The Blueprint (Defense)

View as article
I think Shaq was a bit limited athletically and teams schemed into that, but I also don’t think he got much better than he came in. That’s a problem. If Barrow was his coach that wouldn’t have been the case. It’s not to say there was not a recruiting issue, especially in the 17 and 18 classes, but our LB play has been painful to watch.
Disagree. Go back and watch what great lbs looked like as true frosh. Shaq did so e things well and he is a great kid, but lewis, spence, mccarthy, they’re a whole nother level. They exploded, diagnosed faster than others, shed blockers, got upfield and across field, had a nose for the ball, just different. We need to upgrade talent, not just coaches. Especially at LB.
 
Advertisement
I wish we could’ve seen Spence and McCarthy in this defense. They'd get 40 TFLs between them.
Yep.

Watching the old highlights was a good reminder whatever our schematic flaws are, we also just don’t have the kind of kids we used to - not at LB anyhow.

We’ve lowered our expectations around here too far. And our staffs have not evaluated the position well at all recently. Barrow did and for all his faults, dorito did, too. But Under richt/diaz, nope.
 
Thank you!

’developing’ is a label people throw around way too loosely. Ray lewis walked on the field as a true frosh late arrival at MLB and was making plays everywhere. Spence had pure lb instincts from the get go. Taylor at safety did. Not everyone is that good, but great talent is great talent.

‘Development’ is a term that implies coaches have magic. It’s not true. Kids develop themaelves for the most part. Hard work, S&C, film, and practice and experience. Coaches given them the tools and if they’re good, put them in a place to succeed. sure, position coaches give some nuances, but people saying spence wouldn’t have been spence in our current defense are absurd.

Some positions are more developmental, but I wouldn’t put linebacker in that category. You either have instincts or you don’t. It’s similar to running back.
 
77-eddie edwards
78-don latimer,john turner
81-john swain
82-lester williams, fred marion
83-chickillo, lippett
84-brophy, bellinger
85-broughton
86-***an, sutton
87-jerome brown, sileo, winston moss
88-bennie blades, dan stubbs, fullington
89-bill hawkins, bubba mcdowell, rod carter
90-cortez kennedy, jimmie jones, bernard clark, peguese, greg mark, newbill, berry
91-maryland, shane curry, r. Bailey, roland smith
92-d. Williams
93-mcneil, barrow, darrin smith, armstead
94-krein
95-sapp, riley, cj richardson
96-ray lewis
97-lang, holmes, mack, wimberly, russell
98-starks
00-boireau, webster
01-morgan, d. Lewis, myers
02-buchanon, reed, rumph
03-mcdougle, joseph, williams, green
04-ST, vilma, DJ, wilfork
05-rolle
06-jennings, mcintosh, leon williams, orien harris, maxey
07-meriweather, beason, atkins, brown
08-KP, Calais, gooden
09-adkins
10-sharpton
11-harris, dvd, bailey, mccarthy
12-vernon, spence
13-mcgee
15-perryman, chickillo
16-burns, bush
17-jenkins, elder, colbert, aqm
18-c. Thomas, rj, norton
19-redwine, mj, joe j, jaquan
20-shaq, garvin
 
Last edited:
Some positions are more developmental, but I wouldn’t put linebacker in that category. You either have instincts or you don’t. It’s similar to running back.
No doubt but we’ve seen great players make impacts in cb at qb, wr, cb. OL is more developmental, and DT. Partly because of physicality and partly because of assignment. DEs can make plays as true frosh. Safety might be a sneaky spot where development does matter (even with instincts) unless you’re truly unique. Because they have to make the right decisions, not just react, amd they look awful then they blow it.
 
Advertisement
The problem with looking at NFL draft trends with the LB position is the NFL has been very inefficient at drafting the position. Most of those names have been underperforming this year. I got laughed off for saying Devin White is overrated and he's been consistently one of the worst graded LBs in the league for 2 years as he's dog**** in coverage and makes a ton of mental errors.

