Coverage Strategy - Man, Ball, or Both

[StLRedbird]

4th's comment in the Davontae Harris thread got me thinking, and I didn't want to hijack that thread...

p.s. we may want to reassess pass cover strategy and techniques ... Davontae took too much heat on this board at times .. sometimes you have to let them play the man AND the ball ... opposing QBs know this about us, the good ones take full advantage .. this may be why we occasionally get lit up ... just saying .

Does anyone know who is driving this strategy in the coaching staff? We've been talking about it for years, which makes me suspect Spack is driving it. Hard to tell what Niekamp's thoughts on the matter are.

 

[DaveBird10]

I have the same questions on this. I get friends and family who complain every year at our cover strategy about our players. Imo that's more coaching but is a problem that I hope the team addresses.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[fourthandshort]

deleted

 

[fourthandshort]

deleted, always a mess when i try to post from my cell phone .. see below

 

[fourthandshort]

Great topic .. let me clarify one thing. Our pass defense strategy and technique works very well against mediocre pass offences amd QBs. So it works very well in those situations. It is when we play QBs who can put it on the dime consistently .. Sometimes it works ok, most times not .

 

[Total Red]

I'm guessing that our coverage strategy will not change. Brock Spack remains the HC and Cody Deti is still the D-secondary coach. Only the D-Coord, the middleman, has changed.

You can make a strong argument for turning and looking for the ball because it's so easy from up in the stands. We can see when the defender needs to turn and look. Down on the field it's more difficult. If the defender turns and looks back at the QB too soon he could lose contact with the receiver.

After our season ended last year I spent a lot of time watching FCS, FBS and NFL football and I was specifically watching the style of coverage. Lots of players on all levels were playing the receiver and not the ball. I understand the objections but I also know that we clearly aren't the only place that teaches don't look back coverage. In most cases it doesn't put us at a competitive disadvantage because other teams are doing it.

 

[fourthandshort]

TR.. I have a lot of respect for your football insights. For me, it is about 2 things.

First, finding some balance ... i suspect most teams have similar play the man approach in many situations. But then also allow corners to male more plays on the ball when they have their man guarded. I've seen too many well guarded receiver make catches that could have been picked or batted.

Second, it is also about attitude ... I am guessing our DBs feel like their hands are tied knowing they can't look for ball. I talked about this with a DB once ... who said they tare trained to always play the man and look to disrupt the catch based on receiver giving cues the ball is coming .... the good receivers know how to disguise this.the

I'll pull some stats when I get a chance to see how are pick rates compare to other top defenses. We typically do very well in pass completion % defense, but get very few picks. Trade off for sure, but seems like we need to strike a more aggressive balance.

 

[TIMMY]

You guys watch more of this than I do. I just watched USD game last night. Catch technique. Man then ball. The way the game has evolved with RPO's and back shoulder passes I like the way we play it.

 

[fourthandshort]

You guys watch more of this than I do. I just watched USD game last night. Catch technique. Man then ball. The way the game has evolved with RPO's and back shoulder passes I like the way we play it.

Timmy,

I wouldn't characterize it as "man then ball" .. more like "man then arms/hands" .. I believe they are told to not look for ball, but to time the pass breakup based on watching receivers hands/arms. This does enable us to maybe guard better, which si why I think our defense usually has lowest pass completion % .. until we face a team that can really throw it.

The USD game was bit of an outlier in that our front line played so well that day .. best performance all year. We chased and hit Streveler all game. He was under constant pressure .. 13 QBHs + 2 sacks, which I think led to the 6 pass breakups and 2 picks .. despite fact that he completed 39 of 63 passes. He was throwing on the run and getting hit way more than he was used to. No other team did that to Streveler in such a dominant way. if not for our best pass rush of year, I think Streveler could have gone 49 of 63 with a lot more yards .. and TDs.

So that game was perfectly executed defensive game plan all the way around. But we've done that before to dual threat QBs. Seems like we have way more trouble with pure pocket passers. Any time we can take a QB out of their comfort zone, the cover strategy will work well. And like I said before, it works very well against less prolific QBs .. I think because it allows us to guard better.

