If he swings, the SS will stay with him.

#4, if there was going to be one, to the strong side would be the player labeled '4', the FB. However, I see what you mean when you say the flat route will be open, but remember, the strong , safety is breaking off of #2 and into the flats the second that back crosses his face. Conversely, the SAM will sit under any route that #4 runs to the hook/curl area. It's all covered.

It's tougher to cover if #2 runs an out. But a corner route isn't that bad to pick up.

[darrelgreenie]

Second, the premise is incorrect. #1 (The W in the diagram which is a Split End) goes vertical. The corner runs with him and plays him as if he's in man

The play drawn up in the diagram isn't the play I'm talking about, I mentioned that here:

Forget the play drawn up in the image, its the only image I could find.

Imagine: (the nearest LB will be our SS the LB stacked behind the DE will be our SAM)

the TE takes off vertical and runs a corner route and the WR is going deep.

#4 in the diagram runs a Texas route or any route that occupies the SS.

That would leave #2 in the diagram open for any route into the flat.

It was the only image I could quickly find of I-From pro base.

I'm still discussing the scenario from my previous post not the play drawn up in the image.

If the #2 receiver (The TE) runs a corner route, the free safety will likely pick him up. The SS will carry him vertical until the back crosses his face. Then he'll break off into the flat to watch #3.

I don't think the FS would pick up the TE on a corner and if he did it would vacate the middle of the field and it would be asking him to cover a lot of ground.

This is from the link posted in my previous post which breakdowns the FS coverage rules for a Cover 3 pattern/read zone:

The FS versus pro, is keying TE as he presents the first immediate inside vertical threat.

• If the TE is vertical after 10 yards, the FS can anticipate picking up the TE threatening the middle of the field
  
• If the TE releases outside, he can anticipate the weakside post or cross (dragon)
  
• If the TE releases inside, he can anticipate the strongside post or possibly help out on the weakside vertical route.
  

#3 to the strong side is the tail... who is labeled at '2' in the diagram. If he swings, the SS will stay with him.

#4, if there was going to be one, to the strong side would be the player labeled '4', the FB. However, I see what you mean when you say the flat route will be open, but remember, the strong , safety is breaking off of #2 and into the flats the second that back crosses his face.

The SS would first have to respect and protect the vertical portion of the TEs route which would force them to gain some depth and either the SS or the SAM will have to under cut the TE corner route as per the rules for Cover 3 read/match:

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/373619/pattern_20match_20smash_medium.jpg

I think the Sail match-up (where it appears that the concede the flat route)shown in this image below that JT provided shows what I'm talking about:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ivRtwtEUBBU/SosFf2F7ZPI/AAAAAAAAArI/c8Q0PlP4zwk/s1600-h/ScreenShot005.jpg

Conversely, the SAM will sit under any route that #4 runs to the hook/curl area. It's all covered.

But the either the SAM or the SS is already occupied with the TE. Which forces the remaining defender the SS (lets say the SAM is undercutting the TEs corner route) would have to protect the curl-flat against the FB and the RB.

If the SS follows the FB on the Texas route the flat is open.

If the SAM comes off the TE to cover the flat then they've effectively been Hi-Lowed.

If the SS takes the RB in the flat the Texas route is open.

It's tougher to cover if #2 runs an out. But a corner route isn't that bad to pick up.

I think they would play both plays the same.

[jtyler42]

Right,I agree, but the how and where the receivers are deployed within a defenders area of responsibility can force them to guard more then 1 receiver (flood) or just be in a bad position.

Thanks for the response and you're right that wouldn't outnumber nor put the FS in a bind.

The confusion in the question is my fault.

I was wrongly refering to #3 as the opposite side TE/slot instead of the RB.

It would be so much easier w/ a dry erase board.

But, this is the scenario I was refering to that puts FS in a bind:

Yea the numbering system can be tricky at first, b/c the D numbers both sides of the formation from outside in. The furthest outside being #1, the next receiver inside #2, the offset RB/RB that releases to that side #3, etc...

As far as the pictured routes, without the routes shown by the two outside receivers, it's tough to say whether or not the FS will be in a bind. for example:

Say if the two outside receivers both run curls, the CB's on both side would then take the vertical routes. Remember the CB's responsibility in pattern match cover 3 is to play #1 through #2, so if #1 breaks inside, outside, or hooks up, he checks #2's release, and if he is vertical he takes him and passes #1 off to the underneath coverage...So in this case the FS would have both CB's running w/over the top of those seam routes.

