Texas Football 2011: No Parking in the Manny Diaz Fire Zone
As we turn the page on the Texas Longhorns, many a faithful fan is enthusiastic about the new look schemes on both sides of the ball. Much has been written this off-season about the innovative philosophies the new coordinators bring to Longhorn football. If you have not had a chance to study Longhorn Scott's great Power-O Series (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V) at Barking Carnival I highly suggest you BON-up on this reading as it about as good a peak at what new offensive coordinator Bryan Harsin brings to the table as there is. Longhorn Scott also chimes in with his take on Diaz defense over at BC and discusses the fine points of the Scrape Fire Zone set as detailed by Coach Barry Hoover.
Matt Brophy, of brophyfootball.com, proffered an early blueprint for Longhorn fans in January with his Manny Diaz Bulletproof Fire Zone and our own Peter Bean posited with recent teasing insight into the potential of the Manny Diaz brand of blitzing defensive strategy.
For those who are truly affectionate for the under-the-radar X's and O's, further fine reading can be found in the 2011 Longhorn Kickoff magazine with great detail, respectively, by Michael Bean and Ian Boyd on Manny Diaz multiple array defense and which current Texas personnel have the best chance of success adjusting into the new sets. Also found in the magazine are insightful looks at new Texas offensive co-coordinator Bryan Harsin's motion offense by Mike Kuchar, of xandolabs.com, with Peter offering perspective on which player groups will thrive and which are, well, sort of exposed. If you have not already done so, I highly recommend you order the 2011 Longhorn Kickoff magazine by Maple Street Press (Ad free!) for all those interested in the nuts and bolts of what will be served up this season on both sides of the ball.
Texas fans may not be as familiar with the term Fire Zone, but they are no less familiar with the risk/reward of the set. Texas defensive coordinators, like most in the business, have been running derivatives of this zone blitz scheme the better part of a decade in pushing the envelope on ways to slow down the Big 12 Spread offenses. A little background is in order for the uninitiated. The zone blitz was first developed in the early 70's by Bill Arnsparger. You old timers might remember that it was Arnsparger's "No Name" defense that led the Miami Dolphins to the only undefeated season in NFL history. The scheme has evolved through the years and has been perfected by long-time Steeler's defensive coordinator, and NFL Hall of Famer, Dick Lebeau. And with the Packers having won last year's Super Bowl, their DC, Dom Capers, has picked up the mantle and taken the zone blitz to another level.
I had a chance to chat a bit with Barry Hoover of coachhoover.blogspot.com earlier this month. Barry has been a leader in coaching blogs as well as a seasoned coach teaching fundamentals to rising football stars. In the rarified air of coaching circles, his explanation of both offense and defensive formations and schemes are well regarded. He is fascinated with the simplicity of Diaz' Fire Zone, and more particularly the Scrape Fire Zone, and offers his perspective on what Longhorn fans can expect to see this season.
Q: The Big 12 is known for evolving spread offenses (Holgerson's diamond package for example). How do you see the Fire Zone evolving to keep pace, or, how do you see it successfully implemented?
Brophy nailed this one in his post Manny Diaz Bulletproof Fire Zone. Manny Diaz's Scrape Fire Zone (that pretty much every team in America runs) is great vs. the Zone Read play which is the staple of the Spread offense. The drop DE is the QB's read key--when he drops the QB will give the ball to the RB, who is running into the teeth of the Fire Zone.
Q: Given the widespread use of the scheme, where would Longhorn fans find examples of its implementation in the Big 12?
The Stoops brothers have been running Scrape since before they came into the league and I am sure everyone else has copied it or has been running it since that time too. Bill Young, the former DC at Kansas, had a coaching video on Fire Zones a few years back. I think that the talent at QB and the Mike Leach system have been so good in the Big 12 that the offenses are difficult to stop. The SEC probably hasn't had as good QBs as the Big 12, which is why it is more of a grind it out, black and blue division. I am a Florida alum and I think the 08 Oklahoma team had probably the best offense I have ever seen. Florida held them to low points but they really moved the ball up and down the field on them in the NC.
Q: We hear a lot about the blitzing aspects of the Fire Zone but aren't those just sets of a much larger scheme? Principally, how does it compare to, say, base 4-3 design?
The Fire Zone can be used from any defensive front. Basically it consists of 5 rushers (usually 4 DL (defensive linemen) and one LB (linebacker) or DB (defensive back), 3 underneath pass defenders, and 3 deep pass defenders. The 3-4 front allows for more ways to run Fire Zones, but the 4-3 is still a good defense to run them. Diaz's system allows him to easily transition from the 4-3 to the 3-4 and most of his Fire Zones can be run from both the 4-3 and the 3-4 (I will talk about this in my next blog post). Diaz also has a simple and concise way to teach the "jobs" of the 3 underneath pass defenders.
