I hear that NC's offense is basically a spread. No doubt we will face similar type offenses in many of our games. How well is a "traditional" 3-4 equipped to defend offenses like this? I trust our new staff's expertise and flexibility here. Surely, they're not going to be too "traditional", but I'm wondering what they are going to do, as the tentative 3-4 personnel I am hearing talked about seems like it would struggle to defend an offense that is opening up the field with 4-5 nimble receivers.

What adjustments in personnel will our defense make against these teams?

The first thing that comes to mind is pulling out a middle linebacker and adding a defensive back. What else?

And in what down/distance situations do we make these adjustments, remembering that a spread offense is likely to pass at any time?

Go Bears!

JMO I think actually more often an OLB is replaced with a safety/OLB type who can run
sorta a couple ways to go about it. jam the WRs and keep them occupied and bring pressure
play "safer" and zone up and force the O to make multiple short completions in a row (play "perfect")
always helps if your base 3 DL and rushbacker can get pressure

need to stay disciplined in your run lanes or disrupt them



there's a glazier clinics powerpoint on it too

basically there are a lot of ways to do it using the inherent flexibility of the 3-4 front

moonpod;842864246 said:

---

JMO I think actually more often an OLB is replaced with a safety/OLB type who can run
sorta a couple ways to go about it. jam the WRs and keep them occupied and bring pressure
play "safer" and zone up and force the O to make multiple short completions in a row (play "perfect")
always helps if your base 3 DL and rushbacker can get pressure

need to stay disciplined in your run lanes or disrupt them



there's a glazier clinics powerpoint on it too

basically there are a lot of ways to do it using the inherent flexibility of the 3-4 front

---

Thanks for the video link (which mainly dealt with ways to defend typical running plays used by spread offenses).

What I am wondering is, a spread offense threatens to stretch the field on nearly every down, vertically and horizontally, with 4-5 quick receivers. In our base 3-4 we have a front seven made up of pretty big guys, most all of them 230 ibs +. Is that the personnel/position grouping that we are going to use to defend the spread? On what % of the downs?

moonpod;842864246 said:

---

JMO I think actually more often an OLB is replaced with a safety/OLB type who can run
sorta a couple ways to go about it. jam the WRs and keep them occupied and bring pressure
play "safer" and zone up and force the O to make multiple short completions in a row (play "perfect")
always helps if your base 3 DL and rushbacker can get pressure

need to stay disciplined in your run lanes or disrupt them



there's a glazier clinics powerpoint on it too

basically there are a lot of ways to do it using the inherent flexibility of the 3-4 front

---

Hence a guy like Psalms being moved to OLB.

If you look in the past when Cal has had a 3-4 against the spread it's been a mixed bag. It seems to depend on how adaptable the DC is. Under Gregory, Cal's defense was bad against spreads. Under Pendegast, reasonably effective.
If you look at other teams you'll see a similar pattern. I don't think the 3-4 base by itself determines success or failure against spreads as much as effective game planning and execution. Loading up the secondary doesn't seem to help much, especially since most spreads these days run the ball pretty effectively.

Theoretically it should be better than a 4-3 because you're trading a more athletic OLB type for a DE and the OLB should be more capable of playing in space.

tequila4kapp;842864692 said:

---

Theoretically it should be better than a 4-3 because you're trading a more athletic OLB type for a DE and the OLB should be more capable of playing in space.

---

While I was reading this, Colin Kaepernick just scored again - faking to the back and taking the read option past our DE and OLB.

northendbear;842864694 said:

---

While I was reading this, Colin Kaepernick just scored again - faking to the back and taking the read option past our DE and OLB.

---

Hey, we held him to fewer yards than than the Packers did in the playoffs!

Big C_Cal;842864223 said:

---

I hear that NC's offense is basically a spread. No doubt we will face similar type offenses in many of our games. How well is a "traditional" 3-4 equipped to defend offenses like this? I trust our new staff's expertise and flexibility here. Surely, they're not going to be too "traditional", but I'm wondering what they are going to do, as the tentative 3-4 personnel I am hearing talked about seems like it would struggle to defend an offense that is opening up the field with 4-5 nimble receivers.

What adjustments in personnel will our defense make against these teams?

The first thing that comes to mind is pulling out a middle linebacker and adding a defensive back. What else?

And in what down/distance situations do we make these adjustments, remembering that a spread offense is likely to pass at any time?

Go Bears!

---

I think this is why Malik Psalms was converted to OLB. He is going to be that "5th DB" against the spread offenses.
I expect we will be using 5 DB types quite often.
The coaching staff also has D. Brown as a DB who has played LB and DB in the past.
IOW, the solution is rotate in some faster DB guys into the LB spots.

