Can Somebody Please Break Down our Secondary Breakdowns?

[Ring 6]

A safety is taught never to depend on just reading the QB because a good QB will not telegraph who he is going to throw to. Rodney was very good because he could "see" the whole field.

I didn't say he should rely on the QB I said he cannot play his position by trying to read the leverage of a corner when it appears his assignment is elsewhere.

 

[PP2]

I'm with you on that. What's going on the near side is anybody's guess, which is what makes it so fascinating to watch.

If it's vanilla Cover 2, Gregory's at fault. In the case of two verticals in Cover 2, the linebacker/inside corner runs with "#2" and the safety, if he can't stay on top and split the difference due to lack of field, needs to float over to the sideline because usually the outside CB does not run vertical with the "#1" route, he protects the flats. Certainly the way Talib skates underneath Woods's out-cut fake suggests he believes his responsibility is the flats.

But it could just as easily be a man-combo situation with strange CB alignments due to the bunch set receivers, with Talib just getting beat. My impression of Talib is that he tends to lope along with receivers and try to "run their routes" with them instead of playing more reactive coverage, which as he is both large and lanky for a corner and a ballhawk plays to his strengths but will result from time to time in plays where it doesn't look like he's making much of an effort, like this one. If this is the situation then its more excusable for Gregory to focus on the first route that develops because (a) that's the first route to develop and you might as well make the rookie QB go through his progressions and (b) throws to smaller receivers on the outside are harder than throws to large tight ends on the inside, and since he's running out of real estate he might as well pick a poison instead of getting caught in no man's land.

And as you noted, Yates may have gotten his directions reversed and they're playing Quarters/Cover 4 to the near side, in which case Talib royally blew it.

Another thing: in both the plays this thread looks at, McCourty takes a weird jab step forward at the snap, and he seems surprised by the snap each time. Safeties are supposed to make their reads from a controlled backpedal. I think that strange tic / technique no-no accounts for the 2nd TD, the one to Stevie Johnson. Johnson just passes McCourty in the fast lane because McCourty is making these false steps out there. Sometimes he looks less like a safety and more like a guard trying to stop dribble penetration.

Arrington also aligns in a jamming position but doesn't disrupt Johnson at all. That did McCourty no favors in the footrace down the field. Dennard really is the Pats best player at jamming. Probably why he's the most consistent corner.

Yes! We managed to goad you out of hiding!

 

[PP2]

So you respect bruschis opinion bit totally dismiss it and deem him wrong from your living room? Interesting. You should have stopped with you don't like Gregory. Everything that follows appears controlled by that feeling.

My addendum is pretty much that regardless of who made the initial mistake, a great safety would have cleaned up out of a cover 2 responsibility. Gregory is a solid safety but is clearly not capable of doing this. Ed Reed, for example, would have already broke over (I daresay already cheating over because of the bunch alignment) and been there in time to clean Woods's clock.

 

[unoriginal]

Both safeties were technically correct when they made the call, as a receiver went in motion, however the safety who made the second call should not have made the change as coverage calls are not his responsibility. It was a teaching moment for the kids and the Parents who were certain the CB was wrong.

Lesson to the kids its best to be wrong together, with everyone in synch with each other.

I preface this by saying I respect you for coaching youth football and to not take this as professional/personal criticism. There may well be issues that I don't know about and am not taking into consideration. This is more a query as to why you do things this way.

First, I would say bravo to your safety who was not responsible for coverage calls but made the correct check call anyway when his teammate remained silent.

I think the best way to make everyone in synch with each other is not to make coverage calls a single person's responsibility, but make everyone responsible for changing their coverage on the fly based on the correct keys.

In my experience, which is very limited compared to the type of football this board follows but enough for to the level of football your post discusses, making every secondary player responsible for reading the keys and communicating to each other prepares them far better for higher levels of football or for other positions like wide receiver, where they will be asked to adjust routes as they run them rather than wait for a QB to tell them what they should do. I'm sure you could extend that even further into life lessons etc.

As that one article about BB auditing Brian Kelly's program quotes, teach every player "this is how you do the job" not "this is your job, now do it." If the key was that "when a receiver went in motion to twins formation" Cover 2 turns to Cover 3, then the safety and corner who stayed Cover 2 were wrong, not the safety who recognized the key correctly. Calls should be more about communication, not a chain of command. All that should be needed would be a simple "motion" call from somebody with coverage responsibility for the entire defense to adjust.

I know many coaches are loathe to do this because (a) then they're more limited in adjustment by their dumbest, least attentive personnel, (b) they LIKE chain of command style with clear and limited responsibilities, with one "deputy" player as a buffer between them and the team and (c) they may believe that a centerfield safety screaming his head off is a more accurate way to set a defence than having corners scanning across a formation from the side be responsible for diagnosing coverage keys.

But I think the gains in at-the-snap speed of adjustment, not giving away your coverage scheme by yelling the code word every other play, positional flexibility from giving players a full understanding of the scheme, and greater intellectual involvement from all players outweigh the negatives discussed. You're limited by the intelligence of your dumbest player no matter what you do. Might as well try to make them smarter.

