Help with 44 and 46 defenses

Clark:

Here is my second rebuttal. I’ve tried to separate your comments from mine, but I’m not sure how to do that on this forum.

DC wrote:
No offense, Malcolm, but that's not a description of a split 4-4. It may be the way you run it, but I doubt you could send me to a website with the ILBers in a 4-4 keying backs as their primary read.

Malcolm’s response
Now I don’t care what web site you are using to learn how to play your 4-4, but take a look at Pete Noble’s book “Coaching Football’s Split 4-4 Defense”, a Coaches Choice publication. Page 14, second paragraph, “Our split 4-4 is not a gap control defense. We key backs. Although we will try to control gaps, we have an aiming point. We attempt to take something away from the offense with our quickness. What we try to take away changes from week to week, game to game.”

DC wrote:
If you can't, then your response of "Wrong! LBs in a 4-4 read backs and backfield flow" is wrong.

Malcolm’s response:
Read Pete Noble’s book and then tell me I’m wrong.

DC wrote:
Your own reply gives the problem with doing that: "We're keying backs flow unless"...so then we cross key backs unless...in which case we key backs through the guards...". That's three "ifs", Malcolm. So if you never actually run into a team that pulls guards, will your ILBers know how to read pulling guards? Because a HS 4-4 will have the ILBers reading guards and the OLBer reading the TE. So, if you don't ever teach them to read guards, they don't know how to play in a HS 4-4. If you do teach them to read guards and the other youth team doesn’t do it, then the time you spent teaching it was wasted. So you've had to teach your kids THREE DIFFERENT WAYS to defend the same play. Tell us how many 3rd and 4th graders you've managed to teach this too? Let's put that number up here where everybody can see it. The proof is in the pudding, Malcolm. And, even if you could teach it, and they move your ILBer to another position at HS, then EVERYTHING you taught him is wasted.

Malcolm’s response:
Clark, your post said nothing at all about 3rd & 4th graders. There is another thread that deals with that.

I remember telling you that I don’t care what position my kids play later in HS. My primary goal is not to develop HS football players, it is to develop my team to compete in my league.

As far as “you've had to teach your kids THREE DIFFERENT WAYS to defend the same play” is surely not the case. We both know quite well that scouting and game prep will cause you to do different things in different weeks. If I feel it necessary to change a key read from one week to the next, that is far from unusual.

DC wrote:
Next, you say:

"The OLBs read backs, too. The Sam (who we play in a 7), slams the TE and reads near back. The Rover (weak side LB) usually plays in a walk-off alignment and reads near back.

I clearly stated the Sam's in a 46 and in a 4-4 are interchangeable. However, MOST split 4-4's will have the OLBer off the LOS and playing an "80" so that he can read if the TE is down blocking the "5" for run or pass. So your "7" Sam is not playing the position he will be in HS. As for the weakside OLBer, you must teach him to key both NEAR and FAR back for the counter. Again, if he doesn't play the position in HS, his training is wasted.

Malcolm’s response:
I repeat that I am not concerned if he will play that, or another position in HS. The HS 4-4 may quite well play the OLB as I do, or not. Your statement that MOST split 4-4 teams will have the OLB off the LOS may or may not be true as it pertains to this or that HS team. But the bottom line is I cannot decide what is best for my football team by planning for a particular player’s future.

DC wrote:
Next you stated:

"Many teams run wing-t with pulling guards, but it may not be the DC wing-t."

I really don't know how true that statement is. I'm the only wing T team in my league and have never seen another. Most youth league's have MPR's that make running wing T impractical unless they just plain have all fast kids. Maybe you see a lot of wing T but I certainly don't. Next, you say:

Malcolm’s response:
From time to time we see wing-t teams and they do pull OGs, but I will state that the wing-t is the exception and not the rule.

DC wrote:
"When we see 2 TEs it does spread us thinner across the front, but the theory of the defense doesn’t change. We align in 3 techs on both sides and now both OLBs are in 7s. Each OLB slams his respective TE, keeping him off the ILB, while he reads his near back."

Football suicide. I can fan block your "3's" with my OG's, send my OT's at the near ILBer, plus put each back on an ILBer, center on FS, and let the QB go right up the GUT into that huge "spread us thinner" hole you've admitted you've left. I've doubled teamed both your ILBers and you've taken your own OLBers right out of the play. My QB is running into next week and he did it because you couldn't defend two TE's.

