|
Post by jpdaley25 on May 16, 2010 10:55:40 GMT -6
High risk, high reward defense?
I wouldn't do it unless I had to. A big play by the other team's offense generates more momentum than a three and out by the other team's defense.
Don't gamble on defense unless you have to.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 16, 2010 11:56:29 GMT -6
A MAJOR thing to be considered here is the make up of your staff. Do you have a DC who isn't really ambitious and wouldn't be upset with the philosophy of "one of us is fixin to score" and the impact it will have on his work/his unit?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on May 16, 2010 12:14:36 GMT -6
I think it may be part of your offensive style, a no-huddle, speaking very generally (I'm aware that there are probably many exceptions, but speaking generally here) a no-huddle offense can easily get into that groove because you move faster play-to-play, you spend more time proportionally at the line ready, or in a play, than standing around waiting, so you stay in the moment. Conversely, when things start going wrong, you don't have the mental reset of a huddle and the 20 seconds or so spent not involved in either a play or immediately pre-play, so you end up in a kind of anti-groove. The problem of being out of groove after time on the sidelines could be that the groove of going play-to-play, 7 minutes of not doing that has essentially reset them, and if the first play goes wrong, these problems compound. I suppose you could train them to have no memory, in which case it's difficult to build momentum, or have them remember the last play, and risk getting into a funk (which I assume is the opposite of a groove.)
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 16, 2010 14:19:50 GMT -6
Dubber,
Your question is whether you should place a greater emphasis on creating turnovers, right? OK, how will you implement that philosophy? How will you change your defense in order to accomplish that?
|
|
|
Post by morris on May 16, 2010 16:47:36 GMT -6
We have been in many ways a pressure style defense for years. Even if we changed that there are certain things we will also tell our defense. 1) Score: we want to score on defense. so when that ball hits the ground or we get a pick we are going the other way. 2) Force a turnover: 1st guy secure the ball carrier. Everyone else is coming to knock the ball out, strip it, punish the ball carrier or rip that ball out. We work on violently taking the ball away every day. 3) Force a punt: get off the field. 4) Keep them from scoring
It is a mind set for us more than a scheme issue. We focus on a few other things like 1st downs and the such.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 17, 2010 8:58:13 GMT -6
We marry the up tempo offense with an attacking defense. It just fits our style/philosophy.
Seems to me the problem lies in the fact that you have so many going both ways, and they are changing tempo b/c your O & D syles are different. Not that they 2 can't be married together, but I would think that definitely you need something that refocuses the whole offense when you retake the field. Maybe those 3-4 that are strictly O guys, need to be trained in being the 'refocusers'; they guys that get everybody back on track. Who are these kids?
Turnovers, are a fickle thing. We stress turnovers, but if the other team isn't throwing the ball, we aren't going to get many INTs. If they are solid fundamentally, they probably won't put it on the ground much running the ball.
I think that ST are the BIG momentum changer.
In those games you do jump out to a 21-0 lead, how does the team and STAFF change? One thing we say is 'all gas, no brakes' meaning we don't let off the throtle regardless of whether we are in the 1st or in the 4th. We ride their tails in the 21-0 situations just as hard as we would in the three, 3 and outs in a row.
If we let up, then surely the kids will follow our lead.
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on May 17, 2010 10:01:18 GMT -6
someone has already said this, but I'll second it. Does something change offensively when you get up 21-0? does the playcalling get more conservative? do you call the same screen pass that has already burned them twice again without going back to what sets that play up? the Opposing DC has spent that drive fixing his defense. if you plays are built on the D overreacting (screens/draws, etc) then they probably won't work over and over. just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on May 20, 2010 10:53:16 GMT -6
Dubber:
People may disagree with me on this, but...
1. I believe that the offensive, defensive, and special team philosophies should go together. If you have an aggressive offensive philosophy, it doesn't make sense to me to change that mindset of those kids on defense or special teams, especially if you have that many kids going both ways. If you have aggressive kids, that should be the team philosophy. If you don't have aggressive kids, guess what, that should be the team philosophy.
