|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 14, 2012 19:59:46 GMT -6
Coaches,
I would argue that the no-huddle, hurry-up, spread offense and the 4-2-5 defense currently represent the pinnacle of football offense and defense (Note: I am referring to the style of spread offense operated by Dana Holgorsen, and the style of 4-2-5 operated by Gary Patterson).
Why has it taken so long for them to become commonplace? Both require a certain type of personnel, with the 4-2-5 especially requiring intelligent players, so it's not like you can just install the DH spread and 4-2-5 and watch the trophy case fill up...With that said, both make a ton of sense given you have the personnel to run them. The DH offense:
-Forces the defense to defend the entire field
-Puts defenders in a bind by presenting them with 1 pass concept and 1 run concept on the same play (Packaged concepts)
-Allows the offense to play option football with the passing game without the complexity of the Run n' Shoot (Packaged concepts)
-Creates uncertainty for the defense in terms of where the football is likely to be distributed
-Stresses the defense to the point of breaking, then exploits the defense's broken-down state
-Makes it easier to run the ball due to the defense being forced to reduce numbers in the box
-It makes the defensive structure and the defense's intentions much more obvious pre-snap
-Increases your recruiting base by creating roles for "track stars" and basketball players that traditionally would not have came near the field, let alone actually play. This is especially important on the public high school level where your recruiting base is limited to the student population.
The 4-2-5 defense:
-Provides an answer for almost any problem the opposing offense tries to present
-Personnel flexibility (Some may argue that personnel flexibility comes first before the scheme, and I basically agree, but I will say this, the 4-2-5 allows you to have personnel flexibility by creating roles for the "hybrid" players that don't fit into the traditional position molds)
-Allows you to play offense with defense (I'm quoting OJW here)
There may be more points in favor of the DH offense and the GP defense that I am not currently thinking of; please feel free to add any that you think of.
I know that a lot of coaches still swear by the Wing-T, the Single Wing, the 3-4, the 46, running time off the clock and playing sound defense, playing traditional defense as opposed to the 4-2-5 "playing offense with defense", etc. I am certainly not denying that those approaches still work, because they obviously do, but I think that it is also obvious that the DH offense and the GP defense work, otherwise we would not see the increasing number of coaches who use them as a base philosophy.
My question is: Why has taken so long for these approaches to be used in the football coaching world?
They both make a lot of sense, especially the packaged concepts of DH's offense and the flexibility of GP's defense; why were these approaches not commonplace 30, 40 years ago?
Maybe it's just my perspective and opinion. I am young, and there is probably still a lot I have to learn about the football coaching profession.
|
|
|
|
Post by macdiiddy on Aug 14, 2012 20:17:50 GMT -6
I see this as all perspective. Everything you mentioned under offense can be accomplished from the I, flexbone, wing T, whatever.
Additionally I would rather "recruit" the schools top wrestling stars then track and basketball stars any day.
|
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 14, 2012 20:38:59 GMT -6
I see this as all perspective. Everything you mentioned under offense can be accomplished from the I, flexbone, wing T, whatever. Additionally I would rather "recruit" the schools top wrestling stars then track and basketball stars any day. Let me say that I am not trying to be argumentative here, because I basically agree with you. With that said: How do the offenses you mentioned force the defense to defend the entire field? All the offenses you mentioned reduce the amount of field space that the defense has to defend to 17 yards of the width of the field and 10-15 yards downfield on any given play. How do any of the offenses you mentioned make it easier to run the ball by pulling defenders out of the box? All of the offenses you mentioned in fact do the exact opposite-they pull defenders into the box... How do any of the offenses you mentioned make the defensive structure and the defense's intentions much more obvious pre-snap? All of them make it more difficult to read the defensive structure and intentions pre-snap due to the defense crowding the box... I agree on the wrestling stars, but that limits you to only one group of players within the school. By recruiting basketball stars, track stars, and wrestlers, you have created a wider recruiting base. If you run any of the offenses you mentioned, you most likely will only get wrestlers and few if any basketball and track players. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 20:50:36 GMT -6
I wonder if coaches said the same thing about the I and the 4-3 back in the day. I mean, how long did it take for those schemes to come about? And to really ask, what does it matter? Scheme is just the car you pick to run the race, there is so much more that goes into winning. The only reason these are at the top right now is HS coaches can watch them succeed on Saturday. I'm sure there are many 3-4 coaches that do just as good vs. spread teams in their nickel package. Again, schematically it's just "window dressing", the reason the originators of those schemes have been successful lies deep within the people doing the designing and the "hows" of how they run their programs. Again, not really sure about the point of the question...