To put it simply, the best defensive systems I've experienced, the only binding call the safeties give out is strong-side for coverage responsibilities. Everything else is passing information around.

 

[RobAllan]

This is a great thread- there was a quote by BB not that long ago about how he doesn't even know what the problem was on each play until they go back to the tape and figure out who was responsible for what. These type of things are wildly hard to figure out, because you're obviously looking at a play that's gone wrong. So it'll often look like a couple of things and you'd need some kind of insider knowledge to know which it was supposed to be.

I tend to lean toward Bruschi's explanation just due to his familiarity with how that defense works. (Particularly with how they communicate with each other, a very large "x" factor we can't know from watching a broadcast.)

That said, I'm loving hearing a lot of the thoughts on here, because I definitely don't have knowledge of how a play like that works and I feel like I'm learning a lot of things just reading this.

 

[BradyToAmendola]

Typically any pass that is caught people blame the free safety for not getting there. The fact is that NFL pass plays are run with combination routes, and there are always at least 2 choices for a free safety to make. The QB often will read that FS and throw to the other receiver.
To expect a FS to guess which receiver the ball will go to 100% of the time is ridiculous.
Arguably leaving the outside player alone on a short field and staying inside is a smart move more often than not.
They were beaten by a good receiver and good throw. The only way a FS impacts that play is by guessing, which we do not want, or jarring the ball out after the catch.

I'm pretty sure the receiver ran a go route, and it was a pretty routine pass for an NFL QB to make. So saying they were beat by a good receiver and a good throw isn't quite accurate, it was definitely a break down defensively. Much more about the Patriots defensive breakdown than anything the Bills did.

 

[mgcolby]

I preface this by saying I respect you for coaching youth football and to not take this as professional/personal criticism. There may well be issues that I don't know about and am not taking into consideration. This is more a query as to why you do things this way.

First, I would say bravo to your safety who was not responsible for coverage calls but made the correct check call anyway when his teammate remained silent.

I think the best way to make everyone in synch with each other is not to make coverage calls a single person's responsibility, but make everyone responsible for changing their coverage on the fly based on the correct keys.

In my experience, which is very limited compared to the type of football this board follows but enough for to the level of football your post discusses, making every secondary player responsible for reading the keys and communicating to each other prepares them far better for higher levels of football or for other positions like wide receiver, where they will be asked to adjust routes as they run them rather than wait for a QB to tell them what they should do. I'm sure you could extend that even further into life lessons etc.

As that one article about BB auditing Brian Kelly's program quotes, teach every player "this is how you do the job" not "this is your job, now do it." If the key was that "when a receiver went in motion to twins formation" Cover 2 turns to Cover 3, then the safety and corner who stayed Cover 2 were wrong, not the safety who recognized the key correctly. Calls should be more about communication, not a chain of command. All that should be needed would be a simple "motion" call from somebody with coverage responsibility for the entire defense to adjust.

I know many coaches are loathe to do this because (a) then they're more limited in adjustment by their dumbest, least attentive personnel, (b) they LIKE chain of command style with clear and limited responsibilities, with one "deputy" player as a buffer between them and the team and (c) they may believe that a centerfield safety screaming his head off is a more accurate way to set a defence than having corners scanning across a formation from the side be responsible for diagnosing coverage keys.

But I think the gains in at-the-snap speed of adjustment, not giving away your coverage scheme by yelling the code word every other play, positional flexibility from giving players a full understanding of the scheme, and greater intellectual involvement from all players outweigh the negatives discussed. You're limited by the intelligence of your dumbest player no matter what you do. Might as well try to make them smarter.

To put it simply, the best defensive systems I've experienced, the only binding call the safeties give out is strong-side for coverage responsibilities. Everything else is passing information around.

Where to start. First thanks for the well thought out post. Yes there were some extenuating circumstances.

1) Both safeties are smart. And we want them communicating with each other, but we don't want them giving out conflicting calls. By having one make the call it should ensure all four DB's are on the same page. Even if it is the wrong page. And yes ideally having the secondary all on the same page by reading the coverage would be awesome. Which brings me to point 2.

2) The CB that was "beat" was originally our OLB, we moved him to corner two weeks before the first game to get the best 11 on the field and fill a weakness at CB. We have very good depth at DL and LB, Secondary not so much. Unfortunately, his family went on vacation for the week leading up to the game. So he had two practices at CB and was not as familiar with the scheme as he his now. Our secondary players behind the starting four, to be polite need a lot of improvement, most of which cannot be taught. When they enter the game, I need to be sure they know where to be. Hence the safety call.

3) The motion happened so late that if we did shift, we would have had both safeties in transition at the snap. In C3 the SS walks up and has force, he would have had a mere moment to drop back 8 yards to get in position and make sure the OLB on the opposite side of the field was now aware of the change and that he now had flat vs curl to hook. That is a lot of moving parts at the snap of the ball and nothing good will come of that situation. Hence its best to be wrong together then have one player out of place.

You are right, teach them to do their job, but every defense has someone responsible for the calls at LB and in the secondary. Because not every player can see the entire formation. A CB split out is not going to be able to see a late motion on the other side of the field and adjust. That is not where his attention should be with a snap imminent.

