This is just a question I’m interested in hearing everybody’s response on. Especially any other coaches in the forum. I coach at a small 2A school in Alabama.
So we had the sample of Guidry and his defense. Now, we have Hetherman and his defense.
Why do you guys think Guidry’s defense was so abysmal? His scheme and the complexity of it or was Guidry just not a good connect for the guys?
Like I said this is purely for discussion and you guys opinion. I am a defensive guy so these discussions are interesting to me.
I think sometimes we make defensive scheme more complicated than it really is. At the end of the day, everybody is basically running the same defenses. Your base structure is usually some variation of a 3-4, 4-2-5, 4-3, or a similar front. Everybody is also running the same families of coverages: Quarters, Cover 2, Cover 3, man, match coverages, etc.
What separates a good defense from a bad defense isn’t necessarily what is drawn on the whiteboard. It’s how well you teach the rules of the defense, how clearly players understand their assignments, and most importantly, how you teach them to handle the things offenses do specifically to break those rules.
A well-designed offense understands the general rules of every coverage. They’re not just calling plays because they look good on paper. They’re calling route combinations designed to put a specific defender in conflict and force him to violate one of his coverage rules.
Take Cover 3 as a simple example. If I’m an offensive coordinator and I know you’re playing traditional Cover 3, I know your corner is responsible for the deep third and your underneath defenders have curl/flat and hook responsibilities. So I can attack that structure with something like a flood or sail concept. I can send one receiver vertical to occupy the deep-third defender, another receiver into the intermediate outside area, and a third receiver underneath into the flat.
Now I’m creating conflict. The corner can’t cover both the vertical route and the intermediate route. The curl/flat defender can’t cover both the intermediate route and the flat. Somebody is going to come open if everybody simply follows the basic rules exactly as they were taught on Day 1.
A good DC doesn’t just teach, “We’re in Cover 3, and this is your zone.” He teaches players to recognize formations, splits, releases and route combinations. He teaches them, “When you see this formation and No. 2 releases this way while No. 1 does that, here’s what the offense is trying to do to you, and here’s how our rules change.”
To me, that’s why you can watch two teams line up in what looks like essentially the same defense and one defense is terrible while the other is extremely difficult to attack. The difference isn’t always the scheme. It’s the rules within the scheme, how those rules are communicated, how quickly players can recognize offensive concepts, and whether the DC has answers for the offense’s answers. When the offense creates a conflict, does the defense have a built-in answer?
Because you can have the greatest defensive playbook in the world, but if your players have to think for two seconds before reacting, the offense has already won the rep.
To me, great defensive coaching is taking something complicated and making it simple enough that 11 guys can recognize the same problem and react to it together.