|
Post by fantom on Aug 18, 2024 11:27:18 GMT -6
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. Who does that, though? Who spends time working on "exotics" when they're not going to use them? You show the kids the unusual stuff early. It's all really just a variation of more basic stuff anyway. Then we spend our time getting good at the stuff that we do all the time. Inseason we work on what we've game planned for that week. Then, when we need the "exotics" the kids have at least seeen it before. Are we going to be GREAT at it? Not necessarily but at least we'll be giving our guys a fighting chance. Now the game goes back to being about talent and execution instead of letting one side have a clear schematic advantage.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 18, 2024 13:14:25 GMT -6
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. Who does that, though? Who spends time working on "exotics" when they're not going to use them? You show the kids the unusual stuff early. It's all really just a variation of more basic stuff anyway. Then we spend our time getting good at the stuff that we do all the time. Inseason we work on what we've game planned for that week. Then, when we need the "exotics" the kids have at least seeen it before. Are we going to be GREAT at it? Not necessarily but at least we'll be giving our guys a fighting chance. Now the game goes back to being about talent and execution instead of letting one side have a clear schematic advantage. IMO this depends on what it is as far as covering it in the spring or pre-season and then not touching it again until later on in the season or in the playoffs. What's an example or two of something for you that you think you could install in the spring or pre-season and not work at all until later in the season or in the playoffs, and get installed and rep and in 4 days on a one-platoon practice schedule that week? Coachks mentioned earlier not writing the rules from scratch every week, take something like Buster coverage for example, if you install that in pre-season or even as far back as spring, and then you don't touch it again until the last week of the season or in the playoffs, and dont review it at least a few times each week, you basically are starting from scratch the week you finally decide to pull it out, because no one is going to remember any of that chit other than a vague recollection, and definitely aren't going to get good at it in 4 days of practice (especially not on a one-platoon team where practice time is limited and you are having to practice the rest of your defense and the offense). It's not as simple as something like Cover 3 where you just practice dropping to your spots, you are having to practice Buster with the "You" calls vs certain formations, and the "Me" calls vs other formations, and then within each of those calls, you have to practice playing the You call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get, and then practice playing the Me call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get. And if you don't do that, you aren't going to be good at it, you're going to have coverage busts, and you might as well just not bother running it. Buster coverage really is in effect two separate coverages, one with the Me calls, and one with the You calls. Ditto for things more commonly known and used than Buster, like Stubbie, Seahawk, Stump, Clip, Bracket, Box, MOD, MEG, Rip/Liz, Cover 1 with Cut rules, and then also lesser known and used stuff like Stack coverage, Push Alerts for coverages like Bracket and Switch, Bingo, and Stack Alert Bingo (could play out as one of THREE different possible coverages depending on first what #3 does, and then what #1 does). Even coverages like Clipper, Cutter, Cleo, and Buster Iowa (which are all just Clip and Buster coverage but with different people playing the same roles, which are used vs 3x1 nub formations so that you are not wasting a good CB or safety defending a TE to the nub side when you could flip them over to the trips side and defend a WR at #2 or #3 to trips) you still have to take valuable, limited practice time to teach those guys the new roles they are being shifted into, and you have to make sure that everyone remembers that the word Clipper, or Cutter, or whatever changes these things but not these things, and remember when the changes are and are not relevant to them. You cant have most guys remember all that but one guy forget, because then you are going to have a huge coverage bust, you need everyone to remember and on the same page. For an example of needing to practice new roles in this group of man-match Cover 2 coverages for 3x1 nub, for a CB flipped to play man on #2 to trips, he now has to practice playing Clip rules as an overhang, that takes time away from him practicing his normal role as a CB. Saban's man-match and zone-match stuff for defending passing game you can't just install in 4 days the week of a playoff game and expect to be good at it on Friday night, especially not on a one-platoon HS team. I know you may not be talking mainly or even at all about Saban pass game coverages, so please don't crucify me for mentioning it like another poster on here would...I'm just giving an example of where the approach you are talking about isn't always practical depending on what you are trying to run. This is further compounded by the fact that for your guys that play the same position but flip based on strength (or flip in stuff like Cutter, Clipper, etc), you have to practice all this from both the left and right sides of the field, because playing Clip rules as an overhang on the left side of the field is not the same assignment as playing Clip rules as an overhang on the right side of the field (same idea as the Air Raid philosophy that a curl route ran to the left is not the same as a curl route to the right). If you balk at this notion, try having a guy only practice an assignment from the left or right side of the field, then in a game, have him flip to the opposite side of the field from how he usually practices the assignment and have him run the same assignment, and see if he is equally as good at it from that new side as he is playing it from the side he normally practices. In my view, depending on what it is, some things you have to work all year long if you want them to be available come the playoffs for that one passing team you run into, and if you arent able or willing to work it all year, you are better off not wasting time on it, because if you try to install it in 4 days before a game, you are going to be worse off than just playing your base chit and you are going to get embaressed, because you are going to have coverage busts. A few 5 or 8 or even 15 yard gains vs the weak points of your base chit is better than having a coverage bust that leads to a score because you tried to install something in 4 days before practice that week.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 18, 2024 14:02:19 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. 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?) i may be missing the point of the discussion, or maybe only focusing on only one part of it (i tend to do that)- but i eventually went to 1-gapping dl because it was almost impossible to find dl that could handle 2-gapping. (i also think it makes easier reads for the lb. jmo) we would occasionally have one, but never an entire d-line's worth that could. you basically have to control the o-lineman in order to control both gaps. as in - without going into detail, you either have to- 1). react to his movement and beat him to the gap he's trying to keep you out of, or 2). you have to be strong enough to physically control him if you're not quick enuf to do that. if you're lucky, he can do both, but those don't come along every day. there are tons of kids you can work with til the cows come home, and they will always be on the backside of the o-lineman's block. i know, because i have done this. i say all this having grown up in a 2-gap defense, and was a 2-gapping lineman myself.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 18, 2024 14:15:26 GMT -6
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?) i may be missing the point of the discussion, or maybe only focusing on only one part of it (i tend to do that)- but i eventually went to 1-gapping dl because it was almost impossible to find dl that could handle 2-gapping. (i also think it makes easier reads for the lb. jmo) we would occasionally have one, but never an entire d-line's worth that could. you basically have to control the o-lineman in order to control both gaps. as in - without going into detail, you either have to- 1). react to his movement and beat him to the gap he's trying to keep you out of, or 2). you have to be strong enough to physically control him if you're not quick enuf to do that. if you're lucky, he can do both, but those don't come along every day. there are tons of kids you can work with til the cows come home, and they will always be on the backside of the o-lineman's block. i know, because i have done this. i say all this having grown up in a 2-gap defense, and was a 2-gapping lineman myself. So there is something confusing about TGOG. Without going into ALL the details, the two gap player is not an old school TWO gap player. He is NOT responsible for both gaps like an old school read the hat and dominate the o lineman two gap guy. He typically lines up outside shoulder, but is responsible for the inside gap. He should just bull rush the o lineman. If he bases, go into the inside gap. If he reaches, you have the inside gap. If he down blocks inside you, then you do normal BDSD and wrong shoulder or dent. If he pass sets, bull rush. Unexpectedly, this is also a good technique for smaller guys. The base block is what should give smaller guys the most trouble, and just taking it on and them ripping inside is so much easier than trying to hold your ground and keep outside arm free.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 18, 2024 14:55:49 GMT -6
i think i remember asking about tgog. didn't remember what it was (i tend to do that with things that come along after i was out).