Malcolm’s response:
I don’t think so! The 2 ILBs are reading flow. I fail to see how you’ve double-teamed them when the OT is aligned outside of the ILB. Remember your OGs are fan blocking my 3 techs right into the path of your OTs. My ILBs are in the A gaps and when your backs step up to block them, they attack the flow, having been taught to plug against this very tactic. Oh, BTW, is the QB just standing around waiting for his backs to get to the LOS ahead of him after he takes the snap?

DC wrote:
Don't believe me? Then let's do it again. Let's hit "wide open" "B" gap this time since you're not defending it either. The PSG fold blocks around your DT while the OT snowplows the DT down to the center for a nice, big, hole.

Malcolm’s response:
If you’re going to rely on the old “fold block” theory on the PSILB and you have the personnel to make it work, then good for you. But I’ll pit either of my ISLBs against your OG every day of the week and 2x on Sunday. At the snap when that ILB reads the flow to the “wide open” B gap, he does not wait for your OG to execute his fold. He already knows that the flow will take him to the B gap and he can expect that someone will be there to block him – whether it’s the OG, a lead back, or someone. We spend time ripping through blocks and he would be expected to get there before the OG, with outside leverage on your folding O lineman.

Dc wrote:
TE blocks DE, causing your "7" tech to step outside with him.

Malcolm’s response:
No, the TE is taught to slam the TE and prevent his inside release to the ILB. My Sam LB is reading your FB, remember (assuming that this is the back nearest to him). After slamming the TE and forcing an outside release, he would attack his read, expecting that read to have the ball, or be a lead blocker.

DC said:
My FB hammers him into the next county.

Malcolm’s response:
No, this doesn’t happen as we have a huge collision between 2 good FB players. I don’t need a win here, a stalemate will do quite nicely. And my PS ILB is right there to clean up the mess that’s happening right before his eyes.

DC said:
Big hole and PSG has an easy block on the PS ILBer.

Malcolm’s response:
He does not have an easy block at all on the PS ILB as I’ve described above.

DC wrote:
I can add the WB to the block if I want for a double team. And, because you're not reading guards, I can pull the backside OG through the hole too and there goes the other inside LBer, picked off as he tries to come over the top of the double team block on the first.

Malcolm’s response:
I assume you’re sending your WB inside the TE’s out block on the DE. He has to avoid the collision between your FB and my SLB to get there. As I said, my PS ILB is coached to look for and to attack blocks at the expected POA.

Now, you’re adding the BS OG to the mix and he is expected to get to the BS ILB. That BS ILB reads flow and he attacks at a flatter angle than does his PS ILB team-mate, because he is on the backside and flow is away from him. That BS OG is the 6th player, I believe (considering both the offensive and defensive players in the B gap now), and his chances of executing anything positive are nil.

DC said:
I can even pull the BSTE through the hole and leave the backside "7" on him to "drive on air".

Malcolm’s response:
No, the backside 7, slams the BSTE and prevents an inside release on the ILB to his side. Since that TE wants to pull away from him, that BS OLB would allow him to do that and, reading his near back, pursue that action away from him at the proper pursuit angle.

DC says:
BSTE takes FS while screening BS ILBer.

Malcolm’s response:
BS TE is the 7th player, now in the immediate area, further clogging up the region, making it highly impossible for him to do much of anything. I doubt seriously that he will block the FS or impede the BS ILB.

Dc wrote:
QB has corner. Who makes the tackle?

Malcolm’s response:
Either SLB, PS ILB, or FS, assuming the QB’s block on the CB gets him blocked.

DC wrote:
You have two defensive players on the line moving in opposite directions (The "3" and the "7") creating a gaping hole between them.

Malcolm’s response:
I believe you would have success with the OT’s downblock on the 3 tech. I don’t agree that your TE will always be successful against my DE, or be able to sustain the block. I don’t coach my DEs to have B gap responsibility, but I would expect that the SLB and the PS ILB would both be at the planned POA, possibly forcing the ball carrier to attempt to bounce the ball outside. That DE has been coached to expect action like this and to string the play wide.

DC said:
Once again, you can't cover two TE's.

Malcolm’s response:
As you can see by my response above, I surely don’t agree with this statement.

DC:
And what happens if I fake this play and throw a delay to the TE who comes off his DE block? Who has him? The "7"? The corner?

Malcolm:
Yes, the CB has him, as the corner will be closer to the LOS because of the WB’s alignment, than if there was a WR to that side. The TE delay would have to be a flat route or an inside hook, or there is not time to get the long ball away.

DC:
If nobody has him, I can throw to him all day. If someone has him, I can run "B" gap all day. Have fun trying to cover both.