2. Time of possession doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by airmale on May 20, 2010 11:54:53 GMT -6
I think you want to change. I think you are not happy with your style of defense. While we do what we have to do, we have to be true to who we are. I need my defense to be as aggressive as my offense and vice versa. I could never be any other way. Some years more pass, some years more run. Some years more blitz man to man, some years more base zone.
But in the end it has to be a reflection of how I like to coach. When we have to be more conservative on D, as the drive of the opponent continues, the more aggressive we get. Sometimes we shut em down. Sometimes they score. I would rather rot get a turnover trying to scoop and score, than fall on every fumble giving up scoring opportunities.
I am sure there are many on this board that disagree, think I am an idiot. But, I will feel the same about what they do, for me. I respect what everyone does. Every style of O and D wins City/County/State/National championships every year. But I can only coach in certain ones.
Be true to who you are. If you want to switch.....switch. If you don't, don't. Just be sure you do either one for the right reasons. YOU have to live with the outcome, good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by playfast on May 20, 2010 20:15:16 GMT -6
Maybe it is a team attitude thing. On offense you are dictating the pace and those players have that mindset but now on defense THOSE SAME PLAYERS are playing with a different mind set. I have been to some many clinics and listened to so many coaches but one thing that does ring out great teams play the same style on offense and defense.
The way the coaches coach and the tempo of practice is married to the style that you play. Start with practice. What is the offensive tempo (how many plays do you get in during team) compared to the number of looks you get on defense. Tempo! Tempo! Tempo!
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on May 20, 2010 22:41:45 GMT -6
How much of this do you think can be attributed to fatigue? With so many players going both ways it seems entirely possible to me that guys start to wear down and then their focus wanes a little bit on offense and execution suffers.
This isn't a pitch to two-platoon or anything, but rather a thought that your "style" of defense might not have as much to do with it as it would seem at first glance.
I personally don't agree that you have to have an offense and defense that "match" each other. Good football is good football. I think the New York Jets ran the ball more than anybody in the NFL on offense last year and blitzed more than anybody on defense. They didn't decide that they were going to go with a "bend but don't break" defense to match their conservative offense, they lined up and played good defense, however that best fit their abilities. Likewise, they taylored the offense to the talents of their players, which in that case was a more conservative approach.
|
|
|
Post by currier58 on May 21, 2010 21:18:59 GMT -6
I think what is appearing here is the formula for winning consistently. A defense who at worst is making the offense run a lot of plays and take up 8 minutes of clock is still doing a pretty good job. That kind of D is going to keep you in games. Just like some other guys have stated the issue is with the offense. At some point you have to be able to possess the ball when you have a lead. I think this is an inherent problem with a fast-paced type of offense that relies on "getting in a groove". What do you do when you're just not in the grove? What do you do with a 1 TD lead and you just need to grind 1st downs. Nothing wrong with that style of offense. I'm a fan of it, but its high risk, high reward. Do you always need to do it? Look at the most successful college coaches over an extended period of time. Many of them are considered "conservative". No big plays vs the defense. Possess the ball offensively. BE IN CONTROL. These guys often get criticized for this type of "archaic" philosophy (Joe Paterno, Jim Tressel, Nick Saban, Lloyd Carr). Contrast these guys with a fella like Mike Leach (who I also like). Leach is going to bite some teams in the @$$ when his team is hot offensively but I think you lose a lot of control when you are trying to win games 45-41. The bottom line there is you HAVE to score a lot to win. I guess what I'm trying to say is the safer bet is probably to try to keep the games lower scoring if you have a choice because in those kinds of games you will be in it have a shot more often than in a score fest. Dubb you mentioned getting "hot" and jumping on a team 22-0 and then getting the wind taken out of your sails when the other team possesses the ball for a long time. If you change your defense, and your offense has a cold spell, you are likely to be on the other end of that score at times. Then you HAVE to get hot. IMO the answer is to make your offense "momentum proof". Maybe that means running the ball more, or a slower tempo. I've been looking at the same kinds of things with our team. We have been