|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 8:35:08 GMT -6
A common statement from fans,cheap seaters, recliner coordinators, and daddy ballers. Hey, they don't know, they never will.
But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football.
Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule?
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Jul 15, 2007 9:26:43 GMT -6
d-50, I think a lot of guys who say something "won't work" at higher levels, may mean, that the fans, players, owners, alumni, whatever, won't allow it a chance to work, rather than some technical football scheme reason? Heck, they probably said the same thing about the forward pass back in the day before there was a PI rule? As long as a system is fundamentally sound within the modern rules of football, anything can work, anywhere to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 15, 2007 9:28:09 GMT -6
I have found that these type of comments usually come from spread coaches that think they have re-invented the wheel. That and some people just think they're smarter than everyone else.
Pay no attention to them. Run what works for you and let them keep thinking you're some simpleton while you kick their butts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2007 9:49:00 GMT -6
I think any scheme can work at any level if it is properly coached and fits the strengths of the athletes. I just got done posting some info on the Diamond T/inverted bone. Mt. Vernon has had good success with it the past two seasons and they are a borderline 5A/6A school in IL. Not the biggest, but I would consider that a high level of ball!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 9:57:02 GMT -6
A common statement from fans,cheap seaters, recliner coordinators, and daddy ballers. Hey, they don't know, they never will. But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football. Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule? well, as a Pa. coach and dw promoter, I can tell you that I hear that all of the time. I heard it about the single wing and now I hear it about the double wing. Its just stupid. To think that the dw or sw wont work in Pa or at the HS level in pa is just ignorant. Heres the typical way it goes... a) that wont work at the high school level yes, but team xyz has used it to win such and such state championship and so many games b) but that wont work in Pa football, Pa is one of the best football states in the country...yadda yadda yadda yes but so and so and also such and such used it and both made the playoffs last year, only two teams in the state to run it and both made the playoffs... c) oh, but they dont run it at the AAAA level... actually, they run it at the AAA level against AAAA competition etc... d) but if its so good why doesnt any Division I college team run it? why dont "the pros run it?' lol!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 15, 2007 10:05:23 GMT -6
I think it a lot of guys just need more experience against various schemes.
A few years ago, I thought the Wing T was a joke; faced it several times and always wrecked it. None of the teams were coached very well and we rolled them repeatedly.
Then came the butt-whoppin......
We played a Wing T team that was undersized and under talented; I figured we'd maul them for four quarters. They put a beating on us; they just flat out executed us on several very simple play schemes. We were solid and fundamentally sound on defense, but they were very well coached and the OC was a patient play caller.
I used to be the same way against spread units; then we played a good Air Raid unit that hung 45 points on us with mesh and bubble screen. Once again- we were good, they were good, but they were well coached and executed their game plan very well. It was a great game, we lost 45-42; a great showcase of Air Raid versus SBV.
I have respect for every scheme out there; I have faced a lot of different offenses and have run several different schemes myself. This year, it looks like I am going to be starting over again; probably going to run the SG option, something I have never done. The new HC I am working for wants me to install it at the freshman and sophomore levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 15, 2007 10:11:55 GMT -6
I have found that these type of comments usually come from spread coaches that think they have re-invented the wheel. That and some people just think they're smarter than everyone else. Pay no attention to them. Run what works for you and let them keep thinking you're some simpleton while you kick their butts. Guilty as charged... Now let me tell you why I am right.  I'm a big fan of many schemes, from true DW to Shotgun Spread... however, the one thing that has become very apparent, is that the higher up you go in football levels, the only thing that changes, is'nt the proficiency of the offenses, but the execution of the defenses. Take for instance professional football. Eveyone wonders why certain offenses aren't ran... its because at the pro level, you can stop the run with a 3 man front. 3 professional defensive linemen, can basically put the kabash on the run. Similarly, in collegiate ball, 4 men fronts are usually more than enough, to make it a hard thing to run the ball consistently. High School ball... land of the 50... and sure, we have our 4 fronts and 3 man fronts, but they aren't like the professional defenses, they are loaded in the box with 7 and 8 men, even if they are only showing 3 to 4 up front. So back to the point... great executing offenses, when confronted by highly talented defenses, find it a tough thing in HS, to run the ball efficiently. Similarly in college, where you recruit your talent... running the ball is never a gimmie, and hence the pass has to be used to set up the run. Option games don't exist anymore, because READS are so fast, that they can show you pull, and still make a play on the pitch. Not to mention, second level blocks are entirely too difficult on the skill in the LB corps and the secondary. You guys can get all flustered you want... call those who don't believe as you do, all the names you want... But its true... MANY systems won't work at the higher LEVELS. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 10:38:04 GMT -6
coachd5058 is the man.
