Showing posts with label Robber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robber. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2011

Slot Coverage Variations


After covering front matching previously, we can now explore options available to handle slot sets that are separated from the box. Typically, this is best understood from a 2-back look with a single receiver on the other side of the slot (allowing a variety of bracket looks and the linebackers matching back flow). The passing strength is immediately identified (slot) and the safety, corner, and overhang player can communicate how they would handle the 2-man routes out of this. These methods can also be applied independently to each side (split-field) when facing 1-back, as well.
 
With two receivers split from the formation (slot) you end up with a 3-on-2 advantage for the defense. As we covered before, there is a variety of ways to handle this. In attempt to tackle two things at once, we’ll cover these concepts using Saban-speak (out of Nick Saban’s playbooks). It should be noted that Saban’s “system” is extremely concise, flexible, and modular (in its application). What comes with those benefits is a dictionary full of terminology to communicate every conceivable action and response on the field. We’ll use his method as a way to keep a central thematic framework, but these concepts are relative to what everyone else does (so don’t get hung up on the verbiage).
FIST


The first is basic Cover 3 Sky (“Fist”) with what amounts to be the old “country cover 3”. Fist brings the overhang player down outside of #2 receiver serving as primary force. This defender will drop into the seam and not carry any route by #2 deeper than 12 yards and jump the first receiver to the flat. The corner would play all of #1 receiver vertical (or #2) out and up. The free safety would play middle of the field to the #2 receiver. Because these two receivers are handled by these three players, additional receivers (releasing back) would be immediately jumped by the next linebacker inside (Will) unless #1 or #2 released inside.
 
Examples of matching in Fist




     
Exceptions
  • Vs 1 back – the FS will check to Rip/Liz rules (match left/right away side) and man #1 and #2.
  • Vs Wide slot split (horizontal stretch) – with a great deal of space underneath to cover, a “TOKYO” (smash rule) call can be made to have the corner take all short routes and have the overhang defender carry a vertical stem.
 
Sky (Fist) remains an all-purpose coverage solution to slot, but can face limitations with quick 2-man games against the overhang player.



 
COVER R - ROBBER




We’ve covered robber coverage before and this version would be just like Virginia Tech plays it. This is best against a tight #2 with the FS dropping into the seam and the overhang player immediately expanding to the curl. This isn’t much different than TCU’s ‘2 Read’ (covered before). The FS acts as the robber, reading #2-to-#1, playing the front hook with a #2-to-QB-to-Alley fit progression.
 
The corner immediately drops to the deep third with the overhang defender jumping first receiver to the flat. With the corner committing to the deep half, any vertical route by #2 will be bracketed inside-out by the FS and corner.
examples of matching in robber




    
Robber coverage remains arguably one of the best run down solutions, especially to the field.  1-back looks can be handled by robber, but do not provide the leverage security that 2-back does.
 
 

COVER 2 - CORA


This is traditional cover 2 cloud with the FS over the top in deep half coverage and defenders in the curl and flat. The overhang player will align inside #2 and the corner outside of #1.  With two outside underneath zone defenders on top of two split receivers, you have the ability to aggressively attack the quick game.  With any slot coverage, you are only as good as your answer to the smash route.  With true ‘Cora’, the force corner will sink in the flat (playing “TOKYO”) and the overhang will carry #2 vertical.

 
examples of matching in Cover 2  

 
Cover 2 is great against quick game and perimeter run game.  How a defense matches vertical routes in Cover 2 will typically be its weak spot.
 
 
One adjustment to this Cover 2 look is known as “Leach”. It is exactly the same with the exception of the overhang defender is man-to-man #2 (slot/curl). This would afford the (usually exceptional) slot receiver to be double-covered underneath or deep with the surrounding zone defenders.
 

COVER 4 - THUMBS




Thumbs is a 3-on-2 quarters principle that can morph itself into swipe bracket when only one receiver is vertical. The FS will double #1 or #2 from inside out with the corner playing deep third outside.  The overhang player is the sole underneath defender and will take first shallow out / in receiver between #1 & #2.
examples of matching in thumbs 

    



Quarters is great against vertical game and play-action, but the lack of underneath support can cause perimeter leverage issues the offense can exploit.
   