fast paced offensively and very aggressive defensively. That has allowed us to upset some teams but more often than not is has gotten us in the position of playing from behind. When we are hot we can explode and get 3 and outs or turnovers but if we are not hot and the other team hits some plays BANG we are down 14. Too much rides on the offense, and more often, the QB being in a groove. I am not going to say that your response was wrong, but I dont think it addresses the OP's question. I think that it is very important for a team's overall philosophy to mesh. I cannot remember where I read this, but it made sense to me. A coach talked about how a bend but dont break defensive philosophy fits with a run dominant offense. This is because the coach's priority is to shorten the game, keep it close, and win in the 4th quarter. This is why I think Dubber would be best served to be much more aggressive defensively. An aggressive defense would force the other team to play at their pace for a higher % of the game. The point of a fast paced no-huddle offense is to wear the other team down. Allowing the other team to chew up yards and clock prevents this philosophy's effectiveness. Gus Mahlzan addresses this issue in his No-Huddle book. As a high school coach, he took it to the extreme of using onside kicks frequently and often times going for it on 4th down. All of this is designed to force the other team to play at your pace for more of the game. "Leach is going to bite some teams in the @$$ when his team is hot offensively but I think you lose a lot of control when you are trying to win games 45-41. The bottom line there is you HAVE to score a lot to win." I think there is a flip side to this perspective that you are not seeing. If the game is 10-7, your defense is forced to play great play after play and not make that one crucial mistake. If the game is high scoring, then there is more pressure on the offense to keep scoring. It is simply a difference in philosophies. Neither one is WRONG!
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 21, 2010 21:23:48 GMT -6
I keep reading that Dubber's defense should be more aggressive. What exactly does that mean? Dubber, once again, if your defense will be more aggressive how exactly will that change what you do?
|
|
|
Post by gdf on May 21, 2010 23:05:34 GMT -6
Does aggressive mean to blitz more often? Or could it mean to simplify your package & reads thereby allowing your kids to play fast? Our program has gotten more "aggressive" by simplifying things for our kids and repping the bejesus out of them.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on May 21, 2010 23:42:17 GMT -6
I think it should be a reflection of your own personality. Last season our D was a very close representation of what I'm really like: aggressive, fairly unapologetic regarding shortcomings, and somewhat complex. This year, if I'm the DC at all, our D will be a reflection of the HC's personality: physical, fast pursuit of the football with a simple, simple scheme.
I think a lot of people read aggressive defensive playcalling as more blitzing, etc, but I think blitzing doesn't have to be inherently risky or haphazard. I think aggressive is a style as much as a playcall method, meaning that you want to play defense in an assertive, confrontational manner, rather than a reactive manner. Mindset and personality will allow for a lot of that.
But, I'm just a young turk and the thing I learn the most frequently in this game is that I know very, very little.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 22, 2010 5:15:41 GMT -6
I keep reading that Dubber's defense should be more aggressive. What exactly does that mean? Dubber, once again, if your defense will be more aggressive how exactly will that change what you do? To be honest, I'm not really sure. I think the 10-1 would be unique in this area, and I would consider that a defense that is only on the field for 3 plays, as the proximity of defenders to the LOS makes it boom or bust. Basically, on our 9 team schedule, there is not one that I think has it in there tool box to handle heavy pressure and press/tight man. We do well with it, but we're devoting a day a week to press man, and repping it all summer, etc. Part of the carry over is this too: I want to beat press man, so we practice a lot versus press man......so why not make press man a base for us, if no one has the tool box to call us on it? When I say "press" man, I really mean "catch" man I like (like what allisjoh runs)........able to jam and get a run read before bailing. That coverage lends itself more to INT's imo than press man does. Those are really more my unorganized thoughts than an answer Phantom, but it's the best I could do. And again, this is something I haven't completely bought into yet myself......
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 22, 2010 6:39:04 GMT -6
From reading this, it sounds like Dubber simply doesn't want to play defense. I don't mean that as a negative, as it seems that he is searching for the BEST way to play a limited # of defensive snaps against ball control type teams.
