|
Post by 44special on Aug 11, 2024 8:07:06 GMT -6
I recently read that a district I worked at many years ago is implementing Block Scheduling and "Project-Based" education. We did that there 30 years ago. Took us two years and a lot of time-money (In-Services, Professional Development etc.) to get it implemented. Several years later district had to abandon it because it did not improve Standardized Test scores (which is all that matters, right?) and wound up costing more than a "normal" daily schedule. But there were some people making a lot of money selling that stuff. PLC and essential standards are the new buzz words around here. 15 years ago when I started it was called collaborative learning environment and scaffolding. It’s the same sh!t with a different name was the same in texas. different buzzwords, terminology and strategies every couple of years. i'm happy to say i don't remember a singel damn one of them.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 11, 2024 9:01:49 GMT -6
A related question-consideration (especially for HS coaches): How much is too much? Saban may have THE best way to defend say, RPOs or Shallow Crosses for example. More variations-calls-adjustments, ifs and checks. But there is only so much practice time in a day and no sense in trying to do more than you can do well. Yup. As I have talked about on here many times, as much as I love the Saban stuff, with a decent portion of it, there is just not the need for it in the average HS situation because it's still 80-95% run, whether that's 10/11/12P spread to run, spread option, flexbone, Wing-T, Singlewing, 21P I formation, etc. A great example is his man-match Cover 2 and Cover 7 packages, those are designed for teams that are geared to pass or can pass the ball on 3rd even if they are balanced or run-based. You are wasting your time if you install and rep those coverage families because you won't need then. I will say, some of the examples you gave, like RPO, Shallow, etc, the best way of defending those doesn't require some fancy, super complex answer or something that regular HS players can't execute even with limited practice time, it just requires doing things a bit different than the norm to put you in the best position to stop them. And with RPO, one of the best answers for many RPOs is Cover 3, and it doesn't have to be a bunch of complicated rules to do it, either, Cover 3 is something a lot of coaches in HS already do. If you will notice, about the only Saban coverage I argued for in the first post is Cover 1 Cross, and that really isn't some vastly different coverage from Cover 1, it's just a different way of playing the low hole defender on 3rd down to make sure you don't get burned at the sticks. It's good for 3rd and medium to 3rd and long where the offense throws right to the sticks and the receiver turns and gets the necessary yardage for the first. And even that is only relevant in HS situations where the offense can consistently do that. A lot of guys in HS still like to run or call a screen on 3rd medium to 3rd and long because they are smart enough to realize that they have a better chance of breaking that for a first or a long run than they do completing a pass long enough to get the first... And, some of the volume also comes from doing multiple variations of the same basic idea so that you are presenting different pictures to the offense while accomplishing the same thing. You have to do this in FBS (and the NFL to an even greater degree) so that you don't become too predictable and easy to scheme against. In the average HS situation, that's less of a concern. Finally, while I would say that much of, if not most, of his stuff can be ran by your average HS team as a matter of capability, there are some things in systems like his that truly are accessible only with elite players. A great example of this would be in his Cut coverage, they will sometimes run a version of it with a war daddy nose tackle responsible for 3 vertical and inside, but if he goes to the flat, the nose tackle is supposed to pop out and run to the face of #1 to rob post/dig/curl....Yeah, no. Not in your average HS situation. Lol. Another would be true 2-gapping where the DL is anchoring down on their near OL and board-drilling them, taking whichever gap the ball declares toward. That takes an elite player to do well. There are other forms of 2-gapping like what's used in Jimmy/Pony, TGOG, etc that regular players can be asked to execute. And even they cannot properly execute some of their more complex stuff, like 2/3/4 pushes, where 3 different guys are swapping their man assignments between 2, 3, and 4 after the snap if 4 goes flat, each defender ends up someone new...I am consumed with curiosity on why they chose to install stuff like this if they couldn't get it right, my guess is because the fact that rules like this exist, creating more for opposing offenses to have to gameplan and prepare for. To your point on practice time, if a defense is limited on practice time because of players going both ways and/or talent, then you probably have to worry about less from the offenses because they are probably working with the same limitations you are, and thus your defense doesn't need to have so much volume.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 11, 2024 9:04:40 GMT -6
