Great write up as always. We implemented this at the college level and its remarkable how many teams can't counter it when the cutter to handler layer connection is severed. The sideline switch is a big part of the defense and we would often rally off 3-4 consecutive switches, forcing the offense to lose yards down the sideline. I totally agree that it allowed me to play my less athletic players moreso than traditional man would have. We were able to run deeper D lines.
That being said, I am also with you that good teams figure it out and implementing switches downfield is the way to go. Usually though, this was good for us to slow down teams that were rolling offensively and extend the amount of time their O line was on the field while our O line could rest.
I coach Tulane Tucks (Men's). We ran it more the previous season than last but still ran it a fair amount towards the end of last season leading up to the series. The sideline switch (we borrowed the Bravo terminology of "bakery") is foundational. We also invite throws with greater flight time allowing defense to orbit and take away next throw. The hucking over the middle of the field aspect of it really helps as well.
Yeah I think sending help to that area of the field makes sense — helps handlers in the backfield deny swings too knowing they have help to stop any upfield space throws
How do you envision switching/bracketing/helping working when the field switches a lot and help defenders are suddenly out of place? Or do you think for downfield help to work you just have to invest so much defensive effort in stopping field switches?
The field may switch a lot but the most valuable pieces of offensive real estate don't. In AP, the shallow middle is super valuable to the offense and a vulnerable spot for the defense. Conversely, the defense WANTS disc to be on sideline thirds. You can set up brackets/switches that explicitly protect that shallow middle while "conceding" the sideline attacks. Once this disc is on the sideline, you can do your typical AP setup with some basic strong vs weakside help setup.
1) I don't remember the exact context but I think one of the Pod Practice guys mentioned that one downside to AP is that if you want to play it well, you have to commit to playing it as your primary defensive look (in their experience/opinion).
2) IMO AP and downfield switching are totally independent. Bravo may choose not to switch or help as much downfield but no reason you can't combine FM or "flip force" marking schemes with more switching downfield. In fact I think it's even easier, since the most threatening space on the field is smaller than in a single direction force
3) To expand on that thought - I think there are a couple key advantages of FM:
(a) The purpose of the offense is to score, which means advancing the disc toward the endzone. There is a lot of value in having a mark that is making it more difficult for the offense to throw the disc in that direction. Brute Squad also ran a flat/straight up force for many years to great effect. Their coach Ari Jackson recently mentioned that people called it FM but it was just straight up (which in my opinion is a version of FM)
b) As you mentioned, orbiting can be easier in FM. This feeds into my thought that it can also make it easier to switch downfield. Thinking about it another way, in a single direction force, with the disc on the flat side, the strong space is in the middle of the field, but extends to the far sideline when its on the trap side. In an FM, the strong space is always in the middle of the field, so the field has "shrunk" in terms of downfield defense, making helping and switching easier.
4) You glossed over orbiting a bit but I think what Bravo does really well is orbit to force throws to go across the field. In your example you can see the front of the stack orbiting to take away continuations to the strong side/fill cuts to the middle.
Re #2, I definitely don't mean to imply that downfield switching isn't possible with AP! I was just writing about what is, not what could be.
(i.e., if AP is defined as "exactly what Bravo has been doing", then IMO not enough downfield switches is a downside of AP. as it currently exists. If AP is defined as "a system of dynamic marking and backfield switching", then yes, of course there's no reason to think more downfield switching couldn't be added on top of that!)
The "make it difficult for the offense to move ~downfield~" is a good point. Not something I thought to include in this article but it's definitely in line with the general principles I believe in. (Here is where I claim I actually just wrote this article to get the experts to tell me everything I did wrong 😄 It seems to be working pretty well on this post)
I'll have to look for more orbiting examples. It really didn't stand out to me too much, but maybe it's just a subtle thing that I really gotta be looking for to notice. I wonder if there's room for offensive players to get better at "fighting the orbit", and continually boxing out defenders to make it hard for them to orbit into the optimal position.
yeah totally fair. i'm coming at it more from "bravo runs this defense specifically but many other teams have adapted versions of it with similar marking schemes". I'm sure TK would disagree with calling those other teams' defenses AP but there are similarities.
For the orbiting, it's not that they're doing anything revolutionary, and I think if you showed a still frame of the disc on the flat side and asked most top teams/players about how they should orbit, they'd all agree - but Bravo is/was/has been more intentional about it, especially when they were at their best a couple years ago.
A great article and recap either way with some great examples.
I'm not sure why orbiting being easier makes it so that helping downfield is easier. To be in good position in 1 on 1 D during FM/AP you have to be close to your person so that you can contest unders to either side of the field depending on where the disc is.
An FM has more field switches per point than a one way force. So if you are helping off of your person because you think they are non-threatening, you will have to recover more often than if there was a one way force unless there is a team wide downfield scheme.