If getting the ball back, rather than preventing scores is the primary objective, there are 3 ways to do it:
1. Turnover by taking possession of the ball 2. Turnover on downs/punt 3. Allowing the other team to score.
Dubber, correct me if I am wrong here, but what you seem to be searching for is a defensive philosophy and corresponding scheme to facilitate getting the ball back as its primary objective, hopefully through methods one and two more frequently than method 3.
Essentially, you are looking to mimic the basketball philosophy that Paul Westhead employed at Loyola Marymount. You shoot fast, and you pressure them to shoot fast. They may get wide open looks, but they will get them quickly.
Now, here are some potential issues I have with this mindset. 1. It hangs one side of the ball out to dry. If all your coaches coach both sides, this issue is mitigated somewhat, but if you have coaches who are primarily concerned with defense, I think this could become a problem.
2. As others have mentioned, it seems to really rely on the "rhythm" of your offense. A couple of 3 and outs combined with a couple of busts rather than booms on D and you are fighting uphill.
3. If a team really hangs its hat on "warp speed" tempo on offense and "one of us is fixin to score" on defense then as the game conditions change, it can only control its TEMPO, and not the game . Just my opinion. Up by low margin, less than 3 minutes in the game....
4. I don't agree with many of the posts here that Fast tempo offense matches well with the high pressure defense, and a ball control offense matches with bend, don't break defense. I think the inverse makes more sense. 5. I don't know if it fits H.S. ball well. At the H.S. level, so many teams lose games rather than win. I haven't seen many schools consistently put together long drives and win games.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on May 22, 2010 7:55:11 GMT -6
my older mentor would be considered a very "conservative coach" but that doesn't mean he doesn't teach an aggressive style. as an earlier post suggested, being an aggressive defense doesn't equate to more blitzing necessarily.
we have gone from a conservative read style minimal blitz D (bend don't break) to a riskier blitz happy D in one year. both have been successful because both were well taught by two excellent DC's.the kids certainly buy into the blitz style better because on what they see on Sundays but we give up more big plays to get some big plays.
as long as the philosophy can be taught it works for me..is it OK for my philosophy to change depending on my horses ? or should i teach what i know best regardless of my personnel ?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 22, 2010 7:59:26 GMT -6
as long as the philosophy can be taught it works for me..is it OK for my philosophy to change depending on my horses ? or should i teach what i know best regardless of my personnel ? Those are two different questions coach. A philosophy isn't necessarily "what I know", but rather what I enjoy, believe in.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on May 22, 2010 9:52:00 GMT -6
5085, get where you're coming from but the two(schemes and philosophies) are intertwined.think it was you who threw out that great quote "play defense, not defenses"....schemes kind of reflect philosophies, if you will. "what i know" and "what i believe in" can both change if i'm continually learning and willing to get better. And if my personnel suits the change. for example, despite success, we changed our defensive philosophy quite dramatically with a new DC upon retirement of old DC.i allowed this to happen because our talent level was different and the new DC convinced me it could be taught. now we are attacking, fast ,and risk taking on both sides of the ball so our "philosophies" match up...but that doesn't mean i didn't like it when our D was more conservative even when our offense was attack mode.i still think it comes down to what you can teach.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 23, 2010 10:14:14 GMT -6
Dubber,
1. It's mid-May. Can you and your staff learn this new system in time?
2. Do you have a Plan B? You said that only one or two teams on the schedule can handle serious pressure? How about the playoffs? Do you have something for them?
3. Are all involved parties- HC, OC, and DC- really ready to play track meets? I think that when people consider the "somebody's fixin' to score" they envision themself scoring. Are all of you really ready for what happens when it's the other guy? Will you stick with it after a 45-42 loss? The worst thing you can do is go balls to the wall on something and change mid-season.
