|
|
Post by blb on Jun 13, 2011 12:10:39 GMT -6
A lot of us, when extolling the virtues of our Offense or Defense, describe it as "easy (to learn) and simple."
What exactly does that mean? One formation, four runs and two passes? One front, one coverage?
Going into my 37th year coaching, I no longer believe simple is always better.
The game has progressed and gotten so varied in approaches hard to be "easy and simple" and successful.
If you're too simple on Offense the Defense will zero in on you.
And by the same token if Offense always knows where you're going to be on Defense, they can pick you apart.
I'm old school enough I still worry about having too much, especially on Offense, but wonder where the line has moved to.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 13, 2011 12:21:29 GMT -6
Great question blb.
I think most replies will convey that you need to be able to strike, and counter strike. So obviously those things need to be in the offensive and defensive structures.
However, I think the line has now moved to a place where you need to have enough flexibility to create--ok, here comes the hated buzzword--matchups that are to your advantage. I think you need to be able to exploit weaker links on other teams within your system.
I also think multiple post snap reads/reactions are necessary. As you stated, if the offense knows where you will be, they will just pick you apart. I don't know that you can win a CHAMPIONSHIP by saying "Ok, we are going to line up like this, play cover 3 , and do it very well". You might be able to have a successful season, and win 7 or 8 games, but I no longer believe that is a championship blue print.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 13, 2011 12:24:03 GMT -6
I think that there are a lot of factors involved coach.
1. Platooning kids and staff- you double the amount of practice time each kids gets and you can install more offense. I'm not saying DOUBLE the offense but more.
2. Your staff- if your staff is seasoned you can do more. Gotta pull stuff back if they're green. There is a lot that I would love to do offensively and defensively but the staff is just too inexperienced to get it done. They're good guys and good coaches for their age but I could overload them in a hurry if I'm not careful. It has made me a better coach because I can't take anything for granted. I can't assume that they know what I'm talking about when I say "we're going to trap that DT".
3. Finding that fine line between being sound and grab bagging it. We can toss in a lot of wrinkles off of our 2-3 base series and stay pretty sound. In fact, we could damn near double our playbook by tinkering around with the basic stuff. We'd be just fine as long as the base blocking schemes don't change. But, again, it's all what my guys can coach. I need to focus my attention on the OL and I can't be bouncing around and micromanaging. And, unfortunately, that is something I would have to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 13, 2011 12:41:15 GMT -6
I've grown up in a coaching climate where film work is an expected part of the job, AND the internet deseminates information like never before.
Back when coaches were on islands (save a weekend clinic or two), they had to come up with a way to stop that veer team across town on their own.
Now, they can come here and start a thread and get feedback from dozens of coaches. They can upload game film and have it broken down.
In short, they can evolve more quickly than in previous years.
When information was type set and carried around by guys on horses, new ideas and concepts took a LONG time to take root and change behavior.
Now, it takes an hour for an idea to go viral.......
So, relying SOLELY on execution is no longer an option (though don't misunderstand me, execution MUST be the foundation upon which the house is built)...........
No, you must stress a defense in multiple ways (or, add flexibility to your defensive structure) in order to make hay.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jun 13, 2011 13:27:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 13, 2011 13:44:52 GMT -6
That's a great way to put it, Jerry. I've seen a lot of relatively simple offenses and defenses that the coaches have made more complicated than it needs to be by using a ton of exceptions, or using unrelated terminology, or a lot of different ways to do the same thing. Our job as coaches is to take the complicated and make it seem simple. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 13, 2011 14:05:53 GMT -6
You were right, jg. Thanks for posting the link. |
|
|
|
Post by hamerhead on Jun 13, 2011 14:12:14 GMT -6
I once read a post on here where Coach Huey mentioned that "Simple offenses are simple to stop". I agree totally, and I think the same is true (though slightly less so) for defenses.
The key is "simple to learn". When you look at our offense big picture, is it simple? Hell no. But I'd like to think that it was fairly easy for the kids to learn, when properly taught at a reasonable pace, grounded in logic, and practiced appropriately.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 13, 2011 14:57:11 GMT -6
Follow-up:
In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less.
And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise.
I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill.
Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint?
So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail?
And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber?