COVER 5 – COUGAR / IOWA
Adding this as a final thought, Cover 5 is the man-under with deep half help. The FS will rob everything inside with the ability to double either receiver deep.  I didn’t provide any illustrations as it is pretty self-explanatory and is the ideal passing coverage.  The FS will rob everything from the inside.  Because the corner (your best cover guy) will be man-to-man on #1 outside wide “on an island”, you will typically have a 2-on-1 cone/bracket on #2 between the deep safety and the overhang player.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

TCU "2 Read": Adaptation To The Spread (3x1)

The robber rules of “2 Read” are rather simple and the biggest part understanding TCU defensive scheme is just coming to grips and accepting the split-formation concept they utilize.
Using the same “2 Read” technique rules we already covered, we plainly go over adding another receiver (3) to the read side.
To the trips side, the free safety and corner will be playing straight drop back and essentially end up in a split field ¼ match. The primary adjustment becomes the strong safety. He will be outside of the #2 receiver. He is going to play standard “blue” coverage rules, staying on #2 to prevent three verticals. He will still “Swing deep to 3” but he is not looking to jump the flats as he was versus 2 receivers.

In the worst case scenario, “all verticals”, the corner will zone turn to bail and split the difference of #1 and #2 receivers. The free safety will backpedal weave leverage of the vertical #3 receiver. This is the ‘jailbreak’ option versus this coverage, if three verticals aren’t run to the trips side, the pattern distribution can easily be accounted for in the rules.

So if #2 receiver or #3 receiver is not vertical, now we're back to the manageable 2 receiver threat. If #3 runs a shallow out (for example) the free safety is no longer threatened in the middle of the field, so he will settle and look to rob any route by #2. The corner will have the post by #1 all day, so the free safety is free to look of #1.
Versus a standard trips flood (#3 shallow out, #2 sail, #1 is in), the corner would stick with his communication rules, call the “IN” by #1 and gain depth over the receivers. With the “IN” call, the strong safety will hang (on the curl) and break late on the out of #2.

This was just an overview of the split-formation coverage of TCU out of their robber package. Feel free to check out the RUNCODHIT articles on their usual 2x2 coverage (Blue/ Cover 5) that we’ll see a lot of in their push for National prominence this season.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

TCU "2 Read": Adaptation To The Spread (2x2)

While exploring the defensive adaptations to offensive trends towards "the spread" (Va Tech in the 90s / Saban Cover 3 adjustments ), and not intending to repeat any of the fantastic coverage of TCU defensive tenets done at Run COD Hit, it would behoove us to at least go over how TCU would confront 2x2 / 3x1 formations out of their base split-field coverage, '2 read'.

TCU's 42 defense is based out of Cover 2 "Read", which is really just a robber + quarters read out of a MOFC look. TCU will typically not play ‘2 Read’ against any 1-back look (preferring Blue or Cover 5), so what we are presenting is just a ‘worse-case’ scenario against this coverage.

Since they are splitting the formation in half, they are just reducing the concept down to the 1, 2, or 3 receiver matching. Just like the Rip/Liz adjustment covered before, when facing a balanced 2x2 formation, the secondary would have to declare which side they are going to play as the 'read side' (where the FS will be robbing). If '2 Read' is called, versus a 2x1 formation, the FS would naturally rob the receiving strength (2 receiver side). With 2x2, you would have to declare "reading left" to communicate the 'read side' and the 'away side', alerting the away safety on how he will handle #2. To the 'read side', this is how zone distribution would essentially play out in a nutshell.

"2 Read" is the base coverage TCU bases out of (it really is just robber). They may not even run this coverage much after installation, but it remains the elementary foundation for all subsequent variations regularly employed.

To get down to brass tacks, the rules are relatively simple and outlined below:

Since they are splitting the formation in half, they are just reducing the concept down to the 1, 2, or 3 receiver matching. Just like the Rip/Liz adjustment covered before, when facing a balanced 2x2 formation, the secondary would have to declare which side they are going to play as the 'read side' (where the FS will be robbing). If '2 Read' is called, versus a 2x1 formation, the FS would naturally rob the receiving strength (2 receiver side). With 2x2, you would have to declare "reading left" to communicate the 'read side' and the 'away side', alerting the away safety on how he will handle #2. To the 'read side', this is how zone distribution would essentially play out in a nutshell.

"2 Read" is the base coverage TCU bases out of (it really is just robber). They may not even run this coverage much after installation, but it remains the elementary foundation for all subsequent variations regularly employed.

