The Modern Bear Front – Georgia vs Notre Dame (2017)


The Modern Bear Front


01 Base Tite Fits




01 BS vs 12p [ND]



04 Bear Str Roll



Bear Versus the Run

The Bear Front allows the defense to gap out the interior gaps. Versus a 12 pers. Ace formation (below) the Mike will need to take the “C” gap but can vacate with flow away. In a typical two-high scheme, the backside CB will fit the “D” gap or be the primary force player to the boundary (Georgia refers to this as “Cloud” support). The CB support weak allows the Jack ‘backer to rub inside the TE (“U”). He is playing a heavy 9 tech. and will take the “C” gap weak. Will plugs the “A” gap but can vacate with fast-flow to him (think Stretch weak) because the Mike will take the cutback.

03 Bear Fits vs Ace

12 Personnel

Tackle pulls are a favorite run concept versus the Tite Front because of angles. Dart and Counter GT, in particular, are the favorite run concepts used to attack the 4i’s since the front is designed to kill the Zone. This makes sense considering the 4is are inside the Tackle, and there is a contain or overhang outside. This gives the Guard a great angle for the block back, and there is no need to worry about the contain player when a TE is involved in the block. Most coaches that run the Tite Front will admit that gap plays utilizing the Tackle can be hard to combat from this front. The non-traditional pull by Tackle can make the LBs fit late if they are focused on RB flow or reading the Guards.

Coaches Note: To counter plays were the Tackle pulls in the Tite Front you can teach your OLB to that side to fold in with the OT. This allows the LBs to fit where they need yet you still have a plus-number in the box with the OLB folding. This is good especially to the open-side or away from a TE.

Notre Dame used a same-side Dart concept to attack the Bear Front presented by Georgia. As stated above, the alignment of the front lends itself to plays like this. One clever piece to this is the boundary TE’s block. He jab-steps knowing the Jack is playing a “heavy” 9 tech. This allows the TE to gain outside leverage in case the play bounces. The Jack, as anticipated rubs inside. The arc movement away from the gap brings the Jack back out with him creating a natural crease. The result is a large gain on 1st Down.

The run fits for the sam-side Dart are shown below. The play-side Guard “bangs” the Nose to allow the Center to overtake, and then works up to the Mike. Had the Guard walled the Mike and inhibited him from working overtop, the run would have been even longer. The Will inserts and spills the pulling Tackle, but runs by the RB. The Bulldogs used a weak rotation (Cover 6) and the safety scraped as support.

04 Bear vs SS Dart (S)

Another favorite play against the Tite Front is a “loaded” Stretch or Stretch Lead. Below, Notre Dame puts a Trey Wing formation into the boundary (Trips FIB). Georgia counters by dropping the strong-side safety (Cover 3). The Jack controls the edge by arcing with the Wing. The Irish pull the play-side Guard and is met by the Will, who spills the block. The Mike scrapes over the down-block by the TE and the RB is met by three Bulldogs, the Mike, Jack, and boundary safety.

Here’s a look at the run fits:

05 Bear vs Stretch G (S)

In an article by, Virginia Tech DC Bud Foster stated, “12 personnel… is the new 21 personnel.” As with 11 pers., the ability to get into multiple sets with limited subbing is a way defenses can dictate personnel groups while using tempo. The use of hybrid TE’s gives some offenses, namely Oklahoma, the ability to get into 12, 21, 11, and 20 pers. looks, all without the use of sub-packages. Notre Dame uses the same philosophy to give Georgia different looks, creating different matchups.

The Irish attack Georgia’s Bear Front with another FIB set (notice a trend?). This time opting for a 21 pers. look. The strength is into the boundary, but the H-back is set to the field. The Bulldogs align in a Cover 3 look to match the strength. Notre Dame not only utilizes a Zone heavy scheme but uses the QB in the run game as well. Below is an example of a complement to the Split Zone, the Arc Read or Slice play.

Georgia’s defense fits the Zone much like a four-down’s Under Front. The Jack ‘backer “surfs” (stays square with eyes on QB) down the line. The QB should have given the ball to the RB with the OLB’s shoulders staying square. Instead, he pulls the ball and attempts to outrun the Jack. This is an example of why the “surf” technique can work if you have an athletic DE/OLB. In this case, the OLB was able to chase the QB down, especially into the boundary with limited space. Some coaches will argue that surfing the end man on the line (EMOL) is problematic versus athletic QBs because the runner can beat the less athletic player to the edge. Above, the play resulted for little to no gain.

