|
Post by bjohnson on Jun 29, 2010 21:20:56 GMT -6
Our football team has the philosophy that defense wins championships, so the defense gets first choice on athletes, practice time, etc., etc. I should state that our school is not big enough to have two platoons, but we try to as much as we can. I do agree with this philosophy, so I'm not bitching, but I am curious how many other schools follow this same approach or do they favor the offensive side of the ball?
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Jun 29, 2010 22:39:54 GMT -6
As a Defensive Coordinator I obviously agree with you... If that is your identity I see nothing wrong with it; if you win the kids won't care.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 30, 2010 5:29:37 GMT -6
Defense, Kicking Game - then do what you can offensively.
You don't have to neglect one for another (nor should you). During a game week we spend about a half hour more on defense than offense.
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Jun 30, 2010 7:08:54 GMT -6
I think its a very fine line, especially now days because offenses have just gotten so much better. It used to be the case that you could play great defense and special teams and win a low scoring game with a couple of big plays. Now, because offenses seem to score more points, I think you can play great D and Special teams and still come put on the wrong side if you can't also play some O. I still agree that defense wins championships, and I'm a strong believer in the kicking game, but the truth is that this day in age you really have to be able to score some points too. Unless you are just outstanding on defense, typically somebody will score alot on you and at some point you have to answer. Now, I do agree with putting the best 11 on defense, but I kinda dismiss the old school theory of just "getting buy" on offense. My point is, at some point to be a champion, you are going to have to win in all three phases.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 30, 2010 7:17:56 GMT -6
I think its a very fine line, especially now days because offenses have just gotten so much better. Wouldn't that indicate the need to emphasize defense more, not less? Not discounting your contention about importance of being able to score points, because it's true.
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Jun 30, 2010 9:08:38 GMT -6
Yes Blb, because they are better you should emphasize defense, but my point is that you cannot afford to be one dimensional because the offenses are so much better at scoring points, odds are eventually you are going to have to score some yourself.
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Jun 30, 2010 9:11:58 GMT -6
Offense gets the first 3 picks. Defense gets the next 11.
|
|
|
Post by bigm0073 on Jun 30, 2010 9:21:52 GMT -6
I did a study of all of the AAA teams in VA in 2009 that made it to the regional semi-finals..... One win away from being in the final 8....
Here you go:
only one team (four regions - two classifications - 16 teams) gave up more than 20 points per game (they gave up 21).
EVERY TEAM THAT WON THE REGION gave up under 14 points per game.
The state champs gave up under 10 (One team under 6... He is on this board quite often).
Bottom line - If your team gives up 20 points per game or more.. you really are not a championship team. So I would agree with putting the best on defense.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 30, 2010 9:23:32 GMT -6
Despite the overall improvement in offensive football at HS level in last couple decades, my experience is if you can score 21 or more points in a game, you'll win most of the time, at least in our area.
So obviously if you can hold your opponents to 20 or fewer, you should likewise win the majority of your games.
If you can average allowing 14 or less per game, you have a chance for a really good season.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jun 30, 2010 9:48:03 GMT -6
I don't think it's a matter of "putting" your best players on defense when talking about the statistics of those successful teams. To me, the score stats are indicative of the fact that the DEFENSES of those teams are good. There's a key-they have good athletes and they are well coached or they don't go to the state finals. Really? To me, it's like so many statistics that we bundle-up at the end of the year, usually comes down to, "if we'd score more points than the other team-we would have won." A year ago I decided that a formula for winning football came down to two things: Can I block their 3tech, Can they block mine? For years I had 3techs that couldn't be blocked by most anybody we played. And, our oline could handle most everyone we faced. We won lots of games. This past year, I had the least line on both sides I've ever had and...ding ding, we lost lots of games. I believe in a few things, run the ball and stop the run, practice special teams alot, make the offense drive the ball, throw the ball deep, and run misdirection plays. Then the most important thing? The team that makes the least mistakes usually wins. There's a reason that defenses are good in the NFL, they know a few things about the game. OJW
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Jun 30, 2010 12:44:21 GMT -6
Quoting Nick Saban: “There’s an old saying,” he said. “‘You win games on defense and with special teams. You play offense for the crowd. I don’t believe that. Now that these people can light it up and score 40 and 50 points in a heartbeat, that’s not true at all.”