There's value in having a low-upside assignment-sound thumper like Shaq (or a theoretical Jennings with better instincts) as long as you have an alternative for when you're in nickel or dime. The passing game is where football is won and lost but if you can't stop the run you're helpless. It's hard to play undersized run-and-hit types every down when you want your DTs penetrating gaps upfield. I finally saw Carter lining up at LB some on passing downs so maybe there's hope that the staff will mix and match based on down and distance.

AWW i remember this argument and only me and u being on that about him. But everyone loves his speed and story i guess. Guy can run some plays down but has trouble getting off blocks and though fast cant cover that well.
 
further to the ’development’ topic, the nfl all pro lists from the ’10s at lb includes a bunch of guys from places not known for ‘development.’

Those guys were just great lbs.
 
Patke atleast has unearthed some guys. He is the plug ont he NYC guys we got ( weird) and the NJ lb. Harrison Hunte is already showing huge promise.

Blake Baker i thought would give us a foot in Louisiana didnt even realize he is from Houston...now im like wtf. Dude should have us with all kind of offers that way. His recruiting prowess also needs to be in question.
Baker and patke are both from Houston. My grandfather coached baker, patke played with my cousin at SFA
 
Wouldn't you place some of this blame on Manny? I would. He's the DC/HC and those positions have been a failure since he's gotten here.
That's fair. However as the head coach, Diaz is in a position to view things from a broader perspective. By that I mean that as a head coach Diaz has demonstrated the ability to assess the trouble areas of the team/program and address them. It is reasonably safe to assume that coach Diaz is well aware of our problems at CB and LB in terms of recruiting. That Diaz is aware of this defenses decline since Baker took over at DC would also be a would also be a logical assumption.


There has also been a significant drop off throughout the defense in attention to detail and positional fundamentals. A prime example of this is the Defensive Line. The DL is very talented with good depth but I'm begging to question the type of coaching they receive. The players give good effort in general but they seem to be lacking in the type of techniques that would enable them to be much more effective. Jalen Phillips is a perfect example. Nobody can question his desire, effort or motor. However with the type of skills and physical attributes he brings to the table, Phillips should be more productive especially in terms of sacks, TFL and setting an edge. Coach Stroud is obviously very experienced and a formidable recruiter but I question his ability to fully develop these players. There is a reason that coach Stroud was originally brought in to be part of the support staff and not as a position coach. Diaz needs to take a good long look at the Defensive staff. We need major upgrades here both in terms of recruiting and position coaching/development in addition to a new Defensive Coordinator.
 
Advertisement
Safety is a cerebral position, that's why you see so many sleepers as you said.

All the athleticism in the world is great, but if you're not in the right spot, you know how it goes. That's what everyone gets caught up in a lot of the time with this position, athleticism and ground coverage. They are the back end of your defense, the last line of defense.
 
But actually he sent the "striker" in on a blitz, played press-man on the weak/same side he sent the blitz in on, it was just a stupid play-call, than pre-snap our defenders we're already aligned wrong. Also, having quarterman and pickney dropping back into pass coverage after hovering around the line of scrimmage was asanine, knowing they already don't have the foot-speed to get back that far, that defensive play-call was doomed from the get go. It was just a basic 3 man route, nothing fancy, we got the players, baker is in over his head.
Bandy was playing the Striker position on that play, not Frierson. Our Striker lines-up to the strong side apex. He didn't blitz. Frierson blitzed from the weak-side.
We played the same coverage versus the strong-side that we play 90% of the time.


Giving up a deep-out on 4th & 17.
Pretty amazing stuff.
 
That's fair. However as the head coach, Diaz is in a position to view things from a broader perspective. By that I mean that as a head coach Diaz has demonstrated the ability to assess the trouble areas of the team/program and address them. It is reasonably safe to assume that coach Diaz is well aware of our problems at CB and LB in terms of recruiting. That Diaz is aware of this defenses decline since Baker took over at DC would also be a would also be a logical assumption.


