Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

My belief re C2 is based on this -- you only have 2 DBs with eyes on the backfield. Your corners, obviously, turn and run with WRs. In that regard, they are easily taken out of the play on any run. Moreover, it can create huge scrambling lanes. What happens is it leaves your LBs 1v1 to make the play on the QB or RB with maybe 1 safety to help -- maybe -- even though they have eyes in the backfield, they still have to get deep for pass.

Whereas in a C4, you have 4 DBs with eyes ont he backfield keeping everything in front of them. The safeties are responsible for less ground and typically less "deep" threat type WRs, so they can play a bit closer to the box and be more aggressive on the run. In a base C4, the defense can fairly quickly outman the run the play. In a C2 it seems like runs are typically even numbers at best.

Alabama, when they play spread teams, will run versions of the C4. I guarantee you that would be Saban's approach to playing Oregon (it was also Heacock's). With a very good running QB, I think you start with an approach that makes that part of the offense difficult to execute and then try to keep the pass game to "soft" gains. The C2 approach seems to work in the opposite direction, which doesn't make much sense to me -- and why I call it assinine.

I will let Hoss and others weigh in. I have to admit, my true "Xs and Os" era of my life was many years ago -- well before the proliferation of the spread and C4 reaction, so I may be misstating things.

[entropy]

jeff.. what type of spread are you talking about? One with a running QB puts your front 7 at a -2 disadvantage on each play in a cover 2

Now, you may need to play it with weak corners or.. you believe teams will make errors and you'll be patient on D (like osu used to do)

[Wild Hoss]

My belief re C2 is based on this -- you only have 2 DBs with eyes on the backfield. Your corners, obviously, turn and run with WRs. In that regard, they are easily taken out of the play on any run. Moreover, it can create huge scrambling lanes. What happens is it leaves your LBs 1v1 to make the play on the QB or RB with maybe 1 safety to help -- maybe -- even though they have eyes in the backfield, they still have to get deep for pass.

What you?d be describing is C2 Man Under. In a true C2- the zone version which is extinct for all intents and purposes- you?d have everybody with eyes on the backfield, at least initially. Four or five short zones ?under? and two over the top.

In Bo?s pattern matching scheme we are, functionally speaking, in Cover 0. The safeties are essentially Man defenders, squeezing down on the inside receivers (TEs, 2s, backs, what have you) while our OLB/Nickel guy plays them man-to-man, or the safety takes an off-man coverage on them while the OLB drops off to cover somebody else...basically a vertical Banjo switch. Depends on how the routes develop. But often we are in situations where we are double-covering certain receivers...and that carries penalties in other areas.

The end result is that while we play a high 2, we will often have no safeties playing the traditional Cover 2 safety role...deep coverage, eyes on the ball. Nobody in the Under coverage is either after the initial quick read at the snap, as they are manned-up. Unless our MIKE or WILL is drifting, with an eye on a back who has stayed home pass pro. This is why, IMO, we are so vulnerable to big plays despite playing 6-7 guys on coverage.

Whereas in a C4, you have 4 DBs with eyes ont he backfield keeping everything in front of them. The safeties are responsible for less ground and typically less "deep" threat type WRs, so they can play a bit closer to the box and be more aggressive on the run. In a base C4, the defense can fairly quickly outman the run the play. In a C2 it seems like runs are typically even numbers at best.

Alabama, when they play spread teams, will run versions of the C4. I guarantee you that would be Saban's approach to playing Oregon (it was also Heacock's). With a very good running QB, I think you start with an approach that makes that part of the offense difficult to execute and then try to keep the pass game to "soft" gains. The C2 approach seems to work in the opposite direction, which doesn't make much sense to me -- and why I call it assinine.

Quarters is a good approach if you trust your DBs. Its vulnerable vertically to some simple combo routing, but that can be alleviated to some degree by using your LBs to jam the inside receivers and cover the short routes. Gets you seven in the box as well.

Personally, and I am no coach, I think split-field coverages are the way to go; zone on one side, Man on the other. Seems like a natural counter to offenses using half-field reads. Be variable in your approach, and be willing to accept getting beat in exchange for some ?wins?. But when in doubt, trust Nick.

[entropy]

another Husker fan posted a drive by drive summary of problems... in addition to what Hoss and I described was a theme of guys blitzing into OL or into each other... I suspect some of these guys are running to spots rather than just making plays..

could be wrong.

[iam416]

What you’d be describing is C2 Man Under. In a true C2- the zone version which is extinct for all intents and purposes- you’d have everybody with eyes on the backfield, at least initially. Four or five short zones “under” and two over the top.

True. The man-under is worse. I still think with the short zones your DBs get caught up in the routes too early, but it's not man-under.

In Bo’s pattern matching scheme we are, functionally speaking, in Cover 0.

If that's what they're doing, that's worse than I thought.

Its vulnerable vertically to some simple combo routing, but that can be alleviated to some degree by using your LBs to jam the inside receivers and cover the short routes

Yeah, you need all your LBs to be able to drop and cover. When OSU did this really well, they had Laurinaitis at MLB, and he was one of the best pass coverage MLBs you'll ever see.

Personally, and I am no coach, I think split-field coverages are the way to go; zone on one side, Man on the other. Seems like a natural counter to offenses using half-field reads. Be variable in your approach, and be willing to accept getting beat in exchange for some “wins”.

I agree. OSU will do that when they have Roby. As it relates to OSU, and my apologies for bringing it back to them, they have tried to be more aggressive defensively. Heacock, as noted, coached everything in front of him. UFM prefers to be a bit more aggressive and unwilling to conceded smaller plays. That led, IMO, to a startling number of huge plays against OSU last season. The defense rarely was nickel-dimed down the field and could look brilliant for 2 or 3 series before conceding a long TD.

But when in doubt, trust Nick.

Correct. When they play Manziel the definitive book on defending the spread will be written. We all have our ideas and have seen various approaches work. But once The Nick delivers his scheme from the mount, all other approaches will become heresy.

[hack]

LOL @ ``scheme from the mount''. Carry on, gents. Good discussion. All ears over here.

[THE_WIZARD_]

1. I thought Bo was a defensive genius. Not.

2. Newby is gonna be a stud.

3. Entropy is gay.

4. Talent is a prick.

[entropy]

wiz... I'm not interested, so stop trying...

[THE_WIZARD_]

I don't want you...I already have your wife...

[lineygoblue]

Don't you have enough wimmen already Wiz?

[entropy]

wiz... I'm not taking one of your kids off your hands.

[lineygoblue]

Aw, c'mon Ent... he needs help paying for all of those weddings in his future ... :-)

[THE_WIZARD_]

Damn straight.

[Wild Hoss]

wiz... I'm not taking one of your kids off your hands.

Well, his wife's kids at any rate.

[entropy]

hoss.. LOL