I just feel that your philosophy has to include a plan to win all three phases.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 30, 2010 13:07:44 GMT -6
Quoting Nick Saban: “There’s an old saying,” he said. “‘You win games on defense and with special teams. You play offense for the crowd. I don’t believe that. Now that these people can light it up and score 40 and 50 points in a heartbeat, that’s not true at all.” I just feel that your philosophy has to include a plan to win all three phases. Well, of course. I don't know many (any?) coaches that go into a game and just "wing it" offensively. Our situation is different than Saban's. Alabama can recruit the best players in the nation who play only one side of the ball and have spring practice. I'm coaching kids who play football (not necessarily football players) and whose favorite or best sport may be something else. "You Achieve What You Emphasize." A team should be known for something. Given my choice, I'd like to be known as hard to score on and therefore tough to beat.
|
|
|
Post by bjohnson on Jun 30, 2010 15:41:16 GMT -6
Offense gets the first 3 picks. Defense gets the next 11. At our school the offense gets to pick the QB and the defense gets everyone else.... and then the offense hopes the defense doesn't need the QB!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Jun 30, 2010 17:03:30 GMT -6
i agree 100% here.
even though i am an offensive coach, i have said many times "i think we could use this kid more on defense".
i am a big fan of putting the studs on defense.
|
|
|
Post by bjohnson on Jun 30, 2010 18:54:06 GMT -6
It seems like everyone places the emphasis on the defensive side of the ball.... I would really like to hear from someone who tilts to the offense
|
|
|
Post by jackedup on Jun 30, 2010 20:13:27 GMT -6
As the DC at my school, I would love to adopt this philosophy... instead we have an offensive team philosophy and I am currently sifting through the rest to put together a cohesive defensive unit. But that's one of the reasons I love coaching... the challenge of making things work, and work well.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 1, 2010 19:52:44 GMT -6
Since I'm a DC of course I agree in the importance of playing great defense. I've never seen a championship team in our state that didn't play at least good defense.
However I don't think that the offense has to suffer in favor of the defense. Since we have an offensive and a defensive practice day practice time is equal. We don't platoon so that's not an issue. Our two-way starters are really one and a half way starters because we determine what side of the ball they'll get their breaks. It's not a given that that break will be on offense. That depends on which side of the ball has the better backup.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jul 1, 2010 21:28:06 GMT -6
For two way players, IMO, they should start on defense and play as much as possible on offense, but rest on offense when they need it. For platoon teams, its trickier, generally speaking I'll favor brains and kids with fundamental football skills over pure athleticism on offense and put the more pure athletes on defense excluding the QB.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on Jul 2, 2010 6:26:10 GMT -6
what about special teams? Agree with Phantom (despite his being a dark side guy) about where they get their rests...who has the best back up makes a lot of sense. Also , depends on how the game is going and where you need him most.
Now about special teams..my wise old mentor said not to give them a rest on specials if they are a 60 minute player...many do just that...his thinking was that we are more likely to get hurt on specials by a big play without our best in there.he would rather take them out for a series on O or D according to the Phantom rule. Agree?
By the way, if you get a converted hockey player, he goes on D for sure.
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Jul 2, 2010 7:10:51 GMT -6
Now about special teams..my wise old mentor said not to give them a rest on specials if they are a 60 minute player...many do just that...his thinking was that we are more likely to get hurt on specials by a big play without our best in there.he would rather take them out for a series on O or D according to the Phantom rule. Agree?. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 2, 2010 8:33:33 GMT -6
Now about special teams..my wise old mentor said not to give them a rest on specials if they are a 60 minute player...many do just that...his thinking was that we are more likely to get hurt on specials by a big play without our best in there.he would rather take them out for a series on O or D according to the Phantom rule. Agree? quote] We try to rest our two way guys on STs if we can. Obviously you can't do that if he's specialist (kicker, snapper, returner). Frequently, though, the two way guys want to play STs so we accomodate them.
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jul 2, 2010 12:01:26 GMT -6
I am a defensive guy! Coach Dline.
When it comes to bigs; Oline gets first choice. I'll take the "left overs" or covert bigger Lbers to Dline. We need a great Oline in order to move the chains. If the offense is moving the ball, the less time we spend on defense.
We are a bigger school and are goal is to 2 platoon everywhere possible. We always have 1 to 3 super studs that end up gong both ways. Our super studs BIGS are never 2 way kids. They don't have the stamina to go both ways in the trenches and be fully effective. Our best Oline who like to play defense, get in the rotation, after they get done meeting with the Oline coach and get their air back. If we are playing the way we should, I don't need them and they get very little action, in really tough games they get in the rotation.
