Coach LaPo talks about CFL formations....

Serious Discussion of Football Terminology and Tactics.
This Room is named after the late Annis Stukus.

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

http://www.tsn.ca/lapolice-football-for ... s-1.102993
As I pour through all the film each week from the previous games, I always write down any interesting formations or plays that I think are good to attack defences. It gave me the idea to talk about what formations are used in the CFL and some of the reasons why they are used.

Formation is defined as "a structure or arrangement of something". In the case of football, it is eligible Receivers in relation to the football field. Most teams usually communicate some basic terms for formations based on the wide side of the field. For example, if there are three Receivers to the field and two Receivers to the boundary that is called a 3x2 set, 3 Field and 2 Boundary. 2x3 is two Receivers to the field and three Receivers to the boundary. 4x1 has four Receivers to the field and one to the boundary. If the numbers used equal five, the back is assumed to be in the backfield. If the numbers equal six the back is part of the spread formation. For example, 3x3 and 4x2 has the back as one of the Receivers in the formation.

Let's talk about some of the formations used in the CFL, and how they are utilized.

3x2 set

This is the most common formation seen in the CFL, with three Receivers spread to the wide side of the field. The three Receivers are put to the field to use the width to their advantage. The width forces the defenders to cover the whole width of the field. From the Boundary Hash to the sideline there are 41 yards to be covered by defenders. The three Receivers try to spread the field horizontally and vertically to attack the zones that are played by defenders. Many times there are only four defenders to cover the 41 yards both vertically and horizontally, so there are spaces in the zones. That is why teams must also employ man-to-man coverage where there aren't holes in the defence because each man is covered.

The two Receivers into the boundary and its 24 yards are usually covered by three defenders. Many teams employ the two Receivers into the boundary because they can run simple concepts where the QB can read one defender and throw off of him. The CFL has a lot of two-man Pattern combinations and they are often employed into the boundary because they are shorter throws for the Quarterback.

2x3 set

Another formation often used is two Receivers to the field and three Receivers to the boundary. Teams employ this formation often for two reasons. First it forces the defenders to decide what to do with their Sam or strong side Linebacker. Does the Sam stay to the field to cover the wide side or will he adjust to the boundary to help cover the extra receiver into the boundary? That is one of the first things you teach the QB to look for in this formation, where is the Sam? If he stays to the field, we have an offensive advantage to the boundary go there. If he goes to the boundary, we can now attack the width of the field with the two offensive players. Many of the same Pattern concepts that you run into the boundary can now be employed to the wide side of the field.

4x1 set

Four Receivers to the field is often used to make the defence make a decision on how to space their defenders again. This time it is the boundary halfback who is the adjuster. He can either move to cover the width of the field and the additional Receiver to the wide side or he can stay backside and help the boundary cornerback with the single Receiver. A lot of offences at times will throw away from this defender. If the Halfback goes to the field you can put the Single Receiver in a 1-on-1 situation against the boundary corner. Quarterbacks often times will take the 1-on-1 throw into the boundary. If the Defence is concerned about the 1-on-1 on the backside they can leave the halfback on the backside hash mark to help the boundary cornerback. If that happens, then the offence should have an advantage to the wide side of the field with the four Receivers and the width of the field.

3x3 set

Once you empty the backfield by removing the back the defence must remove a linebacker to cover the tailback in the formation or they must move the FS out of the middle of the field to cover the Receiver. Most teams will like to keep the FS in the middle of the field to have a deep defender so the weakside linebacker will usually move out to cover the back. Many teams will now try to get the linebacker in a coverage mismatch against the tailback in space, especially when they play man coverage.

The other advantage offences have is that there are only five defenders in the box area (the area around the OL) and it creates an advantage for QB runs and draws. This is because there are five blockers for five defenders so there should be a chance to run. The defence has an advantage if they want to blitz because there are not a lot of protectors for the QB and there is a short edge on both sides to the QB. Short edge means a short distance to hit the QB.

The last two basic formations to talk about are the ones with two backs in the backfield. Another back allows for another blocker in the run game, another pass protector to lengthen the edge and another possible ball carrier.

2x2 set

This is a balanced formation with two Receivers field and two boundary and also two backs in the backfield. This puts the Sam linebacker into the box area and usually puts two defenders to the field and the boundary. This allows you to run two-man pass concepts on either side of the field. Offences like this formation because it allows for seven pass protectors, gives you six blockers in the run game and simplifies coverage because the Sam has to stay in the box area.