There has also been a significant drop off throughout the defense in attention to detail and positional fundamentals. A prime example of this is the Defensive Line. The DL is very talented with good depth but I'm begging to question the type of coaching they receive. The players give good effort in general but they seem to be lacking in the type of techniques that would enable them to be much more effective. Jalen Phillips is a perfect example. Nobody can question his desire, effort or motor. However with the type of skills and physical attributes he brings to the table, Phillips should be more productive especially in terms of sacks, TFL and setting an edge. Coach Stroud is obviously very experienced and a formidable recruiter but I question his ability to fully develop these players. There is a reason that coach Stroud was originally brought in to be part of the support staff and not as a position coach. Diaz needs to take a good long look at the Defensive staff. We need major upgrades here both in terms of recruiting and position coaching/development in addition to a new Defensive Coordinator.

You make some good points. At the end of the day, coaches' undoing eventually is hubris. Yes, I'm sure Manny is aware of our CB recruiting failures. It's one thing to know about it it's another to know how to address it. Maybe he thinks "it's not a big deal, we can get some players". As for the defense, yes, I'm sure he knows there are issues with the defense just like I'm sure Alf knew there were issues with our "complex" defense yet he stuck with it too long which was one of the big reasons for his demise.
 
Thank you!

’developing’ is a label people throw around way too loosely. Ray lewis walked on the field as a true frosh late arrival at MLB and was making plays everywhere. Spence had pure lb instincts from the get go. Taylor at safety did. Not everyone is that good, but great talent is great talent.

‘Development’ is a term that implies coaches have magic. It’s not true. Kids develop themaelves for the most part. Hard work, S&C, film, and practice and experience. Coaches given them the tools and if they’re good, put them in a place to succeed. sure, position coaches give some nuances, but people saying spence wouldn’t have been spence in our current defense are absurd.


"Development" is a valid term if you switch a kid's position and then he does well. You have to credit "development" for Warren Sapp, though obviously he had some physical gifts and great drive.

But, yeah, when kids continue to play the same position they've always played, it's not "development" as much as it is "teaching". There's no way in **** that every HS D-lineman knows every rushing move to make. There's no way in **** that every HS D-back knows every trick on how to use his hands or forcing a WR to go in a different direction than he wants to go.

There's middle ground here. Those who get drafted certainly improve their game over the 3-5 years since HS. Some of that development comes naturally, and some comes from the teaching of the position coach. Most college position coaches teach these kids way more skills than their HS position coaches ever did.
 
Advertisement
Some positions are more developmental, but I wouldn’t put linebacker in that category. You either have instincts or you don’t. It’s similar to running back.


Agreed. DLs are down in a 3 point stance, DBs are out in space. LBs are the ones who are close to the ball, but standing up and looking around. They have to take it all in and then react in a very instinctive fashion, even if they have "assignments" at the beginning of each play.
 
Bandy was playing the Striker position on that play, not Frierson. Our Striker lines-up to the strong side apex. He didn't blitz. Frierson blitzed from the weak-side.
We played the same coverage versus the strong-side that we play 90% of the time.


Giving up a deep-out on 4th & 17.
Pretty amazing stuff.

Which is exactly why they converted, it's 4th and 17, bandy is already on the inside of the receiver with the safety way back playing bracket coverage, blake baker is running to much 3-4 coverage concepts, we not from the Midwest, pre-snap howell and the receiver already knew where to go with the ball, if you not gone disrupt the timing of the play, why we even blitzing, just meet them at the sticks. Just a dumb *** defensive call, thus far this year we are only top 20 in only 1 defensive category, #16 in TFL's, other than that we're either in the 40's or nowhere top 50 in defensive categories, I think we in the 30 something's for one more category, other than that, our defensive rankings definitely reflect blake baker's defensive philosophy!
 
I always thought of "development" as a 2-way street, a mutual agreement between the player and coach. It takes both of them. For example...

