Stopping the Power Running Offense with the 4-2-5 Part I: Principals

This is part I in a multi-part series. (Not sure how many yet.) In this part I will cover the basic principals to stopping the power running game with the 4-2-5. In part II, I will look at alignments and run fits/techniques versus double tight-I. In the part(s) I will cover unbalanced formations and adjustments like "Flip" and getting the safeties on the LOS to form solid fronts. (ie 4-3 under looks)

People new to the idea of using a 5 man secondary are skeptical, because it seems like it would be difficult to stop a power running team that uses bigger personnel. At times being smaller can put the D at a disadvantage, however, with proper game-planning and practice the 4-2-5 can become an excellent defense for stopping the power run.

I am going to cover some principals and show alignments with run fits versus different schemes. There are so many scenarios and play variations in football it would be impossible to cover them all. Understanding the principals and their applications to various formations in plays will put you on your way to using the 4-2-5 versus power running teams.

PRINCIPALS

1. Align Properly

This is the most important aspect in defending any offense. It is important that you not only align soundly, but align in a manner that the offense is not sure what you are doing.

2. Spill and Overlap

When using a defense based on smaller faster players, you have to keep the ball moving laterally. Having the DE's wrong-arm plays is a must. You could try to squeeze or box pulling plays, but if you run into a team stronger than you, big holes are going to open up.

3. Attack the play before it develops.

There are many things that go into this. If I had to break it down into separate parts, I would say:

-Be Aggressive about getting people to the point of attack. (Be willing to play the secondary on the run more aggressively.)

-Don't let the back hit the hole running full speed. (This is why the spill and overlap concept is a big part)

- Force the back to either dance or make a quick decision into a free defender.

4. Play to win the down and distance game

The other principals are developed from this one. You ideally want the offense to go 3 and out. That can be difficult versus many of these offenses. The power running offense is predicated upon keeping the chains and clock moving. Before I get into the Down and Distance strategy for the defense, I will first look at the strategy for the offense.

Power Running Strategy

On first down the offense is happy getting 4 yards and into a second and medium situation. If they happen to get into a second and short situation they will be really happy. Second and short is the best down for the offense; this is where they will use play action passes and other plays with big play potential mixed in with enough running plays to keep the defense off balanced. If the offense ends up in 3rd and short, they are comfortable running any of their base plays. They feel they can get 4 yards at will with this offense. What they want to avoid at all costs is the dreaded 3rd and long. In this down they can't consistently rely upon their running plays to get the necessary yardage, nor can they utilize their play-action passing game effectively. The options they are usually left with are: 5-step passing, Sprint out passing, screens, draws, and a maybe a spread package. These things are outside the comfort zone of their offense. In short, the power run offense tries to avoid 3rd long more than other offensive systems.

Defensive Strategy

The goal of the defense should be to get the power running offense into a 3rd and long situation. How is that accomplished. Simple by getting the offense to gain 2 yards or less on 1st and second down. OK, its not that simple, but that's the general idea. The best thing the defense can do is get the offense to gain 2 or less yards on 1st down. This will put the offense into second and long, again this is a down that the offense wants to avoid, because it makes 3rd and long a real possibility. The offense has pressure to move the ball on second and long.

The general point is, you want pressure on the offense on 2nd and 3rd down. To accomplish this, you have to be aggressive on 1st down. This is the down to be aggressive versus the run. Most power running teams are not going to go for a pass or play pass on 1st down (unless they feel its high percentage). Because an incomplete pass immediately puts pressure on the offense. They don't want to pass unless its high percentage.

The goal of the 4-2-5 versus power running teams is to get them into a 3rd and long situation.

5. Play to get 3 and outs early in the game rather than later in the game.

This is especially true if you have a decent offense on your team. If you get them to go 3 and out on its first 2-3 drives, while at the same time score 10 or more points, then you have put them in a bad position. 1st, they won't have enough plays run yet to be sure of their adjustments. 2nd, they will not be controlling clock, which is a big part of their scheme. 3rd, they will be playing catch up with a ball-control based offense. If they are down by 10 points or more, then they are gonna have to play more aggressive themselves, this usually leads to turnovers and even more mistakes because they are stuck doing something that they are not as comfortable doing as they are in the running game.

In the next part we will look at the application of these principals by using alignments and techniques versus the double tight I.

The Numbers Game

I apologize for not posting in quite some time. I have been stretched thin, between the hectic schedule of football season and finding time for myself. I am working on a few projects which I will post in the near future (hopefully). This post will be focused on alignment philosophy, more specifically the numbers game.


WHY A NUMBERS GAME?

With the presence of 22 players on the field at the same time, football is a numbers game. Offenses use the numbers game to take advantage of the defense while the defense attempts the offense from doing so. The rules of football allow the offense to align in multiple formations, far more than a defense can reasonably prepare for. To combat this, defensive coaches over the years have developed alignment rules and principals.

Alignment can be difficult for players, which is why good coaches teach rules to their players. Also, alignment can be difficult for the coach at times. Coaches have developed their own set of principals to help themselves with alignment to various formations. What are these principals? There are varied options amongst different coaches, but more or less they attempt to adhere to the same principals. When a defensive alignment is considered consistent with a coaches' principals it is said to be "sound".

TRAINING WHEELS-- BALANCING THE NUMBERS

Football 1 on 1 instructs defensive coaches to balance numbers with the offense. New coaches are drilled on this concept by veterans. The thought process stems from the idea that the offense will attack you, if they have a numbers advantage at the point of attack. This is a good concept, but it does not need to be taken to far.

I know a coach that I worked with when I first began coaching that followed a strict "balancing" principal. I am sure most have you have heard about balancing the numbers before, for a refresher or for those whom are not sure about what I am talking about:

Balancing the defense with the offense is a simple process of counting. You start with the offense beginning at the center; count everyone aligned to the left of the center as 1. The center, the QB, and anyone even with the ball as 1/2 a person. Second, add that total up and repeat the process for the other side. Next, draw up your defense count the players on each side of the center the same way you did with the offense, remembering to count anyone aligned even with the center as 1/2. So defensively any head up nose, backer or safety aligned over the center counts as 1/2. Finally, check your numbers to each side and see if they match. If the defenses' numbers are not consistent with the offenses' numbers then the defense is said to be misaligned.

I am not advocating this is the system to determine your alignments by any means. As I have grown as a coach I have "taken off" the training wheels. This system can help a new coach line up in a manner to avoid getting absolutely killed. However, it by no means guarantees the most effective and ideal alignment.

EXAMPLES OF BALANCING THE NUMBERS

#1


This alignment is balanced and in line with the counting system. I believe this is sound alignment versus this formation.

#2


Again in this example the numbers are balanced.

#3


This is an example of alignment that fails the numbers test. The offense has 7 to the trips side where the defense only has 6. However, I am comfortable aligning this way against trips. It is not something I will do EVERY time, but I will mix it in often enough.

IS THERE A FLAW WITH BALANCING THE NUMBERS?

I think it is a useful tool, however there are many more things to consider with alignment. Disguise, pass coverage, stunts, block angles, personnel, and motion are just some of the other things that should be considered. At a certain level it is important for a coach to take the training wheels off and consider more than just balancing the numbers with the offense. I am not trying to advocate that you should not try to balance up, but that there is more to alignment than balancing numbers with the offense.

