Tackling Circuits: My stance

This is inspired by a recent discussion on Coach Huey about tackling circuits and their place in defensive practice plans, etc.

Background: 
I was a heavy, heavy tackling circuit/turnover circuit disciple in 2009, I really was.  We did both every week, usually one on Monday and one on Wednesday.  We created a lot of turnovers, something like ~2.5/game and I really felt that they were worth while.  We made a lot of tackles, which is to be expected, but I wasn't happy with our tackling, which surprised me because we spent SO MUCH time on tackling circuits.  I mean, 15m/week for something like 15 weeks adds up to about 3 1/2-4 hours of time JUST tackling.  My best tackling LB was a guy that I coached for 3 months.  My worst tackling LB was a guy I'd coached for 3 years.  Evidently, I'm a shitty coach.

Review our film from that season, I noticed some stuff that wasn't necessarily clear to me during the season.  First, most of our turnovers were the result of athletic interceptions or gang tackling.  We had two fumbles forced, one recovered by the same kid who had a TERRIFIC tomahawk move from behind, but that was probably the best example of practice time carrying over into game time.  Almost all of our fumble recoveries were the result of hustle, violence, and fumble recovery skills (which we did work).  Almost all of our interceptions were the result of pressure, vision of the QB, and skilled athletes with a shitty coach.

Reviewing our tackling, I noticed a few things.  The biggest thing that came to me was that no two guys on our defense really tackled alike.  The reason why?  No two coaches on our defense taught tackling alike.  We were working tackling all season, but everyone's message was SLIGHTLY off.  The next biggest thing was that our guys needed to get their asses into the weight room.  That was outside my jurisdiction, so to speak, but it's 100% something I believe very strongly in.

So, after this ordeal of self-reflection, I came to the conclusion that I didn't really care to use practice time to work on turnovers and I didn't necessarily like tackling circuits as much.

That Said...
I think tackling circuits are valuable because you CAN use them to teach fundamental skills rapidly, with lots of repetitions, and do it often.  I'll follow that up by saying that I think you really need to be careful about how you administer your tackling circuits.

Tackling circuits should be:
1-Reflective.  You should be focused on improving the aspects of tackling that you're not very good at and your drills should show that you've reflected on how to target those precise aspects.  If your kids can't angle tackle very well, then you should be working angle tackling in your circuits.
2-Corrective.  Don't let bad reps stay bad reps.  Force them to do the drill again, and again, and again until they do it right.  Then move on to the next kid.  If only 3 kids get reps, then you can safely say that next time that's 3 less kids you have to coach.  But force them to have a successful effort.
3-Inclusive. I fucking hate kids standing in line.  Sometimes it's necessary for their recovery between reps, but if you're not pushing their cardio, why have lines?  Work as many kids as possible while still giving good coaching.
4-Short.  15min, TOPS.  Time is precious, budget it appropriately.

The school I coached at last year used tackling circuits on every defensive day and we got nothing out of it because the DC had us run the same 4 drills with very little correction going on, lots of standing in line, and poorly budgeted time.  You can imagine how I felt about it.

(I'd like to point out that I followed a very strict "direct answers to direct questions only" rule because I was more or less laying low last season and I didn't want to be that coach that was being overly critical when he wasn't going to be a long-term member of the staff.  Probably not the best approach I could've taken, but I didn't want the DC to go through an experience similar to the BS I went through in 2011.)

Anyways!...  I like tackling circuits for lower level teams (JV/Frosh) because you can use them to enforce good mechanical skills in players without the experience base necessary to tackle well, but I'm not so crazy about them at the varsity level.  To me, at the varsity level there's DL tackling and LB/DB tackling and the two are only somewhat related.  So, having everyone do the same drills all the time is inefficient and ultimately counter productive.  Just my stance on the matter.

Summary
Tackling circuits are good if you coach them well, but they suck if you don't.  Teach tackling in a uniform fashion, coach up hustle to the ball and aggression, good things will follow.

My Favorite Safety Blitz

I like to blitz. I like to blitz a lot. When I call blitzes, I like it when they get results. One blitz that I've consistently gotten results with has been a Safety/ILB blitz that I call "Sabre". I like to run Sabre to the wide side of the field and to the closed side of the formation and I'll do it on just about any down. I'll also run it from the short side of the field on passing downs, but at those moments I'm more likely to run something else instead.

Below: Sabre X (ILB to B, Safety to A)

The rules for Sabre are as follows:

DEs—Slant to C gap
NT—Slant to A gap away from blitz side. I.e. Sabre Field = Slant to short side of field
OLBs—Follow usual alignment rules, play SCF.
ILBs—Blitz side LB = A gap, Off side LB = 3^rd Receiver Hook
Safeties—Blitz side Safety = B Gap on the move, Off side Safety = Middle 1/3^rd
Corners—Deep 1/3^rd.