but it sounds to me like it's a 1-gap technique, just from the wrong shoulder, that allows the dl to be more aggressive. i actually used it one year, or something similar, because of personnel. don't know that it was called anything then (back in the 90's), or if anybody else had ever used it. it was just something i came up with for the situation.
i thought i had invented something.
i also incorporated some 46/10-1 stuff, before i ever had any idea what it was or that anybody else might be doing some of those things. i thought i invented that too.
i was responding to ks argument that actual 2-gapping is easier to develop. i don't think actually teaching 2-gap is harder. i think it requires much more from a player, and those who can do it consistently against everybody are a lot harder to find.
maybe it's all based on where we've been and the players we've had. i never had that kind of talent available consistently.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Aug 18, 2024 16:47:10 GMT -6
Basically, we can debate just about everything regarding the X's and O's of football, just as much as we can debate philosophical differences within systems. IMHO much of those debates are a waste of time and energy if the outcomes of the debates tries to point out what is right or wrong. What works for others may not necessarily work for you. There is no right or wrong way to get it done. There are so many variables that determine the path to your own plan. And THAT by itself is what truly matters in finding the right path for YOUR own program.
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 18, 2024 16:54:15 GMT -6
agreed. but i have time to waste now.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 18, 2024 17:33:39 GMT -6
Who does that, though? Who spends time working on "exotics" when they're not going to use them? You show the kids the unusual stuff early. It's all really just a variation of more basic stuff anyway. Then we spend our time getting good at the stuff that we do all the time. Inseason we work on what we've game planned for that week. Then, when we need the "exotics" the kids have at least seeen it before. Are we going to be GREAT at it? Not necessarily but at least we'll be giving our guys a fighting chance. Now the game goes back to being about talent and execution instead of letting one side have a clear schematic advantage. IMO this depends on what it is as far as covering it in the spring or pre-season and then not touching it again until later on in the season or in the playoffs. What's an example or two of something for you that you think you could install in the spring or pre-season and not work at all until later in the season or in the playoffs, and get installed and rep and in 4 days on a one-platoon practice schedule that week? Coachks mentioned earlier not writing the rules from scratch every week, take something like Buster coverage for example, if you install that in pre-season or even as far back as spring, and then you don't touch it again until the last week of the season or in the playoffs, and dont review it at least a few times each week, you basically are starting from scratch the week you finally decide to pull it out, because no one is going to remember any of that chit other than a vague recollection, and definitely aren't going to get good at it in 4 days of practice (especially not on a one-platoon team where practice time is limited and you are having to practice the rest of your defense and the offense). It's not as simple as something like Cover 3 where you just practice dropping to your spots, you are having to practice Buster with the "You" calls vs certain formations, and the "Me" calls vs other formations, and then within each of those calls, you have to practice playing the You call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get, and then practice playing the Me call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get. And if you don't do that, you aren't going to be good at it, you're going to have coverage busts, and you might as well just not bother running it. Buster coverage really is in effect two separate coverages, one with the Me calls, and one with the You calls. Ditto for things more commonly known and used than Buster, like Stubbie, Seahawk, Stump, Clip, Bracket, Box, MOD, MEG, Rip/Liz, Cover 1 with Cut rules, and then also lesser known and used stuff like Stack coverage, Push Alerts for coverages like Bracket and Switch, Bingo, and Stack Alert Bingo (could play out as one of THREE different possible coverages depending on first what #3 does, and then what #1 does). Even coverages like Clipper, Cutter, Cleo, and Buster Iowa (which are all just Clip and Buster coverage but with different people playing the same roles, which are used vs 3x1 nub formations so that you are not wasting a good CB or safety defending a TE to the nub side when you could flip them over to the trips side and defend a WR at #2 or #3 to trips) you still have to take valuable, limited practice time to teach those guys the new roles they are being shifted into, and you have to make sure that everyone remembers that the word Clipper, or Cutter, or whatever changes these things but not these things, and remember when the changes are and are not relevant to them. You cant have most guys remember all that but one guy forget, because then you are going to have a huge coverage bust, you need everyone to remember and on the same page. For an example of needing to practice new roles in this group of man-match Cover 2 coverages for 3x1 nub, for a CB flipped to play man on #2 to trips, he now has to practice playing Clip rules as an overhang, that takes time away from him practicing his normal role as a CB. Saban's man-match and zone-match stuff for defending passing game you can't just install in 4 days the week of a playoff game and expect to be good at it on Friday night, especially not on a one-platoon HS team. I know you may not be talking mainly or even at all about Saban pass game coverages, so please don't crucify me for mentioning it like another poster on here would...I'm just giving an example of where the approach you are talking about isn't always practical depending on what you are trying to run. This is further compounded by the fact that for your guys that play the same position but flip based on strength (or flip in stuff like Cutter, Clipper, etc), you have to practice all this from both the left and right sides of the field, because playing Clip rules as an overhang on the left side of the field is not the same assignment as playing Clip rules as an overhang on the right side of the field (same idea as the Air Raid philosophy that a curl route ran to the left is not the same as a curl route to the right). If you balk at this notion, try having a guy only practice an assignment from the left or right side of the field, then in a game, have him flip to the opposite side of the field from how he usually practices the assignment and have him run the same assignment, and see if he is equally as good at it from that new side as he is playing it from the side he normally practices. In my view, depending on what it is, some things you have to work all year long if you want them to be available come the playoffs for that one passing team you run into, and if you arent able or willing to work it all year, you are better off not wasting time on it, because if you try to install it in 4 days before a game, you are going to be worse off than just playing your base chit and you are going to get embaressed, because you are going to have coverage busts. A few 5 or 8 or even 15 yard gains vs the weak points of your base chit is better than having a coverage bust that leads to a score because you tried to install something in 4 days before practice that week. Look, I think you're way overthinking this thing. It seems to me that you've gotten so into the Saban stuff that you compare everything to that.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 18, 2024 19:40:43 GMT -6
