|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Dec 30, 2009 10:44:45 GMT -6
If you run a very aggressive defense, do you do the same with offense and special teams or vice-versa?
I guess I'm wondering if you look at each phase independently or as part of a larger ethos for your team.
|
|
bigcroz
Junior Member
Go STAGS!!
Posts: 356
|
Post by bigcroz on Dec 30, 2009 11:04:02 GMT -6
for me, very aggressive all around, as I want to dictate to the opposition what they will do not vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 30, 2009 23:26:38 GMT -6
Talent rules the day... in my book...
The more talented I am, the more conservative I'd be... the less talented, the more aggressive...
|
|
ramsoc
Junior Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by ramsoc on Dec 31, 2009 1:02:02 GMT -6
I'm aggressive on defense because we are the smallest team in the league as far as size and numbers, so we can't afford to sit back and just play D. Offensively, we are a Wing T team, so we take our 4 and a cloud, but there are times where I get aggressive with my play calling if I think we've got the defense's head spinning.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 31, 2009 7:07:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 31, 2009 7:33:20 GMT -6
How many points do I get for using "curmudgeon"? |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Dec 31, 2009 12:27:43 GMT -6
Thanks for the points, I feel much better about myself now. I read that thread and it had more to do with "I think spread teams are soft so their defense must be too" followed by "we're spread and we'll punch you in the mouth" followed by your retort calling the argument moot due to lack of quantifiable evidence. Back to the point, if you're a power team but love to attack on first down with play action pass because of aggressive play calling, are you conversely sitting on defense and reading and reacting or going cover 0 and bringing the house regardless of your front? Do you sit in cover 3 all day and bend but not break but run fake punts more than most? Regardless of your scheme, doesn't your personal philosophy dictate the choices you make as well as your approach to the game? Ultimately, do you coaches out there feel all three phases of the game are guided by a common philosophy (attack, conservative, etc.) or do you deliberately choose to be aggressive on special teams but not with your "x,y or z" offense? |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 31, 2009 19:10:47 GMT -6
Not trying to be a jerk but does aggressive mean you throw more, blitz more, gamble more? The coach who says "We play press man to man on EVERY down" is aggressive but is he smart? Liek most coaches, I want to dictate what the other team does, but if my kids are physically out manned then I've got more important things on my plate like hanging on to the ball, running the clock, and trying to keep the wheels on. Am I aggressive? I guess I want my kids to be aggressive so they don't get their a$$es kicked.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 31, 2009 21:14:41 GMT -6
Not trying to be a jerk but does aggressive mean you throw more, blitz more, gamble more? The coach who says "We play press man to man on EVERY down" is aggressive but is he smart? Liek most coaches, I want to dictate what the other team does, but if my kids are physically out manned then I've got more important things on my plate like hanging on to the ball, running the clock, and trying to keep the wheels on. Am I aggressive? I guess I want my kids to be aggressive so they don't get their a$$es kicked. Great point as usual Doc. It is such a difficult thing to describe. Coaches like to use the word "agressive" when describing a stunting, presnap blitz scheme by lineman/lbs. I ask them why they don't consider a DL attacking the OL and keeping his (DL) eyes on the OL's throat as he shocks the OL's head and shoulders back agressive? Or why they don't consider a linebacker pressing an open gap and making a tackle aggressive. |
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Jan 1, 2010 6:58:50 GMT -6
The opposite of "aggressive" isn't "conservative." It's "passive." Is there a coach alive who wants his team to play "passively?"
It only makes sense to tie all three aspects of the game together in a coherent philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily mean you try to take the same amount of calculated risks in each phase. I would think a lot has to do with situation, the players you're dealing with, and mostly just the personality of the HC.
