I see teams now and then with IQ's indicating that their coaches devote practice minutes to multiple offenses and/or defenses.

Am I missing something?  This seems like a really dumb idea to me, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise if I am wrong.  I want my seniors to know my offense and defense like Einstein by the time they graduate; devoting minutes to more than one offense or defense just makes them mediocre in IQ in all of them.  I have just taken over a team whose coach practiced with multiple sets, and as a result none of the IQ's are where they need to be, especially for the upperclassmen.  (It is definitely gonna be an issue when the dance rolls around, assuming we even get there.)

I realize that some coaches like to run man/press or zone/press combo defenses, but is the trade-off worth it?  Please enlighten me!  Are there a lot of coaches who have had sustained success at a high level who do this?

I don't see the point in multiple offenses at all, since they're basically the same (excluding fb).  I guess on defense I could be convinced it was a solid strategy if it was a top D1 school that was recruiting guys that were basically already maxed out.  Other than that, I don't see any upside.  

some theory was floating around for running a zone and a man together, I have never seen anyone post on a board how it was implemented, I also did not spend too much time figuring it out, someoone may have even won a NT using it once.  I am pretty sure I did check to see if it was a home away thing, home man and away zone or visa versa, but it was not.  I also seem to recall the team I looked at used all man to man in the CT and the NT.

But Davis, I am with you on trying to get as good as I can with one def.

I once wrote a ticket up to tarek asking if combo could be changed to be a real defense, so IQ's could get to A in a combo defense, rather than B/B+ in man or zone and B/B+ in FCP.  I have won a few titles using combo defense, when I ran it, I just split my practice time between man and fcp, and took a few away from my offense, something like 20/15/15 - but that still is giving up alot of improvement to the competition running straight defense and practicing 25/25 or devoting those extra points to ind skills

Tanner won multiple titles using all the defenses

Posted by brip87 on 12/15/2010 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Tanner won multiple titles using all the defenses

OK - but how - randomly - with some sort of system - are you saying he ran man, zone, zone combo, man combo, and fcp all in one season?

yes

I employed both man and zone at Montana (six straight Sweet 16's or farther) and DII Concordia (won a national title with it). I usually ran 20 for offense, 20 for m2m and 15 for zone, and routinely ranked at or near the top nationally in numerous defensive categories. I really liked it and the strategic advantages that I felt it afforded me.

That said, I scrapped the system and went to straight m2m once the new engine came out (I've always been primarily a m2m coach), because the differences between the two defenses are not nearly as pronounced as they used to be, and I felt strongly as though it was actually hurting me more than it was helping me. I was actually quite bummed about it (both my loss of this strategy, and the fact that the defenses aren't as different as they used to be). I feel strongly that right now it is a losing proposition.

I dont know tanners specifics but in wooden d1 at providence he won multiple titles using all the defenses.

OR, I don't know if tanner ran straight fcp (although maybe he did at the end of games when losing), but he would generally switch up between press/m2m and press/zone.

to me, the differences in the way you play the defenses make it pretty nonsensical to try to run multiple. if you don't recruit for your system, well, then maybe it would work alright. but i don't see how you could build a team that was optimized for both. and their strengths and weaknesses don't seem that severe to tip the scales, especially when you haven't recruited in a way to maximize the impact of those strengths. i know tanner did awesome with his triple D team but i suspect it was primarily a product of having good teams and how much attention he was playing to manage the 3 defenses, i mean you would have to know the **** out of your team and that is going to help you no matter what you are doing.

At D3, I run a zone/press on defense...admittedly, it hasn't been AS effective since the engine change, but I still like the flexibility it gives in late-game situations. If I'm ahead by a bunch, we can drop the press (to reduce fouls and defend the perimeter). If we're trailing late, I can drop the zone half and play FCP for the final six minutes in an attempt to force turnovers and climb back into the game.

On very rare occasions, I'll run the FCP for the full game. It's just another weapon in the arsenal and I haven't seen where the minutes I devote to it in practice make that big of a deal in the development of players. Most of my guys are maxed by their senior year (especially in their cores) anyhow.