tOfficial 3-4 speculation thread

[The Lonely Stoner]

With the amazing depth we have a LB and the unproven guys we have at DT, what are the odds that this is the year we finally see some 3-4 action? What would your 2-deep look like?

DE: Calhoun/ Cooper
DT: Heath/ Clemons
DE: Rush/ Thomas
OLB: Davis/ S. Jones
MLB: T. Jones/ Bullough
MLB: Reschke/ Bullough
OLB: Harris/ Frey

If the coaches decide to do more 3-4 this year, I wouldn't put it past them to move Cooper and Thomas back just to get them on the field. Move Cooper to OLB and move Davis or Harris inside to replace Reschke, or just move LT back to MLB and let him make plays.

Also, it's important to note that we should keep this thread Rocky Free for his own sake.

[Clarett's Folly]

Odds of a move to the 3-4 are slim to none and that's exactly how we should want it. MSU has become a defensive juggernaut based largely on valuing simplicity and execution over decided schematic advantage, to borrow a phrase.
In other words; MSU has one base defense, 4-3 Stack Cover 4, and they can fit it to every formation and situation that they will encounter. Noted 3-4 team, Alabama, on the other hand, presents a handful of base defenses just as a starting point along with a number of variants and that is simply scratching the surface.
Bruce Lee once said he'd rather fight a man who has practiced a thousand strikes once than a man who has practiced one strike a thousand times. Michigan State is the latter. Their defensive concept is nothing complex or revolutionary and that allows them to be better than anyone else at it.

[JEK]

Odds of a move to the 3-4 are slim to none and that's exactly how we should want it. MSU has become a defensive juggernaut based largely on valuing simplicity and execution over decided schematic advantage, to borrow a phrase.  
In other words; MSU has one base defense, 4-3 Stack Cover 4, and they can fit it to every formation and situation that they will encounter. Noted 3-4 team, Alabama, on the other hand, presents a handful of base defenses just as a starting point along with a number of variants and that is simply scratching the surface.
Bruce Lee once said he'd rather fight a man who has practiced a thousand strikes once than a man who has practiced one strike a thousand times. Michigan State is the latter. Their defensive concept is nothing complex or revolutionary and that allows them to be better than anyone else at it.

If it's so simple, why can't other programs replicate it? Is it the type of athlete we're recruiting? Is it the way the coaches teach it to the players?

[Clarett's Folly]

Odds of a move to the 3-4 are slim to none and that's exactly how we should want it. MSU has become a defensive juggernaut based largely on valuing simplicity and execution over decided schematic advantage, to borrow a phrase.  
In other words; MSU has one base defense, 4-3 Stack Cover 4, and they can fit it to every formation and situation that they will encounter. Noted 3-4 team, Alabama, on the other hand, presents a handful of base defenses just as a starting point along with a number of variants and that is simply scratching the surface.
Bruce Lee once said he'd rather fight a man who has practiced a thousand strikes once than a man who has practiced one strike a thousand times. Michigan State is the latter. Their defensive concept is nothing complex or revolutionary and that allows them to be better than anyone else at it.

If it's so simple, why can't other programs replicate it? Is it the type of athlete we're recruiting? Is it the way the coaches teach it to the players?

Solid question. First, a little history, this defense is nothing new. Jimmy Johnson and his crew ran it at Oklahoma State in the mid 1980s, then at U of Miami, then with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1990s. Everywhere he went people doubted him and his defense. His players were too small (everyone moved up a level. Safeties became Linebackers, Linebackers became DEs, DEs became DTs, DTs became pulling Guards), the scheme was not extensive enough (Nickel, at that time, was just an extra Safety in place of your Sam LB, the calls didn't change), etc. Once JJ had proved the defense's worth at every stop the defense caught-on nationally and was all the rage. By the late 1990s I'd venture to say that every four out of five defenses were basing out of Cover 4. The scheme, however, started to lose favor when two things took place;

1. Other defensive coaches started to "improve" upon it. The genius of 4-3 Cov. 4 lies in the simplicity. It self adjusts and puts the most defenders at the point of attack. Therefore, it is the coach's job to rep rep rep. Once you start adding in a bunch of "supplemental" base calls (Cover 3, Man Free, Robber, Cover 3 weak, Cover 3 cloud) you've negated the advantage of having a simple base defense. It became watered-down.

2. The spread. Once offenses started to spread the field Cover 4 coaches were left with a dilemma. Walk a LB out of the box and surrender numerical superiority against the run game to maintain the 2 high safety concept or check to a one-high safety concept against spread formations and move away from Cover 4 altogether. Most coaches chose the second option. Narduzzi, to his credit, stuck with his guns and realized that even though his defense looked thin on paper and on film in the pre-snap look against spread offenses he was, in fact, still numerically superior in the box based upon assignment. It's a big part of reason wheel routes were so effective against us early in Dantonio's tenure and an even bigger part of the reason we've been #1 against the run the past few seasons. We refuse to be spread out.

A common trend you'll see with our coaching staff is that they don't scare easy. I had a friend send me a link to an MGoBlog article wondering how we can play press coverage on literally every down while Michigan's studly 5-star athletes cannot. My reply to my buddy is that they could but Hoke and Mattison would shit themselves the second they gave up back to back fades for 60 yards in total where Dantonio and Narduzzi would just press-up on the next down and dare them to do it again.

So to answer your question any coach and any team can run exactly this defense. The trick is they have to know it inside and out, resist the urge to start adding stuff that will water down the product, and they have to stick to the plan when adversity strikes. It sounds simple but this can be a very tall order for many coaching staffs.

[Heat Miser]

Solid question...

  

Really happy you're here & hope you stick around & post often.