If a coach chose to only consider balancing the numbers when determining alignments, there are numerous problems they can run into. For example,

No matter how absurd this alignment is, it is balanced according to the numbers game. If I ask the question: What is wrong with this alignment? I am sure the answers that are coming to mind have nothing to do with balance around the center.

Gene-Stallings- Football Philosophy

Gene Stallings was a great coach. He believed that the first step in developing a winning team began with developing a philosophy. He had very clear views of his philosophies on both offense and defense, and was insistent upon sticking to his philosophies at all cost.

OFFENSE

His stated "On offense I want to score, I want to score a touchdown, I want to kick the score, or move the ball far enough that my opponent has to go 80 yards to score." He was running the veer option one year, and lost a bowl game due to numerous offensive turnovers. In the off-season, he decided that his team needed to move away from the option. He believed that they could dedicate no more time to perfecting the mechanics of the offense, and that even the significant time they put into the previous season, was not enough to prevent these turnovers. He made this bold move because he believed that the option went against his philosophy. The schemes that a coach develops come after the development of a philosophy. Stallings calls this the "Method."


DEFENSE

Stallings impact and emphasis in football was defense. More of his time was dedicated to defense than anything. His philosophy on defense was simple: "I want to prevent my opponent from moving the ball effectively." This is pretty obvious, but he believed that not everyone ascribed to this philosophy. When it came to developing a method for his defense he believed he had to create a coordinated defense. "I want the front to coordinate with the force, and the force to coordinate with the coverage." For him, football was a game of forces, and that if he could force the ball well and defend the end run effectively, then it would make it hard for the offense to move the ball effectively.

On defending the end run, he believed that there were three key parts. These parts have become central to the development of any effective pass coverage scheme. These three parts are:

1. A player to turn the ball back inside (run force).
2. A player to play the cutback (alley)
3. A player to play the play-pass.

This is all you need to defend the end run. If each person does their job, the offense will not be able to run the ball outside. The first two parts are obvious, the third was not as much in the past. During these days the pro-I was the norm. Teams tried to establish the toss game. If the toss was getting played aggressively, then they would employ the tricky toss-pass. This play was not designed as much a "trick-play", as it was a play to keep the defense honest. The third part of defending the end run, was the player responsible for defending against these tricky plays.

He was insistent that his players understood the principals of run force as well. It was important that each of them knew their responsibility and played their part. He did not want two people forcing the ball or two people playing the play-pass. For example, if the alley player got outside with the force player, he would ask him: "Do you think that the corner can force the ball back inside?" The players would say "yes". He would then answer by asking "Then why are you trying to force the ball?"

He changed his pass coverage by changing his forces. If he was in pistol force, the corner was forcing the ball, the safety was playing the pass, and the linebacker was on the cutback. This was 1/2's coverage. He could control these forces independently on both sides. This was an early form of the split-safety coverage that is employed today. If the call was rifle force, the safety played the force, the corner was on the play pass, and the backer played the cutback. This is the same force package that modern quarters teams employ. Finally he would have box force. This was backer force. The safety played the cutback, and the corner was on the play pass. This force was used on the weak side of cover 3, and man coverage.

Stallings was also a proponent of press-man coverage. He believed that if you sat in zone, the offense would be able to move the ball effectively with short controlled passes. He would talk to coaches about getting the fear of getting beat deep out of their heads, and make a commitment to utilizing aggressive man. I am sure that most defensive coaches are still scared of press-man coverage. Stallings was probably a little uncomfortable too. However, he knew it was something he had to do in order to prevent the offense from moving the ball effectively.


BECOMING A GREAT COACH

Another part of his belief structure was on being a great coach. To be a great coach you have to be a great teacher. And to be a great teacher, you have to be able to "speak with authority". He preached the basic parts of effective teaching such as accountability and attitude. However, he stressed another, sometimes overlooked part of the job. Speaking with authority meant you were completely knowledgeable about what you were talking about. If you did not understand something fully then the players would be able to see through that.

If you are an offensive coordinator, you better know the passing concepts, blocking schemes, and the various mechanics of each position in and out. "If you don't, then you are cheating your players." The same went for defense. Also, if you were a position coach you better know that position inside and out. A great coach should know it to the extent that they are educated about it in schemes that are not part of the ones they coach.

The head coach was no different. Stallings believed that the head coach should be knowledgeable about all the aspects of football. The head coach should know offense, defense and the kicking game in depth. If not, you are cheating the team. This is crucial, if you are an offensive coach that becomes a head coach. How can you speak with authority to your defensive coordinator, about an issue you have with his scheme, if you don't know defensive football in and out? This what he believed was necessary for speaking with authority. When a coach gets up to the board to talk football, he needs to be able to speak with authority.

Finally, Stallings explained a simple process for getting to this point. He believed that a coach should dedicate one hour per day to studying football, any aspect of it. This is a time where you don't take phone calls or any other type of distraction. You can read about football, watch films, talk to others whom are knowledgeable about football, ect. If you do this consistently, after a few years "you will be an authority on any aspect of the game." This is what I love about reading football blogs, it is a time to dedicate yourself to getting better at the game.

CONCLUSION

This is just a snapshot of Gene Stallings' Philosophy. The important thing to take away from this is the commitment he made to sticking to it. He altered his offensive schemes and defensive coverage to stay consistent with what he believed. This commitment was a big part of his success. Perhaps, the biggest key to becoming a great coach was doing the things necessary to be a coach that can speak with authority about any aspect in the game of football.

This information was gathered from the 1992 and 1993 COY Manuals.

Quick Thoughts- Determining Coverages for a Defensive Scheme

The pro-I, wish-bone, and wing-t teams are not as common as they were in the 90's. Despite the fact that the spread is the current trend, high school defenses will still see a form of one of these run-offenses 2-5 times a year (sometimes more depending on the area). Good spread offenses force defenses to vary their coverage to keep themselves from getting exploited all day. The spread, due to it stress on spacing forces defenses to be conscious and aware of the windows and pass vulnerabilities that a coverage entails. While, traditional run offenses attacked coverages by the virtue of the coverage's force rules and run fits.

For example, lets consider squat/halves coverage (cloud force).

PRO-I TEAMS

Vs a squat corner many teams might attack the corner by utilizing a crack block on the safetyor backer coupled with a kick-out block by the full back on outside running plays. The pro-I coach is gonna use the wide positioning of the force player to create a wider running lane. This falls within the rules of the force player, fundamentally. A force player's job is to turn the ball back inside, but the angles the WR will have on the crack on the Safety or backer, and the fullback will have on the corner make this an excellent adjustment to squat/halves coverage.

SPREAD TEAMS

Spread teams don't think about run force vs squat/halves coverage as much as they think about pass coverage. This holds true for the run-heavy spread teams. Spread coaches, advocate "2-beaters" as the way to attack the coverage. Smash routes, fade/speed-out, and 2 outside verticals with a middle of the field split (post) route are just some the popular plays to attack squat/halves coverage.