Additional Tag for Sabre:

X—Crosses the ILB and Safety's blitz.

I got locked out of my team's HUDL accout upon being dismissed, but I'll try to go back and post film of this blitz when I can.

On Coaching Your Assistants

Very recently I was fired from my position as Defensive Coordinator/DB coach, which has led to me reflecting a great deal on the various things that happened this season that I either didn't like or could have done better. One of the big things was that I needed to coach and manage my assistants much better than I had previously. At my prior gig, just about every one that I was coaching with were people that I had known for a long time and were a great support system for me in a lot of ways. This job was a patchwork group of guys coming together for the first time and it definitely showed at times.

Support Them, Don't Enable Them

Something that I did a great job of was support my assistants and give them a great deal of autonomy within their individual time and their coaching styles. Everyone has to be their own person and has to coach in their given style. One of the reasons why I left my previous position was because the head coach wanted me to coach in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. You have to coach to your personality or you're going to miss on making a genuine relationship with your athletes.

Another thing that you will see repeatedly in management books, classes, etc, is that you need to train or provide the opportunity for advancement within your team/organization. Not everyone needs to be learning to be a DC some day and, frankly, if everyone thinks that they should be wearing your hat, you've got some bigger issues. But you should be preparing someone as if they will replace you or as if they are moving on to another job at some point.

I think this is a healthy practice for a number of reasons. 1-It gives motivated assistants a reason to work hard and to immerse themselves in improvement. 2-It shows that you are a long term thinker. 3-It spreads coaching families, which benefits everyone greatly in a profession that is very transient by nature. 4-It attracts talent in the way that ambitious young coaches will want to be a part of your program if you consistently produce coaches who move on to success.

However, you must avoid a mistake I made this season: I enabled my assistants too much. I was so gun shy about being demanding and harsh with them that I allowed things to happen that I wasn't OK with. I got run down by my last boss like I was a player and I didn't want to do that to those that I was responsible for guiding/directing. I let too many bad habits, bad coaching practices go without addressing it head on. I was passive and not direct with them.

Listen to Them, HEAR Them

I was accused on multiple occasions of ignoring the input of my assistants. In my defense, I wasn't ignoring their input, I simply wasn't acting on it. It is one thing to offer suggestions, tweaks, etc, to what you're doing. I was getting input like "Switch to a slanting 4-4 and tell the LBs just to fill a gap". While this was horrible advice for our situation, the bigger issue is the feeling that input is being ignored.

The best organizations make assistants feel wanted, necessary, and a part of the decision making process. This is true from Disney to Taylor's Hot Dog Stand (Real place, great chili dogs!) and everywhere in between. The people who are not in charge need to feel as though they matter. It may be only a question of degree, but without that feeling of meaning, of purpose, assistants will burn out or lose interest. Help them to feel a part of what is going on.

But Be Yourself…

At the end of the day, you have to be yourself and do what you think is best. I did my best to coach our boys to the best of my ability and in the best way that I know how. I changed a bit too much for my own liking, but I did it all my way. I was, for the most part, true to what I believe in and what I stand for. Because of that fact, I sleep well at night and with a clean conscience.

However, I had assistants doing things that I did not approve of, coaching in a way that I did not care for, and offering input that was not solicited. I needed to be more firm, to be more strict with my expectations, to be more clear with what their roles were in things. My staff was not a good reflection of myself, my philosophies, and my defense. It was a bad situation, but I did not handle it was I should have or needed to. As funny as it is to say, I basically needed to throw around more "Because I F***ing want it that way" and a lot more "STFU and be as assistant" because I was so focused on being a positive leader. Just like with players, it's always a question of can't or won't. If they can't, help them get there. If they won't, find someone who will. I needed more can't, I had too much won't.

Off-Season: Clinics

Where I've Been...

Around this part of CA, there's only two or three big 'clinics' to hit up: the Burlingame All-Sports Clinic, the San Jose Glazier, and the Nike COY in Concord. The Burlingame clinic had an absolutely TERRIBLE lineup, literally none of the coaches that I interact with in my personal life (Vass and the rest of our semi-pro staff, the crew at my alma mater, NO ONE) were interested in anything being talked about.

The San Jose Glazier had a few good speakers that interested me: Nick Rapone from U of Delaware and Pete Kwiatowski (I think that's right...) from Boise. Unfortunately, the Boise guy, who was primed to talk a bunch of 3-4 that I was jazzed to hear, had to cancel. However I did get to see Rapone talk for about 4-5 hours over two days and that man is a stud. Hands down one of the best clinic speakers I've seen, ever. Vass almost proposed marriage.

