OT: Saban brings up an interesting point on up-tempo teams

Submitted by ak47 on

So we've obviously talked a lot about up tempo versus slower teams and in an espn article saban has the following quote.

"The thing I wonder about is that if you play offense like that, then that's how you practice. You have to practice like that, so how do you really ever coach defensive players? If a guy doesn't play the right technique, you're going up and telling him and showing him how to play that block or whatever.

"But, hell, they're running another play."

Obviously what is highlighted is one of the benefits but it does make it more difficult to teach defensive technique and practice offense the way you want to run it. Just thought it was interesting to consider.

ak47

September 27th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

You could trust that your team is conditioned well, knows the defensive schemes like the back of their hands and if they have the proper technique will execute.  Obviously I'm sure they practice doing things like a 2 minute drill and running hurry up in practice but if its exclusively how the offense runs it reduces the amount of time you have to work on technique on the defensive side because the offense needs to practice going fast.

Edit: I do think this is a good point too, just trying to play devils advocate because a lot of people keep pushing the idea of up-tempo and yet most of the title winning teams don't employ it and there might be a reason for that, Stanford keeps winning the PAC 12 and has a better record for the last 4 years than oregon but everyone wants to emulate oregon because its flashier.

Zone Left

September 27th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^

Stanford and Oregon are great examples of doing well with guys who fit your system on offense. They both do really well when you adjust for tempo, but both run systems that are relatively uncommon. Oregon goes at a speed very few teams match and Stanford is doing something similar to Wisconsin, but very rare.

It's hard to equate tempo with winning. There are only a couple of teams that consistently run at high tempo and they haven't had the talent level that LSU or Alabama have had. There are a lot of ways to win, but it's usually the best players with a coach who develops them well that wins the most.

sj

September 27th, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^

In interviews, Brian Kelly was always pretty clear about his logic. He teaches off the field before and after practice. During the very limited on-field time he does as many reps as possible. Mistakes are usually either difficult enough to need coaching during down-time or obvious enough that the player will fix it on his own with reps. Every second you teach during practice you have 7 coaches talking to 7 people while 80 wait. Just like time in the huddle - that's time you could be doing reps. He felt this was more efficient learning for offenses and defenses. I dunno if it's right, but it is coherent and it is interesting. 

graybeaver

September 27th, 2013 at 9:12 PM ^

The spread offense is great. However, this believe that if you don't run the spread then you are dead is kind of silly. Pro offense teams win the most national championships. The last decade has had more pro style offenses win national titles than spread teams. How many national titles has Oregon won? They get destroyed by big physical teams like LSU and Stanford. Their a bunch of little bitches. Fuck Oregon! Chip Kelly will be ran out of the NFL very soon.

Wolfman

September 27th, 2013 at 11:39 PM ^

They don't get destroyed. They do, however, end up on the losing end of these 55-53 battles. I don't disagree with your assessment of the "if you don't run the spread then you're dead," because national titles and the games you point to suggest otherwise.     ^Damnit Brian, or anyone, why can't I simply hit my return twice and get a new para?   But Saban suggests that there is not time spent on defense and I don't think even he is at the level where he has his ones vs. ones all the time.  The scholarship limit has to hurt him as much as everyone else. Regardless of how many you oversign then fail to grant admission to, you'll never have more than 85 sholarship players. Yes, it's nice to oversign everyone with a 5 beside their name, but I think you catch my drift. His defense is running against scout team offenses, trying to bring a semblance of the upcoming opponent's offense to practice against in the exact same fashion his offense is working against scout team's attempting the same thing.      ^You will also recall, and this is where he's right, but not what he said, his rematch against LSU to win the NC just two years ago.  Saban never once coached his offense, leading credence to the old adage, "Defense wins championships."  He had witnessed LSU and knew all they had to do was fine tune the defense which no one does better than him to win it, and they did. He didn't spemd a damn minute with the offense in preparation leading up to the game.  But, if he's suggesting, you try that for an entire season, you're going to get your ass whipped.  A HC, after all, is aware of the shortfalls on both sides of the line or else he would have never progressed to that level.  As far as the spread being full of a bunch of bitches, how many more points would a team even as good as Bama need to be spotted to go down in the second half the way they did against a Cam Newton run spread?  If Auburn had tried to come back running a pro style offense, they wouldn't have been capable of putting enough points on the board in regulation, and this was no weak ass Bama defense. They don't make such a thing under Saban. I can't argue with the stats you point out but most teams, even the one that lost to the Ravens in last year's Super Bowl, coached by a Bo "Let's run the fuckers over" type of mentality disciple didn't neglect to use the advantage of utilizing principles of the spread that allowed them to get to the game.  To do so would be foolish. I think, when all is said and done, the spread will never be gone because even when everyone ran the Pro style offenses, it was usually led by a qb that was dual threat, even if it were Bradshaw and Big Ben simply tossing would be tacklers off of them(that's a dual threat), a Rodger the Dodger or Fran the Man type of qb that could buy time but always looking to throw instead of run, which they were both capable of.  And the closest immediate (same era) dominance I've seen since Bama would be the mid to late 90s Huskers that were led by one dimensional qbs. They sure in the hell couldn't throw, and it even took one of them just to have enough arm strength to toss the ball into the end zone and hit a teammate's foot-totally illegal-but the reason the crystal sets in Lincoln rather than AA.       ^Fifteen years ago you wouldn't have mentioned OR in a "might be" type of team that could win the NC. However, when they exposed us right after Appy did in back to back games when we had one of our greatest front sevens, it was obvious they made a statement, and we haven't got close to them in national rankings since.  Say what you will about the spread, but how many times were teams like WVU, AU, ORE, and let's not forget Fl under Meyer even considered for talk, much less playing in the game prior to the advent of this exciting offensive philosophy?

TESOE

September 28th, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^

The spread and historic dual threat QBs from the day are very different animals. The issue here is speed of game and practice. Does it help or hurt D?

DCs need to adjust - game to game and season on season. I don't think we have seen this chess match play out yet. It's too early to raise the pitcher's mound at this point IMO.

What hasn't changed is the best team wins and the best team is the one who executes the coaches intention. Speed doesn't affect that bottom line. When Stanford had the DE speed to chase down Mariota to the sideline - they took away O from Oregon. The Trees won that game by getting the best of a game of inches. I like both pro style and spread when played and defended well.

mgoO

September 28th, 2013 at 2:57 AM ^

You might want to check your facts before rattling off nonsense.

Chip Kelly was 4-2 against Stanford and lost last year in overtime.

He was 46-7 in his 4 years.  I would be extremely happy if Hoke could put together a 4 year run like that but in order to do so he'll have to win his next 23 games in a row.