Where to begin? Offense or Defense?

[Randy Carson]

I'm not a student of the game. So, I pose questions to those of you who are. Thank you for your patience and answers.

If you were named head coach of an underperforming football team, how would you begin rebuilding? (In terms of scholarships handed out and coaching salaries offered.)

Would you focus on putting together a lock-down defense first with the offense lagging behind? You may not score a lot of points, but you may not have to if you limit your opponents.

Would you focus on offense and really light it up? You may have to put a lot of points on the board since your Defense is going to allow the other side to do the same.

Would you try to develop both simultaneously? In which case there may be several years when you don't score a lot of points while your opponent does. (FWIW, there was a post in another thread that seemed to be saying that it's not O or D in general but the OL and DL specifically that have to come first...)

 

[Techfan02]

I would go for offense, cause the modern game is changing to an offense based game. While there are teams with absolutely amazing defesnes offense on the college level is more potent.

 

[g0lftime]

I would go for offense, cause the modern game is changing to an offense based game. While there are teams with absolutely amazing defenses offense on the college level is more potent.

Totally agree. Also harder to recruit big athletic defensive linemen.

 

[bobongo]

OL and DL

This.

 

[Buzzbomb]

Not an expert or a coach, but…..

You have to build both equally. From the days of Dodd’s defenses to the flights of the Fridge Friedgen, the LOS players are critical. Must win the battles up front. Furthest from the ball(skilled positions, play first). That’s why the portal is critical, and tough to come up with those huge NG/DL, which everyone desires. I wouldn’t run hurry up offenses, until you get proficient and more comfortable with the talent level. It also doesn’t let the defense get enough blows. My blitz packages would come from all over. The less we are predictable, show, the better. Rushing three, especially on passing downs is asking to be picked apart.
We need a ST Coach like a Charles Kelly, because you win or lose 3-4 games a year with them.

 

[stinger 1957]

I know everyone is seeing the college game as an offensive game now and going forward, but do we see a change taking place, did I sense that in a lot of the coaching hires there was a move going on towards defense? Don't know this just asking the question. I do know over the years it has moved from one to the other and then swings back again, it never seems to stay on one side or the other for ever.

 

[Vespidae]

If you were named head coach of an underperforming football team, how would you begin rebuilding?

Interesting question. A base theory of the game of football is that more games are LOST than they are WON. They are lost due to breakdowns ... player breakdowns, coaching breakdowns, etc.

More breakdowns occur on the offensive side of the ball. Why? That were the majority of coaching breakdowns occur (due to play selection). Defense can be approached from the quality of the alignment, the secondary coverage and then, the pass rush.

Having said that, I would start on the offensive side of the ball:

1. More breakdowns exists on Offense than Defense, and so things can (or should be) fixed first there.
2. The game has evolved to favor Offensive production over Defense, so Offense is a priority
3. More offense leads to better recruiting of QB's and WR's; both necessary in today's game.

That's the way I see it.

 

[1979jacket]

I would do everything I could to get big athletic lineman for both offense and defense and then find a QB. A good line will draw a QB in recruiting. If I have learned anything lately, its you are only as good as your big guys. Northern Illinois made a big jump this year and is was primarily because their offensive line is pretty good. UGA skill players are ok but their success is due to their lines. You get some defensive linemen then your LBs are better. On skill players, I would lean towards skinny fast wide receivers. Bama receivers have been in a class of their own over the last few years but still the line is where it's at. How do you do that? Spend all your recruiting money on getting them. Ask the Hill to make exceptions for them academically. GT at line of scrimmage is very weak.

 

[Techwood Relict]

The simple thought, I coach basketball at the high school level. We preach defense, defense, defense, if you want to see the floor. ...... But, you can't win 0-0 in any sport. Have to generate offense to win. So, build a defense that gives you as chance and an offense that gets you the win. I begrudgingly go 51/49 offense. And I agree with the other thread, line quality is an absolute.

 

[Spalding Jacket]

I would go for offense, cause the modern game is changing to an offense based game. While there are teams with absolutely amazing defesnes offense on the college level is more potent.

This right here and exhibt A this years SEC champ game where “oNe of tHe gReaTest dEfenSes eVer” got completely splattered by an over hauled bama offense with new O cord, QB, RB and Wrs.

 

[5277hike]

I agree with 1979Jacket and would look at both lines of scrimmage. From a management perspective, which a college head coach has to do, I would look at all aspects of the program to see where to improve in every area. The status of the individual program will tell you what needs attention first. Is it an established program that has fallen behind in infrastructure, does the alumni base need to dig deeper in their pockets, is there a “media darling” program in-state that they are recruiting against?Obviously the on field issues of blocking and tackling have to be addressed, and job one would be building the best staff possible, but there are a boat load of other pieces to put in place and you had better address all of them if you want a successful program. Some of us did learn to multi task at Tech !

 

[Bonaire41]

I want the offense, the defense, special teams and coaching to all improve. I want every aspect of the program to improve!!!

 

[4shotB]

From a management perspective, which a college head coach has to do, I would look at all aspects of the program to see where to improve in every area. The status of the individual program will tell you what needs attention first. Is it an established program that has fallen behind in infrastructure, does the alumni base need to dig deeper in their pockets, is there a “media darling” program in-state that they are recruiting against?

Interesting post. However, there is a paradox here and may parallel our situation somewhat. The guy (or gal I suppose) has 3-4 years at most these days to show progress/improvement. The things you describe are big picture, long term items that need addressing from at least one level up. I don't want the coach worrying about locker rooms and practice facilities (at least publicly and intially). I want him to focus on the product on the field first and foremost. There needs to be some goodwill earned.