The Nike COY was too far and too much of a labor to get to, given that there wasn't a ton that I wanted to hear.

What's coming up...

I'm trying to set up some staff visits with the following colleges: Menlo College in Menlo, CA, Berkeley, and Stanford (I think they're still running a 3-4, right?). Menlo's DC is a man named Mike Church that's been around a long time and has coached at pretty much every single level possible, I'm very interested in making contact and meeting him. Clancy Pendergast, DC at Berkeley, has been to the Super Bowl with the Cardinals. Stanford Co-DCs Jason Tarver and Derek Mason have both been in 3-4 schemes recently. All in all, if I can make some in-roads with those schools, I'll be a happy camper.

Book Review: Football's Eagle and Stack Defenses by Ron Vanderlinden

Buy This Or You're Dumb

It's really about that simple folks. I don't care what your defensive system is, 3-3, 3-4, 4-3, 4-4, Bear, Variable UFO Defense of Doomination, this book has something in it that you'll read, re-read, and realize that it's not only good, but it can help you. I read it in about 2 days, which is saying something because it's not a light book at 248 pages which are largely dense, technical football writing. It's not a book of diagrams and whatnot, it's friggin' WRITING. It's cheap, it's thorough, it's one of the best football books written in a long time.

So, What's It About?

Imagine if you could buy the basic, nuts and bolts knowledge needed to install and coordinate a defense that's flexible, multiple, and fairly simple. This is your chance to do that. It's no Tony Franklin System for defense, but it IS quite excellent for gaining a very functional understanding of exactly how Vanderlinden's scheme works. He gives you a thorough explanation of how they set and dictate the fronts, how that overlaps with the coverages, and how people's run responsibilities play out. Not only that, he gives you very easy to understand directions regarding how his defense would defend common run plays versus the different fronts that he runs.

That alone would be good stuff, very valuable for everyone's growth as a coach, regardless of scheme. But what I really, really like is he gives a pretty sweet explanation of coverages, techniques, and defensing some common routes that might be an issue. I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of DB play is quite limited. This gave me some really great insight into HOW some coverage components work, from a schematic and a technical perspective. I'm no DB guru now, but reading that was quite helpful for me personally.

Lastly, Vanderlinden explains a few of his favorite blitzes. I love blitzes, I love blitzing. One of the things I grew to love about running a 3-4 defense was how damn flexible it was for blitzing and blitzing creatively. Being a football coach, I love to steal, and Vanderlinden's got some good stuff. He explains them pretty thoroughly, which is cool, but he also explains a lot of his thought process behind them and when/why he uses them. Getting insight into the mind and motivations of one of the best coordinators around is precious information and he offers it readily.

Oh, there's also a fairly extensive section on technique for positions.

So, What You're Trying To Say Is...

First, buy this book. Second, read this book. Third, ???. Four, Profit!

Being A Professional: What's It Mean?

Whore For Money

I don't think that getting paid to do something necessarily means that you're a 'whore', but I joke about it because I think I have a weird approach to work. Simply put: If you're paying me to do a job, I will do it. It might be demeaning and unfair and more than a little crappy (I've literally had a job where I was asked to dig up septic tanks), but I'll do it because you're paying me and that's what comes with the job. I don't complain, I don't work any less, I don't look to avoid my responsibilities. If I hate it, I'll either voice my thoughts in an appropriate setting or quit. Haven't quit a job yet. Working at a summer camp, I've had to teach art, make PB&J sandwiches, operate a ropes course, plan the parents night, pretend to be a lifeguard, rent a sno-cone machine, spend ~36 hours straight with my campers, go to meetings on personal time, go without eating for a day, give away my lunch, hug a boy who'd just wet himself and me, break up arguments/fights, build an RC car track, make stew for ~180 people, and clean the bathrooms. It was my job to do each and every one of those things, and more, and I did them without complaint because I believe that if it's my job, my duty is to soldier on.

I don't believe in being a sycophant, I like to think I speak my mind consistently. I don't believe that I have no rights as someone who is being paid to do a job, nor do I think any employer should be able to dump on their employees just because. I just think that too often people make a big deal about the things that, in my opinion, are actually a part of their job. Don't like it? Do something about it or quit, don't bitch and moan.

So Maybe I'm A Hypocrite

And yet, I find myself unhappy with my current situation. We've hired a new HC who is a proven winner, a guy who is widely regarded as a legend in the central valley of California. At a gathering of Wing-T minds yesterday (I don't have the secret handshake down, but I know the location of their lair) I watched him speak informally for 45 minutes and blow about 30 minds with simple, concise advice for everyone he'd listened to for the previous 4 hours. Dude's unbelievable. I have no doubt in my mind that our league is about to get ripped a new one. The kind of physical training, mental training, and specifically offensive brilliance that he's introducing just doesn't exist in this part of CA.