Q: So a two part question. We are familiar with Will Muschamp's defensive legacy in turning out All-Americans and leading teams to championships. Muschamp prefers a 4-3 but we saw him turn to a 3-4 with a Buck player in response to the Big 12 spread and great QB play week-in and week-out as well as a drop off in interior line depth. He prefers man coverage to zone and runs a lot of nickel. Other than these obvious differences, in what ways is a Diaz defense different than Muschamp's? And with the absence of being able to pressure with interior big-uns given the work-in-process Texas squad, in your opinion does the FZ scheme Diaz runs offer a best case counter balance?
The FZ scheme definitely lends itself to not having the big "war daddies" at the DT positions. A premium is put on speed. Smart DCs will try to move their front around to compensate for the lack of girth up front. The great thing about FZ is that a DC can do this in a safe manner. The FZ is bringing 5 man pressure, where I remember Muschamp at Auburn (and this is definitely from the influence of Saban) likes a lot of 6 man pressure which is higher risk-reward.
Q: What positions are key to its successful execution? What kind of athlete excels in this defense?
A defense is only as strong as its weakest link, so every position is important, but I would say that the key position is the drop DE (defensive end), who is usually a pass rusher, not a pass defender. Players that can run well like FZ concepts that let them get after the QB.
Q: In FZ, are there any levels more crucial than others? Who is typically tagged with making the hot adjustments? Seems to me the LB's are very central to the success of this design. Am I wrong?
Diaz schematically isn't different than anybody else, he just teaches it differently and breaks it down to where it is extremely easy for his players to learn. That and the ability to run it from the 4-3 and 3-4 is why I believe he is so successful.
Q: As outlined in your overview, given the multiple looks the Scrape FZ offers, which one do you think will offer the best "base" against the spread offenses of the Big 12 recognizing they are situational?
I think the East/West 3-4 formations will be best vs the Spread teams without a TE, but Diaz likes to mix all the looks to confuse the other team's offensive line. That's the beauty of his system--being able to throw all those different looks at you. But it's the same play for his guys.
Q: In the 3-4 Scrape is there any one player more critical to success?
I think the playside DE might be the most important guy in Scrape, since he needs to run to daylight for the play to be successful.
Q: The Longhorns gave up a significant amount of yardage last season on backside cuts as players got caught in the wash. Given the aggressive nature of the FZ, describe situationally who has primary backside contain responsibilities.
In the Fire Zone, there are three droppers: Hot 2 to the Boundary, Hot 3, and Hot 2 to the Field. Both Hot 2 players are responsible for having their outside arm free and keeping everything else inside of them, whether the ball is coming to them or going away from them.
Q: Studying a bit more on coverage options out of FZ sets, I have come across the acronym SCIF and MOFC. How are these player keys defined? Which level is the most common (DL, LB, S) to own the tag or do they float depending on the play call? What attributes is a coach looking for in these keys?
Diaz has 4 "jobs" that he teaches in the FZ (which Matt Brophy explains in detail here):
Hot 2 to the Field (wide side of the field)
Hot 3
Hot 2 to the Boundary (short side of the field)
Outside rusher
You can get pretty intricate with FZ adjustments, but most teams like to keep it simple, which Diaz will definitely do in his first yr at UT. There are two pretty common adjustments I could expect them to use, but both are made by whoever is the Hot 3 player (usually a LB). He is the only player who has to think in this defense, as Diaz likes to say.
SCIF is an acronym for the responsibilities of both Hot 2 players: jam the Seam (vertical) route, drop to Curl, then drop late to Flat if threatened. Diaz still uses this, but not initially. He wants the Hot 2 and 3 players to be able to take the quick (Hot) throws to the 2 and 3 receivers (who can be WRs, TEs, or RBs). They will spot drop evenly spaced to cover the width of the field and to take away the 5 yard Hot throws. Then they will drop back to 12-14 yards vs. a drop-back pass (once they will see the QB taking a deeper drop).
MOFC has to do what a QB is looking at: MOFC (1 FS deep) or MOFO (2 FS's deep). Usually FZ teams like to start out showing two FS's and then roll one of them down to a 1 deep FS (Cover 3: FS and both CBs deep) FZ.
Q: With Diaz, there is an appreciation for aggressiveness and instinct. Your "Run To Daylight" breakdown touches on this. In your opinion, why aren't more coaches teaching this?
I think that since Diaz didn't play college ball that he hasn't had that "stay in your gap at all costs" philosophy ingrained in him as much, which allows him to ask "Why?" about a lot of things and think outside the box.Thanks, Coach.