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

[JEK]

Nice break down. I have to think the coaching staff's ability to identify the guys who can play in their system is a big factor as well. Guys like Dennard and Waynes who can press up on their man all game long. How many HS CBs are doing that? It's gotta be tough finding these kids for most programs.

[Clarett's Folly]

Solid question...

  

Really happy you're here & hope you stick around & post often.

Thanks, Heat. Much appreciated. I'll try to not wear out my welcome.

[Clarett's Folly]

Nice break down. I have to think the coaching staff's ability to identify the guys who can play in their system is a big factor as well. Guys like Dennard and Waynes who can press up on their man all game long. How many HS CBs are doing that? It's gotta be tough finding these kids for most programs.

There's no question. It absolutely comes down to players. Always.
MSU is currently enjoying quite the confluence of football quality. High quality talent evaluation, high quality player development, high quality Xs and Os. It's not hard to understand why Dantonio and company have a Rose Bowl trophy under their belt.

[Clarett's Folly]

Solid question...

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

This is just speculation and conjecture on my behalf but the wheel route is nothing new so I'm guessing Narduzzi had a plan for it from day one knowing full well that it was a known weakness of the coverage. Therefore it would make sense, to me, that improvement in that area was based more upon improvement in players knowing their scheme and communicating it to teammates than it was in making a schematic adjustment.

If you have a base defense against two deployed WRs you can defend the wheel route one of two ways; 1. The LB can pass-off the route to a deep DB. 2. The LB can cover the route all the way to the end-zone. In option #1 your LB is a run defender. In option #2 the LB is a pass defender. To defend this route everyone needs to be clear on their assignments and disciplined in the execution, you can't have an LB passing off a wheel route to a CB who isn't there. I'm guessing that Narduzzi just worked on getting everyone on the same page, disciplined the LB's eyes, and made sure that everyone was crystal clear about the importance of pre-snap communication.

[DWags]

Solid question...

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

This is just speculation and conjecture on my behalf but the wheel route is nothing new so I'm guessing Narduzzi had a plan for it from day one knowing full well that it was a known weakness of the coverage. Therefore it would make sense, to me, that improvement in that area was based more upon improvement in players knowing their scheme and communicating it to teammates than it was in making a schematic adjustment.

If you have a base defense against two deployed WRs you can defend the wheel route one of two ways; 1. The LB can pass-off the route to a deep DB. 2. The LB can cover the route all the way to the end-zone. In option #1 your LB is a run defender. In option #2 the LB is a pass defender. To defend this route everyone needs to be clear on their assignments and disciplined in the execution, you can't have an LB passing off a wheel route to a CB who isn't there. I'm guessing that Narduzzi just worked on getting everyone on the same page, disciplined the LB's eyes, and made sure that everyone was crystal clear about the importance of pre-snap communication.

In Narduzzi's 4-3 over "G", its press corners with a simple numbering system of receivers 1, 2, and 3. Our LB's can look in for a run, but it's not that hard to count 3 receivers from the outside in. Any "wheel" route is fairly easily picked up by our backers who all can run well. Our cover 4 is unlike any other in that we are pressing right now. Or CB's are supposed to be on the LOS asking the official if they're off. Narduzzi does a "read 2" switch with a safety for outs if the one is a streak and the 2 receiver runs that quick out. Then it's a backer that runs with the 3 receiver if it's a "wheel" route. All this is happening and Narduzzi will reload blitzes on the move and with motion so the QB better have his mind made up in a hurry. The 4-3 "g" cover 4 is very simple, but it's a complicated simple. I'd love to sit though a clinic with that Mofo. I never have.

[Maestro]

Good stuff in this thread. Hoping to see some schematic discussions among the obvious OT stuff.

While it's fun to talk about, I don't think there's a chance in hell we ever switch to a 3-4 in the near future. You say walk LT and Cooper back to get them on the field..I'd rather they see fewer snaps at the position they've been practicing at than learning a new one.

[Clarett's Folly]

Solid question...

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

This is just speculation and conjecture on my behalf but the wheel route is nothing new so I'm guessing Narduzzi had a plan for it from day one knowing full well that it was a known weakness of the coverage. Therefore it would make sense, to me, that improvement in that area was based more upon improvement in players knowing their scheme and communicating it to teammates than it was in making a schematic adjustment.

If you have a base defense against two deployed WRs you can defend the wheel route one of two ways; 1. The LB can pass-off the route to a deep DB. 2. The LB can cover the route all the way to the end-zone. In option #1 your LB is a run defender. In option #2 the LB is a pass defender. To defend this route everyone needs to be clear on their assignments and disciplined in the execution, you can't have an LB passing off a wheel route to a CB who isn't there. I'm guessing that Narduzzi just worked on getting everyone on the same page, disciplined the LB's eyes, and made sure that everyone was crystal clear about the importance of pre-snap communication.

In Narduzzi's 4-3 over "G", its press corners with a simple numbering system of receivers 1, 2, and 3.   Our LB's can look in for a run, but it's not that hard to count 3 receivers from the outside in.  Any "wheel" route is fairly easily picked up by our backers who all can run well.  Our cover 4 is unlike any other in that we are pressing right now.  Or CB's are supposed to be on the LOS asking the official if they're off.  Narduzzi does a "read 2" switch with a safety for outs if the one is a streak and the 2 receiver runs that quick out.  Then it's a backer that runs with the 3 receiver if it's a "wheel" route.   All this is happening and Narduzzi will reload blitzes on the move and with motion so the QB better have his mind made up in a hurry.   The 4-3 "g" cover 4 is very simple, but it's a complicated simple.  I'd love to sit though a clinic with that Mofo.  I never have.  

