• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Defensive Scheme

Pulled this out of AI ----

🏈 FBS Programs Known for Running a 3‑3‑5 Base Defense
These teams either use the 3‑3‑5 as their primary structure or are built on coaching trees that treat it as the base.

⭐ Power Five / CFP‑Relevant Programs
These are the ones closest to CFP contention in recent years:

Iowa State
- Jon Heacock’s “flyover 3‑3‑5” is the modern template.
- The most influential defensive structure of the last decade.

TCU
- Patterson’s 4‑2‑5 roots, but the program has long blended 3‑3‑5 spacing.
- Still uses 3‑high safety structures frequently.

Arizona
- Deep Rocky Long lineage.
- Ran a true 3‑3‑5 under Don Brown and Johnny Nansen.

West Virginia
- Historically a 3‑3‑5 stack program.
- Still uses hybrid 3‑high structures.

BYU
- Not always a pure 3‑3‑5, but uses it as a base vs spread teams.

---

⭐ Group of Five Programs (True 3‑3‑5 Identity)
These are the purest 3‑3‑5 teams in the country:

San Diego State
- The Rocky Long / Brady Hoke 3‑3‑5 is the gold standard.
- One of the few programs that never deviates.

New Mexico
- Rocky Long returned and re‑installed the 3‑3‑5.

Air Force
- Uses a 3‑3‑5‑ish structure due to personnel constraints.

Tulsa
- Long history with the 3‑3‑5 stack.

Nevada
- Has used 3‑3‑5 variants depending on coordinator.

---

🏆 So… which CFP teams run it?
Based on the search results (which only listed playoff teams, not schemes), none of the 2025–26 CFP teams are identified as 3‑3‑5 base defenses.

And based on internal football knowledge, none of the recent CFP teams run a true 3‑3‑5 as their base.

CFP teams overwhelmingly run:
- 4‑2‑5 (the dominant modern structure)
- 3‑4 hybrids
- Mint/Tite fronts (3‑down spacing but not a 3‑3‑5 stack)

The 3‑3‑5 is more common among:
- Developmental programs
- Underdog teams needing multiplicity
- Teams facing heavy spread schedules
 
hm.grwn.grizfan said:
The Griz need to switch to the 4-2-5…… end of story. The experiment needs to end. Death to the 3-3-5
Click to expand...
The only Odd front Defense I'd even consider is the 3-4, I watch alot of Military Academy Football and what they're able to do with their talent restrictions is pretty impressive. Granted this is taking the "hard to find linemen" comments at face value a bit.
 
hm.grwn.grizfan said:
We just need to get back to gap sound 4 front football man. I’m tired. So tired 😆 ……… just can’t take another season of the 3-3-5. I hate it so much
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, I'm a fan of the 4-2-5 as well, my understanding is it depends a bit on great LB play. Considering we always seem to have good LBs I think it'd be a good fit.
 
SoldierGriz said:
Pulled this out of AI ----

🏈 FBS Programs Known for Running a 3‑3‑5 Base Defense
These teams either use the 3‑3‑5 as their primary structure or are built on coaching trees that treat it as the base.

⭐ Power Five / CFP‑Relevant Programs
These are the ones closest to CFP contention in recent years:

Iowa State
- Jon Heacock’s “flyover 3‑3‑5” is the modern template.
- The most influential defensive structure of the last decade.

TCU
- Patterson’s 4‑2‑5 roots, but the program has long blended 3‑3‑5 spacing.
- Still uses 3‑high safety structures frequently.

Arizona
- Deep Rocky Long lineage.
- Ran a true 3‑3‑5 under Don Brown and Johnny Nansen.

West Virginia
- Historically a 3‑3‑5 stack program.
- Still uses hybrid 3‑high structures.

BYU
- Not always a pure 3‑3‑5, but uses it as a base vs spread teams.

---

⭐ Group of Five Programs (True 3‑3‑5 Identity)
These are the purest 3‑3‑5 teams in the country:

San Diego State
- The Rocky Long / Brady Hoke 3‑3‑5 is the gold standard.
- One of the few programs that never deviates.

New Mexico
- Rocky Long returned and re‑installed the 3‑3‑5.

Air Force
- Uses a 3‑3‑5‑ish structure due to personnel constraints.

Tulsa
- Long history with the 3‑3‑5 stack.

Nevada
- Has used 3‑3‑5 variants depending on coordinator.

---

🏆 So… which CFP teams run it?
Based on the search results (which only listed playoff teams, not schemes), none of the 2025–26 CFP teams are identified as 3‑3‑5 base defenses.

And based on internal football knowledge, none of the recent CFP teams run a true 3‑3‑5 as their base.

