HoofHearted

No RPO. They used a mesh just to hold a backer and eyes but the whole play design was to set a pick for Kincaid in the flat. Bucs did a really good job bumping the entire coverage.

Lol. Which play were you referring to though? The Murray run?

No, he’s just saying he thinks it’s a weak rotation cover 3 which is what @Einstein has been saying. Saban calls it Skate but it follows the same rules as what I posted above to 3x1 sets it’s just the people that change (which is why Saban takes a holistic approach when teaching coverages to his players and uses an X instead of a position during initial install. The rules always stay the same but the people can move). Again though, based on eyes, footwork, and drops, they’re not running Cover 3. They’re in a split safety coverage. We didn’t run any RPO inside the 5 this past week that I recall.

Right? That’s my biggest deterrent when I think about making big posts to breakdown schemes etc. I’ve done a few in the past breaking down a single play but it’s a pain in the butt if I want to post more than one image.

Just now actually looking through these lol. Look at the success rates of both. They're both really good. Gives some context as to when we're running zone concepts though.

The gif was for your explanation of why we miss tackles and trying to tie it to the scheme.

You and about 95% of fans lol. Don’t sweat it - just trying to educate the masses!

He was terrible in man coverage when he started those two games.

Is there anything on there that has yards allowed after a missed tackle? I'd be more interested in that then general tackle rate.

Fixed it for you 😉

Dorian will be fine - there's no reason to rush him into action though just because he was a 3rd round pick - especially when he's been out-performed by Dodson. He's a rookie! Learning an entirely new scheme, as complex as nfl defenses are, it's tough for anyone let alone a guy straight out of college. You can see he's being coached, he's just a step slow right now and that's mostly because he's still thinking within the scheme. As far as the importance of an off ball LB in our defense - it's freaking defense dude - you can't hide anyone. Eventually a weakness will be exposed. Coaches have all the time in the world to scheme up ways to attack individual players - and if you think they're not you're kidding yourself.

Add more wrinkles to an offense that is already thinking too much? McDermott has already shown his answer to Dodson's lack of athleticism - it's Poyer.

So you want to keep playing the kid even if it's to the detriment of the team, and likely the kid as well? This is the NFL - one big play can lose you a game. Always play the more consistent player regardless of potential.

Yeah, and it's stupid simple to get to. You can do this out of essentially any call by just making a "show" call. You want to be calculated in who shows though in order to take advantage of it (i.e. show overload pressure to one side - have the offense slide to it - then bring pressure from the opposite). Easier to do out of zones than man.

You can still run 5 man pressures and do it. Anything more you'd have to change coverages. As far as run stunts the goal is always to be able to just handle the run out of base to allow your backers to not be tied to gaps and flow. What'll change that philosophy for us is if we allow their OL to start working up to our second level - that's when you'll see us start to incorporate some run stunts.

I'd imagine a very similar game plan as we had against Miami. Cloud him wherever he goes.

@Einstein Here's your 3x1 adjustments in Saban's Rip/Liz coverages straight from the playbook so you'll believe me. Against 3x1 the overhang to the single side has 4 out (the RB) to 1st crosser. So in the case of the play we saw from the Bills game Cook would have been the overhang's 4 out. The inside backer would have been the final three player and would have carried Diggs and the boundary corner would have punched high when 1 ran mesh because he is playing MOD. The corner would have picked up Shakir if it was in fact Cover 3. Since the overhang didn't pick up Cook and the backside inside backer didn't pick up the final 3 (plus all of the stuff I covered to the trips side in regards to them playing Special) we know they were not in a Cover 3 call.

Dart

I run the coverage you’re referring to and it’s not played the way you think it’s played. If you’d like we can go to PMs and I can teach it to you. Like I said I think you’re reading stuff and getting confused because everything that gets talked about in those aren’t diagramed.

Think you’re getting confused by what you’re reading about Sabans Mable coverage. The backside overhang (the Safety in our scenario) would have back out to the flat if they were playing Cover 3 which is what I’ve been trying to get across to you. His rules are back out to first crosser if he doesn’t get anything coming out from the backfield. @Einstein that highlighted part of the diagram you posted is referring to how they’d play stacked receivers and isn’t saying the Safety would be vertical it’s saying they’d play a true 3 zone coverage to it.

“Tackle Wrap” - lol cmon Joe!

No, if it's 3 the boundary corner would never come down to cover the flat. He'd be punching high and looking for the first deep crosser which he never even looks for. Based on everything I'm seeing - alignment, footwork, drops, etc. it's Special to the field and man backside and they're just playing banjo backside because of the condensed split by 1. Field Safety is responsible for the deep over by Shakir.

He's not covering the flat though - otherwise he'd be working out with cook. Instead he squares up to the field playing a Final 3 technique.

Not sure what you're referring to by saying Cover 3 Sky - Sky is just a term used to say you're playing with Safety force. Can't be Cover 3 though unless field Safety, field overhang, Boundary Safety, and Boundary Corner were all wrong which I'd find incredibly hard to believe.