Great read explaining the different philosophies between Rob Ryan and Monte Kiffin

[fatboygixxer]

It was a major change when the Dallas Cowboys parted ways with Rob Ryan and his 3-4 defense and hired Monte Kiffin (followed shortly by his trusty sidekick Rod Marinelli) to install a new version of his 4-3 scheme. The defense is certainly going to look different in 2013. But behind the change in formation and what stance some players will be in is a more fundamental change. The underlying strategies applied by Ryan and Kiffin are quite different, and I think that is going to have more impact on the game than anything else.


If you were around back when I first started to pop up in the Fanposts under my old Pineywoods moniker, you may remember that I have a real weakness for applying some military analogies to football. It probably comes from the fact that I have way, way more experience with the former. But today, while I was mulling over how the Cowboys will likely be approaching the defensive game, a certain parallel hit me that illustrates something that I think is rather important. It is a little bit different, but I hope some of you enjoy this.


Rob Ryan had a defensive approach that relied on disguise, reading the offense and reacting, and what were by all reports very complicated assignments and roles. When everything came together, it could be wildly disruptive, throwing things like two man fronts and dropping OLBs into coverage at the other team. The idea was to surprise and confuse the opponent, often by making the adjustments and shifts at the last moment when they could not make a counter-adjustment, and get them to throw or run to the wrong place.
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/6/2/4387938/dallas-cowboys-switching-defenses-a-strategic-look

Great read IMO..

 

[ologan]

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed it also, although there are those here who won't.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Fans that transition into being blogging journalists have a flaw in my mind. While they may be beguiling in their writing styles, I have to ask how much access do they have to the people who actually work in the industry they are covering?

How privy are they to inside information instead of critical thinking mired in opinion?

Like the people on this and other boards who write these long posts about drafts and coming seasons, they are still just fans with a perspective that may or may not be correct.

Especially when the blog-fan is an obvious fan of the team he or she covers, you have to question the validity of some of the conjecture posited in their articles.

The paradigm of the Japanese commander and Pearl Harbor was thoughtful. But I believe there is also a hidden aspect to this that was not explored.

As admitted in history and the article the Japanese elected not to throw a third wave at the Americans.

So to, Ryan may have had his hands tied in a way that he could not throw his third wave at the opponent.

If the talent on the field cannot execute the game plan, then how can coaching effect that to success other than change the game plan?

It is my contention the trenches are where games are won and lost. Dallas cannot generate a decent enough pass rush to make their above average corners and maybe below average safeties play up to their zenith.

So in the case of Ryan, he was not as wild and wooly as he was at other places because perhaps he saw he had a flawed talent pool which could not execute his defense properly.

Thus he, like Yamamoto, could or would not toss the third wave at the offense because of fear of being defeated.

Meaning Ryan had to temper his aggressiveness and be more predictable because his players did not have the talent to execute his entire game plan.

So while Kiffin and Marinelli may be able to improve the defense by changing schemes, they still will have the basic issue that has caused this defense to fail time and time again.

No solid pass rush.

Because Pierre-Paul is more disruptive than anything on the Dallas defense. And unfortunately that includes Demarcus Ware.

Dallas has better corners than the Giants, and have had for a while - even before Carr and Cla.

But the lack of pass rush by the Dallas front is the kernel that is at the heart of why this defense fails.

And that is why the scheme change is lipstick on a pig unless they can generate a pass rush in my opinion.

And while scheme may accomplish that, the likelihood of success with older stars seems sketchy.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Very good read.

 

[Sean50Lee]

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

 

[Parcells4Life]

When reading this i'm reminded of Parcells last year in Dallas. His strategy was a 3-4 style of Kiffin's, just line up and beat your guy 1-on-1. The media and fans hated this when comparing his scheme to Pittsburgh's and New England's that used the exotic formations with multiple blitzes.

Now that they've had the exotic they want more of the basic. Personally i view that Ryan's scheme works better than Kiffin's IF and only if you're healthy. Remember Ryan's defense led the league in 3 and outs through the first half of the year.

Kiffin's scheme works better when you don't have the talent to have the bend don't break mentality that Zimmer had. With this defense, it's imperative not to get far behind because it's easier to maintain drives and chew up clock since Kiffin's goal is just don't give up TD's and get TO's in the passing game.

Time will tell after a couple years.

 

[fatboygixxer]

Fans that transition into being blogging journalists have a flaw in my mind. While they may be beguiling in their writing styles, I have to ask how much access do they have to the people who actually work in the industry they are covering?

How privy are they to inside information instead of critical thinking mired in opinion?