4. Are there a lot of teams that have had sustained success with this philosophy? I know that some have but how many?
I'm not trying to talk you out of it but these are some of the practical questions that you have to answer.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 23, 2010 20:17:21 GMT -6
From reading this, it sounds like Dubber simply doesn't want to play defense. I don't mean that as a negative, as it seems that he is searching for the BEST way to play a limited # of defensive snaps against ball control type teams. If getting the ball back, rather than preventing scores is the primary objective, there are 3 ways to do it: 1. Turnover by taking possession of the ball 2. Turnover on downs/punt 3. Allowing the other team to score. Dubber, correct me if I am wrong here, but what you seem to be searching for is a defensive philosophy and corresponding scheme to facilitate getting the ball back as its primary objective, hopefully through methods one and two more frequently than method 3. Essentially, you are looking to mimic the basketball philosophy that Paul Westhead employed at Loyola Marymount. You shoot fast, and you pressure them to shoot fast. They may get wide open looks, but they will get them quickly. Now, here are some potential issues I have with this mindset. 1. It hangs one side of the ball out to dry. If all your coaches coach both sides, this issue is mitigated somewhat, but if you have coaches who are primarily concerned with defense, I think this could become a problem. 2. As others have mentioned, it seems to really rely on the "rhythm" of your offense. A couple of 3 and outs combined with a couple of busts rather than booms on D and you are fighting uphill. 3. If a team really hangs its hat on "warp speed" tempo on offense and "one of us is fixin to score" on defense then as the game conditions change, it can only control its TEMPO, and not the game . Just my opinion. Up by low margin, less than 3 minutes in the game.... 4. I don't agree with many of the posts here that Fast tempo offense matches well with the high pressure defense, and a ball control offense matches with bend, don't break defense. I think the inverse makes more sense. 5. I don't know if it fits H.S. ball well. At the H.S. level, so many teams lose games rather than win. I haven't seen many schools consistently put together long drives and win games. As usualy coach, this is one helluva post. #5 is really where "I am at" in regards to philosophy........I want to let them hang themselves. However, I'm a wonderer, and I'm not afraid of radical ideas........this idea is out there, and I wanted input on it. After I noticed our drive failure rate was higher after longer drives by the opposition, I thought I'd roll this around. You're right, I can't stand the slow death.....
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 23, 2010 20:31:56 GMT -6
Dubber, 1. It's mid-May. Can you and your staff learn this new system in time? 2. Do you have a Plan B? You said that only one or two teams on the schedule can handle serious pressure? How about the playoffs? Do you have something for them? 3. Are all involved parties- HC, OC, and DC- really ready to play track meets? I think that when people consider the "somebody's fixin' to score" they envision themself scoring. Are all of you really ready for what happens when it's the other guy? Will you stick with it after a 45-42 loss? The worst thing you can do is go balls to the wall on something and change mid-season. 4. Are there a lot of teams that have had sustained success with this philosophy? I know that some have but how many? I'm not trying to talk you out of it but these are some of the practical questions that you have to answer. Phantom, those are all worthy considerations. First off, I'm not in a decision making position (at least in terms of team philosophy......my HC would probably not go for this.........maybe he would........ This is all theory. I have to move this from the thinking realm to the practical realm in order to answer your other questions: I would only suggest/implement this if I was the HC. Unless I have the authority to make everyone get on board, it won't float. My DC would understand the situation going into the season.......and he will accept the defense's role in the vision for the program, or he won't be my DC. The only point I don't care about is the success or failure of other teams who have tried this approach. I think that isn't a good indicator of how well something will work, and I'm not afraid of doing something new. I think if you do something new (and do it well) in relation to what your schedule is use to, then you have an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 23, 2010 23:37:50 GMT -6
Dubber, 1. It's mid-May. Can you and your staff learn this new system in time? 2. Do you have a Plan B? You said that only one or two teams on the schedule can handle serious pressure? How about the playoffs? Do you have something for them? 3. Are all involved parties- HC, OC, and DC- really ready to play track meets? I think that when people consider the "somebody's fixin' to score" they envision themself scoring. Are all of you really ready for what happens when it's the other guy? Will you stick with it after a 45-42 loss? The worst thing you can do is go balls to the wall on something and change mid-season. 4. Are there a lot of teams that have had sustained success with this philosophy? I know that some have but how many? I'm not trying to talk you out of it but these are some of the practical questions that you have to answer. Phantom, those are all worthy considerations. First off, I'm not in a decision making position (at least in terms of team philosophy......my HC would probably not go for this.........maybe he would........ This is all theory. I have to move this from the thinking realm to the practical realm in order to answer your other questions: I would only suggest/implement this if I was the HC. Unless I have the authority to make everyone get on board, it won't float. My DC would understand the situation going into the season.......and he will accept the defense's role in the vision for the program, or he won't be my DC. The only point I don't care about is the success or failure of other teams who have tried this approach. I think that isn't a good indicator of how well something will work, and I'm not afraid of doing something new. I think if you do something new (and do it well) in relation to what your schedule is use to, then you have an advantage. That's the thing. It's not new. The first time I heard the phrase "Somebody's fixin' to score" was from Bobby Bowden's Florida State teams in the late '70s. Since it's established that this is not revolutionary my question stands: has anybody won over a long period of time playing this way?
