• 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

RobGriz said:
Nope. A 3 technique is referred to as a 3 tech or sometimes the “under” tackle. I have no idea where the “under” comes from
Click to expand...
I think A nose tackle will almost always be a 1 or 0 tech. If he's playing 1 tech instead of 0 it probably means an under or over front meaning slanted toward the strong side in an over or the weak side in an under. So the 3 tech under tackle is on the strong side in the B gap.
 
Last edited:
Copper Griz said:
Good lord. Do you live in a cave. Could the same be said for Indiana? Really? Good coaches turn programs around quickly. U of M has more resources available than almost any FCS program. Stop with that BS. Absolute ridiculous statement. So many good coaches out there that are young and would bring new energy into the program. I am not buying that lame argument. Choate and Vigen didn’t have any problems getting things turned around.
Click to expand...
With the way Samson has won some of these recruiting battles with the griz I could see him being a pretty good candidate whenever bobby’s job is up.
 
RobGriz said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m curious. How is it a gimmick defense?

Vs. 11 personnel teams, which most teams including MSU major in, how many schematic options are there?
 
Skookum-Jim said:
I love this stuff, and we absolutely need a real college coach to break some of this down and clear up our confusion. I have a few questions that maybe you or someone can help answer.

I understand that the griz defense is complex, and since we only have access to what we see on TV, I have some assumptions, but I'm not sure if they are correct. If the opposing offense is in 11 personnel, the griz 3-3 usually lines up in an over front with the will LB having the edge responsibility. Also, either the nickel or the SS is in the box for extra run support and underneath coverage. Are those general assumptions correct? Again, I’m only talking base defense against 11 personnel.

Also, it seems that the griz defense plays 2 gap on the interior and the LBs play scrape. Is this correct in general? This leaves them vulnerable early in games to the zone reads, plus one running that the cats do all the time. It then leaves the hybrid players vulnerable late in games to big physical olinemen and the 12 personnel.

If Hauck insists on recruiting the best athlete available hybrid players, should he change the scheme a little? He could run the 3-3, 4-3 or 4-2, but instead of trying to 2 gap the interior DL and scrape the LBs he could line up in the stack front and slide the DL players into left or right gaps with the idea of deep penetration every play. The LBs have actual gap responsibility instead. It’s a very disruptive style of defense and works well with quicker players.
Click to expand...
Well. 3-3 is typically known as odd. The griz have used what they call a “Reb” to be a primary 4th rusher. they can certainly blitz to over, but the benefit of it is an offense often has to determine late where that guy is going to come from. Although honestly his alignment typically gives him limited options. What’s important is bringing a different 4th rusher to change the picture. Basically, offense thinks he’s rushing and the DL are slanting, and instead the other side comes. Kind of good to have a 70-30 balance at the very least.

Griz are daily multiple coverage wise. So your extra defender comes depending on formation and rotation. If I’m being honest, games that I’ve been at, I think rotation is fairly easy to see based on eyes of the corners, alignment of linebackers, and depth of safeties. Which is one minor critique I would make. It’s hard to get college kids to “disguise” coverage at times. But your coverage is going to be your fit, so at some point you’re going to tilt your hand.

Regarding the 2 gap question, anytime you play a 0 nose without slanting he’s going to be a 2 gap player by default. Again I’m not defending or promoting how good or bad the coaches are, I’m simply saying the scheme isn’t the top issue for why they are giving up points.
 
5280Griz said:
Georgia runs a 3-4. Nebraska and Florida State are the big name programs running the 3-3-5 in the FBS. In the case of Nebraska only Ohio State was better at stopping the pass in the Big 10 but they were poor at stopping the run.
Click to expand...
And Nebraska couldn't beat a mediocre run-first Minnesota team.
 
