College Defense: Minimize Threat, or Maximize D Opportunities?
(No Ratings Yet. Click to Rate!)
Loading ...The thought crossed my mind today, the sprout rising from this seed.
Specifically, the bit about containing the studs and D’ing up the chumps. Certainly it’s easy to take that kind of mentality when you’re Wisco and have depth with athletes to spare, but my question applies more to the non-elite teams that only have so much stud power to spare.
Do you use your D studs to contain the other team’s O studs, or do you intentionally put them on weaker players in the hopes of generating more D’s that way? To put it at an extreme case, say the other team has a guy like Zip–you know he’s their go-to guy, you can’t stop him, only hope to contain him, etc. Do you want to put your best defensive player on him, knowing that at best he’ll just force Zip to make one more cut before he burns you, or do you put that player on the 4 cutter and do your best to D him up instead, knowing that a second-string defensive player will be just as effective at “containing” Zip as your best defensive player? I think the tendency is for ego to want the best D player covering the best O player, but is it really the best strategy on a team level?
This all goes back to the “smart” vs “agressive” D thoughts I had previously. On one hand, you can play D with a mindset of setting up, and getting the D, forcing it by your own will. On the other, you can do your best to force a team out of its comfort zone (think Pats D) and minimize their ability to make effective plays. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, but there’s a mindset to each. When is one better to apply than the other?
The question really came to a head in my mind just thinking about some of my better moments playing D, and by and large the most memorable moments are the ones where I made a play–layout Ds and the like. Some of those were legit, D’ing up another team’s stud (or semi-stud), but others were just me overmatching a garden-variety ultimate chump.
Which has more value? Containing the stud, or D’ing up the chump? Is it feasible to gear a defense towards one or the other? To what extent should a team make it a point to emphasize–you need to contain X, but YOU really need to D up Y?
I feel like it could be a pretty viable strategy to do smart matchups placing your second-tier defenders on the other team’s studs in order to contain them (knowing that it’s easier to contain than to dominate) while your studs get Ds on the more vulnerable O-types, but this obviously depends a lot on the team–the strategy is worthless if you can’t contain their studs enough to force the disc into the hands of chumps. Maybe it is the case, as Hh notes, that the studs need to contain the studs and the second-stringers are the ones who have to step it up and get D’s on the chumps. Perhaps the primary D-getters should be your young, spry, athletic freshmen and sophomores who sit on the sideline enough that they’re always fresh when they’re in.