Good stuff. Let me lay a hypothetical on you. I know this route combo isn't realistic but the question is more academic than practical.

1st and 10 so we need to honor the run.
Shotgun, 2x2 formation, all 4 receivers are detached from the tackle box so we're spread out.
Both twins run post-wheel combos.

Do both OLB carry the wheel or only the OLB to/away from the RB since one OLB needs be a run defender to ensure gap soundness?

[DWags]

Solid question...

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

This is just speculation and conjecture on my behalf but the wheel route is nothing new so I'm guessing Narduzzi had a plan for it from day one knowing full well that it was a known weakness of the coverage. Therefore it would make sense, to me, that improvement in that area was based more upon improvement in players knowing their scheme and communicating it to teammates than it was in making a schematic adjustment.

If you have a base defense against two deployed WRs you can defend the wheel route one of two ways; 1. The LB can pass-off the route to a deep DB. 2. The LB can cover the route all the way to the end-zone. In option #1 your LB is a run defender. In option #2 the LB is a pass defender. To defend this route everyone needs to be clear on their assignments and disciplined in the execution, you can't have an LB passing off a wheel route to a CB who isn't there. I'm guessing that Narduzzi just worked on getting everyone on the same page, disciplined the LB's eyes, and made sure that everyone was crystal clear about the importance of pre-snap communication.

In Narduzzi's 4-3 over "G", its press corners with a simple numbering system of receivers 1, 2, and 3.   Our LB's can look in for a run, but it's not that hard to count 3 receivers from the outside in.  Any "wheel" route is fairly easily picked up by our backers who all can run well.  Our cover 4 is unlike any other in that we are pressing right now.  Or CB's are supposed to be on the LOS asking the official if they're off.  Narduzzi does a "read 2" switch with a safety for outs if the one is a streak and the 2 receiver runs that quick out.  Then it's a backer that runs with the 3 receiver if it's a "wheel" route.   All this is happening and Narduzzi will reload blitzes on the move and with motion so the QB better have his mind made up in a hurry.   The 4-3 "g" cover 4 is very simple, but it's a complicated simple.  I'd love to sit though a clinic with that Mofo.  I never have.  

Good stuff. Let me lay a hypothetical on you. I know this route combo isn't realistic but the question is more academic than practical.

1st and 10 so we need to honor the run.
Shotgun, 2x2 formation, all 4 receivers are detached from the tackle box so we're spread out.
Both twins run post-wheel combos.

Do both OLB carry the wheel or only the OLB to/away from the RB since one OLB needs be a run defender to ensure gap soundness?

Pure guessing on my part here. I think Narduzzi does not mind all three backers coming up there at snap which will ensure your gap control. I also don't believe either backer would get hung up in the wash, with just counting in side. Both outside backers have counted the remaining back in the back field as the 3 receiver. (1-2-3-2-1) Both would have responsibility to him. CB(1) Safety(2) OLB(3). I know Nrduzi reloads his blitzes on motion and snap too, so if step up on snap, one will keep coming if the back floats the opposite way. Where this gets interesting is against an oregon type spread where we'll see the QB float one way and the remaining back float the other. Jones at Mke better be able to run. So to answer your question, I think that both OLB's have 3 receiver responsibility and his eventual movement will dictate what each will do, but I do think they both step up at snap.

[LoneWolfSparty]

I've always hated the 3-4. Cowboys went to this a few years ago with Rob Ryan as D coordinator. It was an unmitigated disaster.
4-3 or bust.

[Space Coyote]

Solid question...

So the wheel route solution was just repping it until our guys got it? No scheme adjustment?

This is just speculation and conjecture on my behalf but the wheel route is nothing new so I'm guessing Narduzzi had a plan for it from day one knowing full well that it was a known weakness of the coverage. Therefore it would make sense, to me, that improvement in that area was based more upon improvement in players knowing their scheme and communicating it to teammates than it was in making a schematic adjustment.

If you have a base defense against two deployed WRs you can defend the wheel route one of two ways; 1. The LB can pass-off the route to a deep DB. 2. The LB can cover the route all the way to the end-zone. In option #1 your LB is a run defender. In option #2 the LB is a pass defender. To defend this route everyone needs to be clear on their assignments and disciplined in the execution, you can't have an LB passing off a wheel route to a CB who isn't there. I'm guessing that Narduzzi just worked on getting everyone on the same page, disciplined the LB's eyes, and made sure that everyone was crystal clear about the importance of pre-snap communication.

In Narduzzi's 4-3 over "G", its press corners with a simple numbering system of receivers 1, 2, and 3.   Our LB's can look in for a run, but it's not that hard to count 3 receivers from the outside in.  Any "wheel" route is fairly easily picked up by our backers who all can run well.  Our cover 4 is unlike any other in that we are pressing right now.  Or CB's are supposed to be on the LOS asking the official if they're off.  Narduzzi does a "read 2" switch with a safety for outs if the one is a streak and the 2 receiver runs that quick out.  Then it's a backer that runs with the 3 receiver if it's a "wheel" route.   All this is happening and Narduzzi will reload blitzes on the move and with motion so the QB better have his mind made up in a hurry.   The 4-3 "g" cover 4 is very simple, but it's a complicated simple.  I'd love to sit though a clinic with that Mofo.  I never have.  

Good stuff. Let me lay a hypothetical on you. I know this route combo isn't realistic but the question is more academic than practical.

1st and 10 so we need to honor the run.
Shotgun, 2x2 formation, all 4 receivers are detached from the tackle box so we're spread out.
Both twins run post-wheel combos.

Do both OLB carry the wheel or only the OLB to/away from the RB since one OLB needs be a run defender to ensure gap soundness?