We also find that there are some BIG players that have a more aggressive/physical mentality; we want them on defense. Frankly it is easier to coach offense to our bigs who can think and aren't likely to make mistakes because they simply want to knock the pi$$ outta someone.
In my experience same holds true for receivers and DB's. We have a lot of faster skill kids that don't have the full concentration and hands to make great receivers. Get pi$$ed off about your shortcomings; move over to defense and you get the opportunity to get after it.
Players mentality has a lot to do with it.
We had a good QB a few years back that really liked to stick people on defense, but it is rare for us.
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jul 2, 2010 12:03:01 GMT -6
I like to use our special teams as a place to get some of our less experienced players some time it also helps them develop and when you call on them to step into a role on O or D they are more prepared as they have seen some game reps.
|
|
|
Post by gunrun on Jul 3, 2010 6:17:38 GMT -6
I am a defensive guy! Coach Dline. When it comes to bigs; Oline gets first choice. I'll take the "left overs" or covert bigger Lbers to Dline. We need a great Oline in order to move the chains. If the offense is moving the ball, the less time we spend on defense. We are a bigger school and are goal is to 2 platoon everywhere possible. We always have 1 to 3 super studs that end up gong both ways. Our super studs BIGS are never 2 way kids. They don't have the stamina to go both ways in the trenches and be fully effective. Our best Oline who like to play defense, get in the rotation, after they get done meeting with the Oline coach and get their air back. If we are playing the way we should, I don't need them and they get very little action, in really tough games they get in the rotation. We also find that there are some BIG players that have a more aggressive/physical mentality; we want them on defense. Frankly it is easier to coach offense to our bigs who can think and aren't likely to make mistakes because they simply want to knock the pi$$ outta someone. In my experience same holds true for receivers and DB's. We have a lot of faster skill kids that don't have the full concentration and hands to make great receivers. Get pi$$ed off about your shortcomings; move over to defense and you get the opportunity to get after it. Players mentality has a lot to do with it. We had a good QB a few years back that really liked to stick people on defense, but it is rare for us. I never thought about that, but I like the philosophy about having the best big guys on Offense for the OL. The simple reason is that you can't put five fat, sloppy, and sorry guys on the OL and expect to move the ball consistently on Offense, no matter what you run and no matter what you have at the skill positions. Plus, as many of the great defensive coaches on here can shared recently, you can get by on DL with one stud and some undersized guys who are quick, strong, and play with great technique. I think I may still put my best stud big guy on Defense and then let the next five best go to OL.
|
|
|
Post by td4tc on Jul 3, 2010 9:33:54 GMT -6
reminds me of a pretty funny (exc for Oline guys) quote found on this site.. you want to recruit D Lineman, cause if they don't work out you can always convert them to O line..if you recruit O Lineman and they don't work out all you've got is a bunch of fat managers.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Jul 6, 2010 18:51:33 GMT -6
Ha Ha...true story 4d4tc
|
|
|
Post by champ93 on Jul 7, 2010 13:51:33 GMT -6
We tend to do as Coachsky does with a Phantom twist.
Best big guys play O-line and may be part of a D-line rotation. If I have 2 kids that are equal on O-line, we determine who the starter is by not starting the better defensive player (assuming he starts or is very regular).
Other positions are 1 1/2 players--which side of the ball do they rest mentality.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 7, 2010 14:04:59 GMT -6
I would prefer our offensive linemen start only one way, but we can't always afford to do it with some.
Everyone else is fair game, including for special teams.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jul 7, 2010 14:24:23 GMT -6
Since I'm a DC of course I agree in the importance of playing great defense. I've never seen a championship team in our state that didn't play at least good defense. However I don't think that the offense has to suffer in favor of the defense. Since we have an offensive and a defensive practice day practice time is equal. We don't platoon so that's not an issue. Our two-way starters are really one and a half way starters because we determine what side of the ball they'll get their breaks. It's not a given that that break will be on offense. That depends on which side of the ball has the better backup. I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by coachplaa on Jul 8, 2010 7:06:44 GMT -6
We have always been a two-platoon team but this year are a bit light on players. We play a 3-3-5 scheme on defense, so we are doing something a bit different. We are asking all O-Line to learn the Nose technique, and spend 10 minutes on it in practice everyday. We are also putting all of our Tailback kids on defense, and then they work Tailback 10 minutes everyday. I agree with putting the best kids on defense, and I would also put those same kids on Punt & Kickoff units. I think offense is so much about execution and assignment, that you can get away with being a little less athletic.
|
|