Offensive schemes vs. a 30 defense

lochness
Senior Member

Posts: 444

Offensive schemes vs. a 30 defense Jan 22, 2004 5:22:14 GMT

Quote

Post by lochness on Jan 22, 2004 5:22:14 GMT

Gentlemen,

I am currently engaged in researching the 3-5-3 and 3-3-5 defenses. I am not looking to install them, as we just installed a new 50 front last season and we are very happy with it against our current opponents and as a fit to our personnel. I am speaking more from an offensive standpoint. I'm sure someone in our division will be jumping on this new fad, and I want to make sure I understand it so I can design a solid game plan against it.

Offensive coaches, please let me know whatever you are willing to share. What gives you the most trouble against the multiple 30 fronts? What plays are most successful? What blocking schemes do you favor? Are there any tricks-of-the-trade that you know or have discovered against your opponents?

OR, if you are a 30 coach yourself, what offensive schemes are giving you the most headaches?

I'd like to prepare now just in case we have opponents who adapt this quickly spreading defense. I've seen so much conversation regarding the installation of this defense. I think it would be interesting to see how people are attacking it.

Any help or correspondance is, as always, greatly appreciated.

4HisGlory
Member

Posts: 121

Offensive schemes vs. a 30 defense Jan 22, 2004 19:56:03 GMT

Quote

Post by 4HisGlory on Jan 22, 2004 19:56:03 GMT

Lochness,
I am studying a few videos; one is the Wake Forest 3-3 vs. Oregon in the Seattle Bowl last year. One thing Oregon did was to get in an I formation with a flanker and split end, then bring over the X to create an unbalanced set. By their rules, the Spur/SS had to walk out on #2, and that left a 5 tech on the strong side with a TE outflanking him. They had to slide (pull call) their L LB up over the TE, then slide the Mike over the Strong Guard, and their R LB over the Weak Guard. Oregon ran a FB lead/Power G scheme to the TE, and outnumbered WF, but the bigger problem was because they WF had slid the backers to the left/strong side, they had no true fold/cutback player, and the TB ran the play like an inside zone, and cut it back for a huge gain. The flat defender on the weakside was not a factor because they play him about a yard off the LOS. I know their rule is supposed to be 4 by 4 off the DE, but in the video I've looked at teams are playing that Spur/Bandit up towards the LOS.

In short, beware of Unbalanced and have the backside flat defender be a fold player, ready for cutback.

"When we think we know it all, it's time to get out of the game."

jeffwillp
Junior Member

Posts: 5

Offensive schemes vs. a 30 defense Jan 30, 2004 20:34:42 GMT

Quote

Post by jeffwillp on Jan 30, 2004 20:34:42 GMT

Coach
We used to be a midline option team, but three years ago we had to change, due to personel, to a shotgun running team. We run the inside zone and the QB mesh off of that. As the offensive line coach, I love to watch film and see the 30 defense for the coming week. The spacing in the defense is built in and can be increased by splits, and the stunts are handled by rule. We have moved the ball well everytime we have faced this defense.
On the other side of the ball, we have tried to use the 30 defense as a change to our base defense the last two years. We have not been able to stay in it against teams with a good fullback game. (FB trap and belly). Basically same reasons, too much space and good angles for the offense, especially quick hitting plays.

MaxPreps

Concordia University Irvine

The Efforts of One

JCFB eBook

Follow Us On:

Post by lochness on Jan 22, 2004 5:22:14 GMT

Post by 4HisGlory on Jan 22, 2004 19:56:03 GMT

Post by jeffwillp on Jan 30, 2004 20:34:42 GMT

Quick Reply