MSU, for the most part, runs a Cover 4 MEG (Man Everywhere he Goes) rather than a MOD (Man on Demand), though, incidently and I have no idea why, Narduzzi calls his version of MEG (which is the norm) MOD. So that's not confusing at all. Anyway, to stick with the more normal terminology, in a Cover 4 MEG the CB is taking #1 no matter where he goes, whereas in MOD he's covering his quarters zone. So, as is normally the case with a wheel route, it's combined from a post from the #1 for a post-wheel concept. Because #2 doesn't go vertical, and #1 is in MEG, traditionally both the CB and S will be sucked in by the post. This means that the OLB must remain on the wheel route.

Now, MSU will run the variants, including MOD (in which case the CB would pass the #1 onto the safety) and a variant where they keep the OLB tighter and essentially have the Safety play #2 straight up. The latter is what MSU did against ND last year. Because ND was so strong on the interior OL, their inside zone, Power O, and draw run game combined with their quick underneath pass game was how they moved the ball down field. So Narduzzi tweaked the defense to keep the OLB closer in the box and had the safety essentially take the #2. Incidentally, that was one of the first posts I ever did about MSU that I put on my blog (can't post link for first 7 days, which smart move by the creator of the board).

This is a nice discussion though; always love finding places where I can actually talk football with people that know football, especially in the off season.

MISER EDIT: here's the link: http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/2013/09/film-review-how-msu-adjusted-their.html

[tTito]

Thanks guys, this thread rocks.

[Clarett's Folly]

MSU, for the most part, runs a Cover 4 MEG (Man Everywhere he Goes) rather than a MOD (Man on Demand), though, incidently and I have no idea why, Narduzzi calls his version of MEG (which is the norm) MOD. So that's not confusing at all. Anyway, to stick with the more normal terminology, in a Cover 4 MEG the CB is taking #1 no matter where he goes, whereas in MOD he's covering his quarters zone. So, as is normally the case with a wheel route, it's combined from a post from the #1 for a post-wheel concept. Because #2 doesn't go vertical, and #1 is in MEG, traditionally both the CB and S will be sucked in by the post. This means that the OLB must remain on the wheel route.

Now, MSU will run the variants, including MOD (in which case the CB would pass the #1 onto the safety) and a variant where they keep the OLB tighter and essentially have the Safety play #2 straight up. The latter is what MSU did against ND last year. Because ND was so strong on the interior OL, their inside zone, Power O, and draw run game combined with their quick underneath pass game was how they moved the ball down field. So Narduzzi tweaked the defense to keep the OLB closer in the box and had the safety essentially take the #2. Incidentally, that was one of the first posts I ever did about MSU that I put on my blog (can't post link for first 7 days, which smart move by the creator of the board).

This is a nice discussion though; always love finding places where I can actually talk football with people that know football, especially in the off season.

Nice. This is exactly how I came to know MSU's Cover 4. I'd love to check-out your site once you can link it.
Here's where I'm going with this; against a 2x2, 10 personnel, shotgun formation you have 6 gaps up front to account for and only 5 box defenders (4 DL, 1 MLB) so your run support has to come from somewhere, yet both sides of the defense have to be ready to defend the deep pass (in this case the wheel route). Safeties can't be run support and still maintain the split safety structure so they're out. CBs are obviously not run support. So the support has to come from one or both of the OLBs as alluded to in your reference to the MOD tag. Typically, in your estimation, would both sides run MOD against this type of formation given the situation or is it a MOD strong/MEG weak type of thing to put one OLB in run support and the other on the wheel?

I know under Nick Saban we'd run a box/cone concept which is essentially the same thing that I described above (and was pretty much the jumping-off point for Gary Patterson's TCU defense), and I also know that Coach D carried that coverage over to OSU with him, so it would make sense that we run it here as well.

Lastly, I'd have to imagine that against the likes of Denard Robinson we'd run a double MOD to add two OLBs to the front and keep everything in front of us. Again, this is just speculation.

[Green Ninja]

Great thread guys!   

[tTito]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

[Heat Miser]

MSU, for the most part, runs a Cover 4 MEG ...

PM me your blog link & I'll add it to this post. Might even add it the widget section or somewhere else of prominence.

[Clarett's Folly]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

This is a damn good question.
And let me make a bold-ass pronouncement here on April 23rd; Trae Waynes, at this point in his career, is on track to be a better CB than Darqueze Dennard.

[Clarett's Folly]

MSU, for the most part, runs a Cover 4 MEG ...

PM me your blog link & I'll add it to this post. Might even add it the widget section or somewhere else of prominence.

Good on ya, Heat.

[Space Coyote]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

Pretty sure Waynes is moving to the boundary, as Dennard did before him. Typically, Narduzzi likes his more experienced (and better) CBs playing the boundary. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, as the field CB is more on an island, but the boundary CB will have "Cloud" leverage (CB spill responsibilities against the run) against knob formations (no WR to the boundary, only TEs/Wings) and is forced to play more press coverage without safety help. The boundary safety tends to be a bit more aggressive as #2 to the boundary tends to be a TE or the RB (it's more common to put numbers to the field for an offense, simply because there is more space to work). So, to the field, you're working what Clarett spoke of earlier as the "Cone", which is an adjustment to Saban's Cover 7 (which is really just Cover 4 with a few important rules to check into, but Saban's Cover 4 isn't a traditional Cover 4; somewhere along the lines football coaches held a meeting deciding to not name anything by any sort of convention, essentially).

And that's why Waynes is likely moving to the boundary position.