The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 13, 2011 15:57:08 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. Tubby Raymond used to talk about the principle of "Level of Risk". Simply stated, it means that when game-planning you need to evaluate your personnel vs theirs. That evaluation should dictate your game plan. If your players are a lot better than theirs you need to take fewer chances. If theirs are better you need to take more chances. Taking chances defensively involves calculated risk which means depending more on the game plan, making checks more necessary. That makes things more complex. You're right, though, in that superior teams have to be careful not to get too used to playing vanilla. I once heard a rodeo saying: "Ain't a horse can't be rode. Ain't a man can't be throwed". You'd better be ready and able to up the ante when necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 13, 2011 20:48:30 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. The logic is flawed if you assume the lesser athlete has a 'lesser' grasp on the fundamentals. Sometimes this just isn't the case. I think we have all coached some real studs that weren't as fundamentally sound as some of the other kids under them in the depth chart. But let's assume all things are equal and look at the following example. We have a sophomore who is a very, very good back for us. He's fast, elusive, strong, physical and fundamentally sound. We moved the ball well with him; 25 carries a game and most of them came off of Buck Sweep, Buck Power, and Counter. However, he went down with an injury and we found out we had to expand on our package. The guys beneath him were sound but they just weren't as athletic. We still put up points without him but we had to spread the ball around a lot more while dipping deeper into our playbook. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 13, 2011 22:01:10 GMT -6
Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? Couldn't a "lesser athlete" also just be one that is slower, smaller, or weaker? So what he can/can't do is a relative basis right? For example you could have a senior OL who is Div 1AA level. Weeks 1-4, his fundamentals, technique, skills...all seem right on. Grading out high. Week 5--he plays the kid who will be starting at NG for an SEC school next year. Is his technique now "worse"? Did his skills diminish? Is he less fundamentally sound? I am not disputing the contradiction you bring out. It is an interesting dilemma. |
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Jun 13, 2011 22:35:27 GMT -6
I agree with hamerhead.
the biggest thing that makes me consider an offense or defense "easy and simple" is its CONSISTENCY. Common nomenclature, standardized rules, and an effective installation schedule make an offense or defense "easy and simple".
|
|
|
|
Post by jm on Jun 14, 2011 9:42:53 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. At the risk of making this post too fan-boyish; your analysis is particularly apt when looking at the coaching career of Bo Schembechler who ran roughshod with a very simple scheme over the Big 10 in the Big 2 Little 8 era but who struggled mightily against teams with greater or equal talent in OSU and Bowl Games. As someone who grew up in Michigan during the Bo area I found this comment particularly interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jun 14, 2011 15:42:55 GMT -6
A lot of us, when extolling the virtues of our Offense or Defense, describe it as "easy (to learn) and simple." What exactly does that mean?... "Easy to learn": imo this refers to the coaches being on the same page using the same language working towards the same goals and working at staying in synch with each other. "Simple": this entails a structured Install plan whereby the basic structure is taught and the details fleshed out in a logical sequence. The one big factor is that the perceived "ease" and "simplicity" is not held to the level of a coach but kept to the level of the average player in the unit. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jun 14, 2011 17:05:18 GMT -6
That's a great article on that 3backoption blog.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Jun 16, 2011 6:16:35 GMT -6
Another factor of easy and simple is the integrated nature of the content...sequential building block learning takes very basic principles and can apply a great deal of information to them, because of how they are interconnected.
The schemes and systems that are easy and simple have keys and ciphers that unlock quick understanding and application...it doesn't always mean you can't have a lot of ways to do things, you just have to be able to connect the parts in a way that makes a lot of sense.
Not always the easiest thing to do...
|
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jun 16, 2011 7:55:42 GMT -6
I'd be interested to know if Coach Huey's comment that simple O's are simple to defend means schematically, or if he means "easy" with his "simple" comment? Does he mean they are easy to defend? I wouldn't agree with that, not if done right.
But to go back - simple to me means easy for the players to understand. From the player perspective, it means few choices. Few on the spot decisions. They have just a few things to focus on; whatever decisions they have to make in the heat of the game aren't complex, and are few.
Simple is NOT, should not, be easy necessarily to coach. Easy to teach schematically, yes. Easy to coach, no. Easy to defend - no way, not if it's done right.
Simple means that players can focus their time and effort on execution. Fewer things to think about means more ability to focus on those few things. And in ANY team sport, good execution is a difficult to play against.
The second piece of how simple plays out on grass is the coaching, which should actually be hard.
First, it's demanding and difficult to implement and enforce extremely high standards of execution every minute of every practice. But if you're scheme is simple, you better be able to do that.
Second - simple O's CAN theoretically be schematically simple to defend. Because of that, there's more burden on the offensive coach to recognize what the D is doing, and react accordingly. The players don't have a lot of decisions to make, but the coaches DO. It puts the onus on the coach to react and counter.
Take the DW - very simple for the players. Rules are simple, the plays are few. Even with multiple formations, responsibilities tend not to change. Very easy for players to learn and implement. But a b*tch to coach properly, both in the detail and in the play calling. But if coached properly, an even bigger b*tch to defend.
Look, I've been open that I know hoops better than I know football. Take the pick and roll. There isn't a more simple play in basketball. And if done right, it's impossible to defend.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 16, 2011 9:22:10 GMT -6
I think that a "simple" and "easy-to-learn" offense is one in which the coach is completely comfortable...a offense that a coach knows how to implement and teach and manipulate to make the most of his personnel and whatever matchups are presented on gameday.
In regards to me personally, a "simple" and "easy-to-learn" offense is the double wing. I'm going into my 4th year with the offense after having coached it with three different programs. While I am FAR from being an expert and still have a lot to learn about it, my comfort level is very high and I am confident in my ability to teach it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 16, 2011 9:31:05 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. Coach...I think a great analogy would be the Boise State-Oklahoma State Fiesta Bowl game from a few years ago. If Boise State wouldn't have taken the risks they did in that game, OU beats them 10 out of 10 times. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 16, 2011 10:01:33 GMT -6
Your point is well-taken but may be the exception that proves the rule.
