Mercer’s 2 Steal Variation That Quarterbacks Did Not See Coming

Mercer’s secondary didn’t just play the ball in 2024, they hunted it. According to the NCAA’s stats, the Bears snagged 25 interceptions and took four of them to the house. They are not doing it with a Rolodex of coverages either. The scheme is clean, simple, and built on execution, effort, and opportunistic play. But every now and then they will throw in a wrinkle that leaves quarterbacks second-guessing their reads. One of those wrinkles is a twist on “Cover 2 Steal” against Trips that baited two picks and had quarterbacks wondering where the safety came from.

At its core, this coverage was born from a 2 Steal concept, but Mercer does a nice job creating their own spin on it. The Nickel and both Safeties align at the same depth, which gives that 3-high feel pre-snap. To the Trips side, the Corner and Nickel are playing a Quarters variation, either MOD or Press Quarters. The Strong Safety becomes the Robber, looking to jump the Curl/ Flat, and that is where both interceptions came from. On the backside, the Safety is poaching 3 vertical or the first crosser he sees. In simplest terms, Mercer just swaps the curl/flat responsibility from the Nickel to the Strong Safety. It is a small adjustment, but even little changes like this can muddy a quarterback’s picture and steal a throw.

*This breakdown is based on my interpretation. I do not know Mercer’s exact rules, so some smaller details are an educated guess.

3rd Qtr | 3rd & 11 | 5:56 | 42-14 Samford

Against Samford, Mercer shows a pre-snap Quarters shell that looks a lot like Stubbie. From the quarterback’s view, it walks, talks, and acts like a traditional Quarters variation, and I thought the same thing when I first saw it on tape.

Post-snap, the picture flips. What looked like Stubbie turns into a Quarters concept with the Strong Safety triggering the “Steal” mechanic. Instead of the Nickel taking the curl/flat, the Strong Safety jumps it, undercutting the route and changing the math for the quarterback in a hurry.

Samford thinks they have an easy pitch-and-catch on the slot’s stop route. The quarterback hits the top of his drop and lets it go, but the Strong Safety is already driving into the window. He snatches it for an easy interception. If this had been true Stubbie, that throw is probably an incompletion at worst. Instead, Mercer’s Steal concept turns it into a momentum-swinging takeaway that keeps them in the game.

1 Qtr | 3rd & 9 | 1:34 | 14-7 NDSU

The second example starts with Mercer showing a “picket fence” look, all five defensive backs sitting at the same depth. Pre-snap, it sells like Tampa 2 or maybe a 3-high Cover 3 variation. Instead, they are again running their Steal concept. The Strong Safety baits the quarterback perfectly, holding a vertical track on the tight end just long enough to sell it. As soon as the quarterback’s hands split, the safety drives into the window and makes another big interception.

Conclusion

This is not rocket science. Mercer did not invent some galaxy-brain coverage that will break the game. What they did was tweak the responsibilities of a few defenders to muddy the picture for the quarterback. That is where defensive football is heading beyond 2024. It is not about brand-new coverages, it is about taking what you already run and swapping who handles what. Think about the resurgence of Tampa 2 with NTTs (Non-Traditional Tampas). Defenses figured out they could run Tampa 2, change which defenders owned which zones, and create hesitation in the quarterback’s mind. It worked. So why not apply that same logic to other coverages? The result could be something special.