Better methods vs no better methods

In a discussion with a poster in another thread, we came on to the topic of there being no "right" way to do things, and by extension, if you contend this, this means that there are no better ways of doing things than any other method, and that any method is just as valid as another. I do not agree with this school of thought; I was going to use the examples below in the thread, but there's obviously a lot here and the discussion in the other thread was already going off topic.

Please understand this is not intended as a dig at the other poster, I already had the outline for this post drawn up for a while and just hadn't had time to flesh it out, just didn't want to clog that thread up anymore than it already is.

Below are examples of one possible method, and then in contrast, it is followed by what I argue are better methods. Which of these do you agree or disagree with, and why either way?

What are some of your own examples?

Edit: As the discussion is unfolding, it's came up about specific situations affecting these. That is definitely relevant and can affect some of these. Many or most of these apply when you are facing either good players, good coaches, or both good players and good coaches. Some of them wouldn't apply if you don't face good players, good coaches, or both. And some depend on what types of offenses/defenses you are facing even if there good players and good coaches, like the run fits example, if you are facing good teams but they are 80-95% run and arent passing and using RPO you can and arguably SHOULD max fit everything, because all you are seeing is run game.

One method: Not teaching a man defender playing inside leverage and in the trail on a slot receiver in a middle of the field open coverage, to use “build a fence” technique and keep the slot out of the middle of the field; better method: teaching a man defender playing inside leverage and in the trail on a slot receiver in a middle of the field open coverage, to use “build a fence” technique and keep the slot receiver walled out of the middle of the field. Some might try to say that these two approaches are equally valid, they are not. This is a great example of where good defensive coaches get separated from bad defensive coaches; it’s details like this that make a difference, you add a lot of these details up, and it’s clear to see why some DCs’ defenses get torched and why some defenses are stout.

One method: Not coaching the cross runner on Y-Cross to convert to “stair-step” technique vs man coverage, if they keep their original path, it makes it easier for the man defender to undercut the route and knock the pass away, or worse, intercept it; a better method: coaching the cross runner on Y-Cross to convert to “stair-step” technique vs man coverage

One method: Spilling to no one on the edge or perimeter vs good offenses that will gash you when you do this; a better method: spilling only when you have a force defender or someone who can at least respond late if it's a 2-high coverage and try to run it down the minimize the damage, and boxing or "denting" when you do not have a force defender or someone to respond late. Notice the caveat is good offenses; if you don't want to teach spill and box but then face good offenses, are you just going to spill to no one and get gashed? Or, do you bite the bullet and teach both and maybe have some hope of not getting gashed. If you try, you might succeed, if you do not even try, you are guaranteed to fail. Isn't that the type of spirit we are trying to teach our players?

One method: not minimizing the amount of run/pass conflict that defenders are in vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses; a better method: taking defenders out of run/pass conflict as much as possible vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses

One method: Pass rush not matching the coverage; a better method: pass rush matching the coverage. Pepper Johnson, former Patriots and Jets coach on this: “I’m a strong believer of where the pass rush matches the coverage. This was one of the things that I could not get done with the Jets; I could not get the pass rush and the coverage together.”

If we are pushing the pocket and the secondary guys are [playing] off, then it’s just pitch and catch [for the offense]. If we’re pushing the pocket and your guys are close, now the pass rush is matching the coverage. If your guys are off and we’re shooting moves, or we’re running pass-rush games, now the pass rush matches the coverage. Because now the coverage is playing for down-the-field passes and we’re rushing the quarterback for down the field passes.” deadspin.com/q-a-pepper-johnson-on-drinking-with-bill-belichick-sp-1828726414

One method: trying to max-fit every coverage in your system, where you have one defender responsible for each gap and are not using line stunts, TGOG, Saban jimmy/pony, sling fit, or hard two-gapping (i.e. the two-gapper is anchoring down on their lineman, board drilling the lineman, and taking whichever of his two gaps the ball goes into) to. Specific example of max-fitting Quarters; if you max-fit fit Quarters, from a 4 man DL, DEs and DTs have 4 of the gaps, Mike has the 5th gap, who has the 6th gap? Overhangs need to jam and reroute 2 to help the safety vs good RPO, regular pass game, and play action offenses, if 2 is in a slot split, they are now going to be late to the run fit, if you make one or both of them responsible for one of the the 6 gaps, you have one open gap vs regular run and RPO, and two open gaps vs option and QB run. The safeties have to be ready to play 2 vertical, same thing, if you try to make one or both of them responsible for both 2 vertical and one of the 6 gaps, they are now late to the run fit, and you have an open gap vs regular run and RPO, and two open gaps vs option and QB run

A better method than trying to max-fit every coverage in your system: tailoring run fits to specific coverages. Yes, this takes more learning and work on the coaching staff's part, and yes, you probably don't need to do this if it's worked for you for 20 years and worked for the HFC before you in his previous 25 years. Specific example: Ball-fitting Quarters using tactics like slow-playing the Mike instead of charging into the line, this way he can see which of his two gaps the ball declares in and then attack that gap, stunts to keep the ball carrier from accessing the open gaps, etc, sling fit vs RPO, etc.

One method: Using regular Cover 1 Lurk on 3rd down; better method: using Cover 1 Cross (a Saban coverage, others may do it, too) on 3rd down; in Cover 1 Cross, start in 2-high shell; ILB is locked on RB (no fiddle on the RB like in regular Cover 1-fiddle is two defenders are sorting out who has the RB and who is the low hole defender based on which direction the RB releases); one of the two safeties drops down to the sticks looking to aggressively cut the 1st route to break inside around the 1st down line, playing them inside/trail as the route’s man defender will likely be outside/trail (not playing vision and break on the Q); the safety dropping down lets any routes that are more than 1-2 yards short of the first down, go, as we are not worried about a completion to them as this coverage is mainly being used for 3rd down.

