If you were a head coach what offense/defense would you run?

[SUUTbird]

If i were a coach id run the spread option offense (kinda like a combination of SUU's and Texas Techs offense). I like the idea of possibly making huge plays every play and it is a reliable offense if you have the right people. For defense...id run a 4-3-4. A good agressive defense that is hard hitting and can blitz alot.

[Col Hogan]

Your key statement is "IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE"...

As a head coach, I'd try to remain flexible on the exact type of "O" or "D" I'd run...because I'd like to see what type of athlete is coming to my school...

Yes...I'd try and recruit a certain type of player to match what I want to run...the flex requires speed (as UMass will find out when we play Texas Tech in September)...but what if I get a great running back, and I don't have the height/speed for the flex???

Flexibility is the key...

Good question, though.....

[MrTitleist]

If I was an offensive coordinator I'd be dying to run the Air Force triple option/flexbone attack. Except I'd do it with guys that are not appointed by a governor, I'd do it with real recruits. I'd put a bruising fullback right behind me, I'd throw a couple of 4.4 running backs next to him. Then I'd lineup some tall, quick wide receivers on the edges and let them in on the running game, or spread the field when the defense decides to lineup 8 in the box. As far as a QB.. I'd be looking for a QB with a rocket arm and some speedy feet. Not a Tim Tebow type of QB, but I'm thinking more of a prototypical AFA quarterback, but with a decent arm.

Then when we get to play defense. I'd line up in a 3-4 defense with linebackers that have one mission.. get through the line and hit someone. The defense would be linebacker centered, with smaller (230-260) LBs that can get to the ball in a hurry. Their mission would be to follow the ball and hit someone on their way there. Wyoming uses this kind of strategy and rides it to a top 10 defense most years (until they hit mid-season and collapse). Think... Brian Urlacher type of LBs.. a converted free safety type of LB.

[GoApps70]

I would run the "Run Away" offense.

Run away with the score.
Run away from the defense.
Run away from this question.

Any offense can only run what they have in the way of talent. I mean IF you had Montana at QB, and E. Smith at RB, etc. then you would Still have to adopt to their specific talents.....there is always something that they do better than other people and some things that they do not.

[travelinman67]

Your key statement is "IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE"...

As a head coach, I'd try to remain flexible on the exact type of "O" or "D" I'd run...because I'd like to see what type of athlete is coming to my school...

Yes...I'd try and recruit a certain type of player to match what I want to run...the flex requires speed (as UMass will find out when we play Texas Tech in September)...but what if I get a great running back, and I don't have the height/speed for the flex???

Flexibility is the key...

Good question, though.....

Colonel...you no good &^%%

You wrote EXACTLY what I was going to say.

The 'these are our plays' coaches, IMHO are an anachronism. I've watched too many teams paint themselves into corners with their inflexibility...usually resulting in the program having at best cyclical "winning" seasons. Most of us know teams that are so predictable, you can write their O plays on a matchbook...season after season...nothing ever changes, and you'll rarely see them in the playoffs.

Good coaches look for certain 'types' of players, but work with who they get...identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and tailoring the playbook to match their team each year.

Being a D guy myself...I like the 3-5-3 or 3-3-5 wiith the strong lb picking up routine pass rush, but liberal use of 7 and 8 man attack front looks. Key is the front 3...monster NT and 6-4+ 270+ ends...must be able to dominate the line and control the run, play after play. I've always like the overload looks...when done well, it effectively mitigates all O reads.

I'm with the Colonel on O...available talent dictates playbook. Failure to adjust the playbook to match talent is just as fatal as failure to adjust during the game.

[UTGrizfan]

Alright first post ever on here...i would go for the good ol fashioned west coast offense, very realiable and you can do alot out of it. and defense...hmm...i dont know probably a 4-3. Dont know much about defense but it seems to be the most effective in my opinion.

[AZGrizFan]

Your key statement is "IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE"...

As a head coach, I'd try to remain flexible on the exact type of "O" or "D" I'd run...because I'd like to see what type of athlete is coming to my school...

Yes...I'd try and recruit a certain type of player to match what I want to run...the flex requires speed (as UMass will find out when we play Texas Tech in September)...but what if I get a great running back, and I don't have the height/speed for the flex???

Flexibility is the key...

Good question, though.....

Colonel...you no good &^%%

You wrote EXACTLY what I was going to say.

The 'these are our plays' coaches, IMHO are an anachronism. I've watched too many teams paint themselves into corners with their inflexibility...usually resulting in the program having at best cyclical "winning" seasons. Most of us know teams that are so predictable, you can write their O plays on a matchbook...season after season...nothing ever changes, and you'll rarely see them in the playoffs.

Good coaches look for certain 'types' of players, but work with who they get...identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and tailoring the playbook to match their team each year.

Being a D guy myself...I like the 3-5-3 or 3-3-5 wiith the strong lb picking up routine pass rush, but liberal use of 7 and 8 man attack front looks. Key is the front 3...monster NT and 6-4+ 270+ ends...must be able to dominate the line and control the run, play after play. I've always like the overload looks...when done well, it effectively mitigates all O reads.

I'm with the Colonel on O...available talent dictates playbook. Failure to adjust the playbook to match talent is just as fatal as failure to adjust during the game.

3-3-5 may work at the FCS level, but it's been tried at the FBS level by several coaches (most notably the failed experiment by Dirk Koetter at ASU) and it does NOT work. I'd stick with the base 4-3 or 3-4, depending on personnel.

[SuperHornet]

On offense, give me an I-based West Coast attack any day of the week. The I is balanced, so the defense can't overload it. The passing complements the running, so the defense can't predict that, either. Of course, I'd bring in supposedly outdated stuff like the dropkick, the quickkick, the Swinging Gate, and Marv Levy's old T-Punt formation just to screw with the defense.

On defense, I want a good old 5-3 with one fast LB who can go deep when necessary. I've also read about an "endline" defense where defenders mirror offensive guys and one guy "enforces" a simulated "endline" at about 18 yards downfield that I like. I wish I could find the book again....

[BigApp]

I would run the Wing-T

[SuperHornet]

I've coached two HS teams where the head man ran Wing-T. (At the first, however, the Varsity HC allowed the FS HC to switch to a Doubles Gun set when our best player broke his leg on the opening kickoff of a game. Then we had to hear the senior pastor, the kid's dad, whine about HMOs from the pulpit. The kid had to wait from the 2 PM kickoff to about 8 PM to be seen due to on-plan/off-plan MD haggling with the HMO.) I've also endured several seasons watching my beloved Sacramento Sirens run the bloody offense at the pro level. I'm SO happy that this year a coaching change has moved the Sirens to an I-based attack.

(I'm just waiting for someone to resurrect the old Single Wing just to screw with defenses. )