however, I think I disagree here and it may be semantics.
ANY scheme works when it is well coached.
Not every philosophy works.
Unless you have superior athletes that can roll your conference on their own, then some "youth" mindsets do not apply (IMO).
You will face a myriad of different defenses & offenses at the higher levels.
Is the reverse true? Is there only things that work at the higher levels that won't work at the lower levels?
I don't believe you can sit in one defense/offensive series at higher levels unless you are physically superior. You can coach them up all you want and perfect it, but if you don't have another move besides the "one-two" punch you are going to get beat against better competition (higher levels).
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 10:56:56 GMT -6
Just to be clear...i was referring to the higher levels of H.S football. Not college or NFL.
I agree with the NFL observations that Khalfie made regarding defensive line play in the NFL (although he is wrong in trying to differentiate the 50 and the 30 and 40 and 7 or 8 in the box...In the nfl, it is about responsibilities, not alignments)
Option games don't exist anymore? I guess Navy has been imaginary lately.
As far as the statement "great executing offenses find it hard against talented defenses", I would have to say that great executing offenses do a LOT BETTER AGAINST TALENTED DEFENSES THAN POORLY EXECUTED OFFENSES.
Khalfie, why is your post written with the underlying assumption that it is all run based?
Brophy, you are right on the money with your assertion, but I was careful (or at least I thought I was careful) not to mention philosophy. That was the "ground pound discussion" talking about ground pounders, and failure to develop the quarterback position.
I agree that if you say "we are going to just run over everyone", then you will have difficulty once another team is as physical as you are.
I was talking 100% about schemes. About the COACHES that say "The wing-T is easy to defend" or "You can't win in the top class in this state running the dbl wing (which is oddly enough a "modern" offense) You need to run the super-uber-urbin meyer-can't-possibly be-stopped-by-anyone-anywhere-because-it-is--so-wickedly awesome offense in the top class to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 15, 2007 11:01:13 GMT -6
coachd5058 is the man. however, I think I disagree here and it may be semantics. ANY scheme works when it is well coached. Not every philosophy works. Unless you have superior athletes that can roll your conference on their own, then some "youth" mindsets do not apply (IMO). You will face a myriad of different defenses & offenses at the higher levels. Is the reverse true? Is there only things that work at the higher levels that won't work at the lower levels? I don't believe you can sit in one defense/offensive series at higher levels unless you are physically superior. You can coach them up all you want and perfect it, but if you don't have another move besides the "one-two" punch you are going to get beat against better competition (higher levels). Those are some very valid points also. At the Collegiate and professional levels, the football IQ's are much higher... coaching has become more focused and specific, many times position coaches are introduced for the first time. With that being the case, the alignment and assignment button gets turned on... reading the keys and recognizing the pass become second nature. Misdirection doesn't hold the value it holds with the undisciplined. Even at the high school levels, the more the talent level increases, the less misdirection holds value, the less option causes conflicts, and goalline offenses sufferer greatly, because the closer that talent aligns together, the better team defense they play... That's all I'm sayin'... I'm just sayin' |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 15, 2007 11:18:55 GMT -6
There are not many Wing-T, DW, or smashmouth teams playing 7A or 8A ball in Illinois, but I think that has a lot more to do with the pressure on coaches at those levels to be Urban Meyer. Fact is, most fans watch more NFL and college football than high school football and on Friday nights, they expect to see the same things they see on Saturday and Sunday. I also think that at big public high schools (2,000+ students), parents think that their kids are all going to the Big Ten and the high school coaches have a responsibility to run an offense that will prepare them for playing in college.  |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 11:19:01 GMT -6
I have to add.....that none of this is a 'bad thing' - it is what it is, that is the nature of the beast.
