Saban's "fire zone" blitzing explained

4thGenBamaGrad

1st Team
Nov 4, 2007
520
17
37
Boca Raton, FL
A nice refresher for some or introduction for others--from a post on blitzing, "fire zone" blitzing is briefly explained:





This basic alignment is known as a “fire zone.” The reigning king of fire zones is, of course, Nick Saban. This is not because his coverages are better, however, but it’s because of how he teaches it. I’ve discussed many of these principles before, but a few of those can be summarized briefly. He is big on technique for his secondary. Specifically, he often aligns them in a “press-bail” technique, meaning that they do all they can to make it look like press man coverage before the snap, but then bail deep into a deep coverage. If they are fast, they can do this. Next, he really stresses “pattern reading” with his undercoverage guys. This is what makes the coverage work: he drills into them the pass patterns they are most likely to face, and although they are in zone, they guard receivers, not empty areas of the field. The basic idea is to make the absolute most of only three guys in underneath coverage. Last, Saban puts a lot of thought into who will blitz and where they will come from. It’s not enough to rush five, you want those five to cause confusion up front, and further to stil be in position to stop a run play. This is not simple to do either, but the devil’s in the details.


Of course, football is a copycat game, and these techniques are not limited to Saban. Every team runs plenty of fire zone these days, and some, like Penn State, focus on it even more than he does and use a wider variety of looks. Among the options are to blitz a corner instead of a linebacker, and therefore rotate the coverage over for the three deep look — i.e. use two safeties and a corner as the deep coverage rather than two corners and a safety. Or to not drop a defensive linemen at all, but still rush five from different areas, etc. This is where the possibilities are endless. Check out the video below for a flavor of Saban’s zone blitzes, again courtesy of Brophy. When you watch the video, don’t watch the ball. Instead, focus on the safeties and corners, and then focus on the linebackers. Don’t worry, it’s always evident where the ball goes.


[ame="http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5768821/15106908"]fire zone on Yahoo! Video[/ame] @ Yahoo! Video


As far as what works against the zone-blitz, that is still an ongoing battle between offenses and defenses. Zone-blitzes are malleable — one reason I said they were conservative is that zone-blitzes almost always play with three deep zone defenders, which is a very conservative strategy. But overall one reason you see so many screens these days is because coaches feel that these harm zone-blitzes: with all the movement before the snap and various guys rushing (and sometimes defenders in pass coverage who aren’t used to it), the offense feels like it can win if it sucks the rushers upfield while getting a receiver and blockers on a limited number of pass coverage defenders. The other issue is protection again: if you can figure out how to block the defense’s five blitzers (or even figure out which five guys are blitzing), then you should be able to hit a pass downfield against the very soft and not crowded zone defense. But that’s a big if.


The run game answers tend to depend on gameplan issues. Where do they blitz from? If you think you can, say, kick out the blitzing linebacker with your fullback and cut inside, then maybe you have a big play. Or maybe the linebacker or safety is actually dropping down and will stuff it. Overall though, some of the same plays that worked against the man blitz can work against the zone, if you can get to the perimeter or break through the defense’s initial front by using their aggressiveness against them.
 
Last edited:
After watching that I see now that Utah attacked the direct weakness of this defense.

Yet it's only a weakness when the blitz doesn't prevent the disruption it intends to create. All defenses are principally the same in this regard: they don't want to give up the big play, make you pass on the defense's terms (by stopping the run), and pressure to inhibit the quarterback's decision-making process. Even "soft read and react defenses" like the Tampa-2 seeks to create constant pressure via two high quality rush ends.

I'm not saying schemes don't matter because I think they do, but ultimately any defense that is considered elite will do two things: 1) stop the run 2) harass the quarterback (which isn't simply accounted for by sacks but also forced throws and batted balls). What schemes allow you to do is provide ways to feature athletes in ways to enhance those goals.

Schematically we are a 3-4 defense but the majority of Saban's tenure here we have seen mostly 4 man fronts and few situations where we've dropped the Jack into coverage. Some of that is simply because our Jack LBs to this point have not been excellent coverage guys, but within Saban's scheme we have the ability to feature that sort of player if that kind of player emerges.

The exploitation of our defense by Utah and Florida has more to do with the Jimmy's and Joe's not X's and O's. There is nothing inherently wrong with the defense that makes it fail against the spread. Well ran spread attacks simply force the defense to decidedly win the individual matchups up front or be passed on by the releasing of 5 eligible receivers. That is why Florida lost to Ole Miss: they made a lot of mistakes but the Ole Miss defensive line beat their linemen all day.
 