IMO this depends on what it is as far as covering it in the spring or pre-season and then not touching it again until later on in the season or in the playoffs. What's an example or two of something for you that you think you could install in the spring or pre-season and not work at all until later in the season or in the playoffs, and get installed and rep and in 4 days on a one-platoon practice schedule that week? Coachks mentioned earlier not writing the rules from scratch every week, take something like Buster coverage for example, if you install that in pre-season or even as far back as spring, and then you don't touch it again until the last week of the season or in the playoffs, and dont review it at least a few times each week, you basically are starting from scratch the week you finally decide to pull it out, because no one is going to remember any of that chit other than a vague recollection, and definitely aren't going to get good at it in 4 days of practice (especially not on a one-platoon team where practice time is limited and you are having to practice the rest of your defense and the offense). It's not as simple as something like Cover 3 where you just practice dropping to your spots, you are having to practice Buster with the "You" calls vs certain formations, and the "Me" calls vs other formations, and then within each of those calls, you have to practice playing the You call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get, and then practice playing the Me call rules vs all the different main route combos you could get. And if you don't do that, you aren't going to be good at it, you're going to have coverage busts, and you might as well just not bother running it. Buster coverage really is in effect two separate coverages, one with the Me calls, and one with the You calls. Ditto for things more commonly known and used than Buster, like Stubbie, Seahawk, Stump, Clip, Bracket, Box, MOD, MEG, Rip/Liz, Cover 1 with Cut rules, and then also lesser known and used stuff like Stack coverage, Push Alerts for coverages like Bracket and Switch, Bingo, and Stack Alert Bingo (could play out as one of THREE different possible coverages depending on first what #3 does, and then what #1 does). Even coverages like Clipper, Cutter, Cleo, and Buster Iowa (which are all just Clip and Buster coverage but with different people playing the same roles, which are used vs 3x1 nub formations so that you are not wasting a good CB or safety defending a TE to the nub side when you could flip them over to the trips side and defend a WR at #2 or #3 to trips) you still have to take valuable, limited practice time to teach those guys the new roles they are being shifted into, and you have to make sure that everyone remembers that the word Clipper, or Cutter, or whatever changes these things but not these things, and remember when the changes are and are not relevant to them. You cant have most guys remember all that but one guy forget, because then you are going to have a huge coverage bust, you need everyone to remember and on the same page. For an example of needing to practice new roles in this group of man-match Cover 2 coverages for 3x1 nub, for a CB flipped to play man on #2 to trips, he now has to practice playing Clip rules as an overhang, that takes time away from him practicing his normal role as a CB. Saban's man-match and zone-match stuff for defending passing game you can't just install in 4 days the week of a playoff game and expect to be good at it on Friday night, especially not on a one-platoon HS team. I know you may not be talking mainly or even at all about Saban pass game coverages, so please don't crucify me for mentioning it like another poster on here would...I'm just giving an example of where the approach you are talking about isn't always practical depending on what you are trying to run. This is further compounded by the fact that for your guys that play the same position but flip based on strength (or flip in stuff like Cutter, Clipper, etc), you have to practice all this from both the left and right sides of the field, because playing Clip rules as an overhang on the left side of the field is not the same assignment as playing Clip rules as an overhang on the right side of the field (same idea as the Air Raid philosophy that a curl route ran to the left is not the same as a curl route to the right). If you balk at this notion, try having a guy only practice an assignment from the left or right side of the field, then in a game, have him flip to the opposite side of the field from how he usually practices the assignment and have him run the same assignment, and see if he is equally as good at it from that new side as he is playing it from the side he normally practices. In my view, depending on what it is, some things you have to work all year long if you want them to be available come the playoffs for that one passing team you run into, and if you arent able or willing to work it all year, you are better off not wasting time on it, because if you try to install it in 4 days before a game, you are going to be worse off than just playing your base chit and you are going to get embaressed, because you are going to have coverage busts. A few 5 or 8 or even 15 yard gains vs the weak points of your base chit is better than having a coverage bust that leads to a score because you tried to install something in 4 days before practice that week. Look, I think you're way overthinking this thing. It seems to me that you've gotten so into the Saban stuff that you compare everything to that. Coach, you started off your last post by saying "Who does that" in regards to working and maintaining difficult stuff every week in case you need it later in the season or in the playoffs, I got into all that to show why it's almost a necessity in some (not all) situations. For better and admittedly sometimes worse, yes, I pretty much filter/view everything through a Saban-centric lens now, because that's the gold standard. Like I said in the post, don't crucify me for bringing it up lol because as I said I realize you may not have been talking about that, I was just giving that as an example of something why there are some things you cant just set on the shelf for 3/4 of the season and then bring back in 4 days of practice, especially on a one-platoon team. I would still like to hear some examples of things you would be fine installing in the spring or pre-season and not touching again until late in the season or in the playoffs that you think your guys could pick back up quickly and still be serviceable with.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 18, 2024 19:42:44 GMT -6