Youth ball may not involve as much, but it is just as important and valid. It is the difference between go-carts and CART racing to NASCAR to INDY in terms of the caliber of the instrument (athlete) you are working with.
Youth ball you can run 4-5 plays a counter and a pair of play action passes and roll.
4 hours of practice a week for youth
10 hours of practice a week for HS (+take-home, off-season, and summer work) - I think you're going to find a greater capacity for deviance between the two
That (shouldn't) work at higher levels because defenses CAN digest all that in a day.
Youth defenses really aren't all that proficient in; getting off blocks, pass protecting, throwing various passes, adjustments on coverage reads, prowling coverage on defense, covering zones, covering man.....
these are basic fundamental things that have been perfected at the higher levels......so naturally the nature of the game would be pretty much different.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 11:45:18 GMT -6
A common statement from fans,cheap seaters, recliner coordinators, and daddy ballers. Hey, they don't know, they never will. But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football. Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule? b) but that wont work in Pa football, Pa is one of the best football states in the country...yadda yadda yadda I have never heard this before. I usually hear Texas, Louisiana, Florida, California when mentioning the best in the country. But any who, I will stick my neck out, because frankly I dont care. First off, its not really the systems that wont work, but rather the mentalities. ( I think some great philosopher already said this.. maybe Sir Brophian?) Anyway, I personally think its more of a defensive thought more than anything.. Being that most youth teams only run the ball you can get away with a 46 Gambler or 10-1 defense. But at the high school level that wont hold water across the board. If I had 330lbs linemen across the board and a 220lb QB who ran a 4.4 then I could line up and run QB sneak all night and beat most teams by 30. But when all talent is equal or close.. you cannot run the 46 Gambler or the 10-1 and be successful all year long. Point in case. We played a team this past year who the previous year had went undefeated in district and had only lost a couple of close games that season. They ran the Old Split 6. They were cover 0 and cover 1 most of the time. Well this past season they were rocking a long with only 1 loss which came to a pretty good Wing-T team. Then they got to us. We had been passing the ball very well and we hung 42 on them. Our sophomore QB put up 362 yards and 5tds on them. You know when they decided to go to a zone and get away from straight man? Start of the 4th when it was already 42-3. We were no where near more talented across the board.. we just had a receiver or two that they could not cover man to man.. At these higher levels you are not always going to have 2-5 guys who are great coverage guys who can stick with the offense. Sure you can do good against the running teams.. or even the teams who only send 1 or 2 guys out in a route.. and yes, I used "across the board" far too many times in this post, and I am sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 15, 2007 11:45:40 GMT -6
Personally, I don't care what the media or the fans think about what we're doing on offense. They've never picked up a clip board, gone to a clinic or just simply sat around and chatted with coaches like we don on this website.
The bottom line is the Ws; are you winning football games? We've all won football games consistently with every type of offense imaginable; Calande and Knighter with double wing, Huey, Sls, and Tog with various spread offenses, Coachjaz, blb, and myself with SBV. The list goes on and on and on...
Navy/Georgia Southern style option wins a lot of football games at the D1 level; as does the Texas Tech Air Raid and Urban Meyers SG option. Smash mouth I formation football has been great to the Big Ten programs for a lot of years.