FWIW, Waynes is still young, I personally don't think he reaches Dennard's level. That's not necessarily a bad thing to say, Dennard's stats last season were crazy. I think Waynes is a better athlete, but I don't see the physical skill quite as well, his leverage and eyes off of the first WR break tend to take him out of position at times (technique is fixed by experience, so this could be fixed), and I just don't think he's quite as disciplined. Again, these things can be improved upon, and I think Waynes is the better pure athlete in terms of speed quickness, and I think he'll be quite good, but I don't see him reaching Dennard-level. Though he plays much different than Adams, I think that's more where his likely ceiling is in terms of how he's regarded (First Team All-B1G type, HM All-American)

[Heat Miser]

Pretty impressive stuff Space Coyote.   

Breakdown Sports - MSU

[Clarett's Folly]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

Pretty sure Waynes is moving to the boundary, as Dennard did before him. Typically, Narduzzi likes his more experienced (and better) CBs playing the boundary. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, as the field CB is more on an island, but the boundary CB will have "Cloud" leverage (CB spill responsibilities against the run) against knob formations (no WR to the boundary, only TEs/Wings) and is forced to play more press coverage without safety help. The boundary safety tends to be a bit more aggressive as #2 to the boundary tends to be a TE or the RB (it's more common to put numbers to the field for an offense, simply because there is more space to work). So, to the field, you're working what Clarett spoke of earlier as the "Cone", which is an adjustment to Saban's Cover 7 (which is really just Cover 4 with a few important rules to check into, but Saban's Cover 4 isn't a traditional Cover 4; somewhere along the lines football coaches held a meeting deciding to not name anything by any sort of convention, essentially).

And that's why Waynes is likely moving to the boundary position.

FWIW, Waynes is still young, I personally don't think he reaches Dennard's level. That's not necessarily a bad thing to say, Dennard's stats last season were crazy. I think Waynes is a better athlete, but I don't see the physical skill quite as well, his leverage and eyes off of the first WR break tend to take him out of position at times (technique is fixed by experience, so this could be fixed), and I just don't think he's quite as disciplined. Again, these things can be improved upon, and I think Waynes is the better pure athlete in terms of speed quickness, and I think he'll be quite good, but I don't see him reaching Dennard-level. Though he plays much different than Adams, I think that's more where his likely ceiling is in terms of how he's regarded (First Team All-B1G type, HM All-American)

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

[tTito]

[quote="Heat Miser"]Pretty impressive stuff Space Coyote.   



Add to favorites and drag to the top. Impressive indeed. 

[Space Coyote]

Nice. This is exactly how I came to know MSU's Cover 4. I'd love to check-out your site once you can link it.
Here's where I'm going with this; against a 2x2, 10 personnel, shotgun formation you have 6 gaps up front to account for and only 5 box defenders (4 DL, 1 MLB) so your run support has to come from somewhere, yet both sides of the defense have to be ready to defend the deep pass (in this case the wheel route). Safeties can't be run support and still maintain the split safety structure so they're out. CBs are obviously not run support. So the support has to come from one or both of the OLBs as alluded to in your reference to the MOD tag. Typically, in your estimation, would both sides run MOD against this type of formation given the situation or is it a MOD strong/MEG weak type of thing to put one OLB in run support and the other on the wheel?

I know under Nick Saban we'd run a box/cone concept which is essentially the same thing that I described above (and was pretty much the jumping-off point for Gary Patterson's TCU defense), and I also know that Coach D carried that coverage over to OSU with him, so it would make sense that we run it here as well.

Lastly, I'd have to imagine that against the likes of Denard Robinson we'd run a double MOD to add two OLBs to the front and keep everything in front of us. Again, this is just speculation.

Damn, wrote a long post and screwed up when going to post it. I'll try to write it again.

Vs a 2x2 formation, MSU can "Jam" or "Cage" their DEs, essentially lining them heads-up on the EMOL and pinching them into the B or C gap (depending on if there is a TE). They can then put their OLBs in a split alignment (also called Apex and a million other things) and have them take the outside gap as the spill defender. The MIKE is responsible for Strongside A-gap and then flows to football, chasing inside-out. MSU's 2-high Cover 4 always looks to force inside to spill outside. OLBs or Safeties will have alley fill responsibilities, in this adjustment, OLBs will have more run responsibility while safeties will focus more on covering #2. In this instance, you will have a MEG coverage by the CBs on #1. CB can't expect inside help, so this coverage plays almost like a cover 0, with the CB maintaining inside leverage throughout and trying to force the throw to the sideline (longest, hardest throw).

Now, MSU doesn't normally do that. MSU plays their defense to field and boundary. They also tend to prefer to keep 6 in the box except in obvious passing downs. In that case, the STAR will split out to the field, and the SAM will align to the boundary but will essentially align in the boundary side gap inside the box.

TO THE FIELD: The "box/cone" concept is often what MSU will run to the field. That comes from Saban's Cover 7, which is essentially Cover 4 with a few rules (while Saban's cover 4 isn't really a cover 4 but I think a cover 2 because somewhere coaches had a meeting and determined they would call everything something different as to avoid any sort of common convention). Anyway, the STAR will apex. He's the spill defender, he'll wall off any crossing route so the offense can't flood the field side. He'll step to any run action towards him and pass on to the safety quicker, who will cover #2 through his route (unless his initial route takes him inside, in which case the safety will become the alley defender in case of a crack-exchange). The CB will take #1, and can't expect inside help though he may have it. If there is no run action and the OLB can stick to #2, the field safety will maintain his position and read the route concept, he'll help on #1 if the wheel doesn't present itself, if the wheel does present itself, he'll come over the top.

