Tape Doesn't Lie Podcast

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

OSUMIKE17

Property of The Oklahoman and NewsOk.com
A/V Subscriber
Apr 11, 2009
53,854
57,195
1,743
Tulsa
#42
No Copy and paste to my response

Sorry you're so emotional about being shown the x's and o's of the pictures that you provided.

Sarcasm is always to the go to in these situations
It’s actually “go-to.” You clearly didn’t copy and paste that part.
 

DallasOSUCowboys34

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Sep 24, 2008
1,670
1,633
1,743
Fort Worth, TX
#43
Iowa State is in a 3-4 Cover 6 which means they have 7 box players that are run first dedicated
OSU is in an Odd Stack Cover 4 with 5 1/2 run first dedicated box players

I consider anyone who is run first to be a box player

Big difference in who the 1/2 players are, how vertical threats are defensed, how run plays are defensed and how the play action/RPO's gets replaced etc...
You sure on this? It's been a while since I watched, so might have to look again. Pretty sure they were playing force with both corners. Maybe split field coverage w/Cover 4 to the field.
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2009
4,164
2,208
1,743
#49
https://twitter.com/Tapedoesntliepd/status/1186777522786226177?s=20
Curious - what is the guy circled in yellow supposed to do? No TE, the RB is accounted for by LB’s. Trips to the far side, again, each covered. Does he just stand there on the play? Seems like he could get to the open spot quicker than the WR. I admit, I don’t know how all this works, but it seems to be an opportunity.
 

Attachments

Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#50
Curious - what is the guy circled in yellow supposed to do? No TE, the RB is accounted for by LB’s. Trips to the far side, again, each covered. Does he just stand there on the play? Seems like he could get to the open spot quicker than the WR. I admit, I don’t know how all this works, but it seems to be an opportunity.
Fast flow alley player
Read the last man on the line of scrimmage for high hat or low hat and either fit alley for fast flow to, or take pursuit angle on fast flow away.

1 prong to this play is either to ride a stretch, or in this case, pull the ball and scramble.

If the backside safety rolls coverage, all Brewer has to do is pull the ball down and scramble.
 
Last edited:

DallasOSUCowboys34

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Sep 24, 2008
1,670
1,633
1,743
Fort Worth, TX
#51
Curious - what is the guy circled in yellow supposed to do? No TE, the RB is accounted for by LB’s. Trips to the far side, again, each covered. Does he just stand there on the play? Seems like he could get to the open spot quicker than the WR. I admit, I don’t know how all this works, but it seems to be an opportunity.
This is quarters coverage, so he is playing down hill against the run. When it's determined it's a pass he will help bracket WR on that side. He has no responsibility to help on routes on the other side of the field.

Peel, who is the guy who ultimately got beat is the player in conflict. Generally quarters rules are anything over that 8-10 yard threshold is who you're taking. The play is great design because they run a square in right at that 8-10 yard mark to occupy his eyes and run a post right behind him. Where the defense fell apart is in both cases you can see the slot defenders opening up their hips with outside leverage, meaning they were expecting inside help. The fact that they're playing the WR like they have inside help, and ultimately don't, is a problem.

Edit, Sterling not Peel
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#52
Bernard gave up inside posture because he expected Sterling to drop which would have given them a high/low bracket.

Instead Sterling drove on the stick/settle route and left Bernard exposed.

Brewer is reading Sterling

If Sterling drives on the stick/settle, throw the post

If Sterling drops, throw to the stick/settle.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#53
Gundy talks about simplifying the offense for Sander's which is garbage. Run the correct concepts such as the one Baylor ran here.

This play is a perfect example of exactly how I've been saying we should be using Sanders.

Single read plays that are triple pronged.

Brewer didn't have to read the entire defense.
All he had to do was read the 1 overhang player and make his decision off of what that one player does.

Sanders grew up running these exact concepts and is very, very good at them.

If overhang player drives on the settle route, throw the post. If he drops into bracket, throw the settle route.

A common adjustment to that would be to drive the overhang on the settle, but then roll the backside safety to the bracket. At that point, when Brewer sees backside safety roll to the bracket, he simply pulls the ball and scrambles with a lead blocker, his running back, leading the way back to the boundary.

There are a whole slew of these single read concepts that we used to run.

That's air raid 101

You're not necessarily running plays , you're running concepts and the reads for a qb are very, very simple, because you're reading individual players, not entire defenses.

If this guy does that you throw to this route. If he does the other, you throw to the other route and so on and so forth.

Teams like OU and Baylor have now added the 3rd prong which is running the ball when defenses roll coverage.

OSU in the past has run the run/pass read option concepts, and we've also run the pass option offense which is the air raid.

Both are very qb friendly and both Sanders would accel at.

We run neither now and Cornelius last year and Sanders this year are getting the butt end of it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#54
This play is also a perfect example of why I've been saying for years that OSU needs to run a 3-4 where we are disguising fronts instead of disguising coverages.

As I've shown, it doesn't matter what coverage you're in, the defense can't be right.

If you drive on the underneath, throw the post, if you drop, throw the underneath, if you roll backside help, run to the backside etc...

