This is an age old coaching debate. How much of an advantage do you get by adding complexity to an offensive or defensive scheme vs how much of an advantage do you gain by simplifying a scheme so players can "play fast".These are things that improve a team. Thinking is not a negative, thinking puts you in a position to succeed. “Run a 12 yard out regardless of how you are covered” is not better football than “change the route to an in if you are being covered differently”.
Playing different fronts to disguise what you are doing and changing up coverage helps a defense perform better than doing the same thing on every play.
Substitutions put players on the field in the situations they are best in.
Making players be dummies doesn’t win more games.
I went through the same thing over 50 years ago at the HS level, when you had 60 odd kids (some of whom have never played before) and 4 or 5 coaches and had 3 weeks to get ready for an entire season and no spring football, AND its a part time job. Imagine when you have a dozen or more coaches and another dozen or so support staff, PLUS an unlimited amount of time. So YEAH, it would be very easy to create very complex schemes, routes and plays that would seemingly give that scheme advantages.
Obviously if your team is able to absorb all the complexity you have your advantage. However if you slip just a bit too much, then you risk creating execution flaws. Plus the fact is that not all athletes process what they see at the same rate. It doesn't make them stupid, its just how they are wired.
Tony Dungy was a big believer in "playing fast". His "Tampa 2" was a good example He believed that if a player gets to see all the ways an offense can attack him from the same position, his reaction time would constantly improve and the chances of mental mistakes diminish.
BB is in a different camp. His overall defensive philosophy revolved around a week to week approach. So he developed a set of semantics that allowed for multiple fronts and coverages could change weekly. He was willing to sacrifice some execution issues for the advantages he got from playing multiple schemes.
There really isn't a right or wrong here and over the years Bill had a decided advantage over Tony Dungy teams and their prodigy. But there comes a point where you start to get a diminishing amount of return by adding complexity and through self scouting coaches WILL pull back. THAT is what we are seeing this season. Personally I don't think its as big a deal as the mediots are making it out to be. Like most things in football pendulum swings are part of the game and things go in and out of favor all the time.
Every player wants to simplify his job to play as fast as he can. So EVERY DLman wants to one gap over 2 gapping. It's way easier, and far more fun. Every LB wants to to make one read and go, and every DB wants to play man because it's the simplest coverage. On the other hand all coaches LOVE to add complexity. In a selfish way it allows them a way to positively impact the game they can no longer play. I mean it is the goal of EVERY coach, dare I say DUTY, to try and gain some advantage for his team, unit, or position group. To put HIS players in the best position to win on any given day, even when you might not have the best "individual talent" on the field.
THAT is what makes this game we all love so fascinating. The best TEAMS win, not the best talent. So you might think that Bill sucks at drafting and player acquisition. You can b!tch and moan all day about who the OC and DC's are or are not. But for the VAST vast majority of the last 2+ decades, he has put together highly competitive TEAMS that have represented its fanbase far better and loyally than another in the country.
I'm done. Feel free to restart the incessant whine.