|
Post by coachks on Dec 17, 2009 22:38:45 GMT -6
Do you feel that the offense you run effects the defense you field? That is, does running a spread offense hurt your defense against a power offense, and conversly, does a power offense hurt a defense against the spread.
The idea of course being that a spread team won't execute a power scheme very well because it is never practiced and of course, a power team can't run the spread "stuff" well.
This has come up on staff because we moved to a more open attack, with less emphasis on moving people off the ball. As such, are offense was a bit "soft" and wasn't able to reproduce the look power teams gave us. This was never an issue before the move to a spread look, we were able to replicate all running offenses pretty well.
We really struggled against power teams, mainly because we were a little soft at the PoA. Our linebackers played laterally and didn't get down hill like in the past.
Obviously correlation does not equal causation, but there is also evidence to support this from observations (without any real study).
Just trying to gather thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Dec 17, 2009 23:05:12 GMT -6
I'll say this: A fast team on O = A fast team on D. Generally speaking, as HS coaches we get to choose any two of the following: fast, strong, talented. If you're lucky (or good), you can get all 3 in SOME of your players. A spread team which is generally focus on speed is going to be lacking in the 'brute strength' category (again a generalization). So, they're going to have a fast, talented defense that gets worn out by brute strength.
My uncle's team is a prime example of this. They're a spread team with sick amounts of speed and generally pretty talented all over the board, but they just don't have the Cornhusker-esque "maul your face off" type ability. They ran for like, 3k yards this season using the typical zone read/GT/dart schemes. Defensively, they play fast, swarming defense, but they ALWAYS have problems against teams that want to line up and run the ball straight at them. Part of it is the type of lineman they get: small to middling Hispanic/Asian kids with 1-2 Samoans a year who stand out like a sore thumb. But, I know his former teams that scored less points but won nearly the same amount were more focused on running the ball. Key word is nearly.
I think becoming a spread team was a smart choice for them, they've won more, had more upsets, scored more points, gotten more kids. But, they'll always have problems with run-heavy, 'nasty' teams.
|
|
|
Post by captain31 on Dec 17, 2009 23:59:22 GMT -6
I have often thought that power running teams have a certain nastiness to their defense, which I assume they get from going against said power running. At the same time, I wonder if perhaps the running game helps only indirectly, by keeping the defense rested and off the field. Depending on who is playing both ways for each team, a power-running offense could also wear down the opponent, making them easier to stop when they have the ball (for whatever reason it is easier to be on the offensive end of a long, physical drive than on defense; probably just mental). I posted a similar thread a while back about the flexbone and its effects on a team's defense: coachhuey.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=26217&page=1#240845(Edit: as I look at it again, it was actually a year ago to the day that I posted the flexbone thread. Wierd...)
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Dec 18, 2009 7:22:05 GMT -6
I know this is somewhat simplistic, but if you don't have the kids to run a power oriented offense, then you probably don't have the kids to stop a power oriented offense.
This means that you need to utilize you players in a way which maximizes their strengths and minimized their weaknesses - play a speed based defense with aggressive blitzing and stunting. Make that power offense have to hit a bunch of moving targets while you consolidate at the point of attack.
I believe if you have a speedy aggressive offense (spread type), you should also have a speedy aggressive defense (fewer players with a hand on the ground).
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Dec 18, 2009 7:51:40 GMT -6
I know what Bill Parcells would say
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Dec 18, 2009 8:32:43 GMT -6
we run double wing and smash and grind....our defense at the moment, softer than melted butter
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Dec 18, 2009 8:33:34 GMT -6
I believe this to be true. I think your OL sets the tone for your entire teams mindset. If you are a more finesse team then generally your entire team will be softer than a power team. Of course this is an overgeneralization and I am sure there are exceptions. But this has been my experience. Also, I think if you have a spread team you should expect to give up a few more points than a ball control power or option team would b/c generally your defense will spend more time on the field.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 18, 2009 8:51:30 GMT -6
I think it has to do with how you practice and prepare. There is a big private school in the area that has always been a run it down your throat type team, a couple years ago they get a head coach who was a college OC and he puts in the no huddle spread. They had success because they had great athletes but they didn't win the tough games and clearly lacked a toughgness to them. Of course everyone said it's the spread that makes them soft. Well in talking with some players and coaches from the team come to find out they hardly ever went full pads and hit during practice, mostly always in shells, and tried to run like 150 plays a practice without much hitting on defense either. So was it the spread that made them soft or they way they practiced?
|
|
mcrsa75
Sophomore Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by mcrsa75 on Dec 18, 2009 8:59:46 GMT -6
If you have a tendency to get athletic type kids then you should develop an off season program that will enhance their physical development.