"Out of the box" is exactly what Mack Brown told us was central to his hiring philosophy with the new staff. Manny Diaz certainly qualified. At the end of the day, the best athletes should deliver the best results. It is the instinctively, aggressive nature of defenders which sets the simple Fire Zone rules apart. And in this regard, it is this fan's expectation the new staff will return the on-field nastiness to the 40 Longhorn fans have come to demand. Game on.
(The following is reprinted with permission - coachhoover.blogspot.com)
Manny Diaz Fire Zones
I will try to build on the superb efforts of Brophy's Manny Diaz: Bulletproof Fire Zone article and talk more about Diaz's Fire Zone scheme, which is ridiculously simple to learn for his players yet is complex for opposing Offensive Coordinators. I will focus on two important aspects of his Fire Zone scheme. First, I will look at how he is able to transition easily between multiple fronts and second, I will explain his "run to daylight" philosophy.
Multiple Fronts
There may not seem like much of a difference between the 4-3 and 3-4 fronts, but they represent two different paradigms in the universe of defensive football. Each front requires significant time to teach its defensive linemen the necessary technique. The time constraints are such that most coaches don't try to play both. I would say that Diaz is a 4-3 guy who dabbles in the 3-4, but he doesn't try to do too much with it, which is important.
The 3-4 lends itself better to Fire Zones, with 4 LBs who can move around more in the 3-4 pre-snap than the 3 LBs in the 4-3. Diaz prefers to Fire Zone from the 3-4 because the DE who drops in coverage "has eyes"-being away from the line with his hand off the ground allows him to see and better defend the pass.
Diaz has the ability to run his Fire Zones easily from either side due to his simple rules that tell the DL how to line up and where to slant to. Diaz doesn't call a front in the 4-3 (one less word in the play call so as not to confuse his players), the DL will simply line up away from the call and slant away from the call. Field Scrape (below) is run from the 4-3 front. "Field" means that the Scrape Fire Zone will be run to the wide side of the field. The DT (always on the left) and NT (always on the right) can start up head up on the Guards and then they can adjust their alignment away from the call and slant away from the call. "Field" also tells the Safeties that they will rotate towards the Field.
In Bench Scrape (below) from the 4-3 front, the Scrape Fire Zone is now being run to the Bench, or the short side of the field (closest to the bench on the sideline). The DL will line up and slant away from the call and the Safeties will rotate to the Bench.
East and West are Diaz's 3-4 fronts. West shifts the DL to the wide side of the field and East shifts them to the short side of the field. One DE will be aligned as an OLB. His alignment off the ball improves his vision to help him to better defend the pass. East Field Scrape (below) is from the 3-4 front to the wide side of the field. The DL will line up according to East or West, and then they will slant away from the call like they always do. Field Scrape (4-3) and East Field Scrape (3-4) are the exact same thing, the only thing that changes is how the front lines up.
West Bench Scrape (below) is the 3-4 version to the short side of the field and is the same thing as Bench Scrape from the 4-3:
Diaz can also go show a 3-3 Stack look (below), which really "melts the computers," of opposing OCs. He can easily go from the 3-4 to the 3-3 by making a "Freedom" call to the drop DE, which tells him that he has the freedom to line up wherever he wants. Since he is a drop defender, he can line up as a LB. This call only affects one player, but it totally changes the defensive front. This allows Diaz to run Scrape six different ways vs. opposing offenses, but it's only one simple concept as far as his players are concerned.
Run To Daylight
The "Run to Daylight" scheme was popularized by legendary Green Bay Packer Head Coach Vince Lombardi, who told his OL to block their man wherever they wanted to go and then the RB would find the hole by "running to daylight."
Diaz has his DL do the same thing: instead of going to your exact gap, you "run to daylight" like a RB would. (Note: I don't believe Diaz doesn't use the terminology "run to daylight," but that's essentially what it is). A good example of this concept is with the playside DE in the Scrape Fire Zone (see above diagrams). Most coaches initially teach the DE that he has the A gap. Diaz explains it a bit differently. He tells his DE to blitz the Guard. This allows the DE to blitz either A gap or B gap. He even gives his guys the freedom to work all the way across the Center into the opposite A, B, or C gap. He will "run to daylight" and cut up into the first hole he finds, like a RB would. This may seem not seem gap-sound, but Diaz teaches his LBs that it's their job to make the DL right. Diaz's defenses give up few big plays, so it works.
Diaz elaborates more on the "run to daylight" concept:
"Everybody in America runs Scrape, the difference will be in our Blitz Paths and knowing how to blitz."
"We are blitzing to get to the QB. We are not blitzing gaps."
"The offensive lineman is the worst athlete on the field-we want to make him try to change direction."
