AFM Home | Back Issues | June 2004 | Adjusting To Your Talent

By Mike Mari
Former Head Coach, St. Bernardís Catholic School Now Defensive Coordinator, Mendocino College

At St. Bernard’s Catholic School our football program was able to win a North Coast Section Championship in the 2003 season. Our coaching staff was blessed to work with some gifted young men. As the head football coach, I feel that at this level of play a coach must design the entire team’s systems (Offense, Defense, Specialties) around the talents and abilities of the players he has to work with. I find it very unproductive to coach a student-athlete to play a certain style of football that simply does not suite him.

Diagram 1. Diagram 2. Diagram 3. Diagram 4.

Going into the 2003 season our coaching staff met and evaluated our strengths and weaknesses. We knew that our offensive line would be big, strong, and quick. We would be able to control the line of scrimmage. We had a couple of good running backs returning which made for a potential situation where we would have a run heavy oriented attack. This, in turn, would make our play action pass very effective. Early in the season we focused on running an isolation play vs. a 4-4 Cover 3 look that sent the fullback on the outside backer with the tail following him (See Diagram 1). That play worked well for us but we had to make a few position changes mid-season that changed the dynamic of this play. Our new tight end was a better receiver than a blocker. We insisted on maintaining the “smashmouth” philosophy but we had to alter our isolation play. Our solution was that we split the Y out into a slot set (See Diagram 2). This spread the defense and brought the original person being insolated (OSB) out of the box. We now isolated the inside backer. What we were hoping for was that the defense would adjust into a 4-3 (See Diagram 3) which would open up the inside isolation to our advantage.

To compliment this new isolation we developed a play action play with the exact same look. By looking at the play (See Diagram 4) you would think we had holes in the protection. Actually the defense was flying up trying to stop the isolation so much that often we hit the Z who was coming off of the Y running a seam route. The FB flew at the ISB and then found a hole to settle in. The tail would step forward as an iso and then swing to the front side. The X was running a seam route. The Y ran a 5-yard out. This play hurt cover 3, which is what most people wanted to run vs. our attack. The flat had two options to hit with only one defender. Cover 3 holes were vulnerable vs. the Seam routes. The QB’s job was fairly easy. His read was from Y to Z to tail. The QB’s drop was not a conventional play action drop that truly sold the run; instead, it was approximately a 2-step drop then hit the open man. I would estimate that 90% of the time we hit the Z for consistent gains.

It has been a privilege and an honor to write this article. American Football Monthly is a valuable tool to any coach that wants to look at ways to enhance his football program.

About the author
Mike Mari

Mike Mari recently accepted a position as the defensive coordinator at Mendocino College after leading St. Bernard’s Catholic School (Eureka, CA) to a North Coast Sectional Championship in 2003. As Head Coach and Athletic Director last fall, St. Bernard’s finished among the top five area teams in total offense, rushing offense and passing offense.

Coach Mari also coached the offensive and defensive line at St. Bernard’s (1999) and served at defensive coordinator at the school in 2000-2001. The 2000 St. Bernard’s team won the North Coast Section Championship as well.

You can reach Coach Mari at mari@saintbernards.org