Another coaching blooper reel

[Coach Macho]

Another bizarre play. View attachment 25775

I'm hoping somebody like Lu can explain what they are aiming to do here, because I really don't get it. On this play, the linebacker on the side with all the WR's shows blitz pre-snap. So, if it's a short pass, and he actually blitzes, we're covering 3 WR's with 2 guys. He does blitz and they swing it to the wide open guy for an effortless 6-7 yard gain. Like what is their philosophy behind doing that? I'm not trying to be snide at all. I'm genuinely curious why they think alignments like this make sense.

You do realize that players are moving after this still shot, right?

So while you see 3 receivers and only 2 defenders out wide, that doesn't mean it's gonna be that way post snap. Regardless, there's 3 defensive backs over there. There's a CB, a Free Safety and a Strong Safety. We're running a "Double Eagle" front. Both DE's lined up outside the Guards, both OLB's blitzing. It's most likely Cover-3 behind that, which means the Free Safety has #3 vertical. If 3 doesn't go vertical he rolls to #2. The Strong Safety has flats. The CB has deep 1/3 of the field. The Inside Linebacker has hook-to-curl zone. (i.e. #3 shallow) The CB at the bottom of the screen is basically manned up on the TE.

Nothing unordinary about this alignment.

Everything about that alignment is wrong. There is no way a college staff would set their defense up like that if they had any sense. This is high school level defense

No, you're wrong. That's how you line-up against trips. By all means, show me another way.

 

[Coach Macho]

Here it is again and I'll go over the assignments.

The CB up top is playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4.
The guy next to him, the Nickle back, is playing flats.
The Safety is 10 yards off of the #3 receiver and he's playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4.
The Inside Linebacker has the hook-to-curl zone, i.e. the #3 short.
The CB at the bottom of the screen is playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4.

There is nothing wrong with this alignment. It's a standard Cover-3 alignment vs. trips (3x1) formations. IF YOU MOVE ANY OF THESE PLAYERS AROUND YOU'LL BE WEAK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Another bizarre play. View attachment 25775

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Another bizarre play. View attachment 25775
QUOTE]

That right there looks like some sort of robber coverage. Meaning, if the TE would've went to the flats, Burns takes em', and McCord can keep contain. But just looking at that formation, it seems like it warrants a Corners Over call ( send Burns to the Trips side), moreso than a Robber call.

 

[Supercane85]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

 

[Supercane85]

Here's their first TDView attachment 25777

There's so many things wrong with this play. We basically leave Gunter 1 on 1 and he gets beat. Fine, that happens. But why do we again have Armbrister lined up wide, OUTSIDE OF DEON BUSH, blitz Deon Bush, and then have Dallas Crawford towards the side of the field with no WR's? I'm guessing Armbrister being that wide out tips them off that we're blitzing Bush, because it wouldn't make any sense to have Bush closer to the LB's than Armbrister if he wasn't blitzing.

So we give away a safety blitz pre-snap.

The result is that even if they didn't go to the guy who beat Gunter, there's no safety help to the bottom of the screen where all the WR's are--so they could easily flood Armbrister's zone. This play is just a massive **** up waiting to happen. Even if you take Gunter and the guy who burned him out of the equation, it ends up being 2 WR's versus one linebacker and a safety (Dallas Crawford) 15 yards away. Makes zero sense.

The Free Safety, which I believe is Crawford, should be rolling towards the 3 WR side and covering the #3 receiver vertical. Armbrister has flats. Gunter either has man coverage or deep 3rd.

We line Bush inside because that's how we play Cover-3. Our OLB's widen out and cover flats while our "down" Safety plays hook-to-curl.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's what it is.

You are wrong on this one also

You never line your LB outside your corner in man That is about the dumbest play I have witness in a long time.

 

[fincane]

Here's their first TDView attachment 25777

There's so many things wrong with this play. We basically leave Gunter 1 on 1 and he gets beat. Fine, that happens. But why do we again have Armbrister lined up wide, OUTSIDE OF DEON BUSH, blitz Deon Bush, and then have Dallas Crawford towards the side of the field with no WR's? I'm guessing Armbrister being that wide out tips them off that we're blitzing Bush, because it wouldn't make any sense to have Bush closer to the LB's than Armbrister if he wasn't blitzing.

So we give away a safety blitz pre-snap.

The result is that even if they didn't go to the guy who beat Gunter, there's no safety help to the bottom of the screen where all the WR's are--so they could easily flood Armbrister's zone. This play is just a massive **** up waiting to happen. Even if you take Gunter and the guy who burned him out of the equation, it ends up being 2 WR's versus one linebacker and a safety (Dallas Crawford) 15 yards away. Makes zero sense.

