Are we really running a 4-4?

Submitted by Wolverine In Exile on

In Birkett's article on the problems at safety (http://www.annarbor.com/sports/rich-rodriguez-doesnt-regret-position-ch…), he states at the end that with Brandon Smith in there we were actually in a 4-4 alignment.

Question to the coaches out there-- is that true? Granted I'm no coach but from what I can remember, it seemed to me we were playing almost more of a 46 defense with Kovacs and Smith rather than a true 4-4

The King of Belch

November 20th, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^

I am, from this point forward, going to tune any coach out who says any variation of the following: "Scheme? What scheme? I don't really run schemes. I just find the right matchups and go with what works." I'll be especially leery of the guy if he can speak in italics.

Might as well call that the ol "Flip a coin" defense or something.

Blue_n_Aww

November 20th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^

On one hand I agree with you. Scheme is vital and coaches should have a specific scheme to attack any given offense. On the other hand, there is this tendency on the boards and in the media at large to equate "formation" with "scheme".

They are seperate entities. Formation is the alignment you start with: how many safteys, linebackers and defensive ends you have on the field. Scheme is how you deploy those players post-snap: how this group of players defends space.

I learned the difference between scheme and formation growing up playing soccer. When I was young, the coaches only talked about formations because a. that was all they understood and b. it was all young kids could process about the game. It's much easier to say "I'm the forward and so I have a certain set of obligations" than to understand the systematic reasons for different obligations on the field.

As I became more and more advanced, however, formation became less and less important. It became more important for the team to remain balanced at all times. Roles became less rigidly defined allowing for more flexibility within the run of play. All of a sudden a 4-4-2 (4 defenders, 4 midfielders, 2 forwards) could morph into a variety of different formations as the game dictated.

I'm not saying that our players should freelance on the footall field. I'm just saying that coaches see the game in a totally different way from the rest of us. We see the positions as rigid, fixed, but, for the most part, they're fluid. The most important thing is to have a balanced assignment sound defense, whatever formation in which you start.

Wolverine In Exile

November 20th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^

but there are certain inherent limitations / exposures / advantages in setting formations and the "expected" play/strategy coming out of those formations. It's more of an esoteric football nerd question, and I'm more interested in the coaches viewpoints on this board as to whether we were following traditional depoyments and actions associated with classical use of different formations or whether we were simply "showing" different formations and then backing out / playing into a different classical formation deployment. There IS a difference in diagnosing player actions depending on whether they were in a true 4-4, 46, 4-2-5, 3-4, 4-3 etc once the play started.