To get down to brass tacks, the rules are relatively simple and outlined below:

Read Left

  • Read side Corner- 1x7 match deep vertical threat
  • Strong (read) Safety - 5x1 force on run / pass read: open to flat "swing deep to 3"
  • Free Safety- alley fit on run / pass use 'Robber rule' - vertical by #2 / no vertical by 2, rob curl-to-post of #1
  • Strong Backer -match #2 - #3
  • Weak Backer - match #2 weak vertical
  • Weak (away) Safety -run force / pass curl-flat "swing deep to 2"
  • Away side Corner-deep 1/2 (over post of #1)

Read Side Communication

Corner is 1x7 in press bail shuffle with a man-clue of the #1 receiver. Corners always 1x7 unless #1 receiver is outside of numbers (they never cross the numbers in robber). Corners always play inside leverage, always protecting the post (because you don’t know if you’re going to get help from the FS). The post-snap cushion is not enforced, and in fact, Patterson wants receivers to break the defender’s cushion so he’ll only have to play one side now. If there is only one receiver split, the corner will man-turn into the route. If there is more than one receiver split, he will zone-turn into the route. Because this is a robber concept, the corners are taught to make the post a priority and, if necessary, align as much as 4 yards inside the receiver to protect the middle of the defense. With these rules, Patterson essentially invites offenses to run the post-corner because he feels he can take everything else away and force this difficult throw. To get the most out of this coverage, a pattern-match communication system is utilized to hasten how the 3 key defenders respond. The corner will communicate pattern response to his area players (FS & read side safety). Of the read side calls he will make (and responses) are:

CHINA

If #1 is short/hitch the corner makes a “China” call. This flags man responsibility for the Strong (read) Safety. The read side safety will run under (to) #1 because the corner is sinking (on corner route) to match the first outside short threat (flat). A short #1 with a detached #2 receiver typically is going to give you a “smash” (or China) concept, with #2 continuing to press vertical. With #1 shallow, the corner will declare “China” and immediately look to match #2 over the top (and outside). The “China” call also help identifies that there is no post threat from #1 and that #2 is the only other possible threat vertical, so the Free Safety will look to aggressively jump the route of #2.

OUT

If #1 receiver breaks out (he’s no longer vertical) the corner will continue to sink and look to match #2. The ‘out’ call alerts the Strong (read) Safety to look to rob #1 underneath at 10 yards out. Since this overhang safety is always aggressively expanding to the flat, he won’t be giving up much separation on #1, so the throw (to #1) would have to be shallow and near the sideline for a completion.

IN

If the #1 receiver is not shallow (‘china’) but breaks inside at a depth greater than 8 yards (‘dig’ / ‘curl’) , the corner will communicate an “IN” call . This alerts the read safety that there is a threat coming inside over the top (of his drop). The safety should look to become an outside-in player (he’s going to the flat right now, because he’s got a curl player dropping - the FS).

Strong (Read) Safety

The (overhang) Safety aligns 5 yards deep on #2 (removed). Versus a standard tight end or pro look, he would align 3 yards deep and 7 yards widen (discouraging being reached on perimeter action). On EMOL high-hat pass read the target depth for his drop will be 8-10 yards. He is going to remain shallow on his drop with the intent to expand to the flat as quickly because the FS will be dropping inside of him in the curl (if that is what is threatened).

Don't get hung up on semantics - the 'read' safety "swing(ing) deep to 3" is essentially the standard 'curl-to-flat' responsibility, but an emphasis on staying shallow and man-conscious. This methodology helps the defender be less dogmatic and be an aggressive matcher in coverage ( if a man runs through his zone – he's got him vertical ). The rationale behind teaching it this way is to encourage the safety to open up and get to the flat (with no landmarks).

Free Safety

The alignment of the free safety will be 8-10 yards deep over the read side guard. This allows him to gain a clear read on an uncovered linemen and an quick response path to the inside vertical threat of #2.

Once the offense breaks the huddle, the free safety will identify the backs, determine the read side and communicate to the other defensive backs, “check 2 – read right” (coverage and what side is being matched). The response of the free safety is just like robber, with the #2 receiver as his pass key:

  • #2 goes vertical, he matches all of #2 inside leverage.
  • #2 does anything but vertical, he robs the curl/post of #1.