And, since they are single read concepts, they happen so fast that blitzing only makes the defense even more vulnerable.

So...
The only way you can beat these concepts is if you get the qb's eyes off of the player he's suppossed to be reading and instead, make him have to put his eyes on who exactly is rushing on any given play without blitzing.

You can't do that consistently rushing 3.

In a 3-4, you can attach both outside lb's, drop one or drop both, or rush both all with the same pre snap alignment.

Therefore, the qb never knows who is rushing and who is dropping until after the play starts. By him having to figure that out after the play starts, it gives him much less of an ability to keep his eyes off of that and on the overhang player he's reading.

This play is a very good example of our schematical failures and how much further advanced the Big 12 is schematically than we are.

They are across the board and they begin and end with Gundy.

It's also a good example of why other programs young or inexperienced players can excel, while our coach constantly says that our qb needs 15 games before we can run our offense.

Until we get people in here that understand these schematical issues, and then allows them to do their job without interference, it's going to continue to be more of the same.

Very frustrating!
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2009
4,164
2,208
1,743
#55
This play is also a perfect example of why I've been saying for years that OSU needs to run a 3-4 where we are disguising fronts instead of disguising coverages.

As I've shown, it doesn't matter what coverage you're in, the defense can't be right.

If you drive on the underneath, throw the post, if you drop, throw the underneath, if you roll backside help, run to the backside etc...

And, since they are single read concepts, they happen so fast that blitzing only makes the defense even more vulnerable.

So...
The only way you can beat these concepts is if you get the qb's eyes off of the player he's suppossed to be reading and instead, make him have to put his eyes on who exactly is rushing on any given play without blitzing.

You can't do that consistently rushing 3.

In a 3-4, you can attach both outside lb's, drop one or drop both, or rush both all with the same pre snap alignment.

Therefore, the qb never knows who is rushing and who is dropping until after the play starts. By him having to figure that out after the play starts, it gives him much less of an ability to keep his eyes off of that and on the overhang player he's reading.

This play is a very good example of our schematical failures and how much further advanced the Big 12 is schematically than we are.

They are across the board and they begin and end with Gundy.

It's also a good example of why other programs young or inexperienced players can excel, while our coach constantly says that our qb needs 15 games before we can run our offense.

Until we get people in here that understand these schematical issues, and then allows them to do their job without interference, it's going to continue to be more of the same.

Very frustrating!
I tried to send you a direct message but the system won't let me. Can you add me to the white list? I have a question that isn't relevant to the board.
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#56
This is quarters coverage, so he is playing down hill against the run. When it's determined it's a pass he will help bracket WR on that side. He has no responsibility to help on routes on the other side of the field.

Peel, who is the guy who ultimately got beat is the player in conflict. Generally quarters rules are anything over that 8-10 yard threshold is who you're taking. The play is great design because they run a square in right at that 8-10 yard mark to occupy his eyes and run a post right behind him. Where the defense fell apart is in both cases you can see the slot defenders opening up their hips with outside leverage, meaning they were expecting inside help. The fact that they're playing the WR like they have inside help, and ultimately don't, is a problem.

Edit, Sterling not Peel
This is correct all except the boundary safety not having pass responsibilities on the other side and him being a bracket player.

He is a fast flow alley player whether that fast flow is run or pass, the alley is his coverage.

The safeties in quarters coverage are both run/pass players and they read the last man on the line of scrimmage for high hat or low hat from that guy.

If they get fast flow away, they roll to the top, and in essence the coverage becomes a post inverted cover 3.

Meaning, after play side safety drives on the fast flow to his side, backside safety rolls to the top, it, and, in essence, it has become a cover 3 at that point. The post inverted just simply means you have inverted from 4 to 3 post snap.

If they get high hat they drop to pass, and if they get low hat they fit on the run.

Baylor set us up

In the 1st half OSU was rolling that boundary safety over the top because they were driving the overhang player, Sterling, on the settle route.

Again, that rolled coverage is just a post inverted Cover 3. Cover 3 is usually just a post invert off of Cover 4 so they work well together.

Well, then, since we were rolling the safety from the single side, Baylor then scrambled back to the boundary, then then ran a rail to the back to that side and also threw a slant back that way.

So.... OSU had to stop rolling that safety over the top because they were beating us on it.

So.... because Baylor had attacked the single side, OSU had no way to post invert to cover 3 and roll the single side safety.

But, yet, we stayed in quarters coverage against that 3x1.

So.... Knowing that we were no longer able to roll that single side safety, Baylor then could get to the front side prongs to that play.

Bernard apparently wasn't aware that we could no longer post invert the single side safety, or he must have thought he was going to have a drop from Sterling.

Apparently Sterling didn't know we couldn't post invert either and drove on the settle route.

So... we had no backside safety help, no front side safety help, and a corner who thought he was going to have help from one or quite possibly both of them.

It's just typical of how other teams set us up, adjust to how we line down and cover, and how we have no answers when the other teams has different prongs to the play.

We stayed in quarters coverage knowing we had no way to post invert a backside safety. Thus, we had no way to cover any kind of option concept where the qb reads an overhang player and has an either or decision as to who to throw it to.

