Football 304

[Brian]

i want to up my game. understand the nuance of the game.
anyone know of a resource to help a fellow understand the merits of a cover-3 against the wing-t with a FB off to the weak flank? or do you just have to do a few years as a juco coach.

[Donuthole]

[Art Vandelay]

i want to up my game. understand the nuance of the game.
anyone know of a resource to help a fellow understand the merits of a cover-3 against the wing-t with a FB off to the weak flank? or do you just have to do a few years as a juco coach.

I'm guessing you had been saving this specifically for your 666th post?

[Brian]

I'm guessing you had been saving this specifically for your 666th post?

wow, i hadn't even noticed that....
well, 673 is the next prime number, so that's the one i was looking towards.

no seriously, anyone know of any resources that can make a fellow a better student of the game?

[SCcoug]

[QUOTE=Brian;281185
no seriously, anyone know of any resources that can make a fellow a better student of the game?[/QUOTE]

I like to check out http://smartfootball.com/

[Solon]

i want to up my game. understand the nuance of the game.
anyone know of a resource to help a fellow understand the merits of a cover-3 against the wing-t with a FB off to the weak flank? or do you just have to do a few years as a juco coach.

I'm not sure what you mean by the wing-t with the FB off to the weak side. The weak-side RB in the (traditional) wing-t is the HB. The FB is right behind the QB (making up half of the "T"), and the Z-back is split out as a "wing" (instead of making up the rest of the T).

I used to coach a wing-t team, and I just know what people always tried to do against us. One technique that never worked was to try to make the inside-LB's fly with the pulling guards. Our counter-game destroyed that strategy.

Another thing people try to do is stack a huge DE or OLB on the line of scrimmage to take away the "down" block of the wing-back at the point of attack. This can work pretty well, since the wing-back has to be a stud to block a kid who's expecting it. (this is why the wing-t doesn't really work at major-college or NFL levels - RB's can't block OLB/DE's; not consistently). But that's just to take away the strong-side plays or the sweeps - the trap-game and the passing game are still strong options.

As for the initial question - the pros-and-cons of running a cover-3 against a wing-t offense depends largely on personnel and what the other team's bread-and-butter is. Generally (assuming we're using the same nomenclature), a cover-3 is a zone with 3-deep; a cover-1 is man coverage with a FS over the top, and a cover-2 has 2 safeties, often able to roll playside (depending on what you are running up front). The basic rule is "man for sacks, zone for picks" and I think that applies to the wing-t. However, in a traditional wing-t, there are no drop-back passes. Maybe a 3-step dump pass to a TE or one of the RB's, but most everything is play-action roll-out. So, I don't like man-coverage against play-action. While cover 3 can be a good zone (depending on your LB's ability to cover the flats - a key spot in wing-t attack), I would probably go with the cover-2 and always have a "squat" corner or safety to support the run. Since most wing-t teams don't throw deep all that often, having deep corners (in a cover-3) often takes them out of the play.

I know one year we had a pretty damn good X (Wide Receiver) and Z back who would kill a cover-1 or a cover-3 with the "waggle play". Anytime we saw cover-3 we went to a waggle and threw the skinny-post since the FS couldn't handle him.

Athletes make the biggest difference (duh!), but the wing-t is designed to minimize the advantages of bigger & stronger, and to rely on quicker and more deceptive (note: there are lots of wrinkles in the modern wing-t. I'm referring to the classic wing-t of tubby Raymond at Delaware. 10 years ago, though, Delaware went to a sort-of wing-t run-and-shoot. So, the formation is flexible).

Schematically, the wing-t forces defensive players into conflicts (like the triple option, to some extent). Every play has two or three "options" - mostly called on the sideline. For instance, the trap, sweep, and waggle all have the same backfield action, but the ball ends up in different places depending on how the defense is adjusting (the waggle is really just a counter-sweep). When the defensive player starts playing to take away one play, it opens up a vulnerability for another play. The same goes for the 'belly' and "down" series. Tell the defense to "stay home", avoid over-penetration, and string out the option plays to the sidelines. If you have better players, it doesn't really matter what scheme you run - you'll thwart the offense's execution. Every scheme and every play works perfectly on paper, right? It's another story when the ball is snapped.

Also, if the offense likes to have the qb run, hit the hell out of him early on. Don't cheap-shot him, but the QB often fakes as if he still has the ball so light his ass up and make him want to throw it or pitch it early.

[BoylenOver]

I like to check out http://smartfootball.com/

Seconded. A great site.

[TripletDaddy]

You should shoot a boardmail to TheGreenRake over on CB.

That guy knows his stuff!

[Brian]

I like to check out http://smartfootball.com/

thanks. that's what I was looking for.

[Brian]

I'm not sure what you mean by the wing-t with the FB off to the weak side. The weak-side RB in the (traditional) wing-t is the HB. The FB is right behind the QB (making up half of the "T"), and the Z-back is split out as a "wing" (instead of making up the rest of the T).

I used to coach a wing-t team, and I just know what people always tried to do against us. One technique that never worked was to try to make the inside-LB's fly with the pulling guards. Our counter-game destroyed that strategy.

Another thing people try to do is stack a huge DE or OLB on the line of scrimmage to take away the "down" block of the wing-back at the point of attack. This can work pretty well, since the wing-back has to be a stud to block a kid who's expecting it. (this is why the wing-t doesn't really work at major-college or NFL levels - RB's can't block OLB/DE's; not consistently). But that's just to take away the strong-side plays or the sweeps - the trap-game and the passing game are still strong options.

As for the initial question - the pros-and-cons of running a cover-3 against a wing-t offense depends largely on personnel and what the other team's bread-and-butter is. Generally (assuming we're using the same nomenclature), a cover-3 is a zone with 3-deep; a cover-1 is man coverage with a FS over the top, and a cover-2 has 2 safeties, often able to roll playside (depending on what you are running up front). The basic rule is "man for sacks, zone for picks" and I think that applies to the wing-t. However, in a traditional wing-t, there are no drop-back passes. Maybe a 3-step dump pass to a TE or one of the RB's, but most everything is play-action roll-out. So, I don't like man-coverage against play-action. While cover 3 can be a good zone (depending on your LB's ability to cover the flats - a key spot in wing-t attack), I would probably go with the cover-2 and always have a "squat" corner or safety to support the run. Since most wing-t teams don't throw deep all that often, having deep corners (in a cover-3) often takes them out of the play.

I know one year we had a pretty damn good X (Wide Receiver) and Z back who would kill a cover-1 or a cover-3 with the "waggle play". Anytime we saw cover-3 we went to a waggle and threw the skinny-post since the FS couldn't handle him.

Athletes make the biggest difference (duh!), but the wing-t is designed to minimize the advantages of bigger & stronger, and to rely on quicker and more deceptive (note: there are lots of wrinkles in the modern wing-t. I'm referring to the classic wing-t of tubby Raymond at Delaware. 10 years ago, though, Delaware went to a sort-of wing-t run-and-shoot. So, the formation is flexible).

Schematically, the wing-t forces defensive players into conflicts (like the triple option, to some extent). Every play has two or three "options" - mostly called on the sideline. For instance, the trap, sweep, and waggle all have the same backfield action, but the ball ends up in different places depending on how the defense is adjusting (the waggle is really just a counter-sweep). When the defensive player starts playing to take away one play, it opens up a vulnerability for another play. The same goes for the 'belly' and "down" series. Tell the defense to "stay home", avoid over-penetration, and string out the option plays to the sidelines. If you have better players, it doesn't really matter what scheme you run - you'll thwart the offense's execution. Every scheme and every play works perfectly on paper, right? It's another story when the ball is snapped.

Also, if the offense likes to have the qb run, hit the hell out of him early on. Don't cheap-shot him, but the QB often fakes as if he still has the ball so light his ass up and make him want to throw it or pitch it early.

Can I invite you over for tea, crumpets, and a 4-4-3 discussion sometime?