"Blitzers are ballcarriers, offensive linemen are tacklers. You do not run right into the guy who is trying to tackle you."
"Blitzer - keep working until you find grass. We are blitzing the QB-go find the QB."
I had a hard time finding good video on the "run to daylight" concept in the three Mississippi St. games I had, but I got some Middle Tennessee State and NFL cut-ups to help illustrate the concept:
Run to Daylight video link by Barry Hoover.
Honestly, as I tried to figure out what made his Mississippi St. defense so good, I found that Diaz didn't blitz nearly as much as I thought he would (teams threw a lot of screens and sprinted out while throwing the ball, so the fear and respect of the blitz was there). He picked his spots and was very effective when he did bring pressure. The thing that really stood out while studying the 2010 Bulldog defense were the fundamentals: excellent DL play, solid tackling from the LBs, and the DBs kept everything in front of them (don't know why I was surprised, it's all about fundy's!). I thought their Force play wasn't very good vs. Auburn, but it was only week 2, and they still held the national champions to only 17 points. Brophy commented that Diaz's defense looked very "Norm Parker-esque" in the Texas spring game, which is a huge statement about their defensive fundamentals and a very good sign for Longhorn fans.
Manny Diaz's success speaks for itself. You don't jump from the Sun Belt to the premier DC position / Head Coach launching pad in college football in two years by doing the same thing as everybody else-success often requires that one take risks and think outside the box. Diaz's ability to run the same Fire Zone from multiple fronts, his "run to daylight" concept, and his commitment to fundamentals have made his defenses extremely difficult to defend at Middle Tennessee State and Mississippi State. I expect he will have more of the same success with some of the premier athletes in the country at his disposal, even versus the great offenses of the Big 12 Conference.
58 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I do not understand
Looks to me like if you run into the teeth of the blitz, you are going to have 3 OL blocking 3 defenders at worst, and 4 blocking 3 if you use the FB. How is this a bad thing for an offense?
I think it relies on confusing the Oline as to where the pressure and DL are goin. Numbers wont matter as much because OL is confused. Thats what I take from it.
by horninraidercountry on Jul 28, 2011 8:03 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
you have two DL and a LB
run blitzing against a tackle, guard, center. RG and C double the tackle and the RG peels off and takes the blitzing LB. RT takes the DE. FB has no one to block although I doubt there is a FB in most zone read offenses because you are running from a spread formation.
which diagram
are you referring to? As I said below you need to look at all the players in the box. So the Hot 2 to that side and the Hot 3 defenders have to be accounted for as well.
by LonghornScott on Jul 28, 2011 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
remember
The 3 underneath defenders are still part of the run fills. 8 gaps and 8 defenders… it’s sound against the run. The initial blitz should help create some confusion and vertical penetration, the Hot 2 players will Force from the edge and the Hot 3 is going to read and fill as needed.
by LonghornScott on Jul 28, 2011 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions
seems to me
from the diagram that the other defenders are going to be taking their first steps away from the LOS. Just does not look like anything special against the run
just like any defense...
the box players are not going to drop if they read run blocking. I would consider them more aggressive against the run than base defense.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
"How is this a bad thing for the offense?"
Don’t worry, Mike. The answer to that question will be revealed to you on Nov. 24th. ;-)
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
not worried
Cyrus will just break a tackle then we can watch Gideon as he futily chases after him into the endzone. ;0)
"then we can watch Gideon as he futily chases after him into the endzone"
Low blow, Mike. Low blow.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
by HookTech on Jul 29, 2011 6:40 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Great stuff. Love the title, BTW.
That’s the beauty of his system—being able to throw all those different looks at you. But it’s the same play for his guys.
This is what has me most excited. It echoes the MO’s of Holgerson, Leach, and Malzahn on offense. Keep the plays simple for the players, but confuse the opponent by mixing up the looks at the LOS. Leach has been on record as saying that they really only run a handful of plays, just out of different sets. Holgerson recently said that he could install his offensive system in just three days. It sounds like Diaz is cut from the same cloth, albeit defensively.
Simplicity combined with effectiveness is a dangerous combination in the college football world….
by SuperHorn on Jul 28, 2011 10:10 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
This cannot be rec'd enough. Perfectly stated and absolutely what has most fans excited about the potention of our new defense.
Burnt Orange Nation
Follow Along on Twitter @TXStampede
additionally
as the defenders become more and more comfortable in these coverage schemes, the coverages get more adaptive and oppressive. That’s going to take time to evolve but I think it will evolve more quickly under Diaz than it would under most DCs. He’s going to focus on us playing good fundamental football and doing the basic jobs in his scheme really well. Then as things progress he will teach the players how to make more and more adjustments.
by LonghornScott on Jul 28, 2011 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
3-3 front
I just don’t understand. In the end there are 4 men on the line and 3 off. Still 7 men in the box. How is this any different than the 4-3?
by codaxx on Jul 28, 2011 9:26 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
3-3
is just the personnel grouping.