It would be nice to make it everyone's responsibility to read the offense and react in harmony. But that is not a realistic expectation at the youth level, some of these players will never try out for their HS team let a lone play any meaningful snaps at the varsity level. We teach them all the same, however some players football acumen is not at a level where they have the ability to see, analyze and react. Much easier for them to hear a call and have the light bulb go on that tells them "Roger, ok, Cover 3, my job is deep 3rd".

Do your job concept just applied using a different approach, the KISS approach if you will.

 

[supafly]

Yes! We managed to goad you out of hiding!

"Flush him out."

It worked

 

[VrabelJr]

In the gif posted by the OP did anybody else see Chandler Jones get completely owned by Fred Jackson? Wow.

 

[Ring 6]

My addendum is pretty much that regardless of who made the initial mistake, a great safety would have cleaned up out of a cover 2 responsibility. Gregory is a solid safety but is clearly not capable of doing this. Ed Reed, for example, would have already broke over (I daresay already cheating over because of the bunch alignment) and been there in time to clean Woods's clock.

Totally disagree. Reed would not abandon his coverage to guess at a double team. You are grasping at straws.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

In the gif posted by the OP did anybody else see Chandler Jones get completely owned by Fred Jackson? Wow.

And did you see the speed at which he bounced back up? I'm not sure that desire to win can do that, but morbid embarassment will make even the slowest player move like that every time.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm pretty sure the receiver ran a go route, and it was a pretty routine pass for an NFL QB to make. So saying they were beat by a good receiver and a good throw isn't quite accurate, it was definitely a break down defensively. Much more about the Patriots defensive breakdown than anything the Bills did.

If you don't think that was a good throw, or Johnson is a good receiver, we don't have much reason to discuss.

 

[unoriginal]

I'm going to slice and dice here. Most of the stuff you said I agree with, and everything was perfectly understandable from a coaching and player perspective.

1) Both safeties are smart. And we want them communicating with each other, but we don't want them giving out conflicting calls.

If they are both smart and you want them communicating, let them both give out the calls, but tell them disagreements are not acceptable. They'll figure out how to work together (good) or they'll figure out that one of them is better than the other and one will defer. (better than what you may have right now) Either way you'll have them both thinking and if one goes down the other will be in a better position to step up.

The situation I'm thinking of here is freshman year of high school, where it was the strong safety's "job" to set strength but the free safety's job to lead the huddle and then make coverage adjustments. Well the free safety had trouble with formation recognition so basically the strong safety often had to "suggest" the formation name and sometimes even feed him his lines as it were. rather than dump everything on the strong safety the coach gave them both wristbands and told them to work out formation calls together, which worked out swimmingly. At first, they would confer before the snap in a conversational tone, then one, the other or both would make the announcement. By midseason they no longer needed to confer, they just both made announcements. At the very least psychologically it was advantageous to distribute the responsibility like that.

I understand that at the age you coach, that could easily devolve into squabbling.

3) The motion happened so late that if we did shift, we would have had both safeties in transition at the snap. In C3 the SS walks up and has force, he would have had a mere moment to drop back 8 yards to get in position and make sure the OLB on the opposite side of the field was now aware of the change and that he now had flat vs curl to hook. That is a lot of moving parts at the snap of the ball and nothing good will come of that situation. Hence its best to be wrong together then have one player out of place.

Okay, this is definitely an extenuating circumstance, and I know what you say here isn't exactly how you coach the players, I don't have a good grasp on that but: Don't call them "wrong together" then. Give your secondary players a rule or guideline about coverage changes at the snap. I've been given rules both of the "no changes on late motion" variety and "make this automatic change on late motion" variety. Late motion happens. Give the players clear ideas of the right and wrong way to deal with it. If you tell your secondary, or the safeties, or just the one safety, "do not change coverage after this point" then you've given them the ability to make the "right" decision together instead of telling them "we can live with you all being wrong together" and "you were both technically correct at the times you made the call."

The other thing I would say is to not be afraid of having secondary players in transition at the snap. QBs don't like that any more than you do. Probably less. If you don't want that OLB moving around that's one thing but safeties, who cares what they're doing as long as they're making the QB nervous and they can get where they need faster than a receiver or a running back.

You are right, teach them to do their job, but every defense has someone responsible for the calls at LB and in the secondary. Because not every player can see the entire formation. A CB split out is not going to be able to see a late motion on the other side of the field and adjust. That is not where his attention should be with a snap imminent.

That's true, and that's why communication - "twins right!" "two back" "motion motion motion" "watch crack" - is important. Always like arraignments where the information was passed instead of the coverage call. Gave me a better idea of what was going to happen. Like if I have twins to my side, then get a motion my side call, I both know the coverage adjustment if any and also that I'm likely looking at a levels-route situation.

You are right, your players are young and very inexperienced, and it is still early in the season (most likely). But you seem to have at least two players capable of making coverage calls. When I have played football, when coaches have allowed responsibility to be distributed as players are able to handle it, there have always been tangible rewards in the level of play.