BTW-Great info, and the links above lead to more info about pattern read/match Cover 3.

I agree with your breakdown of the coverage assignments.

I think we both agree that the CB and either the SAM or SS have been cleared out by #1 and #2.

That leaves the RBs #3 and #4 to occupy the remaining defender the SS

Lets say the #3/FB runs a texas route or a route that occupies the SS

The flat would be open for #4/RB.

If the FB runs the Texas route, he would be covered...The SS would press his route from the outside in, once he breaks inside he would pass him off to the MLB...Remember here the SS squeezed the TE's vertical portion of the route from the outside while gaining width as he drops, the SLB squeezes it from the inside. Once the TE breaks out the SS checks #3(he reads #2, to #3) as he is releasing into his zone he comes up outside in, and the SLB undercuts the TE route from the inside(the SLB reads #3, to #2) and runs with him...The MLB w/no threat over the middle will flow to the flood side, and is now responsible for the area vacated by the SLB. So once the FB breaks inside on his Texas route the MLB is there. B/c the FB broke inside and not to the flat the SS can pass him to the MLB, allowing the SS to take the swing/flat route by the RB or #4...I hope this makes sense lol, I just got off work, and I'm tired as hell!

One thing this discussion reinforced is how much the pass coverage units have to process.

I've always wondered how much of Carlos lapses in coverage were due to his inattention to the scheme concepts.

Its one of the reason why I liked Barnes so much, I know its only the wonderlic and it might not mean anything but the dude is smart.

But, if a DC wants to mix it up in the secondary they're gonna need smart defenders.

Happy holidays everyone.

Yeah teams that run zone defenses typically have to have smarter players, than the ones that just match-up man-to-man, and play ball lol...It' is definitely a lot to process, that is why I stated earlier in the thread that I fell that it's just as hard to teach a D to play pattern match zone D, as it is to teach a QB to read defensive coverages...I agree on Carlos, if he had a head for the game he could be one of the best CB's in the NFL...His lack of success in my eyes has everything to do with poor technique, and lack of concentration. It's funny you mention how smart Barnes is, b/c on the radio Tues afternoon J.I. Halsell a redskins insider type, was saying the exact same thing about him lol...

Just from a personal preference, and I've played all defensive back positions, I love zone. As a safety I don't have much of a preference, because 9 times out of 10 I'm covering deep regardless. It's just a question of whether I have a third or a half, or sometimes the entire deep in cover 1. Honestly the difference isn't that big to me as a safety though. I just adjust my reads.

However, as a corner, I love love LOVE cover 2 for so many reasons.

1) You can really get physical with receivers off the LOS because you don't have to worry about them beating you with your safeties over the top.

2) You can play the outside run to your side much more aggressively because you are looking in the backfield and your responsibility is already the flats.

3) You can bait the QB into so many interceptions by undercutting any out routes from the slot or curls from the outside WR.

4) Typically, even when you allow a catch in your zone, you get a shot at a BIG hit. Think Reggie Bush getting whacked against the Eagles.

I could go on, but those are the main reasons. Corner just isn't as fun when you have to chase one man all over the field in man coverage, imo. Cover 3 just feels like playing safety. Cover 2 is kick *** though, in my opinion.

Ha a fellow DB! What's good DB lol...Like you I played S and CB in college, and also like you I had no preference of the type of zone D I played as a S, deep 1/2, deep 1/3, and even deep 1/4 . As a CB though I liked playing cover 3 better b/c I was able to roam a little more and be real nosy lol

[KDawg]

The play drawn up in the diagram isn't the play I'm talking about, I mentioned that here:

I know it's not. The TE in the diagram isn't running a corner route. I spoke specifically about the play you're talking about.

I don't think the FS would pick up the TE on a corner and if he did it would vacate the middle of the field and it would be asking him to cover a lot of ground.

No it wouldn't. There are no other threats to his zone the way you described the play. Once #1 goes vertical, the FS will be looking for another deep threat to his zone. If none shows, he's going to help the threat to the fade side. All the while, he'll be cheating towards the player going vertical while still maintaining his zone responsibility. Once the QB gives a throwing cue, such as patting the ball, dipping his back shoulder, etc, the FS is free to break. And due to his cheating he should be in good position to get to the corner route.

This is from the link posted in my previous post which breakdowns the FS coverage rules for a Cover 3 pattern/read zone:

Except those rules don't cover what happens if the back side receiver isn't a threat to his zone. I never saw you say the backside split end is running a deep route in describing the play. If there's no threat, he can get over the top of strong 2.