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 24, 2010 5:11:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 24, 2010 11:32:55 GMT -6
John, It's that kind of radical thinking I'm talking about. Have an insane, unorthodox philosophy across the board. Offense-----hurry up, no huddle........2 minute offense the entire game Defense----sending massive pressure, trying to stress all 11 guys, short drives ending one of three ways. Kick-off----multiple on-sides Punt--------never Return Game-----big emphasis, best skill players returning That is a crazy way to play football..........it's very different. And you know, it is a formula to get yourself down 28-0 in the first quarter......I guess your philsophy is you have the pieces in place to make a comeback, and that the pressure, the unorthodox manner in which you approach the game, will pan itself out over the course of 48 minutes. You would have to place a BIG emphasis on sudden change for your defense.......it would be a matter of pride........your OL coach has to build that culture of "we know who gets the job done", and in this philosophy, your DC needs to build the same philosophy with his kids....... "Hey, our dumb@$$ HC just gave their offense the ball back in the red zone, now we have to bail them out, let's go save the day!" Not saying I would ever do this (if I even ever have a chance to set policy like that), but it is interesting to think about.......
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 24, 2010 11:48:28 GMT -6
The thing is, Wins are the only way to justify such lunacy! I watched 3 of the best teams in OH this past Dec in the state finals run 2 or 3 plays over and over an over and over until eventually one broke for a TD. They played the field postition game and punted and played great defense and offensively were very boring. All 3 won state titles. They had the talent to probably play any style they wanted but they played to JUST win!
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 24, 2010 12:49:38 GMT -6
The thing is, Wins are the only way to justify such lunacy! I watched 3 of the best teams in OH this past Dec in the state finals run 2 or 3 plays over and over an over and over until eventually one broke for a TD. They played the field postition game and punted and played great defense and offensively were very boring. All 3 won state titles. They had the talent to probably play any style they wanted but they played to JUST win! Agreed.....the whole idea is to win, and a coach would have to be convinced this lunacy would give his team the best chance to win. Lots of ways to skin a cat.......the traditional way is with a knife.......this way is like sticking a garden hose up it's butt and waiting for it to explode..........
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on May 24, 2010 19:59:23 GMT -6
Dubber, You are totally and completely crazy. I love it. This is an awesome thread. You're giving us some good things to think about.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 25, 2010 16:40:23 GMT -6
Dubber, You are totally and completely crazy. I love it. This is an awesome thread. You're giving us some good things to think about. Phantom is right, none of this original.......I just wonder what it would be like to live like this........ BTW, as I understand it, the phrase "somebody's fixin' to score" comes from Bobby Bowden. He was refering to being aggressive when you are in a "Coming Out" situation (backed up against your own endzone), because the odds are if you punt out of your endzone, the opponent will score based on the good field position they will have........ So, instead of being conservative and running 3 times a punting, it makes more sense (from Coach Bowden's perspective) to try get a chunk of yardage.
|
|