Basically, we can debate just about everything regarding the X's and O's of football, just as much as we can debate philosophical differences within systems. IMHO much of those debates are a waste of time and energy if the outcomes of the debates tries to point out what is right or wrong. What works for others may not necessarily work for you. There is no right or wrong way to get it done. There are so many variables that determine the path to your own plan. And THAT by itself is what truly matters in finding the right path for YOUR own program. There's no right or wrong way, but that wasn't my argument in the first post. It's that given certain variables and situations, some methods are better than others because of _______ reasons, and not because Saban or any other coach runs it, but because of those reasons. The build-a-fence technique for example that i gave in the first post, if you are facing good passing teams whether in HS, FBS, or NFL (this one is irrelevant if you are not facing good passing teams), would you argue that not teaching build-a-fence technique to your defenders is just as good as teaching them build-a-fence, and that not teaching them this will put them in just as good of a position to keep the slot out of the deep middle of the field as teaching them this? That seems like a no-brainer to me personally unless you have a better technique to teach them than build a fence.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 19, 2024 9:31:05 GMT -6
Look, I think you're way overthinking this thing. It seems to me that you've gotten so into the Saban stuff that you compare everything to that. Coach, you started off your last post by saying "Who does that" in regards to working and maintaining difficult stuff every week in case you need it later in the season or in the playoffs, I got into all that to show why it's almost a necessity in some (not all) situations. For better and admittedly sometimes worse, yes, I pretty much filter/view everything through a Saban-centric lens now, because that's the gold standard. Like I said in the post, don't crucify me for bringing it up lol because as I said I realize you may not have been talking about that, I was just giving that as an example of something why there are some things you cant just set on the shelf for 3/4 of the season and then bring back in 4 days of practice, especially on a one-platoon team. I would still like to hear some examples of things you would be fine installing in the spring or pre-season and not touching again until late in the season or in the playoffs that you think your guys could pick back up quickly and still be serviceable with. I've been retired for a few years so I had to think about this. I knew that we'd done it but wanted to recall the specifics. I finally remembered one. We were a C.4/C.2 team. We thought that there might come a time when we'd need to protect the middle of the field so, very early, we'd install basic country C.3. We'd install it in the spring, mess around with it a little in summer 7-on7, then work on our base stuff in-season. We almost never had to drag it out again. In 2008 we had a good team and never had to game-plan C.3- until the state finals. Our opponent had an excellent passing game and they were a no-huddle offense where they lined up, looked at the defense, then called the play. We wanted to mess with their play-calling. We decided to put in rotational C.3, showing a 2 shell then rolling to 3 at the snap. We emphasized pattern reading without chasing. In practice we repped the hell out of post-wheel and post-in. We didn't want to wait until we needed it so we made sure that we ran in early in the first series. It seems to have worked. I talked with some of their coaches at a clinic and they expressed surprise that we'd run it. Were we great at C. 3? Probably not but we hadn't planned to be. We just wanted to create some confusion and discourage the long ball. It was complementary football. We had a great offense and felt that they'd need big plays to beat us. Chewing up clock ny running and throwing short passes, which they did very effectively, wouldn't do it. Turned out that we were right. Did we do it a lot? No. Would we do it with every team? Just the ones with smart, experienced players. I know that it can be done, and with many one-platoon players, though, because we've done it.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Aug 19, 2024 9:51:53 GMT -6
Basically, we can debate just about everything regarding the X's and O's of football, just as much as we can debate philosophical differences within systems. IMHO much of those debates are a waste of time and energy if the outcomes of the debates tries to point out what is right or wrong. What works for others may not necessarily work for you. There is no right or wrong way to get it done. There are so many variables that determine the path to your own plan. And THAT by itself is what truly matters in finding the right path for YOUR own program. There's no right or wrong way, but that wasn't my argument in the first post. It's that given certain variables and situations, some methods are better than others because of _______ reasons, and not because Saban or any other coach runs it, but because of those reasons. The build-a-fence technique for example that i gave in the first post, if you are facing good passing teams whether in HS, FBS, or NFL (this one is irrelevant if you are not facing good passing teams), would you argue that not teaching build-a-fence technique to your defenders is just as good as teaching them build-a-fence, and that not teaching them this will put them in just as good of a position to keep the slot out of the deep middle of the field as teaching them this? That seems like a no-brainer to me personally unless you have a better technique to teach them than build a fence. I am not familiar with the term "build-a-fence" vs. a good passing team. If you don't mind could you please explain this technique? I might be doing the same thing but only using a different phrase.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Aug 19, 2024 10:20:32 GMT -6
There's no right or wrong way, but that wasn't my argument in the first post. It's that given certain variables and situations, some methods are better than others because of _______ reasons, and not because Saban or any other coach runs it, but because of those reasons. The build-a-fence technique for example that i gave in the first post, if you are facing good passing teams whether in HS, FBS, or NFL (this one is irrelevant if you are not facing good passing teams), would you argue that not teaching build-a-fence technique to your defenders is just as good as teaching them build-a-fence, and that not teaching them this will put them in just as good of a position to keep the slot out of the deep middle of the field as teaching them this? That seems like a no-brainer to me personally unless you have a better technique to teach them than build a fence. I am not familiar with the term "build-a-fence" vs. a good passing team. If you don't mind could you please explain this technique? I might be doing the same thing but only using a different phrase. Sorry, I jumped in too late. I read the original post. I've used that technique but just used a different phrase. But...in one school it worked great because I had some really good athletes. In another school it didn't work so well because the athletes weren't as good. A lot of what you determine to run on both offense and defense depends on your talent level. Most of my teams had average athletes so we ran a double wing on offense, and spent most of our time in zone coverages on defense, disguising coverages, and moving our front around. IF we played man coverage I made sure my best kids were in coverage. Sounds simple, but that's what I believed. KISS!