THE MAIN POINT

No matter if you are facing mostly run heavy offense with only two wide-outs on the field or spread offense based from 4-wide formations; you are going to have mix up your coverages. Defenses facing the running sets are going to need a method to mix-up their run fits, and teams that face spread offenses are going to have to mix-up their pass zone responsibilities.

ORGANIZING COVERAGE

So of you reading, might be thinking," this is obvious! " Well, it is. But to what extent and in what way? Many coaches claim to be "Cover-2", "Cover 3", "Cover-4", "Man", or "Robber" coaches. Everyone has a coverage they like best and have bought into fully. However, seeing defense in this way limits the ability to mix it up, by making the idea of mixing up coverages scary.

The toughest dilemma for coaches is the goal to commit to getting good at one thing, versus limiting their effectiveness at that one thing in order to make time (room) for other things. The old phrase "Jack of all trades and master of none" is the hallmark phrase of this philosophy.

The mental block for coverage determination is the way we view coverage. Brophy's article about Nick Saban's Middle Field Coverage describe a great way to view coverage.

When you get down to it, there are really only two types of coverages in Saban's world;

• middle of the field safety
• split-safety coverage

When you teach a quarterback to read a defense, THIS is, afterall, what you teach him. From there, you can have 3 types of defenses;

• man to man
• zone
• pattern match (after pattern distribution)

There really are two main forms of coverage.

1. Middle Field

2. Split Safety

Excluding man variations, which should be part of any team's coverage system, zone coverage falls into these two categories. Offenses have a general plan to attack each coverage type.

MIDDLE FIELD

Coaches will attack the stress player responsible for flat/force and the middle field safety. The vulnerabilities in this coverage are the seams and intermediate windows of the flat/curl areas. 4-verticals will stress your seams, and curl-flat and vertical-dig combinations will stress your flat/curls defenders.

SPLIT SAFETY

On pass coaches will attack the Middle of the Field. Squat/halves, quarters, and robber coverages are all susceptible to plays that attack the middle of the field. Split Safety coverage offers benefits that middle field coverage does not. It can provide better coverage on vertical/deep routes (exception is squat/halves) and more effective coverage on intermediate routes. However, the nature of split safety coverage allows offenses to run post routes that attack the middle of the field. This route is easier to throw and execute than deep vertical routes.

DETERMINING COVERAGE SCHEMES

Whether you are a Split Safety or Middle Field coverage coach, you cannot stay in just one of them. Obviously, if you have a talent advantage versus the opponents you play, you can possibly get away with it. But all things equal, good coaches are gonna exploit you. You have to use a favorable mixture of coverage calls to put the play-caller in a lose-lose situation. The economic concept of game theory can provide ideal ratios to optimize coverage calls. However, most of us don't have the time nor desire to calculate this. There is an easier way.

Step one is to recognize the vulnerabilities of your coverage. If you run split safety coverage 90% of the time, it is unreasonable to complain about people killing you on the post. No matter how well you teach your techniques, the natural advantage of attacking the middle of the field versus split safety coverage will be enough to get you burned more times than acceptable. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to complain about intermediate routes and 4 verticals killing you in middle field coverage. The same reasoning applies to this.

Step two is to determine what play call ratio you ideally want to use and what ratio of time you will dedicate to practicing each concept. Some people will be more in favor of split safety coverage and others middle field. Whichever you choose, it is in you best interest to at least in concept involve adequate time for the other.

Remember the benefits and weaknesses of each. Fundamentally, using each one gives you a solid base to defend against offenses. In addition to this, properly mixing the two coverage types into your play calls, allows you to put more pressure on the offensive play-caller by making him guess whether you will be in middle field or split safety coverage.

CONCLUSION

This might ruffle some feathers, but this is just something I have observed. I have seen many defenses get burned by being too one-dimensional in their coverage scheme, and witnessed offenses get stuffed by less-talented teams that mix up the two concepts effectively.

Pattern Reading vs Spot Dropping

This is a debate I deal with on a regular basis. What type of zone coverage is more effective for high school athletes. Most (if not all) colleges employ some form of pattern-match coverage. However, many high school coaches believe that this type of coverage is difficult for high school athletes to preform. In this post I will explore the pro's and con's of each.


Spot Dropping Defined

Spot dropping is just what it sounds like. On a pass read, pass defenders begin to drop back toward landmarks on the field. Terms like "Top of the numbers" "hash" , and "middle of the field" are used as horizontal markers. Then a depth is usually assigned. For example, a hook to curl linebacker could have a landmark 12-14 yards deep.

While on their landmark and in the process of dropping there, players have their head on a "swivel" reading the QB's eyes while they get to their landmark. In this scheme coaches emphasize two main things:

1. Break on the Ball
2. Gain depth

Pros

• Simple to teach
• Simple to execute
• More eyes are on the ball
• Better pursuit
• Poor throws can easily be intercepted
  

Cons

• Defenders can be stuck covering grass
• There are many windows in the defense
• Requires a better than average pass rush
• A proficient passing team can slice you apart
• Very susceptible to Intermediate routes.

Pattern Matching Defined

Rather than take your drop to a spot and wait for receivers to arrive, pattern-match coverage involves taking coverage to the most dangerous threat a defender recognizes in his zone. In this coverage defenders are taught to key certain receivers when they read pass. Usually, it is the #2 WR to their side. From the receivers action, they can diagnose whom the most likely threat to their zone is.

After a certain point, pattern-match coverage turns into man coverage. The aim of this coverage is to get the best of both worlds. Zone offers defenders the advantage of having their eyes in the backfield playing the run before the have to commit to the pass. On the other hand, man coverage puts defenders in the dark as far as the run goes, they are dialed in on the WR that they have in coverage. Pattern-reading uses zone principals early, and man principals late.


Pros

• Fewer windows
• Fewer completions
• Ability to play run and cover intermediate routes
• Defender aren't stuck covering grass
  
• confusing for the quarterback
  

Cons

• QB scrambles could hurt
• Takes more time to teach initially
  
• Fewer interceptions
• more susceptible to the big play
• more potential mismatches.
  

Are the Two Coverages Mutually Exclusive?

Is there a team that is purely a spot drop team or purely a pattern match team? I don't think so. In today's game of spread out offenses, no team will survive with traditional spot dropping. Conversely, in pattern matching the defenders know the general area that their coverage will be in.

In spot-dropping the underneath defenders are taught to see the QB as well as the WR's that could cross their zones. There are times the defenders are told to collision or re-route receivers. This is a principals at the heart of pattern matching.


My Position

These modern offense requires defenses to adjust. The same old style of defense is not gonna work the same way. As one side evolves the other side must as well. I am a firm believer in pattern reading. It just make sense in today's game.

The main argument against pattern-matching is difficulty. Many coaches argue that it is too difficult and that typical high school athletes cannot handle it. They reason along these lines. "Spot dropping is easier than pattern-matching. Our players are making mistakes spot dropping. So how can they begin to understand pattern reading?" The other line of reasoning involves the capability of high school athletes. Many critics question a players ability to see all these routes. I agree that at time it may appear like a lot, but like anything in football, it can be taught if you perfect the way you are going to teach it.