PLC and essential standards are the new buzz words around here. 15 years ago when I started it was called collaborative learning environment and scaffolding. It’s the same sh!t with a different name was the same in texas. different buzzwords, terminology and strategies every couple of years. i'm happy to say i don't remember a singel damn one of them. I went through that at my last job. It's just like in the corporate world, too. People get on these kicks, "initiatives", probably mostly to impress the people at the top of the management chain, and the shareholders, but then they never stick it to it and it never lasts, even when it was supposed to be long-term or indefinite.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 11, 2024 9:22:58 GMT -6
It can heavily depend on your specific situation, because in some places, you CAN max fit everything for example, because you aren't seeing good RPO, and you won't have a need for Cover 2 Man (which is about the only coverage that you cannot max fit even vs old school run teams) because no one can threaten you with the pass on 3rd and med-long. Like you said there's some things you do that make sense where you are. Note that I said better, not best. There could be a better method than those I suggest in the first post, I just argued that they are better than the methods that I wrote preceding the better methods. Out of the examples I gave, which ones would you say I can't make the argument that the "better" methods are better than the methods that preceded them? No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that better or best is completely in the user's hands IMO. There are certainly things we do where I'm at now that might not be considered better, but they are what my kids and coaches can handle and we make them work. The max fit example being one of them. Rarely, if ever are we in any lighter of a box than a 6 man box. We use coverage instead of DL technique or stunts to max fit the run. Why? We see very little to no good RPO teams. They claim they run it, but it's just playaction IMO, the kid's being told where to go w/the ball. So we keep a max fit model vs. 2x2 and 6 in the box. For years we've taught our CB's to shuffle in 2 read. Not a lot of coaches agree w/this, and if I had "better" athletes at the position I might do something different. Is there a better way? Here no, where you are, more than likely. Again, better is a form of perspective. It's really akin to the old which is better, Ford, Chevy or Dodge? You could run polls in various places in the country and sure, you might get an overall consensus, but in certain places Ford would be considered better, elsewhere possibly Dodge, etc. Perspective matters when talking about better or best. IMO it all boils down to what works best for you to get the job done. If the end result works, then what's the issue? I don't really see one. So in the end, are there better methods, heck yes, but your version of better and my version of better may or may not coincide based on where we are located, who we are coaching, who we are working for and a myriad of other factors totally out of our control. In a vaccum, yes, you could certainly say there are better methods universally, but we don't coach in vaccums. Most certainly a great post, but coming from a guy that has probably coached more bad athletes than elite, I think whatever you can do to get your players to play, be competitive and productive, is the best method for where your two feet currently reside. Yeah I agree with you on this. Even the build a fence thing i talked about, that matters only if you face teams that can hurt you with a bender route by the slot, if they can't, then it doesn't really matter what you teach the slot as long as they cover their man. I can't really think of many things in the first post that are not dependent on what you talked about here. The only ones I would say are having the two crossers move in the same direction as opposed to opposite directions because of the QB's vision, and the 4 Verts progression (and that I was very careful to say that it's debatable if it's a better method or not).
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 11, 2024 10:10:16 GMT -6
I already mentioned this, but don’t forget, Saban teams game planned and took a limited number of coverages into each game.
I bet some coverages never got gameplanned or called for a couple of years in a row.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 11, 2024 10:47:20 GMT -6
tripsclosed I think the length of your posts on this thread and the one that had to be locked kind of disprove some of your arguments for most of us who were "just" HS coaches. Nevertheless you definitely know what you are talking about. Kudos.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 11, 2024 10:53:14 GMT -6
I already mentioned this, but don’t forget, Saban teams game planned and took a limited number of coverages into each game. I bet some coverages never got gameplanned or called for a couple of years in a row. Probably - but did Saban-Bama still practice them during Spring or Pre-Season, just "in case"? I don't know. But I'll bet they did to have an "answer to everything." In HS you just don't have time (unless you coach in TX, GA, or FL with Spring Ball, two-platoon, and large staffs) to "chase ghosts." Sometimes you can't determine whether you win or lose, just how (unless you can out-score the other guys).
