Last year Oklahoma had a very poor defense looking at the traditional statistics. While these do not outright lie, they also do not tell the full picture. Oklahoma played in a league with very good and innovative offenses. And Oklahoma itself had one of the all-time great offenses last year. Their yards per play and points per play, to name just two meaningful statistics, were at near record levels. Keep in mind that historically most teams who have touched the type of numbers Oklahoma put up last year did so playing lower-tier opponents. In contrast Oklahoma played in one of the tougher conferences (those who find this to be a controversial statement ignore results and are caught up in old-world expectations of what football "should" look like), and they competed in the college football playoff against an exceptionally good Alabama team. The Oklahoma offense was Platonic while the Oklahoma defense was non-Platonic beyond all recognition.
While the Sooners are the extreme case, this combination of great offense and bad defense (albeit not necessarily on the same team) is a growing phenomenon throughout the sport. Teams with "old-world" offenses fail to reach the pinnacle within their leagues cough...Michigan... and teams with "old-world" defenses such as, sadly for me, Oklahoma look like two entirely different teams between when they possess the ball and when they do not. This resulted in Oklahoma parting ways with its defensive coordinator, Mike Stoops, after a disappointing loss to Texas mid season (in case you don't know, firing a coordinator mid season in what is otherwise a very promising season is a very rare event). After scrambling to fill the gaps to finish the year, Oklahoma has cleaned house bringing in a promising and perhaps innovative group to run the defense.
So far this is just me discussing my rather unremarkable and unoriginal observations. While I absolutely do not claim to have the answers, I think I do have an advanced framework for discovering the solution. Here we go...
To restate the premise: Defensive strategies and tactics desperately need to evolve since offenses have evolved at a much more rapid pace and in a more dynamic way for some time now.
Defense has a chance to catch up before offenses figure out that they don’t have to punt every time on 4th down. If offenses figure that out and continue to innovate in other ways, defenses are screwed. Case in point, offensive production is up remarkably over the past 19 seasons (2000 vs 2018). Across all FBS-division college football teams the average production is up meaningfully in the categories of yards per play (11%), points per play (14%), and points per game (12%). Maybe it is too late for defense?
Assuming this is not a lost cause, let's focus on a solution. The key is to be disruptive. Yes, that has always been the key. It’s just that the strategy of how to achieve that has changed over time. Back when running the football was the dominant offensive strategy, defenses needed to try to limit offenses to about 3 yards per play. Achieving that play in and play out is much more difficult today. Limit an opponent to a gain of 2 yards twice in a row (creating 3rd and 6), and you just don't feel like down and distance is on your side. A crude but probably telling stat: In the 2000 season just 10 teams went the season averaging gaining over 6 yards per play. In 2018 46 teams did.
Defensive strategy seems to have fallen into a losers games where defenses are trying to be very safe and limiting every play relying on the offense eventually making a mistake. "Just don't get beat deep..." goes the saying. The problem is offenses don’t take as many iterations (plays) to score as they used to, and they are more explosive. Hence, they don’t need to be as steadily productive as they did in the past.
Defensive strategy has to shift the probability back in its favor. The key is to increase volatility which increases disruption. If you will more likely eventually give up a score (and this is increasingly the case for all teams in nearly all situations), you might as well give it up right away having taken a big chance to stop it. Simply put: Just get the ball back--create failure or fail fast. Second and 11 is not as difficult for an offense to overcome as it was in the past. Likewise, defenses need to realize that second and 2 is not as bad a position to be in as it once was. Defenses need strategies and tactics that increase the probability of turnovers and tackles for large losses at the cost of increasing the probability of giving up meaningful offensive yardage gains and scores. The defensive mindset needs to begin with the assumption that everything is four-down territory--don't assume an offense will punt except in the most dire of positions.
A critical next step is to think terms of making an offense have as difficult a time scoring as possible regardless of what they do in trying to score. Defenses need to push offenses into making high-risk, low-reward decisions. Lowering an offenses chances of success is not entirely enough. Defenses must make offenses choose lower payout expected values. Think about an analogy with basketball. If defenses had their way, they would make offenses shoot every shot within a zone that is within about 0-5 feet inside the three point line. What is the football equivalent?