Training the Eyes

When making any type of "reads" in football, it all boils down to the eyes. There needs to be methodology to where a players eyes are supposed to be looking and how they respond to what they see. The more clear we can be with the progression of a players eyes, their ability to diagnose a situation, and trigger the appropriate response; the better we can all be at coaching defense. In the analysis below, the focus will be on underneath droppers, not the deep defenders.

Eyes in Spot Dropping

First, eyes begin on the run/pass key. The most common keys are linemen and running back. Regardless of the key, the player should be able to diagnose run/pass and then move on to the next action. If the defender reads pass, the player should open to his landmark and begin dropping. The eyes should go to the QB second to diagnose the drop type. (On sprint out flow rules usually trigger) On straight drop back plays the linebacker continues towards his landmark reading the QB back to his landmark on the "swivel". This is the basic way of spot dropping. Most coaches have tried to incorporate reads into their drops. However, this is where problems have occurred. The problem is usually a rules conflict.

This conflict stems from two primary goals of spot dropping. First, is the ability to see the QB so the defender can break on the ball. Second, is to gain depth. This is done to prevent an intermediate route from getting wide open. The philosophy is that if the player can accomplish goal #1 and goal#2 then the only open passes should be shallow routes. Shallow routes are not a big concern, because the underneath defenders will be able to see the QB release the ball. This allows the players to break forward and keep the play to a minimal gain. However it usually does not work this way.

Intermediate routes become open anyway. The defenders are so busy focusing their eyes on the landmark and QB that they don't know where the intermediate receiver is going to be. By the time they "break on the ball" they are usually out of position to make a play on it. Coaches begin adjusting their drop rules and involve pattern read concepts. They try to train their players to see these routes developing. Many times these players learn how to do this. However, the rules conflict rears its ugly head. When you begin to involve reads two things usually happen. First, the defenders do not see the QB as well and the "break on the ball" is not as good. Second, depth suffers because droppers will stop and delay more when reading routes.

This angers the traditional spot-drop coaches, because they have always emphasized breaking on the ball and gaining depth. They have the habit of emphasizing these top two goals. The main problem is there is no clear process of where a players eyes go. In traditional spot-dropping the eyes are simple: swivel from the QB to the landmark. If you begin to involve reads into this system and emphasize these two goals the same way, then conflicts will be present. Spot-dropping will become more difficult and frustrating then before. I am not saying all spot-dropping coaches go through this. I am noting this because it is a trap that is easy to fall into.

Whenever you begin integrating route-read concepts into a spot drop philosophy, players will not drop to depth as consistently nor break on the ball as quickly.

Eyes in Pattern Reading

Similarly to spot dropping, eyes begin on run/pass keys. Once reading pass, the eyes go to a completely different place than their spot-drop counter parts. The body begins dropping in a predetermined direction, but the eyes flash to a particular receiver. Depending on what that receiver does the eyes could move somewhere else and/or the direction of the drop can alter quite a bit. Players are usually given a 3/2 drop or 2/1 drop. These are forms of "Hook to Curl" and "Curl to Flat". Here is an example

A 3/2 drop is usually an inside linebacker. On pass he opens at 45* and reads #3 (usually the RB) if he releases vertical he has him man to man. This is simple, on pass look at #3 if he goes deep you run with him. If #2 blocks or releases outside, the backer expands his eyes to #2. If #2 is running vertical, the backer walls him off and gets his eyes on #1. In this step he is anticipating #1 to make an inside cut (curl or dig route). If #1 continues vertical past 15 yards his final read is the QB, his technique to break down and rob the QB's eyes. This is not an exhaustive list, just a simple example of eye progression in pattern-matching. To Recap the linebackers eyes:

3/2 Pattern-Drop Eye Progression

1. Run/Pass Key
2. #3
3. #2
4.#1
5. Rob the quarterback's eyes

This is an example of cover 3 rules. In Cover 3, it is difficult for the inside linebacker to get underneath curl routes in a spot-drop scheme. But, in pattern reading the reads take the backer to the curl, to the point that he is anticipating the route. It is easier to get coverage on the route because the backer will have his eyes on the receiver.

At first this may seem like a lot to someone unfamiliar with this type of coverage. With enough time and understanding it becomes easy to coach. The key is emphasizing the progression of the players eyes and the recognition of what to do. This only requires simple terminology and efficient drills.

In this philosophy, you don't have to talk about routes in the general sense. Terms like slant, hitch, dig, and arrow can confuse the process. You only need to talk about receivers and their movements. If a player makes a mistake on his reads, the process is simple to correct. Questions are the key. Using the example of the 3/2 drop discussed above: if a player failed to cover #1 on a curl, what was the problem. He probably never got his eyes on #1. Ask him, "what did #1 do?" He won't know. Players will gain confidence in this system, because through repetition, reading a route progression will become second nature.

One major drawback to pattern-matching is that there will be fewer interceptions. Turnovers are a big key on defense. You have to weigh it with the benefits. The increased coverage will lower receptions and scoring. As a coach you have to decide what best fits you.


Summary

As the game changes so must we. High school teams have become more effective at passing the balls. If you try to play the same old keep the ball in front of you and break on the philosophy, you are going to get exploited. Spot dropping has its merits, but when you play in a league with proficient passing teams, you are gonna have trouble. Offensive coaches have done a great job.

Pattern-matching can make a tremondous difference for your team, if you commit to installing it. High School athletes can handle it. I once worked with 8th graders in the offseason, and showed them how to read routes. After a week it became easy for them. They would play 7on7 and have the routes covered. They even would talk to eachother with the proper terminology. The 2/1 dropper would yell at the 3/2 guy and say "Why did he catch the ball? #3 released out and #2 came in at you."

If spot dropping works for you and you are having success with, then by all means commit to it. A scheme is as good as its effectiveness. As coaches it helps to understand the different things teams are trying to do. Down the road coverage will probably take another evolution, because offenses will begin adjusting to pattern matching even more at the high school level.

Game Dynamics and Football Part III

The ideas I will discuss were inspired by a Poker Book, No-Limit Hold'em: Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller. I am in no way as astute at math and game theory as they are, but I was intrigued a couple years ago by a couple chapters from this book. I thought about how these principals could apply to two things I coached at the time: football and debate. After some thought I came to see these principals as integral parts of both the games of Football and Debate. The first one I will discuss is the Dynamic of Mistakes and second I will discuss the importance of multi-level thinking.

Dynamic IV: Winning the Battle of Mistakes

It has been said for many years, football games are won by the teams that make fewer mistakes than their opponents. Many games are decided by mistakes. If mistakes were not made, no one could ever win. Think about the lowest form of a game Tic-Tac-Toe (Questionably a game). If you know the perfect strategy you will never lose. However, if your opponent knows it too, neither of you will win. The game will always end in a "cat" game (tie). The only way to win is for one of the players to make a mistake. It could be an obvious mistake, where one person does not see that the other has two and a row and leaves the third spot unprotected. Or a not so obvious mistake where the mistake takes to more turns to come to fruition (some of you know the "trick" that gets the unaware people).

Whenever you win at a game, one of two things happens:

1. Your opponent makes a mistake by some oversight or similar error.

2. You cause your opponent to make a mistake.

Some times we because of the 1st type of mistake, when we really learn a game we begin to win because of the 2nd type. Football is no different. Some football games are won by an opponent oversight. For example, LSU lost a game recently because of poor time management. As coaches we work hard to avoid these types of mistakes. These kinds of mistakes get a coach fired quick.