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 11, 2024 10:59:47 GMT -6
I already mentioned this, but don’t forget, Saban teams game planned and took a limited number of coverages into each game. I bet some coverages never got gameplanned or called for a couple of years in a row. Yeah to me the best example of this is man-matched Clamp, it's good to use to protect some of the other Cover 7 coverages that are weak vs concepts with both 2 and 3 out fast (post-wheel-flat for example), they had some teams that were coached by former Saban guys who knew the weaknesses of their coverages so they would attack with concepts like that, if you aren't getting those concepts, it's not worth carrying into the game. Apparently they would only run it a few times a season. Now with that being said, I could still see them carrying coverages like CC, Cone, Switch, Bracket to name a few into most games, because most FBS teams are going to have at least one guy that could cause you some issues and so you need to have those in your back pocket, and vs teams with good receivers and a good QB, you definitely need them in there. The Cover 3 stuff, most all that is going to be in every game, that's a huge part of what they do. Cover 1 is obviously a huge part of what he does too, and they have a lot of stuff with that package, and many FBS offenses are going to test you with things like empty (1 Razor is good for empty), so a good bit of the Cover 1 package is probably getting carried most games. Most FBS teams are going to be able to at least present some sort of run game, so they are probably going to have zone-match Quarters and QQH in the gameplan just about every week, the only time I could see them not having those in the gameplan is when they played Mike Leach from 2020-2022. I could see some of the more obscure/lesser known coverages, or specialized coverages ("Botique calls" as Coach Vass likes to call them) being carried only in specific games. Some of the challenge is that these days, the "common" FBS offense is multiple and can throw a lot of different credible threats at you each game, and so when it comes to coverages outside the base package of Cover 1 and Cover 3, it forces you to carry a lot into each game. If an FBS offense only ever lines their dude up at 1 on film, then you could risk it and only carry Cone into the game and leave CC and Bracket out. Or, if they only align their dude at 2, you could leave Cone out and only run CC and Bracket. But if they move their dude around, well now you kinda don't have any choice but to carry Cone, CC, Switch, and Bracket.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 11, 2024 11:09:14 GMT -6
Bama also had some future NFL DL who could get to QB before he could throw Post-Wheel or other 5-7 step Routes.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 11, 2024 11:11:16 GMT -6
tripsclosed I think the length of your posts on this thread and the one that had to be locked kind of disprove some of your arguments for most of us who were "just" HS coaches. Nevertheless you definitely know what you are talking about. Kudos. Disprove arguments as far as? What arguments am I making RE: average HS situations, and how do the length of my posts disaprove those arguments? Like I said in my last reply to you, there's just not a need in HS for a lot of stuff that is ran at higher levels. I've had a side convo with a guy on here recently over PMs, and I have argued this very thing, that some things there's just no need to run when you see 80-95% run game and there's no credible passing threat, and it would in fact be counter-productive to do so because you could take the reps being wasted on running things you won't use, and instead use them to get better at what you will actually need. I appreciate what you said about what I know, but there is still so so much I don't know about not only the Saban defense, but football in general. There's always room to learn and get better. That's why I am on this site, that's part of why I made this thread, to say yeah this is my take on this stuff, but I'd like to hear alternate takes, because it would be foolish of me to think i have all the answers and the final say...
