We would all likely agree on the advantage it is in having a two dimensional offense. That is, an offense that is relatively well-balanced between running and passing. This year’s demise of Arkansas would appear to be a case testifying to the futility of relying on one dimension only, regardless of the quality of that dimension in one’s team. The Hogs have a great ground game, but their inept aerial attack leaves them with a 3-3
record and no real hope for an excellent season. Texas Tech and Hawaii have vaunted
aerial shows and good teams, but they have yet to show that they are perenial national powers
with their engines.
Perenial national powers USC, UWV, Texas (and even Oklahoma) have all demonstrated on the
field that they can acquire real estate through the air or on foot. Sometimes their running game
is better, sometimes their air game is, but they always have and use both.
The balance itself is what magnifies the difficulty for the defense.
And what of defense? Can it be thought of as having more than one dimension? Normally,
defense is not perceived in that way. A defensive scheme is set by arranging personnel in
position and defending at the offense’s point of attack. Always (or almost
always), arranging the defense in the same way, and hitting at the point of attack (once
the point of attack is detected). Is there any advantage to this? Yes. It is simple
(especially for young players); it tends to limit self-imposed mistakes, and it tends to cover
all possible points of attack with the same strength, and it (theoretically) reduces risk
of big plays. Is there any disadvantage to this concept? Yes. It is PASSIVE and PREDICTABLE!
Therein lies its achilles heel; its predictability.
If we assert that a defense can be two-dimensional (2D) by being (1) based on a certain set,
say a 4-3, and (2) dynamic through frequent set changes, disguises, stunts, blitzes, zones to
man-coverage and back again, then we can argue that such a defense is more advantageous to use
than a one-dimensional (1D) defense. This does not prove the 2D is better, but it helps us
differentiate it from the 1D.
The approach and philosophy of the 2D carries advantages and disadvantages as well. Its
disadvantages are not trivial. It is more complex, taking longer to learn and requiring
more parts to work in harmony in order to achieve sustained success. It tends to
increase risk of the big play. It tends to increase self-imposed mistakes.
Its chief strengths are UNPREDICTABILITY and AGGRESSION. One of
history’s oldest military axioms is applicable here: Often, the best form of defense is to
attack.
These two characteristics are virtually always inherent in the offense, and when given deliberate,
thoughtful consideration, it becomes evident that their attribution to a defense can have
devastating effect. A defense that is unpredictable and very aggressive
begs for
nothing, but it does beg the question, Should it not be tried. Should it not be tried?