Belichick shares benefit of 3-4 two gap

[Iggcane]

Personally, I still prefer an attacking, upfield defensive scheme regardless if it is based out of an odd or even front. The above article is interesting in that it highlights the advantage of safety coverages. I would assume this is mainly referring to split safety looks. However, typically in an even front a safety is used to balance out the numbers, particularly in the running game. All gaps are accounted for.

In the grand scheme of things I guess it ultimately boils down to whether or not Miami is able to consistently recruit an anchoring two gap defensive tackle or an athletic safety capable of playing down in the box while being equally effective in coverage. Based on the type of athletes we recruit in sFl, I think the odds are more favorable that we could find an Al Blades type of safety than a Vince Wilfork type of DT.

Let the upfront troops attack and reestablish the line of scrimmage while playing a lot of single high cover three and man 1. Just one mans opinion.

In addition, a lot of what BB relies on in this theory is that you'll be able to disguise, mix and take advantage through coverages. What you do up front allows for mixed looks from Safeties and ultimately becomes a big advantage if you have a sound foundation. So, 2 things:

1) Our foundation is not yet reliable because we haven't had a stud 2-gapper at NT and some would say it's difficult to sustain that pipeline in college. And,
2) Our current staff has not shown (admittedly, possibly because of #1) a willingness to mix looks consistently. Further, I'm yet to see any evidence of a proactive, innovative approach in anything on the field, so it's fair to wonder if it's even there waiting for when our foundation is sound.

Ultimately, we're playing a style that eventually provides a competitive advantage. But, have not been able to set the foundation to see the fruits of the advantage. What we will see is continued improvement because the players/talent will be better. My biggest fear isn't that we can't get back to, say, VTech level. I think that will happen pretty soon - with or without this staff. Rather, my biggest fear is that we won't return to a place where we win those 1-2 "really difficult" games. The ones where the other team has as much or more talent. Part of winning those games, at any level, is about approach/strategy/improvisation advantages. I hope we see more of it this year.

Regarding the bolded above, do you think our great teams of the recent past ever won those 1 or 2 "really difficult" games due to approach/strategy/improvisation on the part of the coaches? I was too young and knew too little to have an opinion about the late 80's and early 90's, although from what I've read and watched it appears that Howard and Jimmy would likely have impacted tough games as you describe. But post Erickson, I've never felt that we actually out-coached a team. I thought, in small moments we took some teams by surprise in the late 90's and early 2000's before we were officially "back". The FSU game against Wenkie comes to mind, along with UCLA. However, I always felt that we just had superior talent and a, for lack of a better term, will to win that got us through some of those really difficult games. I would be curious to know what examples you would point to where some of our great teams of the past won games due to approach/strategy/improvisation on the part of the coaching...

Theoretically, I don't disagree with you, I just don't think we've had that since Jimmy.

 

[bbcane]

He's 100% correct. There is nothing wrong with this style of defense if you have the correct personnel.

My issue with it is that it is not suited for the type of defensive linemen usually found in South Florida and therefore makes it much more difficult to run at Miami.

Yeah, I know. Vince Wilfork never could have played this defense.

Most of the great DT's couldn't either. Like fitting three square pegs in one round hole.

?? What has he been playing since he was drafted?

 

[LuCane]

Personally, I still prefer an attacking, upfield defensive scheme regardless if it is based out of an odd or even front. The above article is interesting in that it highlights the advantage of safety coverages. I would assume this is mainly referring to split safety looks. However, typically in an even front a safety is used to balance out the numbers, particularly in the running game. All gaps are accounted for.

In the grand scheme of things I guess it ultimately boils down to whether or not Miami is able to consistently recruit an anchoring two gap defensive tackle or an athletic safety capable of playing down in the box while being equally effective in coverage. Based on the type of athletes we recruit in sFl, I think the odds are more favorable that we could find an Al Blades type of safety than a Vince Wilfork type of DT.

Let the upfront troops attack and reestablish the line of scrimmage while playing a lot of single high cover three and man 1. Just one mans opinion.

In addition, a lot of what BB relies on in this theory is that you'll be able to disguise, mix and take advantage through coverages. What you do up front allows for mixed looks from Safeties and ultimately becomes a big advantage if you have a sound foundation. So, 2 things:

1) Our foundation is not yet reliable because we haven't had a stud 2-gapper at NT and some would say it's difficult to sustain that pipeline in college. And,
2) Our current staff has not shown (admittedly, possibly because of #1) a willingness to mix looks consistently. Further, I'm yet to see any evidence of a proactive, innovative approach in anything on the field, so it's fair to wonder if it's even there waiting for when our foundation is sound.

Ultimately, we're playing a style that eventually provides a competitive advantage. But, have not been able to set the foundation to see the fruits of the advantage. What we will see is continued improvement because the players/talent will be better. My biggest fear isn't that we can't get back to, say, VTech level. I think that will happen pretty soon - with or without this staff. Rather, my biggest fear is that we won't return to a place where we win those 1-2 "really difficult" games. The ones where the other team has as much or more talent. Part of winning those games, at any level, is about approach/strategy/improvisation advantages. I hope we see more of it this year.

Regarding the bolded above, do you think our great teams of the recent past ever won those 1 or 2 "really difficult" games due to approach/strategy/improvisation on the part of the coaches? I was too young and knew too little to have an opinion about the late 80's and early 90's, although from what I've read and watched it appears that Howard and Jimmy would likely have impacted tough games as you describe. But post Erickson, I've never felt that we actually out-coached a team. I thought, in small moments we took some teams by surprise in the late 90's and early 2000's before we were officially "back". The FSU game against Wenkie comes to mind, along with UCLA. However, I always felt that we just had superior talent and a, for lack of a better term, will to win that got us through some of those really difficult games. I would be curious to know what examples you would point to where some of our great teams of the past won games due to approach/strategy/improvisation on the part of the coaching...

Theoretically, I don't disagree with you, I just don't think we've had that since Jimmy.

I think it's a different era of football. I think physical superiority is, for the most part, beginning to narrow enough between schools (relative to, say, 15 years ago) that you are able to see a team like Auburn last year beat some teams that were simply more talented than they were. ****, if someone tackles R. Greene on that comeback route, they probably win the Championship. Did they have some excellent athletes? Sure. But, FSU was by and large more talented throughout their 2 deep. There are plenty of other examples - some of which are more extreme than the Auburn example.

Talent is almost always going to be more important than coaching, I'll acknowledge. But, talent doesn't quite look (play --> result) the same without the right strategies. So, if early training continues to level the "talent" gap, we're going to need to show a competitive advantage in another aspect.