The SS would first have to respect and protect the vertical portion of the TEs route which would force them to gain some depth

Yes. I said as much. He needs to stay over the top of 2 while he breaks vertical... UNTIL the back crosses his face.

and either the SS or the SAM will have to under cut the TE corner route as per the rules for Cover 3 read/match:

If no blitz is on, you forget we have a corner, SS, SAM and could even have a MIKE to the strong side. It's an 8 man box with the 3-4. not a 7. The SAM will bracket inside over 2.

But the either the SAM or the SS is already occupied with the TE. Which forces the remaining defender the SS (lets say the SAM is undercutting the TEs corner route) would have to protect the curl-flat against the FB and the RB.

If the SS follows the FB on the Texas route the flat is open.

Which is why the SS can't over commit. The offense might gain a few yards there. But he's still in position to create a minimal gain.

If the SAM comes off the TE to cover the flat then they've effectively been Hi-Lowed.

Not if the FS realizes he doesn't have a threat to his zone and undercuts the corner route.

If the SS takes the RB in the flat the Texas route is open.

But the MIKE will be dropping to the flood side as well. So while it's open, it's again a minimal gain.

[SilkyDiamonds]

Ahhh now this thread has taken off , LOVE IT guys

Some REALLY good football talk going on in her

[darrelgreenie]

As far as the pictured routes, without the routes shown by the two outside receivers, it's tough to say whether or not the FS will be in a bind.

You should check out the link.

That diagram from my previous post is used specifically in the link provided as an example of how/why that route concept poses a threat to the Cover 3 match zone FS.

Are there situations in a Cover 3 match where the FS is less threatened by those routes? Sure.

But, the purpose of the post was to show a single defender being threatened by 2 receivers.

Both links from post #151 say the same thing.

The FS in that situation must hope/pray that one of the vertical threats is re-routed.

If the FB runs the Texas route, he would be covered...The SS would press his route from the outside in, once he breaks inside he would pass him off to the MLB...Remember here the SS squeezed the TE's vertical portion of the route from the outside while gaining width as he drops, the SLB squeezes it from the inside. Once the TE breaks out the SS checks #3(he reads #2, to #3) as he is releasing into his zone he comes up outside in, and the SLB undercuts the TE route from the inside(the SLB reads #3, to #2) and runs with him...The MLB w/no threat over the middle will flow to the flood side, and is now responsible for the area vacated by the SLB. So once the FB breaks inside on his Texas route the MLB is there. B/c the FB broke inside and not to the flat the SS can pass him to the MLB, allowing the SS to take the swing/flat route by the RB or #4...I hope this makes sense lol, I just got off work, and I'm tired as hell!

I agree it makes perfect sense.

The MLB would be key in preventing a flood to the strong side and would cover the FB but I think he'll be in a position to make the tackle not prevent the play same with the SS in the flat, he's coming down from depth to cover the flat.

It's funny you mention how smart Barnes is, b/c on the radio Tues afternoon J.I. Halsell a redskins insider type, was saying the exact same thing about him lol...

I'll have to check it out on podcast, I would like to see what Barnes can do opposite Hall.

BTW-You still play flag or anything?

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 05:41 PM ----------

No it wouldn't. There are no other threats to his zone the way you described the play. Once #1 goes vertical, the FS will be looking for another deep threat to his zone. If none shows, he's going to help the threat to the fade side. All the while, he'll be cheating towards the player going vertical while still maintaining his zone responsibility. Once the QB gives a throwing cue, such as patting the ball, dipping his back shoulder, etc, the FS is free to break. And due to his cheating he should be in good position to get to the corner route.

.....Except those rules don't cover what happens if the back side receiver isn't a threat to his zone. I never saw you say the backside split end is running a deep route in describing the play. If there's no threat, he can get over the top of strong 2.

We're just gonna disagree on this one.

I didn't mention the backside routes because I didn't think I had to.

The FS would have to honor their assignment mainly the middle 1/3.

The rules weren't for a particular route combo those rules in the link were the FS rules for the defense.

Weak (Free) Safety

The Free Safety plays the deep center 1/3 of the field. Vs. this pro formation, he is looking at the TE, who presents the most immediate inside vertical threat (remember those seams?). If the formation has two such receivers (such as 1 TE and a slot WR), he is praying one of the underneath guys can reroute one of them.

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2010/2/9/1209031/rufios-playbook-pattern-matching

The FS versus pro, is keying TE as he presents the first immediate inside vertical threat.