3x1 Set

The 3x1 formation is similar to the 4x1 set because it forces the boundary halfback to decide to come to the field or whether or not to help the backside cornerback. A lot of teams will either work the boundary 1-on-1, or will max protect and work the wide side of the field.

Coaches spend a lot of time watching video that is sorted by formations to be able to see how their opponents defend them. They will watch every 4x1 set video clip and decide on how to attack it based on the alignments they see on the film. Next week we can talk about exotic formations and motions!
Good piece, IMO, I learned a few things.....
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

The sequel to last weeks piece about formations. May do more on formations some time down the road.....


http://www.tsn.ca/talent/lapolice-the-a ... g-1.108457
Play calling summed up: If it works, it’s it’s a good call. If it doesn’t, it’s a bad call.

I was going to talk more about formations this week, but after watching some of the games this week, I wanted to talk about play calling. I have never had a problem calling plays in a game, whether it was an early season game or a Grey Cup. You study film, make decisions based on what your players can do and practice these concepts in game situations. Then, you call the game and adapt as you see things unfold.

Let’s review how coaches prepare to call plays throughout the week. The coaches will watch game videos that are sorted by many situations that happen throughout the course of a game. Here are examples of a few common video reports that are studied offensively:

1st and 10 start of a Drive
1st and 10 within a drive
1st and 10 after a turnover
2nd and Short
2nd and Medium
2nd and Long
2nd and Extra Long
Backed up
Red Zone
Goal line
Stunts
Dogs
Blitzes
2 Back Formations
1 Back formations
2 TE sets
2 Point plays
Zone Read plays against

You watch the film to see deficiencies, patterns or tendencies that you can use against your opponent. You then categorize your game plan by these situations and practice them throughout the week versus as many different scenarios as possible. The coaches will then decide how well the plays worked and whether or not they will make the game plan.

There is a game plan meeting in which the plays are organized by the categories and put down into the play call sheet. Strange as it sounds, but this was the most stressful part of the week for me as a play-caller. This is when you make the decisions that would be called in the game, like the two-point play and the first play from the goal line or the first play of overtime. Once the call sheet was done, I brought all the QBs and coaches back to go over it. The starting QB had the freedom to reorganize the plays or veto ones with which he was not comfortable. Once the game plan is settled, the players walk through everything by situation and are prepared for what to expect game day. Most teams do a very thorough job of preparing the players.

As you begin to call the game, you evaluate whether or not the team is playing the way you saw in the breakdowns. You will adapt the game plan and your play calling based on a few factors - weather, injuries to you and the opponent’s players and the evaluations of the game plan calls after each series. You have to get a good feel for what the defence is trying to do against you and how they will attack you. If you can understand that, then calling the game is easy. You should be able to put players in a position to be successful. Understand this, that is all a play-caller can do: put the players in the best position to be successful. The rest of a play’s success depends on the players executing. A coach once said that “there are no great play calls, there is only great execution." I like that line. I am sure that when Doug Flutie played, he made a lot of play calls into good plays because he was a tremendous player who made plays.

What I usually see from the fans and, at times the media (which I am now a part of), is this very simple evaluation of play calling. If the plays works, it was a good call and if the play does not work, it was a bad call. Oftentimes, the same play is run two or three times with success in a game and nothing is said and, then, the fourth time if it does not work, it becomes a bad play call. Most play-callers don’t have the ability to see into the future like the people who watch the games. You will hardly hear someone say after a successful play that they thought that was a terrible play call. Another thing I struggle with is when I hear people say that they felt the QB was “off his reads or wasn’t following his reads." How would they know? It would be a very select few who did know what the coach is teaching him.

Let’s talk about some plays and review them.

In the Toronto win over the Tiger-Cats, a couple of plays were talked about as bad calls. The Tiger-Cats were up by 17 points with a minute left in the third quarter and they ran a speed sweep and then tried a reverse off of it. The execution of the exchange between the two receivers was bad and resulted in a fumble and a turnover. The Argos scored off the turnover and it helped start the Argos' rally for the win. A lot of people have said that the play was a terrible call based on the fact that there are two exchanges and an exchange between two receivers. A lot of people say that with a big lead, why call a play that is so-called 'high risk?' For me, high risk would be calling plays that you haven’t practiced or plays with which the players are not comfortable. I may not have called that play in that situation, but I also know that I don’t label it as a bad play call just because it doesn’t work.