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 11, 2024 11:15:19 GMT -6
tripsclosed I think the length of your posts on this thread and the one that had to be locked kind of disprove some of your arguments for most of us who were "just" HS coaches. Nevertheless you definitely know what you are talking about. Kudos. Disprove arguments as far as? What arguments am I making RE: average HS situations, and how do the length of my posts disaprove those arguments? Like I said in my last reply to you, there's just not a need in HS for a lot of stuff that is ran at higher levels. I've had a side convo with a guy on here recently over PMs, and I have argued this very thing, that some things there's just no need to run when you see 80-95% run game and there's no credible passing threat, and it would in fact be counter-productive to do so because you could take the reps being wasted on running things you won't use, and instead use them to get better at what you will actually need. I appreciate what you said about what I know, but there is still so so much I don't know about not only the Saban defense, but football in general. There's always room to learn and get better. That's why I am on this site, that's part of why I made this thread, to say yeah this is my take on this stuff, but I'd like to hear alternate takes, because it would be foolish of me to think i have all the answers and the final say... You just kind of answered your own question. Now to be fair I haven't coached since 2015, and didn't face any "FBS" offenses. So take what I post FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Aug 13, 2024 9:42:04 GMT -6
I can't stand guys that think their way is only way. Now, I do feel there MUST be only 1 way for your team once you leave the meeting room. cant be multiple ideas outside... get on the same page. But for someone to say that "their way" is the only way anyone should be coaching something is just crazy to me. I get this to some extent coach, as far as it being a "my way or the highway" thing. In the first example, I didn't say these examples were the only way, I just argued that they are better ways. I'm fine to hear alternate takes, I'd just like to hear why specifically someone thinks that any of them are not better, or even why another way might actually be better. With what you said, what would be your take with the first example I gave in the first post, with the build-a-fence technique by an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage? You can teach him to play without build-a-fence technique, but then you are setting him up to getting beat in the middle of the field. One of the key things we are supposed to do as coaches is try to put our players in a position to be successful. I don't want to sound haughty, but that one to me is a no-brainer, I don't see how someone could look at that one realistically and say that not teaching an inside/trail defender in middle of the field open coverage to use build-a-fence is just as good as teaching them to use build-a-fence. Again I'm open to an alternate take, I'd just like to know why someone thinks it's just as good. What about some of the other examples I gave (as I mentioned in the first post, some of them are more debatable, like the QB progression in 4 Verts)? Coach... the point I was trying to make is some coaches don't think they should ever leave the middle of the field open in coverage. While I agree some practices are better that others logically, that's how I see it or you see it. I do believe some people think their way is better because they win games, when in reality its just because their jimmies are better than the joes on the other side. I personally have never called it the "build a fence" method. I do believe that if leaving no help in the middle letting the WR is the middle isn't good lol . The 4 verts I have always read it seam seam checkdown vs cover 3 … If I like my matchup outside I may tell QB to throw it there but read is seam seam based on what free does... It has been "best" for me in my experiences, but I cant tell a guy he is wrong if he can support it. I tell other coaches... dont suggest something unless you can explain it and support it. Had an assistant once that wanted to change offenses or defenses it seemed weekly bc he saw on tv or the previous team playing our opponent had success with it. In closing I get what your saying too... But as long as someone can explain it support it and have success with it its had to say my way is better universally.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 15, 2024 13:16:10 GMT -6
I think some of this is overcomplicated. Are there better ways of doing things than others? Absolutely. Are some ways of doing things objectively bad, or at least inadequate or inefficient? Sure. Do you have to have the best methods/approach to win? Definitely not, especially as other factors come into play -- most importantly being what you can coach/teach and what people will buy into.
In other words, a second best approach coached very well will beat a "better" but more poorly coached approach nearly every time (though you have to factor in players/talent too...!). If you see a coach that knows their stuff inside and out, can coach the heck out of it, and has answers, I think they are going to be just fine even if there's some "better" approach out there.
"A good plan violently executed is better than the perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future." Gen. Patton.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 15, 2024 15:05:50 GMT -6
I think some of this is overcomplicated. Are there better ways of doing things than others? Absolutely. Are some ways of doing things objectively bad, or at least inadequate or inefficient? Sure. Do you have to have the best methods/approach to win? Definitely not, especially as other factors come into play -- most importantly being what you can coach/teach and what people will buy into. In other words, a second best approach coached very well will beat a "better" but more poorly coached approach nearly every time (though you have to factor in players/talent too...!). If you see a coach that knows their stuff inside and out, can coach the heck out of it, and has answers, I think they are going to be just fine even if there's some "better" approach out there. "A good plan violently executed is better than the perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future." Gen. Patton. Chris, I agree with most of what you said, but what among the first post did you find to be overcomplicated?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 15, 2024 15:28:07 GMT -6
I think some of this is overcomplicated. Are there better ways of doing things than others? Absolutely. Are some ways of doing things objectively bad, or at least inadequate or inefficient? Sure. Do you have to have the best methods/approach to win? Definitely not, especially as other factors come into play -- most importantly being what you can coach/teach and what people will buy into. In other words, a second best approach coached very well will beat a "better" but more poorly coached approach nearly every time (though you have to factor in players/talent too...!). If you see a coach that knows their stuff inside and out, can coach the heck out of it, and has answers, I think they are going to be just fine even if there's some "better" approach out there. "A good plan violently executed is better than the perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future." Gen. Patton. Chris, I agree with most of what you said, but what among the first post did you find to be overcomplicated? I am not fussed about it and I appreciate the good natured discussion, but I disagree with the logic of your premise, as I think it jumps to a conclusion: In practical terms I don't think saying that there is not only one, Platonic ideal right way to do things necessarily means that all methods of doing things are therefore as equal valid as others. First, the nature of this argument is a bit beyond this message board, as this is a common argument in the world of moral philosophy and moral relativism (don't think we want to go there ). But, second, we're talking here about coaching football, and namely getting kids/teenagers to learn, develop, and perform various skills to try to win football games. Football is very complex, both schematically but also just physically, and professional athletes spend years (and a lot of money) to refine their craft, and I think probably every single aspect of the game, from plays to techniques to whatever can probably be optimized, but there are compromises built into everything -- you only have so much time, attention and talent to work with. That doesn't mean that things can be done better, or shouldn't be improved upon, but it also doesn't mean there are always right and wrong answers to the test. I'm not sure if that's what you're arguing, but that was my reaction to it. I have no disagreements with your specific examples of methods that are better/worse than others.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 15, 2024 17:54:55 GMT -6
Below are examples of one possible method, and then in contrast, it is followed by what I argue are better methods. This is a wonderful topic and what off-season skull sessions are made of. This is where that excited February - March energy goes to What you're presenting isn't limited to athletic performance / coaching, as tripsclosed explained. Its the way things have worked and then there's a lean/operationalized/agile approach. Execution comes down to PEOPLE and PROCESS. Each can overcome the deficiency of the other. There are traditional pass concepts that have always been taught 1,2,3 reads based on what the package is. So your player would need to be intimate with how they approach play. The "Enterprise solution" of Darin Slack's R4 can repackage your entire passing game regardless of the route concept used, so there is a method for operating as a QB that gets reinforced on every rep (instead of just reinforced on each play). Does that mean one is better than the other? No, it just means one consolidates a skillset more than the other. Defense, just might suffer more from the whizbang effect of MORE. A few things work against a defense. One, defensive coaches aren't all that bright to begin with. Second, defensive players are just as dull as their coaches. It is the violence of action that these guys operate at that lends them to think DOING is the only way to survive. You can't play defense without an offense, so you're always reacting (or attacking) something. The key is how can you package things on defense to utilize that same efficiency spoke of for offense? "Sabanese" gets lauded for this but like tripsclosed pointed out, if you don't see the big picture, how it all connects to one another, you'll get caught chasing "the stuff". WHAT you use as your modality in football (PROCESS) depends on your people....not just the players, but the TEAM. I wish that were a science, but it comes down to what each TEAM finds is their chemistry. You can have a method to approach each TEAM, but they aren't guaranteed, which would make them the "RIGHT" way.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 15, 2024 19:09:58 GMT -6
i used to think i was bright. then i realized i was working all kinds of ridiculous hours for crappy pay.