Deciding factor in that game may have been more motivation - Oklahoma's disinterest in playing in that bowl that year against a foe not considered "big name" more than Boise's execution of Hook and Ladder and Statue of Liberty plays.
But props to the Bronchos anyway - the game was played the way the game was played, and they won!
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 16, 2011 10:56:27 GMT -6
Many of the highest scoring offenses in the NCAA over the past 5 years tend to have the smallest playbooks. Malzahn, Holgorsen (who apparently installs his entire playbook in 3 days), Leach, etc. From my observations, the offenses finiding success with smaller playbooks tend to be fast pace no-huddle teams. What these teams lose in schematic complexity, they gain in tempo and execution.
|
|
moball
Junior Member
Posts: 254
|
Post by moball on Jun 16, 2011 16:14:34 GMT -6
I've never understood what some people mean when they say that one offense is "easier to defend" then others. Unless you are a rookie defensive coach that doesn't understand the basics of defense (#'s advantages, force and alley players, gap exchanges, pass coverages, etc.) it's all easy to defend on paper and when you go over the scouting report. I listened to an old coach at a clinic one time that summed up defense in a way that has shaped my philosophy ever since. He said, " No matter how you line up, you're going to have someone attempt to block you. So get off the block and make a play!"
Now, I understand that you can make it harder for the offense to block you by blitzing, stunting, stemming, rolling coverages, and a host of other schematic tactics. However, these things typically involve risk. They become a guessing game that, if you take part in it enough, will eventually end up with your guessing right about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. And like another coach once said in a clinic, "When the offense guesses wrong it's 2nd and 13. When the defense guesses wrong we get to listen to THEIR band play the fight song."
With regards to offense, I disagree with the notion that you must be "complex" in this day and age to be successful. What alot of the people that say this really mean, is that they believe you have to be in the shotgun every snap and wear a visor like their favorite college coach. Like a previous poster stated, guys like Gus Malzahn have had loads of success running a small # of plays out of a half dozen formations with a few specials or gadgets worked in each week. And I know there are some spread guys that cringe when you suggest that guys like Malzahn and Urban Meyer run minimalist systems. Face it, that is why they are good. Just like the wing-t, or flexbone, or double wing, or inside/outside zone, or power-I, or SPREAD team in your area that lines up every year and beats every body on their schedule. They win because they install just enough and not one formation or motion or shift more then they absolutely have to to win. Then they line up and knock people down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 16, 2011 18:39:59 GMT -6
some of us might want to re-define what "simple" and "complex" really are.
it is a little more than simply the number of schemes or the number of fronts, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 18, 2011 12:03:27 GMT -6
Some times I think this comes down to the difference between chalk-talk and the reality of execution. I coached a "Rainbow Coalition" team at a camp this week as only one of our guys attended and they put him on a unit with the rest of the orphans. We ran our stuff, including swapping the OL; our quick side does a lot of pulling. The DC of our team pointed out that teams could key on the quick guard (our one guy that showed up) and diagnose the play. He is correct and defenses did so. However, our guy has had so many reps at pulling to kick-out and lead that he out-executed the guys he was responsible for blocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 18, 2011 12:11:39 GMT -6
Lombardi was supposed to have a simple offense. "Distilled" may be a better word. They took out the fat and got very, very good at a few things. If you look at blocking rules it was anything but simple. Every play had options: If they do this, we do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jun 18, 2011 13:30:30 GMT -6
That's a great article on that 3backoption blog. No doubt it is. Great thread here fellas. |
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Jun 21, 2011 21:32:01 GMT -6
#1 is play hard. Period.
#2 is execution.
Then you can get into scheme. Your's must be 'simple' enough to teach and execute, but 'complex' enough to take advantage of what the other team does.
It is that simple, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jul 3, 2011 7:19:59 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. Both of you are correct. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 3, 2011 8:05:36 GMT -6
Follow-up: In the link jgordon posted to Coach Ianucci's article, he quoted Bo Schembechler as saying the better athletes don't have to do as much, they can win doing less. And if a coach has lesser athletes, than in order to have a chance to win, should try to do more scheme-wise. I have seen many guys who had underdog teams try to put in either "gadget" plays or even an "Offense (or Defense) of the Week" only to get beat as bad or worse than if they had played their normal stuff. Tried to win with gimmickry or by "fooling" the other team but could not execute do to lack of familiarity or skill. Here's my problem: Isn't a "lesser athlete" one because of what he can't do from a fundamental, technique, or skill standpoint? So isn't asking them to do more bound to fail? And superior athletes may be able to win, especially against inferior opposition, with basic Football but shouldn't they be able to do more, which will probably be necessary when they meet an opponent of their own caliber? The logic defies me or there's a contradiction there. Both of you are correct. IMO How can that be? Maybe I'm dense (it has been suggested before) but I'm still not sure of answer to original question. I see teams doing a lot more pre-snap movement etc. on Offense, going from 4-man to 3-man lines and using more inricate stunts and blitzes Defensively, more creative in Special Teams than I do-am. Perhaps it's just a coaching problem. |
|