06 Bear vs Slice (S)

11 Personnel

Most teams that run the Tite Front will stay in it versus 10 or 11 pers. groupings. As shown, the Tite Front lends itself the ability to transform into a Bear Front. In Georgia’s Mint package, the * or Ni will replace the Sam LB. The same pressures and stunts can apply, but now the Bulldogs have a hybrid OLB/Safety at the field LB.

In the clip below, Georgia opts to stay in their base defense, leaving #7 Lorenzo Carter (6’6′ 243) as the Sam LB. The ability to match Down & Distance, offensive personnel, or tendency with packages allows Georgia the freedom to match what they expect to get. As Carter moves from his cover down to the LOS, the Safety behind him moves down as well (stem). Notre Dame attacks with a Buck Sweep.

The Sam and SS move in tandem to their pre-snap alignments. Both the Jack and the backside 4i attack the mesh ensuring the handoff. Frontside, the Sam spills the first puller and then backtracks to make an impressive play. The Slot cracks the Mike and the SS meets the second puller outside the box. Had #7 missed the tackle, the Will would have been there to make the play. Interesting that UGA had two players for the QB. This could have been a missed assignment by the 4i considering the Jack surfs down the line.

07 Stem to Bear vs Buck Sweep

21 (A) Personnel

Georgia opted to stay in their base personnel against Notre Dame’s 21 “A” grouping. 21 “A” refers to the lack of FB, instead, the Irish use a second RB and motion him back into the backfield. This type of grouping allows an offense to use two speedy backs and a pre-snap “Spread” formations. The “back” moton turns the nub-Trips set into a 21 pers. Guns-Split Twin formation. To counter, the Sam ‘backer stems down to create a Bear look.

The overhang away from the TE is allowed to fold into the fit. #7 does just that, even running himself out of the play. This is a bonus because it allows the box numbers to grow post-snap and also frees the ILBs to flow faster to the ball knowing they have a defender flooding in for cut-back. The initial penetration kills the play instantly and the result is a gang-tackle for no gain. Another example of the Bear look clogging the gaps and making it hard for the Irish to run the ball.

08 Stem to Bear vs Stretch LD (S)


The Bear looks helped Georgia defeat the Irish on their home turf. When Bear schematics are added to a Tite Front, the defense is given a flexible front structure that can be used against multiple personnel groupings formations. Whether lining up in it against 12 pers. formations, or stemming to it versus Pro-Style sets, the ability to clog gaps and make runs go lateral is why the Tite Front has become popular.

Georgia continues to use this structure in their Mint and base packages. It is easy to get into and adapts to most offenses. If in their Mint or Nickel package all that is needed is an edge rush from the * and Jack. If given a Spread set, to begin with, the Bulldogs can just stem to it and play a Cover 3 scheme behind it. The end result in 2017 was a win in South Bend. The Bulldogs held the Irish to 55 yards rushing on 37 attempts. Notre Dame’s QB Wimbush was 16 for 1 yard. Not a bad night for Georgia defending the ground game. If utilizing a Tite Front, the Bear adaptation is a great tool to carry against Zone heavy offenses.


Want more resources on the Mint/Tite Front:

Articles –

  1. The Tite Front (303/404)
  2. How Offenses Attack the Tite Front (2017/2018 Texas Longhorns)

Clinics – 

1. Tite Front Clinic:

2. Mint vs Tite Front:


© 2019 | Cody Alexander | All rights reserved.

Go deeper than just X’s and O’s. Have a philosophy. MQ’s books are available on Amazon and Amazon Kindle:

Cautious Aggression: Defending Modern Football

Hybrids: The Making of a Modern Defense



– Coach A. | #ArtofX

3 thoughts on “The Modern Bear Front – Georgia vs Notre Dame (2017)”

  1. Great Article!!!
    A few questions
    1. The Ends are they 4i or 4? Does it matter if they are to the field or the boundary?
    When you insert the SS into the run fit, can you tell me the coverage? It looks like man with MOF safety.

    1. 1) DEs are in 4s w/ a TE & 4is w/o. Only ones that matter if F or B are the S & J.

      2) It can be C1 or C3 concepts.

      Thank you, Wil.

Leave a Reply