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 19, 2024 11:36:18 GMT -6
Coach, you started off your last post by saying "Who does that" in regards to working and maintaining difficult stuff every week in case you need it later in the season or in the playoffs, I got into all that to show why it's almost a necessity in some (not all) situations. For better and admittedly sometimes worse, yes, I pretty much filter/view everything through a Saban-centric lens now, because that's the gold standard. Like I said in the post, don't crucify me for bringing it up lol because as I said I realize you may not have been talking about that, I was just giving that as an example of something why there are some things you cant just set on the shelf for 3/4 of the season and then bring back in 4 days of practice, especially on a one-platoon team. I would still like to hear some examples of things you would be fine installing in the spring or pre-season and not touching again until late in the season or in the playoffs that you think your guys could pick back up quickly and still be serviceable with. I've been retired for a few years so I had to think about this. I knew that we'd done it but wanted to recall the specifics. I finally remembered one. We were a C.4/C.2 team. We thought that there might come a time when we'd need to protect the middle of the field so, very early, we'd install basic country C.3. We'd install it in the spring, mess around with it a little in summer 7-on7, then work on our base stuff in-season. We almost never had to drag it out again. In 2008 we had a good team and never had to game-plan C.3- until the state finals. Our opponent had an excellent passing game and they were a no-huddle offense where they lined up, looked at the defense, then called the play. We wanted to mess with their play-calling. We decided to put in rotational C.3, showing a 2 shell then rolling to 3 at the snap. We emphasized pattern reading without chasing. In practice we repped the hell out of post-wheel and post-in. We didn't want to wait until we needed it so we made sure that we ran in early in the first series. It seems to have worked. I talked with some of their coaches at a clinic and they expressed surprise that we'd run it. Were we great at C. 3? Probably not but we hadn't planned to be. We just wanted to create some confusion and discourage the long ball. It was complementary football. We had a great offense and felt that they'd need big plays to beat us. Chewing up clock ny running and throwing short passes, which they did very effectively, wouldn't do it. Turned out that we were right. Did we do it a lot? No. Would we do it with every team? Just the ones with smart, experienced players. I know that it can be done, and with many one-platoon players, though, because we've done it. Appreciate you providing that, coach!
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 19, 2024 11:38:51 GMT -6
I am not familiar with the term "build-a-fence" vs. a good passing team. If you don't mind could you please explain this technique? I might be doing the same thing but only using a different phrase. Sorry, I jumped in too late. I read the original post. I've used that technique but just used a different phrase. But...in one school it worked great because I had some really good athletes. In another school it didn't work so well because the athletes weren't as good. A lot of what you determine to run on both offense and defense depends on your talent level. Most of my teams had average athletes so we ran a double wing on offense, and spent most of our time in zone coverages on defense, disguising coverages, and moving our front around. IF we played man coverage I made sure my best kids were in coverage. Sounds simple, but that's what I believed. KISS! I might be turning over a new leaf today! 😄 What specifically did your less athletic guys struggle with on it? Were they just not capable of executing it properly and it put them in an even worse position than just playing it "regular"?
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Aug 19, 2024 12:12:09 GMT -6
Yes. Exactly. They weren't very good at it. I always believed in highlighting my players' strengths and not expose their weaknesses. I never asked my ILBers to cover a slot receiver. That responsibility was left to my Outside Safeties (we ran a 4-2-5). Against a trips set we made a "BTF" call (Blitz The Front). My FS would roll up to #3 inside and we would lock-up across. Our front would mix, and we would send pressure. My Stud ILBer would spy the remaining back if he released to his side, and my Whip would spy the remaining back if he released to his side. If the release was away from the ILBer he would blitz.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Aug 24, 2024 12:32:32 GMT -6
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. I think playing 1 gap is easier than 2 gap, but I think playing old school 2 gap is easier than playing TGOG (which is the point that was made). I don't think either party is expecting a player to physically occupy both gap, but I think the mechanical disadvantage of starting outside leverage and having to "read" the block is much more difficult than going head up, trying to create knock back, and reacting from there. IE: If I want to play B gap, and I am starting as a 5t, and the OT is bigger than me and knows the snapcount, it is easy for him to high wall me or drive me wide. I have to create movement to get to my gap. If I am head up and responsible for inside 1st / outside second, I have to explode and anchor and he has to create the movement. To your 2nd point.... I don't think that is true for the average HS situation. In my state the lowest classification and hunks of the 2nd lowest are that run heavy (even that is not exclusively true). The highest classification is pass heavy. The 2nd highest classification is fairly balanced. Almost every team in the upper classification is 2 platoon (in my area). Most of the teams in the 2nd highest classification are 2 platoon. That 3rd classification is fairly divided (more 1 platoon than 2, but it's close). The smallest classification is almost all 1 platoon. But we are a state with 425 or so football playing schools. Solidly 200 of them are going to be 2 platoon teams with competent pass games. But you are still going to see the Wing-T or Option every season.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Aug 24, 2024 13:16:30 GMT -6
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. I think playing 1 gap is easier than 2 gap, but I think playing old school 2 gap is easier than playing TGOG (which is the point that was made). I don't think either party is expecting a player to physically occupy both gap, but I think the mechanical disadvantage of starting outside leverage and having to "read" the block is much more difficult than going head up, trying to create knock back, and reacting from there. IE: If I want to play B gap, and I am starting as a 5t, and the OT is bigger than me and knows the snapcount, it is easy for him to high wall me or drive me wide. I have to create movement to get to my gap. If I am head up and responsible for inside 1st / outside second, I have to explode and anchor and he has to create the movement. I can see where you are coming from on this. Some of your perception of this though could be your state, that is 1 state out of 48 (if we are just talking lower 48, I don't know much about HS football in Hawaii, and I know next to nothing about any FB at all in Alaska), generally the consensus I've seen from people (at least in my experience to be fair), is that HS football is still mostly run game, regardless of what style the offense is.