Yet it's only a weakness when the blitz doesn't prevent the disruption it intends to create. All defenses are principally the same in this regard: they don't want to give up the big play, make you pass on the defense's terms (by stopping the run), and pressure to inhibit the quarterback's decision-making process. Even "soft read and react defenses" like the Tampa-2 seeks to create constant pressure via two high quality rush ends.

I'm not saying schemes don't matter because I think they do, but ultimately any defense that is considered elite will do two things: 1) stop the run 2) harass the quarterback (which isn't simply accounted for by sacks but also forced throws and batted balls). What schemes allow you to do is provide ways to feature athletes in ways to enhance those goals.

Schematically we are a 3-4 defense but the majority of Saban's tenure here we have seen mostly 4 man fronts and few situations where we've dropped the Jack into coverage. Some of that is simply because our Jack LBs to this point have not been excellent coverage guys, but within Saban's scheme we have the ability to feature that sort of player if that kind of player emerges.

The exploitation of our defense by Utah and Florida has more to do with the Jimmy's and Joe's not X's and O's. There is nothing inherently wrong with the defense that makes it fail against the spread. Well ran spread attacks simply force the defense to decidedly win the individual matchups up front or be passed on by the releasing of 5 eligible receivers. That is why Florida lost to Ole Miss: they made a lot of mistakes but the Ole Miss defensive line beat their linemen all day.

The obvious "soft spot" is right behind the DL or off the right edge where the strong side LB is coming off the edge. Which is where Utah and Florida slipped receivers into.
 
That is a good read.

Maybe I'm more football dumb than I thought but to me that looks like they ARE playing man coverage with a deep safety. The LB's seem to be in more of a zone depending on what the backs/TE's are doing. Then again, maybe I'm just seeing it all wrong. The diagram above depicts a 3 deep zone. What I saw in the video was man coverage no matter where the WR went and a bliltz coming from various spots. Did I miss something?
 
That is a good read.

Maybe I'm more football dumb than I thought but to me that looks like they ARE playing man coverage with a deep safety. The LB's seem to be in more of a zone depending on what the backs/TE's are doing. Then again, maybe I'm just seeing it all wrong. The diagram above depicts a 3 deep zone. What I saw in the video was man coverage no matter where the WR went and a bliltz coming from various spots. Did I miss something?

Are you sure you are looking at the 3 deep guys? I'm no expert either, but I think after a receiver goes 15-20 yards downfield, "zone" coverage is going to merge into man. If you are looking at the undercoverage guys, this part of the post explains:

Next, he really stresses “pattern reading” with his undercoverage guys. This is what makes the coverage work: he drills into them the pass patterns they are most likely to face, and although they are in zone, they guard receivers, not empty areas of the field. The basic idea is to make the absolute most of only three guys in underneath coverage.​
 
I've heard some question if this defense compares with 92, but in my opinion we had greater physical talent in the secondary and at the defensive ends. I think this team has better linebackers and a better nose than 92. I think this defense can stop the run better, but I don't think they are as good at rushing or at defending the pass, This is of course conjecture based on the fact that I have not seen their improvement from last year. But that improvement would have to be substantial to approach the 92 defense which stifled every offense they faced, including the best in the land at Florida and Miami.
 
I've heard some question if this defense compares with 92, but in my opinion we had greater physical talent in the secondary and at the defensive ends. I think this team has better linebackers and a better nose than 92. I think this defense can stop the run better, but I don't think they are as good at rushing or at defending the pass, This is of course conjecture based on the fact that I have not seen their improvement from last year. But that improvement would have to be substantial to approach the 92 defense which stifled every offense they faced, including the best in the land at Florida and Miami.

I think it's way too early to compare this team to the 1992 defense. We need to see them in a few games first.

There's no Antonio Langham in the secondary. There's no George Teague in the secondary. The LB are probably better than in 1992. The D-line may be close, but there's no proven playmaker yet like a Eric Curry or john Copeland.
 
Are you sure you are looking at the 3 deep guys? I'm no expert either, but I think after a receiver goes 15-20 yards downfield, "zone" coverage is going to merge into man. If you are looking at the undercoverage guys, this part of the post explains:

Next, he really stresses “pattern reading” with his undercoverage guys. This is what makes the coverage work: he drills into them the pass patterns they are most likely to face, and although they are in zone, they guard receivers, not empty areas of the field. The basic idea is to make the absolute most of only three guys in underneath coverage.​


I went back and looked again. On that video, again to my novice eye, there are both "man" type coverages and "zone". There are a couple plays on there where the corners follow the WR even on cuts to the middle thereby vacating the "zone" coverage. The other plays they for sure were in the 3 deep coverage. I'm not tyring to discredit anything or anyone, basically just saying that the video doesn't all show the zone coverages. It does show some very creative blitzs however.
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads