Defensive coverage schemes

[BillsIsrael]

Not very knowledgeable in subtleties of defensive schemes - just read this wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_defense_in_American_football which helped me a bit. My questions to those who played or coached football - is there a concept similar to basketballs "box and 1" - basically having zone coverage by 6 defenders and one corner plays man to man. This way we get the advantages of man-to-man on the offense's top weapon and he gets double teamed to which ever zone he's in so he can never really pick the soft part of the zone.

[HoofHearted]

Yes, basically every zone concept has scenarios where you will end up being man on a receiver. None of these situations are anything like what you are trying to compare to the box and 1 in basketball. It is possible to replicate the concept though, but you have to lose a guy somewhere else (defensive line) in order to do it.

[Simon]

You can have mixed coverages, which typically might be man coverage underneath and zones over the top.

Or you can flip your corners to make sure the CB you want is on the WR you want him covering (i.e. Tre White chasing Davante Adams to the other side of the field at times).

But trying to run an effective zone while pulling one of your guys to man somebody up is probably going to compromise your defense in a way that makes it not worth it. Just too many people to cover on too many parts of the field to do it efficiently, imo.

[HoofHearted]

55 minutes ago, Simon said:

You can have mixed coverages, which typically might be man coverage underneath and zones over the top.

Or you can flip your corners to make sure the CB you want is on the WR you want him covering (i.e. Tre White chasing Davante Adams to the other side of the field at times).

But trying to run an effective zone while pulling one of your guys to man somebody up is probably going to compromise your defense in a way that makes it not worth it. Just too many people to cover on too many parts of the field to do it efficiently, imo.

It's done all the time.

[Simon]

1 hour ago, HoofHearted said:

It is possible to replicate the concept though, but you have to lose a guy somewhere else (defensive line) in order to do it.

 

17 minutes ago, HoofHearted said:

It's done all the time.

 

Pick one

[HoofHearted]

2 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

 

Pick one

The top quote is referring to the OPs box and 1 comment. That is not done all the time.

 

The second quote is referring to being able to play man in zone concepts other than the two man situation which you suggested. It's done all the time.

[Buffalo716]

4 hours ago, BillsIsrael said:

Not very knowledgeable in subtleties of defensive schemes - just read this wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_defense_in_American_football which helped me a bit. My questions to those who played or coached football - is there a concept similar to basketballs "box and 1" - basically having zone coverage by 6 defenders and one corner plays man to man. This way we get the advantages of man-to-man on the offense's top weapon and he gets double teamed to which ever zone he's in so he can never really pick the soft part of the zone.

Yes it is... There are many combination coverages where half the field can be zone.. and the other half man

 

Or 3/4 zone and 1 guy in man depending on formation 

 

You could also have something called a palms look... Where You are pre-snap cover 4

 

But depending on the x receiver's route and the tight ends route.. it bumps the Play-to man principles.. with the safety taking the x and CB taking the outbreaking route

Edited September 27, 2023 by Buffalo716

[Simon]

Just now, HoofHearted said:

The top quote is referring to the OPs box and 1 comment. That is not done all the time.

 

The second quote is referring to being able to play man in zone concepts other than the two man situation which you suggested. It's done all the time.

 

I wasn't being clear I guess.

I was also saying (or trying to) that pulling a defender from somewhere to run a box and 1 (a tent and 1?) is probably going to compromise your defense.

[HoofHearted]

8 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

I wasn't being clear I guess.

I was also saying (or trying to) that pulling a defender from somewhere to run a box and 1 (a tent and 1?) is probably going to compromise your defense.

No doubt. You'd be playing with a light box and would have to completely change the way we fit things to accommodate the missing body. You'd basically have to end up playing it like a 3-3 stack.

10 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Yes it is... There are many combination coverages where half the field can be zone.. and the other half man

 

Or 3/4 zone and 1 guy in man depending on formation 

 

You could also have something called a palms look... Where You are pre-snap cover 4

 

But depending on the x receiver's route and the tight ends route.. it bumps the Play-to man principles.. with the safety taking the x and CB taking the outbreaking route

Not just palms, there's pattern match variations of every coverage.

Edited September 27, 2023 by HoofHearted

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, HoofHearted said:

No doubt. You'd be playing with a light box and would have to completely change the way we fit things to accommodate the missing body.

Not just palms, there's pattern match variations of every coverage.

