O
n behalf of Head Coach Ron es as well. The obvious advantage is the
Randleman and the entire Sam Houston
State University football family, we would like
to thank the AFCA for the privilege to con-
tribute to the 2003 AFCA Summer Manual. It
is a tremendous honor to have the opportuni-
ty to share our thoughts and ideas.
In the current landscape of college foot -
ball, offensive attacks have become
extremely dynamic. Offenses are employ-
ing multiple looks and personalities to com-
bat the variations of defensive schemes
they face every Saturday. Although the
offensive philosophies of our opponents
change from week to week, some basic
foundations are constant. No matter the
style of offense utilized by an opponent,
they will work with some form of a one-
back attack. Today, many offenses exclu-
sively base out of, or have the ability to, get
to various one-back sets.
In becoming more dynamic and diverse,
many teams we face today are extremely
productive with a one-back offense. Most
are built to gain various personnel mis-
matches or to reduce the number of box
players utilized by an attacking style
defense. The multitude of formations, shifts
and concepts a one-back offense can use
create some distinct advantages and dis-
advantages for the defense. To be suc-
cessful, it is paramount that defenses
understand the mindset of an opponent’s
one-back package and gear their efforts to
minimizing their success. In this article I will
discuss how we analyze and breakdown an
opponent’s one-back scheme. In addition, I
will cover some multiple looks we employ in
defending one-back offenses.
Mentality
The first aspect to consider is what an
offense is trying to achieve with their one-
back package. What is their philosophy or
mentality concerning their attack? Are they
trying to spread the field to quickly get four
or five receivers out in the route progres-
sion? Are they attempting to spread the
field and formations to deter or limit a
defense’s blitz package? Are they trying to
spread the formation to create running
lanes? Are they trying to create specific
coverage or run-fit mismatches in order to
generate explosive plays?
Most one-back oriented offenses
employ most, if not all, of these philoso-
phies to move the football at a rapid pace.
However, being extremely multiple creates
advantages and disadvantages for offens-
A na l y z i n g an d
ability to be very flexible and multiple each
week. However, the disadvantage is that
A tt a cki ng
there is only so much time in preparation
and only so many plays in a game to exe-
cute the multitude of concepts.
Being extremely multiple is great, but
when do they have time to efficiently install, One-Back
Offenses
consistently rep and call so many things on
game day? Currently, in the collegiate set-
ting, that is tough. To gain proficiency at the
basic schemes in their package, offenses
must focus their practice and game repeti-
tion time on the basic facets they deem
important. This allows them to get good at
their desired concepts and schemes.
Therefore, as a defense, it is imperative
that we address the base mentality of a one-
back scheme and develop our plan of attack
according to their strengths and weakness-
es. Quite simply, determine what their
strengths or tendencies are and attack what
they are being most productive and efficient
with. Rather than spend valuable prepara-
tion, meeting and practice time on what an
offense does not deem important, we would
like to use our time and efforts wisely.
Evaluation
In order to evaluate and determine a one-
back offense’s mentality, we have devised a
checklist system. Within the checklist, we
analyze the various components of the
offense and hope to gain a tremendous
understanding of their basic focus and
attack. The 30-point checklist is as follows:
1. What personnel groupings are being
used and what is the dynamic of each
grouping? What are they trying to accom-
plish with each grouping? Which players
are most productive in each grouping?
2. How do they disguise their personnel
groupings? Are formations solely packaged
within a personnel grouping or is there
some crossover? If so, who are those
crossover players?
3. How much shifting and motioning is
employed from each personnel grouping?
How much do they place the formation into
the boundary?
4. Do shifts or motions tip off certain
plays or route combinations? Does motion
by specific players tip off anything?
5. How good is their tight end? Is he
solely a run blocker or is he a legitimate
pass threat?
6. Does the tight end flex out in various
formations? If so, is he a legitimate vertical
threat or just a decoy?