Also, I believe that most power offenses utilize a blocking scheme that emphasizes combo/double/outflanking defenses at POA. If you stay in your base defense, you will probably be mashed at the LOS. I would run a defensive scheme that is designed to disrupt/confuse their blocking scheme (slant, blitz, stem).
MCRSA75
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 18, 2009 9:33:31 GMT -6
I think it depends on coach's personality or philosophy also. Good friend of mine and I run same offense but his are thought of as power, physical-type teams, while mine are regarded more as "big play."
If you two-platoon, you could have a bunch of tough hitters on defense and still run an offense based on speed, skill, finesse.
When LaVell Edwards was head coach at BYU (1970s-90s) his teams threw the he11 out of the ball (think McMahon, Young, Detmer et al) but his defenses were dam tough, too.
|
|
|
Post by struceri on Dec 18, 2009 9:44:39 GMT -6
I think it is our defense that affects our offense. We are a stunting blitz heavy 3-4 defense and it is a bear to run the ball against them in practice. Because of that it has forced our entire offense to be more physical and our players feel if they can move the ball against our "D" they can move it against anybody.
|
|
|
Post by falconattack on Dec 18, 2009 9:53:25 GMT -6
We are going to test this particular question. Most of my career, I have coached hard nosed football.....down hill defense and smash mouth Wing-T offense.
Recently I took over a program that has a fine tradition of being successful. Most of there recent success has invloved a spread offense mentality. I didn't want to rock the whole foundation of their tradition so I changed the defense and allowed the remaining OC to continue the spread mentality.
As two seasons have passed, I have witnessed a group of kids become soft and passive, not bad, just passive. Our defense goes against the pass set mentality on a regular basis..... bottom line -----we have gotten soft because of the pass set mentality (JMO)
In this case, my opinion is the only thing that counts....I am the HC and this is MY program. Time to make ME happy!!!
We have already started to change the "identy" of our team. We will be back in the Wing-T next season, knocking people off the ball with doubles, downs, and traps, etc. ---I fully expect our defensive toughness to raise a bunch of notches as well.
I firmly believe there is a strong and positive correlation between offensive and defensive mentality and toughness.
If this thread still exists after next season, I will report my findings.
Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas !!!
|
|
|
Post by falconattack on Dec 18, 2009 9:55:40 GMT -6
One more quick observation.....Sorry I forgot to add this tidbit. I also believe we had the best pass defense I have ever been a part of....hmmmm.....the spread (air raid) offense is good for something
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 18, 2009 10:39:56 GMT -6
hmmmmmmm.............
I think the difference here is coaching.
We are a small school that use to be ground and pound, and spent A LOT of time in TEAM period. The right of passage for freshmen and sophomores was the scout team.
In essence, they got a TON of reps against a power offense, and that tranlated into us being pretty good against that look.
When we went spread (which we did during a down year talent-wise), we just couldn't stop the run. Part of that was talent, and part of that was this little tidbit (which I think is the root of the discussion here):
We could no longer rely on kids growing up on scout team. We as coaches had to get better in our Indy periods.
Really, the way to beat a power team is through run fits and fighting pressure (up front), and in the absence of kids going to the school of hard knocks to learn that, we had to get better at simulating it.
It comes easier when you have a power offense, but doing something like Run and Shoot does not CAUSE your defense to be soft...........the coaches' inability to adapt does............
BTW, our defenses are now just as sound as they were before.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 18, 2009 10:58:55 GMT -6
I am likely missing something, but I have never understood the rationale with this type of relational argument, simply because in any game, you never are scheduled to play against yourself.....just other opponents.
If your defense is soft...its because that is how it is coached.
If your defense is 'tired' because it is on the field too much....because your _______ offense isn't executing.....it is because the offense (DW or AR) just isn't executing.