This vertical-clue will handle all routes deeper than 8 yards. If #2 is out (and under 8 yards), the free safety is communicating “WHEEL” to the corner (see the curl-flat combo illustrated above). This is essentially telling the corner, “you have an outside route by #2 - so you have curl-post help (from FS)”. This works even if #2 isn’t going to wheel that out route, but it lets the corner know he can now back off of #1 because of the help available.

When #2 is no longer vertical (out / out-up), the free safety then reads the hips of the #1 receiver. If #1 sinks his hips (for a break) the free safety will drive at the receiver’s break and step in front of him (interception point).

If the #1 receiver doesn’t sink his hips, the free safety immediately turns into the middle of the field (away from the receiver) to rob the post.

Inside linebackers
TCU's rules split-coverage rules mean they never have to displace the 6 in the box. The stacked (inside) backers would always match 2-to-3 regardless of formation with the other (away from final 3) being the rat in the hole. So if you’re a 4-2, its all relative if you play this with a 3-3; the numbers are the same. These players doesn't have to be anywhere fast, in fact, the slower they are at reacting the better, because they should be thinking draw or screen (off pass-action) initially.

For read side linebacker, once pass shows he is to middle drop vertical to find/match the final 3 receiver. This player is looking to defend his run gap first, then take away the hot (throw). By slow-playing pass action, he always tries to make #3 go over the top of him, and from there it just becomes a "man-to-man" zone as in basketball (boxing out #3 deep).

For the away side linebacker, it is essentially the same as the read side linebacker, with the exception of matching #2 (away) vertically. Typically, this player is the (wider) bubble backer and against any 1-back look, TCU will be slanting the defensive line. This linebacker must replace the former middle-of-the-field safety in the hole. Rather than a ‘robot’ reaction away from the ‘final 3’ player, he would gain depth vertically on #2. If #2 pressed vertically after 8 yards, the away side linebacker would have to carry him man-to-man regardless if he makes a break deep in his route. It isn’t pretty, but that is the answer for 1 back routes.

Weak (Away) Safety
On pass read, this player will play like a standard curl-to-flat player in cover 3. He has no immediate curl help and will work in tandem with the corner. He does not carry #2 deeper than 8 yards and does not reroute. He should never cross the hash when responding to an inside route, as the away side linebacker will be working to that area.

This is actually a great addition to standard robber coverage and the adjustment (with split-field) principle helps prepare your players for the ‘breakable’ scenarios. In the next (soon) installment, we will go over the very basic trips (3x1) adaptation using this same coverage.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Virginia Tech Robber

Without an original thought in my head, I am going to piggy-back on a brilliant article recently authored by coaches Chris Brown ( http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/deconstructing-virginia-tech-defense.html ) and Chris Vasseur analyzing the evolution of the Va Tech Hokie 42 from an 8-man Robber, to their current, 7-man front quarters look. The article can be read here;

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Deconstructing-How-the-Hokie-D-becomes-deadlier?urn=ncaaf,178348



Both contributors are great minds of the game and Coach Vass has run the 44 "G" with Hokie "Tuff" front (bear) and Robber concepts for years.

As an aside to that piece, I am offering this treatise on Robber that may illustrate the evolution of the game from the days of our youth into what we have today. Fans of 'defensive football' will no doubt have an affinity for the violence associated with the likes of Buddy Ryan's 46 defense and other unrelenting, aggressively swarming dominant defenses of the 80s.

What does that have to do with the Robber? Well, sports fans, quite a bit. When we reminisce of these grand days of Hollywood football, we often do not account for WHY certain schemes were successful when they were, and are can be puzzled at why we don't see these schemes much any more or why they aren't as dominant as they once were.

What you'll find with the Robber and 46 is though their concepts are different from one another, the reason behind their success isn't. The ability to stuff the box with more defenders than could be blocked means someone is coming free (because you ran out of people to account for all those defenders). What broke (or accelerated defensive Darwinism) Robber, also broke the 46.

Offenses of the era were hamstrung by painting themselves into a (formation) corner by relying on 2 back, tight end formations in an effort to bring more numbers to the point of attack than the defense had. Rather than fight fire with fire (keep adding additional bodies to block), the solution was to stress the defensive front (and coverage) by REMOVING numbers from the box (think of the adage, "you've got to spend money to make money"). By displacing one of the two backs outside the box, the offense gained a horizontal stretch on the defense. This had the ability to stress coverage and run-support to a breaking point. More and more, offenses began finding strength in going on the attack of these explosive defenses (Seifert-era 49ers were notorious for their exploitation of using William Floyd & Ricky Watters in these coverage-stressing roles).