The 4th player on the line in those diagrams doesn’t have their hand on the ground. The other difference is the techniques by the defensive linemen diagrammed there. You’ll notice against 21 personnel that’s diagrammed that you are getting even fronts in the 3 linemen plays.
The specific advantage of 3-3 stack is that its very hard for the offense to pick up their assignments because the defensive linemen and the linebackers are stacked behind each other making it hard to discern which defender is playing which gap. It’s an alignment that’s build to capitalize on defensive speed in the front.
by LonghornScott on Jul 28, 2011 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
offensive lines have countered to the Stack
by simply leaving one defender as a read player, i.e. QB’s responsibility, and blocking the other 5 in the box
Additionally, the 33 Stack, which I am a huge fan of, does have a schematic weakness against middle screens.
there is no defense
that is strong against everything. And this isn’t really a defense, it’s a call.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 5:13 AM CDT up reply actions
I am aware it is just a call
I am replying to your comment that it is hard to pick up assignments from a 3-3 stack.
Stampede’s comment that the 3-3 look “melts computers” is laughable, because an even front is an even front is an even front. Put a DE standing up or a LB on the line, it is still 4 on the line as far as the offensive line is concerned.
Not sure I commented about melting computers, but
the point of the post was to familiarize our community on some of the alignments we will be seeing this season. The nature of Diaz defense is a more simplified version which allows more freedom (ie. free style) that wrings out aggression. With that said, I understand this can work against a defense (ie. over pursuit..trap plays..etc). But all things considered, the psychological advantage of having existing players work to earn a starting position combined with a new look scheme is intoxicating to UT fans. Your comments are well taken in that this new defense is not an automatic solution for the team’s ills last season and there are certainly plays that will work to success against this style of defense, but the fact opposing teams will have to prepare differently is a first year advantage. Good luck this season.
Burnt Orange Nation
Follow Along on Twitter @TXStampede
Quite diplomatic.
You have much more patience than I do.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
I can understand the excitement
I was the same way last season when we switched back to a 3-4, and pored over the Internet to find anything I could on Tim DeRuyter’s schemes.
My main two concerns with what I am seeing are that the way he calls it, with all linemen slanting away from the call, makes the defense very dependent on him guessing correctly. Second issue is that any team that teaches a landmark or track style of blocking is going to defuse pick up those slants and stunts by design. I would not say this is a ‘first year advantage’ really, because multiple teams in this conference run zone blitz schemes, especially Oklahoma and A&M.
I agree
that this isn’t groundbreaking schematically. A ton of teams run the scrape looks in their zone bllitzes. What I do think is unique is how streamlined Diaz’s methods are and his defense is very unified from look to look. I think that allows a team pick up his defense more quickly and it allows them to play faster, more fundamental football on the field.
Also I would note that the Fire Zones above are certainly not the only Fire Zones that Diaz calls, Coach Hoover was just show how simple his scrape concept is in Diaz’s scheme. So your point about the slant calls may be a little hyper focused on what was presented. If you look in the article linked above , I’ve got a cutup of our Fire Zones from the Spring Game or there are cutups of Mississippi State that show a lot more from the fire zones.
by LonghornScott on Jul 31, 2011 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
You can make arguments like, "If X player and Y player go here, then that leaves Z player free to blow up Q player" are purely speculative.
Any one of those players can mess up their assignment. Anyone of those players can be a better athlete than the one they are matched up with. You can’t predict the success of a system by looking at one schematic of a particular play. Execution and athletic ability to make plays are what matter.
Diaz seems to have a system that makes execution relatively easy once the system is learned with a few reps. Someone can sit around and poke holes in individual schemes all they want to get their jollies and develop a sense of superiority, but the best way to judge a system is to look at past performance.
Basically, there’s a reason Diaz is coaching the Texas defense, while we sit around and talk about it on the internet. Let’s not forget that.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
Was more directed at Beergut,
although I replied to LS since I was touching on the comment re: hyperfocusing.
I just don’t see the point in nitpicking on individualized weaknesses of a scheme that hasn’t even seen the field in competitive play yet. As I referenced below, the MSU v Michigan game last year showed that Diaz knows what he’s doing against a potent offense.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
Dude, I'm not hanging my hat on anything.
Do you not see how arrogant it would be for me to think I’m qualified to judge the defensive system of a guy who is widely heralded in Division 1 coaching circles and just got hired by one of the most wealthy athletic depts in the country?