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Aug 26, 2024 6:40:40 GMT -6
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. I think playing 1 gap is easier than 2 gap, but I think playing old school 2 gap is easier than playing TGOG (which is the point that was made). I don't think either party is expecting a player to physically occupy both gap, but I think the mechanical disadvantage of starting outside leverage and having to "read" the block is much more difficult than going head up, trying to create knock back, and reacting from there. IE: If I want to play B gap, and I am starting as a 5t, and the OT is bigger than me and knows the snapcount, it is easy for him to high wall me or drive me wide. I have to create movement to get to my gap. If I am head up and responsible for inside 1st / outside second, I have to explode and anchor and he has to create the movement. To your 2nd point.... I don't think that is true for the average HS situation. In my state the lowest classification and hunks of the 2nd lowest are that run heavy (even that is not exclusively true). The highest classification is pass heavy. The 2nd highest classification is fairly balanced. Almost every team in the upper classification is 2 platoon (in my area). Most of the teams in the 2nd highest classification are 2 platoon. That 3rd classification is fairly divided (more 1 platoon than 2, but it's close). The smallest classification is almost all 1 platoon. But we are a state with 425 or so football playing schools. Solidly 200 of them are going to be 2 platoon teams with competent pass games. But you are still going to see the Wing-T or Option every season. That is not how a 2 gap 5 tech is played in TGOG is part of the problem. He's not assigned to anything "outside". Base and reach he's B gap, otherwise squeeze and spill. He does not have contain on pass.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Aug 26, 2024 7:18:06 GMT -6
I think playing 1 gap is easier than 2 gap, but I think playing old school 2 gap is easier than playing TGOG (which is the point that was made). I don't think either party is expecting a player to physically occupy both gap, but I think the mechanical disadvantage of starting outside leverage and having to "read" the block is much more difficult than going head up, trying to create knock back, and reacting from there. IE: If I want to play B gap, and I am starting as a 5t, and the OT is bigger than me and knows the snapcount, it is easy for him to high wall me or drive me wide. I have to create movement to get to my gap. If I am head up and responsible for inside 1st / outside second, I have to explode and anchor and he has to create the movement. To your 2nd point.... I don't think that is true for the average HS situation. In my state the lowest classification and hunks of the 2nd lowest are that run heavy (even that is not exclusively true). The highest classification is pass heavy. The 2nd highest classification is fairly balanced. Almost every team in the upper classification is 2 platoon (in my area). Most of the teams in the 2nd highest classification are 2 platoon. That 3rd classification is fairly divided (more 1 platoon than 2, but it's close). The smallest classification is almost all 1 platoon. But we are a state with 425 or so football playing schools. Solidly 200 of them are going to be 2 platoon teams with competent pass games. But you are still going to see the Wing-T or Option every season. That is not how a 2 gap 5 tech is played in TGOG is part of the problem. He's not assigned to anything "outside". Base and reach he's B gap, otherwise squeeze and spill. He does not have contain on pass. Yeah, I always taught it as 'fight the reach block' but there somebody else for C/D gap, 5 tech has the cut back in B
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Aug 27, 2024 6:50:59 GMT -6
Yep, reach is fight outside fit inside. You're bringing the C gap to the LB out in coverage. Base block is same thing, fight outside then fit inside. Board drill mentality. So for those saying the OL knows the snap count etc. the OT doesn't know it's king of the boards though. They don't have a clue and king of the boards is a heck of a lot easier vs. a guy that doesn't know it's coming.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 21, 2024 12:50:47 GMT -6
I saw something in another thread on here, and I'm going to post it in here to avoid derailing that thread: We're in the same boat this week preparing for the #50 team in the country with some injuries hurting us. It's incredible how many teams keep blitzing and getting shredded by their QB. 2 Weeks ago the team went cover 0 and cover 1 against them and got shredded and then this past game the other blitzed out of cover 4 so the middle of the field was wide open. So much bad defense out there also by Coaches that have won state titles. Funny when they don't have 10 D1 Players how their team looks.... This type of thing is precisely part of what I was talking about when I made this thread. Some people (not saying necessarily anyone on here, just saying), would try to argue that the approach of the teams that are getting shredded mentioned above is just as valid as playing more balanced, and playing safer coverage and using things like sim pressures, but it's clearly not given they are getting shredded and getting their a$$es handed to them...