Missoula223 said:
Well. 3-3 is typically known as odd. The griz have used what they call a “Reb” to be a primary 4th rusher. they can certainly blitz to over, but the benefit of it is an offense often has to determine late where that guy is going to come from. Although honestly his alignment typically gives him limited options. What’s important is bringing a different 4th rusher to change the picture. Basically, offense thinks he’s rushing and the DL are slanting, and instead the other side comes. Kind of good to have a 70-30 balance at the very least.

Griz are daily multiple coverage wise. So your extra defender comes depending on formation and rotation. If I’m being honest, games that I’ve been at, I think rotation is fairly easy to see based on eyes of the corners, alignment of linebackers, and depth of safeties. Which is one minor critique I would make. It’s hard to get college kids to “disguise” coverage at times. But your coverage is going to be your fit, so at some point you’re going to tilt your hand.

Regarding the 2 gap question, anytime you play a 0 nose without slanting he’s going to be a 2 gap player by default. Again I’m not defending or promoting how good or bad the coaches are, I’m simply saying the scheme isn’t the top issue for why they are giving up points.
Click to expand...
I also saw a lot of rotation happening pre-snap which gave away coverages.
 
New Mexico and Eck's 4-2-5 is currently in a position to beat Minnesota in the Guaranteed Rate Bowl. Something Nebraska and Rhule and their 3-3-5 couldn't do. Nebraska also lost to Iowa's running heavy offense 40-16. Does that score look familiar?
 
5280Griz said:
Yup that’s what I said good against the pass and bad against the run which is bad fit for the Big 10. Their defense would work better if they had stayed in the Big 12.
Click to expand...
If I was a college defensive coordinator in today's age, I would go with a 61 defense.
 
5280Griz said:
Georgia runs a 3-4. Nebraska and Florida State are the big name programs running the 3-3-5 in the FBS. In the case of Nebraska only Ohio State was better at stopping the pass in the Big 10 but they were poor at stopping the run.
Click to expand...
Georgia will never be able to win an SEC championship or national championship running a 3-3-5.
 
GriznMN said:
If I was a college defensive coordinator in today's age, I would go with a 61 defense.
Click to expand...
If I was a college offensive coordinator game planning against your 6-1 defense, I would exploit the weaknesses by spreading the field to create lighter boxes and natural passing windows with quick game and bubble screens. 6-1 only has one linebacker. This I would exploit with play action and RPOs over the 1 linebacker. If the only linebacker steps forward, the middle is wide open. I would run gap scheme that influences penetration . The 6-1 wants vertical movement and I would use this against them. When the DL penetrates the play direction, the cutback lane opens with no second level help. I would use plenty of motion, misdirection and backfield action to confuse your defense. The 6-1 is assignment rigid and motion will force communication and potential for errors. I would also flood the flats. 6 on the line of scrimmage means defenses are late to the perimeter.
 
Missoula223 said:
I’m curious. How is it a gimmick defense?

Vs. 11 personnel teams, which most teams including MSU major in, how many schematic options are there?
Click to expand...
The “gimmick” is in having 3 of the 4 guys on the line < 250lbs and expecting them to NOT get washed down every running play against true run-first offenses. Two 245 lb DE’s and a 230 lb LB and ONE guy around 280 just ain’t gonna pack it.
 
Last edited:
5280Griz said:
If I was a college offensive coordinator game planning against your 6-1 defense, I would exploit the weaknesses by spreading the field to create lighter boxes and natural passing windows with quick game and bubble screens. 6-1 only has one linebacker. This I would exploit with play action and RPOs over the 1 linebacker. If the only linebacker steps forward, the middle is wide open. I would run gap scheme that influences penetration . The 6-1 wants vertical movement and I would use this against them. When the DL penetrates the play direction, the cutback lane opens with no second level help. I would use plenty of motion, misdirection and backfield action to confuse your defense. The 6-1 is assignment rigid and motion will force communication and potential for errors. I would also flood the flats. 6 on the line of scrimmage means defenses are late to the perimeter.
Click to expand...
How well did Goff do against it yesterday?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top