One method: Reading fade to seam down to checkdown vs Cover 3 on 4 Verts; a better method, at least for the average HS with an average HS QB (situation and level is key): reading seam to seam down to checkdown vs Cover 3 on 4 Verts (I know the Air Raiders will want to throat chop me for this one, which is hilarious because I first really got into football because of the Air Raid). To make sure we are clear, I will say this one is a bit more debatable, because the Air Raid guys have had success with 4 Verts using the former approach. However, the latter seems to be a better approach, especially without a QB with a strong arm, and in my experience is fairly common; perhaps the best approach though if you were to have the practice time, is to use both methods, tag the read onto the playcall like Dan Gonzalez does with his system, and change them up based on gameplan or throughout a game to keep changing how you attack the defense with 4 Verts.

The three advantages of seam to seam to checkdown over fade to seam to checkdown, are that 1) with fade to seam to checkdown, you have to teach some type of conversion by the fade receiver vs Cover 3 like the Air Raid guys did, this requires a lot of practice investment to get good at (a RnS Streak Read is a reasonable compromise) that could be spent on other parts of the offense, whereas if you work seam to seam to checkdown vs Cover 3, not as much practice time is required to get the two seam runners and QB on the same page; and 2) in Cover 3, the two seams put the deep middle defender in a bind and making him choose between the two seams, whereas in Cover 3, you aren't really putting the deep outside third defender nor the deep middle defender in a bind with the fade and the seam to the same side; and 3) a seam is an easier throw for a QB arm strength wise than a fade, this is especially pronounced to the field with the average HS QB. Some of it probably depends on the situation as far as comparing the methods, which is no different than what I have been talking about with Quarters and QQH vs good RPO and regular pass game offenses.

I'm open to counter thinking on this, so if you have something to share, please do. This is just where I stand on this currently, like I said this one is debatable. I know there are some people who do fade to seam to seam to checkdown, or even fade to seam to seam to fade, but I don't know how realistic either of those are, mainly the second one, especially in your average HS situation.

One method: Running Air Raid 91 Shallow, with Dig and Shallow starting on opposite sides, leading to the QB not being able to scan out in front of and into both the dig and the shallow, which can lead to interceptions and knockdowns by lurking low hole defenders in man coverage; a better method: Running the Drive concept, and running 91 Shallow with the dig route replaced with a deep pivot route that ends with the #2 who started opposite the shallow going in the same direction as the shallow instead, both of which allow the QB to scan into both the shallow and the other route.

The deep pivot and shallow in 91 Shallow ends up looking like this (Y's angle is steeper in reality and he hooks up over the ball in the first hole after his break vs zone, and pivots out of the break and begins running outside vs man)

                               _______
                               \
                                 \          <---- QB's vision
   ----------------------->    \
H       O O C O O        Y
Shallow               Deep pivot

This is so the QB can scan into both routes and see out in front of both of them (which he cannot do in original 91 Shallow, typically the progression is shallow to dig-he's scanning out in front of and into the shallow, but he's not scanning out in front of and into the dig, this can lead to interceptions and knockdowns because he may not see a lurking low hole defender out in front of the crosser

                               ________
       LB                                 |
                                            |     <---- QB vision
   ----------------------------->       |
H                                         Y
Shallow                            Dig

QB is scanning into the shallow but not the dig, making it harder for him to see the lurking low hole defender out in front of the dig. A video of this is in action can be found at this link: gonzalezpassinggame.weebly.com/blog/from-my-qb-manual

“Most of the time I watch film, the QB has no idea where Mike is when the dig and drag are opposite each other." coachhuey.com/thread/69018/drive-concept-timing-footwork

One method: Installing Saban's Rip/Liz Cover 3 when your opponents are 80-95% run and their QBs are not capable of consistently being a threat in the pass game; a better method: Scrapping Rip/Liz and running spot drop cover 3 instead; I'm arguing this a better method when your opponents are 80-95% run and QBs are not capable of consistently being a threat in the pass game, because Rip/Liz was invented specifically to address teams that could hurt you in both the run game and the pass game, and because it has moving parts that you have to rep, those are wasted reps if you don't even have a need to run the coverage, reps which could be better spent getting really good at spot drop cover 3 and other parts of your defense.

One method: “Some coaches only tag the route that the quarterback throws. Doing that only gives the staff one-fifth of a chance of understanding the opponent’s intent. If the route was a fade by the “X” receiver, then yes, this system works. Often, only tagging the passing strength or one receiver gives the defense an incomplete view of what’s going on." www.hudl.com/blog/scrap-the-pass-chart-these-four-columns-give-you-a-better-picture-of-your-opponents-passing-game; a better method: being more detailed and comprehensive in your breakdown; also: From the same article that the quote above is from: “In my book, Breaking Down Your Offensive Opponent, I illustrated that some offenses use a split-field, full field, or targeted (one-route) approach to their passing game. The breakdown should be able to handle that.” www.hudl.com/blog/scrap-the-pass-chart-these-four-columns-give-you-a-better-picture-of-your-opponents-passing-game

One method: “i love it when guys on the hs level say ' play more coverages' but don't understand that very well may involve manipulating or changing the technique of your front. They install the coverage and don't understand the whole package and can't stop anyone” coachhuey.com/thread/86520/sabans-reasoning-installing-cover-quarters; a better method; fully understanding how each coverage along with the front, run fit, rush, and defenders’ eyes/reads are all interconnected, and how all this combined for each coverage, connects to the same for all the other coverages in the system.

If there's anything in here I talked about that you are unfamiliar with terminology wise, please let me know and I will explain further.