So if the object of a game is to win the battle of mistakes, then a football game can be through two methods.

1. Try their best to limit the number of mistakes they make.
2. Force their opponent to make a lot of mistakes.

Some coaches have a philosophy that involves one more than the other. In my opinion, this is the dividing point between the conservative and the aggressive coaches. I am not saying one method is better than the other, just that these coaches have a different philosophy about winning the battle of mistakes.

The conservative method tries to win by playing simple mistake free football. They patiently grind out a game hoping for their opponent to make a mistake. When two of these types of teams face each other, most of the time the game comes down to 5 plays or less. These 5 plays can decide the outcome of the game. The drawback is, if your plan backfires you might not be able to catch-up if you fall behind.

The aggressive method tries to win by forcing their opponents to make more mistakes then they do. They don't care if they make 100 mistakes in a game as long as their opponent makes 101. When you think in this mentality, you become more aggressive, and more relaxed when mistakes occur. The drawback is, when your plan backfires you have a good chance of getting pounded.

Whichever style is more fitting to you is probably best, but both can be used to win the battle of mistakes. I really, used this concept in debate. My debate philosophy became much more aggressive, the students I worked with were more concerned with attacking their opponents and less concerned with making an error. The biggest overall benefit for debaters was the increased willingness to make decisions.

Dynamic V: Multi-Level Thinking

Multi-Level thinking requires two people. The levels (depth) proceed as the people involved proceed. In football multi-level thinking can happen in many different circumstances. The first being in the scheme and scout process. Consider an offense vs defense battle. The offense runs the spread and adheres to the 5 in the box/ 6 in the box rules. If there are 5 in the box, run, and if there are 6, pass. An astute DC can think beyond this OC by giving the appearance of 5 in box, but triggering a 6th man quickly on run plays (Squat/halves, cloud force coverage). Many DC's have done recently, the "tweener" linebackers that split the difference between the EMOL and Slot WR have caused offenses problems.

When I first saw the technique, I was amazed at how fast they could fall in and support the run and at the same time get in good pass coverage. It causes fits for the offense. The offense has to find a way to combat it. The way to begin this process is to figure out the techniques and assignments of these players. First, most of the time backers in this alignment are keying linemen. If they see forward movement or pulling they trigger on the run immediately. If the linemen pass block they know to get their eyes on the pass keys. With this information the offense can begin to think a level deeper and use their scheme against them.

What if you were to pull the linemen and throw a bubble screen away from the pull? The blocking WR would be on the corner and the other WR would have the ball with nothing but late safety support to worry about. The backer would not be readily available to help, because he triggered into the box on run support. How would the defense respond to this? Option 1, is to slow down the run support, which is great for the offense. Option 2, play the safety more aggressively on the bubble. The adjustment to this is common, pump the bubble and hit the other WR deep behind the overly-aggressive safety.

Suppose the defense is aware of what the offense is doing to them, how should they adjust. Whenever an opponent thinks at a level deeper than you, you must find a way to think a level deeper than them. The defense would need to utilize a different coverage and run fit package. Preferably Quarters type coverage robber, blue, and man combinations that change who the run force players are. These coverages employ a different combination of players who trigger into the box on running plays. The FS would now be the main person triggering into the box and run fits. A different type of play pass that uses the linemen pulling as false keys would be desired. (Faking a run, then throwing the ball to the Slot (#2 WR) deep behind the area vacated by the safety.) If the DC begins to mix quarters with the squat halves coverage, he can begin to put the OC off balance again. If he was unaware of the OC's plan to attack his squat/halves coverage and "tweener" backer, he would be getting exploited all day. But thinking a level deeper he can find a way to get the upper hand.

Conclusion

This brings an end to the discussion over game dynamics and football. I am not sure how much interest there out there for this subject. As a person whom enjoys games in general and has made a commitment to learning the game of football, I have enjoyed applying various game dynamics to the sport. Football is game with base rules and variables like talent, decision making, game theory, and multi-level thinking at its core. There are many other dynamics like preparation, team unity, and human attitude that play a roll. For the discussion, I believe that these dynamics are sufficient to illustrate the relationship between football and game dynamics.

I am planning to write some blogs on more 4-2-5 defense stuff, I am just trying to get an idea of what people are interested in reading. If anyone has ideas let me know. I have considered more trips coverages, linebacker run fits, man coverage combination, front/ stunt calls, and utilizing the system through efficient play calling.

Game Dynamics and Football Part II: Scouting and Play-Calling

In the sport of football coaches are always trying to get an edge, this will never change. One of the biggest things for defensive coaches is scouting offenses in the hopes of being able to call the right defenses at the right time come game day. There are varied views on the use of scouting programs and the reliability of tendencies, however, I think all can agree that we get some positive help from the process. In this article I will explore the game dynamics behind the calls coaches make, the statistical analysis behind them, and finally some ideas and principals that can be used (theoretically) to optimize their play calling.

Dynamic III- Game Theory and Optimization

General Football Strategy

No matter what team you are facing, tendencies will be present, period. Why is this the case? The reason is that coaches understand that certain situations call have particular optimal plays to call. For Example, consider this situation and assume that these teams are evenly matched opponents. You run a power-I offense, it is 3rd and inches on the -20. What type of call makes sense? Some type of inside run or QB sneak seems best, and most would agree with that. Will this play call succeed 100% of the time? No. It will succeed an overwhelming majority of the time, but it is in no way a lock. It is a high percentage play. Do all coaches in this situation run this play type 100% of the time? No. Why not if it appears to be clearly the best choice?

The defense is aware of the optimal play for the offense to run as well. Defense's load up the box and try to stuff the short run, if he could, a standard defensive coordinator would load all 11 of his players to stop the run. Few defenses ever commit all 11 players to stopping the run first, even in a 3rd and short situation. The reason they don't do this, is because the offense could easily exploit them. The offense could fake a base run and then throw a long pass to an uncovered receiver or fake the run and have the QB keep the ball on a naked bootleg. These types of plays force the defense to slow down some of their players on run support. Because of this Offensive coaches throw in little wrinkles here and there to keep the defense honest.

So will a play caller run the inside run/ sneak combo 100% of the time, No, but he will most of the time. Does the small % of time the offense runs something different affect the strategy of the defense? It certainly does. This is the game dynamics that are studied under the field of Game Theory (a branch of Economics and Mathematics). Game Theory applies to the sciences of decision making and competition games in general. Using game theory we can discover optimal choices to make, given certain circumstances.

Analyzing Football Tendencies and Statistics

When we scout, generally there are 4 main tendency areas we analyze:

1. Situation (including Down and Distance)
2. Formation
3. Personnel
4. Field Position

Beginning with situational analysis, we try to group different situations together and see if there is any statistical relationships. 1st and 10, 2nd and long, and 3rd and short are all situations we look at. Most coaches go the extent to break down 2 pt plays. With this data we get a snapshot of what the team is trying to do. For the most part, as coaches we discover obvious things like "they pass more on 3rd and long", "The run inside on 3rd and short", and "They do a bunch of different things on 2nd and medium". Every now and then, we stumble into a very clear down and distance tendency that goes beyond general football strategy. But this is rare, for the most part we discover basic things.