What’s more likely, Beergut, that you know something Manny Diaz, Mack Brown, and the numerous coaches that recommended Diaz don’t know, or that they know something you don’t know?
More to the point… Are you really denying that Michigan had a good year? Are you really ignoring that the 6-6 record was due to Michigan having a poor defense? If so, you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you are just plain dumb. Which is it?
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
Typo *Michigan had a good offense, not year.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
So I'm guessing
by these diagrams that the Sam and Will will most frequently be the Hot 3. But we’ve moved Acho Uno Ocho to Mike, right? Isn’t he the guy we would most like in the read-n-react position, especially against the run? I’m guessing that Diaz would indeed want him there the most often but that would introduce wrinkles, and keeping the system simple would seem to be a higher priority this year. Thoughts?
true
and just as importantly, the Hot 3 defender needs to be able to run down the #3 receiver out of the backfield who can often release in either direction… a lot of ground to cover and Acho’s speed will definitely serve him well there.
by LonghornScott on Jul 28, 2011 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions
4-3 Field Scrape
leaves inside zone wide open on the strongside
4-3 Bench Scrape leaves the offense free to do anything they want on the strongside. You have 4 blockers for 2 defenders at the LOS, and your second level defenders are dropping, so the offense can run whatever the hell they want to that side. Outside zone would be a killer, because the linemen are going exactly where the OL wants them to, and Mike is going away from the play.
Joe Wickline is going to laugh his ass off when he sees this.
actually
outside zone would be a horrible call against that look since the two slanters would be next to impossible to get a reach block on. Maybe you are confusing it with inside zone. Also, I don’t know why this doesn’t seem to make sense to y’all, the defenders are not going to drop into their zones if they get running blocking off of the snap. So that’s 3 on the line.
You guys do realize that this is not some new defensive look right? Diaz just teaches it uniquely.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 5:23 AM CDT up reply actions
exactly
People need to realize when the tackle smashes you in the head you are not dropping. I do not think the run is an issue at all. What will be an issue is for the “drop end” to read pass on play-action. I am guessing that is a nuance that will take a little time to master.
by codaxx on Jul 29, 2011 8:57 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
without a doubt
play action is going to create conflict for the defense. It’s the block and release from the tight end that would cause potential problems for the Hot 2 End against 12 or 21 personnel.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Actually
If you are blocking OZ as a 5 man reach, the center and guard will both pick up the slanting DL. If you block it the way some coaches (including Wickline) teach it, with a count to landmark approach, which does make it very similar to imside zone, they will get knocked right out pf the play. Even with the EMLOS staying, it is still 5 blocking 3 playside. Like I said, you can do whatever you want in that situation.
by Beergut on Jul 29, 2011 12:28 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
do the Sam and Will
not show up on your diagram? Which gap do you feel is unaccounted for on the playside?
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
On oz
C and D are open strongside
Are you thinking Will is going to somehow make a tackle from the backside? Sam will get buried as they climb to the second level. It is unsound strongside.
by Beergut on Jul 29, 2011 3:57 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
with the Will
I was referring to you suggesting IZ on the Field Scrape.
So just so we are clear on your OZ, you have the Center reaching the slanting Nose, the Guard reaching the slanting Tackle and the Tackle reaching the End leaving C and D open?
Let’s just assume this physically happens (which I don’t agree with)… what about Sam and pursuit from backside FS?
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Sam will get buried by the SG climbing free to the second level
As for the backside FS, you’re now depending on a third level defender to make the tackle, which means the RB is already in down the field and the play is a success for the offense. There is also the issue of the FB being free to block the FS.
I enjoy the exchange btw
Any football talk to get us through the last bit of summer is good football talk.
by LonghornScott on Jul 30, 2011 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions
again
We just disagree about what’s physically possible.
I can see PSG being about to maintain outside leverage or at least ride T flat, but I don’t see any way that C keeps N from getting across him on that slant without giving up a lot of ground. Again, I could see C trying to ride N flat at best. So, imo the offense is losing the most important battle on the line in that play. I also don’t buy that PSG can help with T and easily climb to Sam on that play. Sam is trying to match the tailback and fill so he’s going to be working hard to the outside.
I do agree that if no one defensive player gets off a block on the playside and somehow PSG gets to Sam then you’ve got FB and HB in the alley against just the SS, but I think when it comes to execution you are going to have your hands full with penetration from N and E, FB meeting Sam, and free running Will coming fast from the backside in the backfield.
