Re: Since 1970 only 2 teams allowed fewer yards in 1st 5 games than Browns
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:21 pm
Probably take too long a discussion but --- just my opinion --- yes and no.JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:43 pmUnlike "yester-year" teams and teammates don't stay together long enough to learn and be able to play many variations and schemes so they learn one or two or three formations/sets and stick with that (basically) throughout much of the season.JohnTurney wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:22 pm I prefer the 4-man older school--Browns, 49ers, Jets and a couple of others. Or, better put, I like
a diverse look. Different week, different schemes ...
Then, when the team changes dramatically over the off-season the whole defense has to be re-taught to new players which prevents any real depth of understanding and the ability to play too many variations on the base scheme(s).
Yes -- guys playing together seems to have a cohesiveness that allows guys to play faster, guys know what each other is going to do. Anytime there are sight adjustments being on same page has to be something that limits errors. Guys seeing things with the same "eyes" ... so the read of the secondary is same by WR and QB.
Same with a LBer and DL. If a DT is supposed to have the A-Gap but doesn't get it, maybe he's clogging "B" then the LBer behind him can take "A". Example: Haynesworth and Bulloch. In the Wide-9 weakside Haynesworth (had strengths and weaknesses) and Bullock had it worked out that if a guard took something away Haynesworth would just take was left unprotected and the Lber, seeing it, would make up the difference.
That kind of thing takes some time. And I am sure people can name all sorts of things like that.
The "No". I think things are more complex now because there are far more variations of coverages, and blitz packages, or "looks". Gregg Williams had 47 "looks" or packages he'd install in a year. So I think there are lots of variations.
But in terms or reteaching the new guys that is interesting. There are different schools of thought. Belichick is one way---he teachs everything and can pull what what he needs when he wants it. Old, new, from his databank of defenses. He has guys that are smart and can do things and he can teach what needs to be done, make it easy enough for his guys to implement on a weeo or two weeks. Example: the 6-1 (which was really just the old 4-3 pro) defense. Now they call things by how many players are on the "surface" so what was called a 4-3 back in the day was a 6-man "surface".
Anyway, then there is a philosophy that if you do too many things you cannot do any of them well.
So, other coaches stick to what they know and work wrinkles off of that. Schwartz is example of that. He makes a lot of variations but his front does still use wider ends because he know how to teach it, the angles and aiming points to cover the gaps or "fit the run" -- they keep changing terms over time. "Gap control" is "run fits" ...
Schwartz has his wide-9 front "Gun or shark" depending if it was Ten or Buf/Phi and then would vary the LBers to show Double-A gap looks or even Double-B when the Double-A wasn't doing what they wanted.
Schwartz isn't going to vary his wide-9 then go to more standard over (stuff he did early in Tennessee) front to a 3-4 ... he's going to keep it simple not because guys cannot learn more but because doing one thing well allows guys to play faster.
That's why my opinion is yes---if teams had more continuity there would be better football, fewer mistakes, etc. Maybe though, there would be guys playing based on experience that lost something athletically (thinking of defenses that got old together).
And also no -- thinks are pretty complex now, much more than ever, but in relative terms the simplicity or use of single schemes is because they think it is a competitive disadvantage, not that though couldn't teach it --- like Bill B does.
The rub is that if someone can beat someone's scheme it's a problem.
Again, Schwartz. His wide-9 gets penetration and penetration kills outside zone plays. He got there because Bill B's 3-4 had OLBer who were "9 techs" just not necessarily called that because they were not in the front. So, Schwartz put his DEs where Bill B's OLBers were and then moved his LBers to adjust -- have them not set edge, but take an interior gap.
But, if a team can run traps and pull guards and run to outside --- if the TE can hook the wide-9 then a team can run outside using something other than zone. Or the offense can try to crease the defense by using the penetration against them. That's the weakness of the wide-9.
So, if a team was good at that, then with the wide-9 being perfected by his guys, they know it like the back of their hand they can spend practice time working on G-Pull or traps or whatever the upcoming opponent does.
One last thing--back in yesteryear, as you call it, there were coaches who had a little of everything Malavasi/Carson and others. When you talk about Wide-9 the Rams had that, they called it Eagle-over. It would put Jim Youngblood inside of Jack Youngblood who would be wide outside the TE.
They also had the "KC" that also had DE wider than normal. But the difference is they didn't do it as a full scheme, it was one wrinkle, one front among many. I did a recent post about Bud Cason doing an inverted Cover-2. That is something they'd do - but not a lot. Now it happens a lot.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. But I could be wrong but also remember--guys coming out of college are much further along than back in the day. Colleges and pros run a lot of similar stuff -- that wasn't the case 50-60-70 years ago.