Linebackers - I can't teach you instincts, motor or tenacity. But I can teach you how to defeat blocks, use your hands better, recognize blocking schemes a little quicker and play zone coverage better. But at the end of the day, no matter how hard I teach you, your physical talent and ability to APPLY what I'm teaching you SETS YOUR CEILING.

Development is an over-used term but it is a real thing. I just don't think it's as black/white as people make it seem. No coach can turn chicken **** into chicken salad. You can't make a player more physically talented, but you can help instill the technique that can take them to the next level in their game. Now even though you're teaching EVERY kid these techniques, some RETAIN it and APPLY it better than others. Some players are so physically talented that they'll succeed no matter what. But with some players, there are instances where they use certain techniques to give them an edge, and to me that is where you see development.

In the world of football there are certain high schools and colleges that are able to compete with teams who have better athletes across the board. Now, they may not always win these games but they make it competitive. The only way they do this is through development. On the high school level I've watched physically inferior Defensive Linemen absolutely whoop D1 level Offensive Linemen in 1-on-1's using great technique. Now, this particular D-lineman might beat this OL on the high school level, but the OL kid is a superior athlete with a much higher ceiling and once he gets better coaching/development he'll probably shut the D-linemen down. But as of now, on the HS level, that kid's development has allowed him to level the playing field.
I'm sure this happens A LOT more on the high school level where legit coaching/development is rare. Obviously there's much better coaching/development on the college level so this type of parody doesn't happen as often.

But as a coach, there's certain things I notice in a player that makes me say "he's being coaches (or developed)".
You can tell the difference between someone who made a play just because they're a superior athlete... and someone who made a play because of great technique/development. A D-lineman blowing by an Offensive Tackle before he's even out of his stance and then bending the edge is just superior athleticism. But what happens when that D-lineman faces a Tackle that can handle that athleticism? He's gonna need counter moves and THAT is where you'll often notice the coaching/development.

Let's look at a couple of our own recent DE's since I'm such a pass rush junkie.
*Jon Garvin game here with great physical attributes, decent bend, good flexibility, etc. He blew by 1st round O-lineman as a Freshman. He never developed anything more than a speed-rush/rip move around the edge though. That was his go-to, and when that didn't work he was stonewalled. He never added anything else to his toolbox. So was he not developed/taught? Or could he just not retain and apply?
*Joe Jackson. Not a very explosive or flexible athlete but had great size and good strength. In 3 years he never developed anything more than a bull-rush. Much like Garvin, he got worse while he was here because once the jury was out, Offensive Tackles knew exactly how to block him. He never developed a counter-move to his bull-rush.

The development doesn't happen over the course of a day, week or month. It takes literally hundreds even thousands of reps + a coach being anal about the ****. For a player to use these techniques on a regular basis it basically has to become muscle memory. So it has to be drilled into a player over and over and over. A coaching mentor of mine taught me "Keep teaching it. Teach it again. And when they're tired of doing it, teach it some more." Because the truth is, they don't use the **** in live action until it becomes something they're used to doing all the time.

Sorry for the long post, lol, but that's my view on development. It's a real thing, just not as cut-and-dry as fans make it seem. It ultimately still boils down to the player's ability/ceiling.
 
Advertisement
I always thought of "development" as a 2-way street, a mutual agreement between the player and coach. It takes both of them. For example...

Linebackers - I can't teach you instincts, motor or tenacity. But I can teach you how to defeat blocks, use your hands better, recognize blocking schemes a little quicker and play zone coverage better. But at the end of the day, no matter how hard I teach you, your physical talent and ability to APPLY what I'm teaching you SETS YOUR CEILING.

Development is an over-used term but it is a real thing. I just don't think it's as black/white as people make it seem. No coach can turn chicken **** into chicken salad. You can't make a player more physically talented, but you can help instill the technique that can take them to the next level in their game. Now even though you're teaching EVERY kid these techniques, some RETAIN it and APPLY it better than others. Some players are so physically talented that they'll succeed no matter what. But with some players, there are instances where they use certain techniques to give them an edge, and to me that is where you see development.