Your question about which downs is a good one. Certainly we aren't going to do that on every down, yet the spread can require it on every down.
Keep in mind that the staff has been working hard to get our LBs to learn how to drop back and cover. Even big guys like Weaver and Saffle have decent speed and they'll need it at times.

Cal DBs are going to have to cover in one on one situations effectively and we are going to have to hope that the opposing QB isn't super accurate.
Fortunately we are a little better off at DB than in past years. And we have a defensive coaching staff that is competent enough to take full advantage of our defensive personnel in defending the spread.

Nickle and dime sub packages yo.

Would be foolish to run base personnel against a 10 grouping team like a waxy.

Oregon will likely be a 11 based spread so we need to develop some great hybrid space players.

I'm more curious to see if we keep an odd front structure in our sub packages, or if we go to / mix in some 40 fronts

killa22;842864824 said:

---

Nickle and dime sub packages yo.

Would be foolish to run base personnel against a 10 grouping team like a waxy.

Oregon will likely be a 11 based spread so we need to develop some great hybrid space players.

I'm more curious to see if we keep an odd front structure in our sub packages, or if we go to / mix in some 40 fronts

---

How do you like our chances v. UNC?

This could be a book-length topic, and there's a lot of theory that goes into addressing it. To really get into this, it's important to understand why the spread is tough from an X's and O's standpoint (independent of personnel). One reason that the spread causes problems is because it can present "multiple-receiver surfaces." By a "surface," I just mean "one half of the formation." So, in a typical 2x2 spread formation, we can say that there are two, two-receiver surfaces. In a 3x1 (or "trips") formation, we can say that there's a three-receiver surface on one side, and a single-receiver surface on the other, and so on (you can click all of the following images to enlarge them):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6514[/ATTACH]

Single-receiver surfaces are easy. If you have only a single WR on one side, then a CB will line up over him 99% of the time. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a zone coverage, or if that CB is playing press or off, or what's going on anywhere else in the formation, it's just a fact that CB's almost always line up roughly across from the outside-most receiver on each side of the field. As long as the offense doesn't split anyone else out, then the remaining defensive players can stay in the box and defend the run. Most importantly for this discussion, they can do this without fear of getting outflanked in the passing game. For example, in the following diagram, we can see that the Jack and Sam linebackers (J and S) are in the box and are also lined up outside of the TE (Y) and the FB:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6515[/ATTACH]

This means that, if the FB or TE release outside in the passing game, those LB's are in a great position to run with them:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6516[/ATTACH]

They can be run defenders in the box and also cover out-breaking routes. We can say that there's not much “conflict” between their run assignments and their pass assignments.

Now let's split out the TE to create a surface with two receivers split out wide:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6517[/ATTACH]

Now there are two things that you can do with that Sam backer (S). You can leave him in the box, as I've done in the diagram above. If you do this, then he can easily be outflanked by the Y receiver (the dashed line in the diagram represents the QB's throw):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6518[/ATTACH]

If you don't like that look, then you can “cover down” with that Sam LB:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6519[/ATTACH]

Now he's not at risk of getting out-flanked by the receiver, but he's also not in the box to defend the run. That Sam LB can either stay in the box to defend the run or he can line up outside to defend the pass, but he can't do both.

This is the fundamental problem that the spread creates in comparison to “Pro” formations. To get into it in more detail, let's look at the box math in the last two diagrams. In the last two diagrams, the offense had six blockers in the box (the 5 OL + 1 FB). This creates seven gaps (there will always be one more gap than there are blockers). If the defense wants to put a unique defender in every gap, then they need to put seven players in the box. If they cover down with the Sam LB, then they only have six in the box:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6520[/ATTACH]

In this look, the offense has favorable numbers to run the ball.

If they don't cover down, then they have seven in the box:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6521[/ATTACH]

But now, as we've seen, the Sam can easily be outflanked by the Y receiver in the passing game.

If the offense goes 4-wide, then you have this conflict to both sides of the formation:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6522[/ATTACH]

If you want to talk about defending the spread, then these are the facts that you have to start from.

[U]Defensive Structure 1a: 3-4 Personnel w/Quarters Coverage (Robber)[/U]

As we've seen, the big task in defending the spread is finding a way to get good numbers against the run while also being able to cover the inside receivers. When defending the spread, you always need a way to sneak an extra defender or two into the run fit from outside of the box. One way to do this is to cover down with your OLB's, and then to use your Safeties as your “Force” players (your outside-most run defenders) on the edge:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6523[/ATTACH]

As we can see here, this look gives the defense the ability to get seven defenders into the run fit (3 DL + Will (W) and Mike (M) LB's + 2 Safeties) while also covering down on the inside receivers.