A smart coach will assess the aspects of the program as you say and should either not accept the job if it is a bad job relative to schools you are competing with or be smart enough to negotiate a longer contract.

 

[augustabuzz]

Interesting question. A base theory of the game of football is that more games are LOST than they are WON. They are lost due to breakdowns ... player breakdowns, coaching breakdowns, etc.

More breakdowns occur on the offensive side of the ball. Why? That were the majority of coaching breakdowns occur (due to play selection). Defense can be approached from the quality of the alignment, the secondary coverage and then, the pass rush.

Having said that, I would start on the offensive side of the ball:

1. More breakdowns exists on Offense than Defense, and so things can (or should be) fixed first there.
2. The game has evolved to favor Offensive production over Defense, so Offense is a priority
3. More offense leads to better recruiting of QB's and WR's; both necessary in today's game.

That's the way I see it.

I would add this caveat. Most games played on Saturday are lost while most games played on Sunday are won.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Line of scrimmage. Both sides. I thought we should have scoured the country side after the hire for at least ten linemen each year. I don’t care if the roster was unbalanced. We would have been competitive.

 

[Jmonty71]

Interesting post and question. I would say, it has to be the offense. While defense wins championships, offense wins games. An exciting offense will draw crowds and recruits. Its easier to outscore opponents, versus trying to keep them from scoring. Now, as for breaking down the offense? It HAS to start with the OLine and blocking schemes. In order for QBs and RBs to make plays, the line has to block. So, for me the line is where we should focus most on.

 

[7979]

Not even close....it is defense
Historically, when GT is good, we have played good (or kinda OK...) defense.
There was no "transition away from the option" required on the defensive side of the ball...
We gave up 70+ to Clemson in 20, then 100 in last two games of 21....
It is defense.....

 

[iceeater1969]

Before u blaze off w the new plan u should figure out how the team got where it is. The last guy was a new hire just like u are now.. The cause of the sutuation will continue unless addressed. Also look for other things that can become a critical issue.
Find good football people around the program that want to be a part of the solution. Decide the likely level of wins that can be achieved against conference and add 2 games as your yearly goal.

Assuming u the short comings and strenghts are just average and not critical , you start on the MIDDLE OF the offense. First u find a good ol coach, task and bonus him w getting player named all conference @ center. A good center helps the average and good qb be better on every snap. Find a. TALL qb that can throw long and then work like hell to make him accurate. ( Got to keep the safties back) . Find some wrs - who are tall. Fill in with very big ol ( pass blocking -holding is legal) and some very fast small wr. We start w "eye candy" . I would hire a former qb that was pretty good to be the qb coach.
We keep the great ol coach but do not accept excuses from oc for not attracting a real qb and ir wr that sees he is way better than current qb. The tall wr that arent fast can bulk up to be fast te.

On defense we need 2 very big dt s that dont have to be great. Just dont get pushed back by one man. This clogs up the middle w dt and his blocker. Next try to get one edge rusher and promise him he plays every down he can. The edge rusher will be supported by the aggressive defense ( normal 6 men on line but only rush 3 20% 4 40% 5 20% 6 20. We will be known for aggressive defense.
WE THINK THIS WILL CAUSE BETTER PLAYERS TO SELF RECRUIT. The aggressive defense is run be ause if we play passive we will be exhausted by 2nd half.
Also if we get the ball to offense quickly they are getting game reps that will help them improve.
Yea in year 1,2 we will losesome big scores but the qb s and w r will start to score more.

Hire oc and dc to support initial plan.

Get some off staff support to be sure you arent missing something and to bounce ideas off.

So in summary
POSITION COACHES Hire a great ol and qb coach. As possible bring in other great position coaches
Measure success by getting a very good center and difference making edge rusher
( These positions will attract talent )

Play aggressive defense.
Find a Punter and field goal kicker that can boom it.

YEAR 4 CUT MY HC SALARY IN HALF ( BUT BONUS UP FOR V) HIRE A HOT YOUNG OC .
I BELIEVE POSITION COACHES ARE KEY.

MY ENGR COMPANY PAID OK PM SALARY BUT GIANT BONUS TO THE GREAT PM.

 

[Oakland]

If I were starting a football program, the best athletes would go to the defense.

 

[slugboy]

I think this question is kind of like “should I focus my weightlifting/bodybuilding on my upper body or my lower body?”.

We shouldn’t focus our efforts on one side of the ball, because we can’t afford a regression on either side. Also, while you might get immediate results in some areas, some improvements might take a couple of years to show up and you need to start on those yesterday.

The question “where should I see results first?” might be more of what you’re getting at. That’s also a different answer now than when Collins started. At the beginning, I’d have expected results on special teams and defense first—we had a coach with a reputation for those areas, and they also were an area where we were below average.

Even with “football being an offensive game”, we’re farther below average on defense than we are on offense. There’s more room for improvement there. It’s where you should see results fastest. They may not be enough to add as many wins as we want, but you should have been able to get a top 50 defense in year one, or at least a top 60 defense, and now you have multiple years of recruiting and transfers. Even if our conference has amazing offenses, we're the third-worst in the ACC in defensive efficiency. Yes, we gave up a ton to UGA and ND, but even before we played those games, our defense was down towards the bottom. In an apples-to-apples comparison, why can't we field a defense as good as Syracuse or Louisville with the players we already have?

Similarly, on offense, why can't we at least be the equivalent on Syracuse?

Here are the efficiency numbers, adjusted for strength of schedule: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...1/sort/efficiencies.defefficiencyrank/dir/asc.

By the way, we're in the same general area in team efficiency as Memphis, East Carolina, and Tulane. With the resources we have, we should at least be in UCF or SMU range.

TL;DR: we should be able to see results across the board pretty quickly. Next year, we'll probably see more on offense because we have a new OC.