So why am I bummed out? Well, the defense that we ran last year has been scrapped. I worked damn hard on developing a 3-4 scheme that I felt good about and, for most of this offseason, I'd done the majority of my work on making it better. I won't say that it's been wasted, because no learning is ever a waste, but it's definitely not as useful as it could have been. We had some great success last year, sporting the #2 defense in our league and #6 defense in the local tri-county area, which I was very proud of. We had one game where we allowed 37 yards, total, against a team that finished 2nd in their league. We forced 5 turnovers in one game, recorded 7 sacks in another, and kept our team in games much longer than we should have. The kids liked the scheme, the coaches liked it, I began to love it.

But none of this matters now. We're moving to a 4-4/4-3 hybrid that is predicted on simplicity and bodies to the ball. One front, minimal blitzing, lots of Cover 3 and only a smattering of Cover 4. I have a hard time feeling comfortable with several things within the scheme. I don't particularly care for the way we're going to play our front, I don't like some of the nuts and bolts of the scheme.

What does matter, though, is that as the DC, it's my job to coach and run what the HC wants. He wants his defense to be a certain scheme, then if I am going to be his DC, I'm going to do it that way. I won't complain, I will ask questions, I will try to see what leeway I have, and I will bite my tongue, but I won't complain. I won't saying anything negative about it to anyone but the HC and MAYBE a few, select others. I will coach the hell out of our guys, regardless of anything else. It's my job, my duty, my role to be supportive and loyal. If it's intolerable, then I can either voice my concerns or do something else, but I will stay true to what I believe it means to be a "Pro".

Busy, Busy, Busy

Holy Cow!

Getting this teaching job has been awesome for me in a lot of ways, but my goodness have I been slaving to catch up to where we're at in terms of grading and lesson plan prep, etc. I'll try to start re-posting regularly in another week or so, but I've got to get settled and into a flow first. I just submitted progress reports last night and approximately 45% of my kids have "F" grades because they're just not turning in work, which means emails home to parents all weekend, among other things.

On the coaching front, it's been a very exciting time as we've hired a new HC who is a top-notch coach. He's been a winner pretty much everywhere he's been, with several section championship rings and a state coach of the year award to his credit. With him he brings the Wing-T, complete with the winged helmet design and all, and a very interesting quiet intensity and confidence that are obviously indicators of why he's been so successful in the past. I'm hoping I can convince him to allow me to retain our 3-4 scheme, but if he insists on a 4-4 look, well, I've got some ideas on that, too.

4-3 ‘Flex’ Blitzes: What I’d Do

As promised, I’m going to show a few blitzes that I would run if this scheme were my own. They’re not perfect, but looking at the diagrams, I think that they have some good potential. One thing that I like is the ease with which the Flex position can move two gaps across the line due to his upright position, as well as give a hard step upfield and turn and run to his drop. I’m looking forward to doing something similar this year with my Will backer, who’s just dynamite on the blitz.

Starting Simple: A Fairly Typical Fire Zone

This is a pretty simple concept that you’ll see repeated in pretty much every defensive playbook that features the traditional 3 deep, 3 under coverage. Ordinarily I’d run this with the Mac blitzing and the Will dropping to the middle hole, but with this scheme’s calling for the Mac to play at 7 yards, I find it more practical to have the Will take the blitz. The dropping Rush has the SCF, Seam Curl Flat, drop to the weakside. In order to keep terminology consistent within our scheme, we call it an Area-2 Vertical-2 drop. In high school I never played in a scheme with real zone drops, only very tight and aggressive pattern read quarters. Once I went to college, we had actual zone drops, but labeled them Area-1 (Rather than Curl/Flat), Area-2 (Hook/Curl), Area-3 (middle hole). I like that system because it, in my mind, it gets the kids dropping towards receivers, rather arbitrary spots on the field. We tell someone with an Area-1 drop that their landmark is 8 yards deep and towards the top of the numbers initially, but as soon as they read 3 or 5 step they’re responsible for getting underneath the #1 receiver while hopefully leveraging anything short and underneath.

Anyways, the Mac backer takes the middle hole and the S/S drops down to get the SCF/A-2 V-2 drop vacated by the blitzing Sam. Corners are loose man to deep 1/3 drops and the FS takes the centerfield.

Important details to remember:

· The Nose has to continue his slant’s momentum outside, lest the QB break contain while avoiding the rush from his left.

· Flex needs to be sure to start laterally, rather than attacking upfield and trying to work to his gap.

· A fun change-up can have the Will creep up and show his blitz and the Flex goes after him.

