Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked A question...

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

I posted this in the Scott Frost thread, but want to read other peoples thoughts on it..

A question I was pondering before I finally went to sleep last night is this..

With the way offenses are going, fast paced, no huddle, basically putting the defense out there to match up the best they can. AND the addition now of penalties that also give the offense some advantage... does it make sense to have more of a defensive minded coach or an offensive minded coach. Even mighty Nick Saban has no answer other than better players over the likes of aTm and their version of a hyper offense. The overall attitude that may drip down on the team is different between the two different minded coaches. The offensive guy might be more inclinded to take risks i.e. go for it in a questionable situation vs the defensive minded coach who punts always to get the D back on the field and hope to flip field position. Now thats not always the case, but you usually notice differences. Kind of like Oregons fake punt on their 45 that nearly scored a TD in the first quarter against UCLA. Pelini punts that 99.999999% of the time. I think I can count on one hand how many fakes weve seen in the last 6 years. Not saying I want more fakes, but when gameplanning against us, its an aspect I dont think they even have to really worry about.

Thats just one example of differences, but thinking in the age of huge advantages to the offense, does an offensive minded coach make a difference?

 

[huskrthill]

I think there is still room for a different type of offense, one that doesn't go no-huddle and spread the field. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I also think that defenses are going to catch up to these fast-paced offenses soon. At that point, we'll be asking if it's better to get a defensive minded coach that understands the new schemes designed to stop these offenses.

And round and round we go.

I still think defense wins championships. And I still think your goal on defense should be to stop the run and make teams one dimensional with the pass.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

I think there is still room for a different type of offense, one that doesn't go no-huddle and spread the field. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I also think that defenses are going to catch up to these fast-paced offenses soon. At that point, we'll be asking if it's better to get a defensive minded coach that understands the new schemes designed to stop these offenses.

And round and round we go.

I still think defense wins championships. And I still think your goal on defense should be to stop the run and make teams one dimensional with the pass.

Good stuff thill, and I agree. I just find it interesting, if you look at the top 10, and the focus of their headcoaches, the offensive "gurus" are making their presence felt.

 

[Surrounded by Hawkeyes]

I posted this in the Scott Frost thread, but want to read other peoples thoughts on it..

A question I was pondering before I finally went to sleep last night is this..

With the way offenses are going, fast paced, no huddle, basically putting the defense out there to match up the best they can. AND the addition now of penalties that also give the offense some advantage... does it make sense to have more of a defensive minded coach or an offensive minded coach. Even mighty Nick Saban has no answer other than better players over the likes of aTm and their version of a hyper offense. The overall attitude that may drip down on the team is different between the two different minded coaches. The offensive guy might be more inclinded to take risks i.e. go for it in a questionable situation vs the defensive minded coach who punts always to get the D back on the field and hope to flip field position. Now thats not always the case, but you usually notice differences. Kind of like Oregons fake punt on their 45 that nearly scored a TD in the first quarter against UCLA. Pelini punts that 99.999999% of the time. I think I can count on one hand how many fakes weve seen in the last 6 years. Not saying I want more fakes, but when gameplanning against us, its an aspect I dont think they even have to really worry about.

Thats just one example of differences, but thinking in the age of huge advantages to the offense, does an offensive minded coach make a difference?

I'd personally rather have an offensive minded coach, and then have good defensive coaches to compliment him. Heck, it worked out okay for Osborne. And....as far as the type of offense, I'd prefer a run attack w/ play action passing. If the defense has to practice against this type of defense every day, I think that it only makes them tougher when game time comes around. As far as the risks go when it comes to fake punts and than kind of thing, I'd rather have someone who is conservative with that.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

I'd personally rather have an offensive minded coach, and then have good defensive coaches to compliment him. Heck, it worked out okay for Osborne. And....as far as the type of offense, I'd prefer a run attack w/ play action passing. If the defense has to practice against this type of defense every day, I think that it only makes them tougher when game time comes around. As far as the risks go when it comes to fake punts and than kind of thing, I'd rather have someone who is conservative with that.

Good points. I dont wnat someone whos faking it every other punt or FG, but weve had times where I think we could have set it up, or ran it better (Nickens running the ball?) If you look at that Orgeon UCLA game, UCLA scored pretty easily, then stopped Orgeon on 3rd down to which they ran the fake to the 5 and scored on the next couple plays. Was that the the deciding factor, or would Oregon had lost has they not run it? Probably not, but it definitely took all the momentum away from UCLA early. Had they punted, and UCLA scored to go up 14-0... you never know what happens after that as football is such a funny game that can hinge on one play.