CFP teams overwhelmingly run:
- 4‑2‑5 (the dominant modern structure)
- 3‑4 hybrids
- Mint/Tite fronts (3‑down spacing but not a 3‑3‑5 stack)

The 3‑3‑5 is more common among:
- Developmental programs
- Underdog teams needing multiplicity
- Teams facing heavy spread schedules
Click to expand...
Tony White (a Rocky Long guy) has taken it from AZ St to Syracuse to Nebraska to FSU. He did win a bowl at AZ st with it.
 
I may get raked over the coals for this. For the record, I called defenses for 14 years at the college level. 11 of which were 4 down. 3 of which were 3 down. Whether the Griz were 3 or 4 down in the game is, in my not so professional opinion, couldn’t be more irrelevant.

Couple generic notes: Playing a 5-0-5 (3 down front) vs a 3 or 4 man surface is silly without a tight overhang/rush. I haven’t watched enough film to know how often the grizzlies do that, or if they ever do.

Usually in 3 down (unless you are a tight front team, which the grizzlies are not) you rush a 4th to get to some type of 4 man push anyway, whether it be over, under, even, TE based, RB based etc.

The calls for 4-3 or 3-4 are silly vs 11 personnel, again in my not so professional opinion. Vs. 12 personnel or heavier sets, they are valid, but I would still disagree because you are in trouble when matched up vs slot sets.

I’m not saying game plans don’t contribute giving up points, but to me the front/structure stuff are fallacies. Execution, players not plays, and play calling in that order — are the reason teams give up points on defense, and in that order!!
 
Skookum-Jim said:
The griz really didn't run a 3-3-5 base. They played what looked like a 4-3 with hybred players meaning DE/LB and LB/S the WLB generally played a buck end which is the same as the 4-2 front the cats showed most of the time. The interior DT Ramos and Bailey are not smaller than the bobcat interior defensive lineman.
The Miami hurricanes won multiple NC with hybred players like what Montana has.
Oh and you owe me $100. Are you going to stiff me?
Click to expand...

I forgot that you are a MSDUI alum and given that it's Christmas, I don’t want to see you evicted again out of the Boz Angeles KOA and end up in your " van down by the river," the Gallatin River, so if you follow the simple instructions that I sent you, you will get paid Skookum-Jim within the next week. And if you don't, Santa will be putting a lump of coal in your stocking hung outside on your van down by the river instead of $ 100.

And Have--all BS'ing aside-- a Merry Christmas : ) !!!
 
Missoula223 said:
I may get raked over the coals for this. For the record, I called defenses for 14 years at the college level. 11 of which were 4 down. 3 of which were 3 down. Whether the Griz were 3 or 4 down in the game is, in my not so professional opinion, couldn’t be more irrelevant.

Couple generic notes: Playing a 5-0-5 (3 down front) vs a 3 or 4 man surface is silly without a tight overhang/rush. I haven’t watched enough film to know how often the grizzlies do that, or if they ever do.

Usually in 3 down (unless you are a tight front team, which the grizzlies are not) you rush a 4th to get to some type of 4 man push anyway, whether it be over, under, even, TE based, RB based etc.

The calls for 4-3 or 3-4 are silly vs 11 personnel, again in my not so professional opinion. Vs. 12 personnel or heavier sets, they are valid, but I would still disagree because you are in trouble when matched up vs slot sets.

I’m not saying game plans don’t contribute giving up points, but to me the front/structure stuff are fallacies. Execution, players not plays, and play calling in that order — are the reason teams give up points on defense, and in that order!!
Click to expand...
You make some valid points. However, It is not so much which defense we should run as much as which defense we shouldn’t.
Gimmicky defenses designed from their inception as a way of to overcome the shortcomings of available personnel should not be the “go to” for a team at the top of its game with the supposed recruiting power we have. I do have my ideas about which defense we should run but the truth is, an average weight on your defensive line of 250 pounds is not going to cut it against the NDSU’s and msu’s of the world regardless of which defense we run.
 
Last edited:
Skookum-Jim said:
Hauck should just say he's running a 4-3 defense to make you all happy. Most on here wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
You certainly don’t. Hell you think dropping a linebacker in a 3-3-5 defense to the line of scrimmage turns it into a 4-3. Math is hard.
 
Last edited:
AZGrizFan said:
That’s not what I said. A 4-3 has 0 NT’s, you obtuse motherscratcher…
Click to expand...
Generally you and I are on the same page but I have to correct you here. If you go to any coaching clinic or even look it up on YouTube, their are 2 DT’s in the 4 man front of the 4-3 defense the 3 technique (sometimes referred to as the under tackle) and the 1 technique (usually referred to as the nose).
Not trying to pick a fight or be argumentative. Skookum Jim will be along to tell you I’m wrong in a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top