If your defense isn't tackling....work on tackling. If it isn't 'physical' enough....work on making contact.
When you practice.....are you preparing for your OPPONENT's offense/defense, or are you simply just lining up and running plays against YOUR sets?
|
|
|
Post by jackedup on Dec 18, 2009 11:17:32 GMT -6
I agree wholeheartedly with Brophy! It's not the scheme you run. It's how you coach the scheme you run. I believe offenses and defenses both take on the characteristics of their coaches.
|
|
|
Post by falconattack on Dec 18, 2009 12:09:38 GMT -6
Emphasizing Zone scheme and pass pro in individual. Working our offense in group. Just like most everyone.
Now tell a kid on the scout team (or first team for that matter) to double combo, down block, trap, etc....you won't get a good representation of the opponent.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 18, 2009 12:43:01 GMT -6
I think that makes sense if the only look you get is in TEAM, but then I'm still puzzled about;
1. Basic fundamental looks. A down block is a down block - a shade is a shade. If your offense/defense is (or is just presented as) so unique and unrelated to anything else, then this basic game may have been made overly complicated/specialized.
2. What is going on in INDY and GROUP time? IMO this is what is going to determine the difference between executing and not executing against certain looks. Are they able to master the first 2 steps of a play/look? This can be repped by the very people that will be going up against this look (a OG can play a 3 tech against other OGs.....a OLB can play as a TE against other LBs).
3. If you are getting bad looks in TEAM time, is it because they are going up against the scrubs, and these guys couldn't give a good look no matter what the scheme was (they are scrubs for a reason)?
I am just unable to accept that 'spread' teams create 'soft' defenders or 'rushing offenses' inherently create 'tough' defenders. They are what we coach. If the players are undisciplined or lack fundamental skills (to win), then it is because that is what we coach.
|
|
|
Post by gdf on Dec 18, 2009 16:22:37 GMT -6
I wonder if teams that platoon have fewer issues with this?
Simply b/c if you platoon you have significantly more Indy/Group time during the week than a team that doesn't platoon. As a result the two platoon teams get more looks outside of team, while teams that don't may be stuck with getting more work done during a team session.
|
|
|
Post by falconattack on Dec 18, 2009 19:05:29 GMT -6
I stand firm in agreement with the comment made by realdawg, "OL sets the mentality of the entire team". Tell a teenage lineman to be tough, beat their heads together in drills, and push technical excellence to the limit then go out under the lights and pass set.....hmmmmm....teenage question...why do we beat each other up and don't get to do that to the opponent. Having coached both offensive styles now, I can tell you without hesitation, O-linemen in power style offenses walk taller and demonstrate more pride in their efforts than guys forced to pass set most of the game....this is just my observation, and before you spread guys get defensive remember this......I have always believed in coaching what you really believe in. I gave the air raid a try.....not my style. 3.3 yards and a puff of little black pellets, I'll stick with running the ball primarily.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Dec 18, 2009 19:14:12 GMT -6
What does any of this have to do with (right or wrong) philosophies, if no one can actually quantify this beyond rhetoric?
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Dec 18, 2009 19:35:17 GMT -6
I refuse, and refuse to allow my team, to accept the whole argument that "spread = soft". We take 98% of our snaps in the gun, and strive for a 50/50 run/pass mix. We WILL be physical when we run the football, and we WILL be tenacious and nasty protecting our QB when we throw. Realdawg is right on - the OL sets the tone for the team. Our guys up front are not going to be soft, and it carries over - our backs WILL run hard, our receivers WILL get after their a$$ and our defense WILL run to the football and put a lick on you. Mindset is established in how you coach and practice, and as Brophy stated it needs to be established in Indy and Group as well as in Team.
|
|
|
Post by falconattack on Dec 18, 2009 19:49:51 GMT -6
Brophy, you hit the nail on the head with your last post. None of this can be quantified. A HC's job is to put his team in the best possible position to be successful. It really doesn't matter how it is done. While I have enjoyed this discussion, I am out. Good luck to all, keep battling with what YOU believe in. Gosh I love this game!!
|
|
|
Post by struceri on Dec 18, 2009 21:57:55 GMT -6
time and effort in the weight room make a hug difference as well
|
|
coachbigelow
Junior Member
Coach at Southern Virginia University
Posts: 261
|
Post by coachbigelow on Dec 20, 2009 22:34:24 GMT -6
This is the most ridiculous argument I am hearing. Did someone actually say that you never taught double combo in zone blocking? What run plays did you run? You never ran counter? Never ran trap out of the gun? In those plays guess what the line has to down block and trap. Then magically they can't give the look in practice??? Fine go back to your offense but don't say the spread makes you soft.