 

[Surrounded by Hawkeyes]

Good points. I dont wnat someone whos faking it every other punt or FG, but weve had times where I think we could have set it up, or ran it better (Nickens running the ball?) If you look at that Orgeon UCLA game, UCLA scored pretty easily, then stopped Orgeon on 3rd down to which they ran the fake to the 5 and scored on the next couple plays. Was that the the deciding factor, or would Oregon had lost has they not run it? Probably not, but it definitely took all the momentum away from UCLA early. Had they punted, and UCLA scored to go up 14-0... you never know what happens after that as football is such a funny game that can hinge on one play.

Yea, that can really change the momentum in your favor. It would be nice to see Pelini take more chances like that. Maybe he just doesn't have enough faith in our players, or it could be because he's a defensive minded coach. Pelini just doesn't seem to have that "attack" mentality anymore for some reason.

 

[redwinghusker]

In this current environment with the rules favoring the offense, yes, I'd prefer an aggressive offensive minded coach. Still gotta have a good defense though. At some point the pendulum will swing back to the defense. It always takes a while for the defense to catch up to the latest trend in offense. I'm still not sold on a yard slinger offense or arcade offense though. I sure like what Stanford has done the last few years. Sprinkle in some option with that, I'd be happy as a pig in mud.

 

[Blue Howl]

I don't think it matters. What you want is someone who can hire a quality staff, especially at the coordinator positions, and then successfully manage and coach the assistants as well as all aspects of the program. To use a business analogy, the head coach needs to be a CEO, not a departmental manager.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

I don't think it matters. What you want is someone who can hire a quality staff, especially at the coordinator positions, and then successfully manage and coach the assistants as well as all aspects of the program. To use a business analogy, the head coach needs to be a CEO, not a departmental manager.

I think it matters more than you think. I would say Hoke is the purest example of what your describing. Doesnt really have a specialty, just is the HC. Good recruiter, good PR guy, has a good make up around him. Id say even more than ever, you have to have an identity offense or defense or special teams even to be able to show on your resume. I think the staff also matters more than ever, but I truly think its tough to find a guy that just sits on the sidelines and watches the games and turns to their assistants when it gets tough, they have to be the head guru for their respective unit, and/or at least have a REALLY good staff.

 

[Surrounded by Hawkeyes]

I think it matters more than you think. I would say Hoke is the purest example of what your describing. Doesnt really have a specialty, just is the HC. Good recruiter, good PR guy, has a good make up around him. Id say even more than ever, you have to have an identity offense or defense or special teams even to be able to show on your resume. I think the staff also matters more than ever, but I truly think its tough to find a guy that just sits on the sidelines and watches the games and turns to their assistants when it gets tough, they have to be the head guru for their respective unit, and/or at least have a REALLY good staff.

Having that identity established is one of the best ways to get the recruits needed for your system. I hate the word "multiple" when they explain our offense. What is it anyway??? Are we a pass team or run team... not sure the OC even knows. I think they want to be multiple because they think that way the opponent will have no clue what to practice for. The problem with that is that we aren't really good at just one phase of the offense. It's all about repetition in practice. Keep the offense simple, and just be really good at what you do.

 

[blackshirts99]

I have wondered the exact same thing. Offensive minded teams are definitely winning right now, but eventually the defenses will catch up. I don't see football ever going back to low scoring battles, because excitement sells (penalties favor the offense in NCAA and NFL). So you definitely need to have a good offensive attack to keep up.

And I agree Pelini is very conservative. They are intentionally not trying to block punts, because they don't want to risk a penalty that puts the defense back on the field. Pelini knows the defense needs a punt whenever they can manage to get one.

 

[redarmy]

I posted this in the Scott Frost thread, but want to read other peoples thoughts on it..

A question I was pondering before I finally went to sleep last night is this..

With the way offenses are going, fast paced, no huddle, basically putting the defense out there to match up the best they can. AND the addition now of penalties that also give the offense some advantage... does it make sense to have more of a defensive minded coach or an offensive minded coach. Even mighty Nick Saban has no answer other than better players over the likes of aTm and their version of a hyper offense. The overall attitude that may drip down on the team is different between the two different minded coaches. The offensive guy might be more inclinded to take risks i.e. go for it in a questionable situation vs the defensive minded coach who punts always to get the D back on the field and hope to flip field position. Now thats not always the case, but you usually notice differences. Kind of like Oregons fake punt on their 45 that nearly scored a TD in the first quarter against UCLA. Pelini punts that 99.999999% of the time. I think I can count on one hand how many fakes weve seen in the last 6 years. Not saying I want more fakes, but when gameplanning against us, its an aspect I dont think they even have to really worry about.

