Easiest Offense to Defend?

DON CORYELL SAID THAT THE WORLD IS FULL OF GOOD COACHES, WHAT WE NEED IS MORE GOOD PLAYERS!

Coach Easton

I know this is the obvious answer but the easiest offense to defend is the one that has the least amount of talent. No matter what offensive scheme you believe in you must have the players to exucute the plays. Of course im sure you already know this.

maybe I should have offered a personnel caveat.....(lol)

I figured it went without saying about defending superior athletes...I was referring to a scheme question.

Scheming against a Pro-I, to me at least, is pretty simple and (the real issue) EASY to teach to the kids because the looks will be distinct (Iso, Power, Option, Sweep). The ones that give us fits are the Wing T's, Flex Bone, etc. Because of the teaching aspect involved, if you don't rep against offenses like that, the LOOKS will confuse the players = difficult defending....

maybe I worded the question wrong.

Yes...I would agree it is easier to coach and teach my defense in practice to sit on the bench......(what?)

hang50,

That drive Navy had was a thing of beauty. I am so glad I taped Navy's offensive plays from that game. I wonder if that drive set some kind of record? Sorry for straying of topic here.

I have to be honest, I have found the Wing-T to be the easiest offense to defend, but this is because we face it 3 or 4 times each season and our base defense is designed to counter it. Once your defense is designed to recognize the blocking schemes and fit / attack, you are always in a position to make a play. The "Pro-I" can be easy OR very difficult to defend, depending on the diversity of the attack and what they do with their receivers. I'd agree that a team that lines up in the "I" with one TE, a flanker and a split end and pounds the ball at you every play with iso, power, and sweep is not too difficult to defend against, unless they are flat out superior (which they usually ARE if they are trying this approach).

HOWEVER, a "Pro-I" team that mixes zone and power running game with a few misdirection quirks combined with an effective playaction, quick passing, and 5-step scheme can be devistating. The balance and multi-dimensional characteristics of the "Pro-I" gives them the ability to influence the number of defenders we place in the box. An efficient "Quick Game" will widen inverts and OLB's out of the box to threaten the outside passing lanes, for example...but this will open up the off-tackle attack in a huge way. If we dedicate too many players to the run, we are vulnerable to the playaction game. Overpursue to flow to stop the power attack, and a zone cutback or misdirection play will hurt us.

The flexibility of that offense is what makes it difficult to defend. So I guess if the question was "What FORMATION is easiest to draw up a defense against," then I would agree to some extent. However, on the field, I've found that most Pro-I teams place your defensive philosophy in a great deal of conflict because they typically have these characteristics (at the HS level):

1. Excellent Power Running Attack (Power, Iso, Sweep, Counter, etc.)
2. Good Zone Running Attack (IZ and OZ)
3. Good Playaction Passing Attack (usually something off each base run, with different receiver deployments)
4. Excellent 3-Step Quick Passing Attack (out, slant, curl, fade)
5. Average 5-Step Passing Attack (West-Coast style 12-15 yard routes with safety valves underneath)
6. Multiple Formation capability (receiver alignments, backfield sets, etc.)
7. Multiple Motion and Shifting game (TE trade, Z motion, etc.)
8. Above-Average Athletes to fit into the flexible and multiple scheme. (Good TB, Strong Physical OL, Smart QB, at least 1 good WR)

It's a different way of putting defenders in conflict than option or spread or wing-t. It's not a question of "who has the ball" in most cases. It's a question of "what are we going to dedicate ourselves to stopping?" It's balance, and balance above all is the most difficult thing to defend, not the easiest.

But in the end, it can be anything. I could easily say "Option Offenses" are easy to defend. You play assignment football. You find out who their most potent ball carrier is in the option tandem and you take him away by placing your best defensive assignment scheme on him. But, of course we all know it's not really that simple. Nor is it that simple to defend the Wing-T like I wrote above.

I guess my argument would be that most teams that run the Pro-I would not be doing so if they did not have the athletes to do it effectively. This being the case, most of these teams are going to be tougher to defend than on paper because of their diversity and balance of attack...and will require a different kind of scheming all together. If we're shutting a Pro-I team down, I guarantee you it is not our defensive scheme that has done the job (as much as we'd like to slap ourselves on the back for being the "guru of defending the "I"). It is usually due to the fact that their athletes did not match up agianst ours and they could not establish a diversity or balance to their attack. This is true against any offense, however.

It must be true, otherwise the "Pro-I" would not be so widely used by all levels of football.

So to answer the question, I'd say that any offense that is one-dimensional is easiest to defend or scheme against.