Like the people on this and other boards who write these long posts about drafts and coming seasons, they are still just fans with a perspective that may or may not be correct.

Especially when the blog-fan is an obvious fan of the team he or she covers, you have to question the validity of some of the conjecture posited in their articles.

The paradigm of the Japanese commander and Pearl Harbor was thoughtful. But I believe there is also a hidden aspect to this that was not explored.

As admitted in history and the article the Japanese elected not to throw a third wave at the Americans.

So to, Ryan may have had his hands tied in a way that he could not throw his third wave at the opponent.

If the talent on the field cannot execute the game plan, then how can coaching effect that to success other than change the game plan?

It is my contention the trenches are where games are won and lost. Dallas cannot generate a decent enough pass rush to make their above average corners and maybe below average safeties play up to their zenith.

So in the case of Ryan, he was not as wild and wooly as he was at other places because perhaps he saw he had a flawed talent pool which could not execute his defense properly.

Thus he, like Yamamoto, could or would not toss the third wave at the offense because of fear of being defeated.

Meaning Ryan had to temper his aggressiveness and be more predictable because his players did not have the talent to execute his entire game plan.

So while Kiffin and Marinelli may be able to improve the defense by changing schemes, they still will have the basic issue that has caused this defense to fail time and time again.

No solid pass rush.

Because Pierre-Paul is more disruptive than anything on the Dallas defense. And unfortunately that includes Demarcus Ware.

Dallas has better corners than the Giants, and have had for a while - even before Carr and Cla.

But the lack of pass rush by the Dallas front is the kernel that is at the heart of why this defense fails.

And that is why the scheme change is lipstick on a pig unless they can generate a pass rush in my opinion.

And while scheme may accomplish that, the likelihood of success with older stars seems sketchy.

Great post..but I believe the addition of Marinelli will improve our pass rush to some extent, you also have to take into account the fact that now the "Rushmen" have only one job. I'd like to think the lack of pass rush at times had at least a little something to do with our rushers dropping back into coverage so often and that whole read/react philosophy. Can't wait for this season to kick off!!

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Honestly, I see Kiffin's defense being a lot more like Jimmy Johnson's defenses. HE doesn't trick you....it's more I am lining up and I am going to do what I do better than you do what you do.

Less risk and less moving parts mean less chance of complete failure. It means fewer penalties. I just think it is the way to go.

As for defending Rob Ryan, what's the point? The guy has had mediocre defenses in stops with multiple teams. At some point, you have to go beyond the talent and question the strategy.

 

[Wolfpack]

When reading this i'm reminded of Parcells last year in Dallas. His strategy was a 3-4 style of Kiffin's, just line up and beat your guy 1-on-1. The media and fans hated this when comparing his scheme to Pittsburgh's and New England's that used the exotic formations with multiple blitzes.

Now that they've had the exotic they want more of the basic. Personally i view that Ryan's scheme works better than Kiffin's IF and only if you're healthy. Remember Ryan's defense led the league in 3 and outs through the first half of the year.

Kiffin's scheme works better when you don't have the talent to have the bend don't break mentality that Zimmer had. With this defense, it's imperative not to get far behind because it's easier to maintain drives and chew up clock since Kiffin's goal is just don't give up TD's and get TO's in the passing game.

Time will tell after a couple years.

This is what I think as well. Its really going back to 2003 on a knee jerk.

What ever the issue, the defense has been lacking something for some time, no matter the stats.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Honestly, I see Kiffin's defense being a lot more like Jimmy Johnson's defenses. HE doesn't trick you....it's more I am lining up and I am going to do what I do better than you do what you do.

Less risk and less moving parts mean less chance of complete failure. It means fewer penalties. I just think it is the way to go.

As for defending Rob Ryan, what's the point? The guy has had mediocre defenses in stops with multiple teams. At some point, you have to go beyond the talent and question the strategy.

It wasn't a defense of Ryan as much as a suggestion that we have seen this defense do pretty much the same things through several coaches.

Back in the day Zimmer got toasted on this site, yet when he moved to Atlanta his defense was fairly good.

Maybe it is merely the talent chosen and not necessarily the coaches.

Jimmy Johnson's defense had to have a specific type of player. They were fast and aggressive. You put the slower players in Jimmy's defense and it would not have worked.

So defending Ryan wasn't the point.

It is questioning the players who are always the common denominator of coaching changes.

 

[SportsGuru80]

Very good read... Made some nice points.

 

[Hoofbite]

I wouldn't disagree with his take on Ryan but I do question just how much leeway he had in doing what he wanted to do. Aside from a flash here or there I don't remember a lot of exotic formations. How many times did they use the psycho front?

