Specificity or Multiplicity: A Football Conundrum

[BlueRattie_rivals]

When listening to coaches talk about their teams, we often hear them talk of their team's identity, that is, the concrete description of what the team sees itself as philosophically and schematically. For example, Stoops often describes his defense as "multiple", meaning that it is something of a chameleon, morphing based on situation.

Other coaches have taken the opposite approach, going out of their way to define their teams in terms of specificity. They will often say that we are a "run first" team, "pro-style" offense team, a "vertical passing", team or a "3-4" team. The idea is to be so good at the "thing" you do that other teams will have to adjust to you--not the other way around.

Teams employing the multiple philosophy point out that they have almost endless flexibility. They can reconfigure their plans on the fly, beat a variety of teams at their own game, and they seldom get exploited by exotic personnel packages. Their argument is that we're going to beat you by making it impossible to plan for the different "versions" of us, and you'll never catch us off guard because we are actually several teams in one. Oregon, UCLA, Clemson, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss have all had success employing the multiple philosophy.

Teams that believe in specificity point out that they have the advantage of getting very good at a clearly defined number of tactics, allowing them to beat teams that have a talent edge on them. Gus Malzahn once said [I paraphrase] that in order to be a spread-option team, you have to really buy-in to the idea that we are read-option; it's not a thing we've tacked on to a "regular" offense; the read-option is who we are. Auburn, Georgia Tech, and Navy have all had success using a specific, consistent offensive philosophy.

With this in mind I ask you:

1) If you were taking over a team tomorrow (with a fairly neutral roster) do you begin to forge your team identity as multiple of specific?

2) Which direction should Kentucky go? Do they have a better chance of success by trying to be good and a bunch of things or by trying to be excellent at a few things?

 

[BigBluePhantom]

When listening to coaches talk about their teams, we often hear them talk of their team's identity, that is, the concrete description of what the team sees itself as philosophically and schematically. For example, Stoops often describes his defense as "multiple", meaning that it is something of a chameleon, morphing based on situation.

Other coaches have taken the opposite approach, going out of their way to define their teams in terms of specificity. They will often say that we are a "run first" team, "pro-style" offense team, a "vertical passing", team or a "3-4" team. The idea is to be so good at the "thing" you do that other teams will have to adjust to you--not the other way around.

Teams employing the multiple philosophy point out that they have almost endless flexibility. They can reconfigure their plans on the fly, beat a variety of teams at their own game, and they seldom get exploited by exotic personnel packages. Their argument is that we're going to beat you by making it impossible to plan for the different "versions" of us, and you'll never catch us off guard because we are actually several teams in one. Oregon, UCLA, Clemson, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss have all had success employing the multiple philosophy.

Teams that believe in specificity point out that they have the advantage of getting very good at a clearly defined number of tactics, allowing them to beat teams that have a talent edge on them. Gus Malzahn once said [I paraphrase] that in order to be a spread-option team, you have to really buy-in to the idea that we are read-option; it's not a thing we've tacked on to a "regular" offense; the read-option is who we are. Auburn, Georgia Tech, and Navy have all had success using a specific, consistent offensive philosophy.

With this in mind I ask you:

1) If you were taking over a team tomorrow (with a fairly neutral roster) do you begin to forge your team identity as multiple of specific?

2) Which direction should Kentucky go? Do they have a better chance of success by trying to be good and a bunch of things or by trying to be excellent at a few things?

If I were at Bama, I would stick to what works best, recruit the best players for that scheme and dare other teams to beat me with inferior talent. However, at UK, I would go the other route. UK is not going to get better players than the top teams in the conference. We also have a much smaller pool of top recruits from which to choose. We will take a 4 star regardless if he fits our system where Bama may pass on him and instead sign another 4 star that is a better fit. I think we can have an identity at UK but it has to be more flexible and we may have to think outside the box and gamble more when we play a more talented opponent.

 

[JPFisher]

Back when I wrestled, there were two options.

1) Learn three things really well- a neutral position series, a series from bottom, and a series from top.

2) Learn as many series as possible and get as good at them as possible so there's flexibility within a match.

Good wrestlers typically did #1. Great wrestlers typically did #2.

It's the same concept as in basketball where a team "Lives by the three and dies by the three."

A football team can have a power (single) back offense and be damn good, but they're in trouble when they meet a stout line and backers and the line is stacked.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is trouble unless you're Alabama and have an NFL lineup, and even then it gets them in trouble. Being multiple means you can exploit the opponent more and change your own game to be exploited less.

Specifics are okay to start out with because it's always good to have a good fallback and solid base, but being multiple is definitely the way I'd go.

 

[TBCat]

I believe the two aren't necessarily exclusive. I believe you need to have multiple simply because of how the sport is changing. The days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust are dead. Even power running teams implement spread concepts and even some cases hurry up. There are simply too many advantages to not go that route these days. Also even if you are an Air Raid team you need to be able to go power some times. The 3 back two TE lineup might not be the every down formation but it still has it's uses.

