Defending Montana State's Q Run Game
We love breaking down play sequences on our X account (formerly Twitter) account—whether it’s elite defensive pressures or a series of quarterback runs that perfectly complement each other. Recently, we shared a thread showcasing the latter, highlighting some creative quarterback run concepts we spotted during the Montana State game. The post gained a lot of attention, sparking a great conversation. One follower even asked if Matt and I would do a podcast on how to defend these plays effectively.
While we’re still pulling together the video for that discussion, I wanted to take a moment to dive into how we’d traditionally approach run fits to slow down some of these quarterback runs. Could we stop them entirely? Maybe not, but we could certainly make life harder for the offense.
YY Q Counter
Let’s break down the YY Q Counter, a creative run concept that’s simple yet effective. While the diagram we’re referencing is from a slightly different set, the core principles of the play remain the same. In this case, Montana State runs zone to the defense’s right side, pulling the Y/H (YY) across the formation to block the next two defenders outside the defensive end. The quarterback appears to be reading the defensive end, making the decision to keep or give based on his reaction.
If the quarterback is as explosive as Montana State’s, my first recommendation is to influence the give read. By forcing the ball into the running back’s hands, you eliminate the QB as a running threat and narrow the offense’s options. This adjustment can disrupt the play’s design and give your defense a better chance to rally to the ball.
However, for the sake of this article, let’s assume the quarterback is keeping the ball on the pull read—just as Montana State did repeatedly against Idaho. Defending this concept out of an even front (4-2-5) requires adjusting the fits to account for the YY pull. The key to the defense lies in the role of the defensive end, who must disrupt at least one of the pullers. Without this, the defense risks being outnumbered at the point of attack.
The ideal fit sees the defensive end closing the B-gap while colliding with a puller, slowing the play’s timing and freeing up the second-level defenders. Meanwhile, the weak interior linebacker gap exchanges to the C-gap, setting up the safety as the late fill to make the linebacker right—either by fitting inside or outside based on the QB’s path.
If your scheme leans on heavy spill principles, there’s an alternative: fit the corner into the run game. In a Cover 2 structure, this change fits and create a quicker secondary fit from a different angle.
In situations like the one shown in the clip, where the second puller becomes the shoot route, the defensive adjustments shift slightly. The safety now takes responsibility for the shoot route, covering the flat and preventing an easy outlet for the quarterback. Meanwhile, the interior linebacker gap exchanges as he normally would on a standard zone read play, with the quarterback as his assignment.
When defending this concept out of an odd front, the fits are similar but often executed with more natural fallback techniques by the linebackers. Linebackers in odd fronts are generally more familiar with fallback concepts, making them well-suited for handling these types of adjustments.
In a Tite front, the B-gaps are controlled by the 4i defensive linemen, while the nose “lags” to take the backside A-gap. This alignment enables the strong inside linebacker to fallback into the A-gap, while the weak inside linebacker tracks the pullers and works to the C-gap.
Once again, the Jack, or weak-side defensive end, is critical. He must either occupy a puller or force the quarterback to hand the ball off. As with other fronts, the safety plays the same role, ensuring proper run fit by making the other defenders right or taking on the shoot route in coverage.
Q Counter
This play presents a laundry list of problems for any defense. Pairing a covered receiver on the strong side with a backside receiver coming across in jet motion, while also running a quarterback counter which is pure nightmare fuel for defensive coordinators. The combination of misdirection, pullers, and a dynamic quarterback forces the defense to defend multiple threats at once, often stretching the defensive structure to the breaking point.
Defending this play once again hinges on the defensive end. He must disrupt a puller or play the quarterback, and if he fails to do so, the defense will be a man short at the point of attack.
What makes this play even more challenging than the YY Counter is the lack of a strong indicator for the linebackers. They’re faced with jet motion accompanied by zone blocking initially, then shown counter action from the tight end, running back, and quarterback. The conflicting keys make it incredibly difficult to diagnose the play in real time.
While the fits described earlier would theoretically handle the play, the complexity of the backfield action adds an extra layer of difficulty. Truthfully, I couldn’t confidently say I’d expect players to recognize and execute these fits consistently over the course of a game.
Even if your defense starts getting the hang of fitting the Q Counter, Montana State has an Einstein-level curveball ready to throw your way. They’ll run the same Q Counter concept but release the running back on a rail route, stretching your defense horizontally and vertically at the same time. Thankfully, they left the jet motion out of this version, small miracles, but it’s still a nightmare to defend.
The answer to this? Honestly, hope they drop it. When the offense combines such layered misdirection with a vertical threat like the rail route, even the best-prepared defenses are left scrambling.
Conclusion
The YY Counter isn’t going anywhere, we’ve seen it at every level this year. But Montana State has taken the concept to new heights with the addition of the Q Counter wrinkle. For defenses, this means one thing: discipline is no longer optional; it’s mandatory. Even then, no defensive scheme is foolproof, and sometimes defense really does feel like an exercise in futility.
So, how do we even the odds? When facing any iteration of the triple option, defenses have three main strategies:
Be disciplined on every down – Stick to your keys and handle the dive, quarterback, and pitch.
Change up responsibilities – Mix in pressures or calls to disrupt their rhythm (e.g., mesh charge the defensive end they’re reading).
Blitz – As the saying goes, pressure bursts pipes.
These are just a few ideas for countering Montana State’s potent run game. But what about you? How would you attack it? Comment below and share your approach—we’d love to hear your thoughts!