| FTBL Will Saban's 3-4 work against the spread (merged topics)

[Guest]

I just listened to an interview with someone whom I believe everyone here, even musso, will agree knows a little about defense. The topic of conversation? How best to defend the spread. This defensive coach said it was his opinion that the best way to defend the spread was to have a base of a 3-4 defense. Give the 3-4 look, but actually have the personnel on the field that is a 3-3-5 or a 3-2-6. This coach also was called upon to consult the defensive coaches at Alabama in 2005 on how to handle UF. The above is what he advised CJK to use, and CJK took his advise. Things worked out pretty well.

The name of this coach I heard interviewed this morning? Brother Bill Oliver. I think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to defense.

Guess what defense Coach Saban uses? 3-4 base that drops into a 3-3-5 or 3-2-6 when facing spread offense.

 

[johnwants#13]

Players recruited by Saban for D'

Musso,

Go back and take a look at the offer sheets of our last recruiting class.
The coaches who you are singi ng the praises of offered and heavily recruited the same athletes that we signed.
How do you explain that fact?

 

[Guest]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we will have no problem defended the Tony Franklin spread, as I have no doubt in my mind that most SEC defenses will have a problem defending it this year. With that out of the way, I have a sort of interesting question for you guys. Roughly, what's our record against teams that use some form of the spread offense?

The last few years we've played Tx. Tech, Houston, UF (twice)and Hawaii who ran versions of a spread offense. 4-1.

The most diverse and toughest to defend, in terms of an offensive approach, was Houston.

Colorado spread the field, but it wasn't what I would call a spread offense. Middle Tennessee State ran a version of it, but the closest thing to compare to Franklin's is they were a no-huddle offense. Again, a W. Last year, UT ran some no-huddle. Again, a W.

Utah State? Debatable. But again, a W, twice.

South Florida in 2003 a true spread, no huddle attack. But, yet again, a W.

Thanks Terry. I knew about most of the recent ones, and given our history on facing the spread I don't think we need to worry about Tony Franklin. I mean, out of all these teams the only one that beat us was a National Champion Florida team, who has a very modified version of the spread to suit playing in the SEC week in and week out. Not to mention if I remember correctly, we didn't just lay down for them.

 

[Guest]

I talked with an old pal of mine who his HC at a D-3 school at the moment, but prior to that has coached the defensive side at a variety of schools at all levels of college play.

His take on this is that he won't recruit specifically to defend the spread, because he has to play more schools that run more traditional style of offense. His general approach is to give a spread offense a lot of different looks, including 3 and 4 man fronts, mixed in with nickel and dime packages. He said that typically his team will have two or three defensive packages for a game, but for a spread type team they will have 5 or 6.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I talked with an old pal of mine who his HC at a D-3 school at the moment, but prior to that has coached the defensive side at a variety of schools at all levels of college play.

His take on this is that he won't recruit specifically to defend the spread, because he has to play more schools that run more traditional style of offense. His general approach is to give a spread offense a lot of different looks, including 3 and 4 man fronts, mixed in with nickel and dime packages. He said that typically his team will have two or three defensive packages for a game, but for a spread type team they will have 5 or 6.

This is why I think making across the board wholesale changes in the size player a team recruits is going to far to one side of the spectrum and putting a team in a position to get run over by a team that doesn't run the spread and is more of a power team.

 

[musso]

My opinion hasn't changed and I've voiced the reasons behind why I feel the way I do several times.

yes, but you have consistently failed to deal with a couple of inconvenient facts which serve as my main points (and the main points of all these other coaches): heavier players lose their endurance quicker than lighter players; heavier players cannot cover in space as well as lighter players. as i've said repeatedly in this long thread, throw out schemes. instead, focus entirely on the difference between the aggregate weight of Saban's ideal defensive front and the ideal defensive front as stated by Richt, Shannon, Stoops, Walker, Schlabach, Maisel, etc. the issue of weight/mass is the point of all of these coaches. simply stated, defenders carrying less mass are able to retain more endurance over the course of a game, a game that is increasingly requiring defenders to cover more ground in less time in one-on-one matchups.

Now, as to your latest two links, what Tony Franklin says carries no weight in the college football circles. Sure, high school coaches have listened to him, but you won't find a DC that "fears" what he's going to bring to the field.

you do realize terry that in totally writing Franklin off you assign yourself the daunting task of explaining why so many other offenses have begun featuring spread and up-tempo/no-huddle elements. you also give yourself the additional task of discrediting the data provided in one of the two recent articles i provided:

[Franklin] devised an entire offense based on tempo and enrolled in a seminar in Los Angeles to learn how to market it. He made his first sale to a high school head coach in Hoover, Ala., Rush Probst.

Hoover won four consecutive state championships and became the subject of "Two-A-Days," a reality show on MTV. It's safe to say the offense worked. Soon, Franklin was selling his system to dozens of high school head coaches. He lost track of how many state championships it won.

"Somewhere between 13 and 15," he said.

I will comment on what Stoops said because I do respect his ability with defenses.

have you missed the fact that he agrees with all the other big name coaches mentioned in all the articles i've provided?

To quote Stoops in this article...

The biggest issue is your speed on the field on defense

We have that even if our players are larger than what Franklin is recruiting.

you conveniently omitted the rest of what Stoops said:

"And athleticism, guys that can play in space, tackle in space, cover, pressure. … I think you're going to see quicker and lighter linebackers overall so you have to try and match their speed."

terry, i keep this thread alive not because i desire to change your opinion on this matter. instead i keep this thread alive because i desire to know why you hold your opinion, particularly when so many other successful coaches hold an opposing opinion. i mean, i'm no defensive expert, but i can easily see what the offensive trend is today and how defenses are attempting to adjust to these trends. then i look at my favorite team and immediately wonder why my team isn't responding defensively in a similar manner as other successful defenses.

 

[musso]

Basically what Musso is saying is that he and some of the coaches in the SEC knows more about defense and who to recruit than Saban, without any concept of better conditioning with better skill sets and other intangables. Please I for one find this laughable! I'll take Saban for 500 Alex! :lol: :roll:

you are grossly mistaken. i'm not that arrogant. i'm only reading articles that collectively state what the offensive trend is today and conversely what the defensive trend is. i'm using the logic that all these successful coaches are providing in these articles. the fact that Saban isn't responding in like manner to the popularity of the spread and no-huddle naturally makes me question why.

 

[musso]

The Colts also use a similar system that as plenty of spread principles. Bill Belichick runs a prototypical 3-4 defense and has had plenty of success against Manning and the Colts.

yeah but Manning isn't a running threat. a running QB is the critical element here.

 

[Guest]

It is still football, still have to block, tackle etc etc, no matter what other coaches think. There are always different opinions and I do not see every coach thinking the same way....

Please make it stop......

*Jumps off the tallest building he can find*

I also hope AU runs their QB a lot...he will pay for it.

 

[musso]

Musso- What is a team that goes "lighter and faster" across the board going to do when they face an offense that has 300+ lb offensive linemen and doesn't run a full fledge spread option? I tell what they're going to do. They're going to get their ass kicked all over the field.

i can't read the articles for you. Maisel responds to your point ...

Stoops acknowledged that such changes might mean sacrificing some ability to plug up the run.

furthermore, if you look back in this thread i respond to your valid point by making an argument for a 4-3 (or any scheme that utilizes only two DL weighing around 280 placed in the defensive interior).

You defense the spread by discipline and fundamentals not by speed and quickness.

again, read the articles. you disagree with an impressive list of coaches.

The difference in speed you're talking about between a 230 lb LB compared to 250 lb LB isn't so much that it will make that much difference.

i can only say you are badly mistaken. 20 pounds is a HUGE difference, especially in a one-on-one matchup against a lighter ball carrier. again, over the course of a game (and season) the demands on your body are exponentially greater with every additional pound you carry regardless if it is lean muscle mass or adipose tissue.

The spread isolates one on one tackling and exposes weaknesses in the fundamentals of tackling.

yes, but have you ever tried to tackle someone who weighs 20-plus pounds less than you? it's funny how they seem so elusive.

 

[Guest]

musso,

did you not read what I posted that Bill Oliver had to say about defending the spread? Do you not think he knows what he's talking about?

As far as the fast smaller guy being more durable than the larger fast guy, I think that is false. If the large fast guy is as well conditioned as the smaller fast guy, the large fast guy will be just as fresh in the 4th quarter as the smaller guy.

 

[Guest]

Musso- What is a team that goes "lighter and faster" across the board going to do when they face an offense that has 300+ lb offensive linemen and doesn't run a full fledge spread option? I tell what they're going to do. They're going to get their ass kicked all over the field.

i can't read the articles for you. Maisel responds to your point ...

Stoops acknowledged that such changes might mean sacrificing some ability to plug up the run.

You defense the spread by discipline and fundamentals not by speed and quickness.

again, read the articles. you disagree with an impressive list of coaches.

The difference in speed you're talking about between a 230 lb LB compared to 250 lb LB isn't so much that it will make that much difference.

i can only say you are badly mistaken. 20 pounds is a HUGE difference, especially in a one-on-one matchup against a lighter ball carrier. again, over the course of a game (and season) the demands on your body are exponentially greater with every additional pound you carry regardless if it is lean muscle mass or adipose tissue.

The spread isolates one on one tackling and exposes weaknesses in the fundamentals of tackling.

yes, but have you ever tried to tackle someone who weighs 20-plus pounds less than you? it's funny how they seem so elusive.

Yes I have, and I squished him like a bug all night long. Just because someone is lighter does not always make them quicker.

 

[TerryP]

Musso, throughout this entire thread there have been counterpoints to the things you have mentioned but you seem to ignore them and then move to another facet of your supposition. Oh well...

I'm still lost on how a guy that is 5'10' and weighs 190lbs and runs a 4.5 is supposed to be more elusive than a guy that is 6'2", weight 230lbs and runs a 4.5.

 

[Guest]

Musso, throughout this entire thread there have been counterpoints to the things you have mentioned but you seem to ignore them and then move to another facet of your supposition. Oh well...

I'm still lost on how a guy that is 5'10' and weighs 190lbs and runs a 4.5 is supposed to be more elusive than a guy that is 6'2", weight 230lbs and runs a 4.5.

It is because the 5'10" guy has character.

 

[musso]

Yes I have, and I squished him like a bug all night long.

remember, ball carriers don't battle in the trenches. their objective is to advance the ball while eluding tacklers. this is Football 101 :wink:

Just because someone is lighter does not always make them quicker.

true, like in the games of Checkers and Sequence.

 

[musso]

I'm still lost on how a guy that is 5'10' and weighs 190lbs and runs a 4.5 is supposed to be more elusive than a guy that is 6'2", weight 230lbs and runs a 4.5.

are you really serious???

i suppose this is basic physics.

two objects (one greater in mass than the other) are traveling at the same velocity ... which object possesses the greater inertia? the heavier object of course! thus, a lighter athlete will be able to change directions more sharply than a heavier player. i mean, take a look around, how many 230-lbs. running backs and wide receivers do you see? also, someone help me out here, what is one of the activities used in athleticism/fitness tests whereby an individual sprints a short distance, stops, and immediately returns to the point of origin? are they called "shuttles"? well anyway, you usually see a correlation between the weight of the athlete and his/her time. magnify that over the course of a game.

again, i've mentioned that i'm an athletic trainer. a basic knowledge of exercise physiology teaches you that the amount of energy required to move a heavier body is more than the amount of energy required to move a lighter body. thus, heavier athletes expend more energy than lighter athletes given the same activity.

come on terry, i have faith in you understanding these basic principles.

 

[pimpsahoy]

The Colts also use a similar system that as plenty of spread principles. Bill Belichick runs a prototypical 3-4 defense and has had plenty of success against Manning and the Colts.

yeah but Manning isn't a running threat. a running QB is the critical element here.

I don't see how that matters. You are still requiring your LB's to play in space. That seems to be the main point of your argument, that larger LBs aren't able to pursue the ball as well as smaller LBs. So whether they are chasing RBs, WRs, or QBs wouldn't matter.

 

[Guest]

And that goes back to the point made a few posts ago. Against the spread, rather than asking linebackers to run with one of those receivers you resort to extra corners and/or safeties in the game as part of a nickel or dime package. If your 190 pound corner is lined up against their 190 pound slot receiver, you don't have to quit recruiting those 230 pound linebackers. They might not see the filed much against Auburn or Florida, but you'd better have them ready against LSU or Georgia.

 

[johnwants#13]

Answer the question Musso!

You still have not answered me as to why the same coaches that you refer to recruited and made offers to most of the D-linemen and LBers that we signed????????????????????????

 

[musso]

So whether they are chasing RBs, WRs, or QBs wouldn't matter.

yes, but the mere threat of a running QB puts a greater strain on a defense. this means even more space needs to be defended, particularly on passing downs. to adequately cover greater amounts of space, defenders need to shed some pounds. as psychojoe mentions, you could simply substitute DBs for LBs, which effectively is doing what i and all these coaches are advocating - making your defense lighter.

again though, as i've already noted in this thread, running QBs don't thrive in the NFL as they do in college which makes comparing NFL to NCAA tricky.