Malcolm:
Again, I don’t think we’ll have a problem covering both, as I‘ve described above in great detail.

DC:
Once again, you can't cover two TE's. Need proof again? On snap, the TE runs flat down the scrimmage towards the QB who rolls to the side the TE vacated with backs leading. OT has the "3", FB has the "7", HB as the "9", and QB is rolling out behind them, which brings Fred. Who has the opposite flowing TE? And what keeps me from pulling the TE side OG as an extra lead blocker for him to log the DE? Once again, you can't cover two TE's.

Malcolm:
Clark, you have not said whether you will GIVE to the flowing TE or THROW to that TE, but let me cover each instance for you:
a) you roll the QB and he GIVES the ball to the right TE moving left. You’ve blocked down with the OT on the 3 tech to the side (offense’s left) where the flowing TE is moving. The left OG is pulling to his left to log the DE to that side. You have not said what you’re doing with your left side TE, but he’d better be trying to block my OLB to that side. Now, my OLB to your left side (the side you’re bringing your right TE toward), will slam him and read the near back. Since that near back will flow away, the OLB will prevent an inside release by your TE and follow his key. Since his primary key flows away, he would, too. However, as he goes, he is coached to check for counters/reverses as his secondary key. The CB to your left as the QB began to roll away from him would be responsible for his outside one-third and check for the release of a receiver from the LOS. Since there is only one receiver to his side (your TE), his key is now blocking down. His responsibility now tells him the play is a run to his side of the field. He is the contain player and attacks the LOS forcing outside-in. Because of the action counter to the QB’s initial roll out steps, all 4 of the LBs would read the mis-direction and re-direct to the indicated counter flow. Did my DE get logged? Did my DE fight for his position and get kicked? Likely he got kicked before he got logged, but I believe he continues to fight through the OG’s action to stuff him back inside, reading the play and forcing it back toward the B gap. I must hope that my ILB to the counter side (the offense’s left) recognized the mis-direction and re-directed toward the counter because there is absolutely no one available to block him. Everyone else has been used up. If that ILB takes the bait, then your play MAY get the gain you’re looking for if you can find a way to account for the CB – one of those nosepickers who won’t contribute to my defense.
b) You roll the QB to your right and let the right TE slide along the LOS to his left, where your QB throws back across the field to that TE who has either run a flat route, or has turned up the sideline on a wheel-type route. And you OG is pulling to protect the QB; the left TE blocks inside toward the C gap to also protect the QB’s backside. I have to rely on the CB to the side the TE slides toward to do his job. He might take a step or two toward the QB’s initial action, but should recover when he reads the receiver releasing. Likewise the OLB to the offense’s left would slam the TE to that side and make his inside release tough. That OLB would make his move off his primary key read and play football from there. He is coached to check for counters/reverses before selling out in pursuit. That secondary read would tell him to plant and re-direct at some depth to the hook area behind his original position.

Now, if my kids don’t do as they have been taught and drilled, and your guys do a good job on their execution, then the play goes your way. That’s football. If my guys do as they’re supposed to we win that snap.

DC:
Need more proof? Shall we go the DW forum and find out how 4-4 defenses do against a two TE DW?

Malcolm:
No need to consult with DW folks, I’ve already told you that I played TWO DW teams at Thanksgiving – TWO 2 TE teams. No problem – no scores for those 2 games, nor any scores for the 2 previous – although the 2 previous were not both against DW teams.

DC:
Next you say:

"I agree that winning (or losing) CAN BE a habit. I strongly disagree that a kid with winning habits will automatically make a team ahead of a kid who was on a habitual loser. That’s a stupid statement and fails to take into account size, experience, speed, agility, and a host of intangibles. That kid who was stuck on a loser might be an all-state player because he is now surrounded with talent he never had the luxury of before in his football experience."

All you've said is that a kid with super talent is a kid with super talent. This kid doesn't have to be playing in a split 4-4 in youth ball to start for his freshman HS 4-4 team. He could be lining up backwards in a 10-1 and he'll still start. Yet playing in a losing 4-4 still hasn't helped him unless he plays the exact same position for his HS 4-4 team.

Malcolm:
Not so. Good football players can play football - plain and simple. How many times have we both seen kids moved to a new spot for one reason or another, who do very well and we wonder sometimes if we shouldn’t have had him there from the start. The fact that he may have played for a loser doesn’t disqualify him from becoming a very good HS player regardless of what system he may have played in at the youth level. To say otherwise is just pure conjecture. IOW, your guess is about as good as anyone else’s.