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 14, 2012 21:11:01 GMT -6
I wonder if coaches said the same thing about the I and the 4-3 back in the day. I mean, how long did it take for those schemes to come about? And to really ask, what does it matter? Scheme is just the car you pick to run the race, there is so much more that goes into winning. The only reason these are at the top right now is HS coaches can watch them succeed on Saturday. I'm sure there are many 3-4 coaches that do just as good vs. spread teams in their nickel package. Again, schematically it's just "window dressing", the reason the originators of those schemes have been successful lies deep within the people doing the designing and the "hows" of how they run their programs. Again, not really sure about the point of the question... Duece Duece, I agree on the other factors that go into winning. I think that DH and GP are both good, if not great, head coaches. However, if they had only pedestrian schemes, would they be as successful? It takes both a great scheme (or superior talent, neither DH or GP have had superior talent) and great program management in order for a team to be successful. One without the other almost never leads to success, especially notable, consistent success. The point of the question was: These schemes make sense, so why did it take so long for them to become prominent? I will not go as far as saying that they are necessarily superior to the Wing-T, the I, the Flexbone, etc, but they are both much more adaptable to a wider variety of situations, whereas the type of players (physical build and football skills) required to run the Flexbone successfully are less common. The one exception may be the I, because you cannot get any more basic and simple than the I, but again, it will only go so far if you don't have bruiser-type players on the line and in the backfield. The spread offense can be an equalizer for a team with smaller players, mainly because it pulls defenders out of the box and makes it easier to run the ball, which at the end of the day is still the most proven, consistent way to win football games. And speaking of running the football out the spread, what about the spread option? It has it's roots in ancient football, and yet it improves on those roots I think. Why were teams not running the Urban Meyer-style spread option 50 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 14, 2012 22:19:01 GMT -6
I had a longer post but the computer crashed. In essence, this is a crock.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Aug 15, 2012 2:17:45 GMT -6
How do the offenses you mentioned force the defense to defend the entire field? All the offenses you mentioned reduce the amount of field space that the defense has to defend to 17 yards of the width of the field and 10-15 yards downfield on any given play. You're pretty deep into the kool-aid, but I'm going to address this specifically. If I'm on the left hash with a TE/Wing alignment to the field and my RB breaks contain, does he not have almost half the field of open space in front of him? In essence, I've forced one player on your defense to be responsible for defending far more of the field than he would have by defending 4 wide 10 personnel. "Defending the whole field" is a market concept for spread coaches. Every defense worth it's salt defends the whole field every play, regardless of formation. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 15, 2012 2:57:13 GMT -6
The OP here is basing so much of this off a flawed premise that does not factor in why air raid and nickel evolved to their current form from the 90s. Neither exist in a vaccuum, both are a response born out of decades of trial and error AGAINST other factors.
Take a deep breath and water down some of that kool aid
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Aug 15, 2012 3:21:38 GMT -6
I would argue that the  offense and the  defense currently represent the pinnacle of football offense and defense  now are there any dubbawing coaches that can come in here and make this thread sing? |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 15, 2012 5:11:13 GMT -6
The No-huddle Spread and 4-2-5 were "the next Big Things" and certainly represent an evolution in the game.
Pinnacle, not so sure.
Still see a lot of teams being highly successful running "Pro-style" Offenses and either 4-3 Over or Under.
At our level there are a lot of schools running two-TE ("compressed") attacks with 8-man front Defenses winning a lot of games and championships.
|
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Aug 15, 2012 7:06:39 GMT -6
LOL...this is making me laugh...
"The spread offense can be an equalizer for a team with smaller players, mainly because it pulls defenders out of the box and makes it easier to run the ball, which at the end of the day is still the most proven, consistent way to win football games".