not too bright.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 16, 2024 8:44:31 GMT -6
i used to think i was bright. then i realized i was working all kinds of ridiculous hours for crappy pay. not too bright. Post of the century
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Aug 16, 2024 9:40:18 GMT -6
Was talking to the HC the other day about a teacher at the school who is a big time "side hustle" guy. It hit me that he and I might be the worst "side hustle" guys alive haha.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 16, 2024 10:02:41 GMT -6
Two things teaching-coaching HS football will allow you to be:
Not too rich, and not too poor.
So long as you can live with those, you'll be alright.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Aug 16, 2024 12:18:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 16, 2024 13:01:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 17, 2024 7:30:18 GMT -6
wow. i didn't know you could do things like that. that's not acutally me, if anybody was wondering. i don't drink and i can't swim.
|
|
CoachK
Sophomore Member
Posts: 171
|
Post by CoachK on Aug 17, 2024 11:40:23 GMT -6
I already mentioned this, but don’t forget, Saban teams game planned and took a limited number of coverages into each game. I bet some coverages never got gameplanned or called for a couple of years in a row. Also worth noting that Saban built his cover 3 around having to defend Dan Marino. If one of us is in that position, God help us.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 17, 2024 13:26:55 GMT -6
I already mentioned this, but don’t forget, Saban teams game planned and took a limited number of coverages into each game. I bet some coverages never got gameplanned or called for a couple of years in a row. Also worth noting that Saban built his cover 3 around having to defend Dan Marino. If one of us is in that position, God help us. I love Saban's defense, but I've emphasized this point over and over and over. Lol. It was built specifically to defend teams that could both run and pass. That isn't the deal in average HS football in America, where it's still 80-95% run and they are doing you a favor if they try to moonlight as an Air Raid or Run and Shoot team...You don't have to run Rip/Liz in your average HS, and in fact, I'd argue it's counter-productive because you are spending reps to get good at it when there is no need to run it, you could instead run spot drop cover 3 and get really really good at it (and other parts of your defense, too). And this is actually a good example of where simpler might arguably be a better method given this situation, I'm now going to add this to the first post. Lol
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Aug 17, 2024 20:26:36 GMT -6
A related question-consideration (especially for HS coaches): How much is too much? Saban may have THE best way to defend say, RPOs or Shallow Crosses for example. More variations-calls-adjustments, ifs and checks. But there is only so much practice time in a day and no sense in trying to do more than you can do well. Another would be true 2-gapping where the DL is anchoring down on their near OL and board-drilling them, taking whichever gap the ball declares toward. That takes an elite player to do well. There are other forms of 2-gapping like what's used in Jimmy/Pony, TGOG, etc that regular players can be asked to execute. To your point on practice time, if a defense is limited on practice time because of players going both ways and/or talent, then you probably have to worry about less from the offenses because they are probably working with the same limitations you are, and thus your defense doesn't need to have so much volume. I feel like these two points really undercut your generally argument here and are based off false assumptions. 1) I argue against the idea that 2-gapping is any harder than playing TGOG (ect...). I've actually found it far easier to develop a player who can align head up, get his hands inside, get extension, play facemask under facemask and beat an OL. I think it is a mentally a much easier assignment. Physically the traits it require (strength) are much easier to train in the weight room. I think it is tougher to find a kid with a burst / 1st step, and even tougher to find a kid who has that step and also can block react at a high level. 2) Defensive limitations absolutely do not requires offensive limitations, for several reasons. To start, while each team might have an offensive limitation for practice time, it's common for a HS defense to go from Flexbone to Wing-T, to Air Raid to 11p RPO week to week. Yea, each week you only have to worry about one. But you can't teach the rules from scratch just that week. It's also very, very possible to be outclassed any given week (playing a team a classification, or two, above yours. Dealing with injuries to a specific position group. Its common for a team to have 40-45 varsity players and be a two platoon roster to play a team with 33 players who are one platoon. You can also just work at a school that chooses to 1-platoon (for a myriad of reasons), or maybe you just 1-platoon a single position group (IE, your DB's also play WR). You can also deal with issues relating to practice availability in the spring and summer (do all your DB's play baseball and basketball? Or are they football only kids?)