 7. If two tight ends are used, is there a
distinct difference in the players? Is one a
frontside versus a back side player? What
are their strengths and weaknesses? If
three tight end sets are used, what are the
characteristics of each player and in what
situations are three tight ends being used?
8. Do they shift or motion a tight end to
create two back schemes or expand their
protection package?
9. If there is a runningback rotation, how
many runningbacks play in that rotation?
Are the runningback’s individual strengths
or weaknesses specific to the play calling?
10. Are the runningbacks legitimate
receiving threats and what routes are they
productive with?
11. What is the quarterback’s mobility or
durability? How sharp is the quarterback
with checks? How well does he handle
heat in his face?
12. What throws is the quarterback
capable of consistently making? Within for-
mations and field zones, where is he dis-
tributing the football? Where and why are
his interceptions occurring?
13. How expansive or simplistic is their
base run package? Are there many draws,
traps, counter plays or options?
14. What is the run game from shotgun
formations? Who would they prefer to run
the football (quarterback or runningback)?
15. If boots or nakeds are utilized, are
they determined by field, hash, down and
distance or personnel tendencies?
16. What is their base protection
scheme? How many protections do they
effectively utilize? How many players are
they committing to their protections? Who
or what is the weak link in their protection
schemes? What has hurt or been ineffec-
tive versus their protections?
17. What is their pressure control or
hot package? Who is hot by personnel or
formation?
18. Is speed option a productive part of
their package? Do they use it as a regular
call or is it utilized as a pressure check?
19. Is sprint out a productive part of their
package? Do they use it as a regular call or
is it utilized as a pressure check?
20. How extensive is their Screen pack-
age? Do they use it as a regular call or is it
utilized as a pressure check? Who is catch-
ing the screens and where?
21. Who is the “Go to” receiver in critical
situations? Where is he at by alignment,
formation and down & distance?
22. What is their red zone or goal line
mentality? Does it vary from their open-field linebacker depth. After sliding our front
attack? weak and the linebackers over strong, we
23. What is the extent of their empty have a 3-3 front with or base secondary
package and what route concepts are they (Diagram 1). However, if the rush end was
working the most? not capable of being an effective coverage
24. Do they use bunch sets or motion to player, we could substitute another line-
create bunch sets? What are their basic backer or strong safety to fulfill his role.
bunch concepts? Diagram 1: Slide Adjustment to 3-3-5
25. Do they use the various forms of a
no-huddle attack? What is the tempo of the
no huddle? What is their signaling and
communication procedure?
26. Where, how and why are they get-
ting explosive plays? Is it their effective-
ness or defensive ineffectiveness?
27. What is their level of patience with
the offense?
28. What has given them the most trou- Also, the defensive tackle must be athlet-
ble lately? ic enough to bounce out and play as an edge
29. Can we create a different or confus - rusher at times. The 3-3-5 look, paired with
ing look that will be effective? constant pre-snap movement and sugaring
30. What do we do best? What do we of the linebackers and secondary, presented
need to do in order to be successful? a multitude of options. Thus, we could utilize
After careful film analysis, statistical break- that flexibility to defend the defined strengths
down and the thoughts of our entire defensive and attack the weaknesses. We developed
staff, we feel that we are able to determine four basic mentalities for our 30 package that
the basic tenets of each opponent’s one-back we could build our game plan within. Those
attack. Consequently, we can address those categories consisted of Rush, Pressure, Blitz
aspects in game planning and practice repe- and Bluff.
tition. The final two questions lead us into our
defensive plan of attack. Rush
First, we could bring just one linebacker
Defensive Multiplicity at any gap to create a four-man front and
Just like an offense, we feel the need to play anything in our base coverage pack-
be multiple and flexible to be effective. We age. We were simply bringing the line-
must be able to adjust weekly, and during backer to any of our basic four-man front
the course of a game, to combat a powerful fits. His run or pass block-fits are exactly
offense. However, we do not want to sacri- the same as a defensive lineman’s block
fice simplicity and the fundamentals of good fits. However, he is playing the technique
defensive football to do so. Therefore, we as a blitzer (Diagram 2, 3 and 4).
wanted to enhance our defensive package Diagram 2: Stack Sam B Cov 42
but still keep it simple so our players would
still feel comfortable and familiar with it.