In the world of football there are certain high schools and colleges that are able to compete with teams who have better athletes across the board. Now, they may not always win these games but they make it competitive. The only way they do this is through development. On the high school level I've watched physically inferior Defensive Linemen absolutely whoop D1 level Offensive Linemen in 1-on-1's using great technique. Now, this particular D-lineman might beat this OL on the high school level, but the OL kid is a superior athlete with a much higher ceiling and once he gets better coaching/development he'll probably shut the D-linemen down. But as of now, on the HS level, that kid's development has allowed him to level the playing field.
I'm sure this happens A LOT more on the high school level where legit coaching/development is rare. Obviously there's much better coaching/development on the college level so this type of parody doesn't happen as often.

But as a coach, there's certain things I notice in a player that makes me say "he's being coaches (or developed)".
You can tell the difference between someone who made a play just because they're a superior athlete... and someone who made a play because of great technique/development. A D-lineman blowing by an Offensive Tackle before he's even out of his stance and then bending the edge is just superior athleticism. But what happens when that D-lineman faces a Tackle that can handle that athleticism? He's gonna need counter moves and THAT is where you'll often notice the coaching/development.

Let's look at a couple of our own recent DE's since I'm such a pass rush junkie.
*Jon Garvin game here with great physical attributes, decent bend, good flexibility, etc. He blew by 1st round O-lineman as a Freshman. He never developed anything more than a speed-rush/rip move around the edge though. That was his go-to, and when that didn't work he was stonewalled. He never added anything else to his toolbox. So was he not developed/taught? Or could he just not retain and apply?
*Joe Jackson. Not a very explosive or flexible athlete but had great size and good strength. In 3 years he never developed anything more than a bull-rush. Much like Garvin, he got worse while he was here because once the jury was out, Offensive Tackles knew exactly how to block him. He never developed a counter-move to his bull-rush.

The development doesn't happen over the course of a day, week or month. It takes literally hundreds even thousands of reps + a coach being anal about the ****. For a player to use these techniques on a regular basis it basically has to become muscle memory. So it has to be drilled into a player over and over and over. A coaching mentor of mine taught me "Keep teaching it. Teach it again. And when they're tired of doing it, teach it some more." Because the truth is, they don't use the **** in live action until it becomes something they're used to doing all the time.

Sorry for the long post, lol, but that's my view on development. It's a real thing, just not as cut-and-dry as fans make it seem. It ultimately still boils down to the player's ability/ceiling.

In your experience, what is the hardest thing to coach? Not including obvious physical things like length, twitch, etc.
 
In your experience, what is the hardest thing to coach? Not including obvious physical things like length, twitch, etc.
Hmmm...
Good question.

Defensive Lineman - "Quarterback/rush relation". So many young pass rushers get lost in the moment of tying to beat their O-lineman that they lose track of the QB and run themselves out of sacks. You have to be able to track the QB as you're rushing the passer. You have to possess (what I call) a "big window"...the ability to see beyond just the O-lineman who's blocking you. Oh, and having a counter-move once you need to redirect.

Linebackers - So much about that position is simply instinctual. I'd have to say that teaching pattern matching zone coverage has probably been most difficult. It takes so much repetition. Anybody can run to a spot and cover grass, but running to the hip of receivers and disrupting routes takes a lot more teaching. Ultimately that's my fault for running that style of zone, but I feel that the extra effort is worth it in the long run. It's a better way to play zone IMO. It probably sounds like it would be simple to teach but there's so many route combinations that a Linebacker has to get used to seeing. It takes a lot of 7-on-7 work. Being able to read/cover one receiver and then snap your eyes to the next threat. Knowing how long to carry a route before breaking on another one. Knowing when you're being "high lowed" and baited by short routes. Stuff like that. Goes back to what I was saying about that "big window" thing. I can't get fixated on the slot receiver that's running my way up to seem if the outside receiver is running a shallow or slant underneath him. I have to be able to see the big window and break on that short route. It just takes a lot of eye discipline and then synchronizing your feet with your eyes.