For example, if your place kicker can't make an extra point and your punter is shanktastic, you might want to always go for it on every 4th down and every PAT, seeing it as less "risky" than the conventional plan of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jan 1, 2010 9:26:55 GMT -6
Not trying to be a jerk but does aggressive mean you throw more, blitz more, gamble more? The coach who says "We play press man to man on EVERY down" is aggressive but is he smart? Liek most coaches, I want to dictate what the other team does, but if my kids are physically out manned then I've got more important things on my plate like hanging on to the ball, running the clock, and trying to keep the wheels on. Am I aggressive? I guess I want my kids to be aggressive so they don't get their a$$es kicked. Great questions coach. What I was attempting to have answered is do you, as a coach, feel that you philosophically take the same approach to all three phases of the game regardless of what someone else would call it? Better yet, if you reflected on your style and approach for special teams, in your mind is it consistent with the other phases of the game that you control? This question came to mind because I know of a team that is very ball control and clock oriented but then tries to block just about every punt, is running reverses and fakes on returns, will fake punt and even throw in an on-sides kick throughout the season after a big score. |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jan 1, 2010 16:44:35 GMT -6
Right now, Oregon's "aggressive" (according to the announcers...) defense is getting killed! Should they stop blitzing?  |
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jan 2, 2010 7:21:25 GMT -6
red, I think I understand what you are asking. We are a spread offense that throws quite a bit so defensively we want to do anything to stop the run and force teams to play a passing game with us. We figure we can throw better than they can because we practice it more.
It probably doesn't sound like you think it would. Being a spread team you might expect us to play a 3-4 or something with a 2 shell but we base out of an 8 man front defensively. Our thinking is we can't let the other team run and possess the ball for a long time. We want to get our offense lots of possessions, score some points and force the other team into our type of game which is passing, fast tempo and lots of possessions.
As for special teams we are aggressive where we can afford to be. We try to block every punt figuring we always have the potential for a big play or at least disrupting the punter to force a bad kick. Worst case scenario we fair catch. But, on our kickoff team we always play with 3 safeties deep because the bottom line for the kickoff team is that they don't score.
It's definitely a risk vs reward philosophy. We ask : Where can we afford to (or need to) be aggressive? and Where do we need to be conservative?
I do think you are asking a valuable question as far as looking at how to match these types of things together. The answers are probably different for every program.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Bennett on Jan 2, 2010 18:13:02 GMT -6
red, I think I understand what you are asking. We are a spread offense that throws quite a bit so defensively we want to do anything to stop the run and force teams to play a passing game with us. We figure we can throw better than they can because we practice it more. It probably doesn't sound like you think it would. Being a spread team you might expect us to play a 3-4 or something with a 2 shell but we base out of an 8 man front defensively. Our thinking is we can't let the other team run and possess the ball for a long time. We want to get our offense lots of possessions, score some points and force the other team into our type of game which is passing, fast tempo and lots of possessions. As for special teams we are aggressive where we can afford to be. We try to block every punt figuring we always have the potential for a big play or at least disrupting the punter to force a bad kick. Worst case scenario we fair catch. But, on our kickoff team we always play with 3 safeties deep because the bottom line for the kickoff team is that they don't score. It's definitely a risk vs reward philosophy. We ask : Where can we afford to (or need to) be aggressive? and Where do we need to be conservative? I do think you are asking a valuable question as far as looking at how to match these types of things together. The answers are probably different for every program. Indian1: I most likely didn't articulate what I was really looking for as well as I could have but you seem to have sifted through my ramblings and hit the nail on the head...thank you. No doubt the philosophy will likely differ for each program but it gets my wheels spinning nicely to hear/read why coaches connect the phases the way the do. . |
|
|
|
Post by cnunley on Jan 5, 2010 20:58:37 GMT -6
We were a slow paced, grind it out, time of possession offense because we were not a very talented team. We want the game as short as possible.
On defense we were a bend but not break. We wanted each team to have to drive the length of the field while burning tons of time.
So for us, it was a matching philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukethadrifter on Jan 5, 2010 21:00:48 GMT -6
Some of that depends on personnel that you have compared to what your opponents have. For us, somebody mentioned dictating tempo. We try to run a style of offense and defense that will dictate tempo somewhat to our opponents.
|
|
