I love good defense. But the definition of "good defense" has changed... and will probably continue to change as the style of play evolves and recycles.Say what you want, you won’t see any team with a weak defense win the SEC or national championship. Seems like some of the younger crowd don’t like good defense, I don’t for the life of me understand why some want to downplay defense. Sure I would love to score points, but I prefer I not give up just as many. Football was meant to be tough to score, it isn’t supposed to be easy. And I don’t want us too be making it easy for people either.
Good D in 1998 was 14.5 ppg and a 33 ppg avg on O. Today maybe it is a D that can get off the field on 3rd down, get turnovers, get big plays,... but allows 25 ppg while the O avgs 40 ppg?
One of the most incredible things about Saban is that he as a highly successful coach evolved when he saw the game evolving. Fulmer didn't which led to his end. Most coaches who have had success cannot change with the game. Saban did. He used to win with absolutely dominant D and run heavy power O. As late as 2016, he went to the NC with an O that rushed for more yds than it had passing. After his shift, they allow about a TD more than they did before per game. They score around 10 pts more... and have continued to win.
That's not really the choice though. Would you rather win 30-14 or 48-28? Is there any difference between a 35-31 win and a 14-10 win?I would rather win 40-7 than 42-40, a win is a win but give me a complete team all day long! That’s why I love football it’s a total team game and it takes everybody on both sides of the ball. GBO!
The win with D philosophy worked in the past. UGA made it work last year. It is an approach to the game that leads to certain types of decisions about risks. It is literally a "defensive" type of thinking... don't make mistakes, look for opponent errors, then take advantage.
Heupel began talking about being aggressive the moment he arrived. He's going to take more risks. His goal is to score points and put pressure on the opponent... to force them not only into mistakes but into abandoning their gameplan/style of play.
The best example I can think of to illustrate was Fulmer vs Spurrier in the 90's. Fulmer wanted to "pound the rock". Spurrier wanted to wear out the scoreboard. More often than not, Spurrier would get a lead and force Fulmer to either abandon his gameplan or stick with it. Either way... he was beaten. That is what UT did to both USCe and Mizzou last year.