 

[dwmyers]

What I read was a pretty interesting fiction, shot through with flawed analogies. Yamamoto lost Midway because Americans had broken his code and knew what he was going to do. The only analogy in football to that kind of circumstance is someone breaking Rex Ryan's defensive signals and relaying them into the opposing offense.

When we come to Patton, Patton had about zero input into strategy at the level at which Yamamoto worked, and Yamamoto's "land equivalent" in the European campaigns of 1944 was Eisenhower.

Third, The whole notion of Patton as a -direct- attacker would be disputed by plenty of folks, including, IMO, Sir Liddell Hart and John Boyd. In Liddell Hart's words, his approach was indirect and in Boyds language, Patton wanted to be operating inside the OODA loop of his opponent.

If France 1944 is the example, then American armor spent most of its time running around the enemy and allowed infantry, artillery and our total air superiority to eliminate strongholds.

But most importantly, there is no evidence given that Ryan's keys and reads work the way the author claims, and that Kiffen's works the way the author claims.

Act then key emphases are old, dating back .. *at least* .. to the Miami 43. Is there any reason to believe that Ryan is using a keying philosophy that dates back to Tom Landry? What evidence is there of this, other than a lot of flowery allusions to military generals?

It's not as if playbooks aren't out there. I have links to playbook sites on my blog. Photos of the Kiffen playbook and the Ryan playbook would have been more convincing, IMO, than this article.

D-

 

[Clove]

Fans that transition into being blogging journalists have a flaw in my mind. While they may be beguiling in their writing styles, I have to ask how much access do they have to the people who actually work in the industry they are covering?

How privy are they to inside information instead of critical thinking mired in opinion?

Like the people on this and other boards who write these long posts about drafts and coming seasons, they are still just fans with a perspective that may or may not be correct.

Especially when the blog-fan is an obvious fan of the team he or she covers, you have to question the validity of some of the conjecture posited in their articles.

The paradigm of the Japanese commander and Pearl Harbor was thoughtful. But I believe there is also a hidden aspect to this that was not explored.

As admitted in history and the article the Japanese elected not to throw a third wave at the Americans.

So to, Ryan may have had his hands tied in a way that he could not throw his third wave at the opponent.

If the talent on the field cannot execute the game plan, then how can coaching effect that to success other than change the game plan?

It is my contention the trenches are where games are won and lost. Dallas cannot generate a decent enough pass rush to make their above average corners and maybe below average safeties play up to their zenith.

So in the case of Ryan, he was not as wild and wooly as he was at other places because perhaps he saw he had a flawed talent pool which could not execute his defense properly.

Thus he, like Yamamoto, could or would not toss the third wave at the offense because of fear of being defeated.

Meaning Ryan had to temper his aggressiveness and be more predictable because his players did not have the talent to execute his entire game plan.

So while Kiffin and Marinelli may be able to improve the defense by changing schemes, they still will have the basic issue that has caused this defense to fail time and time again.

No solid pass rush.

Because Pierre-Paul is more disruptive than anything on the Dallas defense. And unfortunately that includes Demarcus Ware.

Dallas has better corners than the Giants, and have had for a while - even before Carr and Cla.

But the lack of pass rush by the Dallas front is the kernel that is at the heart of why this defense fails.

And that is why the scheme change is lipstick on a pig unless they can generate a pass rush in my opinion.

And while scheme may accomplish that, the likelihood of success with older stars seems sketchy.

I have to say that you're right about this right here. Without a pass rush, most defenses suck. Spencer had a nice year, and I know he didn't rush the QB on every down, so maybe him rushing the QB on every down will cause major disruption. I've wanted the 4-3 back for a while, but at the end of the day, you need PRESSURE players, and without them, you're just an average defense.

 

[Hoofbite]

What I read was a pretty interesting fiction, shot through with flawed analogies. Yamamoto lost Midway because Americans had broken his code and knew what he was going to do. The only analogy in football to that kind of circumstance is someone breaking Rex Ryan's defensive signals and relaying them into the opposing offense.

When we come to Patton, Patton had about zero input into strategy at the level at which Yamamoto worked, and Yamamoto's "land equivalent" in the European campaigns of 1944 was Eisenhower.

Third, The whole notion of Patton as a -direct- attacker would be disputed by plenty of folks, including, IMO, Sir Liddell Hart and John Boyd. In Liddell Hart's words, his approach was indirect and in Boyds language, Patton wanted to be operating inside the OODA loop of his opponent.

If France 1944 is the example, then American armor spent most of its time running around the enemy and allowed infantry, artillery and our total air superiority to eliminate strongholds.

But most importantly, there is no evidence given that Ryan's keys and reads work the way the author claims, and that Kiffen's works the way the author claims.