I’ve always believed that a quick attack on the alley vacated by the slant yields the best results. I personally would much prefer A Gap Belly or Iso against the Bench Scrape rather than a slow developer that flattens with the slant.
by LonghornScott on Jul 30, 2011 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Move everyone down one gap on the reach
Center is either going to reach the Tackle or leave him for the PSG and climb to second level. PSG will either take the Tackle or block the slant from the Nose, leaving the Tackle for the PST, which is the gap he is headed towards. If he takes the Nose, Center climbs to second level. If he takes the Tackle, PST is free to climb and bury Sam. Realistically, PSG seals N inside, PST seals T inside, Center climbs and buries M, PSTE gets outide E (if he stays home and doesn’t drop) and seals him inside, or follows him on his drop and kicks him out.
If you use the Wickline approach, where C and PSG double N, PST and PSTE double T, then PSG climbs, and PSTE climbs, it becomes a bloodbath for the defense.
Ok now you are making more sense to me
“If you use the Wickline approach, where C and PSG double N, PST and PSTE double T, then PSG climbs, and PSTE climbs, it becomes a bloodbath for the defense.”
You started out saying C and G could reach slanting N and T (not in Wickline’s scheme). I think we can agree that’s not gonna happen short of some badass quick linemen.
You then said that you’d have a 5 on 3 in Wickline’s approach (and finally cleared up there with your last post). I think in reality you have 4 blockers on 3 defenders on the line and a 5 blockers on 4 defenders with the Sam and Fullback accounted for. But as you said you need those two double teams to avoid the penetration from the slants initially. I’ll buy that PST may be able to climb and pick up Sam who will be trying to match HB. I think that with E being the force player though TE is going to have a hard time sealing him inside and the play gets strung out some. Like I said if no one can come off a block then you get FB and HB in the alley against FS. Not bad but again I’d rather have a quick developer there because the OZ is gonna give time for FS and C to respond.
You really confused me when you said that C and D would be open though. That’s what had me scratching my head.
by LonghornScott on Jul 31, 2011 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions
sorry
I meant SS in the alley in the last post where I had FS.
by LonghornScott on Jul 31, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
also
IZ is not a good call against 4-3 Field Scrape unless you are specifically targeting the cutback to the weakside. You don’t have good outside leverage on the EMOL or the Force and the Mike is attacking the Strongside with momentum (and will likely get penetration) with the Will as the Hot 3 on the play and reading the back.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 5:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Looking at IZ
C has 0, G has 1, T has 2, TE has 3, FB has 4
T would be 0, but his stunt is taking him away from playside, so C leaves him for BSG, and BST tackles takes N where he wants to go.
PSG has 1, which is M, so his pre-snap read is to help C with 0 and then climb to second level to take M. This will open the playside A-gap, which is the POA. His zone is whoever is his inside shoulder to the center’s playside shoulder. When the T stunts backside, he now has no one to block inside, but the Ends stunt inside will force him to seal him outside. PST has 2, which means he is stepping inside to close zone between him and PSG’s inside shoulder. Best case scenario, he stops the Ends stunt, worse case scenario, he is in perfect position to seal Mike outside off the twist, and push him out of the play. TE has 3, which is Sam, and he can simply take him where he wants to go and seal him outside. The play is occurring inside Samm, and he is too far outside to make the play. If he is a concern, the FB can kick him out,
As the play begins, C and PSG are looking to knock T out of the playside A-gap, but he stunts out of there, so they push him off to the BSG and go upfield. PSG is looking for M, but he will runs into End’s stunt inside, and seal hm out. PST and PSTE are looking to double E to seal him outside, with PSTE keeping an eye on Sam, to seal him outside. PST and PSTE join together and will wall off Mike’s twist, with PSYE free to peel off and seal Sam outside.
The Center is actually free to go upfield and bury Will, if he makes it over in time to try to make a play. You have to hope your FS can win a footrace with the RB, and if Gideon is your free safety……..
a couple things
“The play is occurring inside Samm, and he is too far outside to make the play. If he is a concern, the FB can kick him out”
You are referring to SS here right?
“PST and PSTE are looking to double E to seal him outside, with PSTE keeping an eye on Sam, to seal him outside. PST and PSTE join together and will wall off Mike’s twist, with PSYE free to peel off and seal Sam outside.”
I’m not following you here. PSTE is either doubling PST off the line (and leaving Sam for FB) or trying to seal Sam. He isn’t doing both with Sam attacking the edge. If you want to contend that TE could help PST and then get out to SS then at least we are in the realm of possibility.
And finally, “The Center is actually free to go upfield and bury Will, if he makes it over in time to try to make a play.”
Will is already headed strong and he’s reading the running back. Are you trying to suggest that C keeps him from crossing his face? If so, we just disagree about what’s physically possible.
by LonghornScott on Jul 30, 2011 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
You are referring to SS here right?