In 2009, as offensive coordinator for the Roughriders, up by 21 points in the third quarter, I called a double reverse pass that scored a touchdown. I felt that with a lead was the time to attack and go with the unexpected. Andy Fantuz caught a TD from Jason Armstead and we continued to score en route to a big win over the Blue Bombers. The play worked and, if it didn’t, it’s okay. The defence needs to get back on the field and stop the offence from scoring. People always are talking about offences that are not creative or imaginative enough, but when you call a creative play that is not successful, people don’t like the call. Well, the Ticats were trying to be creative and imaginative and the play did not work and the people said the call was bad. You have to be confident enough to call what you believe in and up 17 points with 16 minutes left is not enough of a lead to start playing the game conservatively. Especially not when you're facing Ricky Ray. Again, I am not sure if I would have made that particular call because I don’t have all the information related to it, but I won’t condemn the call, either.

Do you know what the highest scoring play and the play that gains the most yards in the CFL is each year? It is the missed field goal return. That play yields the most returns and often leads to a TD because of the returner having the width of the field and many offensive lineman who aren’t used to covering kicks. Understanding this information when I was the head coach for Winnipeg in 2010 and Toronto lined up to kick a 55-plus-yard field goal, I chose to have our dynamic returner, Jovon Johnson, return the kick if missed and instructed the players to block by calling a return. One player missed his block and Johnson was tackled around the 25-yard line. The media asked me after the game why I didn't take the single and get the ball at the 55-yard line. Well, based on the information I had in my experience and the previous information about missed field goal returns, a return - especially one from the 55-yard line - was the best decision. I still believe the decision was right based on the facts and information but the execution was not and people tend to base their opinion on the results alone.

Later in the Toronto game from last week, Hamilton was beat for a TD by Chad Owens and he was being covered by Erik Harris, who is technically called a linebacker, even though those strong side LBs (SAM) are defensive backs. People asked why Chad Owens got matched up on a LB? How could you blitz in that situation? First of all, Erik Harris is playing the SAM LB. I think the term LB makes people think that the situation of Owens being covered by Harris never happens. If Chad Owens lined up as the number-three receiver to the field or boundary the entire game, he would be covered by Harris. Watching the film, there were other times that Harris was aligned over Owens in man coverage. Erik was beaten by alignment because they were in a blitz coverage, which has the defensive backs aligned inside of the receiver to prevent giving up the inside throw on account of having no help inside. Owens motioned inside and was taken by the inside defender and then ran away to the corner. No DB on the roster would have been able to make the play when they were in that coverage.

The problem was, when you pressure the QB without safety help, the DBs are on an island with inside leverage. The extra blitzer has to get to the QB and force an early throw, disrupt the throw or sack the QB. I believe from seeing the film that Craig Butler did not get home quickly enough to pressure the QB. Also, the other defensive players who were in one-on-one pass rush situations did not get home, either. So that is why the defensive play did not execute and allowed Owens to leverage his coverage person and score. Is it a bad call? If the blitz got home to the QB, we aren’t even talking about it right now. When one player fails, they all fail. That is the beauty of being a team.

The other question that everyone asked was why would you call a blitz against Ricky Ray? Ray had 90 seconds to be able to drive and take the lead. That is plenty of time for him to march down and score. He is as good at exploiting zone coverage as anyone in the game today, so sitting in zone is not the answer for the rest of the game. If the Ticats stayed in zone the whole time and the Argos drove the length of the field and scored, people would have asked why didn’t you pressure the QB? This was a factor in the loss, but not the only factor. Hamilton still had a minute to get in field goal range to win, but fumbled the snap and turned the ball over.

There are certainly plays that I do not agree with calling, but they are based on something more or less than the results alone. I also understand that when players execute, the plays called tend to work and lack of success is not only from the play call alone. As a coach, I tried to blame myself for every time we didn't have success. Did we practice the play enough? Was it taught well enough? Did I call it from the best protection possible? Should I have called it so the QB would be rolling to the right to his throwing arm instead of against his body? The coach should exhaust every possible scenario before blaming the lack of execution on the players. The play-caller should not worry about the noise of people questioning play-calling. It’s part of the job, so forget about it. I think everyone else needs to dig deeper before they say this play was good and this play was bad.

As for this article, it is really easy to say it worked or it did not!
by Paul LaPolice TSN.CA
Post Reply