The most disruptive defense one could imagine from an NFL fantasy lineup would perhaps be the five best pass-rushing defensive linemen and six players among the strongest defensive backs or fastest linebackers. Notice that I am not saying the best run-stopping defensive linemen or the fastest defensive backs (cornerbacks or safeties) or the biggest linebackers. This group is going to blitz (send a disproportionate number of players rushing toward the quarterback) nearly every play. The remaining players are going to attempt to shut down the quarterback's options. What would it look like in result? Lots of small yardage given up, painful amounts of big plays given up, but all at the benefit of relatively many great defensive outcomes (turnovers, big yardage losses, etc.). Of course, that is a fantasy team. But perhaps we can get close to that by selecting for players in those molds and for plays in that fashion. Consider an analogy from baseball. There is a reason The Shift has become very popular--it shifts leverage in favor of the defense in a number of ways.
Why so aggressive--blitzing and otherwise? Start by thinking about how a defense is going to stop various types of plays used against it. Consider the most impactful offensive play, a deep pass down the field for either a touchdown or a very large gain. The first, best way to stop the play is to prevent the quarterback from throwing it in the first place. The second, best way to do it is to stop him from throwing it well while at the same time disrupting the receiver running the route. The third, best (worst) way is to have a defensive back covering the receiver being thrown to attempt to break up the play at the point of the catch. This holds not just for the deep pass but for all passes down the field. And by extension of the logic it holds for all plays.
Think about a running play. Where does the defense most want to attempt to stop a run? At or before the runner even begins, which would be in the offensive backfield. If the runner gets free for 9 yards as compared to 8 yards, the difference is very minimal. If the runner goes for 20 yards or 15 yards, again the difference is minimal. I am not saying it is not a big deal to give up large rushing plays. I am saying a combination of negative yardage running plays (-1 to -4, say) and positive, larger yardage running plays (9 to 20, say) is preferable to consistently yielding 3 to 8 yards each run. Don't try to make the offense fail small each down. Just one large failure (a turnover or a big loss on 3rd down or a big loss on 1st or 2nd down greatly reducing the offense's play options ) would be enough to allow the defense to win the drive.
The essence of my philosophy is a shift in the risk/reward and, hence, outcome dispersion for each defensive play and set of plays in a drive. Great defense should be torturous to watch for both teams' fans. For the offense and its fans it will look unpredictable and threatening--at any moment it might end the drive. For the defense's fans it will look unpredictable and haphazard--at any moment it might give up a score. Note the classic fan pessimism at play in both cases.
I admittedly do not have all the answers for how difficult it is to coach defense in football today. I just am on the lookout for the next innovators who I think will employ strategies and tactics very different from what has worked before.
Defense has a chance to catch up before offenses figure out that they don’t have to punt every time on 4th down. If offenses figure that out and continue to innovate in other ways, defenses are screwed. Case in point, offensive production is up remarkably over the past 19 seasons (2000 vs 2018). Across all FBS-division college football teams the average production is up meaningfully in the categories of yards per play (11%), points per play (14%), and points per game (12%). Maybe it is too late for defense?
Assuming this is not a lost cause, let's focus on a solution. The key is to be disruptive. Yes, that has always been the key. It’s just that the strategy of how to achieve that has changed over time. Back when running the football was the dominant offensive strategy, defenses needed to try to limit offenses to about 3 yards per play. Achieving that play in and play out is much more difficult today. Limit an opponent to a gain of 2 yards twice in a row (creating 3rd and 6), and you just don't feel like down and distance is on your side. A crude but probably telling stat: In the 2000 season just 10 teams went the season averaging gaining over 6 yards per play. In 2018 46 teams did.
Defensive strategy seems to have fallen into a losers games where defenses are trying to be very safe and limiting every play relying on the offense eventually making a mistake. "Just don't get beat deep..." goes the saying. The problem is offenses don’t take as many iterations (plays) to score as they used to, and they are more explosive. Hence, they don’t need to be as steadily productive as they did in the past.