Taking It Up A Notch: Sneaky Flexing Ninjas

This is a good run stunt and effective pass stunt for teams that don’t slide protect as much. The theory behind it is that the Nose will occupy the Center and Guard on his slant, while the Rush takes the Tackle upfield, thereby leaving Will and Mac free to blitz on either side of the guard. What I like about it is that the Flex can hopefully occupy the Guard (for at least a moment) in front of him by giving a hard upfield step before dropping to the hole, thereby freeing the Nose to get a 1v1 pass rush, something rare and exciting for him.

One of the problems with the design is that the Mac has to creep forward at least a few yards in order to have any chance at all of reaching the QB before the ball’s out. This makes him obvious that he’s doing something fishy, unless you’re doing it all the time, which brings up other issues. Since the scheme is predicated on execution, having an LB sugaring around and potentially being out of position is a big deal, especially when the run defense is dependent on that guy’s presence.

Edge Pressure: Not For The Weak At Heart

This one would be for good use against teams that run a lot of zone read. It’s essentially a scrape-exchange stunt on both sides of the defense, with the Sam and Will coming off the edge to play the handoff on the traditional zone read while Mac is protected by the DL and flowing to the QB, wherever the heck he is. The presence of the Flex gives you no seams against the run, but offers a good middle coverage should he read pass.

One of the problems is that the Mac is responsible for the weakside SCF/A-2 V-2. He needs to read pass quickly and get his keister out to his responsibility ASAP, but that isn’t always easy against spread teams. Best case scenario is he gets there in time for a breakup hit or maybe a pick on a great play, but the more than likely scenario is that he’s just too late. This means the corner will probably have to play tighter coverage than we’d like, but hey, there’s no perfect blitz, or everyone would do it.

Conclusions

I like this scheme, it interests me a whole lot and I think I’ve shown that with creativity and the right personnel, it can be a confusing and complicated defense to dissect. I don’t know that I’ll be incorporating much of it into what I do in the future, but if I ever have a chance to maybe work an ILB at DL and develop a kid for the spot, maybe. Who knows what the future holds.

The 4-3 'Flex' Defense: The Basics As I Know Them

Kinda The Norm, But Not Really...

My former HS head coach was a very practical, pragmatic guy and a pretty damn good coach. I love the guy, but he wasn't for everyone. As I've said before, his defense was very execution and technique oriented, without a ton of frills and doo-dads. I called the same basic call "Eagle, 87" for at least 90% of my defensive plays. We played the hell out of that Under front, Quarters coverage, with great results at times. When he left to become the header at the local CC, he found himself in the interesting situation that he was inheriting a DC who was very good, but ran a scheme that was different from his. Recognizing that this was an opportunity where he needed to embrace the issue, he kept the DC and is the head coach slash DB coach. Theirs is a funny relationship: the DC has control over most things, but the HC still gets to pull the HC card when he feels something is unsound. They make it work and have routinely fielded a very exceptional defense that's unique and personnel flexible, in my mind.

Alignments And Responsibilities

Their "Down 3" align in fairly typical alignments for typical 4-3 players of their positions. Their Rush End is outside shade the OT to the weakside, the Nose goes to inside shade of the OG to the weakside, and the End lines up outside shade the OT to the strong side. The interesting player is their "Flex" spot, who can really do a lot of things for them. Some years he's a souped-up linebacker and hits his fit, usually outside shade of the OG, on a roll. Others, he's a true-blue defensive lineman and is just playing out of a two-point stance slightly off the ball. They fit the spot to the player and his ability, which I absolutely agree with philosophically. This last season and the coming season their Flex has been a 5'11 235lb MONSTER of an athletic specimen from a local team. He plays it both ways because he can.

Their linebackers are an interesting mix of body types and skill sets. Generally their Sam is a strong-safety type because they see lots and lots of 20 personnel offenses, so they usually elect to go with a strong, athletic runner over most teams prototypical Strong Outside Linebackers. Their Will plays with his heels at 4.5 to 5 yards, responsible for B gap weak, and reads the guard in front of him for his fit. He's your usual LB without any terribly restrictive needs other than the ability to take on an Iso from a FB in B gap. The Mac backer is the other fun player in their scheme, in my mind. He lines up at 7 yards deep and is expected to be playing down hill with a full head of steam on any kind of run play. Moreover, he's supposed to be a big, strong, physical kid who can run down plays. Their ideal is a guy in the 230+ range with at least 4.8 speed.

Because of their over front alignment (-1 NT, +3 Flex), the Mac backer is, in theory, not to be touched by an offensive blocker. The 3 tech flex protects him to the strong side, preventing teams from running isos directly at him, unless it's in A gap, where he will be expected to spank it and spank it hard. Likewise, anything run away from him will have a hard time getting to him thanks to the Will and Nose's presence. The Mac is supposed to make lots, and lots, and lots of tackles and hopefully bring the party when he does.