The two ingredients here are simple; we all teach fundamentally sound football and adapt our scheme to what we have (GET THE BALL TO THE STUDS!!!). When you have these two things going for you; you win football games with whatever you're running.
We've all gotten beaten by every scheme imaginable and on the flip side we've won a lot of games with all kinds of schemes.
The quicker people (even those guys on this board) realize that it all breaks down to fundamentals and being adaptive, the better coaches they are all going to be.
Arguing over what will and won't work in the NFL is pointless because chances are we're not going to see most of the college level schemes at the NFL level. We can't prove or disprove the point because it's all theoretical; we haven't seen it played out on the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 15, 2007 11:50:19 GMT -6
But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football.
Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule?
I do not care if coaches on other staffs have that belief- I only care that my coaches do not (and if I look for a job, the hiring AD does not). Having been a HC in the largest classification in a state (6 yrs.) and the smallest (4 yrs.), from my perspective, the (simple, 2TE, 3 back run-oriented) offense we ran at the small school worked just as well in big school as it has in the small school.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 15, 2007 11:51:31 GMT -6
Yesterday, I was watching the Texas USC National Championship from 2006 or maybe it was 2005, where Vince Young had that amazing fourth quarter.
What was interesting to me, is how many plays USC ran with pulling linemen and Wing and slot backs. It was also interesting how far back the USC offensive linemen were off of the ball. There were many things in that game which seemed somewhat related to the Wing-T. In fact USC lived on an old single wing play in that game. Fake counter dive to the slot or the TE roll to him and throw him the football.
Moreover, Texas' sweep play out of doubles is very similar to buck sweep out of a TE wing set, the only difference is the TE and wing are lined up in doubles and there is no three step motion. And what about dive sally? There were several times where the QB draw was set up just like sally.
So, I think when people believe that there are things that cannot be run at the next level, to me seems like they are simply not seeing the trees from the forest.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 15, 2007 11:55:00 GMT -6
The last time I ran a "true" scheme (not bastardized) was with the SBV; we ran that exactly as it was originally laid out by Yeoman.
This year, if I do end up installing the SG option, we will have concepts from several different schemes; Wing T, veer, WCO, Air Raid screens, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 15, 2007 12:02:50 GMT -6
In HS, it is the Jimmies and Joes...and how well you coach them. Then having ENOUGH tools in your offensive and defensive toolbox to deal with adjustments and what not.
There is always the fad offense that some people jump on. Remember the split back veer used to be a new offense and coaches were probably skeptical about trying it out. In our conference, which is 4A-5A (two largest in our state) we have the following:
double slot/I option
wing-t with lots of jet
splitback veer
Pro I/oneback
fullhouse
wing-t
Split back/I option
double tight wing-t
Every team except one of the wing-t teams had at least a .500 record.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:06:47 GMT -6
But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football.
Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule?I do not care if coaches on other staffs have that belief- I only care that my coaches do not (and if I look for a job, the hiring AD does not). Having been a HC in the largest classification in a state (6 yrs.) and the smallest (4 yrs.), from my perspective, the (simple, 2TE, 3 back run-oriented) offense we ran at the small school worked just as well in big school as it has in the small school. Thank you, the double wing and single wing and wing T all work fantastic when coached well, with great play calling even at the bigger schools. some guys really think that just because they have 60 kids and 8 staff that they are coaching at a higher level than someone with 5 staff and 35 kids. Stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 15, 2007 12:07:24 GMT -6
Funny thing; last year the WORST team in our division was a Wing T unit. The team that one the state title; a Wing T team.
One unit gets walked all over game in and game out (not sound on either side of the ball) the other one rolls people every Friday night. It is about the Jimmies and Joes, but it also has a whole lot to do with the fact that one team is fundamentally sound, the other one isnt.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 12:09:44 GMT -6
coachcb--I agree with you on worrying about what the fans say. Like I said in my first line, they don't know, and most never will know.