 

[RBFANTOO]

If you only play the man then the only way you can get an interception is if the ball miraculously bounces off the receiver. It is impossible to get an interception if you never look at the ball. However, if you play the ball and the man it is possible to have one of 2 good outcomes. The defender can either intercept the ball or knock it out/deflect it from the receiver's hands. As good as our defense has been it does seem like we don't have many interceptions.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

I'm guessing that our coverage strategy will not change. Brock Spack remains the HC and Cody Deti is still the D-secondary coach. Only the D-Coord, the middleman, has changed.

You can make a strong argument for turning and looking for the ball because it's so easy from up in the stands. We can see when the defender needs to turn and look. Down on the field it's more difficult. If the defender turns and looks back at the QB too soon he could lose contact with the receiver.

After our season ended last year I spent a lot of time watching FCS, FBS and NFL football and I was specifically watching the style of coverage. Lots of players on all levels were playing the receiver and not the ball. I understand the objections but I also know that we clearly aren't the only place that teaches don't look back coverage. In most cases it doesn't put us at a competitive disadvantage because other teams are doing it.

A good solution to play the man and also know when the the ball is coming is to place your hand on the receivers hip, when you feel them turn, you know the ball is coming. Takes practice and also has to be done delicately, to avoid the flag, but it’s the best way to avoid running into a receiver on an under thrown ball and drawing the flag.

 

[Redbirdwarrior]

A successful team incorporates both man and zone. A cover 2 over the top with man to man under is a pretty standard way to go. With ISU's linebackers being as athletic as they are, I can see them letting Linebackers cover backs and TE (hell, even some slot WR) in man while still keeping safety help in 2 zones over the top. All of this depends, of course, on line play. You don't often think about how coverage schemes are effected by line play, but the difference between a QB having 3 seconds to scan the field and 4.5 seconds is enough time to allow 3 WR to get beyond standard under M2M coverage and into a zone where they can outnumber defenders.

If we can get consistent pressure up the middle, I stay in Cover 1 most plays, but if not, Cover 2 if not cover 3 zone.

 

[Total Red]

A good solution to play the man and also know when the the ball is coming is to place your hand on the receivers hip, when you feel them turn, you know the ball is coming. Takes practice and also has to be done delicately, to avoid the flag, but it’s the best way to avoid running into a receiver on an under thrown ball and drawing the flag.

There are a lot of these suggestions for coverage and they all have merit - watch the receivers eyes, watch his hands to see if they're coming up, keep a hand on his hip etc. Of course WR's know this and they can send false signals. They can raise their hands and when the defender looks back they can make a move and get separation. The defender can't run as fast when he looks back so it's a risky move. The offensive player has to look back too but he has the advantage of knowing where the play is going and he often knows at what point the QB will throw the ball.

As I said before you can make good arguments either way of what should be done but if you look at what is being done I'm seeing more DC's and Secondary coaches teaching the no look back technique.


Look at this catch by Spencer Schnell with 40 seconds left in the video. The defender is stride for stride in classic no look coverage. You can say that the coverage failed and it did because Schnell made a fabulous catch but look at the tiny window Kolbe/Schnell had to work with. It took a perfect pass from Kolbe and an acrobatic sideline, foot down, catch by Schnell to make it happen. If the defense can force the offense to throw in tiny windows like that most D-coaches are saying they'll take it.

https://twitter.com/Redbird_Pro/status/1009806613434327041

 

[fourthandshort]

Hand on the hip is also great idea for when DB looks for ball .. you can feel if receiver is breaking off their currernt route. It can also ensure you don't accidentally interfere with receiver who might come back for underthrown or back shoulder type throws.

 

[fourthandshort]

TR .. saw your post after I posted mine. That was a great throw and an even better catch, made even better by getting his foot down on that very awkward angle .. planets aligned on that throw and catch .. I was in stand and was 98% sure review was going to rule him out of bounds ... incredible all the way around.