Absolutely but palms is almost specifically cover 4 match which Sean has run 

[HoofHearted]

Just now, Buffalo716 said:

Absolutely but palms is almost specifically cover 4 match which Sean has run 

It is specifically cover 4. We've also run variations of match 3 quite a bit.

[Simon]

22 minutes ago, HoofHearted said:

No doubt. You'd be playing with a light box and would have to completely change the way we fit things to accommodate the missing body. You'd basically have to end up playing it like a 3-3 stack.

 

Probably some places you could get away with it but at this level I think these co-ordinators would munch your lunch real quick.

[BillsIsrael]

Thanks for all the replies - basically I got 2 a basic answers
1. It's done all the time - where man-to man is mixed with zone  - part of the files is man-to-man and part of the field is zone etc...
2. It's not really done - since it would leave the zone with only 6 men and more exploitable 
My thoughts were maybe using this concept to slow down Hill on Sunday by having him man-to -man all day long with a second defender always in the area as part of the zone to help

[GunnerBill]

Yea there are lots of ways of running comination coverage mixing man and zone. Belichick is someone who has classicly done it a lot. As others have said above the Bills have done it some with McDermott / Frazier too 

[vincec]

I assume this question is coming from musing about how the Bills D might play Miami and Tyreek Hill. Yes, NFL defenses will sometimes lock a premier CB (say Darell Revis) on the opponent’s best WR and play man /zone with the rest depending on the call. But who could the Bills possibly put on Hill that would have any hope of staying with him 1v1? Honestly, that goes for Waddle as well.
 

Belichick, as mentioned above, is well know for putting his best CB on the opponent’s second best WR and then bracketing the best one with two players. But the bills have never done this, as far as I’m aware, so I’d be expecting a variety of zones on Sunday.

Edited September 27, 2023 by vincec

[boyst]

a vey big concern for me is compromising any scheme we have to allow open lanes for the running backs to his a second level.

 

Achain and Mostert are very fast and shifty. they can 1-1 beat our DB's. if they penetrate through the DL they're going to break a run off and we will not catch them.

 

this was something i brought up and i think it was hoof hearted had asked about. a cover 2 will leave us exposed to have our slow CB's attacking across the field and uphill to the running back.

 

per hoof or whoever we haven't been running cover2 as much this year. and in the raiders game i definitely did notice that. i couldn't see enough vs. the jets (which was atypical considering rapp being in the box often) and vs. the redskins i didn't get a chacne to see it much.

 

a cover3 or 4 could press what seems like man coverage against the the outside WR.

[HoofHearted]

8 hours ago, BillsIsrael said:

Thanks for all the replies - basically I got 2 a basic answers
1. It's done all the time - where man-to man is mixed with zone  - part of the files is man-to-man and part of the field is zone etc...
2. It's not really done - since it would leave the zone with only 6 men and more exploitable 
My thoughts were maybe using this concept to slow down Hill on Sunday by having him man-to -man all day long with a second defender always in the area as part of the zone to help

Speaking to your specific scenario of running something similar to the box and 1 concept - it's not something that can be done all game long.

 

Generally speaking in regards to football coverages there are multiple ways to be able to man a receiver out of zone coverages that don't involve pulling a player out of the front. Hope that clears things up for you.

[HoofHearted]

3 hours ago, boyst said:

this was something i brought up and i think it was hoof hearted had asked about. a cover 2 will leave us exposed to have our slow CB's attacking across the field and uphill to the running back.

 

a cover3 or 4 could press what seems like man coverage against the the outside WR.

I still don't know what you mean by this. Corners won't chase crossers in 2.

 

I assume we'll likely Cloud whichever side Tyreek is on and play Quarters to the other when we want to sit in coverage. If they get into 3x1 sets with Tyreek at 2 or 3 we'll likely lock our Corner on #1 and play Cloud to the interior two receivers. This guarantees we always have help over the top on him. If we want to bring 5 man pressures we'll roll 3. I don't see us playing much man outside of the redzone unless we're in 2 Man.

Edited September 27, 2023 by HoofHearted

[HoofHearted]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:08 AM, HoofHearted said:

I still don't know what you mean by this. Corners won't chase crossers in 2.

 

I assume we'll likely Cloud whichever side Tyreek is on and play Quarters to the other when we want to sit in coverage. If they get into 3x1 sets with Tyreek at 2 or 3 we'll likely lock our Corner on #1 and play Cloud to the interior two receivers. This guarantees we always have help over the top on him. If we want to bring 5 man pressures we'll roll 3. I don't see us playing much man outside of the redzone unless we're in 2 Man.