When we begin to break down formations, we get another set of tendencies. Consider this data.

Pro-I Rt formation

70% Run 30% Pass
Runs Right 72% Left 28%

Runs

Iso-Rt 30%
Power Rt 13%
Toss Rt 9%
Counter Lt 18%
Belly Rt 10%
Trap Lt 5%
Iso Lt 5%

When you look at this formation data, you find out that they like to run the right(strong side) twice as much as the left. Does this mean the defense should overload to the strong side when they see this information? No! Why not?

The data shows a tendency to the right side of the formation, however there are enough plays (by number and type) to the left that forces the defenses to respect those plays. If you overplay the right-side of this team, they are going to attack the left side quick. This is a major part of putting together a scheme. A classical example of this is the toss pass. If a team is killing you with the toss, sooner or later your corner (assuming he plays pass first deep 1/3 or 1/4) is gonna come off and play the toss aggressively. When a play caller sees that corner make a tackle close to the LOS. You can bet that the toss pass is coming up real soon. Because of the threat of the toss pass, the corner cannot come up on the toss aggressively. A team might never even have to run a toss pass, the threat of it is enough to keep the defense honest.


From Personnel and field position we can gather similar sets of information, but for the most part we will be in the same situation the first two areas, seeing a tendency, but limited in how aggressive it can be attacked.

Why do we scout then?

If you begin to combine the various things together a more accruate and clear picture can become present. You might find that 3rd and 8 Pro-I right formation is 60% pass with 80% of the passes being bootlegs. Given the game situation you might beleive that the opposing play caller will favor the pass. The other passes he has shown in this situation thus far are 5 step drop back passes. Given this play calling range, sending a backer/safety off the edge to the Boot Leg side seems optimal (as long as you get a body on the full back leaking out). Also, if it happens to be a running play, you don't lose much bringing an edge rusher. By combining different areas of statistics we can find more reliable albeit more particular tendencies. With the limited time we have to scout, we can only analyze so many situations. However the situations we do analyze can become very helpful come game-day. What can the offense do to combat this? Simple, balance his Play-call range.

Balancing Range Example-Poker

I don't know how many of you are poker players, but games like No-Limit Texas Hold-em involve similar dynamics to the football situation discussed above. Consider this situation (not realistic, but simplified for the example, you are playing someone heads up (2 players total), and you know this player will raise Pre-flop with any pair, and any combination of aces and face cards, and a few others. Further more, you know that if you re-raise him after he raises, that he will only call with Pocket Aces, Kings, and Queens. Given this situation, you (ideally) should re-raise every time he raises. You would exploit this player because he would allow you to bluff him too much because of his limited calling range.

How can this player keep himself from being exploited? First off he should call with more hands, and begin pushing all-in with some of his hands too, because you will be raising him with weak hands at times. If he adjust this way, you are put into a guessing game. This forces you to play your hands in a more standard way. How did this opponent keep you from exploiting him? He balanced the way he played his hand to keep you from exploiting him.

This applies to football too.


Back to Football.....

Assume that you are an offensive play caller. On 3rd down and long out of a 2x2 Gun formation you have the following tendencies

5 Step pass 80%

Sprint out Pass 10%

Run 10%

Given this distribution, a defensive coordinator is gonna be excited about this situation. The optimal call here is to blitz, because these passes take time to develop. To prevent this the offense coordinator should make calls to balance the situation and deter the defense from stunting. The calls used to balance the range are plays that hurt heavy blitzing. A more balanced range would like this:

5 Step Pass 65%

Sprint out Pass 10%

Screen 15%

Draw 10%

This presence of 25% screens/draws slows the DC's willingness to blitz. He must respect your ability to screen and run draws. If he stunts into one of these plays he could be in bad situation. This distribution changes the optimal call for the play caller. The optimal call is now to play a more basic defense that is focused on defending the pass. By balancing the play calling range the offensive coordinator can protect his QB from seeing constant blitzes. Balancing the call range does not guarantee no blitzes, just that he won't try to blitz every play. If he did happen to blitz every time in this situation, you could call screens and draws liberally to punish his aggressiveness. The best thing for the defensive play-caller to do, is mix up his own calls to include some blitzes and base calls. If I took the time, game theory models could provide the optimal balance.

A Wrench in the Works

" The Intuitive Play Caller"

Some coaches claim to be "feel" guys. They don't need a lot of statistical scouting information or planning for that manner, they believe that they can feel the game out and know what to call. I am not saying that these people don't exist, but how do you deal with these play callers? Let's assume that some of these people are so good that they can know what you are gonna call before you do at times? I am sure some of you reading this have had this experience before, when you just knew what a person was going to call. How do you combat this person, if they in fact are able to know what plays you are going to call? Simple, be unpredictable, to the extent that you have some randomness in the range of your play-calls. Here is an example to illustrate:

Lets say you are playing a person in Rock, Paper, Scissors. This person is astute at knowing what you are going to select, to the point he can beat you 2/3rds of the time. There is nothing you really can do to get an edge on this person, but you can reduce the edge he has and even the game. How do you do this, be unpredictable. If you look at your watch and the seconds hand is on a #1-3 you pick Rock, #4-6 you pick Paper, and #7-9 you pick Scissors. If your opponent has no idea that you are doing this, there is no way he can guess what you are going to throw. The game will return to its basic design, a guessing game based on chance, similar to flipping a coin, or rolling dice.

In football, if you are faced with a guy that knows how you are going to call plays, you could attempt something similar. Perhaps not to this extreme of an extent, but something to keep your opponent guessing. For Example, assume you want your opponent to respect your punt fakes, and you want to fake 10% of the time. Before you punt look at the score board if the game clock ends in 7 you run a fake. If it ends in any other # you punt the ball. If you keep this to yourself, no one will know when you will run a fake, they will be forced into a guessing game, with no idea of how to know when you will do what.


Conclusion

Game Theory plays a role in any game that involves decision making. The decision making process is at the heart of coaching on game-day. People like Bill Walsh were masters of planning and to an extent his ideas were consistent with Game Theory Optimal ideas. Just like in poker, keeping your opponent guessing makes life easier for you and your team.

The examples and ideas in this article were grounded in the "Ideal/Theoretical" domain. However, most of the time decisions on the field transcend this domain. These examples existed in a vacuum and involved small tidbits of information. This article was aimed at showing how optimal strategies and calls do exist given the information that you have. In the next article, I will go to the dynamics beyond game theory, and involve the importance of understanding the thinking of your opponent. That much of optimal scouting goes beyond the situation and formation tendencies, but extends into understanding the overall philosophy and though process of your opponent. In games of decision making, this psychological and logical dynamic is often the one that separates the good from the great.

Game Dynamics and Football: Part I: Base Rules and Talent

Any type of true game is governed by principals and many of these principals apply across many games. There are principals shared in football, backgammon, poker, chess, basketball, and many others. If you look at games in depth enough it becomes easy to see how principals apply. In part I I will discuss 2 dynamics things that play a role in football and compare them to other games.