BTW stats for us this year. 223 yards rushing per game and 203 yards passing per game. In one game against a double tight I formation running only team we had 327 yads rushing against them and they put 0 points up on us. According to some on this thread that should have been impossible since we are spread and "soft." And they should have been tougher against the run because of their offensive system.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 20, 2009 22:55:26 GMT -6
You gentlemen are entirely too anecdotal...
""I knew this one team... and they never let a team score on them ever... and they were spread! So there!""
The point being made is this... practice is ancillary... that is while you are running your offensive sets, there exist ancillary practice in which the rest of your football team is practicing a scheme or style. If your offense is spread, and you have an offensive day, then your ancillary practice, has your kids defending the spread... dropping in coverage, playing in space... watching passes be dropped, and kids beating you to the sideline.
One and a half days per week, 20 weeks per year... that's a lot of pass protection defense. It is quantifiable... you are what you practice. A power team with that same ancillary practice, is learning to stop the run, play between the tackles... getting tough.
Like it or not... smashmouth is named such, because thats what it is!
|
|
coachbigelow
Junior Member
Coach at Southern Virginia University
Posts: 261
|
Post by coachbigelow on Dec 20, 2009 23:05:46 GMT -6
And the spread teams that run more than pass? Is that not quantifiable? Nope just put your fingers in your ears and say no spread makes you soft!!!
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 20, 2009 23:14:00 GMT -6
And the spread teams that run more than pass? Is that not quantifiable? Nope just put your fingers in your ears and say no spread makes you soft!!! What did you say? I couldn't hear you, had my fingers in my ears... but if you said, Spread teams run, in addition to pass, and that's more than enough to equate them to smashmouth... I'd say you're right! Because, zone read, speed opt, QB Dart as well as power and trap, vs the 6 man front is of course equivalent... If you see 7 in the box are you running? Who's making the tackles against your spred running game? CB's? FS's? What are your LB's doing? How about those DE's? Rushing the passer? Blitzing... Look... I don't mean to hurt any of the feelings of you spread guys. But unless you are just blessed with a group of rock stars... for the most part, spread teams are soft... And before you point to the spread teams that won state, with the outstanding defense that have never been scored upon, I'm going to plug my ears and remind you... That the majority of schools across the nation, are running spread... and they are piss poor with it... everyone likes to point to the studs when arguing, but the truth of the matter, is that there are 10 times as many poor spread teams than successful. I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin!
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 20, 2009 23:39:09 GMT -6
Do you feel that the offense you run effects the defense you field? That is, does running a spread offense hurt your defense against a power offense, and conversly, does a power offense hurt a defense against the spread. The idea of course being that a spread team won't execute a power scheme very well because it is never practiced and of course, a power team can't run the spread "stuff" well. This has come up on staff because we moved to a more open attack, with less emphasis on moving people off the ball. As such, are offense was a bit "soft" and wasn't able to reproduce the look power teams gave us. This was never an issue before the move to a spread look, we were able to replicate all running offenses pretty well. We really struggled against power teams, mainly because we were a little soft at the PoA. Our linebackers played laterally and didn't get down hill like in the past. Obviously correlation does not equal causation, but there is also evidence to support this from observations (without any real study). Just trying to gather thoughts. I used to believe that but I don't anymore. Our defense plays against our offense, unscripted, less than three times a year.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 20, 2009 23:59:24 GMT -6
Here is the relation I see towards each other: if i am running a high risk/high reward offense then I expect my defense to be the opposite of it so they can even the game out for us; if i am running a high risk/high reward defense (blitzing all the time) then I expect the offense to not lose the ball and limit the amount of possessions. that is the only correlation I care about.
|
|