Cover 1, I'm ready to enter contract negotiations whenever you are 😉.

[MAJBobby]

Here is what Bills ran alot of against Miami.

 

Palms or Cathy coverage concepts. 

 

https://www.xandolabs.com/the-lab/defense/coverage/two-high-coverage-structures/palms-and-cathy-coverage-adjustments-to-open-sets/

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2017/05/film-room-keith-butlers-palms-coverage/

 

https://throwdeeppublishing.com/blogs/news/one-coverage-that-solves-a-ton-of-problems

Edited October 2, 2023 by MAJBobby

[HoofHearted]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

Here is what Bills ran alot of against Miami.

 

Palms or Cathy coverage concepts. 

 

https://www.xandolabs.com/the-lab/defense/coverage/two-high-coverage-structures/palms-and-cathy-coverage-adjustments-to-open-sets/

 

https://steelersdepot.com/2017/05/film-room-keith-butlers-palms-coverage/

 

https://throwdeeppublishing.com/blogs/news/one-coverage-that-solves-a-ton-of-problems

We ran a bunch of split field coverage as opposed to just straight Quarters. Basically what I thought we'd do - Cloud Tyreek and play Quarters opposite. Had a couple variations of it where we zoned the whole quarters side or locked #1 and played Combo on 2&3. Played some 2 Man in 3rd and long situations, and brought some early down pressures rolling 3 behind it. Hyde did a great job with coverage check all day.

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, HoofHearted said:

Cover 1, I'm ready to enter contract negotiations whenever you are 😉.

I don't think they make that much money

 

They don't even have Buffalo press credentials 

 

You're way better off coaching then trying to be an internet football guru

Edited October 2, 2023 by Buffalo716

[HoofHearted]

Just now, Buffalo716 said:

I don't think they make that much money

 

They don't even have Buffalo press credentials 

Tragic...

[HoofHearted]

33 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

You're way better off coaching then trying to be an internet football guru

Supplemental income my friend. There’s so many coaches these days doing the YouTube/Podcast thing. Honestly don’t know where they get the time for it.

[Buffalo716]

46 minutes ago, HoofHearted said:

Supplemental income my friend. There’s so many coaches these days doing the YouTube/Podcast thing. Honestly don’t know where they get the time for it.

I don't think there's much supplemental income in there

 

Unless your name is Jordan Palmer or Ryan Clark.. baldinger... unless you have an NFL name next to you

 

Most people you see on Twitter and YouTube are amateur scouts and coaches... 

 

Basically doing it for the Love of the game

 

The cover one guys can do it, cuz they aren't full-time regional scouts or varsity or College coaches ... They made it a job.. and still can't get credentials

 

If You're the head coach at canisius you don't have time for a YouTube channel.. you're preparing a game plan for a top team in Ohio.. going to practice and watching film... Having meetings with other coaches

 

If you have the patience to start slow... And put out good content for fun... For three or four years... Build a subscribers list and a reputation... There may be long-term benefits , including income stream 

 

But it's certainly a long term project that YouTubers turn into a full-time gig

Because part time isn't enough usually 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Buffalo716

[HoofHearted]

17 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I don't think there's much supplemental income in there

 

Unless your name is Jordan Palmer or Ryan Clark.. baldinger... unless you have an NFL name next to you

 

Most people you see on Twitter and YouTube are amateur scouts and coaches... 

 

Basically doing it for the Love of the game

 

The cover one guys can do it, cuz they aren't full-time regional scouts or varsity or College coaches 

 

If You're the head coach at canisius you don't have time for a YouTube channel.. you're preparing a game plan for a top team in Ohio.. going to practice and watching film... Having meetings with other coaches

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve coached with a few guys who have done some podcast stuff. They won’t ever get rich off of it but they make a decent chunk of extra change for fairly minimal effort. Course it’s other coaches listening to the stuff they’re doing.

[Buffalo716]

13 minutes ago, HoofHearted said:

I’ve coached with a few guys who have done some podcast stuff. They won’t ever get rich off of it but they make a decent chunk of extra change for fairly minimal effort. Course it’s other coaches listening to the stuff they’re doing.