Act then key emphases are old, dating back .. *at least* .. to the Miami 43. Is there any reason to believe that Ryan is using a keying philosophy that dates back to Tom Landry? What evidence is there of this, other than a lot of flowery allusions to military generals?

It's not as if playbooks aren't out there. I have links to playbook sites on my blog. Photos of the Kiffen playbook and the Ryan playbook would have been more convincing, IMO, than this article.

D-

Good post.

 

[Cumart21]

Ryan's defense would've been more successful had players been healthy last year but to me, the flaws were disorganization and blown assignments. The blown assignments could be blamed on having 3rd and 4th stringers on the field, but I feel like this defense was far more chaotic between plays than actually was on the field.

Seems like the shift to Kiffin's defense will shift emphasis to simplicity and fundamentals but who knows for sure. More often than not, talent makes the system go.

 

[IrishAnto]

It is my contention the trenches are where games are won and lost. Dallas cannot generate a decent enough pass rush to make their above average corners and maybe below average safeties play up to their zenith.

So in the case of Ryan, he was not as wild and wooly as he was at other places because perhaps he saw he had a flawed talent pool which could not execute his defense properly.

Thus he, like Yamamoto, could or would not toss the third wave at the offense because of fear of being defeated.

Meaning Ryan had to temper his aggressiveness and be more predictable because his players did not have the talent to execute his entire game plan.

So while Kiffin and Marinelli may be able to improve the defense by changing schemes, they still will have the basic issue that has caused this defense to fail time and time again.

No solid pass rush.

Because Pierre-Paul is more disruptive than anything on the Dallas defense. And unfortunately that includes Demarcus Ware.

Dallas has better corners than the Giants, and have had for a while - even before Carr and Cla.

But the lack of pass rush by the Dallas front is the kernel that is at the heart of why this defense fails.

And that is why the scheme change is lipstick on a pig unless they can generate a pass rush in my opinion.

And while scheme may accomplish that, the likelihood of success with older stars seems sketchy.

Scheme and pass rush go hand in hand.

If the players aren’t a fit for the scheme then the pass rush (no matter how good) is wasted.

Just look at our 2008 season; 59 sacks, 8 interceptions.

Hardly what you’d hope for!

 

[Staxxxx]

I think I have a little different take than most. I think Ryan is at his best when he doesn't have talent. I think what he did last year with all the injuries and the street free agents was remarkable and if you look at what he did in Cleveland with what he had it's hard not to come away impressed. The problem I see is that when he does have the talent on the field I think he goes completely away from what he's known for and from my couch it looks like he almost coaches scared.

Watching Seattle carve up our 3 man rush over and over last year with their rookie quarterback in his second start was maddening. I thought he had a tendency to get very conservative last year while our health was still good. I think he'll do well in New Orleans because I think the defensive talent, or lack of, suits him better.

With Kiffin I expect(hope) his defense to be a little different than the Tampa 2 he employed when he coached Tampa because I think having two linebackers back there like Lee and Carter can cover up a lot of mistakes that can result from aggressive play. I know he told to guys to watch Seattle and Chicago tape but when healthy our front for can get after the QB better than either of those teams. If Claiborne can take it to the next level I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a good mix of Cover 0 an Cover 1 blitzing. I'm thinking more along the lines of what Mike Zimmer used to run. We'll see.

 

[CyberB0b]

I thought it was a good read with an interesting viewpoint. I don't really care about the mundane details of the Battle of Midway and General Patton you guys are getting hung up over.

 

[Risen Star]

Fans that transition into being blogging journalists have a flaw in my mind. While they may be beguiling in their writing styles, I have to ask how much access do they have to the people who actually work in the industry they are covering?

How privy are they to inside information instead of critical thinking mired in opinion?

Like the people on this and other boards who write these long posts about drafts and coming seasons, they are still just fans with a perspective that may or may not be correct.

Right.

You get a positive spin from those sites. I'm not interested in spin. I want truth.

If the Cowboys had fired Kiffin and replaced him with Ryan, this guy would have found a similarly pointless military example to point at as to why that means it's all sunshine and rainbows from here.

He's a fan. This is his sales pitch. Go Cowboys and stuff.

I'm on record as being against the scheme switch. I praised the move to the 3-4 years ago. I praised the Ryan addition when it was made. I can't pretend I think differently simply because the team decided to go back to what I believe is an inferior scheme and being coached by a guy who's an all timer but may have lost his mind.

To me this move just serves as scapegoating and distraction from the real issues. This year it was Ryan. Next year it'll be Garrett. Neither was or is why this team can't compete.