 

[TIMMY]

A successful team incorporates both man and zone. A cover 2 over the top with man to man under is a pretty standard way to go. With ISU's linebackers being as athletic as they are, I can see them letting Linebackers cover backs and TE (hell, even some slot WR) in man while still keeping safety help in 2 zones over the top. All of this depends, of course, on line play. You don't often think about how coverage schemes are effected by line play, but the difference between a QB having 3 seconds to scan the field and 4.5 seconds is enough time to allow 3 WR to get beyond standard under M2M coverage and into a zone where they can outnumber defenders.

If we can get consistent pressure up the middle, I stay in Cover 1 most plays, but if not, Cover 2 if not cover 3 zone.

Most of what they do is pattern read out of 2 high safeties. They play a lot of Cathy out of their cover 2. It's an In/Out principle. Soft cover 2 with safety and corner reading the release of number #2.
They also like to play Bronco to the away side. (Man on #1 Safety reads #2) with a read side cover 2 robber. Watch the away side safety creep up as he reads #2. Great coverage.

 

[Redbirdwarrior]

A successful team incorporates both man and zone. A cover 2 over the top with man to man under is a pretty standard way to go. With ISU's linebackers being as athletic as they are, I can see them letting Linebackers cover backs and TE (hell, even some slot WR) in man while still keeping safety help in 2 zones over the top. All of this depends, of course, on line play. You don't often think about how coverage schemes are effected by line play, but the difference between a QB having 3 seconds to scan the field and 4.5 seconds is enough time to allow 3 WR to get beyond standard under M2M coverage and into a zone where they can outnumber defenders.

If we can get consistent pressure up the middle, I stay in Cover 1 most plays, but if not, Cover 2 if not cover 3 zone.

Most of what they do is pattern read out of 2 high safeties. They play a lot of Cathy out of their cover 2. It's an In/Out principle. Soft cover 2 with safety and corner reading the release of number #2.
They also like to play Bronco to the away side. (Man on #1 Safety reads #2) with a read side cover 2 robber. Watch the away side safety creep up as he reads #2. Great coverage.

 

[redbird Recon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZxrvQ-Bxv4

Watch the clip at 1:35. Abnormal technique. Zone turns (toward QB/ball), loses a step. Receiver has him beat with the safety still on the hash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nT0G-c4oYQ&t=37s

Watch the clip at 1:05. This is the zone technique many on this board clamor for.

 

[TIMMY]

A successful team incorporates both man and zone. A cover 2 over the top with man to man under is a pretty standard way to go. With ISU's linebackers being as athletic as they are, I can see them letting Linebackers cover backs and TE (hell, even some slot WR) in man while still keeping safety help in 2 zones over the top. All of this depends, of course, on line play. You don't often think about how coverage schemes are effected by line play, but the difference between a QB having 3 seconds to scan the field and 4.5 seconds is enough time to allow 3 WR to get beyond standard under M2M coverage and into a zone where they can outnumber defenders.

If we can get consistent pressure up the middle, I stay in Cover 1 most plays, but if not, Cover 2 if not cover 3 zone.

Most of what they do is pattern read out of 2 high safeties. They play a lot of Cathy out of their cover 2. It's an In/Out principle. Soft cover 2 with safety and corner reading the release of number #2.
They also like to play Bronco to the away side. (Man on #1 Safety reads #2) with a read side cover 2 robber. Watch the away side safety creep up as he reads #2. Great coverage.

Sorry. Football.

 

[Total Red]

Sorry. Football.

Football terminology. Every subject matter has its own terminology and jargon. With some subjects like astrophysics the terminology can be difficult to grasp even when it's explained to you. I don't find that to be the case with football terminology. Most of it is based on concepts that can be easily demonstrated and understood. Sometimes it includes terms for things you already knew about as a fan but you didn't know what it was called.

When a player is traded to a new team or when a new coordinator is brought in even a seasoned player can be lost for few days until he learns the new terminology. And sometimes a light bulb will go on and the player will tell his coach, "now I know what you mean, we did the same thing with the last OC but he called it something different." That player will likely find out that the new OC is NOT interested in knowing what the last OC called something. :lol:


Because of all this some coaches will dumb down the jargon and speak in layman's terms when discussing football with the general public. Or not.