I mean I've coached and scouted for a long time and I certainly like listening to other coaches and their ideas 

 

But minimal effort and YouTube usually don't go hand in hand

 

You need thousands of subscribers usually.. which means putting in hours of content and work 

 

I certainly don't think it's as simple as post a video boom .. 500 dollars 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Buffalo716

[HoofHearted]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

I mean I've coached and scouted for a long time and I certainly like listening to other coaches and their ideas 

 

But minimal effort and YouTube usually don't go hand in hand

 

You need thousands of subscribers usually.. which means putting in hours of content and work 

 

I certainly don't think it's as simple as post a video boom .. 500 dollars 

For sure. I was referring more to the audio only podcasts.

[Beck Water]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:39 AM, BillsIsrael said:

Thanks for all the replies - basically I got 2 a basic answers
1. It's done all the time - where man-to man is mixed with zone  - part of the files is man-to-man and part of the field is zone etc...
2. It's not really done - since it would leave the zone with only 6 men and more exploitable 
My thoughts were maybe using this concept to slow down Hill on Sunday by having him man-to -man all day long with a second defender always in the area as part of the zone to help

 

The Bills have 100% run mixed man and zone coverage at times.    They especially like to do this if they can identify a QB's tendency on what he uses to diagnose coverage and exploit it.  I'm trying to think but I believe in one of the KC games, I think regular season last year where we picked Mahomes twice, someone did a pretty good breakdown showing how Mahomes looked one way, diagnosed the coverage as man, and threw to the other side - but it turned out to be zone coverage there and INT! 

 

I'll see if it comes into my mind who did it and try to link it here, because I thought it was an unusually good breakdown of what was being done and why it worked.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Beck Water

[gonzo1105]

Everyone knows the basics of Zone Coverage. Your basic Cover 2, 3, and 4 are your basic zone coverages. Then you have matchup zones like Palms like someone earlier stated.

 

Then you have mixed zone coverages like Cover 6 where one half of the field is playing Cover 2 while the other half is playing Cover 4. 

 

Then there are rotation zones where they show 2 or 4 and rotate into 3.

 

You have your half man/half zone schemes where over the top your playing Cover 2 but underneath your playing man. 

 

This doesn't even include your robber coverages and things like that that are zone coverages. 

 

That game is much more complex than what the basic coverage books will tell you.

[Beck Water]

On 10/2/2023 at 2:38 PM, Buffalo716 said:

I don't think they make that much money

 

They don't even have Buffalo press credentials 

 

You're way better off coaching then trying to be an internet football guru

 

I believe Cover1 started out as Eric Turner and a few friends doing it to educate themselves and educate fans when their day jobs took them away from coaching... and still that way at times.  But he's definitely moved away from bringing in guys who have a deep Xs and Os knowledge of the game as former players, coaches, or scouts and towards bringing in guys with a marketing/journalism background - maybe because the job market for the latter is tighter than the job market for the former, since there are always schools and teams looking for coaches and scouts? IDK.   So nowadays they have a lot more content and a person has to sift and check the background of the host to understand the value.

 

Don't know how commercially successful Cover1 is but I think it's Turner's pretty much full time gig now. 

 

Have always wondered about the press credentials criteria.

 

There have been bloggers and podcasters who have managed to successfully monetize.  Walter Cherepinski Football would be one example.  He's been at it 24 years, can't say how much money he makes but either he lives on it or he has very tolerant parents with a very nice basement. 

 

Mike Florio would probably be the most famous example of a guy who started a website, ProFootballTalk.com, and made it his full-time gig.  We know he must have made real money because he hung up his law degree and established law practice to go full time with it, but part of that was getting bought out by NBC and of course, being a lawyer, negotiating a favorable revenue-sharing agreement.

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I believe Cover1 started out as Eric Turner and a few friends doing it to educate themselves and educate fans when their day jobs took them away from coaching... and still that way at times.  But he's definitely moved away from bringing in guys who have a deep Xs and Os knowledge of the game as former players, coaches, or scouts and towards bringing in guys with a marketing/journalism background - maybe because the job market for the latter is tighter than the job market for the former, since there are always schools and teams looking for coaches and scouts? IDK.   So nowadays they have a lot more content and a person has to sift and check the background of the host to understand the value.

 

Don't know how commercially successful Cover1 is but I think it's Turner's pretty much full time gig now. 

 

Have always wondered about the press credentials criteria.

 

There have been bloggers and podcasters who have managed to successfully monetize.  Walter Cherepinski Football would be one example.  He's been at it 24 years, can't say how much money he makes but either he lives on it or he has very tolerant parents with a very nice basement. 

 

Mike Florio would probably be the most famous example of a guy who started a website, ProFootballTalk.com, and made it his full-time gig.  We know he must have made real money because he hung up his law degree and established law practice to go full time with it, but part of that was getting bought out by NBC and of course, being a lawyer, negotiating a favorable revenue-sharing agreement.