TO THE BOUNDARY: Here, MSU will keep the the SAM inside the box. Typically, offenses like to put numbers to the field and space it out, so often times the #2 is a TE here, who is a little bit slower and therefore can be handled more easily by the OLB/Safety. But in this case, we'll discuss it with a WR. MSU can apex the LB, but they often won't. The assumption is that MSU can run a couple things. They can run a triangle, basically a MOD call, and have the CB read through the #2. That's rare because MSU tends to press the #1. So typically they'll play a Meg (unless the WRs are stacked). They'll then tend to line up the safety about 7x1 off the #2. In the run game, they trust the boundary DE to string the play out long enough for the safety to fill down and the LBs to flow across. In the pass game, the safety will essentially pick up the #2 and cover the wheel himself. It plays a lot like a cover 0 in this sense. CB has no inside help, safety is matched up man to man. OLB will still work to his zone, but will focus more on the hook/curl or leak out of the backfield. I believe this is how Indiana scored a long TD on MSU last year, leaking the RB out of a 2x2 and having the OLB (Allen I believe) over-run the play and the RB cut upfield and score.

Essentially, on both sides the safety will probably take the wheel. To the field there are more options though. The OLB, if not threatened by the run, will stick on the #2 playing him inside-out, and look for help over the top from the safety. To the boundary it's likely all on the safety if #2 is a WR. If #2 is a H-back, TE, or RB, it will more likely be the OLB with help over the top from the safety. FWIW, the majority of post-wheel concepts will be run to the boundary. Field is too far of a throw and allows defenses to recover.

The post-wheel concept, double-post, post-fade, and switch concept, were all methods Michigan tried to beat MSU with (ND used a bit of it as well, though they settled way too much for straight fades until they realized MSU adjustment with their safety). Michigan tended to stack their WRs a lot to prevent the press coverage and get a free release. They did manage to get some WRs open deep, but of course by that time Gardner was in the dirt. The reason I say that is it is a typical cover 4 beater, and therefore something to worry about (and it works off of the weakness of a cover 4 in pass coverage: the short out from the #2). So MSU has ways to try to defend it, they do it well, but it's also one of the ways offense does try to attack MSU's D because it is a weakness of the D (relatively speaking of course) because it puts the CB alone trying to cover the entire field essentially, and forces the OLB or Safety to both respect the quick out from the #2 and respect that they can't just break on that alone.

[DWags]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

The "progression" or "next man up" seems to be boundary at MSU. Waynes will be the most athletic corner you've seen of the three. There is much more to it then that, and he has much to learn. We've been blessed there these past years. such a key spot.

[Clarett's Folly]

Nice. This is exactly how I came to know MSU's Cover 4. I'd love to check-out your site once you can link it.
Here's where I'm going with this; against a 2x2, 10 personnel, shotgun formation you have 6 gaps up front to account for and only 5 box defenders (4 DL, 1 MLB) so your run support has to come from somewhere, yet both sides of the defense have to be ready to defend the deep pass (in this case the wheel route). Safeties can't be run support and still maintain the split safety structure so they're out. CBs are obviously not run support. So the support has to come from one or both of the OLBs as alluded to in your reference to the MOD tag. Typically, in your estimation, would both sides run MOD against this type of formation given the situation or is it a MOD strong/MEG weak type of thing to put one OLB in run support and the other on the wheel?

I know under Nick Saban we'd run a box/cone concept which is essentially the same thing that I described above (and was pretty much the jumping-off point for Gary Patterson's TCU defense), and I also know that Coach D carried that coverage over to OSU with him, so it would make sense that we run it here as well.

Lastly, I'd have to imagine that against the likes of Denard Robinson we'd run a double MOD to add two OLBs to the front and keep everything in front of us. Again, this is just speculation.

Damn, wrote a long post and screwed up when going to post it. I'll try to write it again.

Vs a 2x2 formation, MSU can "Jam" or "Cage" their DEs, essentially lining them heads-up on the EMOL and pinching them into the B or C gap (depending on if there is a TE). They can then put their OLBs in a split alignment (also called Apex and a million other things) and have them take the outside gap as the spill defender. The MIKE is responsible for Strongside A-gap and then flows to football, chasing inside-out. MSU's 2-high Cover 4 always looks to force inside to spill outside. OLBs or Safeties will have alley fill responsibilities, in this adjustment, OLBs will have more run responsibility while safeties will focus more on covering #2. In this instance, you will have a MEG coverage by the CBs on #1. CB can't expect inside help, so this coverage plays almost like a cover 0, with the CB maintaining inside leverage throughout and trying to force the throw to the sideline (longest, hardest throw).

Now, MSU doesn't normally do that. MSU plays their defense to field and boundary. They also tend to prefer to keep 6 in the box except in obvious passing downs. In that case, the STAR will split out to the field, and the SAM will align to the boundary but will essentially align in the boundary side gap inside the box.

TO THE FIELD: The "box/cone" concept is often what MSU will run to the field. That comes from Saban's Cover 7, which is essentially Cover 4 with a few rules (while Saban's cover 4 isn't really a cover 4 but I think a cover 2 because somewhere coaches had a meeting and determined they would call everything something different as to avoid any sort of common convention). Anyway, the STAR will apex. He's the spill defender, he'll wall off any crossing route so the offense can't flood the field side. He'll step to any run action towards him and pass on to the safety quicker, who will cover #2 through his route (unless his initial route takes him inside, in which case the safety will become the alley defender in case of a crack-exchange). The CB will take #1, and can't expect inside help though he may have it. If there is no run action and the OLB can stick to #2, the field safety will maintain his position and read the route concept, he'll help on #1 if the wheel doesn't present itself, if the wheel does present itself, he'll come over the top.