Secondary-wise, they run cover 3, cover 2, and quarters out of a fairly traditional 2-high coverage. Coach doesn't believe in doing a ton of different things, he'd rather be damn good at a few things and do those things anywhere and against anyone.

Why I Like It...

Being a coach in a 3-4 scheme, with the right personnel I could easily see us doing something very similar to it. In fact, the reason I even know what I know of the scheme is because I was close to installing a package with it this season. We had a linebacker that had spent the last two years as our 3 tech in the old scheme before moving the Mike this season. I thought it was a natural fit for us and would fit easily into our adjustments, but didn't feel comfortable pulling the trigger on the installation. I didn't feel it was unique enough from our 4-man front we stem to in order to warrant taking practice time to put it in. This isn't to say that it'll never happen or I don't actually think it's very useful, I just didn't feel good about it given what we were already dealing with.

It's flexible to your year-in, year-out personnel changes that you will deal with at the high school level, which is attractive to me. A very popular poster from Coachhuey is quoted as saying, "Play defense, not defenses" and I think this scheme allows you to play defense with different personnel without changing defenses, if that's clear. Some years you'll have a bumper crop of linebackers, in which case you can run this with a linebacker body at the Flex. Others, you'll have an influx of big boys and you can play a heavy at the Flex spot. You can change what you emphasize without changing what you practice and what you do.

If you're running with 3-4 type personnel, you can do a lot more blitzing and slanting and attacking with your front. If you're running 4-3 personnel, you can rely a lot more on execution and simplicity. You can line up in it from 3-3-5 personnel, 4-2-5 personnel, whatever. It's a very, very flexible scheme in my opinion and I think that contributes a great deal to anyone's defensive repertoire.

I plan on doing a write up in the next day or two on a few possible stunts and coverage combos I'd run, if it were my baby.

Why We Disguise

All This Disguising Is A Waste, Coach...

Barring specific gameplan alignments and/or adjustments, our secondary last season always had the goal of showing a 4-across alignment as often as possible, even though we ran cover 3 more than anything else. Our goal was corners at 7-8 yards and safeties at 8-9, with the attempt to show the same look every play.

One of our offensive guys who knows a lot of football asked me why we do it, since we end up rolling/creeping the safeties most of the time pre-snap to get to our alignments. His argument was that there was no point, since the offense will adjust within a quarter or two and then we might as well line up in our post-creep positions. Furthermore, he thought that by week 2 there would be no more secrets about our scheme and thought that we were wasting a lot of time working on things that weren't going to be a factor for most of the season.

To an extent, I agreed with him, although I differed on reasons at times. One of the reasons that I thought he was right was that it was wasted effort for most've the teams we played. We played a DW-esque pistol offense, triple option, 2 spread, 1 fly, 1 spin/DW, 2 pro-style, and 1 grab bag POS offense. Of those teams, only 3 had QBs where disguising was even relevant. The others just didn't have the knowledge or training to where it mattered if they knew what we were running or not. Hell, one of them threw a pick to one of our OLBs who literally moved four steps from his pre-snap alignment. He also had a point in that, by creeping, we get into the guessing game stuff with the offense where they dummy a cadence, check with the sideline, and then audible. But, we only played two offenses this year who even had the capability of making that adjustment.

So What You're Trying To Say Is...

I may seem like I'm arguing for his points or counter to the useful-ness of disguising and all the work that we put into making our scheme work with that goal, especially with regards to the idea that we only face a few offenses and QBs where it matters. But the big thing to point out is this: of those few offenses I'm talking about, the road to the league championship depends on beating two of them. Once we go down that road, then we're in the playoffs and playing better than average teams with better than average offenses and QBs. And once we're in that mode, disguising coverages will be important. No, not even important, CRUCIAL.

Playoffs around here are largely dominated by either spread teams or teams with somewhat more 'typical' offenses with QBs who are a cut above the type they typically get. For a team looking to get to a place where they are routinely in playoffs and going more than just one and done once they get there, such as we would like to be, the ability to disguise, manipulate, and confuse is crucial. Going back to my idea of simplicity vs complexity, until we get the athletes where we can declare "We're going to run cover 4, do something about it", we will need to disguise our coverage and creep and give false keys to the offense to lure QBs into missed passes and hopefully INTs.

I try to do my best to make decisions outside of the immediacy of NOW, at least regarding football stuff. I want to do things that are hard now, but are necessary to get to the next level because we cannot resign ourselves to any kind of short-sighted approach that doesn't take into account where we want to go as a program.

Next Year

We're going to keep a lot of our scheme the same, but with some small differences. For one, we're not going to play much traditional cover 3. We'll do a lot of 1/4, 1/4, 1/2, a lot of cover 2 and cover 4, some man to man, but our cover 3 will be mostly limited to the 3 deep 3 under 'fire zone' coverage that everyone does.