Just wondering what do you do if they don't widen out with you that much where your running lanes are not open, and you can't throw it in the ocean standing at the edge of a pier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2012 7:07:54 GMT -6
The OP here is basing so much of this off a flawed premise that does not factor in why air raid and nickel evolved to their current form from the 90s. Neither exist in a vaccuum, both are a response born out of decades of trial and error AGAINST other factors. Take a deep breath and water down some of that kool aid I agree w/Brophy, he!! we saw spread sets as early on as the early to mid 90's where I was at. Nickel defense then came about to match the speed on the field. Only here in recent times have these schemes become a bit more of a mainstay b/c of the fact that now offenses seem to sit in the spread more and use the 2 back stuff as a package (almost a complete reversal of just 10 years ago). To say it is a pinnacle is a bit misleading too. If football is to be put in mountain climbing terms, and if we are at the pinnacle, then what's next? I mean when you are the top, the only way to go is down. Football schemes and evolution cannot be viewed this way. Like was stated in the movie "The Social Network", football can be viewed much like fashion, it has trends that come and go, but it's never "finished" b/c people will keep evolving and adapting to keep creating the mismatches and advantages these certain schemes have created. Also, I think there are really very few schemes that level the playing field, and spread is NOT one of them. I mean, if you are spread, and don't have a QB who can get the ball downfield to those 4 and 5 WR's you have standing out there, then in essence you haven't spread the field out. I mean, let's be honest, how many screens are you going to throw with a QB who cannot throw the ball downfield? What about physically infieror OL as well? The list goes on and on, and the only real thing that matters is that success, in our business, is defined as when talent meets coaching. End of story. The scheme you choose is just the vehicle you've chosen to take you on your journey. Many successful coaches out there that still win with Pro schemes, option, etc. Anyhow, what I'm saying is, scheme will only take you so far, b/c it is part of coaching. There simply has to be more than just scheme. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 15, 2012 7:54:01 GMT -6
The OP here is basing so much of this off a flawed premise that does not factor in why air raid and nickel evolved to their current form from the 90s. Neither exist in a vaccuum, both are a response born out of decades of trial and error AGAINST other factors. Take a deep breath and water down some of that kool aid This is right. I think the really interesting things now is just that we're in a state of change, so the ways to be successful are to (a) focus on fundamentals, which never go out of style and (b) to tinker with existing offenses/defenses/etc. There are different styles of 4-2-5, i.e. growing out of 4-4 fronts or 4-3, and what about the 3-4/4-3 under Ds with a hybrid guy, or just an old fashioned Miami 4-3 which, oh by the way, was largely invented to stop the *then* facemelter offense at the time, the wishbone. I think both the 4-2-5 and Holgo's Airraid have some really "ingenious" little things in them, and both can be effective. But you can win a lot of games doing different things too. |
|
|
|
Post by gdoggwr on Aug 15, 2012 8:35:17 GMT -6
I know kool aid is tasty, but...
Talent (our of your control) and FUNDAMENTALS (within your control) win football games. How you use your talent doesn't really matter as long as its fundamentally sound.
I also don't by the basketball/track star argument. ANY offense has ways to get the ball to guys that are really fast and athletic... that is not one of the innovations of the spread offense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2012 8:39:14 GMT -6
I know kool aid is tasty, but... Talent (our of your control) and FUNDAMENTALS (within your control) win football games. How you use your talent doesn't really matter as long as its fundamentally sound. I also don't by the basketball/track star argument. ANY offense has ways to get the ball to guys that are really fast and athletic... that is not one of the innovations of the spread offense. Exactly! When coaching meets talent you have success. And by coaching, I mean GOOD coaching... Duece |
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Aug 15, 2012 12:08:57 GMT -6
To me a good offensive scheme is one that tries to create a numbers or leverage advantage. I believe that the main reason some coaches think that the spread is the be all end all (don't be offended, I'm a spread guy too) is because it is easier for the coach to look at the field and see a definite numbers/leverage advantage. In the I or wingt it takes years of experience to see these subtle differences. The DH spread with packaged concepts, or what I think is going to be the real wave of the future, the Noel Mazzone stuff, finds these numbers/leverage advantage without the coach having to make the correct play call. This aspect alone is what I see drawing several coaches in, but it is really nothing different than split back veer or wishbone.
I think the big change is where people are putting their personnel. It use to be that if you had to choose one side of the ball or the other to put your best guys, you put them on defense. Not saying all people have changed (I know someone will post that offense gets the QB and defense gets the next 11), but I think more people started putting their best players on offense instead; and not just at tailback but out in a slot. From there they found it easier to throw a bubble and have one guy block, than hand it to him and have to block 8 defenders. Placement of personnel is where the game is changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 15, 2012 21:51:54 GMT -6
If I come out in the 4-2-5 30 years ago nobody would be surprised because it would basically just look like the 4-4. You want to run the DH offense 40 years ago when defenses could just lay out receivers anywhere down the field (no defensive holding), or when headsets weren't available for a lot of HS coaches? It wouldnt be as effective.