Dynamic I: Base Rules- Field Size & the Number of Players Effect on Scoring

Fundamentally, base rules have the most significant impact on the way a game is played and developed. Monopoly would change if the players started off with less money. Poker would change drastically, if 6 cards made a hand as opposed to 5. Basic rules are prior to any of the in depth strategies and tactics that influence a game. Two of the most basic rules in football are the size of the playing field and number of players.

In football the field size is approximately 100 x 53.4 yards (120 counting End-zones). At any time up to 11 players from each team may be on the field. The game that we work with and enjoy is fundamentally shaped by those two characteristics. Both of these things influence the number of points that can be scored on average. The relationship of these two factor has an immense impact on the number of points that can be scored in a football game.

Consider this example. If football was played on a 20 x 20 field, with 11 players the game would change dramatically. Passing would not be a big part. Offenses would look more historical, the single-wing, wing-t, power-I, and double-slot would dominate the scene. The game would be one long rugby scrum. Why? Because there would not be enough space to score quickly and throw the ball. The defense would load all 11 guys in the box to stop the run. It would be harder to find "holes" in the defense. The game would be drastically different than the one we see on TV today, just because of 1 rule change.

Now imagine that the # of players allowed on the field increased to 12 and the field size remained the same. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal) the amount of scoring would decrease on average. Adding a 12th player helps the defense tremendously because, they have an extra person to defend the same amount of space. The offense is in the business of creating unprotected space. "Holes" and "windows" are offensive words to describe unprotected space. Conversely, defenses are based around protecting space, by having "gap" assignments and coverage "zones." The basic struggle in football begins with the defense creating a plan to protect space on the field while the offense at the same time maneuvers to create unprotected space. With 12 players the defense would be able to better defend the field. The 12th player would not have an overall net-positive effect for the offense. Think about it. One of the time tested principals "the offense wants to trade the defense 1 for 1 with defense" is a principal for a reason. Trading one for one is a way of creating more space for the offense. The field size remains the same while the # of players active on a play is lower.

The principal holds true if you lower the number of players to 10. The offense would be able to even easier to find unprotected space, Especially in the passing game. If you have ever played 7 on 7 touch football on a full size football field, you will know what I am talking about. The defense would have more players stressed. The would be caught in position where they are needed to play run first and play a major part in pass coverage as well. Also, the limited number of players would make it easier for the offense to get single coverage on a WR. In short, reducing the number of players would allow points to increase.

Arena football is a prime example of this dynamic. Arena football had to create some seemingly bizarre rules to allow the sport to function properly. Why did these rules come into effect? Because there was a conflict with these basic rules of field size and the number of players. The field is essentially reduced 50% in size, but the number of players is only reduced 27%. This created a playing environment that had players defending less space than they would in typical football. Given the logic I presented earlier, Arena football would be a defensive game. However, it is not. Arena football is the exact opposite, a score-fest. Does this mean I was wrong about the previous statements. No! Other variables changed besides the field size and number of players. Rules were put in place to assist the offense. Some rules limited the defenses ability to defend space. For example, rules limit the sides a blitz can from, and until recently, severely limited the mobility of the "Jack Backer." Also, simple rules like forward motion gave the offense an added boost. These rules helped to equalize and overcome the fundamental advantage the defense had in the amount of field each player had to defend. Overall, the rule changes allowed the arena football teams to score more points on average than NFL teams.

Dynamic II: Talent Level Effects on Strategy and Tactics

I should not have to prove to anyone how big an impact the talent of a team has on its performance. Experience tell us that the team with more talent wins more that a team with less talent. No team, no matter how much more talented is a 100% favorite. I will admit at times a team might be around a 99% favorite, but there is always a chance for the underdog to win. What having a talent advantage does give a team, is winning chances above 50%, making them the favorite. Looking at talent in a vacuum, we can begin to approximate winning percentages. However, other factors like a teams overall strategy, tactics, and the level of proficiency a team has at those things can have an effect on a teams winning chances as well. Before taking into account those things we must first consider, the effect talent has on the development of strategy and tactics.

Strategy deals with the overall view and philosophy of how to plan to win the game. Some teams prefer to run the ball, control the clock, and play field position. On the other hand some teams like to turn a game into an aggressive score fest. Tactics is the means by which a team executes their overall strategy.

An Example- Chess

The game dynamics of strategy and tactics play a huge and clear role in a game like chess. Consider a chess game where the black side starts the game with one less pawn. The person with the additional pawn (white), can be considered "more talented" in this example. Lets look at the overall strategy for each side in this example.

The white side wants to play a very straight forward and simple strategy. The best plan for white is to trade pieces off: a rook for a rook, a queen for a queen, and so on. His goal is to trade off enough piece that allow him to turn his extra pawn into a queen. Using the queen the white side will easily checkmate the black side. On the other hand, Blacks strategy is to prevent this from happening. Somewhere down the line, black needs to win a pawn back to equalize the game.

Tactically, both sides want to execute their desired strategies. What type of tactics would each side like to employ? First consider black. Black's will need to keep pieces protected and develop a complicated position. One where each move is difficult to decide. Black hopes that he can make better tactical moves than white can. In short, black wants to complicate the game and put more emphasis on decision making and less on the strength of each others pieces. There is a risk-reward to this plan. The reward is, this game plan will increase the likelihood of white making a mistake that will equalize the game. The risk is that black is more likely to make a mistake himself and get crushed by white. White wants to keep the game simple. He is content to move the game along and trade peaces off. His moves will seek to keep his decisions easy. Ultimately, white wants to avoid mistakes. His strategy will be more defensive and conservative. The goal for him is to keep decisions easy and rely on his advantage in pieces to win.

From chess a simple game strategy becomes apparent:

When you have an advantage, you want to keep the game simple and let your advantage take you to victory. When you are at a disadvantage, you want to complicate the game and lower the impact that your opponent's advantage has on the game.

For both players the goal is to maximize their chances to win.

Application to Football

Does this simple strategy apply to football? Yes, but not as simply as it does to chess. Unlike chess pieces, football players think for themselves separate from the people in charge of game strategy (coaches). Lets look how a talented team might put together a strategy, for an upcoming season. If this team will have a talent advantage over most teams, it would be beneficial to utilize a conservative football game plan. Offensively, this game plan should seek to protect the football by establishing the running game, and using passes only when necessary. The running game will be simple and favor match-ups over misdirection. They should deviate from this plan enough to mix up their calls to keep the defense honest. Defensively, the plan should be to play sound gap control zone defense will force the opposing offense to work to score. The idea behind this strategy is to limit mistakes and allow their talent to win football games.

The strategy for an under-talented team is different. From the opening kickoff the weaker team should be more aggressive. Onside-kicks, trick plays, 4th down attempts, and blitzes will all be a part of their game-plan. This type of team will need to do things to compensate for their lack of talent. If this team were to play the other team mentioned in the previous paragraph, these things would need to be done. If possible, on defense this team will need to be multiple and confuse the up front blocking assignments of their strong opponent. Creating situations where defenders are unblocked due to error, offsets some of the talent disadvantages. If this plan is successful, they will force the other team to throw more, in effect create more turnover opportunities. This is exactly what the stronger team wants to avoid. On offense the weaker team needs to be deceptive and creative. Misdirection, well-planned passes, and trick plays will keep the stronger team on their toes. This game-plan puts the weaker team in a position to get beat by a significant margin more often, but does allow them more of a winning chance.