Turner certainly does it as a full-time job now

 

But the person I was talking to was saying how it's a good side gig to make some extra cash easy.. and jokingly said Turner hire me

 

And I said I think the majority of these people who make breakdown videos do it for the love of the game not money ... that it's a lot harder , than post video and make 500 bucks

 

You need a large base of followers and continuous content... which certainly takes a good amount of time ... which doesn't sound quick and easy

 

My point was.. the people who do this for a living... Like Turner who owns cover 1... Put in massive amount of time .. it's not really a side gig to make money quick ... it's his full time job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Turner certainly does it as a full-time job now

 

But the person I was talking to was saying how it's a good side gig to make some extra cash easy.. and jokingly said Turner hire me

 

And I said I think the majority of these people who make breakdown videos do it for the love of the game not money ... that it's a lot harder , than post video and make 500 bucks

 

You need a large base of followers and continuous content... which certainly takes a good amount of time ... which doesn't sound quick and easy

 

My point was.. the people who do this for a living... Like Turner who owns cover 1... Put in massive amount of time .. it's not really a side gig to make money quick ... it's his full time job

 

I Hear Ya.  I think for guys who have the ability to invest up front in good equipment and good services - really good video editor, good statistical service - the time commitment probably decreases once they've truly mastered how to use them.   And maybe there's a medium where, as @HoofHearted says, someone knowledgeable could make some content at a "hobby" level of time commitment that would be popular with a niche audience and bring in some decent change, especially if it's at a podcast level where you just talk, vs. video

 

But I know from personal experience that unless you have the gift of gab, it's a lot harder to even just get in front of a mic and talk coherently and interestingly for 30 minutes than people who haven't ever tried might think.  It's why a lot of these pro athletes who try to do podcasts are not necessarily too enthralling, and pull views because of who they are not because of the quality of their content.

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I Hear Ya.  I think for guys who have the ability to invest up front in good equipment and good services - really good video editor, good statistical service - the time commitment probably decreases once they've truly mastered how to use them.   And maybe there's a medium where, as @HoofHearted says, someone knowledgeable could make some content at a "hobby" level of time commitment that would be popular with a niche audience and bring in some decent change, especially if it's at a podcast level where you just talk, vs. video

 

But I know from personal experience that unless you have the gift of gab, it's a lot harder to even just get in front of a mic and talk coherently and interestingly for 30 minutes than people who haven't ever tried might think.  It's why a lot of these pro athletes who try to do podcasts are not necessarily too enthralling, and pull views because of who they are not because of the quality of their content.

For sure... I mean Ive had the gift of gab my entire life.. and I've been pushed plenty of times to strat a football podcast 

 

It just seems like a long road from 0 viewers and a lot of work ... to the point where you get satisfaction out of it

 

If I could get 500 listeners every time did a show yea that would be great .. I just wonder how hard it is to get 500 regular listeners 

[GunnerBill]

30 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

For sure... I mean Ive had the gift of gab my entire life.. and I've been pushed plenty of times to strat a football podcast 

 

It just seems like a long road from 0 viewers and a lot of work ... to the point where you get satisfaction out of it

 

If I could get 500 listeners every time did a show yea that would be great .. I just wonder how hard it is to get 500 regular listeners 

 

I was a regular on a soccer podcast over here in the UK for a few years. The guy who ran it worked sooo hard on it. We both had a few contacts with respected journos and with some respected fan blogs etc. We had good guests. And we grew pretty quick to about 800 weekly listeners within 3 months. But then we just never got beyond that point. We got a sponsor at one point for a year, but by the time that expired they had concluded we weren't going to break through the mainstream and pulled their relatively small sponsorship and they turned out to be correct. We had 3 good years and then year 4 the listnership began to drop and ultimately we wound it up. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by GunnerBill

[RobbRiddicksTDLeap]

On 9/26/2023 at 8:20 PM, HoofHearted said:

Yes, basically every zone concept has scenarios where you will end up being man on a receiver. None of these situations are anything like what you are trying to compare to the box and 1 in basketball. It is possible to replicate the concept though, but you have to lose a guy somewhere else (defensive line) in order to do it.

This sounds like George Edwards “hybrid” defense. Sacrifice the pass rush, for an extra coverage guy. Basically a 34 defense with an extra safety, instead of a linebacker somewhere. Or am I off?