Corners - I think quality man coverage is hard to teach. Anybody can teach junkyard, push the WR to the bench type of technique. But the proper, efficient way to play man coverage is actually very technical and hard to teach. It's like a freakin' combination of salsa dancing and karate. 😆 Because as the level of play gets more sophisticated, the technique has to be more detailed. You have to understand WR spacing, route recognition, WR releases...Ex: how a WR is stemming you through his route can tip you off to what route he is running... how he's leaning through his route...setting you up for another move... stuff like that. Best CB I ever coached was Juwan Dowels. And those things I mentioned is what made him so good. He wasn't physically imposing at all. When Mike Rumph had him at Heritage, he told me that Dowels was the only one that could cover Isaiah McKenzie in practice. He said that Dowels used to run Isaiah's routes for him.

Safeties - I would have to say that this largely depends on scheme. I'm a cover-3/single-high guy, so I don't ask too much of my Safeties. But I do run some 2-high stuff and that takes a lot more teaching. In 2-high your Safeties are often reading 2-to-1. So they have to be able to see the big picture. And they have to make split-second decisions. If the #2 WR runs in or out they have to drive on #1 immediately. But #1 can be running a slant, a vertical, a post, a dig, etc. Much like pattern matching with the Linebackers, this takes a million reps. There's so many route combinations the Safety will see. In the long run you will force much tighter throwing windows if your kids can master it. If you choose the alternative then you'll see wide open intermediate pass catchers like we do almost every Saturday. LOL
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...
Good question.

Defensive Lineman - "Quarterback/rush relation". So many young pass rushers get lost in the moment of tying to beat their O-lineman that they lose track of the QB and run themselves out of sacks. You have to be able to track the QB as you're rushing the passer. You have to possess (what I call) a "big window"...the ability to see beyond just the O-lineman who's blocking you. Oh, and having a counter-move once you need to redirect.

Linebackers - So much about that position is simply instinctual. I'd have to say that teaching pattern matching zone coverage has probably been most difficult. It takes so much repetition. Anybody can run to a spot and cover grass, but running to the hip of receivers and disrupting routes takes a lot more teaching. Ultimately that's my fault for running that style of zone, but I feel that the extra effort is worth it in the long run. It's a better way to play zone IMO. It probably sounds like it would be simple to teach but there's so many route combinations that a Linebacker has to get used to seeing. It takes a lot of 7-on-7 work. Being able to read/cover one receiver and then snap your eyes to the next threat. Knowing how long to carry a route before breaking on another one. Knowing when you're being "high lowed" and baited by short routes. Stuff like that. Goes back to what I was saying about that "big window" thing. I can't get fixated on the slot receiver that's running my way up to seem if the outside receiver is running a shallow or slant underneath him. I have to be able to see the big window and break on that short route. It just takes a lot of eye discipline and then synchronizing your feet with your eyes.

Corners - I think quality man coverage is hard to teach. Anybody can teach junkyard, push the WR to the bench type of technique. But the proper, efficient way to play man coverage is actually very technical and hard to teach. It's like a freakin' combination of salsa dancing and karate. 😆 Because as the level of play gets more sophisticated, the technique has to be more detailed. You have to understand WR spacing, route recognition, WR releases...Ex: how a WR is stemming you through his route can tip you off to what route he is running... how he's leaning through his route...setting you up for another move... stuff like that. Best CB I ever coached was Juwan Dowels. And those things I mentioned is what made him so good. He wasn't physically imposing at all. When Mike Rumph had him at Heritage, he told me that Dowels was the only one that could cover Isaiah McKenzie in practice. He said that Dowels used to run Isaiah's routes for him.