What I am really shocked by is that I see more and more coaches starting to model this mentality.
Air-- Defense is a bit different, as it is reactionary. You probably don't want to play a defense against 10 personnel in the same manner (key phrase) as you would play it against 32 personnel. That has NOTHING to do with "levels"
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:12:45 GMT -6
Also, for those of you that think you cant win at the higher levels running one look...think tony dungy and how he and his entire coaching branch have preeched simplicity. they were just on nfl network recently discussing the tampa two and how they reduce and reduce and reduce to simplify on both sides of the ball when things arent going well. they do not try to do more to compete, its about doing more with less.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:23:02 GMT -6
simple AND sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 12:24:55 GMT -6
Also, for those of you that think you cant win at the higher levels running one look...think tony dungy and how he and his entire coaching branch have preeched simplicity. they were just on nfl network recently discussing the tampa two and how they reduce and reduce and reduce to simplify on both sides of the ball when things arent going well. they do not try to do more to compete, its about doing more with less.
I agree about being simple, but Dungy is just a humble guy who knows this isn't rocket science.
how much true cover-2 do you see the Bucs running here in the Super Bowl run?
[gvid]9093198244623128204[/gvid]
Maybe I'm wrong, but if you know I'm going to run only run "X" on Friday night, how many ways can you come up with and perfect at victimizing me in "X"?
At the youth level, kids sit still, stay blocked, you don't see a whole lot of variation........higher level, you have much more to over come besides just raw talent. Naturally, you'd better have an answer besides just a good frustrated butt-chewing on the sideline. |
|
|
|
Post by falcon661 on Jul 15, 2007 12:29:20 GMT -6
There are several of us in Texas that run a 4 back double tight offense and believe in it. We can also move in to trips and some other sets but as far as the offense we are predominantly double tight. We had two great backs, one was a D1 and the other a D2 guy, we lost both to ACL injuries before district and went two rounds in the playoffs because of the system. There were at least 5 games this year where we had over 80 offensive snaps, and two games over 90 snaps. I had a little trouble believing in the double wing because no one ran it in high school in Texas until I saw Joaquin(Wyatt version) in East Texas on film and they believe in it. It is a small school but they are usually ranked in the top 10 every year. I like the simplicity of the double wing and I am researching it at the moment. I love power football
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:31:15 GMT -6
Also, for those of you that think you cant win at the higher levels running one look...think tony dungy and how he and his entire coaching branch have preeched simplicity. they were just on nfl network recently discussing the tampa two and how they reduce and reduce and reduce to simplify on both sides of the ball when things arent going well. they do not try to do more to compete, its about doing more with less. I agree about being simple, but Dungy is just a humble guy who knows this isn't rocket science. how much true cover-2 do you see the Bucs running here in the Super Bowl run? Maybe I'm wrong, but if you know I'm going to run only run "X" on Friday night, how many ways can you come up with and perfect at victimizing me in "X"? At the youth level, kids sit still, stay blocked, you don't see a whole lot of variation........higher level, you have much more to over come besides just raw talent. Naturally, you'd better have an answer besides just a good frustrated butt-chewing on the sideline. tampa 2 doesnt mean "cover two" according to dungy, that he said, is the common misconception, instead he said, its about "HOW THINGS ARE DONE" ... I bring this up because two guys decided on posting "46 Gambler" in their posts and as the author of the Gambler defense I feel compelled to respond. Its not about an alignment, its about HOW THINGS ARE DONE. Its a multiple stunt defense, not a multiple front defense. I do have enough in the bag without having worries about confusion or miscommunication. I see miscommunication errors happen at ALL LEVELS of football which makes ME think that some coaches are OVER COACHING and confusing their kids. Communication and alignment errors are way too common. id rather take my chances of actually having athletes whip us. Im not GIVING them anything because my kids a) know how and where to line up b) know how to play the technique and assignment and c) everyone knows what the other guy is doing without a bunch of communication on the field. i guess If im around long enough to win a few hundred games my ideas will carry some validity. simple and sound. _ |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:36:17 GMT -6