DC:
But you can take two kids with equal abilities, one with winning habits and one who has previously played in a 4-4 but with losing habits, and which one is going to start in the HS 4-4? I've seen kids with winning habits outnumber the other starters by 3:1. I've seen youth teams finish in last place - with great players - owing to lousy coaching. Most, if not all, of those great players don't go on. But a first place youth team with less than great players will still be putting players on the freshman team.

Next you say the 4-4 teaches tackling and winning. Nope! A coach teaches tackling and winning. A 4-4 depends on five players to make the tackle; the four linebackers and the FS.

Malcolm:
I agree that a good coach teaches tackling and winning, but I don’t agree at all that only the 4 LBs and the FS have any impact. The DEs are key players in the 4-4 and good DE play puts pressure on the offense and goes hand-in-hand with good OLB play.

DC:
The rest can be nosepickers and go an entire season without making a tackle.

Malcolm:
Don’t agree here either. The best 4-4 teams I have coached over the years have had very good DTs – quick and strong DTs. With these type players you are given the luxury to build the defense from the inside out.

DC:
What skills does a corner learn in a 4-4 from actually playing the position? How to count dandelions? He'll be as good as his coach. The system won't teach him a thing.

Malcolm:
Well, the “system” is only as good as any coach – whether it’s the DC 46 or my, or someone’s else’s, split 4-4. The best ideas on paper still have to be implemented and checked and tweaked – read “coached”, or they’re not worth much at all.

DC:
Next, you say:

"This is a blanket statement that has as much chance being false as it has being true. What are we talking about here cloned kids who are the same size, same speed, same mental ability, same IQ, yada, yada? How are you going to tell me that a kid, just because he played in your, or anyone else’s 46 for that matter, is automatically going to beat out some kid who happened to play on a 4-4 defensive team?

Given a 46 kid and a 4-4 kid with the same size, same speed, same mental ability, same IQ, yada, yada... and move the 4-4 kid to a different spot (as you agree will happen) and let them both compete for it then -Yes - my money is on the "46" kid. What he knows, he brings with him to the position. What the other kid knows, he left behind at his old position. Sure, given enough time, the 4-4 kid will catch up. Why wouldn't he? He's the same kid. But take two identical kids, teach one to play checkers and the other to play chess, and then let them play a game of chess. My money is on the chess player for the first game. Next, you say:

Malcolm:
Still this is such an over blown generalization as to be a worthless statement. There are simply too many factors at play to be able to say anything like this. Yes, your good 46 kid MIGHT beat out my good 44 kid – or he might not. That HS coach may like my kid or your kid, all for a number of reasons neither you nor I can control. And this is the real reason you pushed my buttons. Your passion for your DC 46 is commendable but your blanket statements covering things like this are way off any sense of reality. According to you, the 46 kid is going to be better than my 44 kid just because he played a in 46. That’s poppycock.

DC:
"DC’s all wet on this one IMHO."Your opinion's fine although I feel it needs to be backed up better.

Malcolm:
I think I more than adequately backed up my opinion above. I’ll rest on that and “last guy with the chalk” theory.

DC:
Again, here's the question I was asked for which that post was written in answer to: Should a youth team run the HS's freshmen 4-4 defense? Let's see what would happen if you did that? Oops! You'd be reading backs through guards or just reading guards! Now we know that's not what you want to do at the youth level because you want to read "flow" and you want to read "flow" because it's more efficient to do that then teach what they don't need to know - read guards. But if you truly believed what you say, Malcolm, you wouldn't be teaching to read flow. Your two ILBers would be keying their guard just like the HS freshman team does, IMHO.

Malcolm:
No, the simplicity of the flow read at the youth level is an easy teach onto which you build the other skills like block avoidance or block defeating measures. And, of course, getting the right kid in the right position.

DC:
Now, once again, I knew this post would be pushing your buttons. I didn't reply at all to the original post as I thought it was an "apples and oranges comparison". However, another coach thought my response every applicable and requested it be put up. So I did even though it's not a perfect match to the subject at hand. But I guess he's all wet too, right?

Malcolm:
No, I cannot comment on the other coach or his adequacy to evaluate anyone’s 4-4. So, he may or may not be all wet, too.

Clark, your dogmatic approach is what pushes my buttons. Your statement would have the readers here believe that what you say is mandatory – that it couldn’t be any other way at all. Your statement leaves no room for any other result. That is just not reality- that’s your zeal for your defense oozing out.