The Free Safety, which I believe is Crawford, should be rolling towards the 3 WR side and covering the #3 receiver vertical. Armbrister has flats. Gunter either has man coverage or deep 3rd.

We line Bush inside because that's how we play Cover-3. Our OLB's widen out and cover flats while our "down" Safety plays hook-to-curl.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's what it is.

You are wrong on this one also

You never line your LB outside your corner in man That is about the dumbest play I have witness in a long time.

So if you're playing man free and Coley last year split out Mo Hagens to the sideline, you're are going to have your corner leave Dorsett to cover Hagens? Then put an OLB on Dorsett just because Hagens is closer to the sideline?

 

[butchs'revenge]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

not even trying to get in the backfield no wonder no TFL.

 

[weownfsu]

Fincane bringing up irrelevant points again. Big shock.

 

[Coach Macho]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

God **** man, this **** is giving me a headache.

Burns is the CB. He's playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4. It's not man defense, it's zone.

If he lines up too close to the TE then he's vulnerable to play-action pass and the TE will be wide open for a touchdown.

Where do you think he's supposed to be lined up?

 

[Coach Macho]

Here's their first TDView attachment 25777

There's so many things wrong with this play. We basically leave Gunter 1 on 1 and he gets beat. Fine, that happens. But why do we again have Armbrister lined up wide, OUTSIDE OF DEON BUSH, blitz Deon Bush, and then have Dallas Crawford towards the side of the field with no WR's? I'm guessing Armbrister being that wide out tips them off that we're blitzing Bush, because it wouldn't make any sense to have Bush closer to the LB's than Armbrister if he wasn't blitzing.

So we give away a safety blitz pre-snap.

The result is that even if they didn't go to the guy who beat Gunter, there's no safety help to the bottom of the screen where all the WR's are--so they could easily flood Armbrister's zone. This play is just a massive **** up waiting to happen. Even if you take Gunter and the guy who burned him out of the equation, it ends up being 2 WR's versus one linebacker and a safety (Dallas Crawford) 15 yards away. Makes zero sense.

The Free Safety, which I believe is Crawford, should be rolling towards the 3 WR side and covering the #3 receiver vertical. Armbrister has flats. Gunter either has man coverage or deep 3rd.

We line Bush inside because that's how we play Cover-3. Our OLB's widen out and cover flats while our "down" Safety plays hook-to-curl.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's what it is.

You are wrong on this one also

You never line your LB outside your corner in man That is about the dumbest play I have witness in a long time.

Who the **** said we were playing man defense?

I said Gunter is either playing man on #1 or deep 3rd.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Supercane85]

Here's their first TDView attachment 25777

There's so many things wrong with this play. We basically leave Gunter 1 on 1 and he gets beat. Fine, that happens. But why do we again have Armbrister lined up wide, OUTSIDE OF DEON BUSH, blitz Deon Bush, and then have Dallas Crawford towards the side of the field with no WR's? I'm guessing Armbrister being that wide out tips them off that we're blitzing Bush, because it wouldn't make any sense to have Bush closer to the LB's than Armbrister if he wasn't blitzing.

So we give away a safety blitz pre-snap.

The result is that even if they didn't go to the guy who beat Gunter, there's no safety help to the bottom of the screen where all the WR's are--so they could easily flood Armbrister's zone. This play is just a massive **** up waiting to happen. Even if you take Gunter and the guy who burned him out of the equation, it ends up being 2 WR's versus one linebacker and a safety (Dallas Crawford) 15 yards away. Makes zero sense.

The Free Safety, which I believe is Crawford, should be rolling towards the 3 WR side and covering the #3 receiver vertical. Armbrister has flats. Gunter either has man coverage or deep 3rd.

We line Bush inside because that's how we play Cover-3. Our OLB's widen out and cover flats while our "down" Safety plays hook-to-curl.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's what it is.

You are wrong on this one also

You never line your LB outside your corner in man That is about the dumbest play I have witness in a long time.

So if you're playing man free and Coley last year split out Mo Hagens to the sideline, you're are going to have your corner leave Dorsett to cover Hagens? Then put an OLB on Dorsett just because Hagens is closer to the sideline?

No I would call a time out or simply check out of that play because they would be trying to insolate one of my players. When your LB is out side of a DB a simple rub play or wheel route places the LB in ISO coverage on the outside which is insane to run. This is not highschool and we are talking about a college level defense. It is simply unacceptable to run a formation like that

 

[Supercane85]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

God **** man, this **** is giving me a headache.

Burns is the CB. He's playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4. It's not man defense, it's zone.

If he lines up too close to the TE then he's vulnerable to play-action pass and the TE will be wide open for a touchdown.