One new aspect that we're going to incorporate is that our DB coach is now going to be responsible for signalling to the DBs what pre-snap shell he wants them to show. Regardless of what the actual coverage is, our guys will line up in either 4-across, 2-high, or 1-high before moving to their actual alignments, or staying if the shell matches the coverage. It'll take a bit of work in the spring, but once that's taken care of it gives us more complexity (!) with a simple concept/application (!!).

Teaching Formations

There’s very little in football that’s original anymore. Half of the innovation that we see is mostly just old stuff packaged in new ways or extra-ordinary physical specimens doing things that most of us can’t. Most of what I learn these days is just stuff that’s been around and hasn’t been known to me, rather than anything terribly unique or special. I suppose that’s kind of a massive understatement, but we’ll just ignore my linguistic talents.

Something that I was introduced to in the last year was TCU’s concept of formation recognition that they install with their boys. To quote Gary Patterson, HC and former DC of the Frogs, “We don’t worry about formations any more. When you divide the formation down the middle, to each side there are only three formations the offense can give the secondary.” It didn’t take long for the logic of Patterson’s statement to hit me and make me reconsider how I’ve always done formations. I’d say most defensive coaches have a system for naming formations that’s some combination of arbitrary, logical, and unique. Me, I’ve more or less stuck with my system we used in college, which varied from such logical formation names like Pro and Trips to arbitrary terms like Bombers and Lucky. In our defensive terminology, there were approximately 40 different terms you needed to learn in order to accurately describe the entirety of offensive formations. With Patterson’s system, there’s about 6, plus backfields, which makes maybe twelve or so.

How It Works

There are six combinations you need to think about: Tight end-flanker, split end-slot, nub tight end, single split end, tight end-slot-flanker, split end-slot-flanker. Typical 21 personnel (2 back, 1 tight end, 2 receivers) formations boil down to these options: TE-FL with a single SE, nub TE with SE-Slot, and SE-Slot with Single SE. Naming these formation halves (because you gotta name them SOMETHING at the end of the day) went like this for me:

o “Pro”: Tight End-Flanker

o “Twins”: Split End-Slot

o “Nub”: Solo TE

o “Single”: Solo SE

o “Trey”: TE-Slot-Flanker

o “Trips”: SE-Slot-Flanker

So, as the offense breaks the huddle, our two safeties (we’re a 2-high defense) recognize their receiving threats in front of them and call out the corresponding term to themselves, the corners, and OLBs (we’re a 3-4 so about 90% of our adjusting happens with safeties and OLBs). Hypothetically as you’re installing and teaching the defense, you teach your guys how to line up to each possibility and then it’s done. The hope is that in the span of maybe two days you teach your guys how to line up to pretty much everything they’re going to see and then you’re done with it, move on to more pressing matters.

This isn’t rocket science by any means and I don’t claim to have any special wisdom to it, but it is VERY good info and a superb approach to packaging and relating to formations in a way that is cheap, efficient, and flexible. Put the work in regarding your coverages and how you want to relate to the formation components and you’ll eventually have a very easy to teach, very package-able scheme that really works for your players and your coaches.

Simplicity Vs Detail

Something that’s been on my mind a lot recently has been the idea of keeping things simple vs allowing complexity. Part of it is the conflict between my two defensive backgrounds: in high school I played in an Under Front 4-3 that was 100% quarters, 100% of the time, whereas in college I played in the 4-3 version of the TCU 4-2-5 (No 3-spoke secondary, but A LOT of conceptual carryover) which was a “scheme for smart kids” as our DC phrased it. There’s something to be said for both approaches, which is what I want to examine in this post.

Simplicity

A common phrase you’ll hear around sports and football in particular is that “You can’t teach speed”. Another that I’ve heard and used is “Luck follows speed”. Either way, when playing defense the importance of playing fast, in addition to being fast, cannot be underestimated. Some of the best collegiate defenses over the last few decades have been predicated on speed and the ability to run to the football, thereby constricting the playing field and making breakaway plays occur less frequently. One of the best examples of a speed defense wrecking absolute havoc on an offense would be Miami’s woodshed beating of Nebraska in the 2002 Rose Bowl. Miami’s defense, loaded with future first rounders and oozing speed, athleticism and quickness, swarmed all over Nebraska’s I-Option.

The reason I mention all this is that one of the best ways to get your boys to play fast (which is almost as good as BEING fast) is to simplify and remove thought. The more thought that happens, the slower the boys will play and the worse your defense will perform. When all 11 guys KNOW their assignment, KNOW what they’re supposed to be doing, and aren’t processing, but are just reacting, you’re doing something right. The idea is to have kids entering a zen-like state of play where conscious thought doesn’t exist anymore. For my high school team, we had 1 front, 1 coverage, and very few adjustments. I learned almost everything I would need to know as a middle backer by the end of my sophomore year. By the time I was a senior, I was helping our HC with the gameplan.

