I love trap plays; I believe they are one of the best and probably the most under-utilized run scheme in modern football. With more and more emphasis on getting upfield for the pass rush and getting penetration to stop the run game, trap and wham schemes should only become more effective. Yet they continue to go under-utilized. There are several legitimate reasons for this: 1) you’re leaving a first level defender unblocked for some time, which is dangerous as those first level defenders get more and more athletic; 2) simplified defensive rules (i.e. block-down, step-down) have mitigated some of the initial success of the scheme. Still, there are ways around all of this to continue to use of one of my favorite schemes: trap and wham.
At its most basic, Cover 4 plays as a four deep, three under
defense; and at its most aggressive, it plays almost identically to a tight
Cover 0. To the average fan, Cover 4 may sound like a passive, prevent-type
defense, while to the more nuanced fan, it may seem like an aggressive coverage
that can bring 9 defenders into the box. The truth is that it is all those
things and more. One of the greatest powers of the Cover 4 is its ability to
adjust, the intricacies, and tweaks that can be made to the same look to both
confuse the offense, and remain fundamentally sound. In this article, we’re
going to look at the basic elements of coverage in a Cover 4 defense.
I wanted to quickly go over a play design I really liked but
didn’t work out due to poor execution in the Ohio State spring game. One thing
I think that happens quite often in football is fans complaining about play
calling. If the play call works, it was a great play call; if it doesn’t work,
it was a bad play call. There is some truth to that in retrospect, but it’s
rarely because of the play design or the conceptual idea behind the play. What
I want to look at today is the tunnel screen and then the slip screen off the
tunnel screen action.
This is intended to be a look at the B1G players participating in the NFL combine (and a couple others that I think may get drafted). I include combine results, though that is only a small part of the equation for me. I put much more value into what I've seen on film rather than by how well someone has been taught to run the 40 yard dash. I try to give a basic overview of strengths, weaknesses, fit, and where I'd expect them to be drafted based on "norms". What that means is that I'm not really looking at mock drafts, I don't have my ear to the ground for what Mel Kiper is saying about a guy. It's just based on what I've seen on film. This will be five parts long, with teams coming in alphabetical order.