Cornerbacks not lining up properly in any twin or trip set formations

[wsumichigan]

as you guys have mentioned, the 3-3-5 and 4-2-5 were busted last year in regards to man coverage alignment. For example, the cpu came out in twins, and the corner doesn't line up over on that side, but instead stays on the tightend or halfback. Which always meant that either a safety or linebacker would have to cover that reciever. Well....its completely busted for the 3-4, 4-3, and nickel as well for this year. It has the same issues as the 3-3-5 and 4-2-5 did. For example.... COVER ONE out of 4-3 against trips
....................................Playing zone
..........................................FS


......................................Playing zone
CB.........SS......LOLB................MLB......RO LB......CB

Wr1.......Wr2......Wr3........LT..LG..C..RG..RT..T E


..........................................QB.....H B


The left corner should be where the SS is, covering that WR2, and the SS should cover WR3 that the LOLB is responsible for. The LOLB should be back shifted back to a normal alignment and covering the HB, which right now is the ROLB's responsibility. And the ROLB should be covering the TE. That is how it has ALWAYS worked for this game, except last year in regards to the 4-2-5 and 3-3-5.

This issue has destroyed half the play calls because you cannot line up in man covering. It's bad enough that normally you would have a mis-match with a saftey covering a slot reciever, which is exactly the way it should be. Now with this new problem, you have 3 mismatches...a saftey on the slot reciever, a linebacker on another slot reciever, and the other cornerback covering the TE.

This problem occurs in TWIN sets as well.. 4-3 cover one against i-form twins.


...........................................FS (playing deep zone)




CB1............SS........LOLB........MLB......ROLB ...CB2

Wr1..........WR2..........LT..LG..C..RG..RT..TE

.........................................FB
.........................................HB

CB1 has wR1 which is correct.
SS has WR2, NOT CORRECT! He should be either covering a back outta the backfield or if you flipped the coverage call, he would cover the tightend.....which was how it was last year!!
CB2 should be covering WR2 not a back or tightend!!!!

[Coach Bindel]

I disagree.

This is the correct way to play the defense in my opinion. If you are going to "corner-over" as you suggest, you will have no force player to the tight end side. Also, you will lose a man on that side.

What will you do if you corner-over, and they motion the back out of the backfield to the TE side?

Also, in your trips look, if you corner-over, how will you defend it if the #3 WR motions all the way across the formation?

[mudtiger]

Good point. Playing the 4-2-5, I generally scramble to double cover the slot receiver with the FS further hurting the play. There's a further issue where with multiple WRs, my defense doesn't actually move to line up in front of their man. I really wanted to use the 4-2-5 but I'm looking in to other D's because of this.

It would be nice if we get strong side vs weak side LBs that automatically line up on the correct side of the formation too.

[wsumichigan]

one of your goals when calling a defense man coverage play is to minimize mis-matches....there is no way in hell, at LEAST in real life, would you ever have your other corner not line up with the second reciever in a twin set, and instead cover a tightend. If that slot reciever motions over, that corner follows him as well.

[Coach Bindel]

Quote: Originally Posted by wsumichigan

there is no way in hell, at LEAST in real life, would you ever have your other corner not line up with the second reciever in a twin set, and instead cover a tightend.

Well, I can tell you it happens in "real life" quite a bit. There is a strategy that some teams will play where the will have their corner cross the formation and play man on #2 as you're suggesting. I don't like it because of the bind you get in with the offense running the ball to the TE side, or teams motioning out of the backfield to the TE.

The way you are suggesting playing Trips would NEVER happen in "real life".

Here is some stuff you can read on the corner-over technique:

http://coachhuey.com/index.cgi?board...y&thread=38418

[jmik58]

Quote: Originally Posted by Coach Bindel

I disagree. This is the correct way to play the defense in my opinion. If you are going to "corner-over" as you suggest, you will have no force player to the tight end side. Also, you will lose a man on that side. What will you do if you corner-over, and they motion the back out of the backfield to the TE side? Also, in your trips look, if you corner-over, how will you defend it if the #3 WR motions all the way across the formation?

^^ What he says.

Plus, If I see a team coming out in a 3 WR spread set, I'm not lining up in a 4-3 or a 3-4.

If your goal is to prevent the mismatch, then you've lost that battle the second you sent those personnel groups onto the field.

If your main goal truly is man coverage to prevent the pass, then get the LB's the heck off the field and go to a nickel or dime package.

[Milkmoney11]

I concede that I don't know half of what a few of you guys are saying here but what the OP said makes sense.

So what you guys are saying is, unless you are playing a nickel (or dime), the WR2 in the slot HAS to be covered by a LB or S? Why couldn't you put your CB lined up man to man on him and roll a safety to the other side in case a back comes out in motion?

This is just seems like you could throw to that WR2 all day.

[jmik58]

Quote: Originally Posted by Milkmoney11

I concede that I don't know half of what a few of you guys are saying here but what the OP said makes sense. So what you guys are saying is, unless you are playing a nickel (or dime), the WR2 in the slot HAS to be covered by a LB or S? Why couldn't you put your CB lined up man to man on him and roll a safety to the other side in case a back comes out in motion? This is just seems like you could throw to that WR2 all day.

I do understand where the OP is coming from and I agree that it is a perfectly good strategy to shift defenders around, however; the sacrifice is defensive balance.

Like you're all aware of, football is a game of situations that all call for a varied and specific approach.

The OP's idea of stacking the corners to the same side is a good strategy to shut down WR1 and WR2 in man coverage (granted they're good players of course), but there's a large tradeoff.

The mismatch between WR2 and your SS might be minimal. When you bring your CB over, you get rid of that mismatch, but you've also created a gaping hole by forcing your safety onto an island with #3 should he motion to the far side of the field. And you've also left your LB on an island trying to cover a TE.

It doesn't mean you're bound for failure, but the risk-reward has to be realized.

There is a time and a place for it, but I would only do it rarely when the time calls for it.