> To be in good position in 1 on 1 D during FM/AP you have to be close to your person
This is true especially at the "front of stack" area of the field, but (1) not universally true, and (2) doesn't preclude switching and bracketing. Even when the disc swings, the threatening space doesn't change as much as a one-way force, which means you can commit to helping on a cut and even if the disc swings, the switch or recovery often has less ground to cover. It can also set up well for cascading switches or "help the helper" situations. Also, if you're guarding someone not in that threatening space (so, someone in the middle of the stack in a vert, or maybe far side in a ho/spread), you can have a bit more freedom (though that's true in pretty much any defense)
> An FM has more field switches per point than a one way force.
I don't think this is true. There are some good examples in the article of the AP marking scheme keeping the disc on one side of the field very effectively, by funneling resets behind the disc and switching on that cut to neutralize a give-go. Another goal of AP is that if you do give up swings, you want them to be longer throws, so the disc is in the air longer and downfield has more time to recover. Alternatively you could allow shorter throws but try to make it so that the offense has to complete multiple throws to get to the other side of the field, which also buys you time to recover downfield.
I guess my comment was that if there are more field switches, there are more instances where you have to help the helper. At least at the level I coach at, it seems that more teams are limited by their ability to get it off the trap side than off the flat side hence why my instinct is that there are more field switches in an FM. Maybe the trade off is different at the elite club level.
Also to maybe shamits point in his comment thread, positioning the help to stop upfield field switches may also reduce the frequency of field switches
A huge gain of FM not mentioned here is how it shuts down strike cuts which are such an easy option to run vs one way forces. FM with sags increases the chance players throw sideways to static players and then strike looking for this easy gain - but often this strike cut doesn't pay off and leaves a dominant handler clearing and disconnected at times.
An explicit focus of our FM is no easy arounds - to make strike cuts either redundant or force higher/wider throws that give our trailing defender a chance of bidding and generally increase the difficulty of throws to increase the chance of turns. Alternatively players have to throw inside breaks to a much smaller window to hit these which isn't yet an instinct among all players (though our Oline does this really well as they train against our D each week). Defending strikes becomes a different game which is something the Pod Practice episode touches on.
Also, downfield switching is definitely a big gainer for us - players with high game reading abilities are able to jump the under space and make a lot of Ds in very aggressive field position.
That's a fair point! Maybe I should add some notes about it given that there are multiple comments about stopping upline cuts.
Maybe it just didn't really stand out for me because the *absence* of upline cuts isn't something that shows up on film! (If you notice any examples of players attempting unsuccessful strike cuts, send them my way!)
One of my favorite things about AP/force back is stifling upline strike cuts. The reset defender can really lock down, trusting that the mark is taking away the upline.
Great write up as always. We implemented this at the college level and its remarkable how many teams can't counter it when the cutter to handler layer connection is severed. The sideline switch is a big part of the defense and we would often rally off 3-4 consecutive switches, forcing the offense to lose yards down the sideline. I totally agree that it allowed me to play my less athletic players moreso than traditional man would have. We were able to run deeper D lines.
That being said, I am also with you that good teams figure it out and implementing switches downfield is the way to go. Usually though, this was good for us to slow down teams that were rolling offensively and extend the amount of time their O line was on the field while our O line could rest.
Would you be comfortable sharing what team you coach?
I actually asked on the Hive discord a while back which other teams play AP but didn't really get much response
I coach Tulane Tucks (Men's). We ran it more the previous season than last but still ran it a fair amount towards the end of last season leading up to the series. The sideline switch (we borrowed the Bravo terminology of "bakery") is foundational. We also invite throws with greater flight time allowing defense to orbit and take away next throw. The hucking over the middle of the field aspect of it really helps as well.
Yeah I think sending help to that area of the field makes sense — helps handlers in the backfield deny swings too knowing they have help to stop any upfield space throws
How do you envision switching/bracketing/helping working when the field switches a lot and help defenders are suddenly out of place? Or do you think for downfield help to work you just have to invest so much defensive effort in stopping field switches?
The field may switch a lot but the most valuable pieces of offensive real estate don't. In AP, the shallow middle is super valuable to the offense and a vulnerable spot for the defense. Conversely, the defense WANTS disc to be on sideline thirds. You can set up brackets/switches that explicitly protect that shallow middle while "conceding" the sideline attacks. Once this disc is on the sideline, you can do your typical AP setup with some basic strong vs weakside help setup.
Couple thoughts:
1) I don't remember the exact context but I think one of the Pod Practice guys mentioned that one downside to AP is that if you want to play it well, you have to commit to playing it as your primary defensive look (in their experience/opinion).
2) IMO AP and downfield switching are totally independent. Bravo may choose not to switch or help as much downfield but no reason you can't combine FM or "flip force" marking schemes with more switching downfield. In fact I think it's even easier, since the most threatening space on the field is smaller than in a single direction force
3) To expand on that thought - I think there are a couple key advantages of FM:
(a) The purpose of the offense is to score, which means advancing the disc toward the endzone. There is a lot of value in having a mark that is making it more difficult for the offense to throw the disc in that direction. Brute Squad also ran a flat/straight up force for many years to great effect. Their coach Ari Jackson recently mentioned that people called it FM but it was just straight up (which in my opinion is a version of FM)
b) As you mentioned, orbiting can be easier in FM. This feeds into my thought that it can also make it easier to switch downfield. Thinking about it another way, in a single direction force, with the disc on the flat side, the strong space is in the middle of the field, but extends to the far sideline when its on the trap side. In an FM, the strong space is always in the middle of the field, so the field has "shrunk" in terms of downfield defense, making helping and switching easier.