If the TE is vertical after 10 yards, the FS can anticipate picking up the TE threatening the middle of the field

If the TE releases outside, he can anticipate the weakside post or cross (dragon)

If the TE releases inside, he can anticipate the strongside post or possibly help out on the weakside vertical route.

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2009/08/boo-yah-route-reading-pattern-match.html

If no blitz is on, you forget we have a corner, SS, SAM and could even have a MIKE to the strong side. It's an 8 man box with the 3-4. not a 7. The SAM will bracket inside over 2........But the MIKE will be dropping to the flood side as well. So while it's open, it's again a minimal gain.

Agreed, as JT and I discussed above the if there is any away to prevent a flood to the strong side the MIKE is the key to getting or at the least bringing down the Texas route.

Which is why the SS can't over commit. The offense might gain a few yards there. But he's still in position to create a minimal gain.

Agree, one intents of the pattern-match Cover 3 is to limit RAC, I was just talking about being in a position to defend the pass itself.

If the SAM comes off the TE to cover the flat then they've effectively been Hi-Lowed.

Not if the FS realizes he doesn't have a threat to his zone and undercuts the corner route.

In the even the SAM doesn't undercut the TE corner route and the FS gives up his deep 1/3 coverage to attempt to undercut the TE corner route I think he'll get there in time to make the tackle not to prevent the play.

But, I don't think the SAM would drop coverage on the TE nor do I think the FS would vacate the middle 1/3.

[KDawg]

[/color]We're just gonna disagree on this one.

I didn't mention the backside routes because I didn't think I had to.

The FS would have to honor their assignment mainly the middle 1/3.

The rules weren't for a particular route combo those rules in the link were the FS rules for the defense.

Why would the FS, who is typically played by a guy who likes to ball hawk, just sit in the middle of the field?

[Utah]

PCS told me to write in this thread and then I started reading it......WOW. Alot of good stuff here. KDawg, as always, good job.

For what its worth, during my last year of coaching, we had Base 3, Dog 3, Alpha 3 and Jam 3. Now, they were all a 'Cover 3' zone defense with the names indicating a style of 3 we were going to play that game vs that type of offfense. Would take a large amount of time to explain and I might have it here soon. But allow me to say that this coverage as with all coverages is meant to be adapted to put the kids in the right spot based on personal, type of offense, game situation and about 1000 other things. I would say that no one has really said anything wrong about the coverage that I have read, but remember, we are learning here and all ideas are good.

Sorry for the drive-by but wanted to say its nice to see these threads still on Extreme after all these years.

[KDawg]

PCS told me to write in this thread and then I started reading it......WOW. Alot of good stuff here. KDawg, as always, good job.

For what its worth, during my last year of coaching, we had Base 3, Dog 3, Alpha 3 and Jam 3. Now, they were all a 'Cover 3' zone defense with the names indicating a style of 3 we were going to play that game vs that type of offfense. Would take a large amount of time to explain and I might have it here soon. But allow me to say that this coverage as with all coverages is meant to be adapted to put the kids in the right spot based on personal, type of offense, game situation and about 1000 other things. I would say that no one has really said anything wrong about the coverage that I have read, but remember, we are learning here and all ideas are good.

Sorry for the drive-by but wanted to say its nice to see these threads still on Extreme after all these years.

Great to see you. I miss having you around, Coach.

[PCS]

Oh sure. Blame it on me.

[darrelgreenie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud3bEgrL1YY

[SilkyDiamonds]

From our buddy Matt Bowen , this posts describes how Gregg Williams uses a hybrid man/zone defense (cover 7) to accomplish what Oldfan wants with man, and provides for the benefits a zone uses. Its similar to what the Jets do with Revis and crew just without the blitz package diagrammed.. Basically out of nickle personnel he locks up 1 corner on an island, plays the other corner in a deep half, with the safety assisting on in breaking routes in the curl/ hook zone. Finally manning up the nickel (Charles Woodson like? Hmm) giving outside leverage while assisting with the other safety zoning the inside breaking routes in the curl/hook zone.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Inside-the-playbook-Cover-7-breakdown.html

Another interesting look at how to mesh the zone and man defenses to provide maximum benefit

Imagine on 1 side carlos manning 1 on 1 qith a teams #1, the other DHall playing off and zone, Landry rolled up in cover 3 or blitz look falling into the curl/hook zone, Fletcher taking a back in man, Rocky (or whoever the nickel LB will be) picking up TE, Barnes on slots outside routes (basically curl/flat zone) and Atogwe stealing the inside of the slot players route. Nasty lil D, that gives the good of man (men covered) and the good of zone (men in areas) all in 1 defense

[IrepDC]

But, this is the scenario I was refering to that puts FS in a bind:

If either of those outside receivers run short routes, the corner to that side should be able to squeeze on the seam route to their side- assisting the FS.