We wanted something that could effec-
tively and soundly handle one-back offens -
es and at the same time be very versatile
and built upon some basic tenets of our
defensive philosophy. We wanted simplicity
within multiplicity. To do this, we adopted a
3-3 defensive front with a five-spoke sec-
ondary. Although our base defensive pack- Diagram 3: Stack Hatchett Cov 44
age works from a 4-2-5 concept, we felt
that we could also utilize the 30 package as
an effective and simplistic change up. In
addition, it could present some radically dif-
ferent looks opposite our base defense.
The adjustment of our base package
was very simple. We simply walked our
rush end off the football and placed him at
 Diagram 4: Stack Mike B Cov 54 Blitz a low rat, being a screen buster or dou-
Next, we could bring six or seven man bling a certain receiver (Diagram 10 and
blitzes and play man coverage. Those six 11). In addition, we have our Bluff
or seven blitzers could come from any Package.
combination of players on the field. Our Bluff Package is built upon our abil-
Consequently, in bringing the blitz mentali- ity to show a pre-snap blitz look, to entice
ty we were playing variations of man cover- the quarterback to audible, and then only
age. This became high risk, but also high rush three or four defenders and rally to the
reward (Diagram 8 and 9). football (Diagram 12). The Bluff Package
Diagram 8: Stack Full Go Cov Red can also be used once a quarterback has
This allowed us to show the 3-3-5 “hel- detected your pressure and made a pre-
ter skelter” look and still play our base snap adjustment to handle your blitz. In
defensive packages. It also allowed us the that case, we can call off the blitz and go to
ability not to bring some type of blitz every a safer look versus his call.
snap and become too predictable. Diagram 12: Stack Show/Auto
Cov 2 Rock
Pressure
Secondly, we could bring five man pres-
sures and play either our man, man-free,
man match-up, zone or zone void cover-
ages. Those five rushers could come in any Diagram 9: Stack Go Opp Scream
combination of linebackers and leverage Cov Red Peel
safeties (Diagram 5, 6 and 7). Again the
principle is simple. We are basically pres-
suring to a five-man front or attacking a
pass protection with an overload or pick. We feel that all of these options with-
However, we must be aware that we are in the 30 package give us a excellent
still being gap conscious and coverage change up and the ability to attack the
sound within our pressures. array of one back concepts our oppo-
Diagram 5: Stack Full Cov Blue nents employ. More importantly, we are
Bluff able to carry over the simplistic compo-
Finally, we could employ a three-man nents of our base defense. That enables
rush, play a seven-man zone coverage us to match multiplicity, but maintain
concept and assign a linebacker, safety simplicity.
or even defensive lineman a specific I have been fortunate throughout my
task. Those specific tasks may range career to work with some tremendous
from spying the quarterback, playing as coaches. The concepts discussed in this
article are a compilation of shared ideas,
Diagram 10: Stack Mike Spy Cov 22 strategies and mentalities from various
Diagram 6: Stack Go Cov Trio sources. I would like to thank those indi-
viduals who have contributed to my devel-
opment as a coach and as a person in
this awesome profession. It would be a
huge oversight on my behalf, if I did not
take this opportunity to thank those men
who have been such as positive influence
upon me. Those men are Ron
Randleman, Dennis Franchione, Jimmy
Keeling, Gary Patterson, David Bailiff,
Diagram 11: Stack in Rush Stan Eggen, Mike Lucas, Mike Schultz,
Diagram 7: Stack Howl Cov 42 Void Rat Cov 2 Rodeo Dennis Darnell and Mark Parks. I will
always be in their debt.
Again, for the Sam Houston State
University coaching staff and players, I
want to thank the AFCA for the opportunity
to give something back to this game and
our great organization. Hopefully this article
has benefitted you in some manner and
best of luck this coming season.