TO THE BOUNDARY: Here, MSU will keep the the SAM inside the box. Typically, offenses like to put numbers to the field and space it out, so often times the #2 is a TE here, who is a little bit slower and therefore can be handled more easily by the OLB/Safety. But in this case, we'll discuss it with a WR. MSU can apex the LB, but they often won't. The assumption is that MSU can run a couple things. They can run a triangle, basically a MOD call, and have the CB read through the #2. That's rare because MSU tends to press the #1. So typically they'll play a Meg (unless the WRs are stacked). They'll then tend to line up the safety about 7x1 off the #2. In the run game, they trust the boundary DE to string the play out long enough for the safety to fill down and the LBs to flow across. In the pass game, the safety will essentially pick up the #2 and cover the wheel himself. It plays a lot like a cover 0 in this sense. CB has no inside help, safety is matched up man to man. OLB will still work to his zone, but will focus more on the hook/curl or leak out of the backfield. I believe this is how Indiana scored a long TD on MSU last year, leaking the RB out of a 2x2 and having the OLB (Allen I believe) over-run the play and the RB cut upfield and score.

Essentially, on both sides the safety will probably take the wheel. To the field there are more options though. The OLB, if not threatened by the run, will stick on the #2 playing him inside-out, and look for help over the top from the safety. To the boundary it's likely all on the safety if #2 is a WR. If #2 is a H-back, TE, or RB, it will more likely be the OLB with help over the top from the safety. FWIW, the majority of post-wheel concepts will be run to the boundary. Field is too far of a throw and allows defenses to recover.

The post-wheel concept, double-post, post-fade, and switch concept, were all methods Michigan tried to beat MSU with (ND used a bit of it as well, though they settled way too much for straight fades until they realized MSU adjustment with their safety). Michigan tended to stack their WRs a lot to prevent the press coverage and get a free release. They did manage to get some WRs open deep, but of course by that time Gardner was in the dirt. The reason I say that is it is a typical cover 4 beater, and therefore something to worry about (and it works off of the weakness of a cover 4 in pass coverage: the short out from the #2). So MSU has ways to try to defend it, they do it well, but it's also one of the ways offense does try to attack MSU's D because it is a weakness of the D (relatively speaking of course) because it puts the CB alone trying to cover the entire field essentially, and forces the OLB or Safety to both respect the quick out from the #2 and respect that they can't just break on that alone.

This is pretty much what I figured. Damn fine work. I'm hoping you plan on being a permanent fixture around here.

[Space Coyote]

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

I'm a grad of the enemy (actually degrees from two different B1G schools), so yeah, that's why you see mostly Michigan content on my blog. Most of my readership is Michigan still (and I write for Maize n Brew). But that's not what I want the focus of my blog to be, I want it to be all B1G teams. Frankly, I love football, I love discussing football, and I want fans to be more knowledgeable about their team and their opponents. If I have to sit through another Michigan fan complaining "why didn't they just throw quick slants against MSU" I might lose it, because that's not how you attack MSU's defense at all. MSU probably provides the 2nd highest readership for me, so they also have gotten quite a bit of content. Plus, they have a great defense, why wouldn't I study it? And I have quite a few connections to MSU and the football team, so I have a lot of respect for the school and the team.

So... yes, I'm an enemy to this territory, but no worries, I will respect my place on this forum. I'm not here to discuss Michigan, I can do that on my blog and on Michigan blogs. I can make clarifications about other B1G teams (including Michigan, because that's who I follow closest), and if people have questions I'll answer them, but the last thing I want to do is make your blog about another team.

[Space Coyote]

This is pretty much what I figured. Damn fine work. I'm hoping you plan on being a permanent fixture around here.

As long as there is discussion of actual football and I'm wanted, I'll be posting here. Always love the opportunity to talk football.

[DWags]

[quote="Space Coyote"]

The post-wheel concept, double-post, post-fade, and switch concept, were all methods Michigan tried to beat MSU with (ND used a bit of it as well, though they settled way too much for straight fades until they realized MSU adjustment with their safety). Michigan tended to stack their WRs a lot to prevent the press coverage and get a free release. They did manage to get some WRs open deep, but of course by that time Gardner was in the dirt. The reason I say that is it is a typical cover 4 beater, and therefore something to worry about (and it works off of the weakness of a cover 4 in pass coverage: the short out from the #2). So MSU has ways to try to defend it, they do it well, but it's also one of the ways offense does try to attack MSU's D because it is a weakness of the D (relatively speaking of course) because it puts the CB alone trying to cover the entire field essentially, and forces the OLB or Safety to both respect the quick out from the #2 and respect that they can't just break on that alone.

MSU doesn't tend to press, it's what they do almost 9% of the time. Narduzzi has said he gives up some routes and understands the vulnerability of them, but there aren't many of those routes that are high percentage. Add to that an aggressive defense that doesn't give the quarterback a lot of time to get the ball to this route, and MSU usually comes out just fine these past couple of years.

[DWags]

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

I'm a grad of the enemy (actually degrees from two different B1G schools), so yeah, that's why you see mostly Michigan content on my blog. Most of my readership is Michigan still (and I write for Maize n Brew). But that's not what I want the focus of my blog to be, I want it to be all B1G teams. Frankly, I love football, I love discussing football, and I want fans to be more knowledgeable about their team and their opponents. If I have to sit through another Michigan fan complaining "why didn't they just throw quick slants against MSU" I might lose it, because that's not how you attack MSU's defense at all. MSU probably provides the 2nd highest readership for me, so they also have gotten quite a bit of content. Plus, they have a great defense, why wouldn't I study it? And I have quite a few connections to MSU and the football team, so I have a lot of respect for the school and the team.