The elegance of this option also shows up in pass coverage. From the alignment pictured here, the Safeties are in position both to be force players against the run (as shown above) and also to defend the inside receivers deep against the pass:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6524[/ATTACH]

Because the Safeties are in position to cover the inside receivers deep here, the OLB's are never solely responsible for covering a WR, which keeps them out of athletic mismatches. This is a version of Quarters coverage that I'll call “Robber.”

A potential problem with this alignment comes from the Safeties' conflicting run/pass assignments:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6525[/ATTACH]

As we've seen, this alignment asks the Safeties to fly up against the run but to drop deep against the vertical passing game, which makes them especially susceptible to playaction passes. If you want to play this coverage a lot, then you'll need really good Safeties. Furthermore, because the Safeties have so much going on on the inside, this look can potentially isolate the CB's on the outside WR's, which can be a problem if you have a mismatch out there. The better your CB's are, the more you can potentially leave them on an island like this.

[U]Defensive Structure 1B: 3-4 Personnel w/Quarters Coverage (Read)[/U]

A second Quarters-based option is not to cover all the way down with the OLB's, and to play them in an inside alignment on their WR's:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6538[/ATTACH]

I'll call this Quarters variant “Read.” From this look, your OLB's will be your most probable sixth and seventh defenders in the run fit:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6539[/ATTACH]

Once again, in this look the Safeties are able to cover the inside receivers on anything deep, and so the OLB's aren't exposed against faster, more agile WR's:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6540[/ATTACH]

With this inside alignment, however, the OLB's at risk of being outflanked in the flats:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6541[/ATTACH]

To account for this, in the “Read” variant of Quarters, the CB's will “Read” the inside receivers. If the inside receivers break outside like this, then the CB's will pass off their receivers to the deep Safeties, and will sit in the flats:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6542[/ATTACH]

In this way, it's not a problem if the OLB's get outflanked, because the CB's are sitting outside of them to cover outside-breaking routes. This is really a kind of Cover-2. The OLB's are doubly protected in the passing game here, because they have the Safeties deep and the CB's on the outside. This frees them up to be those extra defenders against the run.

Read has weaknesses of its own, of course. This variant shifts some of the pressure from the Safeties to the CB's. If the CB's don't read and react to outside-breaking routes quickly, then this defense can give up a ton of throws to the flat. On the other hand, if the CB's can't disrupt vertical routes by the outside receivers, then they're hanging the Safeties out to dry against the deep ball down the sidelines:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6543[/ATTACH]

Read technique requires the CB's to be able to perform a very specific set of responsibilities, and if they can't fulfill this set then they'll make both the Safeties and the OLB's look bad and out of position.

[U]Defensive Structure 2: Nickel Personnel w/Single-High Coverage[/U]

The Quarters variants that we saw above were both split-safety coverages. Neither Safety was primarily an underneath coverage defender, and they both played deep on one side of the field. An alternative structure involves spinning your Safeties to a single-high coverage:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6544[/ATTACH]

In this diagram we see that the SS is rotating down to cover the Y receiver. This means that the Sam LB (S) doesn't have to cover down on that receiver, and so is free to be your sixth box defender against the run. Now the defense can outnumber the offense's five blockers (the OL), while also eliminating the danger of getting outflanked by the inside receivers.

One potential mismatch in the last diagram is the matchup of the Jack LB (J) on a slot receiver (H). This isn't a problem if you're playing a zone coverage, but if you want to go man, then you'll probably want to get into Nickel personnel. We'll usually do this by swapping out the NT and playing with a four-man DL, where the DE's slide inside to play like DT's, and the OLB's play on the edge like standup DE's:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6545[/ATTACH]

This gives us a de facto four-man line, gives us six men in the box against five blockers, and uses two DB's (the SS and the NB) to cover the inside receivers. It does all of this while also leaving a Safety deep to help with the long ball.

So why doesn't everyone play single-high coverages like this against the spread? One reason is the Zone Read. Let's go back to our Quarters looks and think about how those plays could defend the Zone Read. Here's that Robber alignment as an example:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6546[/ATTACH]

On both sides of the field in this coverage, the defense is placing three defenders (a CB, a Safety, and an OLB) over two receivers. Because there are only two receivers to block these three players, someone's going to be unblocked and so can be a QB defender:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6547[/ATTACH]

In this diagram I've drawn the receivers blocking the CB and the OLB, and the Safety running the alley to defend the QB on the keep. This numerical advantage on the edge against the Zone Read is a strength of Quarters coverage no matter what variant of it you play, and is a big reason that so many teams use Quarters to defend the spread.