Defensive strategy has to shift the probability back in its favor. The key is to increase volatility which increases disruption. If you will more likely eventually give up a score (and this is increasingly the case for all teams in nearly all situations), you might as well give it up right away having taken a big chance to stop it. Simply put: Just get the ball back--create failure or fail fast. Second and 11 is not as difficult for an offense to overcome as it was in the past. Likewise, defenses need to realize that second and 2 is not as bad a position to be in as it once was. Defenses need strategies and tactics that increase the probability of turnovers and tackles for large losses at the cost of increasing the probability of giving up meaningful offensive yardage gains and scores. The defensive mindset needs to begin with the assumption that everything is four-down territory--don't assume an offense will punt except in the most dire of positions.
A critical next step is to think terms of making an offense have as difficult a time scoring as possible regardless of what they do in trying to score. Defenses need to push offenses into making high-risk, low-reward decisions. Lowering an offenses chances of success is not entirely enough. Defenses must make offenses choose lower payout expected values. Think about an analogy with basketball. If defenses had their way, they would make offenses shoot every shot within a zone that is within about 0-5 feet inside the three point line. What is the football equivalent?
The most disruptive defense one could imagine from an NFL fantasy lineup would perhaps be the five best pass-rushing defensive linemen and six players among the strongest defensive backs or fastest linebackers. Notice that I am not saying the best run-stopping defensive linemen or the fastest defensive backs (cornerbacks or safeties) or the biggest linebackers. This group is going to blitz (send a disproportionate number of players rushing toward the quarterback) nearly every play. The remaining players are going to attempt to shut down the quarterback's options. What would it look like in result? Lots of small yardage given up, painful amounts of big plays given up, but all at the benefit of relatively many great defensive outcomes (turnovers, big yardage losses, etc.). Of course, that is a fantasy team. But perhaps we can get close to that by selecting for players in those molds and for plays in that fashion. Consider an analogy from baseball. There is a reason The Shift has become very popular--it shifts leverage in favor of the defense in a number of ways.
Why so aggressive--blitzing and otherwise? Start by thinking about how a defense is going to stop various types of plays used against it. Consider the most impactful offensive play, a deep pass down the field for either a touchdown or a very large gain. The first, best way to stop the play is to prevent the quarterback from throwing it in the first place. The second, best way to do it is to stop him from throwing it well while at the same time disrupting the receiver running the route. The third, best (worst) way is to have a defensive back covering the receiver being thrown to attempt to break up the play at the point of the catch. This holds not just for the deep pass but for all passes down the field. And by extension of the logic it holds for all plays.
Think about a running play. Where does the defense most want to attempt to stop a run? At or before the runner even begins, which would be in the offensive backfield. If the runner gets free for 9 yards as compared to 8 yards, the difference is very minimal. If the runner goes for 20 yards or 15 yards, again the difference is minimal. I am not saying it is not a big deal to give up large rushing plays. I am saying a combination of negative yardage running plays (-1 to -4, say) and positive, larger yardage running plays (9 to 20, say) is preferable to consistently yielding 3 to 8 yards each run. Don't try to make the offense fail small each down. Just one large failure (a turnover or a big loss on 3rd down or a big loss on 1st or 2nd down greatly reducing the offense's play options ) would be enough to allow the defense to win the drive.
The essence of my philosophy is a shift in the risk/reward and, hence, outcome dispersion for each defensive play and set of plays in a drive. Great defense should be torturous to watch for both teams' fans. For the offense and its fans it will look unpredictable and threatening--at any moment it might end the drive. For the defense's fans it will look unpredictable and haphazard--at any moment it might give up a score. Note the classic fan pessimism at play in both cases.
I admittedly do not have all the answers for how difficult it is to coach defense in football today. I just am on the lookout for the next innovators who I think will employ strategies and tactics very different from what has worked before.
No comments:
Post a Comment