|
|
|
Post by Down 'n Out on Aug 18, 2024 2:41:03 GMT -6
A related question-consideration (especially for HS coaches): How much is too much? Saban may have THE best way to defend say, RPOs or Shallow Crosses for example. More variations-calls-adjustments, ifs and checks. But there is only so much practice time in a day and no sense in trying to do more than you can do well. Superior vs Best. There are obviously superior ways of doing things, but are those ways the best for in an individual circumstance? Just because something is a superior way doesn't me we can execute it, so it isn't the best option for us
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 18, 2024 10:11:07 GMT -6
Also worth noting that Saban built his cover 3 around having to defend Dan Marino. If one of us is in that position, God help us. I love Saban's defense, but I've emphasized this point over and over and over. Lol. It was built specifically to defend teams that could both run and pass. That isn't the deal in average HS football in America, where it's still 80-95% run and they are doing you a favor if they try to moonlight as an Air Raid or Run and Shoot team...You don't have to run Rip/Liz in your average HS, and in fact, I'd argue it's counter-productive because you are spending reps to get good at it when there is no need to run it, you could instead run spot drop cover 3 and get really really good at it (and other parts of your defense, too). And this is actually a good example of where simpler might arguably be a better method given this situation, I'm now going to add this to the first post. Lol This kind of thinking- "We don't run x because nobody in our league runs y"- has always bothered me. For one thing although it may be true that the teams in your league are 85-90% run, that's not a rule, in the by-laws. There's mothing stopping from changing that if they want to. Then there's the playoffs. It may be true that most HS teams don't both run and pass well but some of them do. When you get into the playoffs it becomes more and more likely that you'll run into a team like that. I don't want to lose a game that, based on personnel, is winnable. Losing a game because the other guys out-played you is one thing. Losing because we didn't have systemic answers is what keeps me awake at night (Or did when I was coaching). Obviously you don't need a Saban level playbook but you do need to have answers.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 18, 2024 10:47:16 GMT -6
Another would be true 2-gapping where the DL is anchoring down on their near OL and board-drilling them, taking whichever gap the ball declares toward. That takes an elite player to do well. There are other forms of 2-gapping like what's used in Jimmy/Pony, TGOG, etc that regular players can be asked to execute. To your point on practice time, if a defense is limited on practice time because of players going both ways and/or talent, then you probably have to worry about less from the offenses because they are probably working with the same limitations you are, and thus your defense doesn't need to have so much volume. I feel like these two points really undercut your generally argument here and are based off false assumptions. 1) I argue against the idea that 2-gapping is any harder than playing TGOG (ect...). I've actually found it far easier to develop a player who can align head up, get his hands inside, get extension, play facemask under facemask and beat an OL. I think it is a mentally a much easier assignment. Physically the traits it require (strength) are much easier to train in the weight room. I think it is tougher to find a kid with a burst / 1st step, and even tougher to find a kid who has that step and also can block react at a high level. I'm gonna have to get with you then and learn from you, coach. Lol. And I say that sincerely, not sarcastically I think you make some valid points, but to me it's about playing the percentages: Odds are, unless you are in the highest or next to highest classification in your state, most of the teams you face are probably going to be mostly or fully one-platoon. That's just what guys in the average HS situation do. Lol There are guys like Mike Judy on here who have found a way to subvert that (and he has had a lot of dam success doing it), but I feel like guys like him are the exception, not the rule. Most guys say "Well, we only have x amount of players and out of that amount of players, only 3 are dudes", throw their hands up in the air, don't try to develop players, and go the one-platoon route. Because they are one-platooning, there is only so much they can do on offense, and definitely only so much that they can do well. That's the key part to me. You might see a lot of different offenses in a season, but if you