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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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=gendefense&action=display&thread=38418

[jmik58]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.

[sirjam]

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

I started a seperate thread yesterday about corners. In real life they lineup inside a little in man coverage to take slants away. In this game they lineup the same way. Go to practice an pick a man coverage play an then pick a zone coverage play. Same lineup both times, impossible to get a presnap read on the corners, very disappointing.

[jmik58]

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

I started a seperate thread yesterday about corners. In real life they lineup inside a little in man coverage to take slants away. In this game they lineup the same way. Go to practice an pick a man coverage play an then pick a zone coverage play. Same lineup both times, impossible to get a presnap read on the corners, very disappointing.

I'm seeing corners line up and actually move around to shade different sides of the man pre-snap.

My experience is that it actually takes a little focus to read the defenses pre-snap because they've improved it.

Some zone concepts require the defenders to line up inside/out.

But I'm just not seeing what you're saying as I've had several dbacks line up inside shade and even jam quite a lot.

[sirjam]

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

I'm seeing corners line up and actually move around to shade different sides of the man pre-snap.

My experience is that it actually takes a little focus to read the defenses pre-snap because they've improved it.

Some zone concepts require the defenders to line up inside/out.

But I'm just not seeing what you're saying as I've had several dbacks line up inside shade and even jam quite a lot.

go into practice an do what I did then u will see it. Maybe it's jus a practice thing

[thelasthurtknee]

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

Im kinda confused. The op used cover 1 as the example so the SS needs a man to line up on. In alot of D they wont move the 2nd cb over. especially D's that the cb's never flip sides. My college D didnt move the second CB over for the inside reciever of twins. We put the FS on him and in the case of ur play just flip it and the fs would move to the slot. Now i agree thats not the norm but by any mean out of ordianary. OLBs could cover him also. but its all about mismatches and what personel they have at wr and what you have on field. but if you were in cover two the cb would of come over. in this game I like this because you could never hide man d against twins and now you can to a degree. i though it was a very nice tactical addition because we could never keep cb at home and disguise

[TarHeelPhenom]

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

^^ 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.

I do know that some teams(UNC for sure) will stay in a base 4-3 when going up against 3 WR sets. However, they are able/have been able to do that and get away with it because they had the horses on the DLine and supreme athletes at LB and Safety to cover. If you don't have the horses then don't dare come out in base 4-3 or 3-4 and try to cover 3 WR's sets.

[Coach Bindel]

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

Also, what about Trips?

You could corner-over and have him cover the #2 WR, but who is going to cover the #3 WR?

And what if, the offense puts their stud WR as the #3 WR?

The offense can create mismatches, however the defense can take those mismatches away by switching to a different defense - i.e. Zone.

[Knight9299]

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

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?

First, NCAA has always been corners over. You wouldn't necessarily lose the force player as in a 2 high look you would still have the strong safety.
If the back motions out, the safety covers him. In a trips look if #3 motions back, the corner runs with him.
What this all comes down to is there is a problem with the code. To fix how 8 man fronts align to these types of formations in man, they changed how seven man fronts aligned as well. Why can't we decide how our defense aligns to twins? Should be no different than telling the corners to be aggressive in zone coverage.