Defending the Trips Formation out of the 4-3

How would the width of #3 effect what you are doing? An extreme case where he is a wing to the other extreme?

If you are running 1 step hitches to any of the three receivers or bubble with the inside?

Or Curl/Bench (quick flat) with the inside receiver running to a spot near the MLB to his side as a blitz beater?

4 streak concept from 3x1, with outside rec. taking outside releases. #2 running straight up the field and #3 running immediately across the field behind the MLBs and in front of the FS if he's over the PSG. If playside is to the 3 rec side then he gets his eyes on the #3 coming across, if the FS simply drops he hits #3, if he begins to drift to the rec crossing, he goes back to his #2?

SEFOOTBALL,

The real poblems begin when you play a guy like me who runs a 3 x 2 empty with the QB back 6-8 yds deep in the gun. 4 receivers present problems, and I figured 20 plus years ago if 4 receivers cause the DC's all this worry, what would 5 wides cause them? The answer proved to be really satisfying to me!
I move my receivers from a wide formation that covers the entire width of the field with the exception of 7 yd alley on either side so that we can stretch the field horizontally in the PSL, as well as, vertically on the snap. On the opposite end of the scale, we run a "close" formation where #3 trips side can actually be hid behind or inside of the playside tackle, or align as far outside as 5 yds outside the PST. How are you ever going to cover those receivers unless you play man straight across the board, your not. The minute you drop into ANY kind of zone, especially verses our wide 3 x 2 alignment we have you right where we want you because your defender will truly be put on an island with no help and it then becomes your best against our best. With some 8-9 zones to be covered by the defense, you are really at a disadvantage. If your thinking you will just send 6 against our front five, knowing we can only get a hat on 5, guess again because we pray for that to happen as that is when our QB's get an opportunity to really make something happen for our team as they are coached to become their own best blocker of the 6th man or free runner
that you will send by using their legs and getting out of harms way by throwing on the dead run without the necessity of having to pull up, plant, then throw. Just my way, but I was able to fashion a very nice win-loss record by utilizing the techniques just outlined and having good players who could execute them.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

We run cover 4 with the corner aligning on #1 and covering his quarter, the strong safety on #2 and covering his quarter, the free safety aligning in the middle of the field and covering his quarter, and we lock up with the corner on #1 backside. The outside linebacker to the trips side buzzes the flat, the mike opens to the side the running back opens, and the outside linebacker away from trips covers the back out of the backfield if he comes to that side. It has worked very well for us.

That's our trips adjustment, Jerry. The mike reads the back out of the backfield and drops to the hook zone to the running back's release side.

Vs. the I or any other 2 RB set, the Mike always carries the tight end 18 yards before releasing him to the safety.

That's why draws work well, Jerry. Especially out of the I.

The way that you are defending trips is succeptible to the wheel by #3 and corner-fly-post (inside-out) to the trips side. You need the free in the middle of the field to handle the third vertical player and provide help to the single receiver side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CoachHawg
Also just a side note. How many of you would throw for the endzone (Twice) with a 28-0 lead with less then 2min. in the game with the defenses 2nd string? (varsity high school game) I really want to know.

---

Interesting, it is a bit of an aside. Not on this end. We'd be grounding it out. If you are winning with less than 2 min. to go and up by 4 scores, then your D has done a great job and there is no way the opposition is going to score in that time frame if for 46 minutes they haven't scored yet.

There are some coaches out there that will tell you that "they are always attacking" and that if they don't continue to attack until the final whistle sounds then they are setting an example of weakness to their players that they can turn intensity on/off. I see a small slice of validity to this, but I think there are other ways to foster an aggressive attitude.

It's funny, but in our area, especially last year we had one team that decided to torch everyone they played (except us, ie they lost to us). They had one game where they scored over 60 points (the opposition scored 0) and on the final play of the game, which happened to be a PAT opted to line up for the kick and then have the holder take the snap and run it in for 2 instead of 1. The play that scored their final TD was a fake run to one side with one of their WR arcing back around on a reverse the opposite direction for the score. I could go on and I think the majority of you would be amazed.

When it was all said and done, I think the worst part was that both the HC and a number of his players commented that what they did was A-Ok.