Where do you think he's supposed to be lined up?

You continue to talk about 1/3 coverage's. But what does that have to do with the alignment? What is even more laughable is that he is bailing and back peddling right before the start of the play..lol They are in a double tight end formation with both wide outs on the short side of the field so who is he guarding?

That play is so dumb it is comical.

 

[Coach Macho]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

God **** man, this **** is giving me a headache.

Burns is the CB. He's playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4. It's not man defense, it's zone.

If he lines up too close to the TE then he's vulnerable to play-action pass and the TE will be wide open for a touchdown.

Where do you think he's supposed to be lined up?

You continue to talk about 1/3 coverage's. But what does that have to do with the alignment? What is even more laughable is that he is bailing and back peddling right before the start of the play..lol They are in a double tight end formation with both wide outs on the short side of the field so who is he guarding?

That play is so dumb it is comical.

SMH

 

[AUcane]

I'm never played HS or college football yet played enough flag football to understand the concepts that Macho is talking about. Doesn't matter if nobody is lined up on your side if you're playing halves or thirds. You have to cover your alley in the event someone crosses, etc.

Jeez, some of you are morans.

 

[Coach Macho]

I would love for somebody to tell me where they think these players should be lined up. LOL

 

[Miami82]

I would love for somebody to tell me where they think these players should be lined up. LOL

Alignment is a small part of the issue. These kids are actually still thinking 4 years into this ****** scheme and I see no one dictating anything on the field.

We are a reactive D and the kids are going through slow reads and the process they have been taught and the RB is 3 yards down the field when you see the light go on...

 

[dg151]

There's a lot of good information in this thread covered up with a whole lot of dumbassery. If you're gonna complain about presnap allignments using screencaps try knowing ******* anything about what you're talking about first.

 

[demcanes26]

See, I don't mind if people are gonna dog the pre-snap alignments but atleast know WTF you're talkin about.

The first play in question...

Burns HAS to be on the TE side. We're playing zone. Who do you think is covering the TE if he goes vertical? Also, what if they run toss? The problem is yall don't know the difference between zone and man. In zone, LB's match up with WR's all the time. Burn is either playing Cover-2, in which case he has the flats, or Cover-3 where he has the TE releasing vertical. The Linebacker that's lined up on the #2 is covering flats. Just cause he's got a ****in' WR across from him doesn't mean he's playing man on him. SMH


Honestly, not a single alignment (screen shot) in this thread is wrong. They're all pretty standard.

Man you are wrong. Why would any coach with sense line there DB up behind the LB's almost as deep as the safeties?

You would leave the entire field open.

God **** man, this **** is giving me a headache.

Burns is the CB. He's playing deep 1/3 or deep 1/4. It's not man defense, it's zone.

If he lines up too close to the TE then he's vulnerable to play-action pass and the TE will be wide open for a touchdown.

Where do you think he's supposed to be lined up?

You continue to talk about 1/3 coverage's. But what does that have to do with the alignment? What is even more laughable is that he is bailing and back peddling right before the start of the play..lol They are in a double tight end formation with both wide outs on the short side of the field so who is he guarding?

That play is so dumb it is comical.

It's zone. He isn't covering anyone. He is covering an area of the field.

 

[gfer1988]

I'm never played HS or college football yet played enough flag football to understand the concepts that Macho is talking about. Doesn't matter if nobody is lined up on your side if you're playing halves or thirds. You have to cover your alley in the event someone crosses, etc.

Jeez, some of you are morans.

the question is why would they keep having our cb's playing so deep when they only threw 13 times the whole game. watching any nebraska game the last 4 years, you pretty much know there is a 85% chance it will be a run. all of this deep zone crap is just helping the offense gain chunks at a time. it's like we're always in a prevent defense bc our coaches are that scared we're gonna get beat over the top even though passing isn't the cornhuskers strength. it's bad strategy

 

[dg151]

I'm never played HS or college football yet played enough flag football to understand the concepts that Macho is talking about. Doesn't matter if nobody is lined up on your side if you're playing halves or thirds. You have to cover your alley in the event someone crosses, etc.

Jeez, some of you are morans.

the question is why would they keep having our cb's playing so deep when they only threw 13 times the whole game. watching any nebraska game the last 4 years, you pretty much know there is a 85% chance it will be a run. all of this deep zone crap is just helping the offense gain chunks at a time. it's like we're always in a prevent defense bc our coaches are that scared we're gonna get beat over the top even though passing isn't the cornhuskers strength. it's bad strategy

By playing cover 3 you can commit 8 guys to underneath passing/runs while also having those 3 players keep their eyes on the ball. Nebraska was also averaging 30 pass attempts a game coming into Saturday night.