This is not absolute by any means, and there many more variables that apply to game-planning besides talent. Things like continuity, mixture of personnel, player types, coaching philosophy, and system familiarity all influence the development of football strategy and tactics. Teams with weaker talent have won with a simple straightforward ball control philosophy and strong teams have been successful with aggressive, creative, and deceptive strategies.

The idea behind what I am stating is that talent can play a big role in the development of overall strategy.

If you have a talent advantage it is in your best interest to let it win for you; conversely, if you are at a disadvantage it is in your interest to limit the impact talent has on the game.

This is a complicated way of saying what all great coaches believe: Put your players in the best possible position to win. Teams like Boise State and SMU are examples of sound game-planning when you have a talent disadvantage.


Conclusion

Game dynamics are important to consider in all games. There are too many to consider, I have just touched on a couple of basic ones to illustrate that football is subject to the same dynamics as other games. In Part II I will discuss the game dynamics of the play-calling and scouting.

General Football Philosophy Part I

I am often confronted about football philosophy, specifically between different schools of thoughts that surround offense, defense, and the whole team philosophy in general. I will discuss the extremes of the philosophies and try to avoid the standard "create a balance of both" position. On the offensive side, the debate centers on ball control vs passing. And on defense the battle is on Safe/read and react defense focused on not giving up the big play vs aggressive defenses can be at time greedy about giving up anything, not worried as much about big plays.

As a coach what side of the debates do you lean more towards? No one is 50/50. We all have a preference. Why do some coaches lean one way more than the other. Lets talk offense first.

Offense

The ball control school, wants to establish the run and control the clock. Shortening the game, keeps scores low, and creating chances to compete against more opponents. UT last two opponents are examples of this. Nebraska tried to play behind a good defense with ball control offense, and eventually lost on a last minute field goal in a 13-12 game. Many people thought Nebraska had no chance. The strong defense coupled with an offense that shortened the game gave Nebraska a chance many argue. The National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide ran for 205 yards and passed for a measly 58 yards, and won the national championship by 37-21. They stuck to this run first conservative philosophy that put the game in each team's defense's hands. Alabama was the better team going in, this philosophy seems to have allowed an over-matched team (Nebraska) and a favored-team (Alabama) to use a run-first offense as an optimal strategy vs Texas. Optimal vs Texas whom had the #1 Run Defense in FBS.

On the other hand you have passing teams like SMU that destroyed the #1 running team in football with a heavy passing game. Even Bill Walsh has been quoted saying that establishing the run (in my view) is overrated. The best passing down for him, are 1st down. Gus M. From Auburn made a living breaking the mold as well.

What is the best system? Its hard to tell. I equate it to poker. In poker you can play tight-Aggressive or Loose-Aggressive. Some people like to control the game of poker so the cards can do their work, and some like to play so their card reading can do their work. The difference of the preference in poker is skills. As a coach, if you can call great and anticipate the offense you can call more agressively. On the other hand, if you are behind in this respect you can play more base and rely on your players and your "technique coaching" to get you through the game.

More will come on this subject, I am not advocating one method or the other, just starting thought on this philisophical debate.

Leadership- Principals that apply to Football and other endeavors

I read coach Mac's leadership quotes and it got me thinking about leadership views. The view that has become a staple for my personal philosophy and the approach I take for leading others is "leadership is a choice" . For 11 years starting when I was 17, I began coaching debate. Debate is much like football when you break the strategies down and the formulas for success. The major difference is the emphasis football puts on the physical body. Talent, attitude, strategy, and coaching have similar impacts. Like a good football coach would, I trained debaters to exemplify an attitude and communicate it to the people judging them.

This is just like football. When your players play with an attitude, it radiates to every other person on the field. The attitude we look for in people can be summed up as leadership. There are diverse views about the definition of leadership, but, in my view, you can have a defense or offense on the field with 11 leaders. Leadership is not a position, but rather a choice. "No matter when, no matter where, no matter what, any one can lead. Leadership is a choice not a position." This is a phrase I personally communicate to others and live by. I impressed this upon my debaters and now the athletes that I coach. I have had debaters use this exact quote in debate rounds, to the extent that they become leaders to the people judging them and in the audience. Stephen Covey in his book the "8th Habit" provides a great definition for leadership that has inspired the way that I view leadership.

"Leadership is communicating to people their worth and potential so clearly that they come to see it in themselves (p.98)"

Isn't that what we are in the business of doing? Also, isn't this what we would like our players to inspire within one another. Leadership is not about a position that a team captain, coach, or boss holds as a means to have power and control. Conversely, leadership is a choice to influence others and ultimately inspire them to be the best they can be. Every action in every moment that we coach our players, is an opportunity to communicate something to them. The important consideration is: what are we communicating to them? Do we communicate to them their short comings and liabilities? OR Do we communicate their potential and abilities?

People are motivated much more by things to move towards as opposed to things to avoid. This is the basis of positive coaching. The positive coach constantly communicates what he/she envisions an athlete can be. He/She constantly communicates this vision to them, and speaks as if he/she is evaluating an athletes current progress on a daily basis (in respect to their potential). Negative coaching does the opposite. Instead of being a guiding light for an athlete, negative coaches act as judges, destroying a players motivation and self esteem.

This paradigm involves some discipline, but can prove invaluable. The next time you communicate with an athlete consider what you are communicating to them. I have heard coaches tell players (with good intentions in mind) that they are selfish, not committed to winning, gutless, and not good enough. These messages are not empowering and do little to improve an athlete's performance. What good do these messages do?

Some believe that these comments will motivate a player to do more and work harder. I am not an extremist and believe some (albeit rare) players respond to this type of coaching. However, for the majority, this is just something that will regress a players performance.

Main point: Treat players as human beings. All players no matter what we might believe, want to be great. The task for us coaches is to assist players in tapping into the resources that enable them to be as great as they can be. This task can be accomplished easier if we not only provide leadership for our players, but also coach and inspire our players to be leaders for themselves. Players need to understand that team leadership is not limited to the head coach, coordinators, assistant coaches, team captains, and/or seniors. On the other hand, leadership is the right and responsibility of each and every one of them. Rookies, freshman, and even water-boys have the potential to lead a football team. Any time a person makes an effort to guide another closer to reaching their potential, they have acted as a leader. Imagine a team with every member dedicated towards moving each other closer to being the best they can be. I would be afraid of that team.

I once witnessed a debate team of high school students behave this way towards one another. It was truly a thing of beauty. They completely demolished the competition and eventually lost to one another in single elimination. At the end of the day, one of them stood as champion. However, all of them knew that their accomplishment happened because they were a team of leaders. No matter what sport or competitive endeavor you coach, getting your athletes (debaters, players, ect.) to buy into the "Leadership is a choice" philosophy will do nothing but make your team much more successful.

Anyone involved in the coaching profession would be wise to read Stephen Covey's insights on leadership in The 8th Habit and The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. These are great resources not only on the technique of leadership, but also the mindset of great leadership. Remember Leadership is a choice not a position.