I'm certainly not in favor of any type of slaughter rules, but there has to be some maturity with the coaching fraternity that respects the game as well as the mentorship aspect of what we do enough to say that the 1 extra point at the end of the game is not worth it, much less the 6 prior off of a razzle dazzle play as opposed to simply grinding it up the gut as they had easily been able to do throughout the game.

SEFOOTBALL,

I respect your opinion but here is how I have always looked at it: IF YOU CAN BEAT ME 100-0 GO FOR IT!!! WHY SHOULD THE TEAM THAT HAS THE BEST PLAYERS AND ARE THE BEST PREPARED BE "PENALIZED" BY NOT BEING ABLE TO SCORE ALL THEY CAN GET??? A GOOD TEAM KILLS A MOSQUITO WITH AN AXE!!!

I have always been offended by a coach who has just got his tail kicked going over to the oposing coach and getting all ticked off because the guy " ran up the score ". To me, that is about as childish as you can get. FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF COMPETITION AND JUST LIKE IN WAR, "TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS". The trouble with coaches today is they are more concerned with a players "self esteem" than his ability to play the game. Whenever I would get my butt kicked by a team that came to play and was better prepared than mine, and wanted the win more than my kids did I was the first one across the field to shake the other coaches hand and tell him "great job coach!" This mollycoddling of todays athletes is a joke to me. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Coach harder, smarter, be a better teacher and then YOUR guys will be in the drivers seat.

Please don't get me wrong, I have done this far to long to not realize that I am a dinosaur with this kind of thinking, but if I had it to do all over again I would do it exactly the same as I always have. In 42 years of coaching, I have never had a player who went on to become a killer because I thought it right to teach him to be tough. I never coached a young man who even went on to go to prison, and I will guarantee you there are few coaches today who can say that.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

I agree with what you are saying, and most times I would pressure the receiver with my corners. But this weeks team from the trips set is going to run a rocket type screen to that side and work a rocket and go off of it. Our OLB on that side between 1 and 2 when he reads screen will get up in the throwing lane (hopefully) our corner is playing off to watch for the rocket and go by the blocker....our safety to that side will come up hard on screen as well as our MIKE>

COACH PIERSON,

I understand your dilemma now, did not know about the rocket screen. If you mentioned it I guess I missed it reading your post. YOUR ADJUSTMENT PLAN SHOWS GOOD THINKING ON YOUR PART. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.

Coach Easton

SEFOOTBALL,

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anything in your last post. To be sure, there is such a thing as being a jerk about a players on field demeanor (taunting, etc.) that is totally unacceptable to me and always has been.

When striving to get "all you can get" I certainly agree with the fact that you give the 2's and 3's a great opportunity that night to sharpen their playing skills, without doubt. Not so much worried about injury factor to the 1's but rather to insure that next years team and the year after that will be a scenario of
"reloading" and not "rebulding". I never was one to worry about injury because I think that attitude rubs off on the players and I never wanted anyone from my high school teams to my professional minor league teams to worry about getting nicked. Sure as shootin' when they start worrying about that, they start "tippin" (playing at half speed) and as you well know that IS when you get hurt.

I appreciate your comments and have enjoyed the exchange of ideas.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

Coach Roy,

Guess that is why we have vanilla and chocolate, if we all looked at every issue in the same fashion it would be rather dull.

In a 42 year coaching career that spanned from coast to coast, I have coached at the largest classifications schools and never the smallest but on two occcasions at the second smallest. If you have only 15-20 players, you have no business playing the big schools, that is ridiculous. I have coached at schools that had 3 complete strings on both sides of the ball and two units of special teams! I would never play a school that could only field a handful of players, never. Your board needs to get together with the other small schools and decide on a mutual playing site where you guys can easily reach and work out a schedule where you can "level the playing field" playing only the small schools of comparable numbers.

But, it is my stance and I'm not changing it, if you get your butt kicked that is how it goes, don't blame the other coach as it makes you look like a whimp! Sure, the other guy is a jerk for doing the things that you mention, no doubt about it, but let OTHER COACHES AND FANS SAY IT, NOT YOU. I think if you adopt this policy, YOU WILL BE THE WINNER IN THE END. Just my opinion as always.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

I don't like running the score up - but on the other hand, I saw a team blow a 35-0 half time lead in the State PLAYOFFS last year (they LOST 38-35). UNBELIEVABLE!