By simplifying your scheme, you allow for this kind of automatic play which should minimize ‘busts’ in coverage, incorrect run fit reads, and mis-alignments. You’ll have an easier time identifying your problems because the number of things that can go wrong are significantly less.

The main problem I have with this approach is simple: when you’re good, it’s good and when you’re bad, it’s bad. I don’t mean to suggest that less talented teams simply MUST have more complexity to their schemes, but I do think that if you’re less talented you will have problems if you take the simplicity route. When you have 5 future college athletes on the same D, such as my senior season, you’ll do special things against most teams.

Complexity

In college I played in a scheme that was darn near impossible for freshman to start in at some positions because you just couldn’t learn everything you needed to learn. Obviously, you have this kind of luxury at the collegiate level because you are drawing from 4 classes of athletes, whereas in high school you really only have juniors and seniors.

At heart I’m a pretty simple guy and that generally gets reflected in most aspects of my life. If I could get away with it, I’d wear a white collared shirt and blue jeans with sandals every day. I’d eat cereal, sandwich, and steak & veggies for my 3 meals a day if I didn’t think I’d end up looking like Mark Mangino. Any girl I’ve dated can tell you that it’s a great thing for them because I only spend money on food, gas, and them.

Football-wise, I’m not much different. I want a defense that protects it’s LBs, stops the run, forces turnovers, and suffocates the offenses. I don’t really care in what form that comes in, I just want good defense. Offensively, I wish I could coach a flexbone or split back veer offense. Run the same basic stuff over and over and over and have the defense be wrong and wrong and wrong. Don’t get so complicated that you have nothing to hang your hat on, nothing vanilla to fall back to.

Our 4-3 Under with Quarters coverage lasted a long, long time under my HC before he left to take another job and stayed around under our former HC. Our former HC was over matched for the position and lacked long-term goals. Our athlete development suffered, the talent well dried up, and the scheme suffered. In order to compensate, the defense had to add complexity. In adding complexity, the scheme became more compromised. Eventually our former HC decided to burn it down and start over, enter me.

The irony of the situation is that I’m now running a fairly complex 3-4 defense for my alma mater. We were left trying to compensate for our sub-par athletes with a scheme that was predicated on simplicity, so we embraced the horror. Our guys had to learn not one, but TWO coverages. They had to learn to slant AND to play shades. They had to learn a 3-man front, a four-man front, and a bear front. They had to make their own adjustments on the field based off of film study and intuition. They had to learn SIX blitzes after having three for most of their career.

The dangers of complexity are several. One, mis-alignments are bound to happen and will frequently happen in moments of stress, confusion, or importance. It’s been my experience that those moments usually are some kind of horrible combination of the three. Two, limited practice time means limited experience at each new thing. Practicing our 3-man front, four-man front, bear front, different coverages, blitzes, and whatever else might come up over the course of our weekly practice is almost impossible. A lot of times we’d go into a game only having seen or repped certain things once, if at all. I frequently had to tell my guys “We knew they ran it, but we just didn’t have time to practice it all”. Three, THINKING. I dunno about you, but just hearing what my guys are thinking on a day to day, moment to moment basis is frightening. Considering that, the idea of them thinking about what they’re doing on the field is just horrifying.

The benefits? We were unpredictable, adaptable, flexible, and, at times, dominant. We finished the season with the second best defense in the league, fifth best defense in the area (3 counties), and best season in at least 4 years. Our guys had fun running a defense that was very similar to what they would watch on Saturday and thought they could see on Sundays. The troubles of complexity and ensuing stress created a lot of issues, but it never got boring for our guys when they were constantly being challenged to do something different than the play before and the one before that. At one point in a game this year we ran a different front, stunt, and coverage on 3 consecutive plays, something unheard of in prior seasons. For us, considering where our program is at and where we want it to be going, we wanted to run a defense the kids found fun and exciting, which this was.

Where I Stand

If I had my druthers, I’d run my defense very similarly to how TCU runs their 4-2-5 with a 3-spoke secondary that is divorced from the front 6. But, at this point in my career I’m married to the 3-4 scheme that I’ve created. So, I’m torn between my own natural desire for simplicity and the complexity that I’ve created for myself. I love my 3-4 that I’ve created, but it is learning intensive and there are some instances where we’re just hoping everything goes well. I love simple defense, but I worry over what would happen when we face a team who’s categorically better than us or has us figured out. Right now, I’m a complexity guy, but I’m looking to get back to what makes me feel comfortable, which is simplicity and execution.