---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 11:45 AM ----------

Ha a fellow DB! What's good DB lol...Like you I played S and CB in college, and also like you I had no preference of the type of zone D I played as a S, deep 1/2, deep 1/3, and even deep 1/4 . As a CB though I liked playing cover 3 better b/c I was able to roam a little more and be real nosy lol

Ha fellow DB; we're always the best athletes! And yeah, cover 3 as a corner is fun, but it isn't much different from S to me. Cover 2 is my chance to get nosey at the LOS. haha

[darrelgreenie]

If either of those outside receivers run short routes, the corner to that side should be able to squeeze on the seam route to their side- assisting the FS.

True.

[KDawg]

True.

That's what I said a few pages back...

[darrelgreenie]

That's what I said a few pages back...

I didn't disagree with you then, like I don't disagree with Irep about his scenario.

But, the scenario you and he are refering to:

If either of those outside receivers run short routes, the corner to that side should be able to squeeze on the seam route to their side- assisting the FS.

Of course this statement is true.

But its also a different scenario then the one being discussed in the diagram I posted.

That diagram was used specifically to show how the FS can be put into a bind by when both the TE and the slot receiver go vertical up the seams when the CBs are occupied.

[KDawg]

I didn't disagree with you then, like I don't disagree with Irep about his scenario.

But, the scenario you and he are refering to: Of course this statement is true.

But its also a different scenario then the one being discussed in the diagram I posted.

That diagram was used specifically to show how the FS can be put into a bind by when both the TE and the slot receiver go vertical up the seams when the CBs are occupied.

Define "occupied". In football, you can't just use those words. You have to be specific. How are they occupied?

[Gibbstastic]

the only way i see for both CBs to be 'occupied' with the TE and Slot going vertical is if they send a minimum of 4 deep. With the #1 on either side going deep against the corner. But if that happens the short zones, more specifically the hook/curl zones should drop to help somewhat because at that point it's the 4 short zones against one possible route in the HB releasing.

[KDawg]

the only way i see for both CBs to be 'occupied' with the TE and Slot going vertical is if they send a minimum of 4 deep. With the #1 on either side going deep against the corner. But if that happens the short zones, more specifically the hook/curl zones should drop to help somewhat because at that point it's the 4 short zones against one possible route in the HB releasing.

Correct. If all four go vertical, the flat defenders probably need to stay where they are due to backs delaying to the flat, which is a tactic often used when sending multiple receivers deep. The hook/curl guys can get depth and help with the deep coverage. Is it perfect? No. But everything is accounted for.

In fact, when 1 and 2 to the same side go vertical, it usually means theres a crossing route coming underneath the verts or most of the receivers are going vertical. So if the MIKE diagnoses two to the same side going vertical, then looks to see no crossing pattern he can drop in help as well, much like he would in a Tampa 2 (which is actually a modified cover 3 concept).

[Gibbstastic]

I personally enjoy zone more than man. Especially cover 3 where you can keep one CB up and drop the SS, the FS, and the other CB. Same amount of zones, just giving you more options on where your players go (even more so in the 3-4).

Man is going to create less complex situations for the QB to read in my iopinion,

[KDawg]

I personally enjoy zone more than man. Especially cover 3 where you can keep one CB up and drop the SS, the FS, and the other CB. Same amount of zones, just giving you more options on where your players go (even more so in the 3-4).

I like zone better. However, there is a place for all coverages in this game. I'm a big fan of the cover 2 concept with a Tampa 2 twist. Tampa 2 is a modified cover 3 with the Mike playing the "hole" (the middle of the field).

Man is going to create less complex situations for the QB to read in my iopinion,

I agree. But it also allows for smaller throwing windows.

[Gibbstastic]

I like zone better. However, there is a place for all coverages in this game. I'm a big fan of the cover 2 concept with a Tampa 2 twist. Tampa 2 is a modified cover 3 with the Mike playing the "hole" (the middle of the field).

agreed. Tampa 2 is a great scheme, especially when your best player is your MLB. Giving your best guy a little more freedom.

I agree. But it also allows for smaller throwing windows.

unless you are missing shut down corners. obviously the key is to adjust your D to your roster. same as where you wouldn't want a shut down corner stuck in the flats covering empty space.