Oh yeah, and we all know unless you coach at a huge AAAAAAAA school that you cant possibly know anything about the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 12:39:15 GMT -6
I agree about being simple, but Dungy is just a humble guy who knows this isn't rocket science. how much true cover-2 do you see the Bucs running here in the Super Bowl run? Maybe I'm wrong, but if you know I'm going to run only run "X" on Friday night, how many ways can you come up with and perfect at victimizing me in "X"? At the youth level, kids sit still, stay blocked, you don't see a whole lot of variation........higher level, you have much more to over come besides just raw talent. Naturally, you'd better have an answer besides just a good frustrated butt-chewing on the sideline. tampa 2 doesnt mean "cover two" according to dungy, that he said, is the common misconception, instead he said, its about "HOW THINGS ARE DONE" ... I bring this up because two guys decided on posting "46 Gambler" in their posts and as the author of the Gambler defense I feel compelled to respond. Its not about an alignment, its about HOW THINGS ARE DONE. Its a multiple stunt defense, not a multiple front defense. I do have enough in the bag without having worries about confusion or miscommunication. I see miscommunication errors happen at ALL LEVELS of football which makes ME think that some coaches are OVER COACHING and confusing their kids. Communication and alignment errors are way too common. id rather take my chances of actually having athletes whip us. Im not GIVING them anything because my kids a) know how and where to line up b) know how to play the technique and assignment and c) everyone knows what the other guy is doing without a bunch of communication on the field. i guess If im around long enough to win a few hundred games my ideas will carry some validity. simple and sound. _ But isnt your defense based on manning up on everyone and bringing everyone else? Simply stated a cover 0? Havent you also commented on bringing 9 and only covering with 4 allowing a 5th guy to run free and just banking on that QB not being able to find the open guy? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 12:46:58 GMT -6
Well, Airraider, keeping in line with the threads original intent, can you explain why such a system would not work "a high levels" (you are in the second highest class in LA), BUT WOULD work at 1 A or 2A? Isn't it all equal? Wouldn't the 1A team be blitzing and manning up with (and against) less talented players on avg because of #'s and population distribution?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:50:06 GMT -6
No, its not about "manning up and bringing everyone else." though we do some of that on occassion. Most of the time I would say we rush 5. If I find an opportunity to rush 6 and the offense doesnt handle it well i will smartly continue to rush 6. Many of my defensive ideas come from the success of Don markham who is a 300 plus game winner. his 300 wins came in the form of man to man coverages and defenses probably simpler than my own. On one clinic tape I have of his he remarked that he could "probably win 3-4 games every year just by blitzing"- an observation about high school athletes struggling with pre snap reads, pass protection, throwing and catching and in general just disrupting blocking schemes obviously.
Now, as to my " 46 Gambler" defensive package specifically
I would say that if you dont take the time to study the concepts of the defense that you cant give an educated interpretation of it. Yes, we use man to man coverage, yes we use man free and man cover two. We also use 'disguised" coverage in that sometimes we have two safeties and yet are in cover 0 or use two safeties and have two guys double covered or sometimes we use two safeties are have one guy double covered and one free safety or no free safety with a blitz. Its pretty simple and yet is remains sound.
Have I discussed taking a Gamble now and again? absolutely! If a team insists on going empty and running I would be willing to leave someone open. I have no problems doing that and thats why I call my defense "Gambler"...im a gambling man I guess. Its not different from making an agressive move in a game of chess that might lose a piece while creating an attack. Jerry Glanville ran one of the NFLs most dominant defenses gambling like nuts...Im of the Glanville, Buddy Ryan mold. What else can I tell ya.
|
|