|
|
|
Post by CS on Sept 21, 2024 13:25:54 GMT -6
I saw something in another thread on here, and I'm going to post it in here to avoid derailing that thread: We're in the same boat this week preparing for the #50 team in the country with some injuries hurting us. It's incredible how many teams keep blitzing and getting shredded by their QB. 2 Weeks ago the team went cover 0 and cover 1 against them and got shredded and then this past game the other blitzed out of cover 4 so the middle of the field was wide open. So much bad defense out there also by Coaches that have won state titles. Funny when they don't have 10 D1 Players how their team looks.... This type of thing is precisely part of what I was talking about when I made this thread. Some people (not saying necessarily anyone on here, just saying), would try to argue that the approach of the teams that are getting shredded mentioned above is just as valid as playing more balanced, and playing safer coverage and using things like sim pressures, but it's clearly not given they are getting shredded and getting their a$$es handed to them... Everyone gets shredded eventually. Sometimes you just don’t match up
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 21, 2024 13:28:42 GMT -6
I saw something in another thread on here, and I'm going to post it in here to avoid derailing that thread: This type of thing is precisely part of what I was talking about when I made this thread. Some people (not saying necessarily anyone on here, just saying), would try to argue that the approach of the teams that are getting shredded mentioned above is just as valid as playing more balanced, and playing safer coverage and using things like sim pressures, but it's clearly not given they are getting shredded and getting their a$$es handed to them... Everyone gets shredded eventually. Sometimes you just don’t match up Yes, but don't make it easy for them, and based on what coach said above, that's exactly what the opponents are doing. Lol
|
|
|
Post by CS on Sept 21, 2024 14:32:53 GMT -6
Everyone gets shredded eventually. Sometimes you just don’t match up Yes, but don't make it easy for them, and based on what coach said above, that's exactly what the opponents are doing. Lol We don’t know the circumstances of why they were doing what they were doing. I know guys who zone blitz out of cover 4 all the time with great success and they certainly aren’t light years better than their opponents. It very well may be dumb if I watched the film. But I haven’t so I don’t assume they’re dumb just because they got lit up
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 21, 2024 14:52:20 GMT -6
Yes, but don't make it easy for them, and based on what coach said above, that's exactly what the opponents are doing. Lol We don’t know the circumstances of why they were doing what they were doing. I know guys who zone blitz out of cover 4 all the time with great success and they certainly aren’t light years better than their opponents. It very well may be dumb if I watched the film. But I haven’t so I don’t assume they’re dumb just because they got lit up Do the circumstances behind why they were doing what they were doing, really matter all that much in this specific instance? Im not trying to be azz just for the record, just again. Looking again at what he said: "It's incredible how many teams keep blitzing and getting shredded by their QB. 2 Weeks ago the team went cover 0 and cover 1 against them and got shredded and then this past game the other blitzed out of cover 4 so the middle of the field was wide open. So much bad defense out there also by Coaches that have won state titles. Funny when they don't have 10 D1 Players how their team looks...." Take the team that he said is playing Cover 1 and Cover 0, there's two things that team could do to try to make things better. One thing is to play softer, safer coverage at least some of the time and make them earn their way down the field. If they still get you, THEN you tip your cap and say oh well, they are the better team. To me, just throwing your hands up in the air and trying to pressure them because they outmatch you talent-wise instead of making them earn their way down the field, is the equivalent of looking at a tough job, giving up before you even try it, putting forth weak effort, and then saying "Welp, oh well, I tried, just wasn't meant to be." Another thing that Cover 1/Cover 0 team could do is to mix in some sim pressures where your pressure path overloads the protection forcing the QB to throw hot, but then you are still playing traditional coverages with 7 guys in coverage behind the pressure path. On the Cover 4 with zone blitz, he said the MOF is wide open, in that case, they should be playing some 3 deep/3 under or 3 deep/2 under to close the MOF. This is where 1 answer, 1 trick pony approaches to defense get you in trouble; I recently heard Vass talking about how he'd rather have a handful of coverages they are kinda good at, rather than one coverage they are really good at so you can keep throwing different looks at them throughout the game, and I tend to agree with that if you are facing good passing teams like the two teams above were facing. However if you are still facing caveman football every week, then I'd say get very good at spot drop 3 and sit in that all day and play the odds. Lol
|
|
|
Post by CS on Sept 21, 2024 17:48:34 GMT -6
We don’t know the circumstances of why they were doing what they were doing. I know guys who zone blitz out of cover 4 all the time with great success and they certainly aren’t light years better than their opponents. It very well may be dumb if I watched the film. But I haven’t so I don’t assume they’re dumb just because they got lit up Do the circumstances behind why they were doing what they were doing, really matter all that much in this specific instance? Im not trying to be azz just for the record, just again. Looking again at what he said: "It's incredible how many teams keep blitzing and getting shredded by their QB. 2 Weeks ago the team went cover 0 and cover 1 against them and got shredded and then this past game the other blitzed out of cover 4 so the middle of the field was wide open. So much bad defense out there also by Coaches that have won state titles. Funny when they don't have 10 D1 Players how their team looks...." Take the team that he said is playing Cover 1 and Cover 0, there's two things that team could do to try to make things better. One thing is to play softer, safer coverage at least some of the time and make them earn their way down the field. If they still get you, THEN you tip your cap and say oh well, they are the better team. To me, just throwing your hands up in the air and trying to pressure them because they outmatch you talent-wise instead of making them earn their way down the field, is the equivalent of looking at a tough job, giving up before you even try it, putting forth weak effort, and then saying "Welp, oh well, I tried, just wasn't meant to be." Another thing that Cover 1/Cover 0 team could do is to mix in some sim pressures where your pressure path overloads the protection forcing the QB to throw hot, but then you are still playing traditional coverages with 7 guys in coverage behind the pressure path. On the Cover 4 with zone blitz, he said the MOF is wide open, in that case, they should be playing some 3 deep/3 under or 3 deep/2 under to close the MOF. This is where 1 answer, 1 trick pony approaches to defense get you in trouble; I recently heard Vass talking about how he'd rather have a handful of coverages they are kinda good at, rather than one coverage they are really good at so you can keep throwing different looks at them throughout the game, and I tend to agree with that if you are facing good passing teams like the two teams above were facing. However if you are still facing caveman football every week, then I'd say get very good at spot drop 3 and sit in that all day and play the odds. Lol Again how do you know that’s all they did? He just off the cuff said that he saw them do that and he thought it was bad defense. It’s really not bad defense. They just happened to be playing a guy who could expose them. Match up Just as an example I’ve seen Saban and Belichick get exposed and I’m certain they had different calls throughout the game. You’re assuming these things And honestly I really don’t care what Vass has to say. Dude hasn’t coached in forever and just leaches off dudes who still do. Edit: I guess I’m still a caveman offense guy so I will throw in we would absolutely expose cover 3.