look at them as a whole, how many different things that they do well are your opponents going to be able to throw at you across the course of the season? I'm not arguing for running only spot drop cover 3, but I think what you install pre-season and then carry each week needs to be based on a realistic consideration of what your opponents as a whole can do well against you across the season. I do think something important to keep in mind here is much of the volume (and a good bit of the complexity) in Saban's defense compared to the average HS defense, came not from defending a bunch of different types of things the offense could throw at them (I do think that was still part of it), but rather from the need to be able have answers for teams that could present a run threat and a pass threat, and pass-heavy teams that could pass well and weren't just trying to be pass heavy and failing at it. If you cut out his stuff for defending the threat of the pass, a large portion of his defense vanishes...Cover 2 man-match (Cut, Clip, Clipper, Cutter, Cleo, Cougar, Buster, Buster Iowa, etc), Cover 3 Rip/Liz, Mable/Skate with a Skinny tag for defending 4 Verts out of 3x1, Cover 1 with all the bells and whistles (as opposed to plain old country Cover 1), Cover 7 (which is dam near a whole defensive system in of itself), specialty calls like "Turkey" and "Sticky" for the low-red zone, Cover 2 Man Thumbs, even Cover 2 Man Dog, that all goes away if he were facing caveman during the season. There's still a good bit in what is leftover, but it's nothing compared to what it would be with all the stuff for defending the pass game. In your average HS situation, it's still at least 80% run game, and up to 95% or so, and the QB's aren't Dan Marino. Just look on here for evidence of this. Almost every new thread in the offensive and defensive sub-sections of the board is on the offense using run game and run-heavy systems, and defending run game, and run-heavy systems like Flexbone, Wing-T, etc. The pass game section basically stays dead (there used to be more discussion there in the old days when there was a lot more traffic on the site). You don't need all that chit I just listed in Saban's defense there because you are not being threatened by the pass game. And in fact, as I've said elsewhere on here, it's counter-productive to spend reps trying to run all that when you don't even need to, you could instead spend those reps on getting really good at what you will need.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 18, 2024 10:54:30 GMT -6
I love Saban's defense, but I've emphasized this point over and over and over. Lol. It was built specifically to defend teams that could both run and pass. That isn't the deal in average HS football in America, where it's still 80-95% run and they are doing you a favor if they try to moonlight as an Air Raid or Run and Shoot team...You don't have to run Rip/Liz in your average HS, and in fact, I'd argue it's counter-productive because you are spending reps to get good at it when there is no need to run it, you could instead run spot drop cover 3 and get really really good at it (and other parts of your defense, too). And this is actually a good example of where simpler might arguably be a better method given this situation, I'm now going to add this to the first post. Lol This kind of thinking- "We don't run x because nobody in our league runs y"- has always bothered me. For one thing although it may be true that the teams in your league are 85-90% run, that's not a rule, in the by-laws. There's mothing stopping from changing that if they want to. Then there's the playoffs. It may be true that most HS teams don't both run and pass well but some of them do. When you get into the playoffs it becomes more and more likely that you'll run into a team like that. I don't want to lose a game that, based on personnel, is winnable. Losing a game because the other guys out-played you is one thing. Losing because we didn't have systemic answers is what keeps me awake at night (Or did when I was coaching). Obviously you don't need a Saban level playbook but you do need to have answers. I agree you need answers. My thoughts on the playoff thing is that this can start to get into chasing ghosts territory. You want to have some reasonable answers built into your defense from day 1, BUT, if you spend the whole pre-season and in-season trying to rep a whole bunch of different things so you are prepared for what may or may NOT ever come in the playoffs, that takes away time from getting really good at what you need to do to beat the teams you know you are going to face, which could cost you games, including games you should have won, and that in turn could end up costing you a chance to even go to the playoffs.
|
|