4) You glossed over orbiting a bit but I think what Bravo does really well is orbit to force throws to go across the field. In your example you can see the front of the stack orbiting to take away continuations to the strong side/fill cuts to the middle.
Re #2, I definitely don't mean to imply that downfield switching isn't possible with AP! I was just writing about what is, not what could be.
(i.e., if AP is defined as "exactly what Bravo has been doing", then IMO not enough downfield switches is a downside of AP. as it currently exists. If AP is defined as "a system of dynamic marking and backfield switching", then yes, of course there's no reason to think more downfield switching couldn't be added on top of that!)
The "make it difficult for the offense to move ~downfield~" is a good point. Not something I thought to include in this article but it's definitely in line with the general principles I believe in. (Here is where I claim I actually just wrote this article to get the experts to tell me everything I did wrong 😄 It seems to be working pretty well on this post)
I'll have to look for more orbiting examples. It really didn't stand out to me too much, but maybe it's just a subtle thing that I really gotta be looking for to notice. I wonder if there's room for offensive players to get better at "fighting the orbit", and continually boxing out defenders to make it hard for them to orbit into the optimal position.
yeah totally fair. i'm coming at it more from "bravo runs this defense specifically but many other teams have adapted versions of it with similar marking schemes". I'm sure TK would disagree with calling those other teams' defenses AP but there are similarities.
For the orbiting, it's not that they're doing anything revolutionary, and I think if you showed a still frame of the disc on the flat side and asked most top teams/players about how they should orbit, they'd all agree - but Bravo is/was/has been more intentional about it, especially when they were at their best a couple years ago.
A great article and recap either way with some great examples.
I'm not sure why orbiting being easier makes it so that helping downfield is easier. To be in good position in 1 on 1 D during FM/AP you have to be close to your person so that you can contest unders to either side of the field depending on where the disc is.
An FM has more field switches per point than a one way force. So if you are helping off of your person because you think they are non-threatening, you will have to recover more often than if there was a one way force unless there is a team wide downfield scheme.
> To be in good position in 1 on 1 D during FM/AP you have to be close to your person
This is true especially at the "front of stack" area of the field, but (1) not universally true, and (2) doesn't preclude switching and bracketing. Even when the disc swings, the threatening space doesn't change as much as a one-way force, which means you can commit to helping on a cut and even if the disc swings, the switch or recovery often has less ground to cover. It can also set up well for cascading switches or "help the helper" situations. Also, if you're guarding someone not in that threatening space (so, someone in the middle of the stack in a vert, or maybe far side in a ho/spread), you can have a bit more freedom (though that's true in pretty much any defense)
> An FM has more field switches per point than a one way force.
I don't think this is true. There are some good examples in the article of the AP marking scheme keeping the disc on one side of the field very effectively, by funneling resets behind the disc and switching on that cut to neutralize a give-go. Another goal of AP is that if you do give up swings, you want them to be longer throws, so the disc is in the air longer and downfield has more time to recover. Alternatively you could allow shorter throws but try to make it so that the offense has to complete multiple throws to get to the other side of the field, which also buys you time to recover downfield.
I guess my comment was that if there are more field switches, there are more instances where you have to help the helper. At least at the level I coach at, it seems that more teams are limited by their ability to get it off the trap side than off the flat side hence why my instinct is that there are more field switches in an FM. Maybe the trade off is different at the elite club level.
Also to maybe shamits point in his comment thread, positioning the help to stop upfield field switches may also reduce the frequency of field switches
A huge gain of FM not mentioned here is how it shuts down strike cuts which are such an easy option to run vs one way forces. FM with sags increases the chance players throw sideways to static players and then strike looking for this easy gain - but often this strike cut doesn't pay off and leaves a dominant handler clearing and disconnected at times.
An explicit focus of our FM is no easy arounds - to make strike cuts either redundant or force higher/wider throws that give our trailing defender a chance of bidding and generally increase the difficulty of throws to increase the chance of turns. Alternatively players have to throw inside breaks to a much smaller window to hit these which isn't yet an instinct among all players (though our Oline does this really well as they train against our D each week). Defending strikes becomes a different game which is something the Pod Practice episode touches on.
Also, downfield switching is definitely a big gainer for us - players with high game reading abilities are able to jump the under space and make a lot of Ds in very aggressive field position.
That's a fair point! Maybe I should add some notes about it given that there are multiple comments about stopping upline cuts.
Maybe it just didn't really stand out for me because the *absence* of upline cuts isn't something that shows up on film! (If you notice any examples of players attempting unsuccessful strike cuts, send them my way!)
One of my favorite things about AP/force back is stifling upline strike cuts. The reset defender can really lock down, trusting that the mark is taking away the upline.