The following is an illustration of Va Tech Robber during the infancy of its dominance, the 1998 season. With players like Keion Carpenter, Pierson Prioleau, Loren Johnson, and Corey Moore, the Hokies were just starting to develop a stride of aggressive defensive players that they would carry through the new millenium.


These shots are against a young Syracuse Donovan McNabb. The Orangmen eventually won this game, which many feel Syracuse squeaked by based on the ineptness of Tech's offense, coordinated by Rickey Bustle (now HC at ULL), and not the result of defense. These shots best capture what the "robber" was made for, and also show what caused it to evolve.


The first graphic beautifully captures the numbers matchup of the formation du jour of the era, 2-back pro. With just a single receiver split on one side of the formation (flanker I), the corners could essentially lock down any 5-7 step vertical throw, allowing the FS to "rob" and put the defense at a +1 advantage in the run game (8 offensive players - 8 box defenders + 1 FS).







In the Va Tech Robber, the Corners align in typical Cover 3 leverage, looking to shuffle into the 3 step and bail into 5 step game. They bail to take away deep 1/2 vertical throws, knowing they have help on pass inside with the deep hole safety.
he key for the FS is the TE, if he releases vertically and gets depth on the underneath linebackers, he is free to take the TE man-to-man in a speed matchup he is sure to win. If the TE stays in for protection, or releases shallow, underneath the linebackers, the FS is free to "rob" any inside breaking route from either of the single receivers (typically this would come from the backside X). The read is clear and distinct, allowing the FS to confidently play this technique against any 2-back offense with a TE.
You'll note the depth of the FS in these pictures, playing at almost LB depth around 8 yards. A reach, arc release, or down block from the TE initiates a run read for the FS, allowing him to aggressively fit the alley support as an unblockable defender in the run. Typically, in the 80s and 90s, that is essentially all offenses did, anyway (run/pass out of 2-back sets). The FS in robber is flat-footed and looking to move forward at the snap.
In this first example, we find the Orangemen in a 2-back pro-formation, running a play-action pass at the Hokies. Notice the FS's shoulders turning immediately to the #1 receiver as McNabb's shoulders square up and declare that this was not a run.





At the snap, the FS reads the high-hat pass read, and follows McNabb's shoulders to the now vertical X receiver running a post. With the corner in phase over the top of the receiver, the FS "robs" this route from the inside-and-underneath and finishes the play with a pass break-up.




The "robber" allowed the Hokies to essentially double-cover a single receiver, while at the same time, had it been a run, get an additional defender in to stop the run. With only 3 possible immediate vertical threats, the FS was able to quickly check off to the most dangerous man and aggressively play ball.



This game may serve as an illustration of the constant cat-and-mouse game offenses and defenses play with formations vs coverage, as you will see Syracuse's option attack test and experiment how they could best match up against one of the best 8-man fronts of the era. Syracuse uses 2 tight ends, 2-backs, and at times 3-backs, to attempt to stymie the onslaught of Tech's aggressive front, but as this next example shows, it is addition by subtraction that wins the day for the offense.


The next play here shows a completely different look. No longer are the Orangemen presenting 3 vertical threats, but now they have 4 vertical threats spaced horizontally, forcing the Hokies to account for these 4 over the 53 1/3 yard width of the field.





Now the chess match begins.


What is the 'right' decision?



Do you cover/respect the vertical threat of these 4 receivers? To do so, means you can no longer support the 8 man box



Do you treat the gifted McNabb as a runner and stay in an 8 man front? To do so, means you can no longer support the 4 verticals with only 3 deep defenders



To stay in Robber, would put 2 receivers on 1 FS, making an easy read for the QB to find which one will be open.







The Hokies chose the conservative approach, minimizing their liabilities by matching the formation, checking to Cover 4, and fortunately, bottling the receivers allowed the defensive line time to finally sack McNabb..




If you remember the game, McNabb was a terror running on the perimeter out of these spread sets. That aggressive offensive concept has been all too familiar throughout the last decade of football (and one the Hokies, themselves, would employ with Michael Vick the next year).








For more 'study' of the old Hokie Robber, check out the game film at;


SIDEBAR