Same on defense since defenses need to be able to match the multiple offensive sets. This is the reason you are seeing more 3-4 and 4-2-5 schemes these days. Being multiple is a must so that you have a tool for every situation and can match up to any opponent. However I still believe you can and must establish a focal point. You need to be good at something and stick to that as a primary weapon. And I don't think that really contradicts being multiple. You can be a power team but run from a multiple set. Or even a spread set.

The problem for UK is that we are in year 4 and we simply haven't decided what we want to do. We are multiple but are we a running team? A passing team? Balanced team? Hurry up or slowdown? The answer to each of those questions is yes or no or maybe depending on the day of the week. The big problem on offense is that we don't have a direction. We are getting better players but they don't necessarily match the profile of the player we need for the system we are kind of running for this week. Mean while south of us Vandy is just in year 3 of rebuilding and they already seem to know the direction they are going in. They don't have the talent but they at least seem to be matching skill sets for the system they are running.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I believe the two aren't necessarily exclusive. I believe you need to have multiple simply because of how the sport is changing. The days of 3 yards and a cloud of dust are dead. Even power running teams implement spread concepts and even some cases hurry up. There are simply too many advantages to not go that route these days. Also even if you are an Air Raid team you need to be able to go power some times. The 3 back two TE lineup might not be the every down formation but it still has it's uses.

Same on defense since defenses need to be able to match the multiple offensive sets. This is the reason you are seeing more 3-4 and 4-2-5 schemes these days. Being multiple is a must so that you have a tool for every situation and can match up to any opponent. However I still believe you can and must establish a focal point. You need to be good at something and stick to that as a primary weapon. And I don't think that really contradicts being multiple. You can be a power team but run from a multiple set. Or even a spread set.

The problem for UK is that we are in year 4 and we simply haven't decided what we want to do. We are multiple but are we a running team? A passing team? Balanced team? Hurry up or slowdown? The answer to each of those questions is yes or no or maybe depending on the day of the week. The big problem on offense is that we don't have a direction. We are getting better players but they don't necessarily match the profile of the player we need for the system we are kind of running for this week. Mean while south of us Vandy is just in year 3 of rebuilding and they already seem to know the direction they are going in. They don't have the talent but they at least seem to be matching skill sets for the system they are running.

Vandy is limited it what they can do, they don't have the depth to play fast, so a true HUNH offense is out. They need to shorten games, by getting multiple first downs and controlling the clock and limiting possessions. Their passing game was awful last year, qb was inaccurate and inexperienced. Their running game was ok, maybe even on the verge of being good. QB play can't be any worse, running game should degress so offensively they could be some better. Defensively what they did with an offense as bad as theirs was very good. I think Mason is one of the top defensive guys against the spread in the country, he was very successful against Oregon who ran the best HUNH spread when he was DC at Stanford. He isn't going to change his scheme. He isn't going to get the players other SEC teams get, they have to be guys who buy into his system and he has to target kids he feels will do that,and has.

But with all that said, Vandy got some talent under Franklin, probably had more than UK from the Joker days. Stoops has shown to be a better recruiter and on paper have shot past Vandy in the talent department. But I don't think Stoops settled as quickly on what he wanted to do as Mason did. Vandy seems to have settled a little, while UK appears to be on the rise and Stoops settles in to what kind of team identity he wants.

 

[BlueRaider22]

No one is very specific these days no matter what they say. So, in essence everyone is fairly multiple.

That being said, you need to have something to rely on. Think about Bama. Their offense can come at you many different ways, but hey pride themselves with always being able to run up the middle.

So, it's a little of both. A person becomes a master by doing 1 thing 1000x. A person who does 1000 things 1x is a master of none.

 

[Deeeefense]

I think coaches have to coach what they know, and what they have practiced in the past. Picking an offense or a defense isn't like picking lunch from a menu, it's more like deciding what profession to go into based on your background, education and interests. If you like math and are mechanically inclined you can't just say "I think I'll be a lawyer" you probably should stick to a technical field.

Having said that football is evolutionary. Over the years I have seen innovative coaches come up with certain styles of offense that work very well for a while until defensive minds design ways to slow, or defeat them, then new styles come along. So even though, as a coach, you have practiced and established a certain style of play for years, you still have to be agile enough to tweak your system based on the opponents you face. The good coaches learn how to do this, the others get left behind.

 

[WildCard]

Pretty much agree with BR22 and Deee. on this one. To be a successful coach I think you need a certain personal core philosophy of "how the game should be played". But you most likely have to show some year to year "flexibility" in "how" you execute that philosophy. JMO

Peace

 

[BIGBLUEQ]

Yep, with the way the game is played today, you have to be multiple to be able to match up. You can't play a wide tackle six against a spread team.