Breaking Down FSU’s Defensive Struggles Against Compressed Sets

Why Zone Coverage May Be the Answer

A Frustrating Night for the Seminoles

Monday night didn’t go as planned. There was hope that the Seminole defense would show improvement, correct the mistakes from last week, and bring more intensity to the field. Unfortunately, it’s hard to say if any of that happened. In this article, we’re going to break down some glaring issues with the defense, particularly how they’ve struggled with receiver motion, compressed sets, and more.

Compressed Set Coverage Issues

Florida State’s defense struggled all night against the mesh-rail concept out of compressed sets. What’s particularly frustrating is that they saw it early in the game and got lucky with a dropped pass. That should’ve been the moment to adjust, switching to a zone or match zone check against compressed formations. Instead, O’Brien recognized that FSU was committed to staying in Cover 1 and capitalized on it during their second drive, which ended in a touchdown.

In the first instance, BC lined up in trips and motioned a receiver across the field, pulling the nickel defender with him. They then ran mesh-rail (see diagram below). With FSU locked in Cover 1, the corner and safety followed the inside routes, leaving linebacker #10, Lundy, to cover the running back. Lundy seemed to anticipate a switch, staying inside on the under route, while no one picked up the rail route from the backfield. Thankfully, the running back dropped the pass, ending BC’s drive—but by then, they had found the blueprint for future success.

On a crucial 3rd and 6 during the following drive, BC went right back to the mesh-rail concept. This time, the Seminoles didn’t completely botch the switch—the rail route was open early, but the corner eventually peeled off to cover it. However, the two interior linebackers were slow to locate the low drag route, allowing for an easy completion and a first down. Mesh concepts are designed to beat Cover 1, especially out of compressed sets, and BC knew it. They went back to it on this key 3rd down to extend the drive, which ultimately ended in another touchdown for the Eagles.

On yet another 3rd and long during the following drive, BC went back to the same play. If it ain’t broke, right? This time, they started in an empty compressed set, motioned the running back in orbit motion back into the backfield, and ran mesh-rail again. FSU opted not to switch this time (showing no consistency in their approach). The interior linebacker, #18 Cam Riley, got caught with his eyes in the backfield, allowing BC to hit an explosive play for 42 yards, putting them deep into the red zone.

On the final play of this drive, BC ran a similar backside concept with a single compressed receiver. While it wasn’t mesh-rail, it featured an in-breaking route by the receiver (a glance route) and a rail route by the running back. Pre-snap, FSU had rotated one of their safeties weak, which should’ve given them a favorable matchup. With a corner and safety assigned to the single receiver and running back, this should have been a simple coverage. But once again, the safety and corner seemed confused, and no one picked up the running back, leading to an easy touchdown for BC. There are plenty of 2-for-2 coverage options to handle situations like this, but the Seminoles once again looked disjointed and out of sync.

Related Article: Cover 7 Backside Variations

Conclusion

So, what’s the solution? FSU needs to lean more into zone and zone-match coverages. Last season, the Seminoles thrived in man coverage, largely due to an elite pass rush that allowed them to get away with it. But this isn’t 2024. When Florida State played zone or zone-match against BC, their quarterback completed just 2 of 4 passes for around 10 yards and was forced to scramble three times under pressure. It’s clear that FSU is more effective in zone coverage, and the added benefit is generating a bit more pressure on the quarterback.

(See below for a zone coverage cutup)