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 21, 2024 18:40:20 GMT -6
Do the circumstances behind why they were doing what they were doing, really matter all that much in this specific instance? Im not trying to be azz just for the record, just again. Looking again at what he said: "It's incredible how many teams keep blitzing and getting shredded by their QB. 2 Weeks ago the team went cover 0 and cover 1 against them and got shredded and then this past game the other blitzed out of cover 4 so the middle of the field was wide open. So much bad defense out there also by Coaches that have won state titles. Funny when they don't have 10 D1 Players how their team looks...." Take the team that he said is playing Cover 1 and Cover 0, there's two things that team could do to try to make things better. One thing is to play softer, safer coverage at least some of the time and make them earn their way down the field. If they still get you, THEN you tip your cap and say oh well, they are the better team. To me, just throwing your hands up in the air and trying to pressure them because they outmatch you talent-wise instead of making them earn their way down the field, is the equivalent of looking at a tough job, giving up before you even try it, putting forth weak effort, and then saying "Welp, oh well, I tried, just wasn't meant to be." Another thing that Cover 1/Cover 0 team could do is to mix in some sim pressures where your pressure path overloads the protection forcing the QB to throw hot, but then you are still playing traditional coverages with 7 guys in coverage behind the pressure path. On the Cover 4 with zone blitz, he said the MOF is wide open, in that case, they should be playing some 3 deep/3 under or 3 deep/2 under to close the MOF. This is where 1 answer, 1 trick pony approaches to defense get you in trouble; I recently heard Vass talking about how he'd rather have a handful of coverages they are kinda good at, rather than one coverage they are really good at so you can keep throwing different looks at them throughout the game, and I tend to agree with that if you are facing good passing teams like the two teams above were facing. However if you are still facing caveman football every week, then I'd say get very good at spot drop 3 and sit in that all day and play the odds. Lol Again how do you know that’s all they did? He just off the cuff said that he saw them do that and he thought it was bad defense. It’s really not bad defense. They just happened to be playing a guy who could expose them. Match up I guess we can wait to hear from him them if he happens to see this as far whether this was a consistent thing throughout those games or just a small anecdotal sample. Yeah it happens, but least they did their best not to make it easy for the other team, that's what I was arguing for, make them earn their keep if they want it. I went off of what the dude provided, that's all I have to go on, I'm not on his staff lmao Interesting take. I can't wait to see yall get in a war over something on Twitter at some point (if you haven't already, if you have, I want to see it). Your current opinion of him aside, do you disagree with what he said? Ok, but then what other coverages besides Cover 3 would you be comfortable living in if you were facing caveman teams all the time? Cover 0?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Sept 21, 2024 18:51:15 GMT -6
Again how do you know that’s all they did? He just off the cuff said that he saw them do that and he thought it was bad defense. It’s really not bad defense. They just happened to be playing a guy who could expose them. Match up I guess we can wait to hear from him them if he happens to see this as far whether this was a consistent thing throughout those games or just a small anecdotal sample. Yeah it happens, but least they did their best not to make it easy for the other team, that's what I was arguing for, make them earn their keep if they want it. I went off of what the dude provided, that's all I have to go on, I'm not on his staff lmao Interesting take. I can't wait to see yall get in a war over something on Twitter at some point (if you haven't already, if you have, I want to see it). Your current opinion of him aside, do you disagree with what he said? Ok, but then what other coverages besides Cover 3 would you be comfortable living in if you were facing caveman teams all the time? Cover 0? He’s speaking in general terms. I’ve been at schools that could run multiple coverages and some that really couldn’t. It’s all relative to the situation so no I don’t necessarily agree with him. I would actually rather be extremely good at my base and pretty good at my change ups. Not pretty good at everything. You missed my point on the saban argument. Your stance is that if A is getting exposed then just do B. My point is that those guys have ABCD and still get exposed sometimes. It’s not always that easy and situations always matter As for the “cave man” offense it depends on the caveman offense. If it’s flex I for sure wouldn’t be in cover 3
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 21, 2024 19:39:15 GMT -6
I guess we can wait to hear from him them if he happens to see this as far whether this was a consistent thing throughout those games or just a small anecdotal sample. Yeah it happens, but least they did their best not to make it easy for the other team, that's what I was arguing for, make them earn their keep if they want it. I went off of what the dude provided, that's all I have to go on, I'm not on his staff lmao Interesting take. I can't wait to see yall get in a war over something on Twitter at some point (if you haven't already, if you have, I want to see it). Your current opinion of him aside, do you disagree with what he said? Ok, but then what other coverages besides Cover 3 would you be comfortable living in if you were facing caveman teams all the time? Cover 0? He’s speaking in general terms. I’ve been at schools that could run multiple coverages and some that really couldn’t. It’s all relative to the situation so no I don’t necessarily agree with him. I would actually rather be extremely good at my base and pretty good at my change ups. Not pretty good at everything. I think yours is a reasonable approach, and if pressed, I think he'd probably agree with your position (don't want to speak for him of course; if I remember right I think he said something similar to what you argued for at a different time, i.e. being really good at base and ok at changeups, so that may be underlying what he said on the first thing I was talking about). Your point may be based on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what I was saying? My stance was if you are getting torched by a good QB because you are running a lot of Cover 1 and Cover 0, play safer coverage, and make them earn their way down the field, that way you aren't making it easy for them, you are making them earn it and testing their patience. Also notice where I said if you do that and then they STILL gash you, THEN you tip your cap because they are the better team. It happens. I never said it would solve the problem or was a silver bullet? I also argued for sims which again aren't a silver bullet either, but it's a way to still get pressure, force them to throw hot and take yardage in small chunks instead of accessing downfield throws and still have decent coverage behind it. Ok, let's split them up then, flexbone and any other offenses you think present similar issues to the defense, and then "traditional caveman" football (kind of an oxymoron I know, but here we are). What base coverage would you want to live in vs flexbone and similar? And, why do you think spot drop 3 is problematic vs flexbone and similar (I would imagine you've had that discussion on here before haha, so if you know a specific thread to direct me to, shoot me the link and I will check it out)? What base coverage would you want to live in vs non-flexbone and similar?
|
|