At least I use paragraphs!!!

an awful secondary.

Teams like WSU under Leach could be much more difficult though.

Wilcox offered Tupoi co-DC along with boatloads of cash. And Tupoi is going to accept. Wilcox will be responsible for playcalling. Tupoi will help with DLiine specifically but will also be DCoord in title.

Because it means they can minimize the effect of mistakes on any given play. When you only have 40 offensive plays that means you can screw up once and screw up 2.5% of your game plan. Double those plays? Halve the importance of any screwup.

It also tires out defenses as well as forces them to play perfectly, both of which is pretty tough. It’s essentially the principle being being aggressive on defense as well – you dictate the tempo the game is played at.

Trufant is probably UW’s only reliable one-on-one cornerback, but they all play physical. You can’t take advantage of that with zone coverages.

I personally hate zone coverages, particularly cover 2/Tampa 2 packages similar to what Holt uses. I get that they are there to prevent big plays, but the one thing that makes it really work is SPEED and consistent penetration from your front four. You have to be fast EVERYWHERE, all across the board, and your D-linemen have to be great pretty much all across the board. That’s not very realistic unless you’re a school that annually can pick the type of players that they want. Also, cover schemes have one huge fundamental flaw; there’s always an opening; a soft spot.

I would personally have all my linebackers, corners, and safeties coached into playing a high amount of man coverages and a lot of press.

That said, I can see how you’d think there’s similarities between what I’ve said and what Holt’s said and actually practices. But you don’t know what my base defense/scheme would be, and therein lies the rub, because the types of players I would have and what their roles would be would be slightly different than a considerable amount of defenses.

My base defense would be the 3-5-3 defense, because you can do ANYTHING with it, and it is simplicity itself. There’s no need to get cute (and there’s plenty of room to get cute if you like, but there isn’t a need for it). You can create any front you want without changing anything up. Theoretically, you can counter just about any offense that is on field, from spread offenses like Oregon’s to teams that emphasize a lot of power formations like Stanford with the right front in the 3-5-3. Also, you can also run any coverage you want (and you can be sure I’m leaning towards man coverages unless circumstances dictate otherwise).

Because of that, my players have to be versatile and FAST on the outside. I’d want corners that can line up at safety and safeties that can line up at cornerback. My two very outside linebackers must be able to line up at safety and nickelback on the field. The commonality that they all must have is speed.

All my down linemen must be big, especially the nose tackle, similar to the nose tackle in a 3-4 defense. The nose tackle is the single most important player in my defense (but the middle linebacker comes close). All three down linemen would have to recognize blocking schemes. They all have to be space eaters. My middle linebacker has to be bigger than average as well. My two middle outside linebackers, the ones flanking the middle linebacker have to be strong , but speed is more important for them. My SS (or rather, my middle safety) has to be big AND fast. My middle linebacker and my middle safety have to be my smartest players.

I’ve given this a lot of thought, and honestly, in today’s college football world, scheme versatility (and not the scheme itself) is becoming more important on defense without the sacrifice of fundamentals. The 3-5-3 allows for that.

This is true, but it is also true for just about everything you see offensively. We are talking about scheming.

I have a vision of somebody other then a blitzing LB forcing the pitch. My theory in defending the read-option doesn’t necessarily require a LB to defend the optioning QB. The base of the scheme would be a LB to force the QB to pitch the ball. To offer a change up, I would disguise it with a safety responsible for forcing the QB to ptich, in return the on-side LB offers overlapping run support. To change it up even more, I disguise a corner blitz to the play-side taking out the pitchman, in turn the QB has no option but keeper. Spread offense is all about the perimeter, it forces you to play well in space. You have to coach up playing in space well or you will suffer from the big play time and again. I’m on board from switching from a 4-3 base to a 3-4 base. Offensive football is years ahead of defensive football, especially in this league. To play well in space defensively, you have to match speed for speed and be in the right place to make stops.

Furthermore, I would like us to think outside the box. Maybe a dual defensive coordinator concept is a good approach. Have one D coordinator in charge of a 3-4 defense and another D coordinator in charge of a 4-3 defense. Vs. spread (Oregon, WSU, Arizona, Ucla, and Cal) I believe the 3-4 base is required. Vs. the pro (USC, Arizona State, Stanford, and Oregon State) I believe the 4-3 base is required. Can a two base defensive system work? I think for it to be successful, would require two coordinators who speicalize in that particular base system and it would help tremendously if we had interchangeable defensive parts (players).

… but the pre-snap read is part of it. In the case of Oregon, its not so much disguising it from the QB, but from the coaching staff waving the posters on the sideline.

As for the options – I mostly agree with you although the notion that defenses will never be able to catch up schematically (which you imply) is not consistent with history. Defenses always catch up?

You really don’t know what you’re talking about here. Go to fishduck.com and watch some of the tutorials. The pitch is a very small component of only a couple of formations; the mesh is by huge, huge margins the primary system.

I realize Oregon used the double-RB outside pitch to great effect against Washington this year; this was one of the few times that Oregon used it all year. It is not common at all. On the two plays to DAT in the Rose bowl both were mesh handoffs – one was an IZR read with a pitch option possibility (that was taken as the IZR) and the other was a double option IZR/OZR read with a fly sweep that was given to DAT as the sweep.

“Yet if the read is wrong, where the D End or LB have other responsiblities and a safety jumps up to stop the optioning QB then we have confusion.

Not really. You either switch the read (which Oregon does all the time) or change the blocking (which Oregon does all the time). If you decide to do some kind of stunt where the LB now drops back as a safety and the S acts as the will LB, the read is the same; the QB isn’t looking at a specific person, he’s looking at a specific spot. This, btw, is a cornerstone of the Oregon offense – the zone read. The QB looks at a specific area to read. The blockers block specific lanes. The RB hits specific areas. None are saying ‘get a hat on this guy right here above all else’. Static switches to cause confusion aren’t really going to help all that much. And again, if you decide to switch up with a S or LB on the line that leaves you really vulnerable to seam routes on TEs or RBs as well as screens to the outside.