All these evolutions are nothing more than reactions to the changes in the game, and then reactions to that (and so on). And Im not knocking these styles, heck Im a spread no huddle guy on O, and a 3-3 (real similar to the 425) on D.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 15, 2012 22:03:21 GMT -6
You want to run the DH offense 40 years ago when defenses could just lay out receivers anywhere down the field (no defensive holding), or when headsets weren't available for a lot of HS coaches? It wouldnt be as effective. I don't care about this argument one way or the other but I care about accuracy. NFL rules about handling receivers have changed drastically over the years. College and high school rules really haven't. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 15, 2012 22:52:01 GMT -6
You want to run the DH offense 40 years ago when defenses could just lay out receivers anywhere down the field (no defensive holding), or when headsets weren't available for a lot of HS coaches? It wouldnt be as effective. I don't care about this argument one way or the other but I care about accuracy. NFL rules about handling receivers have changed drastically over the years. College and high school rules really haven't. Yeah but everything trickles down, we go to clinics and try to steal things from big name guys. I know what you are saying but I still think guys see passing on TV and try to emulate |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Aug 16, 2012 8:19:26 GMT -6
DH's spread at the very least is extremely exciting to watch; but, go talk to the coaches at Wisconsin and see what they think is harder to defend. Putting up 60 and 70 points out of their offense is impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 16, 2012 10:22:29 GMT -6
PPG is a worthless stat, there's too much noise in the signal. Nobody seems to listen to me, but Points Per Possession is THE stat by which to judge an offense, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Aug 16, 2012 11:56:49 GMT -6
everyone is on a learning curve contrariancoach: keep researching and reading and look at where Holgo and Patto came from. These schemes developed over years of hard work and hard earned experiences. These are not plug and play schemes that anyone can buy and whammo you go State, they are a Strategy that you have decided upon for your schedule. Systems that continue to evolve to stay current, who knows what they will end up being like in 10years time. See those Power running teams gashing through the Nickel defences on the Gridirons around? Thats also contrarian, so you see its very much rock, paper, scissors. Essentially a simple strategy, solid fundamtals and a dash of athleticism will get you further than roling out in a SEC scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbrown3 on Aug 16, 2012 19:06:24 GMT -6
I would argue that great team speed & a solid front on both sides of the ball are the pinnacle of football....and have been for almost a hundred years
|
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 20:32:34 GMT -6
How do the offenses you mentioned force the defense to defend the entire field? All the offenses you mentioned reduce the amount of field space that the defense has to defend to 17 yards of the width of the field and 10-15 yards downfield on any given play. You're pretty deep into the kool-aid, but I'm going to address this specifically. If I'm on the left hash with a TE/Wing alignment to the field and my RB breaks contain, does he not have almost half the field of open space in front of him? In essence, I've forced one player on your defense to be responsible for defending far more of the field than he would have by defending 4 wide 10 personnel. "Defending the whole field" is a market concept for spread coaches. Every defense worth it's salt defends the whole field every play, regardless of formation. Coach, that's a good point about the RB breaking contain. In the particular situation you mentioned, a similar advantage could be gained by going to trips and running to the single WR side, or even going closed trips with a TE, am I correct? |
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 20:34:17 GMT -6
The No-huddle Spread and 4-2-5 were "the next Big Things" and certainly represent an evolution in the game. Pinnacle, not so sure. Still see a lot of teams being highly successful running "Pro-style" Offenses and either 4-3 Over or Under. At our level there are a lot of schools running two-TE ("compressed") attacks with 8-man front Defenses winning a lot of games and championships. You must have missed this part of the OP: "I know that a lot of coaches still swear by the Wing-T, the Single Wing, the 3-4, the 46, running time off the clock and playing sound defense, playing traditional defense as opposed to the 4-2-5 "playing offense with defense", etc. I am certainly not denying that those approaches still work, because they obviously do, but I think that it is also obvious that the DH offense and the GP defense work, otherwise we would not see the increasing number of coaches who use them as a base philosophy." |
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 20:39:14 GMT -6
LOL...this is making me laugh... "The spread offense can be an equalizer for a team with smaller players, mainly because it pulls defenders out of the box and makes it easier to run the ball, which at the end of the day is still the most proven, consistent way to win football games". Just wondering what do you do if they don't widen out with you that much where your running lanes are not open, and you can't throw it in the ocean standing at the edge of a pier? I guess the same thing you do when you run the ball and the defense shuts down the run, and your QB cannot complete play-action passes. You obviously need to have a QB who can at least complete short passes consistently. If you don't have that, I would question ever using the DH spread in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 21:12:34 GMT -6