No, referring to S on the diagram, which is Sam. He is going outside the D gap, which means he is already taking himself outside and away from the play where the POA is the A-gap.
I’m not following you here. PSTE is either doubling PST off the line (and leaving Sam for FB) or trying to seal Sam. He isn’t doing both with Sam attacking the edge. If you want to contend that TE could help PST and then get out to SS then at least we are in the realm of possibility.
PSTE’s pre-snap read is that he is helping PST with #2 (the End), but his responsibility is #3, Sam. This depends on the call they make, but he only cares about making sure no one gets inside him. The Mike twist will be picked up by the PST, which leaves the PSTE free to wall off Sam to the outside. PSTE’s first look is inside, but his eye goes outside for #3. If he sees Sam going outside, he takes him outside where he wants to go.
The other option is leaving him for the FB, but since Sam is already taking himself outside the play, I’m not even sure if that is necessary.
Will is already headed strong and he’s reading the running back. Are you trying to suggest that C keeps him from crossing his face? If so, we just disagree about what’s physically possible.
Even if Will comes downhill at the snap, he is running right into the Center, who will bury him as he climbs to the second level. In your scenario, Will is reading the running back, not the linemen, and will be moving right into the block.
Beergut,
Why are all these defensive players, most of whom you reference are generally faster and more athletic than O-linemen, goign to “run into” or “get buried” by various OL players? They are being taught to “run to daylight,” not to run into blockers or gaps. That’s one of the core priniciples of Diaz’s scheme. Your assumptions seem to be that the linemen are always going to execute properly and have the ability to get to their assignments, therefore the defensive scheme is a failure before the play has even occurred.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
The offensive line always has two advantages on the defensive line
They know when the play is going to start, and they know where it is going. The defense has to react and try to read what is going to happen. The offensive linemen know where they have to go to make the play work, the defensive line and linebackers are just guessing and hoping.
These schemes are based a lot on Diaz guessing correctly at the right time moreso than on them being gap-sound. The problem with that is you are getting a big play either way, for the defense if he is correct, for the offense if he is wrong.
Right, Diaz admits that he takes gambles and accepts that once in a while the offense is going to get a big play.
His idea is that once in a while the gamble will play off and they will force a turnover or a negative play that kills the drive. The part that makes me nervous is that it depends on a safety, or two depending on the call, keeping everything in front of them to prevent a touchdown. Hard to be extremely confident in Gideon after last year.
It seems philosophically the mantra is bend but don’t break…. and break the opponent whenever possible.
Overall, though, despite my concerns, I know there is a reason Diaz has risen through the coaching ranks so far and his history of success speaks for itself.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
Great Posts and Cites - BUT
I have to admit that I had a huge chunk of salt on Manny Diaz. I was literally scared that he was primarily charm and coachspeak and a little light on the X’s and O’s. Much of your post, and all the great articles on BON, EOT, BC et al – I definitely feel better about the depth and detail of one Manny Diaz.
My lone remaining issue – I do not buy the premise of “Beat me if you Can” I realize that most college offenses will struggle and fail to maintain drives after negative plays. But the aggressiveness of the zone will put most of the pressure on the weakest part of the defense with the rookie CBs. I am sure Rice will struggle with the D, but I would guess OU, OSU, and Aggie have ample offensive firepower, and skill to beat you long several times a game.
Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen
I'm not really sure
why the perception has grown that Diaz’s scheme dares people to beat him deep. Just the opposite: he’s playing 3 deep most of the time behind the pressure. If anything the defense leaves itself open to attacks to the flats. I think this is a much more friendly scheme for a young CB than Muschamp’s would have been although there still will be a call for a considerable amount of man defense. Generally though, Diaz wants the play happening in front of those guys which gives them a little more tolerance for error.
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
thanks for all your great posts LS
I picked that up from the MSP Longhorn Annual on the Diaz section.
Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen
I suppose
The case can be made for the threat for 4 verticals but as brophy has detailed the defense has an adjustment call to deal with the threat of 4 verticals from a 2×2 formation called Rip/Liz (no idea if Diaz uses that terminology).
by LonghornScott on Jul 29, 2011 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
@ Beergut and miketag,
You both raise interesting concerns regarding Diaz’s schemes. As a result, you have made me quite apprehensive about the potential for deficiencies of the scheme to leave us rather vulnerable against good offenses. In fact, I recently watched the MSU defense against Michigan and what stood out to me was how a defense with such world class talent was repeatedly embarrassed by an offense that could only be described as average in scoring ability with a rather poor QB at the helm.
Oh wait, that wasn’t quite how it played out, was it?
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.

by 































