The Evolution of the Odd Dime: Baylor vs Oklahoma Pt. 3 – Pressures (2019)

Baylor’s 2019 defensive success was built on creating havoc. The creation of turnovers and negative plays directly correlated with Baylor’s ability to win games. Nationally, Baylor ranked 8th in DEff (Defensive Efficiency), but that didn’t mean they were dominant. The Bears were middle of the pack (#55) in First Down rate (the percentage of opponent drives that result in a TD or at least one 1st Down) and 39th overall in Total Defense. Where Baylor excelled was in killing drives and limiting TDs. To do that, a defense needs to dominate in negative plays (TFLs/Sacks) and turnovers.

Baylor was second in the Big 12 behind Oklahoma in total TFLs (Tackles for Loss) with 102 total and 18th nationally. Included in that stat is Baylor’s 46 sacks, which led the Big 12 and was ninth nationally. Finally, Baylor was tied for second nationally in opponent turnovers, ending the season with 30 total (13 fumbles/17 intercepts). These stats were crucial to the Bears’ success. One way the Bears were able to cause havoc was to bring pressure. As shown in Part 1 (Coverages) and Part 2 (Fronts 7 Fits), Phil Snow’s 3-4 defense was transformed into a 3-3-3 in 2019. His aggressive style of play calling meshed with the roster Baylor had. Placing two converted CBs at “hash safeties” and hybrid LBs allowed Snow to bring pressure from all over. In Part 3 MQ takes a look at the most frequently used in the Bears’ scheme.


Delays/Green-Dogs

The “ameba” front highlighted in Part 2 of this series is a base down look for the Bears. By standing the D-linemen up, the O-line has no anchor point to go off or. The single-high look can indicate pressure is coming. In the prior article, I highlighted a clip that showed the Bears using this as a “bluff.” Below, the Bears Sam LB “green-dogs” once he has deemed the play a pass (green-dog refers to a “delay” pressure where you insert if your man blocks). With Cover 1 behind the front structure, the Sam can climb to contain once the RB and QB divvy out the mesh. The Sooners’ QB, Jalen Hurts, pulls the ball on a slight Waggle (no O-line protection) and the Sam climbs immediately. The pressure in the QB’s face forces an errant throw.

Continue reading “The Evolution of the Odd Dime: Baylor vs Oklahoma Pt. 3 – Pressures (2019)”

Attacking the Tite Front

The Tite Front is becoming a popular way to defend the Spread; it’s important to understand how teams are going to attack it on the ground.

The Tite Front was all the rage during the 2017 season. From Georgia in the SEC to the Longhorns and Cyclones in the Big 12, the “new-age” Double Eagle took flight as one of the top ways to contain high powered Spread offenses. Georgia and Texas used the front and similar coverage schemes as a base, with both finding themselves in BCfToys.com’s top 10 in Defensive Efficiency (adjusted for the strength of opponent offenses faced – UGA was #5 and Texas #6).

The Iowa St. Cyclones rose from #103 in 2016 to a respectable #32 in BCfToy’s efficiency rankings in 2017. The Cyclones and Longhorns most notably did it while using a 3-safety “Dime” package for parts of the season. The Cyclones used the “Dime” look as their base defense for the entire season, leading to victories over high-powered offenses like Oklahoma (#1 in BCfToys’ Offensive Efficiency) and Memphis (#16).

The Tite Front works because it forces the offense to bounce everything outside. The two DEs (4is) in the “B” gaps close off the lifeline for every Spread team, the “conflict” gaps. Spread offenses search for the “B” gap because that is where the conflicted player usually is for a defense. By closing both “B” gaps, the offense has to either plug it up the “A” gap (which most Spread teams won’t do) or run it outside. Defenses that base out of the Tite Front don’t mind the bounce because their speedy (and usually “free”)LBs can now chase down the RB while its overhangs box everything back inside (think of them like the Double Eagle’s wide-9s). The diagram below illustrates the front’s usefulness versus a popular Spread play, the Power Read.

Tite vs PWR READ (W)

The 404 alignment does several things for the box: 1) the offensive line can’t climb because of the 4is, and 2) it frees up at least one of the inside linebackers (if not both). In the illustration above, the play side offensive tackle will either have to handle the 4i by himself or rely on the guard for a double team. If the guard decides to climb for the Mike (illustrated), the 4i can easily get penetration and maybe even block or negate the pull (I have a clip of this later vs TCU’s 11p single-back Power).

If the guard stays on the 4i (double team), both the Mike and Will are left free to flow with the play and what DC doesn’t want is ILBs free-flowing to the ball? In this particular instance shown above, the Jack ‘backer walls the play by climbing to the RB. The defense has numbers and is plus-one on the pulling guard. One thing to not overlook is the away side 4i who has leverage on the away side tackle. Once the guard pulls (the 4i’s key), he can chase and climb to the mesh. The play is ultimately killed.

Texas and Georgia, in particular, had great success all year running similar schemes from a base Tite Front. In this year’s (2018) THSCA Football Lecture, Georgia Head Coach Kirby Smart attributed his use of the Tite Front and how he played the secondary behind it to his meeting with Texas’ own, Todd Orlando. Most defensive coaches can recognize the usefulness of the front, but one thing is clear, Spread offenses will try and figure it out. It wasn’t all about the front either, the use of Match 3 (Rip/Liz) and the rebirth/redesign of the (Dime) Tampa 2, was a big contributor to how teams attacked the Longhorns, Cyclones, and Bulldogs.  Continue reading “Attacking the Tite Front”