This numerical advantage on the edge disappears if you spin your safeties, however:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6536[/ATTACH]

Here, we see that the defense is using two DB's to cover two WR's on each side, instead of the 3-on-2 matchup that we saw with Quarters coverage. Now, if the WR's are all able to block their defenders, then there's no extra defender if the QB gets a “keep” read:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6537[/ATTACH]

The real issue here is that Quarters can get you up to seven defenders in the run fit against the spread (5 box defenders + either 2 Safeties or 2 OLB's in the variants that we've seen), while single-high coverages can only get you six defenders in the run fit. While a single-high coverage will let you outnumber the offense's blockers against the conventional run game (5 OL + 1 RB), it won't let you do so against a QB run game (5 OL + 1 RB + 1 QB), which is why teams can't just sit in single-high stuff, even if they think that they can match up well with their opponents' WR's.

I've written on this particular aspect in more detail here:
http://calfootballstrategy.blogspot.com/2016/11/cal-defense-vs-osu-2016.html

[U]Conclusion and Additional Articles[/U]

That's a lot of the theory that figures into stopping spread offenses. At the end of the day, as we've seen, there are several ways to solve the problems that the spread presents. We'll use all of the looks that I've discussed here in any given game. Furthermore, within these broad defensive structures there will be a lot of smaller details and adjustments that also get deployed.

We've also seen that each of these options will put pressure on specific parts of the defense. If you have one really strong unit, then you can lean on a look that puts more pressure on that unit. If you have a unit that's struggling, then you'll need to pick a variant that takes pressure off of them and puts it somewhere else. In this way, a unit that's struggling can make you one-dimensional in terms of your defensive playcaling.

Another factor is in how well you call and disguise what you're going to do. Because each of these looks creates a weakness at some point in the defense, it's necessary to make it hard for the offense to know where that weakness will be on any given play. DeRuyter's going to try to win with scheme and disguise, and so our ability to defend the spread will come down to how well he gameplans and calls all of these different defenses situationally.

If you're interested, I've written more about how exactly we'll disguise some coverages here:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/6/5/15739166/deruyters-3-4-and-the-element-of-surprise

If you want more on how we'll stop the run from our 3-4 defense based on the Spring Game, you can check out this article:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/5/18/15657308/spring-game-run-defense

And I made a video about defending UNC's run game specifically, which you can find here:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/8/15/16147686/larry-fedora-north-carolina-tar-heels-zone-run-game-brandon-harris-stanton-truitt-austin-proehl

If there's anything else you're wondering about, let me know!

berk18;842864924 said:

---

[U]Conclusion and Additional Articles[/U]

That's a lot of the theory that figures into stopping spread offenses. At the end of the day, as we've seen, there are several ways to solve the problems that the spread presents. We'll use all of the looks that I've discussed here in any given game. Furthermore, within these broad defensive structures there will be a lot of smaller details and adjustments that also get deployed.

We've also seen that each of these options will put pressure on specific parts of the defense. If you have one really strong unit, then you can lean on a look that puts more pressure on that unit. If you have a unit that's struggling, then you'll need to pick a variant that takes pressure off of them and puts it somewhere else. In this way, a unit that's struggling can make you one-dimensional in terms of your defensive playcaling.

Another factor is in how well you call and disguise what you're going to do. Because each of these looks creates a weakness at some point in the defense, it's necessary to make it hard for the offense to know where that weakness will be on any given play. DeRuyter's going to try to win with scheme and disguise, and so our ability to defend the spread will come down to how well he gameplans and calls all of these different defenses situationally.

If you're interested, I've written more about how exactly we'll disguise some coverages here:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/6/5/15739166/deruyters-3-4-and-the-element-of-surprise

If you want more on how we'll stop the run from our 3-4 defense based on the Spring Game, you can check out this article:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/5/18/15657308/spring-game-run-defense

And I made a video about defending UNC's run game specifically, which you can find here:
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/8/15/16147686/larry-fedora-north-carolina-tar-heels-zone-run-game-brandon-harris-stanton-truitt-austin-proehl

If there's anything else you're wondering about, let me know!

---

Thanks, berk18!

I feel like somebody on Telegraph Ave, who asks a passerby for spare change and gets handed a twenty!