Coach Mountjoy-

Some would think that at 35-0 at half you should have it if you are playing sound ball coming into the second half, but then again if you scored 35 and they didn't score any and you've seen them on film and at the half are saying to yourself that your defense played a hell of a game combined with their offense playing terrible, then you have to be saying to yourself that you still have a ball game.

I really think this whole side discussion of scoring and such is about us as grown mature men not being kids out there and letting our emotions take the best of us, but rather being level-headed and logical in what is going on based on information gathered both prior to the game and during the course of a game. I think the ultimate issue is that too often some of us coaches get too much of an adrenaline rush for putting the points up that when it's happening even in a game where you are clearly superior the competition rather than subbing folks and doing other things that somewhat would be perceived to limit the damage to the other team we get stuck on wanting to get our "virtual high" of scoring X amount of points.

As others have said we all look at it in different ways.

One additional anecdotal thought -- We have a team in our area that just opened up this year, they have zero seniors in their school if I'm not mistaken and instead of playing only a jayvee schedule opted in their first year to play a full varsity schedule. Not sure if the HC decided that or the school board. But in one of their games they lost something close to 90-0 (to a rather good team). Some might look and say that this was running up the score, but after listening to comments from kids from both schools as well as the coaches it's clear that everyone left the game in pretty good shape. The HC from the team that won stated how after the score was clearly out of reach and they were scoring at will that he had two options, option one was to the kneel the ball or simply punt on first down, the other was to simply run his most basic running plays. He opted which I think all of us would agree to be correct, his most basic running plays and guess what he continued to score. What I admire about the HC from the winning program is that he understood his competition going in after watching film and he anticipated (a) that if it was a dogfight how they would execute, but that if (b) it wasn't a dogfight that he could help his entire team. He opted to dress a number of his JV players for this game (as the school did not have a jv program) and ultimately many of his sophs and frosh were playing the game throughout the second half (and yes they were still scoring). The HC from the losing team opted to (a) not let the clock be a continuous running clock as he had spoke to his team that each game would be a learning experience and that it would take time for them to get where they were going, that they should not have unrealistic goals, but that they should play with great passion on every snap even in the face of great adversity. He went on to commend the opposing coach for how he and his players conducted himself throughout the game.

I think to a large extent that story sums up my point. Sure we all want to put the points up, but I would say that both sides learned great lessons about life in a 90-0 ball game and at the end nobody was raging mad at the other guy. The winning coach allowed his starters to do their thing and then was prepared to make his program better by bringing up younger guys. He opted to run basic plays for his younger guys because in order for them to one day run the razzle and dazzle they need to be proficient at the basic. On the flip side the losing HC, coached up his kids in their opening season to understand that hard work in the offseason through weight training and speed conditioning as well as experience in season will one day help them acheive their goal. In understanding that, they should understand that early on their maybe some rough roads, some really rough, but that as long as each week they continue to improve and correct the correctable, they will oneday be in a different place. This game as I'm not a college, semi-pro or NFL coach is about those things. The X's and O's are supplemental to setting examples that hopefully the young men I coach will one day follow. In my book both of those coaches deserve a heck of a lot of credit.

When Jimmy Johnson was winning Super Bowls in Dallas, this was HIS "special" adjustment that he preferred from "QUARTERS" vs "Trips" from his 4-3 (he held it as a somewhat "guarded" secret in those days): I used this on the college level (Division II) in 1995 & 1996 (our staff visited with him). He SHOWED "Quarters" & cheated to this late wiuth only the F/S moving (on the RUN). You can see that 4 of the 7 coverage men REMAIN in "QUARTER COVERAGE":


-----------------------R


-----Z------H--------Q
X---------------O-O-C-O-O----------Y

-------------S--------M-----W
-C----S------------------------------C
---------------F

LC = QUARTERS

S/S = QUARTERS

F/S = MAN on H (#3)

SAM = SAME AS QUARTERS

MIKE = SAME AS QUARTERS

WILL = MAN ON RB

RC = MAN ON WIDEOUT WEAKSIDE.

I HAD a lot of video tape of him playing this, but can no longer locate it (in my ATTIC). His COACHING POINTS for "QUARTERS" were EXCELLENT. They set a TREND in the NFL & College with THEIR version of it!