These type of errors are why we rush 3, which means you don't get pressure on the qb, then at the same time there are receivers running wide open.

It's totally inept!

This is exactly why many of us knew as soon as we hired Knowles and his quarters defense, that there is no way it would work against these multi pronged offenses of the Big 12.
 
Last edited:
Jun 14, 2011
623
614
643
#57
This is correct all except the boundary safety not having pass responsibilities on the other side and him being a bracket player.

He is a fast flow alley player whether that fast flow is run or pass, the alley is his coverage.

The safeties in quarters coverage are both run/pass players and they read the last man on the line of scrimmage for high hat or low hat from that guy.

If they get fast flow away, they roll to the top, and in essence the coverage becomes a post inverted cover 3.

Meaning, after play side safety drives on the fast flow to his side, backside safety rolls to the top, it, and, in essence, it has become a cover 3 at that point. The post inverted just simply means you have inverted from 4 to 3 post snap.

If they get high hat they drop to pass, and if they get low hat they fit on the run.

Baylor set us up

In the 1st half OSU was rolling that boundary safety over the top because they were driving the overhang player, Sterling, on the settle route.

Again, that rolled coverage is just a post inverted Cover 3. Cover 3 is usually just a post invert off of Cover 4 so they work well together.

Well, then, since we were rolling the safety from the single side, Baylor then scrambled back to the boundary, then then ran a rail to the back to that side and also threw a slant back that way.

So.... OSU had to stop rolling that safety over the top because they were beating us on it.

So.... because Baylor had attacked the single side, OSU had no way to post invert to cover 3 and roll the single side safety.

But, yet, we stayed in quarters coverage against that 3x1.

So.... Knowing that we were no longer able to roll that single side safety, Baylor then could get to the front side prongs to that play.

Bernard apparently wasn't aware that we could no longer post invert the single side safety, or he must have thought he was going to have a drop from Sterling.

Apparently Sterling didn't know we couldn't post invert either and drove on the settle route.

So... we had no backside safety help, no front side safety help, and a corner who thought he was going to have help from one or quite possibly both of them.

It's just typical of how other teams set us up, adjust to how we line down and cover, and how we have no answers when the other teams has different prongs to the play.

We stayed in quarters coverage knowing we had no way to post invert a backside safety. Thus, we had no way to cover any kind of option concept where the qb reads an overhang player and has an either or decision as to who to throw it to.

These type of errors are why we rush 3, which means you don't get pressure on the qb, then at the same time there are receivers running wide open.

It's totally inept!

This is exactly why many of us knew as soon as we hired Knowles and his quarters defense, that there is no way it would work against these multi pronged offenses of the Big 12.

But seriously, would it make sense that if we had a strong D-line, Knowles' approach would/could be pretty solid in the Big12(10)?
 
Nov 14, 2010
3,361
1,653
743
#60

But seriously, would it make sense that if we had a strong D-line, Knowles' approach would/could be pretty solid in the Big12(10)?
To answer your question, let me give a real scenario based off an example of how it happened Saturday.

In that 3x1 concept, Baylor kept their back in at times and threw the slant or Brewer scrambled back to the single side. That means they had 6 blockers.

I don't care how good your defensive lineman are, if it's 6 vs. 3, the defensive lineman are going to lose.

That means the qb is going to have enough time to let all 3 prongs of the play/concept develop.

This is why I have been so adamant about how terrible our 30 fronts are, because, schematically, from a numbers perspective, it puts the defense at a major dis advantage.

The only way to beat these multi pronged offenses is to take away the 1st and 2nd prong of the concept, then confuse the qb as to who is rushing to get his eyes off of the player he is reading so he can't make it to the 3rd prong.

OSU had the right concept in the secondary early in the sense that they were rolling the single side safety, and, thus, were able to take away the first and 2nd prong which were on the front side of the play.

But....
With only 3 d lineman vs. 6 offensive lineman, apparently it didn't register with an OSU coach that Brewer was going to have enough time to get to the 3rd prong of the play/concept which was the scramble to the single side, the slant and the rail back to the single.

Then....
After Baylor had hurt us back to the single with that play/concept, instead of changing fronts or changing coverage, we just simply stopped rolling our single side safety so as to be able to cover the 3rd prong of the play which was all the action back to the single side of the play.

Well....Apparently it didn't register with the OSU coaches that, by doing that, now all Baylor had to do was go back to their prongs on the front side of the play/concept which was the shorter version of the dig/post concept OSU runs that they got the big play on.

So... the adjustment by the OSU coaches was to quit rolling the single side safety....
That's it!

The Baylor coaches had to be laughing when they realized that was basically the only adjustment we were going to make.

What happened in the 4th quarter was not a fluke, bad luck, players having mental breakdowns etc...

It was a complete and total schematic ass kicking that had been set up all game by the Baylor offensive coaches.

And.... it was allowed to take place because our defensive coaches either didn't know what adjustments to make, or just simply refused to make them.

Then we wonder why we got our asses kicked in the 4th quarter

OSU is in major trouble if someone who understands these things doesn't get through to Holder and convince him of how bad it actually is and get out ahead of this
 
Last edited: