Strategic Trends for the Next Decade

[BeltwayHusker]

SmartFootball.com has an interesting post today addressing the Staples/Mandel article discussed in another thread, and contemplating future strategic trends in college football. Lots of good stuff here, but just a taste:

The spread developed essentially in response to two defensive phenomena. The first goes back to Buddy Ryan: the ubiquity of the eight-man front defenses. Although his vaunted “46″ defense became famous in the 1980s, in the 1990s teams still used it and, more importantly, they used his philosophies — his eight-man front principles — to overwhelm the run and protection schemes of teams still trying to use traditional personnel, i.e. two runningbacks, one tight-end, and two receivers. Personified by defenses like the one used by d!(k Tomey at Arizona, his Under-Shift Double-Eagle Flex — a.k.a. the “Desert Swarm” — these defenses were basically impossible for anyone using traditional sets, personnel and concepts, unless the talent gap was wide enough to overcome the strategic disadvantage.

I have a memory of one of the early 90's games against Washington where our offense was basically shut down by their eight-man front. I was a youngster then, so someone can correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly.

He discusses how the future trends will likely start on the defensive side. The Pelini brothers' success in limiting spread teams is not mentioned, but is very much on point to this article. Maybe in 10 years writers will discuss how defenses like the "Peso" led to significant new trends in offensive strategy....

Here's the link.

 

[John BarleyCorn]

I think you will see the option (the Osborne versions) and the wishbone make a serious come. Hell, all the Wildcat is, is the old single wing shotgun offense with a few tweaks here and there.

 

[brophog]

I think you will see the option (the Osborne versions) and the wishbone make a serious come. Hell, all the Wildcat is, is the old single wing shotgun offense with a few tweaks here and there.

I don't, for a lot of reasons.

1) The passing game is simply more efficient from a per play standpoint.

2) The rules heavily favor the passing game.

3) The size of today's athletes favors the passing game.

4) Very, very few current coaches are trained in sequential playcalling.

None of those say that the option can't work. None of those say that the option won't work. None of those say the option cannot be part of an overall offensive system.

They simply say we will not see a large scale trend towards option/wishbone/veer offenses in the near future, imo. The forward pass has simply become a dominant figure in modern football and as the coaches that started in a sequence based offense continue to retire, that will only become more the case. I'm not saying the option is going to leave the game, but the multiple wide receiver offenses have replaced it as the defacto choice amongst the lesser talented institutions and that was always a huge draw for the option. The option's future I believe will exist as a complementary part of an existing offense.

What we're seeing is versatility come to the forefront, even in the slow to change NFL: 40 Nickel, 33, 3-4......all of these structures have become popular because they bring more flexibility in personnel.

One of the things I have a hard time explaining to people is the rise of the 3-4 in the NFL. The standard idea amongst the public is the 3-4 is a 2 gap scheme, with a 0 tech NT, and with little variance from that singular idea. It is so much more flexible than that. The same thing happens at the college level, but instead of flexing the DE/OLB we're flexing a LB/S/CB. Teams have different ways of doing it, but at the end of the day it is in response to offensive variability. Defenses need to be more versatile in their base sets. Gone are the days we put 8 in the box expecting a lead ISO on first down and only moving to a Nickel on 3rd and Intermediate or longer. It may be 5 wide now on first down and 2 back on second down! Most defenses these days run a lot of fronts, to the point even calling an NFL defense a 3-4 is a bit of a misnomer. Some "3-4" teams aren't lined up in a "3-4" by alignment more than 10-15% of the time.

You really can't discuss modern football defenses without looking at them by personnel and by alignment. We just play so many fronts these days that thinking about the defense as a whole as a combination just won't work.

It's not your daddy's game anymore, on either level. As these defenses become more versatile, the offenses again respond. The basic passing concepts used in most multiple receiver offenses are zone based; attempting to outnumber zonal defenders in a single part of the field. Defenses have adjusted by using more man and matchup zone philosophies. More film study is done now that helps players recognize offenses by passing concept rather than by route. More understanding on the defensive side is happening in regards to tendencies and route combinations. Bill Callahan may have failed in a lot of areas as a head coach, but he deserves a great deal of credit in upgrading our technology in these regards. When you see Asante and Amukamura change the defense at the line so seamlessly, that's a direct consequence of their detailed film study. No defensive structure is more powerful than the ability to recognize the offense's intentions, just as no offensive structure is more powerful than the ability to defeat the defense's on the fly.

The response to the other team playing man is to either attempt to outnumber them in the box, with schemes like the zone read or to create open space by bringing players closer to the line with bunch formations, or utilizing more tight ends. The option is another way; teams that play a lot of man defense are more susceptible to being blocked by receivers. Bubble screens.........the list goes on and on.

What we're seeing are offenses doing a little bit of all of this. They're not as specialized as they were, which you'll no doubt notice bothers many traditional college football fans who relate their team by an easily recognizable structure. I applaud Watson in that he understands this need for versatility. I was really against his hire, and made my opinion on that known publicly, but in 2008 I issued a public apology......that offense married these things together and became difficult to defend. If we keep an open mind, and improve from a technical aspect, I think we'll see this variability again. Watson is the type of coach that is willing to step out of his comfort zone a bit and bring together divergent ideas, and that's the type of offense I think we'll see in the next decade. I think we'll see teams attack versatility with versatility.

 

[brophog]

He discusses how the future trends will likely start on the defensive side.

It's always been that way. Teams formulate offenses to defeat the popular defense at the time and then defenses attempt to adjust........kicking off the next popular defensive era. Defensive constructs have typically been more generic and more rigid, and therefore once an offense found a way to defeat one defense they could have success against the popular defensive construct of the era. The idea that an offense has to attack multiple fronts is a relatively new concept in football history.

Not only do defenses run so many more fronts these days, but run a lot more games and stunts with a wide range of blitz packages off of those combinations. Defensive innovation is at the forefront, mostly be necessity. The rules have so heavily skewed the advantage to the offense that you have to be more creative than ever. Defending the passing game through physicality just leads to too many hankies......gotta outsmart them now. The side that makes the other side think the most has the advantage in today's game.

 

[John BarleyCorn]

He discusses how the future trends will likely start on the defensive side.

It's always been that way. Teams formulate offenses to defeat the popular defense at the time and then defenses attempt to adjust........kicking off the next popular defensive era. Defensive constructs have typically been more generic and more rigid, and therefore once an offense found a way to defeat one defense they could have success against the popular defensive construct of the era. The idea that an offense has to attack multiple fronts is a relatively new concept in football history.

Not only do defenses run so many more fronts these days, but run a lot more games and stunts with a wide range of blitz packages off of those combinations. Defensive innovation is at the forefront, mostly be necessity. The rules have so heavily skewed the advantage to the offense that you have to be more creative than ever. Defending the passing game through physicality just leads to too many hankies......gotta outsmart them now. The side that makes the other side think the most has the advantage in today's game.

i agree with your last line of your post. and that's why i believe the option will make a comeback. the defense has to think about keeping quarterback containment, taking care of the dive back, and keeping the pitch man and the relationship between the quarterback and the pitch man strung out horizontally. Not to mention, that element of surprise of the QB dropping back on an option pass. The wishbone is a perfect example of an offense making the defense "think" too much. The flexbone at GT under Johnson is another example of that, showing that the option can work. Now am I saying that GT could win a nat'l title with that offense? No, they simply don't have the horses. They have damn good talent on the offensive side of the football, but what they need is a combination of better defensive coaching and talent. what an option offense needs to compliment it, is a defense that can get the ball back to the them.

Now the risk with being an option oriented team, is the fact that your team philosophy has to tie in with each facet of the game. An option team likes to chew clock, give the defense a rest. The defense, in turn has to shut-down the opponents attack, since the option isn't a come from behind offense. And special teams have to be top notch, most notably in the in coverage of kicks and punts to keep the opposing offense at bay, and give your offense a short field with the return game.

 

[brophog]

i agree with your last line of your post. and that's why i believe the option will make a comeback. the defense has to think about keeping quarterback containment, taking care of the dive back, and keeping the pitch man and the relationship between the quarterback and the pitch man strung out horizontally. Not to mention, that element of surprise of the QB dropping back on an option pass. The wishbone is a perfect example of an offense making the defense "think" too much. The flexbone at GT under Johnson is another example of that, showing that the option can work. Now am I saying that GT could win a nat'l title with that offense? No, they simply don't have the horses. They have damn good talent on the offensive side of the football, but what they need is a combination of better defensive coaching and talent. what an option offense needs to compliment it, is a defense that can get the ball back to the them.

The problem there is in the coaching. Playcalling in a sequential based offense like the Option and a non-sequential based offense like the West Coast or Run N Shoot is completely different. All of that beauty you're seeing in those option/wishbone/veer offenses is predicated on a series of plays meshing together. In a non-sequential based offense we're more focused on down and distance and dictating individual matchups. It's a completely different way of playcalling and you see it on the field. You can tell when a coach was taught in a sequential based offense, even if he isn't currently coaching one, by how his plays flow. One of my biggest beefs with most playcallers isn't matching tendencies or down and distance, but in their inability to call a related sequence of plays. We're just far enough out of those sequential offenses being popular that today's coaches just weren't brought up with that knowledge.

Paul Johnson does a great job, but he's an endangered species. Sequential based playcalling is a fine art and we're quickly running out of teachers to teach it.

Now the risk with being an option oriented team, is the fact that your team philosophy has to tie in with each facet of the game. An option team likes to chew clock, give the defense a rest. The defense, in turn has to shut-down the opponents attack, since the option isn't a come from behind offense. And special teams have to be top notch, most notably in the in coverage of kicks and punts to keep the opposing offense at bay, and give your offense a short field with the return game.

I completely and totally disagree. The option has the ability to score from any part of the field, no different than a vertical passing attack. I think the point that the option can suffer when it is behind has been lodged more heavily in Nebraska minds because a few losses to a few certain teams stick out so heavily. The option works better when you aren't limited by time constraints, but so does every other offense. It doesn't matter if you're a vertical passing attack, or one that utilizes a lot of bubble screens......as soon as the game conditions start dictating a course of action, the defense has a distinct advantage. No offense is made to come back from 2 or 3 scores down because all offenses at their core have to be balanced around certain plays, actions, and looks in order to achieve peak efficiency. An option offense may find more 8 and 9 man fronts, and a vertical passing offense may find 6 blitzers in their ear.......the course of action by the defense has may change, but the underlying premise doesn't. It doesn't matter much what offense you run, if you find yourself 2 or 3 scores down against level competition your odds of winning that game dramatically decrease. This argument will play out both for run heavy and pass heavy offenses........."load the box", "pin their ears back"......you've heard it all before. If anything, that's probably what has given so much power to the idea of a "balanced" offense, because it is seen as an offense that is somehow less restricted. But the truth is, any offense is going to struggle in that situation, regardless of pass/run ratio or primary design. If game conditions can take something away from you and start changing how much of the field I as a defense have to cover, then your offense is behind the 8 ball.

College Football is a game of super-teams. The NFL is so neutral in nature that you can have teams that can't run the ball, play little defense, but have a great passing attack and still make the Super Bowl. That doesn't happen in college football. Great college teams can't have great offenses and bad defenses. Or the other way around. The talent discrepancy is just too great. To say the option needs a great defense, in my mind, is a specific case of saying all college football offenses need great defenses.

Finally, time of possession: I'm sorry I don't have the time this morning to delve into this concept more, because I feel the concept is one that deserves more discussion. It is in large part because the correlation stats are misleading (teams with high offensive time of possession tend to win, but it is generally the case that they have high time of possession figures because they were winning due to the fact a team leading a game will want to decrease scoring opportunities more than one trailing). It is seen as being controlled by the offense, with the idea of defensive time of possession not entering the mainstream and the notion that a team wants to chew up the clock. Not so. You give any team the opportunity to score on one play, and they're going to take it! Sometimes teams find they need to manage the game more because they don't score as efficiently as the other team, and in that sense you can level the playing field a bit by reducing the overall number of possessions, but no team truly 'wants' to "control the clock". Even when the popular offenses involved mostly 2 back/2 Tight sets, you went out and got the biggest, fastest RB you could so that you could score more big plays than the other guy. Big plays win football games. In what form that big play takes may have changed, but that mantra never has.

 

[junior4949]

I think one of the biggest trends we're beginning to see is that defense wins championships is making a comeback in a serious way. Take Saban for example, he isn't winning at Bama with a stellar offense. He's winning with defense. For years, the most difficult recruit was at the QB position. If a QB showed signs of being a protype QB, he was sought after by nearly every D1 team. Coaches and teams are beginning to trend away from trying to land the elite QB's because the competition is too great. I see teams favoring strong recruiting on the defensive side of the ball while recruiting game management offensive players. Look at all the head coaches and head coaches in the waiting that were/are defensive coordinators.

 

[zoogs]

What we're seeing are offenses doing a little bit of all of this. They're not as specialized as they were, which you'll no doubt notice bothers many traditional college football fans who relate their team by an easily recognizable structure. I applaud Watson in that he understands this need for versatility.

Quoted for emphasis.

That was a very, very detailed and insightful read, brophog.

Could you delve into sequential playcalling more?

 

[knapplc]

Wow. :blink: I'm seriously impressed by the level of detail in brophog's posts. Thanks for posting that stuff! :thumbs

 

[I am I]

I'll say this, my dad coached football for over 25 years and was pretty successful; he said at the high school or college level he thought you ALWAYS needed some form of option offense in your attack. No matter if you run it 5 or 50 times a game, it simply keeps defenses honest and disciplined. One missed assignement and it goes to the house from anywhere. Also, the more a team employs the mulitple option attack, the more mindset they have to crush people. I really like all the insight and deep philosophy talk on this thread, but let's keep it simple:

who can hit someone in the mouth harder? Who can dig deep in the 4th quarter and finish?

I think this mindset and approach eliminate a lot of the talk about clock control, stacking boxes, alignment etc..., although all of those are important and are integral parts of evaluating tape and gameplans, I'll personally take a team that can smash over one who tries, on every damn play to simply out scheme, out shift, and overthink everytime.

The last decade saw a push to more finesse and scheme, but it seemed to me the teams winning conference and national titles were just plain tougher and meaner at the end of the day (like mizzou getting blown out by OU in b12 CCG). And now i think teams that have been trying to outscheme and finesse are being marganilized by teams that have great tough defenses and hardnosed offense approaches, which will hopefully mean more multiple option attacks.

 

[knapplc]

I'll say this, my dad coached football for over 25 years and was pretty successful; he said at the high school or college level he thought you ALWAYS needed some form of option offense in your attack. No matter if you run it 5 or 50 times a game, it simply keeps defenses honest and disciplined. One missed assignement and it goes to the house from anywhere. Also, the more a team employs the mulitple option attack, the more mindset they have to crush people. I really like all the insight and deep philosophy talk on this thread, but let's keep it simple:

who can hit someone in the mouth harder? Who can dig deep in the 4th quarter and finish?

I think this mindset and approach eliminate a lot of the talk about clock control, stacking boxes, alignment etc..., although all of those are important and are integral parts of evaluating tape and gameplans, I'll personally take a team that can smash over one who tries, on every damn play to simply out scheme, out shift, and overthink everytime.

The last decade saw a push to more finesse and scheme, but it seemed to me the teams winning conference and national titles were just plain tougher and meaner at the end of the day (like mizzou getting blown out by OU in b12 CCG). And now i think teams that have been trying to outscheme and finesse are being marganilized by teams that have great tough defenses and hardnosed offense approaches, which will hopefully mean more multiple option attacks.

The fact that your dad coached for 25 years doesn't make this expert commentary. You've WAAAAY oversimplified several crucial factors here.

 

[I am I]

Who said anything about expert? Just saying that it may offer a little perspective about how the game always evolves and changes, but some things about football never change: you have to be freakin tough, you have to command the line of scrimmage, and all the new schemes of the week don't mean squat if you don't keep a defense honest and disciplined. And yeah, I'd say growning up with a dad as a coach, who just happened to learn under a one Tom Osborne, gives a little more credence to some couch surfer who curses real loud when Watson runs 'the same damn play 4 times in a row'...to quote people I hear at watch sites and games.

I didn't argue about sequential play calling and all that scheme philosophy, I was simply pointing out that the OP was pointing at trends in the game, and my interpretation seemed to be, ironically, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Which is why I used my dad as a reference, who told me that about 20 years ago.

If , knapplc, you have a better personal reference...then by all means, do interject.

 

[knapplc]

Who said anything about expert? Just saying that it may offer a little perspective about how the game always evolves and changes, but some things about football never change: you have to be freakin tough, you have to command the line of scrimmage, and all the new schemes of the week don't mean squat if you don't keep a defense honest and disciplined. And yeah, I'd say growning up with a dad as a coach, who just happened to learn under a one Tom Osborne, gives a little more credence to some couch surfer who curses real loud when Watson runs 'the same damn play 4 times in a row'...to quote people I hear at watch sites and games.

I didn't argue about sequential play calling and all that scheme philosophy, I was simply pointing out that the OP was pointing at trends in the game, and my interpretation seemed to be, ironically, that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Which is why I used my dad as a reference, who told me that about 20 years ago.

If , knapplc, you have a better personal reference...then by all means, do interject.

I coached under Tom Osborne for 17 years. I won two national championships under Osborne as a coach. And I'm Vince Lombardi's godson.

Does that qualify?

 

[I am I]

Great. I commend u on your qualifications. Then surely u must know that as complex and deep the discussion gets about scheme and philosophy; it comes down to execution, discipline, preparation, and toughness. I didn't get into talk of sequential playcalling because that is somethng I agree with mostly as a dying art and whatnot. As a coach yourself you probably know that everyone copies everyone and most people would be 'shocked' to know that coaches regularly swap ideas and tapes and there aren't really any closely guards secrets. Having said that. The OP article was about trends and another poster revealed he thought the option would make a comeback. I happen to agree with him. Great tough defense and sound blocking with a grind-it offensive mentality are what I prefer. It's also something I was told was pretty essential by someone who actually employed it.

Don't knock my input about this conversation because i 'oversimplified' the thread.

 

[knapplc]

Calm down, calm down. You're taking this so seriously, and all we're talking about are some schemes and some trends. Mostly I was taking the piss out of you because you assert you're a coach's son, so that gives you insight other than what the rest of us have, but we don't know you're a coach's son just like you don't know I'm a former coach - or we could both be making it up. Mostly I'm just joshing with you.