Safeties - I would have to say that this largely depends on scheme. I'm a cover-3/single-high single high guy, so I don't ask too much of my Safeties. But I do run some 2-high stuff and that takes a lot more teaching. In 2-high your Safeties are often reading 2-to-1. So they have to be able to see the big picture. And they have to make split-second decisions. If the #2 WR runs in or out they have to drive on #1 immediately. But #1 can be running a slant, a vertical, a post, a dig, etc. Much like pattern matching with the Linebackers, this takes a million reps. There's so many route combinations the Safety will see. In the long run you will force much tighter throw in windows if your kids can master it. If you choose the alternative then you'll see wide open intermediate pass catchers like we do almost every Saturday. LOL
Best post on the board in a good while. Doesn't deserve to be lost in this thread (which is already great for other reasons). If you're willing to do an interview, would love to hit this topic with you in the offseason and turn it into a main board article or series. So much more to talk about re: Safeties, for example. Communication is completely teachable, but another one of those skills that needs openness from the coach/player. It's hard to teach communication because it needs to be practiced. And, without it, even if you have a Safety who recognizes route combinations and formation tendencies, your secondary will consistently break down. The spread (offense) has made certain "soft" skills as critical as attributes like speed.
 
Hmmm...
Good question.

Defensive Lineman - "Quarterback/rush relation". So many young pass rushers get lost in the moment of tying to beat their O-lineman that they lose track of the QB and run themselves out of sacks. You have to be able to track the QB as you're rushing the passer. You have to possess (what I call) a "big window"...the ability to see beyond just the O-lineman who's blocking you. Oh, and having a counter-move once you need to redirect.

Linebackers - So much about that position is simply instinctual. I'd have to say that teaching pattern matching zone coverage has probably been most difficult. It takes so much repetition. Anybody can run to a spot and cover grass, but running to the hip of receivers and disrupting routes takes a lot more teaching. Ultimately that's my fault for running that style of zone, but I feel that the extra effort is worth it in the long run. It's a better way to play zone IMO. It probably sounds like it would be simple to teach but there's so many route combinations that a Linebacker has to get used to seeing. It takes a lot of 7-on-7 work. Being able to read/cover one receiver and then snap your eyes to the next threat. Knowing how long to carry a route before breaking on another one. Knowing when you're being "high lowed" and baited by short routes. Stuff like that. Goes back to what I was saying about that "big window" thing. I can't get fixated on the slot receiver that's running my way up to seem if the outside receiver is running a shallow or slant underneath him. I have to be able to see the big window and break on that short route. It just takes a lot of eye discipline and then synchronizing your feet with your eyes.

Corners - I think quality man coverage is hard to teach. Anybody can teach junkyard, push the WR to the bench type of technique. But the proper, efficient way to play man coverage is actually very technical and hard to teach. It's like a freakin' combination of salsa dancing and karate. 😆 Because as the level of play gets more sophisticated, the technique has to be more detailed. You have to understand WR spacing, route recognition, WR releases...Ex: how a WR is stemming you through his route can tip you off to what route he is running... how he's leaning through his route...setting you up for another move... stuff like that. Best CB I ever coached was Juwan Dowels. And those things I mentioned is what made him so good. He wasn't physically imposing at all. When Mike Rumph had him at Heritage, he told me that Dowels was the only one that could cover Isaiah McKenzie in practice. He said that Dowels used to run Isaiah's routes for him.

Safeties - I would have to say that this largely depends on scheme. I'm a cover-3/single-high single high guy, so I don't ask too much of my Safeties. But I do run some 2-high stuff and that takes a lot more teaching. In 2-high your Safeties are often reading 2-to-1. So they have to be able to see the big picture. And they have to make split-second decisions. If the #2 WR runs in or out they have to drive on #1 immediately. But #1 can be running a slant, a vertical, a post, a dig, etc. Much like pattern matching with the Linebackers, this takes a million reps. There's so many route combinations the Safety will see. In the long run you will force much tighter throw in windows if your kids can master it. If you choose the alternative then you'll see wide open intermediate pass catchers like we do almost every Saturday. LOL
Fantastic read, thank you.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top