Thats just one example of differences, but thinking in the age of huge advantages to the offense, does an offensive minded coach make a difference?

I have thought alot about this of late as well. I have always been a firm believer that Defense wins championships but we need to stop and acknowledge a few things. Rule changes are making this game harder to defend in a way that we have never seen. I would say that If Denver and New Orleans both end up with home field throughout, both will be my picks to go to the superbowl and both don't have great defenses. I think KC has the best defense in the AFC and I think Seattle has the best in the NFC and I dont know if either away from home have enough offense. Having said all of that I want to say this.

To answer your question, with the advantages offenses bring, with formations and rule changes, I think having a offensive guru might be more important. At the end of the day you have to make stops when needed but with all of these fast offenses I have already posed the question in a thread titled, I heard Art Briles Today. and I asked the question, can teams that play fast play great statistical defense? I am not sure that they can? I am still looking for an NFL or College team that plays fast that also plays great statistical defense. I haven't found any.

 

[blackshirts99]

I have thought alot about this of late as well. I have always been a firm believer that Defense wins championships but we need to stop and acknowledge a few things. Rule changes are making this game harder to defend in a way that we have never seen. I would say that If Denver and New Orleans both end up with home field throughout, both will be my picks to go to the superbowl and both don't have great defenses. I think KC has the best defense in the AFC and I think Seattle has the best in the NFC and I dont know if either away from home have enough offense. Having said all of that I want to say this.

To answer your question, with the advantages offenses bring, with formations and rule changes, I think having a offensive guru might be more important. At the end of the day you have to make stops when needed but with all of these fast offenses I have already posed the question in a thread titled, I heard Art Briles Today. and I asked the question, can teams that play fast play great statistical defense? I am not sure that they can? I am still looking for an NFL or College team that plays fast that also plays great statistical defense. I haven't found any.

I can't think of one off the top of my head...but an average defense with a great, fast-paced offense can make a pretty great team.
The reverse? Can a great defense with an average offense make a great team? I think the two scenarios are getting farther apart from being comparative every year.

 

[redarmy]

I can't think of one off the top of my head...but an average defense with a great, fast-paced offense can make a pretty great team.
The reverse? Can a great defense with an average offense make a great team? I think the two scenarios are getting farther apart from being comparative every year.

One of the reasons why I want to see Bama play Oregon so bad this year or even Baylor if (baylor can run the table) I want to see Bama's defense along with their pro style offense vs the Ducks. I want to see what it looks like. We might get our answer.

 

[speers90]

I have thought alot about this of late as well. I have always been a firm believer that Defense wins championships but we need to stop and acknowledge a few things. Rule changes are making this game harder to defend in a way that we have never seen. I would say that If Denver and New Orleans both end up with home field throughout, both will be my picks to go to the superbowl and both don't have great defenses. I think KC has the best defense in the AFC and I think Seattle has the best in the NFC and I dont know if either away from home have enough offense. Having said all of that I want to say this.

To answer your question, with the advantages offenses bring, with formations and rule changes, I think having a offensive guru might be more important. At the end of the day you have to make stops when needed but with all of these fast offenses I have already posed the question in a thread titled, I heard Art Briles Today. and I asked the question, can teams that play fast play great statistical defense? I am not sure that they can? I am still looking for an NFL or College team that plays fast that also plays great statistical defense. I haven't found any.

I am a defense first guy so I have thought about this a lot as well. I think if you hang your hat on fast pace offense then you are by default admitting you will have an average defense at best. Your best bet at that point is to be a ball hawking defense. You also can't have a QB that is mistake prone.

Go back and look at the past 20 or so national title winners and the closest I can come up with as an offensive focused team is Auburn and that was more because they played a team that played less defense than they did. Florida, USC, Texas, all the sec teams could flat out play defense save Auburn. Some of these teams had powerful offenses but they were most definitely not offense first teams.

Just my opinion and take it for what it's worth. I am little odd though because I want to see Armstrong, Abdullah, cross and newby run the ball 50 times a game. Chew some clock and help the defense by letting them rest and make adjustments.