So... yes, I'm an enemy to this territory, but no worries, I will respect my place on this forum. I'm not here to discuss Michigan, I can do that on my blog and on Michigan blogs. I can make clarifications about other B1G teams (including Michigan, because that's who I follow closest), and if people have questions I'll answer them, but the last thing I want to do is make your blog about another team.

I invited him here from another board. He's always been a good read

[Clarett's Folly]

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

I'm a grad of the enemy (actually degrees from two different B1G schools), so yeah, that's why you see mostly Michigan content on my blog. Most of my readership is Michigan still (and I write for Maize n Brew). But that's not what I want the focus of my blog to be, I want it to be all B1G teams. Frankly, I love football, I love discussing football, and I want fans to be more knowledgeable about their team and their opponents. If I have to sit through another Michigan fan complaining "why didn't they just throw quick slants against MSU" I might lose it, because that's not how you attack MSU's defense at all. MSU probably provides the 2nd highest readership for me, so they also have gotten quite a bit of content. Plus, they have a great defense, why wouldn't I study it? And I have quite a few connections to MSU and the football team, so I have a lot of respect for the school and the team.

So... yes, I'm an enemy to this territory, but no worries, I will respect my place on this forum. I'm not here to discuss Michigan, I can do that on my blog and on Michigan blogs. I can make clarifications about other B1G teams (including Michigan, because that's who I follow closest), and if people have questions I'll answer them, but the last thing I want to do is make your blog about another team.

Well shit, you're more than welcome here as far as I'm concerned. It will be nice to have a knowledgeable opposing viewpoint around. I'd rather talk ball with a knowledgeable foe than ignorant friend any day of the week. Welcome.

[Clarett's Folly]

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

I'm a grad of the enemy (actually degrees from two different B1G schools), so yeah, that's why you see mostly Michigan content on my blog. Most of my readership is Michigan still (and I write for Maize n Brew). But that's not what I want the focus of my blog to be, I want it to be all B1G teams. Frankly, I love football, I love discussing football, and I want fans to be more knowledgeable about their team and their opponents. If I have to sit through another Michigan fan complaining "why didn't they just throw quick slants against MSU" I might lose it, because that's not how you attack MSU's defense at all. MSU probably provides the 2nd highest readership for me, so they also have gotten quite a bit of content. Plus, they have a great defense, why wouldn't I study it? And I have quite a few connections to MSU and the football team, so I have a lot of respect for the school and the team.

So... yes, I'm an enemy to this territory, but no worries, I will respect my place on this forum. I'm not here to discuss Michigan, I can do that on my blog and on Michigan blogs. I can make clarifications about other B1G teams (including Michigan, because that's who I follow closest), and if people have questions I'll answer them, but the last thing I want to do is make your blog about another team.

I invited him here from another board.  He's always been a good read

Can we take a moment to appreciate that even our wolverines are better than 24/7's?

[DWags]

SC, are you an MSU grad? I ask only because your blog seems to be a general look at the Big Ten so I was wondering if you are an alum from another school.

I'm a grad of the enemy (actually degrees from two different B1G schools), so yeah, that's why you see mostly Michigan content on my blog. Most of my readership is Michigan still (and I write for Maize n Brew). But that's not what I want the focus of my blog to be, I want it to be all B1G teams. Frankly, I love football, I love discussing football, and I want fans to be more knowledgeable about their team and their opponents. If I have to sit through another Michigan fan complaining "why didn't they just throw quick slants against MSU" I might lose it, because that's not how you attack MSU's defense at all. MSU probably provides the 2nd highest readership for me, so they also have gotten quite a bit of content. Plus, they have a great defense, why wouldn't I study it? And I have quite a few connections to MSU and the football team, so I have a lot of respect for the school and the team.

So... yes, I'm an enemy to this territory, but no worries, I will respect my place on this forum. I'm not here to discuss Michigan, I can do that on my blog and on Michigan blogs. I can make clarifications about other B1G teams (including Michigan, because that's who I follow closest), and if people have questions I'll answer them, but the last thing I want to do is make your blog about another team.

I invited him here from another board.  He's always been a good read

Can we take a moment to appreciate that even our wolverines are better than 24/7's?

You know old coaches don't care what color you have on at the clinic. Especially when we're drunk.

[Cool Runnings]

Is Waynes going to play boundary or field corner, and who is going to start opposite of him?

According to the spring depth chart Waynes is starting BC with Darian Hicks starting FC. Hicks will have plenty of competition though from Robinson, Colquhoun, and Edmondson.

[Space Coyote]

MSU doesn't tend to press, it's what they do almost 9% of the time.   Narduzzi has said he gives up some routes and understands the vulnerability of them, but there aren't many of those routes that are high percentage.  Add to that an aggressive defense that doesn't give the quarterback a lot of time to get the ball to this route, and MSU usually comes out just fine these past couple of years.

[/quote]

I'm going to guess you meant 90% of the time. That is true. There are only a few occasions where they don't. In their adjustment to cover 6 vs a knob formation (because the boundary CB isn't going to press the Wing/TE, though he make shuck them on their vertical path); at times on obvious passing downs vs trips, the field CB won't press #1 so they can play more of a match up; against stack formations because MSU matches in/out based on the WR release (though they will still jam some to the boundary against a stack to disrupt timing); and when they drop into a cover 3 from their blitz package on 2nd/3rd and long.

[Heat Miser]

Can we take a moment to appreciate that even our wolverines are better than 24/7's?

I think you should start an official Football X's & O's thread (call it whatever you want). I also think it's important that you are the OP. Feel free to include a link to the MSU portion of SpaceCoyote's blog (http://breakdownsports.blogspot.com/search/label/MSU) & any other X's & O's sources you feel are appropriate.

[Sponsored content]