I agree w/Brophy, he!! we saw spread sets as early on as the early to mid 90's where I was at. Nickel defense then came about to match the speed on the field. Only here in recent times have these schemes become a bit more of a mainstay b/c of the fact that now offenses seem to sit in the spread more and use the 2 back stuff as a package (almost a complete reversal of just 10 years ago). To say it is a pinnacle is a bit misleading too. If football is to be put in mountain climbing terms, and if we are at the pinnacle, then what's next? I mean when you are the top, the only way to go is down. Football schemes and evolution cannot be viewed this way. Like was stated in the movie "The Social Network", football can be viewed much like fashion, it has trends that come and go, but it's never "finished" b/c people will keep evolving and adapting to keep creating the mismatches and advantages these certain schemes have created. Also, I think there are really very few schemes that level the playing field, and spread is NOT one of them. I mean, if you are spread, and don't have a QB who can get the ball downfield to those 4 and 5 WR's you have standing out there, then in essence you haven't spread the field out. I mean, let's be honest, how many screens are you going to throw with a QB who cannot throw the ball downfield? What about physically infieror OL as well? The list goes on and on, and the only real thing that matters is that success, in our business, is defined as when talent meets coaching. End of story. The scheme you choose is just the vehicle you've chosen to take you on your journey. Many successful coaches out there that still win with Pro schemes, option, etc. Anyhow, what I'm saying is, scheme will only take you so far, b/c it is part of coaching. There simply has to be more than just scheme. Duece Coach, do you think the no-huddle, and especially the no-huddle hurry-up, will ever go out of style? If you have an inferior offensive line, how is running right into the box going to help you, especially if you are going against a superior front 7? From my first post: "I know that a lot of coaches still swear by the Wing-T, the Single Wing, the 3-4, the 46, running time off the clock and playing sound defense, playing traditional defense as opposed to the 4-2-5 "playing offense with defense", etc. I am certainly not denying that those approaches still work, because they obviously do, but I think that it is also obvious that the DH offense and the GP defense work, otherwise we would not see the increasing number of coaches who use them as a base philosophy." From my third post: "Duece, I agree on the other factors that go into winning. I think that DH and GP are both good, if not great, head coaches. However, if they had only pedestrian schemes, would they be as successful? It takes both a great scheme (or superior talent, neither DH or GP have had superior talent) and great program management in order for a team to be successful. One without the other almost never leads to success, especially notable, consistent success." |
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 21:52:58 GMT -6
This is right. I think the really interesting things now is just that we're in a state of change, so the ways to be successful are to (a) focus on fundamentals, which never go out of style and (b) to tinker with existing offenses/defenses/etc. There are different styles of 4-2-5, i.e. growing out of 4-4 fronts or 4-3, and what about the 3-4/4-3 under Ds with a hybrid guy, or just an old fashioned Miami 4-3 which, oh by the way, was largely invented to stop the *then* facemelter offense at the time, the wishbone. I think both the 4-2-5 and Holgo's Airraid have some really "ingenious" little things in them, and both can be effective. But you can win a lot of games doing different things too. I agree, football is constantly evolving. I'm just wondering why it took so long for DH's offense, as well as GP's defense, to emerge. Why not skip all those years of development, especially with GP's defense? I do understand that it does not work that way, but I just don't see coaches were not doing this kind of stuff 30, 40 years ago. I guess with GP's defense, maybe there was really not a need for a defense as flexible as the GP 4-2-5, but on offense, why not take advantage of the average team's defense being committed to, and designed to stop, the run? Sure, Sid Gillman was one of the few pioneers who tried to challenge the defense for being designed to stop the run, but again, he was one of the few. Concerning DH's offense, it definitely has some ingenious things in it, and that was part of my original question. Why did coaches not develop this kind of offense 30, 40 years ago? If they had, they would have absolutely smoked the defenses of that time because they were geared to stop the run, not to mention the fact that no one used DH's idea of packaged concepts at that time (could be wrong about that though). |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Aug 16, 2012 21:53:37 GMT -6
Good question about no huddle going out of style in the future. We have an undersized and under talented O line this year. It is actually our weakest area. For this reason we are going no huddle. We have had a tremendous offseason and I can guarantee you that we are in better shape than our larger opponents, so we are going to try to up tempo them and wear them out with some no huddle if we feel the need.
To your other point, we have a lot of quick scat back type players, so we are going to try to hit the outside with a lot of quick stuff, be it jet sweep or little swing and screen passes.
|
|
|
|
Post by contrariancoach on Aug 16, 2012 22:04:48 GMT -6
Good question about no huddle going out of style in the future. We have an undersized and under talented O line this year. It is actually our weakest area. For this reason we are going no huddle. We have had a tremendous offseason and I can guarantee you that we are in better shape than our larger opponents, so we are going to try to up tempo them and wear them out with some no huddle if we feel the need. To your other point, we have a lot of quick scat back type players, so we are going to try to hit the outside with a lot of quick stuff, be it jet sweep or little swing and screen passes. Best of luck to you and your team this season! As I said in the OP, if your personnel fits it, the DH spread approach makes sense. |
|
offense and the 
defense currently represent the pinnacle of football offense and defense 
